Science

Study: Climate Change Skeptics Know More About Science Than Believers

Nature Climate Change Journal: Global Warming Skeptics Know as Much or More About Science Than Believers

Despite allegations that they are tantamount to “flat earthers,” a study published Sunday in the Nature Climate Change journal indicates that climate change skeptics actually tend to have a slightly higher level of general scientific knowledge than those who believe in the theory.

The study drew the conclusion after asking 1,540 representative Americans a total of 22 questions, according to Fox News.

Some of the questions included:

“Electrons are smaller than atoms — true or false?”

“How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?”

“Lasers work by focusing sound waves — true or false?”

“As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased,” the paper, funded by the National Science Foundation, notes.

Though, to be fair, it was a close call.  Skeptics answered an average of 57% questions correctly, while those who indicated more concern for the effects of global warming answered an average of 56% correctly.

The lead author of the study, Yale Law Professor Dan Kahan, cautioned in an interview with Fox that the results are not to be used as evidence for or against climate change.  Rather, they provide an interesting insight into the polarizing impact of the debate, and put to rest the allegation that those who do not believe in global warming are simply ignorant of science.

Both “sides,” he added, have proceeded to argue that the study gives weight to their respective belief.

A spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists remarked: “Kahan’s research is so interesting…Over the last few years, the policy issues surrounding climate change have become increasingly politicized, and that’s bleeding over into people’s perceptions of climate science.”

But Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” letter in January, said the conclusion that skeptics know as just as much or more about science surprised him “not at all.”

“MIT alumni are among my most receptive audiences,” he added.

 

Comments (121)

1 2 3
  • Archtard
    Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:10am

    Humans are a product of nature, thus if we are causing the “global warming” its and act of nature. By the way some scientists believe we are still coming out of the last ice age, and I am inclined to agree.

    Report Post »  
    • RamonPreston
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:42am

      Agreed. We were in a “mini ice age” at the time of George Washington. Just want to have an excuse to tax us more. All the money in the world isn’t going to stop “nature.” Going to get so nice that when you harvest one crop you can plant another one right behind it. (Amos 9:13)

      Report Post » RamonPreston  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:09am

      And that mini ice age came as a mini warming trend ended .

      Report Post »  
    • SLOWBIDEN
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:07am

      Does anyone remenber in the 70“s when so called ” Scientist” said the earth was cooling. How did that go. The earth heats and cools in cycles. It’s a fact of life.

      Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:31am

      That‘s probably becasue climate skeptic actually do research and the populist believers just parrot what they’re told.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:16am

      No surprise the report identifies Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT rather than reference MIT’s Joint Program on The Science and Policy of Global Change. We live in a world where journalists, politicians and even scientists chose to take a radicalized version of an opposite view and make absurd statements for the purpose of getting attention and noticed. All of which has little to do with actual science.

      http://globalchange.mit.edu/

      Report Post »  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:41pm

      @JROOK

      We live in a world where journalists, politicians and even scientists chose to take a radicalized version of an opposite view and make absurd statements for the purpose of getting attention and noticed. All of which has little to do with actual science.

      =============================

      Exactly, you have nailed the AGW propaganda.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
  • Marconi
    Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:00am

    Firstly, that is not what the study concludes. What it says is that people who are unconcerned about climate change (not people who are skeptical about it) know more. Read what it says, not what you think you want it to say because an editor fabricated the title.

    Besides, what does a poll about science among non-scientists have to do with global warming?

    Whup-de-do! SO what?

    Secondly it is funny that a scientific study is being cited to disclaim what science claims, and then done so incorrectly.

    How old is the Earth will have at least 40% getting it wrong. That does not means it is valid skepticism since the number is so high.

    Science is not determined by polls.

    Report Post »  
    • mauijonny
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:55am

      Science is not always determined by science, either.

