Who’s the hypocrite now?

From ScienceDirect

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ~ctm

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.03.001

Highlights

  • We conducted a one-year longitudinal study of 600 Americans’ climate beliefs.
  • Cluster analyses found three distinct groups based on climate belief trajectories.
  • Climate change believers were most likely to endorse federal climate policies.
  • Climate change skeptics were most likely to report pro-environmental behavior.

Abstract

  • We conducted a one-year longitudinal study in which 600 American adults regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures. Using latent class analyses, we uncovered three clusters of Americans with distinct climate belief trajectories: (1) the “Skeptical,” who believed least in climate change; (2) the “Cautiously Worried,” who had moderate beliefs in climate change; and (3) the “Highly Concerned,” who had the strongest beliefs and concern about climate change. Cluster membership predicted different outcomes: the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

[Emphasis mine. ~ctm]

Advertisements

130 thoughts on “Who’s the hypocrite now?

      • I wouldn’t say useless, but of limited usefulness. It really depends on how well the questionnaire was constructed.

      • Wait, so you mean that all of these people flying around on private jets actually aren’t on those jets and they actually live in $50,000 houses and hang out their own laundry?

      • Not so Jeff, self-reporting has a high rate of being reliable–at least in a broad sense–ie, “researchers who use self-report questionnaires are relying on the honesty of their participants. The degree to which this is a problem will undoubtedly vary with the topic of the questionnaire, for example participants are less likely to be honest about measures relating to sexual behaviour, or drug use, than they are about caffeine consumption, ” (http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/the-dangers-of-self-report/)— mostly if someone were being dishonest, you would expect it to be the alarmists who would want to make themselves look good –but they aren’t–they appear to be telling the truth.

        When I am attacked on social media (used to be often when i actually tried to dialog about the issues–but I since learned that alarmist don’t want to discuss it, they just want virtue signal), I point out that of all my alarmist friends and family, it is me who has had 2 solar homes, me who uses solar appliances, me who recycles and does not get money for it, me who diverts my grey water to the landscape–I am the one who takes action because i care about the environment and I read the research and I think for myself–and come to responsible conclusions that I act on. I don’t beg the government to guide me and force everyone around me to do its bidding. I believe in some government controls for safety but not the nanny state stuff–

        Forgive me, I’m off on a tangent. Am I virtue signaling now? Yep! Because it is as I say–I act more responsibly than every single alarmist I personally know of, even when they attack me, even after I point out their hypocrisy, they still attack me for my beliefs and they still don’t change their irresponsible behavior! You can tell them to their face, “You aren’t taking care of this planet even though you attack me for not believing it’s all about to end”–but who is the problem here the unbeliever that acts with accountability or the true believer who can’t figure out how to set up a rain barrel, where to buy LEDs, or how to do a rock landscape instead of a water guzzling vast green lawn! Geeze.

        • I’ve got a solution for watering a lawn-Totally environmentalist. We only watered the lawn for a couple of weeks after it was seeded. Haven’t watered it since. This is in PA, which has a generally good climate for grass. Further south and west the grass will grow, but estivate during the summer when the rain is sparse. But it comes back in the fall and spring when there is more rain.

          The key, after the first year we put down an inch or so of wood mulch and a light application of fertilizer. By year three we had a thick, green lawn with clover and other ground dwelling flowers.

        • “mostly if someone were being dishonest, you would expect it to be the alarmists who would want to make themselves look good –but they aren’t–they appear to be telling the truth.”

          No way to know. They could think that going too overboard might be suspicious. Maybe it’s the skeptics who are being dishonest. The point is, without verification, there’s no way to know.

          “I point out that of all my alarmist friends and family, it is me who has had 2 solar homes, me who uses solar appliances, me who recycles and does not get money for it, me who diverts my grey water to the landscape”

          But that’s just you saying so. I could say the same thing on a forum somewhere, and no one could say if I was lying or not. That’s my point.

          • If the virtue signalers are lying, then they’re scumbag liars. If they’re telling the truth, then they’re scumbag hypocrites.

      • It is not true the results are useless. The pattern of believers V non believes is determined largely by technical skills. The more you understand technology and instrumentation the less belief you have in climate scientists. If you also studied computer modelling and look at the models you will actively almost certainly despise their work.
        Technologically trained people often repair equipment two or three times before dumping it and often select better quality longer lasting over cheaper fancier looking models. I repair rather than dump. I also estimate I have avoided around quarter of a million air miles travelling for work by using file transfers and email instead of face to face visits. I am a hard line non believer to the extent I feel they have indulged in active fraud by continuing to use computer models after admitting the change was local. Even if I self reported I could back up my reporting.
        In comparison one who will no longer even be polite as i am a non believer dumped a good computer merely because the fan was clogged and it switched into a slow mode on the temperature limiter. It was given to me as I was going to the recycle centre that afternoon.

