In the long tradition of Lewandowsky (who warrants an entire category listing on this site), Cook, Oreskes, and more, we have a new entry into the well-worn genre of trying to understand the uneducated knuckle dragging savages known colloquially as “Climate Deniers.”, and how to “communicate” with them.
You have to love the Abstract, emphasis mine:
Scientists have developed a strong consensus that Earth’s climate is changing and that human activities play an important role in these changes. However, current research shows that in the United States, there is significant partisan polarization on climate change and its causes, leading to climate denialism. In this paper, we shed light on the political and social determinants of climate action. Using a May 2022 nationally representative survey of American registered voters (n = 2,096), we examine the multivariate correlates of trust in university research and opinions about climate change. Our results confirm that segments of the American electorate do not believe climate change is a problem for the United States and that climate change is not a consequence of human activities. But we also show that part of the problem regarding climate denialism is a lack of trust in university research. We argue for a comprehensive four-stage research strategy based on the empirical results. First, more research must be done to understand who trusts or distrusts university research on climate change and who is persuadable. Second, more research is needed on climate communication framing and messaging. Third, additional research on appropriate messaging is necessary. Finally, we need to develop a culture of trust in climate research and how it is communicated across society.
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000147#pclm.0000147.ref012
The cult of expertocrasy that has consumed academia in the last couple of decades is truly a destructive and totalitarian cult. These researchers are so ensconced in their belief in consensus “science” that they appear to be incapable of any kind of objective research.
This “paper” is really a hoot. They cite another paper of the genre that argues for a Climate Science strike.
That significant climate denialism exists in the United States, despite the scientific research showing that climate change is real and that it is being influenced by human activities, has generated significant frustration in the climate science community. This frustration has reached such a point that some climate scientists have recently argued “for scientists to agree to a moratorium on climate change research as a means to first expose, then renegotiate, the broken science-society contract”
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000147#pclm.0000147.ref012
Here is the quote from the cited paper.
Climate change science is settled to the point of global consensus. We have fulfilled our responsibility to provide robust knowledge. We now need to stop research in those areas where we are simply documenting global warming and maladaptation, and focus instead on exposing and renegotiating the broken science-society contract. The IPCC’s 6th Assessment will be completed in 2022. Will the response to this assessment be any different to the previous five assessments? Nothing indicates that this will be the case. In fact, given the rupture of the science-society contract outlined here, it would be wholly irresponsible for scientists to participate in a 7th IPCC assessment. We therefore call for a halt to further IPCC assessments. We call for a moratorium on climate change research until governments are willing to fulfil their responsibilities in good faith and urgently mobilize coordinated action from the local to global levels. This third option is the only effective way to arrest the tragedy of climate change science.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17565529.2021.2008855
In my best Willie Wonka voice. Please don’t go on strike Climate Scientists. Please don’t.
Like most papers of this genre the paper ends up arguing for the development of better propaganda techniques to “solve” the “problem”.
Second, and relatedly, we need more research on the framing and messages needed to strengthen trust for the already trusting and persuade those with more malleable opinions. Furthermore, these results suggest scientists cannot necessarily expect that these groups will automatically trust their work, even if their research is of high quality and well-evidenced. Instead, scientists need to be more sensitive to understanding how to translate and discuss their work in ways that are understandable, and which generate trust among the public. We believe that the Generalizing Persuasion Framework (GPF) may be useful for guiding the next stages of study regarding trust in climate and sustainability science [64]. Scientists will need to be briefed about how to best frame and discuss their research in ways that will establish trust in their work. For instance, we refer in Section 1 to Rekker’s [14] generalizable object of science polarization framework, which provides two interpretative lenses to understand Psychological Science Rejection (PSR) and Ideological Science Rejection (ISR). Frameworks like these may be helpful for improving public trust in science by identifying PSR and ISR trigger points.
Similarly, Druckman’s [64] conceptualization of GPF allows identification of contradictory statements through a multidimensional lens involving different actors, treatments, outcomes and settings (see Table 1 in [64]). As we highlighted above, GPF can guide in selecting appropriate speakers, topics, message content, and framing of climate action to lead to desired outcomes across diverse attitudes, behavior, emotions and identities that may help in handling PSR and ISR. Future research should study the effectiveness of various components in GPF for improving trust in university research.
Third, additional research on the appropriate messengers is necessary. It is not necessarily the case that the best messengers for establishing trust in university research are the researchers themselves, instead other types of ingroup messengers might be best for communicating climate research [14,65]. While additional research is necessary, our survey results indicate that religious organizations and leaders might provide an important mechanism for the generation of higher levels of trust in university research. There may be other trusted leaders and influencers, who when provided well-crafted messages can help solidify trust and persuade those who might have more malleable opinions.
Make sure to swallow your coffee or juice before reading the entire paper.
Citation: Alvarez RM, Debnath R, Ebanks D (2023) Why don’t Americans trust university researchers and why it matters for climate change. PLOS Clim 2(9): e0000147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000147
Editor: Malcolm Fairbrother, Umeå University, SWEDEN
Received: December 11, 2022; Accepted: August 7, 2023; Published: September 6, 2023
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lying scum wondering why people think they are lying scum.
I, for one, am more than willing to SUPPORT a Climate Strike™ by Climate Scientists™ against wasting even more $$$€€€¥¥¥£££ on a 7th IPCC report
The IPCC’s 6th Assessment will be completed in 2022. Will the response to this assessment be any different to the previous five assessments? Nothing indicates that this will be the case. In fact, given the rupture of the science-society contract outlined here, it would be wholly irresponsible for scientists to participate in a 7th IPCC assessment. We therefore call for a halt to further IPCC assessments. We call for a moratorium on climate change research
I support this decision, it would be vast sums of money better spent paying down the national debt
Oh, but we shouldn’t pay off the national debt- we should spend more trillions to lower inflation! /sarc
It could also be better spent restocking the strategic reserve with the help of Exxon, Shell and Chevron
Wait until there is someone intelligent running the White House – then restocking the national reserve will be much cheaper.
My polarization isn’t so much partisan as it is right vs. wrong, good vs. evil.
dexter vs sinister, latin roots
Even if they could prove that CO2 plays a role in climate change, they have yet to prove that the climate change we are seeing is a problem and not a benefit.
I secretly wish that global warming – climate change was actually going to happen as per IPCC – they are only claiming, what… 5 or so degrees C when realistically if the linear trend continues for a century it might be 2°C if we round up to full degrees because it’s stupid to claim any finer resolution.
5 degrees more would be a good start – I live in southern Canada and so February would still be crap even with an extra 5 degrees tacked on. I’m not worried about the summer even though it can reach the mid-30s because the temp increase only increases the average by increasing the minimums – CO2 is going to do squat on a clear sunny day, even if we accept the fairytale unicorn science currently promoted by the world’s universities.
Thanks for reading that.
I dodnt have to.
My eyes glazed over at about the thirteenth sociology buzz-phrase …..
Again, thanks!
Auto
Didn’t
Auto. Also.missing ‘Edit’ button.
Round’em up….ship’em out…..to camps for reeducation…that will teach those Deniers.
Jordon Peterson is being sent to a reeducation camp!
And he has promised to record and make public the proceedings.
Maybe if there weren’t so many retractions, we might believe research in general more.
It is amazing this paper sails through review……. LOL
This is a “Social Science” paper, by three low end “Humanities” stooges who obviously have near zero knowledge of actual science..
It has absolutely nothing to do with science.
The Journal degrades itself by even looking at it, let alone publishing it.
It’s scary that they are so brazen about their desire to brainwash the unbelievers – it never dawns on them to improve the climate science, so trusting they are of their colleagues in climate science – but of course these researchers are sociologists and political scientists – professional propagandists – and so have no idea how ridiculous the claims of the climate emergency doomsday cult are, especially with only a less than 2 degree per CENTURY trend as evidence.
Surely retractions are reasons to trust research? The issue is probably that there aren’t enough retractions out there given the amount of rubbish that gets published rather than that there are too many.
I think the downvoters misunderstood what you wrote or didn’t bother reading your whole comment. 👍
While the sentiment is agreeable (a lot more of the climate nonsense should be retracted), I doubt we’d agree on which of the papers that get published are “rubbish.”
I think the more important question is why do so many climate science papers need to be retracted in the first place.
No quality control on the front end?
Ok, so this whole thing they wrote is yet another pile of lies. THAT IS WHY NO REAL HUMAN BEING TRUSTS YOU LIESPEWING F*CKBAGS.
Why hully gee!! I have been following climate change scientists for the past fifty years, and place their credibility levels with Jehovah’s Witnesses preaching the date for the Second Coming. I find it remarkable either is still active.
One definition of faith is holding a set of beliefs for which one has no proof. The main difference between climate alarmists and JWs is that the former are willing to use coercion to force their beliefs on others.
The Global Cooling climate movement starting in 1945 and that failed in the 1960’s when the planet failed to cool as predicted. Then the Global Warming movement started and that changed into the Climate Change movement.
By my recollection it started only in the early 1970s. People were focused on real air and water pollution in the 1960s into the early 1970s. It’s before my time, but I think most people were pretty normal in the immediate post-war period of the late 1940s and 1950s, and not too focused on imaginary crises.
The Ice Age Coming hoax started in the early 1970s as an attack on fossil fuel use, peaking around 1978. That bled into the Acid Rain hoax that ran through the late 1970s into the 1980s.
As aerosol pollution was reduced, things started warming which spoiled the narrative in the 1980s. Three Mile Island in 1979 shifted some of the moonbat attention to the Anti-Nuke movement which coexisted with the Ozone Hole hoax championed by Al Gore. The CFC crisis peaked around 1987 with the Montreal Protocol and in retrospect was a trial balloon for attacking capitalism by demonizing CO2. Chernobyl in 1986 hammered the last nails into the nuclear power coffin.
We switched “polarity” to warming in the mid-to-late 1980s. By 1988 the Global Warming hoax was in full swing, carrying into the new millennium.
With the extended Pause and some unusual cold weather events, Global Warming morphed seamlessly into the more perfectly unfalsifiable Climate Change which we still have today, except that it is variously referred to as the Climate Crisis, Catastrophe, Emergency, Collapse, or Breakdown.
Dear Rich Davis,
An excellent summary!
All the best,
Bill Johnston
Rich Davis,
On July 18 this year. WUWT kindly published the results of several months of my research as
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/18/corruption-of-science-by-money-and-power/
…..
This is a plausible account that shows money and power from a wealthy interest group, the Rockefeller Foundation, was key to the opposition to peaceful nuclear energy. Sure, there could have been other factors acting independently, but this story shows US Presidential action at the heart of the early rejection, in this case in 1956.
I was around in the 60s and 70s. Sure, there was some noise about global warming/cooling, but it was so minor that few of us remember anything significant. It is only since 2000 that agitators have dug up old material and emphasised it, absent its historical impact of near zero, that the public now know about it.
The activist global warming movement has always been a minor consideration in the real science world, because they have produced few papers of adequate quality to be believed. That is still the case. All that has changed is the massive publicity promoting this wretched pseudo science.
Geoff S
I think that you have your “Global Cooling” movement starting at least two decades too soon.
The term “Nuclear Winter” didn’t come into use until after 1983.
Remedy 1 of 1.
