The science against climate change

[CrusaderFrank]

A study showing not only does base ignorance affect the assimulation of scientific information, but political views, as well. To the point that people with very strong political views see the science through the lens of their views, and totally misinterpret and misrepresent what the scientists are stating.

Did the Arctic ice recover? Demographics of true and false climate facts

Lawrence C. Hamilton
Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824. email: [email protected], phone: 1-603-862-1859

Abstract

Beliefs about climate change divide the U.S. public along party lines more distinctly than hot social issues. Research finds that better educated or informed respondents are more likely to align with their parties on climate change. This information-elite polarization resembles a process of biased assimilation first described in psychological experiments. In nonexperimental settings, college graduates could be prone to biased assimilation if they more effectively acquire information that supports their beliefs. Recent national and statewide survey data show response patterns consistent with biased assimilation (and biased guessing) contributing to the correlation observed between climate beliefs and knowledge. The survey knowledge questions involve key, uncontroversial observations such as whether the area of late-summer Arctic sea ice has declined, increased, or declined and then recovered to what it was 30 years ago. Correct answers are predicted by education, and some wrong answers (e.g., more ice) have predictors that suggest lack of knowledge. Other wrong answers (e.g., ice recovered) are predicted by political and belief factors instead. Response patterns suggest causality in both directions: science information affecting climate beliefs, but also beliefs affecting the assimilation of science information.

AGW, it can't be proven, it cam only be believed in. Have faith!

 

[mamooth]

Frank, no one is going to waste time shooting down your idiot ramblings for the hundredth time. You've demonstrated you're far too stupid and brainwashed to ever understand the simple explanations, hence the reason why everyone now just points at you and laughs.

 

[mamooth]

Oh, so now ignoring the farce that is AGW means one's testosterone levels are off?

It's a bit more complicated. A lack of masculinity -- that is, being a pudgy doughboy, a Limbaugh-type who declares feminists are to blame for shrinking his genitals -- strongly correlates with being a conservative political cultist. AGW denial is just one part of the general cult dogma of the extremist conservative political cult. Helping such pudgy doughboys with their hormonal issues would encourage them to break from that political cult, and could result in the collapse of many crazy right-wing conspiracy theories, not just AGW denial.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh, so now ignoring the farce that is AGW means one's testosterone levels are off?

It's a bit more complicated. A lack of masculinity -- that is, being a pudgy doughboy, a Limbaugh-type who declares feminists are to blame for shrinking his genitals -- strongly correlates with being a conservative political cultist. AGW denial is just one part of the general cult dogma of the extremist conservative political cult. Helping such pudgy doughboys with their hormonal issues would encourage them to break from that political cult, and could result in the collapse of many crazy right-wing conspiracy theories, not just AGW denial.

'

Sez the metro who loves his cats !!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, no one is going to waste time shooting down your idiot ramblings for the hundredth time. You've demonstrated you're far too stupid and brainwashed to ever understand the simple explanations, hence the reason why everyone now just points at you and laughs.

You never have "simple explanations" or even lab experiments

If its so simple can you please post the lab experiment that shows how a 120 PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature a few degrees as your theory supposes?

 

[RollingThunder]

Frank, no one is going to waste time shooting down your idiot ramblings for the hundredth time. You've demonstrated you're far too stupid and brainwashed to ever understand the simple explanations, hence the reason why everyone now just points at you and laughs.

You never have "simple explanations" or even lab experiments

If its so simple can you please post the lab experiment that shows how a 120 PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature a few degrees as your theory supposes?

Such experiments have been shown to you many times but, as Mamooth just pointed out, you are 'far too stupid and brainwashed' to accept the evidence. Crawl back into your hole, retard

 

[westwall]

Frank -

Of course there is science behind it - that is not the question. By all means start a thread on the topic and we can present it.

The question is whether you have the integrity to discuss it sensibly. I think it is fairly clear at this stage that you do not.

You've shown that you can't discuss anything logically and with integrity. We use your inane posts to show those who actually wish to know something what is truly going on. As evidenced by your increasingly shrill whines and the ever sinking polls, it appears we are winning the battle of science over faith.

 

[westwall]

I've always supported passing out free testosterone supplements to those in need of them, as that would wipe out denialism almost immediately. If the simpering semi-men who make up most of the denialists had a more normal hormonal balance, they'd stop it with the pathetic attempts to overcompensate which are the root of much of the denialist conspiracy whining.

That's rich! You and yours couldn't survive three days in my desert area!

I spend weeks there and enjoy the hell out of myself every day...let me guess you're a vegan too!

 

[westwall]

Frank, no one is going to waste time shooting down your idiot ramblings for the hundredth time. You've demonstrated you're far too stupid and brainwashed to ever understand the simple explanations, hence the reason why everyone now just points at you and laughs.

Wrong again buckwheat, it's you and yours who continually espouse religious faith preferentially over science.

 

[westwall]

Oh, so now ignoring the farce that is AGW means one's testosterone levels are off?