    • Yes, let’s let the climate whatever protesters block a bridge in Calgary, then roust the homeless camp that’s too close to a new nightclub and might be bad for business because it might be an impediment to traffic and parking.

      It’s easy to tell whether it’s about climate change or Other People’s Money. When an overseas investor builds a new wind farm, no local investors are allowed, all the terms and feed-in tariffs are a closely held secret, and there’s taxpayer money making it go… It’s not mostly about ‘Climate Change’.

      Fuel taxes are a good way to apportion the cost of building and maintaining roads. When the Alberta government keeps fuel taxes low, but starts dipping into Income Tax, municipal Property Tax and other pots to keep the roads up, ” ’cause jobs and the economy”, who’s benefiting?

    • Their piety absolves them from all blame for what can only be described as ‘misdemeanours’ in any realistic sense. Their remaining, tenuous link to reality.

    • I think it’s the other way around. Once I have saved up and put 10 KWp of solar panels on my roof, it’s all much less scary because I’ve Done Something.

      It might have an insignificant effect, but it feels more effective than arguing on FreindFace about what might and might not work, someday.

      Buying utility stock can do the same thing. Keep investing until the dividends can pay your power bill.

    • Agree that it’s not a surprise. Skeptics are generally better educated, and more aware of how to use energy more efficiently, simply for personal reasons like saving money.

      • Beng135–I think we are generally better educated too–do you have a reference for that? A few of my family members are better educated than I and laugh at my skepticism and me, but I still think you may be right..

        • @ Shelly Having higher qualifications does not equal “better educated” – especially if those qualifications are more recent.

        • shelly, there was a post here some time ago on this very topic, but difficult for me to find unfortunately. To clarify, skeptics were more educated in the hard sciences, like engineering.

  1. Geez Louise. Don’t tell me another study naively elides the abyss between reported beliefs and beliefs, even in the face of glaring disjuncts between “belief” and behaviour?

    Have such olde-fashioned terms for virtue signaling as …

    Social Desirability bias
    the Bradley effect
    the Shy Tory Factor

    … disappeared from the Psych 101 syllabus since I took it?

    Everybody KNOWS (by which I mean, KNEW) that survey respondents invariably think they’re on a date with the experimenter, and try to impress them with the wokeness of their opinions.

    Talk is cheap. But then, I guess today’s psychologists are pretty cheap dates.

    • Well said Brad Keyes, agree totally. While the conclusion is attractive, might even be correct, the methods are not fit for purpose. In broad terms it’s the psychological equivalent of a significant digits problem. You can’t use a meter/yard stick to determine if the hair of a pika or a polar bear is thicker, and you can’t use this kind of survey to claim attitudinal differences between groups. Just because it’s standard practice in the field today does not make it correct.

      • Or maybe people can’t be easily broken down into permanent groups based on their opinions and stated level of concern about tiny changes in average weather over centuries.

        • Warren and Marshall won a Nobel Prize for a sample size of a couple of people, didn’t they? Possibly they didn’t, but that’s what I was always told.

          Anyway, depending on the hypothesis, 600 might be more than enough to draw confident conclusions.

    • There are ways to minimize the biases in these kinds of studies, but without digging into it to see what they actually did, it’s not possible to say if these results are useful or not.

    • Brad, don’t you see what you’re saying? Basically you are saying that this self-reporting probably was reliable since the virtue signaling (on its face) is much more likely to be the believers? the Alarmists are the ones who would want to be seen as the environmentalists–skeptics, not so much.

      • No, I’m not suggesting anyone would “cross the aisle” to impress the “date.” Self-reported believers are probably believers, and self-reported skeptics are almost certainly skeptics (because there is no social cache to admitting you’re a skeptic). What I’m suggesting is that the “believers” don’t believe in quite as many things as they claim to. The Eurekalert post a week or two back about waterfront house preparedness was strong evidence that claiming you believe in rapid SLR doesn’t mean you do.

        If someone claims DDT should be banned as a supertoxin (even in small doses), but then uses it on their own farm anyway, it’s still possible that they were entirely sincere in their claims. In which case you’d have to conclude they were simply hypocrites.

        But if the same person then willingly eats a tablespoonful of DDT, absent any suicidal intent, then you can be sure they were only *pretending* to believe it was an incredibly deadly poison.

  2. Wow, well not really. Actions have speaking louder than words for decades! The hypocrisy is outed yet again.

  3. Frankly, the only thing that surprises me about this would be that climate change believers who are “highly concerned” would actually tell the truth about their behaviors. I find it a little tough to believe they would admit to what they actually do which is very little behavior change.

