ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
So a group of 'soft' science guys did a study commissioned by the US gov. They wanted to study the proposition that if people were more informed about science and technology they would be more inclined to support initives to 'stop' man made global warming (climate change now that the planet hasn't warmed for 15 years).
What they found was a shock the more scientifically informed people were the LESS they were concerned about the climate. Which of course was the opposite of what they had expected to find the recommendation ws to communicate the importance of climate without using science....
According to the profs, this is not because the idea of imminent carbon-driven catastrophe is perhaps a bit scientifically suspect. Rather it is because people classed as "egalitarian communitarians" (roughly speaking, left-wingers) are always highly concerned about climate change, and become slightly more so as they acquire more science and numeracy. Unfortunately, however, "hierarchical individualists" (basically, right-wingers) are quite concerned about climate change when they're ignorant: but if they have any scientific, mathematic or technical education this causes them to become strongly sceptical.
As scientific/tech knowledge and numeracy appears to be more common among "hierarchical individualists" than among "egalitarian communitarians", this meant that in the sample as a whole the effect of more scientific knowledge and numeracy was to increase scepticism.
I love the hierarchial individualist vs egalitarian communitarians, John Wayne vs Alan Alda or Eagles vs sheep. Take your pick.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Re: The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsfan13
So a group of 'soft' science guys did a study commissioned by the US gov. They wanted to study the proposition that if people were more informed about science and technology they would be more inclined to support initives to 'stop' man made global warming (climate change now that the planet hasn't warmed for 15 years).
What they found was a shock the more scientifically informed people were the LESS they were concerned about the climate. Which of course was the opposite of what they had expected to find the recommendation ws to communicate the importance of climate without using science....
I love the hierarchial individualist vs egalitarian communitarians, John Wayne vs Alan Alda or Eagles vs sheep. Take your pick.
You know the old saying, "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." What I really don't get about you climate-change skeptics is why not lean toward erring on the side of caution with potentially so much at stake?
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.
As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
__________________
Beware ... The Patriot Attack Parrot!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunescribe
You know the old saying, "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." What I really don't get about you climate-change skeptics is why not lean toward erring on the side of caution with potentially so much at stake?
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.
As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
So? What is the solution? You and everyone else will still drive your car. What is the solution?
It is like the people that say we should only eat organic foods. A huge portion of the world's population would die of starvation if we only had organic foods.
I am so tired of the Al Gore BS. He came out and told everyone how bad they were and yet his carbon footprint was/is bigger than the majority of peoples. Stop preaching the impossible and find a solution, or shut up.
Re: The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunescribe
You know the old saying, "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." What I really don't get about you climate-change skeptics is why not lean toward erring on the side of caution with potentially so much at stake?
Wiki is edited by 'believers' and won't allow the 'other side' to be represented btw.
Erring on the 'side of caution will cost trillions and has already caused deaths in the third world from starvation (se the cost of frain which has been driven in large part to crops being used to make ethanol to reduce greenhouse gases.
The 'theroy that man is driving climate change is based on computer models and the predictions that have been made about where the atmosphere would be warming IF CO2 was the driver have been shown to be incorrect.
IOW the models have no been supported by empirical observation.
In science observation rules.
Quote:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.
Yes politically the $$$$ and National science academies are dancing to the politicians tume.
As to warming depends on the timeframe one looks at. The planet has warmed since the end of the little ice age, there is no evidence that it is warmer than during the Midieval Warming period and the records indicate it is much cooler than during the Holocene optimum ~7kyears ago.
So it has warmed in the last 170 years and that is a good thing, nothing to show that humans have contributed >.2C to any change.
Quote:
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.
Science has nothing to do with consensus, it has to do with testing observation and seeing if it agrees with theory thus far the MMGW hypothesis has failed this test, so objective people have rejected the theory based on the faulty computer models.
Quote:
As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
Many (if not most) scientist and engineers don't agree with this position for the reasons cited above.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
Re: The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
Excuse me, guys. I'll just mosey on over to the religion forum and pick a born-again to wrangle with over the literal existence of hell. Or better yet, I'll just find the nearest brick wall to bang my head against. I get it, OK? The Earth is flat, Al Gore is evil, gravity is just a concept, and the sky isn't really blue -- it just looks that way.
Re: The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunescribe
You know the old saying, "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." What I really don't get about you climate-change skeptics is why not lean toward erring on the side of caution with potentially so much at stake?
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.
As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
Ive asked this myself, the answer i get is that erring on the side of caution will destroy the economy. But then i say, "what good is money if your dead"
n the early 1920s and 1930s, temperatures were high, similar to that of the present, and this affected the glacial melt. At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," says Dr. Kurt H. Kjær and underlines:
Photos from 1932 show melted glaciers in worse shape than today.
And no these weren't photoshopped from Dick Cheney ,Katrina Hurricane Machine Division either.
Re: The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
Buried wayyyy down at the bottom of this paean to the oh-so-advanced thinking of the denier community is a link to the actual study.
The study set up two theses to explain why anthropogenic global warming persists despite the mass of evidence to the contrary. One is the "Scientific Comprehension Thesis" -- that the public knows too little science or is too retarded in numerative thinking to understand. The other is the "Cultural Cognition Thesis" which groups people as "hierarchical individualists" or "egalitarian communitarians" - what the OP calls "eagles and sheep," but which I think is better represented by poles such as "democracy/dictatorship." But I digress into the OP's penchant for namecalling; I condemn us both.
These predictions [SCT thesis] were unsupported (Fig. 1). As respondents’ science-literacy scores increased, concern with climate change decreased (r=−0.05, P=0.05). There was also a negative correlation between numeracy and climate change risk (r=−0.09, P<0.01). The differences were small, but nevertheless inconsistent with SCT (Scientific Comprehension Theory), which predicts effects with the opposite signs.
That is, the very slight impact of one's level of scientific literacy on one's view of global warming goes the wrong way. That's not the important predictor of whether you'll cling to denialism.
But when you look at people along the democracy/dictatorship axis, you get a more pronounced effect:
Quote:
On this view, one would expect egalitarian communitarians to be more concerned than hierarchical individualists with climate change risks.
Our data, consistent with previous studies6, supported this prediction. Hierarchical individualists (subjects who scored in the top half on both the Hierarchy and Individualism cultural-world-view scales) rated climate change risks significantly lower (M=3.15, s.e.m.=0.17) than did egalitarian communitarians (subjects whose scores placed them in the bottom half; M=7.4, s.e.m.=0.13). Even controlling for scientific literacy and numeracy (as reflected in the composite scale Science literacy/numeracy; see Supplementary Information), both Hierarchy (b=−0.46, P<0.01) and Individualism (b=−0.30, P<0.01) predicted less concern over climate change (Supplementary Table S4).
So, the more important effect is whether you like democracy or dictatorship, culturally speaking, than your level of scientific literacy.
I think experience on this board bears out a second thesis that deserves further discussion. I don't have time this morning to tease out these details from the paper, but I think if it's not in there, it deserves further study:
In terms of scientific literacy, a little knowledge/attainment seems to make you a raving zealot, convinced of the truth of your position. For example, an engineer who has published little if anything, tenaciously clings to one or another position.
It would be interesting to see how the slight pro-denial bias of scientific literacy breaks down by level of attainment.
For example, if you're nakedly anti-scientific and believe in magical theses such as 6-day creation, are you more likely to be a global warming denier?
If you have an educated lay perspective, are you less likely?
If you are an engineer with no publishing history, are you more likely to be a denier?
If you are a widely published research scientist, but not in climate science, are you more or less likely?
Finally, what percentage of published climate scientists are anthropogenic climate change deniers?
The thread title, the linked hit-piece, and the OP fails -- the effect trumpeted is "slight," according to the study.
The effect of where you fall on the democracy/dictatorship axis, by contrast, is much more strongly correlated with your view of the existence and cause of global warming.
Re: The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunescribe
Excuse me, guys. I'll just mosey on over to the religion forum and pick a born-again to wrangle with over the literal existence of hell. Or better yet, I'll just find the nearest brick wall to bang my head against. I get it, OK? The Earth is flat, Al Gore is evil, gravity is just a concept, and the sky isn't really blue -- it just looks that way.
Well your belief in computer models over empirical data will fit better in the religion forum, it is said that believing in MMGW is religion for atheist.
BTW just 1 small factoid, when the earth was warming so were all the other planets in the Solar Sustem...
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
12Likes
The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
Linear Mode
