Slashdot Mirror
Pew Survey Documents Gaps Between Public and Scientists
PvtVoid writes: A new Pew Research Study documents an alarming gap between public perception of scientific issues and the opinions of the scientists themselves, as measured by a poll of AAAS scientists. Even worse, the gap is partisan, with clear differences between Republicans and Democrats, and between conservatives and liberals. For example, while 98% of AAAS members agree with the statement that "Human beings and other living things have evolved over time", only 21% of conservatives agree, compared with 54% of liberals. Global warming, similarly, shows an ideological gap: 98% of AAAS scientists agreed with the statement that "the Earth is getting warmer mostly due to human activity", compared with 21% of conservatives and 54% of liberals. Encouragingly, almost everybody thinks childhood vaccines should be required (86% of AAAS members, 65% of conservatives, and 74% of liberals.) Go here for an interactive view of the data.
In order to succeed as a scientist, one must be of above-average intelligence.
The opinions of above-average people, on issues that require above-average intelligence to really understand, will naturally be at variance with the opinions of merely average and below-average people.
I am sure there are plenty of average people who would disagree with me on this, however.
The correct figures for the Global Warming question are: AAAS members 87%, conservatives 29%, liberals 76%.
A segment of the population has views that are different from the average of the entire population.
Do the same thing with investment bankers and you'll see lots of gaps as well.
Do it with politicians versus everyone else... gaps.
Do it with police officers versus everyone... gaps.
Look at our little community here on slashdot. Are our views analogous to the general population? Nope. Lots of gaps.
So... I don't quite get the point of the survey. There have always been gaps between scientists and the general public and always will be just as there are gaps between any sub group and the whole and ALWAYS will be.
Meaningless.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The question of anthropomorphic global warming and evolution can be studied and understood on a factual basis as can whether vaccines help. Whether vaccines should be required is not a question for science to answer. The summary conflates matters of fact and matters of judgement.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
What I see is people turning more and more away from learning, actual knowledge, and truth, and turning back towards religion, superstition, mysticism, and other forms of wilful ignorance. Many people also seem to be turning away from technology because it's 'too complicated' for them, apparently. It all seems to be revolving around a common theme of people's brains being overloaded by modern life, and wanting to turn back to simpler things. It's almost as if people's brains, which on a geologic time scale aren't very far removed at all from a hunter-gatherer existence, just can't keep up with how fast science, technology, and even modern society are developing, and is just flat-out starting to reject it.
Posted as Anonynmous Coward, because my brain is tired today, and I don't feel up to dealing with an Inbox full of hateful comments for daring to express my opinions on this subject.
The truth and facts have always had a liberal bias.
The 0.1% have doe a good job of getting the 99.9% that sides with them on issues to think that it's about them (the 99.9%) when it's really about the 0.1%.
Acceptance of the theory of natural selection is pretty much low all over the US. Beside educator and scientist, pretty much the majority of people in the US refuse to accept the theory. You may find variance for many subject, but they are usually not as crass as this.
Isn't that kind of the point of living in a free country? We're all entitled to our own beliefs. Why is it "alarming" or "even worse" that one group doesn't agree with another on a particular topic?
Who ever wrote this is obviously not a scientist.
I mean, it's not like this hasn't been discussed before... Ignorance is strength...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
On the science, you'll find this holds up in both the stated discrepancies because Republicans HATE the science and the facts because of their ideologies are incompatible with them.
Democrats don't have any ideological problem (maybe not even caring, therefore "why not just take their word for it?"
This isn't to say that republicans are *anti-science*, only that there are some things that science says that they have *VERY* strong feelings over, where the Democrats don't have that feeling in their ideology. OTHER areas Democrats will have an ideological stance and either refute the independent expert advice or *too vehemently* follow the weak evidence. I'm sure that someone will be able to find it, my problem isn't that I don't like (R), but that I'm not in the USA, the only things I hear about are the hot topics that generate the most media frenzy. And that at the moment is AGW and evolution. Both of which happen to coincide with the most negative view by mainly republican politics.
I clicked on this hoping for a study on lasers, or at least sharks.
Pew pew!
