Say it ain’t so, Joe:
“Climate alarmists always try to portray skeptics as ignorant, close-minded flat-earthers who lack sufficient education to understand even the basics of the science, and if it wasn’t for them, the world could start taking the necessary steps to rescue itself. Unfortunately for the warmists, the opposite is true. The warmists are the ones who are less educated scientifically. This is what a recent Yale University study shows. Professor Dan M. Kahan and his team surveyed 1540 US adults and determined that people with more education in natural sciences and mathematics tend to be more skeptical of AGW climate science.”
Pretty much consistent with my own personal experience.
h/t
It ain’t so.
Giving change for a $1.39 purchase from a toonie is a whole lot harder than climate science.
Does this mean that most of the AGW climate science advocates are looking for ways to have their rent paid?
anecdotally that’s what i have seen – except for those who are academics themselves – several are surprised to hear me express anti-AGW opinions.
Its getting be there is no sunshine left in the lefts AGW lottery of lies.
The little totalitarian plan that would, has been rained on. Who doubts ow they would have jailed people for just not believing them. Suzuki Gulags anyone?
Does this mean that most of the AGW climate science advocates are looking for ways to have their rent paid?
~Ken (Kulak)
Not so much.
All they have to do is admit to perpetrating a massive global fraud and they get to have their rent paid to live in the Crowbar Hotel for the next 5+ years or so.
Kahan is an interesting guy — http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/
Related content
Conference briefing
Why do people who oppose abortion also tend to doubt climate change?
&
Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
Why do members of the public disagree—sharply and persistently—about facts on which expert scientists largely agree? We designed a study to test a distinctive explanation: the cultural cognition of scientific consensus. The “cultural cognition of risk” refers to the tendency of individuals to form risk perceptions that are congenial to their values.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/cultural-cognition-of-scientific-consensus.html
What he seems to be saying is that level of education is not the only determining factor; not surprising, given that most people of all educational levels form their views on climate science without studying the matter So they make a value judgement.
Another prime example of the left accusing its opponents of that which they are guilty of.
Its pretty much the only page in their playbook these days.
Applies to their description of the Tea Party as well.
All I have to say is:
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
Mr Watts schooled the world.
dizzy at October 2, 2011 1:35 AM
Why do people who oppose abortion also tend to doubt climate change?
______________________________________________
Does anybody doubt climate change?
A better question would be why do climate alarmists always try to defend their faith by positing a straw-man argument?
No-one questions climate change. They question the CAUSE of climate change.
It was a beautiful concept hatched at Enron for a historic scam.
Global warming research funding applicant whores, lefty politicians looking for new ways to raise and waste
massive amounts of new taxes, and crony capitalists looking for can’t lose rent seeking successes on a huge scale.
The Freon 12 and Edison lamp bans got going without any big hiccups or questions.
Then they got impatient, contemptuous, and sloppy which never turns out well ……
.
Thanks to these guys, I’ve known this for years.
But oh yeah – if a left/green/tard says to the MSM that we’re the ignorant ones, why, it MUST be true. I recently worked with a woman who, apropos of absolutely nothing, brought up in a meeting that people should be more conscious of energy use because of “Caribbean islands that are being drowned”.
First time I’d heard anyone mention the Caribbean, but nobody had the guts to say anything. Lots of uncomfortable shifting in chairs. I later spoke to her privately to save her further embarrassment: the only people trying to Hoover money from gullible Westerners over drowning islands are people who live on atolls that are like a foot above sea level. Even then, they aren’t actually displaced yet after many years of well-coached complaints.
And a special note for dizzy: has it ever occurred to you that abortion might really BE wrong? So not only are you using logical fallacy to support your worthless shitwit argument, you are actually – unsurprisingly considering you do this every time you post here – supporting your opponents’ argument.
That’s right, dumbass, you are living in a world where there are people who are far and away your moral and intellectual betters who think that the consequences of unabashed pointless, soulless rutting should be taken seriously by the people engaging in it. Welcome, di\\y, to the adult world. It’s a lot less fluffy and duh than the one you’re used to, but it has its rewards.
Sorry, that link needs fixing: surfacestations.org
Posted by: Michael H Anderson at October 2, 2011 3:45 AM
Thanks for the link. I don’t usually post when it
comes to the level of ignorance that the word
“climate” brings out.
Watts knows his stuff.
There is no such thing as a climate scientist! nd anybody who says they are is just a monwy grabbing leech
To the average scientist, this is hardly news. Having practiced a scientific discipline for 35 years (I’m retired now) I tend to consort with other scientists, and the only one I ever met who unreservedly supports the AGW nonsense is Weaver. Most mainline scientists used to merely laugh at the alarmists but, with the realization of the seriousness of the social and economic threat posed by warmism, a lot of pushback is going on. Resistance is not just from organized groups like Friends of Science but from the wider scientific community.
It’s a sad fact of life that the media and a lot of lily-livered politicians are still shambling along about two miles behind the parade to sanity but, the parade has turned a corner.
