Climate Change

Actively Open-Minded Thinking About Climate Change

It's not really all that open-minded. Science curious people on the other hand ...

|

ImaginationHaywiremediaDreamstime
Haywiremedia/Dreamstime

Americans remain deeply divided along partisan lines on the issue of climate change, according to a new Pew Research Center poll. Seven in 10 liberal Democrats trust climate scientists to give full and accurate information on the causes of climate change, whereas only 15 percent of conservative Republicans do. In addition, 54 percent of liberal Democrats believe that climate scientists have a good understanding of the causes of climate change, compared to only 11 percent of conservative Republicans. Liberal Democrats also believe that climate research reflects that best available evidence most of the time. Only 9 percent of conservative Republicans agree.

Why this partisan difference over what is essentially an empirical question? Some researchers have concluded that conservatives are less likely than liberals to be open-minded or to engage in effortful cognition when evaluating scientific evidence, especially when accepting those data means undermining their faith in free markets. But research from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project supports a different notion: This polarization tends to occur when accepting or rejecting a scientific thesis becomes a signal to your fellow partisans that you're on their side.

For example, research by the Yale law professor Dan Kahan finds that as scientific literacy goes up, so too does partisan polarization on the issue of climate change. In other words, the more science people know, the more they are able to seek out and find information justifying their beliefs.

In a new study, Kahan and his colleagues assess the relationship between accepting the evidence for man-made global warming with a measure for actively open-minded thinking and attitudes toward climate change. Actively open-minded thinking is defined as the "willingness to search actively for evidence against one's favored beliefs, plans or goals and to weigh such evidence fairly when it is available."

In a survey, some 1,600 Americans were sorted by political orientation and their propensity toward actively open-minded thinking. Psychologists have devised various questionnaires that aim to measure an individual's propensity to engage in such salutary cognition; Kahan's survey used a seven-item scale that asked participants to rate their agreement with such statements as "allowing yourself to be convinced by an opposing argument is a sign of good character," and "changing your mind is a sign of weakness."

In the past, many researchers have argued that political conservatives tend to be deficient with regard to actively open-minded thinking. Consequently, they contend that if for some odd reason a conservative did have such a disposition, he would be more likely to accept the scientific evidence in favor of climate change. In fact, the opposite occurred.

Since most liberals in the survey already believed that there is solid evidence of recent global warming due mostly to human activity, their probability that that they would accept that conclusion rose only modestly with higher actively open-minded thinking scores. On the other hand, the higher conservatives scored on actively open-minded thinking, the lower the probability they would agree that there is solid evidence for man-made global warming. The gap between liberals and conservatives on beliefs about climate change widens the more that both engaged in actively open-minded thinking.

What is going on? The researchers argue that "actively open-minded thinking in fact enhances the proficiency of reasoning aimed at forming identity-congruent beliefs." Actively open-minded thinkers are "simply better at screening information for identity-congruent inferences." In other words, sophisticated reasoning skills enable people to more easily find and espouse information that indicates their loyalty to their political affinity groups.

That doesn't actually seem very open-minded.

Kahan and his colleagues conclude that sophisticated reasoning skills have "become tragically entangled in the social dynamics that give rise to pointed, persistent forms of political conflict." When it comes to politically polarized scientific disputes, does this mean that all reasoning tends toward confirmation bias? Maybe not.

In another study, Kahan and his colleagues provisionally suggest that "science curiosity might be an individual difference in cognition that evades this entanglement and promotes genuine receptivity to counter-attitudinal evidence, among persons of opposing political outlooks." The researchers devised a scale using viewing time and engagement with several science documentaries, including Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Your Inner Fish, and Mass Extinction, to judge how curious an individual is about science. The object is to distinguish between an individual's mere comprehension of scientific information from a "general disposition, variable in intensity across persons, that reflects the motivation to seek out and consume scientific information for personal pleasure."

In this study, the researchers sorted their subjects with respect to their political beliefs and their propensity toward scientific curiosity. The researchers report that as science curiosity scores increased, the global warming risk perceptions of both conservatives and liberals also moved up. "Higher levels of science curiosity," the authors note, "were associated with greater acceptance of human-caused climate change among both right-leaning and left-leaning study subjects." This finding stands in marked contrast to many previous studies that have found as numeracy, cognitive reflection, science comprehension, and similar measures of reasoning proficiency increased, so too did political or cultural polarization over contested scientific issues.

KahanScienceCuriousChart
Kahan

Kahan and his colleagues then conducted an experiment in which subjects were exposed to real newspaper headlines that reported skeptical and orthodox scientific findings about climate change in surprising and unsurprising ways. For example, one skeptical unsurprising headline declared "Scientists Find Still More Evidence That Global Warming Actually Slowed in the Last Decade," and one orthodox surprising headline stated "Scientists Report Surprising Evidence: Arctic Ice Melting Even Faster Than Expected."

Subjects then picked the story that most interested them to read. The researchers report that both left- and right-leaning subjects who score "high in science curiosity display a marked preference for surprising information—that is, information contrary to their expectations about the current state of the best available evidence—even when that evidence disappoints rather than gratifies their political predispositions."

The researchers suggest that people who highly curious about science "do not turn this feature of their personality off when they engage political information but rather indulge it in that setting as well, exposing themselves more readily to information that defies their expectations about facts on contested issues. The result is that these citizens, unlike their less curious counterparts, react more open mindedly, and respond more uniformly across the political spectrum to the best available evidence."

To judge from the latest Pew poll numbers, this kind of curiosity—this disposition to seek out scientific information to experience the intrinsic pleasure of awe and surprise—is in short supply in contemporary America.

NEXT: Libertarian Debate News: L.P. To Get a Day in Court Against Debate Access Restrictions, But Too Late for 2016; Florida Senate Candidate Paul Stanton Excluded from Debate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Tulpa

        1. Tulpa or Hodor, climate will do what climate will do as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, decisions and policy need to be based on hard fact.

          There are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and undertand at

          hseneker.blogspot.com

          The discussion is too long to post here but is a quick and easy read. I recommend folloing the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.

          1. He spouts stuff but doesn’t back it up. Somebody out in the blue saying whatever he wants does not make an expert.

    1. I only work about for 12k- $15k hours a week from home. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. Join the many successful people who have already started freelancing over the web. Visit this web and go to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/zvrrsk4

  2. Ron, this is REALLY thin ice.
    We have a study which seems to be based on self-reporting and then on the sorting of the self-reported data by those who are not in any way blinded.
    I’m’a give this a 10% validity rating. Maybe.

    1. “Why this partisan difference over what is essentially an empirical question?”

      Maybe because far too many times “scientists” have been found rejecting empiricism in favor of agenda-ism.

      What might have been apolitical became inherently political as soon as the statists took an interest in using science as a cudgel to enforce their preferred outcomes. That far too much of science has obviously sold it’s soul to that faction doesn’t help either.

      You’d think a smart guy like Bailey would understand this.

      1. Also, conservatives and liberals don’t even make up the majority of Americans. If looked at from party registration, None Of the Above FAR OUTNUMBERS those two groups. SO, not even touching on the validity of this research, I ask “what is the point?” I don’t identify as either, nor do many Libertarians I know. And there are broad differences in opinion on CAGW, AGW, CAGCC, etc.

        1. ^ This.

          All this really does in the end is play into the paradigm that there are essentially two camps, one owned by each of the two dominant American political parties, and that this dualism defines our stances towards absolutely everything.

          The question that says “do the two sides just automatically reject each others positions?” has a shockingly obvious answer, and doesn’t actually tell us anything about the majority of people. It does, however, grant an outsized role to the two camps in determining what everybody thinks.

          What Ron should be doing is pointing out the taken-for-granted dualism underlying this research and pointing out that the whole thing is fatally flawed for that reason alone.

        2. Who put the C’s in front of those acronymns?

          Semantic agression seldom signifies science curiousity.

      2. What might have been apolitical became inherently political as soon as the statists took an interest in using science as a cudgel to enforce their preferred outcomes. That far too much of science has obviously sold it’s soul to that faction doesn’t help either.

        Science has always been a cudgel. It literally refers to the schism between episteme, declarative knowledge, or natural philosophy and tekne, procedural knowledge, or trades. The fact that *stat*stics is widely used in the sciences today and that the ‘stat’ refers literally to the state (as a nation) should give you an idea of how long ago and how far pendulum has swung.

  3. On topic:
    “Study: Earth’s roughly warmest in about 100,000 years”
    […]
    “Snyder based her reconstruction on 61 different sea surface temperature proxies from across the globe, such as ratios between magnesium and calcium, species makeup and acidity. But the further the study goes back in time, especially after half a million years, the fewer of those proxies are available, making the estimates less certain, she said.
    These are rough estimates with large margins of errors, she said. But she also found that the temperature changes correlated well to carbon dioxide levels.
    […]
    A fifth scientist, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, called the study provocative and interesting but said he remains skeptical until more research confirms it. He found the future temperature calculations “so much higher than prevailing estimates that one has to consider it somewhat of an outlier.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/sci…..288948.php

    If Mann says the predictions are too high, Katy bar the door!

    1. These are rough estimates with large margins of errors, she said. But she also found that the temperature changes correlated well to carbon dioxide levels.

      In other words, it provides confirmation of my presupposed view so I’m going with it.

      1. Maybe she’s just open minded.

    2. HIDE THE DECLINE!

  4. I know one thing. The lukewarmer position, “warming is happening but it is not as drastic or catastrophic as is being projected”, only gets mercilessly attacked from one side of this debate….

    It is IMHO the correct interpretation of the evidence, but it is a position progressives do not want to allow…

    1. We can’t even get agreement on whether it’s happening to any significant degree, much less prove its cause or its consequences. How far away, then, are we from nailing down a prime temperature at which the world should stay, what should be done to deal with natural epochal variations when they come along (and knowing how to differentiate), and once giving greater oversight over human affairs to the UN and national governments, what the civil rights consequences of that will look like (more banning of technology like the incandescent light bulb?).

      1. Bingo. Even if you believe there is some warming, the immediate jump to banning lightbulbs and shoveling wads of cash in Al Gore’s direction is quite a leap.

  5. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

    1. why the fuck did you buy a Peugeot?

  6. By their definition, I would consider myself a “science curious” individual. I study everything… except (anthropogenic) climate change. I consider myself agnostic on the subject, but won’t read any more articles pro or con, because I simply don’t trust the authors, the researchers, or the data. I think politics and political money is far too infused in the subject to allow for trustworthy results. There are billions of dollars being pumped into a political cause that appears to have as its end goals greater governmental regulation on a national and global scale.

    That said, since the alarmists and their reasonable and outrageous claims are everywhere, I do have a slight preference towards the rarer skeptical news.

    1. ^ This. Especially this :”There are billions of dollars being pumped into a political cause that appears to have as its end goals greater governmental regulation on a national and global scale”

      I’d prefer to see it as a pollution problem that can be addressed without dressing it up in boogeyman clothing.

    2. That’s sort of where I’m at as well. Which sucks, because it’s a really interesting subject.

      1. Just the sheer number of variables is fascinating to me. And it is a tragic shame what has been done to “science” as a result of the insanity. Not that it is new, science can be very click oriented and people’s entire careers can hinge on one theory. I understand the local incentives and even see them as a check against wanton theory abandonment. And while many go too far (Mark Lerner attacking geologists, Louis Frank having to spend 10 years defending pictures of the earth he didn’t take, etc.) most science OUTSIDE of climate science is not nearly as politicized.

    3. politics and political money is far too infused in the subject to allow for trustworthy results.

      So much this.

    4. Well put. I have yet to see enough evidence to allow people who consider themselves to be my betters to dictate my actions, at least, no more than is currently being done. I didn’t come up with this line, but it has been said that global warming remediation schemes take money from poor people in rich countries and place in in the hands of rich people in poor countries.

    5. Don’t forget the economic repercussions and who will benefit. Al Gore, the biggest promoter of HCGCC is also the owner of the rights to trade carbon credit futures. If carbon credits ever become reality Al will become the richest man in the history of the world. Every CC trade will put $$ in Al’s pockets, isn’t that convenient. I’d promote HCGCC if the passage of restrictions and fungibility of CC resulted in my personal wealth becoming greater than Plutus. The cost to the individual or family of increased energy costs would destroy an economic system (it’s very close to extinction now) where the individual does not have to be reliant on the Federal Government. As a country, we would surrender our sovereignty to the U.N. and the distribution of worldwide carbon limits.

  7. There isn’t much incentive for scientific curiosity in this matter. It’s one of those “this is a job only the government can do!”, that, by it’s very nature in that, ends up being a job no one does.

    You and I can be scientifically curious and come to agreement with the scientific consensus on global warming, pat ourselves on the back for right thinking, and watch the entire world roll forward as it will, oblivious to what we think.

    That’s the nature of government solutions: with democracy, everyone has only a tiny amount of influence, and, thus, everyone has no control, and no responsibility. Democracy suffers from the same problems as the environment itself: it’s just externalities everywhere.

    Really, the whole point of climate change for most people is social signaling. Hillary Clinton apparently has all the right thinking on climate change. It says so on her platform. In a box. One of 40 boxes. Climate change is box number 8, and box number 2 is “Addiction and Substance Abuse”. These aren’t people acting like they’re focused with laser-like energy on the most important problem mankind has ever faced. But they do feel ever so smart explaining global warming to the people who are just too stupid to get it. And really, isn’t that the most important thing: the self-righteous posturing?

    1. ^ this too, sadly

    2. I’ve told this story here before, but it just serves so many contexts:

      25 years ago I was a young and idealistic environmental activist, going door-to-door with CalPIRG telling people about global warming, among other environmental issues (because there used to be other environmental issues).

      An old guy I worked with who had been involved in environmental causes since the 60s sadly said he knew the whole thing was about to end because the government was about to get involved.

      I was 20, so I was deeply confused, as I thought getting the government involved was the whole point.

      But he went on to explain that the government doesn’t actually care – the government just needs a crisis to get people organized around. Government pointedly doesn’t solve problems. Doing so is counter to its very nature. Thus, as Brian says, “It’s one of those “this is a job only the government can do!”, that, by it’s very nature in that, ends up being a job no one does.”

      So, as my old environmentalist colleague said, the government picks one issue, subsumes all other issues to that one issue, and then convinces everybody that it is addressing the problem, thereby distracting individuals from taking any action, while not actually doing anything to address the problem.

      Thus, we now have a whole wing of our political system claiming to be addressing “climate change,” while there simply is no such thing as an environmentalist movement anymore.

      1. A similar process is involved in “systemic racism,” “implicit bias,” “microaggressions,” etc.

  8. What’s missing from the climate change global warming debate is that CCGW faithful are more likely to view the debate from a binary perspective, that is, either you agree with one set of facts, predictions and solutions, or you are a denier. CCGW skeptics are more likely to view the debate as a range of possibilities for each variable: historical trends, human contribution, future predictions, and the need for and effectiveness of proposed solutions. Climate science, unlike physics and chemistry, is not an exact science.

    1. You’re not supposed to think for yourself. You’re supposed to accept what the experts tell you, without question. Duh. That’s why they’re called “experts.”

    2. ^^ THIS

      “Do you believe in global warming?” is an obnoxiously loaded question that if rife with assumptions. It can be broken down into much smaller areas that account for the externalities.

      “Is the Earth warming?” – doubtful

      “Is the climate changing?” – absolutely

      “Is it caused by humans?” – I don’t doubt we have an influence. I just don’t see it being significant.

      “Is it going to negatively affect our lives?” – It’s possible on a long enough time line. There are too many variables to consider though.

      “…in the immediate future?” – absolutely not

      “What can we do about it?” – Adjust. Do what works for you. But a centralized authority with business connections that stand to make money from A) market regulation and/or B) direct funding through taxation, cannot be trusted.

      1. “[A] centralized authority with business connections that stand to make money from A) market regulation and/or B) direct funding through taxation, cannot be trusted.”

        Homey please. They most certainly can be trusted.

        Trusted to feather their own nests while accomplishing effectively nothing of benefit to anyone outside the nomenklatura.

        1. Trusted to feather their own nests while accomplishing effectively nothing of benefit to anyone outside the nomenklatura.

          Even if we get the most honest people willing to work entirely for free and, by sheer coincidence, no physics/energy/ecology/etc. geniuses are born in the interim . The plain and simple math indicates their probability of achieving an outcome greater than 50% of optimal (assuming consensus on optimal) for 50% of the people involved (assuming we can quantize actual people and projected population outcomes accurately) is 50/50 at best.

    3. “you agree with one set of facts, predictions and solutions, or you are a denier”
      That sounds like the SJW stance for every item on their platform.

    4. But it is the most “settled” science there is!

      1. Even if that were true, it still tells us nothing about what would be an appropriate policy response.

    5. Until Climate science has irrefutable constants it isn’t a science, it’s just a hypothesis. Nobody argues Newtonian Physics, pure Chemistry, or Mathematics but there is a basketful of Climate Change hypothesises swirling about without proof.

  9. On this issue I really wish I just had a time machine so I could see the mocking the alarmists will be getting 50 years from now.

    You can only keep this particular scam going on for sooo long before it loses all credibility. I myself was slightly more concerned with it like 10+ years ago… Before the temperature hardly budged for 15 odd years. I never completely bought in that it was a huge deal, or all man made, but I accepted the possibility that perhaps it would be a reasonably large increase, and perhaps we were having a reasonably large impact. Not anymore. I’m pretty firmly in the “It isn’t going to heat up much, and if it does it’s definitely not our fault” category because if their hypothesis was correct all the CO2 we’ve pumped out would have had FAR greater effects already.

    Add another 10, 20, 50 years onto that and eventually it’s lost all credibility. At some point they’ll have to concede we ARE changing the climate a smidge, buuut it’s not really much of a big deal. I hope Al Gore is still alive to mock when that day comes.

    1. I doubt it. If things are worse fifty years down the road, they will claim victory. If things do not get worse, then their efforts were fruitful and they will claim victory.

      Heads they win, tails you lose.

      1. There will be sufficient anecdotal evidence to further their argument for the rest of our lifetimes.
        Fresh anecdotes will be provided daily. Every. Single. Day.

        1. Nah, there’s a reason it isn’t “global warming” anymore. If the climate doesn’t stay the exactly the same (which is sort of part of the definition), thats climate change. No anecdotes needed.

    2. Yeah, I’m not sure this is going to happen. Paul Erlich has been wrong with EVERY prediction he’s ever made for the past 50 years, and they still treat him like some sort of infallible high priest.

      Al Gore had multiple predictions that have proven wrong. This inconvenient truth is not even considered a blemish on his record.

      The real truth is seen in how these people act. All these smug elite assholes do hardly anything to limit their carbon footprint except pass money around to other elite assholes to buy off their “guilt”. If this were really true and they were really actually concerned, they would never set foot on a private jet again…..

      Its all about control of peoples lives. The communists were routed in the 90’s. To survive they latched on to an issue that could only be “solved” by big government. However, look at the state the countries in the 90’s that were behind the iron curtain. That represents how well commies actually solve problems. The fact is, if we do nothing on climate change we still might end up better off than if we executed THEIR plans….

      1. I never watched an inconvenient truth.
        I decided to wait until the 20th anniversary of its release before watching it for the first time
        By then it should be an ‘oh, shit’ moment or a hilarious comedy

      2. Oh, Al Gore has made a lot of money on carbon credits. (How else could he afford that 747 he takes everywhere?)

  10. To be labeled open minded, wouldn’t one need to be open to the possibility that the basis for the theory of man-made climate change is flawed?

    1. No. Just as tolerance means not tolerating intolerance, being open minded means closing your mind to opposing viewpoints.

      1. Just as tolerance means not tolerating intolerance

        And intolerance means believing something different than me.

    2. It’s a religion .You can not sway the faithful.

      1. Religion or cult? *fiddles with knobs on E Meter*

    1. that link screams NSFW

      not clicking

      1. Good thinking – I generally give warnings, but forgot this time.

        It’s probably NSFW in *some* workplaces.

        1. It’s safe for my work. She’s my lab assistant.

        2. Especially not if there are SJW’s around. Triggered

    2. That would complement very well the Sexy Burma costume that was pulled from Amazon for being racist, cultural appropriation, sexist, etc.

      1. Sexy Burqa (F-in spell check)

  11. When climate science became intertwined with politics, it lost all credibility. One only has to look at the history of government funded science in the public interest to understand that it always becomes fatally flawed as special interests on all sides start staking out positions and lobbying for influence.

    1. Are you implying that those gentlemen in Tuskegee weren’t being provided the best in government healthcare?
      https://goo.gl/OGiMo2

      1. What I’m saying is that the science of syphilis is settled.

      2. Are you implying that those gentlemen in Tuskegee weren’t being provided the best in government healthcare?

        Government run healthcare so good we had to export it!

    2. President Eisenhower warned about the risks of the federal government taking over the funding of research in his farewell address to the nation.

      He did so immediately after his warning about the military industrial complex.

      Leftists who oppose the military often like to cite his military industrial complex comments in their tirades as support for what they’re saying but they have flushed his immediately following warning about federal research funding in the same speech down the memory hole.

  12. my boyfriends mum just got a stunning yellow Suzuki Kizashi go to this site
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  13. my boyfriends mum just got a stunning yellow Suzuki Kizashi go to this site
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  14. Seven in 10 liberal Democrats trust climate scientists to give full and accurate information on the causes of climate change, whereas only 15 percent of conservative Republicans do.

    “Climate scientists” form a large and diverse group. If someone asked me whether I trust “climate scientists” to give full and accurate information I’d have to say no, because I know there are a few bad eggs in the group. But I would trust certain climate scientists to give full and accurate information. Mainly those who only interact with the public by publishing papers and otherwise avoid trying to influence public policy or score interviews in the news media. As always, it’s a complicated issue.

    1. I’ll trust any scientist who releases a full and verifiable raw data set.

      I’d also mandate that any science conducted using public monies require such action under threat of civil and criminal penalty.

    2. If someone asked me whether I trust “climate scientists” to give full and accurate information I’d have to say no

      This is the basic flaw in the paradigm we are being presented, though.

      Science is not about “trust.” I don’t believe the credentialed person in the white lab coat because they are a “Scientist” and therefore I “trust” them. I believe what they say when they say things that are logically sound and backed up by persuasive data and reproducible empirical experimentation.

    3. follow the money

  15. It’s all about the money. Deniers get their information from Big Oil which puts profits before people.

    The Truth comes from the government, which is the people, so it can be like totally trusted and stuff. I mean, those evil corporations care only about making money. There is no money to be made by the politicians who want to control every nuanced aspect of our lives in order to save the planet. So their motivations must be true. They only want to save us from ourselves. As opposed to those corporations who want to kill us so they can make a buck. It’s all about greed and money.

    All reality-based people understand this.

    1. +1 Food Pyramid

    2. the government makes more money off of big oil than big oil does, they just want a bigger piece of the action now.

  16. “Seven in 10 liberal Democrats trust climate scientists to give full and accurate information on the causes of climate change, whereas only 15 percent of conservative Republicans do. Why this partisan difference over what is essentially an empirical question?”

    Not to nit pick, but if the question is the amount of trust given to climate scientists, then it is NOT an empirical question.

    1. You’d think a smart guy like Bailey would understand this.

    2. Not to nit pick, but if the question is the amount of trust given to climate scientists, then it is NOT an empirical question.

      I’ve seen the uncorrected correlation between gigatonnes of trust released to climate scientists and the rise/uncertainty in temperatures. That’s why I’ve started minimizing my trust footprint and sequestering what trust I do produce closer to the Earth’s Sima Layer.

  17. Is marijuana causing global warming? Energy consumption by cannabis farms may soon rival that of data centers

    In some areas, marijuana cultivation makes up 1 per cent of electricity use
    A new report found the energy cost of growing marijuana is ‘immense’
    Banks are reluctant to do business with growers as it is a federal offence
    This means they are spending more on electricity than they could be

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…..ntres.html

    There is literally nothing that cannot be blamed as a cause or an effect of climate change.

    1. Literally, indeed. If we asked the Lefties to list things *not* affected by GW, they might not be able to come up with *anything.*

      http://www.whatreallyhappened……ming2.html

  18. There’s a missing dimension to the discussion.
    Far too much, as in virtually all (IMNSHO) of the disagreement is masked. It’s not whether one thinks anthropogenic global warming is real or not, severe or not.
    It’s what should be done and how. The only way to object to the political ‘solution’ is to reject the position. The only way to accept the position is to accept the (barely implicit) assumption that the solution must be political.
    It’s signaling all right, but not the overt signals that tend to get studied.

    On those rare occasions where I argue with friends or acquaintances, particularly progressives who insist ‘the science is settled’, I point out that the science of genetics was settled, too, and the political solution was to sterilize poor black women. That didn’t work out so well, did it?
    One can accept the science and reject the view that a single political solution follows therefrom.
    In fact, one must take that position in all matters.

    1. not just black women but any parentless women. As far as I know they didn’t sterilize the men though? must of been misogynist.

      1. Huh? How many parentless women?

  19. There is so much selection bias here. Skeptical scientists get their funding cut; alarmists get theirs’ increased. The models predict ice loss at both poles, but it has been declining in the Arctic and growing in the Antarctic. So what do you hear? Harping about the Arctic and crickets about the Antarctic.

    I’d be more inclined to believe the alarmists if they would acknowledge any of the contrary evidence, stop adjusting the past colder and the present warmer, etc, but they never do.

  20. How the hell can you argue there’s no global warming when there’s a hurricane hitting Florida? My God, I’m watching CNN and there’s wind and rain and darkness and huge red and blue and green swirls of cartoon clouds blanketing the coast. Trees are swaying, the ground is wet, the streets are just littered with weathermen standing in up to half-an-inch of water desperately reporting on their peril. I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s like Armageddon, or the Storm of the Century, or some kind of Michael Bay movie at least.

    1. WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE

      eventually

  21. Thank you for this, climate change is one of the most pertinent issues we face right now

    1. WRONG!
      Creepy Clowns! are the most pertinent issue facing American today.

    2. SMOD 2016

  22. The next mass extinction event, which seems to be a foregone conclusion, is a more tangible threat to human existence than AGW.

    If the proposed solutions to the supposed threat of AGW involved something other than drastically lowering standards of living for the Western world, and giving the government shitloads more money and power, while countries like China get to give everybody the middle finger and do whatever the fuck they want, AGW-tards might find more of a receptive audience.

    What really grinds my gears is the bizarre insistence by AGW-tards that, unless you open wide and deep-throat the supposed consensus, you do not get a place at the table to discuss things like renewable energy, how to replace fossil fuels, how to evolve nuclear power generation, the feasibility of things like Dyson Grids, the economic impact of current AGW-solutions, etc. I’ve run into that sort of thing at Ars Technica. If you don’t believe – or even if you just want to use critical thinking and discuss the issue, like a rational adult human – you don’t get to talk. Even if you think empowering human ingenuity through the incentives of the market to achieve many of the things the AGW-tards profess to want would be really awesome, and a net benefit for humanity in the short and long (and VERY long) term.

    Nope. The solution is to empower TOP MEN, worship scientists because PhDs, have expensive, taxpayer-funded conferences in places with beautiful women and awesome food.

    1. The next mass extinction event, which seems to be a foregone conclusion, is a more tangible threat to human existence than AGW.

      So much this.

      “How will you, as President, handle the imminent Yellowstone supervolcano event?”

        1. Was this candidate STEVE SMITH’S answer?

    2. The next mass extinction event, which seems to be a foregone conclusion

      And could happen any time in the next 10 million years or so,.

      1. Oh shit. That’s it, I’m cancelling my weekend plans.

      2. What’s your point, Z? AGW is gonna get us first?

        Ok, I believe you. 100% AGW is going to F us in the A before the next mass extinction event. What do you want to do about it?

    3. “Nope. The solution is to empower TOP MEN, worship scientists because PhDs, have expensive, taxpayer-funded conferences in places with beautiful women and awesome food.”

      I’m surprised to see a Libertarian admit this. What about a solution that doesn’t rely on government but the workings of the free market. A solution that enhances individual liberty.

      1. What about a solution that doesn’t rely on government but the workings of the free market

        Yes – we call that “the free market.” Maybe you’ve heard people here mention it before?

        1. “Maybe you’ve heard people here mention it before?”

          The free market solution to climate change? Like the carbon sequestration and expanded nuclear generation often seen promoted in these pages? Both have government intervention, there is no demand in the market for sequestered carbon, for example. This can’t be your idea of a free market solution. If anything they are technocratic.

          1. I don’t think you really get it.

            1. “I don’t think you really get it.”

              I don’t indeed. You appear not to approve of my comments, though you have nothing to say to dispute them. I’d be curious what you might say. Feel free to call me a liar and a retard if it pleases you.

              1. You are a liar and a retard. But that’s beside the point.

                What you’re not getting is what people mean when they say “free market.” You keep going “how can the free market allow me to think up a universal solution that I can impose on everyone else? It would never work, obviously.”

                What free market really means is “let’s let everybody work on figuring out solutions and try them out and let’s see what works best, and then if and when we all recognize what works best, if there’s a single clear answer that emerges, we’ll all do that.”

                But we get told that that’s insane, that clearly what we need is one particular preferably very small body of politicians, who may or may not understand science but who are sure to have some very unholy incentives, to decide on behalf of the whole world just one solution that we’ll trust them to know will work.

                And oddly what they’ve come up with involves giving them lots of money and power. But oh well – I’m sure they have our best interests at heart, in the end.

                1. I still don’t get it. Are carbon sequestration and expanded nuclear power generation examples of free market solutions or are they not?

                  1. If utilities were not monopolies, individuals were allowed to own, mine, and process uranium*; and individuals were allowed to own and staff nuclear power plants, then using nuclear power (fission) as a fuel source could be a free market solution to ENERGY DEMAND.

                    However, there is no way for CO2 credits or a tax to be a free market solution. I hope that is obvious.

                    It may be possible to develop a free market “solution” to CO2 emission, but it would most likely turn into a political mess because it would necessarily heavily involve China.

                    (* I don’t know what those laws are)

    4. Beautiful women like Naomi Oreski?

      1. I was thinking more Parisians, but whatever floats your boat.

  23. I assumed that the climate scientists were all on the up-and-up until the climate gate e-mail leak. Naive of me, I know.

    -jcr

  24. Why this partisan difference over what is essentially an empirical question?

    But, enough about Hillary’s private server.

    1. You mean Huma?

  25. “Some researchers have concluded that conservatives are less likely than liberals to be open-minded or to engage in effortful cognition when evaluating scientific evidence, especially when accepting those data means undermining their faith in free markets.”

    As I recall, it is not conservatives who are making the egregious claim that “the science is settled.” When people believe that “the science is settled” on any subject it ceases to be science and instead becomes a religious belief. That does not sound very “open minded” to me.

    With regard to “evaluating scientific evidence,” it seems rather suspicious that the only evidence concerning planetary temperatures being evaluated begins after the year 1880. What happened to the Holocene Maximum? Or the Minoan Warming Period? Or the Roman Warming Period? Or the Medieval Warming Period? All of which had temperatures warmer than present day, and that was only in the last 8,000 years. What about further back? Like the global temperatures during the Eemian Interglacial Period prior to the current Holocene Interglacial Period from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago? Or the interglacial periods before the Eemian Interglacial Period?

    If someone is truly “open-minded” they would not be cherry-picking their data to fit their political ideology, they would be evaluating all the scientific evidence in order to discern the truth. That, after all, is the purpose of science.

    1. In the religion of Global Warming [ peace be upon Gaia ] the earth is only 100 years old.

    2. Pretty much this. The tone of this article seems to imply that someone who critically and rigorously appraises the quality of climate research, and finds it lacking, is somehow “science incurious”. It is possible to have a sophisticated understanding of this science and not come to the “correct” conclusions.

      1. “The tone of this article seems to imply that someone who critically and rigorously appraises the quality of climate research, and finds it lacking, is somehow “science incurious”.”

        There will always be shoddy research, science is a human endeavour after all. You judge a science by its ability to make accurate predictions. The global warming folks seem to be doing well here. According to the data I’ve come across.

        1. You judge a science by its ability to make accurate predictions. The global warming folks seem to be doing well here.

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! — oh — give me a minute — ok – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

          1. Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

            1. Link me to the accurate prediction. I’m literally begging you.

              1. The heat trapping quality of CO2 has been known since the days of Darwin. More CO2 in the atmosphere quite plausibly means a hotter temperature. And a hotter temperature has been observed and measured repeatedly. What more do you want from these oh so flawed climate scientists?

                1. Except the increased amount of CO2 hasn’t led to the hotter temperatures that were predicted by any of the models.

                  1. You want better models. That’ll take time and money and some effort. Or maybe you are asking the impossible. We’ve not been able to predict tomorrow’s weather accurately, doing so for the climate 50 years from now may never happen.

                2. the unanswered question, in Ice core data….did the CO2 rise happen before or after the warming, nobody is 100% sure on this, unless they have a gov. grant..follow the money.

    3. “What happened to the Holocene Maximum? Or the Minoan Warming Period? Or the Roman Warming Period? Or the Medieval Warming Period?”

      All are attributed to celestial events. Some are not truly examples of ‘global warming,’ being localized to the northern hemisphere, in the case of the Medieval period. The settled science of today has it that the warming we’re experiencing today is not celestial in origin but anthropogenic. Settled scientists have it that before 1880 Humankind didn’t burn enough carbon in enough quantity to put a dent in the earth’s climate.

      1. The settled science of today

        What more do you need?

        1. “What more do you need?”

          A better theory. If you got one. If you think the warming since 1880 has nothing to do with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 and everything to do with some celestial phenomenon, and you can show evidence to prove it, then a Nobel Prize could be in store for you.

          1. The settled science of today has it that the warming we’re experiencing today is not celestial in origin but anthropogenic.

            Close.

            The “settled science” of today assumes the warming we’re experiencing today “is not celestial in origin.”

            Fundamental to Hansens’s and Mann’s concept of “radiative forcing” is defining out solar energy fluctuations as a given balance, i.e it is not part of the “forcing,” it is what is being “forced against.”

            1. The “settled science” of today assumes the warming we’re experiencing today “is not celestial in origin.”

              You agree with me. If you can model something celestial in origin that accounts for the data better than the anthropogenic model, you may unsettle science. You won’t unsettle science by moaning about evil scientists’ conspiracies.

          2. If you think the warming since 1880 has nothing to do with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 and everything to do with some celestial phenomenon”

            And the goalposts go “Whoosh!”

            I don’t really get what a “settled scientist” is, but it doesn’t sound like a good thing to me. Scientists are currently having good faith disagreements about when humans started contributing to global warming and how.

            Yes it is indisputable that humans are loading the air with greenhouse gases, of main concern being CO2 and methane. We don’t know to what extent this influences the temperature of the planet. We really really super wish we did, but we don’t. Even Hansen has said people are freaking out too much about burning carbon-based fuels, because they also release aerosols that mitigate the warming effects of the CO2.

            The bottom line reality is 1) the science is far from settled as far as what’s causing global warming, what it will do, and what can be done about it; 2) whatever may need to be done about it, the government will only fuck it up and prevent people from finding actual solutions.

            1. “and prevent people from finding actual solutions”

              If you have solutions that don’t involve government, ie a free market solution, I’d like to hear about them. Especially if they reduce CO2 emissions.

  26. Let me see. Years ago, we only heard about “global warming”. Then, when the Earth did not warm as expected, terms were changed to “climate change”.

    Now, being “actively open-minded” means you’re more likely to become an adamant “denier” (which covers those who deny both warming and climate change or those who deny only anthropogenic warming or climate change but not that the Earth is warming or experiencing climate change).

    So, if I didnt misread this article, to appeal to the egos of those on the Right, a social scientist prepares a study valorizing a new character trait: “science curiosity”, in which liberals read surprising information but do not change their minds but conservatives read surprising information and then agree with liberals that not only is climate change happening, but it’s Man’s fault.

    Sounds like good science to me!

    1. “Sounds like good science to me!”

      Doesn’t convince me. A public opinion survey does not a science make.

      a social scientist prepares a study valorizing a new character trait: “science curiosity”

      A ‘science traitor’ is a better phrase. Any conservative who lets down his principles thanks to mere scientific evidence is an enemy.

      1. A public opinion survey does not a science make.

        That’s true. We need settled scientists for making a science!

      2. Ah, the return of Dumbshit!
        Get lost again, trueman. No one gives a shit about your attention-whoring.

  27. That’s why we all need to vote for Jill Stein. The climate will normalize once we return to hunting and gathering granola bars and quinoa. Oh, and labor unions.

  28. I would call myself science curious, but theexamole documentaries dont interest me. They were all biology related.

    I am hard science curious.

    1. Isn’t biology just really complicated chemistry?

      I suppose there is a distinction to be made between the “stamp collecting” parts of biology and the study of how life works as a biochemical phenomenon.

      1. Xkcd.com/435

      2. Chemistry is just really complicated physics.

        Or, maybe not

        http://tinyurl.com/zasnpc7

  29. The question is not whether someone of a particular political persuasion trusts in “science”, the question is whether one thinks that certain scientists are abusing science in order to help push a political agenda. For scientists to warn trust in that th g ey have to be above reproach.

    I used to avidly read Scientific American, until, back in the late nineties their editirs announced they thought global warming was THE MOST IMPORTANT thing and would be pushing that party line hard.

    If there is distrust of scientists, it is because a lot oc prominent scientists gave done much to dis rexit the profession in this area.

  30. From the article above: “especially when accepting those data means undermining their faith in free markets.”

    Republicans are five times more likely to have solar panels installed than Democrats. Probably because they do cost analysis and find solar panels pay for themselves in less than 10 years. Democrats on the other hand don’t realize they can bargain and get their complete system installed for less than $3/watt. Therefore they need to be very rich because they are willing to pay whatever for “moral” reasons instead of financial reasons.

  31. I noted yesterday about the Bailey article that I have noticed over time increasing mockery of the global warming crowd in these threads. Most doing the mocking give disclaimers, acknowledgement that climate does change, but there are fewer and fewer buying into the scam aspect of it. It was inevitable given the blatant dishonesty and comical spin (The people of Columbia voted down a truce with FARC because global warming) and the very unscientific nature of the AGW arguments.

    “Seven in 10 liberal Democrats trust climate scientists to give full and accurate information on the causes of climate change,…. Why this partisan difference over what is essentially an empirical question?”

    In spite of ‘climate scientists’ being caught lying, faking data, and having a history of 100% incorrect predictions, not to mention their insistence on economy destroying measures and constant clamor for more money. This is to be expected given their taste in politicians who do the same.

    1. “Recent social science research suggests that this type of polarization tends to occur when accepting or rejecting a scientific thesis becomes a signal to your fellow partisans that you’re on their side.”

      Making predictions based on a theory that industrially produced CO2 added to the atmosphere will cause the climate to warm based on the greenhouse effect is acceptable. When those predictions don’t pan out, changing your assertion to industrially produced CO2 will cause some unspecified climate change (unfalsifiable) is unacceptable and no longer science. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Watching for change and attempting to explain it is one thing. Making absurd claims like ‘the science is settled’, ‘consensus’, sticking with the same proposed solutions to an unexplained phenomena that may or may not be a problem, especially one that hasn’t materialized yet, is entirely another matter.

      “So when it comes to politically polarized scientific disputes, does this mean that all sophisticated reasoning tends toward confirmation bias?”

      All reasoning tends towards confirmation bias. It is how we work new facts into out understanding of the world in a way that makes that new fact consistent with already established understanding.

  32. “Some researchers have concluded that conservatives are less likely than liberals to be open-minded or to engage in effortful cognition when evaluating scientific evidence,…”

    IOW, if you don’t believe what I tell you to believe you aren’t open minded.

    Uncritically accepting what someone tells you to think is open-minded? This is the kind of sophistry that is increasingly turning the skeptics and open-minded away.

  33. Bailey is a “vicar” in the climate change theocracy. And when somebody doesn’t agree with his God and religion, they’re not being OPEN MINDED. With his blades sharpened for his “sensible” carbon tax etc.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Haunted by his own system of heaven and hell, he’s prepared to use Force against peaceful and productive people. NOTHING libertarian about Bailey and I wish he’d get lost.

    1. You couldn’t be any more closed-minded if you encased your head in lead.

      1. I am not the closed minded one, friend. Bailey is. He’s settled in his beliefs and he’s prepared to use Force against peaceful and productive people. I AM the open minded one, as I WON’T use such Force. I may disagree with you, I may try and persuade you (with my own time and resources) but I WON’T use Force. There’s nothing more open minded than disinterest, a practice I use every single day. It is the basis for tolerance and wholesome society. But, instead, we have the superstitious (including those who have subverted the scientific method into Science!!!!!) with their competing systems of heaven and hell, and a merciless desire to inflict pain and indignity on anyone who disagrees with them. If being against THAT is “close minded” then guilty as charge. But then your definitions are poor and we’ll just be talking past each other.

        1. Bailey has publicly changed his mind in the past, and I see no indication that he wouldn’t do so again in the future–if he thought the evidence warranted it.

          In the meantime, he continues to greet new data confirming AGW with a critical eye, and he continues to go after unwarranted solutions that would inhibit liberty.

          He continues to say that, ultimately, new technology is the solution, and if he advocates sales taxes to address the problem of what amounts to pollution in the meantime, that makes him about as unlibertarian as Hayek.

          “Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the substitution of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created, does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.”

          —-The Road to Serfdom

          Because people disagree with you on a scientific issue, does not make them unlibertarian.

          Get over it.

          1. It is clear to anyone who has read Bailey that he is embedded in his beliefs. There’s MORE THAN AMPLE evidence of the perfidy of the warming alarmists, yet there is little ever said about it. What is it going to take to change his mind? He’s prepared to use State Force to get his way, so that’s well beyond half way in the debate.

            And ANY tax, trotted out by Hayek notwithstanding, that is designed to restrict behavior superimposes one system of value over another by Force. If someone is “polluting” to a degree that is clear and present that destroys PROPERTY, then DEFENSIVE FORCE is justified. Anything other than that is simply just another in the long line of excuses for people launder their use of Force against peaceful and productive people. ANY TAX that has ever existed has been abused and been a system for punishment and blessings.

            BUT, I AM willing to compromise. Taxes for co-operative services. Even that can be argued against, but I am willing to be OPEN MINDED. But a “tax” to super impose one system of value of a scared, superstitious prat over my own is the essence of evil. People are so addled by the quest for the super ordinate they may hold a belief then act completely in the opposite manner.

            1. “It is clear to anyone who has read Bailey that he is embedded in his beliefs. There’s MORE THAN AMPLE evidence of the perfidy of the warming alarmists, yet there is little ever said about it.”

              It is not clear to me–especially since he publicly changed his mind.

              How many other people in the public eye can you point to who have publicly changed their minds?

              Bailey is head and shoulders above others who write on this topic for that reason alone.

              As far as the perfidy of alarmists, I suspect he gives it about as much attention as it deserves.

              If think OJ got away with murder because Mark Fuhrman tried to frame a guilty man, how much time should spend on hammering Fuhrman’s lack of credibility? That wouldn’t be my issue.

              Does Bailey rely on or knowingly propagate false data?

              The correct answer is “no”.

          2. Yeah, I think Bailey has laid out his position well. He doesnt necessarily buy into the scam aspect – that we should all fork over unlimited resources and destroy our economy ( I cant remember if he is for, against, or neutral on the carbon tax scam) but he does give disclaimers.

            He does buy into the AGW aspect more than I do, we simply disagree on that matter. I don’t see Bailey as being intellectually dishonest. We disagree, that’s all.

            1. I agree with this assessment.

  34. Ultimately, I think it’s about people’s understanding of how global warming and the supposed remedies will impact them in their personal lives. Average people don’t take opposite positions on scientific questions like string theory because, either way, string theory won’t have any impact on how much it costs them to drive to work or heat their homes in the winter.

    People’s belief or skepticism in that science just isn’t about the science. It’s a common thing in history.

    In Galileo’s time, debating against heliocentric theory wasn’t necessarily about the science. It was about the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. It was about the build up to the Thirty Years War. It was about the legitimacy of the Catholic church as a political organization as Europe was teetering between religious conflicts. Is this the time to be telling people that the Catholic church is fundamentally wrong about something so basic?

    Opposition to evolution wasn’t really about the science either. People weren’t polarized by the Scopes trial because of the science. People were polarized because of what they thought evolution did to society in terms of their belief in religion, etc. Hell, Inherit the Wind was about communism and McCarthyism. It wasn’t about science per se.

    1. Galieo’s controversy was also about science. Most of what Galileo proved was that there were observable phenomena in the universe that could not be accounted for by the Ptolemiac model. Unfortunately, the Copernican Model was flawed enough that it was useless for modeling planetary motion (most astronomers of time also doubled as astrologers, so subscibing to a theory that could not predict planetary motion was bad for their pocketbooks). The he could not help to be condescending about his findings, dud not help either. In the end, all that was known at the time was that there were two theories of the universe that were mutually exclusive and gad some ibvioys flaws.

      1. Galileo was undermining the legitimacy and authority of the Catholic church at a time when they were already in a precarious position and undermining the legitimacy and authority of the Catholic church led to war, famine, and disease.

        To the people who opposed Galileo on that issue, the actual science itself was the least of their concerns. That was my point: Once the science starts impacting economics, politics, etc., regular people get involved with legitimate concerns that may be more important than science. The controversy simply stops being about the science and starts being about economics and politics.

        Do you genuinely not see that it might be foolish for the church to give their enemies some moral authority at a time when their moral authority was already literally under siege? Are you even remotely aware of the possibility of qualitative concerns outside the realm of science–that some people might prefer not to suffer wars, revolts, disease, and famine regardless of whether the sun or the earth is at the center of the solar system?

        1. My point was that there was a significant scientific controversy going on that really only looks obvious who was (generally) correct about it in hindsight. Part of what got the Church involved was Galileo using his findings to criticize Aristotlean philosophy in general in ways his findings did not really justify.

          My point was, that controversy is not black and white Science versus Religion. It was much more interesting than that, as it was someone going against the consensus in which many other scientusts had a financial interest in. It was a scientist getting a bit too proud and being a dick about it in ways he could not back up.

  35. When things speed up to about 10% of the speed of light, we stop using classical physics to describe them. We start talking about relativity and quantum mechanics. And when science starts impacting the way people think of themselves and how they live their lives, everything changes, too. It’s like the observer effect/uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics: the more you focus on the science aspect, the less you understand the debate.

    The debate may be over science, but it isn’t about science. The more it effects people’s lives, the more it becomes an issue of ethics and politics rather than science. Even the scientists themselves become cognizant of the impact their findings will have on the debate. At that point, how can we be talking about the same old science anymore?

    1. Science used to be called natural philosophy. That is – it was seen as one of many diverse ways to view the world. Beliefs and behaviors based on superstition were as present as beliefs based on stringent observation and reproducible results. The battle for the individual – presuming peaceful and productive – has been battling against the use of Force against them to live their lives as they choose, be it superstitious or not. I don’t want to live in a Theocracy run by a book filled with fables OR a theocracy run our of some asshole’s charts and graphs. It is, and always will be, about Force. And Bailey has been sanguine on that front. Force is Good when he’s to be in charge. A Robespierre with a thermometer if given the chance.

      1. Positions of the church driven by political concerns during the Counter Reformation are not superstition.

        Concerns about the fate of the national character, our commitment to individual rights, and the Protestant work ethic in the face of collectivism and communism–are not superstition.

        And if people’s reluctance to embrace the left’s proposed solutions to AGW are driven by economics, politics, and ethics, none of those concerns amount to superstition either.

        1. Anyone who believes in ghosts that they think lends any credence to their position, does so from superstition by definition. They may be pragmatic to some degree, but being right for the wrong reasons doesn’t dispel the inherent superstition.

          But when I use superstitious, it goes beyond just the metaphysical. There’s clinical definitions of the term. Functional behaviors that are based on expectation of outcomes that have no,or little, basis in fact. It’s the basis for socialism, even the “secular” variety. Religions are just one manifestation of the same, broader, condition. And the desire to create heaven/hell dyads, pointing fingers at others in how they live their lives as if has ANY impact on yours, using broadcast Force – blindly and not caring which chins you hit swinging your fists about- all ultimately function the same.

          In short, I don’t want to live in Bailey’s “reasonable” world of “settled” empirical evidence anymore than I want to live under Sharia Law. IT’S ALL THE SAME THING. The fight for a libertarian is to sniff out the use of Force against peaceful and productive people and fight it. I don’t want to pay indulgences, I don’t want to pay Danegeld, I don’t want to pay off Muslim invaders, and I don’t want to payoff the dope with his charts and graphs. Not seeing it for what it is until it’s too late is what has created the dystopia we now live in. NOTHING Bailey has written reduces this reality, it just moves the checkers around on the board.

          1. I have to go, I don’t intend on coming back. If I’m too “fundamental”, fine, But it’s not “closed minded”. People simply don’t have any notion of how cowed they are in our culture and society today, and if the likes of Bailey, a 6 on a scale of 10 on the climate thing, is the “rational voice”, then there’s nothing I’m going to say that will change that belief.

          2. “Anyone who believes in ghosts that they think lends any credence to their position, does so from superstition by definition.”

            A scientist isn’t necessarily correct just because he’s a scientist, and a priest isn’t necessarily incorrect just because he’s a priest. And when the clergy do things for political reasons, judging them based on the scientific considerations alone misses the point.

            The point is that science and politics are not the same thing, and once a scientific question becomes the center of a political issue, science is no longer the only consideration.

            Average people are lining up on this scientific question based on the political and economic implications, and whether they’re right or wrong on the science, at that point, is probably a secondary concern for most of them (despite what they say*). Yeah, some scientists are lining up on the issue out of political, economic, ethical, etc. implications, as well. When they do that, it ain’t like regular science no more.

            1. And that’s my point: The more we focus on the science of what has become an economic and political issue, the less we understand the issue and why people are thinking what they’re thinking and doing what they’re doing on that issue.

              You want to defeat the climate alarmists on authoritarian socialism despite whether they’re right or wrong? Focus on the economics.

              Incidentally, the climate alarmists probably won’t get what they want until they address the political and economic concerns of climate change “deniers”, too. Those alarmists who won’t abandon authoritarian socialism because of science are hoisting themselves on their own petards.

            2. *If it were all about the science, they’d get just as excited about string theory as global warming. Must be the ethical, political, and economic implications.

  36. This is just what we do, not only about climate change, not only on scientific issues, but everything. If your a Christian, you probably don’t attend a mosque regularly. If your a Met fan, you don’t go to Yankee games.

    If you accept the reality of climate change, you just read at Slate that Matthew was made worse from climate change. And if you deny that reality, you read at Drudge and heard from Rush that the Weather Channel and the Weather Service are just part of the conspiracy.

    Let’s go Mets. Oops, too late.

    1. you just read at Slate that Matthew was made worse from climate change

      Slate! That notoriously non-partisan publication dedicated to rigorous objective science!

      Did they happen to cite a source for that claim? A study that would support such a claim? Because you realize the US hasn’t gone this long without a hurricane making landfall in its entire history?

      That’s because global warming is making tropical storms stronger. Slate says so!

      1. Brother. Can you read? Can you even begin to suss out a point being made? Try again.

        1. Are you being disingenuous, or just stupid?

          If you accept the reality of climate change . . . . if you deny that reality

          What point are you pretending you were trying to make?

          1. Enjoy your day!

            1. That’s what I thought.

              1. You had a thought? Impossible!

          2. “Are you being disingenuous, or just stupid?”

            It’s both. Jack is incapable of independent thought or learning. That’s why he always makes the same 3 arguments, flaws and all.

            At this point I’m 80% sure he’s just trolling.

            1. See below my response to you. I won’t waste anymore time.

    2. Matthew was made worse from climate change.

      All you have to do is google “hurricane specialists on the ipcc” to see that that is utterly false.

      All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin.

      Anyone who believes that hurricanes are now more frequent or unusually severe is either ignoring or distorting the historical record. I wonder why they would do that.

      1. Thanks for the link to a letter from 2005, 11 years ago. Now, I know that libertarians don’t think things change in a year, no less 11, but here is an article from this year citing a study by National Academy of Sciences that says we can expect more extreme weather events due to climate change.

        Try again.

          1. Other weather events, such as hurricanes, wildfires and thunderstorms, are on the low end of the confidence scale.

            No hurricane specialist appears to have been involved in that article.

            1. No hurricane specialist appears to have been involved in that article.

              LMAO … he started his career as a sports writer. Also he was Intern Assistant Equipment Manager for the Oklahoma City Barons!

      2. There is a cyclonic power index called ACE that is widely used as a metric for this sort of thing. ACE has been flat since they had good enough data to compute it link showing ACE trends since 1970 below. One thing I know Bailey, Jackass, and amsuck have no idea what something like ACE, why such a thing would be important, etc.

        http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php

        1. SUUTC: No idea at all. I just happened to cite ACE trends in just a few articles, e.g., like this one in 2006 and this one in 2015. And, of course, I did point to a study that mentioned ACE in my post this afternoon on Hurricane Matthew. No idea at all.

          1. Ok stand corrected.

          2. Your afternoon article is actually pretty good. At least it shows tension between researchers that have POV that are not totally reconcilable but debatable.

            I remember the Webster/Curry papers. They were hotly contested at the time. Curry made some bold predictions that didn’t turn out. Part of why she moved out of the CAGW camp. So far, hurricane predictions have not fared well for the CAGW proponents. We shall see if they can get a truly measurable increase in strong hurricanes. Although, finding outliers in small data sets (strong hurricanes in the satellite era represent a fairly small set) is not hard to do, in fact, outliers are the norm until you get lots of measurements.

  37. You mean believing climate change is caused by the tooth-fairy or, more nefariously, by the Clinton Foundation makes one open-minded? i agree. Open-minded and stupid.

  38. Perhaps the survey should have included a couple of questions to separate the logical thinkers from the whackos.
    1 – Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?
    2 – Do you believe the government is spraying us using Chemtrails.
    The results might be interesting.

  39. I was open minded until I did research I was almost convinced at one point but then I dug even deeper and realized Yes the climate is changing always has but the cause is not what they claim it is and they either know it or are purposely blind to it since they supposedly know more than I do from just my first year physics class.

  40. Ol’ Happy Face believes that ‘Global Warming’ is essentially an ’empirical’ question. Just what bubble does he live in?

  41. I lived for many years not realizing that I was getting warmer, that my knees were being covered by rising seas, and that doom and death were on the horizon unless I (we?) mended my evil ways. Then Al Gore came out with his movie and I realized The Truth. Yes, CAGW is certainly an empirical science….

  42. I’m definitely science curious (sci-curious? LOL), but climate science has become hopelessly polluted by politics.

    As someone who studied the history of science, the whole notion of “settled science” strikes me as ridiculous. Science does not work that way. If it did, the only air transportation would be hot air balloons, and we’d visit the barber for some bleeding if we got sick.

    I’d also be more inclined to lend some credibility to the alarmists if I saw them embracing practical alternati energy like nuclear power, and planning for adaptation to perceived threats like sea level rise. Instead it’s always about more taxes, more cronyism, and more centralized planning and government power with these people.

    I have zero doubt the climate is changing, since it always has, but these people are largely science illiterate and vehement statists.

    1. Solar is alternative, and surely is practical, and unlike nuclear, whose costs keep rising, solar costs are falling.

      In addition, plenty of so called “alarmists” embrace nuclear and want it part of the solution. See James Hansen.

      http://www.scientificamerican……te-s-sake/

      And there isn’t a major coastline city in this country that isn’t planning for adaptation to sea level rise. Check out online the plans with Miami and New York.

      1. And why, pray tell, are costs for nuclear rising and costs for solar falling? Free markets?

        1. Like the free market that exists for oil and gas? The one that ignores future costs of carbon? Or the one for nuclear where New York State just made a significant investment? That one?

          1. In “future costs of carbon” do we count the ongoing lack of destructive weather events? There is very clear evidence that we now have “superstorms” instead of hurricanes because of the rising temperatures in the temperate zones compared to the tropics.

            Should we calculate the average amount of annual damage caused by hurricanes pre-2005 and credit that money back to oil companies?

      2. We’ve already told you the reasons Jackand Ace, and you fail to listen. That’s one of the many reasons that people have correctly identified that you never argue in good faith.

        It’s called subsidy and regulation, which alternatively can bring down a cost or raise it. Guess which one is massively regulated, and which one is massively subsidized.

        Actually, no. Don’t guess. Solar is massively subsidized, and nuclear is massively regulated.

        Now, beyond even that point there’s the question of viability. Is it your contention that solar power is able to provide all, or even a faction, of our energy needs? Please, elaborate on that. So called ‘renewable’ energy is either:

        A) Entirely unable to meet demand.

        B) Requires particular circumstances that aren’t widely available to generate power. (Think hydroelectric. There are only so many major rivers.)

        I’m sure Jackand is just here to let us know that 50% of the population of Earth, at least, needs to die so that his preferred methods of inefficient energy generation can be used to save Mother Gaia. Blood for the Blood God.

        1. Demand? There is no demand for nuclear, and there is for solar. Now, I know you would like to wish away things like Fukushima, but it’s events like that that deter demand for nuclear. It’s called a marketplace. In addition, there is little private investment for nuclear. Know why? The cost overruns are huge, and they never get delivered on time.

          Are there regulations on nuclear? You bet. Now I know in the libertarian world you would prefer any unqualified group building nuclear power plants anywhere. Thank goodness that doesn’t happen. And yet, it isn’t just regulations that drive that cost. Nuclear plants have huge operational and building costs. Unlike solar. Again, it’s called a marketplace.

          1. There is no demand for nuclear, and there is for solar

            So you should be totes OK with a free market approach, since the market is favoring your preferred solutions, right?

        2. Oh, and nuclear doesn’t get subsidized? Try again

          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..a-reprieve

          There is no need to listen to you. You’re ignorant of the world around you.

          1. But see, the whole country isn’t the same about everything, and the NY move to be OK with nuclear is a very recent thing, passionately opposed by Greens across the country.

            This is similar to why the ACA seems OK to New Yorkers – the system NY had before was such a clusterfuck that the ACA actually did make things somewhat better for New Yorkers. New Yorkers, of course, think that the world ends at the state border and nothing that happens anywhere else matters.

            This is why many of us oppose Federal solutions to things on principal – things are not the same everywhere, and what people in the NE need/do is not the same as what everyone in the country needs/does. The Green Party used to understand this.

          2. “There is no need to listen to you. You’re ignorant of the world around you.”

            Oh my, it’s become self-aware of its brain-washed position. Somebody get the TOP MEN to recondition this ignoramus.

    2. Here, this is from 6 years ago

      http://www.scientificamerican……-planning/

      1. “scientificamerican” chuckle. they became a soft-core proggy echo chamber so slowly, we hardly noticed.

        1. Yep, SciAm was one of the great publications in the world until they were bought out by a German publishing company in the mid 80’s. Still have some of the best graphics departments in the magazine business. The articles about non political topics such as cosmology, general physics, computation, and occasionally mathematics are still pretty good. It’s just hard to stomach the rest.

          1. No kidding I was kicked off their comments board for pointing out that two of their climate articles in a week contradicted each other and that for one to be correct the other would have to be wrong. but they are never wrong so I was out.

        2. Ah, indeed. The conspiratorial Scientific American. I see you’re one of those Ronald is complaining about. Then go to NYS site itself to read about their plans.

          http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/45202.html

          Enjoy!

          1. *golf clap*. Impressive embrace of your own ignorance. How did you wrap your arms around that so far? You stretch, bro?

            If you can’t recognize the Scientific American has devolved from ‘scientific review’ to ‘social justice with a science theme’ then you simply have no understanding of science.

  43. Well Climate Gate, The Utterly Bogus Hockey Stick, The Even More Utterly Bogus Papers by Lewandowsky and Cook , the fact that CAGW researches cannot predict a fucking thing…maybe those qualitative measures give one pause to blindly accept some of this stuff.

    I’ve been following this since ClimateAudit and RealClimate spun up. I was first attracted to the debate because I understood the math behind Principal Component Analysis. The fact that PCA 3 was used as a critical component to support the conclusions seemed odd to me since the eigenvalues for PCA 1 and 2 are typically stronger. Larger eigenvalues means more explanatory power. Then I learned that Briffa had some very suspect Bristlecone proxy data, that ONE FUCKING BRISTLECONE pine supported a huge segment of the reconstruction, and that Bristlecone proxies are sensitive to local soil conditions and are INSENSITIVE to temperature. On top of all of that, it came to light that Mann had inverted sediment Proxies from fjords. The guy just purposefully made up stuff about the relationship between layering of sediments and temperature. THEN come to find out he was warned that the sediments had been contaminated by human interaction, so they were garbage any way.

    All of that was my introduction to “climate science”, so Bailey you might excuse me if I have principled objections – based on both science and mathematics – to some of the crap coming out of the CAGW community.

    1. The middle paragraph above is about the Hockey Stick debacle, and debacle it was/is.

    2. “the fact that CAGW researches cannot predict a fucking thing.”

      They can predict anything after it happens.

  44. Science is what is, not what you want it to be – A scientist

  45. The thesis seems to make sense. Maybe it helps explain why opinion leaders (and Ron Bailey) continue to studiously ignore the obvious. Climate change is a false premise for regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to limestone. Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is for sure NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely causes are well documented elsewhere.

    Here’s why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to limestone and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. An equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

    99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The oceans convert CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. Everything else is sophistry or mass hysteria.

    A modern coal power plant emits few pollutants except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy.

    “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” Longfellow “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Shakespeare

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    1. “You can’t make this stuff up.”
      well….you could make it up. Many Sci-Fi writers have done just that and made some handy profits along the way.

      “Climate change is a false premise for regulating carbon dioxide emissions”
      I have to disagree on this. It’s not about regulating CO2. The alarmists have given no indication that they strongly desire that, as evidenced by the active disregard for Asia and the developing world’s CO2 emissions. Anything the western world does, is made pointless by the active ramp-up of emissions from Asia.

      The US and Australia are mining enormous amounts of coal and shipping to China for them to burn for energy and steel, while inhibiting their domestic needs with regulation. It’s insane.

      Climate change alarmism is about statist control of everything. If they can regulate the output of energy use/consumption (EPA says CO2 is a pollutant), then they can control everything. It’s really that simple.

    2. “Everything else is sophistry or mad hysteria” like I just can’t even right now did you read the article? I think it may have mentioned closed mindedness.

      The fact that you just ignore that atmospheric carbon is demonstrably increasing fails to to aid your argument.

  46. So Ron, what percent of the various groups are science curious? What percent of libs and cons are in the top 10 percent of science curious?
    – just curious (really)

  47. I expect this sort of pseudo-science on Vox or Daily Kos, not here…

  48. “actively open-minded thinking in fact enhances the proficiency of reasoning aimed at forming identity-congruent beliefs.”

    Or does actively open-minded thinking in fact lead the thinker to form an identity based on an analysis of the information? In my own case, examination of the scientific data around climate change (and I have studied such subjects as global biogeochemical cycles, sequence stratigraphy, plate tectonics, exogeology, paleoclimate, etc.) has led me to be more of a climate-change “skeptic” and forced me to identify with more conservative views. Science will always favor doubt over certainty. Most days I am just a climate change agnostic. In a thousand years who will give a shit?

  49. “Why this partisan difference over what is essentially an empirical question?”
    The difference is not about empirical data, but about the projections of the empirical data used to lobby for a particular political agenda. I can write a computer model to prove whatever I want. But when the models have been consistently wrong for decades, I begin to see a trend. Behold: (sadly, I cut and pasted this so long ago I forgot the source of the quote, but old Danny boy did write the memo that is referenced. note the dates!)
    History begins:
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
    History ends:
    Wrong then, wrong now.
    I just survived Matthew, as I have survived hurricanes (and him-icanes) for decades. Just the same, I intend to continue my planet-killing practice of exhaling carbon dioxide for decades more. I truly believe that the trees which need my CO2 to live will not mind so much.

  50. Who am I supposed to believe, 95% of scientists or armchair climatologists in the Reason comments section?
    Or maybe you’re allowed to believe in free markets and climate change at the same time.

    It seems like people get bogged down with the view that either it’s a complete hoax or an irredeemable certainty. If there is even a 10% probability of worldwide environmental harm, it’s rational to take that seriously.

    1. 95% of scientists

      95% of scientists don’t agree on anything. The “consensus” of 97% is of climate science studies that were deemed to support the statement “human activity is contributing to global warming in some way.”

      The “consensus” of climate scientists who think this is potentially problematic is roughly 54%.

      Please people, read your own propaganda before running around bludgeoning others with it.

      1. Good job, Ruler and Straightedge. Not that many people can simplify fractions and parse meaning out of sloppy writing. The data at realclimatescience is all measurement and historical reporting. The Solomon Asch experiment proved that 2 out of 3 will lie constantly just to fit in with what they perceive as a majority, with no thought given to reasoning or measurement. So it is safe to expect them that were at least awake in physics class to be outnumbered by popularity contestants. But science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.

    2. “If there is even a 10% probability of worldwide environmental harm, it’s rational to take that seriously.”

      Bzzt! Try again.

      It is irrational to act upon such a small percentage chance without the proper studying and cost-benefit analysis first. But never mind that, we gotta leave it to the Leviathan to regress the human condition to defeat an uncertainty!

      Fuck. Off. Slaver.

      1. That is the old Christian argument for burning people at the stake. If you don’t believe in Ghawd and burn your neighbor, Ghawd might lovingly cast you down to eternal torture and damnation. So best to at least fake it–better to burn the neighbor than risk that tiny probability of the superstition not being hogwash and be burned oneself.

        1. Nope. The difference between pascal’s wager and climate change is evidence.

      2. The rational thing would be to discount the potential harm by the risk. Sounding angry doesn’t make you sound confident.

  51. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  52. oh yes, liberals are so scientific? hmmmmmm, how about when it comes to vaccines and gmo’s? lol, both D & R have their wackos.

  53. Before I get caught up in another useless debate, I ask myself this question:
    How does this sentence even make sense?
    ” . . . Kahan and his colleagues assess the relationship between accepting the evidence for man-made global warming with a measure for actively open-minded thinking and attitudes toward climate change.”

    Doesn’t a relationship necessarily involve, i.e. exist between, two things? What two things are mentioned here as being related? a) accepting the evidence [Notice: NOT EVALUATING the evidence], which is a result and – here I can only guess! – b) a measure . . .[?] Is this a measurement? –a single measurement of both a process (thinking) AND its results? or is it a metric? (Again, one metric for two distinct kinds of things?)
    It is not at all clear that the writer even knows what two things are involved, or if there are two things, or even a relationship at all. This is a meaningless word salad, nothing more.
    This kind of verbal diarrhea makes plain that this so-called study is just the latest fake-science investigation of political attitudes, the goal of which is to impugn the dignity of one side or the other by psychologizing their stated position as neurotic, biased, intellectually stymied or something worse.
    Reason would do better to assess the premises and the presentation of the data, rather than the putative conclusions of these phony articles. Much ado about nothing!

  54. If by genuine scientists Ronald means people with at least a BS, that would be the 32000 or so that signed the Petition Project that has kept the Senate from doing anything so stupid as to ratify the Kyoto Manifesto. But to see social pressure at work you need only look at the faked data curves from the Heat Island Thermometers, showing something like a third of one degree increase since the 2000 elections, and compare those with the satellite record–a flat line constant.
    The Soviet Socialist looters want money transferred to Red China. Whatever accomplishes that is science by definition. The Creation Science Republicans pretend to understand real climate science, but only to strengthen their pressure for laws forcing women to reproduce at gunpoint. Both collectives are looters bent on initiation of force and both rely on social pressure to distort science.

  55. before I looked at the check which had said $6190 , I be certain …that…my sister was like trully bringing home money part time at their computer. . there uncle has been doing this for only about nine months and resently took care of the debts on their home and purchased a top of the range Lotus Elan . you could try here
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  56. Science* can make no predictions about the future of chaotic systems. This view has the consensus of 100% of the world’s mathematicians.

    * – requires, at the very least, a falsifiable hypothesis backed by repeatable experimentation.

  57. just as Helen said I’m taken by surprise that anyone able to make $6511 in 4 weeks on the computer
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  58. I expect the Climate Scientist to try and give and accurate prediction of the future climate shifts, I just don’t expect them to be that accurate. I especially don’t expected them to understand societies reactions and capabilities in the face of those results.

  59. Perhaps a more pertinent issue is finding real solutions, instead of discussing academic things like
    “Actively open-minded thinking is defined as the “willingness to search actively for evidence against one’s favored beliefs, plans or goals and to weigh such evidence fairly when it is available.”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.