×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Global-Warming Skepticism Hits 6-Year High

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the could-be-they're-most-skeptical-of-overcertainty dept.

Earth 846

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Chris Mooney writes at Mother Jones that a new study, from the Yale and George Mason University research teams on climate change communication, shows a 7-percentage-point increase in the proportion of Americans who say they do not believe that global warming is happening. And that's just since the spring of 2013. The number of deniers is now 23 percent; back at the start of last year, it was 16 percent (PDF). The obvious question is, what happened over the last year to produce more climate denial? The answer may lie in the so-called global warming "pause"—the misleading idea that global warming has slowed down or stopped over the the past 15 years or so. This claim was used by climate skeptics, to great effect, in their quest to undermine the release of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report in September 2013—precisely during the time period that is in question in the latest study. "The notion of a global warming "pause" is, at best, the result of statistical cherry-picking," writes Mooney. " It relies on starting with a very hot year (1998) and then examining a relatively short time period (say, 15 years), to suggest that global warming has slowed down or stopped during this particular stretch of time." Put these numbers back into a broader context and the overall warming trend remains clear. "If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use 1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is 0.14 C per decade, so slightly greater than the long-term trend," explains Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at NASA who was heavily involved in producing the IPCC report. This is why climate scientists generally don't seize on 15 year periods and make a big thing about them. "Journalists take heed: Your coverage has consequences. All those media outlets who trumpeted the global warming "pause" may now be partly responsible for a documented decrease in Americans' scientific understanding.""

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

846 comments

An ode to wankery (-1, Troll)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46012327)

When you say Global Warming,
The critics are a-swarming,
For scientists, they too need a vig.
And if you are a-doubting,
There will follow some loud shouting,
Delivered by some cat called ManBearPig.

But if we're not a-fooling,
And we truly need some schooling,
They could use a little polish on the thesis.
If those busy 'crisis' hatching
Could but show some action matching
Their results might not have the waft of feces.

Re:An ode to wankery (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012399)

Yeah it's amazing how every d*ck with an internet connection is suddenly an expert on the weather and climate change. The latest study on how many scientist's actually deny climate change found the number to be less than 0.01%. So Practically every scientist in the world, who isn't being paid off by the Koch brothers, says that climate change is happening and it is man made. Yet we all feel qualified to say its crap. Based on what studies that we've done? Oh, it's snowing out so the earth can't be getting warmer. One of the side effects of global warming is more extreme weather conditions. Thus extreme cold could also be a result of global warming.

Re:An ode to wankery (0)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 3 months ago | (#46012405)

Citation needed. No, really: if you're going to say "the latest study shows" then cite the study.

Re:An ode to wankery (1, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 months ago | (#46012539)

Don't know about 0.01%

But NASA claims 3% deny climate change: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus [nasa.gov]
Remember that "scientists" are also mostly non-experts. Just non-experts with a higher average IQ.

Exactly 0% argue static climate (4, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46012727)

The brilliance of "climate change" is that the possibility range of "change" is kinda infinite.
In one stroke you can bin everyone who'd gainsay you in any way with Flat Earthers.
That there is some nifty rhetorical kneecapping. Bravo.

Re:Exactly 0% argue static climate (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46012771)

I would love to see you provide an example of the rhetorical device you claim is being used.

Re:An ode to wankery (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 months ago | (#46012441)

Yeah it's amazing how every d*ck with an internet connection is suddenly an expert on the weather and climate change.

Yep. Education and/or experience is no barrier to being a fully qualified climate scientist. All you need is opinions and you're as good as the guys in white coats.

Re:An ode to wankery (5, Insightful)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 3 months ago | (#46012637)

That's the big trend these days. We must respect everyone's opinions equally. It doesn't matter if they are expert in a specific field or know nothing but what they see on the "news". All are of equal value. That's why we don't tell kids who are getting F's (do any of them get those any more?) that they are stupid. We let them find out what the world thinks of dummies after we push them along and graduate them. Then they find out that they are dopes and can't get/keep a job that pays a living wage (are there any of those any more?) and start taking antidepressants.

The US is in the death throws of democracy. Future generations (in other countries) will study this period of US history to try to figure out what happened. How did stupidity and ignorance get elevated to virtues?

