Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later[^][v]#542,906
Write in: Not sure
Metæ joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^][v]#542,907
I'm quite sure the earth's climate is warming and humans probably contribute to it. That being said, the earth's climate has always changed and I don't think it's worth getting in a tizzy over. It also may just blow over: the big scare was global cooling in the '60s and '70s.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#542,910
Write in: It depends
Green (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#542,913
@542,906 (B)
You have an unsure option which is exactly the same as not sure. Thanks.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#542,916
Human-caused climate change is happening; nearly all climate scientists are convinced of this basic fact according to surveys of experts and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, among the American public, there is widespread misunderstanding of this scientific consensus. In this paper, we report results from two experiments, conducted with national samples of American adults, that tested messages designed to convey the high level of agreement in the climate science community about human-caused climate change. The first experiment tested hypotheses about providing numeric versus non-numeric assertions concerning the level of scientific agreement. We found that numeric statements resulted in higher estimates of the scientific agreement. The second experiment tested the effect of eliciting respondents’ estimates of scientific agreement prior to presenting them with a statement about the level of scientific agreement. Participants who estimated the level of agreement prior to being shown the corrective statement gave higher estimates of the scientific consensus than respondents who were not asked to estimate in advance, indicating that incorporating an “estimation and reveal” technique into public communication about scientific consensus may be effective. The interaction of messages with political ideology was also tested, and demonstrated that messages were approximately equally effective among liberals and conservatives. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^][v]#542,917