ShareThisThree years ago 77 percent of Americans believed the Earth is getting warmer. Today, despite more scientific evidence that global warming is a real threat, only 57 percent agree.
The poll of 1,500, taken by the reputable Pew Center for the People and the Press, also found that only 36 percent of those surveyed believe that human activities are making the globe warmer and that it is a serious problem.
This is alarming. Not only do a lot of Americans not know what they are talking about but also the nation is becoming so polarized politically that common sense has become a victim.
The Environmental Protection Agency says there is no doubt that climate change is a documented, human-driven, scientifically provable fact. Less certain but still worrisome are the likely effects.
The EPA says they include flooding in coastal areas, more intense hurricanes, more severe droughts where water shortages already exist, more deaths caused by heat, disappearing species and shifting agricultural patterns causing massive famines. There already are vast patterns of deforestation, desertification, disappearance of species and immigration.
Of course, the Earth's weather has changed over time by orbiting changes, volcanic eruptions and the amount of energy released by the sun. But scientists say the eight warmest years on record, which began in 1850, all occurred since 1998, with the warmest year 2005.
It is true that not all scientists are persuaded that this is a harmful trend. But most are. The Earth's temperature will rise between 3.2 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit within our children's lifespan. By the end of the century, the world could be a much different place if carbon dioxide levels emitted into the atmosphere aren't decreased.
It is puzzling why so many people refuse to accept basic science. Is it selfish -- I'll be dead by then so why does it matter? Is it parochial -- I live on a hill far inland so tsunamis don't concern me? Is it blind faith -- there will be a magic bullet that will solve the problem in time?
Is it nationalism -- the U.S. and other wealthy nations should not reduce emissions if developing countries don't as well? Is it fear -- cutting pollution might eliminate my job? Is it political -- I won't believe it until Rush Limbaugh tells me it's so? Is it nonsensical -- I can't stand Al Gore so I won't believe anything he says?
From Dec. 7-18, there will be another international attempt to reach a consensus on what should be done to try to save the planet. Scientists and political leaders will meet in Copenhagen to hold climate change talks sponsored by the United Nations. Some think there should be a limit of no more than 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an unlikely scenario. Already there are about 390 parts per million -- the highest level in 15 million years.
Millions of people are wondering what the United States will do in Copenhagen. For many reasons, some legitimate, some less so, the U.S. did not agree to the 1997 Kyoto Accords on global warming, and there is lingering bitterness against the U.S. and even disbelief that the country that fueled the environmental movement in the last century should now drag its feet in the 21st century.
The Obama administration is more sympathetic to the goals of the talks than the Bush administration was but there is no agreement on how much the U.S. should pledge to reduce emissions or to contribute to help developing nations meet emissions goals. Obviously, the recession and the burgeoning deficit are major factors.
Although many think Copenhagen will not produce a ratifiable, legally binding agreement, the conference will raise awareness of the issue around the world and possibly produce a realistic political document on the risks of climate change to bolster the overwhelming scientific evidence.
Perhaps the global focus will spur some Nay Sayers, even the increasing number in the U.S., to rethink their views and accept reality.
(Scripps Howard columnist Ann McFeatters has covered the White House and national politics since 1986. E-mail amcfeatters@nationalpress.com.)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
WHITE HOUSE WATCH
"...The EPA says they
"...The EPA says they include...more intense hurricanes,..."
Ms McFeatters, please give us your assessment of this year's hurricane season.
Lots of dubious information
Do your homework. About 20 hours reading all sides and you will be in a position to understand and give an opinion. Journalism and your readers deserve better.
Wonder why your breed is almost toast?
People are educating themselves more these days, by doing their own research, instead of relying on people like you to inform them (thank God). I believe your take that, common sense has become a victim. When do you think the left will get it back? Here is a common sense question. How does an added 150 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere drive our climate? It's ridiculous no matter what the IPCC, and other scientific organizations hunting for massive grants say. I love your EPA says lines. I've got one you left out. The EPA says CO2 is a pollutant. What a joke. Name one other life sustaining substance that is deemed a pollutant. Oh my bad, water must be a pollutant, because water vapor is the largest green house gas we have. You state as fact, that earths temps will rise between 3.2 and 7.2 degrees by the end of the century. What's with the decimals? This is not a fact. I suggest you cool it with the propaganda. Quit insulting us with you're smart and we're stupid crap.
Who has polarized politics?
As usual, both sides are guilty of having polarized US and international politics.
But given that it's the "warmists" that are worried about the upcoming effects of climate change, I find them more at fault than the rest of us, at fault because they have misunderstood the political situation, becoming willing victims of the polarization.
Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the UK Met Office and definitely NOT a climate change skeptic, says as much in today's London-based The Times:
"When people overstate happenings that aren’t necessarily climate change-related, or set up as almost certainties things that are difficult to establish scientifically, it distracts from the science we do understand. The danger is they can be accused of scaremongering. Also, we can all become described as kind of left-wing greens."
URL: http:##www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6896152.ece
A little humility on the warmist side, a moratorium on verbally assaulting the unconvinced, and a refusal of being dragged along by "Big Government" and "Freedom is less important than stabilizing the climate" types might go a long way in helping untangle the managining of the risk of anthropogenic global warming from the petty polarized politics of the day.
oops...
apologies...the quote above is from Professor Sir David King, director of the Smith School for Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford, UK
Global Warming
As you automatically dismiss any possibility of an outcome other than that projected by the pro-global warming camp, your personal credibility as a journalist dissapears.
Readers are hungry for intelligent analysis that is credible in some way. Instead you feed them the same ideological pabulum time after time. The damage you do to our planet, our economy and yes, dying children due to politically correct environmentalism and climate control theory is real.
Your mighty pen can bring notoriety, yes...but it can also bring personal condemnation as you practise your own brand of intellectual arrogance. I recommend an objective study of both sides of this question before judging those who don't agree with you in a wholesale fashion as insensitive, selfish, or even nationalistic. Perhaps they prefer not to play into the power games of the elite who use global warming as yet another tool to consolidate power, wealth and influence. (Most of the media, of course, jumps into their ams, mistaking glib intellectualism for wisdom.)
Global Warming BS
It looks like "global warming" has been exposed as a hoax, thanks to someone who has hacked into certain internet files and e-mail.
Well, what else is new. YOU certainly didn't know that satellite temperatures (and weather balloons) have indicated that any warming ended in 1998 and temperatures have leveled and are dropping since then. In fact, you stated just the opposite in your little ill-informed article.
These are FACTS and not BULL extrapolated from computer models.
Unfortunately, I've found you are in error in far too many columns to take you seriously.
In your latest column, you actually state that Sarah Palin's book is full of falsehoods. Of course, you don't say what those falsehoods are. But, what the heck, just saying so makes it truthful in your primative liberal mind.