Most Americans (57%) are either "Alarmed" or "Concerned" about climate change

submitted by ActuallyNot from (climatecommunication.yale.edu)

all 69 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Sure because polling random people about climate change is how you prove it is real scientifically, not measuring other physical factors. /s

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

No, to prove it's real you use basic physics.

All this shows is that opinion is moving in the correct direction, despite all the money poured in to denial by the fossil fuel industry.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The Hadley Centre has some measurements beginning in 1850, but there are too few data before 1880 for scientists to estimate average temperatures for the entire planet.

So the numbers are borked, that's basic math!

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The Hadley Centre has some measurements beginning in 1850, but there are too few data before 1880 for scientists to estimate average temperatures for the entire planet.

Well they do estimate it. The error bars are certainly wider.

So the numbers are borked, that's basic math!

The basic physics of climate change doesn't depend on global mean surface temperatures 1850-1880, much less their relative precision compared to modern temperature measurements. It's the optical properties of CO2, and some basic thermodynamics.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Based on Ice Core samples it was hotter during the age of the dinosaurs than it is now. So this year was not the hottest in history. Recorded temps only go back to 1880 and with a small sample size, proving that the math is borked.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Based on Ice Core samples it was hotter during the age of the dinosaurs than it is now.

The longest ice cores are from Antarctica and go back about 800,000 years.

With the exception of birds, dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.

So without knowing which ice age you're calling "the ice age of the dinosaurs", i already suspect that you're not right.

So this year was not the hottest in history.

It was the hottest in history, under the usual meaning of "history". It was the hottest in a lot longer than that. 125,000 years at least.

Recorded temps only go back to 1880 and with a small sample size, proving that the math is borked.

And yet you know about proxy temperature measurements, because you mentioned ice cores. Even if you think they go back 10000% further than they do.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But the numbers are borked and unreliable and don't represent a global temp.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Most Americans are stupid.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Most Americans voted for Biden and believe the economy is thriving despite the high price of food and gas.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (18 children)

Of course we are aware and concerned with it. It's normal to be concerned with a lie being rubbed in your face like a handful of shit. '

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Sigh

Which part don't you understand Questionable? That burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

I understand all of it. This only proves the propaganda is working. Regardless as to what it claims. Nothing more. And worse of all, you know that.'

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I understand all of it.

Both that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that burning fossil fuels releases CO2? Good.

This only proves the propaganda is working.

You've just accepted anthropogenic climate change. What is the propaganda?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Wow. You just put any words in anyone's mouth you want. Because you are a propagandist, pushing lies. And every thread you touch is a dumpster fire. You disgust me. '

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

It's that an answer to the question "What is there propaganda" by example?

The discomfort you feel when presented with facts? That's cognitive dissonance. While reaching out to make an ad hominem attack is intuitive, it won't help you.

You have to move your beliefs to match the facts.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

It's not an ad hominem. One does not debate people like you who only push propaganda. It's best to only point out what you are. Enjoy your shitty Aquaman movie.

You have to move your beliefs to match the facts.

You'd make a terrible wife.'

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It's not an ad hominem.

I see you don't know what an ad-hominem is. Lets go through your comment.

1) "Wow."

This is a filler word. It ads no information that can be used to prove a premise and it makes no logical reasoning by which a premise can be shown to lead to a conclusion.

2) "You just put any words in anyone's mouth you want."

This is trying to drag the conversation down. It's obviously false, but it is unrelated to the material under discussion.

3) "Because you are a propagandist, pushing lies. "

This is ad hominem. Look it up.

"And every thread you touch is a dumpster fire. "

This is ad hominem. Look it up.

"You disgust me."

You disgust me.

This is ad hominem,. Look it up.

One does not debate people like you who only push propaganda

Again, you do not pick any point I made and claim it is propaganda. You are just trying to drag the conversation down away from a discussion of facts or reasoning that can be derived from those facts.

It's best to only point out what you are.

Again you do not even attempt to do this. You just engage in name-calling.

Enjoy your shitty Aquaman movie

I don't have an Aquaman movie.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Hey u/Tom_Bombadil were you aware that u/ActuallyNot doesn't have an Aquaman movie?

I don't have an Aquaman movie.

