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

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Because most people recognize that the science is being driven by politics and not the other way around.

There's me thinking that most governments and industry were heavily leaning on the scientific community to water down their findings until very recently, i must have got it all ass-backwards :roll:

Governments grant the funding. Who gets the funding? Hint: It's not the guy looking for sun spots or chasing any other theory that doesn't point the finger squarely at us.

That makes NO sense it the light of your previous comment

If it was driven by politics, then anything that didn't point the blame at us should have received VAST amounts of funding by governments and industry.

I don't know how it works over there but over here politicians have to appear to "care" about things even if they aren't true. What's more, it's a fabulous tool to excuse all kinds of restrictive measures.

Gads... YAGWT

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: George P Burdell
Because people are idiots.

Remember when scientists agreed that saturated fat will increase your risk of heart disease?

I don't remember that. What I do remember is that more Scientists looked into it and discovered it wasn't quite so simple as that one factor. If GW is bunk, then Science will prove it so, but so far no Deniers have come forth with Scientific Research that proves GW(or the Human contribution to it) that the Majority of Scientists accept is bunk.

 

[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.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

environmentalists =/= scientists

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
environmentalists =/= scientists

That doesn't matter. This is an environmental issue and the environmental movement has been irreparably damaged by extremism.

 

[leftyman]

Denial is a wonderful thing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Topic Title: Global Warming:

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

The scientific consensus on global warming is unequivocal. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organisations have agreed that the Earth is warming due to the increased greenhouse gas emissions and that these effects are caused by humans.

That bold part seems to be where the public debate lies (most people believe the world is heating but many believe that it is not attributable to people, ie the warming is part of a natural cycle).

Now, this thread isn't intended as a debate about global warming/climate change.

I'm curious about why there is so much debate about the issue in the public arena, while there is an almost total consensus in the scientific community.

What makes average Joe think that he knows more about the issue than thousands of scientists who dedicate their entire lives to understanding it?

The answer is in my Global warming thread in P&N. There you will find articles that show the Oil Companies are paying thousands of people to push their oil only agenda online and offline. AT is clearly full of these paid shills.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: leftyman
Denial is a wonderful thing.

I thought it was a river in Egypt

 

[jjones]

Let me see. I heard day in and day out about the scientific reality of the coming ice age back in the 70s and we all know where that went. Now it's the opposite. I'll tell you what, when scientists can accurately predict the weather, then I'll listen to them again about weather related issues.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: jjones
Let me see. I heard day in and day out about the scientific reality of the coming ice age back in the 70s and we all know where that went. Now it's the opposite. I'll tell you what, when scientists can accurately predict the weather, then I'll listen to them again about weather related issues.

Well, they were certainly spot on about last year's hurricane season being even worse than the one before.

Oh, wait...

 

[GTaudiophile]

Communists are not popular...so what could they do to continue to be viable politically? They became "Greens".

At the heart of the "Green" movement is a desire to level the playing field, a hatred of the rich and their ability to consume what they want.

It's all about the have-nots wanting to bring down those who have; the have-nots, whether they be domestic, so-called "American" Liberals or not, have one thing in common: anti-Americanism and the desire to see America fail.

It also doesn't help that the poster child of the movement is a Liberal Democrat named Al who spends $12K/month on electricity and "redeems" himself by buying carbon offsets from a company he owns.

Had the Green movement selected a Centrist or even a Republican, they would have done their cause a lot more good. But no, politics indeed won the day.

Many Americans see the issue as I do, and while they see the need to be far more environmentally conscious, they simply cannot follow this Liberal/Communist movement. Indeed, a rapidly growing number of Christian Conservatives are becoming more environmentally conscious as a means of respecting God's earth. I bet the Liberal Communist Green movement sees no room for this group in their crowd. At least, there has been no acknowledgement, appreciation, or reaching out to this group, has there?

 

[leftyman]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Communists are not popular...so what could they do to continue to be viable politically? They became "Greens".

At the heart of the "Green" movement is a desire to level the playing field, a hatred of the rich and their ability to consume what they want.

It's all about the have-nots wanting to bring down those who have; the have-nots, whether they be domestic, so-called "American" Liberals or not, have one thing in common: anti-Americanism and the desire to see America fail.

It also doesn't help that the poster child of the movement is a Liberal Democrat named Al who spends $12K/month on electricity and "redeems" himself by buying carbon offsets from a company he owns.

Had the Green movement selected a Centrist or even a Republican, they would have done their cause a lot more good. But no, politics indeed won the day.

Many Americans see the issue as I do, and while they see the need to be far more environmentally conscious, they simply cannot follow this Liberal/Communist movement. Indeed, a rapidly growing number of Christian Conservatives are becoming more environmentally conscious as a means of respecting God's earth. I bet the Liberal Communist Green movement sees no room for this group in their crowd. At least, there has been no acknowledgement, appreciation, or reaching out to this group, has there?

superfluous

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
The scientific consensus on global warming is unequivocal. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organisations have agreed that the Earth is warming due to the increased greenhouse gas emissions and that these effects are caused by humans. That bold part seems to be where the public debate lies (most people believe the world is heating but many believe that it is not attributable to people, ie the warming is part of a natural cycle).

A study last year revealed that only 41% believe that climate change is due to human activity, and 1 in five believe there is no solid evidence for climate change at all (Source).

You only have to read a thread on this forum to see how much contention there is concerning climate change in the public arena. But what I find most odd is that this contention does not exist in the scientific community. Almost every major scientific organisation has agreed with the mainstream scientific view of anthropogenic climate change, including;

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
  The Join Science Academies (plus Brazil, China and India)
  The US National Research Council
  The American Meteorological Society (AMS)
  Federal Climate Change Science Program
  American Geophysical Union
  American Institute if Physics
  American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

...among many others
(Source)

In 2004 Naomi Oreskes did a survey of over 900 scientific papers filed between 1993 and 2003 under climate change categories, analysing them based on which side of the debate they stood on. Of the 928 papers, not a single one disagreed with the scientific concensus.(Source)

Of course there are a small minority of scientists who oppose the mainstream view (see here) but they make up only a very small portion of the scientific community.

Now, this thread isn't intended as a debate about global warming/climate change. I'm curious about why there is so much debate about the issue in the public arena, while there is an almost total consensus in the scientific community. What makes average Joe think that he knows more about the issue than thousands of scientists who dedicate their entire lives to understanding it?

You as the scientists has taught people that the cycle of the earth has gone from tropical to ice-age and back repeatedly in the supposed 4 million years the earth has existed...
Now your global warming people are telling us, global warming is going to shut down the gulf stream and plunge us into another ice ace...

Looks like the same cycle, smells like the same cycle... Humans may have sped up the process, but its still the same cycle. It will have the same outcome... a few thousand years of ice age, and then back to tropical.



bring on the ice age... i think it should be a welcome part of the next darwinistic cycle... kill off all the rich people who have no real survival skills, in favor of the lower class man who truly knows how to survive.

 

[torpid]

Because people rely on the media for most of their scientific knowledge, and the media gets pressured from all sides until it can rarely point out something as more or less factual without being accused of bias.

Here in the US, the media is so corrupt that they can print an article that exposes a CIA agent and then only get in trouble if they refuse to reveal their source. And still be considered a "hero of free speech" despite doing something morally repugnant.

 

[FoBoT]

because those scientists are part of the anti-technology environmentalist whacko movement

 

[mercanucaribe]

Because anti global warming is treated as equal by the media and politics.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Communists are not popular...so what could they do to continue to be viable politically? They became "Greens".

At the heart of the "Green" movement is a desire to level the playing field, a hatred of the rich and their ability to consume what they want.

It's all about the have-nots wanting to bring down those who have; the have-nots, whether they be domestic, so-called "American" Liberals or not, have one thing in common: anti-Americanism and the desire to see America fail.

It also doesn't help that the poster child of the movement is a Liberal Democrat named Al who spends $12K/month on electricity and "redeems" himself by buying carbon offsets from a company he owns.

Had the Green movement selected a Centrist or even a Republican, they would have done their cause a lot more good. But no, politics indeed won the day.

Many Americans see the issue as I do, and while they see the need to be far more environmentally conscious, they simply cannot follow this Liberal/Communist movement. Indeed, a rapidly growing number of Christian Conservatives are becoming more environmentally conscious as a means of respecting God's earth. I bet the Liberal Communist Green movement sees no room for this group in their crowd. At least, there has been no acknowledgement, appreciation, or reaching out to this group, has there?

Socialist might be the word you're looking for, but it doesn't make your statement any less odd. I see no evidence that the Green Party hates the rich and what you are spouting essentially sounds like the old political lines during the Red Scares of the 1920s and 1950s.

 

[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."

 

[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?

 

[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

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Communists are not popular...so what could they do to continue to be viable politically? They became "Greens".

At the heart of the "Green" movement is a desire to level the playing field, a hatred of the rich and their ability to consume what they want.

It's all about the have-nots wanting to bring down those who have; the have-nots, whether they be domestic, so-called "American" Liberals or not, have one thing in common: anti-Americanism and the desire to see America fail.

It also doesn't help that the poster child of the movement is a Liberal Democrat named Al who spends $12K/month on electricity and "redeems" himself by buying carbon offsets from a company he owns.

Had the Green movement selected a Centrist or even a Republican, they would have done their cause a lot more good. But no, politics indeed won the day.

Many Americans see the issue as I do, and while they see the need to be far more environmentally conscious, they simply cannot follow this Liberal/Communist movement. Indeed, a rapidly growing number of Christian Conservatives are becoming more environmentally conscious as a means of respecting God's earth. I bet the Liberal Communist Green movement sees no room for this group in their crowd. At least, there has been no acknowledgement, appreciation, or reaching out to this group, has there?

I'm going to go ahead and tell you to just shut up.

No-body cares about your petty "LIBERALS R BAD" battle. More and more people are getting violently angry about people like you, so I suggest you just let it go. There is no liberal enemy, not any more than there is a conservative enemy. They're both pigs, got it?

So, back to the important issue, the Earth. Keep your political BS out of it.

 

[Electric Amish]

I agree that global warming is happening.

I agree that human actions are probably not helping the issue.

I cannot agree, however, that global warming is CAUSED by humans. Based on the geological record, the Earth has gone through many heating/cooling phases without the presence of humans. It just does not seem logical to me to believe we caused the trend when there is evidence that the trend existed prior to humans. I also disagree based on the amount of data available. We have temperature records for a few hundred years...at best. That time is a pittance in comparison to the geological record. I have a hard time basing any real decision on limited data.

 

[yllus]

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.

This is definitely something to be wary of, and something that I think is happening. Good science requires the ability to walk away from a theory because we could always be wrong.

Overall though I think most people prefer to disbelieve that humans have much impact on climate change because it excuses them from having to change their lifestyle habits.

 

[ElFenix]

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

considering that we were pumping sulfur into the air (a chemical which has a cooling effect by reflecting solar energy) back then, that isn't surprising. and guess what? we've stopped pumping sulfur into the air. so the sulfur output is no longer masking the effect of the carbon dioxide output.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Communists are not popular...so what could they do to continue to be viable politically? They became "Greens".

At the heart of the "Green" movement is a desire to level the playing field, a hatred of the rich and their ability to consume what they want.

It's all about the have-nots wanting to bring down those who have; the have-nots, whether they be domestic, so-called "American" Liberals or not, have one thing in common: anti-Americanism and the desire to see America fail.

It also doesn't help that the poster child of the movement is a Liberal Democrat named Al who spends $12K/month on electricity and "redeems" himself by buying carbon offsets from a company he owns.

Had the Green movement selected a Centrist or even a Republican, they would have done their cause a lot more good. But no, politics indeed won the day.

Many Americans see the issue as I do, and while they see the need to be far more environmentally conscious, they simply cannot follow this Liberal/Communist movement. Indeed, a rapidly growing number of Christian Conservatives are becoming more environmentally conscious as a means of respecting God's earth. I bet the Liberal Communist Green movement sees no room for this group in their crowd. At least, there has been no acknowledgement, appreciation, or reaching out to this group, has there?

I'm going to go ahead and tell you to just shut up.

No-body cares about your petty "LIBERALS R BAD" battle. More and more people are getting violently angry about people like you, so I suggest you just let it go. There is no liberal enemy, not any more than there is a conservative enemy. They're both pigs, got it?

So, back to the important issue, the Earth. Keep your political BS out of it.

Was foam and spittle shooting out of your mouth while you posted this? This attitude is precisely what scares the majority of people whenever global warming is brought up. No matter how much you wish it to be so those who do not accept the chicken little the sky is falling version of global warming are not equivalent to holocaust deniers.

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
I agree that global warming is happening.

I agree that human actions are probably not helping the issue.

I cannot agree, however, that global warming is CAUSED by humans. Based on the geological record, the Earth has gone through many heating/cooling phases without the presence of humans. It just does not seem logical to me to believe we caused the trend when there is evidence that the trend existed prior to humans. I also disagree based on the amount of data available. We have temperature records for a few hundred years...at best. That time is a pittance in comparison to the geological record. I have a hard time basing any real decision on limited data.

This is pretty much my take on it as well. I never see any discussion of periods of carbonate deposition which forms limestones (CaCO3) vs periods of carbonate erosion throughout the geologic record and how it fits in to this whole cycle.