backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by Lazarus Dark.. on Jun 16 at 10:13 PM


  (Source: Responsible Investor)

  (Source: Daily Galaxy)
And they want the government to do something about it

Researchers at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University conducted a survey that shows three out of four Americans believe in global warming and want the government to establish laws to stop it.

 

The survey was funded by the National Science Foundation and administered in June 2010 by Woods Institute Senior Fellow Jon Krosnick, a professor of communication and political science at Stanford University. From June 1-7, 1,000 randomly selected American adults were chosen to participate in the survey via telephone interviews. 

According to the June 2010 survey, 74 percent of Americans think the Earth's temperature probably has been heating up over the last 100 years, and 75 percent think human activity is the reason why. 

"Several national surveys released during the last eight months have been interpreted as showing that fewer and fewer Americans believe that climate change is real, human-caused and threatening," said Krosnick. "But our new survey shows just the opposite."

While the number of people who believe in global warming has increased, Krosnick says there are people who do not trust climate scientists and they "base their conclusions on their personal observations of nature." According to Krosnick, 2008 was the coldest year since 2000 in terms of average Earth temperature, and these "low-trust individuals were especially aware of the recent decline in average world temperatures" and "they were the ones in our survey whose doubts about global warming have increased since 2007."

"Our surveys reveal a small decline in the proportion of people who believe global warming has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 74 percent today," said Krosnick. "Statistical analysis of our data revealed that this decline is attributable to perceptions of recent weather changes by the minority of Americans who have been skeptical about climate scientists."

The survey also included questions concerning the "climategate" controversy, where thousands of e-mails and other documents were leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. Only nine percent of American's said they knew about this controversy and that it caused them to distrust climate scientists. Despite all the skeptics, there has been no decline in trust for environmental scientists.

Krosnick believes that the decline in proportion of people is likely temporary, and the skeptics will probably join the majority who think global warming is real if the Earth's temperature begins to rise again.

Out of those respondents who believe global warming exists, 86 percent want the government to "limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit," 76 percent of respondents want government limitations on greenhouse gas emissions "generated by businesses" and 14 percent think the government should not take action at all unless other countries like China and India do so as well. Though, in the UK, Professor Seamus Garvey at the University of Nottingham has designed a plan to power the UK completely by renewable energy by 2030 through the use of off-shore energy farms.

Other survey results include four out of five participants wanting the government to offer tax breaks to encourage more fuel efficient vehicles, 84 percent want tax breaks for utilities that use more green methods for power generation, and 80 percent want more energy efficient appliances.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

"Believe"
By danobrega on 6/14/2010 12:49:35 PM , Rating: 5
That is where the problem starts. If it's a matter of believing or not than we are not going in the right direction.




RE: "Believe"
By PandaBear on 6/14/2010 12:50:15 PM , Rating: 1
Most scientists believe in global warming, just disagree on whether it is man made or not.


RE: "Believe"
By danobrega on 6/14/2010 12:59:02 PM , Rating: 3
Scientists don't base their opinions and thoughts on belief. They base it on facts.

Maybe I just need to restructure the way I interpret the word "believe". I relate it closely to faith. :)


RE: "Believe"
By NainoKami on 6/14/2010 1:17:12 PM , Rating: 3
Don't scientists base their opinions on probable theory?

From wikipedia:
"Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses."
and:
"The purpose of a scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a proposed explanation about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can definitively contradict the hypothesis."


RE: "Believe"
By Mitch101 on 6/14/2010 2:01:58 PM , Rating: 5
No No today its based on grant money.


RE: "Believe"
By mcnabney on 6/15/2010 9:40:31 AM , Rating: 4
You are an idiot. Everything scientists do is based on grant money. I am quite sure that the oil/gas industry has been funding plenty of grants to support their desires. Strangely enough, the papers those scientists write can't survive peer-review because there isn't any evidence to support them. The weather outside, today, is not evidence.


RE: "Believe"
By Mitch101 on 6/15/2010 3:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
I said
quote:
based on grant money

You Said
quote:
based on grant money

But Im the idiot?