An authoritative, expensive survey to affirm what we already know. What's remarkable is that few will argue the results. You might think that conservatives would be embarrassed to see that their kind don't believe in evolution, but since they are conservative they probably agree. It's difficult to see who benefits from this exhaustive study.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Aside from pointing out the glaringly obvious (people who identify themselves as Conservative gave responses consistent with what you would expect from people who identify themselves as conservative, same for LIberals), /. the summary ignores far more interesting points.
1) There is a much smaller difference between Republicans and Democrats than there is between Conservatives and Liberals, e.g. the Evolution question goes from 21% versus 54% (Ideology) to 57% versus 72% (Party Id).
2) Several of the questions show a fairly small difference between Republicans and Democrats (pesticides, animal research, world population, vaccines, manned space programs, bioengineered fuel, and space station).
Even if the summary cannot seem to spell it out, and the AAAS website does not either. Some of us click links to learn about things we know nothing about. Please spell out acronyms once, then we'll have it. Thanks!
>>Encouragingly, almost everybody thinks childhood vaccines should be required (86% of AAAS members, 65% of conservatives, and 74% of liberals.)
Not a real shocker these days that most are okay with someone jamming a needle into everyone even if they don't want it. It is very similar act to rape.
Take, for example, Global Cooling back in the 1970's. That was refuted with Global Warming in the 2000's
It was refuted in the 1970s, not the 200's. It was never a popular theory. No one should doubt Global Warming on the basis that the scientific community switched its stance. It never did: the majority of scientists were saying it was warming all along.
now it's simply Global Climate Change
It has been called "climate change" since before 1988, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed. Today, people act like the name is some kind of knee-jerk defense against the switch between "global cooling" and "global warming" when in fact, there was no name change at all, nor was there ever a switch.
"Trust but Verify"
If you trust you don't verify but if you verify you don't trust BY DEFINITION.
The whole definition of trust is you trust and because of that trust do NOT DO checks BECAUSE you TRUST!
Phoebe: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?
ROSS: There might be, a teeny, tiny, possibility.
PHOEBE: I can't believe you caved.
ROSS: What?
PHOEBE: You just abandoned your whole belief system. I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. How, how, how are you going to go into work tomorrow? How, how are you going to face the other science guys? How, how are you going to face yourself? Oh!
Ross leave the room dejected.
Strange, but I'm finding I agree with this.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'm sure there was a time when 9 out of 10 scientists would have said the world is flat, witches should be burned at the stake, or that the atom resembled some type of pudding. Of course science isn't about what the individual scientists think or feel, but what they can prove. You need to look at the data and arguments, not just the headlines.
Oh and also, thanks for throwing in the pointless jab about "Encouragingly, almost everybody thinks childhood vaccines should be required," because obviously the 86%, 65%, and 74% you quoted really isn't almost everybody and again doesn't prove anything. Even the scientists who might agree in general still might not agree on the specifics, especially for vaccinations. That statement of "encouragingly" is exactly what's wrong with the subjective "I'll do whatever the scientists tell me to do" bandwagon, because taken to an extreme any eccentric billionaire can fund enough phony scientists and create enough marketing material to convince them of anything.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04...
Amazing how this sort of thing works.
Take another look at the numbers for Republican vs. Democrat. They are much closer than the summary (mis)led you to believe by quoting the Conservative vs. Liberal numbers.
Also notice the subtle wording of the AGW question: "The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity". The word "mostly" is clearly there to bias the answers. They didn't ask "Is the earth getting warmer?", or "Is human activity contributing to the earth getting warmer?"
It's hard to trust anyone who's work is disseminated by the government or media today.
That's an assertion that's hard to challenge in the libertarian atmosphere of slashdot.
Research and reports are spun mercilessly for the gain of whoever needs it.
Indeed, it's always wise to track down the actual original data, and actually look at the data and see what we know, and how well we know it, rather than to trust the media interpretations.
It may not be scientist's fault but when you hear something like "the sky is falling" and then hear it refuted over and over, one starts to take things with a grain of salt.
The media does like to run doom and destruction stories-- they are more of a story than talking about things like "slow increase in temperature over a time scale of decades."
Take, for example, Global Cooling back in the 1970's.
OK, let's take it for an example. There was never a scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970s. The American Meteorological Society did a review, trying to look for the origin of that. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... They summarize: "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
That was refuted with Global Warming in the 2000's
It was not really "refuted" per se, since it was never a scientific consensus in the first place.
and now it's simply Global Climate Change which seems to be a catch-all.
