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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
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.

Well, I don't know either way because the world's climate naturally cools and warms and life goes on. Are we the cause of a warming or is it natural and does it freaking matter? I dare say scientists don't have enough data to be able to predict anything and it's quite presumptive of people who are supposed to be rational and logic to engage in fortunetelling.

What I DO have is a healthy skepticism of the media and hollywood and, uh, washed up politicians striving for one last moment of relevence. It comes in so many forms, THE BIRD FLU, CHILDHOOD DIABETES, TERRORISTS, GLOBAL WARMING........it all sounds like hysteria and profiteering (financial or personal) to me. The media needs to scare you into watching.....Leo DiCaprio needs to feel like his life has meaning.....Al Gore needs another plate of fajitas. And you can all give them what they need if you like. As for me, I'll withhold my time and energy and concern.

I believe we have the power to surive global warming when it comes naturally or otherwise, I believe we can stop polluting so badly in very short order when we have incentive to, hell, I think we may even have the power to reverse some of the damage. I don't know, however, if the emissary of the ultimatum is going to be Angelina Jolie.
 

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
Primarily because scientists are quick to jump to conclusions and publish their work (it's the chief source of revenue for research scientists, they have to publish X amount of papers in order to get funding). Science is politicized long before it ever hits the public, ask any true blue research scientist (I happen to have one at my disposal constantly... aka gf's sister).

Historically scientists have been about as accurate as a magic 8-ball when they take the first few swings at an issue. You can write an entire book about the things scientists have been wrong about throughout history, I'm sure there are some out there.

Another reality that many people can't grasp is that much of science is still a subjective art form. Scientists are not gods, they are humans, using human tools, with human understanding and all the shortcomings that go along with that. On top of that, the "scientific community" never agrees 100% on anything. There are many factors that account for this, two of which I believe are the most important; money and what exactly "they" (the scientific group) are out to prove.

Sure I believe humans may have an impact on the warming of the earth within it's natural cycles (something that most people want to forget), but I don't think it is as much of an influence as many want to think. I don't believe there is enough data to say for sure exactly what measureable impact humans are having on earths natural climate cycles. The debate is still out on the past ice ages and climate cycles, but you expect me to believe that in a few short decades the "scientific community" was about to say for certain the level of effect humans are having on the planet? We can't agree on what happened in the last ice age/warming period because imperical data supports two opposite conclusions.

People WANT to believe that "global warming" exists because of humans, and their job is to go out and try to prove it within a reasonable doubt. So why is it that we are not allowed to question this scientific body and its findings on "global warming"? I believe it's primarily because the issue is political at the core, not scientific. I worked as a scientist for the govt. at BNL (look it up), I know there is pressure to "find" answers.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: SampSon
I worked as a scientist for the govt. at BNL (look it up), I know there is pressure to "find" answers.

Awesome. That's one of the places I'm going to apply in the Fall for open undergraduate research positions during the Spring/Summer.
 

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: SampSon
I worked as a scientist for the govt. at BNL (look it up), I know there is pressure to "find" answers.

Awesome. That's one of the places I'm going to apply in the Fall for open undergraduate research positions during the Spring/Summer.
Do it, it's a cool place. Everything there is stuck in the 70s, it's hilarious.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.

The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.

Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.

Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."

Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!

For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.

Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."

Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."

At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.

Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."
Edit: Just throwing an alternate view out there, know next to nothing about the subject myself. :)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: SampSon
I worked as a scientist for the govt. at BNL (look it up), I know there is pressure to "find" answers.

Awesome. That's one of the places I'm going to apply in the Fall for open undergraduate research positions during the Spring/Summer.

I used to work there when they had two-headed monkeys.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: SampSon
Another reality that many people can't grasp is that much of science is still a subjective art form. Scientists are not gods, they are humans, using human tools, with human understanding and all the shortcomings that go along with that. On top of that, the "scientific community" never agrees 100% on anything. There are many factors that account for this, two of which I believe are the most important; money and what exactly "they" (the scientific group) are out to prove.

Don't forget that the scientific communities out there DO have agendas and biases. Just because somebody has some numbers and an opinion and wears a lab coat doesn't make him right.
 

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: SampSon
Another reality that many people can't grasp is that much of science is still a subjective art form. Scientists are not gods, they are humans, using human tools, with human understanding and all the shortcomings that go along with that. On top of that, the "scientific community" never agrees 100% on anything. There are many factors that account for this, two of which I believe are the most important; money and what exactly "they" (the scientific group) are out to prove.

Don't forget that the scientific communities out there DO have agendas and biases. Just because somebody has some numbers and an opinion and wears a lab coat doesn't make him right.
I know this from first hand experience.

dmcowen674: Really? So you were one of the dirty hippies that would rob the labs of their USP drugs?
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: SampSon
I worked as a scientist for the govt. at BNL (look it up), I know there is pressure to "find" answers.

Awesome. That's one of the places I'm going to apply in the Fall for open undergraduate research positions during the Spring/Summer.

I used to work there when they had two-headed monkeys.

So you stopped working there when they had no more need for two-headed monkeys?
 

Cookie

Golden Member
Jul 3, 2001
1,759
2
81
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?


Climatologists can't possibly think they KNOW much, it being such a new science, and like all sciences new and old, constantly changing. I, and most, if not all scientists believe that comment will be equally applicable for many many years to come.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: SampSon
I worked as a scientist for the govt. at BNL (look it up), I know there is pressure to "find" answers.

Awesome. That's one of the places I'm going to apply in the Fall for open undergraduate research positions during the Spring/Summer.

I used to work there when they had two-headed monkeys.

So you stopped working there when they had no more need for two-headed monkeys?

No, I was going to College out there on the Island during the Oil embargo and couldn't afford the gas to drive out there anymore. Got a job closer to home.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
I think many people don't believe in it because:
They've had experience where the media tries to scare the populace into their sh!t: 50 years ago, they said the earth was going to freeze over
Now they're saying its going to melt down.

The media basically is killing itself with its blatant crap, and really, there's no point in panicking. Its a good thing to note that the only way limit CO2 is making nuke power plants, which the environmentalists are strongly against. Its hard for me to take them seriously, when they can't even take themselves seriously.
 

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: SampSon
I worked as a scientist for the govt. at BNL (look it up), I know there is pressure to "find" answers.

Awesome. That's one of the places I'm going to apply in the Fall for open undergraduate research positions during the Spring/Summer.

I used to work there when they had two-headed monkeys.

So you stopped working there when they had no more need for two-headed monkeys?

No, I was going to College out there on the Island during the Oil embargo and couldn't afford the gas to drive out there anymore. Got a job closer to home.
Exactly what work were you doing at BNL? I know the janitorial staff was rather good. ;)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: SampSon
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: SampSon
I worked as a scientist for the govt. at BNL (look it up), I know there is pressure to "find" answers.

Awesome. That's one of the places I'm going to apply in the Fall for open undergraduate research positions during the Spring/Summer.

I used to work there when they had two-headed monkeys.

So you stopped working there when they had no more need for two-headed monkeys?

No, I was going to College out there on the Island during the Oil embargo and couldn't afford the gas to drive out there anymore. Got a job closer to home.
Exactly what work were you doing at BNL? I know the janitorial staff was rather good. ;)

Everyday was different, one day would be sweeping or mopping, next day taking notes during an experiment.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,391
19,709
146
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.

The question of the thread why why do so many people not believe it.

Not whether or not I believe it, which you've already ignorantly assumed an answer to.

Now, I gave very real, reasoned and rational answers as to why so many do not believe it.

This in contrast to the elitist, yet horribly simplistic and self defeating mantra of "they're stupid" that you keep spouting.

So keep feeling superior. See what it gets you. In this case, half or better of the US population rejects the current touted evidence. Gee, could elitist superiority such as yours have anything to do with that?

Maybe, just maybe you could actually address the REAL and varied reasons why people are rejecting GW theories rather than just reverting to "they're stupid."

Because I can tell you one thing about human nature: You keep telling them they're stupid and they aren't going to listen to your elitist ass any more.

BTW, there was no internet in 1975. People gained their info from the news and news magazines. Calling them stupid for not reading reports that were VERY hard to obtain at the time is just fscking silly and displays your ignorance and inability to put yourself in the time. Being a Monday morning quarter back is easy. Actually trying to understand the situation in context takes real thought.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,391
19,709
146
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: mugs
This is a topic about science, not politics!
:confused:

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

You, Dave, are the last fscking person on these forums to claim superior knowledge of wiping your ass, much less politics or science.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: mugs
This is a topic about science, not politics!
:confused:

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

You, Dave, are the last fscking person on these forums to claim superior knowledge of wiping your ass, much less politics or science.

:lips:
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
Originally posted by: 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.

The guy who posted that is suggesting that the IPCC, and every other scientist who supports it's conclusions, are wrong, because some 'crackpots' are making unsubstantiated claims of abuse. What part of that is good reason to conclude the IPCC is entirely wrong?

A consensus in this case is not meaningless, because it means you can stop squabbling about petty details and actually make an attempt to deal with it. Are you suggesting the most responsible course of action is it simply ignore it, because a minority (and a small minority at that) of those involved in research in the field disagree with it?
 
Jun 14, 2003
10,442
0
0
the IPCC is unreliable. they are driven by the need to keep their jobs and funding.

GW is bigger than it needs to be IMO. there is an entire industry based soley on the premise that humans are responsible for GW. thousands and thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of funding rely soley on the same idea. for that idea to be debunked one day will spell disaster for that industry and i dont care what you say you do not want your job and lively hood to simply disappear you just dont.

GW is a political tool now, politicians realise they wont get anywhere by standing against the idea. its a powerful political tool, with powerful people and serious amounts of money involved, its not just about stopping GW and saving the planet at all. where there is vast sums of money and power there is a good chance of corruption.

ex-editor of New Scientist (respected weekly news/report/magazine thing) said that if he wanted to do a study on british squirrils and their nut collecting habits he would put on the end "with respect to global warming". he went on to say without that last line no one would bother to fund his research.

some other scientist have admited to reversing their claims/findings and dramatising effects simply to secure money. its all about the money.

a man regarded as the leading figure in mosquitos and insect born virus's actually threatened legal action to the IPCC to have his name removed from a report after he discovered his work had been changed and omitted. he siad he did not want his name associated with a report that he had not contributed to. IPCC said that he had contributed and he countered that he hadnt because they never listened to a word he said.

apparently many other scientific reports/finding that go into the IPCC reports are changed and manipulated to fit an agenda and most scientist end up never being able to get their names removed from the report hence they then fall into this list of 2500 of the worlds top dogs and appear to follow the general concensus that GW is man made.

also that 2500 person list isnt even made up solely of proper scientist....its got politicians who always have an agenda and people who are only merely associated with certain scientists...ie people who know little about which they speak.

also greenpeace and the like are just a face for extremist anti-development, anti-establishment types. their agendas are neatly wrapped in green words.
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
the IPCC is unreliable. they are driven by the need to keep their jobs and funding.

GW is bigger than it needs to be IMO. there is an entire industry based soley on the premise that humans are responsible for GW. thousands and thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of funding rely soley on the same idea. for that idea to be debunked one day will spell disaster for that industry and i dont care what you say you do not want your job and lively hood to simply disappear you just dont.

GW is a political tool now, politicians realise they wont get anywhere by standing against the idea. its a powerful political tool, with powerful people and serious amounts of money involved, its not just about stopping GW and saving the planet at all. where there is vast sums of money and power there is a good chance of corruption.

ex-editor of New Scientist (respected weekly news/report/magazine thing) said that if he wanted to do a study on british squirrils and their nut collecting habits he would put on the end "with respect to global warming". he went on to say without that last line no one would bother to fund his research.

some other scientist have admited to reversing their claims/findings and dramatising effects simply to secure money. its all about the money.

a man regarded as the leading figure in mosquitos and insect born virus's actually threatened legal action to the IPCC to have his name removed from a report after he discovered his work had been changed and omitted. he siad he did not want his name associated with a report that he had not contributed to. IPCC said that he had contributed and he countered that he hadnt because they never listened to a word he said.

apparently many other scientific reports/finding that go into the IPCC reports are changed and manipulated to fit an agenda and most scientist end up never being able to get their names removed from the report hence they then fall into this list of 2500 of the worlds top dogs and appear to follow the general concensus that GW is man made.

also that 2500 person list isnt even made up solely of proper scientist....its got politicians who always have an agenda and people who are only merely associated with certain scientists...ie people who know little about which they speak.

also greenpeace and the like are just a face for extremist anti-development, anti-establishment types. their agendas are neatly wrapped in green words.

If the IPCC was 100% corrupt and wrong, as you are essentially saying, then doesn't it occur to you, just for a second, that the governments and industry who have FAR more to gain than anyone else by debunking human accelerated climate change, might have noticed this? The media would go absolutely crazy over something like that ;)

The job losses that curbing greenhouse gas emissions would bring are wildly exaggerated and used as a tool to spread fear imho. You honestly think that curbing our greenhouse gas emissions will stop people demanding goods and services? Of course not, so we'll simply do have to make them while emitting less greenhouse gas, and i can't imagine that will employ less people ;)

 
Jun 14, 2003
10,442
0
0
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?


i think the crux of the problem here isnt the science its the fact that only one side of the story is being allowed to exist, all other routes closed off. thats not really how a fair, democratic world works...each side should get equal oppertunity to voice its claims/findings and concerns. they shouldnt be ostriszed (sp?) for looking at the problem from a different angle
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
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?


i think the crux of the problem here isnt the science its the fact that only one side of the story is being allowed to exist, all other routes closed off. thats not really how a fair, democratic world works...each side should get equal oppertunity to voice its claims/findings and concerns. they shouldnt be ostriszed (sp?) for looking at the problem from a different angle

If the claims are true, i agree 100% with you.

However, they're unsubstantiated, and the OP wrapped them up as part of his crusade against climate change ;)
 

leftyman

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2000
7,073
3
81
going to be 60F here today and all the melting snow has made a big lake in my back yard.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
I haven't had a chance to actually read through this thread properly (I just skimmed)... but the answer to the question posed in the OP is pretty simple. The masses are stupid, and generally too dumb to understand concepts like CO2 emission, different types of measurements, correlation vs causation etc etc. When it gets abnormally hot for a few days they think "must be global warming" ... then when it gets unusually cold where they live they think "that whole global warming thing is BS". They are too dumb to think further than what they can observe.