Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2012 - 10:09am PT
|
One aspect in this fight around climate, as our bus rolls toward a cliff, is how people "know" what they know. Scientists generally think that people should learn about the evidence and on that basis form their beliefs. That's what most scientists do of course. So, many scientists are baffled that as evidence builds up, public beliefs remain largely unchanged.
What seems to be happening instead is that many non-scientists already have strong beliefs, which tell them what evidence about reality they can accept. More actively, in the Internet and cable news age, they know just where to go to hear more and more "evidence" that supports their political position. We see countless examples of that in the cut-and-pastes on this thread.
Less actively, or in cases where they have no information one way or the other, some people construct beliefs about physical reality straight out of their politics. As one way to cast light on this process, I've lately been adding knowledge questions to surveys. Here's an easy one (but remember, on a survey you can't Google):
Which of the following three statements do you think is more accurate?
Scientific measurements have confirmed that in recent decades, the
concentration of CO2 or carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is ...
 Increasing
Staying about the same
Decreasing
Don't know
Any guesses how that came out? Or how it might break down by age, by gender, by education or political party?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2012 - 01:33pm PT
|
Heh reminds me of the time one of my chemistry professors was consulted by Washoe County when they were rewriting the water standards laws. They wanted to ensure good water quality by requiring 0 pH.
Took a bit of explaining why that would not be a good idea.
I mean 0 pH sounds good right?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2012 - 02:52pm PT
|
Oh I think you don't have to be a rocket scientist to accurately guess those answers.
No, you don't!
Overall 63% of our respondents knew or guessed the right answer (CO2 levels increasing). But ... among some groups, the proportion of accurate answers was significantly better than 63%, while among other groups it was less:
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2012 - 05:55pm PT
|
hey bruce kay,do you have your own reality too?
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2012 - 08:14pm PT
|
sorry bruce kay, i got your statement wrong....... yes human ,but politics and wishfull thinking are hardly my angle.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2012 - 09:05pm PT
|
Vulcanism has caused at least two monster greenhouse events in the geologic past. There are probably many others, but it is tough to correlate the little ones.
Vulcanism can be very episodic, and there are periods where it was far more active than today. I don't have time to explain why. Energy budget type of thing.
The big two events caused massive warming. They also cause oceanic anoxic events where the ocean becomes anoxic below a certain depth.
What we are doing now is kind of like an artificial period of vulcanism. Putting a lot of extra CO2 in the atmosphere on top of natural vulcanism.
Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, although CO2 or another force is usually the initial driver. Understanding clouds and which type trap energy rather than reflect it into space is a big question.
In the past these CO2 events definitely caused temperature rise.
The Chief has lately had the attitude that the Earth is moving around doing its own thing and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. We are eventually doomed as a species.
If we keep going through the planet's resources, including metals, there will be economic hell to pay. It won't cause us to go extinct, but it will be a big upheaval.
Climate Change has the same potential. It won't kill all of us. It will change the distribution of arable land and cause shifts in population centers.
Our population is growing way too fast. Dwindling resources, even water, will cause great suffering in the future unless we can figure out cheap food besides soylent green.
Hopefully we will end up with a global population 1/3 or so of present day. Competetion for resources will fall greatly. If we double our population again in the next 25 odd years, we will be truly f*#ked.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2012 - 09:12pm PT
|
Yeah, I remember Huntsman. He was a straight talker and not an idealogue trapped by the ideas of the lowest common denomintor in the Republican Party. My wife and I were sad to see him go. I dunno if I would have voted for him in the general election, but he was the only one who could have given Obama a run for his money.
The rest were Huckabee and Santorum types. Santorum almost beat Romney in the primary. Santorum doesn't believe in evolution and is a super religious holy roller.
No thanks. I won't vote for a party who doesn't believe in science. All they care about is results. Like how our improvements in killing people is coming along.
The Republican base has shifted so far into an alternate universe that they are screwed. It is like voting for the Flat Earth Society.
Why do all of these guys, many of which who have college backgrounds that include at least some math and science, renounce it like it is satan worship?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2012 - 09:13pm PT
|
The chief is correct on the point that - with or without us - the planet is always completely 'fine' and striving for equilibrium; All environmental and climate concerns are strictly a matter of our lifestyle choices. Make unwise choices to simply support today's lifestyle and we can be dealing our progeny a much tougher lifestyle. Either way, the planet will be 'perfect'.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2012 - 09:34pm PT
|
why do all these guys............base,theres a solid market for it.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2012 - 10:08pm PT
|
Given the results of Chiloe's survey I'd say 'why' is fairly obvious - just correlate views on any aspect of science with the level of education in red states and you have your answer. It isn't rocket science as shown in the maps below. It should also be noted that The red areas are predominately lower income than the blue areas which is the reason the republican strategy for forty years has depended on hate as opposed to rational arguments on why the rich should be allowed to get richer (there aren't any that really sell outside the suburbs).
It's why the republicans turn science-based topics into social litmus tests.
Note: areas which voted democratic with lower education levels are likely areas with high immigrant or minority populations.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2012 - 10:32pm PT
|
The chief is correct on the point that - with or without us - the planet is always completely 'fine' Sure, no argument there, but what a total cop out.
I would have to disagree. There is no element of a cop out of any kind in acknowledging the unavoidable reality of my statement above. Where someone could be accused of "a cop out" is in deciding, 'screw the children, it's all about my own lifestyle now, not theirs later.'
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2012 - 09:37am PT
|
So what is the answer to chiloes quiz?
About recent volcanic vs. human CO2 ... you can find stacks of pseudoscience declarations on the web, but the best scientific estimates place recent annual CO2 emissions from all sources combined at something like 1% of the annual human contribution. The annual scale of human emissions may exceed that of continental flood basalts, and even a Yellowstone Caldera-scale supereruption (which would devastate the US, if it happened today), might release less CO2 than one year of human activities.
See for example Gerlach (2011), http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
On the survey, only 33% knew or guessed correctly that human activities release much more CO2 than recent volcanic activity. But again, the percent correct was higher than that in some groups, and lower in others.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2012 - 03:08pm PT
|
wouldn't it be best to move on to more science topics than to try to guess at the motives for various people's views?
Well, there's the real ice, with its physical causes and consequences. Then there's the socially constructed ice, which is not physical but the social construction too has causes, some having to do with motives and views, which can be studied scientifically as well.
And the socially constructed ice has consequences for the physical ice too -- insofar as a false understanding of what's going on with the real ice could lead Titanic skippers or global society into bad, irreversible decisions.
That was another of our knowledge questions, BTW.
Which of the following three statements do you think is more accurate?
Over the past few years, the ice on the Arctic Ocean in late summer ...
Covers less area than it did 30 years ago.
Declined but then recovered to about the same area it had 30 years ago.
Covers more area than it did 30 years
Don’t know
Very easy, 68% got that one right. But again, some groups did better or worse. See the pattern?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2012 - 08:42pm PT
|
Surely they're not all Sarah Palins?
No, that's not it at all. A good question, though.
Turns out the three wrong answers reflect different kinds of errors. "Arctic ice declined, then recovered" reflects political beliefs -- more often chosen by people who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change, and by Republicans.
"Arctic ice increased" reflects low education, rather than political beliefs.
And women are more likely than men to say "Don't know" to a science knowledge question.
(These statements about who gave which wrong answers are all "other things being equal" from a more complicated analysis than what I've shown here. It's in a paper about patterns in the wrong answers to these survey questions.)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00008.1
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2012 - 01:36pm PT
|
Documents from 1966 reveal the mission of the military and federal agencies to modify the climate
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/26/government-documents-link-global-warming-to-advanced-military-climate-modification-technology/
Maybe "The Chief" is right? :-)
This set of documents from 1966 reveals a network of government agencies in perpetual and secret collaboration with each other and the military to Modify the Global climate. Created by the elitist National Academy of Sciences – decades of an inter-agency culture of secrecy explains why the issue of covert aerosol Geoengineering is a taboo topic to be degraded to the status of “conspiracy theory” by a matrix of complicit bureaucrats at every opportunity. This is why your local TV “meteorologist” will rarely make a helpful comment about an unusual sky filled with persistent jet trails.
I don't know anything about the science of this stuff in this article.
I just thought WTF, why not see what you guys say .... :-)
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2012 - 01:49pm PT
|
Created by the elitist National Academy of Sciences
That is a good one. Although to be a member you are elite. I know a guy who is a member.
Somebody always sees a conspiracy.
Hey, right now I am landing a horizontal well. That is where, over 500 vertical feet, you gradually turn from a vertical inclination to a 90 degree inclination. The zone I am trying to land in is 8 to 10 feet thick.
I just called in my last adjustment. They have to keep the curve smooth to reduce torque and drag.
Anyone want to bet that I nail it?
Herndie, Inc. Serving Supertopo's Hydrocarbon Needs Since..Well..before you were all born.....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2012 - 01:59pm PT
|
All I want is a tasty juicy carrot.
All those science rascals have been modifying my carrot and now tastes like bland cardboard sh!t.
So there's no conspiracy since it's true.
Keep on on drillin Base104 ..... :-)
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 27, 2012 - 02:00pm PT
|
Base, I say you Nail IT!!
Then, with the proceeds rolling in, you buy up a floor of the Ahwanhnee for a week and host all your SuperTaco friends!!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!