RE: "Believe"
By Jeffk464 on 6/14/2010 2:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
Nope laymen, read you, base their opinions on whatever they feel. Scientists base their conclusions on observable evidence that they painstakingly study.


RE: "Believe"
By rcc on 6/14/2010 4:15:42 PM , Rating: 3
Mark that "Are supposed to base........"


RE: "Believe"
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: "Believe"
By bhougha10 on 6/14/2010 2:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think we have been comming out of an ice age for a while now. Call it global warming or not.
I don't know why this is so political. If you cut down all the rainforsts, you can expect some bad consequences. You have a zillion cars running, you can expect some there as well. Now we got China with 4 or 5 times the amount of people pumping out those special green house gases as you call them. We already sent all factories over to China and soon we won't be able to afford cars,so, I don't really know what the issue is anymore from the US perspective.


RE: "Believe"
By chunkymonster on 6/14/2010 2:52:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Nope, belief is completely the right term until something has been proven. All science starts with observation from which a belief (hypothesis) is formulated. The only difference between scientific belief and any other sort is that it's falsifiable through testing


Sorry, wrong.

A hypothesis is not a belief, and never the two should meet!

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation based on observable and explainable events in an attempt to prove or disprove a theory.

Belief is a psychological state in which a person holds a proposition or premise to be true.

By interchanging "belief" with "hypothesis" it interjects personal opinion into the research and leads one to think that an outcome should be one thing or another rather than the self concluding and objective results of the research itself.

Science is and should remain objective.


RE: "Believe"
By Solandri on 6/14/2010 4:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
In theory that's how it's supposed to work. In practice, it really is a belief. One scientist believes in their pet theory, and dreams up experiments which can substantiate it, while making extra effort to criticize competing theories. Another scientist believes in a different pet theory, dreams up experiments which could support his theory, while making extra effort to criticize the theory advocated by the first scientist. The cumulative effect is that both theories get well thought-out and well-criticized, so there's no real loss.

In my experience, the difference is that science types are more willing than the general population to let go of a theory they believe in if evidence turns up disproving it or showing it to be highly unlikely. And they are honest enough with themselves that they are much less likely to ignore evidence which blatantly contradicts their pet theories when it turns up in their own experiments. But if they've already settled on a pet theory they believe in, trying to get them to even consider a different theory is just as difficult as with regular people. Propose a competing theory without direct evidence and scientists can be just as vindictive and belittling as neighborhood ladies gossiping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener#Reacti...


RE: "Believe"
By DominionSeraph on 6/14/2010 11:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
What you're describing are equal theories -- explanations which both fit the available data. For two scientists on opposite sides to do a straight swap would be inefficient -- the original theorizer knows his theory the best and can therefore best determine when an attack hits home or when it misses. He is also the worst at coming up with ways to fail his theory -- all of his techniques for disproof have already been used in testing the hypothesis. So he's at an impasse for ideas. The fresh perspective of another person is needed to formulate new attacks.

To use "belief" to describe the position of a proponent of a theory is sloppily imprecise. Belief covers all positive levels of conviction, and is completely independent of level of intellectual honesty. The most delusional religious nutjob in the world believes, but that doesn't mean he has proposed and is honestly judging criticisms of a scientific theory.

Science should not be lumped in with the techniques of the unwashed masses.


RE: "Believe"
By geddarkstorm on 6/15/2010 1:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
No, now we are just quibbling over language use.

A hypothesis says "x influences/causes/affects y", we formulate that idea from an observation where something happened to implicate a connection between x and y, but it isn't proven nor substantiated, hence it's a hypothesis. But that's identical to "belief", hence why the two are commonly used interchangeably. A hypothesis is put forth assuming it is true and THEN the process attempts to disprove it. Only on failing to -disprove- the hypothesis (and succeeding to disprove the null hypothesis), does the idea become substantiated and move on to theory level.

Bias is not involved in the process itself, but can sadly easily crop up during the selection and utilization of the experiments used to test the hypothesis.


