Drexel University study on AGW deniers

Abraham3

Rookie
Aug 1, 2012
4,289
164
0
This has been posted before, but I just came across a new CNN discussion of the study and thought it might bring some new insights.

Opinion: Why are we still debating climate change? - CNN.com
***********************
(CNN) -- There is no debate.

Climate change is real. And, yes, we are, in part, to blame.

There is a 97% consensus among scientific experts that humans are causing global warming. Ninety-seven percent!

Yet some very vocal Americans continue to debate what is surely fact.

The question is, why?

Trust certainly plays a part.

According to Gordon Gauchat, an associate professor of sociology from the University of Wisconsin, just 42% of adults in the U.S. have a great deal of confidence (PDF) in the scientific community.

It's easy to understand why. Most Americans can't even name a living scientist. I suspect the closest many Americans get to a living, breathing scientist is the fictional Dr. Sheldon Cooper from CBS's sitcom "The Big Bang Theory." Sheldon is brilliant, condescending and narcissistic. Whose trust would he inspire?

But trust isn't the only factor in why many Americans doubt climate change.

I asked Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. His group has been studying the "why" question for more than a decade.

"We've found there are six very (specific) categories that respond to this issue in different ways," he said.

He calls these categories "Global Warming's Six Americas."

The first group, "The Alarmed," is made up 16% of the public. They believe climate change is an urgent problem but have no clear idea of how to fix it.

The second group (27%) is "The Concerned." They believe climate change is a problem but think it's more about polar bears and tiny islands than a problem that directly affects them.

The third group, "The Cautious" (23%), are people on the fence. They haven't made up their minds whether global warming is real or if it's a man-made problem.

The fourth group, "The Disengaged" (5%), doesn't know anything about climate change.

The fifth group, "The Doubtful" (12%), do not think climate change is man-made. They think it's natural and poses no long-term risk.

Leiserowitz says it's the sixth group, "The Dismissives," that is the most problematic, even though it comprises just 15% of the public.

"They say it's a hoax, scientists are making up data, it's a U.N. conspiracy (or) Al Gore and his friends want to get rich." Leiserowitz goes on to say, "It's a really loud 15%. ... (It's a) pretty well-organized 15%." [Dismissives. I'm going to start using that one --Abe]

And thanks to the media and the political stage, that vocal minority is mighty.

Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum told Glenn Beck on Fox News in 2011, "There is no such thing as global warming." Santorum went on to tell Rush Limbaugh, "It's just an excuse for more government control of your life, and I've never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative."

And just last week, tea party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz told CNN's Dana Bash, "Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they'll say, well, it's changing, so it proves our theory."

Meanwhile, the climate change "counter movement" has been helped along by an infusion of cash from, among others, some in the powerful fossil fuel industry.

A recent study by Drexel University found that conservative foundations and others have bankrolled climate denial to the tune of $558 million between 2003 and 2010.

"Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square. Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat," writes environmental scientist Robert J. Brulle, the study's author.

The good news is, those uninformed minority voices are being quieted by nature and by those who have powerful voices.

Extreme weather is forcing people to at least think about how global warming affects them directly. And, perhaps more important, many religious leaders, including evangelicals, are now "green." They concur with the scientific community and take it a step farther. They say we have a moral obligation to save the planet.

Even the enormously popular Pope Francis may soon speak out on global warming. The Vatican press office says Francis is working on draft text on ecology. That text could turn into an encyclical, or a letter to bishops around the world, instructing that the "faithful must respect the environment."

Here is a link to a press release about the funding study

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Now | Drexel University


And here is a link to the study itself:

http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx
 
When you have to attempt to discredit your opposition because you can't win your case based on facts, you are done whether you know it or not.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
The OP is Butt Hurt that Mann got busted as a Fraud

This has nothing to do with this thread's topic

However, you're not reading as much as you should Frank. WUWT's Anthony Watts, his own self, noted that the Principia Scientific article that Skookerasnoc put, concerning Mann's case against Ball, up was "incorrect", that Ball himself said the case was still underway and that Mann's financial backers had more than enough depth to their pockets to keep things going. Turned out that the denier blog site Principia Scientific is owned and run by a psychopathic liar friend and partner of Tim Ball's named John Sullivan. He is not only famous for his outrageous lying but for being prosecuted as a child molesting school teacher - though he managed to get off.

See what you miss when you close your mind.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
When you have to attempt to discredit your opposition because you can't win your case based on facts, you are done whether you know it or not.

That is precisely what Mann or any other reasonable person would say to Ball, Steyn and the National Review. Or would you characterize calling Mann a child molester who ought to be behind bars, an attempt to win based on facts?
 
...and real science is still not done by "Consensus"

Are you having trouble remembering which thread you're actually sitting in at any particular moment?

You want to be taken serious and actually believe science is by consensus? That is how it sounds when you make ignorant comments like this in reference to the claim.

Not just Americans doubt the supposed human connection to global warming. There is little to no evidence to support the claim scientifically. You may have political reasons for claiming it though.
 
No one on the Dismissive side of the argument wants anything to do with a discussion of the OP topic. What a surprise.
 
LOL......nobody cares.

Doesn't matter one way or another frankly >>>>>

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html


Again......this is like a football cornerback spiking the football after a pick 6 and participating in a dance celebration in the end zone but now his team is down only 72-6.:gay:




Bottom line?




Denier's or non-deniers, the energy landscape will not be changing in any significant way in the lifetimes of anybody viewing this thread.:up::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu: And there are about 100 links supporting this HERE >>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html



Were this dynamic to possibly change........nobody here will want to be around the see the Jonestown emerge. Nobody. If the far left got its way on this shit, the country ceases to exist and we are looking at millions of deaths. And the folks with the wiffle ball bat home defense arsenals will be the first checking out........which wont be me.:eusa_dance:
 
Last edited:
No one on the Dismissive side of the argument wants anything to do with a discussion of the OP topic. What a surprise.

it's the quality of the survey man.. The "cautious", the "disengaged" and the the "doubtful" ????? Are you fucking kidding me?? The only reason CNN RAN this story is that they got a NASTYGRAM from the DNC leadership about not covering the topic last year.. A veiled threat of FORCING them to talk about it..

So journalists take the cheap way out at CNN and Fox runs a story about climate change causes more crime..

AND YOU --- find the most touchy-feely poll you can find on the topic.. GUARANTEED, 60% of the respondents wouldn't know anything about the IPCC or hockey sticks.
 
Assuming that human activities are responsible for species-threatening "climate change"- then why, even though Russia China India etc. are the world's worst violators - why is everyone so insistent on shutting down the hydrocarbon industries in the U.S. at the cost of trillions of dollars and millions of jobs just to realize an inconsequential improvement in air and water quality?
 
AND YOU --- find the most touchy-feely poll you can find on the topic.. GUARANTEED, 60% of the respondents wouldn't know anything about the IPCC or hockey sticks.

AND YOU offer shit in the way of a substantive response concerning "hockey stick graphs", denier funding or the validity of your own position in any of these arguments.
 
When you have to attempt to discredit your opposition because you can't win your case based on facts, you are done whether you know it or not.

That is precisely what Mann or any other reasonable person would say to Ball, Steyn and the National Review. Or would you characterize calling Mann a child molester who ought to be behind bars, an attempt to win based on facts?

I see that you are as dishonest as mann himself. He was never called a child molester....but do feel free to provide a quote of anyone calling him a child molester and prove that you aren't as dishonest as you are duped.

He does certainly belong in jail...his fraud has cost hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide and untold suffering already.
 
Last edited:
AND YOU --- find the most touchy-feely poll you can find on the topic.. GUARANTEED, 60% of the respondents wouldn't know anything about the IPCC or hockey sticks.

AND YOU offer shit in the way of a substantive response concerning "hockey stick graphs", denier funding or the validity of your own position in any of these arguments.

Denier funding is a non-existent oxymoron and I gave you Marcott and Woods Hole as folks who are doubtful of the accuracy and resolution of global hockey stick studies.. That's some good shit man..
 
Assuming that human activities are responsible for species-threatening "climate change"- then why, even though Russia China India etc. are the world's worst violators - why is everyone so insistent on shutting down the hydrocarbon industries in the U.S. at the cost of trillions of dollars and millions of jobs just to realize an inconsequential improvement in air and water quality?


I know its a rhetorical ? H but couldn't help myself enlighten those who don't embrace the religion >>>

The Green Agenda



winning
 
When you have to attempt to discredit your opposition because you can't win your case based on facts, you are done whether you know it or not.

That is precisely what Mann or any other reasonable person would say to Ball, Steyn and the National Review. Or would you characterize calling Mann a child molester who ought to be behind bars, an attempt to win based on facts?

I see that you are as dishonest as mann himself. He was never called a child molester....but do feel free to provide a quote of anyone calling him a child molester and prove that you aren't as dishonest as you are duped.

He does certainly belong in jail...his fraud has cost hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide and untold suffering already.

You're a fooking idiot as well.
 
Assuming that human activities are responsible for species-threatening "climate change"- then why, even though Russia China India etc. are the world's worst violators - why is everyone so insistent on shutting down the hydrocarbon industries in the U.S. at the cost of trillions of dollars and millions of jobs just to realize an inconsequential improvement in air and water quality?


I know its a rhetorical ? H but couldn't help myself enlighten those who don't embrace the religion >>>

The Green Agenda



winning

Do us all an enormous favor: give your computer - all your computers - to some kid who might actually do the world some good with them. Do it quickly. Do it now.
 
Assuming that human activities are responsible for species-threatening "climate change"- then why, even though Russia China India etc. are the world's worst violators - why is everyone so insistent on shutting down the hydrocarbon industries in the U.S. at the cost of trillions of dollars and millions of jobs just to realize an inconsequential improvement in air and water quality?


I know its a rhetorical ? H but couldn't help myself enlighten those who don't embrace the religion >>>

The Green Agenda



winning

Do us all an enormous favor: give your computer - all your computers - to some kid who might actually do the world some good with them. Do it quickly. Do it now.

For what it's worth, at least he gave some kind of a response to my post.

The fact that you didn't makes me has a sad. :(
 

Forum List

Back
Top