Slashdot Mirror
Scientific Literacy vs. Concern Over Climate Change
New submitter gmfeier writes "An interesting study reported in Nature Climate Change indicates that concern over climate change did not correlate with scientific literacy nearly as much as with cultural polarization. Quoting: 'For ordinary citizens, the reward for acquiring greater scientific knowledge and more reliable technical-reasoning capacities is a greater facility to discover and use—or explain away—evidence relating to their groups’ positions. Even if cultural cognition serves the personal interests of individuals, this form of reasoning can have a highly negative impact on collective decision making. What guides individual risk perception, on this account, is not the truth of those beliefs but rather their congruence with individuals’ cultural commitments. As a result, if beliefs about a societal risk such as climate change come to bear meanings congenial to some cultural outlooks but hostile to others, individuals motivated to adopt culturally congruent risk perceptions will fail to converge, or at least fail to converge as rapidly as they should, on scientific information essential to their common interests in health and prosperity. Although it is effectively costless for any individual to form a perception of climate-change risk that is wrong but culturally congenial, it is very harmful to collective welfare for individuals in aggregate to form beliefs this way.'"
I'm pretty well educated, and all that jargon gave even me a fucking headache. Here is a much better summary, FTFA:
A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens. . . .
According to the [authors], this is not because the idea of imminent carbon-driven catastrophe is perhaps a bit scientifically suspect. Rather it is because people classed as "egalitarian communitarians" (roughly speaking, left-wingers) are always highly concerned about climate change, and become slightly more so as they acquire more science and numeracy. Unfortunately, however, "hierarchical individualists" (basically, right-wingers) are quite concerned about climate change when they're ignorant: but if they have any scientific, mathematic or technical education this causes them to become strongly sceptical.
And here's a news-flash for whoever wrote that summary: Terms like "Culturally congruent risk perception" have no obvious meaning for the general reader. Field-specific jargon is just annoying to everyone who doesn't happen to be in your field (i.e., almost everyone else on the planet).
And could you say "culturally" a few more dozen times in your next summary? It really makes you sound smart, and not full of shit at all.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Or, to put it in more naive terms, people are idiots and democracy is doomed to failure.
I don't know who said it (Richard Feynman, maybe?) , but:
If you can't say it in small words, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Clearly a man who lacks culturally congruent risk perception.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
At some point, having a disagreement/debate with someone becomes about personal perception and world view. All the truth in the world on your side just won't make a damn bit of difference if the person you're debating/disagreeing with just cannot or will not come around to your point of view. Gay Marriage, Abortion, Climate Change, Conservative/Liberal, at some point it all comes down to one thing: you are facing your polar opposite and you cannot give in because to do so would mean that you are no longer 'right'.
It is at that point that we resort to killing each other.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Inconceivable, you must ingeminate.
You can't handle the truth.
Your hierarchical individualist, however, might sneer cynically – first at the prospect of a shower of trick-cyclists managing to change his or her mind on climate change by means of spin rather than hard numbers. The hierarchical individualist might also view the "science of communicating science" push as a rather ignoble attempt by the soft-studies profs to get a share of the climate change research funding bonanza that has poured into the hard science and biology faculties in recent decades. And anyone at all might be rather alarmed, perhaps, at the prospect of actual success in the matter of developing a working discipline of Psychohistory – which could and would surely be used in other areas than climate change policy, and would surely be a threat to democracy if it worked as advertised.
And you're complaining about "culturally congruent risk perception"? This isn't news. This isn't factual reporting. This is someone framing their interpretation of a scientific letter to try to get you on board with him. I think he's ripping on the academics by way of Asimov's Foundation trilogy.
And here's a news-flash for whoever wrote that summary: Terms like "Culturally congruent risk perception" have no obvious meaning for the general reader.
That's because nearly the entire summary comes directly from a peer reviewed journal made for people who understand that sort of dense speak.
And could you say "culturally" a few more dozen times in your next summary? It really makes you sound smart, and not full of shit at all.
Behold, one of the problems with trying to relay science to the common person.
My work here is dung.
It just magically appeared. I am no more fond of it than you are.
The problem is not scientific literacy, bur that you need to be an expert in several fields.
Claims are made from both sides with explanations and theories beyond what most laymen can understand, beyond what even those with a basic scientific literacy can understand.
I consider myself scientifically literate to a basic level and generally have no problem reading studies or extracts to get a basic idea on an issue. The whole climate change thing is impossible though. People make specific claims about carbons, how they bond in the atmosphere, half-lives, tree rings, ice, sea levels...
There is too much stuff being quoted and claimed from both sides, often seemingly backed up.
What we need is a nice, easy summary page, summarizing all the relevant studies so far, and what they imply or mean when it comes to climate page. AN overall summary taking every study into account, giving a good indication, meaning to oppose it is to go against peer reviewed studies or to speculate without a firm basis.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Why are all research papers so freakin' obvious? Even better is the fact that Fox News has been saying climate change is more about political affiliation than it is intelligence for years now.