That's a real thing, that a real human has said. See, he's a real human, saying normal real things. In a perfectly normal and realistic manner.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

u/ActuallyNot is an aquatransman.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well that's another dumb-ass conspiracy theory.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Sorry. Didn't read. Again, I must stress that insulting you is not an ad hominem, because I do not recognize this as a debate. If you had it your way, I would be arguing your false talking points until the heat death of the universe. You, and that premise are a waste of my time. Not going to happen. And no one here can force me to engage in a argument with a bad faith agent such as yourself. '

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You've added nothing.

So far you've claimed that you understand the greenhouse effect, and that burning fossil fuels releases a greenhouse gas.

If that's true you accept anthropogenic climate change.

Which is good, but seem to think some "propaganda" is "working", because most Americans are alarmed or concerned about climate change.

This is the contradiction on your position that you're squirming to get out of by firstly trying to drag the discussion down to your insults, and then by pretending not to read the very comments to which you're replying.

[–]SMCAB 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I am concerned. It was warm out, and now it's cold out. I'm scared.

[–]TemporarilyDeceased 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Most Americans were concerned or alarmed about Covid. 81% of the country was concerned enough to get at least one dose of the vaccine.

The uptake of the current vaccine is 18%.

People will be alarmed about what they're told to be alarmed about. Some catch on faster than others.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

1,144,877 Americans died of covid. Not most, but it demonstrates some level of concern was legitimate.

The uptake of the current vaccine is 18%.

29%, but you're right, the antivaxers appear to have taken a toll in deaths and long covid.

[–]TemporarilyDeceased 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not most, but it demonstrates some level of concern was legitimate.

Now that people have lived through Covid themselves, their perspectives have changed. While some people are anti-vax, most people are anti-lie-to-our-face as we've watched our President and CDC tell us that the vaccine stops transmission when there has never been any evidence that it does that, that efficacy in reducing death and serious illness is an ever-dropping number, and that our children need to get the vaccine when very few countries outside of the US recommend this. People want vaccines that work, but we can't tell anymore because our government is too focused on vaccinations as an outcome rather than health.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

While the big orange president at the time does a lot of lie-to-our-face, and that's still his MO as ex president, the CDC were saying our best knowledge at the time it was said.

Yes, that changed as we learnt things.

[–]TemporarilyDeceased 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Trump lied too, but it was Biden sitting next to Walensky that lied about transmission. The CDC had no such information. They performed no studies to test transmission and Pfizer, when asked directly if they had tested for it, said they did not. They couldn't have even extrapolated performance from other vaccines because they generally aren't sterilizing. They made it up.

The CDC also made up masking, lockdowns, and forced vaccinations. Says who? The CDC from 2016. The CDC's pandemic plan from 2016 (the most current one in effect when Covid hit) recommended against all of these things (as did the WHO's pandemic plan). They chose to do the opposite of their best practices.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Walensky said a few things that weren't cdc advice at the time.

Can't say I've read the 2016 CDC pandemic plan. It's this the influenza pandemic plan?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Tell them to go for a walk.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Over the past ten years, the Alarmed have grown more than any other audience, nearly doubling in size from 15% in 2013 to 28% in 2023

Overall, Americans are becoming more worried about global warming, more engaged with the issue, and more supportive of climate solutions.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Because of the propaganda and exaggeration of climate change.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Follow the money. The fossil fuel industry had $4.3 trillion in revenues in 2023.

Solar energy had no particular beneficiary because everyone can use the sunlight that falls on their roof.

And no one owns the wind rights to land.

That's why the propaganda and exaggeration is all on the side of minimising climate change, and the science is all showing the increasingly more severe impacts.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Climate changers all own stock in fossil fuel companies so anything they do to increase the price of fossil fuels puts more money in their pockets. Climate Change is a scam, it doesn't even follow the scientific method.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Climate changers all own stock in fossil fuel companies so anything they do to increase the price of fossil fuels puts more money in their pockets.

1) What fossil fuel companies does Kevin Trenberth own?

2) So they should be against alternative energy sources ... They're not.

Climate Change is a scam

It's not that hard to understand. Increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect.

it doesn't even follow the scientific method.

Are you going to try to argue that proven facts about thermodynamics and optics are wrong, because you learned about something called "the scientific method" in elementary school, and a lot of our knowledge has been uncovered by a more chaotic advancement of understanding?

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You can't prove it. You are spouting nonsense.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can't prove what investments Kevin Trenberth hasn't made?