Lee Morrison
Gun control was exposed as a hoax in the 1980’s. It took until Algore’s defeat in 2000 to finally kill it as a viable political force in the USA. Its still hanging on in Canada, but the up-coming death of the rifle registry will probably do for it here too.
What I noticed years ago was the same people and organizations pushing gun control had their names show up on global warming. Also minimum wage and trade unionism. And I said to myself “Self, if they’re pushing one hoax, what are the chances they are pushing MORE than one?” Myself said pretty good, Phantom old bean.
Now I’m not saying that every damn thing that comes out of a DemocRat’s mouth is a lie. When they order a beer at the bar I think there’s a fair chance they might actually want a beer.
But they might just be staying in practice too, so you never know.
Phantom
Yep…always the usual suspects…
Totalitarians know this and make them disappear….
We indulge them by allowing them to live…when given the chance they would gullag us…see Suzukster…
It sometimes makes ya wonder whether this virtue of ours is prudent….sorta like harbouring a dog that bites the hand that feeds….
I have decided that I will not sit quietly by while these idiots spew there horse crap in casual conversation or in meetings or where ever they think they can one up someone. It doesn’t matter to me if lose friends or I am not invited back, I will not let these goof balls go on thinking they hold some magical higher ground while their SUV’s are parked outside the air conditioning is humming and the pool pump runs 24-7. Had more than enough.
Science should remember that the Earth was known to be round in about 240BC as calculated by the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes. “Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth without leaving Egypt… He rounded the result to a final value of 700 stadia per degree, which implies a circumference of 252,000 stadia. The exact size of the stadion he used is frequently argued. The common Attic stadion was about 185 m,[9] which would imply a circumference of 46,620 km, i.e. 16.3% too large. However, if we assume that Eratosthenes used the “Egyptian stadion”[10] of about 157.5 m, his measurement turns out to be 39,690 km, an error of less than 2%… Eratosthenes’ experiment was highly regarded at the time, and his estimate of the Earth’s size was accepted for hundreds of years afterwards. His method was used by Posidonius about 150 years later.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Also Aristarchus of Samos figured out that we lived in a heliocentric ‘universe’. “His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the Floor, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere bears to its surface.”
So what did the politically correct mob do??? “Cleanthes (a contemporary of Aristarchus and head of the Stoics) thought it was the duty of the Greeks to indict Aristarchus on the charge of impiety for putting in motion the hearth of the universe”
Well that settled that line of funded research as “The only other astronomer of antiquity who is known by name and who is known to have supported Aristarchus’ heliocentric model was Seleucus of Seleucia, a Hellenistic astronomer who lived a century after Aristarchus.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
Oh yeah, almost forgot, 1700 years after that Copernicus got the idea. At first the Church was OK with it “In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus’ theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua, wrote to Copernicus from Rome: Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you… For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe… Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject …” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus#Heliocentrism
Wouldn’t ya just know it, 60 years later the politically correct junped up again… “In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be “corrected,” on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine[92] that the Earth moves and the Sun does not was “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture.”[93] The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.”
Then again, I’m just a flat-earther
Sgt Lejaune nails it. The radicals suffered the misfortune of being handed sufficient rope to hang themselves. Happens frequently with these Democrats.
Not surprising that people with the ability to analyze data and understand real science would conclude that, technically speaking, the warmers are full of $hit. Despite what dizzy says, you may also find that many of those scientists converted to being “deniers” only after the scientists pushing the AGW hypothesis failed to prove their case.
Another pet peeve of mine is this idea (media-driven, of course) that anyone without a climate science background is forbidden from having an opinion. Not true. Once the science had political implications then everyone has a right to challenge both the science and the politics behind it. Even those who believe in AGW may be opposed to the political solution of expensive and inefficient mitigation schemes and, instead, favor adaptation.
Same folks that got sucked into the AGW ponzi scheme wet their pants over the Hopey Changey thingy.
Cause & effect.
Dizzy, I read the summary of the study. “cultural cognition shapes individuals’ beliefs about the existence of scientific consensus…”
First of all “consensus” is a word that shows up in the climate debate–but on one side only. Those who claim consensus, are on the warmist side. But it’s an inappropriate word to use in science. Things are not decided by consensus. A whole society can believe the earth is flat but that doesn’t make it so. I’d say that science is built on doubt and skepticism. An idea survives only as long as nothing comes along to challenge and change it.
In a way it ties in with something I wrote earlier about how a rigged questionnaire was used to separate teaching staff into blockers and progressives. The admin intended to push forward some inferior and unpopular changes and tried to stifle debate pre-emptively, by discrediting those who would object.
This is what I see often in the climate discussions–the attempt to portray skeptics as uneducated, blind followers of a particular dogma, irresponsible and selfish (willing to compromise the planet instead of paying carbon taxes). I suspect that’s what some of the climate people did, particularly those who foresaw a big pay-off. They desired a particular conclusion and made all the associations come out the way they wanted.
Of course values affect what people believe. My values suggest that before you decide, you research, you learn, you observe, you discuss, you weigh the opinions of all the experts and use a smell-o-meter to sort those who have a vested interest in making the results come out the way they wish. If new and compelling evidence comes up, you’re prepared to change your mind.
