Public misperception about scientific agreement on global warming undermines climate policy support

Nov 21, 2011

People who believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about global warming tend to be less certain that global warming is happening and less supportive of climate policy, researchers at George Mason, San Diego State, and Yale Universities report in a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

A recent survey of conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois found near unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human-caused is happening.

This new George Mason University study, however, using results from a of the American public, finds that many Americans believe that most climate scientists actually disagree about the subject.

In the national survey conducted in June 2010, two-thirds of respondents said they either believed there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening (45 percent), that most scientists think it is not happening (5 percent), or that they did not know enough to say (16 percent.) These respondents were less likely to support and to view climate change as a lower priority.

By contrast, survey respondents who correctly understood that there is widespread agreement about global warming among scientists were themselves more certain that it is happening, and were more supportive of climate policies.

"Misunderstanding the extent of scientific agreement about climate change is important because it undermines people's certainty that climate change is happening, which in turn reduces their conviction that America should find ways to deal with the problem," says Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.

Maibach argues that a campaign should be mounted to correct this . "It is no accident that so many Americans misunderstand the widespread scientific agreement about human-caused climate change. A well-financed disinformation campaign deliberately created a myth about there being lack of agreement. The climate science community should take all reasonable measures to put this myth to rest."

Explore further: Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

American opinion cools on global warming

Jan 27, 2010

Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.

Recommended for you

Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay

54 minutes ago

In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variab ...

How might climate change affect our food supply?

1 hour ago

It's no easy question to answer, but prudence demands that we try. Thus, Microsoft and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have teamed up to tackle "food resilience," one of several themes ...

Groundwater is safe in potential N.Y. fracking area

2 hours ago

Two Cornell hydrologists have completed a thorough groundwater examination of drinking water in a potential hydraulic fracturing area in New York's Southern Tier. They determined that drinking water in potable ...

User comments : 89

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Arkaleus
2.2 / 5 (23) Nov 21, 2011
This sounds more like a catechism of political correctness or confirmation of ideological conformity than a scientific survey. The bias of the investigators is proudly declared like a assertion of faith-purity, while the high percentage of "not sure" responses suggests a large beta in their results.

Why is there a scientific need to determine the beliefs of the public? What legitimate research activities require public relations or the manipulation of non-scientific observers?

The climate discussion has long moved on from causal relationships; it's obvious there is a effect to every cause. The true questions today are quantitative, but this survey cleverly avoids this fundamental notion.

We should focus on improving our predictive adaptability. If we know the tides will be high, we adjust our plans on land - we don't re-engineer the sea to meet our expectations.
kochevnik
2.9 / 5 (20) Nov 21, 2011
George Mason University is nothing but a degree-mill farm team for the Koch bros. Starting at George Mason, the Kochs groom their little recruits as foot-soldiers ready to enter the plutocratic circle-jerk that is the U.S. government and its corporate oligarchs. The financial oligarchy has the Ivies, and the Koch brothers have GMU. Its that simple.

After the Cato Institute, George Mason University is the largest recipient of funding from Koch Family Foundations. Its pretty genius. After all, the Koch bros. can't just pick people up off the street and send them into DCs best lobbying firms to protect and fight for their interests. First they need, essentially, a somewhat respectable-looking institution to rubber stamp the degrees of these partisans after indoctrination.
deatopmg
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2011
"...MISPERCEPTION..." ??? was this made up to fit the misleading headline?
SemiNerd
4.2 / 5 (19) Nov 21, 2011
"...MISPERCEPTION..." ??? was this made up to fit the misleading headline?

Almost all scientists agree that AGW is real. A lot of the public doesn't know this. Why is this a misleading headline?

People are free to agree or disagree with the near unanimous views of scientists. But the near unanimous agreement itself is a simple fact.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (64) Nov 21, 2011
Why is there a scientific need to determine the beliefs of the public? What legitimate research activities require public relations or the manipulation of non-scientific observers?


Because the solution as presented by the mentality of the far left, is social engineering. This requires that the masses willingly give up some of their basic freedoms to the Government.

We should focus on improving our predictive adaptability. If we know the tides will be high, we adjust our plans on land - we don't re-engineer the sea to meet our expectations.


That would be the intelligent and reasonable response. But, that is not compatible with far left progressive mentality. In their minds, they CAN re-engineer the sea, they CAN control the earth's climate, they CAN create a social utopia,... if only the ignorant masses would surrender their freedoms.

It's easier to hold back the ocean than to get free individuals to reduce their standard of living.
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (18) Nov 21, 2011
Actually, since it is man that is causing the problem, it stands to reason that we would be the answer to the problem. Hence the beleifs of the public play a huge roll in whether anything will be done.

"It's easier to hold back the ocean than to get free individuals to reduce their standard of living". Apparently so...hence the reason the american public is skeptical with regards to this subject.
If you don't understand the science, or if you are commenting based on a fear of losing your comfortable lifestyle, why are you at this website posting mindless remarks about a science you can't grasp.
kochevnik
3.2 / 5 (18) Nov 21, 2011
Because the solution as presented by the mentality of the far left, is social engineering. This requires that the masses willingly give up some of their basic freedoms to the Government.
No, it doesn't.
That would be the intelligent and reasonable response. But, that is not compatible with far left progressive mentality. In their minds, they CAN re-engineer the sea, they CAN control the earth's climate, they CAN create a social utopia,... if only the ignorant masses would surrender their freedoms.
There's no relationship between liberalism and surrendering freedom. In fact, quite the opposite. It is conservatism [not to be confused with fiscal conservatism] that backs fascism and corporatism. You fail.
It's easier to hold back the ocean than to get free individuals to reduce their standard of living.
Standard of living isn't a right.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (60) Nov 21, 2011
If you don't understand the science, or if you are commenting based on a fear of losing your comfortable lifestyle, why are you at this website posting mindless remarks about a science you can't grasp.


