Poll: 53% Of Americans Don’t Believe In Man-Made Global Warming

[Occam's Banana]

But it is exactly that - "science bitchez!"

The countless things the government does to lose our trust doesn't mean we should disregard science, nor see it as a victory when people do.

Science is perhaps the only field with a functioning BS-O-meter, where prospective publications go through rigorous peer-review processes before they are even taken seriously. "Science, bitchez" is the quest for truth, and you can help improve it by pointing out where climate scientists are wrong. I've read through numerous publications and there is no doubt in my mind that AGW is real, and I don't know how anyone who actually acquaints themselves with the topic can think otherwise.

Now if only the fields of history and politics were driven by a quest for truth...

If you think "science, bitchez" is merely "exactly that" then you have obviously and utterly failed to understand anything I've said. The fact that history and politics are NOT driven by a "quest for truth" is the whole point. Pissing and moaning because the opinions of the "ignorant masses" don't conform to whatever happens to be the "scientific consensus" at any given moment completely misses that point - especially when a much vaunted (but ultimately changeable and even ephemeral) "scientific consensus" is blatantly used to prop up and push political and special-interest agendas.

Even granting (for the sake of argument) the fairy tale notion that science and scientists are somehow untainted by self-interest, political agendas, and all the other biases that all other humans and human endeavors are always prone to, it's still irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that people wouldn't have "opinions" or give a damn about AGW one way or the other if it weren't for the politicization of AGW by agenda-mongers. If you don't like what you perceive as the "unscientific" or "anti-science" garbage that gets trotted out in response to that stimulus, then you would do better to condemn the politicizers of science rather than the ignorant victims of the politicization of science.

There is, after all, a reason why there isn't much in the way of "public opinion" about (or people getting "unscientifically" pissed off over) the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example - and it's NOT because HUP is widely understood or because people have "educated themselves" about it by "reading numerous publications" or any such thing. It's because HUP is not being shoved in their faces or rammed down their throats by flagrant agenda-mongers.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Scientists are just as corrupt as anyone else, probably more so. After all, they're the ones making all of the pills and designing the deadly war machines. The idea that they are sacrosanct is complete nonsense, and pushed by the government that has tons of them on their payroll.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

But it is exactly that - "science bitchez!"

The countless things the government does to lose our trust doesn't mean we should disregard science, nor see it as a victory when people do.

Science is perhaps the only field with a functioning BS-O-meter, where prospective publications go through rigorous peer-review processes before they are even taken seriously. "Science, bitchez" is the quest for truth, and you can help improve it by pointing out where climate scientists are wrong. I've read through numerous publications and there is no doubt in my mind that AGW is real, and I don't know how anyone who actually acquaints themselves with the topic can think otherwise.

Now if only the fields of history and politics were driven by a quest for truth...

Science has a BS-O-meter like government has checks and balances. They're supposed to be there, but nobody actually pays attention to them. The ever-so-noble "quest for truth" claim completely dismisses the idea that scientists, mere humans, could ever be corrupted. It's like people think they're gods who can't lie. If you had the power and the grant money to make people believe what you say without question just because of your status or inclusion in some group, don't you think you would be compelled to gain a monopoly on that institution? Well, there just happens to be someone with the power and the money to do it... government.

If I can point out where they're wrong, as many people often have, would you believe it? No, you would claim that we were wrong because we are not scientists and because we did not become famous for stunning the world with our superior logic and skillfully debating with scientists. But you don't have to if you're a scientist. Every time you say something, "Science has spoken!" and that's that. No questions asked.

That doesn't seem a little iffy to you? Not to mention the government-controlled education and obvious slant in the media. You don't think there's an agenda there?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That's all fine, and I am not suggesting that you should desire being ruled over by these technocrats. But please don't equate science with politics. Agenda-driven science simply doesn't get far because scientific research is judged by its truthfulness. There's always people masquerading as scientists too who really don't follow scientific protocol whatsoever, but they are quacks and rejects from the scientific community. IF you want to form an opinion on AGW, READ scientific literature. Don't look at who is quoting said literature. Learn about the topic and assess it on its own merit. And whatever you do, don't quote a quack's interpretation of said literature.

And from what I've seen, there really is only serious scientific debate to be had on the level of AGW, not on whether or not it's happening. And thus in the political world, the debate should focus on what should be done in response to said AGW, not whether or not it's happening. It's definitely happening!

Listen to you. "Science is judged by its truthfulness."

They literally can do no wrong to you.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

..

I don't dispute anything you said. In fact I agree. It's just sad that distrust in science is the consequence, rather than a willingness to vote out all the crooks.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Science has a BS-O-meter like government has checks and balances. They're supposed to be there, but nobody actually pays attention to them. The ever-so-noble "quest for truth" claim completely dismisses the idea that scientists, mere humans, could ever be corrupted. It's like people think they're gods who can't lie. If you had the power and the grant money to make people believe what you say without question just because of your status or inclusion in some group, don't you think you would be compelled to gain a monopoly on that institution? Well, there just happens to be someone with the power and the money to do it... government.

If I can point out where they're wrong, as many people often have, would you believe it? No, you would claim that we were wrong because we are not scientists and because we did not become famous for stunning the world with our superior logic and skillfully debating with scientists. But you don't have to if you're a scientist. Every time you say something, "Science has spoken!" and that's that. No questions asked.

That doesn't seem a little iffy to you? Not to mention the government-controlled education and obvious slant in the media. You don't think there's an agenda there?

Nobody has pointed out where they are wrong successfully, and that is why the science remains the same. Hell, the mechanism for AGW can be replicated in a laboratory.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Nobody has pointed out where they are wrong successfully, and that is why the science remains the same. Hell, the mechanism for AGW can be replicated in a laboratory.

That's because everyone just believes everything they say by default.

And let me guess, the "mechanism" for AGW is one of your computer models, isn't it?

 

[malkusm]

My two cents - One result of the higher education bubble, and subsequent degree inflation, is that we have more people who are expected to publish articles. We probably don't have more people (as a percentage of the population) with ideas worthy of publication, but their university says they have to publish something once every 2-3 years at the least to maintain their status as faculty. OK, great. So now we have Dr. Smith at Eastern Southern Methodist State University who is publishing a paper that's not too controversial, uses accepted data and techniques, and so forth. To me, the "97% of scientists agree with X position" doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling argument, for this reason.

Now, that said, numbers are numbers. It's not debatable to me that we've been in a warming period for the last 40-50 years. What's not clear (and really, in my opinion, is impossible to prove irrefutably) is that this is caused by human activity. Standards were much worse during the Industrial Revolution and no warming pattern emerged during that time. Warming patterns have emerged at other times in the long run of data where there is seemingly no relationship with human events.

The reason there is skepticism is more because policymakers are using a correlation (which may or may not be valid) as grounds for policy which would reduce quality of life, grounds for additional taxation and regulation. I'm open-minded about it, but it's difficult not to have a visceral reaction when this cascade effect occurs where the left is ramming the "accepted science" down your throat as a guise for their agenda.

 

[limequat]

That's because everyone just believes everything they say by default.

And let me guess, the "mechanism" for AGW is one of your computer models, isn't it?

Or the greenhouse effect?

Here's the thing. The models have existed for decades. They didn't work.
Data has shown to be "adjusted" and outright fabricated.
Skeptics have been bullied and removed from discourse.

That's not science. The scientific method works, but scientists are imperfect.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

The data should only be used to analyse the effects of some of the chain-reaction effects which can't easily be understood with a scientific model, and even so, there's a lot of stuff that clouds the data.

When it comes to whether or not it is man-made deniers like to present this as a black and white issue with 2 possible options: (a) humans are responsible for all climate change, and (b) humans are not the major cause of climate change. Choice (b) seems more reasonable and is arguably closer to the truth than (a), but in reality humans are a major cause but not the only one. And various human actions release greenhouse gases which are proven to cause warming. This is no pseudoscience. It's proven stuff.

And always beware of the disinformation campaign (link).

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The data should only be used to analyse the effects of some of the chain-reaction effects which can't easily be understood with a scientific model, and even so, there's a lot of stuff that clouds the data.

When it comes to whether or not it is man-made deniers like to present this as a black and white issue with 2 possible options: (a) humans are responsible for all climate change, and (b) humans are not the major cause of climate change. Choice (b) seems more reasonable and is arguably closer to the truth than (a), but in reality humans are a major cause but not the only one. And various human actions release greenhouse gases which are proven to cause warming. This is no pseudoscience. It's proven stuff.

And always beware of the disinformation campaign (link).

You've got to be trolling. The effects of these greenhouse gases on the atmosphere is not the same as its effect on the climate overall, especially considering the small percentage of the atmosphere that man's emissions make up. That's not pseudoscience. It's proven stuff.

 

[green73]

This is a must-read blog covering all the corruption of the climate priests, er scientists.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

I've been following it for years, before Drudge started linking to it routinely.

And of course there was nothing untoward from the priests here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

 

[parocks]

But it is exactly that - "science bitchez!"

The countless things the government does to lose our trust doesn't mean we should disregard science, nor see it as a victory when people do.

Science is perhaps the only field with a functioning BS-O-meter, where prospective publications go through rigorous peer-review processes before they are even taken seriously. "Science, bitchez" is the quest for truth, and you can help improve it by pointing out where climate scientists are wrong. I've read through numerous publications and there is no doubt in my mind that AGW is real, and I don't know how anyone who actually acquaints themselves with the topic can think otherwise.

Now if only the fields of history and politics were driven by a quest for truth...

Over the last 30,000 years, Maine, where I'm at now, has been covered by Glaciers, and then uncovered, covered again, and uncovered again.

Did humans cause that? Which is better, too hot or too cold? I would think warmer would be better. It's hard to live under a sheet of ice up here in Maine.

I've noticed notice that gore-tex is now claiming that, although it contains a chemical that stays in your body for years, it's actually good for the environment, because it takes less water to wash, or doesn't need to be washed as much.

I'm guessing the global warming "solutions" probably include more poisoning, and less freedom for the people, and probably there's some sort of new product that Goldman Sachs can take a cut of the sales of, create a market for. If Goldman Sachs can imagine something, and make money from it, and force people to buy it, the politicians are all for it.

 

[thoughtomator]

I agree with most of your points, but one thing:

I think you underestimate how lucrative it is to peddle BS. But of course, all BS peddling has to be done outside of the scientific arena, because if it was attempted within, it would be the equivalent of jumping straight into a pit of lions, as other scientists will tear up pseudoscience. It is chewed up and spit out straight into the countless trash heaps of garbage never published.

If you REALLY want big bucks as a "climate scientist", you can go on Koch-funded disinformation tours and tout your credentials while filling in peoples' knowledge gaps with complete fabrications.

But of course, in that case, you are not being a scientist. You are being a politician.

How adorably naive you are.

 

[William Tell]

"Sitting around doing experiments"...

And some people question whether or not the climate change denialist movement is anti-science.

Oh come on now, research is important, but who pays for it? Everybody works for someone.

 

[William Tell]

That's all fine, and I am not suggesting that you should desire being ruled over by these technocrats. But please don't equate science with politics. Agenda-driven science simply doesn't get far because scientific research is judged by its truthfulness.

Nice story, I wish it was true.

There's always people masquerading as scientists too who really don't follow scientific protocol whatsoever, but they are quacks and rejects from the scientific community.

 

[William Tell]

Scientists are just as corrupt as anyone else, probably more so. After all, they're the ones making all of the pills and designing the deadly war machines. The idea that they are sacrosanct is complete nonsense, and pushed by the government that has tons of them on their payroll.

Adolf Hitler had genius scientists and engineers. Some of the best in the world at the time, they did research on cancer, and the dangers of smoking, etc. Designed wonderful weapons

Their bread was buttered by him, and low and behold! They backed him up politically, who'd of thunk it!
Of course, scientists who count on grant money from the U.S federal government would never be politically motivated, would they?

 

[William Tell]

Nobody has pointed out where they are wrong successfully, and that is why the science remains the same.

Because we're just ignorant peasants, they don't listen to us. They listen to Obama though. The scientists like Liberty Candidate Art Robinson, are listed among the quakes and outcasts of the scientific community that you mentioned. Mainstream scientists agree that they themselves are correct, and anyone who disagrees is a kook. Is anyone surprised?

 

[parocks]

Climate scientists who don't toe the party line aren't climate scientists for long. "Everything's fine" is not the answer the Government is buying, or the Universities or most anything else.

Does the Fed Gov think we've all forgotten about the Michael Mann / Climategate scandal?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

How adorably naive you are.

Like a puppy with fangs as big as a walrus' tusks.