College-Educated Republicans Most Skeptical of Global Warming

[billvon 2,400]

>In ten years I predict they'll be saying the same thing as today. Which is what
>they said a decade ago.

Well, not quite. They will be describing higher CO2 concentrations, higher temperatures and higher sea levels. I strongly suspect we will see just as many deniers saying the same things, though - although I also predict a slow migration from Type I to Type III as reality becomes harder to ignore.

A lot depends on the priority we put on education. If we do a good job of educating the next generation we will see all forms of science denialism decline, which will be a good thing overall.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>In ten years I predict they'll be saying the same thing as today. Which is what
>they said a decade ago.

Well, not quite. They will be describing higher CO2 concentrations, higher temperatures and higher sea levels. I strongly suspect we will see just as many deniers saying the same things, though - although I also predict a slow migration from Type I to Type III as reality becomes harder to ignore.

A lot depends on the priority we put on education. If we do a good job of educating the next generation we will see all forms of science denialism decline, which will be a good thing overall.

That's what hey are saying now. And nobody nobody out there can tell any difference in sea level.

I honk you raised a god point about education. Particularly science education. Even now science cannot just be science. It has be treated like a political weapon by both sides. Rather than just being taught as something that is what it is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 212]

lawrocket

. . . taught as something that is what it is.

That depends on what the definition of is is, does it not?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I honk you raised a god

Took the words right outta my mouth.

[kallend 1,625]

lawrocket

Particularly science education. Even now science cannot just be science. It has be treated like a political weapon by both sides. Rather than just being taught as something that is what it is.

Yeah, that politicization of f=dp/dt and E=mc^2 is very disturbing. Not to mention J=-D(dc/dx). Damn Republicans!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

*** Particularly science education. Even now science cannot just be science. It has be treated like a political weapon by both sides. Rather than just being taught as something that is what it is.

Yeah, that politicization of f=dp/dt and E=mc^2 is very disturbing. Not to mention J=-D(dc/dx). Damn Republicans!


Either agree with dogma or be branded a heretic. I wonder whether Pope Grijalva I will have anything to say about the subpoenas. Following as he has in the footsteps of Cuccinelli.

But you raise a good point. I think we should have a survey of how many science deniers think that f does not equal ma. Or that e equals something other than mc^2. A science denier would deny all that. Even such shit as 2+2=4.

I'd be really interested to see how much science denial there is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

lawrocket

I'd be really interested to see how much science denial there is.

I'm guessing it must be right around 3%.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***I'd be really interested to see how much science denial there is.

I'm guessing it must be right around 3%.

I'll give you this one in the burn department.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ibx 2]

Quote

That's what hey are saying now. And nobody nobody out there can tell any difference in sea level.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/sep/26/maldives-test-case-climate-change-action

They are talking about evacuating an entire island nation.

Quote

I honk you raised a god point about education. Particularly science education. Even now science cannot just be science. It has be treated like a political weapon by both sides. Rather than just being taught as something that is what it is.

I somehow missed the part where liberals, want to forbid teaching science in schools....

[lawrocket 3]

ibx

Quote

That's what hey are saying now. And nobody nobody out there can tell any difference in sea level.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/sep/26/maldives-test-case-climate-change-action

They are talking about evacuating an entire island nation.

Yeah. Just like Tuvalu. Yet they've just done final approval to of a fifteen year project to expand the airport there.

http://m.ttgasia.com/article.php?article_id=24275#.VRlK5YpHanN

That's what people always do. Whenever a place is about to be wiped off the map they build a bunch of new stuff. Next month it'll be Tuvalu in the new again with its fresh water problems. Or another Alaskan sandbar where a village that relocated back in the 1800s due to erosion has to be relocated again due to erosion only thirsting climate change

Quote

Quote

I honk you raised a god point about education. Particularly science education. Even now science cannot just be science. It has be treated like a political weapon by both sides. Rather than just being taught as something that is what it is.

I somehow missed the part where liberals, want to forbid teaching science in schools....

Do liberals want to teach that life begins at conception? Trust me when j tell you that out here this would be bad.

Or that GMOs are bad (the science doesn't support this). Or maybe that teacher supports the hippie parents whose kid is unvaccinated. Or the liberal wants to trach that fracking will make drinking water burst into flames.

There is plenty of antiscience to go around.


Edited to add: I hate to go all "observational data" on you (alarmists HATE it, though I'm not saying you are one), but attached Are a couple of graphs of the sea level in Maldives. Looks like it's pretty safe if the present trends hold up.

