That’s exactly what you would expect when you get SMART PEOPLE looking at this GLOBULL WARMING HOAX! There’s no way within current capabilities to get the pulse of a climatic system as chaotic, massive, and complex as we’ve got on this planet. Attempting to predict it is like attempting to predict the weather on your birthday next year.
I'm going with hoax.
Only because I'm merely literate.
they leave out one part of the equation, they don’t count those that have lived through it before
YEs, and NOAA converting sun-specks to sunspots in order to increase the “count” of sunspots is the latest data manipulation:
[excerpt from deep inside it]
The Yale study implicitly accepts the consensus that climate change poses substantial dangers to humanity. But what about the cultural values held by climate scientists themselves? Could they be subject to confirmation bias too? A study [PDF] published in 2009 in the journal Climatic Change sheds some light on the policy views of climate scientists. Although the cultural cognition typology is more subtle, the Climatic Change study survey of over 400 climate scientists found that 67 percent identified as liberal, 20 percent moderate, and 13 percent conservative. Around 90 percent agreed that man-made global warming is now happening and that immediate policy decisions need to be made to address it.
According to the survey 96 percent support market incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 85 percent favor a tax on industry to discourage practices that contribute to global warming; 89 percent favor higher prices for energy supplies and consumer goods that are not environmentally friendly; 99 percent favor developing no-carbon renewable energy supplies like hydro and solar; and 81 percent want to increase the price of fossil fuels. The few conservative climate scientists surveyed were somewhat less eager to adopt these policies except for the ambiguous use market incentives policy, which 96 percent favored. However, only 61 percent of politically conservative climate scientists favor a tax on industry; 65 percent support higher energy and consumer products prices; 92 percent back developing renewable fuels; and only 41 percent want to increase the price of fossil fuels. Could it be that Egalitarian/Communitarian biases against industry and commerce are informing the policy prescriptions of climate scientists? (No Shi'te, Little Beaver!)
The Pew Research Center conducted a 2009 survey comparing the political ideologies of scientists and the general public. Only 9 percent of scientists identified as conservative, 35 percent as moderate, and 52 percent as liberal, with 14 percent claiming to be very liberal. In contrast, the general public identifies as 37 percent conservative, 38 percent moderate, and 20 percent liberal, and 5 percent very liberal. Slicing the data another way, the survey finds that 81 percent of scientists lean Democrat whereas 52 percent of the general public does. Another telling division between the beliefs of the general public versus scientists is their responses to this statement: "When something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful." Fifty-eight percent of scientists disagreed, whereas 57 percent of the public agreed with it.
Confirmation bias is absolutely universal. Freepers are just as prone to it as anybody else.
The whole point of the scientific method is to provide a method whereby confirmation bias can be bypassed and the truth be constantly approximated more closely.
I agree. More science education isn’t likely to help.
There’s always disagreement in science when new ideas come along. It’s not surprising there is genuine scientific disagreement here.
The difference, vis-a-vis climate change, is that libs, if they even bother to try to eschew a life of burger flipping in the first place, tend to avoid the hard sciences in college and end up in psychology, journalism, poly sci, etc., where rarely an equation strains their limited brain power, while conservatives flock to the math-centric courses, if for no other reason than to get away from all the jokers (professors and students alike) in less rigorous courses.
Whether they admit it or not, Communitarians are most definitely communistic Hierarchists of the worst type.
I would challenge the premise that the more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax. It is more likely that the more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that human caused climate change is a hoax.
The writers probably did not account for bias among the scientifically literate, especially those being paid to support human caused climate change, a multi-billion dollar industry.
The Yale Cultural Cognition Project needs to go back to the "drawing board" and redo their study, IMO. It also may be worthwhile to check into the source of funding for the study.
I believe that the big yellow hot ball of gases that rises in the east and sets in the west everyday has everything to do with our climate and whether it gets hotter or colder. Saying that humans are affecting climate changes, to me, is a hoax perpetrated on humanity by men who think they can scare the masses for profit and political power.
I was involved with analyising the Yucca Mountain risk assessment people, Wildavsky being one of them.
As a whole, they are lying skunks.
They've mis-stated this. It should read "The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are to either know that climate change is a hoax, or TO PERPETUATE THAT HOAX.
That is, IF you are both scientifically literate and continue to state that AGW is real, THEN you know that you are part of the conspiracy and are endorsing false "science" to advance your political ends.
You can be "scientifically literate" without being scientific -- i.e., being honest.
THANK YOU for linking to the PRINTABLE version!
52% of the general public lean democrat? I saw quoted 37% conservative, 38% moderates and 20% leftist, with 5% far left in this essay. Using their own numbers and splitting the moderates down the middle, *I* get 56% “right” and 44% “left”, but that’s old style arithmetic...
I also found the political leanings percentages of the scientists surveyed telling as well. I still can’t see even an ivory tower intellectual thinking the gov’t runs things well, let alone 57% of them...
Must read, IMHO.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Clearly, the study itself is not "scientific." Science does not accept ambiguities that allow valid results in polar opposite conclusions.
As to the scientific level of competence of the opposing camps, I supect the hoaxsters are sadly deficient, demonstrably evidenced by reliance on "consensus," data manipulation and personal attacks.
I remain proudly in the denier camp, and would challenge any "the world is going to die" nutcase to a science test devoid of social and political BS.
Wish they had included a link to the method of testing the scientific competence of the "1500 adults" tested.