Re:An ode to wankery (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012517)

Oh, it's snowing out so the earth can't be getting warmer.

To be fair this wouldn't have been used as an argument if someone hadn't used a sunny day as 'proof' of global warming to begin with.

Re:An ode to wankery (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46012427)

By Deus, when you think the debate can't sink any lower, it has descended to poetry. Stop the ride, I wanna get off.

Re:An ode to wankery (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#46012669)

The couplet:
"If those busy 'crisis' hatching
Could but show some action matching"
is an allusion to Instapundit's [pjmedia.com] "I'll believe it's a crisis when those telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."

Re:An ode to wankery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012623)

Okay, okay, calm yourself little Edgar before you hurt yourself.

Count on every Warmist... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012337)

to be waving his hanky and screaming "Deniers, you shall be cast into the flames of Sheol for your apostasy!".

Re:Count on every Warmist... (-1, Offtopic)

gmuslera (3436) | about 3 months ago | (#46012411)

Seems that denialists media control includes slashdot downmodding.

Re:Count on every Warmist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012457)

One of the best sources I've found for debunking the hype on both sides of the issue is Peter Hadfield (aka: potholer54) and his excellent series of YouTube videos. [youtube.com] Very worth the time, and also pretty entertaining.

Re:Count on every Warmist... (-1, Troll)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 3 months ago | (#46012703)

You will pay for your insolence, heathen! The Gore shall smite thy green buck carbon creditas until none are left!

Burn the heretic, the denier!

Science is not popularism every time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012359)

If your way of life depended on you not advancing scientifically, as it seems to be with Republicans in this country (socially also...) why would you embrace it?

The fact is most Americans have little to no groundwork laid educationally to understand what is proposed or why they should accept or challenge it.

The 98% of people who study this and aren't paid by energy companies to lie, they don't have that problem.
   

Re:Science is not popularism every time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012397)

In the UK the British Broadcassting Corporation admitted that they held a meeting with AGW proponents and were asked to blame more stuff on global warming which as a supposed professional broadcaster they did.

Re:Science is not popularism every time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012675)

Oh well if an anonymous internet post with nothing to back it up claims it, it must be true.

Re:Science is not popularism every time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012431)

In other words, if a person doesn't agree with AGW, AD HOMINEM! Sounds like what a radical feminist might do: attack the person because it's an ideology rather than real science.

Re:Science is not popularism every time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012609)

98% of scientists who study it agree, you aren't one of the 1-2% anyway. No ad hominem. You simply aren't qualified to have ANY OPINION.

Feminism = your retreat from science, Republicans.

Show me a climate model for the past 16 years (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012363)

If the climate scientists have a model that accurately predicted the past 16 years then we can talk about the future.

Until then the predictions of gloom and doom are about as believable as the heavens-gate cult.

Re:Show me a climate model for the past 16 years (4, Informative)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 3 months ago | (#46012537)

The best models that they have are ones that have as part of them global warming. Can you point us at other models that have produced better predictions ?

No, I thought not ... so let us go with the best models that we have, even if they do have flaws.

Re:Show me a climate model for the past 16 years (1, Interesting)

BradMajors (995624) | about 3 months ago | (#46012657)

The best models that they have are ones that have as part of them global warming. Can you point us at other models that have produced better predictions ?

No, I thought not ... so let us go with the best models that we have, even if they do have flaws.

Here's someone's model that is beating the prediction of all the pro's:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2013/09/update-on-my-climate-model-spoiler-its-doing-a-lot-better-than-the-pros.html [climate-skeptic.com]

the sky is (not) falling... you're thinking about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012377)

" documented decrease in Americans' scientific understanding."

Haha. like the awareness is limited to Americans.

and here again, as an homage to the atheistic and satanic gods, we have another author lacking objectivism.

in a world where understanding means ignorance
and good means bad
only soldiers of the truth fight the battle
against those been had.

Re:the sky is (not) falling... you're thinking abo (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012403)

Re:the sky is (not) falling... you're thinking abo (2)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 3 months ago | (#46012453)

The Kyoto Accord Song. [youtube.com] Seems relevant.

Re:the sky is (not) falling... you're thinking abo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012533)

Re:the sky is (not) falling... you're thinking abo (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 3 months ago | (#46012607)

I would have watched the whole thing but the unexpected giant chicken made me laugh so much that I had to stop before my spleen ruptured. Holy crap, you have to warn people before you do that!

