Global Warming: Why is there such a huge gap between public opinion and scientific consensus?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused
Because i the 70s the consensus was we were headed for an ice age.

Because the environmental movement has completely destroyed it's credibility by allowing itself to be taken over by anti-capitalist activists and extremists.

One can point at the right wing all day long and scream about a vast conspiracy... but in reality the damage was done, and continues to be done by the extreme left itself.

Because the argument by consensus fallacy, authority of the many fallacy or the bandwagon fallacy holds.

I am not debating GW here. Only showing you why so many question it.

You're full of it.

There was NEVER this kind of consensus back then, and you know it. You're just throwing out cheap lines here

Full of what? Fact? As a matter of fact there WAS just this kind of consensus. There was just not this much hype and fear as the environmental movement was in it's infancy and not taken over by extremists.

 

[Martin]

Judging from this thread, the ATOT consensus seems to be that it is a vast global socialist conspiracy aimed at keeping Yankee down.

*sigh*

To answer your questions OP, its a combination of stupidity and pettiness.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Queasy
Consensus?

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

:laugh:

What, so the vast scientific majority is wrong because a few crackpots are making unsubstantiated claims of abuse?

Please, how old are you?

How old are you? What part of the scientific process says a consensus is "fact?"

Actually, none. A consensus in science is 100% meaningless. And ANY argument that uses consensus to support itself is a logical fallacy. It's called "band-wagoning" and it's a debate no-no.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Martin
Judging from this thread, the ATOT consensus seems to be that it is a vast global socialist conspiracy aimed at keeping Yankee down.

*sigh*

To answer your questions OP, its a combination of stupidity and pettiness.

Yeah, that'll win over hearts and minds. :roll:

As I said, I'm not going to debate global warming, only why some people are not believing it. Your attitude is one of many reasons.

If you continue to dismiss those who have trouble buying into GW with that kind of attitude, you'll never understand, and thus correct why so many people are not.

 

[dmcowen674]

Until we are all living without electricity and gasoline. :laugh:

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Martin
Judging from this thread, the ATOT consensus seems to be that it is a vast global socialist conspiracy aimed at keeping Yankee down.

*sigh*

To answer your questions OP, its a combination of stupidity and pettiness.

Yeah, that'll win over hearts and minds. :roll:

As I said, I'm not going to debate global warming, only why some people are not believing it. Your attitude is one of many reasons.

If you continue to dismiss those who have trouble buying into GW with that kind of attitude, you'll never understand, and thus correct why so many people are not.

Unfortunately my attitude won't make people less stupid or magically make CO2 go away.

You see about 40-50% of Americans think god created man in the last 10k years, so trying to discuss any kind of science with these people is pretty futile.


Then there are those with whom you could talk, except their pettiness, insecurity and arrogance preclude them from changing their mind.

for example..

Because in the 70s the consensus was we were headed for an ice age.

A rather popular piece of mantra. But if the people who regurgitate it constantly would bother to examine it objectively, they'd find it falls apart pretty quickly. Unfortunately, their insecurity doesn't permit them to admit (even to themselves!) they were wrong, their arrogance reassures them their opinion is the most righteous and, their pettiness makes them outraged when someone else proposes we all do something.

 

[flyfish]

Originally posted by: mobobuff
1. I don't deny that humans have an effect on the climate.
2. I do deny that the effect we have is as significant as some would have you believe.

 

[spidey07]

Why?

Because there is no consensus and those that say there is use junk science. You can call consensus all you want, doesn't make it true. Because there is a very strong debate amoung scientists.

Just because you believe/have faith in one view doesn't dismiss the other. There is no scientific consensus at all.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Martin
Judging from this thread, the ATOT consensus seems to be that it is a vast global socialist conspiracy aimed at keeping Yankee down.

*sigh*

To answer your questions OP, its a combination of stupidity and pettiness.

Yeah, that'll win over hearts and minds. :roll:

As I said, I'm not going to debate global warming, only why some people are not believing it. Your attitude is one of many reasons.

If you continue to dismiss those who have trouble buying into GW with that kind of attitude, you'll never understand, and thus correct why so many people are not.

Unfortunately my attitude won't make people less stupid or magically make CO2 go away.

