Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says.....

Posted 2 years ago on May 28, 2012, 5:04 p.m. EST by tupacsugar (-136)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science? Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried, as determined by their answers to questions like: "Electrons are smaller than atoms -- true or false?” "How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?" “Lasers work by focusing sound waves -- true or false?” The quiz, containing 22 questions about both science and statistics, was given to 1,540 representative Americans. Respondents who were relatively less worried about global warming got 57 percent of them right, on average, just barely outscoring those whose who saw global warming as a bigger threat. They got 56 percent of the questions correct. 'As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased.' - Study "As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased," the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes. Yale Law Professor Dan Kahan, the lead author of the study, cautioned that the survey results are not evidence for or against climate change. "This study is agnostic on what people ought to believe," he told FoxNews.com. "It just doesn’t follow to say this finding implies anything about what people should believe on this issue." Kahan said that he thought another finding of the study was more important: That people’s cultural views – how much they value things like individualism and equality -- affect their views on global warming much more than actual knowledge about science. Regardless of how much they know about science, individualists were relatively unconcerned about global warming, whereas those who value equality were very concerned. Both sides of the global warming debate say the study's findings support their views. Those who worry about global warming say it shows that cultural biases blind even smart people to the “scientific consensus.” "Kahan’s research is so interesting,” Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com. “Over the last few years, the policy issues surrounding climate change have become increasingly politicized, and that’s bleeding over into people’s perceptions of climate science.” "What we need to remember is that we have a number of excellent non-partisan scientific resources… [They] all tell us that human activity is altering the climate in ways that are disruptive to our economy and way of life." But some of the 16 scientists who signed a letter this January titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" disagree. Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, was one skeptical scientist who signed the letter. He said that the finding that skeptics know as much or more about science surprised him "not at all." "MIT alumni are among my most receptive audiences," he added."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/28/global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-science-new-study-claims/#ixzz1wCUrR8vS

21 Comments

21 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried, as determined by their answers to questions like: "Electrons are smaller than atoms -- true or false?” "How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?" “Lasers work by focusing sound waves -- true or false?” The quiz, containing 22 questions about both science and statistics, was given to 1,540 representative Americans. Respondents who were relatively less worried about global warming got 57 percent of them right, on average, just barely outscoring those whose who saw global warming as a bigger threat. They got 56 percent of the questions correct. 'As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased.'

This just states that public opinion is split on the topic of AGW with people who are tested on a science literacy level that is elementary at best.

When the opinion of actual scientists (people who have a far higher scientific literacy and are employed in their respective fields) are polled the number of AGW proponents increases dramatically.

More importantly, science is not about consensus. AGW meets all the criteria of a valid scientific theory. The term 'theory' in science has a much different connotation than the popular definition of 'just a guess'.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, was one skeptical scientist

Dr. Lindzen considers himself as a 'contrarian' by nature, and doesn't even believe the proven ties that link smoking and lung cancer.

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

You can't even reiterate what you just read and posted correctly.-

[+] -7 points by tupacsugar (-136) 2 years ago

Sorry,ain't buy'in it.

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

You don't have to buy it. The earth rotates around the sun regardless if we believe it does or not.

Life adapts and changes to environmental pressures whether man has a consensus or not.

The physics governing the radiative properties of trace atmospheric gases, their role in heating the global systems has been validated, and the observable, measurable, increase of thermal energy generated by the increase in directly traceable anthropogenically created GHG's will continue whether we have a consensus or not.


American Meteorological Society's 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

Here is the actual paper:

ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf

[-] -3 points by tupacsugar (-136) 2 years ago

Thanks for the rather in-depth reply,I appreciate your time but I don't believe in MMGW,the movement of Alarmists are all about money,politics and the fleecing of America for the benefit of the poorer and richer nation's around the world. It is really only a "get rich scheme" which seems to have already enriched Algore,Soro's,Buffet and a host of other Leftists immensely.

[-] 7 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

You confuse the activists and policy manipulators with the hard science, which is unfortunate and a common mistake.

Al Gore, Soros, Buffett, etc... are not scientists. And then there are scientists that indeed push policy which is wrong, like Hansen. Observation, experimentation is the realm of science, policy is firmly in the realm of politics. The distinction is clear.

The science upon close examination has yet to be disproved. Modeling on the other hand has flaws and is assailable, however, the physics behind the theory of AGW is sound.... as sound as the biochemistry and genetics behind the theory of Evolution.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What about pollution? do you believe in that? Or is that just a scheme.? Should we cut back on pollution?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

I'm ignoring this!

I reject all information that does not fulfill my predetermined conclusions and stereotypes!

[+] -4 points by tupacsugar (-136) 2 years ago

But of course,we wouldn't expect anything different from you.

Trayvon deserved to get a dirtnap by the way.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Somebody should kick your butt out of here for spewing such hate filled shit.

Damn you assholes are lucky you are not out in public spewing this shit.

[-] -3 points by tupacsugar (-136) 2 years ago

Why am I "lucky"? You wanna get up in my grill? I say bring it on.

There's nothing "hate filled" or "shit" about Trayvon getting capped for trying to beat George to death. The truth is out now and it's time for you wankers to get up to speed and jump off the Trayvon express cause it has derailed. Trayvon was nothing more then a "gangsta".

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thats why the racist Zimmerman has been ordered back to jail. You are just one racist supporting another.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You disgusting rank diseased POS.

[-] -2 points by tupacsugar (-136) 2 years ago

Is that an example of what you call "thinking"??
LMAO,you are so pathetic. Go take a nap.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Damn you assholes are lucky you are not out in public spewing this shit.

Where do you live. Please go out in public and spew your filth. Perhaps someone will punch you in the head or maybe a co-opted cop will not be able to handle the shit you spew and will smack you with his/Her club.

Maybe you can manufacture for yourself a Saul/Paul moment by getting the shit kicked out of you by normally peaceful people.

[-] 0 points by farmer88 (40) 2 years ago

What the hell is the matter with you? Calm down, good grief.

[-] -2 points by tupacsugar (-136) 2 years ago

I'm sorry,was I supposed to laugh? Losing your edge can be a hard thing to come to grips with but,....you must try.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I suppose I shouldn't expect any less from someone who uses slurs like "injun" for native Americans, "illegals" for immigrant voters, and spreads the racist birther crap. why would trayvon deserve to die?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh. Your a climate change denier! How do you feel about pollution.? Does that exist? Or is that a conspiracy also? And should we cut down on creating pollution.?

[-] 1 points by NewStart2012 (112) 2 years ago

The climate is changing. Not denying that, and yes, we should definitely be taking care of our planet. But you need to take a much closer look at how the globalists are already using this to control us. If we are "doomed", then why is it ok for pollution etc, so long as the UN and World Bank can collect carbon taxes? If we are truly doomed, then shouldn't pollution have to be stopped immediately, no matter what the cost?