Global Warming

[Sycophant]

As far as I know, most of the world accepts, more or less, that global warming exists, is a problem and should be addressed.

However from the US (politicians, media, citizens) I've seen quite common doubt, refute, mocking and various other things essentially denying global warming.

Why?

I've seen Fox News presenters mock the idea as 'european', and critisise a children's movie about penguins for being 'greenie propaganda'. Here I've seen people enclose it in scare quotes, dismiss it, laugh it off and outright deny it. I've heard quite conflicted quotes from US politicians about it.

So, what's the deal with the US and global warming? Why so skeptical? Or is I am getting the wrong impression?

 

[CCGirl]

Nope. Same impression from Canada too.

 

[The Lone Gunmen]

Here is an interesting speech from Michael Crichton about global warming.

 

[wmc1982]

Here is an interesting speech from Michael Crichton about global warming.

good article.

I believe there is no way to tell what lies ahead for our future concerning Global Warming. The Earth could get colder, or warmer. I do think we need to address some of the issues because of the pollution problems.

Factories that pollute the air should be under tougher restrictions. People should be working on alternative fuel systems to keep so much pollution from entering the atmosphere. And there should be tougher laws agaisnt people polluting our rivers, lakes, and oceans.

Whether all the claims people make about Global Warming are true or not, we still need to look out for our environment and keep pollution levels as low as possible. (in my opinion )

 

[CCGirl]

That's nice.....here is another "experts" opinion.

But back to the OP....WHY is the USA isolated in its rejection of scientific research about climate change ???

 

[Sycophant]

What is it about the US that make it more inclined to disagree with global warming?

Even if it's not as some scientists predict, there is good evidence that some things do damage our atmosphere in various ways.

Even if we do all stop 'riding horses' in the next 100 years as Crichton's analogy suggests, is it still not a good idea to do something about those things where we can?

Maybe I have a different perspective because I've live directly under a hole in the ozone layer all my life?

 

[wmc1982]

What is it about the US that make it more inclined to disagree with global warming?

Even if it's not as some scientists predict, there is good evidence that some things do damage our atmosphere in various ways.

Even if we do all stop 'riding horses' in the next 100 years as Crichton's analogy suggests, is it still not a good idea to do something about those things where we can?

Maybe I have a different perspective because I've live directly under a hole in the ozone layer all my life?

I guess addressing (and agreeing with) the issue could cause possible harm and more regulations to the industries that put out all the pollution.

We could lose money....precious money...

 

[The Lone Gunmen]

What is it about the US that make it more inclined to disagree with global warming?

It probably stems from a distrust of the U.N. (Gee I wonder why?) and the perception (rightly or wrongly) that Europe is out to quite frankly, screw the U.S. over.

Anyone that thinks we should agree with the consensus is welcome to join the flat earth society.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

I've just about stopped arguing about global warming for the same reason I've stopped dealing with Creationists...

those who are lied to don't want to hear the truth. they will claim that science supports their position while spitting in the face of science.

if you deny androgenetic global warming, you deny reality. its not a debate here, the debate could be over what the eventual effects will be and what is legitimate policy in terms of these facts, but to deny global warming is to either lie or believe a lie, and neither postion is subject to rational debate

 

[The Lone Gunmen]

if you deny androgenetic global warming, you deny reality. its not a debate here, the debate could be over what the eventual effects will be and what is legitimate policy in terms of these facts, but to deny global warming is to either lie or believe a lie, and neither postion is subject to rational debate

I'm contributing to global warming by running the pellet stove because it's 28 degrees outside.

Americans don't take anything seriously. It took the Japanese sinking half of our navy to get us involved in any large scale during World War 2, for example.

 

[wmc1982]

I'm contributing to global warming by running the pellet stove because it's 28 degrees outside.

Americans don't take anything seriously. It took the Japanese sinking half of our navy to get us involved in any large scale during World War 2, for example.

I am an American and I take plenty seriously. (I can't speak for the rest of us though )

Every country has its problems. No one, and no government is perfect.

 

[Maxwell511]

What is it about the US that make it more inclined to disagree with global warming?

Americans seem by their nature to be skeptical. Which is good. The problem arises in that some also tend to favour the skeptic and listen to their agruments while ignoring the agruments of others. This leaves them rather ingnorant on the details of the subject matter so they cannot form an unbiased opinion.

 

[chaim]

It is interesting that you chose to post a speech from Michael Crichton, who has no qualification in climate change except that he wrote a fictional book that is FULL of errors (there are many responses from scientists pointing this out).

I would have thought when looking for information on climate change one would consult a climate scientist or at least one of the nationally recognized institutes such as the EPA or DOE or the national academies. The fact that you chose to consult an unqualified skeptic makes me wonder about your reasoning. Have you decided for some other reason that you don't 'believe' in climate change and are looking to support your predetermined viewpoint?

Here is an interesting speech from Michael Crichton about global warming.

 

[chaim]

Good for you! If you are burning wood pellets in your stove, especially if they are from plantation grown trees, you are NOT contributing to global warming!! All the CO2 you released burning the pellets was sequestered by the trees from the atmosphere and will be re-sequestered when the plantation is regrown. I also burn wood to heat my home for this very reason. The wood I get is scrap from a tree service and has a net zero effect on CO2 levels.

You are helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and you didn't even know it!

I'm contributing to global warming by running the pellet stove because it's 28 degrees outside.

Americans don't take anything seriously. It took the Japanese sinking half of our navy to get us involved in any large scale during World War 2, for example.

 

[Maxwell511]

Here is an interesting speech from Michael Crichton about global warming.

This speech is an example of what I'm talking about: the arguments against the science of climate change don't hold water if the details are known.

"To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs."

The implied problems here are due to the lack of understanding of the function of computer models in modern science. The human race is essentially blind which hampers our ability to see the universe and figure out how it works. However we are very innovative and we can overcome this. We invent things like telescopes, thermometers and even computers to show us things that we could not see before. Although a model is not physically real it will reflect reality if a) the input reflects reality and b) the processing reflects reality.

As an example if I wanted some data on the speed of a mass being pushed by a constant force. I could set up an experiment and measure or I could simulate quick easily on a computer. Assuming that my conditions a) and b) are satisfied then the computer model will match reality. Of course a computer isn't really needed since most people are able to calculate the value of the speed themselves at any given time.

The problem that people have (or where we are blind) is if the system whose behaviour we want to observe is too complex for us to compute. Imagine we have a "gas" in a box and we want to calculate the position of the particles after a certain amount of time. If we have one particle it is relatively easy, two it is more difficult but probably do-able, the difficulty then grows exponentially as we add more particles until it becomes impossible. We can however do this on a computer assuming we know accurately and can code the behaviour of the individual particles and extract data that reflects the reality of the gas.

I should point out that this sort of modeling is done in all sciences and used it engineering. It potentially saves industry billions on the cost of experimenting on different prototypes.

Can the data extracted be wrong? Of course if the conditions a) and b) are not meet. An example of this comes from climate change models. It is impossible to know the future input of CO2. Is this a problem? No. Because we are note looking for predictions of the true future climate, so we can plan our holidays or something, we are looking for what will happen under different inputs. This is why you will see different predictions that cross a spectrum of CO2 releases. I have yet to see any global warming skeptic to argue that condition b) is not met.

"Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid. Human beings are incredibly slow, inaccurate, and brilliant. Together they are powerful beyond imagination."-Albert Einstein

“Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?”

Here we simply have a misunderstanding of the difference between weather and climate. The climate of any chaotic system is the time average of it. These are generally readily predictable.

“Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite.”

Can the time average of a chaotic system itself be chaotic? Yes. But the chaotic behaviour is over much longer timescales. In the case of climate, in the weather sense, this would be over time scales much longer than climate scientists are considering. In the ones they are it is relatively deterministic.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

Americans seem by their nature to be skeptical. Which is good. The problem arises in that some also tend to favour the skeptic and listen to their agruments while ignoring the agruments of others. This leaves them rather ingnorant on the details of the subject matter so they cannot form an unbiased opinion.

I would strongly disagree that Americans are more skeptical than others. I think we are, in great part, intellectually lazy which could sometimes masquerade as skeptcism. We are afraid to make a change, so we ignore inconvenient truths (haha)
I have a hard time believing that a nation that is half full of people who believe that the world is only 6000 years old is particularly skeptical.

 

[Maxwell511]

I've seen Fox News presenters mock the idea as 'european', and critisise a children's movie about penguins for being 'greenie propaganda'. Here I've seen people enclose it in scare quotes, dismiss it, laugh it off and outright deny it.

I was watching Fox's sister channel Sky today. They had a clock showing the amount of Carbon emmissions released in the UK this year and actually have a campaign to inform people how to reduce their emissions. I think Rupert might have a case of DID.

 

[Sycophant]

I was watching Fox's sister channel Sky today. They had a clock showing the amount of Carbon emmissions released in the UK this year and actually have a campaign to inform people how to reduce their emissions. I think Rupert might have a case of DID.

It's off topic, but Fox and Sky are both very good at what they do which is cater to their audience.

Fox has set it self up as the anti-liberal network - those who feel the 'MSM' has a 'liberal bias' are given exactly what they want on Fox News, news and opinion that is 'Fair and Balanced', and also tends to reinforce their ideas.

Sky News is targeted at a different market (the UK) and suites that market well. It's counters the BBC's stoic approach to news by being willing to be a little more sensationalist and excitable. It's a bit mroe tabloid.

I doubt Murdoch cares what his media outlets say (look at the different output, and messages from all his enterprises). It's all about finding the market, getting the ratings and making the money.

 

[Voegelin]

However from the US (politicians, media, citizens) I've seen quite common doubt, refute, mocking and various other things essentially denying global warming.

How odd. I've seen no such thing.

Seen questions raised on the cause of warming, if it is cyclical, demands for proof that projections five and ten years out are valid, requests that those who propose remedies provide scientific proof their proposals will have the desired effect and calls for detailed cost/benfit analysis of proposed action but haven't seen anyone deny recent temperatures are what they are.

Perhaps I'm out of the loop.

 

[BearerBob]

good article.

I believe there is no way to tell what lies ahead for our future concerning Global Warming. The Earth could get colder, or warmer. I do think we need to address some of the issues because of the pollution problems.

Factories that pollute the air should be under tougher restrictions. People should be working on alternative fuel systems to keep so much pollution from entering the atmosphere. And there should be tougher laws agaisnt people polluting our rivers, lakes, and oceans.

Whether all the claims people make about Global Warming are true or not, we still need to look out for our environment and keep pollution levels as low as possible. (in my opinion )

Your post illustrates the problem. First, are we talking about the Earth warming due to natural cycles or are we talking about something man has done? Second, We are doing all of the things you say we need to start working on, yet you seem to ignore them. The deal is that the liberals/Dems/environuts are "nagging wives". No matter how many times one paints the garage, they will still be told that they are bad and that they never paint the garage. People really don't like to be treated that way. Add to that the amount of fear mongering and lying that is done in the name of Global warming and you have quite the recipe for being ignored. If you and others really cared about the environment you'd work with people not against them.