This is Really Rich....

[boxcar]

Gotta read this all the way thru. The gist of the survey is that science-illiterates are far more likely to buy into the AGW fraud than their scientifically-informed counterparts.

Official: the more scientifically illiterate you are, the more you believe in 'climate change'

Before I head off for my well-earned rest after my last well-earned rest, I can't resist drawing your attention to this delicious story by Lewis Page in the Register.

Turns out that a stunt arranged by the US climate alarmist establishment to discredit sceptics has backfired horribly:

A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens.

The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: Rather, the researchers and trick-cyclists who carried it out were doing so from the position that the "scientific consensus" (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact, and the priority is now to find some way of getting US voters to believe in the need for urgent, immediate and massive action to reduce CO2 emissions.

Needless to say, the authors of the report fail to draw the logical conclusion from all this. Rather than see it as further proof that Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has about as much in the way of legs as the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, they instead ascribe it – a bit like Steve Jones did in his embarrassing and discredited report for the BBC Trust on the BBC's lamentable science reporting – on false consciousness.

So, what is the best HONEST solution to this horrendous "tragedy" (the authors' term), according to these liberal robots who authored this report?

What's needed, the authors of the report appear to believe, is not better science – but more PR and spin.

:lol: :lol: In other words, crank up the LIES! :rolleyes: More here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100161868/official-the-more-scientifically-illiterate-you-are-the-more-you-believe-in-climate-change/

Hey, 'cap, do you have a pretty, colorful SPIN chart for us? :lol:

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

:lol: :lol:

I CAN'T WAIT TO HEAR HOW AL GORE RESPONDS TO THIS! NOT TO MENTION THE USUAL SUSPECTS ON THIS BOARD!

[hcap]

http://news.yale.edu/2012/05/29/yale-study-concludes-public-apathy-over-climate-change-unrelated-science-literacy

The Original Study From Yale

“The aim of the study was to test two hypotheses,” said Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and professor of psychology at Yale Law School and a member of the study team. “The first attributes political controversy over climate change to the public’s limited ability to comprehend science, and the second, to opposing sets of cultural values. The findings supported the second hypothesis and not the first,” he said.

“Cultural cognition” is the term used to describe the process by which individuals’ group values shape their perceptions of societal risks. It refers to the unconscious tendency of people to fit evidence of risk to positions that predominate in groups to which they belong. The results of the study were consistent with previous studies that show that individuals with more egalitarian values disagree sharply with individuals who have more individualistic ones on the risks associated with nuclear power, gun possession, and the HPV vaccine for school girls.

In this study, researchers measured “science literacy” with test items developed by the National Science Foundation. They also measured their subjects’ “numeracy” — that is, their ability and disposition to understand quantitative information.

“In effect,” Kahan said, “ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values. At least among ordinary members of the public, individuals with higher science comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group commitments.”

Kahan said that the study supports no inferences about the reasoning of scientific experts in climate change.

.................................................. ................

So right wingers are more adept at back fitting
the data to conform to their agendas. So what.
Nothing new here guys, as previous studies have shown the same prejudices are a major component as to how people decide complex issues. When I and other of the left argue with the righties here I don't argue their "stupidity" but hopefully their "facts". BM and Toxicar claim I have been brainwashed and that I am therefore stupid.

The scientific experts in climate change are supposed to be neither right or left, rather scientific. Unless you are going to argue 97% of climatologists are all left wing socialists, this does nothing to alter the scientific consensus. Next time instead of regurgitating rightie-rag distorted articles 4 steps away from the original study, cite the original.

[hcap]

So Toxy, your headline "Official: the more scientifically illiterate you are, the more you believe in 'climate change'" is as full of shit as you are.

[boxcar]

So Toxy, your headline "Official: the more scientifically illiterate you are, the more you believe in 'climate change'" is as full of shit as you are.