    • True, but these things are relative. If they’re living among a crowd of self-indulgent hyper-consumers it wouldn’t take much to put them at the sanctified end of the virtue-signalling spectrum.
      If you live in a very woke affluent upper middle class neighbourhood where everyone pontificates about “climate change” but goes on overseas holidays and drives the SUV to the ski resort, fairly trivial “pro-environment” actions (real or imagined) probably seem highly virtuous.

    • No, the ‘highly concerned’ are like the murderer who scrawls on the bathroom mirror, “stop me, before I kill again” They advocate for government policies to enforce the ‘good behavior’ they lack the self-discipline to impose on themselves. It also has the added benefit of making everyone else just as miserable as themselves – which is much better than being miserable, alone and WRONG!

    • I’m not surprised that they tell the truth, because they feel their victimhood prevents them from doing anything, and absolves them from failing to take any action, until ‘the rich’ are now forced to pay for it.

      Using blame to fill in potholes of guilt keeps traffic flowing smoothly on the road to ruin. Always the same excuses “Exxon didn’t tell me it was bad and I drove everywhere”… ‘It’s the restaurant’s fault I ate the super-size fries”…

      Hollywood would sing a different tune if Greta pushed for boycotting any movie featuring an actor who had been shamed for conspicuous carbon emissions.

      • “Randy Wester October 28, 2019 at 12:12 pm

        I’m not surprised that they tell the truth, because they feel their victimhood prevents them from doing anything, and absolves them from failing to take any action, until ‘the rich’ are now forced to pay for it.”

        What the believers don’t ( want to ) take into account:

        Money knows no Borders. Claiming for richness gives back the famous “black zero”.

  4. It’s just like liberals who feel virtuous for having social welfare beliefs, but give far less to charities than conservatives, who act out of a sense of personal responsibility.

    • “It’s just like liberals who feel virtuous for having social welfare beliefs”

      Again, aren’t you begging the question? Do they actually HAVE those beliefs, or are they just hoping you’ll believe they believe them if they repeatedly claim to?

      • Actually Brad it could explain a lot. If a person feels virtuous for having the belief, then there is little motivation to act. Why should they? They are already, by their own definition “virtuous”.

        If a person doesn’t hold the basic belief that “virtue” comes from thinking the “right” way, then they would tend to actually act and “do something” to get the same personal satisfaction. Take climate out of it and consider the homeless instead. One group feels virtuous because they have said that the government should help the homeless, the second group volunteers at a soup kitchen.

          • Re: Faith not Works.

            Salvation is by faith and not by works. It is a gift, not an earning.
            Works is evidence of faith, proof of the pudding if you will.

            James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
            James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

        • It’s not the mere belief in a cause that makes a person feel virtuous. In your example of the two groups of people, nothing that is done by the second group of people will ever help those in the first group of people feel good about themselves. They can’t claim any personal virtue from the sole decisions of other people, that help causes selected by those other people. But the virtue signaler desperately wants to feel good about themselves.

          So if those in the first group can help force some third party to fulfill the priorities of the person(s) in the first group, by voting for government intervention, etc. then they somehow feel that they do vicariously obtain the virtue they want, without any personal sacrifice on their part. This is why the virtue signalers have to believe that the people they want to regulate (the wealthy, the corporations, the fossil fuel developers) are somehow bad actors that cheated or otherwise unfairly came upon the profits or other things that the virtue signalers want to take, and use to fulfill the virtue signaler’s priorities.

        • One group feels virtuous because they have said that the government should help the homeless, the second group volunteers at a soup kitchen.

          But the “second group” contains less than 0.01% of the total groups.

          • Citation?

            But even assuming your number is true, isn’t that the problem? if the “larger” first group would simply do as the second group, then there would be no need for the government intervention that the first group clamor’s for.

          • The bible teaches that feed a person for a day does not help them, the problem we have with the homeless in this country has little to do with food. Maybe if we had not closed down the mental hospital and made is damn hard for love one to get the mental ill they love help and that the mental ill cannot reject that help because the mental ill do not think they need it. Been there, tried to help end the end I had to divorce her. Now she live off you and me. She not homeless but she never paid her way. Ditto for my eldest, both suffer from depression. Mental illness is only about a third of the problem the other is drug addiction and transit homeless. The only group that it pay to help for a short term it the transit homeless since that group generally remain homeless for a short time. Most of the time it poor choice and bad luck, yet they are will to work their way out of it. The other two groups it rather an intransigent problem if you allow the to roam around freely and sleep and defecate on the streets. Most need intervention which they are not getting. How you think that not forcing them off the streets, yes the street where they live expose to mother nature whims and were they can be preyed on and killed by the human predators that live among us is humane, is beyond me.

