a huge part of the post-election conversation is trying to understand why the left lost touch with the white working class.
I hope you're right. I have seen very little in terms of tone change since the election. In fact, I've heard the opposite stated a few times, that it would be akin to giving in to racist coercion to have a more straight-up populist message with less of the identity politics.
It seems to me from the voter turnout perspective, it wasn't so much that Trump and Republicans turned out huge numbers, but that Hillary and the democrats failed to turn out the Obama coalition and didn't woo a significant number of new Latino voters. I think it speaks more to lacking a charismatic leader at the top or perhaps hubris by democrats due to all the expectation that the election was in the bag.
Our more than 13,000 members include scientists, researchers, educators, broadcast meteorologists, students, weather enthusiasts, and other professionals in the fields of weather, water, and climate.
-I don't have access to the 3rd paper at home, so can't comment.
-The springer article seems unduly narrow in their definition of consensus:
the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
It seems like the tipping point in many of these articles is whether the environment has a significant or equal impact on climate change. Even in the cooking the books article:
"Only 59% of the scientists said the ‘climate development of the last 50 years was mostly influenced by man’s activity. One quarter of those surveyed said that human and natural factors played an equal role.’"
Put another way, that's 84% say that humans play at least an equal roll in climate change. I'd still call that consensus, even if it's not 97%.
Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Josh Billings