Polarization for controversial scientific issues increases with more education

August 21, 2017
Carnegie Mellon University researchers examined predictors of Americans' beliefs about six potentially controversial issues -- stem cell research, the big bang, human evolution, genetically modified foods, nanotechnology and climate change. And they measured education by the highest degree earned, science classes taken in high school and college and aptitude on general science facts.They found that beliefs were correlated with both political and religious identity for stem cell research, the big bang and evolution and with political identity alone on climate change. On each of these issues, individuals with more education, science education and science literacy had more polarized beliefs. Credit: Baruch Fischhoff

A commonly proposed solution to help diffuse the political and religious polarization surrounding controversial scientific issues like evolution or climate change is education.

However, Carnegie Mellon University researchers found that the opposite is true: people's beliefs about scientific topics that are associated with their political or religious identities actually become increasingly polarized with education, as measured by years in school, science classes, and science literacy.

"A lot of science is generally accepted and trusted, but certain topics have become deeply polarizing. We wanted to find out what factors are related to this polarization, and it turns out the 'deficit model'—which says the divisions are due to a lack of education or understanding—does not tell the whole story," said Caitlin Drummond, the lead author who recently received her Ph.D. in behavioral decision research from CMU's Department of Social and Decision Sciences and will be a postdoctoral research fellow at the Erb Institute at the University of Michigan this fall.

Published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences (PNAS), Drummond and CMU's Baruch Fischhoff used data from the nationally representative General Social Survey. They examined predictors of Americans' beliefs about six potentially controversial issues—stem cell research, the , human evolution, , nanotechnology and . And they measured education by the highest degree earned, taken in high school and college and aptitude on general science facts.

They found that beliefs were correlated with both political and religious identity for stem cell research, the big bang and evolution and with political identity alone on climate change. On each of these issues, individuals with more education, science education and had more polarized beliefs.

The researchers found little evidence of political or religious polarization for nanotechnology and genetically modified food.

"These are troubling correlations. We can only speculate about the underlying causes," said Fischhoff, the Howard Heinz University Professor in IPS and the Department of Engineering and Public Policy. "One possibility is that people with more education are more likely to know what they are supposed to say, on these polarized issues, in order to express their identity. Another possibility is that they have more confidence in their ability to argue their case."

The results also showed that for all six issues, people who trust science more are also more likely to accept scientific findings.

"We would love to be able to understand what is causing the relationship we observe between education and polarization, and how certain science topics got so polarized in the first place," Drummond said. "Disagreements about science seem to be about more than the science itself, but also what the science's implications are for a person's identity."

Explore further: Antidote for partisanship? In science, curiosity seems to work

More information: Caitlin Drummond el al., "Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics," PNAS (2017). www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1704882114

Related Stories

Antidote for partisanship? In science, curiosity seems to work

January 26, 2017

Disputes over science-related policy issues such as climate change or fracking often seem as intractable as other politically charged debates. But in science, at least, simple curiosity might help bridge that partisan divide, ...

Recommended for you

How to cut your lawn for grasshoppers

November 22, 2017

Picture a grasshopper landing randomly on a lawn of fixed area. If it then jumps a certain distance in a random direction, what shape should the lawn be to maximise the chance that the grasshopper stays on the lawn after ...

Plague likely a Stone Age arrival to central Europe

November 22, 2017

A team of researchers led by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History has sequenced the first six European genomes of the plague-causing bacterium Yersinia pestis dating from the Late Neolithic ...

Ancient barley took high road to China

November 21, 2017

First domesticated 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, wheat and barley took vastly different routes to China, with barley switching from a winter to both a winter and summer crop during a thousand-year ...

83 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

thingumbobesquire
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2017
Perhaps some well educated people realize that Neo-Malthusianism ain't science.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2017
The reactions of the scientists to these obvious findings is amusingly positivist, and are more revealing than the actual conclusions.
Caliban
4 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2017
"Disagreements about science seem to be about more than the science itself, but also what the science's implications are for a person's identity."


Well --there it is.

If one accepts the science, then one has to accept what it means within one's worldview.

Which explains the shrill, knee-jerk response to the science by the Denierside, simply because it means that their worldview --and much, if not all, they do within its delusional framework-- is wrong. Which makes them wrong in thought and action. Therefore the vehement denial is mere justification, while being, at the same time, the practice of actual violence upon the rest of us.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (17) Aug 21, 2017
"A commonly proposed solution to help diffuse the political and religious polarization surrounding controversial scientific issues like evolution or climate change is education."

What they mean by this statement is: "What must we do to better dumb down the people we are trying to fool."
ddaye
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2017
Someone might test the deniers' science literacy in those specific fields, as long as we're avoiding considering any causes that aren't the fault of individuals.
Turgent
1.2 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2017

Digging ever deeper trenches.

This article tells us that intelligence and knowledge is equally distributed among those for and against GW and CC.

"They found that beliefs were correlated … with political identity alone on climate change." This tells us it is the political agenda of the swamp monsters (professionals politicians) calling the shots. This hyper polarization does seem to correlate with the political hate mongering of the Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa, etc. Being it is the political class manipulating us maybe we shouldn't trust so much in a fully corrupted government.

