Shared publicly  - 
Karawynn Long originally shared:
97% of world scientists agree that human-caused climate change is increasing. But only 13% of Americans suspect this number is over 80%.

"..the public is largely unaware of the consensus because that's not what they're hearing on cable TV or reading in blogs. 'They mostly get exposed to a much more conflicted view, and that's of course not by accident.'"

(Just doing my part to spread the word, here ...)
Cindie Geddes's profile photoLeonard Suskin's profile photoLouis Doggett's profile photoJoe King's profile photo
So, Karawynn Long says "97% of world scientists agree that human-caused climate change is increasing." The article she linked to quotes someone as saying, "97 percent of American scientists say that climate change is happening." The article doesn't link to a source for that, but it seems to be a reference to a 2009 poll of scientists (see and in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments (Keane & Martinez), in which only 82% of the scientists polled agreed that human activity had been a significant factor in changing global temperature. The 97% comes from the subset of the poll consisting of climatologists who are active publishers in climate research. The survey invitation was sent out to over 10,000 scientists. The response rate was about 30%, but there was no effort to determine whether the responding sample was representative of the whole group. Nor is there evidence that the scientists listed in the directory are representative of all geoscientists, let along all scientists in the world.

So, one can accurately claim that 97% of climatologists who responded to a web poll and are actively engaged in publishing climate research (a total of 79 people out of the 10000 invited to participate in the survey) agree that human-caused climate change is significant. How one gets from there to "97% of world scientists agree that human-caused climate change is increasing" is left as an exercise for the reader.

Just doing my part to set the record straight with, you know, verifiable facts.
A few years back I read a great local article that I've seen born out in my own works. Editors want writers to present both sides of an issue. We are supposed to give equal space and respect to both. This gives the impression that both sides are of equal merit (or that there even IS two sides). Cumulatively, it ends up giving crackpots the same credibility as real experts. This is one reason I don't write many articles anymore.
+Cindie Geddes - exactly. The problem is compounded by the number of ideologically-based news outlets (Fox News on the right, MSNBC on the left) which will let facts take a backseat to their political biases AND the fact that what should be fact-based science issues have become politicized.

It's no wonder that we Americans as a people barely seem to understand anything.
Actually I believe quite a few Americans have heard that, don't take not believing something that is suppose to be common knowledge as ignorance. Obviously not everyone knows but it's out there and has been talked about in all types of media. And the other side's facts are out in some media.
Well, that's "fair and balanced" reporting for you. When 97 percent of scientists agree on something that Fox would rather deny, they balance one scientist with 97 kooks.
Add a comment...