By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Interesting article: Americans favor science, but less than before

FootballFan on 09 July 2009

I think this graph kinda shows my point. I know theres a better one thoguh.



Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 09 July 2009
FootballFan said:
Highwaystar. I believe there is a cycle controlling temperatures. We are just at the tip of a new one. The 1990s was the hottest decade since 1860s, and im pretty sure it wasn't global warming then. Ill just try to find some information about this cycle.

The solar activity cycles? yeah there is a ~100 year cycle and a ~10 year one. I believe we have just reached the low point of the 100 year one. I have seen it a lot on science journals lately.



highwaystar101 on 09 July 2009
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:

Source

_ The public and scientists did not always see eye-to-eye. For example 87 percent of scientists believed that humans and other living things evolved naturally, compared with 32 percent of the general public (WTF at the disparity on that one!). And while 84 percent of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activities, just 49 percent of the public agreed.

 

 

Shows that sometimes scientists are actually less knowledgable about the reality than the public is.

Pardon me?

I see, and what primary research have you done slimebeast, as a member of the general public, with regards to climate change?

And how much research have the scientists done for climate change? A lot and they all have pretty much the same basic conclusion. Seriously, my Gfs dad did his PhD studying climate change and researched it proffesionally for years, I will take him as an average climatologist. He agrees, he says it's overblown by the media, but it is happening and a fair part of it is man made.


The warming has stopped since 7 years. Thus they renamed it 'climate change' LOL.

And if u want sources, read HappySquirrel's amd Sqrl's posts for a start.

What makes your opinion on climate change more valid than a scientists who's worked with climate change his whole career and understands it inside out?

 

--edit--

 

Let me put it this way. You're a doctor, correct? Right if an independant third party was to ask us both where the brain is and I say the brain is in your right knee, and you say it is the cranium. Who do you think the third party is going to believe, me a member of the public, or you who has studied anatomy his whole career?



Slimebeast on 09 July 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:

Source

_ The public and scientists did not always see eye-to-eye. For example 87 percent of scientists believed that humans and other living things evolved naturally, compared with 32 percent of the general public (WTF at the disparity on that one!). And while 84 percent of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activities, just 49 percent of the public agreed.

 

 

Shows that sometimes scientists are actually less knowledgable about the reality than the public is.

Pardon me?

I see, and what primary research have you done slimebeast, as a member of the general public, with regards to climate change?

And how much research have the scientists done for climate change? A lot and they all have pretty much the same basic conclusion. Seriously, my Gfs dad did his PhD studying climate change and researched it proffesionally for years, I will take him as an average climatologist. He agrees, he says it's overblown by the media, but it is happening and a fair part of it is man made.


The warming has stopped since 7 years. Thus they renamed it 'climate change' LOL.

And if u want sources, read HappySquirrel's amd Sqrl's posts for a start.

Don't sidestep the issue I raised. What makes your opinion on climate change more valid than a scientists who's worked with climate chane his whole career and understands it inside out?

My general judgement and analyzing skills, and ability to read scientific reports.

It's nothing unique that a scientist who is extremely sunk into his study field can be wrong in his conclusions on a bigger scale.
(at least not in the medical field where it's so common that your jaw would drop if u knew)



SciFiBoy on 09 July 2009
highwaystar101 said:

What makes your opinion on climate change more valid than a scientists who's worked with climate change his whole career and understands it inside out?


a question ive asked myself on many occasions...

by the way highwaystar, i love your new Data avatar.



Around the Network
SciFiBoy on 09 July 2009
Slimebeast said:

My general judgement and analyzing skills, and ability to read scientific reports.

It's nothing unique that a scientist who is extremely sunk into his study field can be wrong in his conclusions on a bigger scale.
(at least not in the medical field where it's so common that your jaw would drop if u knew)



do you know what the word arrogant means?



Slimebeast on 09 July 2009

@highwaystar,

Food for thought:

Is it good or bad to eat a lot of salt?
(as in, do people in the West eat too much or too little salt?)

Are the Western official health institution's recommendations about the daily dietary salt intake right or wrong?



highwaystar101 on 09 July 2009
Slimebeast said:
 

My general judgement and analyzing skills, and ability to read scientific reports.

It's nothing unique that a scientist who is extremely sunk into his study field can be wrong in his conclusions on a bigger scale.
(at least not in the medical field where it's so common that your jaw would drop if u knew)

Hmm, agreed on that one as I have experienced it first hand myself. When writing my Dissertation (Thesis) I did some research that gave some startling results that I did not expect. Real jaw dropping moment, almost meant I had to re-write it lol.

Mind you, the results of that dissertation are looking likely to get me on to a PhD researching the same thing right now (fingers crossed and touch wood)



highwaystar101 on 09 July 2009
Slimebeast said:
@highwaystar,

Food for thought:

Is it good or bad to eat a lot of salt?
(as in, do people in the West eat too much or too little salt?)

Are the Western official health institution's recommendations about the daily dietary salt intake right or wrong?

That's a noodle scratcher.

My GF is a doctor too and I know she doens't eat much. I know that if you eat to much you will die because I know of someone that did. The UK RDA is 6g but I know you can eat more than that, but I also know they have studied this for years so I wont eat more than 6g if I can help it because it is likely to hinder me more than help.

Either way I would rather stick to the suggested amount because I know that the RDA isn't a random number, it is the conclusion to years of research. I understand changes can occur, but if that number were to change then I would still stick to the experts advice as they know infinately more than me on the issue than me.



Slimebeast on 09 July 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
@highwaystar,

Food for thought:

Is it good or bad to eat a lot of salt?
(as in, do people in the West eat too much or too little salt?)

Are the Western official health institution's recommendations about the daily dietary salt intake right or wrong?

That's a noodle scratcher.

My GF is a doctor too and I know she doens't eat much. I know that if you eat to much you will die because I know of someone that did. The UK RDA is 6g but I know you can eat more than that, but I also know they have studied this for years so I wont eat more than 6g if I can help it because it is likely to hinder me more than help.

Either way I would rather stick to the suggested amount because I know that the RDA isn't a random number, it is the conclusion to years of research. I understand changes can occur, but if that number were to change then I would still stick to the experts advice as they know infinately more than me on the issue than me.


My point it: this is still debated! We don't know enough.

Its still heavily debeated whether there should be any salt recommendations at all! (but there is a big majority of scientists that will claim that they know!)

And for example such a simple thing to study - one would think - as the effect of salt on blood pressure - is still not clear! (despite hundreds of studies). Despite having access to almost the whole earth's pop as subjects to test this one, having ability to study under controlled conditions etc. A task much simpler than the topic wether human activity and CO2 is causing increased warming on the planet!