Article about Americans disagreements with scientists findings

[UglyCasanova]

Link

I'm less surprised by the low percentages of the general population that agree with some of the statements, but rather the low percentage of scientist that disagree. For scientists, how did 2% of them not agree that humans evolved over time?

 

[PenguinPower]

Christian Science?

 

[DAGTA]

Look at how many americans don't believe global warming exists or is man-influenced.

 

[Grooveriding]

Look at how many americans don't believe global warming exists or is man-influenced.

Yeah it's frightening, like the politicians who think they know better than the scientists presenting them with those facts. These are the sort of nuts that are dangerous. They believe the twinkling dots in the sky are lite-brite plugs and we never landed on the moon as well.

They also label the lists as 'Opinion differences between public and scientists' Needs to be changed to 'Dumbass beliefs without basis of the public and facts determined by scientists'

 

[John Connor]

Look at how many americans don't believe global warming exists or is man-influenced.

Look at the people that do believe in "global warming"/"climate change."

Do you know the size of Al Gores carbon foot print?

 

[etrigan420]

They also label the lists as 'Opinion differences between public and scientists' Needs to be changed to 'Dumbass beliefs without basis of the public and facts determined by scientists'

case in point...

Look at the people that do believe in "global warming"/"climate change."

Do you know the size of Al Gores carbon foot print?

 

[John Connor]

"there's a sucker born every minute."

 

[Ruptga]

"there's a sucker born every minute."

And you should know. You are probably literally the dumbest person to regularly post here. Why you ever decided to stick around is something I still wonder about every once in a while.

Anyway, this is something that always comes to mind whenever one of these insipid arguments comes up.

"Americans recognize the accomplishments of scientists in key fields and, despite considerable dispute about the role of government in other realms, there is broad public support for government investment in scientific research," the authors write.

We trust scientists and the scientific method to improve our homes, our roads, our cities, and we let them build our phones, computers, medical devices like MRI machines, and TVs. We have, for the most part, no problems with any of those things, but for some reason when the exact same kinds of people use the exact same kinds of methods to tell us something about our history, our future, or what the fucking weather is like, THEN we raise hell.

"Oh those scientists are nothing but a cabal of Illuminati, they'll say anything to get grant money." "You can make numbers say anything, and those people will say anything to undermine wholesome values." Fucking retards. Either give up everything produced in the last five hundred years and go somewhere else to live as a subsistence farmer or shut the hell up already. You can't have it both ways; this isn't some holy book that you can edit, reinterpret, and selectively ignore according to your feelings and generational trends in society, this is reality.

 

[mrjminer]

"there's a sucker born every minute."

Way more than that on global warming.

The ever amusing camp of global warming promoters who claim those who would actually like sufficient proof are the ones who are inept.

 

[John Connor]

Anyway, this is something that always comes to mind whenever one of these insipid arguments comes up. We trust scientists and the scientific method to improve our homes, our roads, our cities, and we let them build our phones, computers, medical devices like MRI machines, and TVs. We have, for the most part, no problems with any of those things, but for some reason when the exact same kinds of people use the exact same kinds of methods to tell us something about our history, our future, or what the fucking weather is like, THEN we raise hell.

"Oh those scientists are nothing but a cabal of Illuminati, they'll say anything to get grant money." "You can make numbers say anything, and those people will say anything to undermine wholesome values." Fucking retards. Either give up everything produced in the last five hundred years and go somewhere else to live as a subsistence farmer or shut the hell up already. You can't have it both ways; this isn't some holy book that you can edit, reinterpret, and selectively ignore according to your feelings and generational trends in society, this is reality.

I just had to view your post. I'm still keeping your ass on ignore.

The fact is the science of global boring isn't set in stone. There are scientists that say there is global warming and scientists that say otherwise.