Or that someone invested in fossil fuels would be motivated to set up a policy environment that is less favorable to renewable energy and nuclear?

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Sorry facts don't match your propaganda bot.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ccp-tied-group-quietly-fueling-us-based-climate-initiatives-tax-filings

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Sorry facts don't match your propaganda bot.

Sensible suggestion:Follow the money.

Fact one: The fossil fuel industry had $4.3 trillion in revenues in 2023.

Your refutation: "Energy Foundation China," contributed $3.8 million to initiatives in the U.S.

Think about the relative numbers there, and see which one we should factcheck first.

I'll do the foxnews article:

Its recently filed tax form show the group, which refers to itself as "Energy Foundation China," contributed $3.8 million to initiatives in the U.S. like phasing out coal and electrifying the transportation sector.

Fox news got the wrong non-profit. Energy Foundation China was founded by the Energy Foundation, to influence Chinese energy policy. The organizations have been separate entities for four years:

Energy Foundation was founded in 1991, and launched Energy Foundation China (EF China) in 1999. EF China assists China in its clean energy transition. In order to increase impact by empowering local decision-making and collaboration, Energy Foundation U.S. and EF China evolved the way they were organized and formally separated in 2019 to become two independent, exempt charitable organizations. More information about EF China can be found at www.efchina.org.

"The Energy Foundation's ties to China are both extremely disturbing and reprehensible," Tom Pyle, the president of the Institute for Energy Research, told Fox News Digital in an interview.

Is this the propaganda then?

IER is often described as a front group for the fossil fuel industry.[2][3][4] It was initially formed by Charles Koch, receives donations from many large companies like Exxon, and publishes a stream of reports and position papers opposing any efforts to control greenhouse gasses.

Looks a lot more like it.

Follow the money and think.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sorry facts refute your propaganda bot

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Other way around, tovarishch.

The facts refute the foxnews propaganda.

But don't trust me. Read the pages that I have linked to for your personal education.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What country pollutes the most? What are you doing to stop them?

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Changing the subject?

You're accepting that it's fox news is the one spreading the propaganda, and the propaganda is the koch bothers' funded Institute for Energy Research, not the Energy Foundation?

Good.

What country pollutes the most?

What kind of pollution?

What are you doing to stop them?

Stop who doing what?

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Solar requires batteries. China makes pretty much all batteries used for solar power. Mostly with slave labor. You support slave labor and a totalitarian dictatorship propaganda bot.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Solar requires batteries

No it doesn't.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

More Chinese propaganda by the bot ActuallyNot

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ccp-tied-group-quietly-fueling-us-based-climate-initiatives-tax-filings

Actually Bot posts propaganda for a totalitarian dictatorship that uses slave labor to produce their "green" technology and is the world's worst polluter. Everything he posts supports the destruction of the planet.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Its recently filed tax form show the group, which refers to itself as "Energy Foundation China," contributed $3.8 million to initiatives in the U.S. like phasing out coal and electrifying the transportation sector.

Fox news got the wrong non-profit. Energy Foundation China was founded by the Energy Foundation, to influence Chinese energy policy. The organizations have been separate entities for four years:

Energy Foundation was founded in 1991, and launched Energy Foundation China (EF China) in 1999. EF China assists China in its clean energy transition. In order to increase impact by empowering local decision-making and collaboration, Energy Foundation U.S. and EF China evolved the way they were organized and formally separated in 2019 to become two independent, exempt charitable organizations. More information about EF China can be found at www.efchina.org.

"The Energy Foundation's ties to China are both extremely disturbing and reprehensible," Tom Pyle, the president of the Institute for Energy Research, told Fox News Digital in an interview.

More Russian propaganda from Fox News

IER is often described as a front group for the fossil fuel industry.[2][3][4] It was initially formed by Charles Koch, receives donations from many large companies like Exxon, and publishes a stream of reports and position papers opposing any efforts to control greenhouse gasses.

Follow the money and think.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You just proved the Fox story is accurate.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Quite the opposite.

I just gave evidence that it's Koch brothers funded propaganda.

And i proved that they're conflating two different organisations when they claim the American energy foundation is the energy foundation, China.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You actually proved that you are spreading Chinese propaganda. Once again you have failed miserably to change anyone's mind. Quite the opposite, your posts and comments only serve to convince people that they should be very suspicious of anyone claiming that they need to switch to"green" technology without proper planning to mitigate the damage that that switch will cause.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Pretty sure I showed you are spreading fossil fuel industry propaganda.