Bring on the flames!
sudo make me a sandwich
What guides individual risk perception, on this account, is not the truth of those beliefs but rather their congruence with individuals’ cultural commitments.
Here's the fail. What is this "truth" they're measuring against?
Something like F=ma seems to correlate with education, not so much with culture. I would hazard a guess that indicates F=ma is a scientific topic.
Something like Jesus is the son of god and belief in him results in your salvation seems to correlate much higher with culture than with education. For example even the dumbest redneck from Texas and some scientist from Texas might agree, but a highly educated scientist from TX might disagree with a highly educated scientist from Japan from a non-christian Japanese family. I would hazard a guess that indicates Jesus's parentage is a non-scientific topic.
Along comes "concern over climate change" and there is a wishy washy hand wringy that based on observation its getting a non-scientific response from the general public. You can almost see the literary dancing to avoid suggesting that maybe, just maybe, the PC orthodoxy about the dangers of climate change is, in fact, non-scientific?
Now please don't jump all over me assuming I think humans have no effect or climate change could never matter. I am well aware its occurring. However,
1) I don't think its very important relative to other more pressing concerns. Seriously, it just isn't that important.
2) I think there is nothing to do anyway. We've burned at least a majority of the EROEI positive carbon fuels and nothing really bad has happened. Twice not much is still not much. The closely related semi-permanent economic decline we've been experiencing for a few decades, and will continue to experience, will "naturally" take care of the rest. The TLDR is SUVs don't matter not because we passed enviro laws, but because they'll never be affordable to the masses again. By the time the next credit bubble comes around, maybe 70 years or so, we'll be waaaaay past peak oil, etc, it just won't matter anymore.
3) There are bigger natural climate changes that we need an advanced industrialized civilization to fight
4) I hate being FUDed so reflexively that I'll fight against the side using FUD, in this case the orthodox climate panic-ers.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
And Fox News, of course, pushed a story that only referenced the part of the study that found that climate change "skeptics" scored higher (by one point, 51 to 50) on a test of general scientific literacy, proving once (and for Fox) that the "skeptics" know more about science than climate change "alarmists" and are therefore right to doubt anything related to climate change.
Fox News: the experts at picking the one cherry on the entire tree that satisfies them since 1993.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
Anyway, skimming the paper lends neither support for nor contradicts the evidence that humans have caused and are causing the climate to change. It only addresses the likely belief systems of people in their peer groups and how that information can be used to communicate effectively with those groups:
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Ah, this ties into this article someone posted here earlier, which describes how increasing levels of education make conservatives less likely to believe in factual positions that contradict their world-view. Something which dominates the discussion here in any number of stories that involve economics, psychology, climatology or morality. As much as I enjoy reading the debates these stories engender, it's mostly in a car-crash fashion; the increasingly labyrinthian arguments really do defy any kind of rational explaination.
I've always felt the argument to curb greenhouse gases has been ill-stated. While there are some who still deny global warming is happening, the primary debate between the left and right seems to distill down to whether it is man-made (left) or cyclical (right).
It seems to me the better argument from the left would be: is polluting the air good for you or not? The answer is obviously, no, it's not good for you. So regardless of whether it causes global warming, we should always be striving for less pollutants and cleaner air in much the same way we strive for safer cars. I suppose the global warming aspect helps push the immediacy of the need for change vs. the cost of that change, but so much time, effort, and money has been wasted on both sides arguing the merits of man-made global warming, I wonder if this was the most effective road to go down.
No one is ever going to say how much it would suck if the air near factories or major metropolitan areas smelled as clean and fresh as the air in rural Vermont.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
I read this great survey on the "Consensus" (I'm kicking myself cause I can't find the link now). The only point that climate scientist agreed on more than that the climate has warmed due to human influence (at about 85% rather than the 97% oft quoted) was that Climate Scientists should be the ones making all of the policy decisions related to client (this one was abut 97%). These people know next to nothing about economics or any of the other things their policies would affect and yet they overwhelmingly thought they should be making the policy decisions.
It just shows that Climate scientists have human biases.
Egalitarians perceive climate change as a great risk.
Individualists perceive climate change as a low risk.
Neither groups opinion is affected by their level of scientific literacy.
my entire life, all I can say is:
what a waste of time.
No one wants to know the truth.
No one wants to know what reality actually is.
Everyone wants to live in a bubble that confirms what they already believe.
Someone please kill me.
What is wrong with this damn comment system, someone please fix this sack of crap.
Just another scientific study that simply confirms what everybody already knows is true.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
And in today's shocking news: People believe what they want to believe.
It seems to me the better argument from the left would be: is polluting the air good for you or not?
That is the argument for those AGAINST AGW.
The reason being, CO2 is NOT POLLUTION.
That has been my biggest gripe with the AGW movement and the calls to reduce CO2. It has taken a lot of focus away from real pollution, trying to mitigate a substance that is utterly harmless!
