News Article: Conservatives trust in science has declined sharply

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Somehow I don't think we mean the same thing by 'knowledge'
Ok, lets take one of my hard lessons learned as a hypothesis:

It's better to give than to receive

Not tooting my own horn here, but I have truly tested that hypothesis enough to know it is true well beyond any possibility of a statistical outlier. I can't tell you how many times that it has imporved my day doing it. More convincingly, I can't tell you how many times it came back in amounts equal to or more than I gave in the act, and in a way that to consider it a consequence would be laughable.

You may not consider this scientific in the pure sense of the word, but it has been repeatable, quantifiable, and observable to me.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
Ok, lets take one of my hard lessons learned as a hypothesis:

It's better to give than to receive

Not tooting my own horn here, but I have truly tested that hypothesis enough to know it is true well beyond any possibility of a statistical outlier. I can't tell you how many times that it has imporved my day doing it. More convincingly, I can't tell you how many times it came back in amounts equal to or more than I gave in the act, and in a way that to consider it a consequence would be laughable.

You may not consider this scientific in the pure sense of the word, but it has been repeatable, quantifiable, and observable to me.
Yeah, that's not what I am talking about.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Yeah, that's not what I am talking about.
Ok I consider it valuable knowledge, derived from experience and testing. But I can see and understand how coming from your mindset it would not fall into the category. It's all good.
 

Gr8hope

All-American
Nov 10, 2010
3,408
1
60
SIAP It is not science that I have a problem with, it is junk science that has been bought and paid for to promote an ideology or political movement. It is the scientific "consensus" arrived at with grant money provided with that objective stated up front that brings skepticism into the conclusions.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
SIAP It is not science that I have a problem with, it is junk science that has been bought and paid for to promote an ideology or political movement. It is the scientific "consensus" arrived at with grant money provided with that objective stated up front that brings skepticism into the conclusions.
Easy to say with zero proof.
 

RammerJammer14

Hall of Fame
Aug 18, 2007
14,567
6,567
187
UA
Also, we're kind of missing the point, which is: Why don't democrats distrust scientists as much as conservatives do?
Same as anything else. The science supports/is congruent with "democrat" beliefs and positions. In general, democrats support large government programs and mandates that (theoretically) benefit society. Most of these programs are reactive. People are poor? Guarantee them houses and food. Don't make much money? Enforce a "living" wage. Gas gets too high? Fix prices. Etc. The general theme is that the government should step in to right injustices and be active.

Climate change fits in right along with this. If the climate is going to change drastically enough to change the way we live then the obvious move is to find a bureaucratic solution. If people are causing the change then something can be done about it. But go find a study with conclusive evidence that price and wage fixing are harmful to those they are supposed to help, and a "typical" democrat will tell you that's a bunch of BS. So much for trusting the scientific process! We are all hypocritical in some respects, and democrats are not somehow different, superior people that are impervious to accepting "evidence" that goes along with their viewpoint and discrediting that which doesn't.

This narrative about conservatives being a pack of chanting druids is ridiculous. Just look at the national dialog, esp in the media. If you don't trust climate science then you are a "denier". A "denier" implies that one does not accept something that is patently true. You are covering your ears and tralala-ing as loud as you can. Well nobody wants to be the idiot who won't accept the obvious so they join the "crowd". The whole discussion is slanted right off the bat. Etc.


As for the thread topic, I am in the same boat as most everyone else. I have no problem with science. But the "science" behind global warming/climate change is very fuzzy. A conclusion is based on data derived from assumptions built on assumption built on assumptions. It's like the old radioactive fallout equations. A bunch a variables with no real known value were multiplied together to get a "scientific" answer to a problem with large scale ramifications on the earth. Then everybody took that data and ran with it because it was the best they had and you certainly can't afford to be wrong in such circumstances. And because the math is foggy we get this whole "consensus" drivel. The conclusion of the climate models can not be proved, their accuracy can not be proved, many variables within the models can not be proved, so the makers of such models have to resort to "everybody else is doing it too". Well that's just stellar logic. So we get to this point of, "if it is true we are doomed; we have no better data; we MUST try something just in case". I refuse to accept those assumptions because crap data is crap data no matter how much of it there is. There is no need to jump for the sake of jumping.

This was meant to be a short, 3-sentence tops post, but I got a little carried away. Sorry. :)
 
Last edited:

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
Same as anything else. The science supports/is congruent with "democrat" beliefs and positions. In general, democrats support large government programs and mandates that (theoretically) benefit society. Most of these programs are reactive. People are poor? Guarantee them houses and food. Don't make much money? Enforce a "living" wage. Gas gets too high? Fix prices. Etc. The general theme is that the government should step in to right injustices and be active.

Climate change fits in right along with this. If the climate is going to change drastically enough to change the way we live then the obvious move is to find a bureaucratic solution. If people are causing the change then something can be done about it. But go find a study with conclusive evidence that price and wage fixing are harmful to those they are supposed to help, and a "typical" democrat will tell you that's a bunch of BS. So much for trusting the scientific process! We are all hypocritical in some respects, and democrats are not somehow different, superior people that are impervious to accepting "evidence" that goes along with their viewpoint and discrediting that which doesn't.

This narrative about conservatives being a pack of chanting druids is ridiculous. Just look at the national dialog, esp in the media. If you don't trust climate science then you are a "denier". A "denier" implies that one does not accept something that is patently true. You are covering your ears and tralala-ing as loud as you can. Well nobody wants to be the idiot who won't accept the obvious so they join the "crowd". The whole discussion is slanted right off the bat. Etc.


As for the thread topic, I am in the same boat as most everyone else. I have no problem with science. But the "science" behind global warming/climate change is very fuzzy. A conclusion is based on data derived from assumptions built on assumption built on assumptions. It's like the old radioactive fallout equations. A bunch a variables with no real known value were multiplied together to get a "scientific" answer to a problem with large scale ramifications on the earth. Then everybody took that data and ran with it because it was the best they had and you certainly can't afford to be wrong in such circumstances. And because the math is foggy we get this whole "consensus" drivel. The conclusion of the climate models can not be proved, their accuracy can not be proved, many variables within the models can not be proved, so the makers of such models have to resort to "everybody else is doing it too". Well that's just stellar logic. So we get to this point of, "if it is true we are doomed; we have no better data; we MUST try something just in case". I refuse to accept those assumptions because crap data is crap data no matter how much of it there is. There is no need to jump for the sake of jumping.

This was meant to be a short, 3-sentence tops post, but I got a little carried away. Sorry. :)
I approve of this post. :biggrin2:

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
 

Bama_Dawg

1st Team
May 17, 2005
727
0
0
57
As for the thread topic, I am in the same boat as most everyone else. I have no problem with science. But the "science" behind global warming/climate change is very fuzzy. A conclusion is based on data derived from assumptions built on assumption built on assumptions. It's like the old radioactive fallout equations. A bunch a variables with no real known value were multiplied together to get a "scientific" answer to a problem with large scale ramifications on the earth. Then everybody took that data and ran with it because it was the best they had and you certainly can't afford to be wrong in such circumstances. And because the math is foggy we get this whole "consensus" drivel. The conclusion of the climate models can not be proved, their accuracy can not be proved, many variables within the models can not be proved, so the makers of such models have to resort to "everybody else is doing it too". Well that's just stellar logic. So we get to this point of, "if it is true we are doomed; we have no better data; we MUST try something just in case". I refuse to accept those assumptions because crap data is crap data no matter how much of it there is. There is no need to jump for the sake of jumping.
I think you're confusing the science of global warming with the politics of addressing it. What (if anything) we should do about global warming is up for debate. But there's nothing "fuzzy" about the science of whether or not the planet is warming. It is. As for the effect of greenhouse gases, if we're lucky, all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere won't accelerate this trend. But the science does not look promising. From earlier today . . .

Study suggests rising CO2 in the past caused global warming

A scientific conundrum that has puzzled climate experts for years may have been solved with the publication of research showing how an increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere contributed to rising temperatures millions of years ago.

The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, has wide-ranging implications for climate science, because the question of whether a rise in carbon dioxide leads to an increase in temperature – or whether rising temperatures lead to an increase in carbon dioxide – has been seized on by climate sceptics eager to disprove a link between atmospheric carbon and global warming.

It also suggests that imminent "runaway" climate change – whereby our actions in pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere contribute to melting permafrost or sea changes that release stores of methane – is a real possibility.

