back to article Most Americans doubt Big Bang, not too sure about evolution, climate change – survey

A recent poll brings bad news for those who trust in scientific consensus: over half of Americans doubt the Big Bang theory of the inception of the universe, and about four out of ten doubt evolution, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that humans exacerbate global warming, despite overwhelming evidence for all four …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. ecofeco Silver badge

    Breaking News!!

    Most Americans are stupid. Scientists unsure why. Congress vows to study the matter. Business leaders say educated workforce "too expensive and waste of time" and "would cost consumers in the long run due to associated costs having to be passed along." Supreme Court rules corporations more human than humans and deserve more rights.

    This story when we come from the break.

    "BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!"

    1. edge_e
      Boffin

      Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

      Yeah, just don't put it on your plants.

      What I really want to know though is:-

      Are stupid people more likely to be religious or does religion make you stupid?

      1. GBE

        Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

        > Are stupid people more likely to be religious.

        I think it's been shown repeatedly in studies that less educated people are more likely to be religious, and more educated people are less likely to be religious. Which is the cause and which the effect? Or are both effects of something else?

        Personally, I think it's a gubmint plot: the flouride in the water is making people both stupid and religious (that way it's easier to control them using the mind-control rays transmitted by mobile phone towers).

        I think it might also explain Fox News.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

          You forgot the Joke Alert icon ...

          1. John Tserkezis

            Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

            "You forgot the Joke Alert icon ..."

            It's not a joke, that's what makes it scary.

            1. Robert Helpmann?? Silver badge
              Childcatcher

              Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

              It's not a joke, that's what makes it scary.

              Tell the joke. Be the joke. Poe-tay-toe. Poe-tah-toe. The results of this survey come across in the same vein as "Is fire hot? Dirt dirty? Pope Catholic?" to me. One obvious course of action this study points toward is to increase the overall education level of our population. Unfortunately, this is controlled mostly at the state and local level and the groups that would most benefit from better education are most resistant to funding it. Reminds me of a quote:

              Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not...

        2. P. Lee Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

          Ok, I'm curious - is the lack of religious belief in educated people confined to those in areas which traditionally conflict with religion?

          I could be very well educated in 16th Century Icelandic literature. That in no way is going to allow me to ascertain the veracity of scientific progress or the claims of many religions. Essentially, then, I'm educated but my faith in science is blind, since I'm not equipped to understand it and my knowledge of religion probably equally lacking.

          Is the rejection of the supernatural merely a cultural convention which happens to be present in the educational system which educated people pass through at an impressionable age and therefore acquire?

          There is a touching belief in these forums that it this is cause and effect rather than merely correlation.

          1. h4rm0ny
            Thumb Up

            Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

            >>"Ok, I'm curious - is the lack of religious belief in educated people confined to those in areas which traditionally conflict with religion?"

            That is a VERY GOOD QUESTION. It is good because it is one tool we can use to help tease apart correlation and causation in the subject of religion and lack of / inaccurate knowledge.

            I would say anecdotally that it often is the case, but I wouldn't want any weight attributed to that. I'd be very interested to know the answer to your question.

          2. gzuckier

            Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

            Despite the fundamentalists' (again false) belief that they represent traditional religion, it is only the religion of the Dark Ages in Europe which they represent.

            More often, traditionally, science and religion did not clash; to the scientists of the Enlightenment, Newton for example, scientific study and discoveries were another form of worship; unfortunately, I can't remember which one it was who said that nature provided another Testament, the language of which was mathematics.

            And even before that, while Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Islamic world unequivocally tied science to the glory of God, and the foremost Jewish thinker of the post-Talmudic era, Maimonides, around 1100 used as a starting point the assumption that to use scripture to try to refute either the teachings of science, or common sense, was a grievous error.

            The fundamentalists of today, no matter what particular religion they espouse, all share intellectual laziness or incompetence, the very opposite of what the great figures in religion historically represented.

        3. wolf359

          Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

          So what of people who are both? Stupidity is discounting something without doing any research. If the "more educated" were to put as much effort into reading the Bible and understanding it (googling it doesn't count), as they do reading scientific journals, this discussion would be much different. Whether the universe came from a singularity or is the result of 2 branes touching we will never know, so it is just as valid to say that a Creator was involved. As far as evolution goes, I don't see how someone could not believe in natural selection....however, the bigger question is how life began. That, no one can explain and the odds of it are so astronomical as to make it impossible. So again, it is valid to say that a Creator could have been involved. Lastly, as far as global warming is concerned.....there was a heck of a lot of warming going on at the end of the last ice age....and since I am pretty sure that neanderthals weren't using coal fueled power plants and driving SUV's, so I have to assume that global warming is a normal cycle and that we are still in an interglacial period and still warming. Back to my original point, if you don't know both sides of an issue, you have no right to discount the other.

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

            >>"Whether the universe came from a singularity or is the result of 2 branes touching we will never know, so it is just as valid to say that a Creator was involved."

            We don't know what we'll never know.

      2. Someone Else Silver badge

        @ edge_e -- Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

        What I really want to know though is:-

        Are stupid people more likely to be religious or does religion make you stupid?

        Yes. Next question?

      3. John Tserkezis

        Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

        "Are stupid people more likely to be religious or does religion make you stupid?"

        Really interesting question, but after reading Freakenomics, I'm inclied to say "neither". Religion is probably the effect, rather than the cause.

        This is in strong contrast to my thinking that only nutcases believe in religion, but this clearly isn't true, as much as I would like to think it is.

        Forward thinkers separate the religion and science. And they CAN be separated, but in general - they aren't. Why? I'm thinking it's because if you're the non-forward-thinker who's easily swayed by religion, you're much more likely to stick to the documents that haven't changed in eons, rather than have to think for yourself, which is hard.

        Thinking is hard, so why argue with hundreds of year old science that told you that elecrolytes are good?

        1. John Hughes

          Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

          Yes, but it's pretty well established that reading Freakenomics reduces your IQ.

      4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

        "Are stupid people more likely to be religious or does religion make you stupid?"

        Ahh The eternal question.

      5. h4rm0ny

        Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

        Or is there simply a coincidence of social factors. Note also, "stupid" is not a good term in this instance. "Ignorant" is a better term. I know at least one gifted programmer who has some stunning blind-spots when it comes to science (they reject Evolution) and despite the flaws in their starting axioms, will build some staggeringly tall and complex logical arguments to justify their belief. Enough that it takes a pretty skilled and intelligent person to cut through their crap. That's why I favour the term ignorant over stupid. It's far more accurate to what we're talking about.

        So that caveat in, does religion lead one to ignorance or being ignorant lead one to religion? I could see a case for either or both: if you believe you have the answers, or do not wish to contradict an authority, then you do not accept new facts (Evolution contradicts what I've been told so I'll ignore it). Ergo, it can lead to wilful ignorance. If you are already ignorant, you may seek answers and get the wrong ones. Ergo, ignorance can lead to religion (I don't know what causes Thunder so maybe it's Thor's chariot).

        But it's also worth noting that there's a third factor which is common societal factors pushing multiple demographics in the same direction. There have been times historically where particular religions have correlated with the less ignorant sections of society. Power shifts and with it education and opportunity. Being religious does not mean one is stupid OR ignorant necessarily.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

      Re: Breaking News!!

      Funny... but did you see the questions?

      Do you believe that global warming is real? Sure. We have evidence going back millions of years that there is a cycle.

      Do you believe that global warming is man made?

      ("Mostly because of Man Made trapped gasses...")

      Seriously.

      That's the problem.

      Junk Science at work.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: IMG Re: Breaking News!!

        ".....Junk Science at work." Worse, this is deliberately deceitful science. The whole premise is that if you don't believe in AGW then you have to be a God-bothering Reeeepublickin. Nothing displays this more than the flawed conjoining of four completely different arguments and insisting belief in any of them makes all of them undeniable.