If you are really for the environment you should be thinking about what battles actually help, rather than divert.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How can anything in a journal subtitled Climate Change be considered as objective in the area. I wouldn't expect to open Nature Witchcraft and find an article on how witches are fiction and only the stupid believe in them.
We regret to inform you; Along with the end of Pure Research came an end to being able to have unbiased studies. Please log that in your files of cultural modified views.
"Concern" over the environment is a ridiculous notion on par with "good intentions". The only things important are the proposed "solutions", their costs, and the inevitable unintended consequences. Liberals are always expressing more "concern" towards problems... but their solutions often make things worse. It is not hard to understand why "right wingers" (also known as "taxpayers") are apt to be skeptical of a massive government program to fix myriad climate disasters predicted in the last 30 years that have not happened (including an impending ice age, global warming, massive hurricanes, rising sea levels, polar bears extinction, polar ice melting, etc. ).
My one time supervisor in psychology, Max Hammerton, once demonstrated to the British Association that "hard science" often is not, with his graph showing how the estimated size of Pluto had decreased with time. The reason is that when it was discovered (a) there was a desire to use it to account for discrepancies in the orbit of Neptune and (b) it was the only planet discovered by an American. So the estimate taken for the published size was at the very top of the estimated range. Subsequent measurements were more accurate and tended to the real value, but because of the pressure of history (and from American astronomers) were also at the top of the estimated range.
It was a neat demonstration (and the subsequent row over the downgrading of Pluto to a dwarf planet still arouses the ire of some astronomers - things have not improved).
Basically this was an early demonstration of the correctness of the article referenced in the story, and of the fact that even "hard" sciences have a lot of fluff in them
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The scientific theory of human caused global warming is that the prime or exclusive cause of the observed warming over the past 100 years, outside of known cycles, is CO2 emissions from humans. Ok, no problem. That is a theory that can be looked at and evaluated, though you are correct it is quite complex to evaluate it.
The problem then comes when it is demanded that you not only accept that, but you accept that the only thing to do about it is to massively reduce CO2 emissions and to do that we need things like cap and trade and so on. If you disagree with any of that you are a "denalist" and "anti-science". They try to act as though the politics and policy of a solution are part and parcel to the theory.
Not even close. You can believe that the theory is correct and disagree with the proposed solution for any number of reasons. However question any part and people want to claim you are anti-science. It really does get like a religious argument: "You accept everything we say or your are the enemy."
If political leanings sway your view the more you know about the science involved, then obviously the subject under discussion is not really a science.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
(Not that I understand any of the psychobabble presented in the paper, but it's customary for the first C != C response to a research study to be modded up).
In my opinion the real problem is in the way these topics are handled and argued by all concerned.
The science of prediction and the politics of mitigation always appear to be helplessly intertwingled. As a result people tend to respond in a political manner to both scientific and political components.
My recommendation is for scientists and their publications to describe only the changes that could occur. They should never try to suggest a course of action or attempt to describe the consquences of those changes.
Someone else should take these raw inputs and describe consequences these changes could mean to everyone.
Yet someone else (politicians) should take the consequences and figure out what if anything should be done.
Yet in real life we have infamous groups such as the IPCC playing judge jury and executioner complete with sky is/is not falling language.
The scientist who tells everyone to give up their SUVs or die from global warming is subject to endless political attack.
The scientist who just runs models and keeps their traps shut about political issues are only subject to subsantative attacks against the quality of their work.
In practice the distinction may be difficult or simply not worth much...yet nobody even seems to be trying and I think this is a problem.
If the US government wants to change public opinion on climate change, they should have put that money in climate research. Funding some sociologists to prove that people sceptical about human-caused climate change are idiots regardless of their results is exactly why many people distrust science. While politicians like to imagine the masses as a herd of dumb sheep waiting for them to take lead, with education and the internet being available to almost anyone this simply isn't true. What could convince the public would be scientific evidence, which is why it would be a much better strategy to spend money on actual science. Assuming, of course, that the goal is finding the truth and not just pushing a political agenda.
What??!?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Climate change has been studied, peer-reviewed and proven beyond doubt on a scientific basis. I am then amused to observe that the same people who have performed this task, advocate massive global interventions on no scientific basis at all.
The best bit, which cuts both ways:
"Although it is effectively costless for any individual to form a perception of climate-change risk that is wrong but culturally congenial, it is very harmful to collective welfare for individuals in aggregate to form beliefs this way."
Most pro-AGW arguments that I have seen are usually appeals to authority or overly simplistic arguments that because CO2 can cause a greenhouse effect then any amount of CO2 increase = armageddon. No matter how infinitesimal the amount. The truth is there is no real scientific argument. The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support the varying conclusions of AGW enthusiasts. So what little evidence that does exist is often not even trotted out. It is so much more convenient to combine argument from authority with ad hominem attacks. "Everyone knows" that AGW is 100% proven. Only an ignorant, anti-science, bible thumper could possibly not see how incontrovertible it is." Even when such enthusiasts claim to offer evidence it is usually just the assertions of another, more authoritative, true believer, whether climate scientist or not, reiterating the same beliefs without evidence. For that tiny minority of AGW enthusiasts who want to convince the rational skeptics who are only skeptics because they haven't examined the raw data you don't need any fancy rhetoric. Just present the data. All of the data that you believe supports your argument. You don't need to even write a single word.
In the end, the argument nearly always boils down to, "Trust us. We know more than you. We are professional climate scientists!" Usually it is not even necessary to mention the existence of computer models. All they have to do is say that they are "climate scientists" and the deniers are not. And then mention evolution and moon-landing skeptics and flat-earthers for good measure. So much better than an argument to just show that in the past skeptics have sometimes been wrong. If only theists found it so easy to dismiss atheists. Not everyone is deterred by the browbeating. Atheists are used to it. It has only been quite recently that we haven't had to worry about being burned at the stake or forced to drink hemlock for not seeing the truth.
It would be interesting to see if AGW enthusiasts are actually more likely to believe in a god or other supernatural, unprovable things. It would also be interesting to see what percentage of "deniers" are in fact some flavor of scientist or engineer themselves. I suspect you would find that the same free thinkers that are atheists because they evaluate facts and truth for themselves and are not influenced by the beliefs of society are more likely to ask for evidence instead of just accepting opinion polls as science. I would have no problem whatsoever accepting the truth of AGW if I were presented with irrefutable scientific evidence. I find the idea that human beings currently have the power to essentially terraform our own planet with relatively great speed (i.e. in less than 10,000 years) to be a rather extraordinary claim, and I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the evidence for AGW, hell even the evidence just for GW, is far from extraordinary. In fact if climate science were any sort of real science it would be considered quite pathetic. If climate scientists (and I use that term loosely) were any sort of real scientists they would be skeptics themselves instead of true believers just looking to rationalize what they had always believed anyway.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Someone who is scientifically literate could well look at the evidence and decide that yes, the Earth is getting warmer and yes, human CO2 emissions are the prime cause but that no, it isn't a big deal. Perhaps they come to the conclusion that the warmer temperature will not be a bad thing. Or perhaps they conclude that a massive reduction in emissions is not necessary that a geoengineering project can deal with it.
They may well evaluate the scientific theory of human caused global warming as true, but have no concern over it because further evaluation leads them to believe there is no reason.
And once again we have an article that seems to suggest that climate change is in doubt... I don't think you could find anyone in the united states that didn't live on an Amish farm, that wouldn't agree the climate is changing. Hell, even the Amish have probably noticed. What people are disputing is the degree to which humans are impacting that climate change. There is VAST scientific dispute over that point. Authors of articles like these tend to relabel the debate to "climate change deniers" and label people that deny climate change as stupid or uneducated. Well, if you disagree with the idea that the climate is fact changing you are stupid. But that is not the argument.
I personally think the climate is changing due to human activity. And what we are doing is having a dramatic impact on the environment. But can I see someones point when scientist constantly recalculate the rate at which the glaciers are melting? Or year after year predict a terrifying hurricane seasons due to global warming, and it never arrives? Can I understand why someone would doubt climatologists that get their predictions so consistently wrong that there's a whole class of humor that revolves around their ineptitude? Of course. Over and over again I hear people on the left complaining that the right creates scientific studies to suite their needs... why wouldn't they when the left does the same exact thing? This being a great example.
for shame.
Oye, anyone who talks about Fox news is a plain jerk on this site, you do realize they are all owned by the same 4 people who have all the same political slants? Anyway when can this climate change fake religion just go away already. Stop the ignorance fools.
The more scientifically informed you are, the less likely you are to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming.
The less scientifically informed you are, the more likely you are to believe that the past 60+ years of climate change has been mostly driven by human CO2 emissions, and that continued CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic global warming.
The talk about preconceived cultural bias goes for *both* sides - assuming that what we have is a large group of uninformed people who happened on the *right* answer, without actually being as well informed as those who assert the opposite answer, is a stretch, to say the least.
Sorry, could not read beyond that obvious bias.
Who gets to define how things should be in your reality?
Are humans causing climate change? Eh, probably.
Does it bother me? Nope. Do I care enough to do anything about it? Not a jot. Here's all the fucks that I give. Want to see them again? Here they are. ><
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
So basically the science says that Democrats are smarter then Republicans because their brains are bigger? Makes sense to me.
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
Wait, wait: you're knowledgeable and informed about the science and you still don't agree with us on climate change?! You must be a Republican ...
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."
That is an expected result since at the heart of the scientific method is being skeptical. So those that are more skeptical of unsubstantiated and wild claims of impending Co2 Climate Doomsday Rapture are actually following the scientific method much better than those that merely believe the science just because a scientist makes a claim.
