Fox News reports:
Study: Global warming skeptics know more about climate science
Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?
Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.
The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.
On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.
One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.
Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.
Liberals were more likely to correctly answer questions like: “What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.
The study comes on the heels of a 2012 study that found that global warming skeptics know just as much about science; the new study specifically quizzed people on climate science.
…
More: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/12/study-global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-climate-science/
The study will be published on the Advances in Political Psychology website
Kahan, Dan (2015) Expressive Rationality and Cultural Polarization: Theory and Evidence, Advances in Political Psychology, Vol 2,
Kahan, Dan M., Wittlin, Maggie, Peters, Ellen, Slovic, Paul, Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore, Braman, Donald and Mandel, Gregory N., The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change (2011). Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 89. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1871503
Jo Nova also has an analysis here
I am anxious to see the survey and results (questions & possible answers).
You only have to look on this website to realise that!
Yes! Go, WUWT scientists and commenters!!
(oh, and, Andrew, if I may call you by your first name, it’s really cool and all that you drive an American muscle car — way to go — but, you would be much happier with the performance of a CAMARO. Camaros rock, Mustangs try. ;))
Would better springs help? 🙂
Lee, lee, lee, lol. If that was a joke, I’m sorry, but, I don’t get it. Care to help me out so I can laugh instead of just smile slightly?
#(:\)
The only thing that could help would be to put a Chevy engine into the Mustang.
Nice to know someone actually read what I wrote!
Janice
Janice; ALL American muscle cars are cool, even more so in Europe as there are not that many of them. Overtaking in the UK is a problem though and dithering is definitely not cool. Please do call me Andrew, “speaking” to you on WUWT is always a pleasure, never a chore!
#(:)) Thanks, Andrew.
Janice, if your Camaro “rocks” it needs work on its suspension (shocks and SPRINGS) and that is to what Lee was referring.
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?”
Isn’t the “correct” answer “water vapo(u)r?”
Note that the question is about “what most scientists believe” and not “what gas actually causes” the most rise.
Katherine, indeed good catch. Pretty much the only way to do a fair poll here is to frame the questions in terms of what scientists say about AGW. Anything else loads the question toward a preconceived conclusion.
But even that is misleading. Scientists believe the majority of global warming comes from water vapor feedback as a result of the slight CO2 induced warming. So, in that sense, the correct answer should be water vapor.
It’s such an odd phrasing I am suspicious that they knew skeptics understood that water vapor was vastly more important to greenhouse warming and expected them to answer that way.
Roxshox:
More likely that the authors are simply ill-informed themselves. They are psychologists, after all. There are people who blog here that are unaware that the GCM’s are so contrived that the projected warming comes from increases in water vapor, mostly.
For example, Brandon Gates, rooter, flash man, others from the AGW crowd.
rokshox,
Except it is not true that the IPCC says that. I don’t have a handy reference, but we can work through it by thinking about what that would mean if it really were true. Let’s say solar output increased enough to cause an initial warming of 1 degree, and the only feedback process in the system is from water evaporating from the oceans. If the feedback response is anything greater than 1 degree, that loop will continue feeding itself and the result would be a runaway response to the initial increase in solar forcing.
That doesn’t sound right, does it? Oceans would have boiled by now, yes?
Mmm, as I wrote previously the phrasing is about making it what consensus climatologists believe to be correct, not about what actually is correct. So it’s a test of what people know about what the IPCC says, not about what they think is really true about how the climate system works.
On the other hand, it is a nasty tricky question in the sense that there’s a big difference between how I with my climate consensus POV think about the importance of water vapor and how most climate contrarians discuss it. I understand that on any given day, water vapor (and clouds) by far contribute to most of the instantaneous greenhouse effect, on the order of 75% vs. CO2 at about 20%, methane, CFCs, ozone and all the rest making up the balance.
“Aha!” says the contrarian, “water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.” Well yes, on any given DAY. Over decades and centuries, no. CO2 sticks around in the atmosphere once it’s there. Gradually adding more and more of it over decades to centuries of time results in a gradual change in temperature over decades to centuries of time. It’s the most important anthropogenic driver of change over decades and centuries.
Or so say scientists. We could all be wrong. To sort that out first requires getting on the same page about what the scientists are really saying. Which I see as the most useful and interesting result of this poll.
Brandon Gates: You believers really are ignorant. You don’t even know the tenets of your own religion.
Everybody, including IPCC, agrees that a doubling of CO2 would cause temperatures to rise slightly more than 1 degree centigrade. The rest of the 3 degrees or more that you and other warmists believe will result is water vapour feedback.
tty,
Where, pray tell, did I say otherwise?
Brandon,
There’s little point in arguing over this flawed paper. Just google “skin cancer climate change” and you get 2.1 million hits with many on the first page linking to scientific studies asserting a connection.
Your comment does suggest a question: The slight warming from CO2 induces a water vapor feedback which promotes further warming (that is clearly the IPCC science even if you don’t believe it). Yet, that additional warming either does not further promote additional water vapor feedback or does so in smaller and smaller amounts reaching a limiting value.
If that is the case, then why would an additional increase in CO2 – above the original increase – be expected to promote additional water vapor feedback when the larger feedback effect from water vapor reached a limit?
“Brandon Gates
February 14, 2015 at 12:46 pm
If the feedback response is anything greater than 1 degree, that loop will continue feeding itself and the result would be a runaway response to the initial increase in solar forcing.”
Your ignorance and lack in understanding is showing in just this one post. I suggest you go and learn something about this planet and other planets. The only thing running away is your uninformed opinion.
Ah Brandon, I had such high hopes for you! I was smiling away at your correct apprsaisal of feedback loops causing a self sustaining warming causing the Oceans to boil if true, then it all came crashing down with the failure to spot the slight of hand of warmists who claim that time spent in the atmosphere is more important for a molecule than the number of molecules up there at any given moment.
The fact is, it is completely irrelevant how long an individual molecule remains in the atmosphere. It has no way of what it did 100years ago, 1 year ago or 1 second ago! All that matters is how many molecules of any given gas are there in the atmosphere now?! If I breathe in a specific molecule of CO2 which has been in the air for the last hundred years and it gets stuck in my lung, will this mean that all the new CO2 that I breathe out has less effect on temperature because my body only just created them?
I pray you will see the absurdity of the Greenhouse theory when you answer this.
You may get 2.1 million hits when you enter the phrase, but you only get 775 if you use the phrase with quotes.
..
Obviously you don’t understand how Google calculates the hit count. Besides the hit count from Google says nothing about the actual content of the referenced links.
Actually, 775 is a huge number of hits for an exact phase consisting of four words.
And I think most people are capable of reading the first several pages of the search without quotes to decide whether “scientists” are linking climate change with skin cancer.
I suggest you learn about “keywords” and spoofing the Google search engines for page ranking. You can easily see this is happening by actually visiting some of the 775 sites and find out they have very little to do with either skin, cancer, climate or change.
Why don’t you do as I suggested and peruse the first several pages of the search without quotes?
I don’t have to.
When you do the google search without quote, Google logically uses the “OR” conjunction for the words entered. . What that means is the 2.1 million “hit” number is meaningless, because a page with the single word “skin” in counted in the sum.
So much easier to imply some sort of nefarious “Google conspiracy” than to actually read and understand content.
uh oh, comment in moderation, probably because of a trigger word.
Suffice to say that “rod” is content to pontificate on the intricacies of Google Al Gore Rhythms than to sully himself with actually reading and understanding the results of a search.
“what most scientists believe” is a poorly worded queston. I haven’t seen any polls of what most scientists believe. I suspect that most scientists would state that an increase in methane would cause temperature to rise, as would an increase in water vapor , an increase in nitrous oxide, an increase in Ozone in the lower atmosphere, an increase in CFCs, and an increase in CO2.
A more clearly worded question might be, ” What do most climate scientists think is the gas making the most significant contribution to the temperature increase over the last century?:
rokshox,
I don’t see the relevance to anything I’ve been discussing. If your argument is that people say silly things about global warming, no contest.
Mmmm, I do believe it. The question is how much feedback. I’m telling you that it’s not as big as you think the IPCC is telling you it is. It can’t be.
I don’t think the question is possible to answer as you have asked. A positive feedback response which is larger than the initial increased forcing would simply keep on running. Oceans would have boiled by now if that were the case with water vapor. That scenario has been considered in literature, but AFAIK not in any IPCC AR. But I’ve not read every page of them either. On that note, I’d really appreciate it you’d go find whatever it is you have read and show it to me so that I can read it myself and not have to guess from where you’ve gotten your info.
rodmol@virginmedia.com Re google hits. My point is made if there is even a single result that links to a scientific paper with more than one author suggesting a link between climate change and skin cancer.
In that case, the correct answer to the survey’s malformed question is “True” vice their purported correct answer of “False”.
Brandon, rodmol@virginmedia.com
Have you happened to have read the testimonies at these pages?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/25/my-personal-path-to-catastrophic-agw-skepticism/
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/reader-background/
I spent several hours going through them. Really fascinating and enlightening if your opinion of “deniers” is that they are knuckle-dragging Faux-News winger illiterates.
wickedwenchfan,
Well thanks. And while we’re at it, if you could send the same memo to Patrick who beat you out by 2 minutes by saying ….
If the feedback response is anything greater than 1 degree, that loop will continue feeding itself and the result would be a runaway response to the initial increase in solar forcing.”
Your ignorance and lack in understanding is showing in just this one post. I suggest you go and learn something about this planet and other planets. The only thing running away is your uninformed opinion.
… I’d appreciate it. Quite obviously he isn’t going to listen to me on this particular point of … well, simple logic as I see it. I assume he’s talking about Venus when he mentions “other planets” but who knows. I so very dearly love it when someone claims I’m ignorant yet withholds their own wisdom to demonstrate the point. But I digress, for you do have your own fish to fry with me.
… then it all came crashing down with the failure to spot the slight of hand of warmists who claim that time spent in the atmosphere is more important for a molecule than the number of molecules up there at any given moment.
Aaargh, blockquote fail. Mods?
rokshox,
No. Personal testimonials don’t particularly impress me. Quite the opposite really. I’ve seen a lot of people say a lot of things with absolute certainty they were correct, and just as many say the exact opposite thing just as convincingly.
You forgot “mouth breathing”. Why we elitist coastal lefties are so fixated on the respiration habits of those in the flyover states I’ll never know, but I just go with it. Peer pressure and all that.
