Slashdot Mirror
Study Highlights Gap Between Views of Scientists and the Public
ZeroSerenity was one of many to write with news of a survey from the Pew Research Center which sought to find out how Americans feel about science and contrast that with the opinions of actual scientists. The study showed that "nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection, but just a third of the public does. And while 84% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that." 27% of the respondents said that the advances of the US in science are its greatest achievement, down from 44% ten years ago. The study is lengthy, and it contains many more interesting tidbits. For example: scientists decry the level of media coverage given to science, and they also think research funding has too much influence on study results. 32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?
The story is about science but English is still important. The statement in the fine summary (Way too lazy to RTFA before coffee) says that scientists believe that humans are warming the earth, it doesn't say humans are the only thing warming the earth.
I'm not a global climate change denier. There is definitely something going on. Whether it is caused by humans or not, it doesn't really seem to matter.
FAIL! Just looking at CO2 alone, humans put somewhere between twice and an order of magnitude more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanism. Since it's easy to see using physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we KNOW that CO2 released from volcanism is a significant heater (we can observe the localized effects intensely) then we KNOW that humans are a significant source of CO2, let alone all the other things that we make that nature never will.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me. I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.
Frankly, lately, it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party. Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence. Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep, objective consideration.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher. These views (acceptance of evolution, belief in human caused global warming, etc) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief (whatever the Bible implies) with a belief in a complicated theory that often doesn't make sense without serious study. A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being, which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education.
Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)
Signatures are the new names.
what does the "55% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?
From a purely scientific viewpoint, it doesn't really "mean" anything without more information. I could come up with a whole slew of theories to explain this statistic, but they'd all be extremely speculative since it's just one piece of information.
The only thing it might mean (if the sample is accurate) is that the Republican party is extremely unpopular among scientists at the moment.
can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?
My understanding is we have a mechanism, a model, and a lot of evidence that shows global warming is caused by us. Where did you get the idea that it was ONLY a correlation?
AccountKiller
I found it very revealing to see the statistics about what the public thought the scientific consensus is. Paraphrasing from the original article:
- Public thinks 60% of scientists agree that evolution occurred, but actually 97% of scientists support evolution.
- Public thinks 56% of scientists agree that global warming is human caused, but actually 84% of scientists support the theory that human activity has and is causing global warming.
This nearly 50/50 split in the public's view leads me to think: what is the primary source of science news for most of the public? The press. And most of the time, particularly on controversial issues, the press just presents two talking heads with opposing views as the current state of affairs. If you didn't know better from other sources you'd have to assume that the scientific consensus was split 50/50.
Citation please.
First Google Result: Volcanic Gases and Their Effects. Quotation follows: Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002) Hope that helps... lazy asshole.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I assure you that there is a difference between what you perceive as an American reality and a global one. I live in Europe and the difference between the elite and ordinary people, although sizable, is much less radical. P.S. I never quite understood why "liberal" has such different meanings over the two sides of the Atlantic. A liberal party here is actually right wing as it promotes deregulation and basically more trust in the market's self-regulation mechanisms.
right...
Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to poll
I looked to find this "aacs" you refer to. I came up with several organizations:
None of those organizations seem particularly scientific to me. Perhaps you meant the AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. And if we look at their membership requirements for the US we'll see that only students can sign up for full membership at $99 per year. A K-12 teacher would pay $146, the same as the professional rate, though they do have a low-frills option at $99.
The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization
Not sure where you got their goals from, but we'll read their website:
The same page continues on with some broad goals:
That doesn't really seem particularly liberal or conservative from a political standpoint, unless conservatives have a decidedly anti-science-education standpoint.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The environment is so complex that you can't just point at some melting/growing ice and say we're all doomed/saved. These kinds of arguments skirt the main issues which are:
(Note: the current warming trend started well before the industrial revolution. Look at just about any data that includes 1000s of years (ice cores, Sargasso sea, etc) and you'll see it clearly. Are we increasing the natural trend already in motion? If so, by how much?)