Medical science has created pills for ailments. You see the commercials all the time. Side effect may include this and that up to and including sniffing your carpet and licking your dogs balls. Then you see the lawyer commercials. "Did you take such and such pill?" "Call or law offices at 1-800-screw-you." The facts are science is just that, "SCIENCE" outcomes change and so do predictions all the time. Since the biggest hypocrite A-hole leftist Hollywood elitists are touting "Global warming" along with Al Gore who has a huge carbon foot print, excuse me for being skeptical. This idiot just last week said he wants cites changed where no one drives a car at the cost of some 90 trillion. And I'm stupid?!

BTW, like it matters science is my forte and is my strong suit. But I'm smart enough not to use it for an all encompassing answer to everything. While I bet math can answer more than science.

 

[Paratus]

I just had to view your post. I'm still keeping your ass on ignore.

The fact is the science of global boring isn't set in stone. There are scientists that say there is global warming and scientists that say otherwise.

Medical science has created pills for ailments. You see the commercials all the time. Side effect may include this and that up to and including sniffing your carpet and licking your dogs balls. Then you see the lawyer commercials. "Did you take such and such pill?" "Call or law offices at 1-800-screw-you." The facts are science is just that, "SCIENCE" outcomes change and so do predictions all the time. Since the biggest hypocrite A-hole leftist Hollywood elitists are touting "Global warming" along with Al Gore who has a huge carbon foot print, excuse me for being skeptical. This idiot just last week said he wants cites changed where no one drives a car at the cost of some 90 trillion. And I'm stupid?!

BTW, like it matters science is my forte and is my strong suit. But I'm smart enough not to use it for an all encompassing answer to everything. While I bet math can answer more than science.

Well since science is your "strong suit", maybe you can tell us what your problem is with the current theory. (hint a scientific answer or even a math based one doesn't include Al Gore in the answer)

Is that you don't believe:

• We have satellites that can accurately measure the energy from the sun and radiated by the Earth?
• We have accurate temperature gauges that measure the temperature of the air, oceans, and ground?
• We have measured in the lab that CO2 absorbs light at the same frequency that it is radiated by the Earth?
• That we can accurately measure the constituent parts of the atmosphere?
• That the changes we see in the climate are happening an order of magnitude faster than anytime in history?
• That a changing climate is going to be very expensive for us to adapt to?

 

[John Connor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/p...ists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/r...lobal-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz2t4gPo8iJ

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/...climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

 

[cbrunny]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/p...ists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Wikipedia? Credibility score zero.

 

[Paratus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/p...ists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/r...lobal-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz2t4gPo8iJ

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/



(oh and LOL meteorologists )

 

[Brainonska511]

It doesn't help that there are tons of snake-oil salesmen selling people up a river without a paddle or a boat. The cacophony of bullshit information out on the web is astounding. And then there is a subset of people with their heads lodged so far up their butts, that no matter what scientific information comes to light, it will always look like some liberal or conservative conspiracy (depending on the issue; and there is always an issue or two that can unite everyone in complete ignorance).

 

[John Connor]

Every forum I have been on there are people that believe in "global warming" and not believe. Like I said "global warming" is NOT set in stone. It has a lot of speculation surrounding it coupled with some idiots namely Al Gore who are trying to sell it.

"Climate change/global warming" is just a statistic based on BS math and models. They made predictions that by now the arctic would have melted and we be under water. Has it happened? In fact there is more ice in the arctic then there ever was!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/...climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

 

[Brainonska511]

Medical science has created pills for ailments. You see the commercials all the time. Side effect may include this and that up to and including sniffing your carpet and licking your dogs balls. Then you see the lawyer commercials. "Did you take such and such pill?" "Call or law offices at 1-800-screw-you." The facts are science is just that, "SCIENCE" outcomes change and so do predictions all the time. Since the biggest hypocrite A-hole leftist Hollywood elitists are touting "Global warming" along with Al Gore who has a huge carbon foot print, excuse me for being skeptical. This idiot just last week said he wants cites changed where no one drives a car at the cost of some 90 trillion. And I'm stupid?!

I see you read Senator Inhofe's book. Harry Potter have too much science in it for you?
----

Just because Al Gore is a hypocrite, doesn't mean he's wrong with statements about climate change.

 

[88keys]

Americans like science fiction.