      Report Post » mauijonny  
    • RamonPreston
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:57am

      Okay, how old is the earth? If you said more than 20,000 years you are wrong. 20,000 years ago the earth would have been molten from the earth’s magnetic field. Dinosaurs were NOT extinct millions of years before man. Fossils prove than dinosaurs and man coexisted. Remember King Nebuchadnezzar? He had a pet dinosaur but they were called “dragons.” Dinosaur is a new English word. Pictures of dragons are painted on The Ishtar Gate (built by Nebuchadnezzar.)
      Evolution is a lie. Did you answer right?
      http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

      Report Post » RamonPreston  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:44am

      Even if co2 increase preceded atmospheric temperature rise (it didn’t), correlation does not prove causality anyway. Yet I can’t imagine that it would not be hammered into the public that the temperature rose with co2 increase over the last 10 year if that did happen as proof that man-made global warming is occurring. So let me very clearly say this: The temperature did NOT even correlate with co2 increase. So we are now only left with people guessing about global warming that stand to benefit economically if their guess accidentally turns out to be true. There was a 50 50 chance that the temp would rise with the co2 and it didn’t even happen. Hehehehe. I love it.

      Report Post »  
    • shirtsbyeric
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 6:50am

      What is concensus but a poll?

      Report Post »  
    • Rickfromillinois
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 6:51am

      So what does a biologist know about climate? How about a mathematician? Just what defines a scientist? When Al Gore and others of his ilk were coming up with their survey of how many scientists believed in man made climate change they included High School math teachers and other people not usually considered scientists. How about just asking climatologists only? Then the numbers are about even between those who do think the present climate change is caused by man and those who don’t, with those who don’t holding a slight but growing lead. Don’t keep yammering about the science of the theory and then include the opinions of those who have nothing to do with that science as proof. It just weakens your argument.

      Report Post » Rickfromillinois  
    • bry
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:10am

      It’s wonderfull and refreashing to see intellect on display. With your meandering reading comprehension, you probably believe am I referring to you. I am not.

      Report Post » bry  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:38am

      When Global Warming Malthusians start using science, then you’ll have a case.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • 1956
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:15am

      MAUIJONNY:

      True, Al Gore has determined that global warming is a conclusive fact, and he is not a scientist nor does he base this belief on any scientific facts. But he talks about global warming as a “science”.

      Report Post » 1956  
  • Dale
    Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:50am

    Speaking of ‘global climate change’, I have some interesting news: The Alabama Legislature (this week), passed and the Governor passed an anti-Agenda 21 bill; preserving personal property rights, and forbidding jurisdictions from contracting with Agenda 21 organizations. One down 49 to go (or 57 depending on who’s counting).

    Report Post » Dale  
    • Dale
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:57am

      Oops, Governor signed, sorry.

      Report Post » Dale  
    • Marconi
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:02am

      Definitely not you. Otherwise your attempt at a gaffe being wrong would have used 56. Not 57.

      LOL

      Report Post »  
    • radicalRWer
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:19am

      Actually it was 58 states he believed there was in the USA. “I visited 57 states with one left to go.” Oh wait, he also said, “not including Alaska and Hawaii, my team won’t let me go there” so does that make it 60?

      Report Post » radicalRWer  
  • Byrdi
    Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:41am

    There are way too many people who are NOT scientists who make statements that, rather than being based in any facts, describe skeptics in the same way the left describes racists, bigots, etc. They can’t prove their claims, so they must do character assassinations or call people ignorant. The UN and IPCC have all agreed they should not wait for proof to act on their science. Consensus is not what scientific research is based on. Scientists are supposed to be skeptics themselves and continue trying to disprove their theories. Instead they make false claims and demand that the whole world live a completely different life than has ever been experienced by human beings. They are using their “science” for social, economic, and environmental engineering. This is definitely not a common sense approach.

    Report Post »  
  • GeneralQuarters
    Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:41am

    “Science is but an image of the truth.”
    Francis Bacon

    Report Post »  
  • The-Monk
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:50pm

    No Kidding? I guess this puts to bed the idea that JZS is a scientist. Or should I say that Al Gore and JZS (the one eyed monster avatar) share the same scientific sleeping arrangements?

    Report Post » The-Monk  
  • Jerry Frey
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:47pm

    “They do not believe in human caused global warming…..or human caused climate change…”

    Anyone with common sense can recognize the weather is changing, call it global warming or climate change.

    SEE for yourself.

    http://napoleonlive.info/did-you-know/facts-about-climate-change-2/

    Report Post »  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 6:22am

      Jerry Frey,
      He said HUMAN CAUSED.

