Yale Study Shows That Scientific Literacy Correlates With Scepticism!

[editec]

So nothing is happening to the climate?

Is that what some of you believe?

 

[skookerasbil]

So nothing is happening to the climate?

Is that what some of you believe?

Thats not the point s0n..........

So what if it is? Nothing we can do about it. Why get hysterical?

Even if the majority concurred with your view on the science.......what the response? Build windmills? Solar panels?

C'mon.............


Life is about recognizing neccessary tradeoffs......most people ( operative word being "most") have far more pressing concerns than a bunch of fringe guys making predictions on stuff that is not completely understood. Most people are not hysterical about that kind of stuff. Others........have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much fcukking time on their hands to think about this shit. Some assholes have 15,000, 25,000 and up to 35,000 posts on these forums.........all within a couple of years. Im currently too tired to elaborate on that level of fcukkedupedness............but clearly, you got some pronounced levels of fringe going on here. These are the climate science messengers and the majority is weirded by them. Who wouldnt be if the perspective is on the margin?

And they're suprised they're not winning..........

 

[editec]

Thats not the point s0n..........

No?

Okay, what was the point, dad?

 

[asterism]

So nothing is happening to the climate?

Is that what some of you believe?

I don't think we know what is happening to the climate at this point.

 

[skookerasbil]

Thats not the point s0n..........

No?

Okay, what was the point, dad?

see Post #22!!!!


ps s0n......you going for 50K posts??? Fcukking awesome...........dude.........I'd love to have thousands of hours to just be able to fcukk off.!!!!

 

[daveman]

The more you know, the less you understand.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

-- Ronald Reagan

 

[daveman]

Are you suggesting that you can divine by a set of litmus tests the honesty of a person regardless of education and expertise? Skeptics of AGW are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest?

That takes the cake.

That's what leftism does. Leftist doctrine is absolute Truth. He who believes the Truth is intelligent. He who doesn't is not.

Actual intelligence and expertise are immaterial. All that matters is dogma.

 

[daveman]

Ohhhh, I get it.

Republicans are "scientifically knowledgeable because the don't believe in science.

OK, it all makes sense now. I finally get it.

And dean proves my point. Thanks, dean.

 

[daveman]

So nothing is happening to the climate?

Is that what some of you believe?

I don't think we know what is happening to the climate at this point.

...other than it's changing, just as it's changed since the planet was formed.

 

[Truthmatters]

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change by Dan Kahan, Maggie Wittlin, Ellen Peters, Paul Slovic, Lisa Ouellette, Donald Braman, Gregory Mandel :: SSRN


Abstract:
The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: Respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased.We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: The individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this, “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication .

 

[Truthmatters]

I guess there was a reason you didnt link to the actual study

 

[Si modo]

I guess there was a reason you didnt link to the actual study

Ummmmm, because the link was provided in the first line of the link in the OP.


Damn. Just damn.

 

[Truthmatters]

Then why did they never speak of what the study actually found then?

They spun it as if it meant deniers are smarter.

The actual study was about something else

 

[Si modo]

Then why did they never speak of what the study actually found then?

They spun it as if it meant deniers are smarter.

The actual study was about something else

What are deniers denying?

I know comprehension is difficult for you, but actually read the abstract.

 

[westwall]

So nothing is happening to the climate?

Is that what some of you believe?

Yes ed something is happening to the climate. Something is ALLWAYS happening to the climate. The question is does man have a hand in it it and so far there is no empirical evidence to support that contention. In fact the evidence we do have shows the opposite. Every warning of doom from the alarmists side is based on computer models.

Hansen and his ilk have been forced to falsify data to support their horribly inept computer models because the globe has entered yet another cooling cycle and they are trying to hide that fact.

The paper in the OP said one thing which I was a little surprised by and that was if you had a collectivist mentality you were allready inclined to believe that man was the cause of all ills on the planet and the part I was not surprised by collectivists felt that government was the way to control their fears because companies were'nt going to. It was that collectivist basis of fear that surprised me. I don't know if I truly believe that most collectivists live in a state of perpetual fear but it would explain some of the decisions they make.

The money shot that I referred to is just that. A begining of a new propaganda program designed to subvert individualistic beliefs by hanging the message to one more palatable to them. Not by actually confirming the science or finding ways to support the science....but by altering the message. That is very stunning admission.

 

[westwall]

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change by Dan Kahan, Maggie Wittlin, Ellen Peters, Paul Slovic, Lisa Ouellette, Donald Braman, Gregory Mandel :: SSRN


Abstract:
The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: Respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased.We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: The individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this, “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication .

Yes "the Science of Propaganda" And you fall for it every time.

 

[westwall]

I guess there was a reason you didnt link to the actual study

I didn't need to sweety the link to the actual study was in the story I linked to. Or are you so incompetent you couldn't find it.

 

[westwall]

Then why did they never speak of what the study actually found then?

They spun it as if it meant deniers are smarter.

The actual study was about something else

Uhhhh we did, or didn't you read the whole thread? Once again you need to keep up with the class sweety.

 

[editec]

Oh no, I had read the study thouroughly. I just like leaving little missives to see who runs with them as you most kindly did.

You purposefully post misleading titles to imply that research papers you believe are shoddy support positions you hold, even though you know they don't suggest what you pretend they do? I've seen a fair amount of intellectual dishonesty in my time, but never exhibited so brazenly and gleefully.

Such intellectual dishonesty is SOP for this boards partisans, GB.

One wonders if it is done out of sheer ignorance or perverse spite.

Often I suspect it is a little of both.

Partisans, at least the ones who frequent this place, aren't particularly intelligent or well educated people to begin with.

They don't really understand that what they think is passing for clever reparte is fairly obvious to some of us as nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

To many of them the word intellectual isn't an honorable phrase, anyway, it's an epithet.

 

[westwall]

Oh no, I had read the study thouroughly. I just like leaving little missives to see who runs with them as you most kindly did.

You purposefully post misleading titles to imply that research papers you believe are shoddy support positions you hold, even though you know they don't suggest what you pretend they do? I've seen a fair amount of intellectual dishonesty in my time, but never exhibited so brazenly and gleefully.

Such intellectual dishonesty is SOP for this boards partisans, GB.

One wonders if it is done out of sheer ignorance or perverse spite.

Often I suspect it is a little of both.

Partisans, at least the ones who frequent this place, aren't particularly intelligent or well educated people to begin with.

They don't really understand that what they think is passing for clever reparte is fairly obvious to some of us as nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

To many of them the word intellectual isn't an honorable phrase, anyway, it's an epithet.

Where exactly was I intellectually dishonest? I opened a thread and let it run where it went. I was rewarded by greenbeard reinforcing the papers observations about the behaviours of collectivists vs. individualits.... how could that ever be construed as intellectual dishonesty?

Also, please show me where the title is misleading? I used one of the papers own posits as the title. I think you need to read a dictionary.