The science is clear. Wet know what the facts are.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Don't you find it strange that no one agrees with you then? Obviously you are mistaken.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You think most people are climate change deniers?

No mate, even in the US where the propaganda money is most extensively spent, only 11% are dismissive.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why do you always misstate people's points of view? I am not a climate change denier. It's merely obvious that we can't just switch everybody to electric cars in a couple years without massive upgrades to electric grids and better, humanely sourced and responsible battery technology. You promote half assed so-called solutions that will create far worse problems.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why do you always misstate people's points of view?

Maybe you're not making your point of view clear.

I am not a climate change denier.

I didn't say you were. I said that most people aren't, and therefore you claim that no one agrees with me is false.

and better, humanely sourced and responsible battery technology.

The fact that more than 50% of lithium, cobalt and graphite processing and refining capacity is located in China, demonstrates that there's been a deficit in forward-looking in the west with respect to new energy.

All this fossil fuel propaganda has handed control of the energy of the future to China. The claim that it is the environmentalists that have done this is not just spin, it's twisting reality on its head. Follow the money.

You promote half assed so-called solutions that will create far worse problems.

Okay. Now you need to show that.

What's your best evidence of the problems that will be caused by putting a tax on CO2 emissions, that covers the appropriate proportion of the cost of the impact of climate change?

What's your best source showing how much worse that will be than the impacts of climate change?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Conversely,

43% not "alarmed" or "concerned" about global warming hoaxes.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

22% Doubtful or Dismissive is probably the denialists.

The 15% cautious are on the fence. The 6% disengaged have other stuff on their minds.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's a really shitty survey. It gave me "Doubtful" and told me I was a religious conservative who's uncertain whether climate change is occurring.

That's just plain bullshit. I'm 100% sure climate change is occurring, and I'm basically an atheist.

My answers?

One. How important is the issue of global warming to you personally?

Me: Not at all important. Because there's absolutely nothing I can personally do about it. And I don't believe there's anything anyone can do about it.

Two. How worried are you about global warming?

Me: Not at all worried. Why should I worry about anything I can't do anything about?

Three. How much do you think global warming will harm you personally?

Me: Not at all. I've got maybe thirty years to live. We aren't expected to see widespread crop failures in the next thirty years.

Four. How much do you think global warming will harm future generations of people?

Me: A great deal. There are going to be centuries of famine, war, and depopulation while we adjust to the new climate.

And it tells me I'm a religious conservative science denier? Come on, fuck right off, survey.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is affecting you already. Widespread crop failures aren't the only impact.

Most people find some things important even though they don't have a lot of influence over them.

Most people don't choose what they worry about on the basis of being powerless against it.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is affecting you already. Widespread crop failures aren't the only impact.

Certainly there are millions of factors affecting us at any given time, many of which we don't even know about. And we can't discern them, because we can't see the alternate reality where those factors are otherwise.

All I can say is that climate change is not affecting me in any discernible way. My life is absolutely fine, save for a touch of panic disorder I inherited from my maternal grandfather's side of the family, which is not related to the climate.

Most people find some things important even though they don't have a lot of influence over them.

That's an interesting claim. First, I don't think it's true. I think most people find their own survival and success important and don't waste their time on anything else. I think you probably self-select your own community from people so privileged that they can spend their lives sitting around wringing their hands over what's on the news.

Second, whether or not it's true, it's a ridiculous way to live, and no one should ever base their behavior on what "most people" are doing.

Most people don't choose what they worry about on the basis of being powerless against it.

Ever hear of the Serenity Prayer? "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference"? It's really pretty popular.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It will be making your food and insurance more expensive. It is decreasing biodiversity which probably affects your enjoyment of life. It's affecting global stability, which may not affect you, but most people have some empathy.

I'm not saying you should do what most people are doing. I'm saying the survey would work for most people.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No. 43% know it's bullshit.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Idiots who both don't have enough high school physics to understand the greenhouse effect themselves and get their information propaganda outlets like fox rather than scientific sources would be the "dismissive".

11%

Claiming "cautious" are "think it's bullshit" is, to borrow the term, bullshit.