How Credible is This "Global Warming?"

[Blizzer]

The problem is most people have accepted Global Warming as fact, when there has yet to be irrefutable evidence proving it, another problem is if you want to prove something, there is bound to be a scientist out there who will support your idea and who will try to back it up with insubstantial proof.

Another problem is the media being sensationalist and warning us of impending disaster and others who follow this idea without thinking for themselves.

This is the new fad to follow of the Global Warming theory, it's the new buzz word and it's on the news and the government is telling you it's true.

Does anyone remember the impending disaster y2k?

(Im being a bit hypocritical since I said in the other topic religion couldn't be disproved so it's ok to believe, I just like to think objectively to the common perception and come to my own conclusions.)

[Vexx]

There's a bloody mountain of evidence for climate systems being subject to tipping points as nonlinear systems (aka global warming). You just have to get off your ass and start thumbing through scientific journals (Nature) and the recent IPCC report. Stop taking input from people who have no scientific training or a vested interest in you not paying attention. "Irrefutable evidence" means its too late to do anything and you're fscked. If I approach an intersection and a car runs a light, there's no irrefutable evidence he'll hit me until he does.... O.o

Pretty much the only people disputing this evidence at this point are the vested special interests that prefer the status quo for how they do business (oil, chemical industry, etc) and their handpuppets.

"global warming" is a poor name for weather systems becoming less predictable as the chaotic systems they are edge towards tipping points of sudden massive change. Suggest a book on non-linear systems and chaos theory. As Ledgem points out - it can mean cooling, storms, super-cyclones, or something hideously simple like the Atlantic Gulf Stream shutting down... the results will be economic and human societal disruption.
Even if it were natural, its something to avoid or mitigate.

Y2K was not a natural impending disaster --- it was a computational software problem that was mostly fixed BECAUSE we recognized the problem ahead of time. How unrelated a parallel can you choose?

Yes, the mainstream media is sensationalizing it ... most reporters are just about as dumb as their viewers and they like to whip up controversy where very little actually exists. Controversy gets eyeballs watching...

Its about like a Rupert Murdoch television network having a "debate" between a flat-earther and a Copernican system advocate. They can make it appear to be a reasonable debate when it really isn't.

[Blizzer]

Maybe you could enlighten us with your sources?

As for your example it would be more fitting to say the car is hypothetical.
Your potential disasters are also dubious, since they are also hypotheses, there
is no sense in fighting imagined or speculated enemies.

I compared it to Y2K because they are the same, they are fads that have gained popularity through scare mongering, the global warming fad is the latest in a string of certain doom prophecies covered by the media.

[Vexx]

No, I won't do your homework for you.

However, I'll give you some starting points you clearly haven't examined. The IPCC report is an excellent starting point. Just about any Nature scientific journal over the last five years. A few decades of NASA report studies. Antartic ice plug studies, Archeological climate analysis, Solar weather cycle studies. Carbon studies. Historical records. What you are calling "imagined" or "speculative" just labels you as insufficiently informed. It isn't a question of whether it exists - but whether there's anything we can do other than relocate much of humanity away from shorelines and deal with the weather changes and their effects on crops, tropical diseases, and other public policy issues. Even the most fervent naysayers (oil, Bush, etc) admit the situation, they just don't want to deal with it til they see some profit motive.

You might even look over the last 10 pages of this thread... and you simply fail if you keep pointing at the Y2K event because I was actually involved in fixing some of the Y2K problems so it wouldn't be an issue. You might take a look at the historical archives of the computer and IT community - particularly the SANS archives before using that as an example. Are you aware of the Unix time clock rollover issue in a few years that actually affects many more systems worldwide?

Some of us on these forums are professional engineers or scientists and there's not a lot of reason to pull punches when a layperson has an opinion not based on serious data. Laypeople should be wary of accepting points of view from other people also clearly not experts in the areas they have opinions on. The difficulty for laypeople is in deciding who is the knowledgeable person and who is not. Feel free to dispute what I say -- but then make sure you've actually researched the topic (and that doesn't mean just watching a few telly shows or listening to some handpuppet on the radio).