Commenting on the findings, Prof Mark Maslin of University College London said: "[This] should put paid once and for all to the false claim that the rise in carbon dioxide was a passive response to increased global temperatures."
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Are we in a warming trend, Yes I believe so. However, I am old enough to remember the fact that there really was a global cooling concern in the 70's. I personally believe that we had inaccurate (or too small a sample of) data back then and some very knowledgeable people think we have the same problem now. Whether or not that is true the fact that both conclusions were reached leaves doubt.

That said, I do thing Bama_Dawg is correct in his assessment that we often confuse the science with the politics of the reaction. Which again thankfully gets us back to the origional reason for the thread.

The lack of trust in the scientific community (again as pointed out, not science, the community) goes much deeper than a few far right nut jobs or people who try to guage the age of the earth with a calculator adding all the ages of the generations listed in Genesis. The article in the OP seems to be surprised at the results from the more educated. There is genuine concern that the green industry built up around it is affecting the conclusions. There is genuine concern that political interests are prematurely using results for power grabs. There is genuine concern that the reaction is having effects on our economy that are unwarranted and unneeded. There is genuine concern that those with a dissenting view and data are getting shouted down.

I have not read the deniers book, but I THINK that was all he was trying to point out.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
Are we in a warming trend, Yes I believe so. However, I am old enough to remember the fact that there really was a global cooling concern in the 70's. I personally believe that we had inaccurate (or too small a sample of) data back then and some very knowledgeable people think we have the same problem now. Whether or not that is true the fact that both conclusions were reached leaves doubt.

That said, I do thing Bama_Dawg is correct in his assessment that we often confuse the science with the politics of the reaction. Which again thankfully gets us back to the origional reason for the thread.

The lack of trust in the scientific community (again as pointed out, not science, the community) goes much deeper than a few far right nut jobs or people who try to guage the age of the earth with a calculator adding all the ages of the generations listed in Genesis. The article in the OP seems to be surprised at the results from the more educated. There is genuine concern that the green industry built up around it is affecting the conclusions. There is genuine concern that political interests are prematurely using results for power grabs. There is genuine concern that the reaction is having effects on our economy that are unwarranted and unneeded. There is genuine concern that those with a dissenting view and data are getting shouted down.

I have not read the deniers book, but I THINK that was all he was trying to point out.
You all really need to move on (excuse the expression) from that. It was 40 years ago and the science (sorry to use that word) has progressed much since then. Not to mention that there wasn't any real consensus then about global cooling. Some believed it, some didn't. We have learned much since then.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
You all really need to move on (excuse the expression) from that. It was 40 years ago and the science (sorry to use that word) has progressed much since then. Not to mention that there wasn't any real consensus then about global cooling. Some believed it, some didn't. We have learned much since then.
I have moved on. I agree and believe the data we have now is more accurate and more likely to be correct and said so. That does not change the point I was trying to make.
 
Last edited:

RammerJammer14

Hall of Fame
Aug 18, 2007
14,567
6,567
187
UA
I approve of this post. :biggrin2:
When I saw how long it was I thought to myself, "man I can't believe I just pulled a uafan4life!"

I think you're confusing the science of global warming with the politics of addressing it. What (if anything) we should do about global warming is up for debate. But there's nothing "fuzzy" about the science of whether or not the planet is warming. It is. As for the effect of greenhouse gases, if we're lucky, all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere won't accelerate this trend. But the science does not look promising. From earlier today . . .
No, I am not confused about the two. I am speaking about the models used to predict "climate change" and, among many other things, man's influence on such trends. Not once did I say that the earth was not warming.
 

Bama Reb

Suspended
Nov 2, 2005
14,446
0
0
On the lake and in the woods, AL
And if it weren't for all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere, every little piece of vegetation on this planet would die. Then without the oxygen they give off in return, we'd all be dead as well.
What's wrong with you folks? Don't you think God had all this figured out before He ever started?
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
And if it weren't for all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere, every little piece of vegetation on this planet would die. Then without the oxygen they give off in return, we'd all be dead as well.
What's wrong with you folks? Don't you think God had all this figured out before He ever started?
There is enough CO2 without all the extra we are releasing.
 

Bama_Dawg

1st Team
May 17, 2005
727
0
0
57
And if it weren't for all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere, every little piece of vegetation on this planet would die. Then without the oxygen they give off in return, we'd all be dead as well.
What's wrong with you folks? Don't you think God had all this figured out before He ever started?
Gentlemen, I rest my case.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.