Realizing that WUWT is a limited and very likely biased sampling, I’ve gone to public opinion polls for the actual story. There’s not much out there that I’ve found, but basically, in the US, most who don’t subscribe to the consensus view of AGW are political independents, followed quite unsurprisingly by Republicans and a smattering of Democrats. Not something I’ve researched extensively, my main point of interest was comparing how what folks here on WUWT see the popularity of the “skeptic” POV against what a properly done opinion poll of the general population says.
Yes. This proves nothing directly about the “knowledge level” of warmists vs. skeptics. It just proves that we know what their catechism contains.
Now, when you ask a warmist WHY they believe – you get a circular set of programmed verbiage that boils down to “Because!” Ask the skeptic and you are likely to get a detailed analysis of the many flaws in the whole scheme.
(Now, that doesn’t apply to everyone on either side – I do talk to warmists that simply have the wrong scientific basis implanted, and also to skeptics whose disbelief is based on it having the UN label attached. Although that last is not so far-fetched…)
“Brandon Gates
February 14, 2015 at 8:05 pm
If the feedback response is anything greater than 1 degree, that loop will continue feeding itself and the result would be a runaway response to the initial increase in solar forcing.
Your ignorance and lack in understanding is showing in just this one post. I suggest you go and learn something about this planet and other planets. The only thing running away is your uninformed opinion.
… I’d appreciate it. Quite obviously he isn’t going to listen to me on this particular point of … well, simple logic as I see it. I assume he’s talking about Venus when he mentions “other planets” but who knows. I so very dearly love it when someone claims I’m ignorant yet withholds their own wisdom to demonstrate the point. But I digress, for you do have your own fish to fry with me.”
No, I was not talking about Venus because Venus is “normal” for Venus. You clearly have no idear what you are talking about. We’ve known about Venus since the 1950’s. Earth will NEVER have a “runaway” warming event as you suggest with, as you suggest, a 1c additional solar input. Never! The only time where Earth will experience “a runaway event” is when our Sun consumes the inner rocky planets! Yes, you clearly are ignorant. And you demonstrate that with almost every post!
There isn’t a single correct answer, actually. The most important primary driver is supposed to be CO2, and a rise in water vapour is supposed to be triggered by and amplify the raise in temperature caused by CO2. Methane outgassing from melting permafrost is another “correct” answer.
Yes, in the strictest sense of the way that the question was put, methane would be a viable answer. This study does not seem to have been critiqued by anyone knowledgeable in this field, meaning climatology.
However, it is also true that AGW theory, as incorporated into the GCM’s, holds that increased water vapor is the principle cause of warming. However, water vapor has not increased and so the AGW hypothesis falls.
The question isn’t meant to be discussed or thought about. It is meant to get the snap answer.
WHICH IS CO2.
Snap!
Truth isn’t important here. The question is meant to determine if you have been following the debate in the news. The news may be wrong but if you don’t know what it’s saying then you ain’t informed.
The question is testing if you are informed.
MCourtney, I agree. In fact I think the survey says more about the elitist, cocooning mindset of academics than it does about skeptics/believers.
That the researchers thought such shallow plonking questions would capture the level of nuance and sophistication amongst the skeptics is telling.
yes, I find this question impossible to answer because there are so many greenhouses gases of which CO2 is not the most important. I am also stuck to answer if warmist scientists believe a hotter world would have more skin cancers, it is the sort of alarmist theory that they put out on a daily basis.
If the questions was…
“What gas do most ‘climate scientists™’ believe causes temperatures to rise?”
Then yes, the answer is CO2
Surely the question should be; With beliefs like these, can they continue to proclaim themselves scientists?
Climate “scientists”…
Like Bill Nye, the “science” guy.
I mentioned this in “Tips and Notes” the other day.
Most skeptics probably know that water vapor is the primary GHG and would not get the “correct answer”.
I believe “most scientists” know that water vapor is the primary GHG, even the “scientists” who only read Wikipedia.
A properly worded survey about “climate science” would, IMHO, show that skeptics are more knowledgeable regarding climate science.
You will not believe the number of times I have read Warmists say words to the effect of:
I simply point them to a graph showing sea level rising for over 14,000 years. When they scream about climate change being the most rapid today I simply point them to the rapid climate change at the termination of the last glaciation. Even when they say co2 is the highest in a million years I’m disputing as explained here too.
JIMBO! #(:))
SO thankful you are here. Happy Valentine’s Day to a real hero-warrior for truth.
Janice
(WordPress — grrr. I found out a couple days ago that italics in a blockquote doesn’t work (didn’t realize the bq already italicized WITH quote marks to boot… next time I’ll use extra ” and ” INSIDE bq)).
P.S. It sure would be nice to know you read this… (hint, hint) 🙂
[Reply: WordPress used to italicize blockquotes. Then they stopped. Now you have to italicize your quote if that’s what you want. See? Someone reads your comments. ~mod.]
Good catch Neil, and this is why climastrology and this website is so exciting. We dispute to death!
Then I see this:
If the questions were tougher the gap would widen I suspect.
What does this mean? All of the Arctic sea ice? The central Arctic ocean sea ice? The north pole only?
A few weeks back we had this similar piece and a superb comment too.
They posed an invalid question. How is an individual to know what others really believe?
Like
I hope it is the sun.
That’s what I said when I read that! I did a WTF, because Water vapor is the PRIMARY greenhouse gas.
But you can’t tax it, that’s why it’s not listed.
“One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin”
I might have assumed “scientists” could have suggested such a thing. Given that just about anything potentially bad ever seems to have been suggested by alarmists at some point. It’s impossible to keep up.
I’m surprised on that one also since Global Warming causes Everything
But let’s see
Global Warming causes more days to be warmer
More days warmer = more days people outside
More days people outside = More direct exposure to the Sun
More direct exposure to the Sun = More Incidence of Skin cancer
Now where can I pick up my grant money check
More days warmer = more days people
outsideindoors in airconditioning.??
But there will be more water vapour in air so more clouds less UV and less skin cancer. Or, the huge megadrought in Oz causes them there to flee, causing them to relocate to a place more suitable to wigwhite people.
One can’t do any good prognosis on this kind of thing, but of course some scientists may believe what they believe.
“Liberals were more likely to correctly answer questions like: “What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.” I thought water vapor could be considered a gas.
Opinion survey with ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers seems suspicious!
If it’s a knowledge survey, you have to “appeal to authority” for the right answers. That should invalidate the study.
The dude’s one of those professional “expert witnesses” that trial attorney’s hire when they can’t make a case with real evidence.
The question was not which was the most important greenhouse gas. The question was what is the GHG causing us to warm. (The answers are different.)
However, the question is slightly ambiguous and may have caused some skeptics to veer towards the wrong answer.
It would have been cool if they asked which gas if reduced would harm all tree, plant, and vegetable life on the Earth.
I wonder how many heads would have exploded if that question was included.
Good one!
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?”
The correct answer is not CO2 but water vapor.
Not really. It is true that water vapor is the most prevalent ‘greenhouse’ gas in the atmosphere, but that was not the question. The question itself is, imo, unanswerable in it’s current form. I would expect that ‘Scientists’ would refuse to answer that question. CO2, Water vapor, Methane, nitrogen triflouride (gas used in Plasma TVs that is 17,000 times more potent than CO2), to name a few.
Yep
Vapor is the most important ghg. But it is the secondmost important ghg that has seen the change in level since 1950.
Mr. Jones,
1. The “secondmost important ghg” (assuming by that you meant CO2) has, so far, no evidence for its being of ANY importance in driving earth’s climate.
2. The increase in CO2 may be entirely natural, thus, making the entire AGW discussion moot (beyond its already ephemeral basis purely in conjecture and speculation).
3. Finally, there IS ice core proxy evidence (See Dr. Murry Salby’s work and that of others) that temperature drives CO2 emission.
Just a correction so that your comment will not mislead those who are inadequately or inaccurately informed about CO2.
Janice
Evan Jones, you seem to be going the “way of the Mosher”. What is going on with you?
“evanmjones
February 14, 2015 at 10:54 am
Vapor is the most important ghg. But it is the secondmost important ghg that has seen the change in level since 1950.”
Is the second most important GHG “alarmist hot air”?
/grin
It was the 17,000 times more greenhousy than CO2 of trace gasses claims that first alerted my BS senses to the fraud of greenhouse gass hypothesis. For example I started with the question ‘if CO2 absorbs 17,000 times less IR radiation than triflouride how dangerous can it be? Especially since it’s only supposed to send half of it back to Earth!’ A little more digging and it becomes clear that the whole theory is not based on energy but on TIME. Each individual molecule is supposed to have a memory of energy it absorbed and released a second ago, a year ago, a 1000 years ago! So climate physicists fraudulently calculate reactions of the past into energy budgets of the present.
Also important how they decided to classify the participants. The article above uses the terms “global warming skeptic” to describe one group and “manmade warming believer”. At face value, many who are considered skeptics would fit in neither of these groups. Some would fit in the latter, but be skeptical that the manmade warming was significant or dangerous. I wish people would define these terms more carefully.
Paul Arends,
The ambiguous use of the word skeptic is one reason why I prefer to use AGW consensus vs. AGW contrarian terminology. Those terms are more specific to the position one holds while remaining agnostic as to the process by which one forms their beliefs.
“I prefer to use AGW consensus vs. AGW contrarian terminology.”
Excellent–this is another reason why “contrarian” ought to replace “d#nier” in warmist terminology. (I use it myself, as a way of bridge-building.)
Who needs to build bridges? Their theory is wrong. It is time we ignore them and to hell with “bridge building’. There is no “bridge building” in science and no need for any.
David Ball is absolutely correct. Why build bridges to egregious science?
Why dip in pitch? The correct stand is to adhere to correct scientific principles.
Brandon Gates;
Meanwhile, over at HW, he prefers other terms;
&
You’re all class Brandon.
Look, a warmist who is also a hypocrite. Shocker.
Gates says:
…I prefer to use AGW consensus vs. AGW contrarian terminology.
The consensus, for what that’s worth in science [nothing], is entirely on the side of scientific skeptics. That has been established beyond any doubt.
How do you define “scientific skeptics?”
..
I know a lot of proponents of AGW that are both skeptical and are scientists.
