[MikeTV]

"The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested... "

(BBC - Tuesday, 3 July 2007, 00:25 GMT 01:25 UK)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6263690.stm

I have just posted this link for information. Let's refrain from having another GW debate in this thread.

Originally Posted by MikeTV

"The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested... "

(BBC - Tuesday, 3 July 2007, 00:25 GMT 01:25 UK)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6263690.stm

I have just posted this link for information. Let's refrain from having another GW debate in this thread.

It seems you guys here in the UK are not much different from us in the US. Some people on this forum paint a picture that its only a minority that do not believe global warming, but this appears to disprove that just as I thought.

I do love the line about dog mess being more important then climate change.

Great article, thanks for posting it.

[Munkey Boy]

Personally, I find it quite scary how out of line public opinion is with scientific opinion. The fact that 56% of people think that the scientific community still think it's a subject open for debate means that we'll never do anything about it.

When all of a sudden did we change our opinion about scientists from having respect and admiration to scepticism and disregard? Like MikeTV says, I don't want this to be a debate about GW, but I do find it strange we think the scientists are out to get us now. It seems that anyone in a position of influence is greeted with cynicism these days.

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

Personally, I find it quite scary how out of line public opinion is with scientific opinion. The fact that 56% of people think that the scientific community still think it's a subject open for debate means that we'll never do anything about it.

When all of a sudden did we change our opinion about scientists from having respect and admiration to scepticism and disregard? Like MikeTV says, I don't want this to be a debate about GW, but I do find it strange we think the scientists are out to get us now. It seems that anyone in a position of influence is greeted with cynicism these days.

Hi Munkey Boy (great user name)

I have a home here in the UK and from what I can establish from a lot of people is they are fed up being spoon-feed it. I have been utterly amazed at how much coverage it has been given here in the UK, maybe that’s the real problem, and people on your side of the pond are getting fed up with it all.

As far as I am concerned there is no real evidence, most appears to be guesswork and using computer models to come to the conclusions. I have yet to see anything in the US or the UK that has been affected by global warming and until there is hard evidence which scientists can present to us with living proof no one here in the US will believe it. Al Gore is one of the few here who actually promotes global warming, but he is laughed at a lot and given no air time.
I don’t think Americans are any less intelligent then you brits, its just we need a bit more evidence before we go into hysteria mode, we have far more things to worry about here, thats the problem as well. As Bush has now decided to agree to action at the G8 summit then we may hear about it more in the US. My own view is he has been forced into doing this to keep face, I for one do not believe he believes it.

In a few hundred years we should have an answer as to if global warming is fact or fiction, all us here discussing it will be long dead but maybe our children will get the answer in their lifetime.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

When all of a sudden did we change our opinion about scientists from having respect and admiration to scepticism and disregard? Like MikeTV says, I don't want this to be a debate about GW, but I do find it strange we think the scientists are out to get us now. It seems that anyone in a position of influence is greeted with cynicism these days.

I've wondered this too. The level of scientific understanding amongst the populace is fairly low, but then it always has been. I suspect the decline in trust in scientists is partly because of the strong association between science and policy in certain areas, so that people's growing distrust of politicians gets transferred on to scientists in general.

The BSE debacle won't have helped, and nor does the behaviour of the media in creating false impressions of a raging scientific debate where none actually exists (I'm thinking specifically of the MMR/autism fiasco, but some of this is clearly going on with the AGW debate also).

Constant media talk of "breakthroughs" and "health scares" based on the flimsiest of evidence, which are soon supplanted by some newer breakthrough or scare perhaps also reinforce the perception that science in general flits from one ill-considered argument to the next.

[Munkey Boy]

Cheers Mike, I know what you mean in that people become de-sensitised perhaps from over exposure to a problem. It seems that many feel a sense of fatalism about it now, that even if there were a problem, we couldn't do anything about it.

I think my point is that while you or I could argue until we're blue in the face about if we thought there was any evidence or not, the scientific community is in consensus that not only there is a problem, but that's it's largely man-made (apparently over 90% of scientists believe this is the case, even the Americans signed up to it!). That's my only point - personally I have faith in the fact that they are doing their job properly.

[loz]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

When all of a sudden did we change our opinion about scientists from having respect and admiration to scepticism and disregard?