I posted as much about the science in my post above as you did in yours, so why are you posting here?

In fact I think the basic science is sound.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (62) Nov 21, 2011
There's no relationship between liberalism and surrendering freedom. In fact, quite the opposite. It is conservatism [...] that backs fascism and corporatism. You fail.


Your statement here demonstrates that you're quit illiterate with respect to basic modern political philosophy. Conservatism = fascism?!! You're clueless.

American modern conservatives are for less government involvement and free market capitalism. Far left liberalism is for big government and in extreme forms is anti-capitalistic.

I used the term Far Left above, as they are the ones for social engineering, not the conservative right.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2011
There's no relationship between liberalism and surrendering freedom. In fact, quite the opposite. It is conservatism [...] that backs fascism and corporatism. You fail.
Your statement here demonstrates that you're quit illiterate with respect to basic modern political philosophy. Conservatism = fascism?!! You're clueless.

So you're saying Adolph Hitler was a liberal? And you claim I'm the clueless one?
American modern conservatives are for less government involvement and free market capitalism. Far left liberalism is for big government and in extreme forms is anti-capitalistic.
Sounds like you failed poly-sci as well.
I used the term Far Left above, as they are the ones for social engineering, not the conservative right.
Whreeas transferring all wealth to the banksters avoids all that nasty "engineering." If you hate evolution why are you posting on a science site? You should be hanging out at a masonic lodge.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (61) Nov 21, 2011
There's no relationship between liberalism and surrendering freedom. In fact, quite the opposite. It is conservatism [...] that backs fascism and corporatism. You fail.

Your statement here demonstrates that you're quit illiterate with respect to basic modern political philosophy. Conservatism = fascism?!!

So you're saying Adolph Hitler was a liberal? And you claim I'm the clueless one?


I never mentioned Hitler so that would have been impossible for me to do so. You demonstrate your political illiteracy more with each post.

Anyone who has studied history even just in passing, understands that it is not rational to project political affiliation from one era onto that of another. The terms liberalism and conservatism require historical context, as they have relative meanings in different era's and different countries.

Clearly Hitler was a big government control guy, a major social engineering guy... absolutely counter to modern American right-wing conservatives.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (59) Nov 21, 2011
American modern conservatives are for less government involvement and free market capitalism. Far left liberalism is for big government and in extreme forms is anti-capitalistic.


Sounds like you failed poly-sci as well.


How so? Where am I inaccurate. Those are simple factual statements.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (60) Nov 21, 2011
I used the term Far Left above, as they are the ones for social engineering, not the conservative right.

Whreeas transferring all wealth to the banksters avoids all that nasty "engineering."


The actions of G.W. Bush is not representative of a true fiscal conservative, not even close. Conservatives, proper, would never have allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to exist and cause the flow of sub-prime mortgages to begin with. Most true conservatives were against bailing out the banks.

If you hate evolution why are you posting on a science site? You should be hanging out at a masonic lodge.


Again, were did I say that? Do you just make things up? I believe in evolution of course. In fact free market capitalism is more in accord with it, than far left social engineering and big government.
PinkElephant
4.9 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2011
Conservatives, proper, would never have allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to exist and cause the flow of sub-prime mortgages to begin with.
Yet it wasn't Fannie and Freddie who caused the flow of sub-prime mortgages. It was deregulation of financial markets (repeal of Glass-Steagall), leading to commingling of traditional and investment banking and escalation of systemic leverage, plus emergence of completely deregulated dark-market for financial derivatives that absolutely dwarfs all other markets (amounting to hundreds of $Trillions globally), plus massive systemic fraud in mortgage issuance and underwriting due to lax regulation and law enforcement, as well as in marketing and rating of securities by entities with blatant fiscal conflicts of interest.

All of these things, result of DE-regulation, LACK of policing, LACK of transparency, and industry-wide corruption and collusion amounting to racketeering.

Your Free Markets At Work (TM)
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2011
Most true conservatives were against bailing out the banks.
Funny, most extreme-left true liberals were (and still are) vehemently against bailing out the banks as well.

But then, our government is run neither by true conservatives nor by true liberals. It is run by puppets of Wall Street, and therefore it does what Wall Street commands.

In the meantime, you spend your time and energy engaging in right-vs-left political warfare, which is EXACTLY what the establishment WANTS you to be doing.

The last thing they want is for you to realize who the REAL culprits are, and start attacking the actual roots of our nation's problems.
Caliban
5 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2011
Nu,

I used the term Far Left above, as they are the ones for social engineering, not the conservative right.


And do you mean by that statement that stealing the wealth of 3 generations, and trying to remove the SS/MCare/MCaid safety net and reproductive freedom for women(to name only a few) aren't "Social Engineering"?

