Do you think global warming skeptics have been successful at taking advantage of the scientifically illiterate

Question

Do you think that the global warming skeptics have been successful at taking advantage of a scientifically illiterate US population?

It's funny how any mainstream Scientist understands the impending crisis, yet the average debt-riddled SUV-driving soccer mom who doesn't know the difference between an atom and a molecule is somehow convinced that she's right and numerous Nobel Laureates, Climatology experts and reknowned Scientists are wrong.

I've seen that copy and paste job spewed several times on answers now...other than quoting fringe Scientists, why don't you pick up a PEER-reviewed journal like Science (the eminent journal in Science) and read an article, such as this one...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Answer 1

I agree. The SUV driving soccer mom is the mascot of the ideology. She loves her kids, but doesn't understand that drowning them in a pool of cold water is not the best way to save them from burning up in a house fire.

To many of the posters - is it fact that 1+1=2 describes reality or does reality change to fit whatever equation we decide to write based on the wishes of a population that decides it to be true based on un-educated, non mathematically based consensus?

When you go to the doctor, does your family get together and vote what's wrong then tell the doctor to treat your consensus based diagnosis or does everyone defer to the expertise of the doctor because whether right or wrong in the end, the doctor has more expertise than does the consensus? In the soccer mom world, probably the later, then a lawsuit if the doctor is wrong. lol

Does science seek to describe reality or does it seek to define reality?

Funny, I think 1+1=2 will still be fact whether there is a consensus on the question or not. Reality doesn't care what we think - nature's rules don't change because we re-write them, we re-write them as we refine our understanding of nature. To refine understanding, you can't walk in with forgone conclusions nor can you use futile attempts to bend nature to fit the most profitable model.

The problem is that 'we' don't really know but use that as a justification so 'we' don't have to change. Rather we try to avoid advances in understanding when the consequence of that understanding compel a choice between lower immediate convenience and acting contrary to the common good. Far better to bury the heads in the sand and avoid the question to maintain the happy feeling that convenience IS, in this case, the same as the common good.

After all, the 'deciders' told us so - they wouldn't lie would they? The fact I voted for them means they are telling the truth - otherwise I'd have to use rational thought and discover I'm putting the horse before the cart. Its about not wanting to feel you made a bad choice - its called cognitive dissonance - look it up. There are so many ways the SUV driving soccer mom does this - the issue of global warming is only one.

(sarcasm on) Lets wait until what might be too late and then complain that nothing was done when 'we' were the ones that prevented and/or doctored and/or ignored the research that might have lead to change.

Sounds like a wonderful vacation to me - spend some time in the cave rather than in the sunlight (Plato's allegory of the cave). Its ok, we'll be dead so regardless if it becomes a problem or not, we won't have to deal with it. (sarcasm off)

Then again, maybe we won't be dead and it WILL be our problem.

I fully admit I may be clouded by cognitive dissonance as well, however the difference is that I WANT more research rather than wanting to actively avoid it. I'm willing to change my thinking in the face of actual science rather than hiding from it.

I consider that to be rational and realistic. The alternative is something we can't differentiate from fantasy land.

lare - Why does ice cap/glacial melting raise sea levels?

Simple experiment - put an ice cube in a petri dish. What happens to the water level in the petri dish as the ice melts? If imagining it isn't enough, go ahead and try it for real.

As a trained geologist, I'm sure you would have no trouble finding a suitable vessel and some ice for the experiment if not an actual petri dish.

Answer 2

Sadly it affects far more then just the scientifically illiterate... Even those who know a little about the topic are easily fooled. It is for that reason that I argue the side of Global Warming in this way...

whether you believe in global warming or not makes no difference, The fact is Dinosaurs are going extinct again, the air in cities smells, you can't pull up to an intersection without seeing trash and your utility bills keep going up. Don't you want to breathe easier, smell something good for once, look at something nice instead of someone elses McD's bag. Wouldn't you like to pay less on your electric bill. Simple steps can make that happen. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle-- it's the pollution solution.

Answer 3

There is one part of this global warming terror scenerio i don't understand. What is the deal with the sea level rising??? If warming melts the "permanent" sea ice, doesn't that mean sea level will drop. After all ice floats. Water has a higher density than the ice it replaces, therefore will occupy less volume. That is a SCIENTIFIC fact.

Trained as a geologist, i know that during the ice ages sea level lowered, but that was because entire continents were covered with ice up to 2 miles thick. Did someone just assume that because in ice ages the level drops a hundred feet, that when things warm it can go up a 100 feet? Most of the ice at the poles, north and south is displacing water, so how is it melting going to raise the oceans up???

Answer 4

to the last post- you're just flat out wrong, and your facts are wrong. The IPCC increased the likelihood that global warming is a result of man from 66% in 2001 to 90% in 2007. Plus, they wanted to release the report with a 99% certainty that it was a result of man's activities but the chinese government didn't like that so they lowered it to 90%- get your facts straight because you're not helping your flawed cause which is essentially scared of the inevitable.

Answer 5

Personally, I don't think it is going to matter if we use up all of earth's fossil fuels in 100 years or 200 years. The point is that sometime they are going to run out, and if we are still around, then that generation will have to finally deal with it, if they can.
Global warming will occur with or without our help, but it still doesn't mean that we should live like wasteful slobs.
And I would think it would be a further disgrace to think that traveling to other planets is going to solve any of our problems on earth. We would just be treating them as disposable resources after this planet becomes uninhabitable.

Answer 6

No they have not been successful at taking advantage of the scientifically illiterate, because unfortunately there are still those that believe global warming is caused by mankind.
It is an up hill battle but the truth is slowly winning out i hope.
Someday, hopefully, everyone will know that Global Warming is not caused by man and we can throw our energy at real problems like lowering taxes, stimulating the economy and Making education a real priority instead of just throwing money at it.

Answer 7

If CFCs brought about the hollow in the ozone layer, then banning them might desire to have brought about the ozone hollow to repair itself over the years. genuinely some progression might have been made via now - as replaced into initially envisioned back in the Eighties. however the ozone hollow is not any smaller now than it replaced into whilst CFCs have been banned. I understand that now they have replaced their prediction, claiming that CFCs have been 'larger and badder than initially believed' and that it's going to take yet another era in the previous the ozone hollow upkeep itself. it relatively is stated as procuring extra time, particularly of questioning one's very own conclusions. CFCs did no longer produce the ozone hollow. The ozone hollow grew over the decade or so considering that we began taking measurements. we've not got any theory what befell in the previous then or what's going to ensue for this reason. yet in line with danger assorted Account ailment Dana ought to enable you to (see under).

Answer 8

On the contrary, I think that global warming alarmists have been successful at taking advantage of the scientifically illiterate.

Your sarcasm and name-calling notwithstanding, "mainstream scientists" are notorious for being wrong, and that includes Nobel Laureates. Of course dissenting opinions are ill received in "peer-reviewed" journals! They never have been well received, even if they have managed to make it into print.

Answer 9

Actually I think Al Gore has been successful in taking advantage of the scientifically illiterate.

Answer 10

If true, then we are all doomed!
Well not me, I live in a part of Britain that will be like the South of France in a few years time, and I live high enough to escape the rising sea levels.
So do I care, no, I am alright Jack!