Brandon Gates writes “I prefer to use AGW consensus vs. AGW contrarian terminology”
You would want that. The fact is that many sceptics are just that, sceptics. Not contrarians, not deniers. We can see enough holes in the AGW argument to not simply accept it but that doesn’t mean we automatically believe that CO2 *isn’t* responsible for the warming. Instead we look for evidence that it isn’t (unlike the pro-AGW people whose papers are often written on the assumption of CO2 caused warming)
BruceC,
pffft, that’s the worst you could find at HW? I’m sure I’m sure I’ve at least matched that right here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/02/shock-study-results-calling-climate-skeptics-deniers-just-pisses-them-off/#comment-1851794
Every solution leads to new problems.
That reads like apathy and wishful thinking to me. Climate aside, the world is changing economically and my view is that we are increasingly lagging in our ability to compete. Whether you like it or not, the whole world, including the US, sees the writing on the wall wrt fossil fuels and is taking appropriate steps to reduce their dependence on it. That’s a market opportunity. Your luddite-like view of intentional directed change is not the sort of attitude which lends itself to capitalizing on it. I think that’s stupidly short-sighted.
dbstealey gave me a hard time about that one, and it wasn’t even directed at one of his comments. Perhaps you have seen the piggy thread …
… wherein I said to DB, “There’s just no fixing your particular brand of stupid dishonesty, is there.” Which really wasn’t very nice of me I admit. But it’s my honest assessment of most of what DB writes, and on that thread, particularly true of my view on the specific thing he’d written that I was responding to. If you think calling a spade a spade isn’t classy, well tough shit for me then, innit. I can’t win ’em all.
TimTheToolMan,
Close. I simply refuse to cede the term skeptic to your side of the debate for the very fact that you don’t have a monopoly on skepticism …
… yet you think that you do. I don’t care to feed your personal or collective mythologies any more than you already feed it yourself. Quite sure you feel the same about me, which is fine. At the end of the day the only way to find out what’s really going on is properly skeptical scientific inquiry, which to me means developing hypotheses, gathering observations, developing models and publishing results. Whatever bullshit labels we choose to call ourselves or the other side of the debate does not matter one damn bit. The main reason labels matter to me is because they matter to so many other people. Attempting to understand that psychology is useful, especially in a “debate” that is anything but.
dbstealey,
I like how you’re covering all the bases there. I must grudgingly admit a certain amount of genius lies behind that which I have called “stupidly dishonest” oh so recently.
Gates:
We call ourselves skeptics.
What do you call yourself? A skeptic?
Confused again, Gates?
I wrote:
The consensus, for what that’s worth in science [nothing], is entirely on the side of scientific skeptics. That has been established beyond any doubt.
Gates doesn’t like the fact that the consensus is on the side of skeptics. He replied:
I like how you’re covering all the bases there. I must grudgingly admit a certain amount of genius lies behind that which I have called “stupidly dishonest” oh so recently.
Gates has labeled me “stupidly dishonest” repeatedly. He does it when he cannot refute the facts I post.
And ‘covering all the bases’?? I made a factual statement. Gates cannot refute that, either. Thus, the statement stands.
I will be happy to give Gates the opportunity to try and refute the fact that skeptics have the consensus view. Just post the names of any scientists who disagree with the OISM statement. I will bury Gates with the names of tens of thousands of skeptical scientists.
As always, Gates uses insults and name-calling in place of verifiable facts. Thus, he has decisively lost the debate. Is there any doubt [except for Gates’ own self-serving, fact-free opinion]?
B. Gates would not feel the compulsion to label othes as “stupid” and “dishonest” if he had any credible supporting facts. He doesn’t. The planet is making a mockery of the alarmist narrative. Skeptics would quickly change their minds if the facts went against them, as they are going against Gates and his ilk. That is such an obvious fact that it needs no further support. Here is Gates’ typical response, when his feet are held to the fire of science and logic:
In fact, I don’t give “plenty of insults”. What Gates does is take a statement like a guy who picks a hat off a rack and says, “This hat fits me perfectly Therefore, it must be my hat!”
Consider the source of Gates’ nasty quote above. He is obviously filled with hatred. It consumes him. Is there any doubt, after reading that? He is a hater because he has decisively lost the MMGW debate. Most folks have more class than that when they lose an argument.
Next, scientific skeptics are far more intelligent than climate alarmists. It doesn’t take a ‘study’ to see that. It is amusing to think that they have the answers, when every alarming prediction has failed miserably. When one side of the debate has been WRONG every step of the way, all they have left is name-calling and insults. They have lost the debate because they do not have supportable facts.
Finally, Gates complains to moderators, wanting them to go after other commenters — when his own despicable commentary is far worse, and is posted far more often. There is just no comparison. Alarmist blogs routinely delete and censor skeptical comments that they cannot refute. They do not allow their readers to see any point of view but their own. Gates says much worse things about our host, and about other commenters, at his alarmist blogs than he does here. That should tell any neutral reader who is right, and who is emitting bogus propaganda.
Scientific skeptics have decisively won the MMGW debate. All that’s left is sweeping up the remnants, which we are doing. One by one, alarmists are dropping out. Anyone reading the comments under mass media articles on global warming sees the ridicule, which wasn’t there just a couple of years ago. The worm has turned, and the alarmist view is toast. Only the losers are left to argue.
“Is there any doubt {Gates’ comments are internally inconsistent nonsense}?”
No.
Good job, D. B..
@ ROFLOL — The majority of genuine scientists (whether or not they would say it out loud due to fear of losing their jobs) has ALWAYS been that the null hypothesis re: human CO2 emissions has NOT been disproven. Ever.
“Scientific skeptics have decisively won the MMGW debate”
..
Really?….When did that happen?
It happened the moment they called us “Deneirs”. It also occurred again when the phrase “the science is settled” was used.
mpainter,
Cynic.
I don’t think so.
rodmol@virginmedia.com,
Somewhere between Oerskes (2004): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
and Cook (2013): http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
was the Petition Project: http://www.petitionproject.org/
Which is perhaps one of the best own-goals ever witnessed since proper football was invented, no better illustrated by Mr. Stealey’s instantly classic self-refutation: The consensus, for what that’s worth in science [nothing], is entirely on the side of scientific skeptics. That has been established beyond any doubt.
Never one to know when he’s been licked, he keeps on with it: I will be happy to give Gates the opportunity to try and refute the fact that skeptics have the consensus view. Just post the names of any scientists who disagree with the OISM statement. I will bury Gates with the names of tens of thousands of skeptical scientists.
So there we have it. Consensus in science is [nothing], and he can bury me, you, the whole world with tens of thousands of people who have a consensus. 10,000 is bigger than 97, amirite? I’m right. Easy peasy. I must be wrong about the real science of AGW because the smartest guy on the World’s Best Science Webstite told me so. Or did he just expend 10 paragraphs scientifically telling me off? Never can keep those things straight.
Pity. I was really hoping to be admired here as much as say, Michael Mann. Must’ve been something I said. Or maybe I’ve just gotten too fond of posting this pretty picture:
I wouldn’t like looking at it either. Oh well, only thing for it is to crawl off to a hole somewhere and die, thoroughly vanquished by irrefutable smoke, mirrors and circular logic.
Brandon writes “Close. I simply refuse to cede the term skeptic to your side of the debate for the very fact that you don’t have a monopoly on skepticism …”
Except you’re not a sceptic, are you? You believe in the science that has been presented to you. You believe it represents the truth. You are a Believer.
My challenge to Gates is consistently ignored, hidden in a cloud of pixels: can Gates [or warrenlb, or any of the small handful of alarmist debate losers here] post an equal number, or more, of the names of alarmist scientists and engineers to counter the OISM statement?
No.
Well then, can he find even 10% of the number of named OISM co-signers contradicting their statement?
No.
Can Gates come up with just one percent — only about 300 names of scientists and engineers contradicting the OISM co-signers? Just a measly 1%??
NO.
So, can Gates come up with ANY names of credible scientists who contradict the overwhelming consensus of the 32,000+ scientists and engineers who signed the OISM petition??
NO.
Despite Gates’ constant bloviating, whining and deflecting, the fact is that the rent-seeking clique of climate alarmists is extremely small. It is getting smaller all the time. That is an irrefutable fact. No former climate alarmist who sees the light ever goes back to their failed MMGW narrative. Once they tell the truth, they never go back.
The only response Gates ever has to the proof of the real consensus is to emit worthless pixels. The facts — and the numbers — are 100% on the side of skeptics of MMGW. Gates has lost the ‘consensus’ argument. Is there any doubt?
Gates, who is far more insulting and name-calling than any skeptic here [and a hundred times worse on other blogs, always badmouthing Anthony and the skeptical commenters here], finishes up his impotent rant with a picture of of few of his pals feeding at the money trough. As if there is anything wrong with that picture. There isn’t. But it’s all he’s got:
Yes, that is an accurate depiction of the situation.
Finally, on any site with more than a million readers’ comments, there are always bound to be a few despicable reprobates who continue to tap-dance around the facts. Gates is at the bottom of that barrel. He would have some saving grace if he was ever right. But as always, he is flat wrong — and I have proven that here beyond any doubt. Again. Whack-A-Mole!
So now the poor, lost and confused cAGW types are trying to garb themselves in the cloth of skeptics, calling themselves “skeptical”.
Protective coloration?
Note how often Gates re-posts the image of the pigs at the trough of $ (on this and other threads), but not because he likes the picture, but for the purpose of squealing protests.
What’s with the squealing, Gates? Touched a nerve?
dbstealey,
When did the World’s Best Science Website start endorsing science by popularity?
Glad to finally see you take some ownership for the piggy picture in the same way that I have been owning my “stupidly dishonest” comment ….
…. but I see we’re still having trouble in the self-recognition department. I can only ask for so much of the ethically impaired I suppose.
mpainter,
Once again we see mpainter cluelessly shoot himself in the foot. I wouldn’t expect the World’s Best Science Website to be in the business of engaging in such an obvious troll tactics. It’s funny what gullibility causes one to believe and disbelieve, isn’t it.
TimTheToolMan,
You may wish to rethink this. By your argument here, if you believe in anything at all you’re not a “skeptic”. Calling yourself something doesn’t make you that thing, you know.
Gates says:
I wouldn’t expect the World’s Best Science Website to be in the business of engaging in such an obvious troll tactics.
I’ve subscribed to the Economist for almost forty years. A couple of months ago they ran a cartoon that was very similar to this…
…showing several pigs feeding at a money trough. The Economist is a mainstream, well regarded publication, so whatever Gates ‘expects’ is wrong. As usual.
Gates sez:
That “mpainter has cluelessly shot himself in the foot”
Aren’t them pigs darling, Gates, the way they stuff themselves with our tax $?
Not a bit clueless, them pigs, eh Gates?
Brandon writes “You may wish to rethink this. By your argument here, if you believe in anything at all you’re not a “skeptic”. Calling yourself something doesn’t make you that thing, you know.”
Rethink it? If you believe in something, you’re not sceptical about it. So you believe in “AGW” and so on balance you believe the arguments that make up the AGW theory. For me (and many) there are enough holes in the argument to call ourselves sceptical about “AGW” because we’re sceptical about many aspects of the theory.
What I meant by bridge-building in this context was being diplomatic by the adoption of a more neutral term for our side. Some warmists will stop reading a comment that refers to us heretics as skeptics. (This is similar to (but less justified than) the refusal of many on our side to read any warmist document containing the word “d*nier.”) If I want the maximum readership, to change minds and forestall hot-tempered responses, I need to be diplomatic.
+1
rogerknights,
You’re likely absolutely correct. However if I may speak as a warmist who might know my own side a little better, the two most common reasons I find myself and others who hold the consensus view dismissing things out of hand are:
1) On the basis of who wrote it, their past behavior and/or affiliations with some special interest lobby (follow the money) or,
2) It’s an obvious “smear” or attack piece which uses loaded terminology.
Yes, exactly. Same if material comes from SkS, RealClimate or contains the word “model”. Am I right? I’m right.
Again, probably true. However there will always be a market for rhetoric which is targeted to a specific audience and which is not interested in diplomacy nor maximum readership. The technique is known as “rallying the base” or “preaching to the already converted”, etc. My view is that the global warming “debate” has been at the point where the battle lines have been drawn, irrevocably so. It’s been that way practically since I can remember. I’m generally happy to reach across the aisle and talk to people like you who are looking to be diplomatic for whatever reason. I also know that diplomacy is for the purpose of serving some agenda, which is fine — I see nothing wrong with self-interest.
Rogerknights
Nothing says it better than to say “I’m skeptical”.
I shall refer to myself as a skeptic and proudly.
A contrarian is something different. He is not actuated by skepticism but by a desire to do something “contrary” to the standard, accepted methods. Don’t get suckered into using that term, it ill fits.
Despite the simplicity and loading of the questions, the warmists still can tilt the scales in their favour..
So the breakdown is Skeptic and liberals, interesting.
typo, should be can’t – questions should be chosen at random from 100 postulated “facts”
The questioner is too stupid to accurately gauge anyone elses intelligence.
Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dullard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School.
Good Lord, even the dude’s trophies and awards are for being exceptionally dense. 😉
““What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?””
That question is too stupid to answer ‘correctly’. I wouldn’t know how to answer a question phrased that way.
Quite so. Stupid question, more stupid people get it “right”. In setting MCQs it’s sometimes amazing how you can get a perfect inverse correlation between overall exam performance and answers to that question…
dccowboy,
I think it should have been worded differently so as to be more specific. Something like, “What gas do most scientists believe is primarily responsible for much of the observed temperature rise over the past 120 years?”
I don’t know what most scientists BELIEVE, and what one believes is neither her nor there. The question is badly framed.
After co2 we have these.
• water vapour
• Methane
• Nitrous oxide
• Ozone – Tropospheric
• CFCs
Which scientists?
It’s a meaningless question. You’d have to ask something like ‘which gas do most of the mass media believe is responsible for Global Warming?’ which would actually have a clear and obvious answer.
““What gas do most scientists believe is primarily responsible for much of the observed temperature rise over the past 120 years?”
The answer is still water vapour. If you want an unambiguous question you should ask:
“What gas does most scientists believe controls the total amount of greehouse gases in the atmosphere and is therefore ultimately responsible for much of the observed temperature rise over the past 120 years?”
tty,
That’s what you think the real answer is. It’s NOT my understanding of what “most scientists believe” as indicated by the phrasing of the question. We should probably at this point define what Kahan means by “most scientists”, I’ll go with what the IPCC publishes in assessment reports. Open to other suggestions. 97% consensus works for me as well.
I haven’t read the thing yet, but I did learn a thing or two about polling and surveys in sk00l, so I’ll draw from that. What I think Kahan was really driving at is the control knob concept, as in “CO2 is the primary driver of climate”. Which is a talking point that drives me all kinds of batty because it’s a gross oversimplification according to my understanding of literature. That’s beside the point. A good survey about what people conceptually understand about an issue wants to avoid asking conceptual questions using (un)popular slogans. So asking, “True or false, most scientists believe that CO2 is the planet’s thermostat?” would probably generate more “correct” answers than as phrased simply because the way I just wrote it is used in popular press so often.
And by the way, how you’ve rephrased it isn’t my understanding of what “most scientists believe”. According to what I think I understand, it’s absolutely true that water vapor is a postitive feedback to ANY forcing, as are both methane and CO2. Increase insolation by, say Milankovitch orbital theory, and all three will rise in response as feedback mechanisms amplifying temperature response to the initial forcing. The other major feedback response there is albedo, due to ice melt, right? Right. There are others, lapse rate feedback, all kinds of stuff. I don’t think we need to go there for this conversation.
That’s the natural end of how all this works … this is what we understand the planet to do without our influence. Now, we are perfectly capable of putting methane and CO2 into the atmosphere ourselves, and we have. Plus CFCs. All those things purportedly cause the same, or so similar as to not make much a difference, responses to the rest of the system. “Most scientists believe” that CO2 emissions are the primary anthropogenic influence, but we also emit methane directly, there’s black carbon from soot as another byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, etc. etc.
So in short, saying “CO2 drives all other GHGs” doesn’t compute for me. That phrasing skips over a bunch of nuance which does not conform to my understanding of what I’ve read … as does the phrasing in Kahan’s original question. I would have written it differently, but still kept it about as simple as the original. The practice of polling pretty much demands that sort of simplicity.
The nitwits are the ones who correlate the “97% consensus” BS with the phrase “most climate scientists” (or “most scientists”), and therefore answer “carbon dioxide”.
Nitwit => believer in 97% consensus => answer as CO2.
The survey probably sets the baseline by asking “yes AGW or Non AGW”;
Most people who answer as “yes AGW” => answer as CO2 => Nitwit
Pretty simple … phrase the question any way you want and the outcome will be the same.
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?”
Water vapour is no more a “cause” of temperature than is CO2. In some circumstances it slows cooling, others it slows warming. Net? Probably zero. Has it increased and caused warming? No, and there hasn’t been any warming.
Martin Clark,
Correctomundo. It has yet to be established that CO2 causes any global warming.
And here is the study and release on the dire effects of the positive feedback runaway loop of catastrophic global warming. It’s better than we previously thought! The temperature standstill is at 18 years and counting.
See also:
Ocean–atmosphere interactions: Bottom up in the tropics. Nature Climate Change,
Qiang Fu. 2013; 3 (11): 957 DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2039
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2039
dccowboy
““What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?””
Don’t know about cowboys, but most engineers use steam to heat gasses and fluids ….
(Cowboys, on the udder hand, have been known to begin with beans for the same purpose …)
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?”
The correct answer is not CO2 but water vapor.
*****************************
for the purposes of the survey though co2 is correct right?
question is not whether the scientists are right but what they believe (thats sort of a keyword…) is the gas that does it.
think question would have been better phrased as what gas do many scientists tell us, correct or not, causes temp to rise.
To me, as scientist, the question is asking which gas if (say) doubled would cause the greatest increase in temperature in the opinion of most scientists. Isn’t the answer water vapour?
Mark,
Well, that’s tricky. Doubled from any arbitrary baseline, or doubled from present levels? If the former, the answers are Carbon tetrafluoride (AR5) or Sulfur hexafluoride (TAR and AR4) by the measurement of global warming potential or GWP. Water vapor isn’t rated by GWP, apparently the calculations are too tricky; largely I believe because of WV’s very short lifetime in the atmosphere relative to the “well-mixed” GHGs like CO2, methane and CFCs. And for the record, GWP is an index value with CO2 being the reference value of 1. Everything else I listed are much higher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential
If doubled from present levels is what you’re working at, I’d guess that WV would rule them all just by nature of it being the most prevalent GHG in the atmosphere. But here again, water vapor’s phase diagram comes into play again. Realistically if we magically jacked up specific humidity and held all else constant, it would quite rapidly precipitate back out in places where that doubling pushed a given parcel of atmosphere beyond the saturation limit. That would release a damn lot of heat in the process which would do quite unpredictable things for a while … suffice it to say massive storms would be an order. Still and all, I’d expect a relatively quick return to present-day equilibrium. Like on the order of a year, probably less? Dunno. Interesting question actually.
See what I mean when I say that Gates is unaware that the GCM’s utilize increases in water vapor as the means to contrive their projected warming?
“See what I mean when I say that Gates is unaware that the GCM’s utilize increases in water vapor as the means to contrive their projected warming?”
I agree, he is abysmally ignorant. He is apparently completely unaware of the difference between a GHG which is so rare that the greenhouse effect is proportional to concentration and gases where the spectral bands are saturated.
tty,
Correct. This chart shows the warming effect of rising CO2:
At current concentrations [≈400 ppm], there is no measurable effect at all. That fact totally debunks about 97% of the alarmists’ narrative.
Look at the chart, at around 400 ppm. Then look at the temperature scale on the left. We see that even if CO2 increased substantially, to 500 ppm, there would be no measureable rise in global T.
That completely destroys the climate alarmists’ argument. They have no argument, so they misdirect, and deflect, and they spout unrelated pablum in a devious attempt to muddy the waters.
Your chart shows …..” This chart shows the warming effect of rising CO2:”
…
But you posted…”It has yet to be established that CO2 causes any global warming.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/14/a-new-study-shows-climate-skeptics-have-more-knowledge-on-climate-science-than-alarmists/#comment-1859664
…
So, could you please clear up the confusion?….Either CO2 does warm or it doesn’t…….can you make up your mind?
Rodmol
We are trying everyway we know to try to clear up your confusion.
But you won’t let us.
The center operative of the question is “most scientists”. A concept that is not validated or seriously tested anywhere.
If going by ‘most’ recorded scientists, that would be the Oregon petition and the answer is not CO2.
Basically, it was a ‘true believer’ propaganda question and not about science.
Of course they [meant] to ask “What (well mixed) gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?”
How well mixed is it? I’ve seen some lumpy images over the past few years. Here is NASA on the issue.
The simple fact that it was posted on FOX news is all the alarmists need to discredit it. I’m sorry, but that’s going to be the end result. The only people who will believe it are those already in the skeptic camp.
I’ve had people tell me where I argue the skeptic point, that they will ABSOLUTELY *NOT* believe Tony Heller, for example, just because of (fill in the blank). And what was the point? The frigging EASILY VERIFIABLE FACT that something being claimed about an extreme event, had been shown to have happened many times before.
Sorry, in a bit of depression.
It should be dismissed. It is meaningless. It is the same sort of appeal to authority that climate science relies upon in the first place.
Mark
“It should be dismissed. It is meaningless. It is the same sort of appeal to authority that climate science relies upon in the first place.”
Sorry, I disagree. The “believers” constantly denigrate the intelligence and level of knowledge of “deniers”. One of the main arguments used on discussion boards is that those who deny AGW are ” uneducated, extremist, right-wing, ignorant, wing-nuts”, or something to that effect. If nothing more, this serves to show that the description of “deniers” is incorrect.
Well of course. Most people I know who are true blue CCC believers, are just that, BELIEVERS! When you believe in something, you no longer look into the chance that you may be wrong, you just “know” that you are right.
Sceptics, by the mere fact that they are sceptical, want to know the truth, so keep on digging into the research, we neither believe or know, but want to form an opinion, based on sound scientific principles.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of the 2000 respondents were classed as sceptics and what proportion classed as Liberals, whatever that means, and how were the classifications verified.
On second reading, I see the actual paper also says “climate warming believers” which sounds more accurate to me.
CO2 doesn’t have as wide an IR absorption spectra as water vapor. If all water vapor were suddenly missing from the atmosphere, is there an increased percentage of CO2 that could compensate for its loss in terms of its “greenhouse effect?”
bs
Nope,
If water vapor went missing from the atmosphere, surface temperatures would drop 20.5C and there is no amount of extra CO2 that would recover that temperature loss. CO2 rising from today’s 0.04% of the atmosphere to 100% of the atmosphere would only recover 8.3C of the loss. I don’t think many pro-global warmers would even understand the question let alone make the calculations.
Thanks, Bill.
I figured that would be the case, but don’t know how to calculate it. The question occurred to me after reading this Atmospheric Radiative Transfer lesson plan from Georgia Tech:
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
Bill Illis,
You need to show a little more of your work here. As soon as you start talking about 100% replacement, the IPCC simplifed expressions for radiative forcing by doubling concentration start to break down. What becomes important is the absolute amount of the replacement gas present in the atmosphere, not the natural log of the ratio of a gas relative to some baseline. IOW, a “thin” atmosphere composed of some IR active molecule will have less effect on reducing heat loss from the surface and lower layers of atmosphere than a “thick” one would.
Put Mars with its 95.3% CO2 and Venus with its 96.5% CO2 (by volume, both) atmospheres into Earth orbit and the surface of Venus would likely still be much hotter than Mars to a … degree … that would be much better explained by the sheer density of CO2 in Venus’ atmosphere relative to Mars and not by the 1.2% “advantage” in relative concentration.
May very well be true, but from where I’m sitting you haven’t exactly thought it all the way through either. It’s probably a question worth asking ourselves in terms of onset of the next orbital-driven ice age, and indeed someone has already gone there: http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/archer.2005.trigger.pdf
The money quote: An anthropogenic release of 300 Gton C (as we have already done) has a relatively small impact on future climate evolution, postponing the next glacial termination 140 kyr from now by one precession cycle.
Which is good news for once. And now, my obligatory caution that more and more of a good thing is not necessarily better. Moderation in all things. Etc.
Bill, after I pressed send, I realized that in a 100% replacement scenario, the log relationship probably goes away. The reason for it is because WV and CO2 overlap, so CO2’s main doubling effect comes from the “tails” of its absorption spectrum.
Brandon…your post is a fine example of what I described as “enlightening.”
Gates:
In fact, the GCM’s utilize water vapor to contrive their projections of warming.
Learn something new every day at this blog, don’t you Gates.
On the contrary, Gates is utterly “unenlightened”.
But those who want to be enlightened about the reality of climate science have come to the right place, your efforts and those of Gates and others notwithstanding. More and more of the general public is recognizing that the alarmism is phoney.
Yet Gates, rodmol, rooter, flashman, and other hotmoma types crank the handle of the propaganda mill industriously. Huge entertainment, those types.
Most kind, thank you.
” More and more of the general public is recognizing that the alarmism is phoney.”
Depends on who does the polling
..
Oh, and the correct spelling in “phony”
Brandon Gates February 14, 2015 at 11:55 am
The sunlight day on Venus is 2808 hours long compared to Earth’s 12 hours.
On Earth, in those 12 hours, the temperature increases by 10C in 9.5 of those hours before the temperature starts falling or 0.95C/hour till the peak.
If you continued the rate at which the Earth’s surface warms up by 2223 hours (to simulate Venus’ rotation rate) would the Earth’s surface then heat up by 0.95C/hour times 2223 hours which equals 2,112C.
CO2 has nothing to do with it. Venus is hot because its rotation rate allows the sunlight to accumulate and accumulate for such a long time on the daytime side until it is so hot, that all the water evaporates, so that all the gases that could be baked out of the land surface are baked out so that the atmosphere becomes extremely thick so that less sunlight gets to the surface, but that does not matter, because the day is 2808 hours long.
Crunch the number in terms of joules/second rate that Venus’ land surface will be absorbing that solar energy (actually a very tiny number) and then apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the temperature that results (which works perfectly in the universe it is tried) and then note that the extremely dense atmosphere and high winds will perfectly transfer energy on Venus from the sunlight side to the dark-side (given it has 2808 hours to work with) and guess what the resulting surface temperature of Venus is (assuming Zero CO2 in that thick atmosphere)?
A surprising 450C. Almost exactly what it is. CO2 has nothing to do with it. Joules/second is something everyone should think about because now we getting to “real” energy and real temperature and not taking shortcuts that don’t work.
Bill Illis,
I’m sorry, your comment lead me to believe that you knew something about how to properly do a CO2 forcing calculation … lemme see … ah:
If water vapor went missing from the atmosphere, surface temperatures would drop 20.5C and there is no amount of extra CO2 that would recover that temperature loss. CO2 rising from today’s 0.04% of the atmosphere to 100% of the atmosphere would only recover 8.3C of the loss. I don’t think many pro-global warmers would even understand the question let alone make the calculations.
Now you’re talking about length of day. I’m not interested in bait and switch. You alleged that you know how to do the proper calculation for a 100% CO2 atmosphere on the planet, I think you need to show your work on that and knock it off with the red herrings. It’s either that, or defer from making comments about people who you say don’t know how to do the calculations properly.
“If water vapour went missing from the atmosphere” you would not calculate the temperature change by greenhouse mathematics if you wanted to get a correct answer.
Change in atmospheric mass and Albedo would be the only worthwhile considerations. Without change in those two variables you don’t get any significant change in mean temperature.
Rodmol, “the correct spelling is phony”
Depending it seems on place of birth or education. But what would I know; I only googled it. And yes I am from the antipodes. 😉
lee,
When they start arguing about spelling, it is clear that they have lost the science debate. Deflection and changing the subject is the usual tactic of alarmists, when they have no credible facts to support them.
rodmol@virginmedia.com
February 14, 2015 at 1:00 pm
> ” More and more of the general public is recognizing that the alarmism is phoney.”
– – – –
Depends on who does the polling
..
Oh, and the correct spelling in [sic] “phony”
====================
The correct spelling is also phoney.
Oh, and the confident assertion of a falsehood can be embarrassing.
The spelling depends on one’s geographical location, and if you were familiar with mpainter you’d know the “e” should be dropped.
http://grammarist.com/usage/phony-phoney/
The spelling is dependent on geography
..
http://grammarist.com/usage/phony-phoney/
Khwarizmi is correct, and he provdes an impeccable reference. Americans got their language from the British. Therefore, British spelling is A-OK. It’s like the difference between ‘artefact’ and ‘artifact’. Both are acceptable.
This is not a spelling bee site. This is the internet’s Best Science site. Rodney was just plain wrong about grammar in another thread, so now he wants to be the spelling arbiter. Normally I wouldn’t care at all, because I personally have never made a spelling misteak. But I notice the putative spelling and grammar criticism seems to be directed exclusively at skeptics. What does that tell you about Rodney?
Rodney Moleneaux, is that your name?
“If you were familiar with mpainter you would know that the…”
####
Scuse,please, but you know nothing about mpainter. In fact, you have just started commenting on this blog; a newbie.
On a side note, students at Yale University, who were planning a protest for Fossil Free Yale (FFY), are delaying the protest due to “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues, including some cancellations from speakers and performance groups”.
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2015/02/13/with-global-event-ffy-to-broaden-focus/
Fossil Free Yale? I hope one of their Archaeological Studies bods has had a word with those students …
http://www.yale.edu/archaeology/
Nice Joke, but they are clearly missing the word Fuel in their name to make it clear.
classicalhero7, as in Fossil Fool, sorry Fuel, Free?
There is no question that the alarmists types are characterized by ignorance. We see it daily at WUWT.
Intelligence and wisdom are not the same but they are related.
Would the smartest come here?
Of course! You’re here, aren’t you? ☺
A significant number of the public have a perception that “97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming”; and, a shale-gas fracking fluid contains “hundreds of chemicals”.
Ya know, depending upon the study’s error bars, it could be possible that 97% of skeptics scored higher than warmest.
Just saying…
Opinion drives politics, and therefore taxes. That is to drive Republicans to believe it is ok for them to raise the same taxes they have stopping the Democrats from enacting.
I would like to look at the questions but I am not sure what it would clear up for me. I don’t put much stock in this “study”, I mean, how will 9 questions find out anything, and how does 4 to 4.5 out of 9 tell you anything at all? I think mostly this proves beyond a shadow of doubt that most people, no matter what their opinion, know exactly jack-$hyt about climate. Sorry, I couldn’t bring myself to read it.
It shows skeptics are half-smart; warmists less so.
The hot gas emanating from Washington D.C. makes my temperature rise!
This isn’t a scientifically valid “survey,” IT IS A THINLY DISGUISED MEANS OF PUSHING HUMAN CO2 PROPAGANDA.
Most GENUINE scientists KNOW there is no evidence that CO2 causes any significant change in the climate of the earth.
What — a — load — of — B.S..
******************************************
******************************************
Now, on a sweeter and TRUER note #(:))
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
HAPPY VALENTINE’S DAY, EVERYONE!
You genuine scientists, engineers, and scholars are the BEST!
And a song….
“Stand By Me” by Ben E. King (youtube)
Standing together, truth will win. Not all of us will be there when it does … and some of us like Willie Soon and Murry Salby have suffered dreadfully, …. and
there will be another fight ahead in the perennial war against tyranny, but THIS battle is WON — the Envirostalinists and Enviroprofiteers and their scientists-for-hire have been pushed to the margins. Thanks to you ALL, that is where they will stay.
Whether you are today joyfully celebrating with the love of your life or just quietly accepting what must be,
know that YOU — ARE — LOVED.
Always,
Janice
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
Janice,
I love you!
Oh, Rick K… . That was VERY sweet. Thank you for taking the time to write.
It was kinda hard to watch my Valentine be ignored…. and ignored…. and ignored some more.
This Valentine’s Day is hard enough as it is.
I hope that today is a good day for you.
With gratitude,
Janice
[Ah, but is a Valentine’s Day local solar time, local standard time, or universal Greenland Meridian Daylight Melting Icecap Time? Regardless, Happy Valentine’s Day/Night/Sunday! .mod]
Thank you, Mod! #(:))
Thanks Janice for the vid, tears, We two had a great simple dinner together ( she is sleeping it is past midnight here) but thanks, btw your comments are as always from the heart!
A Sybot! Thanks for saying so. So glad to hear that you have a “she” to have dinner with. 🙂 That you two need only a “simple dinner” to celebrate shows that your love is deep, indeed. A candle (perhaps), a simple meal, … and thou. “Simple” = truly romantic.
And, thanks.
Janice
I read the study, and what I came away with is collectivism good, individualism bad. The paper gave me the impression they were trying to figure out why there are skeptics and how to correct it. It isn’t lack of knowledge, quite the opposite. It boils down to who has a collective bent and who doesn’t. So watch science scores go down, don’t want too many people actually knowing science so they can question it, and watch efforts increase to manipulate children’s minds to a hive mentality.
Maybe I read it wrong, I’m no scientist. Maybe at best I’m a pessimist and at worst I’m a tin foil hat wearer. Anyone else read the whole paper?
FoxNews?? Any apparent support from that source is, unfortunately, akin to ‘damning with faint praise’
+1
Just for the record (this has been troubling me for a week, now!): My +1 was because Fox News has over the past 3 or 4 years become increasingly sickeningly lukewarm in its support for truth. “Fair and balanced” means: we pretend the statists’ positions are logically and morally equivalent to those of the ordered liberty people. (and we talk about O ALL THE TIME (publicity is publicity….grr)).
HOWEVER, Fox News is the most accurate major TV news source out there at this time.
There! Now, I can finally stop thinking about my +1 !
Well, is Fox News supporting the survey or reporting it since some of it reflects their general skeptical view of CAGW?
Really? The #1 cable news network for 13 straight years?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/2014-cable-news-ratings-cnn-beats-msnbc-in-primetime-demo-fox-still-1/
“In total viewers for primetime, Fox nearly tripled its nearest competition with 1.748M. ”
…
Still no match for network news.
..
http://stateofthemedia.org/files/2013/03/2-Evening-News-Audiences-Decrease-at-ABC-and-NBC-Rise-at-CBS.png
rodmol~ That’s because FOX can’t sink That low…..
“Far more people watch the three network evening newscasts than prime time cable news shows— roughly ten times more. But as cable news is always on, polls show more people say they “regularly” get news from cable.”
http://www.journalism.org/numbers/cable-news-vs-network-news-viewership/
Interesting that NBC nightly news, the report with the most facile liar, got the highest ratings.
A silly, probably biased non scientific survey like this is exactly what we don’t want to see.
There is authentic science rooted in my skeptism. Using research or a survey like this to support the position only weakens the case because it is clearly non scientific.
If I insist it rained 5 inches overnight at my house and you don’t believe me and part of my evidence is that the grass is wet and everybody heard thunder, it shows that my underlying evidence must be weak.
I need some thing like a rain gauge measurement or radar estimate to prove my case that it rained 5 inches.
“Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.”
I’m not disagreeing with this statement, but the amount of rise may not be equivalent to the entire ice volume as much (the majority?) of the Antarctic land mass is below current sealevel and “only” the ice above current sealevel will add to the rise. Which is not to say there won’t be a problem.
““only” the ice above current sealevel will add to the rise.”
Not even that because glacier ice has more than 10% lower density than seawater. So if for example the ice rests on bedrock 1000 meters below sea-level only the part of it more than 100 meters above current sea-level would cause sea-level to increase. This oddly enough means that even if all of the West Antarctic ice-sheet was to melt, the effect would only be about half of that of a melting of the Greenland ice-sheet.
tty
Not all, but a substantial fraction of Greenland’s interior ice cap (that 90% which is trapped between the mountains along both seacoasts, meeting at the southern top of Greenland. The center of the Greenland ice cap does raise substantially above sea level, but the granite “floor” below the central icecap is BELOW sea level. Not everywhere of course, but about half the interior is below sea level to one depth of another.
“Liberals were more likely to correctly answer questions like: “What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.” That answer is actually incorrect. It is water vapor, many times over. If you are asking “What gas do most scientists believe that will cause temperatures to rise and which is produced by human activity”, you might come up with CO2. The “doomsday” cargo cult climate models all rely on significant water vapor amplification for their doomsday results. Things aren’t so simple.
As far as Fox vs. CNN vs. Bloomberg vs. The Economist vs. …, I have found the cargo cult folks run every one of them but Fox. Yes, Fox has a political slant, but nary a day goes by without Bloomberg running a “Doom is coming!! Repent of your ways!!” story on CAGW. CNN usually has one per day and TE usually has one every week.
Oh, and the degree here is PhD with the thesis about retrieving temperature profiles of the atmosphere from the precursors to the AMSU.
I caught that one, too. I was surprised to finally find that point so far down thread. But it was only 2.5 hrs since the first post.
So, where are the questions and how many of the “correct answers” are incorrect (or at lease argumentative) upon close study?
If you are in the upper quartile of intelligence: The more you know about climate science, and its methodology, the more skeptical you become. The lower two quartiles are content to memorize what “the scientists think”.
Totally agree. Most of those people [lower 2] failed to make the Jerry Springer show.
As usual, studies that even support skepticism of climate disaster don’t get a free pass I’m happy to see. What the devil is a ‘political psychologist’ doing making a quiz about global warming science? Indeed, what the devil IS a political psychologist anyway? I’m afraid Recursive Fury Lew has opened the doors wide to the peanut gallery. Since his becoming a climate scientist (there doesn’t seem to be much of a barrier to it these days and the pay and opportunities for advancement for the ‘right stuff’ is certainly attractive) he has encouraged psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and philosophers to join the end of the world gang. I give this paper a zero. It’s point of departure is debunked assumptions about climate change. I regret that skeptics actually took the quiz. Frankly, I don’t know the answers to these questions. When he says ‘scientists’ believe CO2 is the culprit so that is the right answer, I have to ask what does he mean by ‘scientists’? We recently had another shrink blame air pollution for the reason why people shoot themselves in Utah and Wyoming. Good lord, the real problem is how to make all this stuff stop!
A “political psychologist” is a societal parasite, that spends their time trying to get lies past your BS detector. They learn how to wrap lies, in benign sounding words, that worm their way deep into your sub-conscious, before your logical mind, has a chance to reject the lie. It then becomes a “superstitions sub-routine” that can over-ride your logical decision making, without your knowledge, unless you know it exists, and prepare for it. It is how “known liars” get re-elected, so they are very valuable, to politicians.
I thought they were all political psychologists at this point.
This study implies that skeptics know only slightly more than warmists. My experience is quite different. My friends that are skeptics are scientists and engineers, my friends that are warmists are artists and musicians. The warmists don’t have a clue what a differential equation is much less how to solve one.
Yes, indeed. The thinkers are well-informed. My experience is similar, but the division is not in left v. right brain type, but in political orientation (socialist v. free market…. and M. C. we KNOW that not ALL socialists agree with AGW… just talking about the general trend of the anecdotal evidence ….). I am a musician, pretty creative, …. and QUITE EMOTIONAL!! (and I am a rock solid free market, pro-liberty, Constitutional conservative).
The key factors seem to be:
1. intelligence and or
2. lack of an emotional attachment to socialist views (which TEND to be pro-AGW).
The 4 v. 4.5 was just another cunning bit of propaganda, i.e., essentially a l1e.
{See also Chip Javert on error bars at 9:03am: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/14/a-new-study-shows-climate-skeptics-have-more-knowledge-on-climate-science-than-alarmists/#comment-1859469 and Russ R. at 10:18am: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/14/a-new-study-shows-climate-skeptics-have-more-knowledge-on-climate-science-than-alarmists/#comment-1859512 }
Janice, I apologize to all the intelligent musicians I may have offended. I was wrong to group musicians into a single group.
As Kahan was studying US sceptics the left-right thing may be more significant.
Although in the past he has found that that is not the case.
Certainly in the UK today the three leaders of the left, right and mediocre parties all signed a joint declaration that climate change is:
But that’s the UK – not where Kahan was studying.
Dear Mr. Kramden,
No need to apologize! You were simply reporting your experience. It may be the norm! You have proven one thing, though: you are a courteous, kindhearted, person. Thanks for caring enough to write to me.
#(:))
Janice
But you didn’t, you only talked about how it is grouped in your personal environment, nothing to apologize for.
Ralph, you have nothing to apologize for. You did not characterize musicians as a group. You characterized a group as “warmists” and then described their members. Just like saying “most terrorists attacks are committed by Muslims” does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists.
Good insight Janice.
People that understand, and value, the free market, know that it will provide solutions to problems, much more efficiently and targeted, than a governmental bureaucracy will. People that distrust the free market, and think it is controlled by “evil rich villains”, think the government will save us from Big Oil, exploiting our own self-destructive tendencies.
If you drive a Prius, and think your neighbor, who drives a SUV, needs to be “regulated into a car I approve of”, then you are not really open, to discussing the need for the regulation. It is a emotional response, that selects any reasonable excuse, that satisfies the desire to “fix what is wrong with THOSE people”.
Thanks, Russ R.! #(:))
Ralph,
I also accept your apology on behalf of myself and the other eighteen intelligent musicians in the world.
Andy West has a high regard for Kahan’s previous work. He clearly distinguishes it from the work of Lewandowsky.
Although he still disagrees with Kahan’s previous work he makes a good case that the work has been honest.
He wrote an interesting article about that work on Climate Etc.
Thanks MC 🙂
No need for gratitude; I should be thanking you.
I did read what you said to me at the Bishop’s.
And I was the one who was grateful because I found it thought provoking.
Was trawling the internet today looking for absurd AGW stories and came upon this gem. It actually made me laugh out loud!
http://www.parachuteadvansed.com/node/3037
It’s always fun to ask a warmist what the most important greenhouse gas is. They smell a trick question, their brain starts to rotate in its cavity und you can see them trying to remember what it was.
Given the question of media credibility that the Brian Williams imbroglio has raised, this Fox-inspired pap is just that: pap.
Yeah, the Fox fiasco regarding “no-go” areas also comes to mind.
Very few skeptics dispute AGW. Some do. Most think AGW exists.
But they know there are no AGW measurements. That means AGW has a a very tiny effect. MMGW has beel blown far out of proportion by self-serving feeders at the money trough:
Since AGW is too minuscule to measure, the alarmist narrative is hogwash. It has been so thoroughly debunked that only religious True Believers still try to preach it.
But they are losers, on the losing side of the debate. It will only get worse for them, as years pass with no global warming. Pretty soon, only the wild-eyed nutcases will remain. It’s almost at that point now.
Kahan may be a dyed in the wool alarmist but that doesn’t mean his work is worthless.
Nor does the means of secondary reporting.
Why should it?
I read the paper the link goes to (pleasantly not pay walled) but the specific questions asked about climate don’t seem to be listed. The questions determining basic science literacy are (and when I say basic, I mean very basic, I’m not sure knowing if the gene that determines sex of a baby comes from the man or the woman has much bearing on one’s understanding of GHE for example).
That said, the main thrust of the paper seems to be that being a skeptic is irrational, and having determined that skeptics know more about the science than the “rational” people, there must be some other reason for their irrationality. So the authors start with the premise that skeptics are irrational and seek to explain why, never considering for a moment that their better grasp of the science suggests that it isn’t they who are irrational in the first place.
I’m betting that if we had access to the full slate of questions asked, we’d find that it isn’t just the “most important ghg” question that is improperly formulated. When people who don’t understand the science seek to find out what is wrong with people who do, but disagree with the people who don’t, never considering for a moment that it may be themselves who have it wrong, what you have is an amusing piece of garbage politics that discredits itself in a most blatant fashion without even realizing that what has been done.
Assuming that climate change turns only on CO2 is the reason that Climate Scientists can’t get anything right, because that is the irrational assumption.
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?”
Hydrogen, obviously, whose fusion atop the core of the Sun raises the Earth’s temperature above absolute zero.
Presuming that stuff in the Sun can properly be called a gas.
Actually, it’s a lousy/ambiguous/leading question, since each of the 3 nouns, 4 verbs, and one adjective (by my count) in the sentence can be interpreted several ways.
Why do they never ask: “What is the Global Average Temperature supposed to be?”
Climate Realists, aka Skeptics are more knowledgable not only about the faux science peddled by the so-called “consensus”, but also about the actual science. This “study” only asks about the skeptics’ knowledge of the faux science, which the “study” presents as actual science. Pretty neat trick.
It is very, very scary that psychologists are studying this. It suggests that they are trying to label :”skeptics” as mentally deranged. Somebody approved and funded this study. I wonder who?
If you are going to discuss something intelligently, you need to know all the available facts about that subject. If you are just going to make a statement based on your programming or prejudice, citations and discussion become most inconvenient and should be avoided, if possible.
I think reading this site exemplifies that, by allowing all viewpoints to be aired. If Sou and her friends want to moderate out what they don’t agree with, they will have a constantly shrinking group of disciples, IMHO.
Hmm, so I’m wondering why Fox posted this story because the study was done in 2011 and revised in 2013. Kind of old news, no? I found a website that wrote about it in 2011. I don’t recall it going main stream back then, or in 2013.
Based on my earlier comment and prediction are we already seeing the results via common core?
“He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.”
Now we know why alarmists never want to debate with skeptics.
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.”
Ummm surely the answer is water vapour? Virtually all scientists would know this.
The answer CO2 is wrong.
There isn’t yet a paper to read, as FOX News reported February 12, 2015, “. . . a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan.” So, I have nothing to say yet on the paper until it comes out so I can access it (somehow).
I will comment on a person quoted by FOX News in its article about the forthcoming paper.
Aaron Huertas (a UCS science communications officer) asserts the same false fundamental premise as the ubiquitous climate change cause supporters whose faulted premise have caused a significant public distrust of their views. His false fundamental premise is that the broader climate science knowledge base in total (IPCC endorsing climate change research plus the significantly disagreeing openly critical science research) has found objectively evaluated key Earth Atmospheric System (EAS) observations that validated a theory of significant climate change. That is the false premise used in their arguments containing the ‘begging the question (petitio principii) logical fallacy’.
The UCS is mis-focused by depending on its own subjective view of science. Consider instead that the ideological and political spectrum of humanity is irrelevant in climate focused science that objectively extracts itself from subjectivist based philosophy of science. All unassociated scientists, all science academies, all science departments at universities, all government science institutes and all scientific associations are asked to make this exclamation: “Re-Establish Trust in Climate Science by Removing Its Current Subjective Philosophies of Science”.
John
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.”
Without Oxygen, there would be no AGW!
Indeed. All non photosynthetic life is a combustion process.
I know more than most climate scientists about the subject. Mainly because I put together my own theories rather than parrot what I was told in a game of academic Chinese whispers at University.
wickedwenchfan, similar for me.
Very similar except…
I doubt more than most climate scientists about the subject. Mainly because I put together my own theories rather than parrot what I was told in a game of academic Chinese whispers at University.
And none of my theories can be proven.
MCourtney,
I agree it is valuable to start fresh and think, here is someone who advocated it.
John
tell that to the Pope:
from BBC last nite: Pope Francis appoints 20 new cardinals: One of the new cardinals, Soane Patita Paini Mafia, hails from Tonga, a Pacific island where a tiny Catholic community of some 17,000 is threatened with losing its home because of climate change…
from AP’s Nicole Winfield today: One hails from Tonga, where climate change is threatening the very existence of the archipelago…
Tonga has never before had a cardinal, and Mafi’s concerns about climate change are very much in line with those of the pope, who is writing an encyclical on the environment that has already irked climate change deniers in his own church…
Daily Mail today: Mafi represents a region grappling with climate change, which is one of the major concerns of Pope Francis. In a recent interview with the Jesuit magazine America, Mafi spoke about the “permanent vulnerability” low-lying Pacific islands such as Tonga face from global warming.
Francis has said climate change is mostly man-made and is expected to lay out his call for greater stewardship of God’s creation in an upcoming encyclical that has elated environmentalists and alarmed climate change skeptics, including those within the church…
12 Feb: Reuters: Vatican mulling new department to tackle environmental issues
The Vatican is considering setting up an environmental think tank, a spokesman said on Thursday, which could influence the opinion of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics on such thorny issues as climate change…
“We see a growth in the awareness (of environmental problems) and in the importance of reflection, commitment, and study of environmental issues and their relation to social and human questions,” he told reporters at a briefing.
Pope Francis has said that man is destroying nature and betraying God’s calling to be stewards of creation.
Last month, he said he believed man was primarily responsible for climate change and he hoped a U.N. summit in Paris in November, due to agree a global pact to limit greenhouse gases, would take a courageous stand…
The pope’s keenly awaited encyclical, or message to the whole Church, on the environment is due in ***early summer…
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/pope-environment-idINL5N0VM52420150212
***right in time for the Bonn Climate Change Conference in Germany, 1-11 June, probably!.
The thing they can never wrap their tiny brains around is that it is precisely skeptics’ knowledge about climate change which makes them skeptics to begin with. The whole idea of it being a cultural thing or based on politics is both wishful thinking on their part and propaganda based on their own culture and political bias. Classic psychological projection.
being CAGW-infested Yale, and considering the previous Kahan study on the topic, i’m not sure the present study is being properly described. any thoughts?
May 2012: CarbonBrief: Ros Donald: Inaccuracy through two degrees of separation – Mail mangles science literacy findings by misreporting Fox
Mail Online mangles Fox report on Yale study
Lead researcher says difference between skeptic and non-skeptics’ science literacy is not statistically significant
According to the Mail Online yesterday, “Global warming sceptics are BETTER-informed about science than believers”. Pretty arresting. But a closer look at the article reveals that the Mail’s top line, reporting on research just out, mangles not just the study, but reporting on the findings by Fox News…
As we discussed earlier in the week, the study explores whether levels of science literacy among ordinary people or their unconscious tendency to fit their beliefs to those of their social and cultural groupings are the most accurate indicator of public concern about climate change.
The study finds finds that contrary to the first theory, the most scientifically-literate members of the public aren’t the most concerned about climate change. Instead the result fits much more closely with the second theory – surprisingly, science-savvy people tend to be even more polarised according to their social groupings than those less well-informed…
We emailed the lead author on the research, Dan Kahan, to find out where Fox got the information from in the first place. He told us:
“Who gets science more — the people who believe in climate change or those who don’t?” was a question people asked me periodically about the working paper. When they did, I sent them this graphic:…
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/05/mail-mangles-science-literaacy-study-through-fox-news-slipup
2012: Nature: The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
by Dan M. Kahan, et al
Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare…
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html
The prior study by Kahan et al.
http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Kahan_Tragedy%20of%20the%20Risk-Perception%20Commons.pdf
“As respondents’ science literacy scores increased,
their concern with climate change decreased (r = -0.05, p = 0.05). The difference is small—but neverthe-
-5- less inconsistent with the science-illiteracy theory prediction that those who scored higher in science literacy
would be significantly more concerned. There was also a small negative correlation between numeracy
and climate-change risk (r = -0.09, p < 0.01)—a result inconsistent with the “bounded rationality”
theory prediction. "
So the science score difference between skeptics versus true believers was small, but significant at the
5% level. Likewise skeptics scored better on the numeracy test. Again the difference was small, but significant at the 1% level.
I think Kahan originally wanted to show how skeptics would score more poorly than true believers. When THAT didn't pan out- in fact, he got results OPPOSITE to what he expected- he went off on a trivial and meaningless tangent about "polarization". Of COURSE the more knowledgeable a person is on a subject, the more confident that person is about his or her political stance.
I don’t believe the links and Fox headline do justice to the findings of the 2012 Kahan study so I think this is a good opportunity to remind WUWT readers what exactly the previous study found. The Fox headline that “global warming skeptics [are] as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers” doesn’t really capture the study’s money quote:
On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.
IOW the more you know about science, the less likely you are to buy into the alarmist’s climate catastrophe. So much for anti-science. As for the “we just haven’t communicated the dangers well enough” meme that crops up with painful frequency, the study found the following:
A strategy that focuses only on improving transmission of sound scientific information, it should be clear, is highly unlikely to achieve this objective. The principal reason people disagree about climate change science is not that it has been communicated to them in forms they cannot understand.
As for the attempts by AGW believers to shame and name call against anyone who doesn’t toe the line, there was this:
Individuals are prone to interpret challenges to beliefs that predominate with their cultural community as assaults on the competence of those whom they trust and look to for guidance (Kahan, Braman, Cohen, Gastil & Slovic 2010). That implication – which naturally provokes resistance – is likely to be strengthened when communicators with a recognizable cultural identity stridently accuse those who disagree with them of lacking intelligence or integrity.
Funny how that works huh? Such encounters account for the raised hackles I experience when some pseudoscientific AGW anti-human hacktivist calls me a flat earther or oil shill or anti-science ostrich or other such nonsense (I could list dozens more such descriptors I have been labeled with over the last half-dozen years or so). Now I know I am engaging in the same thing with my labeling, but I choose to fight fire with fire, and aside, if the shoes fit…
Good to know he cites his previous paper with approval.
an opinion poll where you are graded on what you think someone else believes….
…and they still failed it
The ignorance of AGW believers goes way beyond the findings of this study.
All my left wing friends believe in AGW totally,yet have not a clue what any details entail.
They are dramatically brainwashed usually by PBS or the NYT.
One very intelligent woman (not sarcastic) I engaged a debate with ,started her argument by explaining the evils of Carbon Monoxide.I t took me a few moments before I realized that she genuinely thought that AGW was about monoxide.
Another friend wants to sell his home in Alameda ,Ca because of the risk of SLR.
I printed out a graph showing him zero SLR in Alameda for the past 60 years at Alameda Naval Air station.
They know nothing yet believe.
BRAINWASHED is not an exaggeration.
Offer to buy his home cheaply, due to incipient, dangerous SLR.
BTW my pointing out my friends misinformation made absolutely no change in their belief.
Give them time, dear Mojo. It’s just a matter of time…
If they are TRULY intelligent, healthy, people, it was only their pride that prevents them from acknowledging that you might just have a point… . They are thinking that, though. Those seeds of truth you planted will not lie fallow. Watered by others/what they read and hear, those seeds will turn into undeniable reality and they will change their actions accordingly. Good for you!
Thanks, Anthony. Interesting article, as the comments show.
Happy Saint Valentine’s day, Janice Moore. You are a kind person.
O Man Who Once {Again!} Said a Kind Word to Me,
THANK YOU! #(:))
You are, too.
Smiling,
Janice
Thats encouraging Janice thanks.
I’ll remember that wisdom when I get the urge to scream “You brainwashed Idiot”.
Heh, I think you SHOULD scream, “You brainwashed idiot!! — just sure to hang up the phone first. 🙂
Thanks for responding!
Any scientists who ‘believes’ in anything ought to be dismissed.
I wish they would do away with the “wind chill” measurement by meteorologists, weather channels, etc.
I would much rather know the actual temperature, and the wind speed variation.
I remember running into the wind with gloves on, but when I turned around and headed home, I had to take my gloves off because I was sweating. – This was in 10F weather.
Drudge keeps putting up the wind chill map – it doesn’t mean anything to me. Sometimes the wind chill is below freezing in Florida. If it is 34 degrees and the wind chill is 25… there is no way that water will freeze…etc…
LOL.
13 Feb: Yale Daily News: FFY postpones Global Divestment Day action
By Jed Finley and Larry Milstein
With the first-ever Global Divestment Day scheduled for this weekend, Fossil Free Yale looks to revive the campus push for divestment. But it remains unclear if, and when, their efforts will come to fruition.
In fact, the event, which was meant to be held on Saturday, has been postponed indefinitely. FFY Project Manager Mitch Barrows ’16 said the delay is due to unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues, including some cancellations from speakers and performance groups…
FROM THE COMMENTS:
Robert Strong: Sorry, Yale. Gotta cancel the Global Warming protest because it’s too cold outside…
Hipnosis: I hope these student are hunkered down in their fossil fuel heated homes. Let them freeze in the cold hugging a wind turbine. The Gore effect strikes again…
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2015/02/13/with-global-event-ffy-to-broaden-focus/
13 Feb: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: It’s Too Cold To Protest Global Warming At Yale
As this reporter writes this article, the weather in New Haven, Connecticut where Yale is located stands at -9 degrees Fahrenheit with wind chill. Saturday is expected to have weather in the low 30s with snow and Sunday will be 20 degrees with snow and rain, according to the Weather Channel…
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/13/its-too-cold-to-protest-global-warming-at-yale/
That question on gas warming the atmosphere put this whole paper in such a ridicules light it does not matter what its results are.
This is a pure example of the problem with this debate.
If you answer RIGHT on this question (as the author intended) then you come out WRONG.
Crooked science.
Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions,
well DUHHH!
One suspects that both sides could do with segmenting their adherents. I suspect it will go something like:
1. Group A: unquestioning adherents. ‘So and so/this organisation/the Government/the papers say it is true, so I think so too’. They are the group that admits their own ignorance and places trust in others. What they have not yet done is determine who is worthy of their trust, other than basing it on their own gut instincts.
2. Group B: ‘a little knowledge is very dangerous’ group. This bunch have done some ‘research’ which leads them to back one side or the other. What they have not yet done is evaluate how they did that research and whether they have biased their conclusion by how they did it.
3. Group C: ‘my career is affected by the politics of this so I choose my position based on self-interest’. This one is the one you have to surmise on, because no-one can admit it without adverse effects on their career. This does not just include scientists and engineers, it includes pressure groups, NGOs, energy companies and, in some cases, financial services .
4. Group D: ‘I’m not a global expert on all the science, but I’ve done enough background research to make my mind up’. These are the ones you should admire the most, since they have tried as citizens to be responsible and educate themselves. They may or may not have reached the right conclusion, but at least they put the effort in.
5. Group E: ‘I consider climate change to be one of the top 3 issues affecting mankind, so I”ve educated myself to be able to challenge scientists and politicians on this matter from a position of knowledge’. This is probably the smallest grouping since it takes time, independence of thought a certain maturity of mindset and a suitable lack of deference to those in positions of ‘authority’.
To see how the battle will play out, you need to see how the data on both sides evolves over time through those two sets of supporters.
The key indication that one side has won the scientific is if Groups D and E shift in time to one side or the other, since that will tell you that the most active thinkers, the most knowledgeable particpants and those most capable of rational, skeptical thought processes have come down in favour of one side.
The most worrying indication that politcs trumps science is if a private position develops which differs to the public one. In particular, if too many in groups D and E in private shift to Group C in public.
Right now it is absolutely clear that most of the General Public is in Group B, with still quite a bit in Group A. It is probably the case that in most subjects requiring significant technical knowledge to allow independent decision-making, the majority of the population in a democracy are to be found in those two groups.
My take on the matter is this: skeptics need to be able to summarise simply, briefly and concisely precisely those pieces of evidence necessary to make ‘global warming caused by humans’ a minor issue rather than a species-threatening armageddon.
The definition of getting that right is the ability to get non-experts to all agree (or > 80% to agree on that) that that would be sufficient evidence to refute the case.
Once you have done that, you have to provide the evidence as currently exists.
Good insight. I agree with this, especially:
But I don’t know how anyone can still be in Group A. This is the end of the world – the most important issue of our time – and has been for a generation.
How has anyone been so trusting as to believe it and so apathetic as to not do any research? This is a mystery.
My own thoughts are that people in Group A don’t believe it. They just avoid any engagement with the end of the world so as they don’t risk becoming hypocrites in Group C.
But I am speculating about the motivations of others. This is obviously biased and flawed guesswork.
…A new study shows climate skeptics have more knowledge on climate science than alarmists…
Not so surprising. This was a strong thread of medieval thought (cf Dr Faustus) – the idea that gaining ANY knowledge was intrinsically evil. There are things that man is not supposed to know.
And the Climate Change believers in Armageddon and nothing if not mediaeval…
I can see no revelational of this survey.
But I do sense bias:
Work of unfettered mind May be better.
Those that I work with (professional geologists and civil engineers in private consulting practice) are unanimously skeptical of the current “carbon” scare. However, in my social circles there are numerous academics and engineers from the local universities and government research labs that are true believers in the theory promoted by the government/media complex. The latter group is “better educated”, so they must be correct. Right?
Interesting study, though I think that each science man (either skeptic or alarmist) has as much knowledge as he allows to have; mening, if you study, you have the knowledge. That theory applies on climate science as much as on other fields, too.
One has to have the temerity to look at all the evidence. A true scientist should do everything in his power to disprove his own theories, not look for evidence to support his own theories. All evidence must be entertained coupled with a good understanding of existing literature on the subject.
Very few have an understanding of all fields now due to specialization in academia. A “generalists” knowledge today would be very difficult and rare indeed.
http://drtimball.com/2011/generalist/
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land. Arctic correct fact – BUT HAVEN’T everyone learnt what the teachers should have taught regarding landrise resp Archimedes Principle?
When will they ever learn that land pressed down by Ice will rise when Ice melts AND that neither ice in water or on land causes higher sea levels! Only more Ice on land causes more land to press away more water and thus the sealevels changes!
Only fools and those who tries to scam everyone who learnt those basic physic facts tries such!
Results of online survey of participants of hte climate debate conducted early 2014
“One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would ‘increase the risk of skin cancer.'”
Questionnaires are tricky things. If a warmer atmosphere leads people to wear less clothing, then it should lead to more skin cancer.