How Weather Influences Global Warming Opinions 517
An anonymous reader writes in with this story about how people's belief in climate change shifts with the temperature. "Last week's polar vortex weather event wasn't only hard on fingers, toes and heating bills. It also overpowered the ability of most people to make sound judgments about climate change, in the same way that heat waves do, according to a new study published in the Jan. 11 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change. Researchers have known for some time that the acceptance of climate change depends on the day most people are asked. During unusually hot weather, people tend to accept global warming, and they swing against it during cold events."
Re:Egocentrism (Score:1, Informative)
Ah, the old "whites can't suffer racism" canard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_farm_attacks [wikipedia.org]
http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-statistics-of-black-on-white-violence-with-links-and-mathematical-extrapolation-formulas [examiner.com]
Now go on talking about white privilege or some other inane rebuttal you undoubtedly have and remember that whites (and jewish people) largely are behind the computer you are typing your response with.
local weather (Score:5, Informative)
Australia is doing some of its hottest with a rounded 50C for the first time last week
Monday -> 27C and the rest of the week's forecast is
Tuesday -> 43C
Wednesday -> 39C
Thursday -> 41C
Friday -> 40C
its all about extra energy making things more variable, but no single weather event can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change
Peter Hadfield (aka: potholer54) (Score:5, Informative)
This guy has the most informative debunking of BS on both sides of of the issue. His series of YouTube videos [youtube.com] should be required viewing for policy makers and "armchair experts" alike.
Re:Egocentrism (Score:3, Informative)
I might be mistaken, but I think what Noxal was getting at was that those with a non-religious agenda orchestrating Terror (whether it's Stalin, Mao, Robbespierre, whatever) are doing so *not* because non-belief is the one and only true path to enlightenment as the dogmatic religious believe, but because they believe (and virally spread this belief) in higher authorities than the State or the Party or the Glorious Leader. Their religious indoctrination was at odds with the dictator and their doctrine.
In other words, atheism and a policy of non-belief was a means to consolidate power. Weed out those that gather and foment discord and make them illegal.
Saying 'atheist terrorism' and Stalin or Mao or Earth First in the same sentence is stupid and does make you sound like a fucking moron. Atheism is not their agenda. Power, control and a totalitarianism agenda *is*.
Re:Yes, facts are manipulated. (Score:3, Informative)
I noticed you quoted Wikipedia for all of your references. You provide some quotes from an organisation that has been found to manipulate and edit information in an attempt to make it accepted. Below are some examples of how easy it is to manipulate Wikipedia for your own gain
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/06/hoax-article-detailing-fake-war-stayed-up-on-wikipedia-for-five-years/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2023647/fake-wikipedia-entry-on-bicholim-conflict-finally-deleted-after-five-years.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/how-the-professor-who-fooled-wikipedia-got-caught-by-reddit/257134/
So-called green organisations are guilty of the same behaviour
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanholiday/2012/06/15/how-greenpeace-manipulated-the-media-like-a-pro-analyzing-the-shell-oil-hoax/
http://beforeitsnews.com/new-world-order/2013/12/truly-shocking-manipulationgreenpeace-depressed-santa-global-warming-agenda-kids-christmas-will-have-to-be-cancelled-empty-stockings-video-video-752.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Greenpeace
Re:A bit hypocritical (Score:2, Informative)
whether Katrina or the polar vortex were just statistical blips or part of the AGW-predicted increase in extreme weather
What AGW-predicted increase in extreme weather? You mean the prediction that warming of the oceans would lead to more hurricanes? The claim that was later largely dismissed because it doesn't fit the evidence? In fact, if there is a general pattern of AGW predictions, it's that they turn out to be wrong. This should surprise exactly nobody, because you can't extrapolate an empirically derived model of a complex, chaotic system.
Re:They don't understand the difference (Score:5, Informative)
NASA says CO2 has been below this level for 650,000 years. Good enough for you?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence [nasa.gov]
This is the one that scares me the most.
"The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969."
That's a lot of freaking water heated.
Science doesn't work on consensus (Score:5, Informative)
If it was accurate then there would have been a consensus predicting these events.
I find in continually frustrating that proponents (and opponents) of addressing the risks of climate change bring up scientific consensus as an argument. I think Einstein said it best [wikipedia.org] when reportedly responding to the book "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein)", by saying (roughly) "if I were wrong, one would be enough". If a model is correct and has predictive value then it is useful regardless of what the consensus might say. If it has no predictive value then it is wrong regardless of any consensus.
It is also possible that the phenomena is real and we simply have not developed a descriptive model yet. Relativity was real even before Einstein developed his model. So you have to ask yourself, how should we behave if there is a reasonable chance that this phenomena is real? Our ability or lack thereof to model the climate change is a separate issue from our ability to measure it. We KNOW that temperatures are rising globally because we are able to measure that even if we don't know for absolute certain why they are rising. So if they are rising what are the potential consequences and what should we do based on those potential consequences?
However, the fact that there is no consensus means that there isn't accuracy in the field of Climate Change
As meaningless as consensus might be, there does appear to be one regarding the existence of climate change. The only real debate at this point is regarding severity.
I am willing to accept carbon based climate change and accept the changes required for preventing future damage, but only if it is scientifically proven.
Well the data we have certainly seems to indicate that climate change is real so I'm not entirely sure what level of proof you are looking for. It's not the sort of phenomena you want to wait until after it occurs to say "yep, we proved it - look at all this damage". However, let's presume for the sake of argument that the data is inconclusive at present. Then the question becomes one of risk. Let's say there is 50% chance that climate change is real and that if it is real the consequences of it are that the planet no longer becomes compatible with human life. Is that a risk you are willing to take or do you think we should act on the risk knowing we might be wrong but playing it safe? Basically you are doing an expected value [wikipedia.org] analysis.
Re:Egocentrism (Score:4, Informative)
There are plenty of mouth-breathers on both sides and Fox is probably worse than CNN.
If you're interested in the SCIENCE, follow the SCIENTISTS or the people who actually spend time with them or do more than a superficial analysis.
RealClimate.org may be too difficult for most laymen; SkepticalScience.com is easier to digest. Greenman3610's videos on YouTube are both entertaining & informative but Potholer54's work is probably a better example of science journalism as he's been doing it for 30 years.