"Global Climate Change" was the term coined by the (first) Bush administration.
I don't deny GCC but I certainly want to see the data.
Excellent! That's the difference between deniers and skeptics: deniers will make any possible excuse to avoid looking at data. As it turns out, there are literally terabytes of data.
I will suggest starting with the Working Group 1 report, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, which summarizes what is known and how we know it. I'm most familiar with the 4th report (www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html), from 2007, but you might want to go directly to the more recent update, the 5th: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
From there, dive into the data from whichever source you prefer-- I'd suggest possibly the Berkeley Earth data, which does an interesting job of comparing alternative hypotheses against the temperature data: http://berkeleyearth.org/summa...
What's the old adage that Regan grabbed from the Russian's; "Trust but Verify" I think was it.
Excellent. Much better than the denier's motto: "Never trust, never verify, never look at the facts."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
So, exactly what is in THIS survey do you SPECIFICALLY KNOW FOR FACT is spin?
Lazy thinking is bad.
not you, random internet guy.
Make a note that the vaccines graphs are broken. It just shows whatever you were viewing before you clicked on it.
The numbers above are from the IPCC (albeit from memory, correct some of they are wrong).
Its all nice and dandy to say the sky is falling, but which of the points above do you not agree with?
"anyone who's work is disseminated by the government or media today"
The only other category is "people I've never heard of". Hard to trust them either.
"whether vaccines should be required is not a question for science to answer."
You would be surprised what science answers. Vaccination do not work 100% and some people cannot get vaccinated. Thus science tells us vaccination should be given to the whole population to be the most effective, and protect those who cannot (not : cannot, NOT do not want) get vaccinated by lowering the chance of contagion. Thus : despite in california the level of vaccination being high (majority of population) despite that infantile illness still managed to contaminate and kill kids in mini localized epidemics. That is because as level of vaccination drop, such mini epidemic gets more likely very quickly. So the answer of science is clear : vaccinate everybody who can. Now allowing people to opt out a vaccination program IS the politic answer and handling of the issue of belief under the cover of freedom.
The climate change question is:
"The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity"
Which is, if one is to answer honestly, a shitty phrasing of the question. The reason it is a shitty phrasing is that the attribution places the majority of the cause on human activity.
The IPCC makes that claim. However, it is possible to believe that humans affect the environment and add to warming while believing that there are other natural causes that are responsible for the majority of the warming and that the IPCC projections (note, the IPCC *never* ever predicts anything. Why? Because if a prediction fails to come true you can be called on it. Projections, on the other hand...) are way too high.
As a simple example without going into the whole debate, I suspect that the ECS of a doubling of CO2 is much lower than the IPCC thinks. I am more in line with Lewis and Curry on this. Warning, PDF
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/lewiscurry_ar5-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity_clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf
The climate is a tricky, nonlinear problem. Not all of the factors are known and many of the 'known' factors aren't known very well. Yet some people insist on brushing these uncertainties under the rug and get mad when anyone dares to point these things out. And when questions are phrased badly, like the one in the study, the alarmists and those wishing to score political points jump all over anyone who dares to think about the issue a little deeper than "Humans are evil! We are all gonna DIE!'.
At the same time ir is easier to state 'All conservatives are stooopid" than it is to actually check the science yourself.
Slee
I love stories like this one, which are proven conclusively in the comments section under them.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Thank you. This stupid phrase is promulgated by conservatives who are so afraid that everyone is always out to get them that they no longer know how civil society can work. Hint: It includes the ability to trust.
I love your post. It demostrates how much blind trust you have for infomation that is pro-climate change.
I'd be willing to bet that any anti-climate change info you read, you do the same lack of research and simply assume it's a lie from Big Oil.
You blindly believed and quoted (without any independent research) the summary of a slashdot article.
The article itself gives a different number and submitted mentioned that the 98% was a typo.
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
That number made sense to you because it agreed with your viewpoint so you did no research and blindly accepted the information you were told (and proudly changed the subject line.)
Look at the nuke issue. Scientists want to continue building new nuke plants. Why? Because we KNOW that global warming is a REAL ISSUE that needs REAL SOLUTIONS.
However, Liberals, like conservatives, put their head in the ground and ignore the fact that new gen IV reactors can NOT have the issues that we seen in these gen II and gen III reactors.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I don't deny GCC but I certainly want to see the data.