        "....and that humans exacerbate global warming, despite overwhelming evidence for all four....." And there is the lie - man-made global warming is not the same as global warming and is there is not 'overwhelming evidence' to support the idea. I have no problem with the scientific arguments for the theories of evolution, the Big Bang, or the age of the Earth, nor do I deny global warming exists (or that we're actually probably heading for an ice age), but to try and pass off the flawed evidence for man-made influence on global warming as proven or undeniable is simply deceitful. But I'm not religious. I also know several Christians that vote Democrat that are also completely sold on the man-made AGW myth, so the 'only religious nuts deny AGW' line is, frankly, wearing a bit thin. The linking of four such disparate scientific theorems is like saying that if you accept evolution, Big Bang theory and the age of the planet then you also have to believe in Klingons - the first three bear no relation on the fourth topic.

        ".....which surveyed 1,012 American adults...." Wow, a thousand out of 350 million! I'd suggest making sweeping generalizations from such a small study group is not just bad science but deliberately bad science. It makes the whole Hockey Stick episode look like a tiny, white lie.

        And then there is the insistence that 'big, bad capitalism' is bankrolling Republican denial, neatly avoiding the money flowing out of the Left (or into the Left in the case of Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' marketing machine). IMHO, the whole articles is just shoddy forum bait.

        1. asdf Silver badge

          Re: IMG Breaking News!!

          >".....which surveyed 1,012 American adults...." Wow, a thousand out of 350 million! I'd suggest making sweeping generalizations from such a small study group

          Wow Matt I didn't know you don't understand the basics of the field of statistics and sampling. 1012 samples will give you a fairly small margin of error even for a population of 300+ million if done correctly. Many political polls that determine where millions should be spent on ads have less samples. The key of course as always with people is getting samples that are not biased in anyway with each other.

          1. Naughtyhorse

            Matt I didn't know you don't understand the basics of the field of statistics...

            I think you will find there is no depth to the trolls ignorance

            1. asdf Silver badge

              Re: Matt I didn't know you don't understand the basics of the field of statistics...

              >I think you will find there is no depth to the trolls ignorance

              Matt I don't think is trolling sadly (actually believes his BS) and I wasn't. I was just trying to explain how amazing the science of statistics is by allowing us to say things about a population we could never study in its entirety otherwise based on a remarkable small sample size if done properly.

          2. plrndl
            Holmes

            Re: IMG Breaking News!!

            @asdf

            Having spent several years in market research, I can tell you emphatically that market research always produces the result desired by the organisation that pays for the research. Companies that do not abide by this simple rule go out of business rapidly.

          3. Benchops

            > have less samples

            Not disagreeing with your sentiment but it's fewer samples

        2. asdf Silver badge

          Re: IMG Breaking News!!

          Gallup by the way for a lot of their polls doesn't use much over a 1000 sample size of people either.

          "with a random sample of 1,026 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

          For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level."

          Good enough for opinion polls.

          1. asdf Silver badge

            Re: IMG Breaking News!!

            Doh right in the article itself.

            which surveyed 1,012 American adults 18 or older in late March, and reports a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 per cent at a 95 per cent confidence level.

            Smaller population size than who Gallup considered I guess due to Gallup having a new better different population estimate.

            1. Getriebe

              Re: IMG Breaking News!!

              "Smaller population size than who Gallup considered I guess due to Gallup having a new better different population estimate."

              Not necessarily

              If you work out your sample error as you go along you can see the error become asymptotic with the error axis and can reasonably decide to not to talk to any more corn feed Iowans

            2. h4rm0ny
              FAIL

              Re: IMG Breaking News!!

              It also attempts to put on an equal footing the mindsets of two different approaches to belief. A Creationist is likely to say that have no doubt at all that the world was made in six days some millennia ago. Someone like myself may well think the Earth could have been formed 4bn years ago, but we're not likely to claim certainty. We're likely to think in terms of "the current evidence we have available suggests this to be the most likely". Ergo, you can't look at the midpoint of the bellcurve of a confidence scale and draw simple conclusions about the portioning of beliefs.

              Real scientists are going to tend toward the middle more than non-scientist because the opposite of "I'm certain X is true" is not "I'm certain X is not true", but rather "I'm not certain".

          2. magnetik

            Re: IMG Breaking News!!

            I personally don't see how that can be considered accurate. Really you're talking about around 20 people representing the views of an entire state (on average). Would you consider a random poll of 20 people in Belgium to represent the views of the Belgians?

            Yes, I know they have the same language, TV etc. but there's still a big diversity in beliefs and lifestyles and so on between states. 20 people per state just doesn't seem enough to me to be statistically relevant.

        3. Leslie Graham

          Re: IMG Breaking News!!

          There is no doubt that the more religious an American is the more likely he is to be a climate change denier.

          There are literaly dozens of surveys which prove this.

          Sure - not *every* climate change denier is a religious whackjob but just about every religious whackjob is a climate change denier.

          And I don't have a dog in this fight - it's just a proven fact.

          And I think you need to read up the definition of a "Representative Sample" before you make any more vacuous remarks about sample size.

          1. Naughtyhorse

            Re: vacuous remarks

            Hey!

            you leave matts first amendment rights alone!

            if he cant be vacuous he'd have to be silent

          2. gzuckier

            Re: IMG Breaking News!!

            "There is no doubt that the more religious an American is the more likely he is to be a climate change denier.

            There are literaly dozens of surveys which prove this."

            Kind of funny; the idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator screwed up on making the climate, but luckily by burning all the fossil fuel we can, a byproduct is that we will improve the climate.

        4. Naughtyhorse

          Re: IMG Breaking News!!

          should you be writing on teh godless intertubes at easter?

          grab a book on statistics and crawl back under that rock

          ahh matt bryant, the touchstone for dumb, should have guessed

          1. Naughtyhorse

            Re: IMG Breaking News!!

            Ahh 2 downvotes.

            I seem to have riled the troll sufficiently for him to use his other account to dv me 2wice.

            if it makes the purple vein in bryants temple go 'blomp blomp blomp' I must be doing something right

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: IMG Breaking News!!

          "there is not 'overwhelming evidence' to support the idea"

          There most certainly is overwhelming and long term observable evidence that global warming itself is happening and that man is at least a partial cause. There is also a high probability approaching 3 sigma that man is the primary cause.

        6. h4rm0ny

          Re: @Matt Bryant

          I find it amusing (and positive) that we are having a furious argument about state religion and ethnic exclusivity on another story, but I agree with everything you write above so much. Voted you up for all the difference it will make in the shower of downvotes. ;)

          >>"Wow Matt I didn't know you don't understand the basics of the field of statistics and sampling. 1012 samples will give you a fairly small margin of error even for a population of 300+ million if done correctly. Many political polls that determine where millions should be spent on ads have less samples. The key of course as always with people is getting samples that are not biased in anyway with each other."

          You can certainly extrapolate from small samples when the data is not Complex. But the demographics of the USA are very much a complex data set. Trying to extrapolate from a dataset which has fewer members than factors you have to control for, is extremely difficult.

          I don't think anyone is saying that the principles of extrapolation are not well-founded. It's a comment that the degree to which they're being taken here is pushing it. I'm not even saying the results are wrong, just that the margin of error here is way too wide to accept this as something other than just being suggestive.

        7. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: IMG Breaking News!!

          and 1... 2... yep, 37% again! damn, that survey is right on the money.

      2. Leslie Graham

        Re: Breaking News!!

        The current rapid warming has got nothing to do with past natural cycles.

        Your's is just another variation on the wearisome "The climate's changed before" (TM) meme.

        Well no **** Sherlock. Who would have thought it?

        And who told you anyway? Oh yeah - those same thousands of climate scientists who are also telling us that the current warming has nothing to do with any natural cycle.

        ALL the natural forcings and cycles are currently in the negative. ALL of them.

        The Milankovitch cycles - both orbital and axia.

        The sun's TSI cycle - now at the lowest for a century and falling since 1950 while temperatures soared.

        The aerosol global dimming - now at it's highest thanks to China and India.

        The PDO - in the negative since 1998.

        Volcanic activity - slightly higher than average - should be having a cooling effect.

        And yet the Earth is still warming with the Arctic and the oceans warming fastest of all.

        In the past every time a Milankovitch Cycle triggered an outgassing of CO2 the Earth warmed.

        Every single time.

        The laws of physics dont care WHERE the extra 40% of heat-trapping gas has come from - they just do their thing anyway.

        CO2 levels rise - the Earth warms.

        Always has - always will.

        If you have a scintilla of evidence of some magical invisible 'natural' forcing cycle that tens of thousands of scientists can't see but - amazingly you can then tell us - WHAT IS IT?

        You could be on for the Nobel Prize and global hero status if you can show us.

        1. Slawek

          Re: Breaking News!!

          " CO2 levels rise - the Earth warms."

          * No, it is Earth warms -> CO2 rises.

          * Computer models used by warmers produce high correlation between the temperature and CO2. The CO2 concentration has been rising very fast in the last 15 years, while the temperature is almost flat.

          * The models do not model clouds and therefore the feedback mechanisms. They are almost always wrong on the warmer side http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

          * Climategate emails showed how any dissent is supressed

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Breaking News!!

            "* Computer models used by warmers produce high correlation between the temperature and CO2. The CO2 concentration has been rising very fast in the last 15 years, while the temperature is almost flat."

            But still within the statistical variation of the previous recorded data - and this doesnt take acccount of higher levels of warming in the arctic - or of the warming of the oceans.

            That global warming continues in the longer term is not realistically in doubt by any respected scientific source.

          2. John Hughes

            Re: Breaking News!!

            Ding! wrong again.

            Earth warms -> CO2 rises -> Earth warms *more*.

            Thank you for playing.

          3. gzuckier

            Re: Breaking News!!

            " CO2 levels rise - the Earth warms."

            * No, it is Earth warms -> CO2 rises."

            Sure, if you ignore the known IR absorption of CO2, and the big dent in the earth's radiated EM energy, right where CO2 absorbs

            http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/nimbus-satellite-emissions-infra-red-earth-petty-6-6.jpg

            https://24.media.tumblr.com/f89a8bab132b46121d5e77089db217ab/tumblr_n11kv8guXp1t4esr2o1_500.jpg,

            and conservation of energy, and the earth's temperature being 33 degrees C warmer than it should be purely from the sun's radiation at this distance (take the moon for example), then sure, the earth wouldn't warm proportional to the log of the CO2 concentration. On the other hand, if you accept all these, and as the earth warms, CO2 rises (which seems to be true), then we are kind of entering a bad period. Much as the Australian colonists experienced, without having to debate whether the number of baby rabbits rose after the number of adults, or was it that the number of adult rabbits rose after the number of babies?

            " Computer models used by warmers produce high correlation between the temperature and CO2. The CO2 concentration has been rising very fast in the last 15 years, while the temperature is almost flat."

            Just like it was almost flat from Jan '70 to Nov '77, Nov '77 to Nov '86, Sep '87 to Nov '96, Mar '97 to Oct '02, and Oct '02 to Dec '11 yet, that didn't seem to signal the end of the 42-year warming trend nearly linear from Jan '70 to Dec '11 (which you need, to explain your "Earth warms -> CO2 rises" and " CO2 concentration has been rising very fast in the last 15 years"). Denialists are like an ant climbing a staircase, who repeats "Whew, glad the climbing part is over" every time he gets to the flat part of a tread.

