Americans are not noted for believing in science, says a Canadian climatologist.
Petti Fong warns in the Toronto Star:
… Scientists say [the Heartland kerfuffle] is a frightening sign that much of the public remains skeptical about global warming.
“There are forces at work,” said Nina Fedoroff, president of the AAAS. “The polling data show that the fraction of citizens who believe that climate change is real has declined since 2006. Even as the scientific consensus has increased, the belief in it has declined”…
The belief in science has declined in very specific areas, Leshner said: research regarding genetically modified organisms, climate change and evolution.
“The American public, somewhat depressingly, is not noted for its beliefs in some scientific theories of findings,” he said.
University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver said scientists can’t be blamed for not doing a better job of communicating their findings.
“One one hand there are a bunch of disconnected individuals publishing science,” he said. “And on the other hand there is a very coordinated effort from so-called not-for-profits and public relations firms trying effectively to undermine the science.”
Americans don’t believe in science? Why should they, when scientists 1) attempt to stifle skeptics (although skepticism is vital to science), 2) persist in model-driven rather than data-driven hypotheses (although science is supposed to be empirical), and 3) politicize what should be value-free. I think doubt in science is an appropriate response to the way the AGW issue is playing out.
Tom D., I had the same thoughts.
All I read about month after month is more and more real, actual scientists who take the time to look at the real measured data, the history, the known variants like the PDO, ENSO, solar emission, etc. and come to the same conclusions: 1) temperature stopped rising around 1998 or so even as CO2 continued to rise, 2) man’s constribution to any putative warming is smaller than the margin of error of the data. One could add all the other bits such as the lack of the Mid Tropospheric Hotspot, but it’s all been well said before so I’ll leave off.
Some of us were a little skeptical of eugenics, DDT alarmism, and Keynes too. Never the less, we elected a practioner of all of the above. So there. But hey, we still believe in rocket science for all that is woth these days. /s
Seriously, again with the failure to believe? Hard to be believe in any human being, let a lone a group of them using the name of science in its religious form. False gods and jealousy. We used to have a monarchy and it ddn’t work out. Canada was only able to go halfway.
“Even as the scientific consensus has increased”?
How is this imaginary ‘consensus’ measured (not that science works by ‘consensus’, anyway)?
A funny thing about empirical data; once people see it for themselves, they aren’t easily persuaded by rhetorical devices.
The belief in science has declined in very specific areas, Leshner said: research regarding genetically modified organisms, climate change and evolution.
And the unifying thread between all those “sciences” is their reliance on postulations, consensus, theory, modeling, and everything but hard evidence and proper skepticism. It should be revealing that Leshner chose three areas which are attacked precisely for their lack of scientific method or orthodoxy. Nowadays, “belief” in science is synonymous with “faith” in science.
We believe in real science, not faked data fed into rigged computer models.
Americans don’t like deluded pseudo-scientists that pretend they can control the weather. Americans don’t like being subjugated, or directed, to odd earth-worshiping cult leaders. Americans don’t like socialists who pretend to be “scientists” while abandoning reason, the scientific method, and empirical evidence. Americans don’t like pretentious fools……period, so take your fake religion and stick it where the don’t shine. You know the place….your climate models.
“University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver said scientists can’t be blamed for not doing a better job of communicating their findings.”
They can be blamed for not presenting the truth!