Can our fast food sound bite society ever understand issues like GW and evolution?

Question

One winter that is colder than recent winters yet still one of the top warmest of the century and already people assume that global warming is bogus. They haven't heard of La Nina and don't have time to learn what it does.

I fear that no further information is going to change anyone's mind. Evolution is a better example because it is as pat a case as anything in science, yet no further evidence can change someone's mind on an issue that is already 100% proven.

If almost 50% of the US can't accept evolution, what makes anyone think they'll accept GW when they can't see any serious life-threatening changes?

Answer 1

It is not just the one winter, but an entire decade.  Over the past eleven years temperature increases have been statistically insignificant.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

Answer 2

It just goes to show that this is a political issue because there has been no other time in history that scientists have jumped to conclusions without any facts and even sought out specific data that merely supports their cause.  Very very weird.

It seems that they take a list of 100 facts and pick about three or four that 'support' claims of global warming, while ignoring the rest.

Answer 3

Many do.

There's a lot less controversy about global warming is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And, for anyone here who wants the facts, here they are, from the eminent National Academy of Sciences:

http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change

Answer 4

They'll understand it when they can't afford food:

http://www.climatechangenews.org/nFood.h...

The World's Growing Food-Price Crisis - TIME

"Soaring prices of staples — which have risen about 75% since 2005, driven by growing demand, rising oil prices and the effects of global warming — have sparked riots in several countries, as people reel from sticker shock and governments scramble to feed their people."

Fresh records for price of wheat- BBC News

"Wheat prices have hit record levels as supplies dwindle, raising concerns about growing food inflation. Reports of a drought in Northern China, where most of the country's wheat is grown, also pushed prices higher. Extreme weather has already damaged crops in other parts of the world and US wheat inventories are expected to fall to their lowest level for 60 years."

When declining home values wipe out their life savings and their jobs are lost in the declining economy, they'll get it.  When the United States military is deployed in their city to stop them from foraging for food (and most of the country's food production is first allocated to the military) they'll get it.

Answer 5

I can't decide whether to debate evolution with you or AGW. I guess we'll do global warming first. CO2 forcing on temp is not strong so the models have to rely on amplifying effects that will drive temp higher and faster, otherwise they couldn't frighten any schoolkids. They reject any means of dealing with this, such as carbon sequestration, planting trees and so forth. The gas they are most concerned with it is ranked as a 1 on the forcing scale, with some gases being 23,900 as potent for warming. But controlling any of these gases means controlling what you do in your daily life, a politician's dream come true.

As for evolution I can argue either way and have done so. But tell me what prompted that first fish to look up thru the water and decide to become an amphibian. How did he spontaneously grow lungs, turn his flippers into arms and legs with digits, adapt his eyes to the glare of the sun. Part of a lung isn't useful so in a single generation he'd have to be able to breathe outside of the water or return to it. How did the first organism decide to grow an eyeball? A pretty complex apparatus to form on it's own. And why weren't they happy to stay as single cell organisms? Why the unending competition when they had little competition and thus no reason to change?

Not to beat a dead horse, but if dolphins and whales were once land animals, why haven't they evolved gills? They've been back in the water for a very long time - just how long will it take them to get it right?

Anyone who makes any decision based on a sound bite, talk show host or tv pundit is being irresponsible. You don't need an advanced degree to understand the science of either of these topics and you don't need to bow before anyone's greater intellect or powers of observation. We all can make mistakes, Einstein made quite a few in his lifetime according to him.

It may turn out that global warming is entirely man-caused and we're in for truly dire consequences. I'll be proven wrong and many others will be right but that won't be much comfort to anyone. I think that's unlikely in the extreme and that if anything we're facing a long-term cooling trend that will make us all wish for more global warming. That's based on current sunspot inactivity and it's correlation with global temp over many thousands of years. Few or no spots nearly always mean colder temps, there is no similar correlation between CO2 and temp over the long-term which is why the graphs they show you are for such short periods of time, with start dates they choose with care to bolster their argument.

Answer 6

Actually, people don't really need to understand complex scientific issues like GW or evolution.  They simply need to not be conspiracy theorist that suspect scientists are simply evil (e.g. in it for money, power, or fame) or incompetent.

Answer 7

Actually - temp have not risen since 1998!

GW is a scam and a means of wealth redistribution!

Global warming 'dips this year'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

Answer 8

I don't believe in either and I can see through sound bites and I'm not much of a fast food eater.

Global warming has happened before. There is a reason why the Vikings named Greenland, Greenland when they first settled there.

The world will balance itself out, even if it takes a few major storms over the course of the next few years.

Also, something to think about, when my father-in-law was in school, everyone was afraid of global cooling and the next ice age. Now everyone is concerned about global warming.

Anyway, even though I don't belive in global warming, I do believe we need to take care of our environment for ourselves and for our children.  Toxic fumes from pollution and excess garbage can't be good for us or our children's health.

I don't believe in evoloution. I believe in adaptation. If evoloution was real, why aren't monkeys talking yet? Or why isn't there new creatures with both fish and mamal characteristics, evolving right now?   If you look at Darwin and the island he studied that allowed him to come up with the evoloution theory, you notice the island has animals that over the course of time have adapted to their environment.

The same is with humans. Humans have adapted to their environment. A good example is the Inuit people. They have adapted to their cold climate and there body structure proves it. Only the people that were able to survive the harsh  and cold environment were able to bear children who were also able to survive because they received the survival traits, such as retaining fat from there parents.

So show me how evolution has been 100 percent proven for every living creature?

Answer 9

Many won't be able to understand it.  We see it here all the time - the most frequent 'skeptic' explaination for global warming on YA is "climate has changed naturally in the past".  People get stuck on the tiny bit of information they know and draw conclusions based on ignorance.

There was a perfect example yesterday - in a question a guy was talking about how AGW is a hoax, some answerers told him to do scientific research and he said 'I have researched global warming.  I know it's happened naturally in the past.'

No freaking duh, people!  I don't understand if they think scientists haven't considered the basic fact that climate has changed naturally in the past, or if they're unaware that climate scientists have formed a consensus on AGW, or what.  I don't know why people think 'climate has changed in the past' is a compelling argument.

The good news is that the majority of the population (70% in the US, 80% worldwide) accepts AGW, and the number is growing fast.  That kind of majority is sufficient to take action to reduce our emissions.  I'm sure that 70% of Americans don't understand a lot of the science, but at least those who don't accept the conclusions of the scientific experts.  It's only the minority who don't understand the science and don't trust the scientists (or are in denial about the consensus) who are the problem, but fortunately their numbers are too small to really matter.

Answer 10

Why waste time understanding two complete bogus theories?

Teach science, facts, math, not trash, leave your new age religions at home.

Answer 11

No, your the only one who can save the planet.

Answer 12

The left pretends that the right is worried about conspiricies of evil scientists in nearly the same breath they talk about the evil oil companies.  It is so typical.  

I suspect you couldn't give a good explanation for atavisms or punctuated equilibrium and yet skeptics are supposed to be ignorant of evolution.  Evolution is a fact or as near to one as there is in science.  Human caused harmful warming is a fantasy of the political left and should be put in the mythology section of YA

Answer 13

1st off you statistics are wrong, more like 30% of americans beleive in evolution, and secondly all your questions can be answered at the links below

Answer 14

Seems they sell Kool-Aid at those fast food restaurants that you seem to like.

Most educated people understand the issues, even if they disagree on their conclusions.  It is, in my opinion, the fast food sound bite individuals that rant on both sides of the issue without any evidence, just rhetoric.  The fact that you have to point out political affiliations and website content that has nothing to do with the underlying discussion proves to me that, despite the fact that you may be right, you do not completely understand the topic that you are trying to stampede the masses into agreeing with.