Thursday, April 26, 2012

Global Warming, Pro or Con?

I went to a lecture tonight called "How to avoid the truth about climate change". It was being given by a Dean at the University of Utah, I think in Geology and Geophysics.  A few years back, he hadn't paid that much attention to the Climate Change debate, but had read enough to confirm his thoughts that it probably wasn't as big a deal as was being presented.  He shared that view in what he taught his students.

They kept pushing back and asking questions, so he started reading a lot more and digging deeper.  Now he is a firm believer that climate change is real, it's big, it's serious, and it's being driven primarily by humans generating CO2,

The presentation was explaining how you can have 97-98% of the climate scientists in agreement, and yet still have a lot of the media explaining that there isn't consensus. My favorite question of the evening was "If you saw an ad that said 1 out of every 33 dentists recommend Trident, would you chew it?"

I won't drag you through all the issues, but one statistic was really interesting. They did a big survey and asked: Is global warming happening?  There was nothing about whether it was caused by humans.  Just a question of whether the earth was warming up.  They looked at people's responses and there was one great predictor of your answer.  Not gender.  Not age.  Political party.
  • Democrats - 78% said yes
  • Republicans - 53%
They asked if you considered yourself a Tea Party person.  Of those, only 34% said yes.

I understand political party being a huge swing for questions like "should we spend $x dollars to help group y", but this question was "is the thermometer reading going up?" How much closer to hard, non-subjective science can we get?

I think they got it right in the movie (now 50 years old) It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

1 comment:

Ken Polleck said...

The problem is that people find the diverse sources of news confusing and inconsistent. It is far easier to get your news from a single place--a place like, say, Fox News. Take, for instance,
this authoritative piece on Global Warming from Fox.

Once I read a piece like that, why would I put any confidence in alarmists' views that are intended solely to increase government bureaucracies and add costly equipment to reduce CO2 emissions unnecessarily? Those steps will only increase taxes and reduce profits, serving no other benefit.

Hopefully, any readers of my comment here will see that I've now answered Dr. Bickmore's question in his presentation's title. The answer is "Fox News."

(FYI: I found Dr. Bickmore's presentation on YouTube here.)