Climate change skeptics have “the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity”
Shocking I know. In fact the findings are exactly the opposite of what those doing the study expected to find (via Nature.com):
As respondents’ science-literacy scores increased, concern with climate change decreased (r=−0.05, P=0.05). There was also a negative correlation between numeracy and climate change risk (r=−0.09, P<0.01). The differences were small, but nevertheless inconsistent with SCT, which predicts effects with the opposite signs.
Contrary to SCT predictions, higher degrees of science literacy and numeracy are associated with a small decrease in the perceived seriousness of climate change risks.
Or to simplify, the difference between the believing herd and thinking individualists.
Speaking of the herd vs individualists, that takes us to the second claim:
If cultural cognition is merely a heuristic substitute for scientific knowledge and system 2 reasoning, reliance on it should be lowest among those individuals whose scientific knowledge and system 2 reasoning capacity are highest. SCT thus implies that as science literacy and numeracy increase, the scepticism over climate change associated with a hierarchical individualistic world-view should lessen and the gap between people with hierarchical individualistic world-views and those with egalitarian communitarian ones should diminish.
Among egalitarian communitarians, science literacy and numeracy (as reflected in the composite scale Science literacy/numeracy) showed a small positive correlation with concern about climate change risks (r=0.08, P=0.03). In contrast, among hierarchical individualists, Science literacy/numeracy is negatively correlated with concern (r=−0.12, P=0.03). Hence, polarization actually becomes larger, not smaller, as science literacy and numeracy increase.
Contrary to SCT’s predictions, highly science-literate and numerate hierarchical individualists are more sceptical, not less, of climate change risks.
These results won’t slow down the alarmists or stop them from calling skeptics scientifically illiterate. But it will allow skeptics to laugh in their face when they do.
Another in a long line of alarmist myths about AGW put to death by …. science.
Myth: The US has only 2% of the world’s proven reserves.
From Canada to Colombia to Brazil, oil and gas production in the Western Hemisphere is booming, with the United States emerging less dependent on supplies from an unstable Middle East. Central to the new energy equation is the United States itself, which has ramped up production and is now churning out 1.7 million more barrels of oil and liquid fuel per day than in 2005.
“There are new players and drivers in the world,” said Ruben Etcheverry, chief executive of Gas and Oil of Neuquen, a state-owned energy firm that is positioning itself to develop oil and gas fields here in Patagonia. “There is a new geopolitical shift, and those countries that never provided oil and gas can now do so. For the United States, there is a glimmer of the possibility of self-sufficiency.”
Or, as the article from which those two paragraphs are taken is entitled, “Center of gravity in oil world shifts to America”.
And, given recent finds, there’s more than a “glimmer of the possibility of self-sufficiency for the United States” there is a real possibility for self-sufficiency if a coherent energy policy is put together that exploits the reserves we have.
Currently the US imports 45% of its petroleum needs. 29% of all imports comes from Canada, 8% from Mexico. Saudi Arabia supplies 14% Nigeria 10% and Venezuela 11%, with lesser suppliers picking up the rest.
Canada’s supplies of crude oil are going to continue to rise, from a current base of 4.3 million barrels a day to 6.6 million a day in 2035. But the US is projected to see a big an increase as well. From the current 10 million barrels of oil a day to 12.8 million in 2035.
But that’s the case only if we tap into it or are allowed to tap into it, much being found under land controlled by the federal government who has been anything but friendly to the idea here recently.
Production has risen strikingly fast in places such as the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, and the “tight” rock formations of North Dakota and Texas — basins with resources so hard to refine or reach that they were not considered economically viable until recently
Technology has made the recovery of these resources economically viable and they promise a abundant energy future.
Then, of course, there’s natural gas, something the US is blessed with in huge quantities as well. It is a distinct possibility that the use of natural gas will increase markedly over the next few decades as it is applied to more and more uses traditionally the realm of other energy sources. Part of that may come among auto and truck fleets. If so, then it is more than a “glimmer of a possibility of self-sufficiency” we’re beginning to see.
It is a real possibility.
But only if we use it. And, only if the government and radical environmentalists get out of the way.
One of those two problems can be helped this November.
Speaking of irony, life for some is just full of it.
Pop star Will.i.am spoke at Oxford University in a climate debate saying:
‘Climate change should be the thing that we are all worried and concerned about as humans on this planet, how we affect the planet, our consumption, and how we treat the place that we live in.’
Indeed. Boilerplate good stuff for the true believers. Of course, living up to his words? Yeah, not so much:
The 37-year-old Black Eyed Peas star arrived for the talk at Oxford University in his private helicopter.
Seemingly oblivious to the furore that it might cause, the pop star even tweeted pictures of the ‘hip.hop.copter’ when he landed.
His trip from London was a total of 286 miles and used 71.5 gallons of fuel, ploughing three-quarters of a tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere, which is the same as the average UK person produces in an entire month.
Now if I believed this mattered significantly I’d be outraged. In the big scheme of things, I really don’t care. But the finer point here is obviously Will.i.am is oblivious to the fact that he’s a grade A hypocrite. It’s hard to believe someone would be this unaware, but apparently he is. Either that, or he just doesn’t care.
But hey, we all know how this works … sacrifice is for the little people. Liberals want wind farms, but not if you can see them off of Martha’s Vineyard.
Our buddy WIll.i.am isn’t any different than the limo liberals we’ve always had to suffer. He’s just adding a new twist.
Interesting. True confession time I guess.
James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
Gee, we’d have never guessed.
Lovelock goes into some further detail:
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
So in essence, what Lovelock is saying is a) he was wrong about his predictions and b) in actuality they really don’t know what is happening although they have this theory which isn’t panning out the way they thought it would.
So much for the value of consensus huh?
To his credit, at least, Lovelock admits to the mistake.
Would that the rest of the alarmists had that sort of integrity. Instead, many choose to double down and make themselves even less credible. One wonders if Lovelock’s admission might give some others the courage to recant as well.
Oh, and Lovelock makes an important point:
Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.”
Yeah, neither am I. I’m a skeptic. Climate changes. It has throughout the history of the planet. And we’ve had periods of higher CO2 and higher temperatures in our history, neither of which could be linked to man. Additionally:
He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.
“It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.
I am skeptical of his first statement and much more likely to find credence in the second, i.e. it is the oceans of this world that drive climate change, not man. Additionally, it seems to me that, at least to this point, the skeptic’s theory of low sensitivity of the climate to CO2 seems to be more valid than the alarmists theory of high sensitivity. Had the alarmists been right, as Lovelock points out, we should be frying right now.
Most importantly is his admission that “twelve years is a reasonable time”. It has provided enough time for a trend to develop that debunks the alarmist’s predictions.
Finally Lovelock admits that which has been painfully evident to most skeptics, given the trend of those 12 years – “we don’t know what the climate is doing.”
That is correct. And until we do we need to quit trying to make economy killing policy based on what the evidence is currently telling us is a faulty theory.
Or said another way, we need to use actual science to drive policy, not pseudo-science that supports a political agenda.
I should be able to get consensus on that, no?
Apparently Greenpeace has decided that dissent and disagreement (especially when it is effective) doesn’t warrant protection under the right to free speech.
That’s especially true if you’re a dirty, rotten global warming “denier”.
From a FAQ on the Greenpeace site, this question: “Don’t the deniers have a right to free speech?"
No poisoning of the well with the question, is there? They couldn’t ask “don’t those who disagree with the theory of man-made global warming have a right to free speech”?
If they’d phrased the question that way it might have been harder to attempt to justify this idiotic answer (not that it can be justified even with their poison question):
"There’s a difference between free speech and a campaign to deny the climate science with the goal of undermining international action on climate change," Greenpeace argues. "However, there’s also responsibility that goes with freedom of speech – which is based around honesty and transparency. Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda."
Because, you know, there’s consensus and the science is settled and all that. Nothing like smug but unsubstantiated faith in their crumbling cause, huh?
Given the last sentence, if Greenpeace believes that to be true one has to wonder when they’ll begin to self-censor.
Let freedom, scientific inquiry, honest debate and free speech ring.
Or join Greenpeace.
Yes, he’s apparently finally realized that as goes coal, so goes his union (via Labor Union Report). Interesting comparison to Osama Bin Laden. My guess is the administration see’s coal in the same sort of light as they viewed bin Laden – an enemy. And thus, the results of their campaign against it – the loss of jobs, even if they’re union – are acceptable “collateral damage”.
The coal industry will suffer the same fate as Osama bin Laden under new climate regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the head of the United Mine Workers of America said this week.
“The Navy SEALs shot Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson shot us in Washington,” Cecil Roberts, president of the powerful union, said during an interview Tuesday on the West Virginia radio show MetroNews Talkline.
Roberts blasted Jackson, the EPA administrator, over the proposed regulations, which would limit greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. Opponents of the regulations, including Roberts, say the new rules would be the death knell of the coal industry.
But, will Mr. Roberts actually do anything to actively protect the jobs of his union members?
While the United Mine Workers of America likely won’t actively oppose President Obama’s reelection bid, Roberts said the new EPA regulation could prevent the union from endorsing the president.
“That’s something that we have not done yet and may not do because of this very reason. Our people’s jobs are on the line,” Roberts said, adding that Obama has “done a lot of great things for the country.”
So United Mine Workers, why are you paying the dues to pay this man’s salary?
He certainly has made his choice hasn’t he? Unquestioning party loyalty over your jobs. He doesn’t care about them and obviously neither does the president.
I’m sure you’re surprised.
In Nebraska, where environmental groups had protested the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline because it would pass through the “environmentally sensitive” Sand Hills, they are now protesting a proposed solution as well.