In the little time I have participated in the Phys.Org comments there has yet to be a GW or CC proponent express there opinion with knowledge and intelligence thru rational discourse. There has been no math or fundamental science discussed at the fundamental level. The most common argument is "liar", "denier" or "Bush did it."
Vidyaguy
1.2 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2017
I suspect that the problem goes more toward the availability of information, than simply educational level. Government involvement in educational institutions encourages contamination of what was once relatively pure science and engineering. Engineering, itself, is no longer isolated from politics because it must be sensitive to every possible environmental danger - real or not, significant of not - and its litigious exposure. Even physics has become "less than pure," because of potential elliptical connections with government policies. Finally, publishing houses understand the desirability of being on the "right side" of putative history, which significantly reduces the availability of research findings at odds with a majority view ("Eppur si muove"). For these reasons, at least, conscientious individuals wanting to truly investigate a question are bombarded by one side, with little friendly access to any other. And this asymmetry of access is critical in establishing viewpoint.
Ojorf
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2017
What they mean by this statement is: "What must we do to better dumb down the people we are trying to fool."


Apparently not very much.

tblakely1357
1 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2017
'Science', the new opiate of the masses.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2017
In the many years that I have been participating in the Phys.Org comments section - there have been many persons who have laid out the scientific case for Global Warming - with very intelligent and rational discourse. One could point to an article like this - https://www.nasa....-records or a graph like this https://www.nasa....ture.png and simply ask 'if you assert that this warming trend is not caused by green house gasses building up in the atmosphere, please give us your explanation of this trend - that the scientific consensus says is caused by human caused activity. Then the obfuscation begins - but of course no ability to point to any science that actually offers an alternative explanation.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2017
And yet, @greenos, some pretty well educated people, who, if education were all that was required, shouldn't buy #climatedenial, demonstrably do. So the question is, why? Here we have an answer: moderately smart people are better able to rationalize. You have to be pretty smart to start questioning your own assumptions and even smarter to keep on doing so. Not to mention have good integrity.
24volts
5 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2017
Many of the comments above had valid points in their way but as far as climate change goes I believe what my eyes see as evidence. I will say up right front that I tend to be conservative on most subjects but I don't see how anyone can honestly say the climate isn't changing. I'm 58 years old and for the last 3 years I have had to start cutting my grass in the middle of January! I've lived in this area pretty much all my life and I don't remember ever having to do that before. I didn't normally to have to cut it between October and March. It's definitely getting warmer. At least in Southeast NC.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2017
'Science', the new opiate of the masses
-And so we don't need the old one - religion - any more do we?

We now have something real to put our confidence and trust in. This is much better for peace of mind yes? Certainly far less bigot- and violence-inspiring.
bschott
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2017
Many of the comments above had valid points in their way but as far as climate change goes I believe what my eyes see as evidence. I will say up right front that I tend to be conservative on most subjects but I don't see how anyone can honestly say the climate isn't changing.

Agreed.The crux of the issue for most *ahem* "deniers" isn't whether it is changing...it is the reason we are told it is. By using the term "climate denier" as opposed to CO2 skeptic, people feel they solidify their religion by denigrating those who question it.
It's definitely getting warmer. At least in Southeast NC.

Same with Southern Ontario for the most part, however our jobsites in the prairies have had brutal winters for the last 5, this displays a pattern of regional change more than generalized warming, and is happening worldwide...but you have to read ALL of the data to understand this.
The devout ignore observations which don't support their view.

bschott
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2017
"Disagreements about science seem to be about more than the science itself, but also what the science's implications are for a person's identity."
Well --there it is.

If one accepts the science, then one has to accept what it means within one's worldview.

Which explains the shrill, knee-jerk response to the science by the Denierside, simply because it means that their worldview --and much, if not all, they do within its delusional framework-- is wrong.

And the shrill kneejerk responses like the above when their worldview is questioned.
Which makes them wrong in thought and action.

When it is done by anyone....
Therefore the vehement denial is mere justification

And logical skepticism due to failed predictions and observations that do not support the CO2 narrative is what then?
the practice of actual violence upon the rest of us.

A difference of opinion is violence...maybe you are too sensitive for internet interactions.
J Doug
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2017
You have to be pretty smart to start questioning your own assumptions and even smarter to keep on doing so. Not to mention have good integrity.


Da Schneib: would you describe" 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change" as being "well educated"?
He goes to show that thinking adults can change their minds when the evidence shows that their previous hypotheses are incorrect. Adults are able to admit their mistakes while delusional folks just maintain the misconceptions, it seems forever.
"James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his "Gaia" theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being "alarmist" about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expe
J Doug
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2017
"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said.

"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said.

"The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.
http://www.dailym...nge.html
rogerfgay
1.2 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2017
Apparently, Social and Decision Sciences doesn't require any background in science. Science involves both good data gathering and competent interpretation. That last bit involves the tough job of figuring out cause and effect relationships. I'd say in this research, it would also require having a competent opinion regarding the subjects. I wonder how incompetent it is to see that many educated people, particularly those with science education, don't believe the hysterical BS on climate change, and don't at least wonder if there's something wrong with the party line on the subject. Instead, behave immaturely, as if education did nothing for you, accept the party line and look for something to blame when people don't fall for it.
Turgent
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2017
Create a target and they will come. It is hard to separate GW and CC proponents from non GW environmentalists. Those physically present at Dakota pipelines can only be considered rabble and wood monkeys. Contrary to King Charlemagne's advisors the tide did wet his feet. Oil shall flow. GW and CC proponents wanted to suppress the use of tar sands and Bakken oil in an effort to curtail oil consumption. Bakken (fracked) oil is the cleanest and supplies a secondary product of natural gas which is the preferred hydrocarbon. GW proponents were acting or inacting contrary to their objectives. GW proponents should have appropriately acted against the rabble. Where was it? Moving the oil by tanker is the much greater of two evils. Like so many GW policies the economic impact simply transfers the GW impact to another location. Hydrocarbons should be extracted by in the most economically advantageous area.
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2017
Cont.