The hypocrisy of The Right is revolting, yet pathetic. But only just wait a little longer -- The Right is going to get handed a big, fat surprise in November of next year.

showtime
1 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2011
not bailing out the banks is synonymous with free market behavior. so either you are free market (non-bailout) or you against free market...??
fannie and freddie are the firewall for mortgages.....any and all branches of finance (that deal with mortgages) want to sell the mortages to them (as they become guaranteed...which means great risk mgmt)....fan and fred....should be the ultimate example of perfect regulation.....I mean who do you blame the hacker or the firewall? people exploited both companies (mortgage companies).....and we paid for it...they failed to set strong polices...(which were ALREADY regulated)....and hopefully regulated the most right? since everyone is sending info there...?? I am not picking sides...as its hard to say....regulation can detroy a financial inst...overnight...and anytime they want...they have ultimate power....except when it comes to big banks...hmmmm...
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (60) Nov 21, 2011
Conservatives, proper, would never have allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to exist and cause the flow of sub-prime mortgages to begin with.

Yet it wasn't Fannie and Freddie who caused the flow of sub-prime mortgages.


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Wall Street's biggest customers,.. they bought up sub-prime loans on a massive scale. They absolutely promoted and acted as a sink for these poor quality loans.

These liberal gov entities along with the 'community reinvestment act' and HUD, actively promoted the increase of financing for 'affordable housing' through REGULATIONS. This required lowering the standards of qualifications for loans,.. in effect the ultimate 'deregulation'. Their mere existence was a disturbance to the mortgage finance system, so your statement "Your Free Markets At Work" is a non-starter, as these liberal do-gooder entities were a proverbial wrench into the free market.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (61) Nov 21, 2011
I used the term Far Left above, as they are the ones for social engineering, not the conservative right.


And do you mean by that statement that stealing the wealth of 3 generations, and trying to remove the SS/MCare/MCaid safety net and reproductive freedom for women(to name only a few) aren't "Social Engineering"?


What are you referring to "stealing the wealth of 3 generations"? As to SS, it is a pyramid scheme, and is mathematically unsustainable. In any case REMOVING a social program does not equate to social engineering, the opposite.

As to reproductive freedom for women,.. it is a basic government responsibility to protect a person from harm by another. The real question is when is "it" a person?

The hypocrisy of The Right is revolting, yet pathetic. But only just wait a little longer -- The Right is going to get handed a big, fat surprise in November of next year.


Hopefully like in 2010. The novelty president is going to be a one termer.
axemaster
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2011
Hopefully like in 2010. The novelty president is going to be a one termer.

So who would you rather see? All the candidates are either dumb, religious zealots, or hopelessly corrupt (Newt). Or all three.

Granted, Obama isn't a great president, but do you really want a nutcase replacing him?
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (57) Nov 22, 2011
All the candidates are either dumb, religious zealots, or hopelessly corrupt (Newt). Or all three.


I don't recall a president who was not religious. Newt is corrupt, how so?

Nutcase? A little over the top, no?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2011
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Wall Street's biggest customers,.. they bought up sub-prime loans on a massive scale.
That is a frequently bandied-about right wing myth. In FACT, Fannie and Freddie were late to the party. By the time they got involved in subprime, the property bubble was already fully inflated. In fact, Fannie and Freddie stepped in when it started to look as if without their participation the bubble might peak out and burst.
These liberal gov entities along with the 'community reinvestment act' and HUD, actively promoted the increase of financing for 'affordable housing' through REGULATIONS.
Does GWB's -- and by extension the entire Republican Party's -- "Ownership Society" initiative qualify as "liberal"?
Their mere existence was a disturbance to the mortgage finance system
Another right-wing myth. Fannie and Freddie did not invent "financial innovation". Nor did they invent ZIRP. Thank Greenspan and Wall Street for both, and much, much more.
BaconBits
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 22, 2011
Back to the key point this article is about. We live in a market economy where the cost to polute (carbon in this case) and degrade the ecosystems we depend on is free.

If you manufacture a good that creates radioactive waste, you are required to pay for the safe disposal of that waste. Laws ensure that a business can't just dumpt that in a river or bury it under a playground. We don't resist that, we think it makes sense.

Carbon has a similar long half life in the atmosphere, traps heat (which causes a series of bad downstream effects) and acidifies the oceans. There should be a price on poluting carbon. That saying that makes you a socialist anti capilalist pig is BS.

Anyone saying that is disingenuous, ignorant and blatantly righteous at the expense of human life and human suffering and in the face of reason, intelligence and compassion.

rubberman
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2011
@nou
I know YOUR post was not about the science, I used your quote to illustrate why the public views climate change the way they do, my apologies for not wording it better. Thanks for the economics lesson everyone, it was quite informative, although I was happy to see BB's post at the end of all this...where's Oliver?
SteveL
5 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2011
where's Oliver?
Since Oliver hasn't shown:

Nixon and Ms. Huffington got together and invented a neutron repulsion generator and shot it onto the iron surface of the sun where the solar power is causing it to generate so much energy it is overheating our planet.

There, feel better? Makes about as much sense too.

Back on topic: I think the real questions are not about whether the climate is changing, but how much, how fast, what can do about it, can we do enough to make a difference and how can we best survive the changes that are coming?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 22, 2011
"The authors use a disinformation approach to present their view. They write the mainstream scientific conclusion that climate change is occurring and is mostly human-induced when what they really mean is that their view is that climate change is occurring and is mostly human-induced CAUSED BY THE ADDITION OF CO2 AND A FEW OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES. They deliberately confuse this statement. This is NOT a viewpoint accepted by 97% of climate scientists!"
http://pielkeclim...ess.com/

"Unlimited understanding through science promises to bring in its wake unlimited power to control our environment, eradicate disease, and perhaps even one day to defeat death itself.- This is the dream of reason-the dominant mythology on which our culture is based." The Blind Spot, William Byers, p.19.