          • Citation?

            “DUH”, ……. “Wonder Boy”, you tell me how many soup kitchen there are and then I will provide you a citation.

            And don’t be counting the once-a-year “Thanksgiving soup kitchens” that love to get noted with videos on the TV news hour.

          • Here is the requested citation that is mandatory for people like yourself that are incapable of thinking for yourself and thus need said to engage in the most basic of conversations.

            “Battling URLs” ……. must be your forte,

          • Circular citation, LOL. You’ve reached a new depth of trolling, thanks for reveling yourself for the troll that you are.

          • Or to put it another way, you’re not man enough to admit you pulled that number out of your backside.

          • John E, ….. and I betcha that’s exactly what you told Charles Goodyear when he announced his discovery of “vulcanization”, …… right?

            You demanded he provide “citations” to prove his claim, …… as well as proof of “peer approval”, ….. RIGHT.

            By the way, …. John E, ……. if I cite a reference to a Patent that is registered to me being the “inventor”, ……. would you also call that a “Circular citation”?

            I’m sure you would, ……. your misguided ego would force your asinine response.

          • Take your meds Sam, your rambling incoherently.

            Charles Goodyear would have been able to show his work.
            If you have a patent, it would be registered at the patent office and that could be shown.

            the number you post came straight out of your backside, you have no work to show and nothing you can cite (like a patent registration) to back it up.

            instead of manning up and admitting that you choose to ramble incoherent illogic. But by all means continue, it’s your own credibility you are shredding which each post.

          • instead of manning up and admitting that you choose to ramble incoherent illogic.

            You are wrong, Endicott, ….. I chose that figure of …. “0.01% of the total group” …. As a guesstimate based on the population of Charleston, WV (approximately 47,215) where a dozen or so people provide a “free Thanksgiving dinner”, once a year, to the poor and hungry residents. And they get BIG news on TV so they can smile at the video camera,

            And my “estimate” is just as accurate as “scholarly” estimates that cost $10’s to $100’s to conduct, …. the kind that you believe is “right as rain”, …… such as “deaths caused by cigarette smoking”.

      • They believe in the “social” side of things; meaning, the government should provide welfare from everybody else’s money. Thus they absolve themselves from any personnel responsibility or charity, yet they still feel virtuous because they support the social welfare of government’s wealth distribution.

      • ‘Do they actually HAVE those beliefs, or are they just hoping you’ll believe they believe them if they repeatedly claim to?’

        They’ve been taught they SHOULD, and so are virtue signaling.

    • Liberals think that they score virtue points by forcing other people to give up the things they enjoy for the benefit of some noble cause. But they squawk to no end when they are asked to give up the things they enjoy, even in support of those same causes. It’s always someone else’s obligation. How often have you heard the trope “they don’t need” something – whether that something is money, or a type of gun, etc. It’s never “I don’t need this – here, take it from me for the greater good.”

      How many Stoneman Douglass high school students and parents jumped on the gun control bandwagon to try to take guns away from other people in the name of student safety, but screamed bloody murder when the school suggested that students be required to bring only transparent backpacks to class in pursuit of student safety? NBA players demand the right to take advantage of a basketball arena filled with fans who paid for their own tickets, in a venue paid for by owners and taxpayers, so as to engage in their own narcissistic and insulting protests, irrespective of the harm it causes to the people paying their salaries. But when the fans and/or owners exercise their own free speech rights to support Hong Kong protestors, those same narcissists throw hissy fits because it affects their bottom line.

  5. You just have to look at the rubbish left behind by extremely concerned climate change believers after any demonstration – plastic plastic everywhere.

  6. I was once in the Global Warming Cautiously Worried group about 1980ish, but 40 years have rolled by and things out of my window seem much the same, I do not recognise the “environmental degradation” so fondly portrayed by David Attenborough, if anything the “environment” seem much better than it was, in any case it appears to be doing OK.

    I have yet to see a prickly pear grow wild in the UK countryside and if what they told me was true, I should see them all around me, so I am not quite sure what to make of it all.

    The constant clamour of “Climate Emergency” by those who seem to know nothing, leaves me getting more sceptical by the day, or is it me that’s wrong and the media luvvies that are right. Who knows, who cares, I don’t have to, or need to, so I won’t join in.

    • Prickly Pear???

      The Prickly Pear Cactus grows in Saskatchewan, a rather harsh environment. As far as I can tell, the Prickly Pear likes a dry environment. I have a hard time imagining that the British Isles could become sufficiently desert like.

      • Prickly pear grows naturally in every province of Canada. We have some that do very well in our front garden, and spend 2-3 months each winter covered by snow.

      • We have them in Florida, often on scrub or along the coastlines beyond the first row of dunes.
        In fact, the Eastern prickly pear may have the widest range of any cactus species.
        Others species, closely related (genus Opuntia) grow across side areas of the deserts of North and South America.
        They have been introduced and are now widespread across Africa, Australia, and the Mediterranean.
        https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/plant-of-the-week/opuntia_humifusa.shtml

        They have been used for food(and not just the fruit, which is delicious) and in medicine and are among the worlds most useful plants.
        It is said that for a couple of hundred years, churches were painted with a preparation made from the cactus, and was noted for being very waterproof and durable.
        The pads are fed to dairy cows to add a sweet flavor to their milk.
        They are highly nutritious, and may be one of the most important food crops to native populations around the world.

        Interesting note on what happened when Opuntia were introduced into Australia for gardens:
        “In Australia, they quickly became a widespread invasive weed, eventually converting 101,000 sq mi (260,000 km2) of farming land into an impenetrable green jungle of prickly pear, in places 20 ft (6.1 m) high. Scores of farmers were driven off their land by what they called the “green hell”; their abandoned homes were crushed under the cactus growth, which advanced at a rate of 1,000,000 acres (4,046.9 km2; 1,562.5 sq mi) per year. In 1919, the Australian federal government established the Commonwealth Prickly Pear Board to coordinate efforts with state governments to eradicate the weed. Early attempts at mechanical removal and poisonous chemicals failed, so in a last resort, biological control was attempted”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opuntia

      • “commieBob October 27, 2019 at 4:00 pm
        Prickly Pear???

        The Prickly Pear Cactus grows in Saskatchewan, a rather harsh environment. As far as I can tell, the Prickly Pear likes a dry environment. I have a hard time imagining that the British Isles could become sufficiently desert like.”
        ____________________________________

        The latest achievement of the climate protectors is the claim that the encroachment of pests and vectors to the North is proof of climate change.

        While it is a simple fact that more and more tourists bring back from holiday trips to paradisic tropical islands: pests and vectors in used clothes and baggages. And that same pests and vectors can adapt, even to the “cool North”.

        Otherwise they wouldn’t be here, that Pests and Vectors. Longer than mankind’s living memory.

  7. Anyone who has seen the home of Al Gore, DiFi, or Bernie Sanders already knows this. The real purpose of environmentalism is to get riff-raff like you and me off the streets, so that the elite can enjoy them more and their nice houses will continue to go up in price. We don’t get to live as though we’re a first-world country.

  8. “Who’s the hypocrite now?”

    Still us, I’m afraid, Charles.

    For a group that calls itself anti-science science denihilists, we sure do seem to respect the scientific method. Who among us can honestly claim to have enough courage in their science-denihilist convictions to blindly dismiss ANY scientific evidence outside (or for that matter, inside) the narrowly-constrained niche that is climate science?

    Heck, many, many soi-disant anti-scientists ARE scientists, engineers, medical researchers, medical practicioners and other professions deeply and directly complicit in the incremental human project to understand nature by structured skepticism. The project we all CLAIM to oppose. I’ll go further. Anecdotally, I’d say we practically have a *monopoly* on—or at least, are over-represented in—such fields compared to the general population, wherein everyone who isn’t us openly *admits* they’re pro-science.

    Let’s come clean, behind closed doors, entre amis: calling ourselves science de-
    niers is little more than false advertising, isn’t it?

    And don’t get me started on our vaunted climate denihilism. Oh, we like to wear the gold star. But I know full well the firmament isn’t made of nine concentric crystal spheres. I know there’s an atmosphere. With properties. That are amenable to statistical description. Which can be amortized over 30-year periods. Don’t you? (Be honest.) This is our dirty secret, isn’t it: we all understand perfectly well all about the existence of the climate.

    We even know it changes, despite all professions to the contrary, don’t we? That’s why we snicker (at best) and guffaw (at brazenest) at the Mr Magoos of the science world, the Mr Menn, when they somehow manage to miss all the climate change that occurred between 0 and 1900 AD. Hockey stick? Yeah, sure. OK. And that’s the perversity of the whole dynamic: the self-styled “climate change believers” are the only people who’d ever take that schtick seriously.

    We should be ashamed of ourselves. Our opponents are better at climate-change denihilism than we are!

    And we’re supposed to be doing this for a living.

    Brutal candor time: Naomi Oreskes’ pinky finger has done more damage to the scientific method in the course of prosecuting her one-woman War on Science than you, I or anyone else on this thread will ever do with both pinkies. Combined.

    You know it. I know it. (She probably knows it too, but has way too much class to rub our faces in it.)

    And WE have the audacity to identify as Anti-Science?

    • Any chance of just getting the Abstract for this post?

      Possibly also defining who this ‘we’ is within this context, because at the moment I am not really sure what your argument actually is.

    • @Brad >>>For a group that calls itself anti-science science denihilists<<< last time I checked no one on the skeptical side of the fence was calling themself a science denier, this is a label affixed by the warmists to those who won’t blindly accept their faith. For this reason I call your post BS, unless you inadvertently missed the /s?

      • Brad’s posts have always had the sarc tag permanently on, so no need for an ‘off’ tag. Those who have known him for a while get this.

        Sadly, a few of his posts recently have been straightforward target than his usual sarcasm, so it gets confusing. Myself, I much prefer his sarcasm, especially since it is so very hard to differentiate from rabid eco-loons 🙂

  9. Any study that talks about “beliefs in climate change” without distinguishing natural from anthropogenic climate change is a worthless piece of garbage.

    • I think they aren’t being specific, they are focusing on the “belief”, not what is being believed.

    • Peter

      I have a vague memory of the IPCC defining “Climate Change” as being human caused climate change. This opened the gates on any climate change as automatically being human caused. Natural climate change need not apply.

  10. ‘A citizen accepts personal responsibility for action. The civilian does not’

    H/T and apologies to & for ‘Starship troopers’

    #wouldyouliketoknowmore

  11. For those who consider hypocrisy a minor failing, perhaps it should be noted that Jesus of Nazareth castigates hypocrites 17 times in the Bible, but mentions adulterers only once (while condemning a hypocrite!)

    • A very good point, though adultery is also just another form of hypocrisy, isn’t it? Promising to love one’s wife or husband until ‘death do you apart’ but then neglecting to keep that promise. Letting one’s ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and ‘no’ ‘no’ is really hard, but it might perhaps lie at the very core of what it means to be a ‘good person’ (rather than merely a ‘virtue-signalling’ person), regardless of persuasion or conviction.

    • “The researchers found that cooler temperatures associated with the warming hole were responsible for most of the increased U.S. corn yield”

      ..it would just kill them to say “cooling hole”

      and say how much cooler..in degrees…it was

    • The article implies that the record corn harvests are due to the area not warming, instead of increased rainfall (& CO2 for that matter). Lame.

    • No, but the researchers felt the need to include this disclaimer:
      “These findings should not be misinterpreted as evidence against the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans.”
      Of what then should these findings be evidence? If not direct falsification what else is it?

      “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Feynman

  12. Let’s see. I drive all of my local mileage in an electric car that gets 89% of its juice from hydro and wind and 8% from a nuke. I grow my own vegetables. I use a heat pump. I eat (only) grass-fed beef.

    None of the above because I believe the AGW hypothesis, but because I freely choose to. So I guess none of it counts.

    • Indeed. Freedom of choice, rather than Govn’t approved. We have plenty of examples where Govn’t central control does not work for long.

      • The feds subsidize heat pumps, and I agree with that. Look at the numbers, and U.S. electricity demand has been essentially flat for almost 20 years. I am a-okay with encouraging efficiency. It’s a balance and occasionally a battle, but from 30,000 feet I think we’re doing pretty well on the demand side anyway. Waste not, want not.

        • It still means Govn’t influence which, usually, means someone is on the make. Look at what is happening in Lebanon. All those in “Govn’t” are on the make. All people from all sides of politics are in protest and that has leaders, on all sides, worried. GOSH! SHOCK! HORROR! A peoples’ revolt?

  13. Their excuse is often that a single person’s efforts can’t do much, so they put their efforts into “the guvmint shood do sumfink aboudit”. Their politics is marked in favour of centralised autocratic governement rather than individual incentives.

  14. The reported hypocrisy is interesting.

    However, it probably just means that NOBODY, regardless of which of the 3 categories, is actually living differently because of the climate, and that makes the variance (hypocrisy) greatest for those reporting belief.

    • The best way to protect the environment is to ensure a strong economy.

      If you have a comfortably paying job then the unspoilt forest is a place to go spy native animals.

      If you are living hand to mouth the forest is a place to source heating fuel for your hovel and those animals are a possible lunch.

  15. the “Skeptical,” who believed least in climate change

    WRONG! Climate has and will always change, if you question a skeptic.
    We are only skeptical of CO2 being the primary driver of climate, as observation clearly is showing us that it has an obviously insignificant role.

    • Think about ‘does not believe in’ as a proxy for ‘does not believe in CO2-made, very dangerous climate change’.

      The result of the paper is too important to start being picky about some imprecise language on what we believe in or not.

      I for one am pretty certain CO2 will not have very negative effects on anything of importance, but I’m still thinking CO2 will cause some warming that would not be there without it, and some of the effects will be negative. To what extent, remains to be seen. Remember the IPCC scale 1.5 to 4.5 K is still there, they haven’t been willilng to reduce it. 1.5 K globally means easily 3 K for some places, which definitely makes a difference at 2xCO2, which we will probably reach during the next 100 years.

      So my message is, I do ‘believe’ in some climate change, AGW, but that does not mean I will support any policy driven.

      • I for one am pretty certain CO2 will not have very negative effects on anything of importance

        agreed. And man’s miniscule contribution CO2 even less so. Assuming for the sake of argument that man-CO2 does cause warming of any significance, this is a bad thing why? Periods of warmth historically have been a boon not a bane. It’s the periods of cold that have historically been the periods associated with the most negative effects for life on this planet. If man has found the “control knob” of the planet temperature, as alarmist claim, then that fact should be celebrated and that control knob turned up a notch or two – a warmer world is a good thing, particularly as we are still not that far out of the little ice age and likely not that far away from the end of the current interglacial

      • I believe man causes climate change around himself through land use and UHI effect. Only theory supports the idea that CO2 has any effect which supersedes the combined influences of what have been labeled as ‘myths’ when it comes to the planet’s thermal regulation. There is no observation which conclusively supports it at this time. When someone makes an indisputable observation of CO2 induced warming and can disqualify all other mechanisms, I will join with you in belief.

  16. Like most, I am not surprised, but I would like to offer up my conclusions:

    There are now two broad caregories of people. I won’t label them because there are too many exceptions within the obvious labels.

    The first group was raised to believe in multiple ‘controlling authorities’. Government, obviously. Religion is common. Upholding the family’s name. Parental respect, both giving and receiving (I hold doors open for women out of repect for my mother. She said, open the door for others. Wouldn’t you want someone to hold the door for me?), scouting, the military, and others.

    These groups require more of the individual than what the law does. Politeness, consideration, respect, proper decorum, and a very seldom used word – morals, much of which well-functioning polite society requires.

    This is the group that cares about the environment, out of concern for the environment and respect of others.

    The second group believes is absolute government authority. There is no other controlling suthority. If something is not explicitly illegal (and sometimes even if it is, if it suits the person), then it must also be acceptable behavior, and others must tolerate it.

    This is why the second group takes no personal responsibility for their actions – the law doesn’t require it. It also explains why they want changes in the laws to force others to behave in the manner they want. They believe government is the proper authority to dictate what is proper to say and do. This group is the product of lax or no parenting, and schools which are quick to push rights but never get around to teaching responsibility.

    The latter group is becoming the majority, and civilization is slowly deteriorating.

  17. It’s exactly the same as “awareness” days and events. Those who participate in the awareness events, do nothing for the subject to which they want everybody else to become aware. They’ve done their bit, as far as they’re concerned. Somebody else can solve the problem and pay for it.

  18. “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors.

    Hey, that’s me! Professional forester for 45 years, rural gentry, organic gardener/orchardist, dog lover, conservationist, steward of the land…

    That’s why I’ve studied stuff like botany, paleo-botany, zoology, anthropology, ecology, geology, statistics, and climatology. It’s my job, lifestyle, and predilection.

    That’s why I know about the Pleistocene as well as the Miocene, Oligocene, Eocene, etc. Which is why I am a skeptic of AGW (and of psychologist PhDs doing pseudo multivariate stat analyses), based on my knowledge, experience, and studies.

    It’s not because of my politics (btw I think both parties are full of cr*p). I’ve always been a skeptic of all kinds of phoniness. When I was 12 I bought a little button at a gift shop that said “Question Authority”. Still have it.

  19. Amusing. I haven’t bothered to dig deep into the source paper but wonder what the authors were assuming they would discover when they set out.

    Belief in Big Government is in part a refusal to accept responsibility – and why should you, the government will rescue me – and a lack of self awareness in that the problem is not just ‘other people’.

    Leftist mind set is usually along the lines of ‘Everything would be better if only I was in charge’. It is the assumption that life is not ‘better’ (whatever that means) because selfish people are doing ‘Wrong’. Since these Wrong people wont fix themselves, they must be made to correct. There must be rules. Tough but fair laws must be created and enforced or these other people will never fall in line.

    The Rightist mind set is more ‘leave me alone and let me do my own thing’. Anarchy, paradoxically, is from the Right. It is the complete freedom to do absolutely ANYTHING the person sees fit. Oppression comes from the Left. You can’t do anything, that would be unfair, hence we must have Tough but Fair Laws.

    Conservatives do not live in anarchy, because too much personal freedom rules out the advantages of win/win situations and deals made with others, acts that require a degree of mutual trust. The trust is developed directly between the parties involved. Going to the effort of getting a third party – aka the Government – to regulate the trust is usually simply a waste of time or openly counter productive. Tasks are handled by the people involved and, since it usually affects them directly, the people involved usually are willing to do the ethical and moral ‘right thing’ to make their immediate surroundings a better place.

    Selfish? Possibly. But if you are doing ‘The Right Thing’ for the benefit of you and your loved ones, you are still, technically, doing ‘The Right Thing’. And is that bad?

  20. “regularly reported their climate change beliefs” – WTF does “belief” have to do with science? NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA.

    Anytime anyone asks me if I “believe in climate change” I just ask them “I thought this was supposed to be science?”. Their response is usually “It is science” and my reply ends the conversation “So where in the scientific method does it say believe?”

    Not only does the scientific method not accept “belief”, it also doesn’t accept “consensus” (97% blad da freaking blah).

    • It is science on beliefs.

      What people believe is a scientifically interesting question.

      The result in here is very interesting, since it confirms a long-held suspicion. It is also funny, as it turns out there is a lot of hypocrisy around.

  21. A little off topic but not by much.

    My little bit as I can’t match the expertise around this and other blogs is to hit the buggers round the forums and try to distill into plainer language what I find to challange the $tree fiddy gang and there endless churning out of graphs and conclusions they obviously don’t understand, they just swamp people with endless propaganda till it wears people down. Another well known evangelists trick.

    I’ve a doozy on the go at the moment. Apparently all the Globull takes part at 200-300ppm and above that any additional CO2 does not add much at all (I know, I know), which I believe a person not too far from this blog has already pointed out to them. The other day I caught a reference to the fact that higher up the CO2 simply allows any radiated heat to pass through, acting virtually ‘inert’. Can anyone point me in the right direction as I only caught it in passing.

    He’s found a solution anyway bless his little heart, we just need to find this rogue 300 and all our problems are solved 🙂

  22. I always lie to pollsters.
    In this world of utter political stupidity it’s the best fun knowing I can make a difference (NOT).

  23. Totally unsurprised. This non believer is the one who walks 5 miles for a coffee and prefers to take a train and only drives about 50-100 miles a week. OTOH the rabid Climate Disasterists are the ones who fly to New Caledonia to sit and recite poems about climate change (true!) or hook up their small car behind their Winnebago to drive across Australia East to West and back again. The more the rabidity, the less walking the talk are they prepared to do!

  24. Virtual signalers don’t practice what they preach? I’m shocked! As shocked as Captain Renault was to find that there was gambling going on in Rick’s Cafe.

  25. I hate mother Gaia with all my heart and thus I need to have government FORCE me to treat her right!

  26. Heck, you don’t need a one-year longitudinal study to figure that out. Just look at the aftermath of any so-called “pro-environment” group’s rallies versus the aftermath of rallies populated primarily by the skeptical.

  27. It makes sense to me, for the same reason that some people with more individual action beliefs give more to private charity and others with high government beliefs expect the government to take care of things through use of public resources.

  28. That fits with earlier research showing that people who don’t believe humans are having an effect on climate have, on average, smaller carbon footprints than people who do.

  29. A comment from YT user after i accused the climate faithful of hypocrisy:

    “That kind of change needs to happen from the top down. lt’s up to governments to develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Individuals have no such power, and no one expects people to stop driving or flying because the alternatives are not yet in place. ”

    See the thinking? No need for the activists to do anything: change must come from the top, not form the little people at the bottom; give them green energy and they will use it.

    • It’s basically the same story as the celebrity elites gave when called out on their own hypocrisy:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/17/extinction-rebellion-admit-climate-hypocrisy-but-blame-the-system/
      “We live high carbon lives and the industries that we are part of have huge carbon footprints. Like you – and everyone else – we are stuck in this fossil-fuel economy and without systemic change, our lifestyles will keep on causing climate and ecological harm”

      No, you narcissistic “celebrities” are not “stuck” you choose to be “stuck” rather than live the lifestyle you wish to push onto everyone.

  30. Shop-yourself-green is a major problem
    As true believers keep buying green-gimmicks that make them “green”
    eg the buy solar panels, cladding, an electric car to go with their existing car.
    Since basically the manufacturing of anything involves cutting down trees and digging holes : those greens end up being less-green than the rest of us.

Comments are closed.