URI researcher: Weather fluctuations cause people to seek information on climate change
Media Contact: Todd McLeish, 
401-874-7892
Results vary by political ideology, education levels
KINGSTON, R.I. – July 16, 2014 – A University of Rhode Island researcher analyzed Internet search trends and weather patterns and has concluded that people across the United States seek information about climate change when they experience unusual or severe weather events in their area. But findings differed based on political ideology and education levels.
“When local weather conditions are consistent with the predictions of climate change – above average heat, drought or warmer winters, for instance – then people go online and type in ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ to learn more,” said Corey Lang, URI assistant professor of environmental economics. “It’s a confirmation that people are connecting weather anomalies to climate change.”
His results will be published this week in the journal Climatic Change.
Lang used Google Trends to collect data on how often people in 205 media markets searched the Internet for terms like “climate change” and “global warming” from January 2004 to May 2013. While search activity increased during weather fluctuations consistent with climate change predictions, it also increased in some areas during weather events inconsistent with climate science.
“One possibility is that when weather is inconsistent with climate change, climate science deniers go online in higher numbers seeking to confirm their prior beliefs,” Lang said. “It’s also possible that weather anomalies of any kind spark people to think about weather and climate. We can only speculate about their reasons.”
When Lang compared search data in regions of the country with differing political views and education levels, his results suggest that some groups may see climate change differently. For example, Democratic leaning regions and those with higher education levels were more likely to seek information about climate change when average summer temperatures were above normal, whereas those in Republican and less educated areas sought climate change information when they experienced extreme heat.
“When it’s just a warmer than usual month, more Democratic and well educated areas are picking up on that signal, but it’s a spike in temperature over one or more days that Republican and less-educated areas are keying in to climate change,” Lang said. “It may suggest that different types of people have different perceptions of what kind of weather defines climate change.”
The URI economist said that it is difficult to draw sweeping conclusions based solely on Internet search data, since it is impossible to know the motivations of individuals conducting the searches. But he said it is a good sign that people from across the geographic, political and education spectrums are making the connection between weather fluctuations and climate change and are seeking more information about it.
“There isn’t this intransigence that is often played up,” he said. “It’s much more dynamic.”
The next step in Lang’s research is to learn what happens after people search for information on climate change.
“There are a lot of open questions about what these results mean,” he said. “What are people doing with this information? Are they purchasing energy efficient appliances? Are they taking measures to improve their situation in the face of the changing climate? Self-motivated information seeking is a good first step, but what do they do next?”
###
===============================================================
From Springerlink:
What do Google searches tell us about our climate change fears?
Political ideology, education levels affect when people search for climate information
Republicans search the Net for information about the weather, climate change and global warming during extremely hot or cold spells. Democrats google these terms when they experience changes in the average temperatures. These are some of the surprising findings from a study by Corey Lang of the University of Rhode Island in the US, published in Springer’s journal Climatic Change.
He tracked how the temperature fluctuations and rainfall that Americans experience daily in their own cities make them scour the Internet in search of information about climate change and global warming. To do so, he used data from Google Trends, local weather stations and election results.
Google Trends aggregates all Google searches that are made, and measures how popular a specific search term is. Users can fine tune this to be specific to a particular place (such as a country or city) and time (such as monthly or on a specific date). Lang specifically checked how often, when and where citizens in 205 cities in the US used the search terms “global warming,” “climate change” and “weather.” The terms “drought” and “flood” were also included because increases in these natural phenomena are important predicted impacts of climate change. Monthly statistics were collected for the period from January 2004 to May 2013. Lang then matched them with local weather station data, as well as the 2008 presidential election results in Dave Leip’s “Atlas of Presidential Elections.”
Lang found that search activity increased when extreme heat was felt in summer, when no rain fell over extended periods, and when there were fewer extreme cold snaps in winter. Such weather fluctuations are consistent with projected climate change. Interestingly though, searches also increased when average winter and spring temperatures dropped – events that are inconsistent with global warming. Lang believes this could mean that people who observe unusual extreme weather conditions are genuinely interested in learning more about climate change. It could, however, also mean that deniers, who experience an unusually cool winter, go online to confirm their skeptical views that the world is not really growing warmer.
People from varying political and educational backgrounds reach for their devices at different times to check out information on climate change. Republicans and people from less educated areas do more relevant searches during periods of extreme temperatures, while Democrats and residents of well-educated areas do so when they experience changes in average temperatures.
“Weather fluctuations have an impact on climate change related search behavior, however not always in ways that are consistent with the impacts of climate change. And the research suggests that different types of people experience weather differently or have different perceptions about what type of weather defines climate change, ” concludes Lang.
Reference: Lang, C. (2014). Do Weather Fluctuations Cause People to Seek Information about Climate Change? Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584
Was this ghost written by Sen Whitehouse?
As soon as I see the D-word in a purportedly scientific paper I don’t bother reading any further. I guess I’m just biased against bias.
So, there is now scientific proof that climate changes causes Google searches?
Gee. I wonder if the writer AND the researcher are biased towards “well-educated democrat” areas or “less educated republican” areas?
And, by the way, the sentence by that obviously “well-educated democrat” makes no sense as written.
When does someone “experience” a change in average temperature for a month? Is it on the first of the month, the last of the month, or somewhere in between?
“What do they do next?”, they ask.
In my own case, and in other cases I have read about, they find the truth.
Republicans and people from less educated areas do more relevant searches during periods of extreme temperatures, while Democrats and residents of well-educated areas do so when they experience changes in average temperatures.
How in H*LL does one “experience” a change in average temperature? Seriously? The weatherman says today will be 24 degrees, one degree above the average for this time of year and Democrats and the highly educated rush to do research on climate change? But it hits 36 degrees and they don’t?
Seriously?
My takeaway is that Corey Lang is another academic spilling ink uselessly, and if Web searches can be relied upon to infer people’s beliefs, then both the educated Democrats and the ignorant Republicans are equally ignorant about the significance of “the weather” for climate change.
Apart from the standard reference to so-called “climate deniers”, I was amused to read about ” Democratic leaning regions and those with higher education levels” and “Republican and less educated” areas, as if there was some sort of automatic correlation between these particular terms and categories. What happens in “Democrat and less educated areas” and “Republican leaning regions and those with higher education levels”?
Democrats are just so super-sensitive. A little bitty change in the weather sends them in a panic to the internet.
Same thing about their “racial sensitivities”, their “poor folk sensitivities”, their gender sensitivities” and on and on. They are so much more “sensitive” than everyone else. The only punishment fitting for Democrats is for them to be moved to another planet and made to live in the world they want to create here. Let the punishment fit the crime.
I laugh at the line about better educated Democrats. Consider what blatant left-wing propaganda mills our schools have become. A liberal arts degree today seems to be a mark of how mentally sheeplike you are rather than what it use to be — a sign that you just might have learned to think for yourself.
Eugene WR Gallun
Gee, I can’t imagine that there are any confounding factors in this study
[/sarc]
Dean
” What happens in “Democrat and less educated areas” and “Republican leaning regions and those with higher education levels”? ”
In the former, they vote for Obamas, in the latter, they don’t. It has little to do with being Democrat or Republican, and everything to do with being educated (as opposed to having gone to school).
What a stupid article. And the conclusion is? Is climate change in the way AGW sees it a forgone conclusion,…” not always in ways that are consistent with the impacts of climate change” By the way, over the last 17 years 10 months, there has been no warming. I’d say it’s a fairly biased article ” It could, however, also mean that deniers, who experience an unusually cool winter, go online to confirm their skeptical views that the world is not really growing warmer ” . Exactly how long does it take to move out of the realm of being a denier? Do I need to confirm that? Maybe the author could enlighten me on how long this pause is going to last. Maybe he could also show which IPCC model has proven to be correct, or any prediction that has proven to be correct. Which when you think about it, how could so many supposedly intelligent people be, as far I know, 100% wrong, 100% of the time? That bothers me. If they made stuff up, they’d accidental get something right.
Just emailed Todd McLeish asking if the “D” word was used by the “researcher”, or by the writer.
I can understand how he determined political leanings of the city – from election map. But nowhere it is stated as of his methodology to determine education levels. Did he just assumed that Republicans are less educated, or did he had some maps that shows “stupid cities” vs “smart ones”?
Apparently, highly-educated Democrats do Global warming searches at the first sign of higher temperatures. But extreme heat brings on such a fear of impending doom from runaway global warming that they go into a catatonic state and are unable to use their keyboards. That’s the best explanation I can think of for this study’s findings. I’d like to know what the difference is between “warmer than usual” and “a spike in temperature.” Wouldn’t a spike in temperature also make it warmer than usual? From what I’ve seen, whenever the temperature goes above average, alarmists like Al Gore start crowing about “extreme” temperatures. So I’m not sure if they can tell the difference.
The highly educated tend to prefer to read about the real world while living in a more sanitized environment among theory and models. The less educated prefer to live in the real world and learn from observation. If “highly educated” means you fall for crappy research like this, then lump me in with the “less educated” crowd.
Of course the great irony here is that during the period of the study there has been…
-no statistically significant warming of the globe
-no global increase in frequency or duration of droughts
-no increase in frequency or severity of floods
…as IPCC AR5 notes if you take the time to read it carefully. In other words, their perception of severe weather is not evidence of global warming or its predicted impacts. What does this mean?
