Climate science skeptics are more educated

[Ichihara]

Professor Dan M. Kahan and his team surveyed 1540 US adults and determined that people with more education in natural sciences and mathematics tend to be more skeptical of AGW climate science. Of course this means that people will less education are more apt to be duped by it.

http://notrickszone.com/2011/09/26/yale-paper-shows-that-climate-science-skeptics-are-more-scientifically-educated/

[+DieChecker]

Professor Dan M. Kahan and his team surveyed 1540 US adults and determined that people with more education in natural sciences and mathematics tend to be more skeptical of AGW climate science. Of course this means that people will less education are more apt to be duped by it.

http://notrickszone....cally-educated/

Best not to say "duped by", but "believe in".

I point this out often, that just because someone believes something that they are told is true, does not mean they know what they are believing in. People who get enraged over GMO foods, and Vaccines, and Autism, very often have no idea what constitutes a GMO food, or what current vaccines have in them, or the current state of Autism studies. They gloam onto something, form a strong opinion and operate out of ignorance after that.

[Grandpa Greenman]

You do know this study is not about climate change, but about psychology. The study used the thoughts of the general population, not the opinions of those who work in the field of climate. I downloaded the actual study and read it. I think the Blog was poorly written and misrepresents what the study is about.

[Ichihara]

Best not to say "duped by", but "believe in".

I point this out often, that just because someone believes something that they are told is true, does not mean they know what they are believing in. People who get enraged over GMO foods, and Vaccines, and Autism, very often have no idea what constitutes a GMO food, or what current vaccines have in them, or the current state of Autism studies. They gloam onto something, form a strong opinion and operate out of ignorance after that.

you dont have to know is gmo food safe or not. concept per se is wrong.

[Ichihara]

You do know this study is not about climate change, but about psychology. The study used the thoughts of the general population, not the opinions of those who work in the field of climate. I downloaded the actual study and read it. I think the Blog was poorly written and misrepresents what the study is about.

is this study peer reviewed?

[Grandpa Greenman]

Looks like it, but is said it a working document. The people who did the paper are psychologists and lawyers. Like I say the paper has nothing to actual climate change, just how people form opinions about it and GMO's etc...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503

I put my bet on the climate warming, I planted banana trees this week thinking I am not going to get a frost this winter. I didn't get one last winter.

[Ichihara]

well, study show...what can you do..

Edited August 19, 2014 by Ichihara

[Grandpa Greenman]

Study says nothing related to weather. It is a psychology paper written by lawyers. What does that tell you.

[DecoNoir]

well, study show...what can you do..

And studies are so easy to manipulate its a wonder that anybody takes them seriously anymore. A large number of factors could have played into the results... like the payroll of those surveyed for example.

[regeneratia]

Sun's activity influences natural climate change, ice age study shows

Date:

August 18, 2014

Source:

Lund University

Summary:

A new study has, for the first time, reconstructed solar activity during the last ice age. The study shows that the regional climate is influenced by the sun and offers opportunities to better predict future climate conditions in certain regions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140818095204.htm

And studies are so easy to manipulate its a wonder that anybody takes them seriously anymore. A large number of factors could have played into the results... like the payroll of those surveyed for example.

I am gonna remember you said that, dear.

[Ichihara]

And studies are so easy to manipulate its a wonder that anybody takes them seriously anymore. A large number of factors could have played into the results... like the payroll of those surveyed for example.

is there anyone in these days who believe in science and peer review methodology ...?!

[Ichihara]

Study says nothing related to weather.

sure, it tells that proponents of agw are uneducated compared to skeptics.

[DecoNoir]

is there anyone in these days who believe in science and peer review methodology ...?!

If yoyu actually read around you'll see I take scientific approach in nearly all cases, but surveys and "studies" aren't hard science, and are usually used by the lowest common denominator. Frankly there is nothing whatsoever that gives any regulation to how they're conducted, and thus they can be easily influenced.

[Ichihara]

If yoyu actually read around you'll see I take scientific approach in nearly all cases, but surveys and "studies" aren't hard science, and are usually used by the lowest common denominator. Frankly there is nothing whatsoever that gives any regulation to how they're conducted, and thus they can be easily influenced.

oh i see you are fringie when you "need" to be, okay.

[Ichihara]

i thought that atleast people would respect Yale university. look like Yale isnt what is used to be.

[DecoNoir]

Sun's activity influences natural climate change, ice age study shows

Date:

August 18, 2014

Source:

Lund University

Summary:

A new study has, for the first time, reconstructed solar activity during the last ice age. The study shows that the regional climate is influenced by the sun and offers opportunities to better predict future climate conditions in certain regions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140818095204.htm

I am gonna remember you said that, dear.

Why? You know very well that I back proper research and experimentation, not these "studies" (glorified surveys more like. They aren't hard science, there are no rules, and no regulations.

For example: Lets say I go to a UFO convention and ask around 100 about they're opinions on UFO and extraterrestrial life. If I get 90 people answering that they believe we're being visited, then I can go and slap on the headline "90% of Population Believes Alien Visitation" and technically be right (in that 90% of my participants answered yes) but it isn't representative of the entire population. But a layman isn't going to catch that, they'll just see the title (and even then, there's nothing saying I HAVE to put who was surveyed in the text).

So you can see why studies shouldn't be taken as gospel.

oh i see you are fringie when you "need" to be, okay.

Look around and find one post were I support fringe theory.

[Ichihara]

Look around and find one post were I support fringe theory.

well lets see

So you can see why studies shouldn't be taken as gospel.

And studies are so easy to manipulate its a wonder that anybody takes them seriously anymore.

[DecoNoir]

well lets see

[/size]

Sweet christ, you didn't read single damn thing in that post didn't you?

[Opus Magnus]

I don't think it matters. When oil runs out in the next 25 years, then we won't have to worry about global warming anymore.

[Ichihara]

I don't think it matters. When oil runs out in the next 25 years, then we won't have to worry about global warming anymore.

exactly.except peak oil is hoax...

Edited August 19, 2014 by Ichihara

[Doug1029]

is there anyone in these days who believe in science and peer review methodology ...?!

Well, maybe.

I just got raked over the coals in a peer review. Back to the drawing board.

But in defense of the reviewers: they gave me a lot of constructive criticism on how to make the paper better and invited me to submit another draft after I fix the problems. The problems concerned my methodology (I used a non-standard method, so they didn't know what I was talking about.) and inadequately posing the scientific question which the paper was supposed to be addressing.

At any rate, a peer review is a far better writing lesson than you ever got in a writing course.

Doug

[Doug1029]

I don't think it matters. When oil runs out in the next 25 years, then we won't have to worry about global warming anymore.

Except that we have a 500-year supply of coal and we haven't even measured all the gas deposits, yet. We have enough known reserves to kill the planet without discovering any more.

Doug

[+DieChecker]

Except that we have a 500-year supply of coal and we haven't even measured all the gas deposits, yet. We have enough known reserves to kill the planet without discovering any more.

Doug

Not to mention that if we spend enough, we can turn coal into oil (of a sort).

[DecoNoir]

Not to mention that if we spend enough, we can turn coal into oil (of a sort).

Coil?

[Grandpa Greenman]

sure, it tells that proponents of agw are uneducated compared to skeptics.

And that has what to do the weather. Science isn't a not a democracy, the only thing that matters is the data. There is no data in that paper about climate. Just because it is written by a lawyer at Yale does change the fact it is not about climate change. You are doing a fallacy of composition and an appeal to authority. If you want to debate climate change a lawyer at Yale is not going to help you. He doesn't know about the weather other than what is out the window. You have to go to a meteorologist and look at studies about weather. Me thinks, this paper has more to do with how to manipulate public opinion than the weather.