4 ms·

Climate Change Confuses Most Americans

4 points by tessant 16y ago

BerislavLopac 16y ago
The two percent of researchers who aren't in agreement deserve to heard. But they do not deserve equal time in the media. Imagine if you owned 98% of a business but your less-knowledgeable partner with only two percent had as much sway as you. It's a ridiculous way to approach business and a ridiculous way to present such an important issue. This gets on my nerves -- science is not the same as running a business. I'm pretty sure that a large part of the said 98% are dogmatically accepting the view of the majority and are too afraid to test any hypotheses...
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  I'll admit there is something troubling about surveying only Climatologists in that they've built an entire industry around Global Warming. If someone could prove man-made GW didn't exist you'd probably see 2/3 of the available Climatology grants disappear overnight. That said I think there's a bigger flaw in this survey and that's the question itself. The question, as stated in the graph, is "Credibility of Evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change". Not "Scientists who believe Climate Change will cause a cataclysmic change in our environment" I think everyone agrees that our presence on Earth is having some impact on the environment. It seems insane not to believe that. The question is to what extent and that isn't addressed in the survey.
  - steve19 16y ago
    I agree. It is like doing a survey on the importance of AI research and only surveying AI researchers. A much less biased survey would also include CS and statistics researchers.
- brc 16y ago
  The other little nugget in there is 'but your less-knowledgeable partner'. The intent here is that disagreement is a sign of stupidity. It's the unmistakable mark of a closed mind heading down the avenue of groupthink. Whether you agree with everything about climate change or not, you would have to agree that dismissing your opponents views as 'less knowleadgeable' is disengenious and shows a dogmatic love of position rather than a desire to increase knowledge. I appreciate this works both ways, but it's a feature of the 'debate' nowadays - the entire process is so full of dogmatic positions it's hard to be clear of where anything is. Science is a weighing machine and not a voting machine. Consensus matters for very little, results matter a lot.
nice1 16y ago
This is disgusting propaganda written either by morons or by corrupt individuals who deserve no space on HN. Go Google for Hal Lewis' resignation letter from the APS if you want a glipse of the truth on these matters.
- greenyoda 16y ago
  I'll second that: definitely go find Lewis' letter and read it. And if you want a glimpse of some thoughtful scientific discussion of the other (skeptic) side of global warming, go find the blog "Climate Audit" (and no, they're not funded by big oil or the Republicans, and I have no connection with them other than being a reader).
greenyoda 16y ago
Scientific truth isn't determined by what percentage of scientists believe in it -- it's determined by who can show convincing experimental proof to back up their hypothesis. At the time that Einstein published his theory of relativity, the overwhelming consensus among physicists was that he was crazy. Also, no real scientist would find a result convincing if there wasn't enough information published to allow them to independently verify the experiment. Using this criterion, 99% of "climate science" is not science.
brc 16y ago
My oh my, without weighing in on the state of climate science or the use of Word Art for blog images, this line is a real screamer: "Poll after poll has shown that almost 100% of climate scientists accept the evidence of climate change and believe we're the main cause" Let me see : 100% of the people employed in a field agree that the field is important? Obviously there is so much bias in that I'm surprised anyone would make such a statement. Let me restate : 100% of butchers agree that being a vegetarian is not good for you. It's interesting, though, the HN crowd rarely gets into arguments over CC/AGW anymore. I guess it's already been said and there's nothing new.

4 points by tessant 16y ago

The two percent of researchers who aren't in agreement deserve to heard. But they do not deserve equal time in the media. Imagine if you owned 98% of a business but your less-knowledgeable partner with only two percent had as much sway as you. It's a ridiculous way to approach business and a ridiculous way to present such an important issue. This gets on my nerves -- science is not the same as running a business. I'm pretty sure that a large part of the said 98% are dogmatically accepting the view of the majority and are too afraid to test any hypotheses...

TomOfTTB 16y ago
I'll admit there is something troubling about surveying only Climatologists in that they've built an entire industry around Global Warming. If someone could prove man-made GW didn't exist you'd probably see 2/3 of the available Climatology grants disappear overnight. That said I think there's a bigger flaw in this survey and that's the question itself. The question, as stated in the graph, is "Credibility of Evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change". Not "Scientists who believe Climate Change will cause a cataclysmic change in our environment" I think everyone agrees that our presence on Earth is having some impact on the environment. It seems insane not to believe that. The question is to what extent and that isn't addressed in the survey.
- steve19 16y ago
  I agree. It is like doing a survey on the importance of AI research and only surveying AI researchers. A much less biased survey would also include CS and statistics researchers.
brc 16y ago
The other little nugget in there is 'but your less-knowledgeable partner'. The intent here is that disagreement is a sign of stupidity. It's the unmistakable mark of a closed mind heading down the avenue of groupthink. Whether you agree with everything about climate change or not, you would have to agree that dismissing your opponents views as 'less knowleadgeable' is disengenious and shows a dogmatic love of position rather than a desire to increase knowledge. I appreciate this works both ways, but it's a feature of the 'debate' nowadays - the entire process is so full of dogmatic positions it's hard to be clear of where anything is. Science is a weighing machine and not a voting machine. Consensus matters for very little, results matter a lot.

nice1 16y ago

This is disgusting propaganda written either by morons or by corrupt individuals who deserve no space on HN. Go Google for Hal Lewis' resignation letter from the APS if you want a glipse of the truth on these matters.

greenyoda 16y ago
I'll second that: definitely go find Lewis' letter and read it. And if you want a glimpse of some thoughtful scientific discussion of the other (skeptic) side of global warming, go find the blog "Climate Audit" (and no, they're not funded by big oil or the Republicans, and I have no connection with them other than being a reader).

greenyoda 16y ago

Scientific truth isn't determined by what percentage of scientists believe in it -- it's determined by who can show convincing experimental proof to back up their hypothesis. At the time that Einstein published his theory of relativity, the overwhelming consensus among physicists was that he was crazy. Also, no real scientist would find a result convincing if there wasn't enough information published to allow them to independently verify the experiment. Using this criterion, 99% of "climate science" is not science.

brc 16y ago

My oh my, without weighing in on the state of climate science or the use of Word Art for blog images, this line is a real screamer: "Poll after poll has shown that almost 100% of climate scientists accept the evidence of climate change and believe we're the main cause" Let me see : 100% of the people employed in a field agree that the field is important? Obviously there is so much bias in that I'm surprised anyone would make such a statement. Let me restate : 100% of butchers agree that being a vegetarian is not good for you. It's interesting, though, the HN crowd rarely gets into arguments over CC/AGW anymore. I guess it's already been said and there's nothing new.