It means that global warming alarmists are spiritual brothers to our superstitious ancient ancestors when reacting to severe weather. The ancients blamed it on the gods. Today’s alarmists blame it on humans.
assistant professor of environmental economics
I bet Lang did a lot of drinking in college.
Generally a load of tosh, but one small ray of sunshine – the writers in both passages referred to “weather inconsistent with climate change/global warming”. I think that this is the first time I have read this – I had thought that every variation of weather was consistent with global warming
The effect is ruined by the term “inconsistent with climate science” – whatever that means.
“Democratic leaning regions and those with higher education levels were more likely to seek… ”
Two mutually exclusive groups, judging by the grammar.
This brings to mind the Dr Smith from the Lost in Space series and movie.
The Dr Smith character was of course the snivelingcoward, self-centered intellectual… a good Liberal, well-educated Democrat.
Dr Lang probaby identifies closely with the Lost in Space Dr Smith character.
Louis says:
No–I have a better reason, you know the saying about people being over-educated? Apparently the democrats have more education but the republicans own more of their own homes, have higher incomes generally, and although not as educated, are smarter then their over-educated neighbors! While the democrats were earning degrees and going into debt with school loans, the Republicans were earning money, creating jobs and buying homes.
So the over-educated democrats are living in high education areas and the republicans are in the rural areas on their ranches with a lower education but higher income.
Check it out–takes a 30 second search on the net.
and
Remember, this study came from an “educated” guy–not a Republican! That says it all.
“One possibility is that when weather is inconsistent with climate change, climate science deniers go online in higher numbers seeking to confirm their prior beliefs,”
“For example, Democratic leaning regions and those with higher education levels were more likely to seek information about climate change when average summer temperatures were above normal, whereas those in Republican and less educated areas sought climate change information when they experienced extreme heat.”
Yep, its totally political it isn’t the glaring holes in the claims that lead people to question it. I found this part funny though. Science deniers are seeking to confirm their bias if they seek info presumably related to things not consistent with Cagw. The folks who believe in Cagw though are NOT confirming their bias when they presumably research things they believe are in line with the claims of Cagw.
I get it now. If you question “science” you are denying it. In this case “science” means weighting all variables just right so there is even a potential for a danger. If you “understand” the science you need not even realize there is a wide potential for discrepancy and many published counter explanations for many variables. In fact you shouldn’t even entertain such things at all, we all know that big oil is out there funding everything that doesn’t validate Cagw. Everything that doesn’t validate Cagw is itself already biased and should be ignored.
Oh those silly science deniers, asking all those anti science question. They just don’t get it!
People think about the weather and the climate when something unusual happens. Then they Google it.
That seems reasonable. What else would stimulate people to think about the weather except the weather?
Then he looks at what is considered unusual.
He finds Republican areas respond to the outside conditions.
He finds Democrat areas respond to the reported averages.
That seems reasonable. Red States are more agricultural and so the users have direct contact with the weather. Blue states are more urban and less directly aware of outside conditions (you Yanks have air conditioning these days don’t you?)
My complaint about the paper isn’t that it is biased but rather that it is trivial.
It states the obvious: People notice the weather when it’s unusual and observe the weather differently in urban and rural lifestyles.
Follow up paper: Ursine defecation in arboreal habitats under the influence of climate change.
RE: “Democratic leaning regions and those with higher education levels were more likely to seek…”
People on welfare are more likely to vote Democrat. Is that where a higher education gets you?
Perhaps government grants are a form of welfare?
By the way, the word “democratic” is defined differently than the word “democrat.”
You really need to suspend the rules for an article once in a while, so we can all tell people like lang that they are *%$(*)N UB&R*YGHI&^R^&hn8pt7t58h9p94968y9%()^BIGUyt……….
…Forgot the ‘!’
I don’t recall there being a tick box asking whether or not I am a Republican or a Democrat before I do every Google search.
“The ancients blamed it on the gods. Today’s alarmists blame it on humans.”
No. The ancients always blamed humans for climate disasters. They simply attributed them to the Gods as a reaction to whatever human action they could think of (sometimes politically motivated). I.e.” Earthquakes are a message from Baal to stop eating meat.” (I just made that up. You can interchange any god and any disaster and any human action.)
The belief in CAGW is simply a continuation of such a practice into the modern world. A practice that seems to be written in our genes, apparently.
“Climate Science Deniers”
This could be possible if only so called Climate Scientists weren’t wrong.
If only they produced a model that was accurate 90% of the time then we would stop questioning their results.
They have yet to show any model with that sort of accuracy and refuse to acknowledge that their proxy data is flawed (whether intentional or not) so how can this be termed “Climate Science”
Science: Root Latin Scio verb to know
If they KNOW what the weather will be in 50 years, why can’t they tell us what it will be next year or 3 months from now?
The answer is that they can’t. YET. The models need refinement and there needs to be more data points.
They as yet don’t understand fully how the climate works on Earth nor the interaction with the Sun. It’s a very complex system that may not be able to be fully predictable.
When they stop lying, I’ll stop disbelieving.
“Democratic leaning regions and those with higher education levels were more likely to seek…”
Strange he forgot to put the rich, the affluent in same phrase. I wonder why…
Both articles, and the faux study underlying them, are more of the ignorance best exemplified by the President’s position on climate.
That paper is an “F”ail
I think you will find that given reality continues to depart from the ‘models ‘ the days of ‘weather is not climate’ had long gone and now ever y extreme , but not usual , weather events is jumped on has ‘proof’ of AGW
Ah, propagandists such as Lenin & Goebels would be oh so proud of their little prodigies! Sadly like them both, this guy is oh so predictable!
It rather reminds me of hacking politicians here in the PDRofEU/UK, when somebody raises the issue of an elephant in a room, they pounce upon them with phrases like,…..”We understand the point Mr X was trying to make, but we felt his use of language was inappropriate!” The inference being that Mr X was a failure because he only managed to “try”, & that his language was “offensive”/”racist”/”nasty”/”hurtful”, take your pick from a whole range! The greenalists do it all the time here!
how in hell does someone manage to get complete and utter shite like that published. it is quite obvious mr lang did not receive an education,but an indoctrination .
Here’s what I got from the first article: Republicans=less educated, Democrats=higher educated. If education=indoctrination then maybe that’s true.
Lang biases are evident and clearly comprise the credibility of the analysis.
That said, I haven’t heard much about extreme weather lately. Am I out of the loop or has the weather too turn into one of those “deniers” Lang’s barking about?
“Democrats google these terms when they experience changes in the average temperatures.”
How exactly are people able tell when average temperature in an area changes? How do you go about ‘experiencing’ an average temperature change, how much does the average temperature have to change before Democrats can tell it has changed and over what period are their senses calculating the ‘average’ temperature? Do their bodies tell them the average temperature has changed or do they get that info from the local Democrat political offices?
I stopped reading after this statement. It makes 0 sense.
Those who exalt themselves, shall be humbled. One of the reasons it is so easy to harpoon liberals is they THINK they are smart. I guess their mommies always told them they were special. What they failed to realize is that “Special Ed” in the US is not about the talented and gifted.
Dat researcher forgot dat we less eduqated republicuns are also inbred gun owners. Dat means we less eduqated gun ownen inbred republicuns get on dat interweb to confirm our d’nile of climate change when it git hot out.
Words fail me
What about libertarians? Independents? other alternative parties? Do they ask to many questions as well?
I half expect to wake up one day and check this site and see a completely serious “study” confirming the real problem with so called skeptics is they are arrogant, and believe their opinion is relevant. They simply have a problem with authority you see!!! Or perhaps people who question Cagw were more likely to get detention in school, or contest parking tickets as adults.
We’re missing a valuable piece of information. What is the frequency of these searches by word?
“Lang specifically checked how often, when and where citizens in 205 cities in the US used the search terms “global warming,” “climate change” and “weather.”
When there are weather events, I frequently check the “weather” forecast. Since I live in Florida, our weather changes frequently on most days.
We need to know the search frequency distribution of these three words. If it is 85% weather and 15% global warming or climate change, then this paper is worthless. Wonder if the author included this vital info in his paper?
Bill
In an earlier age, this sort of superstition was placated by throwing some virgins into the volcano.
Unfortunately, leftists don’t have any virgins.
Well, no female virgins, anyway.
If this is what is passing for “climate science” these days, we have won. Really. Passing off insults to someone you already admit you don’t understand, or want to, as science is shameful.
The overall level of outright stupidity on display here is truly stunning.
BallBounces says: “So, there is now scientific proof that climate changes causes Google searches?”
Thanks. That made me laugh. Nice way to start the day!
62 F degrees this morning in central Oklahoma in mid- July….brrrr. I sure hope this is weather and not climate.
…..so it was the more educated regions that elected Obama? Gaia help us!
Nobody experiences global climate (described by the world wide average and other statistics of weather), they experience very local weather. All those educated Democrats running off to investigate climate change because they believe they detected a small change in the average weather where they live are climate change hypochondriacs and useful idiots of the political movement(s) using Climate Change to further their agendas. People who run off to investigate climate change because they believe they detect very large deviations in local weather are lesser useful idiots . . . uneducated Republicans aren’t entirely off the hook. It’s absurd to hypothesize that either Democrats or Republicans could, by personal observation, detect climate change. That makes this a hit piece highlighting how educated enlightened Democrats either care more or are smarter than uneducated uncaring Republicans. What it actually indicates is that the Democrats are bigger dupes than the Republicans.