I suppose the big questions is: beings as you are here, writing about climate change, why the fuck haven't you ALREADY looked at the data as it's been available for a while now?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
The numbers above are from the IPCC (albeit from memory, correct some of they are wrong).
Correct in the last part: some of them are wrong.
The actual IPCC documents are here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
An interesting graphic comparing various sources of climate change is here: http://www.bloomberg.com/graph...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Indeed, there also is a large gap between the viewpoint of the public and economists.
For example, few economists (11%) agree with the statement "'Buy American' has a positive impact on manufacturing employment", whereas 75% of the public feel that way.
94% of economists feel that NAFTA was a good idea, only 46% of the public agree.
It has been called "climate change" since before 1988, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed. Today, people act like the name is some kind of knee-jerk defense against the switch between "global cooling" and "global warming" when in fact, there was no name change at all, nor was there ever a switch.
Especially as the gist of the theory is: anthropogenic global warming leading to climate change. (And the shift is sensible. If the global average temperature increase didn't lead to climate change, we wouldn't be that concerned with it).
That we don't use that mouthful all the time is no different than you lot calling para-acetylaminophenol, acetaminophen, and we calling it paracetamol. The full thing is just too much. It's just basically a name. The underlying "thing" is still the same. In both cases.
Stefan Axelsson
opinion
[uh-pin-yuh n]
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
To most people, both supporters and opponents, evolution and global warming are a matter of opinion because they don't know enough for certainty. I suppose a lot of them could argue that it's actually a
fact
[fakt]
noun
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
While evolution and global warming are both definitely questions of fact rather than of preference, there are very few who could make that determination themselves rather than trust someone else's judgement.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
please share with us, where did you receive your advanced degrees in environmental science and climatology? it was probably somewhere really prestigious!
How ironic.
For the evolution question it says:
Liberals: 54%, Moderate 38%, Conservative 21%
But it also says:
Democrat: 72%, Republican 57%.
This can't be right. The most pro-evolution ideology can't be less pro-evolution than the most anti-evolution party, as a matter of math, unless their non-party identification rates are like 90%.
congratulations, you correctly identified that not everything in the list was a fact. here's your cookie.
the OPINIONS of the people on that list were ultimately formed based on facts, either real ones or fake ones doled out by alarmists, quacks, or fox news. my point stands.
Please see my well-documented retort.
The libertard can't understand the raw data anyway.
And in addition, in order to verify the data, you also have to trust the source of the data. In addition to trusting the source of the data, you also have to understand how the data was taken.
Maybe if the libertard were to take 2+ years of college level math, physics and engineering courses; followed by another year or so of instrumentation classes.
Just the easily refuted list of bogus facts the libertard's spewing. Saying "Trust and Verify" is easy, but apparently that libertard isn't even capable of doing that with their Faux nooz talking points much less verifying actual climate data.
Intelligence is of little concern and to be honest I'd like to know what defines intelligence
Intelligence is a rough measure of a person's learning potential.
All other things being equal a guy with a 130 IQ is going to be able to learn and understand much more than a guy with a 90 IQ.
I meant correct some IF they are wrong.
An infographic for children filled with lines that have no data points is useless.
Besides, it has been shown to be wrong.
The CO2 trend alone is below actual readings.
As for linking to the IPCC... well that was more than useless.
Point out what is wrong or dont bother posting.
This could be easily solved by having a single place (a web site and an app) where the scientific community at large shares with the public what's the current consensus, explained in the simplest terms possible, with links to credible resources to second level and third level of depth.
The site needs to be authoritative, and widely known as the single source from the community, so if anyone ever has a doubt, they know where to go to understand what the scientific community really think about a certain issue.
This does not mean by any means the absence of debate, or the constant change in views and information, but a place where the bulk of the community put their minor differences aside for the benefit of the common good and their own, by helping closing those gaps.
Besides, it has been shown to be wrong.
You seen to think that by just saying that you will make it true.
As for linking to the IPCC... well that was more than useless.
Since you said you were quoting numbers from the IPCC, I would suggest that linking to the IPCC reports would be relevant. Since you now say it is "more than useless" to link to the source that you claimed to have based your post on, I'd say that your post is "more than useless."
I haven't seen anything to make me think you have actually read any of the IPCC reports-- I suspect your poorly-remembered data is something you poorly-remembered from some political blog somewhere. Have you actually read anything from the IPCC, the work you claim to be quoting?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, but you heard this really neat meme, that, if it were true, would be a slam dunk for the opinion you hold. The problem of course is that the "98% of the scientific community" claim is not supported by any actual studies. The actual study said that 97% of papers on climatology published in peer reviewed journals supported anthropogenic global warming. The thing is that the study counted any paper on climatology which did not explicitly express the the position that anthropogenic global warming was NOT true as supporting the theory, even when the subject of the paper was not connected to that theory in any way.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
", with clear differences between Republicans and Democrats, and between conservatives and liberals. For example, while 98% of AAAS members agree with the statement that "Human beings and other living things have evolved over time", only 21% of conservatives agree, compared with 54% of liberals. "
I hope PEW wasn't equally sloppy about conflating the republican/democrat axis with the conservatives/liberal axis.
Ok let's say that only 60% of experts agree that man is the primary cause of the current trends. A number that I pulled out my anus, and is surely way too low.
I'm going to go with 60% of the experts.
Incidentally, those are the 60% that aren't on the payroll of the oil or coal industry.
Seems some essential data is missing from that summary. Seriously. Expand the fucking cryptic acronyms at least once.
Association of American Astronaut Surfers?
Anything Animated And Silly?
Arbitrary Acronyms Are Stupid?
Acquiring an education at university level (at a reputable university) requires one to be able to grasp a coherent set of ideas and techniques that together form the tissue of established science.
A student's grasp of the subject matter is (in reputable universities) not tested by measuring if people can regurgitate the material (achievable by rote learning), but if they can *apply* the tools to a new problem and if they can correctly assess and explain the impact and importance of e.g. changing one or two basic propositions of the theory.
That is how you test if a student has actually understood something they learned. And no, the questions that result from this line of approach can't be found in the books and can't easily be prepared for.
Correctly answering questions like that demands knowledge (a student must *know* (i.e. have memorised) enough of the subject matter) as well as intelligence (defined as sufficient grasp of the theory and an ability to use the theory to reason with it (i.e. apply it), and (this is how you recognise very good students) the ability to reason *about* the theory).
So by and large, someone who is educated in a reputable field at a reputable university and has better than minimum passing grades is intelligent. If they can grasp, apply, and reason about one theory, they will be able to do the same with other theories. Those tend to be the people that go into research by embarking on a PhD (at reputable universities).
So there's the causal link underlying the correlation between intelligence and education.
Of course there are a fair number of diploma mills that focus on testing memory. There you don't receive an education, you memorise a syllabus and learn how to avoid saying anything not covered by the text you learned.
Just read the National Weather Service report from measurement stations in USA.... they deemed that 98% of their own stations are affected by known issues and produce invalid/biased data... and YES this is in country that is no.1 in world in science.... so hold that in mind when you start looking temperature statistics...
Yeah, right. Let's believe anonymous cowards on facebook as reliable sources; they know much more than actual scientists.
Citation needed.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Ah yes, the ability to trust. Tell that to my aging parents who live with me because social security is inadequate. Just another great promise of the government you feel I should trust implicitly. And certainly I should trust anyone who is looking for their next research grant and needs to prop up something as big as climate change too.
I have a suggestion: I suggest you try analyzing blogs that attack climate science with just as much skepticism as you are applying to the actual climate science. You're showing one-sided skepticism: skeptical of the science, but completely credulous of the attacks on the science.
That blog post you link is full of misdirection and not-quite-right analysis. The graph by Bloomberg cites that the data graphed comes from the GISS. In fact, it is from a 2005 paper, Hansen, et al. "Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS model E." Clim. Dyn., 29, 2007, pp. 661-696). The Watt's up post, though: what's up with that? He wrote a long and superficially detailed analysis... without linking a single reference. Why no references? It looks like he doesn't want you to check what he did. His motto is, apparently, "trust me... and don't verify".
Why does he not link to the source of all the data he is analyzing? Doesn't that even slightly make you wonder?
Then, he says it's "convenient" that the graphed data stops at 2005. Well, it's not terribly suspicious: since the paper referenced was published in 2005, it would be surprising if the data didn't stop in 2005). He then shows a graph that purportedly shows "the widening divergence between models and reality" that purportedly starts in 2005. No link to the actual source of that data, though it's easy enough to find. He prints that graph-- the largest graph in the criticism-- without mentioning that it's not even graphing the same thing as the article he's criticizing.
