Welcome to PatsFans.com

The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Jun 4, 2012.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12

    So a group of 'soft' science guys did a study commissioned by the US gov. They wanted to study the proposition that if people were more informed about science and technology they would be more inclined to support initives to 'stop' man made global warming (climate change now that the planet hasn't warmed for 15 years).

    What they found was a shock the more scientifically informed people were the LESS they were concerned about the climate. Which of course was the opposite of what they had expected to find the recommendation ws to communicate the importance of climate without using science....:singing:

    The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate ? The Register





    I love the hierarchial individualist vs egalitarian communitarians, John Wayne vs Alan Alda or Eagles vs sheep. Take your pick. :D
     
  2. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,787
    Likes Received:
    415
    Ratings:
    +1,307 / 7 / -19

    #61 Jersey

    You know the old saying, "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." What I really don't get about you climate-change skeptics is why not lean toward erring on the side of caution with potentially so much at stake?

    Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.

    In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.

    As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
     
  3. Hamar

    Hamar In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Ratings:
    +175 / 0 / -1

    So? What is the solution? You and everyone else will still drive your car. What is the solution?

    It is like the people that say we should only eat organic foods. A huge portion of the world's population would die of starvation if we only had organic foods.

    I am so tired of the Al Gore BS. He came out and told everyone how bad they were and yet his carbon footprint was/is bigger than the majority of peoples. Stop preaching the impossible and find a solution, or shut up.
     
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12





    Wiki is edited by 'believers' and won't allow the 'other side' to be represented btw.


    Erring on the 'side of caution will cost trillions and has already caused deaths in the third world from starvation (se the cost of frain which has been driven in large part to crops being used to make ethanol to reduce greenhouse gases.


    The 'theroy that man is driving climate change is based on computer models and the predictions that have been made about where the atmosphere would be warming IF CO2 was the driver have been shown to be incorrect.

    IOW the models have no been supported by empirical observation.

    In science observation rules.




    Yes politically the $$$$ and National science academies are dancing to the politicians tume.


    As to warming depends on the timeframe one looks at. The planet has warmed since the end of the little ice age, there is no evidence that it is warmer than during the Midieval Warming period and the records indicate it is much cooler than during the Holocene optimum ~7kyears ago.

    So it has warmed in the last 170 years and that is a good thing, nothing to show that humans have contributed >.2C to any change.



    Science has nothing to do with consensus, it has to do with testing observation and seeing if it agrees with theory thus far the MMGW hypothesis has failed this test, so objective people have rejected the theory based on the faulty computer models.





    Many (if not most) scientist and engineers don't agree with this position for the reasons cited above.
     
  5. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,787
    Likes Received:
    415
    Ratings:
    +1,307 / 7 / -19

    #61 Jersey

    Excuse me, guys. I'll just mosey on over to the religion forum and pick a born-again to wrangle with over the literal existence of hell. Or better yet, I'll just find the nearest brick wall to bang my head against. I get it, OK? The Earth is flat, Al Gore is evil, gravity is just a concept, and the sky isn't really blue -- it just looks that way. :bricks:
     
  6. Hebeill

    Hebeill 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,568
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Ive asked this myself, the answer i get is that erring on the side of caution will destroy the economy. But then i say, "what good is money if your dead"
     
  7. Patradomous

    Patradomous In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,124
    Likes Received:
    54
    Ratings:
    +156 / 9 / -17

    #87 Jersey

    Old aerial photos supply new knowledge on glaciers in Greenland – University of Copenhagen

    Photos from 1932 show melted glaciers in worse shape than today.

    And no these weren't photoshopped from Dick Cheney ,Katrina Hurricane Machine Division either.
     
  8. UK_Pat37

    UK_Pat37 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +45 / 5 / -7

    #12 Jersey

    Global Warming is a natural cycle of the Earth; but, alas, governments will still use it as an excuse to tax us.

    By all means make the Earth a nicer place to live but don't get caught up in the political game of football which is global warming!
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,675
    Likes Received:
    312
    Ratings:
    +611 / 7 / -7

    Buried wayyyy down at the bottom of this paean to the oh-so-advanced thinking of the denier community is a link to the actual study.

    The study set up two theses to explain why anthropogenic global warming persists despite the mass of evidence to the contrary. One is the "Scientific Comprehension Thesis" -- that the public knows too little science or is too retarded in numerative thinking to understand. The other is the "Cultural Cognition Thesis" which groups people as "hierarchical individualists" or "egalitarian communitarians" - what the OP calls "eagles and sheep," but which I think is better represented by poles such as "democracy/dictatorship." But I digress into the OP's penchant for namecalling; I condemn us both.

    Here's the actual link:

    The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group

    That is, the very slight impact of one's level of scientific literacy on one's view of global warming goes the wrong way. That's not the important predictor of whether you'll cling to denialism.

    But when you look at people along the democracy/dictatorship axis, you get a more pronounced effect:

    So, the more important effect is whether you like democracy or dictatorship, culturally speaking, than your level of scientific literacy.

    I think experience on this board bears out a second thesis that deserves further discussion. I don't have time this morning to tease out these details from the paper, but I think if it's not in there, it deserves further study:

    In terms of scientific literacy, a little knowledge/attainment seems to make you a raving zealot, convinced of the truth of your position. For example, an engineer who has published little if anything, tenaciously clings to one or another position.

    It would be interesting to see how the slight pro-denial bias of scientific literacy breaks down by level of attainment.

    For example, if you're nakedly anti-scientific and believe in magical theses such as 6-day creation, are you more likely to be a global warming denier?

    If you have an educated lay perspective, are you less likely?

    If you are an engineer with no publishing history, are you more likely to be a denier?

    If you are a widely published research scientist, but not in climate science, are you more or less likely?

    Finally, what percentage of published climate scientists are anthropogenic climate change deniers?

    The thread title, the linked hit-piece, and the OP fails -- the effect trumpeted is "slight," according to the study.

    The effect of where you fall on the democracy/dictatorship axis, by contrast, is much more strongly correlated with your view of the existence and cause of global warming.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12


    Well your belief in computer models over empirical data will fit better in the religion forum, it is said that believing in MMGW is religion for atheist.

    BTW just 1 small factoid, when the earth was warming so were all the other planets in the Solar Sustem... ;)
     
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12



    Interesting call to 'authority' here see part of theproblem is that the 'establishment' government 'climate' scientist activily blocked access to data and block papers they didn't approve of from getting published or included in things like to IPCC reports.

    The bleievers ignore these signs of scientific fraud and incompetence and rely only on what is reported in the MSM by technically illiterate writers.
     
  12. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,787
    Likes Received:
    415
    Ratings:
    +1,307 / 7 / -19

    #61 Jersey

    The U.N. produced a green economy report in 2011 which "challenges the myth that there is a trade-off between the economy and the environment," explained a press release. The report, according to the U.N., "confirms that an investment of two percent of global GDP across 10 key sectors is what is required to kickstart a shift from the current brown, polluting and inefficient economy to a green one."

    2011 was also a record year for global carbon dioxide emissions, with China leading the world in a 3.2 percent rise over the previous year's emissions levels. Fatih Birol, the International Energy Agency's chief economist, told Reuters, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet."

    I'll do this for you preemptively and save you the trouble: the United Nations and Fatih Birol are agenda-driven liars. Man-made climate change does not exist. China is silly. Vast majority of the world's climatologists/Al Gore = bad, deluded and downright naughty. Carbon dioxide emissions, belching smokestacks, hurricanes in winter, snowfall in June = good and important for the economy. Trees denuded by acid rain got what was coming to them because, after all, it's survival of the fittest. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, PEOPLE. MOVE ALONG.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Link please.......
     
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Don't be bringing that stuff in here! Get that s#!t outta here!

    ...link, please....
     
  15. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,175
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +275 / 3 / -3

    So, when people or information or claims coincide with your pov, it's "knowledge"

    When they don't, it's fraud, a "call to authority" or incompetence.
     
  16. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    189
    Ratings:
    +483 / 7 / -15

    dude......what are you doing? don't come around here with facts......you will be avoided like a leper

    you have to understand that the climate change argument is very similar to many other arguments laid before us.........it has to exist because it is an opportunity to legislate yet another part of private life.

    it is similar in design to the welfare argument over the years......a concept that must exist, but can never actually be fixed because that would mean giving up the power that came with the money that was spent.
     
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12




    How's te green economy working out for Spain? or here for that matter?

    I mean really, the UN for economic advice? :singing:




    And yet with the continuing rise in CO2 the temps haven't increased for 15 years, which none of the climate models the warmist 'believe in' predicted.

    How does one account for the failure of the models to predict this?




    Human activity has a marginal effect on the climate roughly on the order of .1 to .2C for a doubling of CO2 the 6C nonsense is based on a presumption of a positive feedback built into the computer models that hasn't been observed in the real world.


    See the models predicted heating in certain parts of the atmosphere if there is a positive CO2 feedback. That heat signature hasn't been found Trenberth then said it would be found in the ocean but it is missing there also according to the argos buoy system.

    This paper details what the models predict and what has been observed:

    http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

    So absent the heat signature the theory is wrong, they need a new theory.

    R Feynman explains how science works in 1 minute (from 1961 pre MMGW theories).

    Take a look at this and see the implication for the missing heat signature.

    Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science - YouTube
     
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12


    When people don't present information based on anything more than politics or 'everybody bleieves X, then yes.

    See the 1 min video from Feynman about how science works.

    Hint is isn't about consensus or who you are. Funny thing is he made these comments 30 years before the IPCC and Algore.
     
  19. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,175
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +275 / 3 / -3

    This has nothing to do with Richard Feynman (sounds like another "call to authority"...) or "how science works"

    You routinely make blanket statements portraying the guys you like as the "experts" (being an expert matters when they're your guys, apparently) and anybody else as incompetent or fraudulent.

    Want to know something else about "how science works"? Equally competent scientists can, in fact, have different points of view. Different hypotheses can be equally valid based on the information at hand. Things often aren't black and white.
     
  20. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,787
    Likes Received:
    415
    Ratings:
    +1,307 / 7 / -19

    #61 Jersey

    Yeah, we can keep slingin' "science" at each other 'til the cows come home. Speaking of which, aren't you about due for another meal of factory raised/corn-fed beefsteak? I suggest a 24-oz. porterhouse charred to perfection on your backyard gas grill. You can wash it down with a tall tumbler of whole milk. A heapin' dish of ice cream chock full o' tasty corn syrup would be great for dessert. Never mind the carbon footprint of that meal or lingering cholesterol concerns. This is America. Those things don't exist.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>