“When it’s just a warmer than usual month, more Democratic and well educated areas are picking up on that signal,
but it’s a spike in temperature over one or more days that Republican and less-educated areas are keying in to climate change,” Lang said, with a devious grin.
It’s just manipulative political propaganda dressed in cheap scientific drag. Who funds these pseudo-academics, and why are they given a stage?
From a screen-shot of The Conversation/au last week (July 14), highlighting what Australian academics, supported by Australian Universities, think is important for public consumption right now:
“More educated,” not “better educated.”
And we think of ourselves as an intelligent species…
This paper gives a heads up that delusional people tend to vote democrat.
The one with the d-word is biased?
They overlooked the obvoius. First because our largely leftist media will hit the streets interviewing the “man on the street” every time the temp spikes. This is followed by the drone democrats to hit the internet to confirm what they already dogmatically believe.
The “uneducated” republicans do searches of long term trends to confirm what they and their common sense tells them. The media is sensationalizing nonsense.
Democrat. Republican. There’s a difference? Both sides have completely lost the ability to debate rationally. Both sides can do no more than cast slurs and resort immediately to name calling and blame laying. As for “educated,” Democrats who are “educated” are much more likely to be “indoctrinated” rather than educated. And my experience tells me Republicans are just as willfully ignorant. Party lines do nothing but make idiots of Americans. People would eat barf if their respective party told them it was good. It’s a “team” mentality. My team won! My team lost 🙁 I can no longer see the difference between LEFT and RIGHT.
My normal first response to an extreme weather event that has reported as “unprecedented” is to research the internet to see if it really is. Haven’t found one yet that truly was.
Udar says:
July 17, 2014 at 10:28 pm
Without reading the study, my guess would be census data. In addition to the decadal survey distributed to every US household, the US Census Bureau also gathers monthly employment data as part of their “Current Population Survey” report, which includes:
[emphasis added]
Republicans search the Net for information about the weather, climate change and global warming during extremely hot or cold spells. Democrats google these terms when they experience changes in the average temperatures.
Need not read any more, Dems cannot detect sub-degree changes over 5-6 generations. BS!
Dr. Lang, Saul Alinsky would be so proud…
By the by, I’m independent and I go to http://www.wattsupwiththat.com whenever there’s a notable change in the weather. Then I usually post a link to any article that’s posted. Wink wink.
There seems to be a resistance by some posting in this thread to the idea that democrats are better educated or smarter than Republicans.
However the real world data supports this contention strongly.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201311/who-s-smarter-republicans-and-democrats-in-congress
Research has indicated that individuals who are politically liberal are more likely to have higher ability than those who are politically conservative in America (Kanazawa, 2010) and Britain (Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008). However, this finding pertained to voters rather than political leaders those people had elected. This study demonstrates that in America, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to have a higher percentage of Senate and House members in the top 1% of cognitive ability and Democrats had a higher ability and education level, on average, than Republicans.
A Google search under any topics like Global Warming, Climate Change etc. are by far in favour of the warmist agenda. The SEO’s are not there by chance. They have been systematically stacked to ensure differing views are crowded out.
“weather inconsistent with climate change/global warming. …”
Uh, since every possible weather situation is considered “consistent with climate change/global warming” according to the Warmist/Alarmists, they must mean that an “inconsistent” day would be one without weather.
False conclusion, I use WUWT reference pages daily and mix that with scans of the posts to see Tisdale insights, other contributors, and various compiled threats to science from science policy bullying and other useful idiots.
“Interestingly though, searches also increased when average winter and spring temperatures dropped – events that are inconsistent with global warming. Lang believes this could mean that people who observe unusual extreme weather conditions are genuinely interested in learning more about climate change. ”
Lang obviously must be from one of those uneducated republicain demographic areas, he is not even aware that the recent polar vortex and harsh winter was caused by global warming.
He’s obviously biased.
Besides the gratuitous use of the pejorative term “denier,” Lang’s method is questionable. He models Google trends data and political leanings from 2010 census data. So he’s not actually quantifying the association of search words and political ideology at the individual level. The uncertainties that come flooding in with this aggregated approach make the results far less certain than the paper would have us believe.
The sentence about Democrats and Republicans should read : Democratic leaning regions and those with higher education levels but with no real life experience of nature were more likely to seek information about climate change when average summer temperatures were above normal, whereas those in Republican and less educated areas but with common sense and a keen interest in nature and our environment sought climate change information when they experienced extreme heat.
“The URI economist said that it is difficult to draw sweeping conclusions based solely on Internet search data, since it is impossible to know the motivations of individuals conducting the searches. But ….”
But he does anyway. What a pro.
“For example, Democratic leaning regions and those with higher education levels were more likely to seek information about climate change when average summer temperatures were above normal, whereas those in Republican and less educated areas sought climate change information when they experienced extreme heat.”
See
http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/13/are-conservatives-dumber-than-liberals
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000373
“…Individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points)”
That “research” paper is NOT breaking out “Republicans”: “Deniers”, “Democrats” and
“Gullibles”, it’s falling into the ” Epidemiologis Fallacy”.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8108
“…The epidemiologist fallacy occurs when an epidemiologist says or implies X causes Y, but when the epidemiologist never actually meets, measures, or monitors X, though everybody pretends he has…..Examples
Global warming causes cataracts in babies
The peer-reviewed paper “A Population-Based Case–Control Study of Extreme Summer Temperature and Birth Defects” appeared in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (2012 October; 120(10): 1443–1449) by Alissa Van Zutphen et alia. It purportedly investigated birth defects in New York residents (the Y) and heat waves during pregnancy (X), which were claimed to increase in frequency and severity once global warming finally strikes. “We found positive and consistent associations between multiple heat indicators during the relevant developmental window and congenital cataracts [in newborns]“. Various statistical measures of correlation were attested to, and if the reader wasn’t careful she would decide to stay out of the heat lest her unborn child develop congenital cataracts.
But exposure of women to heat during their “relevant development windows” was never measured on any woman. There was no X. But there was a W: the daily air temperature at “18 first-order airport weather stations”. Women were assigned the temperature at the stations closest to where they listed their residence at the time of birth for just those days thought to be crucial to fetal development. Nobody knows where the women actually were during these days: it may have been near the assigned airport, or it could have been Saskatchewan, or perhaps in some cool building (“we were unable to incorporate air conditioner use data”). This paper was taken seriously by the press. More research is needed.
Fourth of July parade attendance turns people into Republicans
Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam wondered how it could be that so many innocent Americans turned into Republicans (their Y). They suspected Fourth of July parade attendance (X). Exposure to raw, unfiltered patriotism would take its inevitable toll and cause people to turn wistful at the mention of Ronald Reagan. They speculated, “Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party.”
It was widely reported that X caused Y. Only it wasn’t so. Yanagizawa-Drott and Madestam instead created a W. They gathered precipitation data from 1920-1990 in towns where study participants claimed to have lived when young. If it rained on the relevant Fourths of July, the authors claimed the participants did not go to a parade, because they assumed all parades would be canceled. If it did not rain, they claimed participants did go to a parade, because all towns invariably have parades on clear days, and if there is a parade one must attend. Nowhere was actual parade attendance (X) measured. And just think: if their hypothesis were true, San Francisco would be teeming with Republicans because it almost never rains there on the Fourth of July.”
Gary said at 5:44 am
People would eat barf if their respective party told them it was good.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
But seriously, which party is telling us what or how much we shall or shall not eat or drink?
“Lang found that search activity increased when extreme heat was felt in summer, when no rain fell over extended periods, and when there were fewer extreme cold snaps in winter. ”
Well if that’s what he “found” he should take a serious look at this method.
Can you really imagine a surge of people saying; ” hey, it’s longer than normal since we’ve had a cold snap, that’s strange, I’d better google and find out what the cause is.”
BS ! He is finding what he sets out to find.
Hi everyone,
I’m the author of the paper being discussed here. I’ve enjoyed reading some comments (especially, “I bet Lang did a lot of drinking in college”), though haven’t read them all.
One thing I wanted to clear up is the notion that I’m equating political ideology and education levels. Not at all true. First, a caveat about any conclusions that can be drawn. The data I’m using are aggregate, essentially at the metropolitan area level. So I do not know what how individuals with differing levels of education or differing political ideologies respond to weather changes. What I can infer is how individuals living in metro areas of differing education levels and differing politics respond to weather changes. In the model, I interact metro characteristics of % with college degree and % Democrat separately. That is, the model allows these characteristics to have no effect or opposite effects. However, the results suggest that the effects align for metros with a large percentage of college graduates and a large percentage of Democrats.
I agree with Logoswrench…MSM is likely the driver, and I would bet there is a direct correlation between the number of articles, and slant of those articles, on a given weather event to the number of Google searches.
e.g. The only place one learns of “record” weather events is where? Through a published media source. And, it is a well known and established theoretical fact (;-)) that 97% of media reports now link weather events to climate change…I’m sure I could publish a paper on that…if only I could get the funding…
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 6:32 am
_________________
Welcome to WUWT.
I will bet almost anything that over the time period studied that the number of people looking at anything related to global warming has dropped dramatically and that Mr Lang would never report that in his article. The more these morons write the less people will buy [their] bull.
BallBounces says: “So, there is now scientific proof that climate changes causes Google searches?”
… and Google searches use huge amounts of energy , that release CO2 and cause climate change/global warming/ herpes.
If all these ” Democrats and residents of well-educated areas ” don’t stop this irresponsible behaviour we will soon reach a tipping point in climate from which it will be impossible for the Earth to recover !!!!
We MUST act now !
“His results will be published this week in the journal Climatic Change.”
Big clue 😉
How many objective , sceptical scientists would submit a paper to a journal whose title already presumes climate change.
Let me guess : at least 97.3% of papers published in this journal are NOT about natural variability
Hi , C Lang . :)))
Please prove how Google knows a searchers education level . Without this proof , the study is just opinion .
Or self serving propaganda….
He knows [they’re] more educated because [they’re] his friends and are just like him.
Silly uneducated dumb people.
Anthony Watts says:
Dueling “weather is not climate” press releases – see if you can spot the politically biased one
Oh, I know! I know!
It’s the one that says this:
Clearly, this guy is a politically biased denier. ‘Cause 97% of everybody knows that there is no such thing as “weather events inconsistent with climate science.” According to climate science™ , ‘global warming’ causes everything.
🙂
“Self-motivated information seeking is a good first step, but what do they do next?”
Once people start “self-motivated information seeking” they are more likely to find out what is really happening , rather having their brains force-fed with regurgitated rat-shit by MSM.
sure it’s “a good first step”.
God damn, they may even start thinking for themselves after that. could be dangerous in some of those less educated and republican areas.
I’ve heard this BS many times before, conservatives are dumb and uneducated while liberals are smart and educated. I spent a lifetime working in the scientific community as an engineer and my experience is just the opposite.
saltspringson says:
July 18, 2014 at 6:38 am
I agree with Logoswrench…MSM is likely the driver, and I would bet there is a direct correlation between the number of articles, and slant of those articles, on a given weather event to the number of Google searches.
===
Ah the old, uncontrolled variable problem.
so I guess more of those uneducated and republican voters are dumb enough to watch TV, and that accounts for the peak searches following weather events that MSM pump as being due to climate change.
From the first article, Lang is quoted:
“When local weather conditions are consistent with the predictions of climate change – above average heat, drought or warmer winters, for instance – then people go online and type in ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ to learn more,” said Corey Lang, URI assistant professor of environmental economics. “It’s a confirmation that people are connecting weather anomalies to climate change.”
And:
From the second:
“And the research suggests that different types of people experience weather differently or have different perceptions about ,what type of weather defines climate change, ” concludes Lang.
What do those statements say?
It’s alright to confuse climate and weather if it supports the “consensus” claims about anomalous weather born of human caused climate change? That’s what it seems to me.
Lang implies that a month’s average temperature is somehow more intelligently attributed to climate, whereas a record high spike is not. Neither one is climate, DUH!
Copy of the journal article available at:
http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=enre_facpubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fas_ylo%3D2014%26q%3DDo%2BWeather%2BFluctuations%2BCause%2BPeople%2Bto%2BSeek%2BInformation%2B%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C29#search=%22Do%20Weather%20Fluctuations%20Cause%20People%20Seek%20Information%22
I marvel at the use of the term “climate science denier” rather than “climate change denier”.
I have to question how Lang’s demographic breakdown squares with recent findings by a Yale professor that Tea Party supporters are more scientifically literate than non-tea party population?
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/87474-yale-professors-surprising-discovery-tea-party-supporters-scientifically-literate/
‘When Lang compared … data in regions … with differing political views and education levels, his results suggest that some groups may see climate change differently. For example, Democratic leaning regions and those with higher education levels were more likely to seek information about climate change when average summer temperatures were above normal, whereas those in Republican and less educated areas sought climate change information when they experienced extreme heat.’
May I inform you, Dear Cory, that the hypothesis of AGW stipulates that the greatest impact occurs in the coldest and driest air masses, and during wintertime, not during summertime, so let’s blow off your self serving and insulting hypothesis that “those with higher education levels were more likely to seek information about climate change when average summer temperatures were above normal,…”
While I’m writing about your self serving hypothesis, Dear Cory, might I recommend that before you entertain yourself too much with that hypothesis that you spend just a wee amount of time delving into the history of the republic in which you live. The Founders of this country had no intention of instituting a two party system. They thought it would lead to the “mischiefs of faction.” It was the feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton that created it. Might I also inform you that Jefferson considered himself a man of science: “Nature intended me for the tranquil pursuits of science by rendering them my supreme delight.” And, might I also inform you that Alexander Hamilton was essentially a man of banking, was Treasury Secretary under Washington, and was responsible for the creation of Wall Street in New York. And, while the Democrat and Republican parties did not exist in name at that time, could that history possibly be the reason the Democrats have come to be associated as the party of science and the intelligentsia (whether it’s fully true or not), and the Republicans as the party of business and banking (again, whether it’s fully true or not)?
And, before you act too prideful Mr. Cory, might I remind you that Jefferson was a slave owner and Hamilton was an abolitionist.
MSM = main stream media?
I don’t think it’s MSM driving the results. The reason being is I include month-by-year fixed effects in the model, which controls for national trends in searches and weather. So seemingly if a national news outlet runs a story about a heat wave and people all over the country seek info about global warming, then that event/behavior will not enter the results. Local media, however, could be part of the mechanism.
The pretense of scholarliness and objectivity is strong with this one.
The connection between Democrats and the knee-jerk, irrational Belief that man is somehow responsible for climate change, by which they now mean any type of “unusual” weather is well-known. Mass hysteria is an interesting phenomenon. Perhaps Mr. Lang would like to study that instead. If that irrational Belief is connected somehow to those with “higher educations”, then that would tend to be more damning of our institutions of “higher learning” than anything else. Again, an interesting subject for examination.
C. Lang. Your use of the term “denier” marks you as biased and, thus, raises doubt as to your objectivity. You will have to do a lot more explaining than what you have done in your comment to earn a modicum of credibility after using that word.
FYI, there are plenty of educated people who think the science is not settled, and plenty of Democrats, as well, who think the science is not settled. Nobody who has thought about climate for even a few minutes denies that climate changes, and must be changing. What has not been proven scientifically is what, if any, effect man has on climate change.
Certainly, if you have kept up with the IPCC reports, you will note that their enthusiasm for AGW has waned. Their models cannot hindcast accurately.
Their analysis of the feasibility impacting climate change through CO2 reductions is amateurish, at best. Australia kicked out their green government and repealed their leading-edge carbon tax laws after it was pointed out that the CO2 emission mitigation resulting from their carbon tax would be insignificant. The IPCC is not leading with science. They are leading with politics.
I believe it was Bacon who said “Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.” If you substitute the word “consensus” for “books” in his statement, you can see that science is not being served when people speak of the consensus for AGW. There was consensus that the universe orbited the Earth in Galileo’s day. I will grant that consensus forms when the proof is made clear. The IPCC’s proof is laughable. Computer models that cannot hindcast. Extreme weather events that are not unprecedented, even in the years befor CO2 levels stared rising. Ditto for glacial melting.
Where is the proof?
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 6:32 am
Welcome here.
You have been strongly criticized in many of the above comments.
My challenge to you. Respond to each criticism and PROVE you are (1) who you claim you are with the credentials that “we” should respect. That is, “Why should we listen to you?” What qualifies you to make the claims you say you made in your paper? What IS your exact response to each criticism of your techniques and methods and research protocols and exact statistical and search process? I don’t make google searches about “climate change” … WUWT HAS better resources already listed. “I” don’t search for nonsense written by paid propagandist employed by the climate change industry – I check the Antarctic sea ice extents each day. I check the energy reflected by this year’s record HIGH Antarctic sea ice extents each day using my own spreadsheet corrected for the actual sea ice extents and today’s actual TOA radiation level. I don’t look up TV shows on extreme weather – I write responses to false claims about the climate based on the actual temperature patterns and ocean currents.
Don’t be shy! “We can handle it.” Some of us are actually not “uneducated republicans” after all …
We’uns here are just a bunch of them there “educated republicans” with advanced degrees in and many classes in math and physics past just the basic stuff: numerical analysis, Bessel functions and linear algebra and transforms, chemistry, physics, particle physics, engineering (structural steel, machining, welding and casting, foundations, stress/strain/metalurgy, crystal growth and heat treatment, stress, strain, dynamics, statics, nucleat fusion, nuclear fission operations and reactor analysis, saturated/superheated/subcooled fluid flow and gas-fluid heat exchange, computational hydrodynamics, computation nuclear dynamics, finite element analysis, statistics, programming, radiative and convective heat transfer, thermal fission and high-speed particle radiation, weather and climate, ocean circulation and ocean chemistry, ice physics, orbital physics, electrical engineering and thermodynamics, geology, geochemistry, ocean sound wave propagation, and a few others. And that’s just me. 8<) Almost EVERY reader here is much more qualified than I in his or her own field. And I admire their proven abilities and their conclusions and observations i their fields much more than you are telling us to admire your claimed ability but unsubstantiated performance as an "educated democrat" ….
And, by the way. You are wrong.
C Lang says:July 18, 2014 at 6:32 am
[…]What I can infer is how individuals living in metro areas of differing education levels and differing politics respond to weather changes.
It would be interesting to look at people whose lives are dependent on the weather, and live in it every day, rather than those who only have to deal with what they wear for the day.
1. If you – a self-claimed highly educated democrat – do not know what the term MSM means, you have proved both your bias, your lack of knowledge, and your ignorance of anything outside of your little isolated, insulated cocoon of intellectual ignorance and self-feedback prejudices.
2. By asking the question, you have, however, been courageous enough to admit you do not know a fundamental term used millions of time every day by non-democrat liberal elites. And, by establishing that you at least “did ask the question” you indicate that you might be capable of learning. Maybe.
What about people who aren’t brainwashed by either party and look about climate change when it’s abnormally cold?
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/national.php?prod=RER
Low temperature records broken by the thousands all over the place. 1993 there was an El Niño that faded away before it was official. Winter of 1993-94 was brutal in the eastern half of the nation. This was back when the Pacific Ocean was in warm phase. Now it’s 21 years later and in a cold phase. The big Q is how brutal this winter will be.
How can anyone get so brain washed by political parties? How? Years ago citizens had guts and did not beat around the bush about dumping a greedy, corrupted shyt party and starting another. Now we just act like we have no choice but pick lesser of two evils. There are no good guys anymore, no matter what they tell ya. There never will be until campaign finance reform, etc.
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2012/03/27/the-origins-of-green-liberalism/
What was your “correction” for the fact that EVERY urban area voted democrat since the early 90’s? How many years’ data did you use the red-county/blue county election results?
Don’t claim “you modeled it.” Show us exactly what you modeled and how you calculated it.
I wonder what correlations could be cooked up with extensive urban-based media coverage of earthquake swarms, beached whales, fish kills, and selected glacier melt or Greenland photo journalism/science.
Mr. Lang, I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you call people climate science deniers. What I mean is, since there has yet to be a single climate computer model that predicted the current temperature plateau, continued belief in the efficacy of such models would seem to fit your description. After all, if the climate science available gets it wrong every time, it seems that believing in it regardless is, at best, unscientific. However, from the context of your article, it’s obvious that you are referring to everyone who questions such models as the actual deniers. This seems a glaring contradiction, and I was wondering if you could address it.
You claim to be a “climate economics” “professor” …
If so, I can make the assumption that you know something about the effect of climate on economics, right? (What you know may or may not be right, but I do need to verify that you claim to know something about the effect of climate on economics, he asked sarcastically, that is. Politely, but sarcastically to be sure.)
OK.
Fine.
What is the economic “cost” of the 25,000 people killed each of the last three years in the UK due to deliberately-high energy prices “caused” by YOU by YOUR fear of a potential global warming event in the year 2100?
What is the economic benefit you calculate – and how did you calculate it? – for the BENEFIT of a 2 degree increase in global average temperatures between now and the year 2100? More food, more fuel, more fodder, more feed, more farm land, more feast, more fish, more plankton, more EVERYTHING for the next 86 years. And – since there is no “harm” (no “cost”) of a 0-2 degree increase in global average temperature, there is only profit, right? Come on – Give me your net present value, your interest rate assumption for 86 years, your calculation of each benefit from global warming for 86 years!
Now, what is YOUR calculation for benefits of greater CO2 levels the next 86 years? Of greater energy use for 86 years? Of more fresh water and more sewage pipes and sewage treatment and more transportation and more bridges and more refrigerators to store food, and more food processing plants, and more farms and less manual labor and less disease and less starvation and less wood burning and peat smoke fires and less people using dried manure to cook their food without soap, water, and electricity after having to walk 4 hours each day to get a bucket of dirty water?
That is, after all, WHAT YOU ARE DEMANDING. YOU are the one demanding that people die to prevent your so-called “global warming” ….
Resourceguy says:
July 18, 2014 at 8:11 am
I wonder what correlations could be cooked up with extensive urban-based media coverage of earthquake swarms, beached whales, fish kills, and selected glacier melt or Greenland photo journalism/science.
I think this is a great idea. I would encourage you and others to take a look at Google Trends. It a really fun website. You could try and do your own analysis or even replicate mine.
In response to others, I will not debate the science of climate change. That could go on for weeks and likely lead to no changes. However, I’m happy to try and answer questions about my study. Though it’s difficult to keep track of what has been asked (or claimed) because this appears to be quite an active thread. I think several misconceptions could be cleared up by reading the text of the main article. There you will find all the details about data construction and modeling assumptions. For instance, For political ideology, I used presidential vote returns from the 2008 election. While cities do typically lean Democrat, my data include not just the largest cities, but many more – 205 total. So there are metro areas from across the spectrum.
[The practice of this web site – which has worked well for each of the past 1,300,000 replies that it has been tried – is for the writer (you) to copy and paste at least the person’s name and date-time-group of his/her comment, copy-and-paste the words or sentences being discussed, and surround the quoted words with blockquote html brackets. The writer (you in this case) then adds a correction, agreement, rebuttal, reference, link or correction. .mod]
@C Lang – I am not crazy about your choice of words (but then the stereotype of the scientist with different color socks comes to mind – as being representative of not thinking about other things, so I will give you a pass on thinking before choosing words), But I appreciate your willingness to engage about your own study.
===================================================================
I’d like to see such a “study” that compared search frequency with media hype about a weather event.
It might also be interesting to see who uses “Google” versus other search engines.
Indeed, you can only speculate. However, you could have speculated far differently than you did.
One possibility is that when weather is inconsistent with climate change, climate cultists go online in higher numbers, seeking to assuage their cognitive dissonance by locating the ad hoc “global warming is consistent with everything” or “weather is not climate” rationalizations that are dutifully provided to the MSM by the cult’s High Priests when such events occur.
One possibility is that when weather is inconsistent with climate change, less thoroughly brainwashed climate cultists go online in higher numbers questioning their prior beliefs, and their deprogramming begins.
You did not speculate in those ways. Funny, that.
Kool aid?
Both articles sucked b/c the researcher wanted confirmation of his bias.
No mention of AGW bias in Gore-supported Google searches?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2400089/posts
Documented censorship of AGW content by Google …
We did read the main article. The questions you are dismissing arose specifically because those issues were NOT answered. They were glossed over, “concluded over” by stating the conclusion again and “because I knew it was that way, I studied it that way, and so I found out what I studied was what I studied because I have been told I am an expert in what I studied.”
======================================================================
That line in bold assumes we all fear “climate change”. I don’t. I just want to know whether I need to bring an umbrella or a parka.
The only thing I “fear” about climate change is how it’s being used in the political arena to push disastrous political, social and economic policies.
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 6:32 am
Can you provide a list of the qualifying terms used as search arguments for your study?
I’d think college-educated, agnostic, bicycling riding independents, for example, might be more clever or precise in their use of search arguments beyond “climate change,” and “global warming” when some unusual weather occurs, and more information is sought.
Some might even go to Weather Underground and check the records for that day in that locale, i.e throw a spear rather than casting a wide net, especially when you know where there is a fish in a barrel.
The smart guys know to look at the hard data first.
I note that both the introduction and results of Lang’s study state: “IPCC (2013) predicts…”.
As C. Lang likes to do searches and assume results from them, could the esteemed doctor do a search and tell me how many times any version of the word “predict” occurs in the cited document? (Hint, it doesn’t)
If he can’t accurately understand and convey what the cited documents state, why should anyone put any credence in anything he writes?
“Interestingly though, searches also increased when average winter and spring temperatures dropped – events that are inconsistent with global warming.”
Oops, in the above comment I was a little energized and hadn’t read that part yet. Well it’s summer now, not winter or spring. In July 2009 there were almost 8,000 low temperature records (links below) and the following winter was very cold. Another deep drop to GDP this winter from harsh weather and people may see their wages impacted again. State budgets for winter, are they in good shape?
Summer Polar Vortex vs. 2009 Year Without a Summer? – Jesse Ferrell Weather Blog
http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/summer-polar-vortex-vs-2009-year-without-a-summer/30431014
Why the 2009-2010 winter was so cold
https://sites.google.com/site/whythe2009winterissocold/
Keep in mind Joseph D’Aleo is suggesting another deep freeze is very possible.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
Polar Vortex summer version prelude to brutal winter and potential major energy issues
Where do the “educated” and Democrats live? Couldn’t the research just as easily “suggest” urban vs rural?
This is an example of why the alarmists are losing the public opinion battle. Saying that smart people are alarmists and dumb people are climate science deniers is not going to win you points with the American public.
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 8:30 am
Apologies for not having read your study but for political results I suspect 2008 presidential election is somewhat of an outlier. Willis Eschenbach who posts here frequently and would certainly be counted among the “skeptics” of human CO2 caused climate change, admits to voting for Obama in 2008 and then switching parties in 2012.
The second point I’d like to make is there are quite likely large errors in the attribution of search location to geographic area. The “geolocate” function of Google works based on the registered address of the IP network from which the search was done. My home network shows up at a communications company some 15 miles away. While this discrepancy is minor the same issue is much more problematic with large corporate networks. The company I work for has several registered class B public networks (65,536 individual IP addresses). The main one we use is registered to the address of corporate headquarters in San Francisco, but pieces of it actually exist at a number of internet POPs (Points Of Presence) around the country. However we have hundreds of locations in the US alone, the vast majority of which do not have their own POP so their internet traffic is backhauled over internal private links to the nearest POP and transits onto the public internet from there. In addition many sites have redundant links and can route their traffic through two or more major POPs, shifting dynamically based on link latency.
In other words, a corporate desktop user in the middle of Iowa doing a Google search may transit onto the public internet at our major East Cost POP, our major West Coast POP, or one of several lesser POPs in other locations. And regardless, their IP address will be geolocated to San Francisco.
Geolocate based on IP is good enough to get the country right, but I wouldn’t trust it much beyond that.
Though I’ve taken a strong interest in “climate change” and “global warming” for many years, the only time I googled those terms was to see what websites came up.
Study makes perfect sense. Well educated people and Democrats (but I repeat myself) live
in the urban areas (mostly) while less educated people and Republicans (but I repeat myself)
live in less urbanized and rural areas.
So when the big brained democrats who live in air-conditioned houses learn from their favourite
twitter feed that this month was 0.12345 deg C above the average for the anomaly of the GISS adjusted figure for the average compared to the detrended average adjusted for urban heat creep over the last 60 years, naturally, they whip out their Uphones and check it up on Goospy
and hey presto, yes you can be my friend on facebork!
Whereas, the less edumacated and Rebublican folk, out there in the fields slaving away, makin the bacon, they are actually outside in the uhm, weather, don’t u know, and like Maw always sez
when the temperature spikes, dashburn it boy, It be so hot ahm sweating enuf to drowned a squirrel. So Maws offspring rush off to the the nearest mall and gather round outside the starbucks and ask one off those fine folks with the Uphones to pleeeze sir can u lookit for us if the weather bin different from the climate today? shucks yall.
What is the control for “how much government money” (paycheck, direct welfare, government-subsidy (student loan, government laboratory, government salary itself (union teacher, union fireman, union bureaucrat, union welfare receiver, student himself) is received vs “how much do I believe the government is using global warming to destroy life” attitude?
What is the control for “taxes paid” vs “government money received” vs attitude towards government theft of goods and services by CAGW propaganda from the government labs?
(See, we are a tough crowd. Why are you silent?)
@ C Lang
Professionally, I’m more into causation than correlation. I might look at correlation in a naive context at the beginning of a model building exercise or perhaps later in a re-evaluation of a model but not as the main modeling endeavor. Naive correlation statements often lead to grandiose claims and predictions without forecast accountability. The world is already full of frivolous forecasts and the whole AGW climate science and policy action debate centers on science and fact accountability, not consensus fabrication, or bullying, or policy momentum, or voter block management.
” It could, however, also mean that deniers, who experience an unusually cool winter, go online to confirm their skeptical views that the world is not really growing warmer”
OR, it could mean that the AGW alarmists have gone online looking for the missing heat!
papiertigre says: July 17, 2014 at 11:31 pm
assistant professor of environmental economics
My question is if this is the study of or how to “shake a money tree?”
Oscar Bajner says:
July 18, 2014 at 9:39 am
My nomination for best comment of all time.
In general, I believe most Democrats and Republicans are both pretty much average Americans with generally equal educational levels and IQ’s, similar financial situations, and generally equivalent lifestyles.
In this discussion, however, the primary reason the rank and file Democrat believes in CAGW by CO2 is because many of their fearless leaders (Gore, Kerry, Obama, Pelosi, etc. (alphabetical order)) do – if they say it, it must be true.
On the other hand, the primary reason the rank and file Republican does not believe in CAGW by CO2 is because many of the Democrats fearless leaders (Gore, Kerry, Obama, Pelosi, etc.(alphabetical order)) do,
However, there are probably more Republicans who have actually done some level of research and discovered that their view more accurately reflects that of the science than Democrats.
Generally that is probably a most likely possible correct assessment.
I’m at work, have many things to do.
I think 2008 would not be an outlier. There tends to be a lot of stasis in county vote shares, especially in the last 5 elections.
In terms of mis-attribution of location, this is interesting. I’m unaware of the technical details. I suspect Google is, but maybe not. If Google was getting people’s locations wrong, this would attenuate any statistical estimates (push them towards zero). Meaning the estimates I get may be smaller than they actually are.
Despite an earlier post, I think there’s still a misconception about how I’m looking at political ideology and educational attainment. They are totally separate in the model.
Also, I don’t view the results for one political or educational group as better or worse. There is no right answer about when someone should or shouldn’t seek information about climate change. I think it’s just interesting that there appears to be a difference among these groups. No judgement.
“above average heat, drought or warmer winters, for instance”
In order to have an average temperature you will inevitably and cycles where the temperature runs below the average and the opposite where temperature runs above average.
I installed a Vantage Pro II weather station on my property 5 years ago. I have tracked the averages since then. Surprise, Surprise my averages are consistent with the long term average. It doesn’t do to get you panties in a bunch over a few hot or cool days.
You’re right, they don’t use “predict” (probably a PR reason). They do use “project” and “projections”. Good enough?
Rules for Marginal Researchers
1) find a large data set that is free to access
2) don’t ask too many questions to yourself or to others about the data quality or distortions that might be in the data set
3) mine the data set for every slanted model question that you can think of and submit papers
4) list the paper presentations or publications on a vitae and suppress your conscience each time
5) test your personality type by flaunting your constructed vitae and network with like-minded data miners to become a peer reviewer and get promotions
6) influence policy as best you can to provide feedback to your bias in step 3
Someone give me some examples of where the climate has changed.
C Lang said:
” Interestingly though, searches also increased when average winter and spring temperatures dropped – events that are inconsistent with global warming. Lang believes this could mean that people who observe unusual extreme weather conditions are genuinely interested in learning more about climate change. It could, however, also mean that deniers, who experience an unusually cool winter, go online to confirm their skeptical views that the world is not really growing warmer.”
As an unusually cold winter is inconsistent with global warming, the rational response would be to be sceptical of global warming, especially as US land temperatures have been falling. According to your categorisations, it sounds like your Republicans are more concerned about natural and real climate change, and your Democrats are concerned about the modeled climate changes, in spite of what is really occurring.
Mr Lang
What is a climate Denier?
No one here Denies that there is a such thing as Climate or Climate Change. We understand there is change and always has been it is the people who believe AGW that think there was one stagnate Climate that has now all of the sudden gone crazy and that there is something wrong because there is change.
There are many sides to this issue and a lot of legitimate debate on all sides, but you and many others assign a labels to only one side of the discussion, how can anyone take you seriously when you do that.
Spend sometime here and read, you will learn a lot and maybe even understand that there is much legitimate debate and if anything the science is on the side of the people who question AGW.
Present data and trends and look at them BEFORE you come to your conclusions. No one really knows what is going on but through investigation and debate we certainly have started to realizes what isn’t going and that is what we have been told is settled science.
I don’t believe I used that phrase. If so, I mis-spoke. I would categorize a climate science denier as someone who dis-regards the peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change.
I agree wholeheartedly with looking at data. I have my students look at 100 years of raw temperature records for over 100 countries. They make graphs and analyze trends. We also look at tide gauge records and sea ice extent.
What is the time span of data you look at?
I’m so uneducated (right wing) I don’t use Google. I have favorite weather sites bookmarked.
Mr. Lang assumes Republicans and the uneducated are “deniers”. In terms of logic the study is a tautology.
“Oscar Bajner says:
July 18, 2014 at 9:39 am”
Hehehe.
“Also, I don’t view the results for one political or educational group as better or worse. There is no right answer about when someone should or shouldn’t seek information about climate change. I think it’s just interesting that there appears to be a difference among these groups. No judgement.”
Do you think people are that stupid?
Of course there is implied judgment.
You made the connection that works for your Ideological Narrative.
For example you could have put Democrats and Rich instead of Educated but that would destroy the message that is intended to be conveyed.
Because the Rich is only to be used as a shaming word with Republicans when they are a threat and right now the threat are not Wallstreet Republicans but middle of the road Teaparties.
When the threat are middle class Republicans the shaming word is less educated= read uneducated.
When the threat are educated Republicans the shaming word is rich.
Of course we do not read or hear anything about Uneducated Democrats,in that case your operative word would be Disadvantaged – with emphasis of course in immigration status and ethnic stock – Uneducated or Democrats would never appear..
An utilitarian victimization, to project the guild and shaming to the others.
Hello Mr Lang,
I respectfully repeat the request of several other commenters and ask you to define what you mean by “climate science deniers”? As it is used in the quoted lines above it is both derogatory and implies a strong bias. I appreciate the fact that you have chosen to weigh in here on WUWT, thank you for your participation. (not that I speak for anyone but myself on this)
Thanks,
Joe
Lang wrote; “However, the results suggest that the effects align for metros with a large percentage of college graduates and a large percentage of Democrats.”
Mr. Lang: What are the percentages of college graduates and Democrats in metro Detroit?
College graduates is too broad a category. It could mean “Ethnic Studies”, or “Community Organizer”. I personally know a lawyer who is a rabid “believer”, but of course his science education doesn’t go beyond the MSM.
Too bad you can’t break out “education” into categories such as the hard sciences.
.
Hi Joe, I respectfully point you to a post I made a few minutes ago:
.
I agree it would be really nice to be able to have this breakdown. But I am constrained to use averages. Further, because of the aggregate nature of the google data, we can’t say what the characteristics are of the people doing the searching, just the characteristics of the metro in which they live.
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 11:24 am
“You’re right, they don’t use “predict” (probably a PR reason). They do use “project” and “projections”. Good enough?”
You’re kidding, right? You can’t be bothered to understand the semantics of the IPCC report and chalk up your error to a PR reason on their part? So the IPCC report is just a PR document?
Close enough for government work.
Again, if you can’t accurately understand and convey what the cited documents state, why should anyone put any credence in anything you write?
I’m really confused about why you think there is implied judgement. I chose a model that allowed for heterogeneity in impacts across the ideological spectrum and educational spectrum. The results suggested in fact there is heterogeneity. But there is no value judgement placed on that heterogeneity. The results do not denigrate any group.
C Lang says
“I would categorize a climate science denier as someone who dis-regards the peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change.”
Who disregards, we disagree there is a huge difference.
Debating the conclusions is not denial its science, peer review does establish something as fact it establishes something as worth of debate and investigation. AGW is a theory that is being put forth to explain observations in nature. Almost no one here dismisses anything out of hand they investigate the data and the conclusions and challenge the results and the evidence is more and more on the this side of the debate anyway. AGW may prove out in the end but the models that the theory is based around and the conclusion derived there from clearly are at odds with observed fact.
I will and do listen to anything that AGW supporters say but more and more it is becoming dogma and not science and unfortunately the bias is all too obvious and this brings into question the motives of the these people and why they fear to be questioned and debated.
If you want to use labels on the subject choose balanced ones like Supporters of the theory and Non-supporters of the theory.
What do you see as the difference between “predict” and “project”?
I’m off to spend time with my kids. Enjoy your weekend everyone! It’s been real.
Mr Lang
i will add that i appreciate that you have taken the time present here and stand up to the fire i wish more people would be willing to do that. i also think that perhaps if you would take more time and pay attention you would see that there is true debate and that perhaps maybe that AGW is not so settled and that these people are not deniers they just see different conclusions in the data.
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:01 pm
” I have my students look at 100 years of raw temperature records for over 100 countries. They make graphs and analyze trends. We also look at tide gauge records and sea ice extent.
What is the time span of data you look at?”
__________________
Why just 100 years? Do your students know that 9,100 of the past 10,000 yrs have been warmer than the past century? Have your students determined that the rate of sea level rise has remained unchanged since at least, 1971, or that sea level has been higher several times in recorded human history? Have they figured out that there has been no “global warming” for well over a decade?
Lang wrote: “There are a lot of open questions about what these results mean,” he said. “What are people doing with this information? Are they purchasing energy efficient appliances? Are they taking measures to improve their situation in the face of the changing climate? Self-motivated information seeking is a good first step, but what do they do next?”
I plan my day for the expected weather. If I searched for people trying to sail the NW passage I just laugh.
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm
Psychics and Astrologers make “predictions”; mathematicians and psychologists make “projections”; mechanical engineers make “projectiles”.
In common usage the two words are frequently interchanged. The insistence on a distinction comes from the IPCC and supporters when confronted with the fact their predicted temperature increases have not been observed; the response the model outputs were “projections”, not “predictions”. The distinction being that false predictions discredit a theory but false projections do not.
Clear now?
substitute above “… the response was that the model outputs …”
Used in a sentence:
WordPress projects they will make available a preview feature for comments, but I predict it will not happen.
So far, my record beats Jean Dixon’s.
Mr Lang says
“They make graphs and analyze trends.”
OK that’s great and so does almost everyone here and much more and they come to different conclusions.
My 4th grader does as well but that doesn’t mean he always comes to the right conclusion it also doesn’t mean that his results can’t be questioned even after his teacher “peer review?” affirms his results.
I have and always will question what I am told is true even when others tell me i am not educated enough or smart enough or what ever enough to. Shockingly I am sometimes even come to the same conclusions as others have and then find someone else who looks at it differently and proves me wrong. I don’t get upset I rejoice. Do you think Einstein was any less correct to question Newtons conclusions even though Newton was pier reviewed and excepted?
Science is debate.
Change is the nature of things.
so election results from places that had 120% and more of registered voters voting…seems to me this could skew the baseline data.
C Lang says: (July 18, 2014 at 6:32 am) “One thing I wanted to clear up is the notion that I’m equating political ideology and education levels.”
That is exactly the message and it is likely that feature that ensures publication, a reflection of the Sokal Affair.
I have a doubt that very many people get beyond that part. The Democrats feel smart and vindicated, the Republicans feel once again deprecated.
I notice the careful word choice “educated” rather than “intelligent”. Education is nearly synonymous with “indoctrinated” and the more of it you have, the more indoctrinated you must become especially with professorships being almost exclusively Democrat particularly in New England (Ivy League) and publicly funded state colleges (see links below).
I am trying to imagine a scenario where this paper actually means anything. I know from my own experience that Washington DC has a huge population of uneducated Democrats whereas some western states probably have a smaller population of uneducated Republicans — just how many graduate degrees does a rancher need? But he WILL check the weather *especially* if it is extreme because what threatens his animals threaten HIM.
New England has many educated Democrats.
Texas has many educated Republicans.
The weather tends not to be extreme in coastal areas, moderated by nearby oceans.
The weather is most extreme in the midwest largely dominated by Republican leaning farmers and ranchers. They don’t care about climate change per se, but they DO care about long range forecasting (ie, climate forecasting).
Links pertaining to college/education political bias:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/24/survey-finds-professors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left#sthash.38KSh90t.dpbs
” A 2007 report by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons found that 80 percent of psychology professors at elite and non-elite universities are Democrats. Other studies reveal that 5 percent to 7 percent of faculty openly identify as Republicans.”
“The professor, whose new book “The Righteous Mind” examines the moral roots of our political positions, asked the nearly 1,000 academics and students in the room to raise their hands if they were liberals. Nearly 80 percent of the hands went up. When he asked whether there were any conservatives in the house, just three hands — 0.3 percent — went up.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased
My comment: Part of this problem is that “conservative” is not well defined, but “liberal” has a more clear meaning particularly in the college context. It is nearly synonymous with “I am a member of this herd” to be liberal, but to be conservative is to say “I don’t belong here.”
The reality is likely not that divided. If you saw 80 percent of the hands suddenly go up while you are dozing off you’d raise your hand too.
dmacleo, do you have an example of such a place?
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm
“Taphonomic says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:45 pm
You’re kidding, right? You can’t be bothered to understand the semantics of the IPCC report and chalk up your error to a PR reason on their part? So the IPCC report is just a PR document?
What do you see as the difference between “predict” and “project”?”
Perhaps you should review the IPCC’s definitions to see exactly what they describe as the difference. After all, you are citing them not me. Why did you choose to change the wording if you don’t understand the difference? This doesn’t say much for your scholarship or for the peer review of the journal if they didn’t catch this error.
You seem to be dodging several questions. Do you really think the IPCC report is just a PR document? If you can’t accurately understand and convey what the cited documents state, why should anyone put any credence in anything you write?
C Lang writes on his paper, page 3
“The results could suggest that people link weather anomalies of any kind with climate change or perhaps the engagement of deniers, who experience an unusually cool winter and go online to confirm their skeptical views.”
Deniers? Why would a “denier” go online?
It is the curious and the skeptical that may be moved to research a thing.
Speaking of “may be”, is there anything WEAKER than to write “could suggest…”
Yeah, it could suggest that, but then again, maybe it doesn’t, but if it does, it is still a suggestion. I could always ASK some people but, no, Google is a good enough proxy for reality.
So do I go online after a major weather event? Indeed I do — I wish to be entertained by people blaming everything (such as pongos in Siberia) on global warming. I wish to see what the warmists are saying about frozen Lake Michigan or the relentless growth of ice in Antarctica sticking it to Australian eco-tourists.
A sudden burst of “weather” does not cause me to be interested in climate change.
C. Lang’s broad-brush use of the term “climate science denier” strongly suggests a lack of correlation between “educated” and “intelligent.”
Bill 2 says:
July 18, 2014 at 2:19 pm
dmacleo, do you have an example of such a place?
***********************************************
had the 2012 results showing many precincts in Mass, Pennsylvania, few other places showing 120% and more, cannot seem to find the pdf file now though.
2008 had similar findings although not as bad.
IIRC all happened in precincts in cities and no rural areas.
however the info is out there in many places of you search, granted would be mostly conservative political type sites.
heres one from boston
will keep looking for the larger combined one.
shoot link didn’t post
http://www.theconservativevoices.com/files/file/152-boston-ward-reports-unofficial/
I wondered if just the media splash pages were acutely political or if it really is in the paper itself. Yes, it is in the paper, page 5, and repeated in this form throughout the paper:
“Republican and less educated areas increase search activity in response to changes in extreme temperatures consistent with climate change, whereas more Democratic and well educated areas increase search activity in response to changes in average temperatures consistent with climate change.”
