Claim: Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy

A new model for a greener democracy?

A new model for a greener democracy?

According to a new study, we are more likely to be skeptical about climate change, if we are worried about paying our living expenses.

Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy

Americans dismiss scientific evidence of climate change despite education efforts, study finds

WASHINGTON — Americans may be more likely to accept the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change and its potentially devastating effects if they believe the economy is strong and stable, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

The findings may help explain why many Americans haven’t been swayed by public education and advocacy efforts indicating that climate change is being caused by humans. People who are concerned about the economy and who are strong supporters of the free market system may be more skeptical about climate change and downplay its potential effects, the study found. The research was published online in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General®.

“The problem isn’t primarily ignorance about this issue,” said lead researcher Erin Hennes, PhD, an assistant professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University. “Even when people are exposed to the same information, their attitudes about climate change may be polarized because they perceive the information in different ways.”

The vast majority of climate researchers and many scientific societies, government agencies and intergovernmental organizations have concluded that human-caused climate change is a real threat. However, only half of Americans believe human-caused climate change is real, ranging from 10 percent of conservative Republicans to 78 percent of liberal Democrats.

Hennes and her fellow researchers were inspired to study this issue after noticing that belief in human-caused climate change dropped by 11 percent in the United States during the major recession from 2007 to 2009.

Read more: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/05/climate-change.aspx

The study:

Motivated Recall in the Service of the Economic System: The Case of Anthropogenic Climate Change

The contemporary political landscape is characterized by numerous divisive issues. Unlike many other issues, however, much of the disagreement about climate change centers not on how best to take action to address the problem, but on whether the problem exists at all. Psychological studies indicate that, to the extent that sustainability initiatives are seen as threatening to the socioeconomic system, individuals may downplay environmental problems in order to defend and protect the status quo. In the current research, participants were presented with scientific information about climate change and later asked to recall details of what they had learned. Individuals who were experimentally induced (Study 1) or dispositionally inclined (Studies 2 and 3) to justify the economic system misremembered the evidence to be less serious, and this was associated with increased skepticism. However, when high system justifiers were led to believe that the economy was in a recovery, they recalled climate change information to be more serious than did those assigned to a control condition. When low system justifiers were led to believe that the economy was in recession, they recalled the information to be less serious (Study 3). These findings suggest that because system justification can impact information processing, simply providing the public with scientific evidence may be insufficient to inspire action to mitigate climate change. However, linking environmental information to statements about the strength of the economic system may satiate system justification needs and break the psychological link between proenvironmental initiatives and economic risk.

Read more: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/xge-xge0000148.pdf

Studies like this make me optimistic about the future.

Greens frequently attack democracy and democratic choice, in my opinion because they are well aware whenever democratic governments genuinely attempt to introduce the economically damaging climate policies they demand, popular support for green politics collapses.

As long as we retain our ability vote out politicians who mess up the economy, there will be a limit to the amount of damage green demagogues can do to our quality of life.

Advertisements

134 thoughts on “Claim: Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy

  1. I do appreciate this sort of question-begging study. As if people cannot not believe in CAGW because they DO understand the evidence.

      • Or, as Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds has it, “I’ll believe in CAWG when the people who are warning me about CAWG actually ACT like they believe CAWG is a probability.

        In other words, when Leonardo di Caprio stops sailing around on a huge yacht (owned by an oil tycoon), to which he flew in a private jet…I’ll start thinking about it.

        That, and when Al Gore and David Suzuki sell their oceanfront property.

  2. They are so certain of the CAGW theory, that it blinds them to understanding how someone might not look at things the way they do. They can’t see that another outlook might be valid. Their blinders are on, because the question is settled in their mind. Blinders don’t make for accurate scientific studies, or clear thinking.

    • However, linking environmental information to statements about the strength of the economic system may satiate system justification needs and break the psychological link between proenvironmental initiatives and economic risk.

      So they’ve shown that lying to people about the economic impacts of pseudo-science may help people accept pseudo-science. The IPCC worked that out 30 years ago.

      • ALL Americans are concerned about the basics at the bottom of the “hierarchy of needs” pyramid–food, shelter, warmth, health, economic security. Only the self-identified “elites” are concerned with the One Worlder agenda–the ones whose basic needs are below the level of concern. Ordinary people aren’t twisting the sheets at night about “carbon footprints,” they’re worried about keeping their job and paying the rent! Trump understands this well, and Hillary never will.

    • Correction: The CAGW ‘hypothesis’ since none of their modeled predictions have ever been validated. =]
      But yes, it bares all of the hallmarks of cult like behavior that’s been running rampant across the western world:

    • TA
      An important point.
      Whilst I haven’t noticed this blinkered approach, generally [disregarding a few trolls] on WUWT, I suggest that this is something for all to think about.
      At least consider this.

      I’m human – and I have my biases.
      I certainly do!
      I strive to diminish their importance, but may not always fully succeed.

      I try to use the sarc tag if feeling particularly bilious or acidic . . . .
      I try.

      Auto – human – and proud of it!

      • Yes, Auto, we all have our biases and stereotypical thinking, and that’s only human. We all need to be aware of same and not let those things blind us to reality, as much as possible.

  3. The study gives itself away in the first sentence [b]”Americans dismiss scientific evidence of climate change despite education efforts, study finds”[/b].
    It assumes “Climate Change” is equivalent to CATASTROPHIC Anthropogenic Global Warming, and that education has proven CAGW.
    Of course no one disputes that “climate” changes. But “Education” has yet to come up with proof that increased CO2 drives increased warming in the [b]real[/b] world (Arrhenius’ laboratory excluded; we all agree with Sevente given “all other things being constant”).
    The models that they rely on, using those lab experiments, have been falsified.