Tell that to the authors of the report on the study; for the article goes on to say:

Page reports:

Given that the profs had assumed from the start that scepticism is wrong, this forced them to the conclusion that simply teaching people more science and giving them more facts and numbers is not a good idea as it will lead them into bad (sceptical) decisions. They write:

This form of reasoning can have a highly negative impact on collective decision making … it is very harmful to collective welfare for individuals in aggregate to form beliefs this way.

One aim of science communication, we submit, should be to dispel this tragedy … A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. As worthwhile as it would be, simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public conflict …

So, what part of that don't you understand!? The real scientific FACTS alone aren't selling the public on the AGW hoax, most especially among the thinking public -- the more scientifically-inclinded. And all the fear-mongering tactics, as well, haven't done a thing to convince most people.

A couple of months or so I posted a story about how worried the AGW fanatics were about their PR tactics. They were so concerned that they decided that AGW desperately needed a makeover. So, they finally decided instead that an easier sell to the general public would be to con us on the horrible dangers that lie immediately head for the planet due to overpopulation. :lol: :lol: I guess they figured that most people (even the math-challenged) would understand that 8 billion is more than 7 billion, etc. :lol: So, stay tuned. Expect a large influx of Doom and Gloom stories from the Anti-Procreationists Movement. I'm sure they'll find willing and eager allies among the PETA freaks. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[TJDave]

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

- Carl Sagan

[boxcar]

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

- Carl Sagan

Ahh...so the gods have come down to live amongst us mere mortals. They call themselves "scientists". :lol:

Boxcar

[bigmack]

The cornerstone argument for WarmMongers was tree rings. That's right, tree rings from this nerd, who, as it turns out, fraudulently tried to link man to warming.

How ignorant do you have to be to believe that balderdash? Let's just say hcap bought it hook, line & sucker.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/images/mann_treering.jpg

[hcap]

Go to the original study and show me the money

http://www.culturalcognition.net/

Show me where this is not what they said...
...This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare..

This is the study

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html

Back up your boy Page. For instance when he says...

"This form of reasoning can have a highly negative impact on collective decision making … it is very harmful to collective welfare for individuals in aggregate to form beliefs this way."

Actually they say.

"Even if cultural cognition serves the personal interests of individuals, this form of reasoning can have a highly negative impact on collective decision making. What guides individual risk perception, on this account, is not the truth of those beliefs but rather their congruence with individuals’ cultural commitments.

and in another paragraph

"Although it is effectively costless for any individual to form a perception of climate-change risk that is wrong but culturally congenial, it is very harmful to collective welfare for individuals in aggregate to form beliefs this way."

Read the study. And I repeat.

So Toxy, your headline "Official: the more scientifically illiterate you are, the more you believe in 'climate change'" is as full of shit as you are.

[Wagergirl]

That you not just read what the journalist reporting has to say on a subject, but you must also read what the journalist read. In this case, read the original report and make your educated conclusion from that. Also, the thing about the scientific method, is that once a study is done, there are plenty of other people out there to test the hypothesis and study those results.

Critical thinking is not listening to Fox news and hoping they are reporting.

[bigmack]

Critical thinking is not listening to Fox news and hoping they are reporting.
Say what?

[Wagergirl]

Say what?

Crud!

Critical thinking is not: watching Fox news and hope that they are reporting the news accurately and without bias.


(sorry I took a wager in the middle of typing out my thought and hit post. Derp moment)

[bigmack]

Crud!

Critical thinking is not: watching Fox news and hope that they are reporting the news accurately and without bias.
Who has more bias, Fox or ABC? Or CNN? Or MSNBC?

You think Fox doesn't report news accurately?

[Wagergirl]

Who has more bias, Fox or ABC? Or CNN? Or MSNBC?

You think Fox doesn't report news accurately?

Honestly I think that they all have a spin on the news that best suits who is paying the bills.

[boxcar]

That you not just read what the journalist reporting has to say on a subject, but you must also read what the journalist read. In this case, read the original report and make your educated conclusion from that. Also, the thing about the scientific method, is that once a study is done, there are plenty of other people out there to test the hypothesis and study those results.

Critical thinking is not listening to Fox news and hoping they are reporting.

