71% of Americans do not believe in anthropogenically forced climate change

[bascule]

http://www.pocketissue.com/Default.asp?Page_ID=40

 

71% of Americans think global warming is a "natural occurrence", and 65% believe that scientists predictions are "far fetched"

 

Contrast with the IPCC's assertions that they are more than 90% certain anthropogenic forcings dominate climate change.

 

This reminds me a lot of the American public's view of the "evolution debate"

[geoguy]

I'm a geologist and have been for just under 30 years and I agree with 71% of Americans. Perhaps not for the same reasons but am sceptical when I read of 'scientists' predictions on phenomea as intricate and involves so many variables as predicting climate patterns.

 

What does climatology have to do with evolutionary debate? That's a non-sequitor which adds nothing to the science of climatology. It's akin to saying that O.J. was guilty because Charles Manson was guilty.

 

I think creatonism and the god dude is a pile of Doo Doo but that is a variable in climatology because...?

[ecoli]

This reminds me a lot of the American public's view of the "evolution debate"

 

that sounds like an ad hom to me.

American's believe in creationism, therefore they must be stupid. They therefore must also be wrong about climate change.

 

^ I hope that's not what you're trying to say.

[Dak]

it's interesting that the harder something is to understand, the less people 'believe' in it.

 

also, the harder something is to understand, the more there is confusion about what 'science' says, and the more crap there is flying about; which must make it easyer to not believe in it.

[geoguy]

that sounds like an ad hom to me.

American's believe in creationism, therefore they must be stupid. They therefore must also be wrong about climate change.

 

^ I hope that's not what you're trying to say.

 

Cripes, you said it a lot more precise than I did.

 

It's a common falacy in logic trying to link unrelated items to 'prove' some aspect of science. Because man once said 'we can never fly' is the classic case to add value to some other unrelated argument such as why it might indeed be possible one day to exceed the speed of light. 'that's what they said about flight' adds nothing to the reality of physics of matter and energy one way or the other.

[geoguy]

it's interesting that the harder something is to understand, the less people 'believe' in it.

 

also, the harder something is to understand, the more there is confusion about what 'science' says, and the more crap there is flying about; which must make it easyer to not believe in it.

 

I'm a geologist and know NOTHING about the release of carbon molecules, their impact on a global scale...I don't even know the properties of gases beyond a few fundamentals learned in first year physics.

 

What I do know is acceptable scientific methodology and I don't see it in reports on climate change and especially to do with man's impact and potential consequences. Mathematical models are fine as long as all the variables are taken into account and all are assigned correct weight. Perhaps all the doom and gloom is correct but it's by chance and not because of 'science'. The concept of 90% 'certainty' is such baloney when variables are not known. The 'science' (I call it the 'cult') of global warming would get an 'F' if presented in any undergraduate paper. It might get a 'B' as educated speculation at the coffee table.

 

I'm less amused by those who don't accept the cult as much as those who claim to. They wouldn't be able to draw a carbon atom or carbon gas molecule if their life depended on it but they are sure they are 'right'.

[Realitycheck]

Yesterday, I took this test to see how much MY personal carbon footprint added up to. With one car and a one room apartment, it was saying that I dump about 20 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. How do they measure gas? Surely, they are not talking about the equivalent of 20 tons of solid waste. Either way, guys this stuff really adds up and if you don't think that it is artificially affecting the ozone layer, then you're shortchanging yourself.

 

Granted, global warming happens on its own, but not at the rate that we are seeing it. The dinosaurs did not get wiped out in 200 years.

 

In the year 2006, in the US alone, 89 million tons of carbon monoxide, 19 million tons of nitrogen oxide, and 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide were released, not even counting the rest of the world. All of our figures have been reduced by about 50% since 1970 due to laws put in place. Total carbon dioxide emissions in the US alone in 2003 were 5.8 BILLION tons, and all of the disappearing rainforests are supposed to convert this back into oxygen?

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17965617/site/newsweek/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg04rpt/carbon.html

[bascule]

I'm a geologist and have been for just under 30 years and I agree with 71% of Americans. Perhaps not for the same reasons but am sceptical when I read of 'scientists' predictions on phenomea as intricate and involves so many variables as predicting climate patterns.

 

I would suggest reading more about general circulation models. It's hard to play the "too many variables" game when they've successfully reconstructed the instrumental record in computer simulation.

 

What does climatology have to do with evolutionary debate? That's a non-sequitor which adds nothing to the science of climatology. It's akin to saying that O.J. was guilty because Charles Manson was guilty.

 

I think creatonism and the god dude is a pile of Doo Doo but that is a variable in climatology because...?