"The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: Rather, the researchers and trick-cyclists who carried it out were doing so from the position that the "scientific consensus" (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact, and the priority is now to find some way of getting US voters to believe in the need for urgent, immediate and massive action to reduce CO2 emissions."
Then the people who conducted the study don't actually comprehend the principles of science nor the scientific method but instead where looking for a political outcome as evidenced by their use of the notion of "consensus".
“We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.” – Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science
“No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.” – Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at City College of New York
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Ernest Rutherford
“if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period. – Richard Feynman
As Mother Nature isn't obeying the AGW's supporters claims of CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture by not warming these past twelve years the hypothesis of AGW has been falsified in the objective reality of Nature.
In any event, it's nice to see that even in this study the scientific method tends to prevail over the preconceived confirmation bias of those involved.
Salt in the sea is pollution of the worlds oceans.
You see the stupidity of that statement? There's no way for man to control the salinity of the worlds oceans, and the salt will always be there regardless of what mankind does. So calling something that exists naturally in the environment (and in fact must exist for much of the world's biomass to survive) a pollutant is about as wholly political as you can get.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
So they're really saying that people who are scientifically literate are less likely to jump to conclusions based on incomplete data and "feelings", and this is somehow bad.
Agenda? Anyone?
Both sides think it, and the more educated they are, the louder are their arguments. On a different note, the article also does not consider that perhaps natural skeptics are more likely to have sought higher education in math and science, rather than the education is making people skeptical.
The important question isn't seeing some global warming while recovering from a little ice age or similar burps, "mistaken" for CAGW. The original climate studies funded in the 1970s were supposed to be whether we could tell when the next Ice Age might begin and to plan, where decades vs centuries vs millenia make a real difference. Because an Ice Age is a verifiable, recurring problem and a genuine threat to modern Mankind.
I understood the writeup very well. It goes directly to the heart of the debate, for me at least.
The global climate change issue has morphed from a brief global cooling 'scare', to global warming debate, and now global climate 'change'. During these changing arguments, I've become convinced of these beliefs:
1- Many parties have ulterior or hiden motives. These vary from wanting to advance their cultural or political policies to wanting to prevail in a factual or scientific debate, and others. I also have an ulterior motive in this debate, and of course I see mine as honest and true, and of course just as I assume everyone else does.
2- All parties seem prepared to use whatever eivdence supports their motives, and discredit the rest. Just as the writeup would suggest.
3- This is not new, and is (I propose) evident beyond contradiction to anyone who engages in minimal critical analysis of the issue. If it wasn't evident to you earlier, you are not paying attention, or not trying very hard at all.
4- Many parties purposefully either fabricate or embellish the evidence they present to make their case. Some do so despite knowing of contrary evidence, and some simply refuse to consider any other evidence at all.
5- Many who make their eivdence fit the argument have good intentions, and seem genuinely to not understand why others, seeing this, tend to mistrust their argument entirely.
Early on, when 'cooling' became 'warming', I started asking why this was so important. And one of the first things I learned was that many who joined the debate and believed that warming was occurring, and that it was man-caused, and could 'only' be solved by reducing our impact on the planet, was that they already wanted us to 'reduce our impact' on the planet, and this was the latest and hopefully (for them) conclusive argument . Scientists rarely like to admit mistakes (neither do I) so many climatologists are engaged in futher analysis of their data to make it fit when reality doesn't quite match with their predictions. Looking at the work done to adjust, normalize, and clean up this data to make it fit leaves me, in particular distrustful of their process.
Now we read some articles on ice melt, , and I'm left wondering how this could have occurred 14,000 years ago before industrialization, and if it could be happening now for those reasons, and nothing we can do would stop it. And the article I linked to doesn't explain much at all. And then this article blames fresh water consumption. We fix this by what, reducing population? Or just becoming more efficient users? Population growth wipes out all but the most aggressive and costly conservation, and then only if we ignore the developing world.
So this dovetails nicely into the anti-capitalist/industrial/consumer movement's goals, and the anti-population growth movement similarly will love this. Basically, they love anything bad for me. I'm just part of the 98% in America trying to get along, doing infinitely better than 90% of the rest of the world. I have a roof to sleep under, and something to keep me off the ground when I do - that makes me better off then most of the world. Add in my access to safe drinking water, and I probably do better than 95% or more of the world. My big complaint is how thick my steaks are.
So I do come to the debate with a very strong 'prove it!' attitude, and when the climate change proponents/worriers are so often aligned with the movements to take from me as much as they can, I rationally (if not logically) react with caution. Actually, skepticism, tainted with outright rejection. these groups can make no scientific argument - they are not motiviated by science.
And the scientists are largely so invested in protecting their reputations that I consider their arguments self-serving at best.
If warming is real, and we can stop it, I'm also conce
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You are discussing the costs of reducing CO2 emissions, and you're right, the costs are potentially very high.