This describes the AGW mythology quiet well.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 22, 2011
Here is the reason for the recent uptick in AGW propaganda from physorg:
"upcoming United Nations Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa.

Read more: http://dailycalle...eUOkZgL9
"
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2011
What "recent uptick"? What "propaganda"? When are you going to wake up and smell the coffee? God, you're depressing... but somehow, funny!
FrankHerbert
1.2 / 5 (53) Nov 23, 2011

I used the term Far Left above, as they are the ones for social engineering, not the conservative right.


What exactly would you call the "culture war" other than social engineering?
FrankHerbert
1.2 / 5 (54) Nov 23, 2011
The actions of G.W. Bush is not representative of a true fiscal conservative, not even close. Conservatives, proper, would never have allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to exist and cause the flow of sub-prime mortgages to begin with. Most true conservatives were against bailing out the banks.


No true Scotsman.

The novelty president is going to be a one termer.


What is a novelty about him?
rubberman
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2011
@ R2
So....97% of the worlds climate scientists DON'T believe GHG's cause warming....I agree with PE, that is funny S**T!!! Also, the link you posted to support that statement is the opinion of one guy...NOT speaking on behalf of 97% of climate scientists....
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 23, 2011
What is great about science is the power of one.
One individual, with the theory and the data to support it, can shatter any consensus.
One candle can destroy darkness.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck

Read more: http://www.brainy...eXaILQsD
"
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 23, 2011
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that mans release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface
system. - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson,
"More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims"
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who dont buy into anthropogenic global warming."- U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA."
http://hatch.sena...port.pdf
Consensus?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 23, 2011
Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide
scene and always will. . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions. Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was
once Hungarys most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined. - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2011
If 97% of scientists affirmed that the earth is flat and held up by a tower of turtles, what value would such consensus have?

We see here again the idea of "science by consensus" being put forth as some kind of proof requiring political action, when history has shown repeatedly that consensus is an entirely unreliable measure of the truth.

If this is any measure of the quality of modern science, we are in a lot of trouble.
FrankHerbert
1.4 / 5 (56) Nov 23, 2011
There is no appeal-to-authority fallacy when the person(s) being appealed to actually is an authority on the subject. Climatologists are authorities on the climate. 97% (is that the actual figure? I even wouldn't have expected it to be that high) of climatologists supporting AGW is actually a meaningful statistic. The same way I'm assuming roughly 97% of doctors believe in the existence of germs and roughly 97% of physicists believe in the existence of atoms.

Sure we can point to all manner of past medical quackery and try to use that to discredit modern medicine. We can also use Artistotle's hyle and many other wrong, persisting theories on matter to discredit modern atomic theory. Doesn't make it right. Also doesn't make modern theory right either. It just means modern theory is a better explanation than older theory.

This is science. New ideas supplanting old ones via evidence. Find evidence for you hypothesis. The climatologists have for theirs and are rather successful with it.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2011
There is no appeal-to-authority fallacy when the person(s) being appealed to actually is an authority on the subject.


Isn't that just an oxymoron?

"It isn't an appeal to authority when the person being appealed to is an authority".

Like I said, with reasoning like this, we are in a lot of trouble.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 23, 2011
Climatologists are authorities on the climate.

Except for those who don't agree with 'the consensus' as I noted above.
Their authority is ignored.
The climatologists have for theirs and are rather successful with it.

Says who? The ones who created the hypotheses?
They have been successful at making Al Gore wealthy.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2011
Climatologists are authorities on the climate.


To rephrase, climatologists disagree. Authorities disagree. I would say reasonable men disagree, but in this argument, the alarmists' behavior has been anything but reasonable, instead their arguments revolve around ad-hominem attacks, appeals to authority (their authorities) and childish language (tards).

Appeals to authority always present the "authority" as having superior knowledge and insight that can't be questioned. In other words: "Sit down and shut up" is the argument. It has no place in a reasonable discussion.

Similarly, appealing to a group of authorities is no different, the message is still the same: "We are superior in knowledge to you, sit down and shut up." Both arguments do not belong in science, yet crop up again and again.
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2011
In this argument, measurements of GHG's, observations of disappearing Glaciers and what was once long term sea ice, sea level rise due to both melt and warming, the northerly retreat of the permafrost line, the increased speed of transition between weather patterns, the migration of animal and plant species in a northerly direction, increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events...are all things called evidence that the climate is changing. Since it is witnessable by one generation of humans, this means that it is changing very rapidly as compared to what is termed natural variability. The vast majority of scientists and anyone with average mental capability have realized that 7 billion of us doing what we are doing is causing these changes that we are witnessing.Choosing to disagree is a human right, but attempting to argue your position given the amount of observational evidence that can be cited against you will always hang you on the short end of the hockey stick.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2011
are all things called evidence that the climate is changing. Since it is witnessable by one generation of humans, this means that it is changing very rapidly as compared to what is termed natural variability.


"Timescales of events described as 'abrupt' may vary dramatically. Changes recorded in the climate of Greenland at the end of the Younger Dryas, as measured by ice-cores, imply a sudden warming of +10°C within a timescale of a few years.[6] Other abrupt changes are the +4 °C on Greenland 11,270 years ago[7] or the abrupt +6 °C warming 22 000 years ago on Antarctica.[8] By contrast, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum may have initiated anywhere between a few decades and several thousand years."

-Wikipedia

Climate change is not in itself proof that humans are causing it. The abruptness of climate change is not relevant, as it demonstrably happens without human influence.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (18) Nov 23, 2011
are all things called evidence that the climate is changing.

