Steep Decline In Americans' Belief In Global Warming - Polidicks

[QUOTE=philxyz;17975788]There's always one that thinks he is more intelligent than all those people that investigate this sort of thing. It's perfectly safe to drop the ego, and read this: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform, Office of the UN Secretary General (from The Environmentalists' Little Green Book, ISBN 0-615-11628-0)[/QUOTE] ^conspiracy theorist [editline]07:13PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17975978]Pretty sure that was never the issue. Personally I'm more concerned about it destroying humanity.[/QUOTE] It's not going to destroy humanity, but it might kill fuckloads of people, especially poor people.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17975975]Global warming isn't going to destroy the world. And Al-Gore doesn't need to fly in a personal jet. He could either take a commercial jet or have television commercials to reach people across the country. I just find it funny that he tells others to cut down on energy usage, and yet, he doesn't.[/QUOTE] If television was as effective as appearing in person, there would be no point in campaigning. And airlines are notoriously unpredictable. Not to mention you'd probably be buttfucked by people on the jet because you're some big politician, and if you're not it's still hard to discuss policy when the baby next to you won't stop bawling. And I'm pretty sure nobody has said it's going to destroy the world. Just that if it continues it will cause untold catastrophe.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17975975]Global warming isn't going to destroy the world.[/QUOTE] So ocean levels rising won't have catastrophic effects on the earth's ecosystem and drown dozens of huge cities? Yeah it's not going to blow up the Earth and destroy everything, but it will have huge, devastating consequences. [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17975975]And Al-Gore doesn't need to fly in a personal jet. He could either take a commercial jet or have television commercials to reach people across the country. I just find it funny that he tells others to cut down on energy usage, and yet, he doesn't.[/QUOTE] shut up about al gore, screw al gore, he's not the only person in the world who promotes global climate change awareness sure he's a bit of a dick, that doesn't make the science any less valid

[QUOTE=sp00ks;17976043]It's not going to destroy humanity, but it might kill fuckloads of people, especially poor people.[/QUOTE] Well it's not likely it would completely obliterate the earth either. I was just exaggerating to make my point. I meant I am more concerned about its effect on humanity than on the planet.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17976159]shut up about al gore, screw al gore, he's not the only person in the world who promotes global climate change awareness sure he's a bit of a dick, that doesn't make the science any less valid[/QUOTE] I am afraid this is true Complaining about Al Gore in a climate change discussion is like complaining about Michael Moore in an Iraq War discussion

[QUOTE=TH89;17975891]There's no doubt in my mind that such pressure and hype exists. But if you look at the graph, the more directly involved people are in actual climate research, the more strongly they support the conclusion, which to me suggests that if anything the hype AGAINST it is affecting broader scientific opinion.[/QUOTE] Or you can look at it as the farther into the modern climatological community one goes, the easier one buys into hype [i]for[/i] it. "Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" doesn't necessarily mean "Climatologists directly involved in quantitative research on climate change" nor "Climatologists involved in climate modeling", either.

You're right, we should trust the conservative bloggers instead of the scientists. waaait.

Who the fuck said anything about bloggers? This is just good old-fashioned skepticism.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;17976330]Or you can look at it as the farther into the modern climatological community one goes, the easier one buys into hype [i]for[/i] it. "Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" doesn't necessarily mean "Climatologists directly involved in quantitative research on climate change" nor "Climatologists involved in climate modeling", either.[/QUOTE] What do you think it means?

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;17976330]Or you can look at it as the farther into the modern climatological community one goes, the easier one buys into hype [i]for[/i] it. "Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" doesn't necessarily mean "Climatologists directly involved in quantitative research on climate change" nor "Climatologists involved in climate modeling", either.[/QUOTE] so what you're saying is that they're not actually doing any research? are you saying that they just pulled all of the data out of their ass? This isn't skepticism. Skepticism is when you don't think there's enough proof. There is overwhelming scientific proof for a heating earth, and there is overwhelming proof that carbon emissions cause that.

[QUOTE=TH89;17976408]What do you think it means?[/QUOTE] "Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change." You could very well be polling people who are working with models that suck, people involved in research that's relatively meaningless, etc. Or not involved at all. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17976420]so what you're saying is that they're not actually doing any research?[/QUOTE] I'm saying out of the 1.5k people polled, there's no indication as to how many of them are actually important individuals in climatology, either as researchers or modelers or whatever. This is just telling us how many people believe in it out of a group. I don't base my opinions on how many people who work in a certain field believe in something, I base my opinions on the work of individuals with a record of being correct.

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17976114] And I'm pretty sure nobody has said it's going to destroy the world. Just that if it continues it will cause [B]untold catastrophe.[/B][/QUOTE] There. That's the part I don't believe in.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;17976618]"Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change." You could very well be polling people who are working with models that suck, people involved in research that's relatively meaningless, etc. Or not involved at all.[/QUOTE] By "active publishers" they mean active publishers in research journals, which means peer review, which means the models can't suck.