[yezhanquan]

Vexx has most of the bases covered. I'll just add that our weather system is indeed in a turmoil not seen for a long time. Be prepared.

[Reckoner]

You see, I don't understand then why the medieval period isn't more widely discredited then. I see that argument almost everywhere, I see even environmentalists referring to it as if it were completely true (Except that they say we have climbed to levels beyond that now).

I'm not going to dispute the fact that the planet has been warming, doing so would be quite ignorant. However, I shall dispute the meaning of such a phenomena and I will dispute how data is being used and/or interpreted.

I'm curious how some of you would react to some of these statements though (Not made by me).

It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.

Models and simulators are as interchangeable as a pair of underpants. One day you use one model and the next you use another. They could give you conflicting data. If someone had preconceived theories about climate change, they could make any model say whatever they want it to say.

After the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. Why?

My concern is that if we convince people that global climate change can be regulated by human activity, we set ourselves up for failure as a species. It seems to me that our long term survival depends largely on our ability to do the things we can, and know the things we cannot do, and prepare accordingly.

Anyway I have a couple questions that I just have not been able to answer for myself no matter where I look. And sorry if I missed these answers somewhere in this thread.

How fast is the rate of global warming increasing? Is is really slow, slow, moderate, high, or really high? People say it is increasing at an alarming rate, but are we really able to say something like this when we haven't allowed that much time to truly analyze the data?

Why has the sun argument been discredited by others? I don't understand the scientific reasons behind it. Just because the planet could get warmer with a constant sun temperature?

The oceans have not been getting warmer, their temperature has not fluctuated at all basically according to some data I saw. Is this just because the glaciers falling in toppled with the warming of the ocean due to global warming cancels itself out? This is the only way I've been able to rationalize this.

I've heard that anything we do to try and prevent global warming is negligible at this point. If the grand world destruction hypothesis are actually true, are we screwed?

...And I will say that it is better to be wrong about doing something about global warming than it is to be wrong the other way of course... Plus there are many other benefits to reducing pollution than just for the sake of global warming. However, I'm tired of the left complaining about the end of the world all the time.

[yezhanquan]

End of the world? I agree, Reckoner. Even if events wipe out 3 billion people, it still represents less than 50% of all humanity. Man needs to save himself from himself, I think.

[WanderingKnight]

Does anyone remember the impending disaster y2k?

Y2K was not a natural impending disaster --- it was a computational software problem that was mostly fixed BECAUSE we recognized the problem ahead of time. How unrelated a parallel can you choose?

Yes, the mainstream media is sensationalizing it ... most reporters are just about as dumb as their viewers and they like to whip up controversy where very little actually exists. Controversy gets eyeballs watching...

Well... my problem with Y2K was Symantec selling a "special" version of Norton to deal with the issue. Similarly, my problem with climatic change is the fact that it's used by people with power (the media) or politicians (see Al Gore) to rile up the uninformed population.

I'll be the last one to say that there isn't a problem with how mankind has been growing in the last century--but I'll certainly point out a fault with the fact that many people use that argument to get a personal share in the issue.

[HayashiTakara]

Not to sound synical but... does it really matter? We'll all be long long dead before anything major happens anyway. Its not like anyone is going to remember who we are in the future.

[Ledgem]

WanderingKnight, I'm not a fan of the media or politicians riling up the uninformed masses with the tactics they're using now. I watched a bit of Al Gore's documentary on global warming and quite honestly felt nearly insulted - the way that the documentry was set up felt to me like it was aimed at high schoolers. There was less information and less science, and seemingly more "let's re-explain that in an easier manner" and attempts at humor. That's when I realized: this stuff isn't aimed at my group (budding scientist/academic), it's aimed at lay people. I like to think that if you just give people information they'll sort through it and make their own decision, but in reality that rarely seems to happen. So, how do you stir them up and get them interested? Sensationalism.

While I'm sure that certain interest groups are able to ride the sentiments derived from the global warming craze, many companies and groups stand to lose out. I don't know why the media carry it the way that they do - maybe they've always been looking for an "end of the world" type of story. Having people become more informed about humanity's impact on the environment is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

You see, I don't understand then why the medieval period isn't more widely discredited then. I see that argument almost everywhere, I see even environmentalists referring to it as if it were completely true (Except that they say we have climbed to levels beyond that now).

I'm not familiar with your reference to the medieval period. If you briefly explain it here I might be able to help with it, though.

It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.

Is the World Health Organization a one-sided organization devoted to making a big deal out of every disease it finds? Do we expect it to claim that there are monumental problems everywhere? After all, it is an organization focused around health...

I won't say that the IPCC is completely unbiased and correct. Any organization can be influenced by other interest groups, and any organization can make a mistake. If you want to be distrusting of the IPCC that's perfectly fine. Having at least a little bit of skepticism is healthy and encouraged. Don't use this as an excuse to ignore the IPCC completely.

I find it funny that the quote (not from you, I know) starts off with "it's not fair" - why isn't it fair? Because the IPCC reports are massively long? Sounds like the person was looking for a quick excuse to dismiss their findings, rather than dealing with the reasoning and facts themselves.

Models and simulators are as interchangeable as a pair of underpants. One day you use one model and the next you use another. They could give you conflicting data. If someone had preconceived theories about climate change, they could make any model say whatever they want it to say.

There's nothing wrong with this statement. In fact, they even left something out: two different people could reach different (conflicting, even) conclusions based off of the data from the same model and/or scientific study. If you have the ability and the training, I always encourage people to read over the scientific papers for themselves and to pay particularly close attention to the materials & methods section. If the study or model isn't unbiased you'll find it there. The next thing to read over is the results. The discussion is the author's interpretation of everything, and that will not always be right, either, even if the data is solid.

Again, what's important is to realize those things and to work with them. Just because bias and imperfection can occur doesn't make studies or models/simulations useless. Take what you can from them, and make sure not to take them any farther than that.

After the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. Why?

"Huge surge" is a meaningless term. Was it just a relatively big surge, or will we see a spike if we look on a graph showing carbon dioxide over time? Was the surge sustained?

More importantly, while there is a seemingly strong relation between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global temperatures, they're not instantaneous. I don't know what the lag time is for the two to catch up to each other, but 40 years isn't a lot of time in the grand scheme of things (even though it seems like quite a bit to us).

The reason why we're so concerned now is because it would seem that we've shot the carbon dioxide levels far higher than they've ever been in the history of the planet, as far as we can tell. Even though the carbon dioxide and temperature correlation isn't extremely tight, the two seem to follow each other and be linked. Here's an example:

Notice how the correlation is rather loose. I believe you can even find a few instances where temperature seems to impact carbon dioxide levels (perhaps it impacted plant and phytoplankton activity). We're not sure how the temperature will change as a result of this, but we're perceiving warming trends. Whether this is caused by the carbon dioxide or by other factors isn't fully understood. However, we know that the temperature-CO2 link exists, and so it seems like a good explanation to fall back on.

My concern is that if we convince people that global climate change can be regulated by human activity, we set ourselves up for failure as a species. It seems to me that our long term survival depends largely on our ability to do the things we can, and know the things we cannot do, and prepare accordingly.

This statement doesn't make much sense. We fail as a species if we go extinct, full stop. The guy who wrote this clearly wasn't a scientist. We have to know the things we can't do? Please. What can't we do? Rather, what can't we do today that we'll be able to do tomorrow?

Anyway I have a couple questions that I just have not been able to answer for myself no matter where I look. And sorry if I missed these answers somewhere in this thread.

How fast is the rate of global warming increasing? Is is really slow, slow, moderate, high, or really high? People say it is increasing at an alarming rate, but are we really able to say something like this when we haven't allowed that much time to truly analyze the data?

"Alarming rate" is probably media speak. I've actually forgotten the numbers behind temperature rise per year. It would seem that the rate of increase is expected to be higher than anything in recent history. Combined with the fact that the temperature will be increasing over anything in recent human history, the situation doesn't seem very favorable.

Also keep in mind that everyone loves to chime in on this topic about how temperatures have hit an all-time high (or an all-time low) in their area, and that either proves or disproves global warming. Local temperatures are not indicative of global warming. However, new extreme records are indicative of altering weather patterns, which are indicative of changes on the world stage.

[/quote]Why has the sun argument been discredited by others? I don't understand the scientific reasons behind it. Just because the planet could get warmer with a constant sun temperature?[/quote]
I've never heard of this argument. Does it have to do with the activity of the sun? If it does, then I'd imagine that nobody ever gave it much consideration.Based off of what I read every now and then, it seems that we're still actively discovering the sun's fluxes and activity cycles. I wouldn't really be surprised if the sun's cycles had an impact on Earth's temperatures, too.

[quite]The oceans have not been getting warmer, their temperature has not fluctuated at all basically according to some data I saw. Is this just because the glaciers falling in toppled with the warming of the ocean due to global warming cancels itself out? This is the only way I've been able to rationalize this.[/quote]
What data did you see? I've heard that the oceans have been getting warmer. The proof also lies in the number of hurricanes that we've been seeing over the years. Hurricanes form over warm water. In recent years we'e been seeing many, many more hurricanes forming.

Did you know that hurricanes are named alphabetically in order of appearence? From what I heard, even 20 years ago it was rare for a hurricane to be named beyond the letter E (or around there; can't remember exactly). That's no more than five hurricanes per season. Yet we're witnessing a trend where we're going farther and farther into the alphabet - I heard that they're considering how they'll handle it once a "Z" hurricane appears and another one follows it. Not only have there been more hurricanes, but the hurricanes are becoming more intense... or so I hear. This could be proven by searching for statistics correlating monetary damages due to hurricanes with year.

I've heard that anything we do to try and prevent global warming is negligible at this point. If the grand world destruction hypothesis are actually true, are we screwed?

If we barely understand what's going on right now, how can anyone say that our attempts to subdue it will be negligable? Anyone claiming that we're powerless to do anything is either lazy, a supreme pessimist, or has a vested interest in preventing change (or any combination of those). Under a worst case scenario a lot of land will become inhospitable, due to rising sea levels and due to changing weather patterns. Many species will go extinct, and we'll lose many natural resources. Many people will likely die from starvation, thirst, and the spread of disease. However, it seems unlikely that humanity would go extinct or that we'd have to revert to the stone age.

[WanderingKnight]

That's when I realized: this stuff isn't aimed at my group (budding scientist/academic), it's aimed at lay people. I like to think that if you just give people information they'll sort through it and make their own decision, but in reality that rarely seems to happen. So, how do you stir them up and get them interested? Sensationalism.

See, I disagree. Sensationalism has to be avoided at all costs, mainly because it means treating your public as idiots. I don't study biology and I'm not intending to, but if I get "facts" shoved down my throat with no attempt at a scientific explanation whatsoever, they're treating me like an idiot. For all intents and purposes, I am a lay person--but I'm not an idiot, or at least I like to believe I'm not. And what do the powerful do with idiots? They manipulate them. They make them do what they want. Al Gore's documentary was an obvious attempt at doing so--namely, garnering a strong base of support, which always comes in handy for politicians.

And the media showcases its power by riling up the public. There's a lot of power at stake here--and any megacorporation can easily maintain its public image by paying the media a few bucks--that's where the real power of sensationalism comes into play. Yes, the general public is uneducated, but unfortunately enough, they're uneducated people with money. And as long as you have money, your opinion, however idiotic or uneducated it might be, counts.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

See, I disagree. Sensationalism has to be avoided at all costs, mainly because it means treating your public as idiots.

