Climate change is happening now?

[pscot]

This is a rather innocuous op-ed from the Boston Globe. The real interest is in the comments. By roughly 10 to 1, they don't believe it.




http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/09/22/changes_in_the_air/
----
Midwestern climate change is really bad news for Cheeseheads who root for the Green Bay Packers. The Packers will lose their legendary psychological advantage. Visiting teams will no longer shiver in December on the “frozen tundra’’ of Lambeau Field. The tundra will become just another prairie. Similarly, what would New England Patriots playoff lore be like without snow angels by players or fans throwing snow into the air to sparkle as icy fireworks?.....(more)

[SpiralHawk]

1. "I can't handle the truth." - Republicon Homelander Climate Deniers

eom

[gateley]

2. Forget about climate change, weather patterns run amok, etc., -- they can

explain that away with "cycles".

What flummoxes me is how can anybody think the amount of pollutants and poisons we put into our air, land and water could be GOOD or even innocuous!

Whether or not they think these things are affecting climate change or causing global warming, it just makes sense to want to keep the earth and our resources as pristine as possible. We wouldn't drink water from a dirty bathtub, walk into a room full of noxious fumes, spray poison on our food then eat it... :shrug:

Maybe we should switch the argument from 'look what we've done' to 'what can we do'...

[havocmom]

3. Comforting delusion/denial easier than facing an 'inconvenient truth'

Human nature: basic impulse is to protect/defend one's self. Some people will take the shortest route to perceived emotional defense, which is denial. Facing truth and working for REAL defense against threats takes a lot of effort and self discipline. Too many people don't have the will to do either. Too many don't have the courage to even try.

[brendan120678]

4. An editorial in my local paper today...

also spoke of the "myth" of Global Climate Change"
----------------------------------------------------

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2009/09/22/opinion/438229.txt

Myth continues to unravel

An international team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) concludes the earth's weather definitely is affected by the 11-year solar cycles. "The sun, the stratosphere and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence events such as winter rainfall in North America" and much more, wrote lead author Gerald Meehl in the team's paper published in the journal Science.

"The study found that chemicals in the stratosphere and sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean respond during solar maximum in a way that amplifies the sun's influence on some aspects of air movement," Space.com summarized. "This can intensify winds and rainfall, change sea surface temperatures and cloud cover over certain tropical and subtropical regions, and ultimately influence global weather."

None of this is especially surprising because as the Web site says, the sun "is the ultimate source of all the energy on Earth; its rays heat the planet and drive the churning motions of its atmosphere." Bottom line: The study finds the sun — duh! — is the major player in ever-changing regional and global weather and climate patterns, an inconvenient truth Al Gore and his acolytes refuse to accept because it would render their financial and political investments in the global-warming applesauce and green energy worthless.

So it isn't especially surprising, either, that people would suffer severe eye strain waiting in vain for Space.com to connect the dots to "global warming" or "climate change," even though the Science article on the NCAR report is categorized under "climate change" and summarizes it thusly: "A new computer model might reveal how sea and air currents amplify small changes in the sun's output into major swings in global climate."

Slowly, inexorably, the myth of man-made global warming is unraveling.

[Birthmark]

6. So CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

Man, that's gonna play hell with the chemists and physicists. ;)

[brendan120678]

7. LOL..yeah, the editors apparently are not that bright.

[tabatha]

5. Good Lord

... most of those comments are scary and arrogant.

[kristopher]

8. With energy legislation pending and Copenhagen right around the corner

The PR machines are working overtime and I doubt the ratio of letters indicates anything about actual public sentiment or knowledge. Not that it is that great, but general knowledge and concern rate a lot higher than a sample generated by a corporate instigated outpouring of LTTEs from the teabag contingent.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. I'm not as confident…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=211262&mesg_id=211262

[kristopher]

10. Not as confident as what?

From the OP: "The real interest is in the comments. By roughly 10 to 1, they don't believe it."

My reply: "The PR machines are working overtime and I doubt the ratio of letters indicates anything about actual public sentiment or knowledge. Not that it is that great, but general knowledge and concern rate a lot higher than a sample generated by a corporate instigated outpouring of LTTEs from the teabag contingent."

You then say you "aren't as confident" and post a link to a poll showing basically 50/50 split (I think it is probably closer to 65-35 but that is just my intuition); which would seem to coincide with my point that 10-1 isn't 1-1 and therefore the results in the newspaper are suspect. Given the current political efforts by the GOP I'm speculating the variance is a result of the same astroturf mobilize-the-morons effort and strategy that we see behind the teabagger revolution.

So I'm not sure what you are lacking confidence in...

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. “general knowledge and concern rate a lot higher”

It's not even close to "a 50/50 split." Check out the question, and the answers:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_toplines/september_2009/toplines_energy_september_2_3_2009

…

3* Is Global Warming caused primarily by human activity or by long term planetary trends?

42% Human activity
47% Long term planetary trends
5% Some other reason
7% Not sure

…

So 42% say “Global Warming” is anthropogenic, while 52% (the majority) say that it has (some) other cause.

(At least the vast majority now accept that it’s real. That’s somewhat encouraging.)


But, how serious a problem do they think it is?

…

2* How serious a problem is Global Warming?

35% Very serious
29% Somewhat serious
20% Not very serious
14% Not at all serious
1% Not sure

…

It’s certainly not 10 to 1, but I'm not as confident as you are that, “general knowledge and concern rate a lot higher…” (I guess it may come down to our personal understandings of “a lot.”)

If a clear majority felt that “Global Warming” was a “Very Serious” problem, which was caused by “Human activity” I’d be more confident, but they don’t.

[kristopher]

12. You are doing it again...

Simply put, your original post was based on an inappropriate understanding of the discussion actually taking place.

Think...
Then type.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Naturally, I must bow to your greater understanding of all things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=211207&mesg_id=211240

8. With energy legislation pending and Copenhagen right around the corner

The PR machines are working overtime and I doubt the ratio of letters indicates anything about actual public sentiment or knowledge. Not that it is that great, but general knowledge and concern rate a lot higher than a sample generated by a corporate instigated outpouring of LTTEs from the teabag contingent.

So, then, as I understand you, this is just a passing fad. (Right?)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update

Global Warming is Primarily Caused By...

Date    Human activity   Planetary Trends   Other Reason
Sep 09       42%               47%               5%
Jul 09       39%               47%               6%
Jun 09       42%               40%              10%
May 09       39%               44%               7%
Apr 09       34%               48%               7%
Mar 09       41%               43%               7%
Feb 09       38%               45%               7%
Jan 09       44%               41%               7%
Dec 08       43%               43%               6%
Apr 08       47%               34%               8%

I generally don't feel it is valid to draw statistical conclusions from a population like that in the original post (i.e. people writing in reaction to a column.) Obviously, it's a self-selecting sample, so not scientifically valid.

My assumption is that the people at the tails of the bell curve are those who are most likely to express their opinion in a public forum (since they feel the most motivated to do so.) This is why I caution against drawing statistical conclusions from DU posters as well.

I also assume that if a column expresses the proposition, "A" it is the extreme "not-A" contingent which is most likely to respond.


So, to this extent I agree with you, that a response rate of 10 to 1 does not portray an accurate picture of public opinion. However, judging from Rasmussen a clear minority of US voters understand that “Global Warming” is primarily caused by “Human Activities.” That does not speak well for “general knowledge.”

[kristopher]

14. Go ahead, go off on another fugue

None of that is relevant to you MISREADING THE ORIGINAL CONVERSATION!

From the OP: "The real interest is in the comments. By roughly 10 to 1, they don't believe it."

My reply: "The PR machines are working overtime and I doubt the ratio of letters indicates anything about actual public sentiment or knowledge. Not that it is that great, but general knowledge and concern rate a lot higher than a sample generated by a corporate instigated outpouring of LTTEs from the teabag contingent."

You then say you "aren't as confident" and post a link to a poll showing basically 50/50 split (I think it is probably closer to 65-35 but that is just my intuition); which would seem to coincide with my point that 10-1 isn't 1-1 and therefore the results in the newspaper are suspect. Given the current political efforts by the GOP I'm speculating the variance is a result of the same astroturf mobilize-the-morons effort and strategy that we see behind the teabagger revolution.

You've admitted you had no idea what I meant by "a lot higher" so it is impossible for your reply to be appropriate. Trying to shift the discussion to a red herring that I'm referring to "a passing fad" is a bizarre, convoluted attempt to divert the discussion instead of just admitting you did it AGAIN.

It is there.

In black and white.

Feel free to argue until you are blue in the face.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. What I wrote was, “I'm not as confident…"

Your posting expressed a definite confidence regarding, “…general knowledge and concern…”

I'm not as confident…

[kristopher]

16. No my post does not "express a definite confidence"

My post expresses the belief that "actual public sentiment" on climate change is not represented by the 10-1 ratio of LTTEs. Anything else is you funking up a very clear statement. What is most relevant however is the amount of time that has gone into this pointless exchange with your ego.


