75% Believe Global Warming A 'Natural Occurrence'

[White_Male_Canada]

UK News
Three Quarters Believe Global Warming A 'Natural Occurrence'

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution.

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

And 65 percent think that scientists' catastrophic predictions if pollution isn't curbed are 'far fetched'.

Emma Hardcastle, publisher at Pocket Issue which carried out the research, said: "If 71% of people feel that Man has nothing to do with the recent change in our climate then those same people are not going to buy into any movement to reduce their carbon footprint.

"We need to make it clear that there is nothing natural about the significant rise in both carbon emissions and global temperatures since the industrial revolution.

"Pocket Issue’s brief is to help people to understand the facts, encouraging them to click through to a carbon counter as a result.

"Pocket Issue feel that the poll highlights the need for government and influential bodies to concentrate on getting the public to understand the facts about global warming and ‘why’ rather than ‘how’ they should reduce their carbon footprint."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents most scientists, stated earlier that the increase in global temperatures is 'very likely due to the observed increase of man-made greenhouse gas concentrations'.

They define very likely as 'more than 90 percent certain'.

Copyright © 2006 National News +44(0)207 684 3000
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?s...ral_occurrence

[Rogers]

Another bullshit waste of time thread, from the cut and paste accuser. Another poll (of the public ) against AGW from the dipshit who accuses scientists of junk science.

[trish]

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

How many times have you scolded your readers that science is not decided by consensus? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Sorry, i mean a lot hypocritcal? Oh you meant science is not the consensus of informed scientists, the content of which makes testable predictions and is subject to revision based on future evidence. Instead you meant science is the consensus of the public as reported by a sampled poll and only on those weeks when the report construes the results in your favor. Is that the libertarian perspective on science, or just your own?

[LG]

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

How many times have you scolded your readers that science is not decided by consensus? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Sorry, i mean a lot hypocritcal? Oh you meant science is not the consensus of informed scientists, the content of which makes testable predictions and is subject to revision based on future evidence. Instead you meant science is the consensus of the public as reported by a sampled poll and only on those weeks when the report construes the results in your favor. Is that the libertarian perspective on science, or just your own?

[White_Male_Canada]

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

How many times have you scolded your readers that science is not decided by consensus? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Sorry, i mean a lot hypocritcal? Oh you meant science is not the consensus of informed scientists, the content of which makes testable predictions and is subject to revision based on future evidence. Instead you meant science is the consensus of the public as reported by a sampled poll and only on those weeks when the report construes the results in your favor. Is that the libertarian perspective on science, or just your own?

So you prefer philosopher kings.

[trish]

So you prefer philosopher kings.

If this is a question (i'm not sure it is), then my response depends on the other side of the comparison and the point of the comparison. Do I prefer philosopher kings to polls? Do do I prefer philosopher kings to musician queens? And to what end would I prefer philosopher kings to...say... philospher princes? I might prefer the power of the king but the sultry good looks of the prince?

When it comes to science I neither choose polls nor kings. Science seeks to explain natural phenomena by checking the predictions of the proposed explanations against the evidence of repeated experiments and measurements. An explanation succeeds when, in the judgement of peers, the evidence supports the explanation. This judgement takes many forms. E.g. it may be favorably sited in other refereed journals. It may be used as a building block in other research. Different teams may have found the explanation worthy of being further tested to greater accuracy. It's not a poll, it's not a vote, it is not the declaration of a genius or a philosopher king. It is especially not a poll of the general populace.

[White_Male_Canada]

So you prefer philosopher kings.

If this is a question (i'm not sure it is), then my response depends on the other side of the comparison and the point of the comparison. Do I prefer philosopher kings to polls? Do do I prefer philosopher kings to musician queens? And to what end would I prefer philosopher kings to...say... philospher princes? I might prefer the power of the king but the sultry good looks of the prince?

When it comes to science I neither choose polls nor kings. Science seeks to explain natural phenomena by checking the predictions of the proposed explanations against the evidence of repeated experiments and measurements. An explanation succeeds when, in the judgement of peers, the evidence supports the explanation. This judgement takes many forms. E.g. it may be favorably sited in other refereed journals. It may be used as a building block in other research. Different teams may have found the explanation worthy of being further tested to greater accuracy. It's not a poll, it's not a vote, it is not the declaration of a genius or a philosopher king. It is especially not a poll of the general populace.

Looks like the people have listened to algore and decided he`s a raving lunatic and the science is junk.

[trish]

Looks like the people have listened to algore and decided he`s a raving lunatic and the science is junk.

I would like to thankyou, WMC, for the opportunity to ask this again:

How many times have you scolded your readers that science is not decided by consensus? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Sorry, i mean a lot hypocritcal? Oh you meant science is not the consensus of informed scientists, the content of which makes testable predictions and is subject to revision based on future evidence. Instead you meant science is the consensus of the public as reported by a sampled poll and only on those weeks when the report construes the results in your favor. Is that the libertarian perspective on science, or just your own?

[White_Male_Canada]

Looks like the people have listened to algore and decided he`s a raving lunatic and the science is junk.

I would like to thankyou, WMC, for the opportunity to ask this again:

How many times have you scolded your readers that science is not decided by consensus? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Sorry, i mean a lot hypocritcal? Oh you meant science is not the consensus of informed scientists, the content of which makes testable predictions and is subject to revision based on future evidence. Instead you meant science is the consensus of the public as reported by a sampled poll and only on those weeks when the report construes the results in your favor. Is that the libertarian perspective on science, or just your own?

False assumption that scientists are informed and not being politically and financially motivated.

Secondly, there`s no voting in science. Third, everyone`s heard of algore and his Leni Riefenstahl-esque propaganda movie.

You can only fool some of the people some of the time.

It`s all coincidence. That or humans live on other planets in our solar system and drive big SUVs

[trish]

False assumption that scientists are … not being politically and financially motivated.

Point above to where I made that assertion. I didn’t. However, I will say this much about political and financial motiviations now. You never see political arguments in peer reviewed papers being used to support a scientific hypothesis. Such a display would be career ending.

Secondly, there`s no voting in science.

Point above to where I said there was voting in science.

Third, everyone`s heard of algore and his Leni Riefenstahl-esque propaganda movie.

So...what’s that have to do with anything I’ve said above?

Fourth: YOU FAILED ONCE AGAIN TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU. Did you not say in the past that science isn't determined by consensus? Are you or are you not now asserting that it is determined by the consensus of a randomly polled sample of the public? Are you once against entangled in a contradiction, or are you just a hypocrite?