The association of Republican to less educated areas is of the form:
A = C
B = C
Therefore A = B where “A” is Republican, “B” is less educated areas, and “C” is increased search activity during extreme temperature consistent with climate change.
Mr. Lang could at least *pretend* to be unbiased. It gets better:
“The first contribution of this paper is to add to the strong literature that seeks to understand
the effect of local weather on beliefs that temperature is changing, that climate change is real, or that a given policy is justified”
There’s the agenda.
“One concern about prior findings is that survey respondents may posture answers that reflect an agenda rather than their true beliefs. ”
Yeah, I see that in scientific papers, too!
“find that those who do not believe in global warming or are conservative are significantly less likely to accurately report unusually warm weather. ”
Conservatives don’t report ANYTHING. You mind your business and I mind mine.
“I show that cities at all points in the spectrum”
Really? This I gotta see — a Libertarian city? Can there be such a thing?
“Population comes from the 2010 Decennial Census, and these data are used to weight media markets in the regression analysis.”
Hmm, I am starting to understand this. I think it belongs in the Journal of Irreproducible Results. It seems to be an assumption that Google searching is uniformly distributed throughout a population, if the population is Democrat, so must be the searchers.
Anyway, let’s check on the representative samples of “conservative” cities.
“Salt Lake City, UT and Knoxville, TN have few Democratic voters (34.3% and 32.4%, respectively) ”
Salt Lake City is predominantly Democrat. Its main newspaper (http://www.sltrib.com) is Democrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Becker_%28mayor%29 (Democrat)
Predecessor: Rocky Anderson, also a Democrat.
“In November 2009, Becker signed into law non-discrimination ordinances that forbid landlords and employers to deny housing or jobs due to sexual orientation or gender identity. In December 2013, Becker officiated over some of the first same-sex marriages performed in the state of Utah”
Try harder to find a city that is not Democrat. But you might be right that SLC and Knoxville are not as “blue” as San Francisco.
“This could indicate that different types of people experience weather differently or have different perceptions about what type of weather defines climate change.”
That should go in the Journal of Obvious Statements.
dmacleo, the Boston case was explained here. Sorry, no conspiracy…
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/35319922188/voter-fraud-boston-reports-129-voter-turnout-79-for
Page 15: “showed that exposure to climate change information can lead to an increase in voluntary carbon mitigation”
It can. Might not, but it can. You just never know! I’m guessing! If I knew I wouldn’t say “can”.
highflight56433 on July 18, 2014 at 11:28 am
“Someone give me some examples of where the climate has changed.”
I think they find whale bones in the Sahara desert, so that would imply to me that the Saharan climate was slightly different before us humans showed up and wrecked everything.
But don’t take my word for it, I’m just a dumb country hick (from the country and currently in the country!) with conservative political views…and a PhD in Physical Chemistry/ Quantum Mechanics from an Ivy League school. But shucks darn I can read and here’s the link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0414_050414_egyptwhale.html
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm
What do you see as the difference between “predict” and “project”?
Normal people don’t see much of a difference. IPCC however, does. They are very careful not to use word “prediction”, because if they “predict” something and it doesn’t happen, their theory is falsified. Projections don’t have that danger – they can be 100% wrong with no effect on underlaying theory.
If you think I’m kidding, you’d be wrong. This is not my definition – it’s IPCC’s. This is how they answer to their critics when confronted with the fact that none of their “projected/predicted” disasters have happened yet.
I suggest you to actually look into all weasel word climate science is using. Maybe, once you understand the actual state of “climate science” and how offensive “denier” is to us you’d stop using “climate science denier” in your papers.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, though.
We libertarians are part of the largest bloc of voters in the US. “No Party Affiliation”.
The “Libertarian Party” is highly anarchist. So most libertarians are NPA
Bill 2 says:
July 18, 2014 at 3:23 pm
dmacleo, the Boston case was explained here. Sorry, no conspiracy…
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/35319922188/voter-fraud-boston-reports-129-voter-turnout-79-for
I really don’t see much of an explanation here. Only an unproven theory. Besides, I might be wrong but I don’t remember 2 pages in my ballot.
I wonder if Corey knows that since he was about 16 years old the world has experienced not just no accelerated warming but no warming at all?
Udar,
I see no substantial difference between “projection” and “prediction”. When you project something in the future, you are predicting, no?
The UN/IPCC only makes that ‘distinction without a difference’ to give themselves some wiggle room.
Also, Bill, thanks for linking Poor Richard’s News. It is one of the better news aggregators.
dbstealey says:
July 18, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Udar,
I see no substantial difference between “projection” and “prediction”. When you project something in the future, you are predicting, no?
No argument from me. I don’t see a difference.
IPCC, however, does. To them, the difference is important. And so it should be to anyone who uses their reports, whether they agree or disagree.
Which peer-reviewed scientific literature would it be that a climate science denier ‘dis-regards’, exactly?
The peer-reviewed scientific literature that demonstrates that there has been no rise in GAST for nearly two decades?
Or the peer-reviewed scientific literature that predicted, (while weasley calling it “projected”) a 0.4C rise in GAST over the same period?
The peer-reviewed scientific literature that demonstrates that now is the time of the largest extent of Antarctic sea ice on record, and overall average sea ice globally?
Or the peer-reviewed scientific literature that predicted spiraling declines in sea ice in both hemispheres?
The peer-reviewed scientific literature that describes the Medieval Climate Optimum?
Or, the peer-reviewed scientific literature that denies the Medieval Climate Optimum?
A Climate Cultist necessarily dis-regards peer-reviewed scientific literature in order to arrive at the false assertion that there exists the peer-reviewed scientific literature by which he may define his derogatory “climate science denier” epithet.
I appreciate the tips on improving commenting on my blog. I always try to pose a question at the end of an article to spur discussion as well.
thanks.
So democrats are smart and republicans are dumb. Thats what the writer was really trying to say as the rest of the story made zero sense. Got it.
Freaking idiot
C Lang
“I would categorize a climate science denier as someone who dis-regards the peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change.”
Ah… so Einstein was a Physics denier. That would been very helpful.
And funny how suddenly being judgmental started to be okay.
But i see that you follow Lysenkism.
=================================================================
I don’t know what raw data you have your students look at or how many years you’ve been doing it but may I suggest you look at the oldest set you have and compare it to the most recent set.
You may find the past numbers have been changed.
I know the record highs and lows for my area have been changed.
You can also use TheWayBackMachine (http://archive.org/web/web.php) to check.
Go to the website for whatever lists you want to check then copy/paste that site into the main search box. If the site has been archived, you can see how the past numbers have been changed.
That might be a good exercise for your students. “How many data sets have been changed by Man.”
US citizens who experienced extreme weather events in 1936 did not have the internet to confirm their confirmation bias. In fact they just called it bad whether back in the day. Now see if you can spot the difference – it concerns George Monbiot of the Warmist Guardian newspaper in the UK.
EXHIBIT 1.
EXHIBIT 2.
Sometimes I don’t know weather to laugh or cry.
Correction
…bad whether back in the day….
…bad weather back in the day….
Very interesting comments section. I found it telling what the author of the paper in question decided to acknowledge.
In my experience most DO make up their minds on this issue based on ideology. That said, the vast bulk Ive ever encountered who even understood the claims, and actually followed the published work were skeptical of atleast the C in cagw. The case for the C in cage is horribly weak.
David L. says:
July 18, 2014 at 3:57 pm
“I think they find whale bones in the Sahara desert, so that would imply to me that the Saharan climate was slightly different before us humans showed up and wrecked everything.”
“But don’t take my word for it, I’m just a dumb country hick (from the country and currently in the country!) with conservative political views…and a PhD in Physical Chemistry/ Quantum Mechanics from an Ivy League school. But shucks darn I can read and here’s the link:”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0414_050414_egyptwhale.html
Gee Whiz Mr. David L. that was 70 million years ago. I guess you did not read that part. Just to be clear, I am looking for someone who can provide me with some climate change of the CAGW variety…the part claimed by econazis that humans have been destroying. Not one example. Yet. … waiting.
Sorry you are feeling so guilty over having showed up and wrecked every thing. There may be a psychiatrist or clergy here at this site to lend you assistance. 🙂 LMAO
I want to know what kind of degrees the supposedly “more educated” have. Maybe we are talking about a lot of liberal arts, communications, english, and art degrees. Educated as measured here might not have anything to do with intelligent. I read this as “democrats, a segment of the population with a high percentage of useless and non technical degrees, are not capable of evaluating climate studies on their own. Thus they fall into the AGW camp and use google accordingly.”
OK, here is George Monbiot of the Guardian again, but with an added quote. See how he struggles over the years with winter and global warming. What a dueling chameleon.
So Republicans, ya know, from the “dumb” part of the country, are still looking for that internet thingy to look up the “wuyther” when it’s raining (because there dumb, it says so in this here report). While sophisticated Democrats, with their $12.00 brewed tea and pinky finger in the air, reach for their mobile devices and correctly determine the very minute “temperature’ changes (they’re sooo smart Lovey)….gag, what a bunch of racist bunk……..