Poll: Most see disasters, few climate turn

[bijou]

Three-quarters of Americans say natural disasters are on the increase, but fewer than ever believe the climate is heating up, a new poll finds.

And only half say they have prepared for calamity by stockpiling three days worth of food and water, Harris reports.
...

Only 44 percent say they "believe the theory" that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the Earth, down from 51 percent in 2009 and 71 percent in 2007, but most movement has been into the "not sure" column.

The online poll of 2,163 adults was conducted June 13 through 20. Harris does not give margin-of-error figures.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/...#ixzz1Rv3UVPQV

[Rockntractor]

Hootie will have to get a real job!

[Wei Wu Wei]

lol Americans are entirely scientifically illiterate.

Example:
http://www.livescience.com/963-lags-...evolution.html

A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.

“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.

The study found that over the past 20 years:

* The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent.
* The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however.
* And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.

Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower, with about 25 percent of the population accepting evolution and 75 percent rejecting it.

“The more you understand about genetics, the more you understand about the unity of life and the relationship humans have to other forms of life,” Miller said.

The current study also analyzed the results from a 10-country survey in which adults were tested with 10 true or false statements about basic concepts from genetics. One of the statements was "All plants and animals have DNA." Americans had a median score of 4. (The correct answer is "yes.")

Basically in a study from a few years ago, America ranked 2nd to last in public acceptance of the theory of evolution. 2nd only to Turkey! Also, the study showed that Americans also lacked even a basic understanding of the science of biology/genetics/ect.



The point is, using popular American opinion on scientific issues is a bad idea

[Articulate_Ape]

The point is, using popular American opinion on scientific issues is a bad idea

Using the opinion of scientists whose professional and financial success and even survival are entirely dependent upon arriving at a politically expedient conclusion is a worse idea.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Using the opinion of scientists whose professional and financial success and even survival are entirely dependent upon arriving at a politically expedient conclusion is a worse idea.

I'm not going to claim that political considerations and funding are not part of scientific inquiry, but nonetheless, the hallmark of peer review is paramount to the scientific process.

I've done research work, I know current researchers and I am well versed in the culture of scientific research. The process and most frequent goal for scientists is disproving ideas. To put it simply, the entire process of peer review (which is a HUGE aspect of scientific research)can be summed up as every scientist trying to disprove every other scientists.

Scientists do 'better', they get more "points" (so to speak) when they are able to disprove the most arguments, the most theories, the most published articles. The most important aspect of scientific research is criticism and attempting to disprove ideas.

A scientist will get very many 'brownie points' if they can definitively disprove a popular theory. The more well accepted the theory, the bigger superstar status a scientist will receive for disproving it effectively.

Again, I'm not going to say that there isn't some other influences, especially with regards to funding, the the very nature of the scientific process is one of intense self-correction, criticism, and falsification. Scientific journals are like feeding frenzies when it comes to trying to prove people wrong. The popular image of scientists marching lockstep to carry a popular theory is just a caricature, it is not at all reflective of the real scientific process. The real scientific process is a brutal, critical, affair where everyone is trying to refute everyone else.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Science tends to attract neurotic-type personalities. The type of person who doesn't just "kick their tires" before getting in their car, but they kick all 4 tires a couple dozen times, kicks the spare tire, checks under the hood, checks the oil, goes back inside to make sure all the lights are off, and then comes out and repeats the whole process again.

Throw in a group of these people all disagreeing about the same car, all going through the same process.....

If they ever do finally agree to all get in the car and go, you can be pretty sure that they are pretty sure that it has been checked enough times.

The same is true with scientific theories, when the vast majority of scientists after countless revisions and inspections and criticisms and re-testing and re-testing and re-testing ad nauseum finally get on board and accept a theory, you can be pretty darn sure it's trust-worthy.

Then again, if you are not, all of their work is published so feel free to examine it yourself using the same scientific method, and if you find flaws you can certaintly make a name for yourself by pointing them out.

[Articulate_Ape]

I'm not going to claim that political considerations and funding are not part of scientific inquiry, but nonetheless, the hallmark of peer review is paramount to the scientific process.

Not if your "peers" are all feeding from the same trough. Look, WWW, if you want to kneel at the alter of the Gorean Temple of the Almighty Dollar, it is your prerogative to do so, but know this: You are no different than the people who followed Jim and Tammy Fae Bakker and their ilk only to learn their true motives long after those who can tell a scam when they see it. You hold up scientists as if they are immune to the vices of avarice and narcissism, and are not subject to the instinct of self-preservation.

AWG aka climate change aka (next iteration when the next card falls) will continue to crumble upon its own foundation of compromised scientific principle and ethics. Don't believe, just stay tuned and observe with at least an attempt at objectivity and you will see it happen right before your eyes.

[lacarnut]

Basically in a study from a few years ago, America ranked 2nd to last in public acceptance of the theory of evolution. 2nd only to Turkey! Also, the study showed that Americans also lacked even a basic understanding of the science of biology/genetics/ect.



The point is, using popular American opinion on scientific issues is a bad idea

What does the theory of evolution have to do with natural disasters and climate change. It is like comparing horse meat to Kobe Beef