Totally Gorey
-
Cal, I shouldn't have added Vapor in there, ignore that. He doesn't have to deal with you too.
I guess I was wrong in saying I'm smarter than you because you're a farmer. I'm just smarter than you because you are you. You make that clear almost every time you post.
The point about you being a farmer is just that, you're a farmer. Clearly scientists that study global warming know more about it than you do. I'd also argument that engineering and medical students may know more about science in general.
I'm not saying there aren't scientists out there that agree with you, and that you can't find an article they've written, but that they are the small minority.
If I missed something in that response I'll get back to you after work.
You need a new fallback position. Being an engineering student is not as impressive as you seem to think it is, and it doesn't make you any more intelligent than, say, a farmer. You should stop bringing it up every other post and just stand on your principals.
You need a new fallback position. Being an engineering student is not as impressive as you seem to think it is, and it doesn't make you any more intelligent than, say, a farmer. You should stop bringing it up every other post and just stand on your principals.
I only brought that up because the heart of this argument is understanding scientific matters. In the post you quoted I said I wasn't smarter than Cal because I'm an engineering student and he's a farmer. I said I am cuz he's him and I'm me, occupation and studies aside.
I go on to say scientists that study climate change are going to know more about it than a farmer. More about it than myself and anyone else here (as far as I know) too. That was the base of my argument, that the scientific community all greatly believe in some level of man made climate change.
Everyone is going to have something they know more about others on here. That fact that I'm in school working closely with math and science lends to my knowledge of it.
-
Study sez belief in global warming depends on how you FEEL about the world.
Oh, and the more knowledge of science and math you have the less likely it is you'll believe in global warming.
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1
-
That's not really what they said. I'll have to read it again but I don't think that is what they are getting at, not completely.
You do a much better job though at finding sources, haha. It is a welcome change.
If you can find the test they used to determine the science level of participants, the National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators, 2010, or whatever, you'll be my hero.
Edit: Actually this is a really interesting study. I'm going to read through all the supplemental info and get back to you.
I wish they didn't just ask "How much of a threat do you think global warming is" but also asked about how much of it they felt was man made, or if it was just natural, or if they didn't think there was any at all.
Edit 2: Nvm I found the questions
Edit 3: It says a person's views about how dangerous they feel global warming is more based on cultural indicators than their scientific knowledge.
An increase in "scientific knowledge" just increases your belief in there either being a threat or not being a threat. It doesn't make them believe that there is more of a threat no matter what.
I say "scientific knowledge" in quotes because holy fuck did you look at the questions they asked? This wasn't dividing up between the scientific community and the public like I was doing earlier. This is dividing up between the Bunkers/morons of the world and the average to slightly above average intelligence people (unless I am overestimating average).
The more "scientific knowledge" you have though the less of a perceived threat you feel nuclear power is (thank god, one saving grace). Now I wonder if this is because nuclear power is not as big of an issue politically. If it all of a sudden was Dems on one side and Reps on another would we see the same occurence as we do here as people will begin to choose their sides based on cultural matters and then seek out info that supports their beliefs.
Edit 4: Sorry, this turned into a jumbled mess.
You realize your FEEL line goes both ways though, right?
-
Woody, glad you found the article interesting.
The FEEL line is based on one's point on a "hierarchy–Egalitarianism (Hierarchy) v Individualism–Communitarianism (Individualism)" graph. Boil it down to people who want to live in a nanny state v people who don't
The method of sample selection consists of people who have volunteered to be contacted for opinion polls. Diversity and randomness cannot be claimed. Anyway, the level of the science questions doesn't bother me. At least we know that all of the subjects could operate a computer well enough to answer an online questionnaire.
The study is biased in favor of a nanny state and belief in global warming - anthropogenic global warming I dare say. The more science and math literacy a person has (and the bar is set pretty low), and the more individualistic their world outlook the less likely a person is to believe in global warming. Don't consider the science, the authors would rather we depended on peer pressure and collectivism.
Maybe it's just me.
-
So you think the authors made the wrong conclusion?
I agree about it not being the best sampling. Voluntary polls are not the best. I've lied before in an attempt to get into surveys and discussions that pay participants (only because I did one through the same site before and actually got paid)
-
I think the level of scientific knowledge they graded on was so low it barely tells you anything about how someone's scientific understanding affects their perceived threat of global warming. My point was relating the scientists that actually study climate change to the average American. Not someone who barely got a GED to an average American (unless I am underestimating America...).
If you do take there level of scientific testing as it is then I agree with their conclusion that a person's perceived threat of global warming is more determined by cultural and moral values than their scientific knowledge. This is seen in the graph that shows each spectrum of cultural views split on the threat. Increase someone's scientific knowledge and their data finds that they are only more firm in their position on whether or not global warming is a threat. This, as they pointed out, probably has a lot to do with how politicized the issue is.
The authors of this study don't "want" to specifically show anything. They just want to do the best job they can in accurately reading the data and reaching the right conclusions. If it shows one thing, so be it. If it shows the opposite, that's fine too.
The only saving grace is that both cultural/moral sects believed nuclear power was less of a threat as their intelligence went up. This gives me some hope for the future of that industry.
-
The study was biased because the point of it all was to find out how to make skeptics believe in global warming. The answer: peer pressure and collectivism. That was also the point of the "science is settled" survey of scientists, it was a false conclusion advertised to convince the weak minded.
Turn it around - we can say that people with less literacy in science and math are more likely to believe in global warming. so, taking your opinion that the test for science and math literacy was set very low, the people who believe in GW must be morons.
-
Bunker said:
woody doesn't think, he waits to be told what to say or just hops on some green weenie band wagon even if its a bunch of lies.
But you are a Christian because...
-
Actually, no. Don't respond to that.
I shouldn't use that as a way to show you make no sense. That's only gonna get us off track and piss people off.
I should know better than to even respond to you.
-
Actually, no. Don't respond to that.
I shouldn't use that as a way to show you make no sense. That's only gonna get us off track and piss people off.
I should know better than to even respond to you.
Actually, no. Don't respond to that.
I shouldn't use that as a way to show you make no sense. That's only gonna get us off track and piss people off.
I should know better than to even respond to you.
This
-
Once again, Little Johnny Woodpecker chucks wood emotionally,
because he doesn't have a clue otherwise.
And, isn't very smart. No common sense.
Little Johnnie Woodpecker has nothin but insults to try to prove
he has a clue.
So, there ya go.
He doesn't have one. He and Heck are quite a pair.
-
Once again, Little Johnny Woodpecker chucks wood emotionally,
because he doesn't have a clue otherwise.
And, isn't very smart. No common sense.
Little Johnnie Woodpecker has nothin but insults to try to prove
he has a clue.
So, there ya go.
He doesn't have one. He and Heck are quite a pair.
Once again, Little Johnny Woodpecker chucks wood emotionally,
because he doesn't have a clue otherwise.
And, isn't very smart. No common sense.
Little Johnnie Woodpecker has nothin but insults to try to prove
he has a clue.
So, there ya go.
He doesn't have one. He and Heck are quite a pair.
You're Retarded
call that whatever reaction you'd like
but you're Retarded
-
Dang, you just emotiionally cried like the
sicko lib freak whiner in at the top of the thread.
Congrats. You just proved us right again.
and again. and again.
-
Lol, I should just know better than to respond to you or Bunker
I also noticed I owe Z a reply
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đź’—
Register Login