  4. “The vast majority of climate researchers and many scientific societies, government agencies and intergovernmental organizations have concluded that human-caused climate change is a real threat.”

    Well… of course they have concluded that…. Once it is clear that it is in no way a “real threat” nobody would pay them an additional dime for their “advice”.

    No threat, no reason to study how to solve it any longer.

    In the real world nobody gets paid to “solve” a non-exsistant “threat”.

    Hence all the “fear mongering” funded by tax dollars… Gotta keep those imaginary “threats” coming, Otherwise nobody would have any need for a “climate scientist” to speculate wildly about what the weather might/could/possibly/maybe/perhaps/predicted/projected/estimated/modeled/should be in as hundred years.

    What a scam.

    For the record, I consider myself well off and my skepticism about anybody’s ability to predict the weather in 2100 is based on sound engineering training and has nothing to do with the current economic “climate”.

    Cheers, KevinK.

    • In the real world nobody gets paid to “solve” a non-exsistant “threat”.

      But that didn’t even enter into their thinking because the study’s authors are working off the premise that only skeptics are influenced by economic concerns. Apparently, climate researchers, scientific societies, government agencies, and intergovernmental organizations are not composed of humans, but are all made up of selfless angels who would never let money and power influence their conclusions in any way. We mere humans need to get on board with our betters before they have to lie to us about how great the economy is to get our cooperation.

      • According to the activists, receiving money from an oil company, even if it’s third hand, is sufficient to corrupt a researcher. On the other hand, gobs of govt money that will cease if the researcher fails to support the govt position has never corrupted anyone. Not even a little.

    • They fear-monger the same way creating “diseases” out of ordinary aging or predicaments of life. Great for Big Pharma, not so good if you’re being expensively medicated for something that has only a 1 in 10,000 theoretical chance of actually killing you.

      • When I see a result expressed in RR (relative risk), either for an horrible, horrible disease that will double the risk (of the rarest cancer) or a preventive treatment that will half a risk (the risk of some extremely rare disease), I put the “study” “summary” (actually, more like PR stunt or advertising with lipstick) on the trashcan.

        I guess I could compute the odds myself, but I won’t. It isn’t my study.

        Reading “science” implies I get to be lazy and no do the relevant computations myself.

  5. “The vast majority of climate researchers and many scientific societies, government agencies and intergovernmental organizations have concluded that human-caused climate change is a real threat. However only half of Americans believe human-caused climate change is real” The evidence points to it being real, just not being a real threat.

    • In the last 20 years Brian which prediction made by the IPCC came about? They are still spouting the same predictions, new dates.. and further out. Maybe it’ll happen in my lifetime or maybe it won’t. What evidence?
      There is very little to no link between co2 and temperature. So little that it can be considered background noise.
      Every scientific point made by the IPCC can be expressed as either wrong or a half truth.

      • “In the last 20 years Brian which prediction made by the IPCC came about?”
        The world got warmer. That is the main one.

      • The world may, and I emphasize the word may, have gotten warmer. Certainly no where near the the models put out by the IPCC. What does that tell you about the 95% certainty rate that is touted? The correlation is so small that as to be non existent. The list is too long. Name one.

      • 0.8 degrees Celsius per doubling of the CO2 is mathematically provable. Everything beyond that is speculation.
        Human caused warming is real and is making the world a better place for life. More organic Carbon in the Eco system equals more life on earth and warmer temperatures equal an extension of the Holocene. CO2 should be embraced rather than vilified.

      • [snip -slayers stuff and back radiation arguments turn into food fights here, and for this reason we don’t allow them, sorry. -mod]

      • “The world has gotten warmer.”

        Barely, and certainly not in accordance with the IPCC predictions, and certainly any warming has been net beneficial, as the warming will manifest mainly at night, the most in high latitude nations, and the least in the topics. Indeed, it may not have warmed at all after we see how the GMT adjusts to the coming la Nina and to subsequent La Nada’s.

      • If it weren’t for last year’s el nino, the world would not have gotten any warmer in the last 20 years.

      • Someone asked for an IPCC prediction that came true. I provided a pretty central one. Quite a few people were predicting cooling.

        El Nino is part of the climate system. There is no point saying “if it weren’t for the El Nino.” You might as well say “if it weren’t for the temperature going up it wouldn’t have got warmer”

        It is not relevant to this point whether the warming is beneficial or not. The prediction was warmer world, we got warmer world.

        The central prediction of the IPCC came true.

      • Sorry seaice, but your lies are not getting any traction.
        The IPCC predicted that the climate would get warmer. The temporary spike caused by an el nino does not qualify there.

        Your desperation is not pretty, but it does make me happy.

      • How sad seaice, at the bottom of the next La Nina will you make the same assertion. (Not a chance. Can you see your own bias in the mirror yet?)

      • seaice1 May 5, 2016 at 4:24 am
        “In the last 20 years Brian which prediction made by the IPCC came about?”
        The world got warmer. That is the main one.

        Here I thought the models were “projections” and not “predictions”.
        What were the “p’s” based on? An increase in Man’s CO2. So much of an increase results this much warming. The increase is Man’s CO2 is way up there. The actual observation vs the “p’d” result is way down there.
        The reliability of temperature measurements and adjustments aside, they got the cause wrong. If they got Man’s CO2 as the cause (of catastrophe?) wrong, what is the excuse to control Man’s CO2?
        Just what environment are they seeking to keep “Green”? Our’s or their own?

        PS Some lust after “green”. Some lust after power. Some lust after both.

      • When the predictions went belly up, like the phrase global warming to climate change, they changed it so they have an escape.. projection. It doesn’t have the same hard certainty as prediction. The difference is one will happen, and the other might.

      • seaice1 says ‘the world got warmer’??

        Not much:

        And despite seaice1’s desperate comment, the IPCC has been flat wrong all along.

