Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/16/2011 12:47:30 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: neverdem

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.


2 posted on 07/16/2011 12:50:58 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax,

I'm going with hoax.

Only because I'm merely literate.

3 posted on 07/16/2011 12:56:52 AM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

they leave out one part of the equation, they don’t count those that have lived through it before


4 posted on 07/16/2011 1:06:10 AM PDT by SF_Redux (Sarah stands for accountablility and personal responsiblity, democrats can't live with that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Odd I was thinking about this at work. Why didn't we recover funds from these fraudsters.
5 posted on 07/16/2011 1:33:32 AM PDT by Domangart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Led by Yale University law professor Dan Kahan.....The group uses a theory of cultural commitments devised by University of California, Berkeley, political scientist Aaron Wildavsky that “holds that individuals can be expected to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce values that they share with others.”

Legal eagles and political sciences lead the way!


6 posted on 07/16/2011 1:33:38 AM PDT by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

YEs, and NOAA converting sun-specks to sunspots in order to increase the “count” of sunspots is the latest data manipulation:

http://www.iceagenow.com/NOAA_inflating_sunspot_counts.htm


7 posted on 07/16/2011 1:43:40 AM PDT by givemELL (Does Taiwan eet the Criteria to Qualify as an "Overseas Territory of the United States"? by Richar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; SunkenCiv; steelyourfaith
A new study suggests that your values, not science, determine your views about climate change.

[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.

9 posted on 07/16/2011 2:09:27 AM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Excellent article.

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.


10 posted on 07/16/2011 2:13:51 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

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.


11 posted on 07/16/2011 2:17:37 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Individualists expect people to succeed or fail on their own, while Communitarians believe that society is obligated to take care of everyone....whether they want to "be taken care of" or not.

Whether they admit it or not, Communitarians are most definitely communistic Hierarchists of the worst type.

12 posted on 07/16/2011 2:19:12 AM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax, according to a new study [PDF] from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project.

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.

16 posted on 07/16/2011 3:55:52 AM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

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.


18 posted on 07/16/2011 4:23:44 AM PDT by b4its2late ("Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Climate change is happening. Anyone with even a little bit of scientific understanding will know that it always has and it always will.
Humans as the cause is rubbish!
21 posted on 07/16/2011 5:52:52 AM PDT by outofsalt ("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

I was involved with analyising the Yucca Mountain risk assessment people, Wildavsky being one of them.

As a whole, they are lying skunks.


23 posted on 07/16/2011 6:20:07 AM PDT by DaxtonBrown (HARRY: Money Mob & Influence (See my Expose on Reid on amazon.com written by me!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax

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.

24 posted on 07/16/2011 6:24:10 AM PDT by PENANCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

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...


26 posted on 07/16/2011 7:08:03 AM PDT by Don W (You can forget what you do for a living when your knees are in the breeze.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Link to the PDF file mentioned in the second paragraph.

Must read, IMHO.

28 posted on 07/16/2011 7:24:41 AM PDT by upchuck (Think you know hardship? Ha! Wait till the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
The only science out of yale, harvard, berkley or columbia is junk. Their unfortunate students are bombarded with their off the chart far left wacko views.
31 posted on 07/16/2011 7:58:49 AM PDT by DaBearOne (she is always with us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
EPA’s Power Sapper - The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is an economy killer.

A US Oil Boom--Unless Greens Abort It. USA is on the Verge of a Golden Era in Oil Production.

TARP’s Shadow: Why Tea Partiers won’t listen to the establishment, even as a debt crisis looms

War in Libya: Dumb and Dumber (Victor Davis Hanson)

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

37 posted on 07/16/2011 11:46:24 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax, according to a new study [PDF] from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project.

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.

PDF of Study

38 posted on 07/16/2011 3:29:36 PM PDT by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson