Study: The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens. The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing …
This post has been deleted by its author
Just because you appear to think doesn't mean that you are. What you think of as existence could be a vast AI construct.
Equally you haven't seen everything and one of the things you haven't seen may provide glaring evidence of some kind of deity.
These vague and unlikely things are 0.0000000000000001% certain to me, but that means with all honesty I cannot say there is no god and that I actually exist with 100% certainty.
I think you've missed the point of "I think therefore I am". It doesn't mean "I think therefore things are exactly how I perceive them to be" but rather the exact opposite, Descartes believed that your senses were unreliable and that only reason could be trusted.
He claimed that the existence of thoughts implies the existence of something to hold those thoughts. Whether it is a person, an AI or simply a universe with physical laws that allow for thoughts to be floating around in the ether isn't important.
Irrefutable--well almost irrefutable evidence is key to holding a position or view. And it ought to be so--EVEN IF YOU HATE WHAT YOU SEE. If very reluctantly, one has to always accept the facts.
Here's the quintessential example:
At the turn of the 20th Century, the German physicist Max Planck was confronted with one of the 19th C's most intractable and problematical problems--the ultraviolet catastrophe where stuff, when heated, didn't radiate at wavelengths predicted by classical physics. Planck, who was steeped in classical physics and loved it, very reluctantly came to the conclusion that for theory to fit the facts that radiation energy had to be quantized (came in discreet amounts). From then, as they say, the rest was history.
It seems to me that all too often the lay public conveniently ignore facts, so also do those who ought to know better--scientists, et al, with an agenda also conveniently forget or dismiss them for political reasons.
actually, it sounds like they did a test, the results weren't what they expected so they examined the data more closely to see why their prediction was wrong.
Then they published the results that explain the discrepancy.
I've heard of this kind of thing, where you look into a subject more deepy and examine further, and when a hypothesis is wrong you find out why....it''s called 'science'.
DaWolf is right. They examined the data more closely to see why their prediction was wrong, then decided that the only way to sell climate change was with heart-wrenching pictures of polar bears stranded on tiny icebergs, because publishing data wasn't doing the trick, what with all of the mini-scandals involved with the AGW gang.
"heart-wrenching pictures of polar bears stranded on tiny icebergs"
"Stranded" doesn't come near to describing it. Look at this little wonder:
That's not how climate ' science' is done. When the results don't fit the model, you discard all the data points that are out of whack and tweak the constant a bit and lie about everything else.
Knowing you are right means the science bit is a mere formality. Like the man in the soap powder adverts in an astonishingly white coat, who tell you its scientifically proven' to wash whiter than white'
"I'm skeptical the author read the actual article."
Me too - i've just finished the paper and so far the similarity between it and this article is conspicuous by it's absence. If I had to precise the paper so far, it would be to quote a line from it
"Even if cultural cognition serves the personal interests of individuals, this form of reasoning can have a highly negative impact on collective decision making. What guides individual risk perception, on this account, is not the truth of those beliefs but rather their congruence with individuals’ cultural commitments."
but that is perhaps only meaningful in context.... so perhaps the best advice would be to go and read the paper, it's actually very interesting. What the actual finding seem to indicate is that the effects of 'motivated cognitiion' is strongest in people who have a world view that is strongly hierarchical and individualistic - and less so, but still present, in people who aren't selfish c*nts so inclined.
It might also be worth having a look at some of the earlier work from Dan Kahan, e.g.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928043.300-how-not-to-change-a-climate-sceptics-mind.html
> ... [people] with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical
and that's all folks!
It's not about climate change, voodoo, astrology, psychology or the latest health fad. It's just a state of mind. Everyone's on the spectrum between iconoclastic and faith-believer. It's just that more people with more rational knowledge will tend to ask "why?" and not be fobbed off with responses that don't stand up to reason,
I'm not sure the conclusions are right from this. Scientists are sceptics - that's what makes them tick. They look at something and go 'is that right?' and then work to find out.
So, scepticism is not the same as denial. It just means that people with a higher level of scientific knowledge need to be convinced properly, and not with the usual 'OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE' hype that the media normally pedals.
No, they aren't scientists. No develpoers aren't engineers & no Lewis Page isn't much of a reader. He's much better at plagarism & keyword spamming.
The missing influence of John Lettuce is sorly missing in this recent spate of politically charged garbage all Reg readers have been subjected to.
I trust El Reg to bring me either tech/sci news or some funny shit. I neither want or need another Daily Mail or Fox News for garbage. Maybe the red top fits??? I hope not...
"*Though in the Foundation saga this was only possible with vast galactic populations of the far future, with humans as numerous as gas molecules in a pressure vessel, and even then it was necessary to keep the existence of Psychohistory a secret."
Presumably you're not talking about the LOHAN pressure vessel...
""One aim of science communication, we submit, should be to dispel this tragedy ... A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. As worthwhile as it would be, simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public conflict ..."
Thus it is, according to the assembled profs, that the US government should seek to fund a communication strategy on climate change which is not focused on sound scientific information."
a does not equal b. Your "thus it is" is twaddle.
@DaWolf. You forgot to include or read the quote which immediately follows the conclusion you object to;
"It does not follow, however, that nothing can be done ... Effective strategies include use of culturally diverse communicators, whose affinity with different communities enhances their credibility, and information-framing techniques that invest policy solutions with resonances congenial to diverse groups. Perfecting such techniques through a new science of science communication is a public good of singular importance."
So - it does rather look as if a equals b in this instance.
Hi Roger, let me make it simpler
Lewis states "thus it is....that the us government should seek to fund a communication stategy...which is not focussed on sound scientific information"
Spot the NOT. We're talking and/or/not gates here.
If we look at the piece he quotes
" ... A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. "
spot the only. That's an AND in the way this is used.
The opposite of AND is not NOT, as I'm sure most reg readers know.
So basically what we have here is a logical fail by Page where he basically can't parse a simple sentence correctly, and summarises it incorrectly.
Er? are you sure you've parsed the sentences correctly?
lets say (by turning the sentence components into variables in a highly unsound scientific manner):
A = communication strategy
B = sound scientific information
C = other information outside of 'sound scientific' Venn diagram bubble = !B
D = good result
" ... A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. "
So A + B != D
or another way A + (!C) != D
Because B is a small subset and C is everything else that is not in that subset, we can infer
A + C = D (since A cannot change state and D has only two possible states it can be in, good or bad)
which is A + !B = D
Lewis states "thus it is....that the us government should seek to fund a communication stategy...which is not focussed on sound scientific information"
So this is A + (!B) = D
seems to make sense to me.
Hi Jai,
the missing part in your above is where you say
A = communication strategy.
What it should be is
A1 = current communication strategy
A2 = alternate communication strategy
(A1/A2 to keep your other letters the same)
In addition,
C = other information outside of 'sound scientific' Venn diagram bubble = !B
This could include, for instance, sound economic (economic != scientific).
so presenting sound economic arguments using either A1 or A2 could = D.
presenting sound scientific arguments using A2 could = D
Except that what was said was in the article is: "A communication strategy that focuses only (my emphasis) on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that"
This means, using your notation:
A + B = !D (probably - note the "...is unlikely...")
but also
A + B + C = D
They do not say (as Lewis would have it):
A + !B + C = D
Surely this is just good old human nature:
On the one hand as i know I know sod all about horse racing I rarely try and tell jockeys how to run races. On the other hand I used to play football once a week with my mates from the pub, therefore I know more than the England manager - I got some free shares in gas privatisation so I know more than the governor of the Bank of England - I have a CSE in applied science, so I know more than the climate scientists.
The great thing about science - it doesn't care about your opinion, and it's not a democracy. Facts are facts and scientists work to understand the working of the world. You are all welcome to stick fingers in your ears and recite lalalala, but it won't alter CO2's effects on climate.
And these people wonder why they are often not taken serious by those with a scientific background...
The problem is not that most scientifically sceptical people deny climate change. It's that most with a scientific background see enough ways to prevent any big impact on "human health, safety or prosperity". I know a lot of "climate sceptics", myself included, who are not that sceptic on the concept/reality of climate change, but very much so on the impact its touted to have. And then even more so on the half-arsed, unproductive or even downright damaging ways the "greens" are shouting we should solve it.
This kind of research makes me facepalm.
Ignore Mr. Pages spin and just go read the article. Basically, the analysis says personality type plays into skepticism more than education. I'd chalk that one up to a no-brainer. Selfish bastards are selfish and don't want to hear anything that would imply they have to do something that is contrary to their personal preferences. Those of the overtly caring nature desire to save the world regardless of whether it needs saving or not. Or to put it another way, we are more animal than intellectual - go figure / <begin surprise>
(I thought about a title of "Lews Page is a Tool," but that seemed to be over-played).
That's an interesting take on selfishness.
Has it ever occured to you that the so-called "Western world" is almost devoid of "carbon-heavy" manufacturing these days? That countries most impacted by CO2 regulation are developping countries, who need a lot of cheap energy to raise their living standard to something acceptable? (not talking "2 SUVs and air con on all the time" here, just clean water and basic medical care). Ever thought about whose interest it is to keep these countries underdevelopped to keep labor cheap and docile? Think it is a coincidence that the best way to keep them that way is to deprieve them of cheap energy? Who is selfish now?
Not even to mention how scared the US-centric economy is of China and India... whose economic growth just so happens to rely a lot on carbon-heavy energy (especially India).
Of course that doesn't mean we should not watch our energy consumption and waste production. Not for judeo-christian guilt and the sin of global warming though. This is a red herring.
If you're looking for conspiracy theories about Carbon reduction, you don't need to get as sophisticated as you got about desires to keep countries underdeveloped or docile. The more oil-hungry other countries get, the more prices for the West rise. Simple and obvious. One of the primary reasons for the US invasion of Afghanistan was the building of an oil pipeline so that the West could purchase on a parity with China from Russian oil fields.
Absolutely; the point about science is that scientific truths (as we use the term) are the intersection of everyone's experience, that is the experiment is reproducible and you get the same results whatever else is varied.
Superstition/alternative-therapy/&c &c requires believing the union of everyone's experience; ie. if one person sews shallots into their turn-ups and their rheumatism goes away, that's the basis for Shallot Therapy...
Problem is that Climate "Science" is just extrapolation; no-one can do experiments aside from just this one, this big one. So it falls between the two. Nontheless, real scientists inevitably and correctly say "prove it" - as well as being more open to other solutions, even the more extreme technical or building solutions such as huge sea walls.
Yes, the search for the Higgs Bozon is rubbish as well, because they can't directly observe it, it's all just on paper, proper scientists tell the people at Cern to "prove it".
Seriously: You obviously know nothing about scientific method if you think that it all has to be proved experimentally, also that nothing in climate science can be proven experimentally.
The sky is falling - or maybe instead the land is rising? ice sheets melt, more water, land floats, you know ;-)
I want to see that scientifically proven. And no, when proof is presented, i still don't believe it, because I'm a self-proclaimed Sceptic. Because who says that that proof is really proof? Yeah, thought so :-)
i like how commentards comment on how stupid, anti-intellectual, etc. others are, and then sign off with the best of typos... Bozons, towing the line, etc.
Probably to keep the land from floating away again...
You're criticising a stronger statement than I intended to make. Maybe I shouldn't have put climate science in quotes - all I mean is it is qualitatively different from the Newtonian physics or Ohmic electrics or simple thermodynamics that you can confirm repeatably on a lab bench.
Yeah, I know that modelling and seeing whether the model fits the observed actual later data is also the scientific method, and that can say things are True in a scientific sense provided the assumptions in the model are correct. And yes, of course, the parts that are actually physics can be verified in a lab or an actual outdoor (undersea, ice-pack...) experiment.
It's the question of whether the model chosen was correct, is where I'm claiming that the more informed science or maths types rightly have skepticism; and also the more outlandish claims of armageddon due to societal changes.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
