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

[PaulConventionWV]

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?

Not to mention, there was a story just recently about a professor at a college who wrote to a newspaper calling climate science "unproved science" and was promptly let go for having a difference of views from the university admins. This is what your tax money is going toward, supporting this system. Nothing sinister about that at all...

 

[oyarde]

Yeah well, ~50% still believe in socialism...

Correct

 

[oyarde]

I wonder why random people answering their phone have a drastically different opinion from scientists.

Because they are not going to profit from the hoax like the scientists and govt .

 

[oyarde]

Is there is food shortage, it will be worse than global warming.

My area is cooling .Warming would allow more food production .The weather in my area is not man made.Food shortages are subjective , there are those who would spin that as too much population .I will be fine .

 

[parocks]

Not to mention, there was a story just recently about a professor at a college who wrote to a newspaper calling climate science "unproved science" and was promptly let go for having a difference of views from the university admins. This is what your tax money is going toward, supporting this system. Nothing sinister about that at all...

I just thought that everyone by now (2014) gets that it's just the government trying to take your money and kick you in the balls again. They do a lot of that. I don't follow every single piece of evidence of government and academic corruption in this field.

 

[presence]

1,400,000,000 calories in a barrel of oil * 511,000,000 barrels burned annually
= 7.154e+17 calories per year generated by burning oil
300,000,000,000 cubic feet per day of natural gas consumed
= 7.8e+16 calories
150 quadrillion BTU of coal consumed anually * 250 calories / btu
= 3.75e+19 calories

37,500,000,000,000,000,000 calories coal
715,400,000,000,000,000 calories oil
78,000,000,000,000,000 calories natural gas


1 calorie raises 1 gram of water 1 degree celcius

Without humans these calories would have been trapped under miles of earth for eternity

I couldn't imagine how human consumption of fossil fuels have any effect on climate

(addimittedly my math could be off by a zero or two here or there)

 

[ZENemy]

One time, Science PROVED that no man could run a mile faster than four minutes.


Roger banister had a different idea.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I just thought that everyone by now (2014) gets that it's just the government trying to take your money and kick you in the balls again. They do a lot of that. I don't follow every single piece of evidence of government and academic corruption in this field.

I had the same impression, but apparently, belief in AGW is still alive and kicking in 47% of the population. That's just sad to me. It doesn't take a lot of scrutiny to see the obvious motives and then the evidence that the government is acting on these motives.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

1,400,000,000 calories in a barrel of oil * 511,000,000 barrels burned annually
= 7.154e+17 calories per year generated by burning oil
300,000,000,000 cubic feet per day of natural gas consumed
= 7.8e+16 calories
150 quadrillion BTU of coal consumed anually * 250 calories / btu
= 3.75e+19 calories

37,500,000,000,000,000,000 calories coal
715,400,000,000,000,000 calories oil
78,000,000,000,000,000 calories natural gas


1 calorie raises 1 gram of water 1 degree celcius

Without humans these calories would have been trapped under miles of earth for eternity

I couldn't imagine how human consumption of fossil fuels have any effect on climate

(addimittedly my math could be off by a zero or two here or there)

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but burning calories doesn't have any effect on the climate. It may have an effect on the temperature in the immediate surrounding just like any combustion reaction (fire) would, but that heat immediately dissipates. Not to mention, that's not even part of the AGW proponents' argument. It's all about greenhouse gasses, not calories burned.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

One time, Science PROVED that no man could run a mile faster than four minutes.


Roger banister had a different idea.

That's a good example, and it wasn't even that long ago. The world record is now 3:43.

 

[DamianTV]

There are a lot of different sides to Global Warming. There IS Global Warming. There is NO Global Warming. Global Warming is NATURAL. Global Warming is MANMADE. What difference does it make to expect a person to take any of the previously mentioned options if we all know damn well that the outcome will not have any meaningful impact? Not only that, but why do people bother to try to change other peoples opinions when the outcome of our REACTIONS to Global Warming will only be used to further enslave people?

Hegalian Dialect: Problem, Reaction, Solution.

Problem: Big companies create the Problem (maybe, since people dont agree, 53%).
Reaction: Oh Noes! Global Warmings gonna kill us all!
Solution: Give Big Companies MORE ability to charge people more and use GW as an excuse.

So what is the "correct" thing to do? Accept the idea? Challenge the idea, then dismiss or accept? Just dismiss the idea? Ignore it all together? Of those "box" choices, none actually are a step in solving the problem. Which is why they are presented as Choices to us. I suspect what is really happening is the Paradigm of GW is being exploited to create and sustain Conflict between people so that Govt needs to come in and "Fix" what ever is creating the conflict to begin with. Again, Hegalian Dialect. Govt absolves itself of responsibility of being the Source of the Problem and whatever solutions are offered, they are limited in Real Choice and nearly always result in Bigger Govt, and still does nothing to "Fix" the real problem.

Many people have been "burned" by believing Bad Information from the Govt. The old saying "Fool me once, shame on you. But fool me twice, cant be fooled again" (Bush quote). People have stopped trusting Govt. Obvious with Congress' 0.0001% Approval Rating (slightly exaggerated). Is it any wonder why people immediately dismiss ANY information that comes from Govt after they've been burned? DDT is "perfectly safe". Result in birth deformities. Then wonder why people question the safety of Aspartame? Vaccines are "perfectly safe". Someone is given a vaccine, then contracts a severe illness? Corrolation and Causation are not always the same, even if at times they appear to be. Hence why "some people" have "strong emotional reactions" when being told that all vaccines are "perfectly safe". It isnt about vaccines being safe, its about using peoples reactions to the word Vaccine to cause a conflict. Divide and Conquer, then Hegalian Dialect. The "economy is just fine". Sure, unless you've been to Detroit. Or are Unemployed. Lost your job. Taken a pay cut. Are heavily in debt for School. Homeless. Most people have been burned by Govt in some way shape or form. Conclusion is that Govt is NOT 100% trustworthy or honest. So if information, even valid information, is presented by Govt, is it any wonder why people question the trustworthiness of that information?

Personally, I think challenging information is a good thing. Govt comes out and says "Weapons of Mass Distruction", then "oops, we couldnt find those WMD's". After being burned by bad info, when Govt tells you "the glass is on the table" (objective information, and easily observable), do people still wonder why others would actually try to verify that information by checking to make sure that "the glass is on the table"?

Last question: How much are all of these wars contributing to Global Warming?

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Some rocket scientist gave me a negative rep because:

"Science" has been politicized, that's the point you keep ignoring.

Rather than make that genius point in this thread, said genius had to take it to neg rep.

Anything that is politicized is NOT science, genius. Don't get political movements confused with science.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

The reason why climate science is science is because the deniers don't have the facts on their side. They just deny and deny and quote from the echo chamber of quackery.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The reason why climate science is science is because the deniers don't have the facts on their side. They just deny and deny and quote from the echo chamber of quackery.

Well, there is a profound difference between political science and the real thing. Is what it is. As well, man is comfortable when he is at the center of debate and so he presents terms of controversy in a manner that conforms to this infantile need for centrality. It's arrogant. Very shortsighted. And he makes a bed that he'll surely toss and turn in.

Aside from that, we live in a big fuckin universe, Anti-Neocon. We're just a speck. There are billions and billions and billions of stars. In the scheme of things, man is irrelevant. A passing fad at most.

 

[Natural Citizen]

And besides. 9 out of 10 people you'll ever meet are scientifically illiterate and regurgitate what they heard on the boob tube or whatever.

Agree with them and move along. Works...

 

[squarepusher]

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000



le science! making the data fit your models and changing it

 

[ZENemy]

Cant wait to see "Climate change" on a page like this one day

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

I like this one a lot

Phrenology

Although it is now regarded as nothing more than a pseudoscience, in its day phrenology was one of the most popular and well-studied branches of neuroscience. In short, proponents of phrenology believed that individual character traits, whether intelligence, aggression, or an ear for music, could all be localized to very specific parts of the brain. According to phrenologists, the larger each one of these parts of a person’s brain was, the more likely they were to behave in a certain way. With this in mind, practitioners would often study the size and shape of subjects’ heads in order to determine what kind of personality they might have. Detailed maps of the supposed 27 different areas of the brain were created, and a person who had a particularly large bump on their skull in the area for, say, the sense of colors, would be assumed to have a proclivity for painting.



How it was Proven Wrong:

Even during the heyday of its popularity in the 1800s, phrenology was often derided by mainstream scientists as a form of quackery. But their protests were largely ignored until the 1900s, when modern scientific advances helped to show that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain, at least in not as precise a way as the proponents of phrenology often claimed. Phrenology still exists today as a fringe science, but its use in the 20th century has become somewhat infamous: it has often been employed as a tool to promote racism, most famously by the Nazis, as well by Belgian colonialists in Rwanda.

Muh Facccts bro

 

[ZENemy]

Scientist A: "CLIMATE CHANGE WILL KILL US ALL." *collects 250K per year in grants*


Scientist B: "Climate change may need to be reevaluated" *no funding ever, booed and hissed at*


I wonder what a "scientist" fresh out of school with massive student loans will choose to speak about.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Scientist A: "CLIMATE CHANGE WILL KILL US ALL." *collects 250K per year in grants*


Scientist B: "Climate change may need to be reevaluated" *no funding ever, booed and hissed at*


I wonder what a "scientist" fresh out of school with massive student loans will choose to speak about.

No, you just don't get it. Those government-funded academics would never lie. After all, they call themselves scientists so they are to be worshiped and never questioned under any circumstances. Now, take your daily regimen of pills and obey.

 

[purplechoe]

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Some rocket scientist gave me a negative rep because:

Rather than make that genius point in this thread, said genius had to take it to neg rep.

Anything that is politicized is NOT science, genius. Don't get political movements confused with science.


The reason why climate science is science is because the deniers don't have the facts on their side. They just deny and deny and quote from the echo chamber of quackery.

Fine, then. Following your logic, there IS NO CLIMATE SCIENCE. It's all just politics. That's basically what we're saying.

You hold this idealized notion of science, and it's very naive. Of course things that can be exploited to control public opinion are going to be hi-jacked by politics. Sure, the system can SEEM to work on the outside, but that's just a mirage. When's the last time you've actually checked the science of real scientists instead of just taking it for granted?

When's the last time you actually verified whether a certain scientist was a quack instead of just taking other scientists' word for it because "consensus"? There should be no such thing as blind belief in science, but you sure have no problem with it because you can let other people do all the thinking for you. How long do you think it will be before they figure out that they can say whatever they want and you will believe it?

Now, take into account the fact that government is heavily involved...

I mean, holy mother of Jesus...

How do you even maintain your dignity and self-respect while fiercely advocating blind belief? I didn't think that was possible.