Article

2012-06-02 Science & Technology

Official: the more scientifically illiterate you are, the more you believe in 'climate change'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2012-06-02 05:30|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 I wonder how many people realize that virtually all eXcel spreadsheets are "computer models"?

Wonder how much that knowledge would change the perception of their worth as evidence in arguments?

Posted by AlanC 2012-06-02 09:17|| 2012-06-02 09:17|| Front Page Top

#2 This does not surprise me. Being a chemist, I work with and know many scientists. I also know many people who are not scientists. The scientists are much better at discerning the difference between ideas that have merit based on their understanding of the natural world (as well as discussing such idea in a logical and sensible manner), and ideas that are political tripe.

Posted by Chemist 2012-06-02 13:54|| 2012-06-02 13:54|| Front Page Top

#3 Ever put an ice cube into a glass of water? What happens when it melts? Yeahhh.

Posted by newc 2012-06-02 14:46|| 2012-06-02 14:46|| Front Page Top

#4 As a former Meteorologist I must be the exception. However, I have to admit the Glaciers in Yosemite melted and left that ugly Valley. Also we got stuck with five big lakes in the upper Midwest as the glaciers receded into Canada.

Follow the money, there is none to be made disproving Man Made Global Warming. However, if you can find a malformed needle at the end of a branch of a Sequoia Gigantea and theoretically tie it to global warming you are rewarded.

The Earth warms and cools on it's own, it's a micro event that happens every 24 hours. A lot has to do with that great big flaming thing in the sky which oddly enough goes through cycles over decades and/or centuries.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2012-06-02 16:02|| 2012-06-02 16:02|| Front Page Top

#5 To me, the debate over global warming goes like this:
1. Is global warming actually happening?
2. If the answer to number 1 is yes, is it caused by CO2 in the atmosphere?
3. If the answers to 1 and 2 are yes, is the excess CO2 caused by humans?
4. If the answers to 1, 2 and 3 are yes, is there anything we can do to cut CO2 enough to make a difference?

The answer to number 1 is apparently yes. However, we are coming out of a mini ice age, so it is to be expected.
For number 2, there is much more debate. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, roughly 0.034% by volume. Water vapor is also a significant "greenhouse gas", and constitutes 0.4%.
For number 3, there is even more debate. Humans produce a lot of carbon dioxide, but so do volcanoes and other natural phenomena. Also, the oceans and trees are carbon sinks, so CO2 that goes into the atmosphere doesn't stay there forever.
And question 4 is the $64,000,000,000 question. We could significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 IF we all lived like people in North Korea - in the dark and on the verge of starvation, AND we somehow reduced the population of the world by 50 or 90 per cent.

All of this is based on the assumption that global warming is a bad thing. As GBUSMC pointed out, every bad thing is blamed on global warming. See John Brignell's warmlist.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2012-06-02 16:30|| 2012-06-02 16:30|| Front Page Top

#6 The difference is possibly due to the fact that enineers and "pure" scientists are taught the scientific method, Which requires that experimental data be replicable. And so when The Manns of the world refuse to share their data, they are usually dismissed as quacks, as they should be.

Posted by Flineting Big Foot2500 2012-06-02 17:16|| 2012-06-02 17:16|| Front Page Top

#7 And so when The Manns of the world refuse to share their data

That right there is enough to flunk you out of high school chemistry.

Any time someone is trying to sell you something and won't show you the numbers, it's probably something you shouldn't oughta buy.

Posted by SteveS 2012-06-02 21:01|| 2012-06-02 21:01|| Front Page Top

#8 Rambler in Virginia, I believe we could cut down CO2 production by going nuclear all around, it might take time but we'd then have lots of cheap power, but the environmentalists refuse to do so, a stance which puts their beliefs into serious doubts.

Posted by rjschwarz 2012-06-02 21:23|| 2012-06-02 21:23|| Front Page Top

#9 There is already a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbing the stuff it absorbs. Adding a little more is not going to change much, since once everything CO2 can absorb is absorbed more of it makes no difference.

However, chlorofluorocarbons, absorb stuff in all kinds of funky places. Fortunately, the world's leaders did understand that problem and ban the things a few decades ago, and now they are decaying out of the atmosphere.

Surprisingly, there has been little noticeable warming over the past decade even as the amount of CO2 has increased.

Posted by rammer 2012-06-02 21:32|| 2012-06-02 21:32|| Front Page Top

23:39 JosephMendiola
23:34 Water Modem
23:26 JosephMendiola
23:18 JosephMendiola
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:46 JosephMendiola
22:42 JosephMendiola
22:27 JosephMendiola
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:04 JosephMendiola
21:48 Wholush Whomoger5941
21:41 Bobby in Illinois
21:32 rammer
21:23 rjschwarz
21:20 rammer
21:01 SteveS
20:41 DarthVader
20:30 bigjim-CA
20:22 bigjim-CA
20:17 bigjim-CA
20:12 gorb
20:05 gorb
20:05 Frank G
20:04 gorb