            "The models do not model clouds and therefore the feedback mechanisms"

            Well, yes they do, they always have. However, the IPCC has always stated that cloud feedbacks were the most uncertain of the modeled effects. Spencer et al used to rely on the hope that these effects would be negative. But that argument was valid 10 or even 5 years ago, not today.

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6108/792

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract

            "They are almost always wrong on the warmer side

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png"

            So, you and Roy Spencer, as shown by his graph you linked to, admit that it IS warming, about 2-3 degrees C per decade, but not 6 degrees per decade? Well, that's a start. However, it's clear from the graph that he has displaced the "actual" temperatures to make them appear lower, by picking an alignment point to just this effect, i.e. a peak in the actual temps to a valley in the model, rather than aligning them to maximize closeness, as would be the logical and/or honest basis.

            http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

            " Climategate emails showed how any dissent is supressed"

            Not according to every investigation. You don't seem to have had problems finding such dissent. Or did you get Spencer's web page via some underground telegraph?

        2. dan1980

          Re: Breaking News!!

          @Leslie Graham

          "And who told you anyway? Oh yeah - those same thousands of climate scientists who are also telling us that the current warming has nothing to do with any natural cycle."

          My feelings exactly and I had this same argument in another thread.

        3. doctariAFC2

          Re: Breaking News!!

          The very things ignored by the "Scientists", because no amount of control or money can change these things, so it doesn't fit the agenda of "we have the answer, now let's find the questions - and your money".

          Things ignored = Solar Activity - 90% of our climate on this planet is rooted in solar activity, yet, because scientists compare solar activity against the sun's own benchmark, it appears trivial in variation. I have yet to see any comprehensive and purely scientific studies on the minor variations of the sun and its energy output variations' actual impact on the Earth. Also ignored is geological/ gravitational factors, which the bulk of the balance of our climate. Winds, temperature mixation in water currents, etc, all driven by gravity. Large seismic events, such as the Indian Ocean earthquake and the pacific Rim of Fire Earthquake changed the shape of the lanet and its wobble on the axis. Again, very minor in terms of the shape iof the Earth, degrees of wobble, as compared to the planet itself, hence let's ignore it. However, change the shape of the spinning rock, even a couple centimeters, and you alter orbital consistency, much like a very minor flinch of less than 1/4 of a centimeter will impact a rifle shot's accuracy downrange. The further the downrange travel, the larger variation of accuracy results. Angle/ wobble of the planet certainly alters how solar energy strikes the planet, and where. Gravitational changes due to centrifical force changes alters tidal currents, jet stremas etc.

          None of this is factored in, yet is the bulk of where our climate comes from. Since no amount of taxing and spending can credibly be claimed will "fix this problem", these very large factors are ignored. But atmospheric, which is the least impactful on the climate factors? Well, we can make up anything we want, construct a computer model to "prove our answer is right" - aka, create the question, and voila, you have your playbook for mass deception. Stupid people will swallow all of this tripe when sweetened with a healthy dose of guilt trip.

          Further, stupid/ ignorant people abound, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof. I can say this, however. Religious people seem to exhibit more humility and a lot less arrogance than non-religious. And it is our arrogance that is troublesome. We cannot control everything, we do not impact many factors we claim we do, and, like the scientists claimed back in the 1920's when the US Army Corps of Engineers were dumping hundreds of thousands of metric tons of contaminated sludge into the Great Lakes, stating that science tells them the waters are so vast that the pollutants would dilute and not impact anything, coupled with the sludge would just remain where dumped, so no problems, was the scientific definitive statements of the day, which resulted in our waters of life becoming seas of neverending poison, including Lake Erie being declared dead in 1971, and you seek to question why some are skeptical of the white labcoat wearing cadre?

          REALLY?

          Let teh bashing from you arrogant pukes begin. I tell the truth, and I have ALWAYS been validated, thus far. And I do work closely with Natural Resources, policies, conservation, etc., and I ain't been wrong yet, even when told I am wrong, a few years later, when work is actually done to disprove what I say - they wind up confirming in spades what I state all along. That isn't ever going to change.

        4. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

          @ Leslie Graham .. Re: Breaking News!!

          I hate to burst your bubble, but a volcanic eruption put out more CO2 and debris in to the atmosphere in 1 day than all of man did in a year.

          But what you never talked about genius is the shift in the magnetic poles of the earth. (Hint: Why is there a magnetic north and a true north and why are they different.)

          Also ask yourself what happens when the magnetic poles flip? (And yes its happened.)

          There's more, but your puny human brain can't handle the truth.

          Man has done a lot to damage the earth... but global warming isn't one of them.

          I could demand that you prove it... but that would be like asking a priest to prove that God exists.

        5. gzuckier

          Re: Breaking News!!

          it's all a hoax! just like forest fires! there were forest fires long before there were humans, so obviously the argument that humans cause forest fires is nonsense! Just a hoax by Smokey the Bear, to keep up his lucrative government grants.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Breaking News!!

        "Junk Science at work."

        You must be American. That AGW is happening and is primarily caused by man hasn't been in any serious doubt for at least a decade now...

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

          @AC Re: Breaking News!!

          Funny, you post as an AC which suggest you're afraid to stand behind your opinion.

          The fact is that the climate science has been debunked and the emails have shown how corrupt the junk science has become in order to make their point.

          Temperatures are rising, but nowhere as near as fast as the 'models' had predicted.

          There's more, but your puny human brain can't handle the truth.

          Puny Human! Hulk SMASH!

      4. h4rm0ny

        Re: Breaking News!!

        >>"Do you believe that global warming is real? Sure. We have evidence going back millions of years that there is a cycle. Do you believe that global warming is man made?"

        Yep, another one here - I certainly believe the climate is changing. The degree to which human activity is a primary factor, I do not know. Similarly I put down low confidence on the Earth being 4.5bn years old. It sounds like it could be right, but I have to be honest and say it's a long time since I learned about the history of the planet and for all I know it could be 6bn or 3bn. No doubt that would be read as my being a Creationist but actually it's just scientific honesty in that I don't remember. A good survey should have trick questions like this on there for control. It reads quite a bit like they know what they want to find out. Also, although I'm fine with extrapolation as a principle, approx. 1000 people surveyed for this sounds far too low for a population in the hundreds of millions.

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: Breaking News!!

          Similarly I put down low confidence on the Earth being 4.5bn years old. It sounds like it could be right, but I have to be honest and say it's a long time since I learned about the history of the planet and for all I know it could be 6bn or 3bn.

          Agreed. The study methodology isn't very good, and the article is worse. "over half of Americans doubt the Big Bang theory of the inception of the universe"? I'd certainly hope so. I doubt it. It appears to be the most plausible theory anyone's advanced so far, but there certainly aren't any logical grounds for believing it without reservation, since it's not tautologically true.1 I'm happy to assume it's true for most purposes, particularly since that assumption has no practical consequences for me, but I don't hold it as an article of faith.

          Rik needs to do a bit of critical thinking about what "doubt" means. Substantial evidence, or even "overwhelming" evidence (a dubious term), should not banish doubt.

          1As opposed to purely formal truths, i.e. mathematical theorems, which are tautologically equivalent to the axioms they're derived from. Of course, per the Cartesian Evil Genius argument, even with mathematics we can never be sure that our thought processes haven't been deranged by some outside influence, and so what we believe follows from a series of formal propositions may in fact be illogical.

          1. Michael Dunn
            Thumb Up

            Re: Breaking News!! @ Michael Wojcik

            "Of course, per the Cartesian Evil Genius argument, even with mathematics we can never be sure that our thought processes haven't been deranged by some outside influence, and so what we believe follows from a series of formal propositions may in fact be illogical."

            Nice Line.

            Rember Russel's quote: "Mathmatics is the subject in which we neither know what we are talking about no whether what e say is true."

            This after completion of Pribcipia Mathematica with Whitehead.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019