 

I've quoted my original argument on this matter below.

 

that sounds like an ad hom to me.

American's believe in creationism, therefore they must be stupid. They therefore must also be wrong about climate change.

 

^ I hope that's not what you're trying to say.

 

My argument isn't an ad hominem. Yours would be a strawman. But thanks for playing.

 

Here's my original post on the similarity of anti-GW and anti-evolution argumentation:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26338

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0

 

Watching this video I see a number of arguments lodged against evolution which I've also seen lodged against global warming. For example:

 

- mainly advocated by the media

- other scientists disagree and are being suppressed by the media

- it's being pushed by a minority with an agenda

- part of a larger push towards a particular ideology

- no evidence

- not a theory, just a model

- early advocates were highly uncertain

- examples have been put forward in the past which were incorrect

- need to be skeptical and examine both sides of the argument (teach the controversy!)

 

What do you think?

[Dak]

What I do know is acceptable scientific methodology and I don't see it in reports on climate change and especially to do with man's impact and potential consequences.

 

by reports, do you mean papers, or media-reports?

[bascule]

What I do know is acceptable scientific methodology and I don't see it in reports on climate change and especially to do with man's impact and potential consequences. Mathematical models are fine as long as all the variables are taken into account and all are assigned correct weight. Perhaps all the doom and gloom is correct but it's by chance and not because of 'science'. The concept of 90% 'certainty' is such baloney when variables are not known. The 'science' (I call it the 'cult') of global warming would get an 'F' if presented in any undergraduate paper. It might get a 'B' as educated speculation at the coffee table.

 

Climate change is a process. Not all the variables have to be known: the system will evolve in a similar way. GCMs operate with variable initial conditions to simulate that which can't be known, namely regional weather patterns across time which fluctuate greatly. Climate science isn't concerned with this.

 

Climate scientists scrutinize the instrumental record and come up with a hypothesis in the form of weighting various forcing factors affecting the climate system. After choosing the forcing weights (over time) as model input, they simulate the entire global climate system in computer simulation. If they manage to reconstruct the historical record from their input forcings, then their hypothesis is predictive and deserves credence. If not, back to the drawing board.

 

In this description I'm completely glossing over the physical science basis by which the hypothesis is created and the model is constructed, but given that, the process is to use well substantiated physical science principle to produce both a hypothesis and model, then use the model to test the hypothesis.

 

What exactly is unscientific about this process?

[geoguy]

Yesterday, I took this test to see how much MY personal carbon footprint added up to. With one car and a one room apartment, it was saying that I dump about 20 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. How do they measure gas? Surely, they are not talking about the equivalent of 20 tons of solid waste. Either way, guys this stuff really adds up and if you don't think that it is artificially affecting the ozone layer, then you're shortchanging yourself.

 

Granted, global warming happens on its own, but not at the rate that we are seeing it. The dinosaurs did not get wiped out in 200 years.

 

In the year 2006, in the US alone, 89 million tons of carbon monoxide, 19 million tons of nitrogen oxide, and 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide were released, not even counting the rest of the world. All of our figures have been reduced by about 50% since 1970 due to laws put in place. Total carbon dioxide emissions in the US alone in 2003 were 5.8 BILLION tons, and all of the disappearing rainforests are supposed to convert this back into oxygen?

 

 

You've written down some numbers. Is that a lot? Not a lot? If reduced by 2% means what? Increased by 2% means what? If inaccuarate by 10% means what? Those are just numbers you throw out and it would mean ZILCH difference to you if they were 10 times larger or 10 times smaller. You just buy into the cult with ZERO understanding of those numbers.

[Realitycheck]

Geez. Just go to any chemical manufacturing plant and see where only 25% of it is coming from. How much evidence do you need? It's very evident that some people just don't let their eyes open until there is a wave of sludge coming in with the tide every morning and they are having to clean off the ring around the house every few months.

[geoguy]

Geez. Just go to any chemical manufacturing plant and see where only 25% of it is coming from. How much evidence do you need? It's very evident that some people just don't let their eyes open until there is a wave of sludge coming in with the tide every morning and they are having to clean off the ring around the house every few months.

 

A typical non-answer. You don't have a friggin clue what those numbers mean or don't mean. This isn't about 'opinion' but SCIENCE. Figures are thrown about and you lap them up as enthusiastically as a fundamentalist laps up proof of Creationism. Quotes are used to 'prove' something or another even though the cultists have no clue if the numbers are accurate or, if they are, what they mean.