The legislation is designed to restart a state review of a pipeline route that avoids Nebraska’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region.
Gov. Dave Heineman has indicated that he would sign the bill. He supports getting the Keystone XL pipeline built as quickly as possible.
But, say the environmental groups, this is just not acceptable:
Such eagerness was one of the concerns expressed by the groups. Under LB 1161, the governor would make the final decision on whether to approve a crude-oil pipeline route through the state.
Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska said that would be a clear conflict of interest because an agency under the governor — the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality — would oversee an environmental review of the new route.
Using Kleeb’s logic, Obama had no right to refuse it in the first place because the agencies that conducted the review process for the pipeline at a national level worked for him.
Regardless, the environmentalists intend to try to tie the law up in court:
Kleeb and others said they would prefer the pipeline regulation bill that was passed during last November’s special session, which would put the Nebraska Public Service Commission — an independent agency with elected commissioners — in charge of reviewing the Keystone XL.
Ken Winston of the Sierra Club said he expects a lawsuit to be filed challenging LB 1161′s constitutionality.
Of course Nebraska, as those who’ve followed this story know, is criss-crossed with multiple oil pipelines, none of which have caused the catastrophic environmental problems the environmental groups claim will come with the approval of this pipeline.
The obvious point, of course, is this has never been about “environmentally sensitive” areas. It has been about stopping this pipeline because it will be carrying crude that comes from an area environmentalists have decided produces “dirty” fuel and that we should be denied its benefit. For whatever reason they seem to think if they stop this pipeline, the oil sands in Canada they will come from will simply cease to produce. Of course that’s poppycock. Canada has already said it has plenty of other customers for its oil, to include China.
So this is the latest in the battle to deny this country a safe and secure fuel source for groundless practical reasons, but instead based in ideology which refuses reality for some asinine utopian fantasy world. They would deny this country the benefit of 800,000 barrels of oil a day because they have decided we shouldn’t have it.
Yet my guess is they’d also claim to be big proponents of “democracy”. The only problem, as poll after poll demonstrates, “democracy” firmly backs the construction of the pipeline by huge majorities.
So to hell with it. It’s off to Plan B as outline by Saul Alinsky – use their own rules against them.
Or, in other words, instead of letting the democratic process work and accept the results, tie it up in court.
In a letter to NASA’s Administrator, 50 former NASA scientists and astronauts voice their displeasure over the climate change stance NASA has taken finding it to be unsubstantiated by science. They request that NASA “refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.” Among those signing the letter is Dr. Chris Kraft, the former Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center for 24 years.
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
Apparently Dr. James Hansen’s most recent charge that global warming is the moral equivalent of slavery was the last straw, and the men and women who signed the letter refuse to suffer the embarrassment he continues to bring to NASA in silence.
Note the last sentence in the first paragraph where the letter writers make the most obvious point – the science, despite claims by alarmists to the contrary, is NOT settled. Additionally, much to the displeasure of the alarmists, as more and more scientific information comes available on the subject, the majority does NOT support their theory.
Thus the desperation exhibited by alarmist advocates like Hansen and his “slavery” nonsense.
The scam is coming apart at the seams and those like Hansen who’ve staked their professional reputations on the bad science that undergirded it are now suffering the appropriate consequences.
That is, being dismissed as a serious scientist.
And deservedly so.
Welcome to the stupid zone. Of course this is the result of unthinking acceptance of what is now considered by many to be junk science:
An elderly woman was ordered to find a new GP because the “carbon footprint” of her two-mile round trips to the surgery where she had been treated for 30 years was too large.
Avril Mulcahy, 83, was told to address the “green travelling issues” over her journeys from her home in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, to the West Road Surgery.
The letter said: “Our greatest concern is for your health and convenience but also taking into consideration green travelling issues. Re: Carbon footprints and winter weather conditions, we feel it would be advisable for patients to register at surgeries nearer to where they live. We would be very grateful if you could make the necessary arrangements to re-register at another practice.”
She’s been going to the same practice for 30 years. And note the lie about “greatest concern”. It is obviously not their greatest concern, is it. The supposed “carbon footprint” appears to fill that role.
“Green traveling issues” with two mile round trips.
I assume the doctors and nurses live at the surgery, no?
One of the most appealing, albeit disingenuous pictures that the climate alarmists used to push their agenda was that of a polar bear on a small bit of melting ice. With that they claimed that global warming was melting the bear’s habitat and that they were close to extinction.
The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.
The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.
So in the most critical of polar bear habitats, the polar bear population is 66% higher than what the alarmists said it would be with the increase in temperatures.
But we’re supposed to give their doomsday prophecies credibility?
Of course other researchers disagree. Interestingly the Inuit communities disagree with the alarmist researchers.
By the way, as an aside, we never see pictures like this when the alarmists want to make us empathize with those cuddly little white bears do we?