The only way it makes sense to make a major societal commitment like cutting CO2 emissions is through a cost-benefit analysis. In the interest of disclosure I am one of the tree-huggers who thinks CO2 emissions are a clear and urgent problem. I think you and I can none the less agree that a cost-benefit analysis is the rational way to make a decision on whether to shut down power plants (and switch to windmills or nuclear plants) or not.
Unfortunately we're at a stage in the debate where people who should know better are still claiming that the cost of the other side's recommended approach is infinite. That's disingenuous and no way to make policy decisions.
So yes, shutting down fossil-fueled power plants would be costly. It may none the less be worth doing. Likewise, doing nothing will anger tree-huggers like myself and undoubtedly will have certain costs (disruption of agriculture, rising sea level, mass extinction of wildlife) but it may be the economically rational choice.
I'd like to see more talk about costs and benefits and less talk to the effect, "I dislike the implications of what you're recommending therefore your analysis is wrong."
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Summaries don't tell you whether the papers are thin, bullsh|t or 419 scams.
s/b "...as much CO2 as the #3 country"
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Getting kinda tired of the articles appearing on slashdot, and probably even more in popular media whereby "climate consensus" is really portrayed as "we don't know enough." or "Climate Change is not really real because we are uncertain". If climate change is real then we better change our ways and rely less on burning carbon for our energy sources. If it is not, we better change our energy sources because fuel such as oil and gas have been built up from many years because of solar energy and are limited. Anyways, climate change is real, the see levels are rising, polar ice caps are melting, the Northern Passageway is becoming clear, their are droughts and wild weather patterns occurring and we better get used to it. So either way, find alterative energy sources or be a climate change denier and drag the rest of us down with you. BTW I would rather see scientific papers than sociological ones on slashdot because apparently it is too easy to spout random noise than to come up with a well reasoned articles which are backed backed up by data and research.
Society use your Sciences
This is just amazing to me. They are literally saying that educating people about global warming will increase their skepticism, and therefore actually transmitting sound scientific information would be bad.
That's not how I read what they're saying. They aren't saying "bad". They're saying "if you give them ONLY the facts, it won't help." You then strawman that into "they want to stop giving us the facts and just give us propaganda".
Persuasive writing is all about knowing your audience. If throwing pure facts at your audience bores them, you need more than just facts. This means "in addition to facts", not "in replace of facts".
:(){
CO2 absolutely IS "pollution", in a sense: our atmosphere is supposed to be a balance of various gases: O2, CO2, N2, and some other trace gases.
However CO2 is ALSO a gas that is heavily regulation by the planets biomass. It's not "pollution" in that sense any more than oxygen is, it's one of the basic components of the atmosphere that the system is used to dealing with - the same cannot be said of high levels of true toxins which people more traditionally called pollution.
The question is: how much is too much?
I agree that is the basic question. What has not been happening is any kind of runaway effect from increases in CO2, given that I would say "too much" CO2 is more than humanity + volcanoes are capable of generating through normal emissions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Forget "left" and "right". Notice that just about every eco related article you read (TechReview, PopSci, Ars, ) ends the article with a suggestion on "carbon tax"... that's because the powers that be, want it. They are the bankers that will profit in billions from the carbon exchange that they will setup. So schmucks like you read articles, get excited and then support the whole idea.
Check out the Jessie Ventura's conspiracy theory episode on Global Warming. Best piece on what REALLY IS GOING ON.
Sadly not a conspiracy here. -- Yeah, we got climate change, and its been here before us.
It used to be "global warming". Then they stopped it when the ocean level temps tapered off and cooled some.
So now its "climate change". We've had climate change all the time. Think dark ages, then middle ages. -- It is a cycle.
Whatever you believe, remember that there is a push to exploit it to for money. And at the end of the day, things will cost a lot more.
You want a VAT on carbon in the USA? well it is coming...
The simplest answer is that people who learn more about how science works question the AGW agenda which early on stopped being science.
If you RTFA, the effect was only observed in right-wingers. Left-wingers become more concerned about AGW as they get educated, not less.
I'm sure you would be willing to write that off as a clear indication that left-wingers are inherently brain-damaged and are therefore unable to apply their education correctly. Just for that occasion, the study also asked a different question with "reversed polarity" - i.e. a touchy topic for left-wingers to which they tend to react very emotionally and negatively. Namely, nuclear power. And here's the thing: while uneducated left-wingers were highly negative towards it, higher education level was correlated to stronger acceptance of nuclear power among left-wingers.
TL;DR version: educated left-wingers are more willing to veer off from the "party line" on touchy topics than educated right-wingers.
Understand that this is not a "right wing" vs "left wing" debate here. Climate change was simply their focus, but in no way are the "egalitarian communitarians" immune to this as well. Take the Organic vs GM debate as an example. No matter how many scientists say organic food is no better (or worse) for you than GM'd food, the debate is still heavily polarized between the left and right and no amount of scientific evidence is swaying the sides.