 

[Brainonska511]

Americans like science fiction.

And pretty pictures posted at IFLS.

If Americans really loved science, they'd push for more funding through the NIH and NSF. A lot of the basic research that applied researchers and drug development picks up on starts in academic labs.

 

[John Connor]

----

Just because Al Gore is a hypocrite, doesn't mean he's wrong with statements about climate change.

LMAO! That's a brilliant statement. Did you graduate with honors?

 

[John Connor]

And pretty pictures posted at IFLS.

If Americans really loved science, they'd push for more funding through the NIH and NSF....

Yeah... like shrimp on tread mills?

 

[cbrunny]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/p...ists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

So I'm reading this article and the headline is very misleading.

Source: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
Article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/p...ists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Respondents were asked, “To the best of your knowledge, what proportion of climate scientists think that human-caused global warming is happening?” Response categories were 0%–20%, 21%–40%, 41%–60%, 61%–80%, 81%–100% (coded 1–5, respectively), and “I don’t know enough to say.” Respondents who indicated “I don’t know” (n = 156) were excluded from the analyses, so that perceived consensus could be analyzed as a single continuous variable. To assess if the exclusion of “Don’t know” respondents influenced our findings, we conducted additional analyses with all respondents using dummy coding, a statistical technique that allows noncontinuous variables to be entered into linear regressions. This produced no significant change to the results.

This means they are not asking "Do you believe in man-made global warming?" and instead they are asking "Do you think other climate scientists believe in man made global warming?" followed by a 20% range! 20%!!!

Then this:

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “There
is conflict among AMS members on the issue of global warming.” Response options were “Strongly disagree,” “Somewhat disagree,” “Neither agree nor disagree,” “Somewhat agree,” and “Strongly agree.” The responses were coded 0–4, respectively.

Again, asking an individual about what they think about other people's thoughts.

Then the question the headline is actually touting. The question is:

In this survey, the term "global warming" refers to the premise that the world's average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, maybe increasing more in the future, an that the world's climate may change as a result. Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?"

With a yes or no response.

Follow up is:

how sure are you that global warming [is/is not] happening?

Then, only individuals that responded yes are asked this:

"Do you think that the global warming that has occurred over the past 150 years has been caused..." to which they could answer "Mostly by human activity," "Mostly by natural events," "More-or-less equally by human activity and natural events," "I do not believe we (scientists) know enough yet to determine the degree of human or natural causation, even in the general terms stated in the categories above," and "I don't know."

THEN, 10 weeks later, only individuals that responded "I do not believe we (scientists) know enough yet to determine the degree of human or natural causation, even in the general terms stated in the categories above," and "I don't know." were given a follow up question that reads "Do you think human activity has contributed to the global warming that has occurred over the past 150 years?" with a yes or no response.

So, now to the actual results. The results table breaks down like this:

Is GW happening? If so, what is the cause?

Yes; mostly human - 52%
Yes; equally human and natural - 10%
Yes; mostly natural - 5%
Yes; insufficient evidence - 20%
Yes; don't know cause - 1%
Don't know if GW is happening - 7%
GW is not happening - 4%

Of the "Yes; insufficient evidence" group that were issued the follow up, the follow up results are like this:

Yes; insufficient evidence - some human - 11% (55% of the 20%)
Yes; insufficient evidence - not sure whether any human - 3% (15% of the 20%)
Yes; insufficient evidence - unknown - 6% (30% of the 20%)
Yes; insufficient evidence - no human - 0% (0% of the 20%)

So, what the article says is this:

Not all scientists agree that global warming is man-made. Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts don’t believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society.

Which is only true if you carefully define the words 'driving force' in such a narrow way that it completely misrepresents the actual opinions of scientists.

The study itself concludes:

that 88% of scientists believe in global warming.
that 78% of scientists believe that humans have contributed to global warming is at least in some way, ranging from a very minor effect to the sole reason it is happening
that 4% of scientists do not believe global warming is happening. An additional 7% are not sure if it is happening.

In a nutshell, the media are completely misrepresenting the results of this research. It is grotesquely inaccurate to claim that 48% of scientists do not think global warming is affected by humans.

I have no problem with humans wanting to question our affects on climate. I'm not trying to argue that it is a completely done deal because there are still some valid questions to be asked. But what I'm saying is the overwhelming majority of scientists do believe that global warming is affected by humans. That is an undisputable fact. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong. Period. End of conversation.

So, John Connor, you actually do have a credibility score of zero. It isn't just linking wikipedia articles that affects this though. Failing to comprehend - no, that's not it - failing to READ an article that you link that completely discredits the claim you are making. That's the cause of your credibility score.

 

[Brainonska511]

Yeah... like shrimp on tread mills?

The infamous 'summary statement' that funding agencies post online. To write those, you take your 6-12 page grant, and condense it down to 1-3 sentences for the general public.

And LOL at you: http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversa...plaything/?cid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

 

[John Connor]

So climategate is...false? If you're gonna call the survey BS merely based on the headline lets say you on climate gate.

So I'm reading this article and the headline is very misleading.

Source: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
Article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/p...ists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/



This means they are not asking "Do you believe in man-made global warming?" and instead they are asking "Do you think other climate scientists believe in man made global warming?" followed by a 20% range! 20%!!!

Then this:



Again, asking an individual about what they think about other people's thoughts.

Then the question the headline is actually touting. The question is:


With a yes or no response.

Follow up is:


Then, only individuals that responded yes are asked this:


THEN, 10 weeks later, only individuals that responded "I do not believe we (scientists) know enough yet to determine the degree of human or natural causation, even in the general terms stated in the categories above," and "I don't know." were given a follow up question that reads "Do you think human activity has contributed to the global warming that has occurred over the past 150 years?" with a yes or no response.

So, now to the actual results. The results table breaks down like this:

Is GW happening? If so, what is the cause?

Yes; mostly human - 52%
Yes; equally human and natural - 10%
Yes; mostly natural - 5%
Yes; insufficient evidence - 20%
Yes; don't know cause - 1%
Don't know if GW is happening - 7%
GW is not happening - 4%

Of the "Yes; insufficient evidence" group that were issued the follow up, the follow up results are like this:

Yes; insufficient evidence - some human - 11% (55% of the 20%)
Yes; insufficient evidence - not sure whether any human - 3% (15% of the 20%)
Yes; insufficient evidence - unknown - 6% (30% of the 20%)
Yes; insufficient evidence - no human - 0% (0% of the 20%)

So, what the article says is this:



Which is only true if you carefully define the words 'driving force' in such a narrow way that it completely misrepresents the actual opinions of scientists.

The study itself concludes:

that 88% of scientists believe in global warming.
that 78% of scientists believe that humans have contributed to global warming is at least in some way, ranging from a very minor effect to the sole reason it is happening
that 4% of scientists do not believe global warming is happening. An additional 7% are not sure if it is happening.

In a nutshell, the media are completely misrepresenting the results of this research. It is grotesquely inaccurate to claim that 48% of scientists do not think global warming is affected by humans.

I have no problem with humans wanting to question our affects on climate. I'm not trying to argue that it is a completely done deal because there are still some valid questions to be asked. But what I'm saying is the overwhelming majority of scientists do believe that global warming is affected by humans. That is an undisputable fact. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong. Period. End of conversation.

So, John Connor, you actually do have a credibility score of zero. It isn't just linking wikipedia articles that affects this though. Failing to comprehend - no, that's not it - failing to READ an article that you link that completely discredits the claim you are making. That's the cause of your credibility score.

 

[cbrunny]

So climategate is...false? If you're gonna call the survey BS merely based on the headline lets say you on climate gate.

You didn't read my post, so I'm going to ignore this. I know you didn't because if you did read it you would understand that I didn't actually say the thing that you're suggesting I did. Take another go and then come back.

Edit: Here's a free hint. The article that you linked is attempting to represent the views of an actual scientific study. My comments are about the actual scientific study and how the article that you linked represents it.