16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.

[Abraham3]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...

Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion. Keep yapping to yourself. I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves. Keep on purring kitty....

I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

STOP wetting yourself.

I DO believe in climate change.

I just don't believe it's MAN-MADE.

So fuck yourself.

You have NEVER been able to prove the "A" in "AGW."

And you never will.

But the climate?

That shit changes ALL the fucking time.

You asshole.

Wow. Well... hey... I'm convinced. Really.

 

[SSDD]

You thought it was laughable as a reference. Please show us why... or retract your criticism.

Still trying to save face? Statistics is not a mechanism. It might be used to try to describe a mechanism, but it is not a mechanism.

And that's all you got? Good grief.

It is all I need since it proves you wrong.

, how about you explain what "actual force" drives photons about?

We can't describe the mechanism at work in moving photons around any more than we can describe the mechanism by which gravity works.....we can bet our asses, however that neither mechanism is a branch of mathematical study. You have a fundamental inability to understand the difference between a mechanism and an attempt to predict what a mechanism will cause.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...



I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

STOP wetting yourself.

I DO believe in climate change.

I just don't believe it's MAN-MADE.

So fuck yourself.

You have NEVER been able to prove the "A" in "AGW."

And you never will.

But the climate?

That shit changes ALL the fucking time.

You asshole.

Wow. Well... hey... I'm convinced. Really.

And I'm convinced that you, too, are an asshole.

Now what?

I wasn't offering a proof, you dip shit. So I don't see how I "persuaded" you. You dolt.

I merely pointed out (correctly, by the way) that CLAIMING that global climate change is "man made" is simply NOT the same thing as proving it. No matter how often you idiots insist in putting the "A" in AGW, you still have no ability to support your faith-based contention.

If you find that difficult to grasp at this late stage, then you need some remedial education.

 

[Saigon]

Ilar -

I'm confused about you using the term "faith-based" to describe the side 99% of scientists are on.

If the position of scientists is based on faith - what is your position based on?

 

[Toro]

Roughly 40% of Americans believe global warming is man-made.

Environment

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ilar -

I'm confused about you using the term "faith-based" to describe the side 99% of scientists are on.

If the position of scientists is based on faith - what is your position based on?

First off, of course, the CLAIM that 99% of scientists agree with the notion of MAN MADE global warming or global climate change is a bogus claim.

When idiots (i.e., morons such as you) make claims about the "consensus" of scientists, you reveal your fundamental lack of precision in even describing the basis of scientific thought.

WHEN the day comes (if it ever does -- if it ever could) when you tools are capable of properly using SCIENCE (as opposed to very incomplete "models" which rely on computers and programming which are themselves predicated on assumptions and unproven theories) to "show" that human kind even has the ability to influence climate changes on planet Earth, you may have a point.

But as things stand, your ASSumptions and theories and models still don't establish what you CHOOSE to believe. Your process is a work of faith.

But you got one thing right. You ARE indeed confused.

 

[Saigon]

Ilar -

You didn't answer the question.

You know as well as I do that scientists overwhelmingly support AGW, and that very, very few scientists share your opinion.

So I'll ask again - if science represents a "faith-based" approach - what is your approach based on?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Roughly 40% of Americans believe global warming is man-made.

Environment

What difference does that make?

If 95% of Americans "believe" that the Nazis were the bad guys in WWII, that means that maybe 5% think that the Nazi's were the good guys. Neither "side" can claim a victory in the debate based on the percentage of believers.

Flip it around. If 95% believed that the Nazis were the good guys, would that make it true?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ilar -

You didn't answer the question.

You know as well as I do that scientists overwhelmingly support AGW, and that very, very scientists share your opinion.

So I'll ask again - if science represents a "faith-based" approach - what is your approach based on?

Sai:

Yes I did.

You choose not to accept the answer. But that's not the same thing.

My "approach" is based on the scientific method.

You are citing (with your typically fantasy figures) what an alleged "majority" of "scientists" supposedly "believe."

My high school biology teachers (if they are still alive) might be deemed "scientists." The guys studying astrophysics at NASA are scientists. The chemists at the labs that do our blood work are scientists. Does that make them "expert" in the CLAIMS about "man made [sic] global warming?" Have they studied the faulty methodologies which guys like you RELY upon? Are they even mildly aware of the problems in the scientific "processes" by which the claims about man made global warming are premised?

 

[Saigon]

My "approach" is based on the scientific method.

Which apparently no scientists agree with.

 

[Toro]

Roughly 40% of Americans believe global warming is man-made.

Environment

What difference does that make?

If 95% of Americans "believe" that the Nazis were the bad guys in WWII, that means that maybe 5% think that the Nazi's were the good guys. Neither "side" can claim a victory in the debate based on the percentage of believers.

Flip it around. If 95% believed that the Nazis were the good guys, would that make it true?

The OP is about Americans' beliefs regarding climate change.