Nuclear power is another example though my completely unscientific polling of friends indicates irrational fear is replaced with guarded skepticism as education levels increase. This at least allows for earnest debate in the same way that climate change arguments should as well. The real issue we have is trying to prevent climate change / global warming from going the way of the abortion debate. When is a fetus "human" enough to be called a baby? Does its DNA change within those nine months? The science is pretty clear on this, but no one cares about the science. In the end it’s a pointless shouting-fest between two sides with pitchforks, barbed wire fences, and trenches. The science is well known by both sides, but that’s not what the debate is even about. The abortion debate is a moral dilemma with no (useful) scientific answer.
The important lesson on the climate debate is not to change the message through "effective strategies include use of culturally diverse communicators," but instead to change the question. Let's say the skeptics are right and this is a natural cycle.. what should we do about it? How do we prevent cities and countries from being overcome by ocean water? What breadbasket areas will dry up? What new areas will be created and how do we prepare the land to exploit that? Aka: Questions that can be answered. There are some areas of common interest between the two sides that have nothing to do with shutting down coal plants or harming a nation’s industrial base. Work on those areas first.
Simple people are by far more religious.
JAM
Here's the eight questions used to determine scientific "literacy" and the percent respondents getting the correct. Personally, if this is "scientific literacy" I think we're in deep, deep doodoo.
EARTHOT The center of the Earth is very hot [true/false]. 86%
HUMANRADIO All radioactivity is man-made [true/false]. 84%
LASERS Lasers work by focusing sound waves [true/false]. 68%
ELECATOM Electrons are smaller than atoms [true/false]. 62%
COPERNICUS1 Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth? 72%
COPERNICUS2 How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun? [one day, one month, one year] 45%
DADGENDER It is the fatherâ(TM)s gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl [true/false]. 69%
ANTIBIOTICS Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria [true/false]. 68%
Table S3. Science literacy items. N = 1540. Consistent with the NSF Science Indicators scoring method
--- from the study supplimental data: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nclimate1547-s1.pdf
The study: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html
So, for the vast majority of humans, it does boil down to a leap of faith.
There is a very simple time-saving metric which allows you do discover whether someone knows what they are talking about, or are living in fantasy-land making stuff up. (And the surprisingly sparse gradations in-between.) It is as simple as recursively spot checking the references. Pick on constrained topic and try and work out whether the argument is supported. Then look for the counter-arguments and do the same.
Ideologues are almost always so sloppy in how they make stuff up, that it becomes obvious in a matter of hours or less. This is surprisingly efficient, because debate polarises so quickly.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The word 'scientific' has been abused as much as the word 'terrorist'. Scientific studies are regularly refuted. Scientists are pressured to alter or withhold results. So until 'scientific findings' holds real weight I'd expect this phenomena to continue.
You don't need to read anything to decide whether model/theory is wrong or right. Even the most complex theory must ultimately provide predictions about the real world otherwise there is no right or wrong. If predictions match the reality then the theory is correct, otherwise it is wrong. Nothing complicated here.
And that people should stop pushing the 'OMG GW' / 'OMG denier' and instead have rational conversations about the real risks and the real costs and what action is actually reasonable.
At least in my case, I react to the media's stupid alarmism by going in the opposite direction. The media not only greatly exaggerates the possible effects of global warming (coastal cities will submerge, etc.), but paints the issue as "good scientists against evil oil companies", incite hatred against skeptics (such as that odious "lets blow up al the sceptics, including children" campaign) and uses a double standard: when we see any hot summer, it's an example of global warming, but when we see an exceptionally cold winter, they are silent on the issue.
All this bullshit from the media, the media which is perceived as having a leftist bias, and once again is marching in lockstep with the Dems, makes conservative people dismiss the whole idea as leftist shenanigans. And that actually makes some sense. Conservatives think "if this stuff was real, why all the bullshit?"
So, a message to all people who care about global warming: try to tame the media. Tell journalists to stop using every hot summer as "proof" of global warming, and most importantly stop claiming that global warming will cause adultery, famines, AIDS, prostitution, teenage prostitution, doubling of water bills, terrorism, the end of the Olympics, World War IV, witchcraft executions, end of French wine, volcanic eruptions, UFOs, trade barriers, slow tree growth, too fast tree growth, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees on Antarctica, street crime, suicide, end of sunset, soaring food prices, sexual dysfunction, rape, viruses, human extinction, or the end of civilisation (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)
In short: if you want us to believe you, them _stop lying_.
The point is that a change in composition of 0.01% is actually quite high for CO2
it is "obviously" not as the supposed "huge increase" in CO2 levels has led to very little actual warming for the climate overall.
The fears of some kind of runaway reaction have been totally debunked.
As for the climate getting slowly warmer, as a species we would be very lucky if that is actually the case - but it's too soon to tell, people are trying to use year to year swings to guess what the climate will be like 100 years hence, and so far utterly botched even a simple five or ten year prediction. When those start getting even close, I will listen to the people who have actually come up with decent models for what is happening.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What's the cost of Manhattan or other cities flooding? Once? Repeatedly? When will they be given up?