Climate researchers should learn the principles of the Scientific Method then
apply them fully and honestly, or resign.
(A practical assist would be the reading and understanding of oft-quoted guidance by Nobel Laureate physicist/mathematician Richard Feynman.)
Geoff S
The Climate Researchers need to learn the difference between evidence, and speculation, assumptions and assertions.
Anyone who knows the difference, knows there is no evidence demonstrating CO2 is having an effect on the Earth’s atmosphere or the Earth’s weather.
There is lots of speculation, assumptions, and assertions, on the subject, but none of that is evidence of a connection between the Earth’s climate and CO2.
The Scientific Method is “out the window” when it comes to Alarmist Climate Science.
It’s not really out the window. They pretend a window is there. They falsify and fabricate the data to fit their hypothesis. Data that doesn’t support your hypothesis should lead to the discarding or modification of the hypothesis. These charlatans purposely do the opposite and in the process commit scientific fraud. The scientific method doesn’t exist in the world of scientology.
Actual scientific experiments seem to indicate that high levels of atmospheric CO2 will COOL the planet.
Lab Experiment Shows A 2500-Fold CO2 Increase Delivers Surface Cooling, Not Warming (notrickszone.com)
Yeah, after feedbacks, the climate alarmists can’t tell us if CO2 is net warming or net cooling the atmosphere.
They are assuming, without evidence, that CO2 is net warming the Earth, and they are also assuming, without evidence, that this warming needs to be, and can be, stopped by human intervention.
It’s speculation, assumption, and assertions all the way down. And it should be obvious to any logical thinker that this is not evidence of anything.
The Climate Change Alarmists have no evidence to back up their claims of CO2 gloom and doom.
Yup! Not only is there NO empirical evidence that CO2 has an effect on the Earth’s temperature, there is a good deal of empirical evidence that it has no measurable effect at all.
They have their 99% consensus so they are many and we are few. Why then do they find it essential to convince us of their righteousness? Why do they so fear us that they need to develop better propaganda to convince us when if they are right that fact should emerge over time? Most of us favour adaptation over mitigation because that way resources would be applied where most needed for the common good when mitigation drives resources to where the climate worriers want it for their own and their donors benefit.
There is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that they want to continue to get research grants and publish papers. There is an even broader consensus that people in general like to continue drawing a salary and remain capable of paying their mortgages. There’s also a consensus that businesses like guaranteed profits selling junk to governments rather than having to compete to produce useful products for people who earn money and spend it judiciously. And also there’s a consensus that politicians and news media need to keep the masses in a constant state of alarm in order to offer to save them and to drum up advertising revenues.
There is a clear understanding of what the politically correct answer is and what happens to the careers of those who, like Judith Curry or Peter Ridd, question the dogmas of Climastrology.
So yes, all the incentives are lined up for self-interested parties to proclaim certainty about a climate emergency. Only gradually as their policies really start to hurt the general public will the rest of us be truly motivated to pay attention and push back.
The answer to your question of why they so fear us is pretty simple. While 99% of Climastrologers may profess the Creed, 99% of the public do not have their vested interests in Climastrology. Already in some countries or at least regions there is a skeptical majority and certainly there is a majority in most countries who are at least persuadable that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Climastrology. Good one. I’ll be borrowing that. And a practitioner would be a climastrologist. The best term I’ve seen yet that succinctly captures what it’s all about: doomsaying for gain. Motives differ but the method remains the same: amplifying superstition and downplaying or just plain hiding actual science, just like a stage magician misdirecting you to produce “magic”. For example, almost exclusively referencing conjured climate models instead of observational data.
It’s not new, I felt quite chuffed for inventing the term, then found out many people on this site already use it. Last week we decided the collective term is “a moron of climastrologists”. Well, I decided and got some upvotes…
But actually, I write you to remind you about the article here recently about this new graduate course in climate anxiety psychiatry. One of the “lensed approaches” you will be taught on this course, is something called “Archetypal Cosmology”.
It is about how the movements of the planets have real and measurable effects upon your mood and feelings.
Our sarcastic jibe has come back to bite us in the ass…
Dear cilo,
I thought you were joking. So I typed-in graduate course in climate anxiety psychiatry and got 125,000,000 hits in 0.36 seconds!
Bullshit baffles brains!
All the best,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
And manipulation of the data into non-data that appears to support their preconceived conclusions.
The Association of American Universities is the leadership group in promoting global warming. They use their prestige and unchallenged status to bring attention to crises that they identify and then lobby for public and private funds to address them. As in most things in the post-modern West, it’s all about the money. They supply their theories to government, business and the media in the expectation that they will then be the beneficiaries of funds needed to build labs, hire administrators, scientists and faculties and then win Nobel prizes. Epidemics, social issues, biological problems and other delusions are also part of their operation.
Parenthetically, since the world literally runs on energy, which produces heat, wouldn’t the world be better off if the climate did warm up? Wouldn’t there be a diminished demand for fossil fuels if less of them were needed? You could easily make the case that a reasonable amount of “global warming” is a great benefit for the residents of planet earth.
Iconoclast science philosopher Paul Fereyabend had this to say about research funding:
“In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.”
AAU member Princeton University has established a carbon reduction “slush fund” that gathers in financing for unspecified research.
I read Fereyabend’s Against Method 30 years ago. He was definitely ahead of his time.
Millions more people die from cold or cool weather than from warm or hot weather. Cold or cool weather causes increased strokes and heart attacks because they cause the blood vessels to constrict causing blood pressure to rise causing more strokes and heart attacks.
This paper estimates that worldwide around 4.6 million people die each year because of cold/cool weather compared to 500,000 dying from warm/hot weather..
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
This international study say the cold/cool weather deaths out number hot/warm weather deaths 20 to 1 with warm weather and cool weather deaths being the majority of deaths, probably because there are more warm and cool days than hot or cold days..
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
‘Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
“our survey results indicate that religious organizations and leaders might provide an important mechanism for the generation of higher levels of trust in university research”.
Or the destruction of religious organizations. Either way they will consider it a win,
destruction of religious organizations
damn keyboard
I think this has already begun as those leaders have injected themselves into a topic they know nothing about.
This likely started with the guys that wrote the biblical and prior documents. See: Genesis flood
Scientists once thought the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe.
Since the first theory was wrong, scientists must be ignored from now on.
Before you go off on an ignorant rant about how Genesis is still in the Bible. I can point to the works of those scientists who pushed Earth centered models can still be found, and many people read them.
Does that mean that everybody who reads those works must also believe in the Earth centered model?
You have falsely coupled ‘flat’ and ‘at the centre of the universe’. There was, for a long time, a belief that the earth was the centre of the universe but which scientists were supposed to have believed that the earth was flat?
“Third, additional research on the appropriate messengers is necessary.”
Dear university climate researchers, please consider using Peter Kalmus as your messenger. That’s the ticket!
/sarc
Is this an example of Arrested Development ?
In that they should be, then probably yes!
In that, mentally, they are still children who have been spoilt and protected from negativity and see no reason why they shouldn’t continue like this for the rest of their lives, then also yes!
“example of Arrested Development”
The authors are “Humanities and social science”..,..
… so, yes, basically zero mental development.
“we examine the multivariate correlates of trust in university research”
Maybe they need examine the multivariate correlates of LACK of trust in university research!
Such as the replication problem.
The problem in America is pretty easy to distill: whether you believe science or not is determined by political party affiliation. Our society is so polarized that every single issue is viewed through this lens, from vaccines to climate.
I’m sorry the media did this to you. While the right makes errors regularly, the left lives in a constructed fantasy world, where Biden is competent, men can menstruate, millions are dying from climate change, showing up on time is a symbol of white supremacy, wind power is essentially free, the Obama administration was scandal free, and much, much more.
Case in point. Thank you for providing such a clear illustration of political polarization.
Are you implying that you believe men can menstruate, that Biden is not suffering from dementia, millions are actually dying from climate change, and that we only pay extra tariffs on wind power out of appreciation of the beauty of turbines rather than the fact it isn’t free?
I’m not implying any of that, I’m saying that Charles’ worldview is extremely polarized, including his perception of what the “other side” believes. He views everything through the lens of his political alignment.
You posted an OPINION, where is the evidence you have yet to show?
Biden isn’t competent all as his stupid foreign policy decisions have drawn name many nations together against the hypocritical imperialistic America via BRICS membership growth, the petro dollar being changed to other currencies and the forging of China, Russian, Iran, and now N. Korea alliance that is growing as a response to the dumb American Foreign policy that deliberately embrace a PROXY war and make millions for the military industrial group.
Except he never really disagreed with any of what you said did he? All of you retarded gorillas and your straw-men comments just make me laugh.
And yet another leftist shows her head in order to join Alan in proving the authors point.
Not a single attempt to defend her side, just insults towards those they view as not smart enough to agree with them.
He didn’t make a reply to me…., but what he posted several times is OPINION as he never elaborated on anything to support it.
Next time use your glasses……..
So men can menstruate if you believe it? Biology doesn’t matter?
How is that for science?
Men bleeding from a certain orifice? Probably just an STD.
Fail! Men don’t have that orifice.
You have no evidence of CTM’s political alignment. Ergo, your comment is nonsense.
Are you arguing that the left does not believe these things? Care to offer up some evidence rather than just making naked assertions?
As you have made mine.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
He destroyed your comment, and your comeback was empty on arrival.
I personally as a long running Free Thinking INDEPENDENT know that most Warmist/alarmists are gullible morons on climate stuff and do terribly in debate on forums where they employ the consensus, authoritarian fallacies personal attacks on authors, bigoted and the dumb “science is settled” claims rational debate isn’t possible with these brainwashed people.
This article sends warmist/alarmists running away in terror as they avoid it like holy water:
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”? • Watts Up With That?
I have posted this gem in three forums to see warmists/alarmists by a 100% rate avoid the CONTENT of the article, they instead beclown themselves with utter nonsense, here his a prime example on how bad warmist/alarmists really are when confronted with hard data:
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”? | PoliticalForum.com – Forum for US and Intl Politics
Cheers.
When the media reports on what the left believes, there is no distortion because they believe the same.
When they report on what the right believes, it’s a fantasy. The media have little knowledge of what conservatives believe, or Trump voters believe or what global warming skeptics believe.
The media would actually have to talk with people first, and listen, to know what conservatives believe or how Trump voters think. Instead they report on what some fellow leftist claims.
And of course, rather than trying to refute the claims of those on the right, the left will almost always resort to declarations that those who disagree with them are white supremacists, even when those who oppose them aren’t even white.
They do more than that they use FALLACIES and prejudice a lot in their replies because either they are ignorant, or they are defensive since the only alternative is a mature conversation on the matter which they avoid continually.
Fascinating how just telling the truth is so polarizing to one side of the political equation.
Exactly. They’re a bunch of right wing idiots. Who doesn’t admit that their side has at least a little bit of bias?
Thank you for helping to prove how close minded and anti-scientific the left has become.
I guess anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a leftist. I’m not a leftist. You are just have an extremist with a pea-sized brain.
Spends all her time whining about right wing idiots, but wants everyone to believe she is not a leftist.
As stupid as she is dishonest.
Don’t not doesn’t.
You made a strawman statement……
Reality is that most people understand that bias exist everywhere the difference between people is how to manage it rationally.
LOL.
That’s too easy of a distillation. Politics, like everything else on the fruited plain, is an avenue to riches. The medical establishment, the legal profession, finance, and in this case research institutes, are all after rent seeking status. Politicians have no actual ideology other than being required to reward their enablers with favorable legislation.
I’m not talking about the ideology of politicians, I’m talking about the beliefs of the average person, which are now more than ever defined almost entirely by their political affiliation. If you’re a Republican you are more likely to distrust scientists, if you are a Democrat you are more likely to trust scientists. Not because of your education or deep understanding of the issues, but because of the “side” you’ve chosen to align yourself with. But, importantly, you are going to think you believe what you believe because of how smart and well informed you are, and you are going to think anyone who disagrees with you does so because they are ignorant, stupid, or insane.
Rationality vs naivete of individuals plays the most influential part in their political alignments.
Guess why youngsters align with Democrat policies?
You’re just reiterating the “everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant, stupid, or insane” line I cited above, driving my point home even further.
Coming from the guy who’s whole argument boils down to a claim that everyone who disagrees with him is ignorant, stupid or insane.
One thing the left has never mastered is self awareness.
My argument is that people don’t tend to believe things related to politicized issues because they’ve carefully analyzed every facet of the issue, but because it’s what their “side” believes. Additionally, these people are all generally convinced that they have analyzed and understood every facet of the issue. Nothing in this comment section has remotely moved the dial on that perspective, it’s all rather reinforced it.
There are many of us here who have invested thousands of hours in researching the topic “carefully analyzing every facet.” I would venture to guess that the commenters here represent one of the most highly educated groups on the internet. I envy the politically motivated for having come to the same conclusions with much less investment of time.
That’s what gets me about Alan and most of the other leftists. They start with the assumption that they are right, and that anyone who disagrees with them is either not smart or simply refusing to see their facts.
They simply are intellectually incapable of seeing that they are the ones who’s minds are closed to reality and who believe merely what they are told to believe.
I know what you believe. What I’m pointing out is that you are engaging in exactly the same behavior that you are accusing your opponents of engaging.
You are a-priori declaring that the other side has not bothered to actually study the data and formed their opinion based solely on what others beleive.
Have you presented even a scintilla of evidence to support your hypothesis? Of course not, you believe it merely because that is what you have been taught to believe.
In your closed off little mind, you find it impossible to believe that anyone could ever disagree with what you have been taught to believe.
So you convince yourself that anyone who doesn’t agree with you, simply isn’t thinking.
I’m sure you got excellent grades for successfully regurgitating what your professors told you to believe.
It is about provable science.
… AND YOU HAVE NONE.
You are not interested in anything but your cult-based mantra…
It is not about “agreeing” with fictions and fantasies… that is for little children.
You are PROVING that you are IGNORANT and very, very STUPID..
and certainly drifting away from sanity.
Drifting away, he’s already lost sight of land.
He is obviously like many early college students and blinded by the knowledge he is being inculcated with. How does the old adage go?
If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain
In a rare bit of honest social science, these researchers were surprised at their results.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03138-5
In essence, the Left offloads reason and critical thinking to credentialed authority, mainstream media, and government pronouncements and simply adopts what they are spoonfed by the “authoritative” sources.
The Right grants authority from the bottom up based on constant assessment and reassessment of logical consistency.
There is a vast chasm of difference between what we perceive ourselves to be doing and what we are actually doing. Conservatives believe they are being self reliant and using their advanced powers of rational thought to self-determine all truth, when in reality most are just adopting the prevailing conservative Dogma that is the current Republican Party platform.
I was pointing out what the researchers, inherently leftists, discovered to their surprise.
Right. Conservatives value self-reliance and have a distrust of authority. It is therefore appealing to their ideological makeup to believe that they are eschewing the opinion of experts and “figuring it all out” on their own. That doesn’t mean they are actually doing this in practice.
On the other hand, liberals value shared intellect and collaboration and therefore find the idea of relying on expert opinion to be appealing – “learning from the best” as it were. It doesn’t mean they are actually doing this in practice, either. Both sides generally adopt whatever the prevailing dogma for their political party is.
Now we are getting closer to agreement. The problem that the Right perceives to occur is that the Left does not appear to reevaluate their faith in delegated authority despite constant evidence that their authorities are provably lying to them and willfully changing facts to fit the narrative of the day.
That is the perception from the Right of the Left. I agree the Left sees the Right as an unthinking mob, easily manipulated by ideologues.
How does one bridge the gap, especially when the media, government, and academia are all lined up on one side and provably lie by the hour?
My wife has a leftist friend. Whenever we discuss anything vaguely political, she leans on “this person says this” instead of primary sources and verifiable facts. Unless her chosen experts acknowledge something, it’s not true. Essentially, she lets the experts do her thinking for her.
I’m not saying this is everyone on the left, but from my interactions, it’s certainly pervasive.
No, liberals value truthfulness, honesty and fairness. You’re talking about leftists and progressives, who value the collective.
Definitions change over time or even country to country.
Here in the USA, the Dems have gone full Left and they (and the MSM) call themselves “liberals”.
One of the characteristics of the Left is to commandeer words with reputations and assign new meanings to either support their cause if the reputation is good, or to use the ‘newspeak’ to denigrate something as in “ocean acidification.”
And once again, the declaration that it is impossible for those on the right to have examined the data and come to a different conclusion. Instead they are blinded by ideology, while you consider yourself to be completely immune to that particular conceit.
I don’t think it’s impossible for someone to examine all of the data, understand every nuance and subtlety, and arrive at a self-direct conclusion, I think it’s perfectly possible. What I think is that those people and the people who are just following the herd generally both think they’ve done the former.
I don’t consider myself immune from this quandary at all, but it’s something I reflect on.
