Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Crown the Empire Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer showtimemulti showtimemulti showtimemulti  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Man Caused Global Warmering Believers: What Can be Done to Educate Them?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-23 of 23 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 24, 2010 10:53:47 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 24, 2010 10:59:16 AM PST
eclecticmn says:
What can be done to educate people about Climate change? Is belief in man caused climate change somehow tied to a need to believe in a cause and something bigger than themselves?

People have a need to believe in something higher than themselves, something that transcends this mortal world, to become a part of something bigger than themselves. Historically, this has been filled by religion, family, and local community. Intellectuals often view religion as superstition, view family as demeaning housework, and view their neighbors as pedestrian and parochial. The PTA and Boy Scouts just will not do. Still, the need must be filled.

Some people fill this need by joining causes or becoming part of the "people", the "fatherland", the "motherland", the fourth Reich, the Red Guard, whatever secular collective or other grand cause you wish to name.

It was always considered bad form to discuss politics at funerals, even at a politician's funeral. At the service for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, it became apparent that politics was the religion replacement for many people. Global warming is another.

The same people who identify with Copernicus and Galileo in standing up the medieval Catholic Church have no problem in wanting to muzzle non-believers to the global warming cause. The debate is said to be over, the original data to be destroyed, publication denied, funding denied, tenure denied, and laws passed in accordance with the new faith.

The head of the faith, Al Gore, is a not a scientist, but is appropriately a divinity school drop out, who is $100 million richer because of this new cause. P.T. Barnum was an American as well.

What can be done to educate these people? What can be done to encourage them to view climate study in a scientific way? The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2010 2:15:47 PM PST
tom kriske says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2010 2:42:38 PM PST
C. Taylor: The same people who identify with Copernicus and Galileo in standing up the medieval Catholic Church have no problem in wanting to muzzle non-believers to the global warming cause.

BPL: Muzzle them HOW? They yakk about their pseudoscience 24/7 over the internet. They OWN right-wing talk radio, the Fox News, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. They've even set up their own fake journals, like "Energy & Environment." Their books are all over Amazon. If this is being muzzled, **muzzle me!**

CT: The debate is said to be over

BPL: It is.

CT: the original data to be destroyed

BPL: Nothing has been destroyed. All the original data is still available. CRU destroyed only **their own copies** of the original data.

CT: publication denied

BPL: Lindzen gets published all the time. Substandard papers from whatever point of view never get published. Them's the breaks, pal.

CT: funding denied

BPL: Huh? Exxon-Mobile alone has given these nuts millions.

CT: tenure denied

BPL: To whom, precisely?

CT: and laws passed in accordance with the new faith.

BPL: Like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade? Please God. No success yet, though, thanks to people like you.

CT: The head of the faith, Al Gore, is a not a scientist, but is appropriately a divinity school drop out

BPL: He was one of Roger Revelle's students in the '60s, which means he's taken at least one more climate science course than you have.

CT: who is $100 million richer because of this new cause.

BPL: All the proceeds from AIT went to a non-profit, not to Al Gore. He's already rich; the one thing he doesn't need is more money.

CT: P.T. Barnum was an American as well.

BPL: He had interesting things to say about people like you.

CT: What can be done to educate these people? What can be done to encourage them to view climate study in a scientific way?

BPL: They already do. It's you and your pals who are ignorant of how science works and what sources about science are authoritative. It's you and your pals who refuse to crack a book and study and work the problems. It's you and your pals who decide what's true in science based on what's congenial to your ideology and what isn't.

You want to learn climate science to the point where you can debate the issues intelligently? Get off your lazy butt and CRACK A BOOK. Start with these, and once you've read through them and worked all the problems, I can recommend more:

Hartmann, Dennis 1994. Global Physical Climatology.
Houghton, John T. 2002. The Physics of Atmospheres.
Petty, Grant W. 2006. A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2010 5:27:54 PM PST
CT: What can be done to educate people about Climate change?

TS: You're the one who needs educating.
Try looking at a SCIENCE source for a science topic -- not the far Right, huh?

<<National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming.

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion [on global warming - see below]. A few organizations hold non-committal positions />>

taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by the following list of scientific organization with -international standing in the sciences (ie who have issued statements in support of global warming):

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy
Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia
University Northwestern University
University of Akureyri University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey National Centre for Atmospheric Science
UK Climate Group Climate Institute Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society Community
Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research
Council Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality National Economic Council
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Engineers
Australia American Chemical Society
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

And who gets to define what is "science", if not the top scientists?

--So are you one of Rush's DITTO heads or what???

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2010 5:28:32 PM PST
Scientists Agree Human-Induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says
ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) -

a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.
________________________________________
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.
The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.
Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2010 5:30:01 PM PST
<<The head of the faith, Al Gore, is a not a scientist, but is appropriately a divinity school drop out, who is $100 million richer because of this new cause. P.T. Barnum was an American as well. >>

TS: Such Right Wing crap!

Posted on Jan 24, 2010 5:35:33 PM PST
RickK says:
"divinity school drop out"

That's a positive recommendation!

When understanding is achieved, faith is no longer necessary.

Posted on Jan 24, 2010 8:33:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 24, 2010 8:52:27 PM PST
eclecticmn says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 24, 2010 9:40:08 PM PST
Ct, you've conveniently ignored the enormous list of legitimate scientific institutes, kindly provided by Truthseeker, which have concluded that AGW is a confirmed theory. Instead of learning something about the science, which is readily available, you jump to the latest mindless chant of the science deniers that science is religion. Funny, your ilk tried to legislate religion into science in Kansas a few years back. This latest chant apparently originated in the brain dead rants of the nasty darling of extreme rightwing nutjobs, ann coulter, but maybe you picked it up elsewhere. Learn some science before you attempt to criticize it, or mke such foolish statements. Your staements demonstrate that you do not deserve any respect from reasonable educated people.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2010 5:23:23 AM PST
CT: What strikes me in the comments is their religious zeal and the tendency to treat those on the other side as heretics. I don't imagine I would find this in a discussion on catalysts or particle physics.

BPL: Catalyst chemists and particle physicists don't have to deal with a well-funded political movement dedicated to discrediting everything they say and portraying them as frauds who ought to be fired, jailed or even executed. That kind of thing makes scientists testy. Check out the evolutionary biologists for another example.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2010 5:27:25 AM PST
CT: We are now at a temperature higher than the little ice age and lower than the medieval warming period.

BPL: Wrong!

Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., and H.F. Diaz 2003. "Climate Change in Medieval Time." Science 302, 404-405.

Dean, J.S. 1994. "The Medieval Warm Period on the Southern Colorado Plateau." Climatic Change 26, 225-241.

Goosse H., Arzel O., Luterbacher J., Mann M.E., Renssen H., Riedwyl N., Timmermann A., Xoplaki E., Wanner H. 2006. "The Origin of the European 'Medieval Warm Period'." Clim. Past, 2, 99-113.

Mann, Michael E. et al. 2009. "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly." Science 326, 1256-1260.

Osborn, Timothy J. and Keith R. Briffa 2006. "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years." Science 311, 841-844.

CT: If we increase to a temperature of the medieval warming period is that bad? Should we try to do something about it if we can?

BPL: See above.

CT: If the temperature of #4 is 90% natural, should we try to do something about it? 100%?

BPL: Yes, we should plan for the unavoidable collapse of civilization. But it's not 90-100% natural, so we don't have to worry about the question.

CT: If "doing something about it" means a drastic drop in standard of living, say 50% die off in the US, does that change the answer or not?

BPL: You've got this backward. NOT doing anything means 90% die-off in the US some time in the next 40 years. Remember you heard it here first.

As it happens, you don't have to decrease the standard of living to combat global warming AT ALL. It's sufficient to switch to renewable sources of energy and stop cutting down forests.

CT: When the temperature starts to drop toward the next ice age is that bad? Should we try to do something about it?

BPL: Yes, very. But since the next stade in the Milankovic cycles (do you even know what I mean here?) is 20,000 years from now, and it's a shallow one, it's not much of a problem.

CT: Is the man made global warming movement a concern with human well being or nature worship?

BPL: The former.

Posted on Jan 26, 2010 2:44:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 26, 2010 2:50:52 AM PST
A customer says:
As 97% of climatologists agree that anthropogenic warming is taking place, according to a 2009 survey (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO030002.shtml), I would have thunk the "believers" quite educated enough already.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2010 2:45:42 AM PST
A customer says:
C. Taylor - "Is the man made global warming movement a concern with human well being or nature worship?"

False dichotomy.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2010 2:49:28 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 26, 2010 2:50:25 AM PST
A customer says:
C. Taylor - "I don't imagine I would find this in a discussion on catalysts or particle physics."