Climate is changing. But the causes are not clear. The lies, fudged results, the underlying social restructuring and wealth redistribution agendas–all those are on the warmist side. On the other side, I hear people who would like to deal with pollution because it’s bad for people and the environment; people who would deal with the purity of water resources; people who are concerned with viable sources of energy; and people who resent being held hostage to the tyranny of eco-scams and manipulation. Every dollar that is spent to enrich the Gores and his legions of climate minions, is money that could be spent to improve the lives of countless people in terms of health, agriculture, transportation and energy solutions that really work.
So your attempt to dismiss the skeptics by digging up this Kahan fellow (who never said what you ascribe to him) is transparent and laughable.
I would love to see a controlled experiment where paired groups (natural sciences-social sciences; teachers- tradespeople; journalists- small business owners; libertarians-social conservatives; fiscal conservatives-progressives) are given the same bogus data elegantly packaged in academic babble-speak.
I’d bet that the Sap Index would be much higher in those groups who work in fields where theory and abstract concepts are more important than factual,concrete results. Politically, it would be interesting to see the differences between libertarians, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and progressives.
Michael H Anderson, Phantom and jay33 well said. Like jay, I no longer just let it pass when stupid brainwashed comments are made.
Helps to have a little common sense too.
Memo to lefticles … Sucks to be wrong about everything eh?
Well said rita.
LCB @ 946
Slight amendment to your comment….
You are not allowed to have an opinion on GW if you don’t have a degree in climate science AND you disagree with the theory.
If you are a fruit fly scientist, or a professional politician from Tennessee, for example, the lack of a degree is easily forgiven, and all comments are valid and unquestionable!
Hypocrites
Rita: your 10:33 post goes directly into my pantheon of all-time great comments.
Verily.
Ah yes, intelligence … a number of years ago, when climate was not fashionable, I attended an annual conference of the Canadian Association of Physicists
(at Sherbrooke that year, I think) and actually attended the session of climate issues. Well, Canada has some very good physicists,
but none of them was involved in climate. That session had the dimmest collection of dim bulbs I’ve ever run into.
Rita says it well, and reflects my possion on the matter. I’v watched the “climate change” debate since the early 70T’s, and said nothing untill the alarmists started to try and steel my money and freedoms. After that I stayed atuned to the methodology, as I was not up to speed on the science, and science aside, the methodology does NOT stand up to close scutiny. And now that I’v learned a little more (thanx to the ‘net) the math don’t add up either. (climate modling programs are basically modified statistical programs, and statistics ia a branch of math)
True Dan, Al Gore is an “expert” but people like Freeman Dyson, Hal Lewis and Ivar Giaever are crazy old coots babbling about areas of science outside of their expertise, according to AGWers. Go figure. That must mean the left are anti-intellectual science-deniers, right?.
A close friend of mine
who was a department chairman at Princeton University
has told me that the entire physics department at Princeton is skeptical
about AGW.
See for example:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases
dirtman
The question is an introduction to a talk by Kahan. I should have included the link, which is on one of his web pages. It is a short discussion of why people’s opinions tend to cluster.
Kahan is quoted “The same groups who disagree on ‘cultural issues’ — abortion, same-sex marriage and school prayer — also disagree on whether climate change is real and on whether underground disposal of nuclear waste is safe.”
http://casw.org/users/dan-kahan
I think most listeners would assume that he is referring to climate change science [AGW] not claiming that it means the climate was the same during the age of dinosaurs.
And, Ivar Giaever, who we discussed here, does believe that the climate is stable.
&
Michael H Anderson
// dizzy: has it ever occurred to you that abortion might really BE wrong? //
Sure. But the question is about why people who THINK it is wrong “tend to doubt climate change”. A different question.
I’m having trouble finding the actual study, could someone please link it for me? The article in the link is vague and useless.
On a related note, I think this quote fits the whole situation perfectly:
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” – Bertrand Russell
Allan @3:35- ‘A close friend of mine
who was a department chairman at Princeton University
has told me that the entire physics department at Princeton is skeptical
about AGW.”
Well, it would seem to me that here’s a body with clout and influence that should have the guts to stand up and shout from the highest rooftops “BS!!” If they don’t, how do we ever kill this monster?
Nevertheless, this link you provided –
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases
should be required reading for all skeptics, and all dullard believers.
Please…. Read It! everybody.
A better question would be why do climate alarmists always try to defend their faith by positing a straw-man argument?
No-one questions climate change. They question the CAUSE of climate change.
Posted by: Dirtman at October 2, 2011 2:09 AM
——————-
It’s an almost-perfect conundrum directed to the world at large.
But the fact remains: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Unless news media, questionably-funded science orgs and doomers decide on the precautionary principle and throw out all reason.
My belief is that the “left” has gotten the upper hand in arguing and influence; but it’s enough to flummox those who didn’t do well in debate (or more importantly, social engineering-related) classes.
Here’s a link about fallacious arguments,
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments