Trusting the government and climate change?

All the different subjects that you’ve mentioned can be split into two group – those that are determined by fact and those that are determined by opinion.

Governments can, and often do, go against the groundswell of public opinion; often because they believe that they’re right. You can neither prove nor disprove that either side is right – at least not at the time.

A government can’t go against something that has already been scientifically proven. They can cover it up and pretend it doesn’t exist. This is precisely what the US government did with global warming. In 1961 the US Military undertook scientific research at Camp Century in Greenland and concluded that the world was unnaturally warming, the Kennedy Government buried the report and cut any further funding (to be fair, the full implications weren’t understood back then).

Different governments did the same thing. The Carter Administration buried the JASONs report “The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate (reference JSR-78-07)” because they didn’t want to face up to global warming. It was the same Administration that also buried “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” AKA The Charney Report. Reagan did exactly the same thing following the NAS’s publication of “Changing Climate”, in his own words he didn’t want climate change to “become a stick to beat America with” so he prevented publication of the report and took the side of the one dissenting voice – that of Bill Nierenberg who stated that global warming was real but that we’d adapt to it.

Of course, even though successive governments can deny the truth, there comes a time when they can’t hide it any longer. For the US this came in about 1988 when global warming made it into the spotlight of the international political arena.

Twenty-five years on and the evidence has become so overwhelming that there isn’t a single government in the world that disputes global warming is happening. If they did, they would become a global laughing stock and target of worldwide derision. An example can be seen with Sarah Palin when she announced that global warming wasn’t happening, I’m not sure that the US media accurately reflected the level of vitriol and hatred that the rest of the world displayed toward her, I’ve certainly never seen anything like it before.

The other thing you have to remember is that the US is not representative of the rest of the world when it comes to the subject of climate change. In the US it’s very much a political issue and many people oppose the theory of climate change based more on their political leanings than anything else. A consequence of this is that there are more skeptics in the US than elsewhere – ten times the global average. Globally 90% of people see global warming as either a “serious” or a “very serious” threat (6% see it as a minor threat, 2% don’t see it as a threat at all, 2% have no opinion).

Even in the US, the most sceptical country of all, the skeptics are still a relatively small minority (21%).

So not only have the government got to content with incontrovertible scientific proof, but they also have to appeal to the majority of the electorate and increasing demands from the rest of the world. The US has already seen what happens when it ignores global demands to deal with climate change – the collapse of the car industry being one such example.

"Yet, here we are with the government claiming we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Government scientists, government departments, international governmental bodies, etc. are all objective straight-shooters who would in no way mislead the populace unlike the 'old days'."

Yes, "physics" was a government program instituted by Al Gore to raise taxes. Jesse Jackson insisted on something being called "black" body radiation.

The Global Sustainable Institute at Anglia Ruskin University published a report on public attitudes to climate science and how this science is represented in the media. The purpose of the report was to examine how climate change research is being communicated, the public’s attitude towards it and the means by which this communication could be improved. To go about answering these questions, the investigators carried out a series of focus groups across the UK population. In each case, participants were presented with a range of UK newspaper, radio and television articles on climate science and invited to pick one article for discussion. They were then asked to judge the chosen piece based on the level of interest in the subject, how easy it was to understand and where the news piece could be improved.

>>Yet, here we are with the government claiming we need to reduce CO2 emissions lest we burn in Hell and everybody now has complete trust in everything they say<<

Then why is it that the strongest and loudest government voices are anti-AGW? Why hasn't the government passed any meaningful environmental legislation? Why isn't climate change even on the government's radar?

>>Government scientists...,,

That's right Mike - every field of science, math, and engineering is a tool of the government. In fact - based on your belief system - every subject taught in every public school, junior college, college, and university is government indoctrination.

At least that explains one thing - the reason Deniers hate science, education, and knowledge; their absolute refusal to learn anything about anything, and; the reason they believe that being as stupid as possible makes them smarter than everyone else.

The Banking Industry finances the Government and they love turmoil. Why wouldn't they love turmoil? If they can get a war started, they'll provide the financing. The only reason that interest rates are so low is that they have saturated the market with loans and can't find anyone to steal more money or property from. Think about it. They'll support any cause that creates turmoil!

The Government has been mainly made up of the Baby Boomers for the past 20 to 30 years. These are the ones that were crying "foul" in the 60s and 70s. Now they are invoking it.

Banks = Government

Government = Banks

$ + Government = Banks

Turmoil + $ + Government = Banks

Climate Change + Turmoil + $ + Government = Banks

It's all about the $ and Banks

As long as we stay on the "Federal Reserve System" turmoil will rule the days ahead. When the Federal Reserve Bank is eradicated and abolished and the IRS is done away with altogether, only then will "We the People" get back control of things.

Solyndra was just the beginning.

There are two aspects. Firstly, we have scientists telling us what they think on the basis of their expertise and experimental data. I think we should listen to them.

Secondly there is the question of what we do about global warming and how we mitigate against the effects. That's an issue of policy.

So, to answer your question, I don't believe governments. I believe scientists. That's why I accept the theory of AGW. What we do about it - well, that's where I can happily disagree with politicians. The science of AGW and the politics of what we do about it are two different things.

MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE only KILLS LIFE. Mike

First of all, the premise of this fake question is a lame deception.

"Everybody" certainly does not have "complete trust" in climate science denier Governor of Texas Rick Perry, who can't even remember his own BS lines http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QKQTTCZv20, or in Congressperson Michele Bachmann who can't even get the % of CO2 in air correct within a factor of 50 http://www.prosebeforehos.com/video-of-the-day/04/... or in James Inhofe, one of more ridiculous fossil fuel industry propagandists http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php... ever perpetrated on the U.S. Senate, who called science FICTION writer Michael Crichton to testify to Congress as a climate science expert. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005...

Secondly, no one here has more "complete trust" and blind copy cat faith in proven fossil fuel propagandist and fake scientist Anthony Watts than you. And for good reason:

Once again here, and for the umpteenth time, Mike makes a clumsy try to diversify away from his standard recycling of Wattsup's many-years old recycled Marshall-Heartland deceptions and trickeries as fake questions, and once again shows only his own asinine paranoia and stubborn anti-science foolishness.

Edit to Elizabeth: "The science of AGW and the politics of what we do about it are two different things." Yes, of course, but NOT according to SCORES of fake questions by Mike. The core of his paranoia is the delusion that climate scientists are evil or badly misguided environmentalists in cahoots with socialists in government. He believes this, or pretends to, with a dedication to stupidity worthy of Billy's belief in the Reptilians on the hollow moon. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgaDz...

In fact Ronald Reagan fixed global warming over 25 years ago:

http://voices.yahoo.com/how-ronald-reagan-saved-wo...

The governments are not claiming that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions; scientists are.

The US and Canada both withdrew from the Kyoto accord and Germany is abandoning nuclear power in favor of coal.

http://www-pub.naz.edu:9000/~nanatoli/us.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16151310

http://planetsave.com/2011/04/04/germany-abandons-...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/caught...

Carbon taxes are not a vote getter.Governments have a vested AGW to going away.