If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Express)   A government funded report shows 19% of people are climate change disbelievers   (express.co.uk) divider line 61
    More: Obvious, Intergovernmental Panel, denialism, Union of Concerned Scientists, IPCC, global warming, greenhouse gases, ice sheets, scientific research  
•       •       •

511 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Sep 2013 at 8:59 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-20 09:03:22 AM
Like I'm supposed to trust anything from the government!
 
2013-09-20 09:11:58 AM
And they won't until their home is underwater. then they'll blame the gays.
 
2013-09-20 09:13:56 AM

The Gentleman Caller: And they won't until their home is underwater. then they'll blame the gays.


I blame Bush.
 
2013-09-20 09:23:38 AM
The Daily Mail is just doing their part.
 
2013-09-20 09:30:47 AM
That is in the UK. I'm sure it is higher in the USA. Hell, we probably have 19% believing that 9/11 was a government plot.
 
2013-09-20 09:43:33 AM
I can't believe this.
 
2013-09-20 09:43:45 AM
This is from the Daily Express, which is like the poor man's Daily Mail, which should give you some idea of it's journalistic credibility.

I can't think of any other national newspaper where you can play bingo with it's front cover.
 
2013-09-20 09:45:49 AM
GRAPHS GRAPHS GRAPHS!!!
 
2013-09-20 09:55:10 AM

TheManWho: This is from the Daily Express, which is like the poor man's Daily Mail, which should give you some idea of it's journalistic credibility.

I can't think of any other national newspaper where you can play bingo with it's front cover.


Impressive you can still have readers with almost a month of 50% Diana stories 16 years after the fact.
 
2013-09-20 10:00:25 AM

GameSprocket: That is in the UK. I'm sure it is higher in the USA. Hell, we probably have 19% believing that 9/11 was a government plot.


Pew did an enormous poll of US adults regarding religious beliefs.

Statements like "Angels and demons are active in the world" get 40% "completely agree" and 28% "mostly agree".  19% of Christians claim to speak in tongues, and half of those claim it's at least weekly.  62% for "definite answer to a specific prayer request" at least several times per year.

This poll was done in 2007, not 1407.  It's sad what people believe.
 
2013-09-20 10:19:48 AM

chimp_ninja: This poll was done in 2007, not 1407.  It's sad what people believe.


Gah damn.
 
2013-09-20 10:20:50 AM

GameSprocket: That is in the UK. I'm sure it is higher in the USA. Hell, we probably have 19% believing that 9/11 was a government plot.


Crap. If only 20% of US citizens doubted climate change I would consider that a victory.
In general population poles you aren't going to get past the 80/20 rule short of something hands down right/wrong and even then the percentage that believe (or at least will answer on a survey) the wrong answer will amaze you.
 
2013-09-20 10:26:03 AM

indarwinsshadow: The Gentleman Caller: And they won't until their home is underwater. then they'll blame the gays.

I blame Bush.


Lesbians are included in the gay category.
 
2013-09-20 10:32:39 AM
And homecoming queens.
 
2013-09-20 10:37:07 AM

TheGogmagog: GameSprocket: That is in the UK. I'm sure it is higher in the USA. Hell, we probably have 19% believing that 9/11 was a government plot.

Crap. If only 20% of US citizens doubted climate change I would consider that a victory.
In general population poles you aren't going to get past the 80/20 rule short of something hands down right/wrong and even then the percentage that believe (or at least will answer on a survey) the wrong answer will amaze you.


It always amazes me - there is a quiz show in the UK called Pointless in which 100 people are asked questions, and they have a minute to give all the answers they can think of (then the contestants try to get answers few or no one thought of in time). The astonishing thing is the scores - so you can have answers that should be completely trivial and should score 100% but never do, like you might have "What are the five emergency services you can get help from by dialing 999?", and then "Fire", "Police" and "Ambulance" were only mentioned by 85-95% of people ("Coast Guard" and "Mountain Rescue" being somewhat lower being not so unreasonable). I mean you understand where there are 100s of possible answers the results will be skewed lower, as people might be thinking of other answers first and running out of time, but that doesn't really cover when there are only a handful of answers and some are still missing basic answers.
 