Critical thinking requires that I understand what it is the author of any piece is communicating. If the author disagrees with the findings of the survey, then that doesn't speak very well to his honesty, does it?

Critical think this: The warp 'n' woof of the problem appears to be that too many people don't do group-think. They don't think of themselves as being cattle and part of the herd. Too many people aren't socialism-minded enough. Individualists do indeed tend to actually think through things and for themselves. (Mindless Sheeple do tend to look down their condescending snouts at us Rugged Individualists.) :lol: :lol:

AGW is in big trouble (and has been for sometime!), as I pointed out months ago. If it weren't, the Tree Huggers wouldn't be on a tear to do a major re-branding of it.

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

IF global warming is real then let us have a show of hands. Who has built their doomsday bunker.

[DJofSD]

Start here. (http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766)

[Wagergirl]

Start here. (http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766)

I am at work, your link was blocked. This is the reasoning.

The link you are accessing has been blocked by the Barracuda Web Filter because it contains content belonging to the category of: Education :lol:

[boxcar]

I am at work, your link was blocked. This is the reasoning.

The link you are accessing has been blocked by the Barracuda Web Filter because it contains content belonging to the category of: Education :lol:

Who would have ever critically thunk of such a reason? :lol:

Boxcar

[GaryG]

Critical thinking is not listening to Fox news and hoping they are reporting.This is pathetic....go back to sleep.

[PaceAdvantage]

(sorry I took a wager in the middle of typing out my thought and hit post. Derp moment)In another thread, you criticized patrons for being rude to you and yet you just admitted to taking wagers while not concentrating on your work...

Instead of messing up your post, what would have happened if you messed up the customer's bet?

Part of me thinks this is all shtick anyway...

[Wagergirl]

In another thread, you criticized patrons for being rude to you and yet you just admitted to taking wagers while not concentrating on your work...

Instead of messing up your post, what would have happened if you messed up the customer's bet?

Part of me thinks this is all shtick anyway...

No I admitted to taking wagers while not concentrating on my postings. I read this forum page and others while I am at work between calls. Not shtick at all.
When the phone beeps in my ear, this page is minimized and I concentrate on the call. On busy days, such as Fridays and Saturdays when Belmont is open I am rarely on here until Belmont's last race is done. There just isn't time. Otherwise, I hang out here, read several posts, and learn. I also give my point of view, which I thought was the point of these threads, is it not? Am I mistaken?

[Wagergirl]

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=ad5NrPjJejSnjM:&imgrefurl=http://bloghopenchangery.com/page/2/&docid=uitCZbuJ7pGsVM&imgurl=http://bloghopenchangery.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/obamapepsi.jpg%253Fw%253D500&w=320&h=320&ei=VhHgT4N7osTaBafMzOsJ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=587&vpy=137&dur=426&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=100&ty=100&sig=110495685779296995503&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=140&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:84

[sammy the sage]

I am at work, your link was blocked...

Yepp...today's worker...no wonder everything gets shipped oversea's or boss's are HIRING illegal...to GET ACTUAL work done :faint:

[PaceAdvantage]

I also give my point of view, which I thought was the point of these threads, is it not? Am I mistaken?Ummmmmmm...gee...I don't know...let me think about it for a few days.... :lol:

[Wagergirl]

Ummmmmmm...gee...I don't know...let me think about it for a few days.... :lol:
Oh dang, the little lady's supposed to keep those to herself eh? :lol: ;)

[boxcar]

Yepp...today's worker...no wonder everything gets shipped oversea's or boss's are HIRING illegal...to GET ACTUAL work done :faint:

:lol: :lol: But only Americans excel at multitasking, which is what WG's comeback will probably be. :lol:

Boxcar

[Wagergirl]

[QUOTE=boxcar]:lol: :lol: But only Americans excel at multitasking, which is what WG's comeback will probably be. :lol:

Boxcar[/QUOTE

You know me so well already!

[HUSKER55]

YOU GUYS HAVE TURNED INTO A TUFF CROWD.