You see about 40-50% of Americans think god created man in the last 10k years, so trying to discuss any kind of science with these people is pretty futile.


Then there are those with whom you could talk, except their pettiness, insecurity and arrogance preclude them from changing their mind.

for example..

Because in the 70s the consensus was we were headed for an ice age.

A rather popular piece of mantra. But if the people who regurgitate it constantly would bother to examine it objectively, they'd find it falls apart pretty quickly. Unfortunately, their insecurity doesn't permit them to admit (even to themselves!) they were wrong, their arrogance reassures them their opinion is the most righteous and, their pettiness makes them outraged when someone else proposes we all do something.

Objectively? I was THERE. I remember it.

Nice try, and it may work for the kiddies. But it won't fly with people who are old enough to remember.

Meanwhile, your smugness is a major reason people are resistant to it. You have only yourself to blame...and you'll never see it.

 

[pnad]

Certain things drive me away from swallowing GW theories.
'Inconvenient Truth' using images of Katrina damage implicating that GW caused all that terrible suffering and damage is retarded. The fact that this is all being pushed so hard leading up to the Presidential race is suspect.

In that Larry King clip Bill Nye says that humans... the 'extra ones' are causing GW. What is his solution for GW? Population control? Here is a pistol Bill, you first.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Martin
Judging from this thread, the ATOT consensus seems to be that it is a vast global socialist conspiracy aimed at keeping Yankee down.

*sigh*

To answer your questions OP, its a combination of stupidity and pettiness.

Yeah, that'll win over hearts and minds. :roll:

As I said, I'm not going to debate global warming, only why some people are not believing it. Your attitude is one of many reasons.

If you continue to dismiss those who have trouble buying into GW with that kind of attitude, you'll never understand, and thus correct why so many people are not.

Unfortunately my attitude won't make people less stupid or magically make CO2 go away.

You see about 40-50% of Americans think god created man in the last 10k years, so trying to discuss any kind of science with these people is pretty futile.


Then there are those with whom you could talk, except their pettiness, insecurity and arrogance preclude them from changing their mind.

for example..

Because in the 70s the consensus was we were headed for an ice age.

A rather popular piece of mantra. But if the people who regurgitate it constantly would bother to examine it objectively, they'd find it falls apart pretty quickly. Unfortunately, their insecurity doesn't permit them to admit (even to themselves!) they were wrong, their arrogance reassures them their opinion is the most righteous and, their pettiness makes them outraged when someone else proposes we all do something.

Objectively? I was THERE. I remember it.

Nice try, and it may work for the kiddies. But it won't fly with people who are old enough to remember.

Meanwhile, your smugness is a major reason people are resistant to it. You have only yourself to blame...and you'll never see it.

I have no doubt you were there, much like I have no doubt your sense of judgement was just as bad back then as it is today.

But hey, let's take a look at the scientific "consensus" of the 70s you believe in so fervently. Lets see what the National Academy of Sciences had to say...
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate
...
"Our response to the concerns [about climate variations [WMC]] is the proposal of a major new program of reseach designed to increase our understanding of climatic change and to lay the foundation for its prediction".
...
"Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know".
...
"Again, however, it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitave assessment of the climatic impacts."

let me translate: "we don't know much, so we should study climate change". It takes a pretty warped mind to take that and draw the conclusions you have.


Smug? I just call them as I see them.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

People in general are stupid, and are much more cofortable with their heads in the nice warm sand

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Martin
Judging from this thread, the ATOT consensus seems to be that it is a vast global socialist conspiracy aimed at keeping Yankee down.

*sigh*

To answer your questions OP, its a combination of stupidity and pettiness.

Yeah, that'll win over hearts and minds. :roll:

As I said, I'm not going to debate global warming, only why some people are not believing it. Your attitude is one of many reasons.

If you continue to dismiss those who have trouble buying into GW with that kind of attitude, you'll never understand, and thus correct why so many people are not.

Unfortunately my attitude won't make people less stupid or magically make CO2 go away.

You see about 40-50% of Americans think god created man in the last 10k years, so trying to discuss any kind of science with these people is pretty futile.


Then there are those with whom you could talk, except their pettiness, insecurity and arrogance preclude them from changing their mind.

for example..

Because in the 70s the consensus was we were headed for an ice age.

A rather popular piece of mantra. But if the people who regurgitate it constantly would bother to examine it objectively, they'd find it falls apart pretty quickly. Unfortunately, their insecurity doesn't permit them to admit (even to themselves!) they were wrong, their arrogance reassures them their opinion is the most righteous and, their pettiness makes them outraged when someone else proposes we all do something.

Objectively? I was THERE. I remember it.

Nice try, and it may work for the kiddies. But it won't fly with people who are old enough to remember.

Meanwhile, your smugness is a major reason people are resistant to it. You have only yourself to blame...and you'll never see it.

I have no doubt you were there, much like I have no doubt your sense of judgement was just as bad back then as it is today.

But hey, let's take a look at the scientific "consensus" of the 70s you believe in so fervently. Lets see what the National Academy of Sciences had to say...
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate
...
"Our response to the concerns [about climate variations [WMC]] is the proposal of a major new program of reseach designed to increase our understanding of climatic change and to lay the foundation for its prediction".
...
"Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know".
...
"Again, however, it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitave assessment of the climatic impacts."

let me translate: "we don't know much, so we should study climate change". It takes a pretty warped mind to take that and draw the conclusions you have.


Smug? I just call them as I see them.

My gawd. Now you insult me. Why?

Try looking at the covers of news magazines of the time. News Week, for example, had a sensational headline "THE COMING ICE AGE." Talking heads on TV and radio hyped it like few other things. It practically caused hysteria and was widely discussed.

Here you have a guy pull one report decades after the fact and claim it never happened?

You call them as you want them to be, not as you actually see them were you to crawl off your high horse and objectively look at it. It is people like you that makes GW seem so unbelievable to the average person on the street.

There are countless examples of a "scientific consensus" proved wrong. A consensus is meaningless in science. Arguing to one is a logical fallacy.

BTW, here is the text of the News Week article:

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

It came with shocking pictures and maps, and the cover was about as scary as any global warming cover has been.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

 

[Cookie]

Originally posted by: Martin
A rather popular piece of mantra. But if the people who regurgitate it constantly would bother to examine it objectively, they'd find it falls apart pretty quickly. Unfortunately, their insecurity doesn't permit them to admit (even to themselves!) they were wrong, their arrogance reassures them their opinion is the most righteous and, their pettiness makes them outraged when someone else proposes we all do something.

If it falls apart that quickly perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate. What are some of the specific things that don't hold up in your examination??

Originally posted by: Martin
let me translate: "we don't know much, so we should study climate change". It takes a pretty warped mind to take that and draw the conclusions you have.

A comment that I believe is equally as applicable in today's debate.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Probably because the issue has become politicized.

First reply nailed it!

Originally posted by: nsafreak
Oh lord, I can already see that this thread will definitely be going places. Btw Politics & News is over that way ----------------->

Second reply reinforced it!

This is a topic about science, not politics!

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Amused
My gawd. Now you insult me. Why?

Try looking at the covers of news magazines of the time. News Week, for example, had a sensational headline "THE COMING ICE AGE." Talking heads on TV and radio hyped it like few other things. It practically caused hysteria and was widely discussed.

Here you have a guy pull one report decades after the fact and claim it never happened?

You call them as you want them to be, not as you actually see them were you to crawl off your high horse and objectively look at it. It is people like you that makes GW seem so unbelievable to the average person on the street.

The real question here is, why do you insult yourself? Why do you base your scientific opinion on talking heads and not on what the actual scientists are saying? That Newsweek article came out the exact same year as that NAS report I quoted, why did you read one and not the other? When the IPCC report came out a few weeks ago, I read the 20 page "policymaker" summary instead of reading a journalist's (who is likely less scientifically literate than I am) summary. Not everyone can be a climatologist or read the full 700 page report, but that's MUCH better than reading a short article or watching a 1 minute news clip.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf


The average person finds GW unbelievable because they are scientifically illiterate, and they never bother to educate themselves on any matter, but nevertheless form opinions.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Amused
My gawd. Now you insult me. Why?