2013-09-20 10:40:06 AM
I should have bookmarked it, but some polling suggested there is overwhelming support for doing something about climate change, but also a majority of people believe everyone else is a denier.

It's weird.
 
2013-09-20 10:48:40 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-20 10:50:30 AM
20 years of FUD from the same people who defended tobacco for decades will do that. Link
 
2013-09-20 10:51:16 AM
As one of the few people who post here with actual relevant degrees in the subject, I am not a climate change denier.  That very term though is meant to hide the argument.  Climate change happens and is happening.

What I think is overstated is mans effect on the climate.  Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".
 
2013-09-20 11:04:45 AM

Pocket_Fisherman: As one of the few people who post here with actual relevant degrees in the subject, I am not a climate change denier.  That very term though is meant to hide the argument.  Climate change happens and is happening.

What I think is overstated is mans effect on the climate.  Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".


You're trying to claim you have a degree of some sort in climatology?
 
2013-09-20 11:21:13 AM
Man made global warming is total junk science - there I said it.
 
2013-09-20 11:23:21 AM

Pocket_Fisherman: As one of the few people who post here with actual relevant degrees in the subject, I am not a climate change denier.  That very term though is meant to hide the argument.  Climate change happens and is happening.

What I think is overstated is mans effect on the climate.  Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".


Ah, the lesser spotted they changed the name argument.

so tell us, what's your relevant degree in? From what institution? Who taught the courses?

 
2013-09-20 11:25:41 AM

deanayer: Man made global warming is total junk science - there I said itare

are you some kind of climate change Dean Ayer?
 
2013-09-20 11:33:20 AM

Pocket_Fisherman: Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".


"Climate change" is a term invented by industrialists and foisted upon us by the media.  They took exception to the term "global warming".
 
2013-09-20 11:47:32 AM
Shouldn't be about "Belief" or "Disbelief". And yet some of you dogmatic global warming alarmists seem to want it to be about the one true belief.
 
2013-09-20 11:50:37 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Pocket_Fisherman: Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".

"Climate change" is a term invented by industrialists and foisted upon us by the media.  They took exception to the term "global warming".


"Climate change" (and its derivatives like "anthropogenic climate change") has been the standard term in the scientific literature for decades.  Here's a 1979 paper in Science by Carl Sagan where he uses the term without explanation (implying it's common parlance).  Here's a peer-reviewed paper from 1969 showing the term is in common use even then.

I can't remember seeing the term "global warming" in a professional, primary scientific paper.

Pocket_Fisherman: Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".


For someone who claims to have a relevant degree, you'd think you'd be familiar with the professional literature.

Your opinion certainly isn't shared by many climatologists.  97% of active climatologists agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".  Among abstracts expressing a position on anthropogenic climate change, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. When Cook et al. contacted the authors of scientific papers expressing a position on anthropogenic climate change, Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% of the authors endorsed the consensus position.

Given all of that, you'd think you'd express a more cogent argument than merely:

Pocket_Fisherman: What I think is overstated is mans effect on the climate.

 
2013-09-20 11:52:25 AM

legion_of_doo: Shouldn't be about "Belief" or "Disbelief". And yet some of you dogmatic global warming alarmists seem to want it to be about the one true belief.


2/10. Nice use of "dogmatic" and "alarmist" though.
 
2013-09-20 11:54:01 AM

legion_of_doo: And yet some of you dogmatic global warming alarmists seem to want it to be about the one true belief.


That's a good point.  So maybe we should consider only the published evidence.

See above: 97.1% of the scientific papers that point to a conclusion on anthropogenic climate change point towards affirming its significance.  1.0% express uncertainty.  A whopping 1.9% present evidence against the effect.

By the way, "dogmatic" refers more to people who just assert things and demand compliance, kind of like your style of argument now that we're discussing it.  What the scientists are showing you is empirical data supporting their theories.  That's kind of a big different.
 