      • It’s actually been almost 30 years since they went before congress claiming catastrophic consequences of continuing co2 buildup in the atmosphere. The catastrophe I see is the economy. And that is the priority of the IPCC.
        In the ebb and flow of argumentation here, it seems like recently a lot more CAGW are here arguing their case. Most either don’t know or don’t remember all the predictions, the explanations from the IPCC and associates, and the rebuttals from skeptics. Some are using tactics that are from the handout from “climate day”. I guess CAGW has an endless supply of useful morons. My thought is whether this is a last ditch effort in the event that the political landscape changes against? Climate change is already dead last among all issues, anywhere, when asked. Time is running out for them. The climate is not cooperating and if the political landscape changes, so to their objectives. They keep extending out future catastrophes. In 2000, it was 2013… then when nothing happened, they rolled it out to 2030, and now 2050 or by the end of the century.
        I have news for them, their own math doesn’t allow for such long time spans. The stated fact from them is that co2 is the dial that sets the temperature. Counting from 2000, if it takes a 100 years, it’s not co2, it is something else. After all, another stated fact from the IPCC is that co2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years ( I dispute that too)

      • Mark W. The spike caused by this El Nino would not be higher than the spike caused by the last El Nino unless there had been warming. It is really quite simple.

        David A. My assertions are not lies. The world had got warmer. You are speculating as to what will happen at the bottom of the next La Nina. That has not happened yet. “Can you see your own bias in the mirror yet?” Can you see the irony that you are accusing me of bias when you are treating speculation about the future as fact? If the world cools in the future than we will be able to say te IPCC prediction was wrong. Until that happens assuming certain future conditions is simply bias.

        dbstealey again demonstrates an inability to select appropriate graph axes scales whilst ignoring the fact that the prediction was warmer and we got warmer. Then classes my comment as “desperate”.

        Asked for one example, I provided one example. IPCC predicts a warmer world and we have a warmer world. I don’t see this as nature refuting climate science.

      • seaice1,

        As usual, you’ve got nothin’. You’re a misfit here. You believe CO2 causes disappearing Arctic ice, but somehow CO2 avoids affecting Antarctic ice.

        You say:

        Mark W. The spike caused by this El Nino would not be higher than the spike caused by the last El Nino unless there had been warming.

        You are a complete know-nothing. If you knew this would be such a large El Nino, you would have predicted it. You didn’t. It is really quite simple. Yes, it is.

        You’re so deluded you belong on a religious blog. Go away. This is a science site. You don’t belong here.

  6. “Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy”

    You betcha!

    I mean who argues about evolution, flat earth or the taste of beer nowadays?

    The difference is that anyone’s opinion on such matters does not affect in any way the well being of the person or group of persons who disagree.

    However, although this is hidden behind lies and omissions, AGW will have a very profound effect on the living circumstances for most of us, (Al Gore and the Rockefellers and their ilk excepted.

    In my city, we are having “Sustainability” thrust upon us with the rebuild of a city with little thought about whether it will be suitable for commerce again. We have large numbers of residences “red zoned” mainly on river banks and some with only minor or no damage, moved illegally mainly from river banks, and recently an attempt to chase people off coastal properties because of an imagined future increase in sea level rise, of which no empirical observations yet have been recorded.

    These things are hitting us where it hurts us the hardest, and there is no surprise that people will start seeking the truth about CAGW.

    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  7. May I make a recommendation; just to be fair? Howzee ’bout the American Psychological Association doing a study to determine if people are “more likely to accept [believe] the [psuedo]scientific evidence of human-caused climate change and its potentially [in a million years] devastating effects if they believe” that they themselves will profit handsomely off the potential for graft, corporate cronyism, tax subsidies, regulatory favoritism, rent seeking, fail-safe government backed angel investments with their attendant ipo’s, lucrative real estate deals on otherwise worthless properties, and all the other various nefarious financial manipulations that have occurred since human beings first formed civilizations and to which a spychological association cannot possibly be so naive as to assume that such behaviors themselves either don’t exist or are not worthy of study nor also a potentially motivating factor in climate change belief patterns?

    • These are oldies but goodies.

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
      ― Upton Sinclair

    • It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his enjoyment of his lifestyle depends on his not understanding it.

      Contrary to opinion here, Govts do not think increasing taxes is a popular thing to do. As a president it would be much simpler to reject AGW and claim there is no need to restrict fossil fuel use. That is exactly what Trump has done, to popular acclaim. Raising energy prices is not something that politicians think is going to be a vote winner. It is vanishingly unlikely they would wish to do so unless they believed there was a good reason.

      A scientist has little to gain by pursuing research he knows to be wrong, and very much to gain by being the pioneer that changes a paradigm. There is no little incentive for an individual scientist to toe the line in promoting what they believe to be a lie, and very much to gain by being the one that reveals the lie. It is unbelieveable that the whole community of scientists is all collaborating in maintaining a lie.

      In the cartoon, if a scientist had evidence that there was no greenhouse effect, they would be rushing to publish.

      • I love it when activists are forced to lie about what others are saying.
        A grand total of nobody has ever claimed that govts think raising taxes is a popular thing to do.
        The claim is that govts like to raise taxes because it gives them more money to buy votes with. The fact that they have to come up with ever more sophisticated ways to hide these tax increases is evidence that they know such increases aren’t popular.

        As always, the only thing seaice can demonstrate is how desperate he has become.

      • seaice, governments love control and money. However your comment demonstrates the connection between CAGW policy and rational concern for the economy, as well as policy that only harms people, and the earth…

      • seaice claims, “In the cartoon, if a scientist had evidence that there was no greenhouse effect, they would be rushing to publish”

        seaice, your misunderstanding continues. The entire CAGW movement has ZERO to do with the GHE, which in isolation would be almost entirely net beneficial. It has everything to do with the positive feedbacks, and the projected harms from those postulated feedbacks, which are being falsified by observations and peer reviewed science on a regular basis.

      • Also the “whole community” of scientists consists of climate scientists, which is by no means representative of the scientific community as the whole. Playing with words can result in all kinds of meaning. Not all climate scientists believe either – and get into trouble for speaking out.

        But yes, those few at the heart of it all, they are all collaborating to maintain a lie. They have a Cause. Their “solutions” are all the same, one world government, the end of capitalism, the end of the industrialized world. They also have fame and fortune to protect and they don’t want to be caught lying and cheating while still alive. Their necks, and not just their jobs, might be on the line.

      • Mann gets $10K for speaking engagement. SKS said they would invent a crisis to promote the cause. They have plenty of reasons both politically and monetary, to lie. Why do you think they constantly dodge FOIA requests?

        And anyone one who doesn’t toe the line like Spencer, Christy, Soon, etc. is attacked and branded a denier.

      • seaice1 says:

        It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his enjoyment of his lifestyle depends on his not understanding it.

        Pure psychological projection, which is the motive behind seaice posting that. It’s the reason why alarmist scientists refuse to be honest skeptics. They’re afraid of losing their taxpayer grant loot.

        Take away the money, and the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare would collapse overnight.

      • One of the 3 quotes on my http://www.cosy.com/CoSy/ page is :

        Another time when I was concerned about getting credit for some idea I had,
        [ Ken Iverson ] said, “Arthur, if it’s a really good idea, you’re going to have to shove it down people’s throats.”
        Arthur Whitney : Memories of Ken

        That’s the reality . Particularly when your insight tips over everybody’s rice bowls .

  8. I see it that they are arguing that there must be another reason why skeptics dismiss “the science” other than truth or honesty, that skeptics are perhaps more concerned about their own wealth or well-being and therefore don’t care.

    Sorry, that’s just they way I read it. I think they are still trying to dismiss that anything could be wrong with the theory of CAGW and are avidly looking for excuses as to why we don’t all fall in line with their programming.

    If they were really looking, examining the evidence of our claims would come first. Examining our reasoning on our terms would be right up there. Asking us would be a good move. They’re just assuming we don’t accept the “facts” because we are motivated not to.

  9. Not surprising that people who believe the economy is great in spite of contrary information (e.g., disappearing middle class, increasing gap between rich and poor, loss of jobs to third world countries) also believe in AGW, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

  10. According to a new study, we are more likely to be skeptical about climate change, if we are worried about paying our living expenses.

    Duh!!! I was actually taught the long form of DUH = No Sh*t Sherlock or thank you captain obvious. When people want to spend their money on religious oriented “repent the end is nigh” schemes I pay little attention. While they are amusing themselves they generally don’t affect my circle of family and friends. All of a sudden I pay attention whey they pass the offering plate to me and impose rules and regulations on me, and my loved ones. So yea I put my personal interests ahead of unproven schemes. Calling something science doesn’t make it so. There must be a standard of proof including data which in this case is completely (let me repeat: completely) absent.

      • Data showing the “optimum” temperature, and data showing actual damages caused by anthropological global warming. Start with that

      • Data showing the “optimum” temperature….
        Ridiculous stupid question showing you have no concept of climate or it’s relationship with life on the planet.

      • Simon, Simon, Simon Says: “Ridiculous stupid question showing you have no concept of climate or it’s relationship with life on the planet.”

        You really think this is a reasoned argument for your position? There is no data showing that the current global average temperature is the “best” or that small changes would make it “better”. The geologic record shows that we’ve been in an ice age for more than 2million years with temperatures changing more than 10degC many times. A hundred years or so of air temperature readings showing less than 2degC change have no meaning in multi-thousands of years of climate change.

        The best the IPCC can report is that “we don’t really know why the climate changes and can’t predict when or how it will change”(paraphrase of AR5)

      • Data showing that the extremely mild warming over the last 150 years is caused by CO2.
        Data showing that the extremely mild warming over the last 150 years is unusual.
        That’s for a start.

        And no, models aren’t data.

      • As always, Simon dodges the question and uses umbrage to try and hide his own ignorance.

        Unless you are one of those religious zealots who actually believes that any change caused by man is by definition bad, then the question of the optimum temperature is always relevant.

        Since complex life evolved about 200 million years ago, the earth has been warmer than it is today over 95% of the time.
        Please show that returning to such temperatures is by definition a bad thing. If you can’t, then shut up and go away.

      • “we don’t really know why the climate changes and can’t predict when or how it will change””

        Absolute BS. Direct quote please. Put up or shut up.

      • MarkW
        “Unless you are one of those religious zealots who actually believes that any change caused by man is by definition bad, then the question of the optimum temperature is always relevant.”
        Nope I’m not. I’m one who thinks any rapid change is bad…. doubly so when it is avoidable. Of course there have been changes like this in the past, but always they result in severe outcomes for the biodiversity on the planet. Why-o-why would you want to unnecessarily risk damaging the delicate balance by using dirty fuels when there are other options. Sure every energy source has issues, but the risks associated with using carbon based energy are becoming ever increasingly obvious. Let’s play smart and look at all the options, Maybe we need to use a combination of many, including oil till it can be replaced? I don’t have all the answers, but I do know the evidence and data now is beyond question. We are warming, it is almost certainly us (contributing significantly) and it is looking like causing us and many life forms on this amazing planet serious issues. You want evidence… read this…
        https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
        For the record I loath religion. Causes huge issues.

      • Phil Cartier
        “You really think this is a reasoned argument for your position? There is no data showing that the current global average temperature is the “best” or that small changes would make it “better”. ”
        Could you miss the point more? Of course there is no best. Best = stable.

      • SimpleSimon
        1) 0.7C is not rapid, it’s quite slow according to the historical records.
        2) Since most of it isn’t being caused by man, it’s not avoidable.
        3) The balance is not delicate.
        4) There is no other fuel that is capable of doing the job.
        5) Your lies are getting hard for you to defend.

      • SimpleSimon
        1) 0.7C is not rapid, it’s quite slow according to the historical records. It’s 1 degree and most of that is in the last 50 years. Rapid by historical measurements. No getting away from it
        2) Since most of it isn’t being caused by man, it’s not avoidable. Read the literature that matters. Ignorance is no excuse.
        3) The balance is not delicate. Certainly is. We know by looking at past extinctions that changes like this cause serious problems for a range of life forms. I guess you will be ok sitting in your chair… So that’s all that matters right?
        4) There is no other fuel that is capable of doing the job. If we look we will find…. necessity, invention and mothers.
        5) Your lies are getting hard for you to defend. Lies??? Pot meet kettle. You must have a crooked bed.

      • Simon,

        MarkW is right, and your answers are pathetic and lame:

        1) 0.7C is not rapid…

        Response: The 0.7ºC wiggle is smaller than anything in the geologic record. In the recent past just prior to the Holocene, temperatures had wild swings of TENS of whole degrees — without any change in CO2.

        2) You do nothing to refute point #2, so it stands. ‘Silence is concurrence’. Saying “read the literature” is vague nonsense; a lame debate tactic that loses the point.

        3) Saying “Certainly is” is another lame assertion. Then you try to equate the 0.7º wiggle to extinction events! Pathetic and lame. There is no evidence showing that a minuscule wiggle in global T, like we’ve observed over the past century+, has ever caused a mass extinction. So that’s another argument fail.

        4) “If we look we will find…. “ That says nothing. The question is: will we find an alternative that is as cheap, clean, and efficient? So far the answer is a clear, unambiguous NO. Alternative power sources are costly; they emit far more pollutants than clean coal or hydro, for example, and they are far from efficient. They would not even exist if it were not for the lavish subsidies shoveled at their producers and buyers. Solar only works during the daytime, in sun, and at lower latitudes. Windmills only work when the wind blows — at the right speed. Fossil fuels are far cheaper, and they produce power 24/7/365. No ‘alternative’ power source can compete without heavy subsidies.

        5) IMHO, you’re just deluded. You actually believe your eco-nonsense. You remind me of the guy with the sandwich board that says, The End Is Nigh!, while everyone else is looking at you like you have a couple of screws loose.

        Once more for the rational readers here: There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening. Everything observed now has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree. And the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.

      • DB
        Let’s start with point one. You keep this falsehood that it’s only .7C
        Look my boy…
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

        I mean, if you can’t even read a simple graph and see from 1910 temp has increased by over 1C, then I see no point even bothering with the other points.
        But the evidence is there for people with an IQ over 100. Oh wait I see the problem….

        [Duplicate comment deleted. Posting the same comment a minute apart? Try to control yourself. -mod]

      • Simon,

        I reject that bogus chart.

        I’ve tried to school you on the difference between a zero baseline chart and a trend chart. Once you understand the difference, you see how bogus that Wikipedia chart is.

        I’d teach you again, but it seems to be a wasted effort with you.

        Finally, you’re flat wrong about the recent rise, as arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones points out:

      • DB
        “I’d teach you again, but it seems to be a wasted effort with you.”
        It seems they are.

      • “The trend repeats” you display is laughable. You have no idea of what this graph is actually about. As to the influence of economy on climate denial that this paper claims, that is humorous in its own way. Their claim can easily be translated onto stock market terms like this: if the economy is bad, stock market is down, if it is good, stock market is up. Hence market up makes them believers, market down makes them doubters. No need to learn climate science if you believe that this is what moves the masses..

    • Carbon Asset Risk:
      Discussion Framework, c.2012

      World Resources Institute and UNEP FI produced this 60 + page framework document.

      http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/Carbon_asset_risk.pdf

      ————————————————————————————-

      WRI/World Resources Institute

      Grants of $1 million or more include:

      Bloomberg Philanthropies
      Caterpillar Foundation
      ClimateWorks Foundation
      Oak Foundation
      Michael Polsky Family
      Shell Foundation
      UNEP
      Betty Moore Foundation

      And others including governments and including the U.S.

      http://www.wri.org/about/donors

      Big money financed a UN framework on carbon risks. A framework to be further developed and used.

      How many people even know these kinds of things are taking place?

      • WRI/World Resources Institute

        Grants of $1 million or more include:

        Bloomberg Philanthropies
        Caterpillar Foundation
        ClimateWorks Foundation
        Oak Foundation
        Michael Polsky Family
        Shell Foundation
        UNEP
        Betty Moore Foundation

        And others including governments and including the U.S.

        http://www.wri.org/about/donors

        Big money financed a UN framework on carbon risks. A framework to be further developed and used.

        How many people even know these kinds of things are taking place?


        Yet the CAGW alarmist agitators always claim a well-funded/Koch brother’s/Big Oil conspiracy! By the way, just how much money does it take to become “well-funded” … if you are a skeptic?

    • When people want to spend their money on religious oriented “repent the end is nigh” schemes I pay little attention.

      Same here. As you say, the issue is other people being convinced that something must be done! by a non-stop drumbeat of wildly exaggerated alarmism elevated and amplified by a failing mainstream media eager to tell compelling stories. Add in a seemingly never ending parade of virtue-signalling, political posturing and narcissistic posing from rent-seeking organizations, celebrity “activists” and politicians (not to mention governments desiring more power, control and funds) and we’ve got a real problem. It’s #ClimateChangeTheatre™ on a grand stage.

  11. “… we are more likely to be skeptical about climate change, if we are worried about paying our living expenses.”