Try looking at the covers of news magazines of the time. News Week, for example, had a sensational headline "THE COMING ICE AGE." Talking heads on TV and radio hyped it like few other things. It practically caused hysteria and was widely discussed.

Here you have a guy pull one report decades after the fact and claim it never happened?

You call them as you want them to be, not as you actually see them were you to crawl off your high horse and objectively look at it. It is people like you that makes GW seem so unbelievable to the average person on the street.

The real question here is, why do you insult yourself? Why do you base your scientific opinion on talking heads and not on what the actual scientists are saying? That Newsweek article came out the exact same year as that NAS report I quoted, why did you read one and not the other? When the IPCC report came out a few weeks ago, I read the 20 page "policymaker" summary instead of reading a journalist's (who is likely less scientifically literate than I am) summary. Not everyone can be a climatologist or read the full 700 page report, but that's MUCH better than reading a short article or watching a 1 minute news clip.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf


The average person finds GW unbelievable because they are scientifically illiterate, and they never bother to educate themselves on any matter, but nevertheless form opinions.

What's sad about the IPCC summary is that based on the summary, they went back and edited the actual report to further reflect the summary's findings instead of presenting all the facts.

 

[foghorn67]

I am 29 now. Not very old at all. When I was a kid in grade school, we were sent to the Museum of Science and Natural History every year, chock full of exhibits exclaiming the latest USC studies of climatology and geographical history. The two things that were drilled, burned, chiseled, branded, and beaten into my head was man's eventual doom. And it was only going to come in one of two ways if it happened by mother nature: 1) Gigantic meteor or 2) Ice Age.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Cookie

Originally posted by: Martin
A rather popular piece of mantra. But if the people who regurgitate it constantly would bother to examine it objectively, they'd find it falls apart pretty quickly. Unfortunately, their insecurity doesn't permit them to admit (even to themselves!) they were wrong, their arrogance reassures them their opinion is the most righteous and, their pettiness makes them outraged when someone else proposes we all do something.

If it falls apart that quickly perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate. What are some of the specific things that don't hold up in your examination??

Originally posted by: Martin
let me translate: "we don't know much, so we should study climate change". It takes a pretty warped mind to take that and draw the conclusions you have.

A comment that I believe is equally as applicable in today's debate.

You believe that, but climatologists don't. This is the disconnect between scientific opinion and public opinion that the OP is talking about. So tell me with freely available information, why does this disconnect exist?

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Cookie

Originally posted by: Martin
A rather popular piece of mantra. But if the people who regurgitate it constantly would bother to examine it objectively, they'd find it falls apart pretty quickly. Unfortunately, their insecurity doesn't permit them to admit (even to themselves!) they were wrong, their arrogance reassures them their opinion is the most righteous and, their pettiness makes them outraged when someone else proposes we all do something.

If it falls apart that quickly perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate. What are some of the specific things that don't hold up in your examination??

Originally posted by: Martin
let me translate: "we don't know much, so we should study climate change". It takes a pretty warped mind to take that and draw the conclusions you have.

A comment that I believe is equally as applicable in today's debate.

You believe that, but climatologists don't. This is the disconnect between scientific opinion and public opinion that the OP is talking about. So tell me with freely available information, why does this disconnect exist?

climatology is one of the youngest out of all studies. Plus, it's just about purely observing and collecting data rather then controlling in experiments. Until Karl Rove plans on releasing his blueprints to his hurricane generating machine.

 

[JS80]

Scientists can't even predict the weather accurately, how do you expect the general public to believe Al Gore?

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: JS80
Climatologists can't even predict the weather accurately, how do you expect the general public to believe Al Gore?

Climatologists don't try to predict the weather. You are thinking of meteorologists, who do a pretty damn good job. Climate is different from weather.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: mugs
This is a topic about science, not politics!

But most AT'rs don't believe in science as evidenced right here in this thread.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: mugs
This is a topic about science, not politics!

But most AT'rs don't believe in science as evidenced right here in this thread.

..they don't beleve in the voodoo eco-alamist crap from neo-libs like algore.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: JS80
Scientists can't even predict the weather accurately, how do you expect the general public to believe Al Gore?

Climatologists don't try to predict the weather. You are thinking of meteorologists, who do a pretty damn good job. Climate is different from weather.

There, fixed.