You should take care to differentiate between the information from scientific sources, from public educators, and regular media outlets. What you're mostly complaining about is the public education sources aimed at the general public. Much of this population is completely scientifically ignorant so the message has to be toned down to their level of understanding. You should also remember that the opposing messages are often in the form of completely nonscientific polemics like "they were wrong about global cooling in the '70s" or "there's no irrevocable proof". Trying to argue logically against such points will often lose the target audience; hence a more direct approach is employed.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I don't study biology and I'm not intending to, but if I get "facts" shoved down my throat with no attempt at a scientific explanation whatsoever, they're treating me like an idiot.

In that case, you should look at more nuanced sources of information like the IPCC reports or sites like http://www.realclimate.org/ or http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm. I haven't watched the Al Gore piece, but I'm of the understanding that it originally was meant for high school students, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people found it over simplified.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

And the media showcases its power by riling up the public. There's a lot of power at stake here--and any megacorporation can easily maintain its public image by paying the media a few bucks--that's where the real power of sensationalism comes into play. Yes, the general public is uneducated, but unfortunately enough, they're uneducated people with money. And as long as you have money, your opinion, however idiotic or uneducated it might be, counts.

The moral of the story here is that regular news outlets are horrible sources of scientific news and analysis. They are meant for people who don't want all that much in-depth information about a particular subject, and anyone who wants to know more should look at more substantial sources.

Global Warming, like with many "controversial" scientific theories, are supported by a mountain of documented information, and have a very broad consensus. In other words, as far as the people who actually study this for a living are concerned, there's no doubt that the effect is real - the only questions are how severe the effects will be, and how well we're going to cope with it.

[Blizzer]

Originally Posted by Vexx

No, I won't do your homework for you.

However, I'll give you some starting points you clearly haven't examined. The IPCC report is an excellent starting point. Just about any Nature scientific journal over the last five years. A few decades of NASA report studies. Antartic ice plug studies, Archeological climate analysis, Solar weather cycle studies. Carbon studies. Historical records. What you are calling "imagined" or "speculative" just labels you as insufficiently informed. It isn't a question of whether it exists - but whether there's anything we can do other than relocate much of humanity away from shorelines and deal with the weather changes and their effects on crops, tropical diseases, and other public policy issues. Even the most fervent naysayers (oil, Bush, etc) admit the situation, they just don't want to deal with it til they see some profit motive.

I've read a few articles and reports on the subject, including the findings of the IPCC report which was supported by the government, the computer models used are accused of being exaggerations and many scientists who have endorsed it aren't the experts they are portrayed to be.

It's a fact CO2 fluctuates, although not as fast as recorded in the last 50 years.
Another point is the correlation between CO2 and temperature increase where many believe you could also state CO2 is a direct effect of climate change rather than the cause.

You might even look over the last 10 pages of this thread... and you simply fail if you keep pointing at the Y2K event because I was actually involved in fixing some of the Y2K problems so it wouldn't be an issue. You might take a look at the historical archives of the computer and IT community - particularly the SANS archives before using that as an example. Are you aware of the Unix time clock rollover issue in a few years that actually affects many more systems worldwide?

good for you! *thumbs up*
I was merely making the comparison that the media portrayed it as doomsday.

Some of us on these forums are professional engineers or scientists and there's not a lot of reason to pull punches when a layperson has an opinion not based on serious data. Laypeople should be wary of accepting points of view from other people also clearly not experts in the areas they have opinions on. The difficulty for laypeople is in deciding who is the knowledgeable person and who is not. Feel free to dispute what I say -- but then make sure you've actually researched the topic (and that doesn't mean just watching a few telly shows or listening to some handpuppet on the radio).

There's really no need to be rude and condescending, I am hardly an authority on the subject but I have my own opinion, and I do have a meagre background in engineering.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Blizzer

I've read a few articles and reports on the subject, including the findings of the IPCC report which was supported by the government, the computer models used are accused of being exaggerations

The latest finding suggest that the latest IPCC report was overly conservative and that the rate of climate change is well in excess of what it suggested. This shouldn't be a surprise since the IPCC was a consensus document, and as such, it expresses scientifically conservative figures.

This kind of vague language like "accused of being exaggerations" is pretty much why I said that much of the public education message has to be sensationalized in order to make any sort of impact.