Stopping Canadian tar sand or Bakken oil pushes hydrocarbon extraction cost down the curve of diminishing returns. Oil has a rather insensitive demand curve and prices substantially increase as supply tightens. This pushes greater use of marginal sources, like tar sands and fifthly Venezuelan oil. Canadians are extremely environmentally responsible. The choice is filthy and polluting Venezuelan oil or clean Canadian processing and Bakken oil. The Dakota protesters were filthy rabble. There should be consensus here. The question is where can GW proponents invest and get the greatest return on investment?

The Dakota rabble delegitimizes environmentalist, GW, and CC proponents thus reinforcing a polarizing and negative perception of those adherents to the religion.
Turgent
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2017
Cont.

Are electric cars the way to go? Step one generate electricity by the available means. Transport electricity by power lines. Step 3 Charge the battery. 4 Change the electric power to motion or kinetic energy. There is energy loss every step of the way. Is direct hydro-carbon power, chemical to kinetic, have less of a CO2 foot print than otherwise? Has there been any study of the total impact of electric vs. combustion engine cars?

Where might GW and CC get the best return on investment? Probably, fission and fusion nuclear and higher efficiency solar panels would be best. However don't solar panels have some limit to their efficiency?

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2017
@rogerf, so basically despite the high correlation between political and religious beliefs and #deniers you are claiming without any evidence that it's something else?

Just askin'.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2017
Has there been any study of the total impact of electric vs. combustion engine cars?
Yes there has been a great deal. One example - http://gas2.org/2...in-2012/ Much depends on the source of the electricity - and so in an area that gets a lot of power from nukes, or renewables - the impact is far less. So - of course - as we continue the journey we are on - and decarbonize our world - the picture improves every year.
Quick point on your analysis of the energy loss of electric car. One thing you missed was the efficiency of an electric car - vs a gas car. Just an example - http://www.rockpa...g/?p=449 It is well understood that electric motors are way more efficient. You also did not mention that oi has to be extracted, transported, refined, transported - before it ever gets into your gas tank - all requiring energy. There are many issue to consider regarding a very complex subject.
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2017
@greenonions1.
...oil has to be extracted, transported, refined, transported - before it ever gets into your gas tank - all requiring energy. There are many issue to consider regarding a very complex subject.
Yes! Not to mention the methane/impurities 'flared of'' at the oilfields! And its a similar case with coal mining etc. So you are correct to point out the many costs/pollutants/subsidies and 'social license' granted to fossil-car/power industries.

As for nuclear, it is obviously a problem that will hang around for centuries, no matter if we dropped nuclear power today.

The 'arguments' by naysayers against green renewables also omit the point that we are in TRANSITION phase, both in the CLIMATE patterns AND the green Technology Implementation.

The proper arguments should have regard to ALL the factors/variables, both immediate and longterm. This is what naysayers conveniently and intentionally (innocently in some cases) are omitting.

Cheers greenonions1.
J Doug
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2017
"A commonly proposed solution to help diffuse the political and religious polarization surrounding controversial scientific issues like evolution or climate change is education."
The better educated one is the more likely they are to know that a trace gas, CO₂, does not drive the earth's climate but factors such as the sun do drive it.
"Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
Abstract: "We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle."
http://www.nature...121.html

"NEW SURVEY: ONLY 28% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS UNDERSTAND CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE 'VERY WELL' Date: 22/08/17 Scott Rasmussen survey
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2017
J Doug.
The better educated one is the more likely they are to know that a trace gas, CO₂, does not drive the earth's climate but factors such as the sun do drive it.
How many time are you going to ignore/deny the obvious but crucial factors that I have pointed out for you, mate? Whatever the HEAT/ENERGY 'inputs', it is the ATMOSPHERE and its 'lagging properties/effects' which determine the NET effect of ALL HEAT/ENERGY 'inputs', be these solar or volcanic or other. That's why the CO2 and its feedback with the Water Vapor stages of the earth's 'hydrologic cycle' is so CRITICAL, whatever the heat/energy inputs. OK? So increase in CO2 is BAD. Get it?

PS: If you still don't get it re atmospheric importance, think about the planet Mercury WITHOUT a 'lagging' atmosphere: its 'nightside' is CRYOGENICALLY COLD despite solar insolation on its 'dayside' causing EXTREME TEMPS. OK? Get it now, mate. Please stop with your naive/simplistic/wrong 'arguments'. Thanks. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2017
"Twenty-eight percent (28%) of Americans think that climate scientists understand the causes of global climate change "very well." A Pew Research study found that only 19% believe that the climate scientists have a very good understanding of the best ways to address the issue.
The survey also explored the degree of trust and confidence in those researching climate science. Thirty-six percent (36%) believe that, most of the time, scientists' research findings are motivated by a desire to advance their own careers. Only 32% say that they mostly rely on the best scientific evidence. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe that political views of the scientists generally influence their work.
Liberal Democrats tend to express high levels of confidence in the climate scientists and their motives. Conservative Republicans are often quite skeptical. Most other Americans have mixed views."
J Doug
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2017
https://www.thegw...ry-well/
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." -- Thomas H. Huxley [Gore & others who are profiting from this hoax of anthropogenic global warming says that the debate is over, how ludicrous]
J Doug
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2017
It would be so nice, RealityCheck, if you could provide me with any tangible evidence that CO₂ drives the climate and not that orb in the sky, the sun, that has always totally driven the climate.

"Anthropogenic: Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract: "A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years, even under the "fast-response" framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed. Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them."

J Doug
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2017
On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
Abstract: […] The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."
http://www.ingent...art00001

RealityCheck, Pease present the mathematical derivation of CO₂ forcing. Also explain why this happened to Dr. David Deming.

What follows is an example of how your climate scientist operate and for you, deception and subterfuge is fine.
Statement of Dr. David Deming [...]"In 1995,I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.
J Doug
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2017
I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.
http://www.epw.se...d=266543

Getting rid of the MWP was obviously the goal that was set when Mann came up with his fictitious "hockey stick" graph
J Doug
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2017
Where I was 8/21/17, I saw only a partial eclipse of the sun. In MT there was a sliver of the sun visible behind the moon & that was enough make the event look like nothing more than the sun going behind a cloud. We witnessed no temperature change during this event. I had several friends from WY where there was a total eclipse and they said that it got dark enough to see the stars. They also volunteered that during this time the temperature dropped by 20 ⁰F & they needed to get jackets and that it took some time for the temperature to get back where it had been before the event. One would have appeared to be very stupid if they had told them at that time that it was because of the trace gas CO₂ that caused this huge temperature change. I'm sure that RealityCheck would have made an effort to get the point across at that time that it is CO, forcing with H₂O to obtain this marvelous and magical rise in the temperature.

Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2017

Digging ever deeper trenches.

This article tells us that intelligence and knowledge is equally distributed among those for and against GW and CC.

"They found that beliefs were correlated … with political identity alone on climate change."


FFS.

This article says no such goddam thing. Did you see any breakdown with regard to WHAT KIND of education these subjects received? While a four year degree is nice, and reputedly results in increased education of the student, I think that we can all agree there is a world of difference between a degree in, e.g., Medieval Literature and Physics, much less Oral Roberts University and MIT.

What it does say is the second bit quoted from your comment- that being a Denier correlates solely with political identification, and, by extension, ideology.

DENIER ideology.

Even that has to be questioned, at least with regard to the content of this article, as we don't know how rigorous their sampling methodology was.

greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2017
J Doug
It would be so nice, RealityCheck, if you could provide me with any tangible evidence that CO₂ drives the climate and not that orb in the sky, the sun, that has always totally driven the climate.
You could read an intro text book - or take a course in climatology. Here is a start for you - https://www.skept...ming.htm
Do you acknowledge that the earth is in a warming trend? http://www.climat...eratures What is your explanation - with some scientific support...
snoosebaum
2 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2017
from above link
''In 1895, Svante Arrhenius first calculated the impact that increasing carbon dioxide could have on Earth's temperature. ''

then angstrom found that co2 saturated and its effect on IR became negligible and the matter was dropped until they began to worry about where it wasn't saturated. That opening sentence is there to bias the reader.
J Doug
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2017
greenonions1 Read and learn and that is something that you can't do at s.s.
"Solar Cycles causing global warming: SUN & it would take some one who has never opened their eyes and seen it for what it is to say that it did not have anything to do with the climate.
"Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.
[…]The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions."
http://news.bbc.c...6456.stm
J Doug
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2017
"A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
Abstract: "During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic-time series for this period has been obtained using delta18 O data from an Antarctic ice core."
http://www.nature...1a0.html

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2017
What amazes me is that most people don't understand that anthropogenic climate change is the most hopeful of climate change theories; it's the one we can change.

Climate change is unquestioned (unless you subscribe to nutjob conspiracy theories where people who don't get paid much conspire to get the not much). Given that, is it better that it's our fault and we can fix it, or it's not and we can't?

I mean, come on people. How long does it take to figure this one out? Do I need to give you a minute to think about it? Really? Really?
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2017
Greenonions1,

Agreed it is complex.

Both electric and combustion energy have capital and variable costs behind them and these are amortized in the final price per unit.

Thanks for the citations. I don't know if I would agree that your citations represent studies. They look more like a back of the envelope SWAG (scientific wild asre guess). Any more in depth citations would be appreciated.

What is efficient may be an issue. If electric powered vehicles were more efficient then it would seem that economics would have substituted electric for combustion so time ago. Some European automakers have announced commitments to electric car production. However, I wonder what was involved in the decision.
One obstruction to electric deployment is batteries low specific energy relative to gasoline 1/100.

0.36–0.875 MJ/kg batteries

MJ/kg 46.4 gasoline

My understanding is that the battery has been a major bottleneck for all sorts of electric applications.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2017
Caliban,

Yes the article does not go into depth.

Agreed there is a wide gap between liberal arts to science and much being pumped out in the sh###y educational system high and low. Some colleges are remedial high school. That scares the shite out of me. However, I am making the, perhaps wrong, assumption that there is some ability to do critical analysis and thinking.

Don't know if I fully understand your comments, other than FFS, but would you not say the useful idiots on the far left accept AGW and CC as cool-aid without critical analysis of any science?

WTF is "DENIER ideology"?