      The climate has always changed so what is new?

      Report Post »  
    • janedough1
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:21am

      Hmmm, I guess that proves we never had an ice age then. Jerry Frey says climate doesn’t change unless humans cause it by burning fossil fuels….

      Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:43am

      Jane,
      What puzzles me is they call it fossil fuels but who buried the Dinosaurs to allow them to be fuels of the future. When dinos died they died on the surface how in the heck died they get miles below the earth surface. sedimentation couldn’t happen fast enough. And lower forms of life that have been proven to exist like roaches,ants and flys would devoured the corpes long before sedimentation could accur. So who buried the dinosuars?

      Report Post »  
    • OhioRifleman
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:26pm

      @ John Jamison

      You’re missing one point on the dinos. The two commonly-accepted theories of dino extinction (mass-extinction events) are volcano and meteor. Both off the above would produce horrendous amounts of atmospheric debris – think Pompeii on a larger scale and with double or triple the net debris. That kind of jumpstart would go a long way to covering the freshly-deceased dinos and would preserve the bulk of their remains from open-air contamination. Add several million years of sedimentation on top of that and you have buried fossils on the way to fossil-fuel status.

      Report Post » OhioRifleman  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:05pm

      Ohio,
      There no evidence of a global killer of that magnitude striking the earth that could bury dinos that deep as to keep flesh from becoming insect chow. So unless lands up end 2012 style burying them deep with the crush,then theres no explaination as to what we’re burning. Purhaps dinops never walked the earth but they where rather part of the super planet that “supposedly” expolded during the big bang that“created” the universe.

      Report Post »  
    • OhioRifleman
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 7:23pm

      @ John Jamison

      Erm, I think you missed the monster crater that stretches from Florida to Belize? You know, commonly called the Gulf of Mexico? The numbers are a bit variable, but the EO of a meteor strike necessary to make that kind of depression would easily result in nuclear winter many times over. Also, keep in mind Pompeii was a small fart volcano and it still buried said city in several inches of ash.

      2012…not a big fan of disaster movies, myself. Never watched it.

      You make a good point about the dinos being residents of some proto-planet that was later part of the big bang, but saying it would have been the nucleus of such a blast…not likely. Again, it’s a factor of EO (energy output): the necessary power to create stars (one of the outcomes of the big bang) would flash any recognizable solid material to plasma, breaking it down to base atomic components in the process. Essentially, what goes in one side of the reaction is utterly unrecognizable on the far side; God would be able to sort out what was what, the rest of us would not.

      I pass the field to you for an evening.

      Report Post » OhioRifleman  
  • gooeylewie
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:15pm

    Rush has summed it up more eloquently than anyone else:
    The earth is not a sphere because there was a consensus among scientists stating so, it is a sphere because it is a sphere.

    A scientific consensus does not prove that global warming is not a hoax – the lack of any shred of evidence and the unhinged irrational arguments of the alarmists lead an observer to notice that the longer the debate continues, the closer the probability that it is nothing more than a neo-Marxist ploy approaches 1.

    Report Post »  
    • Marconi
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:03am

      You must be one the skeptics that got a score of 1 or 2.

      Report Post »  
    • v15
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:43am

      The core belief of the whole man-made global warming debate is that CO2 is a pollutant & drives the climate is WRONG.

      Report Post » v15  
    • RamonPreston
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:09am

      Hey, Marconi
      Who is credited with inventing the radio? Did you say “Marconi?” The answer is Tesla. Marconi was the first to use a radio but Tesla had the patents. How’s your score now? 1 or 2?

      Report Post » RamonPreston  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:57am

      Actually Ramon, Marconi did technically invent the radio,he did however use radio tube design patneted by Nicholi Tesla. So one could argue that it was a joint venture and that both are responsible for the invention. One a different note did you know that America’s greatest inventor thomas edison….Use his wealth and influences to stop Nicholi Tesla for instituting the A/C system of electricity delivery in an attempt to protect his flaw power wasting D/C system. DId you know that Thomas also used actors to libally attack Tesla in an attempt to bankrupt him. Science even then was as much about power and ideology as it was the betterment of mankind.
      I actually never heard of Tesla in school Edison was praised to no but not a word about Nicholi. It was actually a metal band that got me to pick up a book and learn about the father of American power A russian immigrant named Nicholi Tesla.

      Report Post »  
    • RamonPreston
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 6:16pm

      Johnjamison
      You are wrong:
      In addition to Marconi, two of his contemporaries Nikola Tesla and Nathan Stufflefield took out patents for wireless radio transmitters. Nikola Tesla is now credited with being the first person to patent radio technology; the Supreme Court overturned Marconi’s patent in 1943 in favor of Tesla.
      http://inventors.about.com/od/rstartinventions/a/radio.htm

      Report Post » RamonPreston  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 30, 2012 at 7:26am

      Ramon,
      I’m dead on in what I said fact is tesla never built his device in total. And yes marconi’s patent was overturned because Marconi used parts that Nicholi Tesla had patented. Parts is the key word as for what the supreme court ruled that’s means nothing really as the court is seated with people people with inherit biases. Tesla was a great man whose genius surpassed Ensteins he understood energy like no one before him or after him.

      Report Post »  
  • Everett Bennett Jr
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:45pm

    No ****!

    Report Post » Everett Bennett Jr  
    • jzs
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:36pm

      Huh? I’d encourage everyone and then explain to me what it says. Here ya go:, “Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk.” Sure for smart people like you I’ve always thought it a crime that citizens were forced to use, “unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk.” Ain’t it the truth.

      Whatever this article says – and I encourage you to read and explain it to me with quotes and stuff – the fact is that it doesn’t matter what clueless people believe about science. Science advances based not on what the average person believes (like the idea that it’s impossible for an airplane to fly or that the Earth is not the center of the universe), science makes new discoveries based on what the experts on the subject believe. Sorry guys, almost 100% of scientists accept that humans are contributing to global warming, almost as many as believe in evolution which is exactly 100%.

      Before you raise an objection to my post though, go and arm yourself with the facts in the article linked above. I’ve read it and it proves the opposite of what this website says it does. If you want to debate the issues, please list your quotes and references.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:12am

      @jzs the one eyed monster

      JZS says, “Sorry guys, almost 100% of scientists accept that humans are contributing to global warming, almost as many as believe in evolution which is exactly 100%.”

      Prove your statements first Mr. Know-it-all. Then I’ll chop them to pieces….

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:16am

      @JZS

      almost 100% of scientists accept that humans are contributing to global warming

      ————————————————————————————

      Is that warming, or cooling or change, or disruption

      Can you prove that 100% … are you delusional, climate science is an hypothesis used to try to prove another hypothesis for ideological, economic and political agendas.

      31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
      including 9,029 with PhDs

      “No convincing scientific evidence…”

      http://www.petitionproject.org/

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:20am

      @jzs the one eyed monster

      Why did your buddy Al Gore buy a $9M house on an Ocean front beach if the Oceans are going to rise 20 feet?

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • Puddle Duck
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:02am

      JZS chew on this you pin head

      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensuswhatconsensusamongclimatescientiststhedebateisnotover.html

      Report Post » Puddle Duck  
    • Dale
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:46am

      jzs;

      Facts constitute science, not consensus. There is NO proof confirming ‘man-made global climate’ anything. Your are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. If you have any, please present them; and we will happily dismember them.

      Report Post » Dale  
    • Rickfromillinois
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:21am

      When I hear the argument that “scientists” believe in man caused global warming I know that the person doing the talking is using a false argument. The only scientists that should be listened to are the climatologists. A brilliant microbiologist is not the person to give an educated opinion on climate. Nor, as was done by Al Gore when coming up with his list of scientists who believe in it, are high school math and biology teachers. Stephen Hawkins is brilliant but he is not an expert on the climate. The statement that 100% of all scientists believe in man caused global warming, excuse me, now it is climate change, is bs at face value. As far as climatologists are concerned they are almost evenly divided, although there are more who doubt the theory and their number is growing. In addition, just how is having the U.N. taxing rich countries, with the exception of China and India, and giving trillions of dollars of those taxes to poor countries going to change the climate? It’s a power and money scam.

