Poll - most Americans and scientists disconnected

[Stumpy 284]

billvon

>that myth has been debunked so many ways it is now funny to see you and others use it

No, no, it really hasn't. Every serious study done on the subject has agreed.

What, even breitbart and the blaze?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>As to the 97%, I want somebody here to tell me EXACTLY what the 97% believe.

For the first two studies you'd have to read their papers, since the papers, not a poll, were used as the starting point. They are over a very wide variety of topics and all use different language.

For the Doran study the specific question was "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

>I'd suggest that the advancement of science depends on the 3% who are out there
>asking questions.

Asking questions does not equal denying climate change. I assume you ask questions all the time in your field, although you do not deny the rule of law.

Right. I'm the 97%. Rush is the 97%. The whole 97% thing is so encompassing that 97% is underinclusive. The 97% figure includes anybody that any of the study authors or proponent want it to mean. If they want to exclude people they can fudge with it.

Words have meaning. The definitions of words are being changed to wiedl them as a weapon. Look at the Doran question and tell me that those who disagree without disagree with "clImate change."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,064]

>What, even breitbart and the blaze?

Good point. And there's always Bill O'Reilly.

"Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a mis-communication. You can't explain that!"

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Still, they are accurate enough to predict things like elections, referendums and consumer trends with a fair degree of accuracy.

I could probably poke some holes here, but I'm realizing that I got onto the wrong subject anyway. Should have realized I was stepping into yet another climate change argument. Something I have no argument for, or against.

[billvon 3,064]

>Right. I'm the 97%. Rush is the 97%.

I'd agree that applies to you, not to Rush. Although his position changes from day to day, he rejects that there is any consensus that human activity is changing global temperatures. He has stated this dozens of times.

>Words have meaning.

Exactly. And there is a scientific consensus that human activity is changing global temperatures.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Bill - what is the definition of "climate change?"

A change in climate, which is basically weather averaged over a long time.

This is, unfortunately, not the definition used when the term "climate change denier" is used. You're reasonable. But it's why Inhofe was ridiculed. Even HE agrees with this definition. And he was ridiculed because he limited "climate change" to this very thing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Right. I'm the 97%. Rush is the 97%.

I'd agree that applies to you, not to Rush. Although his position changes from day to day, he rejects that there is any consensus that human activity is changing global temperatures. He has stated this dozens of times.

>Words have meaning.

Exactly. And there is a scientific consensus that human activity is changing global temperatures.

The scientific consensus is that there is climate change. The scientific consensus (which I agree with) is that human activity plays a role in he climate change we see today.

I haven't seen a study that says that 97% of scientists agree that human activity is the cause of climate change. THE cause. Not a cause. THE cause.

Look at Gavin and Michael Mann. To them there is no difference between a Luke warmer like me and an outright denier. We are the same (and even suggestion that those like me are the worst of the worst because alarmists may be tempted to give some credibility to those like me).

Question for rush: to you deny that the climate changes on Earth?

Question 2 for rush: do you believe that human activities have some effect on global temperatures and/or climate?

Question 3 for rush: do you believe that human activity is presently the dominant factor in causing climate change?

I think this will tell us more about what rush thinks.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,064]

>I haven't seen a study that says that 97% of scientists agree that human activity is the cause
>of climate change. THE cause. Not a cause. THE cause.

Nor have I, nor have I ever seen a scientist claim that in a paper. It is merely the dominant cause for the current warming. Plenty of other things affect the climate, as Mt. Pinatubo did in 1991.

But as to "he thinks there is some warming so he is in the 97%" here's a good take on that from skeptical science.com: (referring to the Cook study)
================
Contrarians Think they are Included in the 97%

There have been a number of contrarians claiming that they are part of the 97% consensus, which they believe is limited to the position that humans are causing some global warming. The first error in this argument is in ignoring the fact that the data collected in Cook et al. (2013) included categories that quantify the human contribution, as Andrew Montford and the GWPF recently did, for example.

The second error has been made by individuals claiming they're in the 97%, but failing to actually check the data. For example, Roy Spencer claimed in testimony to US Congress that he is included in the 97% consensus. Since we made all of our data available to the public, you can see our ratings of Spencer's abstracts here. Five of his papers were captured in our literature search; we categorized four as 'no opinion' on the cause of global warming, and one as implicitly minimizing the human influence. Thus Spencer's research was included in the fewer than 3 percent of papers that either rejected or minimized the human contribution to global warming.
=================

[billvon 3,064]

>But it's why Inhofe was ridiculed. Even HE agrees with this definition.

I think everyone agrees with that definition. But some people do not think that humans have much to do with it. He claims that anthropogenic influences are a "hoax" - which is why he was ridiculed.

(i.e. "The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous")

[brenthutch 444]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

[gunver79 0]

I am pretty surprised that these things are actually discussed here. I mean I can sympathize with people who refuse certain facts or correlations in order too keep their world cozy and warm and less troublesome (as an internal psychological process). But I am not used to people actually speaking out in public and voicing such irrational positions with any claim to truth.
I will be at an American university for an exchange semester this fall. Since it is a christian university (funded/owned by the Lutheran church), do I have to expect these views (like "31 percent of Americans believe humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time")? Or does this occur mostly among the uneducated?
I know I am already offending people, which is not my intention at all. I am just not prepared for a discussion with people who refuse any common method or process of gaining insight that such a discussion could be based upon. Since I can hardly suggest that they are in fact excluding themselves from the very scientific community they claim to be a part of I wouldn't know a thing to say. Are there any?

[lawrocket 3]

I'm sure you'll find a Lutheran University pretty tolerant of your viewpoint. I'm a heathen who went to a Jesuit school.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,106]

lawrocket

I'm sure you'll find a Lutheran University pretty tolerant of your viewpoint. I'm a heathen who went to a Jesuit school.

My experience is that Jesuits are generally more open minded than Lutherans.

(Of course, all the Jesuits I know are professors at Loyola U., which may skew the outcome).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,527]

Depends on the Lutherans; they go from Wisconsin and Missouri Synod (conservative) to ELCA (right up there with UCC).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[gunver79 0]

The university belongs to the Missouri synod.
But I may be over-thinking things.
Exchange semesters are about inter-cultural experience after all. If it was only the language that was different then it would be boring. Putting my foot in my mouth from time to time is part of the adventure.

Side note: I almost regret having said something. I certainly don't want to add to ongoing stereotype wars (e.g. lawrocket vs. christelsabine in that other thread).