Latest posts by H. Sterling Burnett (see all)
- Data Indicate There’s No Need to Panic About Rising Seas - July 15, 2019
- Trump’s Climate Modeling Reform Scorches His Critics - July 3, 2019
- Oregon Senate Republicans Fought The Law—And The Public, Not The Law, Won - June 28, 2019
Separate opinion polls taken in the run up to the United Nation’s climate conference in Paris show battling climate change is not high on the agenda for many people around the world. A survey taken by GlobeScan found majorities in only four of the 20 countries it surveyed, Canada, France, Spain and the UK, would have their governments set ambitious targets at the Paris climate conference. Questioning approximately 1,000 people in each of 20 countries, GlobeScan found under half of those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem in 2015, compared with 63% who did so in a similar GlobeScan survey taken just before an international climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009. In 2009, majorities in eight countries wanted strong climate action. In addition, the number of survey participants rating climate change as a very serious issue meriting strong action has only grown in four of the 20 countries polled, while declining in the other 16 countries.
Closer to home, in the United States a November Fox News poll of more than 1,000 registered voters found only 3 percent listed “climate change” as the most important issue facing the country today, down from 5 percent in August. Only six percent registered Democrats surveyed listed global warming as their top concern, compared to one percent of Republicans.
Perhaps people aren’t overly worried about the doomsday scenario’s spun by climate alarmists because it is dawning on them that much of what passes of climate ‘science’ is really political science, more science fiction that science fact.
That’s the conclusion Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, with oversight responsibilities for The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In a Washington Times column Smith writes NOAA is cherry picking temperature data to support the Obama administration’s bias for action to fight climate change.
In testimony before the House Science Committee, NOAA’s deputy administrator, Manson Brown noted NOAA’s ability “to deliver environmental intelligence starts with keeping the pulse of the planet, especially the atmosphere and the ocean, and this is the central capability where space-based assets [satellites] come into play.” NOAA recent paper in Science, proclaiming the nearly two decade long pausing in rising temperatures was non-existent, left out the most accurate source of temperature measurement within NOAA’s purview, data from its global satellite system. Smith writes NOAA failed to incorporate the satellite readings into the paper because they have shown no warming for the past two decades, data which fails to confirm the agency’s bias for belief in anthropogenic global warming. Smith concludes, “As a self-proclaimed ‘environmental intelligence agency,’ NOAA’s reports should be based only on the best available science that takes into account all sources of data. Unfortunately, NOAA continues to rely upon biased science in pursuit of a predetermined outcome. That’s not good science, it’s science fiction.”