Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy

May 27, 2012

Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match scientific consensus?

A study published today online in the journal Nature suggests that the answer to both questions is no. Indeed, as members of the public become more science literate and numerate, the study found, individuals belonging to opposing cultural groups become even more divided on the risks that climate change poses.

Funded by the National Science Foundation, the study was conducted by researchers associated with the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School and involved a nationally of 1500 U.S. adults.

"The aim of the study was to test two hypotheses," said Dan Kahan, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School and a member of the study team. "The first attributes over climate change to the public's limited ability to comprehend science, and the second, to opposing sets of . The findings supported the second hypothesis and not the first," he said.

"Cultural cognition" is the term used to describe the process by which individuals' group values shape their perceptions of societal risks. It refers to the unconscious tendency of people to fit evidence of risk to positions that predominate in groups to which they belong. The results of the study were consistent with previous studies that show that individuals with more egalitarian values disagree sharply with individuals who have more individualistic ones on the risks associated with nuclear power, gun possession, and the for school girls.

In this study, researchers measured "" with test items developed by the National Science Foundation. They also measured their subjects' "numeracy"—that is, their ability and disposition to understand quantitative information.

"In effect," Kahan said, "ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values. At least among ordinary members of the public, individuals with higher science comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group commitments."

Kahan said that the study supports no inferences about the reasoning of scientific experts in climate change.

Researcher Ellen Peters of Ohio State University said that people who are higher in numeracy and science literacy usually make better decisions in complex technical situations, but the study clearly casts doubt on the notion that the more you understand science and math, the better decisions you'll make in complex and technical situations. "What this study shows is that people with high science and math comprehension can think their way to conclusions that are better for them as individuals but are not necessarily better for society."

According to Kahan, the study suggests the need for science communication strategies that reflect a more sophisticated understanding of cultural values.

"More information can help solve the climate change conflict," Kahan said, "but that information has to do more than communicate the scientific evidence. It also has to create a climate of deliberations in which no group perceives that accepting any piece of evidence is akin to betrayal of their cultural group."

Explore further: Russia battles to contain Black Sea oil spill

More information: The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks, Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1547

Related Stories

Why 'scientific consensus' fails to persuade

Sep 14, 2010

Suppose a close friend who is trying to figure out the facts about climate change asks whether you think a scientist who has written a book on the topic is a knowledgeable and trustworthy expert. You see from the dust jacket ...

White male fearlessness is explained

Oct 31, 2007

A U.S. study suggests the relative fearlessness of some white males is due to their cultural identity, and its influence on their appraisal of risks.

Nanotechnology's future depends on who the public trusts

Feb 11, 2008

When the public considers competing arguments about a new technology’s potential risks and benefits, people will tend to agree with the expert whose values are closest to their own, no matter what position the expert takes. ...

Numeracy: The educational gift that keeps on giving?

Feb 10, 2012

(Medical Xpress) -- Cancer risks. Investment alternatives. Calories. Numbers are everywhere in daily life, and they figure into all sorts of decisions. A new article published in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, examin ...

Recommended for you

Russia battles to contain Black Sea oil spill

Dec 25, 2014

A Russian Black Sea city declared a state of emergency Thursday after a burst pipeline spewed oil into the landlocked water body, with stormy weather hampering cleanup efforts.

User comments : 129

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
2.3 / 5 (43) May 27, 2012
"Researcher Ellen Peters of Ohio State University said that people who are higher in numeracy and science literacy usually make better decisions in complex technical situations, but the study clearly casts doubt on the notion that the more you understand science and math, the better decisions you'll make in complex and technical situations."

Translation: The AGW cult is confused about people smarter than they are deciding to not support AGW.
mememine69
2.6 / 5 (16) May 27, 2012
All of science agrees that the effects of climate change will be vast and varied leaving consensus that climate change will be an actual life ending crisis, nonexistent. None of the climate scientists are saying the end is near for all life on the planet. You cant have a little crisis.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (33) May 27, 2012
While the technical and scientific aspects of CO2 enhanced global warming have never been doubted by the scientific community and are now universally established, the real issue has never been about the science - even though denialists have dishonestly tried to claim it has been.

The issue has always been one of morality. Specifically the lack of Morality in leaving future generations a vastly polluted and disfunctional biosphere due to species extinction, along with the exceptional immorality in causing those extinctions in the first place.

Al Gore, who has been absolutely correct in both the scientific and moral implications of Global Warming, has been raising the issue of the Immorality of the denialist position for a long, long time.

I commend him.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (25) May 27, 2012
There are indeed a handful of very smart denialiss out there.

"The AGW cult is confused about people smarter than they are deciding to not support AGW." - ParkerTard

And then there is Poor, mentally diseased ParkerTard.

The smart ones are being paid to shill for the carbon industry.

Fred Singer (smoking doesn't cause cancer) comes immediately to mind.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (28) May 27, 2012
The public will continue to reject the chicken little scenario of the AGW crowd as long as their agenda is a political agenda.

Since it will always be a political agenda, they may expect no acceptance of their agenda by the general public not matter how many pieces of sky they claim have fallen.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (23) May 27, 2012
The American Public's agenda will remain a political agenda until
the current dying generation mostly dies away.

This will occur over the next 10 years.

"The public will continue to reject the chicken little scenario of the AGW crowd as long as their agenda is a political agenda." - DogBert
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (27) May 27, 2012
The public will continue to reject the chicken little scenario of the AGW crowd as long as their agenda is a political agenda.


If the rightwing had ANY CLUE about the scientific process, their policies might be different. As it stands, the morally bankrupt rightwing would rather dump pollution onto the population for a buck and claim they are self made, and the liberals and moderates have to come in and clean up the crap left by the supporters of the party of the right.

The only political agenda of the right is how to keep lining the pockets of the 1% at the expense of everybody and everything else including the global environment.

A2G
3 / 5 (30) May 27, 2012
It is arrogant and ignorant to begin with to think that the public not accepting that AGW is real because of their lack of understanding of science. So the truly ignorant ones are those from either side who look on the opposite side as ignorant of science. You can have opposing views in science and still both parties can be quite intelligent.

This has been the case throughout science history, just look at how even Einstein was looked upon by his peers with his views of QM. Was Einstein then ignorant? Of course not. He just had a different view.

But now the AGW crowd and some on the other side insult instead of educate. How in the world do you think you are going to be received by truly intelligent people when you resort to insults and name calling?

This study shows that it is not a lack of science knowledge that is causing the lack of belief in AGW. It is just that the people are not believing it from what they have been told.

But they are not "Tards" or stupid.
A2G
2.7 / 5 (26) May 27, 2012
I have not met a single person who does not believe in AGW that is not very concerned about pollution. They all want cleaner air and water for all. They want the planet to be a better place.

They just believe that using resources to fight things that we cannot change keeps those resources from being used to affect change in the areas that we can change.

But seriously. Trading Carbon Credits?? How in hell does this do anything but make those trading the CC wealthy? That is a scam that does not at all affect the co2 load at all. So why do it? for $$$$.

The big corps don't care one way or another, they still make their money. They just do what their PR people tell them to do.

