Science Deniers are Everywhere

Nonsense. I doubt seriously that you have any specific knowledge of "decades of disinformation" here, although you write as though you do.

Our respective histories amply demonstrate that Americans are more skeptical, practical, and and far less credulous, than most Europeans.

There is a big difference between critical thinking (which is healthy), and partisan wholesale rejection of science (which isn't healthy). Be careful what you are teaching your daughter.

Scientific literacy is the ability to separate the real science from the political and journalistic spin. This is an important skill. And (as I have pointed out) unless your daughter plans to get an advanced scientific degree this means finding out the scientific institutions that are showing integrity in their search for evidence.

I teach my daughter to question her own beliefs. Science doesn't fall on one political side or the other, if you can't list times where science contradicts your own political side, then you aren't demonstrating critical thinking skills.

I want my daughter to accept scientific facts even when they contradict her politics.

Beth, can you post me a link or give me a hint how to search for what you read please?

You are a hoot, Max, a real hoot. You categorically refused to do any critical thinking.

Here, try to think about this. And ask yourself, why would NYC firefighters, reporters, police, eye witnesses describe explosions, secondary explosions on 911?

This thread has been a god send to expose science deniers/incredible hypocrites like you, Max.

This, above, coming from you - PRICELESS!!

And you are no different than farmer, Olivier, McG, Baldimo, layman, guijohn, ... .

SUMMARY:

Political leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting human production of "greenhouse gases," chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2). They feared that CO2 would result in "human-caused global warming" – hypothetical severe increases in Earth's temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. During the past 10 years, many political efforts have been made to force worldwide agreement to the Kyoto treaty.

When we reviewed this subject in 1998 (1,2), existing satellite records were short and were centered on a period of changing intermediate temperature trends. Additional experimental data have now been obtained, so better answers to the questions raised by the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" are now available.

In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century – an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, hydrocarbon use has risen 6-fold. Yet, this rise has had no effect on the temperature trends, which have continued their cycle of recovery from the Little Ice Age in close correlation with increasing solar activity.

Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed experimental tests, it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to greenhouse gases nullifies the slight initial temperature rise.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
__________________________________________

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/
_____________________________________________

Here is a video which, among other things, shows how the 97% consensus of scientists claim originated.

https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming-joseph-bast

just saw this - will make a note to send you a p.m. with some references when I'm back

Sarcasm soars right over you head doesn't it?

Good one!

A lot of things do. Sarcasm, most points, the truth, honesty, integrity... It's a long list really.

oh sure, sarcasm....sure,,,,my mistake, you probably sound smart in person, here you just strike me as snide.

Your fixation on me is flattering but it's not healthy. Let it go.

I could be wrong but I think you missed his point.

The mere withdrawal from the non-binding Paris Accords isn't going to have any impact whatsoever on Climate Change.

Assuming all of the CC orthodoxy is absolutely true and all of the dire predictions are accurate, why would anyone who fears for humanity and the earth be OK with giving "breaks" on emission reductions to certain "developing" nations?

Is geo-justice for former colonies who were once colonial powers themselves really worth risking humanity?

I do, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial:

Although scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change,[13][14] the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate.[15][16][17] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[18][19]

Of the world's countries, the climate change denial industry is most powerful in the United States.[20][21] Since January 2015, the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has been chaired by oil lobbyist and climate change denier Jim Inhofe. Inhofe is notorious for having called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people" and for having claimed to have debunked the alleged hoax in February 2015 when he brought a snowball with him in the Senate chamber and tossed it across the floor.[22] Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions.[23] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States.[16][24][25][26] More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from [American] right-wing think tanks.[27] The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million.[28] Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organisations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.[29] In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.[30]

13. Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?". In DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.
14. "CLIMATE CHANGE 2014: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC. Retrieved 7 March 2015. The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together
15. Dunlap 2013: "Even though climate science has now firmly established that global warming is occurring, that human activities contribute to this warming… a significant portion of the American public remains ambivalent or unconcerned, and many policymakers (especially in the United States) deny the necessity of taking steps to reduce carbon emissions…From the outset, there has been an organized "disinformation" campaign… to generate skepticism and denial concerning AGW."
16. Jacques, Dunlap & Freeman 2008, p. 351: "Conservative think tanks…and their backers launched a full-scale counter-movement… We suggest that this counter-movement has been central to the reversal of US support for environmental protection, both domestically and internationally. Its major tactic has been disputing the seriousness of environmental problems and undermining environmental science by promoting what we term 'environmental scepticism.'"
17. Painter & Ashe 2012: "Despite a high degree of consensus amongst publishing climate researchers that global warming is occurring, and that it is anthropogenic, this discourse, promoted largely by non-scientists, has had a significant impact on public perceptions of the issue, fostering the impression that elite opinion is divided as to the nature and extent of the threat."
18. Hoofnagle, Mark (30 April 2007). "Hello Science blogs (Welcome to Denialism blog)"."Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Examples of common topics in which denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming denialism …" and "5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic."
19. Diethelm & McKee 2009
20. Readfearn, Graham (5 March 2015). "Doubt over climate science is a product with an industry behind it". The Guardian.
21. Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. Earthscan. p. 108. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1.
22. Suzanne Goldenberg (11 June 2015). "Republicans' leading climate denier tells the pope to butt out of climate debate". The Guardian.
23. Klein, Naomi (9 November 2011). "Capitalism vs. the Climate". The Nation. Retrieved 2 January 2012.
24. Dunlap 2013: "The campaign has been waged by a loose coalition of industrial (especially fossil fuels) interests and conservative foundations and think tanks… These actors are greatly aided by conservative media and politicians, and more recently by a bevy of skeptical bloggers."
25. David Michaels (2008) Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health.
26. Hoggan, James; Littlemore, Richard (2009). Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Vancouver: Greystone Books. ISBN 978-1-55365-485-8. Retrieved 19 March 2010. See, e.g., p31 ff, describing industry-based advocacy strategies in the context of climate change denial, and p73 ff, describing involvement of free-market think tanks in climate-change denial.
27. Xifra, Jordi (2016). "Climate Change Deniers and Advocacy: A Situational Theory of Publics Approach". American Behavioral Scientist. 60 (3): 276–287. doi:10.1177/0002764215613403.
28. Brulle, Robert (2014). "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations". Climatic Change. 122: 681–694. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7.
29. Goldenberg, Suzanne (14 February 2013). "Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 1 March 2013.
30. Pilkington, Ed (14 November 2013). "Facebook and Microsoft help fund rightwing lobby network, report finds". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 November 2013.

This graphic by John Cook from "Consensus on Consensus" by Cook et al. (2016) uses pie charts to illustrates the results of seven climate consensus studies by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

Thanks for the laugh. Is that why your president believes the earth is 6000 years old?

Renegotiate with who? The Trumps? Even if anyone was fool enough to deal with Trump and agree something with him, the next president will undo the whole deal, like Trump just undid Obama's signature of the Paris agreement. There's nobody you can trust in the White House. You guys are not serious partners.

sorry, VICE president

The efforts that each country should make under the Paris agreement are determined by each country individually and called "nationally determined contributions" (NDCs). The level of NDCs set by each country will set that country's targets. There are no special breaks on emmission reduction on amyone, and no imposition on the US or any other state either. What any country does under the agreement is all voluntary.

No binding treaty was ever signed, Obama cynically signed the agreement and never attempted to get Senate ratification of it as is provided for in our Constitution. This is common knowledge among European Government, and their (and you) supposed indignation is self-created.

If as you say (falsely it turns out ) there is nothing compulsory in the Paris agreement, then why the hell are you concerned because we pulled out of it?


EU nations have developed the habit of short circuiting democratic process among the supposedly sovereign states than comprise its membership, in their largely administrative search for "ever closer union". The adverse side effects of that process are beginning to show throughout the Union. They (and you) should look more to themselves and whine less about others.