He leaves off any explanation of where the data comes from probably because the data points graphed are not surface temperature-- this is the temperature in the mid-troposphere: 8–15km in altitude (and, to boot, only in the tropics, not the global average under discussion.)
The graph Watts Up put in without explanation is charting something completely different than the subject being discussed! Now, you can argue (and Christy does) that tropical mid-troposphere temperate is something important to understand and model... but that's a change of subject from what the article being critiqued discusses.
Why doesn't he say that?
The answer is obvious: this is misdirection. He's not trying to spread understanding. He's trying to spread confusion.
Start reading the Watts Up with the same skepticism you are applying to the actual science. Check his references. Look for misdirection and changes of subject. There's a dozen places right in that post you link that you can find things that you ought to find suspicious.
...About the IPCC reports. Indeed I have read them.
No, you haven't.
Your posts show no knowledge of anything except the denier arguments. If you had read the actual work that the denier blogs are attacking, you'd be able to comment with some actual understanding, instead of the comments you are posting with weasel-wording of "I am quoting from memory, I may be wrong." What a great weasel wording! You already told me that you think you might be wrong!
As usual, your side doesn't debate anything, only appeals to authority.
I linked to the source that you stated you were getting your facts from. You were the one appealing to authority: I just posting the link.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I didn't say that.
In '58, the famous essayist CP Snow published an essay entitled, "On the Two Cultures". In it, he was talking about the cultures of the sciences vs. the liberal arts. He noted, for example, that he knew plenty of scientists who could quote Shakespeare chapter and verse, but not one liberal arts person who even knew the simplified three laws of thermodynamics.
It's gotten much worse, and spread, thanks to the GOP's explicit building a reliable base of yellow dog Republicans out of the extreme right, the conspiracyists, the group that wants their RIGHTS (but aren't interested in their responsibilities) andthe funnymentalists who think the world's only 6000 years old. Then the media whose owners want that legal and tax and spending agenda treat them as "equally valid", and dumb down the science in school, and this is what you get: the party adherents whose mind is made up, don't confuse them with facts.
mark "the RW trumps your opinion"
On the web site, if I click (under Ideology) "Safe to eat foods grown with pesticides" and then "Humans and other living things have evolved over time", the percentages shown for the latter will match the former (31-27-25-68%). If I click "The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity" and then "Humans and other living things have evolved over time" once again I see the statistics associated with the former (29-56-76-87%).
Perhaps the OP wrote incorrect figures due to this bug in the web site?
stuff stuff stuff
Interesting.
Most people (includign myself) tend to distrust in assertions that have been previosuly refuted, and further, to distrust organisations/groups who make those assertions repeatedly, after they have already been refuted. Take climate denialists for example. They claim that during the 1970's claims about Global Cooling dominated climate discussion, much as AGW has since the 1980's. But that claim ahs been shown to be ridiculous.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Then they claimed that the climate was not actually warming. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their observations were so wrong.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but due to solar variation. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their observations were so wrong.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but for reasons unknown, nobody knows why or could ever know, it's impossible to know. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their methodology got it so wrong.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but not warming as much as observation would tend to make us believe because mumble mumble CONSPIRACY. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their methodology got it so wrong.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but not warming as much as observation would tend to make us believe because models something something. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their methodology got it so wrong.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Should I go on?
Actually, the oil industry IS paying for the global warming alarmists.
I would suggest that you learn something about science. You do not do science by consensus. You do science by facts. The facts are that, so far, all of the AGW models have FAILED to accurately predict future temperature changes and most of them have even failed to predict what has actually happened with temperatures when started with the data of a point in the past.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Yeah, totes makes sense to fund yourself out of a business model.
What's the air like on planet dumbass?
How about you stop grandstanding and discuss the post where I specifically mentioned where in the IPCC reports I got my info.
I would... except you didn't.
Possibly in some other thread somewhere, but in multiple replies to me in this thread you made no "specific mention" of where you claim to have gotten your data. Not only did you not "specifically mention where," you didn't even say which IPCC report you think you got your information from (in fact, this is the first post you've made that suggests that you know that there even is more than one IPCC report.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com