Never. Just look at Venice.
And they *will* be flooded. Maybe not this century, but AGW will not magically stop in 2100 if we continue to emit lots of CO2.
Even IF that were true (and revised predictions reveal the dramatic rise in sea levels were utter bunk) it would not matter, because if the seas really did start to rise in a serious manner mankind would be able to apply some technological fix to the problem. They have before and they will again.
You are talking about something 90 years hence, when the world will be sporting unimaginable abilities thanks to technological advancements. Are you truly so ignorant of history that you would even imagine there were not several levers mankind could pull at that point to work around or eliminate the problem of the sea shifting a few feet?
If no-one else, the Dutch would laugh openly at your worrying.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I have literally been called "worse than Stalin" by someone on Slashdot for posting a similar thing to this post. Not even commenting on my views on the situation, just explaining that the GW argument is not one simple thing, there's really a multitude of arguments (the fact of the warming, the theory as to why, the proclamation that it is bad and the politics of what to do) and that people can and do buy in to some but not all of them. For that I was "worse than Stalin" according to a Slashdot poster, and fervent global warming believer.
For many people it really is like a religion. They require that you believe everything they do, 100%, without question or you are the enemy. However they cage it in science. They feel and proclaim that it is anti-science to disagree with their proposed solutions.
You need to look at the results, rather than listen to Fox News talking heads.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
I burn carbon for heating every winter, from a 100% renewable, scalable, naturally-occurring energy source. TREES.
Yep. Every year I axe a tree or two on my property, chop them, and set the wood out to season for the following year. For every tree I cut down, I plant 10-20 oak saplings in pasture land I am not using. I figure I'll cut down 30-40 trees on my property for heat before I expire, leaving behind a veritable forest in my wake.
I think you need to take a Valium and go seek out some of those fact-based papers you speak of, because you've obviously chosen to guzzle the scaremongering religious koolaid from the climate change FUD camp.
Once, I said to him, "Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics." Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, "I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it." But he came back a few days later to say, "I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don't really understand it."
-David Goodstein
Often this is paraphrased as, "if you can't explain to to a first year student, you haven't understood it."
.: Semper Absurda
If the world were to engage in producing nuclear power plants at the rate that France did in the 70s we would have all but solved the climate crisis... If we did it with modern & next-gen nuclear plants we'd have enough excess energy to radicalize transportation and (more importantly), drastically raise the standard of living in Africa, Asia, and India - a move that would have the secondary effect of bringing population growth under control.
A rethink of how nuclear regulation is handled, like making the NRC as effective and progress friendly as the FAA, provides us a cheap and abundant fuel source that rounds off the disaster curve of ever scarcer fossil fuels while being more profitable to operate. Nuclear is industry friendly and is key to getting our disproportionately dirty industry activities (as they use more energy to do big things), to be low and near-zero CO2 activities. WWS is a nice boost on top of that, but the meat and potatoes of big clean energy has been delivering the goods for decades now. With the benefit of hindsight and computer assisted design I think we can do even better now in 2012.
All this means is "Christian Republicans are in denial about Global Warming."
Imagine that you've lived your whole life in the far north somewhere. It is always very cold outside and inside your house as well, so you always sleep under 3 thin blankets. This makes you feel nice & cozy and you sleep very well under your three thin blankets. It's how you and all your ancestors grew up.
Now lately, you have been given a fourth blanket. You still sleep under all of them, you can't take them off without lots of effort, but it's less comfortable now; you notice that you feel a little bit too warm sometimes, although it's really not that big of a problem. You and your family have too many bigger problems to worry about.
Now imagine that your descendents for at least the coming 500 years are forced to sleep under six blankets, unless you change certain of your behaviours that look like they have nothing to do directly with blankets or sleeping.
How many people would go "I don't care, it isn't proven, why should I be the only one who has to change, it's a government conspiracy, and besides I'm much too tired and hot to think about all this crap!"
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
And if there is NO quality control, then it's wrong because "what about the urban heat island effect, huh?".
Have you been told that your children will be RAPED before you're hacked to death?
A climate scientist who agrees with the IPCC on AGW was.
Inholf wants the IPCC panel jailed and hung for treason.
Thus it follows:
Scientists are a bunch of lefties.
...is democracy. You only have to work in IT for ten minutes to discover that average people commit most of their limited analytical capacity to social advancement. These are not people I want in any decision making process.
Ice ages come (global cooling) and ice ages go (global warming). It has nothing to do with humans.
Virtual nothing the AGW pushers have confirms the AGW hypothesis (it's not a theory until it's proven) which makes it something of an orbiting teapot.
One being excretions are some other beings air. That is actually the cycle. Plants consume CO2, and produce O2. Animals consume O2, and produce CO2. That is the whole point.
It is all about balance in the system. I guess you might classify pollution as any substances that is out of balance with a particular system.