Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change?

This is almost like a repeat of the whole Freon scenario that occured a few decades back. A few scientists publish concerns in regards to Freon's effects on O3 in the atmosphere and they end up being ridiculed horribly by the community since after all, Freon is perfectly stable and safe. Fast forward into the future and now Freon is banned in the country. It turns out that chlorofluorocarbons like Freon have a tendency to decompose when exposed to UV radiation in the atmosphere. The constituent chlorine molecules from Freon would then have a field day with O3 (ozone), causing a chain reaction that ultimately degraded O3 into Oxygen.

If the Freon scenario has taught us anything, its that both politicians AND scientists are capable of being wrong. Whether this is due to personal motives or just sheer ignorance is debatable. Regardless, it emphasizes the value of knowledge and the ability to critical evaluate a subject. Global warming is a very real concern, but don't take every statement at face value without proper research.

Whether or not climate change is real there needs to be change taken now. Oil and coal and only limited in supply, one day they are going to run out. Does it not make sense, for the well-being of the national economy, to take action now to get ourselves off these resources onto more renewable ones? Instead of both parties arguing over "is climate change real", why not go down the widely believed line that "oil is going to run out soon" and take action there? We need to start getting ourselves right off oil as a fuel for vehicles. It's better to do it now then wait for another oil price spike causing another recession in the future ... daqua_99

This sums it up nicely:

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Well, it was some far-right talk show host. But they will believe anything that a republican tells them.

airshocker

Well, the fact of the matter is you're about as well-informed as your friend who made that statement is. Perhaps you shouldn't insinuate things when you're equally wrong.

There's a difference between believing that the president was born in Indonesia and getting talk show hosts mixed up

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

Conservatives have politicized a scientific issue (Like several others in the past and present) and instead of looking at it scientifically have tried to turn it into what seems like an opinion based matter.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Bill O'Reilly has never claimed Obama was born in Indonesia. In fact, he has never agreed with the birther movement. I can't speak for this O'Reily fella, though.

DroidPhysX

Well, it was some far-right talk show host. But they will believe anything that a republican tells them.

Obviously. I'm more politically right wing, but what my firends do is oppose any liberal viewpoint for no other reason than that they are republicans.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

Conservatives have politicized a scientific issue (Like several others in the past and present) and instead of looking at it scientifically have tried to turn it into what seems like an opinion based matter.

kuraimen

There's a difference between believing that the president was born in Indonesia and getting talk show hosts mixed up

Tokugawa77

You didn't just mix them up, you have no idea who you're even talking about. That's kind of a big deal, especially if you're trying to make a point.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] People who're paid to objectively study climate change have been changing their results for effect. This sort of changes how much we can trust them.Nibroc420

Because politicians only care about being re elected and not about policies that matter.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Science by definition is subject to change, that's why they deal with theories and any real scientists will be very careful when talking about facts. That's why any intricate non basic science like the study of climate is changing everytime because it is hardly something you can take to a laboratory to do some testings and the variables are quite a few. That doesn't mean scientists can't approach the problem but it won't be perfect, probably never because it is almost imposible to have all the variables of such complex phenomenons. Another example of such a theory is the theory of evolution and that's why it is so controversial. nevertheless there is a consesnsus within the serious scientific community about how the evolution process goes more or less and the details are the ones that need some tweaking, still the theory has a lot of explanatory power even without all the details uncovered (not unlike Newton's theory, although wrong in some ways, could explain the movement of the planets and now we know it isn't entirely wrong or entirely right). Likewise the serious scientific community pretty much agree that global warming is happening and that man's influence is a key factor. No human endeavor is without bias or agendas because that's our nature. Objectivity is an illusion to us. Nevertheless we can approach objectivity in degrees by using science. Right now the scientific community supporting manmade global warming is much closer to objectivity than the skeptic crowd which relies on emotional discourses and looking outside the window to see the snow.mattbbpl

They said that Glaciers in the Himalayan mountains would be totally melted by 2035, they got this information from an out of context quote, where someone had taken a wild guess at what would happen if the earth got a lot hotter. They then released this information to the public without double checking it.

They release obvious lies as "facts", and dont double check their findings. They've been known to fire people who disagree with their "results"

Because of this, I'll no longer be taking anything the IPCC says seriously. Why should I? They're not even following the correct scientific method, just taking out of context quotes as proof for their ridiculous findings. Which in turn causes panic, and more funding to their organization.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

There's a difference between believing that the president was born in Indonesia and getting talk show hosts mixed up

airshocker

You didn't just mix them up, you have no idea who you're even talking about. That's kind of a big deal, especially if you're trying to make a point.