AGW is tarnished by because of looney tunes like Algore, political agendas, and some junk science. Sorting out the crap from the professional material is not easy for the general public. The comment that Al Gore's movie was "Climate Disaster Porn" came from one of M. Mann's colleagues at Penn State.
J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2017
What amazes me is that most people don't understand that anthropogenic climate change is the most hopeful of climate change theories; it's the one we can change.


Meteorologist Mark Nolan stated: "I'm not sure which is more arrogant - to say we caused [global warming] or that we can fix it."

Who has said that the earth's climate doesn't change? Certainly, it changes or there would not have been the last ice age for the planet to struggle out of. Since you obviously refrain from ever looking into valid information and I assume only believe, without question, what the charlatans at skeptical science tell you, I will go the extra mile and show you what an actual scientific organization knows is the truth. If you contest what they put forth, then take your objections up with them.

J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2017
"What is an ice age? An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers.
At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!).
Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the "Ice Age," peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder."
https://geology.u...es-them/
bschott
1 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2017
Meteorologist Mark Nolan stated: "I'm not sure which is more arrogant - to say we caused [global warming] or that we can fix it."

I almost posted this quote as well. Good to see a little cognitive functionality show up here....I doubt he will stick around unless he has a really good sense of humor....
Dingbone
Aug 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2017
@J Doug.

Please first tell me you understood the Planet Mercury example that proves that an atmosphere is a critical factor in determining the NET effect/balance of ALL the heat/energy 'inputs' from whatever source.

If you understand that then you will see that any changes/increases in ANY constituent parts of the atmosphere's LAGGING material/effect will determine the NEW/CHANGING NET EFFECT of any newly variable heat/energy 'input'.

If you understand that far then you will note that INCREASED CO2 is PERSISTENT in its effects until natural 'sinks' draw down the additional CO2.

BUT if the additional CO2 keeps getting REPLENISHED/INCREASED by HUMAN ACTIVITY, then it's HUMANITY 'driving' the RAPID warming and NOT JUST the previous 'natural' inputs.

So @J Doug, unless you are actually a SHILL for the FOSSIL/NUCLEAR etc political/mercenary interests who (like the Tobacco Industry before them) use FALSE 'studies' and BOUGHT 'scientists', don't be so naive! :)
J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2017
RealityCheck Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death.
http://volcanoes....ndex.php

J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2017
This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than "air". This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake.
http://www.neator...century/

ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://greenparty...-practic

"Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry......
Equations worked out in Maple 12 by Maplesoft.
The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg"
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2017
Caliban,

Yes the article does not go into depth.


You are correct.

Agreed there is a wide gap between liberal arts to science and much being pumped out in the sh###y educational system high and low.


OK.

Some colleges are remedial high school. That scares the shite out of me. However, I am making the, perhaps wrong, assumption that there is some ability to do critical analysis and thinking.


OK. But very little critical analysis was apparent from this article.

Don't know if I fully understand your comments, other than FFS, but would you not say the useful idiots on the far left accept AGW and CC as cool-aid without critical analysis of any science?


No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that people on the liberal half of the spectrum are far more likely to trust Science,

contd

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2017
"A commonly proposed solution to help diffuse the political and religious polarization surrounding controversial scientific issues like evolution or climate change is education."

What they mean by this statement is: "What must we do to better dumb down the people we are trying to fool."


Like the idiots that believe that visible light doesn't actually warm anything? Eh, Benni the Burke?
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2017
turgent
. If electric powered vehicles were more efficient then it would seem that economics would have substituted electric for combustion so time ago
Electric vehicles are more efficient - that is a fact. If you do not know something as basic as this - you need to read - learn - but not present yourself as actually knowing anything.
One of the nice things about electric motors is that they operate efficiently over a wide range of speeds. An ICE varies between 0%, when idling, to something in the low to mid 30% range. An electric motor runs somewhere in the low 80's to high 90% range over its entire RPM band.
From - https://matter2en...iciency/
There is much more to the issue of gas vs electric - maybe you could take some classes or something. We are just starting to transition our energy systems - the transition will pick up speed - and hit tipping points.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2017
contd

since most of them are capable of parsing out that the application of scientifically derived understanding of the universe has provided all the benefits we enjoy in our daily lives, and are also capable of discovering for themselves that the Science surrounding AGW is conducted according to the same principles as the rest, and so its conclusions can therefore be understood to be valid.

On the other hand, those who identify as being on the Conservative end of that same spectrum appear to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the science not because they aren't capable of understanding it, but because they choose to deny its validity, apparently because they would have to adjust their worldview and behavior if they did acknowledge that the science is valid.

Also, apparently, these same people have therefore had to invent an entire new

WTF is
"DENIER ideology"[
?


contd
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2017
@J Doug: What is your point? No offence, but this is stuff I learned way back in the day doing my first degree. What was the CO2 ppm count back in the holocene? What is it now? How did it get to be so high? What about during the warm spell roughly 6-7 000 years ago? When the Sahara and the Sahel was wet? What was the CO2 level then? I think you'll find that it was ~ 250 ppm. What would increasing it to ~400 ppm do? Over a very short period? Not a lot of good, I think you'll find.
Yes, it has been higher in the distant past (i.e.cretaceous). Not, however, when humans have been on the planet. However, who gives a damn about humans? As long as the rest of the biome survives, then who gives a tuppeny **** what happens to us? Probably the best thing that could happen to the planet is that our particular species goes extinct. Who would miss us? Not the planet. And a shed load of species who we are taking to the edge of extinction.
Get back to me when the idiot Trump goes extinct \o/
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2017
Further, I can detail how this has been accomplished:

Pseudoscience paid for and promoted by organizations such as The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute, and corporate Players with the same agenda such as Exxon-Mobile, are fed into the media to provide the illusion to those thirsting for a way to invalidate the overwhelming and massive AGW consensus, that there is some real doubt that all the science is wrong.