Originally Posted by Blizzer

and many scientists who have endorsed it aren't the experts they are portrayed to be.

The latest IPCC report was worked on by thousands of scientists and it enjoys the consensus of just about every credible environment scientist out there. Most of the disagreements with it are to the degree of change, and even there a great number think that the figures were overly conservative.

[Blizzer]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

The latest finding suggest that the latest IPCC report was overly conservative and that the rate of climate change is well in excess of what it suggested. This shouldn't be a surprise since the IPCC was a consensus document, and as such, it expresses scientifically conservative figures.

This kind of vague language like "accused of being exaggerations" is pretty much why I said that much of the public education message has to be sensationalized in order to make any sort of impact.

I find it hard to believe it's credibility when it's so closely tied to policy and government officials.
Not quite sensationalized, as the computer models were criticised and it's rare to hear doubt expressed towards impending extreme climate change.

The latest IPCC report was worked on by thousands of scientists and it enjoys the consensus of just about every credible environment scientist out there. Most of the disagreements with it are to the degree of change, and even there a great number think that the figures were overly conservative.

I won't disagree with what you said, I personally don't believe an increase of a few degrees will kill us all.

Anyway, I like to be objective and skeptical about everything and this debate has actually awakened a little interest for me on Climate Change.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Blizzer

I find it hard to believe it's credibility when it's so closely tied to policy and government officials.

Do you really believe that when "government officials" say something is true then it is a it's a hint that it is actually wrong? Like smoking causes cancer? Seat belts might save your life?

And do the actions on CO2 reduction of the last decade really give you the impression that all the governments of the world are eager to exaggerate Global Warming?

Originally Posted by Blizzer

I won't disagree with what you said, I personally don't believe an increase of a few degrees will kill us all.

Who exactly said where and when that Global Warming "will kill us all"? And can you tell us what you personally think the preconditions should be for a government to act on anything? Or anybody to act on anything for that matter?

[WanderingKnight]

Much of this population is completely scientifically ignorant so the message has to be toned down to their level of understanding.

See, that's what's wrong. Because of their lower level of understanding, they are taken advantage of in pursue of the interests of those in power. It's a bit of a chicken and an egg here, but the point is that the general public should be able to understand it. It's not something that requires too deep of a scientific knowledge to notice (I repeat, I'm a lay person, not a scientist, but I can clearly notice most of times they're trying to bullshit me), either. It just requires a broad general knowledge and a capability of thinking for oneself--which, sadly, seems to be too far away from the grasp of most people.

In that case, you should look at more nuanced sources of information like the IPCC reports or sites like http://www.realclimate.org/ or http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm.

Oh, I know that already. I was putting myself in the position of the general public that gets Al Gore's oversimplified view shoved down their throats.

I haven't watched the Al Gore piece, but I'm of the understanding that it originally was meant for high school students, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people found it over simplified.

But because it is for high school students, who are at the prime age to learn how to think (after that, sometimes it's too late), it should not be simplified! I'm not asking people to become climatologists, I'm merely asking them to think for a second instead of saying "Ooh, shiny!" and eating the garbage that's put on TV.

The moral of the story here is that regular news outlets are horrible sources of scientific news and analysis. They are meant for people who don't want all that much in-depth information about a particular subject, and anyone who wants to know more should look at more substantial sources.

I understand that... and I'd have no problem with that if those people, who don't want all that much in-depth information about this particular subject, weren't used as tools. That's my main problem with sensationalism.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

See, that's what's wrong. Because of their lower level of understanding, they are taken advantage of in pursue of the interests of those in power. It's a bit of a chicken and an egg here, but the point is that the general public should be able to understand it. It's not something that requires too deep of a scientific knowledge to notice (I repeat, I'm a lay person, not a scientist, but I can clearly notice most of times they're trying to bullshit me), either. It just requires a broad general knowledge and a capability of thinking for oneself--which, sadly, seems to be too far away from the grasp of most people.