I think this sentence in the BBC report says it all

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

Far too many people are sceptical of the governments and scientists motives. As is,
Government "let's raise taxes on private transport like cars, but invest none of it in public transport or alternative energy",
and scientist "what do I have to prove to get funding?"

[Munkey Boy]

Originally Posted by loz

I think this sentence in the BBC report says it all

Far too many people are sceptical of the governments and scientists motives. As is,
Government "let's raise taxes on private transport like cars, but invest none of it in public transport or alternative energy",
and scientist "what do I have to prove to get funding?"

I think that says alot about the human race as a whole if that's where the scepticism is coming from. We're entirely distrusting of everyone else and frankly maybe we deserve to become an endangered species if that's how we regard each other. Darwin and natural selection is as relevant as ever. I'm all for a healthy dose of cynicism, but this isn't healthy.

Any scientist that thinks they exist to prove their own existence shouldn't be employed and isn't doing their job properly. I think it's an entirely depressing point of view to think that the mass of the scientific community is now out just to find a project to get funding for. Call me naive if you want, but I don't think that's the case.

[AgentCool]

I find it relieving that so many people still have an individual opinion and aren't willing to blindly accept everything they are told. After all, on a superficial level, why should scientists be trusted any more than religious leaders? They aren't immune to corruption and regardless of their differing methods of research, they are only human and can always be wrong.

If everybody accepted every piece of 'peer reviewed' science that was published, we wouldn't be as advanced a civilisation as we are today. The science is never settled as the researchers of the early 20th century discovered and to disregard alternate views is not only poor scientific practice but hinders the progress of human knowledge. This is especially true of climate being the chaotic system that it is. Even if all of the current non man-made theories were proved incorrect it doesn't mean that man-made climate change is unquestionably right. It simply means it is the 'accepted' scenario until some new theory nobody has currently thought of inevitably comes along.

Some people will just have to accept that there will always be rebels out there who go against the grain and on many occasions, they will be proved right. This, to me, is what science is all about and what makes it such an appealing subject to people such as myself. In my opinion, it is against human nature to simply say "we know everything" and leave it at that.

[Munkey Boy]

Originally Posted by markwpage

I find it relieving that so many people still have an individual opinion and aren't willing to blindly accept everything they are told. After all, on a superficial level, why should scientists be trusted any more than religious leaders?

I find it disturbing the populace thinks it knows the science of the problem better than the people who have made it their life's work. Science is the pursuit of truth, whereas religion is mass hysteria used to good effect to keep the general populace under control when it seemed that it was necessary.

I wouldn't for a minute claim to know that I knew best about everything, I have to be able to trust those around me to do their jobs right.

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

Personally, I find it quite scary how out of line public opinion is with scientific opinion. The fact that 56% of people think that the scientific community still think it's a subject open for debate means that we'll never do anything about it.

When all of a sudden did we change our opinion about scientists from having respect and admiration to scepticism and disregard? Like MikeTV says, I don't want this to be a debate about GW, but I do find it strange we think the scientists are out to get us now. It seems that anyone in a position of influence is greeted with cynicism these days.

That's why am here: to try and find out why climate science is treated so differently to other complex science. I won't say what I suspect because this thread would get derailed into the same old, same old.

[loz]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

Science is the pursuit of truth

Well it should be, but I think the survey highlights that the public think its more about the pursuit of money.

It seems like Climate change is now just an "industry". People (e.g. that I talk too) are seeing it as scientists can have a comfortable well funded career in climate research as long as they toe the CC line, regardless of whether it is the thruth or not.

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

Science is the pursuit of truth, whereas religion is mass hysteria used to good effect to keep the general populace under control when it seemed that it was necessary.

So religion and climatology are worlds apart then...

[Munkey Boy]

Originally Posted by loz

Well it should be, but I think the survey highlights that the public think its more about the pursuit of money.

It seems like Climate change is now just an "industry". People (e.g. that I talk too) are seeing it as scientists can have a comfortable well funded career in climate research as long as they toe the CC line, regardless of whether it is the thruth or not.

But what evidence are the public using to come to this conclusion that it's all about the money? They aren't, it's cynicism because some solutions may cost them cash and/or make them question how they live their lives.

Even if climate change did turn out to be a red herring, or not influenced by man, we still live in an unsustainable fashion that depletes finite resources, so one way or another we need to change. I think it's just better to live with your environment, not just consume it without thought for consequence.

Originally Posted by The Dude

So religion and climatology are worlds apart then...

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy. When did people become so cynical of their fellow man, especially those who devote their lives to the pursuit of truth?

Originally Posted by The Dude

So religion and climatology are worlds apart then...

In the opening post MikeTV said

I have just posted this link for information. Let's refrain from having another GW debate in this thread

Didn't take long did it?

[loz]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

When did people become so cynical of their fellow man, especially those who devote their lives to the pursuit of truth?

Because, for the 2nd time, people do not believe they are devoting their lives to the pursuit of "truth".

Rather, for many scientists, it is about having a job, not saving the world. CC just happens to be a great source of jobs. Like it or not, scientists are paid by somebody.

Everyone claims the MMGW doubters are in the pay of the oil companies. Well, all the pro MMGW scientists are in the pay of someone too. Don't you think they then toe the line of whomever is paying them or providing the funding? I, like many other sceptical people, do.

[Munkey Boy]

Originally Posted by loz

Because, for the 2nd time, people do not believe they are devoting their lives to the pursuit of "truth".

And I'll repeat myself: why don't people believe it? Because it doesn't suit them, not because they have reasoned the argument and investigated the evidence.

Originally Posted by loz

Rather, for many scientists, it is about having a job, not saving the world. CC just happens to be a great source of jobs. Like it or not, scientists are paid by somebody.

Everyone claims the MMGW doubters are in the pay of the oil companies. Well, all the pro MMGW scientists are in the pay of someone too. Don't you think they then toe the line of whomever is paying them or providing the funding? I, like many other sceptical people, do.

Oil companies have an active interest in maintaining the status quo for as long as possible. Scientists have just as much interest in disproving a theory as proving it if it pays their wages. There's enough science even without CC to keep them in employ.

[paul_w]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy. When did people become so cynical of their fellow man, especially those who devote their lives to the pursuit of truth?

I think it might have just a little to do with a certain politician who has just moved house.
Well its certainly made me a damm sight more cynical than i used to be.
As for trusting the science well thats a whole different ball game.

I know they are not the same but didnt those super fantastic nasa (or whoever) scientists fail to tell a convex mirror from a concave one when they spent years and millions of dollars building hubble which resulted in it being virtually useless.

So now we are told that we have to spend billions of pounds on something that if you take the best case and worse case projections of the computer models could be no more than a minor change in the climate. Changes which have happened for whatever reason completely naturally for millenia.

Sorry but they will have to do better than that.

I still believe it to be impossible for any computer or scientist to say with even the remotest accuracy what the future climate will be and i will take an awful lot of persuading otherwise. Just as a lot of other people are beginning to realise i think

[Munkey Boy]

Originally Posted by paul_w

I think it might have just a little to do with a certain politician who has just moved house.

Because Tony lied means you are sceptical about the scientific community? Wow. I think we should have rigour as indivduals and not just believe everything put in front of us, but this has been so heavily researched it seems mad to throw yet more money at seeing if it will happen, but instead we should be working out what we could do about it (if anything atall).

We can only work on the data available to us, and this is what some of the best minds alive are saying.

Originally Posted by paul_w

I still believe it to be impossible for any computer or scientist to say with even the remotest accuracy what the future climate will be and i will take an awful lot of persuading otherwise. Just as a lot of other people are beginning to realise i think

What would it take to convince you? You don't trust all this new-fangled computing then, so we should just give up trying to forecast and just react to what happens instead?

I can see I'm not going to convince anyone here though, but just as a general point, it's a sad day that we dismiss the art of science. I'll step back from the discussion for a while.

[loz]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

You don't trust all this new-fangled computing then, so we should just give up trying to forecast and just react to what happens instead?

Well, if this is what the new-fangled computing comes up with, then its no surprise

From the BBC, April 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6548725.stm

The warm April weather, coupled with a Met Office prediction of another hot summer, has prompted fears that water levels could again dip to low levels, forcing restrictions.

And you wonder why people are sceptical of climate change predictions. I know the science, and the models are different to that used for tomorrow's weather forecast, but people do not necesarily separate the two.

How many times have you heard someone say "predictions of global warming? they can't even tell you what tomorrows weather is"...

