Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says

[Michael_Mayo]

While we must of course follow the pope when he talks about faith and/or morals, and that would include not messing up the earth, that doesn’t mean that we have to agree with him about climate change, which is *not *a matter of faith or morals.

This is off topic but when it comes to theories, AGW, economic, political, we agree care for the poor and vulnerable as well as the environment are important moral issues. But just how to best deal with them, which theory is most accurate and leads to most effective action leaves room for disagrement. Currently the hotest topics are healthcare reform, immigration reform, welfare reform, energy policy. Some even feel that voting for a democrate is a sin, cooperation with evil. There are many complex issues many of us do not have the luxury to fully research especially when the internet is glutted with conflicting information. Therefor I give great weight to the Bishops’ analysis on all these issues while not holding it as definitive.

I suppose we all sort of pick and choose when we will hold strictly to the Pope and Bishops and when we will dissent. The LCWR and HCA are other examples of that, shall we call it freedom of conscience. I am reminded of Jesus words, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” And yet the prophetic role within the church is also a necessary self corrective working of the Holy Spirit. But not all dissent is prophetic. Nor is routine acceptance always a responsible response.

 

[St_Francis]

This is off topic but when it comes to theories, AGW, economic, political, we agree care for the poor and vulnerable as well as the environment are important moral issues. But just how to best deal with them, which theory is most accurate and leads to most effective action leaves room for disagrement. Currently the hotest topics are healthcare reform, immigration reform, welfare reform, energy policy. Some even feel that voting for a democrate is a sin, cooperation with evil. There are many complex issues many of us do not have the luxury to fully research especially when the internet is glutted with conflicting information. Therefor I give great weight to the Bishops’ analysis on all these issues while not holding it as definitive.

I suppose we all sort of pick and choose when we will hold strictly to the Pope and Bishops and when we will dissent. The LCWR and HCA are other examples of that, shall we call it freedom of conscience. I am reminded of Jesus words, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” And yet the prophetic role within the church is also a necessary self corrective working of the Holy Spirit. But not all dissent is prophetic. Nor is routine acceptance always a responsible response.

The thing is that there is a difference between “dissent” and disagreement. If I say abc is morally all right, *that *is dissent. If I say that I don’t agree with the Pope’s pick for the World Cup, that is mere disagreement.

These things are very important. Suppose, just as an example, that AGW is *not *true. And a Catholic scientist does some experiments and realizes that the falsity of AGW is being shown in his experiments. If he thought, Gee, the Pope has said that AGW *is *true, and I have to agree with the Pope, so as a good Catholic, I have to toss these experiments, then the *actual *truth would not come out!

For this reason, science must be kept separate from religion. Science ought to be a search for truth on the material level, so should not be affected by other concerns, except of course morality.

 

[lynnvinc]

I looked up the study, and it was about people’s general scientific knowledge, not their climate science knowledge.

And yes, that’s what I’ve also found, but without the stats to confirm it: people with more education and better science background (who are not climate scientists) seem to be a bit overrepresented in the denialist camp compared to the general public.

Retired engineers, oil engineers, physicists, astrophysicists, particle physicists, dentists, doctors, etc. who have not made climate science their area of research and do not publish scientific articles on climate change seem to deny it at a higher level than the general public. (Note that it is only a very slight difference, 1% point).

I sort of figure at least in some cases they have their noses bend out of shape by all the attention climate science and climate scientists are getting – like their own fields are being neglected. Also along with higher education comes higher levels of arrogance, so they feel they “know it all,” even things not in their specific areas (there are lots of those types in universities, on all sorts of issues). In some cases it may be a matter of either being richer (and more secure) than the general public and perhaps invested in fossil fuels or high GHG-emitting industries, or even working for these companies, or on their payroll as anti-CC propagandists.

But it is true that these more scientifically educated types tend to be more skeptical … and probably richer than other people.

I also did an analysis of General Social Survey data sometime in the mid-90s and found that women were much more concerned than men about AGW, and also that those who confused AGW with the stratospheric ozone hole were much more concerned than those who got AGW right. I also found from some research I did that people whose homes had been flooded were less likely to believe in AGW – which seemed counter-intuitive to me. So I figured they can’t afford to believe that such floods will become more common and frequent, and that their flood wasn’t just a 1 in 500 years fluke.

