+Myth: The IPCC's 1990 Report Over-estimated Greenhouse-gas-induced Global Warming

The outline for this post is as follows:

1. The Myth and Its Flaws
2. Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.

1.  The Myth and Its Flaws

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over-estimated greenhouse-gas-induced warming when they used climate models to predict global warming in their 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR).

Myth: The IPCC's 1990 Report Over-estimated Greenhouse-gas-induced Global Warming

The outline for this post is as follows:

1. The Myth and Its Flaws
2. Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
4. References

This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.

1.  The Myth and Its Flaws

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over-estimated greenhouse-gas-induced warming when they used climate models to predict global warming in their 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR).

+Myth: Science Denialism is as Rampant Among Liberals as Among Conservatives

The outline for this post is as follows:

1. The Myth and Its Flaw
2. Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.

1.  The Myth and Its Flaw

Political conservatives in the United States, in comparison to liberals, remain less likely to accept the science on man-made climate change and evolution. They also trust scientists less on these topics. But left-leaning science denialism on vaccination, genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and nuclear power balances out this right-leaning science denialism. So science denialism remains as prominent among liberals as among conservatives.

Myth: Science Denialism is as Rampant Among Liberals as Among Conservatives

The outline for this post is as follows:

1. The Myth and Its Flaw
2. Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
4. References

This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.

1.  The Myth and Its Flaw

Political conservatives in the United States, in comparison to liberals, remain less likely to accept the science on man-made climate change and evolution. They also trust scientists less on these topics. But left-leaning science denialism on vaccination, genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and nuclear power balances out this right-leaning science denialism. So science denialism remains as prominent among liberals as among conservatives.

+Myth: Polar Bear Population Numbers Imply that Man-Made Climate Change does not Negatively Impact Polar Bears

The outline for this post is as follows:

1. The Myth and Its Flaw
2. Context and Analysis
3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.

1.  The Myth and Its Flaw

Polar bear populations increased, so either scientists do not know that man-made climate change detrimentally affects polar bears or those detrimental effects are exaggerated.

Purveyors of this myth include Steven Crowder (via his blog) [1; 2, from 6:45 to 8:25; 3, from 7:59 to 9:04; 4, from 1:15 to 2:02], Sargon of Akkad (a.k.a. Carl Benjamin) [149], Paul Homewood [23], Investor's Business Daily [63], The Daily Caller [17], The Globe and Mail [20], WattsUpWithThat [18; 19], Susan Crockford [18; 19], Climate Depot [21], and various other blogs [18]. Crockford acts as the central node from which many myth proponents drew this myth [17 - 19; 21; 23].