For what we deem to be current scientific knowledge, vs. population's opinion is often not to be a problem except for when it impacts real choices about the future. What should have been part of the educational process in the survey, would be that - for it not for anthropogenic warming, we would be in a natural cooling cycle. (Earth's orbital parameters, Earth's nutation, lack of Sun Spots, ...). Anyway, I think we have not educated the population enough for the population to arrive at an informed decision. But, that is often the case in the questioners as well. Wish we could get more people to read the scientific journals, and then have a poll
Chris McCormick

Americans are, on the whole, woefully ignorant.

Is anyone surprised by this. Most disturbing is that the trends have shifted toward Planetary causes. Were the poll to show other connections, I'm convinced we would find associations between "Plantetarists" and an economic motive, whether it is direct or indirect (I don't want to stop consuming). We've developed a 'not me' culture that truly believes we can deliver a 'just in time', Hollywood-style fix to any catastrophe. While no one knows where that point really is - there's enough science to suggest an acceleration effect, and a tipping point before we get concensus on action. We need a more profound message to the average American, who will ultimately reject politics, reject rhetoric, and reject their own selfish consumption for the benefit of the country. Scientists expect citizens to make decisions the way they do - on the basis of fact - when in truth, the average citizen uses a trusted source to guide their decision-making. My guess is you have Planetarists who look to Limbaugh, Beck, etc. for their science in the same way they do for their politics. The burden is on us to rise above these voices with a more honest, more accurate, and more persuasive message.

'Long-term planetary trends' more likely produced an illegitiment 'chad' President, Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, and war profiteering than climate change.

Ninety (90) percent of the world's science academies, including the US, settled this question.

On a final note. People argueing on AGW knew this was coming. It was always the next battle. As the undeniability of warming becomes less argueable, the battle will shift to one of denying an ability to fight climate change so that business can continue as usual.

This was the backup strategy in many arguements from the anti-AGW crowd and some have already come up. And I find it laughable that the most vocal now can be shown to have really not given actual thought since their vehement arguements are contradictory.

Lastly, I would add that other countries would have totally different views based on how dependent they were on the benefits of using/creating the CO2. It is far easier and more objective in Europe than America with its love affair with the car and it's past place as the world's largest oil producer and its economic dependency on oil. It is no surprise that one of only countries to try to tone down the IPCC reports in the past were the political representives of Saudi Arabia as well as the US.

The science is understood by anyone who wants to spend the time and effort on non-partisen sources for information. Nice and simple. The incapability arises when obvious biased sources are taken for fact.

The Left. The Left. Yah right. It's a question of science. Of observation leading to theory. A conspiracy theory based on a dislike of some socio-political leaning? Of "a galvanizing force for centralized control of economic activities"? From who? The people who have the most economic clout don't want to spend or deal with this issue. None of them do. On the other hand, you have Exxon admitting to funding groups, people and entire organizations. A conspiracy of that size fall apart quite easily. Look a WMDs and Iraq. Look at the people who still think they were real.

All sides have a stake in the outcome of AGW. There are libertarian eco groups that hate the idea of AGW over nuclear power. Nuclear power is gaining traction using AGW. Is that Left?

So fear of the left should be used to justify a position and not empirical evidence or reason? You don't like to be told you're wrong? From that you knee jerk into denial? Forever? Bend the empirical into conspiracy? Politicize? Afraid of economic impacts or societal/political impacts so it can't be true?

These shouldn't ever be taken into consideration when evaluating the evidence. If it is, then you've just got to admit it instead of using pseudo-scientific reasoning. Evidence leads to theories of causality. Theory looking for evidence leads to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and may seem justified but never is.

The problem with Mr. Frankbank's argument, is that he tries to state this as a Left/Right argument, when it is a knowledge/ignorant argument. Either we look for the facts, and where the facts lead, or we suppose what we would like to suppose based on our opinionated makeup.

The facts of anthropogenic caused atmospheric pollutants (whether the older CFC's from refrigerants & their destruction of Ozone...CFC's are not produced in nature...and the world's banning of these after the cause/effect was shown) ...or newer CO2's CO's NOx's and the methanes and methanes out of the not so perma, permafrost...anyway; Mr. Frankbank proves a point when he tries to tie a political bent to a scientific investigation. The scientific process is useful in order to produce choices that our political leaders (or are they followers?) can at least attempt to have policies of informed solutions.

Chris McCormick

Willful ignorance is unfortunately and archetypal behavior throughout human history. Fear of the unknown or loss of perceived control often result in clinging to a status quo that fecklessly looks for nonsensical justifications, e.g., it is a liberal conspiracy, or scientists are fabricating data to ensure more research funding, etc. To quote a poignant line from a popular movie.. "The Matrix has you!"

Fight ignorance of the environment and energy policy. Contact your legislators to make your views known. Find them here:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

Support clean energy through Repower America:
http://www.repoweramerica.org/

I think that it is more about a 'personal' combination of: a person's tolerance for risk, empathy for other's suffering, and the way they want the world to be.
Me: I believe (faith?) that engineering can solve anything given enough time and resources. But do we have enough time? Depends on what people are willing to put up with on the way to a technological fix. Is 3 feet of water in susceptible areas and 5 degrees Fahrenheit over 50 years a reasonable level of sacrifice so that we can maintain lifestyles (and allow the developing world to achieve same) while technology converts much of the energy and materials into more efficient/ less impactful solutions. This is called a high risk tolerance (accepting a serious amount of collateral and unknown technological risk to achieve an 'ideal' society). Also, if you feel that the world can put up with a serious amount of adaptation and interim suffering, this will also contribute to the 'technology first, conservation second' attitude. This probably indicates a low capacity for empathy for another's suffering. Lastly, about the way one wants the world to be: in the same way that it was worth going through the heavy polluting of the 19th century industrial revolution so that we could achieve a level of technological advancement allowing us to have advanced healthcare, communication, infrastructure, -and- of course cars, luxuries, etc. I don't believe that we could have avoided it to achieve this. And, don't forget, due to the capitalist way the world works: technology only advances when there are resources to support it - which means consumption, investment, and taxes - which means extraction, energy use, and pollution -- no pain, no gain. The ideal world is waiting for the 8-10 billion of us on the other side of this century when we get through this. Any other plan of hyper-conservation, status-quo, or commodity war will just lead to a level of suffering, starvation, and conflict that will make all other super-tragedies before us seem lame and petty. Unfortunately, we live in a world where the suffering of trial-and-error technology and risk is the only way to get us 'all' through this. Let's try to be communal and help our fellow human during these coming decades of adaptation.

Hopefully, young Americans seem to think differently. More mature conviction may come around within one or two generations.

America is still a very young nation. Discernment and wisdom often come with age.

Note I said ONE of the reasons.. as in one of the reasons for global warming is cow farts.. One of the reasons for the wars was prep for whats expected to come soon. Just one of the reasons. Unlike some I dont fixate so much on THE REASON and instead ponder alot of the likely reasons and how much impact they might have and how much control we realy have over it all.