The question should really be
how many scientists believe it is driven by natural causes?
I would guess that there is a worrying disconnect in those figures.
Fewer Britons than ever support the proposition that global warming is caused by human-driven CO2 emissions, according to the latest survey. Some 48 per cent of Britons now agree with the suggestion that warming could be "mostly natural" and that the idea of it being human-caused has yet to be proven. By comparison only 43 per …
how many scientists believe it is driven by natural causes?
I would guess that there is a worrying disconnect in those figures.
How on earth would you get that information? The press in general frequently misrepresent science (e.g. Faster than light neutrinos mean physics is broken).
There are scientists who are sceptics, but it's a hostile world for them. Any scientist doing something separate isn't going to want to stick their head over the top and upset they're funding. You only have to look at Marcus Brigstock's rhetoric to realise that it's a middle class social faux pas to challenge man made climate change theory and it's consequences.
Challenging theories is the basis of science. It makes it particularly alarming to hear people condemning intelligent and well reasoned challenge against man made global warming.
"Challenging theories is the basis of science. "
Lucky then that climate change is a religion. Hopefully they'll have taken account of that at the next census.
"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."
No, the question really should be "since the only opinion of importance is what the government bureaucracy believes, what fool thinks that the opinion of voters and citizens matter at all?"
If there are huge grants for proving a human element in climate change, then there will be many scientists who believe it is man made. If there are huge grants for proving it is natural, then there will be many scientists who believe it is not man made. So aking a scientist if he believes climate change is man made is much like asking a prostitute if she likes you.
once again climate 'scientists' 97 % ...real scientists 0%
Good job then that grants aren't predicated on the result of a study.
That was covered in a Reg article last month.
The social scientists say real scientist are more skeptical than the general population.
The social scientists figure that is a problem, but that is how we real scientists and engineers are trained to be, that is how real science works.
Seem's to me if climate change is human caused than the Over-Breeding 3rd World Planet Eaters should be held responsible for most of it & not given a "Free Pass". Oh my the Politicaly Correct halfwit's will be after me now!
Creationism is on the rise, due to evangelical churches preying on the poorly-educated.
What amazes me is the picking-and-choosing on sites like this when it comes to _which_ bits of scientific consensus to ignore.
Is it? Or is it retreating to become an increasing noisy but irrelevant minority?
My guess is that a couple of generations ago anyone with strong creationist beliefs would just have kept their mouth shut. Not because they felt oppressed or embarrassed, but simply because it wasn't a matter for public debate.
Since then we've had a number of cases where creationists have tried to force their views into school biology lessons. Their successes are always short-lived. As soon as "normal" people notice what has happened, the creationists find themselves being voted off school boards and losing in court.
"Creationism is on the rise"
So is hollow earth, 2012 apocalypse and any other nutcase idea that David Icke might be promoting.
Just because the internet has allowed these nut jobs to mutually reinforce their delusions doesn't mean anything to rational sphere living, sun orbiting, 2013 holiday planing normality.
No, some of us are actually highly educated and our view is that science and creationism can coexist. Science increasingly proves the existence of a creative force, but some people choose to draw other, irrational conclusions, but each to his own.
scientific consensus should be ignored. That's politics, not hard science.
"Also, creationism is on the rise, due to evangelical churches preying on the poorly-educated."
Well how's the "sociology of science", the "sociology of knowledge", post-modernism, and belief in "The Singularity" doing?
There's a suitable kind of ignorance for every social, ethnic, and economic class, educational level, political persuasion, and personality structure, but between creationism vs the belief systems I've mentioned above, which is, in your opinion, more pernicious and has more deleterious social consequences?
"No, some of us are actually highly educated and our view is that science and creationism can coexist. Science increasingly proves the existence of a creative force, but some people choose to draw other, irrational conclusions, but each to his own."
And here you are wrong unfortunately. Believing in a god is not, in it's basis compatible with science.
