Forecast: A Strong Chance of Climate-Change Skepticism

[BridgeTheGap]

Who do people trust to give them accurate information about climate change? Often, it’s their TV weathercaster. In fact, a 2008 survey showed that Americans generally place more faith in the local on-air talent than they do in Al Gore, other politicians, religious leaders, corporations, or the media as a whole, reports Columbia Journalism Review.

“Scientists commanded greater credibility” on climate change issues, the magazine notes, “but only 18 percent of Americans actually know one personally; 99 percent, by contrast, own a television.”

The problem with this state of affairs is twofold: For one thing, most weathercasters aren’t really scientists, and few are experts on climate change. For another, many of them—far more than you might suspect—are skeptics on the issue. CJR reports that in a 2008 survey of 121 meteorologists, a stunning 29 percent of them agreed that global warming was “a scam.” Only 24 percent believed that humans were responsible for most of the climate change over the past 50 years. Half of them were sure this wasn’t true, while another quarter were “neutral” on the issue. As the magazine notes:

http://www.utne.com/Environment/Forecast-A-Strong-Chance-of-Climate-Change-Skepticism.aspx?utm_content=02.22.10+Environment&utm_campaign=Emerging+Ideas-Every+Day&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

[ericinne]

1. Don't really care personally

I don't know if climate change is real or not... OK, I take that back. I think it's more then likely real, but I don't believe there is anything we can do about it. But that doesn't mean there aren't things we shouldn't do about it. It just makes sense to change our ways of consumption for a more energy efficient, thus lower energy bill, tomorrow. Plus, I really like the idea of being able to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and eat semi-uncontaminated food. If anybody is gonna try and "SAVE THE EARTH" then do it for AT LEAST those reasons alone.

[mgc1961]

2. I know a few climate change skeptics.

One of the pilots that flies through my station from time to time seems to consider atmospheric carbon dioxide as a bit of tarnish on his occupation so he adopts a political response to the idea by placing a sticker on one of his bags that says, if I correctly remember:

Global Warming
Global Hoax


:eyes:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." — Upton Sinclair

[whattheidonot]

3. no lose.

reducing energy cost is a winner. the more energy that does not come from coal the better. the main problem with new energy is start up cost. if the government would help more new energies would come on line, reducing coals share and causing coal to rethink. now they push coal as clean that is not. Clean coal might be the most expensive thing of all and they are not sure what happens when they push it underground. the government has been lax here. Why? contributions of course.