No, they often talk about O'Reily, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck.They all have basically the same viewpoints, so I get them mixed up. That dosn't mean I don't know anything about them, but I know their basic political stance and enough to not see them as a reliable source of information. No talk show host is, regardless of their political views, because they will inevitably put their own spin on things; remember, their goal is to persuade you. Moderate news organizations, however, are much more reliable (though here too you must take everything with a grain of salt), and this is where I get my information. Just beacuase I am not familiar with each individual talk show host's opinion on every issue does not mean that I do not know who they are or what they stand for. In any case, this arguement really is irrelevent to the topic. I was just trying to point out that if you are going to make accusations, you need to back it up with a reliable source.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] :roll: If the guy who works at McDonalds says "Big-Macs are healthy, look at these numbers" and someone else goes "Uhh, no those are wrong, here's the real information" Clearly the guy working at McDonalds has a motive to lie, he wants profits. So next time I'm not going to believe him, because he's lied to me in the past. If the IPCC wants to be taken seriously, and wants their cause to be taken seriously. They should treat it seriously rather than releasing lies simply to get more funding for their research.Nibroc420

They said that Glaciers in the Himalayan mountains would be totally melted by 2035, they got this information from an out of context quote, where someone had taken a wild guess at what would happen if the earth got a lot hotter. They then released this information to the public without double checking it.

They release obvious lies as "facts", and dont double check their findings. They've been known to fire people who disagree with their "results"

Because of this, I'll no longer be taking anything the IPCC says seriously. Why should I? They're not even following the correct scientific method, just taking out of context quotes as proof for their ridiculous findings. Which in turn causes panic, and more funding to their organization.

What about the other scientific organizations? Literally every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] :roll: If the guy who works at McDonalds says "Big-Macs are healthy, look at these numbers" and someone else goes "Uhh, no those are wrong, here's the real information" Clearly the guy working at McDonalds has a motive to lie, he wants profits. So next time I'm not going to believe him, because he's lied to me in the past. If the IPCC wants to be taken seriously, and wants their cause to be taken seriously. They should treat it seriously rather than releasing lies simply to get more funding for their research.Nibroc420

They said that Glaciers in the Himalayan mountains would be totally melted by 2035, they got this information from an out of context quote, where someone had taken a wild guess at what would happen if the earth got a lot hotter. They then released this information to the public without double checking it.

They release obvious lies as "facts", and dont double check their findings. They've been known to fire people who disagree with their "results"

Because of this, I'll no longer be taking anything the IPCC says seriously. Why should I? They're not even following the correct scientific method, just taking out of context quotes as proof for their ridiculous findings. Which in turn causes panic, and more funding to their organization.

No, they often talk about O'Reily, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck.They all have basically the same viewpoints, so I get them mixed up. That dosn't mean I don't know anything about them, but I know their basic political stance and enough to not see them as a reliable source of information. No talk show host is, regardless of their political views, because they will inevitably put their own spin on things; remember, their goal is to persuade you. Moderate news organizations, however, are much more reliable (though here too you must take everything with a grain of salt), and this is where I get my information. Just beacuase I am not familiar with each individual talk show host's opinion on every issue does not mean that I do not know who they are or what they stand for. In any case, this arguement really is irrelevent to the topic. I was just trying to point out that if you are going to make accusations, you need to back it up with a reliable source.

Tokugawa77

And you're not backing anything up with a reliable source either. It's obvious your biased against all three of those guys, so it's kinda' laughable that you're scolding somebody else when you don't even have a clue as to who you're talking about.

And you're not backing anything up with a reliable source either. It's obvious your biased against all three of those guys, so it's kinda' laughable that you're scolding somebody else when you don't even have a clue as to who you're talking about.

airshocker

Once again, I know the basic political opinions of each one to know that they are not reliable. Go check wikipedia for a source on that. You can't honestly tell me that you think the likes of Glenn Beck are credible.

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]Whether or not climate change is real there needs to be change taken now. Oil and coal and only limited in supply, one day they are going to run out. Does it not make sense, for the well-being of the national economy, to take action now to get ourselves off these resources onto more renewable ones? Instead of both parties arguing over "is climate change real", why not go down the widely believed line that "oil is going to run out soon" and take action there? We need to start getting ourselves right off oil as a fuel for vehicles. It's better to do it now then wait for another oil price spike causing another recession in the future ...SUD123456

This is the most important post in the entire thread. It does not matter whether Global Warming is real or not, or whether it is influenced by mankind to any significant degree or not. What matters is:

1. Whether the current global economic system can operate indefinately on the basis of an energy system dominated by fossil fuels?