The biggest and most sacrosanct question in science is: Why? (Or alternatively: "how the bleeping explative does that work?"). A scientist will always keep asking that question. No matter how well we understand the world and the universe we live in, there will be some edge were things are blurry, where we can't explain things. An edge where a scientist comes along and things: Wait, why is that?
Believing in a god means that at some point you feel you no longer need to ask that question. At some point you decide that you don't need to find an explanation, you simply accept (a) God did it. THAT is why science and religion, in their basis are not compatible. Science CANNOT prove a creative force and there is NO evidence to even begin to suggest there could be a "design" to the universe.
As a final note I will say this: I was raised as a Catholic. While I no longer attend a church and I no longer agree with the doctrine or dogma of the Roman Catholic Church I still believe in a god. A belief stemming from the more illogical and feeling based part of my brain, and a believe that I cannot explain rationally. It's probably a remnant of my upbringing.
I support everyone's right to their own religion and their religious freedom, but I believe religion should NOT be involved in schools. Teaching creationism to children is cutting it awful close to religious indoctrination on young and impressionable minds. Religion has no place in education. It doesn't add anything but could arguably get very much in the way
On the subject of evolution v creationism, I have a question about evolution for the well-informed reg readership if anyone is reading this.....
If a species by definition cannot reproduce with other species, and it takes 1 male + 1 female of the same species to reproduce, how do new species come into existence and preserve themselves?
I thought evolutionary theory implies that changes in DNA occur due to random mutations, and that very occasionally that random mutation would create a new species that can't reproduce with it's parent species.
Therefore, to create new species, the same very improbable mutation has to occur in both a male and female offspring living in the same vicinity and same lifetime. How likely is that?
The scientific process have discovered and improved our understanding of so many things. How can you dismiss this process when the very device you are using to write your message on is as a result of science?
Just because climate change in inconvenient to capitalism and people who want to drive V12 Jags doesn't mean it is all rubbish.
There's been a lot of insane weather in this country and around the world recently. The UK climate is changing, a perfect example of that is the huge rise in ticks (blood sucking parasites) that attack themselves to dogs, horses and even people.
(Note, I'm not a biologist, the following is my understanding of the biology of evolution)
You are correct that the basic definition of one species turning into a new one "requires" that the new species can't reproduce with the parent species.
Your confusion stems from how fast this process happens (or rather how slowly). No single mutation is going to produce an entirely new species.
I'll give an example to explain a bit: I have a colony of lizards living on a very large island, currently connected to the mainland via a land bridge. At some point, due to an earthquacke, rising sea-level, asteroid of doom, whatever, this landbridge disappears. The lizards on the island can no longer visit the mainland to reproduce with their species their and can now only reproduce amongst themselves.
Due to the island now being an actual island, the conditions gradually change. Some mutations amongst the lizards mean those adapted to the new conditions thrive, while the "old design" dies out. At this point the lizards from the mainland and the island can still reproduce but fertility would already be affected. This mutation and adoption to the environment then goes on. Over time the Island Lizard has changed so much it can no longer mate with the species on the mainland. They have thus become a new species. When that cut-off for "now it's a new species" is, is a bit of a gray area and hard to define, although I'm sure the biologists have a proper definition on paper somewhere.
So the basic premise is not that a single mutation creates a new species. Its a whole series of beneficial mutations in a mostly separated community adapting to a changing or different environment.
If you are genuine, then there are lots of resources on the web that explain how all this works in endless detail. Start with Wikipedia, but I have found Dawkin's books like the Selfish Gene very good, (although he can be a little pit-bullish against Creationist's, he does do a good job of explaining clearly how we know evolution is a fact and how it all works). There is also the rather good book, a little old now but a classic called 'Origin of Species'
To your question:
"If a species by definition cannot reproduce with other species, and it takes 1 male + 1 female of the same species to reproduce, how do new species come into existence and preserve themselves?"
First up species is not a very clear term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
1) You may have missed that many species of life are asexual. Virus's for instance reproduce and mutate without sex, so we get new variations of the flu most years.
2) You don't create a new ‘species’ with one mutation overnight.
It is interesting to look an example of a highly visible mutation like that of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphynx_(cat) . These cases are relative rare as in the wild such a radical mutation would normally be expected to kill off the individual animals quickly. It is however possible that the individual animals (like this litter of cats) could have (and in fact did), survive and pass on the mutant gene by breeding with others in the population. A hairless cat breeding with ‘normal’ cats, would still produce some hairless kittens, in the same way that red-heads don’t have to breed with other red-heads to produce more gingers. If there was an advantage (or simply not a disadvantage), then the gene will continue on in the population.
Just needs Dr Evil (Larry?) to take a family of these cats to an isolated bunker for a few thousand generations and they might diverge enough from the main population of cats to become not just a new breed, but a new species of evil cat overlords.
Much more typically, you get tiny amounts of genetic variation that is selected for over time. An artificially accelerated case would be dogs breeds. They come in a range of sizes and skin colours as a result of gene expression, even within breeds. They all carry genes that produce the odd mutation (i.e. dwarf’s, albino’s) but most of the differences between breeds are because environmental factors (mainly dog breeders) _select_ characteristics, so over time you get large and small dog breeds, pure white dogs or red shaggy coats etc.
Domestic dog breeds can still interbreed (though good luck on a male Chihuahua trying to shag a female Great Dane), and can even be interbreed with wolves, but probably have accumulated enough genetic variation over time to be considered as a separate species to foxes, jackals, coyotes with which they share a common ancestor (I assume dogs can’t interbreed with foxes.. not sure about jackals and coyotes).
Point is there is no ‘new species’ of animal like a dog breed that pops up overnight and suddenly can’t interbreed with any of its parent species – as you say, that would die off. But you can and do get separate populations of animals like Chimpanzee’s and humans that share a common ancestor but can’t interbreed. Not that people don’t still try it on of course.. <yeek at that mental thought>
Gets way more complex when you start looking at details.. but there is no chicken and egg problem like your query suggests,
A good example of this is so-called Ring species. For example, in the Eastern Atlantic region there are two types of gulls, from memory these may be Black Backed and Herring gulls. Here they are two species that cannot interbreed.
However, as the species changes with longitudinal distribution, by the time we get to the Bering Sea/North Pacific, they have become a single species again.
The problem with your question is that you are considering 'species' as an immutable division in time and space.
No a single random mutation will not create a new species.
That's the accumulation of a lot of mutations selected by environmental pressure other the course of thousands of generations. If an existing species is separated in two groups with two different environments, they will evolve independently up to the point of being considered different species.
Note that the loss of the interbred capability is not necessarily mandatory and could be retained. A good exemple is the domestic and savage animals like boar/pigs or wolves/dogs who even with more than several thousands generations of selective pressure for traits not existing in the wild are still capable of breeding together.
How does science increasingly show there is a creative force?
I do not believe any specific aspect of genuine scientific research either shows this or even has any meaningful way to attempt to.
Belief is seductive, it has to be, it is an emergent property of brain architecture and is necessary for us to operate. If we could not believe and connect up possible cause and effect, we couldn't learn. The flip side is we have the ability to learn and believe harmful or nonsensical ideas. Also, we are influenceable, we have to be, for social cohesion.
Hate the metaphor, but computer design means viruses can exist. Cell biology means viruses can exist. Mental base structures means memes can exist, these can be hooked easily into multiple levels of mental machinery including emotional ones. Making such ideas a potential part of identity, therefore an attack on these can be felt as an attack on the self.
Climate change was pushed as a real scenario, in panic and emotion much more than pure science. As such it has the duel evil of a cult like emotional hook and an apparent scientific reality. Faced with that, it is no wonder that it became a foundation of a scientific religion deep enough to effect politics.
James Lovelock admitted he was alarmist. What he forgot to add is emotion and cult tactics are best sellers.
Non of this disproves any real science here. Though I do believe our own sun will effect us far more deeply than nearly anything we can do. Except maybe nuclear war.
"Creationism is on the rise, due to evangelical churches preying on the poorly-educated."
Oh....I thought they said "praying". Now I get it.
(A denizen of SW19?)
Sorry, mate, the 2012 apocalypse has been deferred - recent discovery of a different Mayan calendar has scotched the 2012 "not with a bang but a whimper" exeunt omnes.
Tickets for the 2016 Olympics in the pocket.
"And here you are wrong unfortunately. Believing in a god is not, in it's basis compatible with science."
Science is the study of the natural (and observable) universe. As the concept of God is supernatural, the two concepts are orthagonal, and so one cannot preclude the other. It is not possible to make any correlations between the two, but they can certainly be studied individually. There are many such "incompatible" fields of study, for example music and painting.
One can be highly educated and believe in garbage. 20 years of learning dogma does not produce a scientist.
You are wrong that science is limited to the natural universe. Science isn't even a THING the way you seem to think of it. It's not a specific field of research or something. Science is a method to understand the world around us. Science is HOW we study both our universe and any theoretical universe or entity we can think of. It means we obtaining repeatable results, that can be independently verified, or at the very least obtaining some sort of evidence that can be verified as being correct.
All this includes the study and understanding of "the supernatural". (For which by the way there is no evidence of it's existence)
music and painting are not even close to being "incompatible" fields of study. When taking a scientific approach there are so many things that can be studied about their relation, their creation, their impact on us humans, the creative process, the underlying social issues, etc, etc, etc.
God does not fall outside of science. Nothing you can think of can not be approached in a scientific manner. And that's why there can't BE a correlation between science and the concept of God. Because one is a a method, the other is a thing. Things can be studied through science!
Natural selection acts on *populations*, not on individuals.
Keep that in mind and everything falls into place. Please also disregard the stupidly named "Darwin Awards" when trying to understand how evolution works, because that is about individual misadventure. Genetics have very little to do with that.
The idea of a species is, as you note, a matter of definition. If two populations of living things cannot interbreed, then by definition, they belong to different species. But reality is not so clear cut - there can be considerable variety even within a species. The scenario you present where an individual of an entirely new species suddeny appears (and cannot find a viable mate to continue the line) is very unlikely.
Speciation is a gradual process. Populations diverge over time, accumulating differences through mutation or selection until a point is crossed where they cannot interbreed any more due to those differences. Even then there can be a fuzzy borderline where organisms from divergent populations can, in principle, mate and conceive and produce offspring, though this offspring may be unviable, or unable to produce further offspring itself.
Sort of right, but it's simpler than that. If there was a being that was all-powerful and completely detached from our universe then it wouldn't be covered by science. There would be no reason for us to know about it. The real problem is, that as soon as such a being interacts with our universe it becomes measurable. So if there are claims of a god creating our universe, or taking part in miracles, or helping an army win a battle, or listening to prayer, or, say, sending his only son to die for us on a cross and satisfy a rather strange conception of justice (especially for an all-powerful, all-merciful being), then that god is measurable, or, at the very least, his actions are. Up until now, there has been nothing to suggest any divine intervention, so yes, your god may exist, and may be unmeasurable and unexplainable by science, but if he is, he's not the god of any major religion (close to Deism, but even then...).
Science does point to a cause for creation, very much like seeing a fried egg points to some frying event, however, just as I don't attribute a fried breakfast to god (rather to myself or my wife), I see no reason to attribute the creation event to your god, unless you decide to take a religious text as your evidence. In that case, why not just start praising Xenu?
That only -
"21% of Americans (+1), 22% of Britons (+1) and 14% of Canadians (=) think global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven"
So reality seems at least to have impinged on the general herd to some extent, in that only around a fifth of people in the US and the UK flat out deny it's happening.
I'm also amused that you think it's meaningful that a large proportion of people don't want to hamper the economy right now. You know, in the midst of the global financial clusterf*** we're currently sitting in. Frankly if 43% of Brits say they would be willing to hamper economic growth for the environment it's something of a miracle.
Also please note that they said they were willing to hamper growth, not get poorer. Your agenda is showing again, might want to pull those trousers back up a touch.
It's the Anthropogenic aspect people are questioning, I don't think anyone questions some natural cycle may be taking place.
Maybe they don't question that it's taking place *any more*. That is amazing progress, IMHO.
Maybe now we can move on one stage in the discussions about what might be causing this, and what (if anything) is the appropriate action to take. One tiny step away from the morons/paid shills bellowing about how it's all a lie is one positive move in my book.
Of course I don't believe for a second that humanity thinks long-term enough to void making life on this planet very difficult for itself in coming years. I think we'd rather bicker than deal with even clear and present danger, let alone nuanced evidence about our current polluting activities having a downside for future generations.
Still, no sense worrying really, because you can't change people.
Perhaps it's not the science and media coverage that is causing the scepticism. Whether or not they believe in AGW, I think many people are sceptical of the so-called solutions being put forward to combat it. There's a whiff of governments simply using it as an excuse for more tax revenue, and companies using it as an excuse for higher prices.
Although I am convinced that global warming is occuring and it seems likely that it is at least partially man-made, I remain utterly unconvinced that any of the government taxation strategies brought in on the back of this are at all related to resolving it.
In particular, the escalation of fuel duty over the last 10 years (and the carbon output related car tax rises) is in no way related to government spending on any measures to reduce or mitigate any causes of AGW.
I would be more convinced if all the fuel tax supposedly brought in to combat this were put into a separate fund which could only be spent on strategies to reduce CO2 production (e.g. research into alternative energies, rolling out chraging infrastructure or hydrogen fuel stations etc.).
I suspect that many others share this opinion and it is this, rather than any revolutionary new evidence to prove/disprove AGW, that drives this shift of opinion.
It's another stock market where traders and middle men line their pockets. Zero change in carbon produced.
Even had some ass come to my house trying to get me to buy carbon offsets to make my home "carbon neutral". I told them to piss off, I'd be better off spending the money on weather stripping or some new windows. Something that might actually reduce energy use.
If we accept the premises of:
1) Climate change due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is true
2) Said climate change will have disastrous results.
3) We must do everything in our power to change this
(which seems to be the assumptions "they" want us to hold)
Then logically, it seems to me that we should see "them" out there chanting
WHAT DO WE WANT? NUKES!
WHEN DO WE WANT THEM? NOW!
But since I don't see the (for want of a less emotionally charged term) "pro-global-warming" crowd doing that, it causes me to question the validity of the premises (or at least question if the "pro-global-warming" crowd truly holds those premises to be true).
These aren't really the same things. For example I am skeptical about AGW (please don't mod me up OR down just because you've found someone who you think falls into your ally / enemy camp - very few of us actually know enough about the climate to legtimiately claim to have an informed opinion). And yet even though I'm a skeptic of AGW, I am still believe we need to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. I still think we need to stop mass-deforestation. I still think better energy-efficiency through technology are good things. Why? Because there are reasons that have nothing to do with CO2 for supporting these. The best thing we could do for ourselves right now is a major shift to nuclear power. Cheap (at least compared to e.g. wind-power), long-term reserves are available, safe and doesn't lead us to prop up nasty little Middle Eastern dictators or bomb Lybians.
Basically, just a plea not to equate skeptic with someone who wants to burn the world. A lot of us care very much about the environment, we're just not convinced we should be peppering Britain with Wind Farms or fully persuaded that we now understand the complexities of Climate.
Actually nuclear power is quite costly with subsidies excluded - wind is actually marginally cheaper* . HOWEVER one of the reasons for this is lack of investment in new nuclear technology. Older reactors are more costly to run, and less nuclear power in the last 20 years means losing out on economies of scale. And wind is probably more expensive than the study suggests** . But even discounting the 'cheap' advantage, I think it's worth it to pay a bit more for power when considering the other advantages (limited supply of fossil fuels, political instability in fossil fuel producers, less direct pollution or particulate pollution, reliability of supply etc)
*US-based study of historical costs per kW of installed power
** Since the study is looking at historic costs it will take into account existing wind farms that naturally get built in the best locations both in terms of power produced and required cost (including transmission costs). So large-scale wind would be more expensive
Nuclear power???? No, seriously? Another one, what an idiocracy!
Icon because, well nuclear ...
Yes, Nuclear power. In terms of lives lost one of the safest power sources we know.
Fukushima is no big deal. It's our generations Three Mile Island. It's not going to have a lasting impact on the environment. (ie. Core meltdown, some fast decaying nuclear materials released posing very little to no danger to the environment, no actual impact on the environment anywhere but hyped by media to be the next Armageddon)
Chernobyl was a while different incident and has nothing to do with nuclear power per sé. It was a bodged experiment by unqualified personnel unaware of the reactors peculiarities performed outside the parameters set in advance for said experiment and then executed very poorly, leading to the core boiling dry and melting down then causing a hydrogen explosion, spreading radioactive graphite and fission-byproducts for miles around. After which the cleanup was slow and ineffective due to a lack of central control. But even then the actual impact on the populace in terms of radiation exposure is often overstated to say the least.
Also, I don't see what Tepco losing money has to do with anything. They just lost 4 very expensive nuclear reactors, incured massive damage at other plants (including Fukushima Dainii) and had to import a shit-ton of extra fuel to power their conventional power stations to keep up with power demands. So is it really all that surprising they ran a loss? The cleanup costs mentioned there are NOT JUST for cleaning up "radioactive fallout". (Which is negligible to begin with, the Japanese government is pulling a NRC, being as paranoid as they can be, forcing Tepco to clean up "hotspots" that can't really even be classified as a bit radioactive and for which the source is probably not even their reactor) Those cleanup costs also include the thousands of tons of mud and debris washed ashore and the damage done by the tsunami. Which, you might have chosen to ignore, did a LOT more damage than the whole Fukushima meltdown will ever do.
"It would seem that the more people hear the arguments and study the policies, the less they like them."
I really doubt that the average person has studied anything.
It all just seems like two hideously biased entrenched positions hurling predictions of economic / social / environmental doom around and trying to grab followers wherever and however they can.
If you look at the survey http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012.06.27_Climate.pdf
43% think "Global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities"
27% think "Global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by natural changes"
21% think "Global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven"
You really can't add the last 2 percentages together to make your article look better.
I noticed the suspiciously specific phrasing in the article too.
Presumably "You can download the PDF, with results and methodology, here" is short for "You can download the PDF, with results and methodology, here, but we assume you won't bother, and we will get away with misrepresenting the results"
It's amazing what you can achieve. I hope you're feeling pleased with yourself.
Politicians seems to have lost any ability to make themselves believed at all. Don'y know if it's just my impression but it seems to me that they are held in greater general contempt than ever before. The coincidence of recession, fiddling MPs, an ongoing state of security panic and giving lots of tax money to bankers may have something to do with this.
If you want to recruit someone to your point of view you best not get too many politicians on board.
Just because the majority of the (uninformed and unqualified) public believe something to be true, doesn't make it so. The real world doesn't work like that - although I wouldn't be surprised to hear that most people think it should, and thus it shall be.
Just like we can't hold a referendum and vote away inflation, recession or other economic woes (and denying evolution doesn't make it stop - except among the deniers).
So it doesn't really matter what the majority of people think, hope or wish for. Science will still go on according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. The world will continue in its orbit as described by the Laws of Kepler and Einstein and politicians will still appeal to peoples' vanity by telling them that who they vote for will make a difference. All we can do is work out what the hell is ACTUALLY happening and use the best judgement of the small number of independent, yet qualified, souls to consider if anything can or should be done about it.
Que cera cera