“I don’t consider myself immune “.. from rational thought ??
I think most people would agree with you.
So in your mind, it is natural to just let authorities tell you want to believe.
You find this argument so compelling that you find it impossible to believe that there are others who don’t operate in this fashion.
The problem is more the UN/IPCC with the biggest voice on the planet giving weekly proclamations about how hot the Earth is getting and that this is an emergency that threatens the whole world and must be stopped at any cost.
Marx was intellectual, as was Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and others. How many people have died because “learning from the best” made them attempt utopia?
You have narrowed the brush a little by using the word, “generally.”
Nope! I perceive myself to be laughing at what you write because you provide no evidence and I actually hear myself laughing.
Actually he does provide evidence, every one of his posts prove that he suffers from the same deficits he claims only inflict those on the right.
And once again, the leftist declares that the right fails to agree with the left is because they are unable to think for themselves.
If AlanJ was half as smart as he thinks he is, he would realize that every post of his completely refutes the argument he is trying to make.
“There is a vast chasm of difference between what we perceive ourselves to be doing and what we are actually doing.”
Your ego “perceives” yourself as being intelligent.
Vastly different from reality.
Ad hominins are the last resort of a loser. Guess what you are.
You want to convince someone, tell us some objective facts that have been proven by measurements that CO2 is an existential threat to the world.
How could that apply to me when I consider myself a moderate, leaning more towards independents or libertarians? Once again, you are making an assertion based on your beliefs, without citing any studies to support your beliefs.
If you’re a Republican you are more likely to distrust scientists, ..
“Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.” [Richard Feynman]Republicans seem to agree with Feynman.
The fact that you don’t see the irony in quoting the expert opinion of a famous scientist because you think it imbues your message with gravitas and authority is beyond laughable.
You are aware that there are many of us posting on this site who have scientific or engineering training, right?
So you’ll quickly grasp the irony is saying, “we are justified in mistrusting expert scientists because an expert scientist told us we should.”
I very much doubt that AlanJ is aware of that. His world view won’t permit such an admission.
AlanJ is probably the only one with training in “Social Studies and Humanities” though.
That would explain his problems.
No, I was in the Humanities Honors Program and almost have a minor in humanities. However, I survived the programming and came out sane.
“and came out sane.”
Betting you had a reasonable scientific education background to help you retain your sanity.
Something AnalJ is sadly lacking
Probably the majority. Yet, AJ would have us believe that we are either incapable of, or unwilling to analyze the data and come to a conclusion that is independent of how we vote.
In another post AJ declares that since there is so much data out there, that mere mortals are not able to understand it and must rely on experts to tell us what it means. In his “mind” the only difference between left and right, are the experts we choose to listen to.
He’s also convinced himself that since he’s so smart, he has picked all the right experts.
Feynman wrote and spoke well constructed arguments. Having read a lot of them, I value his opinion as scientist. I have a copy of Feynman’s Appendix F printed out and sitting on the corner of my desk. It serves as a reminder of how wrong group think can be. Sometimes if you want an accurate answer you have to ask someone whose career/income doesn’t depend on the answer.
I take particular interest in the closing sentence of Feynman’s Appendix F: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
For me its hard to imagine a more apt phrase to describe the state of climate science and net zero.
Meanwhile you have ascribed motive to John Hultquist quoting Feynman for which you have no evidence, only prejudice.
The fact that you don’t understand the difference between science and scientists is the problem, in a nutshell.
A problem, just one of many.
and once again, AlanJ is so blinded by his ideology, that he is incapable of seeing how big a fool he is making of himself.
He is so convinced that nobody on the right trusts any scientist, that he finds it amusing that someone on the right would quote a scientist.
Poor Alan.. takes on a topic armed only with his naivety and ignorance…
Hilarious to watch as he runs round like a headless chook…
…blethering meaningless empty garbage in an attempt to support his failed mind and cult-religion.
All the while ADMITTING that “climate change” is purely a POLITICAL agenda…
.
Would be far better for him if you he not typed anything… rather than PROVING himself to be an abject moron.
How about William Happer? Maybe Jim Steel? Shall I keep going?
There are a lot of scientists that I trust, the fact that I don’t trust any of the so called climate scientists is not evidence of a distrust of science in general.
AlanJ, are you even capable of making a logically true and internally consistent argument?
Yes, AJ puts up a straw-man argument in arguing that the right or skeptics don’t trust science. We wouldn’t be scientists if we didn’t trust science. The problem, which AJ doesn’t acknowledge, is that most of us don’t trust what is called “climate science.” What is practiced is poor science where the rules of computation and reporting results are routinely ignored, even single-sigma uncertainties, which are rarely reported, have ranges so wide that they would be laughed at in physics, yet physics is the core of meteorology and climatology.
AJ seems to feel that since we don’t trust the people he considers to be experts, that’s proof that we don’t trust science. Apparently that is because AJ feels that his experts have used science to arrive at their conclusions.
What is obvious is two things.
First, AJ doesn’t have clue as to what science is.
Second, AJ has never taken formal logic.
The first sentence was a quote of something that AJ said, I forgot to add the quotation feature. When oh when is edit going to return?
I am an Independent who thinks leftists are dumb people who show their profound ignorance everywhere I encounter them because they run on IDEOLOGY with is authoritarian based.
America was created as a REPUBLIC and free ground for exchange in many ways.
It has been my experience that those who are the most ardent supporters of the claims of anthropogenic global warming, are the least knowledgeable of the facts pertaining to the argument.
Know you’re changing your tune. First you said believe in science and now you’re talking about trusting scientists.
What happened to the gosh-durned EDIT feature?
It’s those space aliens I tell ya.
I think they are trying to fix it.
I suspect this site is under more cyber attacks than most of can imagine.
Surely you jest! Why would anyone want to sabotage people just attempting to educate the world?
“Believing in science”, for the most part is a strong indicator that the proclaimer doesn’t really know what science is.
Equally bad is his insistence that people need to trust science.
This makes as much sense as declaring that people need to trust water.
You may be inverting correlations here: Instead of Republicans tending to distrust scientists, is it not maybe that people who can think straight long enough to recognise the lying bullshitters parading as scientists, can also recognise the genocidal Bolsheviks parading as liberators?
The fact that their only political alternative is a party stocked by equally genocidal monopolists, now THAT is a symptom of America’s mental dualism!
And yet again, we have a member of the left declaring that everyone else is stupid.
It’s impossible to believe that others have examined all of the facts and come to a conclusion that differs from yours. No it has to be that those who disagree with you are blinded by ideology.
This is hilarious, because that is exactly what you are doing.
If you’re a Republican you are more likely to distrust scientists, if you are a Democrat you are more likely to trust scientists.
Another words… if your a republican you are more than likely to question the science, if your a democrat you are more than likely to follow the science blind.
Yep, you summed it up perfectly.
Yes. Their enablers are the idiots who vote for them. The political right is the counter to the political left. This creates a perpetual trap of political parties which can never work other than the way they do now. Political parties are the heart of the madness and they are nourished by all who vote for them from whichever side of the spectrum.
Really AlanJ?
You have it reversed. Conservatives in general believe in TRUTH. We want to know FACTS.
Liberals just BELIEVE. They don’t care about facts.
It’s not that liberals aren’t smart, it’s just that so much of what they know isn’t so
Ronald Reagan
“I am not polarized. It’s just that everyone who disagrees with me doesn’t care about truth.”
Reflect on your words a bit and see if you can gain some insight.
Your spin is really awful.
Cheers.
Reflect on your words a bit and see if you can gain some insight.
Look in the mirror.
Of course, you won’t.
AlanJ only looks in the mirror to preen and to self-admire.. !
The irony just writes itself.
That statement summarizes every post that AlanJ has written.
“gain some insight”
Says AlanJ , pretending to be wise.
And failing utterly and completely !
Aside from the ‘Climate Scientists’ the other scientists seem to be okay and still honest.
Thus demonstrating another of AlanJ’s conceits.
His belief that not trusting climate scientists automatically proves that you don’t believe any scientists.
On the other hand there are a lot of people on the skeptic side who have declared that since climate models aren’t trustworthy, therefore all models are bad.
Models can be useful WITHIN THEIR LIMITATIONS. The trouble is. Most of the time their limitations are conveniently “forgotten” and so-called “scientists” treat their output as if it was data.
My perception of the Left is that they are out of touch with reality on almost all levels. Consider what is happening with the Democrat governor of New Mexico. Her response to having monsters loose in her city is to disarm those who have the capacity to neutralize them, despite admitting she doesn’t expect criminals to observe the ban on guns.
“I am science” — Anthony Fauci
In this context, “believe science” is a political statement, not a scientific one. Look up the scientific method if my point evades you.
Yes. AlanJ has consistently used the phrase “believe science” – if you believe then you are relying on blind faith, not understanding. Those that understand science do not need belief, those that believe will never understand.
Having schooled us savages, AlanJ has slunk back to his secret lair. It’s a safe bet that he will never read any of those posts showing him how mistaken he is.
My point is that “not believe science” is also a political statement, just one masquerading as being a scientific statement.
It would be one if he was using the term in the same sense you seem to use it, but the normal position of posters on this site is that we judge claims on their merits. I’ll ask you a question: do you believe in the scientific method?
You are the one who has proclaimed that those who don’t believe as you do, “don’t believe in science”.
The fact that people who look at the same data and come to a different conclusion than you do, in your “mind”, is proof that these others don’t believe in science.
It would be hard to come up with a statement that is less scientific.
“My point is that “not believe science” is also a political statement”
roflmao.
AlanJ obviously has the scientific understanding of a low-end humanities student.
There is NOTHING political about saying that the science of AGW is basically nonsense, when science PROVES that to be the case.
“The problem in America is pretty easy to distill: whether you believe science or not is determined by political party affiliation.”
Well, a big majority of members of the Republican Party don’t believe CO2 is dangerous, what you call “the science”, but what’s funny is the Republican political leaders, for the most part, believe that CO2 is dangerous, or at least significant enough that it needs to be controlled.
That’s quite a disconnect, wouldn’t you say? The Leaders of the Republican Party support something their constituents do not support.
Ever hear Mitch McConnell say human-caused climate change is not real? No, I haven’t either.
So the party leaders and the constituents seem to be of different affliations.
What we need is a poll of Republican political leaders asking about whether they think CO2 emissions need to be regulated or not.
Compare that to what their constituents think.
Ever heard Mitch McConnell say anything that was not tainted by self interest?
b
The problem in America is pretty easy to distill: whether you believe science or not is determined by political party affiliation. Our society is so polarized that every single issue is viewed through this lens, from vaccines to climate.
If genuine science (climate and otherwise) hadn’t been warped into “political science”, a lever to power by the left, then the politics of actual scientist wouldn’t be an issue.
(I.E. Mann would have admitted his Hockey Stick was wrong when his errors were pointed out. Accepted that and continue his research. Instead, he continued to promote “The Cause” and sued those who disagreed.)
I miss Edit.
That was a quote from AlanJ.
If spellcheck also goes down, I might regain my title as the “Typo King”! 😎
While there may be a correlation between trust in science and political party affiliation, you have presented no evidence to prove that political party affiliation ‘determines’ trust in science.
He hasn’t presented any evidence at all just made-up conflicting opinions which indicates to me he is writing on the fly…….
It’s NOT about trust and framing and messaging! Those are values for politics and religion- not science.
Yup. “Persuadable” was the word that really caught my eye.
Obviously the whole thing is drivel, but discussing who is persuadable is never anything to do with science.
They are just trying to figure out how to do their climate change propaganda better.
They meant “Gullible”
I remember once during the ObamaCare debate, Obama declared that the only reason why ObamaCare wasn’t more popular is because people just didn’t know enough about it, and the solution was for him to give a lot more speeches.
The section you quote reminds me very much of Obama and ObamaCare.
If only everyone was as smart and as informed as I am, they would all agree with me.
Reminds me of AlanJ as well, same impenetrable hubris, same ignorance of anyone who isn’t like him.
Looks like AJ has been going through the thread down voting everyone who disagrees with him.
You mean the same thing you do?
Poor, poor lil uzi.
Did having your inadequacies shown to the whole world really hurt that much?
He downvotes excellent posts that he doesn’t counter thus the lazy downvote comes in instead.
That – or an ad campaign. Science has no need to sell anything; it just is.
Robust knowledge? But stop research?
science-society contract? NO SUCH THING
Sounds like they’re saying, “We must rule- you must obey- we have THE TRUTH- you are maladapted if you don’t have the faith”.
It’s quite simple, lie to me about the little things, like claiming every storm or natural disaster is definitely the result of climate change even though there is nothing different about a particular storm, I assume you lie about everything.
May I suggest WTGR that “ I
assumeconclude you lie about everything” – if only to perhaps reflect your actual assessment but also to forestall the trolls who may dig into “assume” ( because we all “know” what “assume” does…?)Acronym finder returns 0 hits for WTGR.
Might I suggest that 186no has got his letters mixed up? Try WRTG as either ‘writing’ or, more likely, ‘with regards to greg’?
These are the words of partisan politics, not science. I myself have used similar words to describe the urgency of persuading people to vote against the disastrous policies that these criminally insane people are proposing.
The difference between the attempts at persuasion by climate realists and by these alarmists is that we would block their rash society-destroying policies that are based on their dubious beliefs, while they would block our scientific research that calls their dogmas into question, while thwarting the democratic process and free speech to enforce a totalitarian regime with no debate.
We seek to persuade people of the truth that there is no evidence of a climate crisis, not that we have certainty about how or why the ever-changing climate is currently improving. They seek to persuade people through propaganda that all relevant questions have already been answered and so we must give up our freedom for our own good. (Of course not their freedom, just ours).
Goebbels would be proud!
I note the built in assumption that if it is “university research” it is already proven “trustworthy”.
“Our results confirm that segments of the American electorate
do not believe climate change is a problem for the United States…”
________________________________________________________
The implication is that Climate Change isn’t affecting the U.S. as much as it is the rest of the world and Americans have little empathy for those suffering the effects of Climate Change.
Just another swipe at “The Great Satan.”
In the US if you don’t like to be hot sometimes you can move to a cooler part of the country.
There are many more people moving from the cooler parts of the country to warmer parts of the country than are moving from warmer to cooler parts of the country.
When US universities are ground zero for all manner of lunatic beliefs and theories I’m surprised anyone takes them seriously.
But then our own lunatics are more than eager to import them – even if it is square peg round hole.
Nobody seems to trust them much. It’s a rea puzzle why…. /sarc
‘there’s a lot of lying, botox-faced phony poseurs’ in academia
Not bad, not bad at all.
That needs to be stolen! Bravo Neo!
My humble recommendation for these climate “scientists” is they must stop making predictions that don’t come true. Dying polar bears? Nope. Accelerated sea level rise? Nope. Ice-free Arctic Ocean? Nope. Boiling oceans? Nope. The list goes on and on.
The fact that the models produce 3 times as much warming as the real world has seen over the last 50 years.
“Why don’t Americans trust university researchers and why it matters for climate change.”
The title is itself illiterate. The “don’t” is in the wrong place, making the phrase into a question, but then the subsequent clause makes it impossible to append a question mark.
Well, if the Universities stopped telling students that a man can give birth …
First, more research must be done to understand who trusts or distrusts university research on climate change and who is persuadable. Second, more research is needed on climate communication framing and messaging. Third, additional research on appropriate messaging is necessary.
Those wishes have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with mandatory one-sided brainwashing. Funding such drivel would be looting the taxpayers for no benefit to them.
The place where more research could be done, in a spirit of curiosity, is in the granting of public funds to climate researchers. Is a fair portion of such funds devoted to examination of trends or natural processes which might counteract global warming? Or of hiring researchers not biased towards some literary ‘consensus’ of AGW?
Speaking of brainwashing, the Biden Maladministration is re-instating the old Title IX rules on how universities must handle accusations of sexual misconduct.
Things like the accused will no longer be permitted to present evidence or witnesses. The accused is no longer permitted to see any of the accusers evidence of cross examine any of her witnesses.
The case is to be decided in front a single judge, who just happens to be the Title IX administrator and the standard of evidence is reduced from reasonable doubt to a preponderance of the evidence.
At the time, “sex” in Title IX didn’t mean 30+ imagined genders. It was Male or Female.
They never imagined they’d ever need the prefix “biological”.
Here is a link to a paper that says that worldwide 4.6 million people die each year from colder weather compared 500,000 dying each year from hotter weather. The colder weather causes blood vessels to constrict cause more strokes and heart attacks in colder months than in warmer months.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
The saddest part is they are serious and it got published.
But in a sense all good, since the deserved ridicule is self evident.
As I read the article, scoffing at their nuanced perceptions, I couldn’t help but think .. these opinions are from prostitutes at the altar of funding.
Just my opinion, of course