 

[Saigon]

The OP is about Americans' beliefs regarding climate change.

Indeed it is.

The numbers don't prove anyone right or wrong, but it's about scientists getting the message through, and people coming to understand the facts.

Thankfully, it seems most people in the US are now getting on board, but it is a damn slow process. My guess is that we'll see the GOP admit defeat on this within the next couple of years, which should shift opinion ever further towards consensus.

 

[SSDD]

Ilar -

You didn't answer the question.

You know as well as I do that scientists overwhelmingly support AGW, and that very, very few scientists share your opinion.

Scientists overwhelmingly believed that stress caused stomach ulcers. Scientists overwhelmingly believed that plate tectonics was not true. Scientists overwhelmingly believed that quasicrystals did not exist. What's your point? The list of what scientists have overwhelmingly believed that turned out to be wrong is embarassingly long and in this case, the claims of consensus are fabricated.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ilar -

I'm confused about you using the term "faith-based" to describe the side 99% of scientists are on.

If the position of scientists is based on faith - what is your position based on?

I am confused why you keep saying that 99% of scientists believe in something they do not believe in. Is it because you cannot think for yourself, so you resort to lies in order to make your point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ilar -

You didn't answer the question.

You know as well as I do that scientists overwhelmingly support AGW, and that very, very few scientists share your opinion.

So I'll ask again - if science represents a "faith-based" approach - what is your approach based on?

What, exactly, do they support, in your opinion? Do you understand that saying that humans contribute to climate change is not the same thing as saying that we are all doomed if we do not stop it?

 

[Abraham3]

Ilar -

You didn't answer the question.

You know as well as I do that scientists overwhelmingly support AGW, and that very, very few scientists share your opinion.

Scientists overwhelmingly believed that stress caused stomach ulcers. Scientists overwhelmingly believed that plate tectonics was not true. Scientists overwhelmingly believed that quasicrystals did not exist. What's your point? The list of what scientists have overwhelmingly believed that turned out to be wrong is embarassingly long and in this case, the claims of consensus are fabricated.

I guess we should just abandon science altogether. Science is obviously incompetent. Instead, we should rely on... you?

The only reason you know that those things were wrong was that science found out and told you so. The proportion of things science believes that are incorrect has been decreasing since the time of Francis Bacon. This is not evidence that science is flawed, this is evidence that science keeps moving closer to the truth - as they're supposed to.

I am at a complete loss how you manage to maintain the reputation you have with some people here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ilar -

You didn't answer the question.

You know as well as I do that scientists overwhelmingly support AGW, and that very, very few scientists share your opinion.

Scientists overwhelmingly believed that stress caused stomach ulcers. Scientists overwhelmingly believed that plate tectonics was not true. Scientists overwhelmingly believed that quasicrystals did not exist. What's your point? The list of what scientists have overwhelmingly believed that turned out to be wrong is embarassingly long and in this case, the claims of consensus are fabricated.

I guess we should just abandon science altogether. Science is obviously incompetent. Instead, we should rely on... you?

The only reason you know that those things were wrong was that science found out and told you so. The proportion of things science believes that are incorrect has been decreasing since the time of Francis Bacon. This is not evidence that science is flawed, this is evidence that science keeps moving closer to the truth - as they're supposed to.

What's your point?

 

[Abraham3]

Scientists overwhelmingly believed that stress caused stomach ulcers. Scientists overwhelmingly believed that plate tectonics was not true. Scientists overwhelmingly believed that quasicrystals did not exist. What's your point? The list of what scientists have overwhelmingly believed that turned out to be wrong is embarassingly long and in this case, the claims of consensus are fabricated.

I guess we should just abandon science altogether. Science is obviously incompetent. Instead, we should rely on... you?

The only reason you know that those things were wrong was that science found out and told you so. The proportion of things science believes that are incorrect has been decreasing since the time of Francis Bacon. This is not evidence that science is flawed, this is evidence that science keeps moving closer to the truth - as they're supposed to.

What's your point?

Too subtle?

My point is that 97% of climate scientists believing in AGW has a great deal of significance. SSDD would like you to believe otherwise by noting erroneous beliefs that science has held in the past, implying that they are frequently wrong.

Versteht?

 

[Abraham3]

Quantum Windbag,

Could I ask you where you got that cartoon you use for your avatar? And don't you think it would be funnier if the punch line were rearranged to read "Someone on the internet is wrong"?

 

[westwall]

Roughly 40% of Americans believe global warming is man-made.

Environment

What difference does that make?

If 95% of Americans "believe" that the Nazis were the bad guys in WWII, that means that maybe 5% think that the Nazi's were the good guys. Neither "side" can claim a victory in the debate based on the percentage of believers.

Flip it around. If 95% believed that the Nazis were the good guys, would that make it true?

The OP is about Americans' beliefs regarding climate change.

And the OP has been shown to be factually incorrect. Thanks for playing..