RE: "Believe"
By Stacey Melissa on 6/14/2010 2:12:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maybe I just need to restructure the way I interpret the word "believe". I relate it closely to faith. :)

You do need to restructure the way you interpret the word "believe". Saying one "believes in X" doesn't tell you a thing about how one arrived at that belief. It could be faith or facts or indoctrination, or any combination of those. You also can't tell what the strength of the belief is, or whether it can be dislodged, and if so, by what means, merely because someone "believes in X". You could certainly find out all of the above information, but it's gonna take more questions to do so.


RE: "Believe"
By bupkus on 6/15/2010 3:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe I just need to restructure the way I interpret the word "believe". I relate it closely to faith.

Absolutely... if said scientists base their beliefs on "facts" or a scientific methodology that can convince us we are actually approaching a truth.


RE: "Believe"
By chunkymonster on 6/14/2010 3:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most scientists believe in global warming, just disagree on whether it is man made or not


I don't want any scientist "believing" in anything. I want scientists to prove or disprove a theory using objective, measurable, and unbiased methodology. If I want someone to believe in something, I will visit my Priest.

While some scientists claim to be agnostic or atheist they have turned to science and technology to answer the mysteries of the universe and effectively adopted science as a religion. They tried that once, during the Middle Ages, it was called Alchemy.


RE: "Believe"
By jbartabas on 6/14/2010 3:45:38 PM , Rating: 3
Belief (3rd definition): conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence .
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/belief

Scientists using the term "believe" is a rather common practice. That term does not imply, necessarily, a conviction based on faith, without any consideration of evidences.


RE: "Believe"
By Stacey Melissa on 6/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: "Believe"
By Stacey Melissa on 6/14/2010 5:06:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
during the period from the ancient Greek philosophers of science (e.g. Epicurus, Democritus, not Plato) until the Enlightenment.

That came out wrong. I meant to refer to the period running from after the ancient Greek philosophers up until the Enlightenment.


RE: "Believe"
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2010 2:23:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Only nine percent of American's said they knew about this controversy and that it caused them to distrust climate scientists.


Because our media barely reported and quickly swept it under the rug maybe??


RE: "Believe"
By Stacey Melissa on 6/14/2010 5:20:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Because our media barely reported and quickly swept [Climategate] under the rug maybe??

I saw Climategate as a major story on the NBC nightly news for a couple of days when the story first broke, and then I saw it commented on by Jon Stewart in following days. What I haven't seen from any TV source of any kind is the followup reporting on Climategate that showed all the smoking gun quotes were actually just creationist-like quote-mining. I also haven't seen any TV reporting of the various official investigations that have been done and cleared the scientists of misconduct. What little I've heard about the followup has been from a few back page AP newspaper articles, and a few articles here at Dailytech.


RE: "Believe"
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2010 10:17:43 PM , Rating: 3
Right so basically one of the biggest news story this decade, got about the same national coverage as the weather balloon boy hoax...

Oh by the way the only "official" investigation has been from East Anglia itself, not law enforcement agencies. What a shock that they investigated themselves and found themselves clear of all accusations.


RE: "Believe"
By consumerwhore on 6/15/2010 11:24:02 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Right so basically one of the biggest news story this decade
[rolleyes/]

quote:
got about the same national coverage as the weather balloon boy hoax...
Quite fitting given it was a hoax too.


RE: "Believe"
By Jaybus on 6/15/2010 3:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely not. There was relatively little coverage of balloon boy prior to it being found to be a hoax. The father pleaded guilty less than a month after the supposed flight. By contrast, we have heard some alarming, end-of-the-world global warming story nearly daily for years and years. Therefore, Climategate is a much more newsworthy story, and has not, in the US, received anywhere near the coverage it should have.


RE: "Believe"
By Lazarus Dark on 6/14/2010 9:24:53 PM , Rating: 3
My thoughts: Everyone I know that "believes" in Global warming, it was because they were told to. If I probe them in the least, few if any have read or researched ANYTHING about the subject. So... just because most Americans "believe" what they are told... that makes it true? This is almost certainly true of even a majority of politicians and even environmentalists. Most just accept it cause someone said so with little or no evidence presented. I don't think we should base policy about the environment based on what a lot of people "believe".

