Harris Poll: Europeans Tend to Care More Strongly about Climate Change than Americans

Spaniards use to call us, southamericans, “sudacas” (those stupids and poor southerners), but my guess is that when the americas were discovered and europeans began to emigrate here, the strongest individuals of their race came here, so the nowadays europeans are the descendants of those ,the feebler among them, who did not dare to make the trip.

Could it possibly be that Americans are better informed than Europeans?
We do read such things as, Trail Ridge Road, the highway through Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park, had its seasonal closure on October 3 @ 9:27 p.m., nearly 3 weeks earlier than the average closing date of October 23.
http://archive.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=125506
This is not, directly, an Al Gore snowy event, but Senators Udall and McCain did tour the park in August “…to look for signs of global climate change.”
Not all Americans are well informed.

Europe, after failing to catch USA until 2010 as a technology leader (it was official plan of EU in typical 5-years Soviet planning way) hopes that a carbon burden would slow US development more than it will slow EU development. USA is vivid embarrassment for all European elites, because despite socialist theories, it was free market and personal responsibility, which made US so rich.
It is similar when lazy scum votes for socialists promising tax increase for rich – they hope they will somehow parasite on those money, or at least they will do some harm to the rich because of pure jealousy.

Slightly OT…
And in the UK, the home of extreme climate politics and behavioural modification par-excellance, the Act on Co2 government propoganda machinery has launched another attack to labotomize the public perception:
http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/content/en/embeds/flash/4-degrees-large-map-final
…an interactive advertisement for the 12c rise in temperatures (yes 12c!!!) to be seen on the US Eastern seaboard by 2060. And apparently the “data” has been peer reviewed:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLM467305
Nice flash anim tho’.

Results reflect the fact that there is more political and media brainwashing about AGW in Europe.
There generally is more control of the media by the State.
Also, because of the language barrier, many Europeans don’t have access to dissenting opinions on the web. For example, there are only a handful of french-language AGW-skeptical web sites.

The reason is simple enough: we don’t have an effective opposition. Both the left and the right agree with the consensus (the US left is like our right, by the way!). If you add to that the fundamentally undemocratic EU layer on top of national governments, they are all free to ramp up the propaganda as they please, as our own government here in the UK has been doing with a recent idiotic advertising campaign.

When fed fake data about student polls people who’d been vocally ‘pro’ wound their necks in, according to the Ohio paper.
Would enough adverse poll data shut us up ?

I feel sorry for the Europeans… they’re being taxed to death and now they want more taxes heaped on them… of course if they can some how wrangle a deal to have the USA pay for global warming instead of the Europeans, they will approve.

In the Netherlands we being Brainwashed by the news media every day.

In Europe, between 60% (in Britain) and 89% (in Italy) believe that, when governments meet in Copenhagen, “signing a new treaty . . . on climate change” should be one of the top priorities. In the United States, a lower 53% feel this way.
In the U.S. only 14% thought it should the top priority, whereas 39% thought it should be one of the top. I think that is a poorly constructed question. The only reason for holding the %4#* conference is to sign a treaty, and when 86% of the people (US) don’t think signing is the #1 priority, that implies to me it isn’t a priority at all.

“Just the facts” (#1 commenter): the quote you copied,
“The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming because of pollution is at its lowest point in three years.”
is interesting by itself because it is designed to create the impression that the steady decrease has bottomed out. Surely, no statements about the temperatures are being formulated to lead the readers believe that the temperatures have already peaked.
Well, I think that the decrease is pretty much guaranteed to continue for a few years, and when it gets below 20% in the U.S., the official AGW orthodoxy will became unsustainable at the level of politicians and research grants.

@adolpho. Your comment about the European genes in South America parallel a line I frequently used while debating in the community centers (pubs) of East Anglia, to wit: “Everyone here with any get up and go got up and went two centuries ago, which means you are the produce of a depleted gene pool.”
I strongly advise that you wear running shoes and be keenly aware of the location of the nearest exit before uttering this remark.

@ Range (09:07:44) :
I am from the Netherlands, Europe, and I think you’re right. I have got the same impression. I think the European written, traditional press generally wants to be “correct”, and in the meantime forgets investigation journalism.
A lot of people over here do regard the written, traditional press as an old fashioned institute, called “dead tree” news.
The general opinion is that in the next decade very few “dead tree” newspapers shall survive, which means that people will gather their information from the internet. This is going to be a very fascinating time!

The last few elections we had a choice between a Democrat who accepted AGW as fact and a Republican who accepted AGW as a fact. No wonder people’s views on AGW are not reflected in elections. Reagan was the only one who simply mocked the very idea of AGW with a very ahead of his time joke that cow farts were more influential than industry.
That said, it could be that the election of fanatics is the one thing that will save the USA, but not Europe, from the passage of any real legislation at all. Draconian measures are more likely to fail than a series of half measures put in place by wimpy conservatives. The only thing that has allowed the election of a fanatic is the Republican slide away from conservatism.
Sarah Palin qualifies as a conservative. One problem though: her understanding of science is so poor that she made fun of medical research based on the most important organism of all time, the fruit fly!

OT: RealClimate Dr Michael Mann is sinking to new lows by advertising the racist, delationist garbage of Hoggan and Desmogblog! And what is so funny is that in true team spirit, he choses Bob Gelbspan’s comment about the Hoggan book to confirm his own review… No doubt a fixture of Desmogblog like Gelbspan will offer an independant, unbiased account… just like team reviewers of Mikey’s papers… LOL

“Lex (09:27:14) :
The general opinion is that in the next decade very few “dead tree” newspapers shall survive, which means that people will gather their information from the internet. This is going to be a very fascinating time!”
Could the death nell of traditional news media be a partial reason for such a massive push to get government control of everyones lives? Once the MSM disappears how will governments manage to create orchestrated stories of doom and gloom and of the necessity of controlling everything?

I don’t think much of these polls. Phone a random stranger and they will answer any question without more than 5 seconds thought. People who vote have to care enough about an issue to be registered and actually cast a ballot. That is a completely different set of people, in both Europe and the USA, and they count. These folks who were polled don’t.

It is possible that Americans pay more attention to weather and climate than Europeans, and so are less likely to believe exaggeration. The Weather Bureau dates back to colonial times, iirc. It’s hard to imagine the weather channel having started in europe – it’s just not such a big deal there.
Perhaps the numbers in some of the other questions are skewed because the questions ask about change relative to current policies. Many Europeans are already spending much more than the U.S. on climate change, for instance, so asking people there and here if their government should spend more is comparing apples to oranges.
On the subject of foreign aid, here in the U.S. we still have a strong sense of “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute”. Third world climate extortion is a non-starter here.

I have a slightly different view than Pielke’s interpretation of this Pew polling data, but I certainly appreciate his tabulation of the results, including changes since 2006.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/public-opinion-realities.html
Independents swing national elections, and the Obama administration ought to pay attention. Independents showed greater declines in the belief of human caused global warming since 2006 than either Republicans or Democrats.
Independents dropped 21% (from 54% to 33%)
Republicans dropped 13% (31% to 18%)
Democrats dropped 7% (57% to 50%)
Only one-third of Independents now believe in human-caused global warming, and that belief declined even for Democrats.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys.

So there’s your demographic! Grauniad & Times group readers.
DaveE.

Jack Hughes (08:47:36) :
We are talking about a different mindset here.
People in Europe are passive and expect their leaders and/or governments to solve problems and tell them what to do.

I have a nephew that used to work in New York, but following the 911 attack decided to move to Europe to work (his office was in WTC north tower and all his co-workers were killed). He ended up working in Switzerland, and in a letter to me, he noted a totally different mind set in the Swiss than in Americans that was something of a shock to him.
He told me that, the Swiss tended to assume things were not allowed unless told otherwise, and Americans assumed actions were allowed unless told otherwise. The consequence of that mind set, was that they looked for official confirmation that behaviors were “ok” and tended not to step out of line and find new and different ways of doing things. They were much more comfortable following long established procedure rather than trying to improve an old process.
In that sort of world view, incessant propaganda is probably more effective than here in America. We tend to be suspicious of any authority that is “trying too hard” to get us to do something, I call it the used car salesman response. The best way to get a lot of people in America to look behind the curtain, or set off alarm bells is if they decide they are getting pushed into taking an action, like the used car salesman that tells them they have to sign right now as he has another customer who wants the car. This is why folks are getting so upset about the rapid fire passage of some recent major legislation like Cap and Trade. That full court press legislative agenda my very well prove to be the straw that broke the camels back.
If my nephew asked his co-workers why they did something the way they did when they could improve things by doing it a different way, their immediate response was to suspect that that change would violate some regulation. Rather than investigate if it was legal, or take the initiative, they would stick with tried and true methods.
In America you are more likely to find someone who believes in the old military axiom — “it is easier to get forgiveness than to get permission” and take the risk of doing something new that they believe will get the job done rather than get lost in the bureaucracy trying to get permission to try it.
General Patton depended on that sort of attitude, he would tell his junior commanders to give orders that demanded an end result, not a method, as they would be surprised at how ingenious they would be to get the job done.
Larry

As the modern solar maxima comes to a close, and the snow piles higher, the ice gets thicker, the number of people who believes man causes global warming sinks to 36%. NOTE: The word “believes”, as in religion.
This is going to be a hard winter for the hoaxers.

I could care less either way…..

For those that responded in favour of reaching an agreement in Copenhagen, but against paying extra tax to curb emissions, I wonder if they realise the contradiction in their position. Perhaps they believe that for a “postage stamp a day” civilization can painlessly decarbonise.
They will be in for a rude awakening if they get their wish. As Obama has said, elections have consequences, and so too do binding treaties.

The writing is really on the wall now!
http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming
The number of “prominent” scientistr dissenting will now skyrocket just watch by the end of 2010 AGW will certainly be a dead duck LOL

If the US signs up to the new world government, I am sure they will fulfill their duties with enthusiasm.
Can you see Obama launching cruise missiles at the coal fired power stations of countries that fail to meet their emissions targets?

If the US signs up to the new world government, I am sure they will fulfill their duties with enthusiasm.
Can you just see Obama destroying those power stations of countries that fail to meet their emissions targets?

Well, stupidity cuts both ways. Too bad we have a mal-educated populace but a few years of especially cold weather should do the trick even if it is “only weather.”

I have been a long time lurker on this site and would like to applaud it and all its good works.
One aspect of the disparity between the US percentages and the European percentages is not mentioned here. Although the old media and BBC etc are almost all pro-AGW, what is not often realised is that the official government brainwashing starts in primary school. There has been at least a decade of this, possibly more. It starts early, it is part of the ‘science’ curricula, you would be marked down for an opposing position in an essay, and critical thinking has been more-or-less expunged. ‘Climatology’ in Geography is more about pictures of polar bears rather than saturated or dry adiabatic lapse rates, relative humidity or dew-points. I know my kids got marked down, but they are out of the school system now and in a freer environment in University science departments. I would hate to bring up young children in the ‘young communist’ or ‘hitler youth’ style of naked propaganda of today’s school system. Teachers are equally brainwashed and are drawn from a segment of population usually referred to as ‘Guardian Readers’.
I am sure you are all now depressingly familiar with the recent government sponsored advert on TV which was pure propaganda.
Keep up the good work.

I bet if you polled all those earning less that any given salary, they will all ‘feel’ they should have more money. I know I do.
So, when a picture is painted that poor innocent polar bears are dying, glaciers are melting (that’s a bad thing, right?), and sea levels are going to flood our coast, I’m sure most people will ‘feel’ those are not good things, and ‘feel’ that something should be done about it.
Such people are ripe prey: invariably, such people are told that their feelings are natural, understandable and not their fault.
I had an idea for a ‘reality’ show:
A petition is circulated asking what people would do to possibly save a polar bear. The sacrifice would be to have their house buldozed, lose their job and all their savings (and have their retirement savings put into a government bond. heh.). All hypothetical, of course. The mark signs up to ‘potentially save’ the polar bear.
Then, they come home, just in time to see the buldozers lined up on their front door. It’s explained that this polar bear (Picture of said polar bear given to home owner) will be saved by their generous sacrifice.
Lawyers are on hand to allow them to conveniently sign over their bank accounts to the Polar bear in question (They named him Simon, by the way. He’s very grateful). Their reduction in dangerous poison will greatly help Simon and his kin, while the funds will be used to offset their past indiscretions. The ‘mark’ can now live their life guilt free.
Of course, the lawyers can adjust the contract to have their neighbors house buldozed instead; if they just sign here…and here. The neighbor (in on this setup) comes home to see their home being flattened; everyone points to the ‘mark’ as the cause.
I wonder how they ‘feel’ about global warming now. Since ‘feeling’ is the only thing that counts.

If you want to be really worried about the state of science in the UK have a look at http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx – courtesy David in tips.

Adam from Kansas (11:10:07) :
“Well people see the cold weather stories and they’re like, is AGW really happening or is it just the alarmists?
Considering that, the oceans are still in heat release mode and El Modoki’s strengthening a bit which Tallbloke himself said was kicked on or caused by this longer period of inactivity by the Sun, the Europeans who don’t read this blog might not know that though and just see warm oceans”.
You are wrong Adam,
I am sure Anthony can provide you with detailed figures but I think that 40 maybe even 50% of the visitors here are situated outside the USA.

Frankly I could care less about the Europeans. Its my country I am worried about. These loons elected Gordon Brown, Adolf Hitler, and a host of other less than savory characters. The world is not a democracy. The Rush solution comes to mind although I never listen to the guy.

g broadley (10:26:10) :
You can reduce consumption of fossil fuels in two ways . First by direct intervention of goverments , ie legislation for smaller cars , insulation for houses, direct rationing of fuel – or secondly push the price up with carbon taxes on electricity and petrol or cap and trade systems.
If evidence shows (as it does) that CO2 is a non-issue, then the real concern is the expense of foreign fossil fuel. Lowering consumption is a fourfold goal:
1) Reduce foreign imports and cost thereof
2) Increase domestic energy production including alternatives
3) Greatly improve national security
4) Benefit from electrification and alcohol, cleaner air, lower cost, etc.
A year from now GM’s Extended Range Electric Vehicle, the VOLT starts selling. It costs owners an average of 80 cents for 40 miles range. Sure beats foreign oil.

Stoic (12:12:54) :
Thanks for the link. I voted count me out & left a comment too.
DaveE.

@ Adolfo Giurfa (12:09:59) :
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the USA to solve this or any other problem.
Most people in this country just go through their lives blindly and don’t take the time to learn what is happening. Their focus in life is mass consumption and physical pleasure. Many Americans now demand cradle-to-grave care from the government and expect their wants and needs to be satisfied by someone else’s labor.
Our children no longer learn about American government or American history. American exceptionalism is no longer taught to students. Instead of learning the greatness of this nation’s founders, we now teach how Jefferson, Adams, Washington, et. al., were rich, white slave-owning men who made their fortune exploiting the common man. Academic cheating is rampant because students are indoctrinated not in hard work but in how every prominent American only got ahead through cheating.
There is still hope in America, but things will get worse before they get better.

OceanTwo (12:00:05)
You forgot one thing in your reality show scenario.
The “expenses” for handling all the details for the polar bear will exceed 90% of the take. So the actual amount for the polar bear will be less than 10% of the gross.

Using Global Warming to Steal your Rights
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/10/using-global-warming-to-steal-your.html

This may be because they believe that the Americans are the source of the problem and the greatest obstacle to its solution. If they thought they were at fault, they would care less.

Stephen Brown (12:48:45) :
It’s no better in Scotland and Wales!

Leif,
Ankle bothering you?

I was 16 years old. I was on top of a Mesa in central Sweden, for 3 days of soaring plane work. (Run by the Swedish Air Force). I was an American Civil Air Patrol Cadet.
We had fellows from Switzerland, England, Scotland and Canada. I found a broken piano in the corner of the dining hall. I opened it up and found the “pull back stirups” were mostly gone. I asked the dining hall director if she would mind if I would fix it. She said NO, go ahead. I went and got a needle nose pliers, some fine signal wire (always carry with me!) and came back to fix the piano.
Three of the Brits showed up while I was doing it. They began to harangue me about my lack of experience, my not knowing what I was doing, and that it would be impossible for me to “fix” the “delicate instrument”.
Then one of the Swedish Viggan fighter pilots, doing some “holiday soaring” came by. He said, “Oh, I’ve ordered the stirrupts, and I was going to fix it myself. But let’s see what you have..” He worked with me for about 5 minutes, we tweeked things, and then he sat down and started playing “stride jazz piano”, like from New Orleans..perfect. “Well, this works quite well with your little fine wires as pull backs!”
I watched the BRITS slink away…. my lesson, some 30 plus years ago, about the rigidity and lack of initiative of the “European” personalities.
(By the way, USA Civil Air Patrol cadets were 14 to 18 years old. The other nation’s air cadets were all “College Aged” , more of an ROTC..)

“This is the best you can come up with?” Leif
No, not at all. But I told you that I gave my final word on the subject. You can’t let it drop, it seems. So I wondered about your ankle.

So the special relationship still exists. From the pole, it seems that the Brits and the Americans have a greater convergence of opinion on the subject of global warming than with other European countries. Long live the special relationship and common sense. Perhaps WUWT is a unifying influence.

“This was my goal in the first place.” Leif
Well, my point about your conceit stands proven. But I will continue to spread the word just not here.
As to whether you crushed me, you have not. You did not refute my last word but you seem to have misunderstood it. Go back and read it again, I suggest. I’ll keep my word.

“Just shows why America will not remain a first world country much longer, as her science illiteracy deepens.” Leif
America could easily become tops in the world if it simple abolished the government school system. You see Leif, truth prevails on a level playing field;
it does not need help from tyrants.

Back2Bat (18:05:44) :
“Therefore in many cases, belief trumps data. Philosophy trumps data, religion trumps data, questionable IQ trumps data, hurt feelings trumps data. Just about anything trumps data. Massaged data trumps data.” Pam
I’m looking forward to cold hard reality in the form of cold hard weather trumping it all. Then I am looking forward to red faces and not just from the cold.
Science will take a beating but it has grown arrogant and tyrannical. Perhaps it will police itself better in the future and not mix soft science with hard.
Well said, B2B.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

CORRECTION: “It really is unbecoming of Science…”

What study are you using to base your statement on regarding public schools? Are you saying they are not producing literate youth? In which area? Are private schools doing better when compared directly with public schools in each of these areas? Are public Universities also part of the problem in your mind? Show me the data.

While this study does not include science, it demonstrates that conservative private schools may need to wake up and smell the coffee. When apples are compared with apples, the results are mixed. Except for those conservative school. Maybe someone should suggest that these conservative private schools invite some public school teachers in to get these classroom teachers up to snuff.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard//pubs/studies/2006461.asp

Pam,
I can’t predict the future since I don’t own it. I hope it gets cold enough for long enough to reset a lot of nonsense. Frankly, I am very tired of a lot of pseudo-science (and pseudo-economics) ruining my world.
I’d like to predict the future
but surely if I do,
the One who owns the future
might pull a switcheroo.
I ask because you seem quite sure. Pam
It is a very strong hope since I know it would humble many and allow the world to go on a little longer. I don’t want it to end on my watch without my trying.

I didn’t mean to be nasty. I questioned your assumptions because they seemed to be quite strongly worded. Was it just talk or do you have reliable and verifiable information to back this cold future (tomorrow? next year? next century?) up? I keep an eye on the trade winds. Right now they are not very strong in either direction. When the Easterlies become strong enough to peel back a warm layer of equatorial ocean water, I will predict NH cold dry weather systems mixed with cold wet weather systems along the US portion of the jet stream. Right now we seem to be experiencing warmer dry weather systems mixed with warmer wet weather systems that naturally turn to snow in higher elevations. I just don’t see our current parameters leading to bitter cold in the next month.
Regarding the Sun, the oceans are much better at creating clouds than the Sun is. These clouds may be slightly enhanced due to solar influences, but the large swings due to oceanic influences likely bury solar produced cloud enhancements or decreases.

Bitter cold is not a very nice thing to hope for.

“While this study does not include science, it demonstrates that conservative private schools may need to wake up and smell the coffee.” Pam
Cool. I am not a conservative; I am a libertarian. Still, let the parents decide. That way, Leif’s kids can work for mine and the conservative kids can work for his and the Muslim kids can work for the conservatives’ kids.
“There’s a place for us,
somewhere a place for us.
Peace and quite
and open air
wait for us
somewhere.” from the West Side Story

OK, Tony. Sorry. I did not threaten Leif with physical harm just metaphorical harm.
REPLY: Thank you for that note, even so the debate is becoming circular. So a time out will bring fresh perspective and perhaps less vitriol. – Anthony

Back2bat, you said, “The [US] could easily become tops in the world if it [simply] abolished the government school system.” This seems quite a leap to me given what the data is saying. Are you “wishing” it were so, like hoping it will get cold, or do you have another data source that says something different than anything I have seen about the comparison between public and private schools? Is it really that easy of a solution? If the data suggests the answer is probably no, as it seems to be suggesting, do you still want to try what appears to be an unwise hunt for Shangri la? It seems to me your premise about public schools causing our current standing in the world is as questionable as CO2 causing global warming. However, it is your leap. If you can make such a leap of faith, do you see that it is then fair to allow AGW’s to make their leap of faith? Or is this do as I say, not as I do?
What is the difference between global warming religion and your seemingly religous stance? Both certainly require faith. Aren’t they both somewhat based on wishing and fantasy, even if sincere?

savethesharks (21:30:48) :
What harm has he caused you?
claims to have bitten my ankle, for one.
The guy is not a threat to me; his ideas are a threat to mankind [including you]. Not because they are any good, but because they are false. Same kind of threat that Lysenko was.
No. Lysenko is James Hansen, not B2B.
That’s all I am saying Leif. Please choose your battles. We are on YOUR side.
It is not all or nothing (that is a logical fallacy and you know that).
Meanwhile….back to topic;
I think, in general, Euros are more advanced in their thinking, but ah there lies the big rub.
It is terrible how all of these terms get welded together without much difference:
Climate Change Global Warming
(add anthropogenic)
Of course Euros are more concerned about the topic….they are more open-minded.
Yet therein lies the double rub.
Openmindedness is not the final measure.
When you have a bad idea (AGW) that is propagated by the scientific community and is embraced by “open-minded” people….nothing much is gained.
So….no big deal that our more forward-thinking Euro friends are more concerned about AGW.
If they are wrong at the starting gate, then what does it matter?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

If there’s so many people believe in AGW then they should be able to cut back more than enough to make up for the ‘deniers’. Then no treaties would be needed.

Leif Svalgaard (22:22:01)
The subject of discussion is the future of biological and the threat to society of a wrong understanding of its foundations. It seems that this is of equal importance as the threat to society of a wrong understanding of climate change. In both cases, pseudo-science has taken hold among the unwashed masses and is being exploited by politicians and other tricksters. This is about fundamentals. Having correct fundamental science be taboo is wrong.
But if the published biological “science” and assumptions that are published in Journals such as “Nature” and “Science” are qualitatively incorrect (and violate the first and second laws) and when questioned are updated (without citation) and still incorrect and are matters of great debate in biophysics.eg Kleiber’s law
Ontogenetic growth: models and theory
Anastassia M. Makarieva a, Victor G. Gorshkov a and Bai-Lian Li Corresponding Author Contact Information
Abstract
: We re-analyze the assumptions underlying two recently proposed ontogenetic growth models [Nature 413 (2001) 628; Nature 417 (2002) 70] to find that the basic relations in which these models are grounded contradict the law of energy conservation. We demonstrate the failure of these models to predict and explain several important lines of empirical evidence, including (a) the organismal energy budget during embryonic development; (b) the human growth curve; (c) patterns of metabolic rate change during transition from embryonic to post-embryonic stages; and (d) differences between parameters of embryonic growth in different taxa. We show how a theoretical approach based on well-established ecological regularities explains the observations where the formal models fail. Within a broader context, we also discuss major principles of ontogenetic growth modeling studies in ecology, emphasizing the necessity of ecological theory to be based on assumptions that are testable and to be formulated in terms of variables and parameters that are measurable.
Anastassia writes at HESS 2008 (reminiscent of Nalimov)
The validity of the fundamental laws of nature and of good theories based on them
has been tested on such a great amount of empirical data that it is a good theory that can tell you whether the empirical data are of good or bad quality rather than the data tell you something about the theory. For this reason, good theories can be used for making predictions, like the existence of many elementary particles was predicted in theoretical physics prior to their actual discovery. How justified is the use of models for making predictions?
During model development the priority is given to reaching a satisfactory agreement
between the data and the mathematical structure of the model. On the basis of theavailable sets of data points taken from the general ensemble of all empirical evidence the modelers determine linear and non-linear correlations between the chosen measurable variables, including their temporal changes. The resulting time dependence of model variables allows one to make a forecast for the future. Such a forecast, however, is nothing but a limited extrapolation of what has been observed in the past. With changing the empirical datasets the model structure and forecasts change. With inclusion of ever growing amounts of observations the models become more and more complex, while their agreement with the available observations naturally improve. Thus, an ideal model ultimately comes as an exact and convenient, i.e. mathematically formalized, representation of all the available data. However, to the degree the model is a model and not a theory, it lacks the predictive power. Because of the obvious fact that it cannot be expected that the calibrations made on the basis of the knowndata will remain valid in the domain of predicted (i.e. still unknown) data. This is a conceptual, fundamental problem with the modeling approach. The universal laws of nature predict things
Based on our own scientific expertise, we can illustrate the above points with specific
examples of models that were judged to be most successful based on their agreementwith the data and claimed derivability from a “universal” theory, yet shown to confront the fundamental laws of nature. As one can see, the problem transcends across the natural science as a whole. The biological model of organismal growth (West et al., 2001) misinterpreted the energy conservation equation and replaced it with the one conflicting with the energy conservation law. Despite that, the model showed perfect agreement with the data. After the error was identified (Makarieva et al., 2004) it took the model’s authors four years to explicitly admit it (Moses et al., 2008) and re-formulate the model. The re-formulated model re-calibrated using the same data as the original
(wrong) one showed equally good agreement with the data and got equally well published (Hou et al., 2008). Thus, irrespective of conflicting with the energy conservation law or not, the model agreed with the data, was widely cited and raised little concern in the reading audience
But as Alven Toffler suggested the illiterate of the future will not be the ability to read and write,but the inability to learn.
Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., and Li B.-L.: Ontogenetic growth: Models and
theory, Ecological Modelling, 176, 15-26, 2004.
West, G. B., Brown, J. H., and Enquist, B. J.: A general model for ontogenetic growth,
Nature, 413, 628-631, 2001.

A tad late getting to this one.
Am I reading this right? A poll of 6,500 people across Europe & USA, is undertaken to draw certain conclusions about climate change & how it will affect those countries & the people in them. Let’s see now. 6,500 people, in round figures, representing around 650 million people, works out at around 1/100,000th of the population of those countires sampled to draw conclusions from. Seems reasonable. (Sarc). What are the odds of getting a random sampling, against those of getting a group of AGWwers of varying degrees of belief, considering the liklihood of those under 25 or even 30 would be pro AGW due to their education, backgrounds, environment, (no pun intended) political beliefs, government’s political alignment, & propaganda machine namely the EU? With my humble engineer’s brain I suggest that this survey is meaningless dribble!

Back2Bat (11:35:46) :
Too bad we have a mal-educated populace
Leif Svalgaard (14:11:40) :
It shows in the science illiteracy so vividly demonstrated on even this blog.
For some reason I find this exchange amusing. Perhaps using the broad brush of generalizations we could come up with the special law of relative stupidity.
This is the state where two participants collide and produce absolutely nothing.

I don’t think it is the inability to learn that is at issue. It is the unwillingness to learn and accept hypotheses contrary to one’s emotional beliefs. The worst of it is when such folks cling to ideas that require faith in the place of hard data. Even if no other theory exists that can explain what is observed, clinging to one’s pet theory by relying on faith that it is correct, harkens back to the goddess in the cave era. Taken together, if one defines “smart” by the ability to expand knowledge into areas that violate once held beliefs, and accept them anyway, than I adhere to the statement that some posters here are not very smart.
Humans have come far in their scientific knowledge not because we cling to understanding that requires faith that it is true, but because people have dared say it is highly unbelievable and that there must be another answer. But is it safe to take such a position? People have lost their lives by expressing such views and acting on them. Even now? Even now in this day and age. Including children murdered or maimed by their own parents who disallow such behavior.

My 24 hours are up so I’ll deal with Pam’s question. Leif can wait.
“Are you “wishing” it were so, like hoping it will get cold, or do you have another data source that says something different than anything I have seen about the comparison between public and private schools?” Pam
Simple logic, Pam. Nothing under educational liberty would prevent a private school from emulating a government school. If that model proved to be the best then parents could send their kids there. So, worst case we end up with what we have now and I would have no basis for complaint.

Leif,
Here is a link that supports my statement that Earth is the only planet with intelligent life.
http://www.reasons.org/probability-life-earth-apr-2004
I highly recommend Dr. Ross. I hope you and he might correspond. He is the genuine article in my opinion.

Really Tony, it is not like we are going at each with guns and knives. It’s your blog, however. You remind me of my mother, all she wants is peace and quite. Poor lady!
REPLY: things you don’t consider.
1) I have to (or another moderator) read each comment and decide if it violates policy. It’s a lot of extra work to moderate personal arguments
2) If not moderated, someone will seize on the comments and use them to discredit me such as “Watts endorses violence” Don’t say it won’t happen, because it has indeed happened before and I’ve had to deal with it.
3) The headline on some other blog won’t mention the anonymous coward (you). It will name me.
So unless you want to put your name to your words (and you’ve already ducked that suggestion) my suggestion to you is to kindly shut the hell up and take your personal argument with Leif elsewhere. You are still welcome to comment on other matters provided you stay in policy. – Anthony

Here is my name Tony.
Steven Stanley Stipulkoski.
4225 N. 1st Ave,#505
Tucson, AZ 85719
Satisfied?
Coward? You presume too much.
Leif,
My email is moonbat1775@cox.net
REPLY: The term “anonymous coward” is a net standard coined by the BBS and USENET, and commonly used automatically on slashdot.org
It even has its own Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Coward
So I’m referring to it by definition, but nice to see you step up! Good on you. – Anthony