Re:the sky is (not) falling... you're thinking abo (4, Insightful)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 3 months ago | (#46012625)

Well if it makes the Yanks feel any better, one can colour Australia blue from July 1 onwards, when the new senate repeals legislation as their first act.

Our new PM (back in 2009) "The argument is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger." 4 years on and he convinced a majority of electors that action on climate change was "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".

So it's not just conservatives in the US that regard climate change as a big socialist conspiracy...

Models (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012387)

And then there are all the climate models that a.) don't predict a zero deg slope in the data and b.) Don't appear to match the observed satellite temperature record.

Which shows that people don't understand (2, Insightful)

rossdee (243626) | about 3 months ago | (#46012389)

Which shows that people (in the US) don't understand climate, or weather, and the fact that climate change means an increase in theextremes of weather.
Theres a drought and state of emergency in California, here in the midwest we have had our coldest December for a long time, and plenty of record lows, a week or two ago it was colder here than at the south pole (Or on Mars)
And USians still don't believe in climate change...

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (1, Insightful)

ivano (584883) | about 3 months ago | (#46012447)

Remember you're talking to people who think that they can dismiss what you say because they (the deniers) think that everyone who uses the term climate change doesn't understand that the Earth's climate has changed before. But they're too stupid to understand that when we say climate change we mean anthropogenic climate change.

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (5, Insightful)

zoffdino (848658) | about 3 months ago | (#46012489)

One third of us still deny evolution as a fact. A smaller percentage want "Creation Science" to be taught in school (well, there's no creation, nor the subject scientific to begin with). When people can deny 4 billion years worth of evidence for a natural process, what do you think make them better at understanding something with only 100 years of evidence. God bless the stupidity of Americans.

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 months ago | (#46012581)

Most Americans cant tell you how many states we have, and they will gladly sign a petition to ban the use of H2O, So please do not judge global IQ based on the land of morons I live in.

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012741)

and some of us still believe "All men are created equal", based on pretty much the same evidence available to support creationism.

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 months ago | (#46012497)

So, let me ask - historically speaking, what has California's rainfall averaged, since the white man first came on the scene?

The funny thing is, I do a Google search to check that out. I click several links, and none show the information I am looking for. In 1849, what was the rainfall? Nothing. 1850? Nothing. 1851? Still more nothing. Where do I find the historical data?

Now, is there REALLY this remarkable drought, or have we simply been over using the available water for several decades already? There are a number of places where we have millions of people, but the land historically only supported hundreds or thousands. Even with tens of thousands, the weather and the land supplied plenty of water for survival, and some thrown in for waste and recreation. But, MILLIONS? Oh-oh - not enough water to go around.

We have been pumping lakes, rivers, and aquifers dry for decades now. We pump water from wherever we can find it, not caring about where it came from, or whether it will ever be replaced, or how it might be replaced.

Do we really have exceptional droughts today, or are we simply running out of water to waste?

Show me the historical data, please. Does it actually support this climate change theory?

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 months ago | (#46012591)

Are you seriously claiming that water disappears after use?

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 months ago | (#46012667)

Of course water disappears after use. It swirls down the drain, flows down a pipe, into a sewer, pumped into a sewerage station, treated, then dumped back into a river, where it flows downstream, into the sea. It just disappears there, until it just happens to be in the right spot on the surface one day, to be evaporated into the atmosphere, where it can become rain again.

The problem is, we've been using water faster than water can evaporate and fall as rainfall. We've been drying out the land for decades. Give us time, and we'll figure out how to dry the ocean as well.

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (3, Informative)

Noryungi (70322) | about 3 months ago | (#46012601)

It does. End of story.

Oh, you wanted a document? What about doing your own research, you lazy slacker?

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/climate.html [nsidc.org]
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence [nasa.gov]
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm [geosociety.org]
(etc.. etc...)

And you are conflaing two things: the aquifer situation is the western United States, which is very preoccupying, to say the least, and global warming, which is definitely not going to improve the situation of said aquifers.

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 months ago | (#46012707)

I don't see historical data for rainfall levels in those links. I see allusions to scientific research, but I see no actual scientific research on those pages. No historic data such as I seek.

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012721)

Maybe you can point to the actual historical rainfall data in California, which is what was asked for.

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012693)

Californicators should desalinate sea water and stop pumping the interior of the country dry.

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (3, Insightful)

Loki_1929 (550940) | about 3 months ago | (#46012559)

And USians still don't believe in climate change...

The rest of your comment aside, this is simply absurd. Aside from some blindly religious zealot goofballs who think the planet is 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode to school on a Velociraptor, I doubt very much that you'll find anyone in the US who believes the climate doesn't change; that it remains static for all time.

Of course, I'm sure that isn't what you were really saying. You very likely were meaning that some people from the US don't accept that human activities are, in any large way, directly responsible for atypical changes in the global climate. However, your language is quite interesting. First, the use of the word "believe" implies that they lack faith in a belief, rather than acceptance of truth. I would agree with that implication, based on how many "believers" in AGW come off as zealots. Secondly, your language attempted to marginalize the non-believers by equating their lack of faith with belief in a static climate; regardless of the fact that virtually none of them would actually agree with that concept.

Combined with the first part of your opening statement, I'd say this giant hunk of condescending and logical fallacy filled crap post is about par for the course for the True Believers(tm) of the AGW crowd. Based on the crowd noise, there seem to be a small number of rational people with a reasoned (if flawed, in my opinion) view of the available evidence among a sea of zealots basking in the glow of the holy texts handed down by the gods of the IPCC. I'm sure it's more about who's vocal rather than who's in which camp, but it sure doesn't seem that way sometimes.

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (2, Informative)

mbone (558574) | about 3 months ago | (#46012653)

At this stage, you do not need to "marginalize the non-believers," they have done that nicely for themselves. The real scientific debates over this were back in the 1980's, for pete's sake (I participated in some of them). Now it's all just politics.

Re:Which shows that people don't understand (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012645)

This kind of messages does not help your cause.

1) Stop insulting people. Maybe it is that the arguments where not convincing enough, or simply wrong.

2) The doomsday predictions that do not happen demolishes credibility

3) Revolutionary speech ("deniers"? "denial"? what scientific language is that?) does much more harm that help

4) Changing definitions and arguments do not help also: change means increase in extremes, but the original argument and studies used median temperatures? now in winter is climate change but then in summer it will be global warming again? the polar bears will go extinct in 2010, no, wait, in 2012, no, wait, in 2013, no, wait, in 2014... in the mean time, the climate scientists studying the phenomena got trapped in ice? The arctic disappears but the antarctic grows and the explanation is *global* warming?

5) Instead of name-calling and political agendas, the scientific argument must be addressed: How something with a (comparative) small influence of less than 0.01% of CO2 in atmosphere has such importance in models when something much more important (H2O as gas cause hothouse effect but as clouds increase albedo!) that is so complex that a really small variation in the model can cause huge changes in results gets no attention? why the uncertainty of the most important factor in climate (the amount of radiation in the sun) is not shown in uncertainty in the results? Those 2 really basic problems with the underlying theory never seem to be explained, lets not talk about more complex and subtle ones... instead, the results are presented as dogmatic-religion certain and whomever is not convinced is so a "denier" (I suppose the term "heretic" was considered too reveling). That the predictions does not concur with the observed results apparently is not important: "is a sort-term fluke", but whatever short-term observation that DOES concur with the predictions is considered a very important factor.

5) Attacking arguments not to the arguments themselves but only saying that they come from big-oil-lobby makes people suspect you come from the green-tech-lobby, the nuclear-lobby or the whatever-lobby, and in the end does not accomplish anything useful

There can't be global warming (3, Funny)

tpstigers (1075021) | about 3 months ago | (#46012421)

because it's cold at my house.

Re:There can't be global warming (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012499)

Because it's hot at my house... because it rained at my house.. because it didn't rain at my house.. because it snowed..no snow.. a little snow.. its' windy.. not windy.. bla bla bla... every weather pattern know to man is proof of Global warming and you guys wonder why you have become a joke.