Go figure.

 

[St_Francis]

I looked up the study, and it was about people’s general scientific knowledge, not their climate science knowledge.

And yes, that’s what I’ve also found, but without the stats to confirm it: people with more education and better science background (who are not climate scientists) seem to be a bit overrepresented in the denialist camp compared to the general public.

Retired engineers, oil engineers, physicists, astrophysicists, particle physicists, dentists, doctors, etc. who have not made climate science their area of research and do not publish scientific articles on climate change seem to deny it at a higher level than the general public. (Note that it is only a very slight difference, 1% point).

I sort of figure at least in some cases they have their noses bend out of shape by all the attention climate science and climate scientists are getting – like their own fields are being neglected. Also along with higher education comes higher levels of arrogance, so they feel they “know it all,” even things not in their specific areas (there are lots of those types in universities, on all sorts of issues). In some cases it may be a matter of either being richer (and more secure) than the general public and perhaps invested in fossil fuels or high GHG-emitting industries, or even working for these companies, or on their payroll as anti-CC propagandists.

But it is true that these more scientifically educated types tend to be more skeptical … and probably richer than other people.

Maybe people whose career doesn’t depend on following the AGW herd can evaluate the evidence more clearly, maybe they are concerned that in the rush to mitigate AGW we will mess things up in another direction, maybe they simply do not consider a rise of less than one degree C something to mess up world economies for… but being jealous because other *fields *get more attention than does theirs?

But what is probably happening is that those scientists consider how computer modeling works in their own fields and the increased complexity of working with the entire world’s weather and understand that we do not have the capacity to put everything into the computer models.

I also did an analysis of General Social Survey data sometime in the mid-90s and found that women were much more concerned than men about AGW, and also that those who confused AGW with the stratospheric ozone hole were much more concerned than those who got AGW right.

Women *in general *tend to be more feelings-based than men *in general. *So it is not surprising that women would be more affected by the overly-emotional presentation of AGW. Those who are less feelings-based tend to look at the evidence, and the way things are going. How many years in a row did the AGW scientists predict a huge number of extremely strong hurricanes? I notice they have finally stopped doing that. And how many times have the “predictions” of AGW scientists had to be re-done because they hadn’t taken this or that into account?

I also found from some research I did that people whose homes had been flooded were less likely to believe in AGW – which seemed counter-intuitive to me. So I figured they can’t afford to believe that such floods will become more common and frequent, and that their flood wasn’t just a 1 in 500 years fluke.

As a general rule, people whose homes have been flooded look into regional flooding and find that, wow! flooding happens.

For example, when they say, this is the worst thing since 1878, then I know that it happened in 1878, *before *GW! So it’s a *natural *thing, not some new phenomena.

So, the more people know and understand, the less likely they are to believe in AGW.

That does not surprise me.

 

[SamH]

1. A thermometer is a relatively simple instrument so the accuracy was not that bad. In any case when averaged over many areas and instruments the errors tend to cancel. (Where there are systematic errors, scientist too have ways to check them).

Agreed - plus or minus a half degree is pretty accurate… Hold it - isn’t that what we are talking about here?

 

[lynnvinc]

Maybe people whose career doesn’t depend on following the AGW herd can evaluate the evidence more clearly, maybe they are concerned that in the rush to mitigate AGW we will mess things up in another direction, maybe they simply do not consider a rise of less than one degree C something to mess up world economies for… but being jealous because other *fields *get more attention than does theirs?

Yes, that is the problem – for many denialists it is a matter of policy implications determing the science. If they only knew the economies (esp for developed nations) could acutally improve if their people serious started mitigating AGW, without lowering living standards or productivity, I wonder what they’d think then. Too bad the neither know the right stuff about AGW or about mitigating it.

But what is probably happening is that those scientists consider how computer modeling works in their own fields and the increased complexity of working with the entire world’s weather and understand that we do not have the capacity to put everything into the computer models.

There is a difference between weather and climate. Climate is the statistical aggregate of all weather, and it’s very weird, but climate is a lot easier to predict and understand than weather. Think of it this way. Weathermen can hardly predict the next 5 days, and even then often get it wrong, but an old 70s atlas we picked up at a garage sale still is somewhat useful in describing climate in various regions (although if you’re into gardening and agriculture the zones have shifted a bit…see washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/new-usda-plant-zones-clearly-show-climate-change/2012/01/27/gIQA7Vz2VQ_blog.html )

Women *in general *tend to be more feelings-based than men *in general. *So it is not surprising that women would be more affected by the overly-emotional presentation of AGW. Those who are less feelings-based tend to look at the evidence, and the way things are going. How many years in a row did the AGW scientists predict a huge number of extremely strong hurricanes? I notice they have finally stopped doing that. And how many times have the “predictions” of AGW scientists had to be re-done because they hadn’t taken this or that into account?

Climate scientist do not predict specific seasons will have more hurricanes, etc. That is the job of weathermen who are taking into consideration el ninos & la ninas (which are the greater determiners of more/less hurricane likelihood). Also note that sea surface temp is only one factor in hurricanes; there are many others, and they all have to come together for the “perfect storms.” What climate scientists have been able to say is that we are “loading the dice” for more intense hurricanes in the future, as well as more floods, more droughts, more extreme heatwaves, more wildfires, etc. Again it is a matter of climate making these more likely – sort of like that atlas example I gave, and also like when we moved from IL to S. TX: as we drove down into the deep Rio Grande Valley the “Hurricane Evacuation Route” signs pointed in the opposite direction we were driving. But you wouldn’t expect a hurricane in IL.

As a general rule, people whose homes have been flooded look into regional flooding and find that, wow! flooding happens.

For example, when they say, this is the worst thing since 1878, then I know that it happened in 1878, *before *GW! So it’s a *natural *thing, not some new phenomena.

So, the more people know and understand, the less likely they are to believe in AGW.

That does not surprise me.

Yes that is always true – a little knowledge (which would apply to all those well educated in the sciences folks, who do not have education in climate science) is a dangerous thing. They are ready to go ahead with annihilating life on earth because they think they know better than the climate scientists. I personally just defer to the climate scientists, whom I know and trust. I don’t trust the denialists at all. They’d get the whole world in hot water before they’d admit someone might know something they don’t know.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Link

I didn’t need a study.

Apparently those of us who aren’t concerned about climate change or whatever they are branding it this year aren’t the pedestrian rubes that the media makes us out to be.

 

[fluffybear]

Science isn’t as “lock step” as the media likes to portray it. It seems to me there is as much in-fighting and disagreeing in the scientific community as in the “Christian community”

I found a video that made a pretty good point about it all. Just to warn you though, there is some swearing.

youtube.com/watch?v=3l2KWMbqC70

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s something about the denialist campaign – its woes and effectiveness: tomdispatch.com/blog//175549/

 

[Robertanthony]

Back in the 80’s it was fashionable to talk about acid rain and later on the holes in the ozone layer. I wonder what will be the next environmental scare that will replace AGW when Al Gore hangs his head in shame and say, “We were wrong”. Any ideas? The Earth’s thinning crust?

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, that is the problem – for many denialists it is a matter of policy implications determing the science. *If they only knew the economies (esp for developed nations) could acutally improve if their people serious started mitigating AGW, without lowering living standards or productivity, I wonder what they’d think then. *Too bad the neither know the right stuff about AGW or about mitigating it.

How AGW mitigation will improve the economy of developed nations? The only plans I see pretty much destroy developed economies.

…Climate scientist do not predict specific seasons will have more hurricanes, etc. *That is the job of weathermen who are taking into consideration el ninos & la ninas (which are the greater determiners of more/less hurricane likelihood). *Also note that sea surface temp is only one factor in hurricanes; there are many others, and they all have to come together for the “perfect storms.” *What climate scientists have been able to say is that we are “loading the dice” for more intense hurricanes in the future, as well as more floods, more droughts, more extreme heatwaves, more wildfires, etc. *Again it is a matter of climate making these more likely – sort of like that atlas example I gave, and also like when we moved from IL to S. TX: *as we drove down into the deep Rio Grande Valley the “Hurricane Evacuation Route” signs pointed in the opposite direction we were driving. *But you wouldn’t expect a hurricane in IL.

So… climatologists say that hurricanes will be more numerous and stronger, and weathermen predict heavy hurricane seasons, and there’s no connection? And the fact that hurricane seasons predicted to be heavy but which are actually extremely weak are not supposed to make us doubt the abiloes of climatologists to figure all this stuff out?

Yes that is always true – a little knowledge (which would apply to all those well educated in the sciences folks, who do not have education in climate science) is a dangerous thing. *They are ready to go ahead with annihilating life on earth because they think they know better than the climate scientists. *I personally just defer to the climate scientists, whom I know and trust. *I don’t trust the denialists at all. *They’d get the whole world in hot water before they’d admit someone might know something they don’t know.

OK, since this is the fourth or fifth time you have attributed bad or selfish motives to “deniers,” I’m going to point this out. *Not only is it rude, but it comes off as arrogant and alienates people you might be trying to persuade. I am assuming that you don’t know that, that’s why I’m mentioning it.

I’m glad you have so much trust in people. I don’t.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

St Francis, what do you make of this? Natural cycle? Hyperbole? Misinformation?

msnbc.msn.com/id/47721816/ns/weather/

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

St Francis, what do you make of this? Natural cycle? Hyperbole? Misinformation?

msnbc.msn.com/id/47721816/ns/weather/

MSNBC? The Misinformation Network Broadcasting Channel?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

MSNBC? The Misinformation Network Broadcasting Channel?

Well Brian Williams on Nightly News is not as bad as Ed & Maddow.

 

[lynnvinc]

How AGW mitigation will improve the economy of developed nations? The only plans I see pretty much destroy developed economies.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, and back in 1990 when we set out to reduce our GHGs I (concerned about how our GHGs may be contributing to the droughts & famine in Africa…which has since been better established) was willing to sacrifice, but my husband having lived in poverty in India was not, so we just did everything we could to reduce that did not cost us, or that saved us money (without lowering our living standards). Since then we have found many things to do that have reduced our GHGs by 60% or more (from our 1990 emissions, and that’s not counting that we’ve always lived within a mile or two of work & shops), while even increasing our living standard a bit. There are others who have also done likewise, even more, with even better savings. There is no one thing, but many things, including many small things (I call it the Little Way of Environmental Healing), and a few big things, like our SunFrost frig we bought in 1991 which cost $2700 (includes shipping from Arcata, CA), using 1/12 the electricity of the clonker we replaced, and paying for itself (also in reduced veggie spoilage…a bonus) with about 16 years, then going on to save us $100s. We also do a lot of no-cost things, like take our reusable shopping bags, take a hankie for wiping hands in public restrooms, and I used to cycle a bit to off-set short drives (got to get a cycle and get back to that) – good for the health and spirits…also reduces neighborhood crime and road maintenance. Insulation, more efficient driving, etc. Our gas, electric, gasoline and water bills took nose dives. Before moving to Texas and getting on GreenMountain 100% wind-generated electricity I figure we had reduced our GHGs by about 1/4 to 1/3.

With the 1000s we’ve saved (I figure $2000 just on our $6 low-flow showerhead over the past 22 years…without us feeling the difference in the shower), we had the funds to buy a Chevy Volt…which I thought would be a splurge & cost without savings, then I did an Excel spreadsheet on it, and found it would save the difference betw the car my husband wanted (Ford Taurus) within 6.5 years, then go on to save us more $$ over the following years. And we are driving it 95%+ of the time on 100% wind-generated electricity (which costs us less than regular coal-generated electricity).

As for businesses and industries there are lots of savings to be had, as well. I was developing a course on that in the mid-90s and got lots of info; for instance from rmi.org (and later read their great book NATURAL CAPITALISM, natcap.org . I imagine the technology is even more advanced now, so there would be much greater savings – without lowering productivity.

I know it seems that if there are savings to be had, businesses and households would already be doing those things, but they are not. I think it takes an extra motive, like striving to reduce one’s harm to others by reducing GHGs and other pollutants to really search out and find those economically beneficial solutions.

I’m thinking if people instead of “speculating in real estate” (buying homes they could not afford, figuring the prices would continue to increase and they could make a killing when they sold it) had been investing in eco-solutions that save them money and help our earth, the 2008-10 economic downturn would not have been so terrible, and they would have had savings in place to help them weather the economic storm.

Now the plan you might be referring to that would supposedly harm the economy is Cap & Trade (which I’m against, but might favor Fee & 100% Dividend – with all the funds going back to the people; and I’m definitely for getting rid of subsidies and tax-breaks to coal and oil). The idea is that since people are not now reaping all the savings they could by becoming energy/resource efficient/conservative and going on alt energy, then a tax or fee on dirty energy might inspire people to start going down that economically beneficial road. In other words, people would start saving more than they are paying in those fees, and the gov would also get something to help pay for its expenses. That’s the idea. It would be a truly horrible thing if such a bill got passed and people just continued in their inefficient, non-conservative, profligate lifestyles – feeling terribly pinched economically, while trashing the planet at the same time.

I remember reading about a poor women in Chicago with a gas bill of $400 one month (much higher than ours when we lived up there), and she couldn’t pay it. I thought, if only someone had helped her insulate and seal the cracks around her windows, and do the right things to reduce her gas consumption…

 

[lynnvinc]

So… climatologists say that hurricanes will be more numerous and stronger, and weathermen predict heavy hurricane seasons, and there’s no connection? And the fact that hurricane seasons predicted to be heavy but which are actually extremely weak are not supposed to make us doubt the abiloes of climatologists to figure all this stuff out?

They say AGW will “load the dice” for hurricanes to become more intense; they haven’t been able to establish whether more frequent.

Two scientific studies just happened to come out around the time of Katrina that established hurricanes had become more intense over the past 30 year (but not more frequent). Since the publishing process takes months, even years, it was just a fluke that those studies came out at the same time when a huge hurricane did so much damage.

A person I know, Mark Lynas, was working on his book SIX DEGREES: OUR FUTURE ON A HOTTER PLANET (2008 - discusses what each degree C would mean in terms of impacts – he’s not a scientist, but the book is based on lots of very good science sources, amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X ). He emailed me in 2005 after Katrina that he had in his Three Degrees chapter that a big hurricane could hit a place like New Orleans and since it was below sealevel, could do tremendous damage; he said now that that had actually happened, he was taking it out of his chapter.

And yes, you do need NWS meteorologists who specialize on hurricanes to make predictions about whether a particular season will be an active or quiet hurricane season, since there are many factors involved, in addition to sea-surface temp (which would be the purview of climate scientists focusing on that aspect of AGW).

I’m thinking it is sort of a matter of physics. Energy comes in 2 forms – heat and kinetic – and hurricanes are ways of turning the heat energy (warmer sea-surface temps) into kinetic energy. However, (my meager understanding) the wind-sheer is also a factor, etc. And there could be an active hurricane season, but all or most turn out to sea and we don’t hear about them, so we think the weathermen were wrong. Of course, my ears perk up everytime there’s the start of a hurricane, since we are directly in one of Mr. Hurricane’s favorite paths…

 

[lynnvinc]

OK, since this is the fourth or fifth time you have attributed bad or selfish motives to “deniers,” I’m going to point this out. *Not only is it rude, but it comes off as arrogant and alienates people you might be trying to persuade. I am assuming that you don’t know that, that’s why I’m mentioning it.

I’m glad you have so much trust in people. I don’t.

Very sorry. I shouldn’t impute motives to people. I was just thinking that today after doing so in a totally different context, and made an act of contrition.

Mea culpa.

Even the professional denialists – who knows what’s in their hearts and minds. I just feel very sad for the victims and future victims of AGW, but I shouldn’t get on my high horse about it. I’m not a people person with appropriate finese and sensitivity to others (it’s like I’m missing that gene or something), and I admire those who are.

I appreciate you pointing out my fault.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I am an amateur denialist, and proudly so.

 

[lynnvinc]

I am an amateur denialist, and proudly so.

I don’t see any reason to be proud. If you’re wrong, it is a really bad thing. If you’re right, then it’s really great for the world, but no reason to gloat.

Of course, there would have to be a totally different set of laws of physics for you to be right, but who knows. With God all things are possible.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I don’t see any reason to be proud. If you’re wrong, it is a really bad thing. If you’re right, then it’s really great for the world, but no reason to gloat.

Of course, there would have to be a totally different set of laws of physics for you to be right, but who knows. With God all things are possible.

I am also a stalwart “good steward”. I do my part and control what I can and don’t worry about the rest. If God wants the world to end, that’s His call, not ours.