[johntheexpat]

Personally I think that the media should be in the frame for the current mistrust of scientists and lack of interest/belief in CC. They are all so bad at reporting on scientific matters that for those who have even a modicum of training/education in science it is cringe-worthy. Dumming down is one thing, but when the dumming down of quite sophisticated scientific issues is done by people who don't understand it in the first place, then the point is quite often lost in a sea of half-truths, misconceptions and errors.
(When a tv reporter is flown around the world to report on GW from various continents, everybody understands that the reporter and helpers have been flown there. Needlessly. And the obvious thing to think is that the reporter would say that wouldn't he/she because the more scared we are, the more trips around the world he will be able to con the license payers into paying for.)
Science can be made accessible, The Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for example. Entertaining, informative, educational and correct. But presumably that quality of reporting is too much like hard work.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

That's why am here: to try and find out why climate science is treated so differently to other complex science. I won't say what I suspect because this thread would get derailed into the same old, same old.

Hmm I am thinking we are repeating history with one exception that not changing our views and action will have dire consequences.

Example of history repeating itself.

The church or authority at the time shunned the scientific evidence and observations that said the earth revolved around the sun. Persecuting anyone who would dispute the current authority because they felt there power base threatened.

Now its climate change instead of the earth around the sun. with more dire consequences.

[njp]

Originally Posted by loz

How many times have you heard someone say "predictions of global warming? they can't even tell you what tomorrows weather is"...

Too many times. Which is a shame, given that climate is easier to predict than weather.

[toycollector]

Last year the UK had a very warm, dry summer.
This year we have a very wet, cool summer.
This surely suggests nature has a balance?
Or is the fact that, because i don't stand to make a living out of MMGW, it makes me stupid?
I watched All Gore on BBC breakfast today.
He looked like a second hand car salesman. But less trustworthy!

[paul_w]

Well gore seems to be back tracking as well now.

Just watched him on itv and he denys saying the gulf stream might stop

He denys saying sea levels could rise 20 feet.

The scientists say we should not contribute any weather extremes to global warming.

And its the big carbon polluters who are spending millions and millions of dollars promoting this sceptisism.

(wish they would throw some my way)

[toycollector]

Originally Posted by paul_w

Well gore seems to be back tracking as well now.

Just watched him on itv and he denys saying the gulf stream might stop

He denys saying sea levels could rise 20 feet.

The scientists say we should not contribute any weather extremes to global warming.

And its the big carbon polluters who are spending millions and millions of dollars promoting this sceptisism.

(wish they would throw some my way)

And Clinton said "I never had sex with Miss Lewinsky!"

Originally Posted by toycollector

Last year the UK had a very warm, dry summer.
This year we have a very wet, cool summer.
This surely suggests nature has a balance?
Or is the fact that, because i don't stand to make a living out of MMGW, it makes me stupid?
I watched All Gore on BBC breakfast today.
He looked like a second hand car salesman. But less trustworthy!

Al Gore is a joke, his claims especially regarding the gulf stream are almost laughable. Thankfully we dont have many of his kind in the USA.
And you are right Toycollector, nature has a wonderful way of addressing the balance, its fantastic to watch.

Originally Posted by njp

Too many times. Which is a shame, given that climate is easier to predict than weather.

I disagree, the climate is far, far more complex then any weather system as it includes the weather.

We cant predict the weather a day at a time, even the most powerful computer in the world cant do that so how can we really believe that these models of Global warming (which are basically all scientists have as proof of global warming) are accurate.

Its all a bit toy town doom mongering for my liking.

[Corey USA]

Its the severity and the rate of change which life(I am not talking about human life I am talking about the ecosystems life) is not given enough time to adapt that is what is so worrying. The severe swings is it is tempting to balance an unstable system due to factors we added through or pollution from industrialization.

We keep adding to that imbalance and it will not recover, due to a triggered feedback loop of methane release. We can reduce the severity of the change if we make a major effort to fix it.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Manhattan Mike

I disagree, the climate is far, far more complex then any weather system as it includes the weather.

I'm afraid that is to misunderstand the very different nature of the problems.

We cant predict the weather a day at a time, even the most powerful computer in the world cant do that so how can we really believe that these models of Global warming (which are basically all scientists have as proof of global warming) are accurate.

As I said, predicting climate is easier than predicting weather. They are both difficult problems, but weather prediction is a very difficult problem. In addition, we know that global warming is happening because of the instrumental temperature records, rising sea levels, and glacial retreat. The models merely confirm that CO2 is the cause, and give us a range of possible outcomes for future emission scenarios. There is uncertainty, but it is constrained.