Re:There can't be global warming (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 3 months ago | (#46012563)

I think that part of this notion is that if global warming is "a thing," particularly such a disastrous and horrible one, people believe they would be able to observe what is being discussed. 0.326 degrees F increase in the temperature of the top of the global ocean isn't exactly something that most people would be alarmed about, and certainly doesn't have a major impact on the weather in front of some guy's house in Michigan. People have been told for decades that everything is bad and everything will kill them, so it's not a surprise (to me, at least) that people would start to push back and demand more support for assertions of impending doom.

People are tired of the endless guilt trip. (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 months ago | (#46012443)

Why do people choose to misinterpret global warming? Because they are stress out from the endless guilt trip on everything they do.
The issue is everything we do has some sort of trade off. But it feels like we are being judge for every choice we make.
Do you use reusable grocery bags? Then you better be sure that you clean them good enough, otherwise you could get sick from the germs.
Do you use new plastic bag? Then here is this documentary about a sea torturous who dies from eating your plastic bag that you threw away.
How about if you stick with good old paper? Your Cold/Frozen food creates condensation and break the bag and you waste all this food.

How about the car you drive?
A hybrid, which needs more green house gasses to build.
A small, car which cannot carry enough people and good thus needing an extra car.
A medium sized car, which gives off more carbon, and yet still doesn't fit everything you need.
A large car/Suv/Truck you can carry what you need however a lot of time you just polluting gas.

Do you cut down that large tree in you back yard? If so you can prevent it from falling on your house, if not it can suck up so much more carbon?

Don't even get me on, food choices....
We do want to do good, however there are so many tradeoffs we need to think about, and with science showing us more, it overwhelms us, and in essence paralyzes us. So we choose what science we choose to follow and what we choose to disregard as a coping mechanism.
It is emotional, it isn't about being stupid, of ill informed, it is just about being emotional on your choice.

Re:People are tired of the endless guilt trip. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 3 months ago | (#46012535)

Do you use reusable grocery bags? Then you better be sure that you clean them good enough, otherwise you could get sick from the germs.

You're doing it wrong: wash your produce after you take it out of the bag.

Biochar and pyrolysis can lock up carbon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012697)

You can lock up vast quantities of carbon at will, in an energy positive manner through the use of biochar and cheap gassifying ovens (even a paint tin can be turned into a gassifier). It's easy and improves soil condition as well. The CO2 problem was solved several centuries ago.

Re:People are tired of the endless guilt trip. (0)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#46012709)

The thing is that there is actually fairly clear and easy to follow advice on this sort of thing. It is only the sceptics that are putting out all this FUD to try and discourage people.

Re:People are tired of the endless guilt trip. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012733)

But it feels like we are being judge for every choice we make.

Does it?

I use plastic grocery bags. And I'll flip both birds at any Al Gore-worshipping ecodweeb dip that tries to guilt trip me about it.

If you allow fools to make you feel guilty, you have bigger things to worry about than Global Cool^H^H^H^HWarm^H^H^H^HClimate change.

What guilt? Stick it to the man! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012757)

People are under the erroneous impression that they are giving up something good. They feel guilty because they have been conned by the marketers. Fell guilty about trying to live more ecologically? Congratulations! You are a sucker! Big corps WANT you to be stubborn and keep buying their shit and sucking the money out of YOUR wallet.

Big cars? Look on the road. How many people actually fill them up? They are mostly single drivers - maybe two.

Food? We've been brainwashed into thinking eating what we evolved to eat (vegetables, fruits, nuts, a very small amounts of meat - which is optional) as being depriving. The big junk food makers have conned us into thinking that green salad is tasteless and we need a shit load of salt and grease. I've changed my tastes back to where they should be and I find prepared foods - pretty much anything that I don't cook - to be too salty and too greasy.

Grocery bags? Whatever. I do all of them. I reuse the plastic bags - they're great for picking up dog poop when you walking it.

AND -this part I LOVE - living ecologically saves money (use less expensive gas, cook healthier meals, medical costs go down, dont' get suckered by big corp America) AND it sticks it to the man!

No sir! The green and crunchy people have shown me that I can loose weight while eating as much as I like, reduce healthcare expenses (lost weight, better LDL/HDL ratio: 1.0 Baby!, and less stress on the knees and other joints), help local farmers - they grow awesome stuff, save on gasoline, and more money in MY pocket - all because I'm living like an eco-"whackjob" as Neil Boortz used to say.

This isn't helping... (0, Troll)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#46012445)

Apparently the UN Climate Chief just said that only Communism can stop global warming.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-to-fight-global-warming/ [dailycaller.com]

So... you can see how that would effectively cause most of the opposition to feel vindicated that the whole thing is just a ploy to promote radical leftist redistributionalism.

Look, if you ACTUALLY care about the environment, then there is no way to get cooperation unless there is no perception of political bias. If you can't do that, then really you can't do anything. As pointed out in the article, communism actually has a terrible environmental record. So not even that would work.

Making Al Gore your front man was a strategic error. Saying the debate was over just meant a lot of minds closed instantly in response and decided then and there that you were wrong.

If you care... you'll reengage with humility, mutual respect, and patience. The only reason to not do that is because you refuse to control your ego, refuse to treat people you need the cooperation of with respect, and lack the intellectual patience to go through a matter in the time required.

And if that is the case... you don't really care.

I care. I have my own biases but I am willing to humbly go through the matter acknowledging what I don't know or understand, showing common courtesy to people that I might not agree with or trust, and patiently going through the matter step by step.

Anyone that cares must be willing to do that. Anyone that is not willing to can't possibly care because they've put their own petty personal prejudices above the vitality of the global ecosystem.

Re:This isn't helping... (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46012543)

Try reading and you'll see it says nothing of the kind. [bloomberg.com]

The country is facing growing public pressure from citizens to reduce air pollution, due in large part to burning coal. Its efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable power stem from the realization that doing so will pay off in the long term, Figueres said. “They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.” China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.

There's no "only", there's no "this is the right way to do it", there's nothing like that. There's just "China is doing these things, this is why China is able to do these things".

Re:This isn't helping... (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46012761)

To be unequivocal about this: the head of the UN Security Council could have said the same things about China's military, and I doubt it would have been taken as saying that communism is a necessity for national security. (Nor, in fact, is communism necessary for one to have a political system that has little legislative oversight.)

Re:This isn't helping... (3, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | about 3 months ago | (#46012589)

By linking to a rabid patiasan source like the daily caller you have basically invalidated your post here. Nothing you have said here can be taken seriously because you are linking to the Daily Caller for gods sake.

Re:This isn't helping... (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#46012749)

Apparently the UN Climate Chief just said that only Communism can stop global warming.

No, she didn't. She said that communism is good at dealing with that kind of thing, not that democracy was incapable of fixing it. She made the rather obvious point that communist states find it easier to act for the collective good, while in democracies people tend to act in their own interests.

This just shows how desperate the sceptics have become now it looks like they are losing the debate. They have to try and conflate dealing with climate change with that old enemy communism. Kinda surprised they haven't figured out how to link recycling to helping terrorists yet.

Meh (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012451)

I don't think anything is more annoying that articles on who believes in Global Warming or not... On the "I could really care less"-oh-meter, it spikes the chart.

"Cherry picking" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012495)

The majority of the data used to show the trend comes from the atlantic basin, with a focus on New England and western Europe. The 'logic' is that these are very heavily populated areas. The problem is that these were the areas most affected by the "little ice age" and the maunder minimum, so the warming trend is more exaggerated. Without cherry picking this data, the warming trend is almost non existent. Also, if you change the question from "Do you believe in global warming?" to "Do you believe mankind is causing global warming?" the numbers will more than triple the number of so called 'deniers', because shouting the loudest doesn't make you correct.

Propaganda Piece fudges truth . . . News at 11 (3, Insightful)

Traciatim (1856872) | about 3 months ago | (#46012525)

Of course, if you cherry pick 1996-2012 you can get a small trend line... but if you start in 1996 (instead of 1998 like the article states, as most skeptics avoid that since it's such an easy counter-point) you have no statistically significant warming 17 years. Benjamin Santer in http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract [wiley.com] declared that "Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature."

Translated, it essentially means that if there is no significant warming for 17 year periods we need to start searching for the real causes and not just sink money in to finding more human causes to blame.

Then you add in that the sun goes in to a lull and suddenly we have no more warming and a huge number of record colds being recorded in the northern hemisphere yet the alarmist have been shouting it from the rooftops that changes in the sun are too small to affect climate citing the TSI changes rather than the changes in different frequencies (which are quite large). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510 [bbc.co.uk]

Maybe instead of people having a decrease of scientific understanding they are just waking up to the facts and as they learn more they realize the alarmists are hand waving ninnies.

Re:Propaganda Piece fudges truth . . . News at 11 (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46012649)

Your "translation" is a complete nonsequeter: the article states that a 17-year window is a necessary condition, not that it's a sufficient one.

Well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012541)

I would say most people believe the climate changes naturally, just a lot more people are pulling away from the fear-mongering tactics used by the likes of Al Gore and friends.

Measuring Increased Willness to Express Denial? (2)

retroworks (652802) | about 3 months ago | (#46012553)

This question came up on slashdot a few weeks ago, regarding surveys showing ten percent fewer people expressed belief in evolution. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4612831&cid=45824039 [slashdot.org] than 6 years ago. An anonymous coward noted:

"As an expression of commitment to the tribe, professing a false belief is way more powerful than a true belief. It bind the community closer, because they've demonstrated their willingness to suppress their own reason for the group. The sillier the belief, the better, of course."

Good page on debunking the "pause" (4, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 months ago | (#46012567)

Too bad this wasn't linked in TFS:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming [metoffice.gov.uk]

Re:Good page on debunking the "pause" (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 3 months ago | (#46012685)

How useful, a paper which comes to no insightful conclusion. Assuming the summary you present is right, all they say is "uh, yeah, it hasn't been warming as much. Still, we can't conclude that this is significant in any way."

Re:Good page on debunking the "pause" (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46012729)

Imagine a criminal trial: there's a lot of evidence that your client is guilty, and you show a new piece of evidence which you claim says he is innocent. Except on examination, it turns out that it's completely consistent with his being guilty as well. It hardly matters that the evidence does not advance the case against your client. What matters is that it has failed to advance the case for your client.

The head of those so-called "news" outlets, (-1, Flamebait)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 3 months ago | (#46012575)

specifically, Roger Ailes, knows exactly what he is doing. The dumbing down of Americans falls right in line with getting a Republican elected to the white house. I'm at a loss to understand why that is so important, but I'm $ure he ha$ his rea$on$.

Man made BS (1)

p51d007 (656414) | about 3 months ago | (#46012595)

Man made global warming is & was nothing more than politics, trying to dictate how countries use their resources, and to try to steal more resources & MONEY from the developed countries, to continue to give them to the "poor" countries. Most of the so called poor countries, are in Africa, and because of the backwards lifestyle, and the THUG DICTATORS that run those countries, until they get a taste of freedom, they will remain poor. The sun controls our climate, and, runs in 11 year cycles. I remember in the early 70's, Time magazine was telling everyone that was dumb enough to read it, that we were entering a period of a new ice age, simply because that winter, we had below zero temperatures for weeks. 10-20 years of climate "research" is but a blink of an eye, in the history of the Earth.

What is the correlation with Fox News? (-1, Flamebait)

mbone (558574) | about 3 months ago | (#46012605)

How many of this supposed 23% are watchers of Fox News ? Given their circulation, I am surprised it is not a bit higher.

Insignificant (1)

Gonoff (88518) | about 3 months ago | (#46012621)

So 23% of people in the USA do not believe in science. That actually comes to about 1% of humanity. If we allow for the fact that there will be a sizeable chunk of the world that does not know either side of the argument who would have to be discounted in the statistic and even in the most educated countries, there are those who are uninformed and there are those who choose to be.

I suspect that it will be under 5% of the world would admit to this opinion. If that was a political movement, they would be insignificant and out of government. Perhaps it is best that they stay that way...

could be because of (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012629)

Racheal Carson's Silent Spring which predicted we'd be dead by now. Or perhaps scientist like Freeman Dyson (a British American theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering.) Who said, "We cannot predict the effects of carbon on climate until we understand the science of climate much better than we do now."

We believers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012639)

Believers here on slashdot are of course superior as we can see from all the comments. Those damn sheeple, non-slashdotters, just don't get science right? And its just the evil oil corporations that spread FUD about climate.

Climate "science" is not science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012643)

The very best that can be said about it is it is weather forecasting.

Science is testable. Anthropogenic climate change or whatever it is called this week is not testable. We have simply been in a several hundred year period of increasing solar activity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8615789.stm

Things are going to get a lot colder.

Human caused warming is the question (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012663)

It is obvious that the earth has been warming since the last ice age. The question is whether HUMAN caused warming is significant and it sure doesn't seem so.

Come To Me, Global Warming (1)

Wingsy (761354) | about 3 months ago | (#46012677)

I sure would appreciate some of that Global Warming around here. Can't get above 50F no matter what.

"Decrease in scientific understanding" (3, Insightful)

Vermonter (2683811) | about 3 months ago | (#46012699)

This is an incorrect statement. Americans (and honestly, the general public worldwide) never had a great understanding of climate (or any) science. Many people who accept global warming are just as scientifically illiterate as those who reject it. Just because you are right about something doesn't mean understand it.

Re:"Decrease in scientific understanding" (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46012739)

It's a reference to the idea that Americans in general are less scientifically literate in general now than in, say, the Space Race. However I don't think anyone has shown any such change over recent years.

Failure condition? (2)

Quinn_Inuit (760445) | about 3 months ago | (#46012701)

I understand that one can't just cherry-pick a period of low temperature growth and claim "LOL n0 w4rmZ!", but when the period picked runs through the present, I think it's reasonable to start asking when it becomes long enough to force a re-evaluation of the relevant theories. I'm not claiming that it's long enough now, but I'm curious if anyone knows at what point a failure condition is triggered in the major relevant documents, e.g. the IPCC AR4 or 5.

MANufactured 'weather' creates MANic patterns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46012715)

guess our best is the message;;; http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561 or blame the fictional dieties because it cannot be carbon excess

That's not what scientific understanding is. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 3 months ago | (#46012737)

Journalists take heed: Your coverage has consequences. All those media outlets who trumpeted the global warming "pause" may now be partly responsible for a documented decrease in Americans' scientific understanding.

Scientific understanding is the ability to apply the scientific method. It is not the ability to parrot back claims scientists have made, or the claims others have made about what scientists have claimed. That's just regular "knowledge".

The death of expertise (3, Interesting)

benjfowler (239527) | about 3 months ago | (#46012747)

Saw this doing the rounds today:

'The Death of Expertise'

The basic problem, is because the Internet has convinced dumb and ignorant people that their uninformed bullshit opinions stand on the same ground as those of people who have been studying the subject for decades. It stems from the metastatisation of the retards' confusion of democracy with "equal air-time for ignorance":

Today, any assertion of expertise produces an explosion of anger from certain quarters of the American public, who immediately complain that such claims are nothing more than fallacious “appeals to authority,” sure signs of dreadful “elitism,” and an obvious effort to use credentials to stifle the dialogue required by a “real” democracy.

But democracy, as I wrote in an essay about C.S. Lewis and the Snowden affair, denotes a system of government, not an actual state of equality. It means that we enjoy equal rights versus the government, and in relation to each other. Having equal rights does not mean having equal talents, equal abilities, or equal knowledge. It assuredly does not mean that “everyone’s opinion about anything is as good as anyone else’s.” And yet, this is now enshrined as the credo of a fair number of people despite being obvious nonsense.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/ [thefederalist.com]

The answer (2, Insightful)

vikingpower (768921) | about 3 months ago | (#46012755)

lies not in the so-called "global warming pause". It lies in the fact that most, if not all of the naysayers, are creationist, drill-baby-drill Americans. Sorry. I know - I am going to be modded down into oblivion. So what.

A documented decrease? (0, Flamebait)

Terwin (412356) | about 3 months ago | (#46012777)

"Journalists take heed: Your coverage has consequences. All those media outlets who trumpeted the global warming "pause" may now be partly responsible for a documented decrease in Americans' scientific understanding."

Really?
More people questioning a theory that is
1) often presented in a more political than scientific way,
2) calls for individual sacrifice for a common good
3) who's most vocal supporters often as not do *not* make those individual sacrifices
4) proponents loudly protest that all objectors are ignorant or politically motivated

During a period when inflation adjusted average personal income is continuing a long downward slide.

And this is a 'documented decrease in scientific understanding'?

How about 'times are tough and people are fed up with being told they need to give up what little they have by hypocrites' as a better explanation?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...