 

5.8 BILLION tons means what?...what if it was 6.8 BILLION tons?... 4.8 BILLION tons?

[Pre4edgc]

Well, isn't it true that a single volcano can spew a lot more in one blast than we have in a year? And there have been a LOT of volcano eruptions, whether we know them or not, so it can't be ENTIRELY our fault here. Especially if volcanoes are making this happen even faster, every year. And they burn down forests as well. So we can demonstrate the disappearing forests and release of CO2, all with one, natural phenomenom.

[insane_alien]

Geez. Just go to any chemical manufacturing plant and see where only 25% of it is coming from. How much evidence do you need? It's very evident that some people just don't let their eyes open until there is a wave of sludge coming in with the tide every morning and they are having to clean off the ring around the house every few months.

 

umm, there are very very strict limits on what chemical plants can pump out into the environment and array of sensors for miles around measuring airquality, groundwater quality and so on.

 

not to mention that when laymen look at a chemical plant and see clouds flying off it they assume it is pollution, its not, its water vapour.

 

i've never see sludge getting washed up near a chemical plant unless something has went horribly horribly wrong.

[ecoli]

Either way, guys this stuff really adds up and if you don't think that it is artificially affecting the ozone layer, then you're shortchanging yourself.

 

Actually, carbon dioxide isn't causing any ozone hole. The culprit for that is CFCs. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and asume it was a slip-up.

 

My argument isn't an ad hominem. Yours would be a strawman. But thanks for playing.

 

Here's my original post on the similarity of anti-GW and anti-evolution argumentation:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26338

 

very well, I've replied to that thread. Perhaps my post may have had strawman-like qualities, but I think that's reasonable considering you didn't bother to explain what you meant. Don't assume everybody has read your other thread on this.

(why the subject requires a new thread, I don't know)

[Sayonara]

Meanwhile, climate change continues quite happily with or without belief.

 

Bascule, what do you wish to get out of this thread? I ask because there is no question or proposal in the OP.

[lucaspa]

it's interesting that the harder something is to understand, the less people 'believe' in it.

 

I don't think that is it. Relativity is also difficult to understand, but people don't have much problem with it.

 

Instead, I would say the correlation is: the more something contradicts people's self-interest, the less they want to "beleive" it.

 

For many people, evolution threatens a basic belief. Geoguy made the basic threat creationists hear: "I think creatonism and the god dude is a pile of Doo Doo"

 

The consequences of GW is that we are going to have to change our lifestyle to prevent it. Many people view that change as negative and a loss of their lifestyle. Therefore their economic self-interest is threatened.

 

I think creatonism and the god dude is a pile of Doo Doo but that is a variable in climatology because...?

 

I hope you appreciate the irony of your statements. You complain about tying two separate ideas together (creationism and opposition to GW) so that one (opposition to GW) could be dismissed right after you tied 2 separate things together -- creationism and the existence of God -- so that one (God) could be dismissed!

 

Thank you for that bit of unintentional humor.

 

Well, isn't it true that a single volcano can spew a lot more in one blast than we have in a year? And there have been a LOT of volcano eruptions, whether we know them or not, so it can't be ENTIRELY our fault here.

 

1. No, it isn't true anymore. Humans are putting out a lot of greenhouse gasses.

2. Volcanic eruptions put out a lot of dust and mostly COOL the planet. The "year without a summer" in 1816 happened after the eruption of Tambora.

3. How would we NOT know about a volcanic eruption? We have the entire planet wired for seismic disturbances, and a volcanic eruption is a seismic disturbance.

 

So we can demonstrate the disappearing forests and release of CO2, all with one, natural phenomenom.

 

Can we? We can measure just how much forest each year is burned by volcanic eruptions. How much is that? You should be able to find out. Then compare that to known CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. Not even close.

 

Pre4edgc, you have unwittingly demonstrated the similarity between tactics used by GW-deniers and creationists: the "facts" that you trot out are horribly, horribly wrong and any superficial search would show you that. But you never make the search. Instead, you trust someone who tells you just what you want to hear and keep with it, no matter how wrong it may be.

 

As it turns out, GW is making wildfires WORSE. Read this article. Notice how much of the burned land was caused by volcanic eruptions. Remember, we are talking the Western USA here, and how many volcanoes have erupted there?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060710084004.htm

 

Granted, global warming happens on its own, but not at the rate that we are seeing it. The dinosaurs did not get wiped out in 200 years.

 

The dinos were wiped out in less than 10 years! Remember, the earth got hit with a massive meteor at the K-T boundary that wiped out the remaining dinos.

[Realitycheck]

The dinos were wiped out in less than 10 years! Remember, the earth got hit with a massive meteor at the K-T boundary that wiped out the remaining dinos.

 

I've read conflicting reports on that one, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[ecoli]

As it turns out, GW is making wildfires WORSE. Read this article. Notice how much of the burned land was caused by volcanic eruptions. Remember, we are talking the Western USA here, and how many volcanoes have erupted there?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060710084004.htm

 

How do we know for sure that this is because of global warming, and not local warming?

[Realitycheck]

A typical non-answer. You don't have a friggin clue what those numbers mean or don't mean. This isn't about 'opinion' but SCIENCE. Figures are thrown about and you lap them up as enthusiastically as a fundamentalist laps up proof of Creationism. Quotes are used to 'prove' something or another even though the cultists have no clue if the numbers are accurate or, if they are, what they mean.

 

5.8 BILLION tons means what?...what if it was 6.8 BILLION tons?... 4.8 BILLION tons?

 

Well, then why don't you just suck on a friggin tailpipe for a few minutes until you get a clue. My bet is that his wife left him for reasons that don't need to be mentioned. Just how much evidence do you need before you get a clue about how to carry on an intelligent conversation?

 

I don't need any numbers at all to tell you that smoke causes acid rain, smoke causes ozone alerts, and who can tell me what happens to disproportionate levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, with no mechanism to convert it back to oxygen. Surely, something happens to it. It doesn't just get vented into space. Oh yeah, plankton in the ocean fixes it, under water and everything.

[geoguy]

So again. No answer. The 'explanation is? You've confirmed my expectation.

[bascule]

Meanwhile, climate change continues quite happily with or without belief.

 

Bascule, what do you wish to get out of this thread? I ask because there is no question or proposal in the OP.

 

Sorry, the implied question is: why is this so? Are Americans just ignorant, or has the climate science community failed to make their case for the predominance of anthropogenic climate forcings?

[Dak]

I don't think that is it. Relativity is also difficult to understand, but people don't have much problem with it.

 

actually, i'm pretty sure most people discount most (of what they percieve to be) quantumn phisics, based on the fact it's hard to understand and 'sounds silly'. tho, of course, it's less in the public's eye that evolution/GW.

 

Instead, I would say the correlation is: the more something contradicts people's self-interest, the less they want to "beleive" it.

 

otoh, it contradicts most peoples self-interest to believe that smoking and alcohol are harmful, yet most people believe these facts (which i'd point out are quite simple and easy to understand).

 

I'd say that conflict with self-interest probably gives motivation to deny, whilst complexity seems to facilitate denial somehow.

 

anyhoo, my point was actually that the complexity begets confusion, which aids the spreading of the kind of crap that is floating around about GW/evolution, which makes it easyer to disbelieve (standard strawman -- look at y; mistake it for x; see how y is wrong; conclude, therefore, that x is wrong).

 

'smoking is bad for you. it causes cancer.'. that's quite simple, and hard to spread FUD about. the scientific opinion is also quite easily discernable. which is why i suspect that (now) theres few people who deny that smoking is bad for you, despite the motivation to do so.

 

Well, then why don't you just suck on a friggin tailpipe for a few minutes until you get a clue. My bet is that his wife left him for reasons that don't need to be mentioned. Just how much evidence do you need before you get a clue about how to carry on an intelligent conversation?

 

I don't need any numbers at all to tell you that smoke causes acid rain, smoke causes ozone alerts, and who can tell me what happens to disproportionate levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, with no mechanism to convert it back to oxygen. Surely, something happens to it. It doesn't just get vented into space. Oh yeah, plankton in the ocean fixes it, under water and everything.

 

acid rain and (afaik) ozone depletion, whilst bad, aren't exactly contributors to GW. which i believe is geoguy's point -- you accept GW without understanding it.

 

'so what', says I: you don't need to understand something to accept it. for example, I do not understand, but would not deny the validity of, the following:

 

-maths

-women

-men, for that matter

-phisics

-GW

-any language barring english

 

i don't think i'm wrong to accept the above, despite my inability to understand them.

 

This isn't about 'opinion' but SCIENCE.

 

except, apparently, when it is your opinion v science, in which case the science is crap and you're right?

 

or am i misunderstanding your stance?

[someguy]

what are the arguments for saying that humans aren't causing global warming? there's a whole lot of evidence we are. for all these people that still don't believe that we are causing GW what sort of proof would you find satisfactory? just knowing that humans convert materials from one form to another in large quantities and often into types of materials that cannot be changed into to anything else and others into quantities too exaggerated for the forces of nature to casually keep in check is enough to know that something severe will occur eventually it's just a matter of what was going to give first. it didn't takes us so much convincing to know we caused a hole in the ozone layer.