YNoKyoto

unfortunately Tim the science is not really science. they use computer models and load the data they want, in order to try and prove they are right. bogus from start to finish.

kt

no matter what you say, or Kahan says, the methodology does NOT stand up to scrutiny, and that is my own finding. And that is the end story. Just as the lame stream media does not report the facts on WMD is Iraq, they also don't report complete facts on "climate change". But the reportage and the science are two different things, one compounding the errors of the other.

Yes, and then they fudge the historical records to compound the lies. Even whatshername from the UN has admitted that AGW (the fraud) is an attempt to spread the wealth and impose more socialism.

The AGW believers have just hijacked the old Soviet Union's ideology and methods.

"I still don't think it is total hokum, just hugely over-hyped hokum."

Yeah that's rational.....science is never "settled" or done by concensus....

One of the benefits of being old,when I first heard about global warming, my first thought was,"what the hell! ten years ago they were warning us about catastrophic global cooling!"

Some of the scientists were the very same guys that had warned that global cooling was going to cause mass starvation and by 1990 we would be embroiled in wars all over the planet,for food.

I've been a skeptic ever since,and have learned that scientists are no better than used-car salesmen,they'll tell you anything to further their agenda.

kt, Conclusions are usually the least reliable part of any paper. The science is usually done right, but the conclusions are basically the opinion of the researcher. If you could show how the paper actually supports the conclusions Kahan came to, and answer the objections presented, you would go a long way towards carrying your point.

Of course we all know to a certainty that you can't, and therefore you won't. Come back and prove me wrong. I would love it. I have made this challenge so many times. This is why I am so skeptical, because of comments like that of kt which are just completely devoid of critical thought.

Total agreement here.
Funny how the minister of the environment and staff cannot tell us who accepted the "science" , of the IPCC on behalf of Canada.
Somebody had to sign off on this dreck before Canadian bureaucrats could use their favourite lines,"We defer to the findings of the IPCC".

"If you could show how the paper actually supports the conclusions Kahan came to, and answer the objections presented, you would go a long way towards carrying your point. Of course we all know to a certainty that you can't, and therefore you won't. Come back and prove me wrong. I would love it."

Well, for starters, tim, the results of the study showed that regardless of whether one's a climate change "believer" or "skeptic", everyday people (i.e., non-climate experts, which includes just about everyone on SDA) are on the whole a pretty ignorant lot when it comes to climate change science and knowledge. Though skeptics indeed do better on the study's climate change quiz, the actual knowledge difference between the two groups was fairly small. The real take-away is that both sides got no more than 50% of the questions right.

But then the study wasn't actually designed to test each side's climate change knowledge levels per se; that was just a means to an end. Kahan's real argument is that people's beliefs about climate change arise from a combination of their information-gathering (scientific knowledge) and their desire to fit in with their chosen cultural groups (e.g., skeptics/conservatives/right wing, or believers/liberals/left wing). So the fact that people are generally only partially informed at best about the science doesn't actually matter all that much, since it's really their political identities that shape their beliefs about the "truth" or "facts" of the climate change debate. For a summary of his research argument, see, e.g., here: www.nature.com/news/why-we-are-poles-apart-on-climate-change-1.11166.

In other words, SDAers may very well genuinely believe that they're far more intelligent about climate science than their progressive counterparts, but in reality they probably don't, and they only think so because of their need for political identity rather than any significantly higher scientific literacy.

"The cAGW crowd remove the MWP (that's the Middle Warming Period for you LIV sheeple), and start their "warming" period from the LIA (Little Ice Age). Guess what, troll. The only way you come out of an ice age is by warming! Or is that concept to hard for you to understand?"

No, they didn't just "remove" the MWP; they studied it, and explained it. See, e.g., here: www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm.

The difference is, real scientists continually question everything, even the "evidence" that would seem to refute their original positions (which are themselves subject to questioning). You, on the other hand, remain stuck on a single tidbit of data from the mid-2000s - you read somewhere that "MWP, therefore climate change is a hoax!, and stopped asking any more questions.

A sad thing reading your drivel. It is a fraud....global warming...that is. Nothing else. It's a money grab. A way for the communists to 'win' after their ideology lost...dramatically. You believe in a fraud. You aren't intelligent. You think you are...like all liberals/socialists. Yet you are following a fraud(proven by those who perpetrated the fraud in their own words)...just like those who continue to believe that communism is the best way to go...the best ideology...even though it's been proven to be a false and failed ideology.

I feel sad for you and all who believe in global warming. It's really pathetic that you continue to believe the lie despite all the proof that it is a lie and always was a lie. Nothing more to say as you are the same as the 'useful idiots' that still believe in Stalin, Mao and Fidel and all of the other communist icons that have proven that they were and are psychopathic murderers. Oh...and they never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever cared about the environment. You will never be saved....nor your ilk as you contain no logical skills what-so-ever. You are the actual danger to the planet and mankind.

"The difference is, real scientists continually question everything, even the "evidence" that would seem to refute their original positions (which are themselves subject to questioning). You, on the other hand, remain stuck on a single tidbit of data from the mid-2000s - you read somewhere that "MWP, therefore climate change is a hoax!, and stopped asking any more questions."

You would think that, but scientists are no more invulnerable to becoming ideologues or true believers than the rest of us schmucks are.

In fact, it's a lot worse when they turn into ideologues and true believers, because these are the people who should know better, since they've spent years and decades learning the scientific method, and scientific principles.

A scientist should always keep skepticism in his or her back pocket, no matter how convincing current information, data and research is. Because any scientific theory can be overturned, and they should know this.

Climate scientists, it seems, have either forgotten this, or chose not to any longer.

FFY should just bundle up in some long johns and winter woolies like the rest of temperate climate-inhabiting people do.

C'mon! Do it for the planet! :D