From Michigan State University, and the Department of Junior Lewandowskys, where this angry looking guy obviously thinks global warming manifests itself in every weather event, we have the same old ad hominem argument, except published.
Global warming cynics unmoved by extreme weather
EAST LANSING, Mich. — What will it take to convince skeptics of global warming that the phenomenon is real? Surely, many scientists believe, enough droughts, floods and heat waves will begin to change minds.
But a new study led by a Michigan State University scholar throws cold water on that theory.
Only 35 percent of U.S. citizens believe global warming was the main cause of the abnormally high temperatures during the winter of 2012, Aaron M. McCright and colleagues report in a paper published online today in the journal Nature Climate Change.
“Many people already had their minds made up about global warming and this extreme weather was not going to change that,” said McCright, associate professor in MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology.
Winter 2012 was the fourth warmest winter in the United States dating back to at least 1895, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Some 80 percent of U.S. citizens reported winter temperatures in their local area were warmer than usual.
The researchers analyzed March 2012 Gallup Poll data of more than 1,000 people and examined how individuals’ responses related to actual temperatures in their home states. Perceptions of warmer winter temperatures seemed to track with observed temperatures.
“Those results are promising because we do hope that people accurately perceive the reality that’s around them so they can adapt accordingly to the weather,” McCright said.
But when it came to attributing the abnormally warm weather to global warming, respondents largely held fast to their existing beliefs and were not influenced by actual temperatures.
As this study and McCright’s past research shows, political party identification plays a significant role in determining global warming beliefs. People who identify as Republican tend to doubt the existence of global warming, while Democrats generally believe in it.
The abnormally warm winter was just one in an ongoing series of severe weather events – including the 2010 Russian heat wave, Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and the 2013 typhoon in the Philippines – that many believed would help start convincing global warming cynics.
“There’s been a lot of talk among climate scientists, politicians and journalists that warmer winters like this would change people’s minds,” McCright said. “That the more people are exposed to climate change, the more they’ll be convinced. This study suggests this is not the case.”
###
McCright’s co-authors are Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Chenyang Xiao of American University.
Nature Climate Change is part of the Nature Publishing Group, which publishes the flagship journal Nature.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Every ‘study’ like this always has one of those statistics like ‘ fourth warmest since 1895.’ I always want to ask them, ‘What do you suppose was going on back in 1895? Was it global warming?’
I’m sorry, but McWright looks like that guy who sat next to you in sociology class and thought he was the foremost expert on EVERYTHING. And he obviously knows nothing about climate science.
So, short-term, local, warm-weather events are supposed to convince us that man-made global warming is real. But they haven’t, and so we are all dumbasses. That seems to be the central premise of McCright’s article. But if we allow short-term, local, COLD-weather events to convince us that man-made global warming is bullspit, then we are confusing weather with climate.
I love how these guys can contradict themselve with a straight face. They would make good politicians.
As matter of note, he didn’t call skeptics dumbasses, but rather cynics. Granted that many commenters can take that as a compliment, but the usual definition of cynic is a person that either:
1. Has contempt for idealism (idealism is not a synonym of naiveté, it just means defending some ideal, whether moral, ethical, professional, intellectual, logical, etc.)
2. Jadedly acts with disregard for moral integrity
So tell me who is the cynic, the guy who uses any extreme weather (which always have happened) to “prove” CAGW with no explaining link whatsoever or climate skeptics?
“1. Has contempt for idealism ”
Idealism = Kantianism = Denial of Causality, BTW…
Fixed it
“Many people already had their minds made up about global warming and no amount of data to the contrary was going to change that,” McCright could have said
Maybe stuff like this affects the population’s perception a bit more (especially in Michigan)…. http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/11/great_lakes_ice_cover_developi.html
This guy has written previous papers that were more an example of how to use inflammatory language than any actual substance. Fortunately my son who was in the Lyman Briggs College never had him for a class. Time to let my alma matter know my thoughts.
Maybe Aaron McCright needs to read Roger Pielke’s book
Disasters and Climate Change
He might learn something about “this extreme weather”.
So democrats are more likely to belive in lies!
That must be why you are stuck with Obama in the US.
“But when it came to attributing the abnormally warm weather to global warming, respondents largely held fast to their existing beliefs and were not influenced by actual temperatures.”
Exactly as they not fear Global Cooling because of a cold winter.
“an ongoing series of severe weather events – including the 2010 Russian heat wave, Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and the 2013 typhoon in the Philippines –”
That fact that he is only pointing to 3 events in a four year span kind of indicates that weather extreams are getting more and more rare. If he could have said something more like “the 20 major hurricanes of 2013,…” that may indicate that things are getting worse, but they aren’t. How many days are we at now since the last major hurricane hit USA? 3319 days since Wilma?
The data is there to see what percentage Democrats believe CAGW showed its face the winter of 2012. The majority of Democrats must not believe either for 35% average as the nation has been fairly evenly split Dem/Rep.
Good sign and further indication of hysterical blindness in the warmist camp who would like to see disbelief as a white, rich, conservative, anti science, Republican trait caused by personal greed, lack of empathy and the machinations of Big Oil.
So if 2012 was the fourth warmest winter going back to 1895, does that mean 1895 was warmer or at least unusually warm? Wouldn’t that fact alone tend to undermine the argument that a warm winter is something new and that human causation must be invoked?
One wonders also how he chooses to deal with the unusually cold winter of 2013-14. Honestly, these people define self-parody.
Nope, it means records began in 1895.
And that’s almost back to the day of creation – according to Climatologists.
“The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.”
George Bernard Shaw
What will it take to convince skeptics of global warming that the phenomenon is real?
Some actual global warming might be a good start.
Follow his money.
What funding is Aaron M McCright trying to obtain?
My priority list of Scienceness “science” disciplines.
High to low…
Philosophy (logic)
Mathematics
Physics (quantum Mechanics, astro physics)
Chemistry
Engineering disciplines
Biology
Medicine
Political Science
Economics
Psychology
Psychiatry
Anthropology
Sociology
Community Organizing
Sociology is one step above community organizing.
So a sociologist’s opinion carries no scientific weight, regardless of the size of his neck.
“Only 35 percent of U.S. citizens believe global warming was the main cause of the abnormally high temperatures during the winter of 2012”
Hmmm… I though weather was different from climate? And how come his logic never applies when it’s the other way around (i.e. abnormally low temps)? And this guy is teaching?
The last time I was in Michigan, I was told “MSU = Make Stuff Up.”
Well…I AM a cynic, but that’s far from the only reason why I’m “unmoved” by extreme weather. I can’t be moved by something that didn’t happen.
“What will it take to convince skeptics of global warming that the phenomenon is real?”
I’ll go out on a limb and suggest an actual, testable null hypothesis. Some sort of actual baseline data and then a hypothesis that suggests an outcome. Not all possible outcomes. This however seems to be exactly the sort of science that would appeal to those in sociology – soft, pliable, changeable.
As pejoratives go, “climate cynic” is a lot less insulting and demeaning than many of the others applied to skeptics.
But what the H does a professor of sociology know about the science of global warming. Again, another non-expert who gets his climate training from the cross-talk at the faculty lunch room.
Sociologist Aaron M. McCright seems to be right about doomsday prophecies wearing out, but should have his mouth washed with a soap.
The old confusion between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’ again.
Statistics allows you to make generalizations from a large number of events, but only a fool would try to apply those generalizations to an individual event. It would be like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.
The average coin toss has half a head.
The average American family has 2 and a half kids.
Schroedinger’s Cat has four and a half lives.
The average professor is half-right.
How many people in Michigan are really worried about warmer winter temperatures?
Where are the academic psychiatrists? They are missing out on a big opportunity studying these quacks. This guy, like so many of his intellectually deficient peers, is cuckoo for climate change and this phenomenon needs studied!
We Climate Realists aka “Skeptics” have probably had to develop a certain amount of cynicism as well as curmudgeonliness in response to the enormous amount of bad science and falsehoods so rampant in the climate science community, the MSM, and within once-revered institutions both of science and higher learning.