Add to that the echo chamber created by such blogs as WattsUpWithThat? or podcasts like Alex Jones psychobabble, and ringing Antiscience endorsements from prominent Conservatives like Scott Pruitt, James Inhofe and our own dear President, for example, along with any number of Evangelical and Fundamentalist telePreachers.

contd
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2017
All of these efforts have effected the creation of what I term "Denierside Ideology", which is ruthlessly promulgated to REPLACE the actual Science and provide an alternative to the truth, just so that all those people don't have to face the facts and adjust their thinking or behavior to respond appropriately to the very real crisis which AGW represents to every living thing upon this planet.

It also has one very real benefit to a particular elite: continued profitability in a biz as usual free market economy.

How about that?

Education alone is no guarantee that a person can or will --through careful analysis of the science available-- agree with it. Another good example of this is the AntiVaxxer crowd.

As I've said before:

You can lead a horse to water...but you can't make it drink.
Turgent
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017
Greenonions,

You shouldn't get snippy. This is your 3rd strike having already failed math and science Now add economics to the list. YOU'RE OUT.

Given the math whatever it is on your scratch pads it's OK for the context in which it is used. IT IS CORRECT FOR THE BOX IN WHICH IT IS CONTAINED.

ITS ECONOMICS --- ECONOMY ---ECONOMIC EFFECIENCY

Today engines whether electric, reciprocating, or gas turbines are each used in their most efficient applications. Electric transport is used heavily in European urban centers. It is efficient!

Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017

Cont.

Electric transport is not yet efficient in the American environment. Example: You want to move 500 tons of really stupid Teachers Union BS from Wash. D.C. to the NYS Public School District. You solicit bids to Prius dealerships, trucking companies, railroads, and air freighters. The truckers come in at the lowest bid price. They are the most efficient! The Prius dealership knows that 150,000 trips back and forth is cost prohibitive.

Today the absolutely most efficient means to move inland freight is by rail diesel-electric. The electric is used only for very low speed. Electric is inefficient for non-energy consumption reasons.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
Cont.

If technology advances and infrastructure investment can bring the cost per mile for kilogram moved below that of an electric powered vehicle then people will use them. Currently, the whole chain from green energy production to vehicle end use is subsidized. So assume that a vehicle of the same class costs the consumer the same as a reciprocating engine car. He will pay for it directly and indirectly. Indirectly means higher taxes and higher costs for other products. Subsidiaries badly distort market efficiency and will become permanent as they always do.

The 100 to 1 energy density of gas to electric battery currently gives combustion an advantage not appreciated in your assumed correct computations. We have to go a long way in technology and infrastructure costs for electric cars to work in the REAL WORLD OF ECONOMICS. It is guns and ECONOMICS which run the world not common sense or good intentions.

My note to you addressed ECONOMICS‼‼
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
jonesdave; I know that Dr. Robert B. Laughlin has a much better understanding of this topic than you could ever hope to acquire from where ever you get your information.
"Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself." — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
http://www.forbes...-awards/
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
In this, the first video that Ivar Giaever presents, and I heard nothing at all that he said in either video that I disagreed with. Why would I disagree with someone who shared a Nobel Prize in physics; "for their experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in semiconductors and superconductors, respectively"? I'm sure that his views about CO₂ are derived from the same thought pattern that allowed him to do the work that won him the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973. The 2012 & 2015 Videos are very similar but there are some interesting additions in the 2015 presentation that he gave at this prestigious gathering.
IVAR GIAEVER (2012)
The Strange Case of Global Warming
http://www.mediat...-giaever
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2017
@Jdoug
The logical nature of your conclusions, the evidence you provide as to why you have them, and your overall understanding of the science (both genuine and fraudulent) about this topic are impressive.
If you are going to continue to comment here, please stick to this and avoid getting drawn into the mud slinging that will eventually result from presenting a polished, logical argument which challenges the religious beliefs surrounding CO2...or any other mainstream POV you choose to doubt and then explain logically here.
You can have a polite and logical discussion with RealityCheck even you disagree on something, that is very rare here. As evidenced by the terminology and posts of some of those who disagree with your stance but will not directly challenge you on it.
Cheers, and welcome.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017
jonesdave wants to know what it my point while asking questions of me that he should have supplied other than, "I think you'll find that it was ~ 250 ppm". Then I get the thing that the alarmist is famous for, conjecture based on no facts.
Let's look at CO₂ and temperature historically: The mean surface temp ⁰C during the Carboniferous was 14⁰C & the mean CO₂ was 800 ppm. I hope that you can agree with this by knowing that this was the period when the coal deposits were laid down. The mean surface temp ⁰C during the Permian was 16⁰C & the mean CO₂ was 900 ppm. During the Jurassic the mean surface temp ⁰C during the Permian was 16.5 ⁰C the mean CO₂ was 1950 ppm. By all accounts that I can discover, the Earth's average surface temperature a comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today at 400 ppm.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017
Now a question for you, what do you want the temperature to be and what are you doing to get it to your imagined optimum? What makes your optimum temperature the best for the whole planet and tell me how things are so bad now for the 80% of life forms that live in the tropic and temperate zones?

Then you ask; "What would be increasing it to ~400 ppm do?" & it has happened with no consequences because the sea level is not rising because the ice sheets are not melting, the frequency of storms is not increasing, if anything they have decreased, and the ability of people to be able to produce enough food has only increased.

"World wheat production in 2016 is expected to exceed the 2015 record by 1.2%, underpinned by output increases in India, the Russian Federation and the United States, it said."
http://www.world-...aspx?ID={F66FAB2B-AE1E-40B6-95F7-A7F92CD9B379}&cck=1

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017
"The First Invasion, 1274
From the port of Masan in southern Korea, the Mongols and their subjects launched a step-wise attack on Japan in the autumn of 1274.
The Mongols relented, and the great armada sailed out into open waters - straight into the arms of an approaching typhoon."
The Second Invasion, 1281:
Kublai Khan was determined to smash Japan this time. He knew that his defeat seven years earlier had been simple bad luck, due more to the weather than to any extraordinary fighting prowess of the samurai.
On August 15, 1281, a second typhoon roared ashore at Kyushu. Of the khan's 4,400 ships, only a few hundred rode out the towering waves and vicious winds.
http://asianhisto...sion.htm
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
Correction: During the Jurassic the mean surface temp ⁰C was 16.5 ⁰C & the mean CO₂ was 1950 ppm.

Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017
What is the point of your cut'n'paste comment flood, J'dumb?

Are you trying to get the last word?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017
This is really simple.

If you can't solve simultaneous differential equations by hand you are incompetent to judge whether there is AGW or not.

It really is just that simple, and solving simultaneous DEs isn't difficult enough to disqualify most people above IQ 100. You just have to do the study. If you're too lazy then STFU.
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2017
Da Schnieb,

Don't you mean P.D.Es not trivial little O.D.Es?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
@J Doug.

You persist in making naive/half-truth comments and arguments which do your credibility no good at all, mate. Re volcanic CO2 emissions, you fail to realize that CO2 from heat-dissociated carbonate-minerals will RECOMBINE as ash-rocks ejecta weathers, re-absorb CO2; and also, any carbonaceous sourced CO2 expelled from fossil oil/coal heated and ejected from volcanic eruptions will also be re-absorbed by plants/animals re-establishing on 'newly ash-fertilized' fertile land covered by the ash layers.

Please therefore realize that all that source/process for CO2 from volcanos was ALREADY included in the models/dynamics for CO2 cycle. OK?

It is the ADDITIONAL CO2 released by OUR burning vast amounts of fossil fuels, that would otherwise still be naturally buried/sequestered, is the PNLY NEW VARIABLE since the age of Industrial Revolution started the man-made warming trend....irrespective of the usual solar/volcanic/orbital etc natural variables.

Rethinkit, JD. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
RealityCheck; Are you trying to say that CO₂ that is ejected from volcanoes, which is the original source of the CO₂ in the earth's atmosphere and seas, is different from the CO₂ that comes from the utilization of fossil fuels that has made it possible in the US for 2% of the population to feed the other 98%? "…is the PNLY NEW VARIABLE since the age of Industrial Revolution started the man-made warming trend." RC
Just which period in the past would have qualified for your climatic "utopia" since you believe that things are so bad now?
Would it have been before 1900 when the life expectancy for men was 46.3 and 48.1 for women in the US; by 1998 according to a Berkeley study, that had improved to 73.8 for men and 79.5 for women.
http://demog.berk...re2.html
According to another study in 1930 the life expectancy for both sexes was 59.7 years. and in 2010 it was 78.7 years.
http://www.infopl...148.html


J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
"…is the PNLY NEW VARIABLE since the age of Industrial Revolution started the man-made warming trend." RC
"We find that the average gradients of fossil fuel CO2 in the lower 1200 m of the atmosphere are close to 15 ppm at a 12 km × 12 km horizontal resolution. The nuclear influence on Δ14CO2 signatures varies considerably over the domain and for large areas in France and the UK it can range from 20 to more than 500% of the influence of fossil fuel emissions. Our simulations suggest that the resulting gradients in Δ14CO2 are well captured in plant samples, but due to their time-varying uptake of CO2, their signature can be different with over 3‰ from the atmospheric samples in some regions. We conclude that the framework presented will be well-suited for the interpretation of actual air and plant 14CO2 samples."
https://www.atmos...014.html

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
"Please therefore realize that all that source/process for CO2 from volcanos was ALREADY included in the models/dynamics for CO2 cycle. OK?" RealityCheck
Are you saying that this was included in cycle?
This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than "air". This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake
http://www.neator...century/

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
Thanks for the reply that truly outlines the problem we have with so many people, with no evidence at all, totally wanting to believe that CO₂ controls the earth's climate. I offered up evidence to substantiate my believes. Where are yours to make me believe that you have any proof other than what 195 countries who signed the Paris Agreement without wanting to recall how the 2009 Copenhagen get together fell apart after the climate gate emails came public knowledge that showed the dishonesty and deception of these charlatans who want people to believe in the anthropogenic global warming hoax? An example of how your "science" conducts itself.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,REDACTED, REDACTED

