-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Record High Number of Americans Think Global Warming Is Exaggerated
- Thread starter Barrett2
- Start date
- Status
BigGreenMat
Member
Seems like classic intellectual exhaustion. People have been beat over the head by global warming especially hard for the past few years. As with most subjects though people as a group only have an attention span of a few years and because they are mostly shielded from the actual effects of global warming they will become skeptical. The populace needs instant effects to appear to believe the warnings.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Deku said:
Right. And an example of this is how the Antarctic Peninsula is getting warmer, and the ice shelfs are melting, breaking off, etc. while the interior of the continent is actually getting colder.
We just don't really have a good idea of how everything works together.
Night_Trekker
Member
I would be very surprised if it were not exaggerated.
vas_a_morir
Banned
It IS exaggerated guys. Doesn't mean it's not real, just exaggerated.
I honestly think this is a result of the massive proliferation of information in the last 15 years. The internet especially.
There are people in this thread speaking about climate change as if they are authorities on it. Everyone is suddenly an expert, and any fuckwit with a webcam who sounds even slightly eloquent can influence a world of people who have no ability to filter bad information from good.
I'm in the unique position in that I'm friends with some plant biologists. These people spent years of their life studying. Most of them hold PHDs, and I'm making more money than them as a systems admin. These are some of the most non-political people I know. Half of them aren't even "green" (One drives a truck). But they are all stupefied by this type of stuff.
When I want to know about science I ask scientists. When I want to know about history I ask people who have studied it.
If the vast majority of scientists say that climate change is happening, and it's directly related to human activity, then I believe them. Why wouldn't I?
There are people in this thread speaking about climate change as if they are authorities on it. Everyone is suddenly an expert, and any fuckwit with a webcam who sounds even slightly eloquent can influence a world of people who have no ability to filter bad information from good.
I'm in the unique position in that I'm friends with some plant biologists. These people spent years of their life studying. Most of them hold PHDs, and I'm making more money than them as a systems admin. These are some of the most non-political people I know. Half of them aren't even "green" (One drives a truck). But they are all stupefied by this type of stuff.
When I want to know about science I ask scientists. When I want to know about history I ask people who have studied it.
If the vast majority of scientists say that climate change is happening, and it's directly related to human activity, then I believe them. Why wouldn't I?
Huh, look at that, follows the exact same pattern leading up to the '04 elections. I guess what that means is that people become skeptical when it's talked about at length, as happens in election years, so it's pumped up a bit. Or that people get more partisan during election years.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Blader5489 said:
Tends to be my position. Man responsible? Sure. NY Melting in 10 years? Fuckouttahere
Diablohead
Member
If the ice caps melting and raising the sea level isn't enough warning to tell you global warming might be real, I don't know what is...
Due to the nature of humans though we all probably won't do anything until it's too late or it hits us in the face, hard.
Due to the nature of humans though we all probably won't do anything until it's too late or it hits us in the face, hard.
I find it funny that so many people believe that antropogenic climate change is exaggerated when the opposite is far more accurate.
Environmental scientists are currently meeting in Copenhagen indicating that the worst-case scenarios of the IPCC report in 2007 are too conservative.
Environmental scientists are currently meeting in Copenhagen indicating that the worst-case scenarios of the IPCC report in 2007 are too conservative.
gohepcat said:
Somebody with some sense. I find it funny how the general public want so much from scientists but the moment that scientists find something which affects the general public in a negative way they immediately find fault and think that they are in the know.
I would like some people who are suggesting that anthropogenic climate change to be a fallacy or exaggerated to provide me with some evidence or a published article from a respected journal. I would be surprised if both of these quotas can be met.
Wii said:
I agree with this, pretty much verbatim.
EDIT, @ gohepcat: We daily attack CEOs of major corporations because they made decisions that have helped them line their pockets with cash but have ultimately harmed their businesses and the global economy. Are you suggesting that CEOs are unique in doing what best suits them? Read Freakonomics. Experts aren't always honest.
And before anyone attacks me, I'm not suggesting that all these scientists are lying or that they're all greedy fucks. But experts ordinarily will exaggerate the meaning of data based on wherever they receive their money. If they're paid to disprove 'global warming' or the 'human impact on climate change,' they'll showcase the data in that light. If someone gets paid, either by grants or their ability to publish a book, on the subject - then yes, it's going to be OMG THE WORST THING EVER.
Again, not saying this is everyone. But I'm sure this is true of many on both sides of the climate change argument.
SouthernDragon
Member
Only thing I'll say is: the parameters in which life can exist, develop, and flourish are astoundingly small. Which means a tip this way or that can dramatically affect said life.
I have never heard any grant proposals saying that they will find this or find that. Scientists make hypotheses hoping to gain an insight into a topic but ultimately they receive the money irrelevant of the final findings. To suggest that scientists receive their money dependant on them purely proving or disproving a subject is incorrect.Vinci said:
For example a proposal would be more like this:
"We wish to investigate the effects of bovine CH4 production on its affect on infra-red capture."
rather than:
"We will prove that bovine CH4 production leads to climate change."
Anilones said:
Absolutely, but they definitely keep getting money if what they find and display to the world is an ongoing problem and especially if it's controversial or startling. If it's either of those, if it's 'the end of the world!,' they get a hell of a lot more money.
I think I perceive science as a business. That's the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying.
So you are under the impression that every environmental scientist out there who is providing evidence for anthropogenic climate change is doing this purely for monetary gain?Vinci said:
Firstly, if this is true I feel very sorry that this is your outlook on the world.
Secondly, scientists, if they wanted only money, would immediately move into industry rather than academia as the financial gain is vastly greater.
Anilones said:
I specifically said not everyone. Don't color me with a brush simply because we disagree on this subject.
And if you believe without question every expert that tells you something, I feel sorry for you in return. It's been proven time and again that it is naive to do so.
Where did I say they 'wanted only money'? Not everyone wants to write a best-selling book, but do I think it's beneficial to their job stability, not to mention easier, if they're able to dedicate their career to one pursuit that also happens to be one of the hottest topics around? Sure, it is. But again, that's not everyone.
I never implied that I believe people without reason, as you said it would be naive to do so, and I would be the worst scientist known to man.
Walking back from work I realised that if an environmental scientist wanted notoriety, fame and money for their work they would only need to find and prove one thing: that humans are not having an effect on climate change. If they were to show this then publishing in Nature or Science would never be a problem, they would receive funding without question and a Nobel Prize would be a certainty. The simple fact that this has not been shown, and the opposite is being found, indicates that this is not the correct scientific effect.
Walking back from work I realised that if an environmental scientist wanted notoriety, fame and money for their work they would only need to find and prove one thing: that humans are not having an effect on climate change. If they were to show this then publishing in Nature or Science would never be a problem, they would receive funding without question and a Nobel Prize would be a certainty. The simple fact that this has not been shown, and the opposite is being found, indicates that this is not the correct scientific effect.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
A lot of the problem of believing what scientists say is that this is too broad a field of study. The amount of elements that effect global climate are enormous and are effected by almost every imaginable condition. Sciences from Astronomy to Botany all have contributing factors to what happens with the global climate.
And that is just the factors EFFECTING global climate. When you add in trying to predict what will occur in the future based on models of global climate you probably double the number of fields that are required to have a full understanding of how to even formulate the model, adding Statisticians, Computer Scientists, Engineer, and all sorts of other intellectual pursuits to the mix. The fact of the matter is that trying to create these models is too herculean an effort for mankind to achieve in a short amount of time. The problem is that when these studies are done they're done by a small group of highly specialized scientists trying to prove THEIR hypothesis. You combine that with a confirmation bias that has been caused by all of the recent hype surrounding the issue and it's hard to even begin to believe that their conclusions can be sound given that any certain group has had nowhere near the qualifications to accurately account for all factors.
As a computer scientist I spend a good amount of time in college studying how to write modeling software, and even wrote some basic ones of my own. I am personally all too aware of the pitfalls that exist in my field alone--ones that even knowing them we constantly fall into--to believe that the study that has been done up to this point can be accurate.
In short, I do feel that global warming is exaggerated, and it's exaggerated because people feel it needs to be for initiatives to be created to counteract it. The problem with this is that when you sensationalize something, especially something that we cannot yet fully understand, you take the focus away from issues that actually can be solved and that we DO know about; things that are in fact true. Issues like water pollution, desertification, poor agricultural practices, world health issues and any number of things. You know what's more scary to me than global warming? The fact that thousands of square miles of land is turned into desert every year by poor farming practices that we have all of the scientific knowhow, resources, and money to prevent, but we don't. Meanwhile, we write treaties so that people can panhandle their "carbon credits" around to fix a problem that may not even be significant.
And that is just the factors EFFECTING global climate. When you add in trying to predict what will occur in the future based on models of global climate you probably double the number of fields that are required to have a full understanding of how to even formulate the model, adding Statisticians, Computer Scientists, Engineer, and all sorts of other intellectual pursuits to the mix. The fact of the matter is that trying to create these models is too herculean an effort for mankind to achieve in a short amount of time. The problem is that when these studies are done they're done by a small group of highly specialized scientists trying to prove THEIR hypothesis. You combine that with a confirmation bias that has been caused by all of the recent hype surrounding the issue and it's hard to even begin to believe that their conclusions can be sound given that any certain group has had nowhere near the qualifications to accurately account for all factors.
As a computer scientist I spend a good amount of time in college studying how to write modeling software, and even wrote some basic ones of my own. I am personally all too aware of the pitfalls that exist in my field alone--ones that even knowing them we constantly fall into--to believe that the study that has been done up to this point can be accurate.
In short, I do feel that global warming is exaggerated, and it's exaggerated because people feel it needs to be for initiatives to be created to counteract it. The problem with this is that when you sensationalize something, especially something that we cannot yet fully understand, you take the focus away from issues that actually can be solved and that we DO know about; things that are in fact true. Issues like water pollution, desertification, poor agricultural practices, world health issues and any number of things. You know what's more scary to me than global warming? The fact that thousands of square miles of land is turned into desert every year by poor farming practices that we have all of the scientific knowhow, resources, and money to prevent, but we don't. Meanwhile, we write treaties so that people can panhandle their "carbon credits" around to fix a problem that may not even be significant.
Anilones said:
Or perhaps there have been scientists who have stated this - either justifiably or not - and are being drowned out by the rest of the political and scientific community, which may or may not be exaggerating the issue.
What you're espousing is conventional wisdom - that you'd imagine a majority of anything indicates something tangible, whereas a minority illustrates the opposite - but 'conventional wisdom' is as often wrong as it is right. And the popularity of an opinion is not necessarily indicative of its fundamental accuracy.
At any rate, I think you and I could go back and forth on this endlessly. I'm not going to state that you're wrong anymore than I can certify that I am right, but my perspective is this: People will do whatever they have to, in many cases, to achieve comfort. What they choose to do sometimes comes from a sense of adventure, a thirst for fame, or just general every-day convenience. We see this is true in every other field known to man, and I'm assuming that science - a very competitive field when it comes to getting funding and notice - works in a similar way.
AbortedWalrusFetus said:
Why is it always the conclusion we should draw from the argument of complexities and models is that the problem is exaggerated? Isnt there just as much room to say the problem is underestimated and could be far worse or severe than anticipated given current technology and understanding?
I mean, maybe its just me, but it seems to be a pretty large leap to jump from identifying climate change as complex and not full proof in terms of modeling to drawing the conclusion that it means everything must be being over-exaggerated.
MrToughPants
Brian Burke punched my mom
It was -44 celcius (-52 windchill) on Tuesday here in Northern Manitoba.
Jonm1010 said:
You're 100% right. The problem is that there are many groups associated with this subject and they could each give you different perspectives on the data - why is it happening this way, what's causing it, etc. and so on. Some are going to put the spin on it that 'this isn't that serious, wait a while, everything will be fine,' while others will talk about the end of the damn world. My point is that these conflicting interests are seriously mitigating any chance for whatever is really happening to be understood; experts are on both sides, or even their own sides, and there's a lot of money going around to justify one side over another.
But just as you said: It could be exaggerated or it might be far worse than we're hearing. Whatever the case, it's difficult to say. All the same, we should take steps to curb whatever effects we're having on the environment - not merely for this issue but for overall health concerns.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
I noticed that for the republicans it started going up in 2001 and climbed every year. damn, the bush years really messed up the repubs.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
Jonm1010 said:
I didn't mean to say that the conclusion that should be drawn because the problem is complex is that it is exaggerated. To me they are two divergent issues. The problem is exaggerated based on other factors such as its portrayal, the political stances taken on it, the policies that have been enacted, climate history, and other factors. I didn't make the separation of the two clear enough in my post. The point I was making was two fold--it's too complex a problem to understand currently, and it's also exaggerated in terms of potential impact, especially given how little we know about it.
needlesmcgirk
Member
So you're making the claim that you're an IDIOT if you believe that the media exaggerates global warming. Very objective.
But again, why is the conclusion you draw that it is exaggerated to one extreme and instead isnt being under estimated? Given the same broad argument you just poised I could equally draw the conclusion that it is potentially severely underestimated in terms of impact.AbortedWalrusFetus said:
bggrthnjsus
Member
we probably made a conscious decision to say that after they threatened our beef and soft toilet paper
Panda Bear
Banned
Plus 1 for "real but exaggerated." That's always been my stance. But then again if you don't exaggerate it nothing will change. People will make changes if their lives are effected, few care about the lives of their grandchildren that much though.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I hate this planet and the people that inhabit it. I can't wait for the day that I get to leave.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Climate change is real, and it's a real problem going into the future. There is a natural cycle of climate, but human emissions cause a huge imbalance in the system. Whether that will lead to global warming or global cooling is a very hard notion to predict, but regardless of the end result, causing imbalance in an already complex and delicate system is something that we should try to avoid as much as possible. It's not possible to cut emissions completely, but we can certainly do our best to alleviate human encroachment. Simply put, reducing carbon emissions are of paramount importance. We wouldn't, ourselves, be around to experience the brunt of the climate change, but our children and our children's children will be here to deal with the end result. If we have any concern for the future, we must address these issues today.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
Jonm1010 said:
In my opinion? It's exaggerated because the climate has gone through incredible cycles in the past without an anthropogenic cause and the earth came out ok. To be alarmist about this and say the threat is underestimated goes against the actual historical data we have. There is a historical basis for this sort of thing, and until we can determine that this is anything out of the ordinary for sure I'm not going to say it's under-estimated. It would be equivalent to saying to myself "It could be that I will die today" and then living in fear of dying the rest of my life, when I have no good reason to believe that I will die today. Perhaps if you were a pessimist you'd default to the "oh no the world is going to end" view, but rationally I can't subscribe to that, and because of that I say the threat is exaggerated. The difference here is that I'd have actual factual backdrop with which to compare my side of the stance.
diffusionx
Gold Member
We just came off, or are coming off, a very cold and long winter. It was brutal in the Pacific Northwest, the Mideast, the South to some extent, and the Northeast. Much worse than the past few years, which have been very mild. So I can see why people have that attitude right now.
The winter is a bad time to poll people on this topic. Either its cold (like this year), so its not a problem, or its like 50-60 degrees in the middle of January, which is awesome, so people are like, "wow I'll take some of that global warming". Run a poll in July when its 100 degrees+ and humid as fuck and people will be "omg carbon tax nowwwwwww". Bottom line, most people can't see past their nose.
The winter is a bad time to poll people on this topic. Either its cold (like this year), so its not a problem, or its like 50-60 degrees in the middle of January, which is awesome, so people are like, "wow I'll take some of that global warming". Run a poll in July when its 100 degrees+ and humid as fuck and people will be "omg carbon tax nowwwwwww". Bottom line, most people can't see past their nose.
We think too much for now. But that might get usefull at some point. At least it helps pushing studies toward climate questions and might make us discover stuff that could be useuful in some future.
Right now I said we should just care about cleaning our bullshit, getting the less damaging as possible for the envirronement and we should be fine.
.
Right now I said we should just care about cleaning our bullshit, getting the less damaging as possible for the envirronement and we should be fine.
.
Mother Earth will be just fine with or without us. "Global Warming" as a term should be changed to "Worried of Death" because we're not worried about the environment. This planet's environment has seen harshier times than we could ever put it through. No, we're just "worried" (I guess...a lot of money in pushing global warming...) about killing ourselves but just slapped a friendly phrase on it.
Well most of the top scientists that dispute global warming used to work for the tobacco companies -so draw your own conclusions from that. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND this canuck documentary- it will blow your mind.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/
- Status