From the OP: "The real interest is in the comments. By roughly 10 to 1, they don't believe it."

My reply: "The PR machines are working overtime and I doubt the ratio of letters indicates anything about actual public sentiment or knowledge. Not that it is that great, but general knowledge and concern rate a lot higher than a sample generated by a corporate instigated outpouring of LTTEs from the teabag contingent."

You then say you "aren't as confident" and post a link to a poll showing basically 50/50 split (I think it is probably closer to 65-35 but that is just my intuition); which would seem to coincide with my point that 10-1 isn't 1-1 and therefore the results in the newspaper are suspect. Given the current political efforts by the GOP I'm speculating the variance is a result of the same astroturf mobilize-the-morons effort and strategy that we see behind the teabagger revolution.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. As I've said before, it's not a 50/50 split. It certainly isn't a 65-35 split

But, once you get an idea into your head, there's no shaking it loose, and anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, ignorant, crazy, lying, or some combination of the above.

Not once in the survey history Rasmussin gives do even half of the respondents express a belief that “Global Warming” is caused by people. That opinion is consistently in the minority. (Don't compare it to "Planetary Trends," compare it to all other explanations.)

This is not a temporary condition brought on by "PR machines are working overtime" as you suggest.

[kristopher]

19. We aren't discussing the ratio beyond

the fact that 10-1 is not representative.

We COULD have a discussion on what the actual ratio is (and I think I can defend my intuition) but we AREN'T having that discussion.

THAT discussion is one that YOU have fabricated TOTALLY ON YOUR OWN.

I also did not "suggest" that "this" is a "temporary condition" - whateverthefuck"this"is.


From the OP: "The real interest is in the comments. By roughly 10 to 1, they don't believe it."

My reply: "The PR machines are working overtime and I doubt the ratio of letters indicates anything about actual public sentiment or knowledge. Not that it is that great, but general knowledge and concern rate a lot higher than a sample generated by a corporate instigated outpouring of LTTEs from the teabag contingent."

You then say you "aren't as confident" and post a link to a poll showing basically 50/50 split (I think it is probably closer to 65-35 but that is just my intuition); which would seem to coincide with my point that 10-1 isn't 1-1 and therefore the results in the newspaper are suspect. Given the current political efforts by the GOP I'm speculating the variance is a result of the same astroturf mobilize-the-morons effort and strategy that we see behind the teabagger revolution.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. “We aren't discussing the ratio beyond…the fact that 10-1 is not representative. ”

Then why do you keep saying I posted "a link to a poll showing basically 50/50 split?" (Which it is not, regardless of how many times you claim that it is.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=211207&mesg_id=211368">I already I said I agree that the 10-1 ratio is probably not representative, and gave good reasons why. That claim is supported by the survey I linked to, which says that 42% (±3%) of American voters believe that Human activities are the primary cause of "Global warming."


Your claim was that the 10-1 ratio was attributable to "The PR machines … working overtime…" implying that it is just a temporary situation.

You claimed that you "…doubt(ed) the ratio of letters indicate(d) anything about actual public sentiment or knowledge…" It does indicate something. However, it tends to give an exaggerated representation.

---

All I said was, "I'm not as confident…" and you couldn't accept that.

[kristopher]

21. I keep posting it because your post

...that I characterize as "showing basically a 50/50 split" is the inappropriate one. Instead of acknowledging that, you want to bury your misinterpretation under a barrage of hair-splitting about whether a 5.2+- to 4.3+- ratio is accurately characterized as "basically a 50/50 split".

Now you write, "All I said was, "I'm not as confident…" and you couldn't accept that."

My reply (since I had written nothing to indicate confidence of any given level) was to seek clarification about what you saw in my post that indicated a level of confidence in anything. You've since spent an inordinate amount of time trying to browbeat me into accepting that your mischaracterization of my remarks was valid.

It wasn't.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. I guess you're entitled to your opinion

Naturally, I am also entitled to your opinion.

[kristopher]

23. Snark?

It isn't opinion, we are discussing clearly documented remarks that have very little room for interpretation. The record is there, in black and white.

[XemaSab]

17. .

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. That's a great photo

Too bad I didn't see the sign fast enough!

“Here, kea, kea, kea… Nice kea… Pretty kea… Ow!”