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
http://www.assass...8124.txt
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps" Sounds like something RealityCheck would be fine with.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
I know that you do not look anything up to substitute your false claims about the earth's climate; but, I do and you can try to explain how and why, if CO₂ causes climate change this below has happened.
"Quantifying the likelihood of a continued hiatus in global warming 07 January 2015 Published online
Since the end of the twentieth century, global mean surface temperature has not risen as rapidly as predicted by global climate models1, 2, 3 (GCMs). This discrepancy has become known as the global warming 'hiatus' and a variety of mechanisms1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 have been proposed to explain the observed slowdown in warming. Focusing on internally generated variability, we use pre-industrial control simulations from an observationally constrained ensemble of GCMs and a statistical approach to evaluate the expected frequency and characteristics of variability-driven hiatus periods and their likelihood of future continuation.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
Given an expected forced warming trend of ~0.2 K per decade, our constrained ensemble of GCMs implies that the probability of a variability-driven 10-year hiatus is ~10%, but less than 1% for a 20-year hiatus. Although the absolute probability of a 20-year hiatus is small, the probability that an existing 15-year hiatus will continue another five years is much higher (up to 25%). Therefore, given the recognized contribution of internal climate variability to the reduced rate of global warming during the past 15 years, we should not be surprised if the current hiatus continues until the end of the decade. Following the termination of a variability-driven hiatus, we also show that there is an increased likelihood of accelerated global warming associated with release of heat from the sub-surface ocean and a reversal of the phase of decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean." http://www.nature...531.html
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2017
@J Doug.
RealityCheck; Are you trying to say that CO₂ that is ejected from volcanoes, which is the original source of the CO₂ in the earth's atmosphere and seas, is different from the CO₂ that comes from the utilization of fossil fuels...
Your tactics remind me of another poster (DS) who strawmans and misconstrues (intentionally it seems, as no-one could possibly actually be so obstuse/biased) in the face of information/context available/presented.

The answer is NO, mate. It's not different; its just from different TYPE of CO2 RESERVOIR; one is from volcanic heat-dissociated minerals (carbonates) and the other from coal/oil/methane in the path of the volcanic events/eruptions.

BOTH end up in the atmosphere and are drawn down/re-absorbed as previously explained to you; ie, by the animal/plant 'fertilized' by ash and by weathering of the very ash/rocks which re-absorb the previously dissociated CO2 and re-mineralize it into carbonates again. OK, J Doug? :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2017
PS @J Doug.

As for the rest of your arguments/info/references etc, it is same ol, same ol regurgitation of what is already long known and allowed for. You haven't 'discovered' anything new or significant that will change the discussion already based on reality and not uninformed opinion and vested biases. Please also go read my responses re these issues in threads:

https://phys.org/...ure.html

https://phys.org/...ral.html

Good luck and good thinking to you, and to us all, J Doug, everyone! :)
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2017
Caliban,

Is "DENIER ideology" a vast left or right wing conspiracy?
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2017
This will be the last one that I post for now because I do have other important things to do. This, among many other "facts", is why I'm a skeptic and very proud to be among their ranks. The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warmism & RealityCheck. He said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." I'm not sure that "skeptics" are in the minority, but you get my point.
There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 338 ppm to 400 ppm of CO₂ and I hope that this information will help RealityCheck to sleep better at nights.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2017
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
I know that you understand that these 62 additional ppm are spread out over these 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn't it be a task to be told to sort out the400 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
At 400 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.



J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2017
I'm sure, due to the conversations that I have had with RealityCheck, that the above information that that makes it totally plain just how little 400 ppm is when compared to recognizable situations, such as the million minutes that in 2 years' worth of minutes, makes no difference in his way of considering just how such a minor part of the atmosphere that is 1.5 times heavier that that atmosphere or it would not be used in fire extinguishers. RealityCheck has allowed the likes of Al Gore convince him that CO₂ is a devil in the sky.
Let's picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)

RealityCheck
4 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
@J Doug.
considering just how such a minor part of the atmosphere that is 1.5 times heavier that that atmosphere or it would not be used in fire extinguishers.
See? It's this sort of uncomprehending regurgitation of 'bare facts' without understanding ALL the further subtleties/complexities involved in the wider context/processes, that makes your posts irrelevant, misleading and just plain WRONGHEADED due to naive/simplistic manner of misreading/missing CRUCIAL aspects.

Understand: the CO2 'firefighting' usage/effect depends on BULK LOCAL CLOUD of CO2 as a 'heavier body of gas!

Once it DISPERSES it is NO LONGER 'sinking'; brownian-motion/partial-pressure etc physics re-distributes it!

PS: J Doug, may I ask how old you are? I ask because your zealotry is like youthful/religious belief in your own 'invincibility and superiority' etc; naively 'spreading the word' while not fully understanding its IMPLICATIONS and INCONSISTENCIES and INCOMPLETENESS etc. Chill, mate! :)
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2017
Caliban,

Is "DENIER ideology" a vast left or right wing conspiracy?


I dunno precisely how "vast" a conspiracy it is, turdgnat, but it is pretty clear that it is largely financed by BigCarbon, both directly and through intermediaries like The Cato Inst and The Heritage Fndtn, et al, and then taken up by by more traditionally Conservative people, organizations, bloggers, and paid trolldom.

I know that you would like for me to make some invocation of the media, but --alas-- the MSM are largely indifferent on this topic, since they make plenty of $$$ either way the wind blows on this issue, just so long as they keep it in the mix.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.