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

[yllus]

Originally posted by: 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.

So what you're saying is that if we start pumping more sulfur into the air, we can neutralize global warming and solve the problem?

 

[Cookie]

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "



"Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this."

 

[GTaudiophile]

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.

Typical Liberal solution: silence the dissenters.

Lock them up.

Throw them into the new concentration camps!

No, I won't shut up!

 

[JS80]

there is no scientific consensus. there are plenty of scientists that know this is political bullshvt.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: 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.

Whether you believe it or not, that post had nothing to do with global warming. It had to do with far left wingers and far right wingers, and how they should just shove their hatred for one another up their collective arses. They're a waste of space and air, and shouldn't be allowed into arguments because of their complete lack of listening skills.

There's a reason why this country and it's government has gotten so bloated and slow to react to disaster and legal issues, and it's not because of liberals, nor conservatives. It's both of them.

All I see is a bunch of fat americans munching on mcdonalds and yelling at eachother when they could be doing something, oh, I don't know... Constructive.

Christ, WW3 could start, and we'd just be yelling at each-other about who's fault it is, while getting nuked left and right.

LOL AMURIKA.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
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.

"Well, looks like our reports on Global Warming have found that it's nothing to worry about and nothing further to study...so go ahead and stop our funding now so that we don't have jobs!"

I see no incentives there.......

don't forget Kyoto was just a world conspiracy to for a global tax/wealth redistribution scheme (tax the biggest polluter, the US, and redistribute to the rest of the world).

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

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.

Typical Liberal solution: silence the dissenters.

Lock them up.

Throw them into the new concentration camps!

No, I won't shut up!

Wow, you don't listen do you. Or are you trolling? If yes, then excellent job.

If no, well then I don't give a ******.

You and the liberals both don't know how to listen.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: 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.

See this rock here? It repels lions. Don't see any lions around here do you? Thats because the rock works.

 

[Acanthus]

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

Bingo.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: 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.

LMAO, dude, i wish i was getting paid for being a "global warming denier".

I need some cash for summer courses.

This is like the WTC denier shills all over again.

 

[Acanthus]

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?

Its not small names, Postgrads at MIT highly criticise the medias interpretations and the conclusions drawn from the IPCC report.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

oh god not this again. I hear this sh!t @ work day in and day out. (Work @ a place where we help lame academics w/ Ph.D's and supply them the equipment to study crap like this)...

Anyways, guess how those stupid PhD dudes get their living wages from? YES..they need to politicize this issue, and make interesting theories to GET FUNDING. If it's not interesting, then they recieve no grant money. They also always leave room for more research. I've seen fudged data, incorrectly entered data, and my coworkers are absolutely tired of this charade; but at the same time, we realize it's just a fact of life. So we just deal with it and do our lowly jobs to let the academics do all the sh!t talking amongst themselves.

We're just grunts in a political word game amongst academics who just want money and fudge data to leave room to open for more research. ie "oh this little piece of data we collected was interesting. At the moment, it is not statistically significant; but since that part of the data is...<<insert a crapload of pretty words to sway would-be people who give grant money>>... further research is recommended..." At times, there's a few ambigious data entries that we catch (data entered by PhD person does not match the data entered by non-science team member.. or computer entered data is different from the hand written data...and so on). We have to call up these guys like weeks/months/(in some cases a year or two) after the data-collection process to square things out. They will give us "revised" numbers to enter in. Those fvcking fvcktards use this unusable, illegitimate data as leverage to gain more research dough.

Of course, those numbers/data can be accurate for all we know since hell, we're not the academics.. We're just computer programmers, techs, and BS-degree lvl engineers..what the hell do we know compared to the PhD dudes...


in the end, blaming people gives you more $$$ in this end.

 

[Kwaipie]

Unless you're a climatologist or have an intimate understanding of the scientific method, you're not allowed to have an opinion on this matter. Going with your gut feeling may be okay when you're trying to pick a brand of cereal not when it comes to science. That so many Americans deny what the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe is testament when you realize most Americans can't find Wash D.C. on a map of the US. Face it, you're surrounded by morons that can't wait to call in their vote for American Idol. The only saving grace is that the rest of the world is equally ignorant in most basic academic subjects, our Americans just trust in their government which has sadly been of/by/for the corporation for far too long.