As you can see, rhetoric increases as sea level does not.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ibx 2]

Quote

That's what people always do. Whenever a place is about to be wiped off the map they build a bunch of new stuff. Next month it'll be Tuvalu in the new again with its fresh water problems. Or another Alaskan sandbar where a village that relocated back in the 1800s due to erosion has to be relocated again due to erosion only thirsting climate change

Do you really think 15 or 30 years is a long term prognosis?

Quote

Do liberals want to teach that life begins at conception? Trust me when j tell you that out here this would be bad.

Or that GMOs are bad (the science doesn't support this). Or maybe that teacher supports the hippie parents whose kid is unvaccinated. Or the liberal wants to trach that fracking will make drinking water burst into flames.

There is plenty of antiscience to go around.

I agree, though liberals aren't pushing for education reform to tell all kids "GMO's are bad, duh."

BTW, one of the major problems in any such discussion is the black and white conservative/liberal issue. I don't think any educated liberal in this forum or anywhere else believe in homeopathy is good or that all GMO's are bad.

As the study I posted in the OP clearly states, conservatives believe they have a disproportionate understanding of climate science and base their views on that. Thats a problem. It's called Dunning-Kruger effect. Conservatives at least according to this study are literally blinded by dogma.


I would like to counter your context less graphs with my own context less graphs.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/mmc-beta-production/assets/11709/maldives.jpg


http://www.climatedata.info/resources/Impacts/Sea-Levels/SeaLevel-01.gif

You where saying?

[turtlespeed 212]

ibx

Quote

That's what people always do. Whenever a place is about to be wiped off the map they build a bunch of new stuff. Next month it'll be Tuvalu in the new again with its fresh water problems. Or another Alaskan sandbar where a village that relocated back in the 1800s due to erosion has to be relocated again due to erosion only thirsting climate change

Do you really think 15 or 30 years is a long term prognosis?

Quote

Do liberals want to teach that life begins at conception? Trust me when j tell you that out here this would be bad.

Or that GMOs are bad (the science doesn't support this). Or maybe that teacher supports the hippie parents whose kid is unvaccinated. Or the liberal wants to trach that fracking will make drinking water burst into flames.

There is plenty of antiscience to go around.

I agree, though liberals aren't pushing for education reform to tell all kids "GMO's are bad, duh."

BTW, one of the major problems in any such discussion is the black and white conservative/liberal issue. I don't think any educated liberal in this forum or anywhere else believe in homeopathy is good or that all GMO's are bad.

As the study I posted in the OP clearly states, conservatives believe they have a disproportionate understanding of climate science and base their views on that. Thats a problem. It's called Dunning-Kruger effect. Conservatives at least according to this study are literally blinded by dogma.


I would like to counter your context less graphs with my own context less graphs.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/mmc-beta-production/assets/11709/maldives.jpg


http://www.climatedata.info/resources/Impacts/Sea-Levels/SeaLevel-01.gif

You where saying?

I think 10000 years would be fine. Show me the observed, documented data from then, until now, please.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,400]

>Do liberals want to teach that life begins at conception?

Life doesn't begin at conception; it begins before that. Both sperm and egg are certainly alive by any SCIENCE-based definition, as is the embryo/fetus at every stage past that (at least in most pregnancies.)

However, if you want to have the argument over when life LEGALLY begins, that would be something better argued in a class on political science.

That's one of the issues I have with the right wing. When they have trouble promulgating their views on the public stage, they try to go "behind the scenes" to change science education to ensure that their religions/views are taught. Thus the regular attempts to teach creationism in science class, and the attempts to ban discussions of cloning.

[lawrocket 3]

Unlike I like your graphs (edited because autocorrect is bad). The first one shows 2.2mm per year in average. Meaning about 400 years needed to reach a meter of sea level rise. Or a foot per century.

When looking at the we one graph it is well within the natural variation. The second graph shows lengthier data sets. It is generally agreed that anthropogenic effects weren't seen until the 1950s. Meaning that the sea level change before then was with a high degree of confidence natural. After that has some anthropogenic component.

I agree with the above. Maldives doesn't take much. It's an atoll. I think it's average elevation is a meter so a little rise can do a lot.

But for some reason, the fact that half of the Netherlands is less than a meter above sea level isn't ever brought up. Half of that amount is below sea level. But a few hundred years ago human ingenuity solved the problem. And the Netherlands is densely populated and still has massive agriculture. There is of course concern. But ever notice that the concern is rarely given towards the first world? There always has to be some other aspect given to it. It is as if there is an effort to point to places where people have no frame of reference.

I think that plenty if conservatives lack a sufficient understanding of the science of climate. I also think that plenty of liberals similarly talk out of their asses about it. Conservatives without understanding talk out their asses in disagreement with the majority of climTe scientists. (This is where the whole 97% thing was foolish from the start. Most climate scientists agree. That's enough. The 97% number is vulnerable to attack).

Then on the other side there are liberals talking out of their asses and attributing every damned weather event to the political definition of climate change. Even a President who attributed the Cali drought to climate change. Or Sandy. Etc. We see this frequently. And it is being taught DESPITE the lack of scientific evidence for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

.

That's one of the issues I have with the right wing. When they have trouble promulgating their views on the public stage, they try to go "behind the scenes" to change science education to ensure that their religions/views are taught. Thus the regular attempts to teach creationism in science class, and the attempts to ban discussions of cloning.

It's an issue I have with both sides. No, I don't like the creationism stuff at all. But we have schools that allow kids to be unvaccinated if their parents have a moral objection to it. (And in the interedt of disclosure, I was among those who joined in on attacking antivaxxers for the outbreaks of whooping cough and measles. Even though it was premature because science hadn't established it yet).

So we see antiscience quite frequently. Many of us participate in it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

When they have trouble promulgating their views on the public stage, they try to go "behind the scenes"

You really wanna start in on REPUBLICANS going "behind the scenes" to get things done?


They are writing a book about the last 8 years of the democrat reign, its gonna be called 5000 Shades of Grey.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rushmc 18]

kallend

Despite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon, the deniers have yet to prove that the consensus is wrong.

So
Are you willing to show a bit of integrity and post an apology to Dr Soon?

Maybe after you get your knee fixed huh.......


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/10/calling-all-supporters-of-willie-soon/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,625]

rushmc

***

Despite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon, the deniers have yet to prove that the consensus is wrong.

So
Are you willing to show a bit of integrity and post an apology to Dr Soon?

Maybe after you get your knee fixed huh.......


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/10/calling-all-supporters-of-willie-soon/

Whatsupwiththat

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

******

Despite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon, the deniers have yet to prove that the consensus is wrong.

So
Are you willing to show a bit of integrity and post an apology to Dr Soon?

Maybe after you get your knee fixed huh.......


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/10/calling-all-supporters-of-willie-soon/

Whatsupwiththat

I expected no integrity

that is what we got

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,625]

rushmc

*********

Despite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon, the deniers have yet to prove that the consensus is wrong.

So
Are you willing to show a bit of integrity and post an apology to Dr Soon?

Maybe after you get your knee fixed huh.......


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/10/calling-all-supporters-of-willie-soon/

Whatsupwiththat

I expected no integrity

that is what we got

So why do you keep posting links to it, then?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

************

Despite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon, the deniers have yet to prove that the consensus is wrong.

So
Are you willing to show a bit of integrity and post an apology to Dr Soon?

Maybe after you get your knee fixed huh.......


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/10/calling-all-supporters-of-willie-soon/

Whatsupwiththat

I expected no integrity

that is what we got

So why do you keep posting links to it, then?

Well
In this case it helps you to reveal your true self
You find out you jerked your knee out of place pointing out a lie

And then



you keep lying

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,625]

rushmc

you keep lying

That statement would appear to violate forum rules.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***



you keep lying

That statement would appear to violate forum rules.

Quote

Despite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon,

Is that statement true?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,625]

rushmc

******



you keep lying

That statement would appear to violate forum rules.

Quote

Despite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon,

Is that statement true?

Early in 2013, The Guardian reported that two "trusts", the 'Donors Trust' and the 'Donors Capital Fund' have donated to 102 think tanks and activist groups $118M between 2002 and 2010

Exxon Mobil donated $1.5M in 2009 alone after stating publicaly that it would no longer fund deniers.

The Kochs alone are known to have donated $63M between 2001 and 2007.

According to Scientific American, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

According to Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle, much of the funding is deliberately untraceable "dark money".

So, yes, it most likely is true.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

*********



you keep lying

That statement would appear to violate forum rules.

Quote

Despite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon,

Is that statement true?

Early in 2013, The Guardian reported that two "trusts", the 'Donors Trust' and the 'Donors Capital Fund' have donated to 102 think tanks and activist groups $118M between 2002 and 2010

Exxon Mobil donated $1.5M in 2009 alone after stating publicaly that it would no longer fund deniers.

The Kochs alone are known to have donated $63M between 2001 and 2007.

According to Scientific American, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

According to Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle, much of the funding is deliberately untraceable "dark money".

So, yes, it most likely is true.

ok
so regarding Soon
I will stick to my earlier statement

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln