Disparity Between Scientists and General Public on Scientific Views

[sprinkles]

The opinions of a professional society only matter if the individual members took the time to read the primary sources. How many members of the AAAS actually took the time to read the research on fracking? The fact that a mere 39% of them support fracking tells me that very few of them took the time to research the issue. If 87% truly believe that climate change is "mostly due to human activity", then how do you explain climate change 10 million years ago, lol? Do these people believe there was no climate change 10 million years ago?

There is a difference between 'mostly' and 'entirely'. There's also a difference between 'is' and 'was'.

It's this sort of thing that screws with the layman understanding of science. Technicalities matter.

 

[sprinkles]

Also it's because of scientists that we have an idea what climate was like 10 million years ago in the first place. Do you really think they would make this mistake now?

It's more like this goes without saying and I'm sure they'd presume you can figure it out by what makes sense. Of course they don't believe there was no climate change 10 million years ago, but they shouldn't have to say. There's no mistake that has been cleverly revealed, they just simply take obviousness for granted. I mean seriously, who underestimates that much?

 

[Tellenbach]

Of course they don't believe there was no climate change 10 million years ago, but they shouldn't have to say.

So are they suggesting that those forces which affected climage change 10 million years ago are no longer present or that they pale in comparison to humanity's use of fossil fuels? It strikes me as odd that anyone would claim that humanity was mostly responsible for climate change when we've had climate change for millions of years.

There's no mistake that has been cleverly revealed, they just simply take obviousness for granted. I mean seriously, who underestimates that much?

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Who's underestimating what?

 

[Mal12345]

A recent poll indicates that people are afraid to eat anything with DNA in it. So what.

 

[Mole]

Over millions of years hominids have been naturally selected to function well in a world of our size. But scientists have been able to learn about a world far bigger than our size in Relativity, and to learn about a world far smaller than our size in Quantum Mechanics.

And we have not been selected to function in the world of the very big or the very small. So we have an intuitive understanding of the our size world, but only a counter-intuitive understanding of the worlds of the very big or the very small.

So the general public cling to common sense rather than scientific sense.

In other words, the general public cling to what we have achieved through natural selection over millions of years, rather than what scientists have discovered yesterday.

 

[kyuuei]

A recent poll indicates that people are afraid to eat anything with DNA in it. So what.

I remember seeing this.

 

[Mole]

A recent poll indicates that people are afraid to eat anything with DNA in it. So what.

DNA sounds like a chemical because it is. And if we don't know what a particular chemical is, it makes sense not to eat it.

But we achieve superiority by sneering at the common sense of the general public.

 

[Xander]

Over millions of years hominids have been naturally selected to function well in a world of our size. But scientists have been able to learn about a world far bigger than our size in Relativity, and to learn about a world far smaller than our size in Quantum Mechanics.

And we have not been selected to function in the world of the very big or the very small. So we have an intuitive understanding of the our size world, but only a counter-intuitive understanding of the worlds of the very big or the very small.

So the general public cling to common sense rather than scientific sense.

In other words, the general public cling to what we have achieved through natural selection over millions of years, rather than what scientists have discovered yesterday.

This is the first sensible thing you've posted!

Very true. (I know, truth has no measure... Just screwing with people.)

Why believe what is new over what has worked before?
Thinking about it there rarely is adequate justification other than "science says". Actually one of the reasons I'm trying my brain on the quantum end. Mind you it does help when you have chapters like "time slows down when you're chasing squirrels".

 

[sprinkles]

So are they suggesting that those forces which affected climage change 10 million years ago are no longer present or that they pale in comparison to humanity's use of fossil fuels? It strikes me as odd that anyone would claim that humanity was mostly responsible for climate change when we've had climate change for millions of years.

Yes they believe that humans have caused more change since the Renaissance and industrial revolution than the entire natural change which has occurred during the entire lifespan of the earth.

Edit: and it's not so much how much change there is, but how fast it is happening. Basically it looks like this:

There's a bit of slow temperature change over a long time but when humans come along, it just went FOOM. We're still talking small changes but it happens incredibly fast compared to what is natural.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=20113]Tellenbach[/MENTION]

Also look at it like this. If you have a balloon that goes around the earth in one day vs a rocket that only goes halfway around the earth in one second, the rocket is the vehicle that has more change because it is doing more in any given frame than the balloon is, even though the balloon got further by simply travelling for longer.

Or like this: Bob moves 20 bricks in 2 minutes and Alice moves 20 bricks in 1 minute. Who causes the most change? It is not equal. Alice causes the most change because if you give Bob only 1 minute, Alice will move twice as many bricks. This does not change if you put Bob on a bigger pile. If Bob moves a million bricks at his usual rate and Alice only moves a hundred, Alice still does the most change even though Bob moves the most bricks.

 

[Tellenbach]

Basically it looks like this:

That graph is nonsense as is every "reconstructed" temperature record. These records are "reconstructed" by measuring tree ring widths. This is pseudoscientific nonsense because it ignores nutrition, water and drought conditions, and presumes perfect correlation between temperature and tree ring width. Last time I looked at my trees, they were not perfect cylinders. If you take a core sample from one side, you'll get very different measurements compared to a core sample from another side.

Dr. Michael Mann refused to divulge the correlation statistic (the linear regression coefficient, the "r" value), but others who reproduced his work came up with r values of 0.2. A perfect correlation is a 1.0; no correlation is a 0. A 0.2 correlation is basically worthless and yet, these paleoclimatologists still peddle this nonsense.

Also look at it like this. If you have a balloon that goes around the earth in one day vs a rocket that only goes halfway around the earth in one second, the rocket is the vehicle that has more change because it is doing more in any given frame than the balloon is, even though the balloon got further by simply travelling for longer.

There is no evidence of accelerated climate change because every reconstructed temperature record is a crock.

 

[sprinkles]

That graph is nonsense as is every "reconstructed" temperature record. These records are "reconstructed" by measuring tree ring widths. This is pseudoscientific nonsense because it ignores nutrition, water and drought conditions, and presumes perfect correlation between temperature and tree ring width. Last time I looked at my trees, they were not perfect cylinders. If you take a core sample from one side, you'll get very different measurements compared to a core sample from another side.

Dr. Michael Mann refused to divulge the correlation statistic (the linear regression coefficient, the "r" value), but others who reproduced his work came up with r values of 0.2. A perfect correlation is a 1.0; no correlation is a 0. A 0.2 correlation is basically worthless and yet, these paleoclimatologists still peddle this nonsense.



There is no evidence of accelerated climate change because every reconstructed temperature record is a crock.

If you can figure out this much then why did you pretend to not understand what was meant?

Even if the data is a crock, your statement about what scientists believe was still incorrect, and that is what I was explaining to you.

 

[á´…eparted]

If you can figure out this much then why did you pretend to not understand what was meant?

Even if the data is a crock, your statement about what scientists believe was still incorrect, and that is what I was explaining to you.

Tellenbach does not believe nor regard scientific consesus, and cherry picks data that supports his claims while ignoring mass data. As such, I really wouldn't take what he says seriously.

 

[Tellenbach]

If you can figure out this much then why did you pretend to not understand what was meant?

I wasn't pretending;you were not clear.

Even if the data is a crock, your statement about what scientists believe was still incorrect, and that is what I was explaining to you.

I'm less interested in what scientists believe than why they believe. Basically, that entire poll was useless because we don't know how much those scientists studied the issues.

 

[Tellenbach]

Tellenbach does not believe nor regard scientific consesus, and cherry picks data that supports his claims while ignoring mass data. As such, I really wouldn't take what he says seriously.

As I mentioned before, herd behavior is not science. In the past, scientists have believed in bloodletting, trepanation, phrenology, eugenics, and all manner of nonsense.

In "Falling Into the Fire" by Christine Montross, the author describes how vulvar massage was standard treatment for hysteria and anxiety in women in the 19th century. Psychiatrists would spend about an hour fingering their clients and this was considered a successful treatment.

 

[sprinkles]

I wasn't pretending;you were not clear.

I'm less interested in what scientists believe than why they believe. Basically, that entire poll was useless because we don't know how much those scientists studied the issues.

I'm talking about this:

Do these people believe there was no climate change 10 million years ago?

The answer to this was "No". If you don't care then don't ask.

And this:

So are they suggesting that those forces which affected climage change 10 million years ago are no longer present or that they pale in comparison to humanity's use of fossil fuels? It strikes me as odd that anyone would claim that humanity was mostly responsible for climate change when we've had climate change for millions of years.

I answered this one as well. If you don't care then don't ask.

If you thought the poll and the data was bunk, you could have come out and said so instead of making these absurd misrepresentations and causing me to waste my time.

 

[Tellenbach]

If you thought the poll and the data was bunk, you could have come out and said so instead of making these absurd misrepresentations and causing me to waste my time.

I apologize. Those were rhetorical questions. I wasn't expecting anyone to answer.

 

[á´…eparted]

As I mentioned before, herd behavior is not science. In the past, scientists have believed in bloodletting, trepanation, phrenology, eugenics, and all manner of nonsense.

In "Falling Into the Fire" by Christine Montross, the author describes how vulvar massage was standard treatment for hysteria and anxiety in women in the 19th century. Psychiatrists would spend about an hour fingering their clients and this was considered a successful treatment.

That doesn't invalidate consensus.

I'm sorry, but you really have the complete inability and refusal to reason with scientific material. I have seen it time and time again, and you are just reaffirming it in this thread.

 

[Tellenbach]

That doesn't invalidate consensus.

There is consensus that's backed up by thousands of experiments as with the laws of thermodynamics and then there's pseudoscientific nonsense peddled by lefties paid $100 billion to come up with alarmist computer models that have failed every time. Surely, you see the difference.

 

[á´…eparted]

There is consensus that's backed up by thousands of experiments as with the laws of thermodynamics and then there's pseudoscientific nonsense peddled by lefties paid $100 billion to come up with alarmist computer models that have failed every time. Surely, you see the difference.

No. You're politically bais, and can't be taken seriously because of it. The science behind climate change is largely sound. This is why the vast majority of scientists support it. You operate under the delusion that everyone is an idiot but yourself. You don't know how to interpret scientific information.