I have been on the inside of both worlds. Big business don't give a sh*t either way and the carbon credit trading people are scammers. Both sides are greedy for money. Plain and simple.
Terriva
1.2 / 5 (21) May 27, 2012
Layman people are annoyed and confused with contradictory informations. The public apathy over cold fusion finding (which could eliminate the carbon-based technologies) has the same origin. But this article basically says, even the experts are confused in the same way.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (24) May 27, 2012
"What this study shows is that people with high science and math comprehension can think their way to conclusions that are better for them as individuals but are not necessarily better for society."
Who says?
Billions of people who make decisions that benefit their self interest MUST benefit all, if not prohibited by a socialist stated from making those decisions.
entropyrules
2.5 / 5 (10) May 27, 2012
Yes it does have to do with science literacy because these members of the public will never read or hear how the greenhouse effect actually should work. All the media and IPCC story's and pretty pictures do not tell or show how the greenhouse effect should work. Even 99,9% of the people on either side of the 'debate' that are active in discussions on blogs etc. do not know.
So the greater part of the public that believes in AGW doesn't understand much of science because they believe in a story that is pseudoscience. The non-believers do have a grasp of science because they see or feel there is something fishy.
Fact is one has to make a real effort and dig deep to understand how a greenhouse effect should work. For starters; the real GHE science has nothing to do with radiation bouncing up and down or heat getting trapped.
verkle
2.2 / 5 (17) May 27, 2012
What? Not only does this study disprove the perceived bias of "unlearned masses", the first graph of the article:
http://www.nature..._F1.html
shows that the higher the scientific literacy, the less the perceived risk of environmental disaster! Ouch! This will not go over well with the politically correct scientists on this forum.

Yes, please go ahead and give me a 1 rating for pointing this out.

Terriva
1 / 5 (9) May 27, 2012
We should see the things in wider context. Most of scientists are already engaged in research of traditional methods of energy production/conversions/transport or storage, that's why. In this sense they're behaving in the same way, like the fossil fuel lobby. For example, no sane physicist working on the improving of lithium battery technologies will cold fusion, because such a technology would make his research an useless trash.

In this connection it's significant, the most formally thinking physicists, like the string theorists and mathematicians are most conservative deniers of AGW. Whereas these less rigorous ones are more able to think in wider liberal context.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
Errata: .."will cold fusion" should be "will support the cold fusion"
Terriva
1.6 / 5 (10) May 27, 2012
The scientists tend to ignore the global warming the more, the more rigorous and "scientific" they are. Apparently, the biologist or some other "soft scientist" will support the fight against global warming more, than the astronomer or physicist of high energies, because he's facing the consequences of global warming all the time (extinction of species, changes in biodiversity, etc..). The negative slope curve is therefore not surprising for me. In this case it's just the layman public, which is more responsible with respect to future of human civilization - the scientists are often living inside of their iwory towers and they don't care about consequences of their research. The irony is, it were just the scientists, who initiated whole the AGW movement. We shouldn't expect more warm public support of scientific research, than from scientists itself.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (16) May 27, 2012
Apparently, the biologist or some other "soft scientist" will support the fight against global warming more, than the astronomer or physicist of high energies,

The hard scientist have better understanding of the limits of the models as they are required to study significantly more mathematics.
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (15) May 27, 2012
Although there is an urban legend that the world will end this year based on a misinterpretation of the Mayan calendar, some researchers think a 40-year-old computer program that predicts a collapse of socioeconomic order and massive drop in human population in this century may be on target

Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return?

Please note, I'm not quoting some conspiratorial "chemtrails" web site - but rather conservative Scientific American.
Terriva
1.6 / 5 (12) May 27, 2012
How is it possible so many scientists be wrong? Roland Benabou of Princeton have made many papers using a model of "self delusion" that can became "collective"... he studied many variation and application of his theory to explain illogical facts.. Psychologists over the past 50 years have demonstrated the sheer genius people have at convincing themselves of congenial conclusions while denying the truth of inconvenient ones. You can call it self-deception, but it also goes by the names rationalization, wishful thinking, defensive processing, self-delusion, and motivated reasoning. There is a robust catalogue of strategies people follow to believe what they want to, and the research psychologists are hardly done describing the shape or the size of that catalogue. All this rationalization can lead people toward false beliefs, or perhaps more commonly, to tenaciously hang on to false beliefs.
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (14) May 27, 2012
Please note, I'm not quoting some conspiratorial "chemtrails" web site - but rather conservative Scientific American.


Terriva, Scientific American is not in any sense conservative. It is and has been a strong voice for AGW.
XQZME
1.9 / 5 (17) May 27, 2012
Any opinion not based on data and facts may be invalid whether or not a person excels at math and science. The MSM, consisting of more than 90% liberals, refuses to publish any scientific data that show that AGW is not happening. Seldom even are letters to the editor published that contain the scientific evidence contradicting AGW. Worse are those advocating AGW that refuse to even look at the overwhelming evidence.

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Nov. 2011, page 9) stated that the mans influence on climate is smaller than natural noise factors and may even cause global cooling. This was so shocking that the MSM refused to publish it! In fact the IPCC now states that because all climate models use an obsolete relationship between CO2, evaporation and cloud formation, they are invalid.
http://ipcc-wg2.g...INAL.pdf

Global temperature has increased 0.8C since the end of the LIA, all five official global climate data centers agree that globa
XQZME
1.9 / 5 (18) May 27, 2012
All five official global climate data centers agree that global temperature has decreased in the last 10 years. This is suppressed by the MSM and ignored by the AGW alarmists.
http://www.friend...p?id=453

Global temperature was warmer for 9,100 years of the last 10,000 years.
http://icecap.us/...list.pdf

In the last 600 million years global warming has caused CO2 to increase. Never the reverse.
http://www.iceage...ence.htm

The strength of correlation of temperature changes to solar intensity from 1895 to 2007 is 0.85; to oceanic oscillations from 1895 to 2007, 0.57; to CO2 from 1897 to 2007, 0.43, but to CO2 from 1987 to 2007, only 0.02.
http://wattsupwit...han-co2/

In fact it only takes high school math and science to understand the fallacy of AGW, if only one looks at the data.

AGW is promote
XQZME
2.1 / 5 (19) May 27, 2012
AGW is promoted by academics, ideologues and greedy corporations including Big Oil. In the past IPCC principals have admitted it doesnt matter whether AGW is true or not, it is important to promote redistribution of wealth, social justice, global government and population control.
http://climaterea...?id=8654

Here is a list of over 900 peer reviewed papers by thousands of scientists revealing the fallacies of AGW.
http://www.popula...ing.html
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) May 27, 2012
And don't forget Enron actively promoted and supported Kyoto.
XQZME
1.9 / 5 (14) May 27, 2012
The ranks of 1 posted immediately after I posted the scientific quotes and links to the scientific reports proves my point that the promoters of AGW refuse to investigate climate data and science (or maybe it is beyond their ability to comprehend). It shows the controversy will continue between the informed and the ideologically motivated uninformed.
MandoZink
4.3 / 5 (12) May 27, 2012
Here is a list of over 900 peer reviewed papers by thousands of scientists revealing the fallacies of AGW. - XQZME

Look. I'm sure what I tell you won't make any difference, but I clicked on your site which calls itself "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology". I immediately noticed a topic on the RESOURCES sidebar which I am very familiar with. I don't want to get into another topic, but what I found was the most incorrect, illogical, bogus, absolutely KNOWN wrong information I have ever seen collected on a page. EVERY SINGLE BIT OF INFORMATION on one topic was UTTERLY WRONG! UTTERLY! All I checked was one topic which I am EXTREMELY knowledgeable about, and it was, fact-for-fact, as misleading and incorrect as any lunatic site I've ever encountered.

After that, I couldn't stomach the idea of even looking at the climate info. You really, really need to find a link that does NOT sit on a page with utterly incorrect, disreputable propaganda.
XQZME
1.7 / 5 (17) May 27, 2012
Terriva: The irony is, it were just the scientists, who initiated whole the AGW movement. No.

The insurance industry initiated AGW disaster forecast in 1973 to sell more insurance. Margarette Mead and a bunch of pointy headed liberals joined in 1975 as a reason to push population control. (James Henson who now promotes AGW, was actually promoting a coming ice age in 1970.)
http://opinion.fi...isaster/
http://inthesenew...as-born/
The Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and their think tanks like the Club of Rome use it to promote one world government.
http://www.prison...eria.htm
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (15) May 28, 2012
Ah, so now the insurance industry is in on the conspiracy. Are they ahead of of behind the Biologists and the Medical scientists?

"The insurance industry initiated AGW disaster forecast in 1973 to sell more insurance." - XQZME

You do realize don't you that linking to a site run by Alex Jones immediately tells us that you are a worthless know nothing crank.
XQZME
1.8 / 5 (16) May 28, 2012
Whoa, why does the right most star correspond to a rank of 1 and not 5? After all one reads from left to right!
This renders all ranks of these comments ambiguous!
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (16) May 28, 2012
There is no apathy. Most people recognize snake oil when they see it.
XQZME
2.2 / 5 (17) May 28, 2012
Vendicar_Decarian:
Thanks for proving my point. Alarmist refuse to learn. Alarmist prefer to attack the messenger and almost never provide data supporting their opinion.
If the well researched story by Lawrence Sullivan listing many insurance institutes and companies supporting AGW then consider the original 1973 source - Munich Re.
http://www.munich...ult.aspx
I assume you accept Mead's AGW role.

78 people are members of both the IPCC and WWFs parallel climate panel. 23 are IPCC co-coordinating lead authors.
http://www.spiked...w/11860/
XQZME
2.1 / 5 (16) May 28, 2012
MandoZink:
If you are as informed as you claim to be, then I must conclude that you KNOW that AGW is a hoax as indicated by your acceptance of the other facts I posted including the IPCC analysis and forecast, the report by the official climate data centers, the reconstructed historical climate record and the correlations to natural phenomena.
(Where is the RESOURCES sidebar? Try http://climatedebatedaily.com/ site with both pro and anti links.)
SURFIN85
3.9 / 5 (11) May 28, 2012
Plenty of boneheads thought it was a good idea to go into 'Nam, in '63. Then '64. Then '65. Then '66, and so on.

The USA is filled with techs and science-literate people. A subset of those same people believe the USA is a democracy and that an imaginary being exists which has absolute power.

And a crap-ton of money has been spent paying people to spam message boards with propaganda to skew public opinion.

We live in the age of intelligent monkeys. This is the consciousness revolution of 2012 upside down: proof that we are all subject to intractable deficiencies of intellect, primarily because of social and group psychology evolved from the time we were running around, eating raw meat, and raping each other.

XQZME
1.8 / 5 (21) May 28, 2012
Nine failed forecasts by AGW alarmists:
1. By 1980 all important life in the sea will be extinct.
2. By 1985 pollution will reduce sunlight one half.
3. By 1995 the greenhouse effect will cause drought in the heartland and Eurasia and a continent wide blizzard of prairie dust.
4. By 2000 the world will be 11 degrees cooler
5. By 2000 the Arctic will be ice free.
6. By 2000 the UK will be reduced to a small group of impoverished islands.
7. By 2010 US temps will be 2 degrees warmer.
8. By 2010 there will be no more snow.
9. By 2010 50 million people will flee climate change, rising seas, mega-hurricanes etc.
http://www.invest...&p=1

756 AGW phenomena
http://www.invest...d=529363

35 Inconvenient Truths
http://scienceand...ors.html

IAW IPCC AR4 the global warming potential of AGHG is 0.28% of ACO2, 0.117%
http://www.appins...mmary.ht
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (14) May 28, 2012
Bravo XQME Here's some more info http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (16) May 28, 2012
The reason people don't believe in AGW (at least a great part of it) is the same reason people don't believe that the mother of Jesus Christ was a virgin, or if you die as a mujedin you will live for the rest of your life with 70 virgins (That's really bad taste!), or that Santa Claus brings a present to every child in the world, or the Eastern bunny brings eggs, or the rest of the universe has dark matter but not here in our galaxy...the same as the space expands everywhere but not in the Solar system...all BS!
That's the reason!
People are not stupid (at least part of it)
Origin
1.3 / 5 (13) May 28, 2012
The insurance industry initiated AGW disaster forecast in 1973 to sell more insurance.
LOL, in 1973 the people worried about global cooling instead...;-) You're living in alternate reality, or you're inventing stuffs like many other criminal persons.
Deadbolt
2.9 / 5 (7) May 28, 2012
It's a matter of trust. Some people understand the data as presented, but believe that either the measurements are faulty, or there's a willful and gigantic conspiracy to outright make stuff up.

mrtea
2.6 / 5 (11) May 28, 2012

And then there is Poor, mentally diseased ParkerTard.


Reported. Please down-vote and report any poster when they make offensive remarks like this. Thye need to understand that it is unacceptable.

NB. I actually agree with Vendicar's position, but I will down-vote and report him every time I see these kind of offensive posts.

Geoff Wales
Australia
Origin
2.4 / 5 (14) May 28, 2012
I actually agree with Vendicar's position, but I will down-vote and report him every time I see these kind of offensive posts.
I do agree with it and I'm doing the very same. We all should contribute to the humble, matter of facts spirit of this forum. The arrogant big mouthed sociopaths should be excluded from here with all means possible (downovoted with Sinister1811).
ShotmanMaslo
3.4 / 5 (13) May 28, 2012
This article is NOT about AGW denialism. It is about the degree of percieved risk and apathy towards AGW.

I am sure acknowledging the reality of AGW is correlated with scientific literacy.
Origin
1.6 / 5 (15) May 28, 2012
I am sure acknowledging the reality of AGW is correlated with scientific literacy.
Some scientists have problem with acceptance of GW as such. They tend to consider it as another semi-random period of climatic change. And the rest of scientists is not homogeneous with its acceptance of antropogenic origin at all.

For example, I consider myself scientifically literate above average and I still don't consider the people as the main reason of global warming. We can observe it across whole solar system and I attribute it to accelerated decay or radioactive elements inside of oceans and Earth core induced with dark matter (low energy neutrinos) cloud. IMO the people contribute only mildly to it and they contribute to the droughts with production of aerosols, rather than to the elevated temperatures as such with production of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.
XQZME
1.5 / 5 (15) May 28, 2012
You are correct. In 1973 the people worried about global cooling. However, Munich Re still brags about raising the specter of GW in 1973. Why must you stoop to the level of all other alarmists? All hat, no cattle.
Go here:
http://www.munich...ult.aspx

Click on :
2000 to 1973
and scroll down.

1973: Munich Re warns of the consequences of climate change for the first time
In a publication on flooding, Munich Re addresses the increasing concentration of carbon-dioxide and the related climate change for the first time, and proposes analyses for determining how far climate change could change the pattern of weather-related natural catastrophes.
XQZME
1.7 / 5 (17) May 28, 2012
ShotmanMaslo:
Unlike alarmists, denialists have studied the science and have perceived no risk. (9,100 of the last 10,000 years were warmer. Temperatures are declining after warming from the end of the Little Ice Age.) The deniers efforts to make the truth known are rejected by the media and may appear apathetic. But every whim of the alarmists is passionately pursued by the media.
http://icecap.us/...list.pdf]http://icecap.us/...list.pdf[/url]
http://icecap.us/...list.pdf]http://icecap.us/...list.pdf[/url]

Thanks for proving my points (again). Alarmists refuse to learn. Alarmists prefer to attack the messenger and almost never provide data supporting their opinion. Obviously you cant prove your opinion.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Those who do not read are no better off than those who cannot.
The longest journey starts with a single step. So, GET STARTED!
XQZME
1.9 / 5 (16) May 28, 2012
Gregor1:
Thanks for the link. Its one of the best Ive seen and I have visited hundreds of pro and anti sites.

Some graphs are better versions of those Ive seen before - CO2 increases after global warming and not before. Global warming and cooling occurs in 20 to 30 year phases. There were two warming and two cooling phases (with accompanying scare publicity in the media) since the end of the LIA and we are now in a cooling phase.
Sigh
5 / 5 (5) May 28, 2012
Billions of people who make decisions that benefit their self interest MUST benefit all.

Not if externalities give you a situation analogous to a common goods or prisoner's dilemma game. I am fairly sure you know about those.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) May 28, 2012
Billions of people who make decisions that benefit their self interest MUST benefit all.

Not if externalities give you a situation analogous to a common goods or prisoner's dilemma game. I am fairly sure you know about those.

I agree, when individuals are under tyrannical rule and not free to choose in their self interest, the results are skewed.
Siddha
5 / 5 (5) May 28, 2012
I call BS on this one.
The study was flawed from the start. It does not disprove the fact that 1500 random ppl were less informed than scientist who actually study AGW.
The only way to disprove the "science comprehension thesis" (SCT) would be to train up those 1500 ppl to be scientists able to work in the AGW field of study. Then check and see what they think about AGW. Short of that, we could study a population already possessing AGW science comprehension and ask them?

The proof of SCT is obvious, the disproof would take far more work than what these lawyers and sociologists came up with. Likewise, If I went to the bottom of the ocean to find what a star looked like, I would find that there is no evidence to support the existence of stars. :O
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (15) May 28, 2012
Siddha, the purpose of the study was not to prove the absurdity of your premise. Really at issue is Cataclysmic AGW, which in fact is speculation , not proven fact, so therefore public opinion matters.

For example, I think this study supports the idea that people who are more scientifically literate are less likely to believe that climate scientists have such a handle on global climate to the precision they claim, to justify the hysteria and anti-capitalist politics invoked,... while those less scientifically literate believe that the climate can be known and predicted to such precision as claimed and that science is always right.

It also, does not support the claim, often made by cataclysmic AGW believers, that so called "deniers" are anti-scientific or scientifically illiterate.
geokstr
1.5 / 5 (15) May 28, 2012

And then there is Poor, mentally diseased ParkerTard.


Reported. Please down-vote and report any poster when they make offensive remarks like this. Thye need to understand that it is unacceptable.

NB. I actually agree with Vendicar's position, but I will down-vote and report him every time I see these kind of offensive posts.

Geoff Wales
Australia


Geoff, I agree. I have reported him every time he insults other commenters or calls for the mass execution of those he disagrees with, which is most of his comments. Despite many hundreds of such reports, he is as abusive as ever.

Today I emailed the moderators to specifically complain about his behavior. I urge others to do so as well. If nothing is done in the near future about it, I will assume that the site owners have no problem with it.

VD, the only reason I give you a 1 on every one of your comments is they won't let me give a 0 or negative. Good thing you can use your sockpuppets to upvote yourself, eh?
MandoZink
4.6 / 5 (9) May 28, 2012
WHY IT WAS INEVITABLE THAT I BELIEVED GLOBAL WARMING EVIDENCE
Or: Who Will I Trust, and More Important - Why?

I will tell you why I decided to trust the AGW science as opposed to not trusting. It came down to how scientific matters are presented with due integrity.

In essence:
People need to be aware of the language they use when they decide to take a position on current science research.

I have had very many science-minded friends who were dedicated enough that they eventually become researchers in various fields of science. Their commitment was admirable, and they went beyond settling for a normal lifestyle. Their desire to expand our understanding was the driving force in their lives, a career which may not be as profitable as a corporate job, but more rewarding as the discoverers of true knowledge. Usually some event in their lives had led them to this higher academic purpose. None of them had any agenda other than to do science right.

(next)
MandoZink
5 / 5 (7) May 28, 2012
WHY IT WAS INEVITABLE THAT I BELIEVED GLOBAL WARMING EVIDENCE
(contd)

The prospect of disproving popular ideas, and going against the grain by uncovering new facts, was also exciting to them. None of them had conspiratorial notions to collaborate on hoaxes, or scam institutions for grant money. The expanding circle of researchers and scientists Ive met through these people have been characters of similar noble principles.

In light of what I said above, I initially held no position on climate change. As scientists began accumulate a wealth of global data and continued to discuss the complex nature of the issue, there seemed to be a growing consensus on the matter. What subsequently occurred was quite unexpected.

(next)
MandoZink
5 / 5 (7) May 28, 2012
WHY IT WAS INEVITABLE THAT I BELIEVED GLOBAL WARMING EVIDENCE
(contd)

I always assumed contrary data and evidence would be discussed in the usual scientifically rational manner. Instead there arose a surge of dialogue full of the false logic of dismissive terminology.

RELIGION, CULT, AGENDA, CONSPIRACY, LEFTIST, SOCIALIST, PROPAGANDA, HOAX, SCAM, MYTH, ALARMIST, etc. became the talking points instead of honest discussion. Persistent accusations that funding grants were the only motivations behind the majority of scientists were relentless. That is absurd, and an insult to the great people I have known.

The onslaught of criticism amid poisoning-the-well logical fallacies left me unable to respect any conclusions contrary to the emerging view. That view is:

1. Earth's warming is accelerating unnaturally.
2. It is almost certainly the result of human activity.

Denial by logical fallacy only dismisses the credibility of any argument you make.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (6) May 28, 2012
Where I live, people who are not knowledgeable leave science to scientists.

One comment in this thread caught my attention:

Billions of people who make decisions that benefit their self interest MUST benefit all, if not prohibited by a socialist stated from making those decisions.


Not true. Ever heard of Nash equilibrium?

Here's an example: a post-apocaliptic world where everyone fends for himself. Sure, people could collaborate and grow crops for all, but the first one to take a step in that direction gets stomped by the other brutes. You can't say everyone is not doing what's in his/her best interest -- live like an animal and steal from others.

In general, you can't expect the sum of the actions of many self-interested actors to be the best for the group.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (17) May 28, 2012
a post-apocaliptic world where everyone fends for himself. Sure, people could collaborate and grow crops for all, but the first one to take a step in that direction gets stomped by the other brutes. You can't say everyone is not doing what's in his/her best interest -- live like an animal and steal from others.


The fact that you must postulate a post-apocaliptic world to get that point across, should have alerted you to the absurdity of your premise.

Of course, basic laws are assumed, so that it becomes NOT in fact, in one best interest to "live like an animal and steal from others.". Civilized people do not in fact live like animals.

Those that support free market capitalism and liberty, by necessity support the governments role in upholding law and protecting private property rights.

Howhot
4.7 / 5 (13) May 28, 2012
It's nice to read a rational post in the spit fire of controversial tea party group think. I don't know if the denialist's objections to AGW is based on misplaced beliefs (or gullibility) in believing the propaganda of the anti gobal warming sites. Or is it that their political (and/or) religious leaders have propagandized their beliefs so they deny rational science arguments. Or maybe the denialist just don't want to take the action needed to effect change in mankind's self-destructive growth.

It's an intriguing article.
XQZME
1.8 / 5 (15) May 28, 2012
MandoZink:

Your 2 conclusive points proves you havent looked beyond the alarmist propaganda to the scientific data. You refused to follow links to real data. Your long pompous diatribe proves nothing more than that you are long-winded. Your retreat to rhetoric in place of links to facts proves you have no supporting data.

Your posts prove my points (again). Alarmists refuse to learn. Alarmists prefer to attack the messenger and almost never provide data supporting their opinion.

You ask who to trust. Do you distrust the IPCC and the 5 official climate data centers (NASA GISS, RSS MSU, UAH AMSU, HADLEY CRU, and NOAA NCDC)? (Links above.) I trust the data from satellites, Argo floats, tree and coral rings; lake, ocean and ice layers etc.

For real scientists views and what happens to denialists scientists, see pages 67-69
http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf
Get back to me after reading the data.
kaasinees
2.4 / 5 (16) May 28, 2012
1. Earth's warming is accelerating unnaturally.

We are natural but so is cancer.
I think we can all agree religion is a cancer.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) May 28, 2012
1. Earth's warming is accelerating unnaturally.

We are natural but so is cancer.
I think we can all agree religion is a cancer.

Yes, the AGW religion IS dangerous.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (13) May 28, 2012
The battlelines are drawn between the climate modelers and the empirical evidence. Many on this thread appear to be rusted on empirical evidence deniers. I urge you all to check out XQZME's pdf
http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf
jotaf statement "Where I live, people who are not knowledgeable leave science to scientists." is a classic straw man cop out of such a denier. All should be encouraged to look at the science. Most of us live in democracies after all, though I fear some here are opposed to that. Read the science, make up your own mind, and then vote on the issue. Don't listen to deniers claims that you are too stupid to understand.
MandoZink
4.6 / 5 (11) May 28, 2012
XQZME

Sigh. I didn't want to waste time on this but I thought I should investigate a little. I went back to the site I railed against and randomly chose GREENLAND. The first article I looked at was from International Glaciological Society magazine. That author had written ONE article that wasn't really too worried about melting, but the same guy had several more articles WARNING about AGW! The entire magazine seemed to also be worried about AGW.

I checked out a few more articles and they too seemed to support AGW. I decided to look at the GENERAL section where most articles where at least 20 years old. I looked up the authors of many recent articles and they were either funded by ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (a "non-profit" organization funded by energy industry lobbyists) and/or they were hydrologists or some other non-climate field.

Other articles were irrelevant to temperature rise. They had no relation to AGW at all.

XQZME
1.7 / 5 (17) May 28, 2012
Howhot

You would know that the denialists objections are based on empirical evidence if you had bothered to visit the links I have provided. You would also know that AGW alarmists misplaced beliefs and sites are rarely based on supporting data. The alarmists sites start with the assumption AGW is real and then raise fears of the consequences and propose remedies.

Many leading alarmists have admitted that they dont care of AGW is real and admit that they are pushing AGW to promote redistribution of wealth, social justice, global government and population control.
Scroll to REASON
http://www.appins...mary.htm
http://www.prison...eria.htm

Your posts prove my points (again). Alarmists refuse to learn. Alarmists prefer to attack the messenger and almost never provide data supporting their opinion.

Howhot: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt
MandoZink
4.7 / 5 (12) May 29, 2012
XQZME

I then gave up and checked out your PDF by H. Leighton Steward. I did find he is a former CEO of a Fortune 500 company and in opposition to AGW findings. He also is funded by Exxon to write articles for the Heartland Institute, which is also fundamentally against believing climate data. Unfortunately, I also looked up who funds Heartland - a Who's Who of big business.

Steward's thing is to promote the benefits of CO2, which tells me he certainly believes it is rising. I noticed he listed 2 pages on "experts" who deny there is warming, and failed to name a single one of them.

The one page about Alan Carlan was misleading. Carlin, a former conservative Rand Corp. economist, worked for the EPA, but NOT as a scientist. He was not assigned to write a paper, as your PDF asserts, but he did anyway. The EPA was forced to comment on it.

My sister, a long-time chemical engineer at the EPA, wouldn't dare author an unsolicited financial report!

Get real. These are not reliable people.
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (16) May 29, 2012
Mondo Once more you resort to ad hominem attacks. Science is science no matter who funds it. The big money is behind the warmistas anyway (Approx. $100 billion so far and they want that much every year). Go back to the link and you'll see the argument is between science (empirical evidence) and pseudoscience (computer models).
Sinister1811
2.3 / 5 (9) May 29, 2012
You would know that the denialists objections are based on empirical evidence


So you would admit that you're a denialist? Denying FACTS, EVIDENCE and actual STATISTICS put forth by ACTUAL Climate Scientists? Read -- There is NO empirical evidence for your denialist "argument" WHATSOEVER, other than the complete denial of the 100% obvious.

You would also know that AGW alarmists misplaced beliefs and sites are rarely based on supporting data.


As opposed to your dodgy anti-science websites, which are just FULL of FACTS and figures, explaining why there's a huge government "conspiracy". Go back to the rock you crawled out from, ignorant denialist.

Many leading alarmists have admitted that they dont care of AGW is real and admit that they are pushing AGW to promote redistribution of wealth, social justice, global government and population control.


They have admitted NO such thing. Again, you're making things up in favour to support your own ridiculous "argument".
Sinister1811
2.8 / 5 (13) May 29, 2012
Howhot: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt


Why is he a fool? Because he actually believes the science behind the issue of Climate Change? You're the only fool here. This is a science website. Take your stupid argument somewhere else. And stop trying to convince people that there's a global "conspiracy" when no such thing exists.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (14) May 29, 2012
I did find he is a former CEO of a Fortune 500 company and in opposition to AGW findings. He also is funded by Exxon to write articles for the Heartland Institute, which is also fundamentally against believing climate data. Unfortunately, I also looked up who funds Heartland - a Who's Who of big business.


This is an invalid argument.

Likewise, one can make such an inverse argument, ,... to be a valid climate scientists is de facto, to be an AGW believer. Also, climate science has obviously received massive funding by left wing political organizations based on the AGW paradigmn.

Unless climate science is some sort of a cult with only accepted membership, it does not exclude other investigations, even funded by big oil companies. It's not like the science is inaccessible on account of pure mathematics, or has future predictive experimental evidence, like GR or gauge theory is to most.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (16) May 29, 2012
,... [delete "is to most" above]

Howhot: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt


Why is he a fool? Because he actually believes the science behind the issue of Climate Change? You're the only fool here. This is a science website. Take your stupid argument somewhere else. And stop trying to convince people that there's a global "conspiracy" when no such thing exists.


You are either ignorant of politics or are blind, if you don' see the 'progressive far left' attempting to use AGW as a foot-in-the-door for their agenda of massive redistribution of wealth, social engineering and general anti-captalistic politics.
Origin
2.8 / 5 (9) May 29, 2012
IMO the scientific background of global warming is quite apparent and trivial and it's the fact, the people are generating carbon dioxide with burning of fossil fuels and that carbon dioxide behaves like green-house gas. Each denial of this mechanism requires even higher scientific qualification, than the one, which has been used for its derivation. Which explains, why deniers tend to be more scientifically illiterated, when they use rational arguments and less scientifically illiterated, when they use none.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (14) May 29, 2012
the scientific background of global warming is quite apparent and trivial and it's the fact, the people are generating carbon dioxide with burning of fossil fuels and that carbon dioxide behaves like green-house gas. Each denial of this mechanism ,....


Are "denialists" rejecting that basic mechanism or are you misrepresenting their position?

I think what is at issue is how much effect the relativity tiny amount of dust we kick up into the air has on global climate, the idea of a runaway effect, and ability of climate scientists to know accurately as they claim. They don't have data of the long term past, to the resolution necessary, to know how the planet reabsorbs co2 once released in a similarly short time as the last century.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) May 29, 2012
IMO the scientific background of global warming is quite apparent and trivial and it's the fact, the people are generating carbon dioxide with burning of fossil fuels and that carbon dioxide behaves like green-house gas. Each denial of this mechanism requires even higher scientific qualification, than the one, which has been used for its derivation. Which explains, why deniers tend to be more scientifically illiterated, when they use rational arguments and less scientifically illiterated, when they use none.


Just prove 2 things.

1) It has never warmed before

2) The only climate variable that has changed in the last 30 years is CO2.

(Try and remember that the Glaciers in Greenland melted in the 1930s as well)
Jotaf
5 / 5 (6) May 29, 2012
Yeah, the planet is just too big, how can we change it? Wow saying that out loud made me feel much more secure. We're not evil; everything will be just fine.

It's not like the ozone layer problem taught us something about our ability to affect planet-wide systems.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) May 29, 2012
Yeah, the planet is just too big, how can we change it? Wow saying that out loud made me feel much more secure. We're not evil; everything will be just fine.

It's not like the ozone layer problem taught us something about our ability to affect planet-wide systems.


Recent research calls into question some of simplistic answers to the ozone hole.

http://reason.com...evisited

On top of that, NASA has discovered that Ultraviolet light from the sun can change quite dramatically and may have caused Maunder type minimums in the past.

There were no SUV's 2800 years ago.

http://www.bitsof...pe-5842/

Terriva
3 / 5 (8) May 29, 2012
Are "denialists" rejecting that basic mechanism or are you misrepresenting their position?
I'd say, all denialists tend to ignore, if not dismiss the Arrhenius theory of global warming. But they don't provide any reasoning of why this theory should be wrong.
to know how the planet reabsorbs co2 once released in a similarly short time as the last century
Apparently it doesn't absorb it fast enough, as we know, that the CO2 concentration in atmosphere grows steadily.
NotParker
1 / 5 (13) May 29, 2012
I'd say, all denialists tend to ignore, if not dismiss the Arrhenius theory of global warming. But they don't provide any reasoning of why this theory should be wrong.


1) AGW cult members deny that any other climate factor has changed.

2) AGW cult members deny that CO2 trailed temperature during the Eemian.

3) AGW cult members deny it warmed before during the MWP and in fact the cult fabricated the Hockey Stick for the sole reason to deny the existence of the MWP.

AGW cult members are frauds.

Terriva
3 / 5 (6) May 29, 2012
AGW cult members are frauds.
I'm not an imbecile and I know about most of arguments for and against AGW - you're not required to repeat it here. But you still didn't disprove the Arrhenius theory, which is representing the basis of AGW theory by now - so you're actually confirming my stance.

IMO contemporary people cannot handle the situations, when both sides of some disagreement could have their bit of truth. The schematic, black & white vision of reality is typical for the whole contemporary society driven with opinion of so-called experts. Symptomatic is, even the whole contemporary physics remains separated into two mutually inconsistent theories.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (6) May 29, 2012
Geoff, I agree. I have reported him every time he insults other commenters or calls for the mass execution of those he disagrees with, which is most of his comments. Despite many hundreds of such reports, he is as abusive as ever.

Today I emailed the moderators to specifically complain about his behavior. I urge others to do so as well. If nothing is done in the near future about it, I will assume that the site owners have no problem with it.

VD, the only reason I give you a 1 on every one of your comments is they won't let me give a 0 or negative. Good thing you can use your sockpuppets to upvote yourself, eh?


I'd say that's pretty goddam funny coming you, georgie --I've yet to see a post from you that wasn't of like kind, a form which remains true even in this post.

That is --when you can take the time away from your paid shilling gig to actually comment-- as opposed to your general practice of phantom down voting.

I hereby award you a "1" for (this time) HYPOCRISY.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) May 29, 2012
"Models are to be used, not believed.
- H. Theil `Principles of Econometrics'
"All models are wrong. Some are useful". Box

AGWism is based upon incomplete, unvalidated models of an emergent system.
There should be much skepticism from technically competent individuals.
AGWism is a marker for those who believe humans are scum and must be controlled, by other human scum, of course.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) May 29, 2012
AGW cult members are frauds.
I'm not an imbecile and I know about most of arguments for and against AGW - you're not required to repeat it here. But you still didn't disprove the Arrhenius theory, which is representing the basis of AGW theory by now - so you're actually confirming my stance.


But what percentage of current warming is due to Co2? And what about the cooling that occurred after 1944 or after 1998?

Climate is not one theory.
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (16) May 30, 2012
Sinister

"Why is he a fool? Because he actually believes the science behind the issue of Climate Change?"
Science is not something you "believe", it something that you challenge and that's how we move forward. Belief is religion. Science is based on the scientific method so you make an hypothesis which you then try to disprove not prove. The skeptics are the scientists because that's what science is. Anyone else is a dogmatist. Sorry
westminty
2.1 / 5 (11) May 30, 2012
Dire consequences based on forecasts 100 yrs out from models that can't predict today's climate starting 100 yrs ago is not science.

When the inaccuracies and uncertainties of unproven models are ignored but their predictions aren't, that's not science.

When Al Gore displays CO2 and temperature charts separately, claiming the rise in CO2 caused the rise in temp, though the temp increased first, that's not science, its propaganda.

Adhering to a climate theory unable to predict today's climate is not science, it's ideology.

When a difference of opinion on the "science" is greeted with "the science is settled," that's not science, it's ideology.

When Michael Mann refuses to provide the data & code he used to manufacture his Hockey Stick... that's not science.

I could go on, but why bother? When the essence of science is being ignored, it is clear that the debate is not and never was ABOUT science.

(next)
westminty
2.1 / 5 (10) May 30, 2012
(cont)

More evidence that the AGW argument is ideologically driven is the ineffective solutions proposed. Kyoto would have changed the temp by /-.06 C by 2050. This is not a solution to the perceived "problem." It is an anti-progress, we-need-to-protect-mother-earth ideology... or maybe just a "we need to do something" knee-jerk, group-think reaction.

Tying this back to the original article: "The results of the study were consistent with previous studies that show that individuals with more egalitarian values disagree sharply with individuals who have more individualistic ones on the risks associated with nuclear power, gun possession, and the HPV vaccine for school girls." Perhaps people with egalitarian values are just more easily swayed by simplistic explanations, more likely to fall in line with group-think and unable or unwilling to dig below the surface appearance of consensus. Maybe they are uncomfortable being on the outside of the "in" crowd.

(end)
Siddha
3.4 / 5 (8) May 30, 2012
Funny how a mention of this article on Faux results in a plethora of hacks showing up to do what? Discuss the article? No. Only to prove that they own a computer and can show off pebcak skills. Isn't Family Guy on?
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (15) May 30, 2012
Funny how a mention of this article on Faux results in a plethora of hacks showing up to do what? Discuss the article? No. Only to prove that they own a computer and can show off pebcak skills. Isn't Family Guy on?


Username: Siddha

Member since: May 28, 2012, 2:39 pm

And how might you have been redirected here, Huffington Post?

Half of your posts in this thread misrepresented the purpose of the study, and the other half were entirely irrelevant to it, so you're not in a position to talk with authority.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) May 30, 2012
AGWism is based upon ...


That quote just proves the point. AGWism is just MADE UP for the sake of GOP GOON APPEAL. You know what I mean. This is typical of these BS toddies that come here and blast every single article that has a Global Warming slant (not a liberal slant mind you, but a scientific report for public consumption).

No, GOP goons just cant stand to be corrected. They can't stand anyone that thinks for themselves and speaks there mind. AGWism must be just what they claim it to be; which is an individual standing up to tea party lies and the hate GOP has for environmentalism. Tea = Polluters.

Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) May 30, 2012
More evidence that the AGW argument is ideologically driven is the ineffective solutions proposed.


More evidence that fools will believe anything as long as it fits their preconceived ideological group(non)think that the right wing brain washes you with.

westminty
1.4 / 5 (9) May 31, 2012


More evidence that fools will believe anything as long as it fits their preconceived ideological group(non)think that the right wing brain washes you with.



I point out 6 specific areas where AGW and it's apostles fail to meet any reasonable scientific standard and you ignore them and resort to the equivalent of name calling. A fine example of how some AGWers keep the faith - just ignore everything that might raise the possibility that a closer look is merited and accuse the other side of being anti-science.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (14) May 31, 2012
More evidence that the AGW argument is ideologically driven is the ineffective solutions proposed.


More evidence that fools will believe anything as long as it fits their preconceived ideological group(non)think that the right wing brain washes you with.



"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."

http://blogs.tele...-change/
mtc123
2.1 / 5 (11) May 31, 2012
Golden Rule for the entire 'Environmentalist' Movement.
FEAR = REVENUE
Siddha
5 / 5 (4) May 31, 2012
@ Noumenon
Funny how a mention of this article on Faux results in a plethora of hacks showing up to do what? Discuss the article? No. ...?


And how might you have been redirected here, Huffington Post?

Half of your posts in this thread misrepresented the purpose of the study, and the other half were entirely irrelevant to it, so you're not in a position to talk with authority.


I recommend a class in 'NoHate' my friend. I commend you for you attempts to comment on the article responses that are relevant to the study. However, I could not make heads or tails of what you were trying to argue. That is why I have not responded to your challenge. If you were to make a cogent argument directly refuting my position, I'm sure I would appreciate that.
I stand by my assessment of the study.

As for WHERE I first learned of this study - Fox! Your h8 of Huff says something? And trying to stop me with the who's the 'greater authority argument' by time registered is sad
Siddha
4.3 / 5 (6) May 31, 2012
@ Noumenon

I take it back my friend. Now that I wasted my time reading some of your other posts (which consistently get low marks), you are NOT here just to discuss the study results.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) May 31, 2012
(which consistently get low marks)

Why does that matter?
Real scientists say they eschew consensus so 'low marks' mean nothing.
Especially when no one knows who is 'voting'.
tgoldman
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2012
'... but the study clearly casts doubt on the notion that the more you understand science and math, the better decisions you'll make in complex and technical situations. "What this study shows is that people with high science and math comprehension can think their way to conclusions that are better for them as individuals but are not necessarily better for society."' -- This is arrant nonsense. Whether the change is for better or worse is not a scientific question. Kahan simply displays his conclusion as to what is better for society but has no rational support for his general statement.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2012
You are either ignorant of politics or are blind, if you don' see the 'progressive far left' attempting to use AGW as a foot-in-the-door for their agenda of massive redistribution of wealth, social engineering and general anti-captalistic politics


WELL then you must be a COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL if you believe that!

Only idiots like you think that you can not be a progressive and a capitalist at the same time.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2012
take it back my friend. Now that I wasted my time reading some of your other posts (which consistently get low marks), you are NOT here just to discuss the study results.


Like Duuuuhhhhh. Most of the deniers that post here have some odd motivation to deny science the leans pro-environmental or pro-AGW and tend to be tea-party goons.

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2012
take it back my friend. Now that I wasted my time reading some of your other posts (which consistently get low marks), you are NOT here just to discuss the study results.


Like Duuuuhhhhh. Most of the deniers that post here have some odd motivation to deny science the leans pro-environmental or pro-AGW and tend to be tea-party goons.



If AGW was valid science, it would be easy to refute "deniers".

But AGW has a blind spot when it comes to history. They deny it happened. They spread the myth of climate "equilibrium" in the past even though there was no such thing.

http://academic.e...cene.htm
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2012
Name calling again Howhot? Name calling and hissy fits? You must be right then.
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2012
I think its those damn hippies pushing science literacy average down among the AGW-worried crowd, heh..
Terriva
2 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2012
Golden Rule for the entire 'Environmentalist' Movement.
FEAR = REVENUE
This argument is solely symmetrical. The fossil fuel lobby makes money from human ignorance instead.
westminty
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2012
AGW at it's core is not generally the point of disagreement. The science of CO2 as a GHG is agreed to. That humans produce it and impact the climate in other ways as well - farming, cities, etc - is not disputed. The need to eventually replace fossil fuels with other energy forms is not generally in dispute either. It is the false urgency brought on by the exaggerated dire predictions of run-away warming from unreliable models that primarily divides the two camps. This is where ideology and science illiteracy leads the climate alarmists off into pseudo-science.

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims..." http://en.wikiped...oscience
SatanLover
0.9 / 5 (29) Jun 02, 2012
Dogbert has a rating above 2?

What is going on?
SatanLover
0.9 / 5 (30) Jun 02, 2012
You are either ignorant of politics or are blind, if you don' see the 'progressive far left' attempting to use AGW as a foot-in-the-door for their agenda of massive redistribution of wealth, social engineering and general anti-captalistic politics


WELL then you must be a COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL if you believe that!

Only idiots like you think that you can not be a progressive and a capitalist at the same time.

Note that socialism respects individual capital.
Note that communism respects community capital.
Note that capitalism respects business capital.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2012
AGW at it's core is not generally the point of disagreement. The science of CO2 as a GHG is agreed to. That humans produce it and impact the climate in other ways as well - farming, cities, etc - is not disputed. The need to eventually replace fossil fuels with other energy forms is not generally in dispute either. It is the false urgency brought on by the exaggerated dire predictions of run-away warming from unreliable models that primarily divides the two camps. This is where ideology and science illiteracy leads the climate alarmists off into pseudo-science.
I think you nailed it here.

AGW alarmists run off crying, "The sky is falling!" in fear of climate change, for fear's sake. When what's needed is a level-headed and objective perspective.
Siddha
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2012
@ NotParker
If AGW was valid science, it would be easy to refute "deniers".



Not true. It is not easy to refute "deniers". Why? The easy ones are debunked over and over and over, but they still keep repeating the lies. Moreover, the instigators don't care if they are debunked. Their intent (much like the tobacco industry claims "the science is in dispute) is not to win the debate, it is only to muddy the water.
They also tend to change their attack as soon as you easily debunk them. They tend to refine the attacks over time using techniques designed to be difficult to debunk without losing their victims due to the technical nature of the subject.
This is precisely the nature of this article regarding this study. Scientist tend to be free thinkers, skeptics, and unbiased until they have sufficient data to prove a theory. So the more science the participants have the more I would hope they would be skeptical. And since NONE of them were trained in AGW, and (cont)
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2012
Note that socialism respects individual capital.
Note that communism respects community capital.

Since when?
Socialism/communism plunder and destroy individual capital.
I don't know what 'community capital' is.
NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2012
@ NotParker
If AGW was valid science, it would be easy to refute "deniers".



Not true. It is not easy to refute "deniers". Why? ... blah ... blah blah ...


Nonsense.

The History Deniers (AGW cult members) work really, really hard to con people into thinking climate never changed until about 1980 and then all of a sudden CO2 caused climate to go crazy.

That is the biggest lie ever in science.

So it is relatively easy to refute. But you cult members cover your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to read or listen.

It was warmer in the 1920s/30s/40s. Despite all the manipulating, 1934 is still the 2nd warmest year in US history and would be warmest if not for people like Hansen.

http://stevengodd...warmers/

http://stevengodd...thought/

Siddha
5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2012
(cont)
All of them have been subjected to repeated propaganda the results of the study are as expected (unfortunately).
This article (which quotes the Nature.com article about the Yale study) is not about the science of AGW. It is about the sociology around it.
Again, the conclusions of the study do NOT support the claim that "cultural cognition thesis" (CCT) disproves the "science comprehension thesis" (SCT)

While I also agree with the CCT conclusions of the study that: "ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values." That in no way disproves the theory of STC

The only way to disprove the STC would be to train up those 1500 ppl to be scientists able to work in the AGW field of study. Do the hard work, do the math, and the deep thinking. Then check and see what they think about AGW. (cont)
Siddha
5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2012
(cont)
Short of that, we could study a population already possessing AGW science comprehension and ask them. Oh yeah, we have and 98% of them are in agreement.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2012
the deep thinking

Like Richard Lindzen's deep thinking?

What makes real science great is one individual, with one observation can destroy a theory everyone else believes to true.
Science does not advance on consensus.
Siddha
5 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2012
@ NotParker
If AGW was valid science, it would be easy to refute "deniers".



Not true. It is not easy to refute "deniers". Why? ... blah ... blah blah ...


LOL ... blah ... blah blah is the best you got?

You are here to debate AGW. I am not. This article and the study were not about AGW. If you were truly interested in debating AGW (which I'll wager you're not) You should go somewhere that you are not posting off topic.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2012
AGWites like to assert those like Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, http://www-eaps.m...SL.html, challenge their faith for profit.
But Lindzen is still a professor at MIT and Al Gore, the high priest of AGW has mansions and flies around the world preaching to the faithful.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2012
But what percentage of current warming is due to Co2? And what about the cooling that occurred after 1944 or after 1998?

Climate is not one theory.


The cooling evidenced after 1944 was due to atmospheric particulates - see .... http://www.nature...2-8.html and the "cooling after 1998" was due to a powerful El Nino event. See ...http://tamino.wor...-signal/
Any reasonable person looking at the graph there must appreciate that 1998 was an anomaly and a regression line through all data will give a rising trend.
You are right, climate is not one theory and none on the science side is saying that, as well you know but chose to ignore. ( I have made a point out of following your posts )
NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2012
If particulates caused post-1944 cooling, then clean air legislation caused post-1979 warming.

http://sunshineho...erlands/

Any reasonable person looking at the graph there must appreciate that 1998 was an anomaly and a regression line through all data will give a rising trend.


HADCRUT3 1878 0.028
HADCRUT3 1944 0.121
HADCRUT3 1990 0.255
HADCRUT3 1997 0.352
HADCRUT3 2011 0.339

AGW cult says CO2 causes .2C per decade of warming.

It can barely do .2C per 70 years.

The ONLY scary warming was the 1998 El Nino.

All the rest of it probably just UHI caused by only paying attention to thermometers in cities and at airports.
NotParker
1 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2012

You are here to debate AGW. I am not. This article and the study were not about AGW.


The study was about climate change. AGW. Same thing.

"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."

http://blogs.tele...-change/

NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2012

The cooling evidenced after 1944 was due to atmospheric particulates - see .... http://www.nature...2-8.html


" But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer"

Yes.

Global brightening also occurred in the 1920s/30s/40s and is a fascinating topic.

Martin Wild (the scientist referenced in your link) has called it "early brightening".

"There are also some indications for an early brightening in the first part of the 20th century. "

http://www.agu.or...70.shtml

Siddha
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2012

If AGW was valid science, it would be easy to refute "deniers".


@ NotParker

I hope you realize that you are also trying to debunk the CCT aspect of the study. (refresher) the CCT conclusion of the study is that: "ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values."

That means "deniers" cling to their misinformation and thus it is NOT easy to refute "deniers".
The BS they regurgitate is easily refuted, and debunked, but you think it is easy to refute "deniers"

I'm done with you.

NEXT!
Siddha
4 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2012
@ ryggesogn2
the deep thinking

Like Richard Lindzen's deep thinking?

.

Better choose a hero that is somewhat competent.

Ah yes the same Richard Lindzen that testified for cigarette companies that they didnt cause cancer, then testified that CFCs werent destroying the ozone hole and now hes testifying we dont have to worry about Climate Change? Sounds like hes got a perfect record for choosing the corporate funded side of these issues 3 for 3. The Professor with his head in the clouds misses the facts. Then later apologizes. Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained some stupid mistakes in his handling of the satellite data. It was just embarrassing, he said in an interview. The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.
Denier, know thy source. Try:
http://www.source..._Lindzen
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2012
"The Clinton administration's interest in an international agreement to combat global warming also dovetailed with Enron's business plans. Enron officials envisioned the company at the center of a new trading system, in which industries worldwide could buy and sell credits to emit carbon dioxide as part of a strategy to reduce greenhouse gases
"Enron officials later expressed elation at the results of the Kyoto conference. An internal memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States."
http://www.washin...und=true
"
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 02, 2012
"From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million dollars - $990,000 - to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promotes global warming theories. Enron philanthropists lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international energy controls to reduce global warming. Executives at Enron worked closely with the Clinton administration to help create a scaremongering climate science environment because the company believed the treaty could provide it with a monstrous financial windfall. "
http://www.invest...t_5.html
Imagine, AGWites were useful idiots for Enron.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 02, 2012
"Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be largely in agreement with the same scientists that Enron was trying to shut up. After considering all of the inconsistencies in climate science, the report concluded: The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed. One of Enrons major consultants in that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess in 1988 with his bombastic congressional testimony.:
http://www.invest...t_5.html
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2012

If AGW was valid science, it would be easy to refute "deniers".


@ NotParker

I hope you realize that you are also trying to debunk the CCT aspect of the study. (refresher) the CCT conclusion of the study is that: "ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values."

That means "deniers" cling to their misinformation and thus it is NOT easy to refute "deniers".
The BS they regurgitate is easily refuted, and debunked, but you think it is easy to refute "deniers"

I'm done with you.

NEXT!


Your agument is that well informed people stick to their position ... because they are well informed.

Ha ha. You cult members are so gullible ... because you are uninformed.
westminty
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2012
"One of Enrons major consultants in that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess in 1988 with his bombastic congressional testimony.:
http://www.invest...t_5.html


And in an interesting side-note to that, more or less conceding that the science isn't, settled, as recently as 2000, James Hansen was arguing against CO2 being the primary driver of recent climate change - "A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. " http://www.pnas.o...875.long
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2012
Is that why you have been caught habitually lying by cherry picking data that supports your denialist ideology, while ignoring the statistically valid claims made by scientists?

"When what's needed is a level-headed and objective perspective." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2012
The following lie is easy to expose.

"as recently as 2000, James Hansen was arguing against CO2 being the primary driver of recent climate change" - WesTard

"On 23 June 1988 I testified to a hearing, chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible. " - James Hansen

http://www.columb...0623.pdf
Parsec
4 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2012
The public will continue to reject the chicken little scenario of the AGW crowd as long as their agenda is a political agenda.

Since it will always be a political agenda, they may expect no acceptance of their agenda by the general public not matter how many pieces of sky they claim have fallen.

I am puzzled by this comment. What do you believe is the political agenda of people in the scientific community is? I can certainly understand that most people who wish to deny the evidence about climate change are really trying to avoid making any changes to mitigate the problems because they believe it would be too costly or somehow upset the social order. I think its a pay me now or pay me triple next year so I am certainly worried about costs to society as well. No one is predicting the end of civilization. Just the end of beachfront properties and communities and fewer species to share our planet with.
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 03, 2012
It's the AGW fanatics that we see in these threads who are denying the science. Why do you think they resort to ad hominem attacks, name calling, and hurling threats and abuse? Their arguments rest on us trusting the supposed authority of computer modelers who create their magic fairytale predictions and refuse to disclose their secret formulae. This is NOT SCIENCE! Science requires full disclosure and repeatability. Here's a link to another publicly funded activist pretending to be a scientist who won't show her data and so wants our blind trust http://www.austra...-to-data
westminty
1.9 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2012
The following lie is easy to expose.

"as recently as 2000, James Hansen was arguing against CO2 being the primary driver of recent climate change" - WesTard

"On 23 June 1988 I testified to a hearing, chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible. " - James Hansen


So to prove what James Hansen wrote in 2000 is a lie, you cite what he said in 1988. And that's relevant because? Maybe you should look at the link I provided.
westminty
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2012
"I am puzzled by this comment. What do you believe is the political agenda of people in the scientific community is?"

It may be a mistake to equate "the AGW crowd" to "people in the scientific community." The IPCC, the source of most of the alarmist propaganda, has two distinct bodies - scientists and politicians. Most of the alarmism coming out of the IPCC comes from the Summary for Policy Makers, an alledged summary of the scientific findings, constructed by the pols or their minions. I say alledged because in several cases, the summary provided by the scientific body was re-written by the pols to remove caution about attibuting warming to human activity and instead explicitly attributed said warming to human activity.
http://www.worldc...ture.htm

And then there are the true-believers, in the media and beyond who just echo the distortions without researching them - definitely NOT people in the scientific community.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2012
Note that socialism respects individual capital.
Note that communism respects community capital.

Since when?
Socialism/communism plunder and destroy individual capital.
I don't know what 'community capital' is.


Sorry, there, riggsuckin', I accidentally rated you a five, and I apologize if this unfortunate slip-up caused your black little heart to beat a little faster due the misapprehension that I was in agreement with you.

Unfortunately, you remain the same reactionary ideologue that you always have been --that Randite brainwashing is damned persistent!

My intention was to rate a one, instead. If a zero rating were available, that's what I would given you, as your comment --as usual-- was entirely without merit.

Just so you know.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.