Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: oriel36 on 23 Jan 2010 03:03 On Jan 23, 12:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Climate of suspicion > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html > > "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors > will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. > Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues > such as climate change according to their personal values (see page > 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely > to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. > And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People > have more trust in experts and scientists when they sense that the > speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus > do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when > communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should > be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a > respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they > share something in common with that other side. Hah !,the wider population now know enough to recognize climate change as a normal function of planetary processes be these processes astronomical or terrestrial in origin,what these same people are cottoning on to is scientists trying to make people believe that there are those out there who 'deny' climate change when verily these people,at the very least,object to the idea that humans can control global temperatures to within a certain range by some act of human activity by doing something or leaving something undone.Even in that loathsome commentary you present they link climate change with carbon dioxide emissions demonstrating that far from any real contrition for this intellectual holocaust,they seek to perpetuate it in such an unintelligent way.Who they think they are fooling nowadays is anyone's guess,more like thumbsucking as far as I can tell. Speculation is always a healthy activity when allied with sound interpretation,this extends to every form of human endeavor so it remains to be seen how genuine people deal with the real epicenter of this crisis back in astronomy in the late 17th century when the Ra/Dec framework was used as a bridge between planetary dynamics/solar system structure and experimental sciences thereby setting the 'modelling' agenda in motion.It is not as daunting as it first seems with the objective to open up the frontiers and leave our present state of astronomical and terrestrial sciences as a bad memory.
From: Benj on 23 Jan 2010 03:21 On Jan 23, 12:55 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/22/10 11:50 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept > > the facts. > > The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about science. Which is something you and yours are banking on to get your AGW story across, no? Hey, Sam. I just want you to know that while I've been blasting holes in your propaganda, times are hard and I can be bought. If you'd like a real honest to goodness scientist to back your claims, let me know how much money you can offer! Together we can do much to convince the public that AGW is universally accepted as true among scientists!
From: I M on 23 Jan 2010 06:48 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:55:29 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 1/22/10 11:50 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: >> On Jan 22, 4:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Climate of suspicion >>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >>> >>> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >>> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >> >> Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept >> the facts. > > > The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about science. And Sam is going to educate them?
From: Androcles on 23 Jan 2010 07:07 "I M @ good guy" <I_m(a)good.guy> wrote in message news:nfoll51gao1fctgont5ju2mdqgtcdebcf8(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:55:29 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On 1/22/10 11:50 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: >>> On Jan 22, 4:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Climate of suspicion >>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >>>> >>>> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >>>> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >>> >>> Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept >>> the facts. >> >> >> The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about science. > > > And Sam is going to educate them? > Well yeah, he's an adjunct professor of astronomy, or so he claims ( a part-time position with a teaching load below the minimum required to earn benefits). That qualifies him to name the planets in the correct order and spout nonsense on the imaginary heating effects of atmospheric CO2 (0.0038%).
From: Javi on 23 Jan 2010 08:50
Surfer wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr > <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >>You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as >>proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you >>only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political >>objective. >> > There is a risk of that happening. > > However wouldn't the fossil fuel industry have more than enough money > to fund work that supports the opposing objective? > You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what is happenning. The fossil fuel industry is spending huge amounts of money on advertising and supporting AGW denial. It happened before when scientists began to link smoking with cancer. If you are old enough you may remember it. They even said that smoking improved learning skills. |