It's a bit more complicated. A lack of masculinity -- that is, being a pudgy doughboy, a Limbaugh-type who declares feminists are to blame for shrinking his genitals -- strongly correlates with being a conservative political cultist. AGW denial is just one part of the general cult dogma of the extremist conservative political cult. Helping such pudgy doughboys with their hormonal issues would encourage them to break from that political cult, and could result in the collapse of many crazy right-wing conspiracy theories, not just AGW denial.

Gosh I would love to see a picture of you in your momma's basement, swilling a coke, and playing Dungeons and Dragons!

 

[westwall]

Frank, no one is going to waste time shooting down your idiot ramblings for the hundredth time. You've demonstrated you're far too stupid and brainwashed to ever understand the simple explanations, hence the reason why everyone now just points at you and laughs.

You never have "simple explanations" or even lab experiments

If its so simple can you please post the lab experiment that shows how a 120 PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature a few degrees as your theory supposes?

Such experiments have been shown to you many times but, as Mamooth just pointed out, you are 'far too stupid and brainwashed' to accept the evidence. Crawl back into your hole, retard

As usual you are wrong. The experiments shown (in addition to being really poorly done) are demonstrating the IDEAL GAS LAWS, not CO2 induced warming. But you would have to have at least a minimal education to know that and clearly you havn't.

 

[RollingThunder]

Frank -

Of course there is science behind it - that is not the question. By all means start a thread on the topic and we can present it.

The question is whether you have the integrity to discuss it sensibly. I think it is fairly clear at this stage that you do not.

You've shown that you can't discuss anything logically and with integrity. We use your inane posts to show those who actually wish to know something what is truly going on. As evidenced by your increasingly shrill whines and the ever sinking polls, it appears we are winning the battle of science over faith.

LOLOLOLOL.....the ol' walleyedretard is getting desperate and his posts are getting ever more insane and out of touch with reality.

In Poll, Many Link Weather Extremes to Climate Change
The New York Times
By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: April 17, 2012
(excerpts)
A poll due for release on Wednesday shows that a large majority of Americans believe that this year’s unusually warm winter, last year’s blistering summer and some other weather disasters were probably made worse by global warming. And by a 2-to-1 margin, the public says the weather has been getting worse, rather than better, in recent years. The survey, the most detailed to date on the public response to weather extremes, comes atop other polling showing a recent uptick in concern about climate change. Read together, the polls suggest that direct experience of erratic weather may be convincing some people that the problem is no longer just a vague and distant threat.

A large majority of climate scientists say the climate is shifting in ways that could cause serious impacts, and they cite the human release of greenhouse gases as a principal cause. But a tiny, vocal minority of researchers contests that view, and has seemed in the last few years to be winning the battle of public opinion despite slim scientific evidence for their position. The poll suggests that a solid majority of the public feels that global warming is real, a result consistent with other polls that have asked the question in various ways. When invited to agree or disagree with the statement, “global warming is affecting the weather in the United States,” 69 percent of respondents in the new poll said they agreed, while 30 percent disagreed. ...When people were asked whether they attributed specific events to global warming, recent heat waves drew the largest majorities. Scientists say their statistical evidence for an increase of weather extremes is indeed strongest when it comes to heat waves. Asked whether they agreed or disagreed that global warming had contributed to the unusually warm winter just past, 25 percent of the respondents said they strongly agreed that it had, and 47 percent said they somewhat agreed. Only 17 percent somewhat disagreed, and 11 percent strongly disagreed. Majorities almost as large cited global warming as a likely factor in last year’s record summer heat wave, as well as the 2011 drought in Texas and Oklahoma. Smaller but still substantial majorities cited it as a factor in the record United States snowfalls of 2010 and 2011 and the Mississippi River floods of 2011. Those views, too, are consistent with scientific evidence, which suggests that global warming is causing heavier precipitation in all seasons.

Since 1989, Gallup has asked, “how much do you personally worry about global warming?” The percentage of people saying they were worried peaked at 66 percent just before the recession, then fell to a low of 51 percent in 2011, as the economy overwhelmed other concerns. Gallup’s most recent survey, in March, showed an uptick to 55 percent. “It’s certainly possible that this is the start of a trend back up,” said Frank M. Newport, Gallup’s editor in chief.

 

[mamooth]

That's rich! You and yours couldn't survive three days in my desert area!

But we'd just do like you. You know, stay in the air conditioning all the time.

I spend weeks there and enjoy the hell out of myself every day...let me guess you're a vegan too!

Perhaps they'll make reality TV show about it, and we'll get to observe your keen desert survivor skills. You know, driving the truck, opening the cooler, that kind of manlyman stuff.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, no one is going to waste time shooting down your idiot ramblings for the hundredth time. You've demonstrated you're far too stupid and brainwashed to ever understand the simple explanations, hence the reason why everyone now just points at you and laughs.

You never have "simple explanations" or even lab experiments

If its so simple can you please post the lab experiment that shows how a 120 PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature a few degrees as your theory supposes?

Such experiments have been shown to you many times but, as Mamooth just pointed out, you are 'far too stupid and brainwashed' to accept the evidence. Crawl back into your hole, retard

And yet you didn't post the experiment because....?

 

[Old Rocks]

A study showing not only does base ignorance affect the assimulation of scientific information, but political views, as well. To the point that people with very strong political views see the science through the lens of their views, and totally misinterpret and misrepresent what the scientists are stating.

Did the Arctic ice recover? Demographics of true and false climate facts

Lawrence C. Hamilton
Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824. email: [email protected], phone: 1-603-862-1859

Abstract

Beliefs about climate change divide the U.S. public along party lines more distinctly than hot social issues. Research finds that better educated or informed respondents are more likely to align with their parties on climate change. This information-elite polarization resembles a process of biased assimilation first described in psychological experiments. In nonexperimental settings, college graduates could be prone to biased assimilation if they more effectively acquire information that supports their beliefs. Recent national and statewide survey data show response patterns consistent with biased assimilation (and biased guessing) contributing to the correlation observed between climate beliefs and knowledge. The survey knowledge questions involve key, uncontroversial observations such as whether the area of late-summer Arctic sea ice has declined, increased, or declined and then recovered to what it was 30 years ago. Correct answers are predicted by education, and some wrong answers (e.g., more ice) have predictors that suggest lack of knowledge. Other wrong answers (e.g., ice recovered) are predicted by political and belief factors instead. Response patterns suggest causality in both directions: science information affecting climate beliefs, but also beliefs affecting the assimilation of science information.

AGW, it can't be proven, it cam only be believed in. Have faith!

Ever the fucking dumb shit.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

You never have "simple explanations" or even lab experiments

If its so simple can you please post the lab experiment that shows how a 120 PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature a few degrees as your theory supposes?

Such experiments have been shown to you many times but, as Mamooth just pointed out, you are 'far too stupid and brainwashed' to accept the evidence. Crawl back into your hole, retard

And yet you didn't post the experiment because....?

Posted, dumb ass. Just because you are incapable of understanding it does not mean the rest of us are.

 

[Dot Com]

how many cars are ont he road today and how many will be on the road tomorrow? Same goes for coal-fired powerplants in china. I heard they have a new one brought online just about daily.

Anyway, Here's something for the AGW deniers to figure out how to discount too: Great Barrier Reef coral seeing 'major decline,' scientists report - World News

They also noted that reducing starfish is a short-term step that can "only be successful if climatic conditions are stabilized, as losses due to bleaching and cyclones will otherwise increase."

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic ice, corals, food production in the world's breadbaskets, wildfires, droughts, floods, and the northward extension of tropical diseases, none of this means anything to the denialists. It does not agree with their politics, therefore cannot be true.

Interesting, as President Obama's second term draws to a close, there will be another election. And, by then, the affects of the warming will be all too apperant. And guess who has been on the very wrong side of the debate?

 

[Saigon]

Arctic ice, corals, food production in the world's breadbaskets, wildfires, droughts, floods, and the northward extension of tropical diseases, none of this means anything to the denialists. It does not agree with their politics, therefore cannot be true.

Interesting, as President Obama's second term draws to a close, there will be another election. And, by then, the affects of the warming will be all too apperant. And guess who has been on the very wrong side of the debate?

Yes, exactly.

Which is absolutely baffling, especially in an age where so much information is available from so many different sources and across such a vast range as aspects of climate.

I have been genuinely surprised how little science many so-called Deniers have as the basis for their beliefs. On a thread like this one it has been clear very few posters actually wish to present or debate scientific alternatives to AGW.

 

[westwall]

Arctic ice, corals, food production in the world's breadbaskets, wildfires, droughts, floods, and the northward extension of tropical diseases, none of this means anything to the denialists. It does not agree with their politics, therefore cannot be true.

Interesting, as President Obama's second term draws to a close, there will be another election. And, by then, the affects of the warming will be all too apperant. And guess who has been on the very wrong side of the debate?

Yes, exactly.

Which is absolutely baffling, especially in an age where so much information is available from so many different sources and across such a vast range as aspects of climate.

I have been genuinely surprised how little science many so-called Deniers have as the basis for their beliefs. On a thread like this one it has been clear very few posters actually wish to present or debate scientific alternatives to AGW.

That's because we don't have to. You have made the claim that man is causing the climate to change. That means it is you who have to prove your point. All we have to do is show that the weather we are seeing is nothing unusual. We have done so repeatedly.

I can go back to the 1500's and show that weather back then is the same as today. In fact it was worse back then. We have further shown that the fundamental theory of AGW (CO2 drives temperatures) is wrong. The Vostock ice cores prove that.

Come back when you want to talk about science, and not computer models that are less accurate than random guessing as shown in the study published in the Journal of Forecasting.