The answer to that seems to be both as the biosphere has increased a great deal (plants are being fertilised) but the coral reefs are suffering due to ocean acidification.
The final concern is that the Earth will get SO hot that there will be a tipping point where there will be an effect called a "positive feedback loop" in which the heat will somehow cause the Earth to get hotter and hotter. As almost all things in nature work in negative feedback with multiple buffers coupled with the fact that the Earth has been much hotter in the past, I find this scenario to be closer to Science Fiction than anything else.
From the article:
84 percent of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity.
This is true but it's spun, worded with an agenda. Many of those same scientists believe that the amount we're adding to the natural cycle is minuscule, insignificant, or may actually help the environment.
Dem politicos tend to favor more funding for the public employee unionized academic types at public colleges and universities. The Repubs like to fund private outfits like think-tanks and independent contractors. The "scientists" are smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds them. (Until they get tenure, that is.) And so that is the way they vote.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
Oh, for fuck's sake.
This is not a good way to start a debate when you're trying to convince someone else of your point of view.
1. We, humans, are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.
2. A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed.
3. The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.
Which point, exactly, is in dispute?
A number of things. For example, you choose to focus on CO2. While CO2 is associated with warming, there are an almost limitless number of other factors that also can contribute to warming (or cooling, for that matter). For example (taken from Wikipedia):
In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:
* water vapor
* carbon dioxide
* methane
* nitrous oxide
* ozone
* CFCs
When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:
* water vapor, which contributes 36â"72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9â"26%
* methane, which contributes 4â"9%
* ozone, which contributes 3â"7%
So right there, even if you take the worst-case scenario for CO2 (26%), it's still far, far less of an effect than the best case for water vapor (36%). Shouldn't we be trying to reduce water vapor instead of CO2? Note that's a rhetorical question. I'm just trying to point out where your argument -- and insistence -- on CO2 fails to account for what may be the largest driver in climate change. CO2 just seems to be a popular whipping boy these days because it appeals to environmentalists who've always been against fossil fuels, anti-capitalists who are against Big Oil, and anti-Westerners who would be happy to see the Western powers (i.e. the U.S.) come to economic harm while they can handily skirt any emissions controls on their own industry (see Kyoto protocols).
It also doesn't help that global warming proponents tend to be shrill absolutists who, instead of trying to convince people of their argument, are merely content to shout them down or denounce them as imbeciles. You may recall my first comment on your post. Your opener falls into such a category. It's not a way to win people over to your side even if you were to have all the facts (which you don't). Note this isn't a knock against you personally or the science of climatology; nobody has all the facts, because nobody fully understands all the variables (or even most of the variables) associated with our climate. We have theories and models that require constant tweaking, modifying, and massaging, and even then they fail to accurately predict both past and present weather trends. The disclosure that several high-profile warming proponents admitting to actually cooking their data (aka cherry picking) also doesn't help your cause, as it shows these people had political, economic, or ideological biases which drove them to commit scientific fraud.
If you care to respond to this, try to make it reasoned and tactful. Have all your facts, and admit that the totality of our knowledge about what's going on with the climate is anything but 100% sure. Claiming you've got it all nailed down with unassailable data is the surest sign that you've turned into a zealot. Nobody listens to zealots, even if they are sometimes right.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
That's just Horwitz crap. If you look at political affiliations throughout university departments in the US, you'll find many more republicans in areas like business and economics. The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade. They're the party that tries to teach creationism. They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming. They're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research. Why? Because they're for the status quo. There's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican.
I think there's a lot of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that. The recent Bush administration increased federal spending on scientific R&D to its highest levels in 30+ years. The President who decreased it to its lowest level was actually Clinton. But most people (including I suspect most scientists) probably think the opposite because that's what they expect from the preconceived bias you just outlined.