|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 15, 2010 11:47:23 GMT 1
Wouldn’t the followers of Scientific American have a pretty good understanding of what’s really going on with the climate? If a reader poll is any indication, they’re skeptical that man is heating the planet. For years we’ve heard that scientists have reached a “consensus” that the earth is warming due to a greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide emissions resulting from man’s use of fossil fuels. No use in discussing it further, Al Gore and others have said. It’s happening. Not every reader of Scientific American magazine is a scientist. But the responses of the 7,000 readers (6,767 as of Friday morning) who’ve taken the magazine’s online poll strongly suggest that claims of a consensus are, at best, an exaggeration. More than three-fourths (77.7%) say natural processes are causing climate change and almost a third (31.9%) blame solar variation. Only 26.6% believe man is the cause. (The percentages exceed 100 because respondents were allowed to choose more than one cause on this question.) Whether climate change is man-caused or natural, most respondents don’t believe there’s anything that can be done about it anyway. Nearly seven in 10 (69.2%) agree “we are powerless to stop it.” A mere one in four (25.7%) recommend switching “to carbon-free energy sources as much as possible and adapt to changes already under way.” It seems even some of those who would endorse changing energy sources don’t believe the benefits are worth the costs (which indicates they aren’t taking the alarmists’ claims seriously). Almost eight in 10 (79.4%) answer “nothing” to the question: “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?” A small but apparently hard-core 12.3% say they’d be OK with spending “whatever it takes.” Only 4.9% choose “a doubling of gasoline prices” while 3.4% don’t mind paying “a 50% increase in electricity bills.” That small, but hard, core likely makes up most of the 15.7% who think “the IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts.” These holdouts are overwhelmed, though, by the 83.6% who agree the IPCC “is a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda.” This isn’t what we expected from the readers of a magazine that Cato’s Patrick Michaels says “has been shilling for the climate apocalypse for years.” Yet we’re not shocked. A new consensus is emerging as the unraveling of the global warming tale picks up speed. Courtesy of www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/553695/201011121850/A-New-Consensus.htm |
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 17, 2010 12:13:16 GMT 1
Replies to this poll were whipped up by your favourite site - Wattsrightwiththat, hence the response.
There may be a loud and very vocal anti-science movement (especially in the far right of America), but that doesn't make them right.
People in Haiti are rioting because they think the UN brought Cholera to their country - just because they think that doesn't make it true.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 17, 2010 18:14:10 GMT 1
Posting a whole editorial from elsewhere without a SINGLE word of your own, and without putting it in a quote box seems a bit lazy, even for you!
Yes, the poll shows what the people who answered the poll think about the science, but that isn't necessarily a good way to judge the scientific validity of the science -- especially if the poll has been skewed (or even if it hasn't, public opinion, even amongst certain sections of the public, tells us more about news and public perceptions than it does about scientific validity).
And we have to differentiate between what the authors of a magazine say, and what the supposed readers take from that.............
Plus I'll be buggered if I can actually FIND the poll on the SciAm website, to see exactly what is being reported on here. One response from the editors says:
The links from this comment no longer work. Nor do the links from the Lemonick article on Judith Curry.
If it was just an online poll, open to anyone, I see no validity in the results, especially since various groups would have flagged it as soon as the Judith Curry name appeared, and multiple voting would have rendered the results meaningless.
Marcherosa -- if all you can do is cut and paste, why don't you just paste the link, and let us go and look if we really wanted to? Pasting the WHOLE article, withouit a quote box, and without any comment of your own is just pointless, as well as striking me as fairly rude.
|
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Nov 17, 2010 18:23:51 GMT 1
@sta #2
From your comment, I take it that you take a strict view of claims of 'a scientific consensus' wrt AGW?
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 17, 2010 19:22:50 GMT 1
Posting a whole editorial from elsewhere without a SINGLE word of your own, and without putting it in a quote box seems a bit lazy, even for you! Yes, the poll shows what the people who answered the poll think about the science, but that isn't necessarily a good way to judge the scientific validity of the science -- especially if the poll has been skewed (or even if it hasn't, public opinion, even amongst certain sections of the public, tells us more about news and public perceptions than it does about scientific validity). And we have to differentiate between what the authors of a magazine say, and what the supposed readers take from that............. Plus I'll be buggered if I can actually FIND the poll on the SciAm website, to see exactly what is being reported on here. One response from the editors says: The links from this comment no longer work. Nor do the links from the Lemonick article on Judith Curry. If it was just an online poll, open to anyone, I see no validity in the results, especially since various groups would have flagged it as soon as the Judith Curry name appeared, and multiple voting would have rendered the results meaningless. Marcherosa -- if all you can do is cut and paste, why don't you just paste the link, and let us go and look if we really wanted to? Pasting the WHOLE article, withouit a quote box, and without any comment of your own is just pointless, as well as striking me as fairly rude. Don't you feel a bit silly now that your CAGW fantasy has come crashing down around you? Or are you still in denial?  |
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 17, 2010 19:41:48 GMT 1
rsmith7 - still relying on the Daily Mail for your science opinions I see.
