A government study has found that the more educated in science and math an American is the more likely they will be skeptical of the dangers of global warming.
A government study has found that the more educated in science and math an American is, the more likely they will be skeptical of the dangers of global warming.
The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: Rather, the researchers and trick-cyclists who carried it out were doing so from the position that the “scientific consensus” (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact, and the priority is now to find some way of getting US voters to believe in the need for urgent, immediate and massive action to reduce CO2 emissions.
Having discovered that educating the public will defeat these activists in their goals, the researchers than suggest, like Paul Krugman, that maybe the U.S. government should stop trying to educate people and focus on fake propaganda instead.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
A government study has found that the more educated in science and math an American is, the more likely they will be skeptical of the dangers of global warming.
The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: Rather, the researchers and trick-cyclists who carried it out were doing so from the position that the “scientific consensus” (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact, and the priority is now to find some way of getting US voters to believe in the need for urgent, immediate and massive action to reduce CO2 emissions.
Having discovered that educating the public will defeat these activists in their goals, the researchers than suggest, like Paul Krugman, that maybe the U.S. government should stop trying to educate people and focus on fake propaganda instead.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
This guy is a disgrace to Princeton, and to academia as a whole.
Of course, you quote the article and not the study. The study makes no claims about the accuracy of one side of the debate or the other.
In fact, 22 questions were asked on scientific issues (not climate issues), and the results were as follows:
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.
Wow. “Relatively less worried…or those who see it as a bigger threat.” You could not even conclude that they are skeptics. Just less worried. And one percentage point. Throw in margin for error, and if you do the study all over the other side might be making the same claim from slightly different results.
Even the author himself said the more important finding of the study is that people’s cultural views impact their stance on climate change more than science does.
Correct, the study found that people based their views more on their cultural/political beliefs. This includes the AGW alarmists who are not just following the science as they claim. The study also shows that AGW skeptics are not scientific idiots as so often claimed bybAGW alarmists. Two major points that should pop some holes in the AGW narrative but it wont.
Right, and the reason is that scientific studies are hard to read and understand by anyone, even those with some education in math and science like those questioned. In fact, just go to the pdf of the study in question and try to understand it! Yikes!
But I would agree that the whole point of this post and article is that science has value…whether you are a scientist or just have some education in science. So take a look at this from this weeks Charlotte Observer in North Carolina (you may find it amusing or troubling):
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/25/3265614/coastal-nc-counties-fighting-sea.html
The gist of it is this: planners in North Carolina are trying to take into account scientific study of potential sea level rise…makes sense when you are building bridges, roads, etc. on the coast that are supposed to last for decades. North Carolina legislature now has a bill under consideration that in essence is codifying HOW the state will measure potential sea level rise. This is the language in the bill:
“These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise.”
In other words, use only historical rates to calculate sea level rise, and only extrapolate linearly from yesterday. To do otherwise would be illegal!
Now remember, this has nothing to do with why sea levels are rising (AGW or not), only how politicians will limit what science is allowed to tell us. Only extrapolate linearly!
Just nuts. But the good news is that it has not passed…..yet.
But have a great weekend, wodun!
Of course the AGW sea level rise predictions haven’t been accurate so it would be bad policy to accept them without question. Let’s not forget that they predicted the polar ice caps would be gone by now.
But if I was bossing engineers around, I would tell them to plan for the worst, regardless of the cause, over the lifetime of the project.