Global Warming Skeptics More Factually Informed on Climate, Study Reveals

[Chef Ramsay]

A new study by Yale University Professor Dan Kahan confirmed that skeptics of the controversial anthropogenic global-warming theory — or realists, as they often call themselves — know more about climate science than AGW theorists. The latest findings directly contradict the myths, or lies, put forward by man-made warming alarmists about the countless scientists and the majority of the U.S. public that does not accept their theory. 

The warmists consistently label those who reject their climate alarmism as “deniers,” “anti-science,” and worse. In reality, however, Kahan’s study, set to be published in the journal Advances in Political Psychology, shows yet again that the skeptics are generally more familiar with the science and the evidence surrounding the climate than warming theorists. Other recent studies have found that skeptics know more about science generally, too.   

More...http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20158-global-warming-skeptics-know-more-climate-science-study-shows

[1714122870]

1714122870

[1714122870]

1714122870

[1714122870]

1714122870

[1714122870]

1714122870

[1714122870]

1714122870

[1714122870]

1714122870

[jaysabi]

A new study by Yale University Professor Dan Kahan confirmed that skeptics of the controversial anthropogenic global-warming theory — or realists, as they often call themselves — know more about climate science than AGW theorists. The latest findings directly contradict the myths, or lies, put forward by man-made warming alarmists about the countless scientists and the majority of the U.S. public that does not accept their theory. 

The warmists consistently label those who reject their climate alarmism as “deniers,” “anti-science,” and worse. In reality, however, Kahan’s study, set to be published in the journal Advances in Political Psychology, shows yet again that the skeptics are generally more familiar with the science and the evidence surrounding the climate than warming theorists. Other recent studies have found that skeptics know more about science generally, too.   

More...http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20158-global-warming-skeptics-know-more-climate-science-study-shows

They're playing games with wording. For example, clicking through to their sources, they're very deliberate to point out that antarctic sea extent is increasing, which is true. They use this single data point to prove the world is not warming, but it's not proof of that at all. At the same time antarctic sea ice is extending, arctic sea ice is shrinking at a more rapid clip, resulting in overall less ice coverage as the world warms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/02/11/antarctic-sea-ice-gains-do-not-cancel-out-arctic-sea-ice-losses-nasa-finds/ Of course, they don't mention arctic ice at all, because it disproves their point.

The article laughably points out that "it takes critical thinking skills to question global warming theories" but then tries to pull sleight of hand like this, where only critical thinking skills reveal their attempt at deceit.

[Wilikon]

A new study by Yale University Professor Dan Kahan confirmed that skeptics of the controversial anthropogenic global-warming theory — or realists, as they often call themselves — know more about climate science than AGW theorists. The latest findings directly contradict the myths, or lies, put forward by man-made warming alarmists about the countless scientists and the majority of the U.S. public that does not accept their theory. 

The warmists consistently label those who reject their climate alarmism as “deniers,” “anti-science,” and worse. In reality, however, Kahan’s study, set to be published in the journal Advances in Political Psychology, shows yet again that the skeptics are generally more familiar with the science and the evidence surrounding the climate than warming theorists. Other recent studies have found that skeptics know more about science generally, too.   

More...http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20158-global-warming-skeptics-know-more-climate-science-study-shows

They're playing games with wording. For example, clicking through to their sources, they're very deliberate to point out that antarctic sea extent is increasing, which is true. They use this single data point to prove the world is not warming, but it's not proof of that at all. At the same time antarctic sea ice is extending, arctic sea ice is shrinking at a more rapid clip, resulting in overall less ice coverage as the world warms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/02/11/antarctic-sea-ice-gains-do-not-cancel-out-arctic-sea-ice-losses-nasa-finds/ Of course, they don't mention arctic ice at all, because it disproves their point.

The article laughably points out that "it takes critical thinking skills to question global warming theories" but then tries to pull sleight of hand like this, where only critical thinking skills reveal their attempt at deceit.

Posted this on sept 1st, 2014.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=374873.msg8619814#msg8619814

[Spendulus]

They're playing games with wording. For example, clicking through to their sources, they're very deliberate to point out that antarctic sea extent is increasing, which is true. They use this single data point to prove the world is not warming, but it's not proof of that at all. At the same time antarctic sea ice is extending, arctic sea ice is shrinking...

I don't think this is accurate.  I have seen numerous cases where skeptics discuss the overall ice situation, and attempt to generate an overall assessment and draw conclusions from that.  Yes we can point to discussions of narrower focus such as just the arctic or just the antarctic, and yes a general conclusion drawn from narrow data is likely wrong.

But the exact same statement can be made with the bolded word changed to warmer.

It's worth noting that these are intrinsicly chaotic systems, so data points do not translate well into conclusions with knowing the extent of chaos in the systems and how to draw conclusions from chaotic systems.  Linear thinking is apt to create wrong conclusions.

[BitMos]

man those are the same that say ANTIWAXERS are terrorist, the same that say : OBAMA IS THE SAVIOR, the same that say : destroy these united states to replace them with the United Nation all togheter, the same that  : are flashed continuously on Wall street until their pensions are bleed out, the same that : follow every trend that there is if their handlers lead them tere, the same that : have no free will, the same that are : too lazy to research anything by themselves, the same that : are too weak to even be internally able to confront their cognitive dissonance, the same that : would prostitute their wife/daughters if they were asked too, the same that believed : ARBEIT MACHT FREI

did I say enough about them? In short NM (ie no mercy).

[saddampbuh]

man made global warming is bullshit and if it wasn't bullshit there'd still be nothing we could do about it because third world savages keep making more of themselves and expecting to have cars and electricity

[jaysabi]

They're playing games with wording. For example, clicking through to their sources, they're very deliberate to point out that antarctic sea extent is increasing, which is true. They use this single data point to prove the world is not warming, but it's not proof of that at all. At the same time antarctic sea ice is extending, arctic sea ice is shrinking...

I don't think this is accurate.  I have seen numerous cases where skeptics discuss the overall ice situation, and attempt to generate an overall assessment and draw conclusions from that.  Yes we can point to discussions of narrower focus such as just the arctic or just the antarctic, and yes a general conclusion drawn from narrow data is likely wrong.

But the exact same statement can be made with the bolded word changed to warmer.

It's worth noting that these are intrinsicly chaotic systems, so data points do not translate well into conclusions with knowing the extent of chaos in the systems and how to draw conclusions from chaotic systems.  Linear thinking is apt to create wrong conclusions.

You're the only one who has posted anything worth responding to, so thanks for having a coherent and well thought-out point and not derping out like everyone else. My only point here is that OPs source is intentionally misleading in that it attempts to "debunk" global warming theory by pointing out that ice in one part of the world has increased over a very finite period of time. First, that selectively ignores larger data sets which render the thesis of ice growth false, and second looking at so few data points can't be described as a study of climate, but of weather. Weather is highly variable, and climate is the weather patterns over very long periods of time. Weather changes one day to the next with high degrees of variability year-to-year, while climate changes over decades or hundreds of years. As you suggested, taking a limited look at a complex system and drawing conclusions based on very limited data points is going to lead to garbage conclusions. Rejecting OPs conclusion here has no implication for accepting the validity of global warming, it's just pointing out that the conclusion doesn't prove what the OP's source claims.

[TPTB_need_war]

Read all the 27 comments at the provided link. You can't just be lazy to read only what I commented here. I can't copy this entire linked page of comments into this thread.

There is no science of man-made global warming. Period. The comments at the linked thread are irrefutable.

Never in millions of years of cycles has temperature risen after CO2 does. Temperate always rises at least 600 years before C02 does. So C02 can't be the cause. Duh!

Al Gore lied. He didn't show his chart zoomed in.

Carrying on from the posts I made in the past refuting AGW:

5427
Blog/Uncategorized
Posted Apr 25, 2016 by Martin Armstrong

New-York-Under-Water

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I have read your thesis on global warming and that this is only part of a natural cycle. I admit that you have persuaded me whereas the claims are false especially that New York City should have been under water by now according Al Gore. You mentioned that there was global warming which enabled the Vikings to reach America because the ice melted. My question is rather blunt. If we are headed now into a global cooling period, what is the historical evidence that society also declines?

Thank you in advance

PD

ANSWER: I have reported that the peat fires in Borneo and Sumatra have now exceeded all the emissions from the entire U.S. economy. This whole movement is simply to raise taxes on the bogus theory of global warming. We are not so powerful to alter the course of cyclical movement of the planet. Bouts of global cooling (ice ages) as well as warming periods predate the combustion engine and mankind. It is rather questionable analysis to claim we have altered the climate. We are capable of polluting things, true. But actually altering the climate is something beyond our power.

Volcanoes are a major issue in climate change. Yes, studies reveal that the Hawaiian Kilauea volcanoe eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day, which has been going on for more than 20 years. However, gas studies worldwide by volcanologists have calculated that global volcanic CO2 production on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. But this is really in the absence of any real catastrophic eruptions.  Volcanoes emit also Sulfur dioxide  SO2 which automobiles emit very little. When Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18th, 1980, it produced 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide on that one day and about 2 million metric tons for the entire event far more than automobiles.

Moreover, volcanic production of CO2 is by far not really the issue in climate change. Instead of global warming from  CO2, it is the plume of ash in the sky which actually blocks the sun and reverses the climate from warm to cold like sitting under an umbrella at the beach. I have discussed Mount Tambora  which erupted  in 1815 and threw into the air so much ash that it snowed during the summer of 1816 in New York City. It became known as 18-hundred-and-froze-to-death. I have shown the correlation of that eruption to wheat prices.

I have also written about the Maunder Minimum (<--- returning again in 2030!) which sent the Earth into a cold period 300 years ago from the perspective of the cycle energy output from the Sun. I have also gone into the evolution of science which has been set in motion by the very discovery of a frozen woolly rhinoceros which altered science in many fields. I have explain how the temperature at the time of the American Revolution was at its lowest point in the cycle.

All of that said, the ice core samples have revealed that there were two major volcanic eruptions in 536 and 540 AD which sent Europe into an ice age and wiped out the Roman civilization. Flavius Odoacer (433–493) was a soldier who in 476 became the first King of Italy (476–493) after deposing Romulus Augustus, the last official Roman emperor in the West.

Odoacer was overthrown by Theodoric the Great (454-526), the Ostrogoth. He was followed by Athalaric (526-534), and a few others then finally Baduila (541-552). So while Rome officially ends in the West with Romulus Augustus in 476AD, the Ostrogoths fade out after 552 due to the climate changes. In the East, the change in climate appears to have also possibly been linked to the Plague of Justinian (541–542) which was a pandemic that afflicted the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, especially its capital Constantinople, the Sassanid Empire, and port cities around the entire Mediterranean Sea. I have written about the political turmoil there in Byzantium which preceded the plague during the Nika Revolt of 532AD. I have also written about how empires die. It does seem that when temperatures decline, civil unrest rises and this increases the risk of revolutions.

When Thera erupted around 1645-1650BC, this created a climate change and marked the end of the Minoan civilization. They were conquered by the Mycenae who also captured Troy. As the weather turned cold, Greece goes into a Dark Age. The Greeks migrated and other places called them the “sea people” since they did not know where they came from as the invaded Northern Africa. Homer wrote about the period before the Dark Age known as the Heroic Period. Scholars thought this was fiction about Troy and Mycenae until Heinrich Schliemann (1822 – 1890) set out and discovered what Homer wrote about was history.

The historical evidence is rather extensive. It does appear that as we enter into a global cooling period, governments will fall, disease will increase, and the risk of Western Civilization declining sharply all become historically possible.

[Nemo1024]

The new politically correct wording that crops up more and more is "climate change" (and no "global warming"). It covers both eventualities... 

[Gimpeline]

The article would be more convincing if his area was climate science. It's not. His area is Psychology.
Tittles are not worth anything if you are outside your field.
Its like a dentist talking about volcano activity. He got a tittle, but its worthless when it comes to volcanoes.

[mOgliE]

man made global warming is bullshit and if it wasn't bullshit there'd still be nothing we could do about it because third world savages keep making more of themselves and expecting to have cars and electricity

YEah those savages! How dare they expect becoming slightly more developped!

[TECSHARE]

The article would be more convincing if his area was climate science. It's not. His area is Psychology.
Tittles are not worth anything if you are outside your field.
Its like a dentist talking about volcano activity. He got a tittle, but its worthless when it comes to volcanoes.

#1 these are tittles:




#2 He is studying the factual knowledge of humans, not climate change, so his TITLE is perfectly appropriate.

[samlanhan1]

They should do a study on SJW's vs. Anti-SJW's. I have a feeling that it would be similar.

[Moloch]

Global warming is like religion, except you don't get a carrot, only the stick

[BTC-Joe]

There is no actual science that supports man-caused "global warming" or "climate change".

There is no actual science that definitively shows a warmer climate is a bad thing, but plenty of readily observable instances that show warmer = better for MOST life on this planet.

CO2 is not a pollutant, and elevated levels of CO2 do not pose any threat to humans or other life. In fact, more CO2 results in more robust plant life, which is by far makes up the majority of life on this planet.

The truth about climate change is simple:

- Pseudo-scientists get grants from government and institutions to create (read: fabricate) "studies" that appear to support a narrative, yet never according to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

- Politicians love the idea of taxing emissions as it is akin to taxing to air we breath. Most of the collusion that drives climate change is done within the circle of UN members who are looking for ways to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from the USA, the EU and other wealthy countries under the pretense of "environmental sustainability".

- The enviro-fascists that want everyone driving priuses, advocate for shoddy tech like solar or wind in place of fuels (fuels which are quite abundant) get plenty of money in the form of donations as well as grants.

What do you notice about all 3 major classes of climate change agitators? They're all getting rich spreading lies about utter nonsense.

Science is not something you believe in. It's not a faith. It is a tool for objectively evaluating and studying our natural world. For information to be scientific it must conform to the scientific method. There is no "wiggle room" for interpretation on that point.

[TPTB_need_war]

#1 these are tittles:




#2 He is studying the factual knowledge of humans, not climate change, so his TITLE is perfectly appropriate.

And these are my hometown Louisiana-born, Cajun face-tious tittles:

From else where around BCT:

Her pic:

[Spendulus]

#1 these are tittles:




#2 He is studying the factual knowledge of humans, not climate change, so his TITLE is perfectly appropriate.

And these are my hometown Louisiana-born, Cajun face-tious tittles:

From the prior post.


What do you notice about all 3 major classes of climate change agitators? They're all getting rich spreading lies about utter nonsense.

Science is not something you believe in. It's not a faith. It is a tool for objectively evaluating and studying our natural world. For information to be scientific it must conform to the scientific method. There is no "wiggle room" for interpretation on that point.

This assertion is true excepting where harmonic oscillation is a fundamental aspect of the system to be studied, as may be seen pointedly with titttles.  In such cases, the extraordinary presence of wiggle room is inextricably bound to the gazookas themselves, according to well established Heisenburg Principal.  The zonkers rule, and eliminating the wiggle room destroys the intrinsic top heavy, loaded scientific paradigm.

Look, just because these fun puppies have a balcony all their own, just because the hanger has brightly shining headlights of those naughty pillows, who would we be to deny the scientific method?  Study of twins has long been a mainstay of the scientific method, as any pair of kahunas will tell you.