    [Einstein retorted “If I were wrong, one would be enough.”]

    People not worried about paying living expenses and skeptics of CAGW:
    Me, even though I’m not wealthy. Then, there is:
    “The Donald”
    . . .
    Never mind. It’s a long list, and that is 2 already.

  12. The hidden causative variable here is whether or not the subject believes the lies of the Obama administration. Its lies about the economy have made many people skeptical, as the should well be, about its climate propaganda

  13. It’s interesting to note that the authors of this study ignore the fact that scientists and politicians are people too. As such, they are also influenced by economics and concerns about paying their living expenses, just like the rest of us. If hyping the dangers of climate change gets them more grant money and makes their jobs more secure, that is a huge incentive for them to not only hype the amount of possible warming but also to hype the potential negative effects while downplaying the likely positive effects. You would think the authors of this study would recognize this reality, but their conclusions are also influenced by economic considerations. Ignoring your own biases is the easiest thing in the world to do when your future career and the thickness of your wallet depend on it.

    • I wonder how many psychiatric professionals are alarmed that the government is conducting studies on how to “cure” certain beliefs.

      And I wonder how scientists would react, if they were asked to find a medical cure for atheism and belief in Socialism. I suspect that such goals would become a giant scandal, as they should. But curing faith in God? That makes for fascinating study and news.

      “Disabling parts of the brain with magnets can weaken faith in God and change attitudes to immigrants, study finds”

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/brain-magnets-decrease-faith-in-god-religion-immigrants-a6695291.html

      [We can’t hear you write that. Please say it again after the mods turn down their cell phone magnet control levels…. .mod]

      • Mods,

        LOL

        Thanks for your dedicated work. You deserve a reward!

        [Reply: Pretty darn accurate! But you forgot to mention our Big Oil paychecks. -mod]

  14. “…The findings may help explain why many Americans haven’t been swayed by public education and advocacy efforts indicating that climate change is being caused by humans…”
    Ahhhh; silly me! I thought many people haven’t been swayed by public re-education and advocacy efforts because we realized it was bullshit.

  15. “As long as we retain our ability vote out politicians who mess up the economy”
    When will we be allowed to vote out United Nations bureaucrats like Christina Figueres?
    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,”
    – Christiana Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change

    And who will be allowed to vote for her successor?
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/19/christiana-figueres-to-leave-un-climate-change-role/>Christiana Figueres to leave UN climate change role

    • It’s not just the politicians who mess up the economy, but the regulators and bureaucrats as well.

  16. The more rational and informed a person is, the more likely they are to reject the proposition that it’s a good idea to surrender liberties, freedoms and property to bumbling technocrats and their false prophets.

    “Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.”
    ― Karl Popper

    “I remained a socialist for several years, even after my rejection of Marxism; and if there could be such a thing as socialism combined with individual liberty, I would be a socialist still. For nothing could be better than living a modest, simple, and free life in an egalitarian society. It took some time before I recognized this as no more than a beautiful dream; that freedom is more important than equality; that the attempt to realize equality endangers freedom; and that, if freedom is lost, there will not even be equality among the unfree.”
    ― Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography

    • Larry Fine quoted Mr. Popper: “It took some time before I recognized this [socialism] as no more than a beautiful dream; that freedom is more important than equality; that the attempt to realize equality endangers freedom; and that, if freedom is lost, there will not even be equality among the unfree.”
      ― Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography”

      Thanks for the quote, Larry Fine. Truer words were never spoken.

    • People living in a Utopia must be constrained to behave according to the norms that maintain it. Consequently all Utopias whether Green or Socialist will be totalitarian. People sense that and balk at the loss of freedom. Unless it is a life or death decision most won’t be led into it. That explains why Greens predict the death of the planet and socialists predict the death of society. It’s either Utopia or death and all pure sophistry.

      • John G.,

        Exactly right, and this would explain why Common Core math is designed to rob the next generation of fluency in the language of logic (Math). A generation who can’t reason clearly will accept the fundamental changes that lead to Dystopia.

        By the way, the people who wrote the laws forcing a generation of children to become innumerate, exempted their own by exempting private schools. There is no mention of Common Core at the private school where Obama sends his kids, and there is no mention of it in the curriculum at Harvard, where they’ll go next. However, Harvard is deeply involved in studying how to implement Common Core and defeat dissenters.

        To sum up, citizens won’t need to think for themselves in the future because the children of the privileged class will think for them.

      • LarryFine May 5, 2016 at 10:04 am
        John G.,

        Exactly right, and this would explain why Common Core math is designed to rob the next generation of fluency in the language of logic (Math). A generation who can’t reason clearly will accept the fundamental changes that lead to Dystopia.
        This was a lesson in a 7th and 8th grade remedial reading workbook, the best I remember it:

        “There are two things I like about my little brother Billy and two things I don’t like.
        The two things I like are that he’s easy to please and he’s fun to play with.
        The two things I don’t like are that he screams and cries a lot and he breaks everything I let him play with. Just yesterday he broke my favorite model airplane.
        Questions:
        What are the two things he likes?
        What are the two things he doesn’t like?”

        I was a teacher’s aide in the mid 70’s. (inner-city public school) That lesson stuck with me. The scrabbling of the eggs was going on long before common core.

        (There were other disturbing things in that workbook and other textbooks. In that workbook every time (and I mean EVERY TIME) a father was mentioned he was in a tee shirt in front of the TV drinking a beer.)

        PARENTS!
        Whether public or private school, pay attention to what someone else is teaching your kids!
        You don’t need a degree to spot this kind of (fill in the blank).

      • lead to Dystopia.
        This was a lesson in a 7th and 8th grade remedial reading workbook, the best I remember it:

        Mods!
        My blockquote was supposed to end after “Dystopia.”
        *sigh*

      • Gunga Din,

        The purposeful attacks on our education systems has been going on for generations, but now it’s been implemented nation wide, and now they’re teaching kids to think illogically.

    • The only way for there to be an egalitarian society, would be if we were all completely equal and identical.
      Since that will never happen, neither will an egalitarian society.

    • Free People are not equal; equal people are not free. Freedom and equality are competing values and must be balanced.

      • Freedom has value.
        Equality doesn’t.
        I see no reason why they need to be balanced.
        Freedom needs to be balanced, as in “my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins”.
        Beyond that, no balancing is needed.

      • MarkW, can you see the value in reducing the gap in wealth between the rich and poor? Such a possibility might require putting limits on some economic freedoms. Then we might be able to have a society in which everyone is “equally” wealthy but everyone has the freedom to enjoy their wealth any way they want to. This is what I have in mind concerning balancing freedom and equality.

  17. The question as asked cannot tell the difference between do not bother to question and do not believe. In a bad economy people question how money is wasted on curing a problem based on unfounded theories. In a good economy people do not really care enough to bother.
    No one trusts any self monitored group any longer except other members of that group whether it be politicians, bankers, accountants or climate scientists.

  18. Skepticism of Climate Change may be linked to lying scientists.

    I cant wait for ^^ that study to come out :D

    • Unfortunately, Mark, they think the lying scientists are on the skeptical side, not the Alarmist side, so it would never occur to them to do such a study.

    • We have to incude the politicians in this, too. They are rich with taxpayers money, and from what I can see, they are extremely idle, except when it comes to spending.

    • Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy

      This headline seems to be written backwards. It should read something like …

      Only the rich feel comfortable entertaining fanciful stories of climate change

  19. They didn’t consider the possibility that those worried about the economy might be concerned about the economic effect of bad climate policies on everyone, not just themselves. This is likely because they found skeptics to be more right-wing and hence must be less altruistic.

    Neither did they imagine that those worried about the economy would look much closer at the so-called ‘evidence’ – or lack of it – and that is likely the major reason for their skepticism. It would behove these researchers to have a new study into what the science really says versus what activist scientists are pretending the science says. An objective observer could only conclude that this is just another ‘moral panic’ phenomenon that will run its course.

    Alas, the conclusion social scientists will reach from this study is they need to increase efforts to pretend that renewables are actually cheaper once made-up estimates of environmental damage of fossil fuels are added on and advances in storage capacity are assumed to be inevitable.

    • JasG wrote: “This is likely because they found skeptics to be more right-wing and hence must be less altruistic.”

      Well, I would say that they are assuming things not in evidence, if they think right-wing means less altruistic. That’s the Leftwing mantra, they use in all their propaganda: The Right only cares about money and themselves. The Leftwing media has pounded this theme home for decades, to the point that it becomes “settled political science”.

      That was one problem I had with George W. Bush: He came on the national scene claiming to be a “Compassionate Conservative”, as though all other conservatives were not compassionate, clearly buying into the Leftwing mantra that conservatives are just the opposite of compassionate.

      Even ole George was brainwashed by the Leftwing media, into seeing conservatives in a bad light, and felt the need to distinguish himself from all those other conservatives who lacked compassion. Which irked the hell out of conservatives like me.

      Propaganda is a powerful tool. As the Climate Change Skeptic community knows all too well. If you repeat a lie often enough, with lots of different voices joining in the lie, then the lie becomes the “truth” in people’s minds.

      The Leftwing propagandists in the news media are a danger to U.S. democracy and our way of life. We cannot govern ourselves properly if all we are fed is Leftwing lies about the state of reality. The Media has to be held to account if we are to keep our freedom.

    • Study after study has shown that conservatives are more charitable with their own money and time than are liberals.
      Liberals are only “charitable” when it comes to their willingness to spend other people’s money on perceived problems.
      To a liberal, taking money from someone else and giving it away is the only thing that qualifies as “charity”.

  20. The study is misguided because it ignores a fundamental premise.
    Governments lie to their citizens

    A skeptical person is well aware of this fact and therefore is less likely to believe what their government or their funded bodies (including Academia) tell him/her unless supported by enough evidence. This applies to anything, economy, science, foreign relations, weapons of mass destruction, and so on.

    A politically biased person will distrust what an opposite sign government tells, while it will trust what a government of his/her sign tells.

    A gullible person will trust what the government tells unless there is evidence that it is lying.

    So skepticals of CAGW in the US are formed by true skepticals and politically biased skepticals of Republican inclination. Probably the second class is more abundant as humans do not come wired to be skeptical and usually have to train to become so. That is the reason why more educated people tend to be more skeptical.

    • “The study is misguided because it ignores a fundamental premise.
      Governments lie to their citizens”

      This is not relevant because they lie whatever the state of the economy. The question that needs to be answered is why people accept the existence of AGW less when the economy tanks.

      Logically it should make no difference. It would of course make a difference to our response to AGW, but it should not affect our beliefs about the existence of AGW.

      The fact that it does shows us once again that our beliefs are not entirely rational.

      • “The question that needs to be answered is why people accept the existence of AGW less when the economy tanks.”

        That is an obvious answer. The credibility of the government tanks when the economy tanks. And to that you have to add that people become concerned that public money is used for anything else than helping its owner, the public, to improve its economical situation.

        It is always about money, sex, or power to get the first two. Only when we have them can we become concerned about other things.

        If public money for climate research was funding preferentially studies to challenge human influence on climate the number of skeptical climatologists would soon soar.

      • Seaice, your comment is not rational. It s called a cost-benefit analysis. If the cause of economic hardship is to some degree due to Government response to CAGW, but the “C” is MIA, and the benefits of CO2 increase are known and manifesting, then it is entirely rational to reject CAGW.

      • Also seaice, it is very likely that the “Pause” has as much or more to do with increased skepticism as the economic downturn. That and the fact that skeptical arguments are more scientific and rational, and so in the long run will win, as the earth itself is verifying the skeptical position.

      • Another cause of skepticism Seaice, is that rational scientific people KNOW that mitigation to changing climate, whatever the cause, is far more effective then the trillions wasted on global government policy that at the most make a tiny dent (less then .2 degrees) in any global mean temperature. In economic terms it is called, “misallocation of assets”. Thus to reject CAGW based on economics is entirely rational.

  21. How about putting it this way: People should be concerned about the economy and those who are generally have better reasoning skills than those who are not. The tendency to become over-alarmed about climate is worsened by having sub-standard reasoning skills. I suspect there are all kinds of study’s that could confirm the link in this way. Those who blithely saddled themselves with student debt probably don’t have as good a reasoning skills and worry more about climate than those who avoided that pitfall.

    There are people who believe in a “free lunch”, that well intentioned policies can succeed despite their flaunting basic market principles, that there are easy solutions to hard problems. They think “Why not get the proffered win-win-win of more jobs, cheaper renewable energy and improve the environment?” Those who understand that replacing fossil fuels will be a long arduous task, may just dig a little deeper and think a little harder.

  22. The constitutional division of powers between citizens and government were designed so that the citizens were antagonists (skeptics) of government on all matters, that includes being skeptical of government involvement in the economy or whatever numbers or propaganda they emit to convince people the economy is well. If you not an American citizen/antagonist/skeptic then you are falling far short of your constitutional duties as a citizen. We are not “all in this together” as the left constantly argues in various forms, because if were “all in this together” we would just mindlessly accept whatever the dear leaders promoted or decreed and there would be no need for a constitution. If government to wants to make large societal changes, then it is up to government to conbince people through logic not propaganda or force that the change is in our collective best interest. It is possible to make such changes, it has been done before, but it is intentionally difficult and intentionally designed to fail because well, you know how power corrupts government.

  23. Ninety percent of Republicans and 22 percent of Democrats see sustainability initiatives as threatening to the socioeconomic system? Looks like a majority to me! I guess it is their point. Most people aren’t blindly following the so-called scientific consensus.

  24. Here’s a study for them to do:

    A STUDY OF MASS DELUSIONS AND HYSTERIA

    THEORY:
    Climate change Belief is not merely the result of ignorance or lack of exposure to actual climate science, but likely has a motivational and a psychological basis.

  25. However, the fact remains, regardless of whether the economy is healthy or not, that the manmade global warming scam and all bad policies that relate to the scam are bad science and evil, respectively. Bad science is bad science; we should reject it under any conditions. It would do us well to teach our kids real science and help them identify and reject. misinformation and illogical concepts when they are asked to believe them.

  26. So what they are saying is “Let’s figure out how to make our propaganda more effective”. They have already determined the outcome: “Everyone turns their thought processes over to Big Brother and all dissent is crushed.” The problem is putting on the white lab coats and stating the the sky is purple didn’t seem to sway all the people who could look up and see it was blue. They believe that the messaging about the purple sky was the problem and if they could get more power to improve the messaging (By suing into penury anyone who dares look up during the message for instance – or more directly by knee-capping anyone whose eyes stray upward.) they will finally achieve the goal.

    1984 was a warning, NOT A PLAYBOOK!

  27. Education efforts? LOL. It’s a slicker propaganda/indoctrination program than any Soviet/Naz* effort. Children are particularly targeted — the younger the better.

  28. In other words, people with no money worries are less likely to be concerned when govt wastes their money.

    Now all we have to do is find this mythical person with no money worries.

  29. mods: There appears to be a format issue. The text is squeezed into space to the right of the picture that is only about 4 characters wide. I’m using IE 11 on a Windows 7 computer.

  30. It is very hard to believe in something that you can not see. The average person can not tell the difference between 25C and 25.1C or 24.9C. I can not go down to Santa Monica peer and see that the water has risen a few centimeters, any more than I can determine that the whole coastline has moved north a few centimeters. As for climate change, I do not see any difference. One thing I do notice is that there is less smog.

  31. Yeah and when concern about the economy reaches 100% of the people, then Climate $Change$ will quietly disappear!

  32. Hennes and her fellow researchers were inspired to study this issue after noticing that belief in human-caused climate change dropped by 11 percent in the United States during the major recession from 2007 to 2009. a potentially profitable coincidence.

  33. With the new and improved measuring the TSI is 1360 w/m^2. The problem with the 0.7 C is that it was calculated using 1368 w/m^2. It was never recalculated to the new and improved rate of warming to 0.335 C. Additionally, in pure number terms, (it seems nobody reads anything) the research ( not skeptic research either) has shown that at least half of the heat that is claimed to be observed is from natural causes. (I did say claimed). Ironically, I never claimed it wasn’t warming, especially since 1979, what I disagreed with is the correlation between co2 and temperature. I also disagree about the consequences of it being warmer. Historically not that cold during the early 1970’s, but still colder, among governments food became an issue. As in anything that changes, there are issues, but warming is a decided plus, not a negative. A colder world is definitely a scary world. That’s why I believe that CAGW is a detriment in finding out the real cause of climate change.

    Anybody can see the graph of the TSI that the measurements have changed. And they are in color too! Do people actually do the math or just believe everything that someone else says? Do they think about what they are being told? Drinking acid laced cool aid is not my idea of independent thinking. ( I’m referring to Jonestown where everybody committed suicide in a religious fevor) . I put CAGW in the same category.

  34. Weasel words are “may be”, but of course the other possibility is “may not be”. They really don’t know. But with enough grant money stuffed in-pocket, they will surely continue to “study” this burning question, ad nauseum.

Comments are closed.