Try reading some of the actual science publications - get informed man, you're embarrassing yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 17, 2010 20:08:20 GMT 1
Why assume this? Why does it matter? And does it matter when it comes to judging the validity of the comments I made about the Sci Am stuff?
We all know it does (to some), because they HAVE to know, straight off, whether you're a left-footer or a right-footer, whether they will cosy up to you, or hurl insults. They're not interested in WHY, or the reasoning and arguments behind it, they're just interested in knowing which team you mindlessly support, so they know whether to kick you in the head or not.
Most of the time, it is impossible to have a reasoned debate about this, so I'll decline to answer, and wait and see what assumptions people are willing to make. Or just take my ball, and refuse to play any more........................
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 17, 2010 20:43:00 GMT 1
Why assume this? Why does it matter? And does it matter when it comes to judging the validity of the comments I made about the Sci Am stuff? We all know it does (to some), because they HAVE to know, straight off, whether you're a left-footer or a right-footer, whether they will cosy up to you, or hurl insults. They're not interested in WHY, or the reasoning and arguments behind it, they're just interested in knowing which team you mindlessly support, so they know whether to kick you in the head or not. Most of the time, it is impossible to have a reasoned debate about this, so I'll decline to answer, and wait and see what assumptions people are willing to make. Or just take my ball, and refuse to play any more........................ I'm extremely interested to know "WHY" you support the CAGW theory. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 18, 2010 14:15:51 GMT 1
1) You assume that I do.
2) That isn't the subject under debate, which was the SciAm poll. Why don't you want to talk about that........................
Except we all know why (probably) -- it's just what I said before, which team do you support, so I know whether to praise or mock, and bugger any semblence of debate or discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 18, 2010 21:29:10 GMT 1
1) You assume that I do. 2) That isn't the subject under debate, which was the SciAm poll. Why don't you want to talk about that........................ Except we all know why (probably) -- it's just what I said before, which team do you support, so I know whether to praise or mock, and bugger any semblence of debate or discussion. I assume that you do because you have argued blind in favour of it and the hockey team's chicanery as long as I've read your posts. I'm not that bothered about polls now; the whole agw scam has been exposed and largely abandoned - about time. I'm just wondering how long it will take till you, and the science bikers, of this world to summon enough grace to apologise. |
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 19, 2010 12:20:56 GMT 1
Unremarked in the popular media and anti-science blogs that the likes of rsmith7 use for their perspective on climate change, science papers published very recently have continued to demonstrate the potentially devastating effects of increased atmospheric CO2. climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/year-in-climate-science-climategate/ has a few high(?)lights of what the science has shown this year. Contrary to rsmith7's views, AGW will not go away if we, or the media, ignore it. Just because it's not headlines doesn't mean it isn't happening. |
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 19, 2010 12:30:17 GMT 1
From www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=do-80-percent-of-scientific-america-2010-11-17" Do 80 percent of Scientific American subscribers deny global warming? Hardly... ...First, fewer than 10 percent of our subscribers are scientists. Second, the 80 percent climate denial number is not to be believed... ... the big problem was that the poll was skewed by visitors who clicked over from the well-known climate denier site, Watts Up With That? Run by Anthony Watts, the site created a web page urging users to take the poll." Any comments Marchesarosa? |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 19, 2010 14:12:07 GMT 1
Well, I'd say then that the results of the poll reduce to pretty much -- readers of so-called skeptic anti-AGW website don't believe in AGW.
No shit sherlock would be my only response to that. And seems SciAm has had to learn a sad lesson that any public forum (chat room, online poll etc) that mentions AGW will get targeted by the anti-AGW lobby. (And that Marcherosa will cut and paste the results here if we wait long enough)
And I suppose I ought to add -- the same people will grossly misprepresent the results, so that online poll that we all went to to vote no will then be reported as -- SciAm subscribers (even worse, claiming most SciAm subscribers are scientists) say AGW is crap.................Even when they probably know, from voting themselves, that you didn't have to be a subscriber to vote.........
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 19, 2010 15:13:16 GMT 1
Unremarked in the popular media and anti-science blogs that the likes of rsmith7 use for their perspective on climate change, science papers published very recently have continued to demonstrate the potentially devastating effects of increased atmospheric CO2. climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/year-in-climate-science-climategate/ has a few high(?)lights of what the science has shown this year. Contrary to rsmith7's views, AGW will not go away if we, or the media, ignore it. Just because it's not headlines doesn't mean it isn't happening. But co2 lasts 5 - 10 years in the atmosphere. The warmist models have it lasting 100 - 150 years. What about the logarithmic nature of increasing co2 in the atmosphere - doubling it's concentration only results in a rise of less than 1C Too many distortions, obfuscations and lies from the hockey team and their small cabal of supporters. They've been exposed. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 19, 2010 16:54:02 GMT 1
Not that straightforward, it is a dynamic process, so that:
Hence there are several lifetimes associated with CO2 in the atmosphere, and they shouldn't be confused. Residence time and response time not the same.
|
|