[QUOTE=TH89;17976645]By "active publishers" they mean active publishers in research journals, which means peer review, which means the models can't suck.[/QUOTE] Because without data we don't have yet, you can still confirm whether or not a model makes accurate predictions? I find it hard to believe that one of these journals employs a time traveler who has observational data from the next ten to twenty years that can confirm or deny the suckiness of modern predictions.

The models are as good as they can be. I'm sure climatologists, of all people, are well aware of the limitations of their modeling--if they still believe, virtually to a man, that the general prediction is accurate, there's something to be said for that.

Fair enough. I'm a bigger fan of putting my trust in specific individuals than groups of men in a given field, but if it works for you, it works for you. I'm just waiting for somebody to get famous from having made some predictions that are supported by observations for the next decade before I say "yep, that all sounds great to me."

My science teacher says global warming exists, but there's nothing that can be done for it, and it's not humans fault.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;17976885]Fair enough. I'm a bigger fan of putting my trust in specific individuals than groups of men in a given field, but if it works for you, it works for you. I'm just waiting for somebody to get famous from having made some predictions that are supported by observations for the next decade before I say "yep, that all sounds great to me."[/QUOTE] so unless people get media attention, you don't believe them? [editline]08:21PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;17977028]My science teacher says global warming exists, but there's nothing that can be done for it, and it's not humans fault.[/QUOTE] ur techear is dumb

[QUOTE=sp00ks;17977099]ur techear is dumb[/QUOTE] Global warming is a natural cycle.

Scientists disagree.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17976638]There. That's the part I don't believe in.[/QUOTE] how would sea levels rising a few meters and drowning a huge number of major coastal cities all around the world not qualify as "catastrophic"? [editline]02:55PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragy;17977565]Global warming is a natural cycle.[/QUOTE] so you choose to believe scientists when they say that some aspects of earth's environment are cyclical, but you choose not to believe them when they say that the current climate change is not part of that cycle?

[QUOTE=Ragy;17977565]Global warming is a natural cycle.[/QUOTE] I still haven't gotten any warming deniers to answer to this graph. [img]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/co2tempsm.jpg[/img] There's another version that goes back further in history, anyone have that?

I knew there was no global warming before it was cool to disbelieve it. :frogc00l:

[QUOTE=dryer-lint;17977829]I still haven't gotten any warming deniers to answer to this graph.[/QUOTE] You shouldn't have to. There's plenty of conspiracy blogs out there with ways of explaining away the graph--the simple fact that climatologists don't buy into those answers is evidence enough that there aren't any.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17976638]There. That's the part I don't believe in.[/QUOTE] Ice is made of water. When it gets hot, ice melts into water. More water means a higher sea level. A higher sea level means untold catastrophe. I'm not sure how this could be any simpler.

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17978142]Ice is made of water. When it gets hot, ice melts into water. More water means a higher sea level. A higher sea level means untold catastrophe. I'm not sure how this could be any simpler.[/QUOTE] I for one welcome our new flooded states. More coal on the fire!

[QUOTE=Levithan II;17977958]I knew there was no global warming before it was cool to disbelieve it. :frogc00l:[/QUOTE] I was stupid before stupid was cool. [editline]09:34PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;17976885]Fair enough. I'm a bigger fan of putting my trust in specific individuals than groups of men in a given field, but if it works for you, it works for you. I'm just waiting for somebody to get famous from having made some predictions that are supported by observations for the next decade before I say "yep, that all sounds great to me."[/QUOTE] You're telling me it's better to put your stock in one person simply because he's one person rather than [I]the entire fucking field of climatology[/I] because they're multiple people?

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17978142]Ice is made of water. When it gets hot, ice melts into water. More water means a higher sea level. A higher sea level means untold catastrophe. I'm not sure how this could be any simpler.[/QUOTE] Actually ice is less dense than water, though, so the extra water coming from ice melting is less than the water displaced by the ice itself. This doesn't take into account runoff from something melting glaciers in Greenland, though. I'm just talking about the polar ice caps.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17978221]Actually ice is less dense than water, though, so the extra water coming from ice melting is less than the water displaced by the ice itself.[/QUOTE] Ah, close but no cigar. While it's true that ice is less dense than water, ice only displaces as much water as is necessary for it to float, meaning a lot of ice is above the water. When it melts, what was in one concentrated location above the water is now in the water everywhere, raising the sea level.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17978221]Actually ice is less dense than water, though, so the extra water coming from ice melting is less than the water displaced by the ice itself.[/QUOTE] but the thing is, the ice that is going to be melting first is above the surface of the water.