      Report Post » Rickfromillinois  
  • oldschool66
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:35pm

    You know it’s not hard to figure out that the sun warms the earth when its warmer plants grow better when its colder they grow slower….and 1 degree in the aspect of warming or cooling is a crock. How much money has this cost the govt.(taxpayer)? The sun goes through cycles of more or less solar flares when the flares are peak we are warmer when the flares subside we cool down..and the air is cleaner today than in the days of burning coal to heat your home and that was one of the coldest times during our history and look at history recorded during G washington as president we were in a cool phase abnd we warmed up and it has been proven that we are cooling again the global warmers are the hippies from the 70′s era having acid trip relapses they had to change the numbers to show warming …..

    Report Post »  
    • Puddle Duck
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:05am

      The Moon also plays a great role in our weather patterns as does our shifting axis and it’s orbit around the sun. The orbits of both the moon and and earth around the sun are perfect …they are elipsoid in nature. That huge earthquake that rocked Japan last year also knocked the axis off a little. The actual spinning of the earth on that axis is not uniform either, it wobbles). Add into this mix the always changing status of the sun’s conditions (solar flare activity, gamma bursts, heating and cooling not uniform across it’s srface) and the job of putting together an accurate model to predict possible weather trends makes any claims to know definitely what is happening is arrogant at best. We don;t have enough computing power in the world to midel all the variables I just touched on…we don’t even know the exact orbit patway of our planet around the sun…the moon’s either (around earth). We have approximations. The whole “science is settled” argument is pure BS. The truth is no one really knows what is going on with the weather and they cannot predict it using the data and tools we have today any better than they could 50 years ago. This whole man made climate change scare is nothing but another method of nudging folks into accepting something drastic…like say Agenda 21 to reverse the so called damage.

      Report Post » Puddle Duck  
  • Rollo2
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:29pm

    Nobody asked me! hehehe…

    Report Post »  
  • Leader1776
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:17pm

    But. ……. But, the noble laureate Gore said the debate is over! You mean it isn’t? Oh, say it isn’t Sooooo.. The hockey stick isn’t true? Or maybe the hockey pucks Gore and Hansen use for gray matter is more real.

    Let’s get serious. A plausible ‘theory’ supposedly proven by one-sided methodology can be believed by other scientists IF they choose to believe and haven’t the time to closely examine the rigor with which testing was carried out. Lay upon that an eco-fascist, well funded, ‘feel-good’ barrage of propaganda and you have the makings of yet another senseless, wasteful attempt to change the human experience.

    In a way, this allowing them enough rope to expose their real agenda is good. The average person on the street might think twice now about giving this group any more political or financial say/power for many years to come. Additionally, maybe it will force others calling themselves ‘scientists’ to rethink what it really means to be a scientist.

    Report Post » Leader1776  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:46am

      oh it would be nice wouldn’t it for them to be revealed to all as frauds but I do not see this happening with this garbage being presented as fact to youth. oh well thinking folks still exist who do actually question instead of blindly accept. as for these “scientists” the idiots will always be with us. if they cannot see the fallacy in their inability to question the science which is their primary job as a scientist then the world cannot be shocked when the majority of us lose all respect for the scientific community as a whole. too many people these days blinded by their political ideology

      Report Post »  
  • Chuck Stein
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:10pm

    Not intended as a plug for atheism, but similar studies show that the average atheist knows more about religion than the average fervent religious adherant. Of course, the questions asked in the study were particulars of various religious beliefs.

    Report Post »  
    • asybot12
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:22pm

      Oh and who the heck designed that globe was it a climate change advocate looks like they changed the world in the process!.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:26pm

      Hey Chuck, as an atheist, do you consider yourself smarter than Sir Isaac Newton?

      Report Post »  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:57am

      So, Copatriots, you ask me (in your capacity as an atheist) whether I consider myself smarter than Sir Isaac Newton. No, I do not. Note, however, that Newton believed in an omnipotent Creator. I share that belief.
      Oh, have I perhaps twisted your question? How does it feel?

      Report Post »  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:28am

      Correction to my first post in this string: Mormons and Jews scored better than atheists in the survey. So I overstated it. In any event, climate change is a form of religion. A pseudo religion, but it still has its priests (that arrogate unto themselves the title of “scientist”) who attack heretics (who have the temerity to ask questions and apply logic). Real religions freely note that their beliefs are based upon FAITH, but climate change religionists delude themselves that their beliefs are based upon empirical evidence.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:45am

      Not quite sure about your “twist” as atheism is not cogent with a belief in an Omnipotent Creator…but okay. Anyway, I was making a point about intellect and belief. The fact that your believe any of these studies reflects your own.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:07am

      Oh, and CHUCK, did you intentionally leave out the fact that Newton was a devout Christian who believed in the authority of the Gospels?

      “Daniel was in the greatest credit amongst the Jews, till the reign of the Roman Emperor Hadrian. And to reject his prophecies, is to reject the Christian religion. For this religion is founded upon his prophecy concerning the Messiah.”

      “For as the few and obscure Prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming were for setting up the Christian religion, which all nations have since corrupted, so the many and clear Prophecies, concerning the things to be done at Christ’s second coming, are not only for predicting but also for effecting a recovery and re-establishment of the long-lost truth, and setting up a kingdom wherein dwells righteousness.”

      Report Post »  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:41am

      @ Copatriots
      The “twist” I referred to is my describing you as an atheist in my second post on this string. You probably are not an atheist, just as I am not an atheist.
      In the Navy, I was told never to assume because it makes an “a**“ out of ”u“ and ”me.” It is still good advice.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:48am

      Apologies then, Chuck, but your lead sentence on your post made the inference. Why would you believe and quote the modern, left-leaning, biased intelligence surveys to make your original comment? What was your point? Do you relish considering atheists as smarter than you are as your unintended “plug for atheism” infers?

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:50am

      BTW, a heartfelt thank you for your service! I have no doubt the weekend was especially meaningful for you and those heroes who also served….past and present.

      Report Post »  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:30pm

      @ Copatriots,
      Many atheists are “book smart” as regards religion. They study it to trash it. That doesn’t make them “smarter” — it does (often) make them more informed. They will not “prime the pump” with a contrite heart, though, so they deny themselves the greater light and knowledge that is constantly available to them.
      The point I was trying to make is that nonbelievers CAN “know” more than believers — who are often just content with their faith. As regards climate change enthusiasts/fanatics/sheep/whatever, they assert that they are moved by “science”, but they in fact do not even have the knowledge that they claim as their baliwick. Climate changers are a faith-based group, but they will routinely demean persons of faith.

      Report Post »  
  • RightPolitically
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:10pm

    The reason people more educated in the sciences tend to disbelieve man-made global warming more often than others is because they “think” and “reason.” The dummies listen to and accept leftist green weenie propaganda because they are incapable of objective analysis. In fact, they would even know what that is!

    Report Post » RightPolitically  
  • The Third Archon
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:00pm

    ““Electrons are smaller than atoms — true or false?”
    “How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?”
    “Lasers work by focusing sound waves — true or false?””
    WHAT?! These aren’t questions about climate change–they aren’t even questions about science; they are questions to see if you have a pulse.

    Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • asybot12
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:20pm

      Hey everyone the third archon is back!! He was gone for awhile after I asked him who the first and second ones were. Looks like he still hasn’t found an answer! Oh and by the way # 3 ( never to get any higher) could you answer any of those questions , right thought so.

      Report Post »  
    • asybot12
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:24pm

      Hey the Third Archon is back!!! were are #1 and 2? are you still looking? Oh and can you answer those 3 questions? Thought so.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:15pm

      Apparently fewer liberals have a pulse than conservatives/libertarians. Who knew?

      Apparently not 3rd Archon! :)

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:17pm

      3rd Archon

      Since liberals aren’t as smart as conservatives I posted this link for you. I hope you get well soon.

      http://junkscience.com/2012/05/28/jo-nova-man-made-sea-level-rises-are-due-to-global-adjustments/

      Man-made sea-level rises are due to global adjustments

      Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:17am

      @The Third Archon

      I noticed that you didn’t answer them. You might want to check your pulse….

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on May 30, 2012 at 1:27am

      LOL–like I said, I doubt ANYONE living, conservative or liberal, answered THESE particular questions wrong. It’s an awfully big assumption that these specific questions showed a difference correlated with political beliefs (and its a rather small correlation besides) when the claim was that the WHOLE average of ALL the questions is what was measured for the correlations.

