Posted on 02/12/2015 6:09:07 PM PST by SJackson
Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?
Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.
The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.
On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.
One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.
Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Looks like we know who the real “science deniers” are now, eh?
What I see is some good science and a lot of “Consensus” science and no adequate models.
That’s because we skeptics don’t receive government grants (taxpayer dollars) to vomit any garbage that the anti-Capitalist, BIG U.S. Government wants us to spew. It’s easier to know and speak the truth when the BIG government isn’t paying you to spread BS and lies.
That there even is such a journal says much.
That will never happen. For two reasons.
First: The environmental Left’s objective is not really to convince their opponents that they are right it is to silence the opposition.
Second: The Left is predominately emotionally driven rather than intellectually driven. When confronted by a reasoned argument contrary to their view point they will attack the person rather than the argument. Anger is their natural response to unwelcome facts.
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)
Bump
Global Warming hoax bump for later...
Consensus Science? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
So they’re saying neither know $hip
If the temperature has not risen equally all over the world, can you call it global warming? Is it honest to extrapolate from temperture anomalies in certain places, or is it proper statistical method to toss out the anomalies? Have overnight lows & daytime highs risen equally....or is it just overnight lows rising in desert regions which have experienced growth & rapid development due to oil wealth or retirement patterns & cheap real estate? Are there other explanations to explain strange temperature anomalies in some places, eg, underwater volcanoes melting ice in certain parts of Antarctica?
There can be no other conclusion.
If you know the science, being a skeptic is the only conclusion you can come to.
Can’t be true. It’s from Fox News!
Yes
Third: It is really hard to explain the science when all of it depends on faulty computer models; not real, provable experimentation.
Third: It is really hard to explain the science when all of it depends on faulty computer models; not real, provable experimentation or factual observation.
Global warming worshipers are emotionally driven. Science is relevant to them only to satisfy their 'end justifies the means' approach to ersatz science.
The most famous scientists in history have repeated the following endlessly "Skepticism is the vital and indispensable ingredient in real science."
So the subject of this thread is classically redundant.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements..
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive..
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it..
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.).
What a fantastic, up to now unrevealed nuclear response to the "consensus" BS.
Occam's Razor at its most devastating.
I have for years been of the opinion that the Federal Rules of Evidence concerning science and other technical testimony and evidence in the matter of the EPA and "Global Warming" was fraudulently, but deliberately ignored.
And the nobel frauds, including Al Gore of course, almost got away with it.
This nails it!
Like Obamacare, a gigantic skyscraper of cards finally revealed.
Further, also like Obamacare, "fraudulent or not, the process has advanced too far to 'undo' the results at this point in time," will be the lame hysterical, desperate response. Never mind that it is all the result of the process relying on the almost total ignorance of both the judicial system and the astronomical financial burden of the historical, deliberate, conscious fraud.
Makes total sense. To believe in Global Warming all you have to do is go along with the crowd. I sincerely doubt many of them have looked into it very deeply at all. But if you’re a skeptic, you will be challenged so you have to know what you’re talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.