What's new?
causing these changes that we are witnessing

Like an Aztec priest ordering the sun to rise, the sun rises, so the priest controls the sun?
Correlation is not causation.

Mann et al have had to try to eliminate the MWP (hockey stick) because it doesn't fit with their AGW/CO2 mythology.
Oh what a tangled web they weave when first they practice to deceive.
FrankHerbert
1.3 / 5 (54) Nov 24, 2011
There is no appeal-to-authority fallacy when the person(s) being appealed to actually is an authority on the subject.


Isn't that just an oxymoron?


No it isn't. An appeal to authority is just that, an appeal to authority. If you are debating anatomy and have a doctor handy, this is a GOOD thing.

A fallacious appeal to authority would be e.g. repeatedly quoting Freeman Dyson's opinion on the fate of polar bears. Though Freeman Dyson is a well respected physicist and all around admirable guy, one person cannot be an expert on all things and there is no reason to expect he would have a much better grasp of the climate than a particularly intelligent layman neither having a better understanding than a climatologist

All people have a quirky view or two, even really smart ones. Any issue can find some celebrity supporter. Trust the experts.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (58) Nov 24, 2011

I used the term Far Left above, as they are the ones for social engineering, not the conservative right.


What exactly would you call the "culture war" other than social engineering?


What, "culture war" is social engineering?! What are you talking about. The term denotes the the ideology divide in America,.. and nothing to do with social engineering.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (59) Nov 24, 2011
The novelty president is going to be a one termer.


What is a novelty about him?


Obviously. People came out in droves to make history, and vote in the First Black American President. Now, that in itself does not make him a novelty, although the technical definition would be correct. What makes him a novelty is that, there was no other rational justification for voting for him; 1) He had no real experience running anything,.. and 2) he never spelled out his ideas in any detail during the campaign,.. just "hope and change" over and over.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (56) Nov 24, 2011
There is no appeal-to-authority fallacy when the person(s) being appealed to actually is an authority on the subject.

Isn't that just an oxymoron?

No it isn't. An appeal to authority is just that, an appeal to authority. If you are debating anatomy and have a doctor handy, this is a GOOD thing.


You're talking in circles Frank. I don't think the point made was based on a incorrect 'appeal to authority', but rather in using an 'appeal to authority' in place of evidence to support claims. All you had to say was that, "climatologist don't use an 'appeal to authority' amongst themselves, in place of evidence"...
Noumenon
4 / 5 (57) Nov 24, 2011
....The question is why so many articles and political posturing about the publics supposed ignorance of the coming 'cataclysm' of AGW? The answer of course is because the masses have to be convinced to give up something they currently have, to 'fix it'.

The proposed solution as stated by the UN, is redistribution of wealth, and regulating economies, and social engineering wrt energy use. An appeal to authority will NOT work in convincing people this is the only way to solve the problem. Are we in imminent doom or not?

Climatologist will need to make future specific quantitative predictions and then verify those predictions. This is the only way to gauge the precision of scientific understanding (models). The correct argument is not the core science (it is correct), it is the wildly speculative claims of impeding cataclysm, and borderline fraudulent precision claimed without ever justifying such claims through verification.

Retroactive model predictions is not verification.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2011
1) He had no real experience running anything,.. and 2) he never spelled out his ideas in any detail during the campaign,.. just "hope and change" over and over.

To be fair:
1) Neither did his adversary (or to be more correct: anything his adversary put his hands on went bust in short order)
2) All his adversary was offering was "doom and gloom"
(And let's not talk about the adversary's choice for vice president. avoiding that alone would have been enough for anyone to vote Obama into office blind)

So he may not have been the one to vote for because he was so fit for the post (absolutely speaking). But relatively speaking - as opposed to the alternative - he was far superior.

That's the problem in a two party systems. You don't get the best - you just get the lesser of two evils.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (56) Nov 24, 2011
1) I don't entirely disagree with that antialias. The right wing did not trust McCain's centrist wishy washyness. The difference is that McCain spoke in details wrt his ideology. Obama never defined anything in concrete terms,.. so why else vote for him.

i.e. Allan Keyes would not have been an novelty president because his ideology was extremely clear, and thus wouldn't ever have been voted "because he's black".

There is a two party system because the are two forms of government that are clearly ideologically delineated. Actually its a good thing,.. perhaps better with a third though.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (58) Nov 24, 2011
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Wall Street's biggest customers,.. they bought up sub-prime loans on a massive scale.

That is a frequently bandied-about right wing myth. In FACT, Fannie and Freddie were late to the party. By the time they got involved in subprime, the property bubble was already fully inflated. [...]


The notion that the GSE's culpability in the housing crash is a myth, is a frequently bandied-about left-wing myth, and a short sighted view that does not take into account the full cause and effect relationship.

While most sub-prime loans originated in the private market, there was a dynamical reason for it occurring on such a massive scale; the proverbial rug under which such bad loans could eventually be swept was clearly known to be Fannie Mae.

Way back under Clinton, Fannie Mae are the one's that instituted such ad-hoc and anti-free-market policies that lead to the degeneration of lending qualification standards, in their push to increase home owners
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2011
GSEs were required by law to purchase sub-par loans.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (57) Nov 24, 2011
GSEs were required by law to purchase sub-par loans.


If it was only as bad as that, then the tax payers would have been merely hosed as is usual in big government anyway. The dumb guy investor always looses his shirt in the free-market. The government is like a big dumb guy with more money than brains or with a profound lack of desire for profit.

But it was even worse than this, because liberal government social engineering regulations is usually ad-hoc, and counter to how the free market functions.

They even limited what basic risk management the banks could use. For example, there is a concept known as "redlining", where a bank increases qualification standards for certain areas. The reason was that defaults were more costly to the bank in those areas. Fiscally rational risk management was politicized into a racial discrimination by the mush headed left, and so regulated.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2011
The dumb guy investor always looses his shirt in the free-market.

Fools and their money are soon parted, in any economy.
But in a free market, fools learn quickly, which then supports honesty.
Madoff could fool so many for so long because he leveraged his reputation with the govt AND the govt refused to investigate his fraud.
'Liberals' whine about businesses who are not spending all the cash they are sitting. Why are they not spending? They do not TRUST the govt, or they DO trust the govt will enact more laws that hurt their businesses. Better to hunker down and wait until a more trusting environment emerges.
I believe this is what has motivated Jewish and Chinese cultures to pursue education, self investment, and private loans to open businesses. Their cultures have survived hundreds of years of oppression and govt plunder.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2011
The government is like a big dumb guy with more money than brains or with a profound lack of desire for profit.

Unless, of course, the government is a puppet for the smart guys - making sure that it redirects taxpayer money into their pockets.

Seeing as millionairs are vastly overrepresented in Congress (or high government positions in general) I wonder which it is.

Are all those millionairs smart in business and suddenly become dumb in office? Seems implausible.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2011
the government is a puppet

Is this why 'liberals' fight so hard to be the puppet masters?
It doesn't matter who the puppet master is if the govt has the power to plunder and refuses to protect private property.
suddenly become dumb in office

VP Joe Biden has always been dumb.
No, the real smart people avoid govt power as often as they can because they know persuasion is more profitable for all than coercion.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2011
"Three years ago, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband, Paul, made Hillary Rodham Clintons success with cattle futures look like a childs lemonade stand. The credit card giant Visa was holding an initial public offering, among the most lucrative ever seen. The Pelosis were granted early access to the IPO as special customers who received their shares at the opening price, $44. The lucky investors turned in a 50 percent profit in just two days."
"The Pelosis got their IPO stocks just two weeks after legislation was introduced in the House that would have allowed merchants to negotiate lower interchange fees with credit card companies."
http://www.washin...t-graft/
Regulations to combat AGW are rife with graft.
If you want to end the corruption, you must limit the power of the state to control the economy.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (57) Nov 24, 2011
The government is like a big dumb guy with more money than brains or with a profound lack of desire for profit.

Unless, of course, the government is a puppet for the smart guys - making sure that it redirects taxpayer money into their pockets.
[...]
Are all those millionairs smart in business and suddenly become dumb in office?.


Another argument to limit gov.

It's already a given that in a free-society/market, the goal is to maximize profit. So, given this as a-priori intrinsic, it is predictable what big gov meddling results in.

Obama has nothing to run on except taxing the rich (and falsely distorting the Right as 'protecting the rich') and to promote class war-fare and tap into that disgusting and mindless emotion of invidiousness.

Obama is going to campaign on this fraud even though a) the rich as individuals pay an inordinate amount in taxes, b) contribute an inordinate amount to the economy, c) provide the majority of jobs, d) the lower 40% pay no
Noumenon
Nov 24, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2011
Another argument to limit gov.

Not being a US citizen I don't get this "limit government" vs "big government" arguemnt at all.

Government should be used where useful and not where not.

I.e.
- everywhere society is being made unfair and will fall apart government should see that people are protected until society is mature enough as a whole to not need such guidance
- wherever stuff needs to be provided on an equal basis (and not based on merit or wallet size) ..police, healthcare, ...

It's just a case by case thing. Such broad generalizations as "small government vs. big government" make both sides look exceedingly naive.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2011
Not being a US citizen I don't get this "limit government" vs "big government" arguemnt at all.

Read Bastiat. He was French.

Does a fish know he is in water? Does Anti know he lives in an unlimited govt state?
wherever stuff needs to be provided on an equal basis

Define 'stuff'.
Define how you get that 'stuff'. If the govt can take your 'stuff' and give it to someone else to make it 'equal' that is what govt is for?
Limited govt is not a broad definition at all. It is quite simple. I you can't steal someone's property, why can the govt?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2011
Define 'stuff'.

As I said: Things that don't shouldn't depend on circumstances
- equal access to education
- equal access to law and law enforcement
- equal access to protection from natuer or accidents (fire dept et al. )
- equal access to health care

Define how you get that 'stuff'.

Setting up the relevant departments (that's what taxes are there for)

I you can't steal someone's property, why can the govt?

Government is about keeping a society together. Stealing (on a personal basis) is disruptive. But we all profit from a stable society. However that means we all must contribute to it (so taxes aren't stealing but an investment).
And I think it's only fair that those that profit (and have profited) the most - like me, and probably you, too - contribute more than those less fortunate.
FrankHerbert
1.3 / 5 (54) Nov 24, 2011

i.e. Allan Keyes would not have been an novelty president because his ideology was extremely clear, and thus wouldn't ever have been voted "because he's black".


Seriously? Alan Keyes, the professional candidate? Yes by all means a man who runs for office for a living is preferable to our "novelty" president. I also looked up novelty and novel in several sources and none mention the words "clear" or "ideology" in any combination or separately. Try speaking the language.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2011
Government is about keeping a society together.

Really? Why not just put everyone in a concentration camp. That keeps 'society' together.
You are correct, we all benefit from a stable society. Govt is pure force, pure power. With unlimited power govt destabilizes societies to increase their power. That is what we are seeing around the world.
If the US Constitution was followed as intended, no one in the US or around the world would care who was elected president. His power would be limited to protecting everyone's property rights, equally, not redistributing wealth to his political contributors.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2011
With unlimited power govt destabilizes societies to increase their power.

That is why the US used to have checks and balances.
That is why the US used to have a fourth power - but rampant capitalism has seen to it that that part got destroyed. What you're really seeing in the destruction of the government is simply the application of the capitalist principles: Profit maximization. What are you complaining about? You should be happy that everyone is folowing your ideals to teh utmost.

Why not just put everyone in a concentration camp.

Some countries have tried that (by not allowing their citizens to travel) - didn't work.

no one in the US or around the world would care who was elected president.

If the US wasn't engaged in setting up military bases in all countries (except 46 or so) the no one would. ike watching a rabid dog. If it stays in its kennel no one cares. Let it run free any everyone keeps an eye on it.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2011
- but rampant capitalism has seen to it that that part got destroyed

The destruction began with the Progressives over 100 years ago. Five large meat packers supported the creation of the FDA to restrict competition. It continued with the income tax, the creation of the Federal Reserve, WWI, FDR, ...
'Rampant' capitalism created the greatest economic expansion and opportunity the world had ever seen.
The US is following the practice of socialist states where politicians control industry granting special favors with regulations and restrictions on certain industry and subsidy of others.
Under real capitalism, there would be no such thing as a GSE like Freddie or Fannie, the govt would not be allowed to give money to GM or Chrysler or Solnydra or any other company unless they were purchasing products and services that directly supported an Constitutional mandated govt function like national defense.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2011
"In the 19th century, even though capitalism had only existed for a short time, and had just started putting a dent in pre-capitalisms legacy of poverty, the vast, vast majority of Americans were already able to support their own lives through their own productive work. Only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority depended on assistance and aid and there was no shortage of aid available to help that minority."
"In 1910, in New York State, for instance, 151 private benevolent groups provided care for children, and 216 provided care for adults or adults with children. If you were homeless in Chicago in 1933, for example, you could find shelter at one of the citys 614 YMCAs, or one of its 89 Salvation Army barracks, or one of its 75 Goodwill Industries dormitories."
"we wont get rid of the entitlement state until we get rid of todays widespread entitlement mentality, and return to a society in which individual responsibility is the watchword."
http://www.forbes...ectivist
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2011
"Having crowded out private investors by charging an insurance premium that was too cheap, the GSEs are saddled with $5 trillion worth of bad credit. This is a tragedy of our own making."
"Ultimately, the market will price mortgage credit risk much more efficiently than does the government. "
http://www.washin...ory.html
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2011

No it isn't. An appeal to authority is just that, an appeal to authority. If you are debating anatomy and have a doctor handy, this is a GOOD thing.


History is full of scientific mavericks (who were ultimately shown to be correct) fighting against an established scientific orthodoxy. The orthodoxy represented the current authorities at the time, yet were later found to be incorrect.

Appeals to authority are prone to error, as history has shown. The authorities are not always correct. Ultimately, the scientific method weeds these authorities out, and hopefully truth prevails. But an appeal to authority is not a valid route to the truth. Questioning authority is the path to truth.

Doctors are prone to error. It is a good thing to have one, but many people die each year due to physician error. To trust these authorities and never question what they are doing to you can be self-destructive. Trust no one.
FrankHerbert
1.3 / 5 (55) Nov 25, 2011
Not being a US citizen I don't get this "limit government" vs "big government" arguemnt at all.


@antialias

There is nothing to get. It's a BS argument perpetrated largely by people in power who don't believe it. It's a rhetorical device for guiding people away from real issues.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (16) Nov 25, 2011
Statists like Frank can't support a limited state because he wants to have that power and he, and other socialists like him, need more power to force the rest us to live the way they want.
Basiat, for example, laid out the principle of the law quite well. If an individual has the right to property and the right to defend his property, including his life, individuals have the right to join with other like minded individuals to collectively defend their individual property rights.
But when the law permits a majority to forcibly violate the property rights of a few, the law is corrupted. The principle upon which that law was created is destroyed.
And people like Frank can then use mob rule to plunder.
Trouble is, this is the path that leads the rule of the jungle that 'liberals' claim govt is supposed to prevent.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (56) Nov 25, 2011
Not being a US citizen I don't get this "limit government" vs "big government" arguemnt at all.


@antialias

There is nothing to get. It's a BS argument perpetrated largely by people in power who don't believe it. It's a rhetorical device for guiding people away from real issues.


I know that you're not that ignorant FrankHubris. If there were 'nothing to get', European countries like Greece would not be having to institute austerity measures, the EU would not be on the verge of collapse, California and Detroit would not be borderline bankrupt, and the entire USA would not be $15 trillion in debt, spending money it does not have at a uncontrollable rate that is mathematically unsustainable. That is what big government brings you.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (45) Nov 25, 2011
"History is full of scientific mavericks (who were ultimately shown to be correct) " - Claudius

Yup, Every Moron is a scientific genius in the eyes of another Moron.

Well done Claudius.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (44) Nov 26, 2011
"That is what big government brings you." - NumenTard

No Tard Boy.. That is what Conservatism brings you. Death and Destruction every time.

How much is Bushies little war crime in Iraq gonna cost you losers? 4 trillion?

For that money you could have converted your economy completely to solar by purchasing panels at retail prices from Walmart.

Stupid is as Stupid does.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2011
"A society of haves: that was what trade union reform and privatisation, the attack on inflation and on government borrowing, and the selling of council houses and tax cuts were about. That aspiration to possess both liberty and property was what lay behind the struggles of the Cold War. And it was because the peoples of Eastern Europe wanted to be part of such a society, and rejected the system which Gorbachev was trying belatedly to reform, that they demolished the Berlin Wall and he did not dare stop them. "
"n the case of the eurozone, something even more painful has happened. The zones general population, impoverished by the errors of their policymakers, are then told, by those policymakers, that they must pay to keep entire countries afloat. If they protest, as they did in Greece and Italy, they find new governments imposed upon them, run by people whom they have not elected. And who are those people? The same policymakers! "
http://www.telegr...lcrisis/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2011
"Free-market conservatism is absolutely opposed to the concept of too big to fail. This is partly because bigness threatens individual dignity and freedom. It is also because it is only through failure being admitted that success comes. If we keep on propping up failure whether it be nationalised industries in the Eighties, or the current eurozone in the 2010s we reinforce it. "
http://www.telegr...ses.html
SteveL
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2011
Stupid is as Stupid does.
- VD

As if your hate speech had value.

Sometimes you provide intelligent posts, but all too commonly you only provide low-browed posts filled with juvenile name calling which indicates an astonishing amount of self loathing.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (52) Nov 26, 2011
Not being a US citizen I don't get this "limit government" vs "big government" arguemnt at all.

Government should be used where useful and not where not - antialias_physorg


Well that's it. Sounds like you get it better than FrankHubris, and the other far lefties like kockivnik, deepsand, howhot, vindicar, and the many others that infest this site.

The question is where to draw the line, which is what politics is all about.

If the government is inept and wasteful with public money ($1.4 trillion in deficit spending), the private sector should be used instead. Since, most government institutions are inefficient and ineffective, it is a conservative principal that in general, government should limited as much as is possible.

This does not mean that conservatives are anti-gov (a left wing fallacy and lie). Conservatives regard government as essential to a society,... for basic things, like defense, upholding the constitution, protection of private property, etc.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (36) Nov 26, 2011
"This does not mean that conservatives are anti-gov (a left wing fallacy and lie)." - NeumenTard

http://www.youtub...cP69dhCg

From the lips of the Traitor and Chief himself.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Nov 27, 2011
"($1.4 trillion in deficit spending)... should be used. Conservatives regard government as essential to a society... for basic things etc. " - NumenTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Nov 27, 2011
"Free-market conservatism is... to fail. keep on propping up the current eurozone. reinforce it." - RyggTard

Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Nov 27, 2011
If there were 'nothing to get', the entire USA would not be $15 trillion in debt for basic things, like defense." - Numentard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Nov 27, 2011
The destruction began with Five large meat packers It continued with 'Rampant' capitalism

capitalisms legacy of poverty wont get rid of the entitlement state" = RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Nov 27, 2011
"the public money (1.4 trillion should be used instead. it is a conservative principal" - NumenTard
Claudius
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2011
"History is full of scientific mavericks (who were ultimately shown to be correct) " - Claudius

Yup, Every Moron is a scientific genius in the eyes of another Moron.

Well done Claudius.


You reveal your own ignorance.

http://amasci.com...dac.html
Claudius
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2011
Here's one example of many of a maverick who was ridiculed and later proved right:

"John Snow. In 1854 an outbreak of Cholera was killing hundreds of people in London, but doctors were helpless to prevent the spread of the disease because the miasma theory still prevailed -- everyone believed diseases were spread by bad air. By patiently, methodically mapping out exactly where the deaths were occurring he was able to track the source to one water pump. He got the local authorities to remove the pump handle but later government officials replaced the pump handle without moving the well from the nearby leaking cess pit. Politically the idea that water infected with feces was causing disease was too repugnant for consideration."
Claudius
1 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2011
Here's another:

Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren discovered Helicobacter pylori as an important cause of stomach ulcers, but were not taken seriously by the medical establishment for a number of years. Eventually, Marshall infected himself with H. pylori and published the results, contributing to acceptance of the discovery.
Claudius
1 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2011
It was once believed by authorities that hand washing was unnecessary:

"In the 1870's in France , one hospital was called the House of Crime because of the alarming number of new mothers dying of childbed fever within its confines. In 1879, at a seminar at the Academy of Medicine in Paris , a noted speaker stood at the podium and cast doubt on the spread of disease through the hands. An outraged member of the audience felt compelled to protest. He shouted at the speaker: "The thing that kills women with [childbirth fever]...is you doctors that carry deadly microbes from sick women to healthy ones." That man was Louis Pasteur. Pasteur, of course, contributed to the germ theory of disease (whereas the founder to this theory was Robert Koch). He was a tireless advocate of hygiene, but his efforts too were initially met with skepticism. Skepticism, however, was not the only problem facing advocates of hygiene."

Claudius
1 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2011
(cont) In 1910, Josephine Baker, M.D. started a program to teach hygiene to child care providers in New York . Thirty physicians sent a petition to the Mayor protesting that "it was ruining medical practice by...keeping babies well."
Claudius
1 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2011
So much for consensus.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (50) Nov 27, 2011
VD, whats the point of all those out of context quotes?

You're the immature type who enjoys being a "radical" merely for the sake of being a radical. Grow up.

You come across as anti-capitalist and anti-American. These positions are an extreme minority "view" and are quit irrelevant to meaningful discussion in the western half of the globe.

If the mods at this site didn't give up, you would have yet another web site in which you were banned from.