Talk:Public opinion on climate change

'Scientific American' article on this topic

"Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed on the Topic of Climate Change? Scientists and journalists debate why Americans still resist the consensus among research organizations that humans are warming the globe". http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-americans-so-ill I think we can use this here. --Nigelj (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Add Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? Scientific American

Add Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? Scientists and journalists debate why Americans still resist the consensus among research organizations that humans are warming the globe" by Robin Lloyd February 23, 2011 99.109.127.154 (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is in there now. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So it is! 99.119.128.35 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Politics of global warming (United States)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.150.243 (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Politics of global warming is already there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Global warming controversy

Add Global warming controversy due to public opinion does not match Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the controversy the discrepancy between opinions? 99.181.128.253 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the global warming controversy article The global warming controversy is a variety of disputes regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. So yes there is controversy here. 108.73.113.97 (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How many of these IP addresses, 209.255.78.138, 99.181.128.253, 108.73.113.97, 99.119.128.35, 99.109.127.154, represent the same person? I'm not debating anything with an echo-chamber. Either this person (/these people) creates a user account, or count me out. --Nigelj (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPs are human too. <sad puppy dog face> 99.19.43.164 (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But most of them are the same person human. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding Global warming controversy somewhere is a no-brainer. The controversy has been in the news in America for years, if not decades. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer to me also. Help me understand why you wrote inappropriate (and only that) Mr. Rubin. How are these article total unrelated? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course you IPs have the same opinion. You're the same person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Expert credibility in climate change in 2010 PNAS?

William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) or maybe http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full?sid=da90c7de-bedc-4c21-b247-2a2ca1fa758a ? Excerpt:

"... estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC."

Also see Global warming controversy. 99.19.44.88 (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is outside the "public opinion" domain and firmly in the expert opinion domain - so i'd say No. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

See the word public in the excerpt above. Read slowly and carefully please. With all the crazy writing one can see in wp-land, sanity is all too easy to miss when going too fast. 99.181.155.6 (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Offhand comments, about the American public in an article that is entirely about expert opinion, doesn't mean that it has relevance in this article. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Global warming conspiracy theory

Add Global warming conspiracy theory. 99.181.146.108 (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd second that addition. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You two are almost certainly the same person. If not, you form a "conspiracy" to edit Wikipedia to support your point of view. Still, if it worked into the text, for example, if some survey actually asked the question of whether they thought there was a "conspiracy" to create an illusion of global warming, it would be appropriate. I really don't see it here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this an attempt a humor, Absurd humor? 99.181.140.200 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. If you IPs are not all the same person, you do form a conspiracy, and are a documented example of a global warming conspiracy, albeit a minor one. However, I don't see a documented relationship between the two topics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a start: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/01/a_new_nasa_temperature_analysi.html and http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/conspiracy-theories-finally-laid-to-rest-by-report-on-leaked-climate-change-emails-2021222.html . Here is a pdf from Yale: http://environment.yale.edu/leiserowitz/pubs_assets/ClimateRiskCommunication.pdf Here is one a quote from Prince Charles; http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/10/prince-charles-climate-change-sceptics ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it. The first is the personal opinion of the author, the second mentions the conspiracy theory, but not in the context of public opinion, the third may be appropriate, if published, which I cannot determine, and the fourth is notable, but not reliable, whether or not it establishes a connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How about this: http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v11/n7/full/embor201084.html Nature (journal)? 108.73.113.246 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC) More: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Conspiracy-theories.html , http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/category/conservatives-and-science/ , http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/gop-pollster-luntz-tells-enviros-stop-talking-climate , http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/same-as-he-ever-was-2/?scp=1&sq=conspiracy%20global%20warming&st=cse , etc ...

Still none which are both reliable and on point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is not reliable Mr. Rubin. 99.181.141.126 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is not reliable or notable, for the most part. I, at least, might qualify for list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming if I had recent publications. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been published also, but not related to Public opinion on climate change, have you? If yes, please post that here or if User:Arthur Rubin is Arthur Rubin as implied with your See also add those/that there. If if User:Arthur Rubin is "Arthur Rubin" then why not prove that also? 99.35.13.248 (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)