2. Whether the current energy system is an overall aid or overall detriment to the more important global social issues (assuming energy is simply an enabler of everything else)?

3.Whether a different energy system would be better or worse that the one we have in addressing the more important global social issues?

Once again, I know the basic political opinions of each one to know that they are not reliable. Go check wikipedia for a source on that. You can't honestly tell me that you think the likes of Glenn Beck are credible.

Tokugawa77

No, I don't really like Glenn Beck, but that doesn't mean I'm going to misrepresent what he says. I'm simply pointing out that you were wrong in your statements and continue to be.

No, I don't really like Glenn Beck, but that doesn't mean I'm going to misrepresent what he says. I'm simply pointing out that you were wrong in your statements and continue to be.

airshocker

The only fact that I had wrong was that O'Reily didn't support the birthers, however, a very similar talk show host did. I really don't see the problem here. In any case, how am I to know that you are in fact correct about O'Reily when you have provided no sources? No, wait, don't pull them up because this whole debate really isn't worth either of our time. I'll let you have the last word, though. I personally would like to debate climate change, if anyone here is still doing that.

Then perhaps they should keep their stories straight?

"NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980."

Nibroc420

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0319dustbowl.html

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Then perhaps they should keep their stories straight?

"NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980."

BumFluff122

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0319dustbowl.html

Its a myth.Earth has always been hot n cold.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Then perhaps they should keep their stories straight?

"NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980."

Nibroc420

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0319dustbowl.html

Your decision to not believe in climate change just because one organization twisted the facts slightly seems like excuses to me.

Sounds like excuses to me.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Maybe youo should try and understand what is meant? 1934 was the warmest year on record in the continental US. This was known as the dust bowl years and was the result of the jetstream taking a more southerly route around the US bringing drought to the region.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0319dustbowl.html

Tokugawa77

Your decision to not believe in climate change just because one organization twisted the facts slightly seems like excuses to me.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Sounds like excuses to me.

Nibroc420

Your decision to not believe in climate change just because one organization twisted the facts slightly seems like excuses to me.

What about the other scientific organizations? Literally every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.

And I'm honestly baffled at how you can point at a scientific organization's funding as proof of bias while ignoring Republicans' corporate donors and the profits at stake for them.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Then perhaps they should keep their stories straight?

"NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980."

Nibroc420

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0319dustbowl.html

Both the world scientific community and the US scientific community seem to support climate change. I think that says it all right there. Nothing is an absolute certainty, but I'm going to put my faith in science on this one. I don't think that working to prevent climate change is as bad as people think. Businesses may actually profit from it - developing and supplying cleaner sources of energy. Whatever country can take the lead on this, may do very well. I think we should embrace it.

Alright, let me lay it out for youo and you can tell me where the problem is. I'll begin by posting an article I'm currently working on for a website I'm building. It is a far more extensive description than the one given at the link in my sig.

---------------------------------------------

The greenhouse effect is largely dependent on solar variation. The energy, or radiation, that the Sun sends to the Earth is in the ultraviolet, visible and infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Solar energy, or energy below 4µm, is collectively known as shortwave radiation. When that radiation hits the atmosphere some of it is redirected via a process known as dimming, caused by aerosols such as sulfur dioxide, or surfaces with high albedo, such as snow. That radiation that does make it to the surface is absorbed and re-emitted according to Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation, which states that any object at some non-zero temperature radiates electromagnetic energy. According to Planck's Radiation Law the emitted radiation varies in frequency and wavelength dependent on the temperature of the object. While the Sun emits 99% of it's radiation below 4µm, the Earth, being much cooler than the Sun, emits radiation at a longer wavelength. Although historically climate feedbacks and temperatures have reacted to an increase or decrease of solar variability an analysis of recent trends indicates that solar irradiance has actually declined in the last few decades (Lockwood, 2008; Lockwood, 2010) while greenhouse gas concentration, specifically carbon dioxide, has increased (Keeling, 2005) and the global surface temperature trend has been positive (Brohan, 2006).

From Joseph Fourier's theories on heat transfer (Fourier, Freeman, 1878), John Tyndall's discovery of the greenhouse effect (Tyndall, 1861) and Svante Arrhenius's theory of carbonic acid's contribution to surface warming (Arrhenius, 1896) to the most recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report we've come a long way in understanding the effects different gases have in the atmosphere. As I explained previously, most radiation in the atmosphere above 4µm comes from black-body radiation emitted by objects heated up by absorbing shorter wavelength radiation. Greenhouse gases have the ability to absorb energy at these longer wavelengths. Specifically between 4µm and 100µm. Though absorption of higher energy modes is possible it is largely inconsequential to the greenhouse effect as those frequencies are not emitted by the Earth's surface. When this electromagnetic radiation strikes a molecule with an uneven distribution of electric charges, called an electric dipole, and a matching absorption frequency it causes the molecule to oscillate or vibrate which in turn either re-emits the energy or converts it into kinetic energy. This increase in kinetic energy is what we perceive as an increase in temperature. If a collision with another molecule occurs the energy is again converted into vibrational energy which can be re-emitted. This interconverting between vibrational energy, kinetic energy and infrared light continues until it can escape into space unimpeded. This process keeps temperatures approximately 33° warmer than if these gases were not present. The greenhouse effect is an essential part of keeping our planet hospitable and helps in maintaining life. However, as both greenhouse gas concentration and, as a result, downward longwave radiation (DLR) or back radiation increase a greater amount of energy is being trapped in the troposphere resulting in more heating at or near the surface which may have deleterious effects for certain types of organisms that have not adapted to that temperature rise.

Radiative forcing refers to how much of an influence a climatic factor has in altering the balance of energy at the tropopause, or the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere. It is a technique to assess and compare both natural and anthropogenic aspects of climate change. All climatologists, no matter what their views on this issue, all seem to agree on the basic concept of radiative forcing. Sometimes, however, disagreements come into play when discussing the values. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body consisting of thousands of scientists, economists and others who ****fy as experts in their fields of study, set the values of each anthropogenic forcing to those shown in Image 1.5 in their 2005 report. The average rate of change of specific radiative forcing components, such as those attributed to greenhouse gases, has increased since the beginning of the industrial era to a rate which has not been exceeded for over 20,000 years, the time period of the ice core data (Joos, 2008).

---------------------------------------------------------

That is as far as I've gotten so far on that small section. Previously I also discussed the Suns role in past climate changes. In my next chapter I plan on providing the evidences that the greater amount of CO2 concentration (http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv) is causing the warming.

Outbound longwave radiation decreasing at CO2 absorption wavelengths - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4204.1

Downward longwave radiation increasing at CO2 absorption wavelengths - http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

Tropospheric warming combined with upper atmospheric cooling -http://www.ann-geophys.net/16/1501/1998/angeo-16-1501-1998.pdf

Nights warming faster than days -http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/2005jd0062903.pdf

13C to 12C atmospheric ratio changes -http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/sioref4_2001.pdf

Ocean acidifcation during a warming period -http://www.bu-eh.org/uploads/Main/doney_ann_rev_proof.pdf

Decreasing O2 atmospheric concentration -https://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/manning/ManningandKeeling2006.pdf

Now this is the second or third time I've posted these links. If you'd like me to post the parts concerning how solar input is not the cause of the recent warming I can do that as well. Note that the links above go to actual scientific studies and data from real scientists.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] According to an IPCC report, Glaciers in the Himalayan mountains will have completely melted by 2035. However the people who actually researched it claim it wont happen until 2350. Somewhere down the line, that date was changed, and no-one noticed? I doubt it.Nibroc420

An Article

When infact it's 2350

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350," Mr Kotlyakov's report said.

He is astonished they "misread 2350 as 2035". The authors deny the claims.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Link?

CaveJohnson1

An Article

When infact it's 2350

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350," Mr Kotlyakov's report said.

He is astonished they "misread 2350 as 2035". The authors deny the claims.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

An Article

When infact it's 2350

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350," Mr Kotlyakov's report said.

He is astonished they "misread 2350 as 2035". The authors deny the claims.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Americans and science have never really mixed. Seriously, this is a country where probably a hundred million people believe in creationism.

surrealnumber5

I'd doubt you have the most universities per capita, and I'd disagree that Americans have been the leading innovators for the last 100 years.

It's a bit strange from an outsiders point of view.

97% of scientists that study climate agree that climate change is real and man made and a problem.

Why don't you guys believe the people who have made the study of the climate their lives work?

A lot of people would rather believe politicians and the popular press or groups such as oil companies that have a vested commericial interest in denial of the issue.

I can't see the logic here at all, is there a general distrust of science in the U.S.?