Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says

[rushmc 23]

Ya gotta love it

Quote

Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science?

Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried, as determined by their answers to questions like:

"Electrons are smaller than atoms -- true or false?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/28/global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-science-new-study-claims/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Polling a random sample of Americans, you'd be lucky if you could get the right answer to, "What is 2 plus two?"

Not that it actually matters what a random sample of Americans "think" is or isn't the right answer. What actually matters are the facts and the facts are, the temperature is going up, it's going up faster than at any point in thousands upon thousands of years and it correlates extremely well with the increase in human population and industrialization on the planet.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[winsor 236]

Quote

Polling a random sample of Americans, you'd be lucky if you could get the right answer to, "What is 2 plus two?"

Not that it actually matters what a random sample of Americans "think" is or isn't the right answer. What actually matters are the facts and the facts are, the temperature is going up, it's going up faster than at any point in thousands upon thousands of years and it correlates extremely well with the increase in human population and industrialization on the planet.

I agree with the correlation between population/industrialization and ecosystem disturbance. Where I draw the line is when some numbnuts who could barely squeak through a "Science for Technical Retards" course at an overrated Divinity school claims that the primary issue is CO2, and people buy into that notion hook, line and sinker.

It brings to mind Mencken's observation that, for every complex problem there exists a solution that is simple, elegant - and wrong.

OF COURSE CO2 is a factor.

Is CO2 the ONLY factor? Not hardly.

If we satisfactorily address the CO2 issue, will we be in the clear? No way, baby.

If we address the most pressing problems facing humanity, CO2 and our effect on the environment will take care of themselves. It behooves us to distinguish between pathology and symptoms.

For us to focus on symptoms is an exercise in futility.


BSBD,

Winsor

[davjohns 1]

My understanding of this is that experts are divided on what evidence is relevant and what it means. One side is just very vocal and supported by environmentalists.

It is reasonable to think that human activity has an effect on the environment. Whether the environment self-corrects easily or not is debatable. Let's face it, the study sample is small. There is no control sample.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

My understanding of this is that experts are divided on what evidence is relevant and what it means. One side is just very vocal and supported by environmentalists. .

To the extent that 30:1 could be called a division; yes, you are right.

You are hearing only a tiny fraction of what is being said about anthropogenic global warming. I'm a practicing scientist. I've been aware of AGW as an issue since 88, and I've been following the peer reviewed literature since 2003.

There is no serious debate about the reality of AGW in the peer reviewed literature. The tiny handful of papers the skeptics have published have, to put it mildly, not held up well.

The academic peer review system isn't perfect, but it is the best system anyone has ever come up with to separate the shit from the Shinola. Unfortunately there is another outlet for the shit.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Performance Designs Factory Team

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There is no serious debate about the reality of AGW in the peer reviewed literature. The tiny handful of papers the skeptics have published have, to put it mildly, not held up well.

Here's the problem that was identified even by the Oxburgh Report. http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

First, ""there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists."

The Report went on: "With very noisy data sets a great deal of judgement has to be used. Decisions have to be made on whether to omit pieces of data that appear to be aberrant. These are all matters of experience and judgement. The potential for misleading results arising from selection bias is very great in this area." And stated, "It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistical."

Now, what's this go to with regard to "peer review?" If a peer group is small and is selective about its peers, then peer review becomes a bit easier.

Climate scientists are truly broad-spectrum scientists. Climate scientists have to know computer science, physics, astrophysics, chemistry, thermodymics, geology, hydrology, statistics, calculus, meteorology, etc. They need to know them all.

Problem: they are not maintaining TEAMS of people who are independent of "climate science." They aren't consulting outside statisticians. They aren't consulting outside physicists.

Take a look at "realclimate.org." "Climate science from climate scientists." Says something, doesn't it? "Don't listen to statisticians. Or physicists. Or chemists. They aren't climate scientists. We are."

A physicist may have a problem with assigned values being used by climate scientists. Well, he's a physicist, not a climate scientists. What about a statistician? They interfere with the professional judgment utilized by the modelers. Chemists? Not climate scientists. Hydrologists? Oceanographers? Nope. Not climate scientists.

But these are people who CERTAINLY can have a lot to add. They are the ones who can either validate or invalidate the underlying science and relationships being utilized. Computer scientists? Nope. They aren't climate scientists, so they can't see my code.

This is the reason why climate scientists are in agreement but, well, the agreement among other scientists isn't quite the same. Statisticians have made some big dents. They aren't climate scientists but they DO have something to say about statistical methodology used by climate scientists.

And that's the issue. It's part of the reason why climate science is an outlier. It's an amalgam of many disciplines, and an expert on each discipline may indeed have something worthwhile to say.

A climate scientist is like an architect, structural engineer, materials engineer, contractor, and urban planner all rolled into one. If a structural engineer sees something and says, "Um, I'm concerned about your load distribution. Can I see your plans and calculations for that joint?" what would be the appropriate response? "You're a structural engineer. You don't appreciate the other factors" is not usually regarded as appropriate. "There fifty people in the world who do what I do - all of this stuff. We all know each other and they've all looked at it and they told me I'm good."

Bring in other disciplines. Open up your data and codes. Put it out for anyone to see.

Peer review is great. But let's take a look at the peers. Sure, a criticism may be published in a statistical journal. But those aren't climate science peers.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,119]

>Climate scientists are truly broad-spectrum scientists. Climate scientists
>have to know computer science, physics, astrophysics, chemistry,
>thermodymics, geology, hydrology, statistics, calculus, meteorology, etc.
>They need to know them all.

>Problem: they are not maintaining TEAMS of people who are independent
>of "climate science." They aren't consulting outside statisticians. They
>aren't consulting outside physicists.

Where do you get this? Of course they do. The climate scientists I've talked to at Scripps use their connections to physicists, statisticians, chemists, astronomers, biologists and engineers to better understand their own work and how it connects to other people's work.

>A climate scientist is like an architect, structural engineer, materials
>engineer, contractor, and urban planner all rolled into one. If a structural
>engineer sees something and says, "Um, I'm concerned about your load
>distribution. Can I see your plans and calculations for that joint?" what
>would be the appropriate response? "You're a structural engineer. You
>don't appreciate the other factors" is not usually regarded as appropriate.

Agreed - if that person is a structural engineer.

Now imagine that you are the designer of the above power plant and someone comes by and says ""Um, I'm concerned about your load distribution. Can I see your plans and calculations for that joint?" You ask around and it turns out that he is a lawyer who is the head of the local NIMBY organization, and has had success in shutting down dozens of projects in the area.

Would you give him all your plans?

[winsor 236]

Quote

My understanding of this is that experts are divided on what evidence is relevant and what it means. One side is just very vocal and supported by environmentalists. .

To the extent that 30:1 could be called a division; yes, you are right.

You are hearing only a tiny fraction of what is being said about anthropogenic global warming. I'm a practicing scientist. I've been aware of AGW as an issue since 88, and I've been following the peer reviewed literature since 2003.

There is no serious debate about the reality of AGW in the peer reviewed literature. The tiny handful of papers the skeptics have published have, to put it mildly, not held up well.

The academic peer review system isn't perfect, but it is the best system anyone has ever come up with to separate the shit from the Shinola. Unfortunately there is another outlet for the shit.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Ya gotta love it

Quote

Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science?

Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried, as determined by their answers to questions like:

"Electrons are smaller than atoms -- true or false?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/28/global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-science-new-study-claims/

fox news LOL