If you tell a lie long enough and often enough...


RE: "Believe"
By mcnabney on 6/15/2010 9:58:29 AM , Rating: 1
The following are known facts that all scientists agree upon.

1. The recent decades have had a disproportionate number of record 'average' global surface and ocean temperatures.
2. Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily rising for decades. It is up about 50% (albeit from a very low percentage to begin with)
3. Ocean acidity has also been rising (CO2 disolves in water to form carbonic acid)
4. Since the industrial age began, humans have been digging up/drilling for sequestered pockets of hydrocarbons in mass quantities. CO2 is released when those fuels are burned/combusted.

Now the earth DOES have heating/cooling cycles. That can explain climate change all by itself. The elephant in the room is the two extra pieces of data - higher CO2 count and ocean acidification. Those pieces of data show that the system is out of balance. If that system being out of balance is causing the climate shifts then that leads directly to us since we have obviously been the source of the increased CO2.

I, personally, fall on the line that there is no way that the whole world - especially developing nations - are going to rapidly curtail usage. We might as well buckle-up and hope for the best. It will likely be an exciting ride and technically we are doing it to ourselves, but as humans beings we always fall on the side of Me-First. We do the same thing by charging up massive debt for our grandchildren to pay. A pathetic lot we are.


RE: "Believe"
By JediJeb on 6/15/2010 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now the earth DOES have heating/cooling cycles. That can explain climate change all by itself. The elephant in the room is the two extra pieces of data - higher CO2 count and ocean acidification. Those pieces of data show that the system is out of balance. If that system being out of balance is causing the climate shifts then that leads directly to us since we have obviously been the source of the increased CO2.


I have seen a few graphs that make me question this cause and relation. One was by a AGW advocate in a lecture where when you look closely at the graphs showing temperature rise and CO2 concentration rise versus time, they do both increase, but the sticking point is the temperature graph begins to rise several years before the CO2 levels begin to rise. His whole argument was that the slopes of the two graphs change together indicating a relationship, but he never explained how rising CO2 levels caused the temperatures to rise years before the CO2 rise began. To me that would suggest that rising temperatures is what is causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, not the other way around. Had this been a graph presented by an AGW skeptic I may have questioned it, but since it was a graph presented by an AGW advocate and yet it contradicted his claims I began to study it and have found other evidence of the same data.

Also being a chemist I know that as you heat water, gasses become less soluble in it, thus if temperatures rise then the concentration of the gasses dissolved in the water will rise in the air above it. There are far too many variables involved with climate to simply say we burn fossil fuels we raise the temperature of the planet. Plus a lot of the graphs I find when I search are temperature rise versus CO2 forcing, not CO2 concentration, which makes it harder to discover the truth.

All in all the thing to watch will be what the author eluded to when he said "if temperature begin to rise again will the skeptics then believe", what happens if temperatures fail to begin to rise again?


RE: "Believe"
By Lazarus Dark on 6/16/2010 10:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
Please note, I was not arguing about the validity of global warming research, I was talking about the article. The article seemed to indicate that because a certain portion of Americans "believe" in global warming, that should be a reason for legislation and such based on that belief. I was saying that Americans are stupid and the fact that a lot of people believe in global warming should not be reason in and of itself for legislation.

BUT, as far as what should be considered: facts, proof, evidence, scientific consensus...
The only scientists that I see claiming there is consensus are the ones on the side of global warming. Any research or scientist that says there is NOT a consensus, is simply a heretic. I've seen as much evidence on both sides, the only difference being that global warming data consistently seems to be eventually proven incorrect, flawed, or downright falsified if you wait long enough. I have yet to see any data from the non-warming side disproven (unless you count scientists who dismiss it without actually looking at it, because any evidence to the contrary of global warming is automatically wrong because global warming is "truth". I swear, its like a religion...)


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki