Posts: 12
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
It seems like half the questions in the global warming section these days are 'if global warming is true why is it snowing today?'.
What percentage of global warming deniers do you think don't know the difference between weather and climate, local and global, or past and present?
Considering this figure and the small minority of people who continue to deny anthropogenic global warming (AGW), what does this tell you about the AGW denial movement?
Posts: 5
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Most people are ignorant and will only believe what they want to believe.
My point is proven by the following answers.
Posts: 12
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
It's kinda like blaming weather calamities on the human sin of industrial progress without realizing that the Earth's climate has been going through natural warming-cooling cycles for millions of years.
Some people are just plain stupid.
Posts: 6
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
I don't know.
My question is: why can't a larger percentage of AGW Fundamentalists differentiate between fact and fiction?
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
I wonder if it isn't the same percentage of the hopelessly lost who believe that gw causes earthquakes and tsunamis.
Posts: 4
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Yes I agree with you it is a stupid question. Just as stupid as people who post questions about a current heat wave, drought, floods and say what more proof do you need that global warming is real.
Posts: 7
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Well I also see some AGW alarmist saying "It is 70 degrees, this is global warming"? I would say that you guys are the ones who are confused.
Posts: 16
Threads: 4
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
I think it is about the same percentage as the global warming advocates who use hot days in the summer to say it is evidence of global warming. It just shows the lack of understanding of the real issue among most people. Most will simply believe what they are told and repeat (or create) arguments which they don't have much knowledge.
Posts: 5
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
It is astonishing how stupid people on here are concernig GW. Basic displays of stupidity I see here all the time:
1.) Confusing global change with local fluctuations.
2.) Confusing vast timespans in the past with brief time spans in the present.
3.) Confusing disagreements over specifics of GW with a disagreement over whether it is man-made or happening at all.
4.) Confusing the difference between scientific data with world-wide concensus and paid political punditry.
5.) Confusing natural variations of climate for known reasons with current abrupt variations which those knowns reasons do nothing to explain.
6.) Using ignorant "knock-down" arguments as if nobody doing serious research has ever thought of that already and demolished it.
Posts: 4
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
you probably need to differentiate between deniers who really don't believe, and deniers who, for financial or political reasons deny AGW.
among "true believers", it seens like 102%.
among those paid to deny, none.
Posts: 3
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
That would be 100% Dana. The GW denialist is wholly unable to distinguish between chaotic, day to day weather fluctuations and long term global climatic trends. If asked what the climate in the Sahara desert is like during the summer, the denialist will respond that since meteorologists are unable to accurately predict the weather beyond three to four days, it is impossible to know.
Many will also crow with much aplomb that Earth has been cooling over the past decade (despite the fact that they believe the entire instrumental temperature record to be, not only wrong, but fraudulent), and that this undoubtedly marks the beginning of a long term cooling period.
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
What percentage of the global warming faithful continue to use the language of religion instead of the language of science?
Posts: 4
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
A quick analysis of the previous 1.5 days questions (not analyzing the responses) found the following:
# doubters who confused weather with climate: 4
# realist who confused weather with climate: 0
# doubters who attacked Al Gore: 1
# realist who praised Al Gore: 0
# doubters who linked to opinion pieces or partisan think tanks: 2
# realist who linked to opinion pieces or partisan think tanks: 0
Well this is a small sample set, I think it does show the desperation and confusion of the doubters. The frequency with which they confuse weather with climate and think Al Gore is the originator of concern over AGW does seem to surpass the confusion from the realist side.
Posts: 10
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
A huge percentage of deniers have no concept of 'the globe' the term is totally meaningless, it would be like a fish having an understanding of air. It is also amusing that at the mention of global warming that Al Gores name pops up.
Posts: 8
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
About the same as the AGW, ie pro-man made global warming, crowd. How many times have we heard an AGW person point to ONE thing and say see this prove man is causing global warming whether its a hurricane, a drowning polar bear, or a warmer then normal summer in Great Brittan, some in the AGW crowd are as guilty as some deniers.
As far as what it tells me about the AGW deniers, it tells me that some are misinformed. But the AGW movement, is as guilty about being misinformed, look the computer models used to “PROVE” global warming. ALL of them so far have been wrong. NOBODY has accurately modeled the climate, but I hear time after time how the models have proven AGW. I’ve seen bad data used by the IPCC, the same IPCC that has been accused of falsifying data and destroying evidence. If a “denier” had the same charge leveled against them how much faith would someone, anyone put in their work?
The same AGW crowd who won’t debate the evidence, after all it’s settled science, never mind that the science is never settled. Never mind that the IPCC stopped looking at the science in about 2005. The same AGW crowd when faced with evidence that their data was wrong say you sold out to big (insert company here). Never mind that more and more of the scientist from the IPCC are now saying CO2 isn’t the cause of global warming. Once they do that then suddenly they aren't real scientist, when they agreed with AGW they were good enough, but now they are disagreeing with AGW suddenly they’re not good enough.
If you continue to push then you get threatened,
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nowpublic.com/global_warming_skeptic_threatened">http://www.nowpublic.com/global_warming ... threatened</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm">http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 011807.htm</a><!-- m -->
It makes you wonder what AGW people are afraid of; someone questions man-made global warming and they want to take their livelihood away? Strange I always though science was a place to ask questions and to try and destroy theories, but I forget man-made global warming is part of the NEW science, you know draw your conclusions first, ignore any data that doesn’t fit the conclusion and threaten people who disagree with you.
Posts: 16
Threads: 4
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
I would say Zero percent.
I will also note that the AGW "Club" exposed their lack of 'real' commitment to the so-called 'climate crisis'. Between 10 and 15 THOUSAND so-called climate experts loaded their butts onto pollution-spewing jets to attend a conference in Bali to discuss how WE (not they) should be more responsible in our use of energy...... like these geniuses have never heard of 'Video-Conferencing'??!! We're supposed to buy into a group like that??? They are trying to pull a Con....DON'T LET THEM......PLEASE!!!!
Posts: 8
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
I can differentiate see f(x)=X^3+3x^2+2x+1
f '(x)=3x^2+6x+2
Posts: 12
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Ask the same question next Summer when we have a new "record high temperature" somewhere in the northern hemisphere and the trumpets sound off with glee that man-made global warming is more evident than ever.
Bravo Richard, that was great!
Posts: 9
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
What percentage of warmers can't differentiate between weather and climate?
Geez, Dana. You don't seem to care when mindless people say "It's hot where I live so global warming must be real!" Now you try to act like all skeptics think this way. You know it is not true.
I have found the skeptics to be better informed than the typical mindless believer in AGW.
Posts: 10
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
I will address your 4 opinionated statements. You have obviously formed your opinion and really believe what you have researched. Obviously there is no way to collect true factual answers to your "directed forced statements".
1. I would say about forty % of everyone (global warmer supporters included). Some may be confused between the two because they choose to believe only what they want. (they live in the present only). Some just forgot, most don't care. They do not
2. You answered this with your first statement. because close to 40 % obviously do not know the difference between weather / climate and/or do not care.
3. Again a partly redundant question, so I'll give a redundant answer. 40% of breathing people do not know the difference between weather / climate and/or do not care. Local & global weather or climate.. Past and present weather or climate. I will assume you mean climate being you are pushing your opinion so radically. I would say eighty percent of breathing humans above the age of 16 know the difference between local and global climate changes. Past or present? this one is the most difficult to prove and/or to predict. I would say only fifteen to twenty percent know about the past warming and cooling cycles in the climate. Most of this percentage are students that paid close attention to the teachers/professors and are aware of the importance of recycling and conserving resources.
The present is obviously still in a warming trend.
You failed to mention the future. This is where the great divide is. I do believe we are warming. I just do not think it is mostly our fault. It is my opinion that this is a normal warming cycle and we are a very small contributor that may or may not effect the peaks between these cycles. I still await factual proof for this.
4. Assuming you can read everyones mind, about as likely as AGW. I think this question is not a valid question due to the extreme bias and obvious disregard for considering anything but political chaos around AGW.
We must recycle, conserve and preserve either way this works out.
I have one more redundant answer to your second statement that may help some with open minds:
I think for the most part, the discussion on (Global Warming) is much like our modern day court system. Both sides just try to prove their side.hundred of websites all claiming to disprove the other, or no real proof. Both sides have extreme activists. Money and politics are major players, and the right thing or the moral thing to do is not high on priorities.
The only difference is that the global warming issue has no definitive answer equivalent to jury and /or Judge.. only time holds our future or fate.
I believe we have a responsibility to conserve energy, preserve our environment and recycle everything that is feasibly possible.
I do not believe that we are causing a doom & gloom warming catastrophe. I do know that we need to prepare now by conserving energy, preserving nature and preparing for the next climate change.
Please don't form your opinon from this forum. To many close minded "hot heads" with no real proof to back their doom & gloom.
Posts: 9
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Hard number to ballpark Dana, but I'd say it has to be around 80%. Even Jello -- their "de facto" leader here can't get a grasp on the difference between the two.
The timing on your question is great. I've been looking at the profiles of those that come here and repeatedly say that climate change isn't a reality. One of the common traits they display is that the bulk of them are very fundamentalist. I'm not sure why this is a factor, but find it very interesting.
Is it tied to education (or lack there of)? Up bringing? Geography? Or does faith even play a role in denying climate change?
I do think Y!A isn't reflective of North American society as a whole though. On the issue of climate change this site is VERY polarized (pardon the pun). My guess is that at the least, some 30-40% of the general population still is unsure about climate change. Good news though, I think more are ending up in the camp that something bad is happening then in denial, with each passing day. So at least our numbers are growing.
And the ones we get seem to be the brighter out of the bunch!
Posts: 5
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Same can be said of "Polar bears are dying, must be man made global warming, "Ice caps are melting, must be man made global warming", "consensus says man made global warming", "There is a drought in some country, must be global warming", "Flood in another country, must be global warming", "hot temps in 2 countries, must be global warming, "cold temps in 8 countries, must be global warming." etc, etc.
If you have ever used one of these as evidence of MAN MADE global warming, then you have no idea what science is. As we all know, ice caps have grown and shrank for thousands of years. You must prove man has some part in it. This has never been done. As for the polar bears, that entire theory is crap. And as far as consensus, if that is your idea of scientific evidence, then maybe you should stick with Highlights magazine as it is more your speed. etc, etc.
|