I agree that people are taken advantage of, and that's unfortunate. The trouble is that if you don't present things in so-called "soundbite" format, or if you don't make it flashy or easy to understand, people won't be interested. I'm not saying that there's no hope for people, but many people don't have the interest to learn. For example, how many of us have tried to explain something about computers to people who need computer help? I don't know about you, but even when I show a person the resources I use, or try to teach them how to use Google, I'm frequently still called up to either do the Googling for them or to basically tell them what to type in. You expect people to have the interest to wade through advanced scientific stuff when they can't even be bothered to learn how to Google to find a product that they want to buy?

But because it is for high school students, who are at the prime age to learn how to think (after that, sometimes it's too late), it should not be simplified! I'm not asking people to become climatologists, I'm merely asking them to think for a second instead of saying "Ooh, shiny!" and eating the garbage that's put on TV.

I don't think it was aimed at high schoolers, I think it was aimed at the average person. I think that for the average person, it was well-done. They don't just say what's happening, they show some data and then use some routines to explain what that data means. That's important. If you give a lay person numbers and graphs without those explanations, what are they going to make of it? Without further knowledge or research, it's beyond them. They'll probably lose all interest immediately. Heck, when I was learning about this stuff in lectures, plenty of other students either didn't understand it or were falling asleep.

People want to be in the know. The best way to get people to understand and (more importantly) to care about the issue is to get them to feel like it's within their grasp of understanding. Making information more accessible to people isn't just a matter of unlocking the library, it's a matter of digesting the information down and presenting it in a form that they can understand. Is it a bit dumbed down, and is there the potential that someone could leave out certain details and present the data based off of their biased views? Sure. But how else would you do it?

The other problem arises when you try to present both sides. People don't seem to like that. Everyone wants each issue to be black and white. Global warming is either full-blown happening or it isn't happening at all; the war in Iraq is either fully justified or it's not; one political party is either our savior or our destroyer. If I tell you that there's data supporting global warming, but there's also some data that might counter the other data, then what would you think? If you care about the issue, maybe you'll look into it some more for yourself. To the average person who is so caught up in their own life, they'll likely say "the scientists have no idea what's really happening, so screw it" and then ignore the issue entirely. Then you've lost them.

I suppose that educators could probably shed some more light on this issue. I don't like seeing information presented in overly biased ways or used for hidden agendas, and I know that those do make use of soundbites and flashy, "dumbed down" presentations to make their points. Just because those methods are used for not so good purposes doesn't make them vile, however. How else can you get people interested and knowledgable about something that they probably never thought of, would never think of, and likely don't really care about unless it's something that will effect them?

[WanderingKnight]

Everyone wants each issue to be black and white.

That'd be because they're used to the issues being presented as black and white. That's exactly the whole point of sensationalism--present an "enemy" or an "other" against which people can unite and identify themselves with each other--that's the way contradictory masses are formed. Everyone has different interests, but at least they've got something clear: there's a defined enemy. Of course, this works for both sides. And the way leaders take advantage of that is by presenting the "solution" to this defined enemy (whether it's a product, a candidate, an opinion on how to proceed in a political conflict). It's about antagonizing people and forming two groups that are only defined by their mutual opposition.

It's been done for decades in almost all countries. I can dig up lots of examples from Argentinian history. Heck, I can also show you a few current events with these characteristics.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

That'd be because they're used to the issues being presented as black and white. That's exactly the whole point of sensationalism--present an "enemy" or an "other" against which people can unite and identify themselves with each other--that's the way contradictory masses are formed.

Perhaps that's become the standard because a group of people unable to act (because they want to deliberate the issue first) would lose to a group of people who were more easily united and spurred into action. I'd prefer that people think for themselves, but we can't be experts on every single subject. Accordingly, we sometimes need to take information from others in a digested form, or give such information in a digested form. If you leave people to their own devices they very likely won't do anything, nor will they try to learn more about what's going on.

I wish that we could all be open enough and academically-oriented enough to try to learn as much about everything as is possible, and to always evaluate what we hear rather than accept it without a second thought. Realistically speaking, though, it doesn't seem to happen even when people are left to their own devices.