 

[leftyman]

nice and warm here today. almost 60°F.

 

[irishScott]

People in general are pvssies and don't take responsibiltiy for their actions.

Scientists HAVE to take responsibility for their actions or their careers will die.

 

[mercanucaribe]

By the way, this is exactly the same as the evolution vs creationism "debate". The only debate is among laypeople, because the media protrays both "sides" as equal and deadlocked with one another.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Unless you're a climatologist or have an intimate understanding of the scientific method, you're not allowed to have an opinion on this matter. Going with your gut feeling may be okay when you're trying to pick a brand of cereal not when it comes to science. That so many Americans deny what the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe is testament when you realize most Americans can't find Wash D.C. on a map of the US. Face it, you're surrounded by morons that can't wait to call in their vote for American Idol. The only saving grace is that the rest of the world is equally ignorant in most basic academic subjects, our Americans just trust in their government which has sadly been of/by/for the corporation for far too long.

The fact is, when i was watching Larry King the other day, they had 4 people on the show about global warming.

Dr Heidi Cullen - Global Warming Advocate - PhD in Meteorology (predicting weather short term, not climatology)
Bill Nye the Science Guy - Global Warming Advocate - No real qualifications as far as i know
Some economist - Global Warming Opposer - No idea on credentials
Dr Richanrd Lindzen - Global Warming Opposer - Postgrad Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

This is how it went

 

[sao123]

global warming was solved 18 years ago...

we are only still hearing about it so that the environmentalists do not lost their $875 Million budget.

 

[IGBT]

..at one time it was scientific consensus that the world is flat. Human induced climate change is a grift and a scam designed to promote a political agenda of co2 taxes and emission credits. Sound science is not consensus driven.

 

[Specop 007]

Global Warming disproved

Gee, doesnt look manmade to me.......

 

[Cookie]

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?

The vast scientific majority has been proven wrong MANY times in the past because of the ideas and opinions of these 'crackpots' you speak of.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: ppdes
Since when has the average Joe seen any need to listen to scientists? 63% in the US believe the Bible is literally true, remember, so they can't even understand carbon dating and other basics.

Umm yeah.... in the 70's there was a large Scientific Census that Global Cooling was occuring too. The public isn't buying into this crap again.

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..at one time it was scientific consensus that the world is flat. Human induced climate change is a grift and a scam designed to promote a political agenda of co2 taxes and emission credits. Sound science is not consensus driven.

Which "scientist(s)" contended that the world was flat? That always seems to be the argument anti-science types throw out. That, or the whole "it's just a 'theory'"

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

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?

Um, what the hell are you talking about? The Green movement has very little to do with socialism. The Green movement is composed of a bunch of different movements grouped under a single heading. The core of the Green movement is a desire to limit human impact on the environment. It has nothing at all to do with leveling the playing field.

Environmentalism does share some similarities to communism, but those similarities do not in any way define the movement. Sure, there are some environmentalists that prefer socialism (probably a larger percentage that the general population).

It just goes to show your ignorance when you call Al Gore the poster child. Al Gore is not in any way involved in the environmental movement. He worked on one movie and that is the extent of his involvement. And how did the Green movement "select" him? Do you have ANY understanding of the environmental movement?

 

[Cookie]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: IGBT
..at one time it was scientific consensus that the world is flat. Human induced climate change is a grift and a scam designed to promote a political agenda of co2 taxes and emission credits. Sound science is not consensus driven.

Which "scientist(s)" contended that the world was flat? That always seems to be the argument anti-science types throw out. That, or the whole "it's just a 'theory'"

I am not anti-science, but I use that example for anti-consensus. The point is that science and related popular opinion is changing constantly.... which is fine. It means we are learning and adapting and finding better research methods. The problems arise when science gets mixed up with politics. When that happens science rapidly loses credibility.

I do agree with you about the 'it's just a theory' arguement. It is not JUST a random theory made up over drinks at the pub. Theory in scientific terms means a whole different thing, invariably much more reliable.