How many such debates are dominated by ideological fruitcakes screaming that the Periodic Table is a fraud, or that Pauli and Heisenberg never existed? In how many such debates do the general public post denialist blog entries denying the existence of protons and say that the "debate" on covalent bonds must listen to politically-motivated "dissent" in order to be scientific?

Posted on Jan 27, 2010 2:19:53 AM PST
I wonder if this guy's use of the word "warmering" reveals any other cognitive insights.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 27, 2010 7:39:55 PM PST
eclecticmn says:
Clumsy fingers. I could not find an easy way to correct the title.

Posted on Jan 28, 2010 5:01:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 28, 2010 5:03:21 PM PST
Tero says:
Frostbite Falls, MN -- Local moose are not waiting for a climate change report for Minnesota. They do not plan to wait for climate skeptics to review secret data and forcings of climatologists. Instead, leading moose Spike explored Canada for a month and consulted with Canadian moose. The Canadians have done browsing studies and have reviewed data at a Moose Science Convention. All peer reviewed oral presentations gave better browse data for Ontario compared to Minnesota at this longitude.

Spike and his allies are heading, with females in tow, to Canada for the summer and intend to stay there as long as the weather permits. Moose are not concerned with wide swings in temperature. "That is just weather," stated Spike.

Or see
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6X-4F1HCD7-8&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1184823191&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=85efd8ca248b2d346f3e95f54d47fa6f

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2010 3:50:17 PM PST
eclecticmn says:
Catalyst chemists and particle physicists are not trying to tax industrial societies into a pre-industrial state, while keeping some of the money for themselves, transferring some to other countries, running the rest through some Enron-Wall Street carbon futures money skimming machine, and creating a nice bureaucracy for themselves. Even man made global warming believers have blown the whistle on the "carbon offset" scams and said well ahead of time that if the initial credits credits were not to be auctioned off, then that would be an indication of fraud.

If catalyst chemists and particle physicists were trying do the above, they should be willing and able to stand up to close scrutiny and pass a smell test. These warmers get quite upset over even being questioned by the people they want to regulate. In the words of Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, "Back off, we're scientists."

It may be warmer here in 30 years and it may be colder. I don't know. The earth has certainly warned and cooled in the past. I do know that the IPCC report has been discredited, even if it will be warmer. The human beings behind the IPCC report have lost any credibility they may have had with honest people.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

The closer people look the worse the IPCC looks. One scientist reported that a paper he had contributed to, which had been peer reviewed, was later changed, with the changes not being reviewed, to slant the paper's conclusion toward global warming. The excuse for the glacier mistakes was that the paper was not really reviewed well. In any case, "peer review" does mean much in the case of the IPCC report. It is no longer any indication of quality in the IPCC report.

I wanted to see if the AGW movement was as religious in nature as it seemed to be. The responses to my initial post proved my initial theory was right. Thanks.

I learned I was a creationist, knew nothing of science, and did something in Kansas, maybe burned some books. I can't remember. If I burned any witches at the stake be sure to let me know.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2010 12:17:57 AM PST
A customer says:
C. Taylor - "If catalyst chemists and particle physicists were trying do the above, they should be willing and able to stand up to close scrutiny and pass a smell test."

And if they didn't, catalysts would still work, just the same as anthropogenic will still be happening no matter how hard you try to get something on the scientists. Only a creationist believes that he can make science go away by smearing the scientists. That's why you are one.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2010 4:17:17 AM PST
CT: I do know that the IPCC report has been discredited

BPL: You know lots of things that the rest of us don't, and in some cases, don't even consider rational. You know them the way millions of people "know" that they've been abducted by aliens.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2010 6:10:22 AM PST
A customer says:
Barton Paul Levenson - "You know them the way millions of people "know" that they've been abducted by aliens."

Hear, hear!

Posted on Feb 6, 2010 12:32:21 AM PST
GRAN DUMP says:
CT really is banging steph

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2010 11:22:55 AM PST
C. Taylor
It certainly appears as if your objection to a scientific theory is actually based on your own political/economic considerations. And the claim that science is actually religious seems to have originated from the noxious sribblings of Anorexic Ann Coulter, who certainly is a creationist, and has been taken as "gospel" by the science denying community. Perhaps if you didn't so fully demonstrate your own motivations, we might be inclined to take your citations from the popular press more seriously. But now we know, and even if you change your ways, it won't establish your credibility.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  10
Total posts:  23
Initial post:  Jan 24, 2010
Latest post:  Feb 6, 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions