A truth too inconvenient for the New York Times;
…this study also found that for some knowledge questions the Doubtful and Dissmissive [skeptics of man-made global warming] have as good an understanding, and in some cases better, than the Alarmed and Concerned.
We should expect a lot more disappearings from the Warmongers and Eco-Grifters over the next while.
As the gap between what the global warming theory predicts and what is actually happening gets ever larger, the Believers are going to have an ever more difficult challenge handling their ridiculous levels of cognitive dissonance.
The Theory says it should happen.
The Data says it is not so.
Gradually, Theory yields to the dictates of Reality.
That sentence is incoherent. I think I was able to get the drift, but what is the authors first language? It cannot be English.
It’s a fairly limited study, but since you saw fit to re-quote selectively from the study’s executive summary, then I’ll just impartially point out a few more of its top-line findings:
“Using a straight grading scale, 49 percent of the Alarmed received a passing grade (A, B, or C), compared to 33 percent of the Concerned, 16 percent of the Cautious, 17 percent of the Doubtful, 4 percent of the Dismissive, and 5 percent of the Disengaged.”
“Concerned, Cautious, and Disengaged Americans also recognize their own limited understanding of the issue. Fewer than 1 in 10 say they are “very well informed” about climate change, and 75 percent or more say they would like to know more. The Alarmed and the Dismissive feel somewhat more informed about climate change with 28% and 23% respectively saying they are “very well informed.” However, only 28% of the Dismissive say they would like to learn more about climate change, compared to 76% of the Alarmed.”
What, no mention of how ‘Sick of being played for a fool’ ranked? Yep, limited study for sure.
Do you think we will ever hear from the believers …
“Skeptics lied, the Earth fried”
More likely I think we may hear from the skeptics….
“The Earth froze while we tweaked their nose”.
I felt a bit creative this morning … I know, I know. …
I was speaking with a young man yesterday and the topic touched global warming. What he said was so pleasantly surprising that I absolutely have to mention it here. He said:
“I was concerned with global warming until I learned about the Ice Age. Then it scared me much more because I realized that we would have nothing to eat if it happened. There is plenty of food when it’s hot.”
He knows what he’s talking about – he is from India.
Very refreshing.
Although the quip is interesting, it’s obvious to anyone looking that the cure for AGW has nothing to do with science; so, whether there is or isn’t AGW is besides the point. This is a political discussion that seems to be picking-up steam as the Canadian election continues.
It’s obvious now that the plans for the pending coalition government is to start the transfer of wealth from Western Canada to the ROC.The coalition is blatantly running on a Western Alienation platform; they’re just not calling it so. THIS…in my view is intended to camouflage the platform’s true intent from those sympathetic to Western Canada in Central and Eastern Canada. So long as it’s phrased in Do-gooder PC speech, the opposition expects those East of Western Canada not to see the “alienation” aspect of their platform. All coalition parties are in agreement regarding Carbon Taxes, the only disagreement as I can see is to the timing of the healthcare funding which Jack plans to pay for with “tax hikes on the rich” which will be disproportionately distributed outside the West, and a tax on Carbon (NEP II). The Liberals will obviously acquiesce to the tax demands of the NDP, and gawd knows what we’ll pay for the Bloc’s support to rob Western Canada blind.
Now I know I’m a bit off topic here; but for me, AGW is 100% a political topic.
BTW, this chain of events was easily predicted by moi years ago.
From the comments: “This is the problem I have with “online” journalism. The content can be changed, deleted, embellished, long after it was first “published”.
Historians will not be able to trust our current archives because they get changed. I have seen cases where the Washington Post has edited content months after stories were originally published.
You can’t “unpublish” ink on paper and “online” content is worth exactly as much as the paper on which it is printed.”
I never considered this before but this will become a big issue. Look how easy it is for people to get away with ‘making shit up’ and just repeating it until it catches. Wait 10 years and try to disprove it based on unreliable documentation.
Th Canadian govt. has pushed back for 2 years the transition from intelligent incandescent bulbs, to these poisonous dull Suzuki bulbs. The hippies and assorted Dizzy Mays Revkins etc are now hitting the Universities hard like Algore to push this economy wrecking SCAM, {and whatever else hard Al can push} yea get the dimwits whose parents are paying their ways to pay to hear your speeches right Gynne Dyer. This is so over and now the “Pauls” who have robbed all us “Peters” involuntarily, should be sued in a class action lawsuit. It is minus 7 with 2 feet of snow here in Sout Alta Apr 19, yea that’s sure warming isn’t it davenport.
From Davenport’s quote it is obvious why the NYT bactracked on its comment.
The Alarmed & Dismissive comparison is cute.
One group knows something, think they have a good understanding, & want to know more.
The other knows little, think they have a good understanding, & don’t want to know more.
Given the American principle of an informed electorate, it is clear that some cobwebs have to be cleared up.
Still “63 percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening […] and 75 percent say they would like to know more about the issue. Likewise, 75 percent say that schools should teach our children about climate change and 68 percent would welcome a national program to teach Americans more about the issue.”
1984:
Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones. As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes. As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a “categorical pledge” were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grams to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.
I open the link, read the report, and quickly conclude that the whole study is warm and steamy pile of crap. The authors already presume that manmade global warming is threatening the planet. They pose questions, poll individuals, then cite the most liberal, pro-manmade global warming scientific answers to measure individual’s responses as ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’. Then the authors wait for someone from the mainstream media to pick up their story and extoll its conclusions and scientific merits. Perhaps a guest shot on NPR. Laughable, meaningless and dangerous, this stuff is.
Kinda like pointing out that atheists have a better understanding of religion than do theists. True, but largely irrelevant.
I just looked out my window and the snow is comming down big time. Whiskey, Tango, Fox, this is the back half of april, the poor robins outside my window are freezing their tail feathers off and some idiot is trying charge me for carbon credits. The world is going to hell in Lizzie’s and Suzuki’s hanbasket. Meanwhile the estemed journalists at CBC are fixated on the SUN TV’s silicone and hem lines. CTV would like to be able to forget about the real news and concentrate on what really matters: The Royal Wedding.