      As for the answers–in case you didn’t know:
      Electrons are smaller than atoms (duh)
      The Earth travels around the Sun in one YEAR (duh again, lol)
      and, lasers do NOT work by focusing sound waves, but light waves (for the last time–duh!)

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
  • MDDAWG
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:50pm

    As a physician scientist, I have a hard time accepting the science behind “man-made global warming.” Evidence now exists that we have been in a cooling cycle for the past 10 years.
    However, I don’t know.
    The next question is, can man really affect the changing cycles of warming and cooling that the earth goes through? (Sorry, dangling preposition.)
    Finally, even if there was man-made global warming, are there really anychanges that our government can effect, or even the UN effect that would change the climate.
    It’s all ludicrous. In the end, it is highly unlikely that there is man-made global warming. It’s much more about control, power and money.

    Report Post » MDDAWG  
  • Ducky 1
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:42pm

    I trust my two friends with masters degrees in science. They do not believe in human caused global warming…..or human caused climate change!!

    Report Post » Ducky 1  
  • country_hick
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:29pm

    How many HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars have we sunk into education over the last 40 years? And this is what we get? And they want to spend MORE?

    Only 72% got Copernicus1 correct? And of that ONLY 45% got Copernicus2 correct? ONLY 62% got Elecatom correct?

    If people can‘t get this basic stuff correct is it any wonder many can’t tell you what is in the Bill of Rights?

    Report Post »  
  • Sue Dohnim
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:25pm

    I am skeptic of deniers, specifically natural climate change deniers

    Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
  • Calm Voice of Reason
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:14pm

    This wasn’t a study about whether a greater degree of scientific literacy positively correlates with the ACCEPTANCE of climate change, but rather whether CONCERN over the dangers of climate change increases concurrently with scientific literacy-which is a horse of a different color. It is perfectly natural to be less afraid of something when you know more about it.

    Report Post » Calm Voice of Reason  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:44pm

      or, you are less afraid of something you privately know to be false but publicly support for ideological, economic or political reasons.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • Rollo2
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:27pm

      Absolutely! and that’s why the MSM and CRU and Michael Mann, among othersdon’t want to release their data, they just want you to believe their interpretation of their data.

      Dr. Phil Jones, former head of CRU East Anglia has admitted that there has been no increase in average global temperature since 1997.

      Put a fork in AGW, it’s done.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:20pm

      Rollo2
      Put a fork in AGW, it’s done.

      ***
      No not really. The poster, Calm Voice of Reason, will be pushing the AGW agenda a hundred years form now if he lives that long.

      Report Post »  
  • Rickfromillinois
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:10pm

    This can’t be true. Everybody knows that we who skeptical of man caused global warming are anti-science and dumber then dirt.

    Report Post » Rickfromillinois  
  • styxman65
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:02pm

    Believers and Liberals in general have the conclusion that they are smarter than anyone one else So much so that they, in game show terms are smart enough to be on “Jeopardy”, and we as skeptics and conservatives are the“ Price Is Right” class of people.

    Report Post » styxman65  
    • Rollo2
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:34pm

      Well Chris Mathews showed how well they do on ‘Jeopardy’ didn’t he?

      Report Post »  
  • moussiagilda
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:55pm

    There was a study! Therefore, there was a study!!!

    The weather is whatever God, that manic-depressive schizo overgenerous slob, feels like giving you.

    Report Post »  
  • capitalismrocks
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:51pm

    That’s simple to answer, we don’t just take things on blind faith, that the “consensus is in”

    We do our homework, study, and analyze….

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

    This is a great place to start…

    Report Post » capitalismrocks  
    • Marconi
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:01am

      No it is not. It is a propaganda of debunked claims, repeated.

      here’s the place to start: http://realclimate.org

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:38am

      Marconi

      I got reaclimate bookmarked. If I remember that is the Michael Mann site. LULZ

      Junkscience.com is a much more honest site. Why CERN replicated the cloud ionization study that real climate would do nothing more than launch a diatribe against.

      Who do you believe MR Scientific achievement, Michael Mann or CERN?

      Report Post »  
  • MBA
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:50pm

    Imagine that!

    Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love