2013-09-20 12:15:07 PM
The percentage of people who believe that anthropogenic warming exists would probably be higher if certain people and agencies stopped using the most extreme projections as predictions for the future.  When you make predictions that have a tendency to fail, people will think that you're full of it.
 
2013-09-20 12:21:52 PM

State_College_Arsonist: if certain people and agencies stopped using the most extreme projections as predictions for the future.


Do you have evidence of this? Because there's evidence of the exact opposite.
 
2013-09-20 12:33:15 PM

State_College_Arsonist: The percentage of people who believe that anthropogenic warming exists would probably be higher if certain people and agencies stopped using the most extreme projections as predictions for the future.


"Certain people"?  You sound like a catty teenage girl deniably complaining about her friends on Facebook.  Who are these "certain people and agencies"?

/Top. Men.
 
2013-09-20 12:39:24 PM
The climate never changes.  I was hanging out with my T-rex buddy the other day and we had a pretty good conversation concerning this very topic.
 
2013-09-20 12:46:42 PM
"disbeliever", like it's some sort of f'n religion.

...it's more cult-like than religious-like.
 
2013-09-20 12:53:34 PM

GameSprocket: That is in the UK. I'm sure it is higher in the USA. Hell, we probably have 19% believing that 9/11 was a government plot.


Perpetrated by Obama
 
2013-09-20 12:53:52 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Pocket_Fisherman: Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".

"Climate change" is a term invented by industrialists and foisted upon us by the media.  They took exception to the term "global warming".


What people need to do is stop thinking about it as global "warming", and instead think about it in thermodynamic terms. When you add energy to a dynamic, fluid system (not a static system, this is VERY important), what happens? You end up with greater chaos and exaggerated local extremes. Storms get more severe, including those with snow, lows local temps get lower, highs get higher, droughts get worse, etc. So yes, a result of global warming will be nasty snow storms in places that don't usually get it.

Of course your mean temperature goes up, but it's a completely meaningless number. The atmosphere is never at equilibrium, and temperature is measured locally, and for good reason.

Do you ever hear a meteorologist tell you the mean temperature of the planet? Of course not, because it's a farking useless number.
 
2013-09-20 01:01:16 PM

chimp_ninja: "Climate change" (and its derivatives like "anthropogenic climate change") has been the standard term in the scientific literature for decades. Here's a 1979 paper in Science by Carl Sagan where he uses the term without explanation (implying it's common parlance). Here's a peer-reviewed paper from 1969 showing the term is in common use even then


I was speaking from a socio-political-media perspective, as opposed to a scientific perspective.  From the standpoint of science, of course you are correct.

Khellendros: Do you ever hear a meteorologist tell you the mean temperature of the planet? Of course not, because it's a farking useless number


You know what is not a useless number?  The amount the sea level is going to rise due to excess CO2 levels.
 
2013-09-20 01:01:48 PM

Ambitwistor: State_College_Arsonist: The percentage of people who believe that anthropogenic warming exists would probably be higher if certain people and agencies stopped using the most extreme projections as predictions for the future.

"Certain people"?  You sound like a catty teenage girl deniably complaining about her friends on Facebook.  Who are these "certain people and agencies"?

/Top. Men.


a little bit about that in the article and graph here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scien ti sts-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects -greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

Also, while maybe duplicative, not sure this i sthe best way ahead for Oz:

http://mobile.news.com.au/national-news/tim-flannery-sacked-climate- co mmission-dismantled-by-coalition/story-fncynjr2-1226722779566
 
2013-09-20 01:06:16 PM
Disbelievers is a strong word, more that they don't accept the reasons fed to them for over a decade and are tiring of them just "adjusting" data to meet their goals when their models fall short of their expected results.

There are other reasons for the earth warming up, core samples have proven it does this without any help from us so blaming it all on human intervention sounds egotistical.
 
2013-09-20 01:06:35 PM

johnny_vegas: a little bit about that in the article and graph here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scien ti sts-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects -greenhouse-gases-wrong.html


Link
 
2013-09-20 01:10:01 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: johnny_vegas: a little bit about that in the article and graph here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scien ti sts-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects -greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

Link


Thanks!  regardless of scale, didn't the data still show a notable increase over time?
 
2013-09-20 01:14:40 PM

johnny_vegas: Thanks! regardless of scale, didn't the data still show a notable increase over time?



I'm not sure what you're referring to, but Bad Astronomy may have covered it. That was only one of three articles covering the Daily Mail's lies this week.
 
2013-09-20 01:14:51 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: State_College_Arsonist: if certain people and agencies stopped using the most extreme projections as predictions for the future.

Do you have evidence of this? Because there's evidence of the exact opposite.


Do you watch the news?  When the IPCC reports a 95% confidence range for future temperatures, it makes sense for the media to report the high end of the scale, as it is more of a doomsday projection that makes it more exciting, and therefore attracts more readers.  Now that the model from 1998 is already almost outside of this confidence range on the low end, its turning a lot of the viewers off.

/Yes, we are warming
Yes, we are causing some of it.
No, it is not as severe as projected in 1998.
Yes, we should find cleaner energy sources.
 
2013-09-20 01:17:56 PM

steamingpile: Disbelievers is a strong word, more that they don't accept the reasons fed to them for over a decade and are tiring of them just "adjusting" data to meet their goals when their models fall short of their expected results.

There are other reasons for the earth warming up, core samples have proven it does this without any help from us so blaming it all on human intervention sounds egotistical.


It does not matter how something "sounds".  When you have data that provides an explanation that is better than current evidence-based theories, then you have something.  Until then, you're a barking peanut gallery.  Stop talking about how "egotistical" something sounds, and show where the data is incorrect, or changes the statistical discussion.
 
2013-09-20 01:18:23 PM

steamingpile: There are other reasons for the earth warming up, core samples have proven it does this without any help from us so blaming it all on human intervention sounds egotistical.


"Graveyards and obituaries prove people die all the time, your Honor.  Therefore blaming all those headless corpses in my basement on human intervention sounds egotistical."

Hurr.

Things can have two or more causes.  NASA is aware of this.  Also aware: People who have an elementary-school grasp of logic.

data.giss.nasa.gov
 
2013-09-20 01:27:08 PM

piledhigheranddeeper: When the IPCC reports a 95% confidence range for future temperatures, it makes sense for the media to report the high end of the scale, as it is more of a doomsday projection that makes it more exciting


That's on the media, not the IPCC. The IPCC has consistently been conservative in their reports, not extreme.


A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990.

The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.

Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.

Link

If anything we are underestimating the damage we are causing by pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
 
2013-09-20 01:30:17 PM
Khellendros:
Do you ever hear a meteorologist tell you the mean temperature of the planet? Of course not, because it's a farking useless number.

Minor quibble:  It is probably completely useless in meteorology, but it does have some value in other fields, such as paleoclimatology (and archaeology).
 
2013-09-20 02:32:55 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: piledhigheranddeeper: When the IPCC reports a 95% confidence range for future temperatures, it makes sense for the media to report the high end of the scale, as it is more of a doomsday projection that makes it more exciting

That's on the media, not the IPCC. The IPCC has consistently been conservative in their reports, not extreme.


A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990.

The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.

Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.

Link

If anything we are underestimating the damage we are causing by pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere.


Good point,

I've always wondered why we can't use sea level as a major guide on warming rates.  To me, that is a lot more solid and easy to measure than the other proxy data that is collected.
 
2013-09-20 02:38:24 PM

Pocket_Fisherman: As one of the few people who post here with actual relevant degrees in the subject, I am not a climate change denier.  That very term though is meant to hide the argument.  Climate change happens and is happening.

What I think is overstated is mans effect on the climate.  Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".


Let me guess, you have a degree in dental science? Maybe another in custodial engineering?
 
2013-09-20 03:01:37 PM

HighZoolander: Let me guess, you have a degree in dental science?


Possibly even Internet Dentist Science.
 
2013-09-20 03:10:10 PM

chimp_ninja: HighZoolander: Let me guess, you have a degree in dental science?

Possibly even Internet Dentist Science.


Heh. My snark is a little rusty this morning - I probably should have gone with "dental assistant science"
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report