Survey: Conservatives are less likely to accept the norms of science

[chad kincham]

Here we ago again.

Here is the data which shows that while the troposphere is warming up the lower stratosphere has been cooling.
This is the characteristic signature of AGW and cannot be explained by changes in solar activity.
If solar activity is sole mechanism for global warming both the troposphere and lower stratosphere would be in phase and the temperature would increase in both.

Here is the 1967 paper which predicted the lower stratosphere would cool due to human action decades before AGW became topical let alone politicized.
Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity in: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 24 Issue 3 (1967)

Here is a simplified explanation (minus the thermodynamics) of how AGW causes the lower stratosphere to cool.
Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

Yes, here we go again. Before I address your charts...

Here we ago again.

Here is the data which shows that while the troposphere is warming up the lower stratosphere has been cooling.
This is the characteristic signature of AGW and cannot be explained by changes in solar activity.
If solar activity is sole mechanism for global warming both the troposphere and lower stratosphere would be in phase and the temperature would increase in both.

Here is the 1967 paper which predicted the lower stratosphere would cool due to human action decades before AGW became topical let alone politicized.
Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity in: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 24 Issue 3 (1967)

Here is a simplified explanation (minus the thermodynamics) of how AGW causes the lower stratosphere to cool.
Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

Before I address your charts and graphs:

The claim of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is that carbon dioxide, though it’s only 4% of the greenhouse effect, nevertheless can drive global warming as if it were 95% of the greenhouse effect, and increase global temperature enough to cause catastrophic warming that can drown the planet with melting polar ice.

How much of a temperature increase are they trying to stop? 1 degree? 2 degrees? Let’s go way past the 1 to 1.5 degrees of warming they want to prevent, and say they are trying to stop a 3 degree rise.

Well, the unequivocal data shows the earth was 4 degrees warmer for 3,000 years - with no catastrophic events - which absolutely falsifies that part of global warming alarmism. 4 degrees increase is safe for the planet.

The other part of global warming alarmism is of course that carbon dioxide emissions drive up the earth’s temperature - yet the data shows clearly that CO2 levels always lag behind temperature rise, and thus there’s no way possible for it to cause temperature to increase, when it instead reacts to temperature increase.

This fact coupled with unarguable data that CO2 levels were ten times higher in the past, again with no catastrophic events, and no comparable temperature increase, falsifies the need to lower carbon emissions significantly - they could instead increase ten times, and the planet will be fine.

Given these absolute facts, no amount of manipulated charts, graphs, or other data, and no magical feedback loops which impossibly cause a gas that reacts to temperature change, to instead cause temperature change, can un-falsify climate alarmist propaganda.

As to your charts and graphs, about half of the articles in truth telling websites such as realclimatescience.com deals with manipulation of data.

There are today a lot of sources countering global alarmist manipulation of facts. This came out today from CBN.news exposing manipulation of temperature data, by the use of - you guessed it - graphs and charts:

I could post links again to videos from sources such as the 49 NASA astronauts and scientists refuting the claim that carbon dioxide causes global warming, and many others, but why bother?

 

[sjastro]

Yes, here we go again. Before I address your charts...


Before I address your charts and graphs:

The claim of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is that carbon dioxide, though it’s only 4% of the greenhouse effect, nevertheless can drive global warming as if it were 95% of the greenhouse effect, and increase global temperature enough to cause catastrophic warming that can drown the planet with melting polar ice.

How much of a temperature increase are they trying to stop? 1 degree? 2 degrees? Let’s go way past the 1 to 1.5 degrees of warming they want to prevent, and say they are trying to stop a 3 degree rise.

Well, the unequivocal data shows the earth was 4 degrees warmer for 3,000 years - with no catastrophic events - which absolutely falsifies that part of global warming alarmism. 4 degrees increase is safe for the planet.

The other part of global warming alarmism is of course that carbon dioxide emissions drive up the earth’s temperature - yet the data shows clearly that CO2 levels always lag behind temperature rise, and thus there’s no way possible for it to cause temperature to increase, when it instead reacts to temperature increase.

This fact coupled with unarguable data that CO2 levels were ten times higher in the past, again with no catastrophic events, and no comparable temperature increase, falsifies the need to lower carbon emissions significantly - they could instead increase ten times, and the planet will be fine.

Given these absolute facts, no amount of manipulated charts, graphs, or other data, and no magical feedback loops which impossibly cause a gas that reacts to temperature change, to instead cause temperature change, can un-falsify climate alarmist propaganda.

As to your charts and graphs, about half of the articles in truth telling websites such as realclimatescience.com deals with manipulation of data.

There are today a lot of sources countering global alarmist manipulation of facts. This came out today from CBN.news exposing manipulation of temperature data, by the use of - you guessed it - graphs and charts:

I could post links again to videos from sources such as the 49 NASA astronauts and scientists refuting the claim that carbon dioxide causes global warming, and many others, but why bother?

To summarize your post;

(a) Reinforcing the same tired old conspiracy theories in this case from an evangelical Christian religious television network which also apparently doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate and uses the false equivalence fallacy in conflating science with economics.
(b) Ignoring the actual science and the data which supports it such as lower stratospheric cooling because you don’t comprehend it and rely on conspiracy theories as compensation.
(c) Utilizing the argumentum ad populum fallacy as if ‘49 NASA astronauts and scientists’ validate your arguments.

The only point worth responding to in detail is your claim of CO₂ lagging behind temperature rise leads to the conclusion CO₂ cannot cause temperature to increase.
This is so comprehensively wrong.
From a historical perspective physicists had a good understanding of the nature of the greenhouse effect since the mid 19th century and by the 1920s with the advent of quantum mechanics their understanding was enhanced well before CNN or NASA came along and supposedly rigged the data!

Here is an experiment to demonstrate CO₂ driving temperature and not vice versa which simulates the greenhouse effect.

Given this is a science forum and not a conspiracy forum an explanation of why this happens will be given instead of claiming the presenter is a stooge of the IPCC or NASA who has somehow rigged the experiment.

The CO₂ molecule undergoes various vibration modes at certain frequencies as shown.

These vibration modes can exist in discrete energy levels as defined by quantum mechanics.
The candle in the experiment is like a blackbody which emits IR (infrared radiation) which heats up surrounding objects such as the infrared camera.
The IR radiation is absorbed by CO₂ molecules which transition from the ground (unexcited) energy level to one of the higher excited energy levels.
For the asymmetrical and bending vibration modes when the molecule returns to the ground state it emits IR radiation which heats the CO₂ in the tube.
The IR however is emitted in all directions and only a small percentage is emitted in the direction of the IR camera.
Increasing the amount of CO₂ in the tube further reduces the amount of IR radiation reaching the camera; the CO₂ is effectively trapping the heat which is the mechanism for the greenhouse effect.

As for your claim the start of any warming period, say before humans inhabited the Earth, there is nothing unusual with CO₂ lagging behind temperature rise due to the high heat capacity of oceans which is a major source of CO₂.
In simple terms it requires more heat to raise the temperature of the oceans than it is for the atmosphere which explains the lagging effect.
Once CO₂ is released into the atmosphere in sufficient quantities the greenhouse effect takes over and CO₂ becomes the cause of temperature rise and not the effect.
Furthermore increases in water vapour levels which is a stronger greenhouse gas adds to the temperature rise.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I could post links again to videos from sources such as the 49 NASA astronauts and scientists refuting the claim that carbon dioxide causes global warming, and many others, but why bother?

Why indeed? Unless they trained as climate scientists, that would be an argument from [false] authority fallacy.

If you want to know what's happening, go to the experts in the field. Astronauts for astronautics, climate scientists for climate science.

 

[sjastro]

Why indeed? Unless they trained as climate scientists, that would be an argument from [false] authority fallacy.

If you want to know what's happening, go to the experts in the field. Astronauts for astronautics, climate scientists for climate science.

..... and cosmonauts for cosmology.

 

[sjastro]

Another point I should have made about this evangelical Christian video production it used an old conspiracy theory that alleged the data was manipulated to make climate warming worse than what it is.
From the video;

This allegation was fact checked and found to be....... (drum roll)

Here is the real reason for the change.

History of GISTEMP
In the late 1970s, scientists at GISS led by Dr. James Hansen became increasingly concerned that anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases were large enough that their impact on surface temperatures would soon become apparent. However, tracking what was happening to Earth temperatures was at a relatively primitive state. Much of the relevant weather station data had not been digitized and what had been, was not widely available. Previous estimates of temperature changes (Callendar, 1938; Mitchell, 1961; Budyko, 1969) had focused on the northern hemisphere, but that obviously missed half the planet. Hansen et al. (1981) were the first to try and systematically estimate the global mean trends by also using what southern hemisphere data there was. The methodology used then was relatively simple: Stations were grouped into 80 equal area boxes, the various anomaly series in a box were combined into a single anomaly series; these then were averaged across each of eight latitude belts. The global mean was estimated from an area weighing of the latitudinal means. From this beginning, estimates of global mean surface temperatures by scientists at GISS eventually morphed into the GISTEMP analysis that is available today.

Over the years the estimates of what the global mean temperature anomaly has been have changed. There are two main reasons for these changes – updates to the analysis method and expansions to the sources of raw data. Both have the effect of changing the specifics of the global estimates.

We have gone through the archives to show exactly how these estimates have changed over time and why. Since 1981 the following aspects of the temperature analysis have changed:

• The simple procedure used in 1981 was refined as documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), using 8000 grid boxes to allow mapping and analysis of regional patterns.
• Surface air temperature anomalies above the ocean were estimated using sea surface temperatures from ships and buoys starting in 1995 as documented in Hansen et al. (1996).
• Starting in the 1990s, the methodology took into account documented non-climatic biases in the raw data (e.g. station moves) and eliminated or corrected unrealistic outliers (Hansen et al., 1999).
• Areas with missing data were filled in — using means over large zonal bands — rather than restricting the averaging to areas with a defined temperature change (Hansen et al., 1999).
• A method was devised in 1998 and refined in 2000 to adjust urban time series to match the long term mean trend of the surrounding rural stations, Hansen et al. (1999, 2001). This adjustment uses the full data series to make the best estimate of the rural/urban difference and so can change as the time-series are extended (and more data comparisons are available). Starting in 2010 night-light radiance rather than population data were used to classify stations (Hansen et al., 2010).
• Usage of water temperatures as proxy for air temperatures was more accurately restricted to areas without sea ice starting in April 2006.

 

[tas8831]

They should have also included scientific ideas that are rejected by the left.

Examples? And what percentage of the left rejects these, and are what they reject legitimate scientific ideas?

 

[tas8831]

It says nothing at all about conservatives.

And everything about blatant political leaning of the researchers.

If you say so...

Conservatives are not as subject to groupthink as are the left, and they don’t invoke cancel culture on any that disagree with them, a clear symptom of the lefts inability to argue its cause.

Now THAT is hilarious. You people are something else.

 

[tas8831]

It’s because conservatives know what corrupt liars politicians are, so when they push catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, for example, we do some research and find out it’s baloney, and reject the propaganda.

Really? Do tell us about your "research", won't you?
Did it consist of gathering and analyzing data, or was it a YouTube video by a conspiracy nut?
Also, tell us all about your scientific background such that your 'research' produced reliable conclusions.

 

[tas8831]

Those who 'claim' to be Christians but later convert to atheism demonstrate they were 'pseudo' Christians all along and that their faith was never firmly rooted and established from the start. There are genuine Christians and there are "nominal" Christians. There are genuine believers and there are make believers.

Ah, the old 'No True Christian' fallacy.
Thats a good one.

 

[tas8831]

It's about glorifying the OBJECT of our belief and that is Jesus Christ. (John 3:16; 10:9; 14:6; Acts 10:43; Romans 4:5 etc..) The 'holier than thou' syndrome stems from glorifying self and one's performance. (Isaiah 65:5; Proverbs 30:12; Matthew 5:20; Luke 18:9-14)

Well, bible verses! You automatically win!

 

[tas8831]

The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scam came from the politician Al Gore

And you thus render all of your opinions n the matter moot.

You must have gotten that from your "research"...

 

[tas8831]

No it didn't. Global warming was a concern far before he spoke up about it. Please do some research.

But he DID!!! Didn't you read and totally believe his screed a few posts back?

 

[tas8831]

That was a very lame attempt then.

Do tell!

 

[tas8831]

Why does this conservative reject the “science” of anthropogenic global warming?

Because they don't understand science and are easily swayed by browbeating pundits and dopey YouTube videos?

Because it’s fake science.

Oh, I see... and you base that conclusion on your own extensive scientific background?
Or ...

Here’s a very well done documentary of interviews with climatologists, scientists, professors and researchers that gives the real facts about global warming and the science:

Oh, well. a WELL DONE Youtube video, who can argue with that....

You just took what the people on that video said at face value, did you?

 

[tas8831]

I suspect you're wasting your time - he's so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole he's unreachable.

But... he watched a WELL DONE Youtube video that confirmed his biases!
WELL DONE, I say!

 

[tas8831]

Interesting.

I figure "atheists" who convert to Christianity
( usually return to ) never actually were
atheists, just having a teenage rebellion or the like.

That is in fact my personal experience. Sure, N only = 5, but still... that is 100% of such folk that I personally know.
One person claimed that he had been an atheist but then did some research on fish hearts and became a creationist and then an evangelical. As I got to know him better, it came out that his time as an atheist was a period of about 2 weeks and he was never really an atheist he was just trying to make his father mad.

Oh, make that N=6 - I also am aware of 1 professional creationist that claimed studying at Mt. St. Helens in the early 1980s converted him from an 'old age evolutionist' to a 'young earth creationist', just like that. Except that he was outed - by a rival creationist - as having written YEC papers at least as early as 1976.

 

[SkyWriting]

LINK

We recently conducted two large-scale surveys that explored the [idea] that some intrinsic attributes of science are in tension with aspects of conservative thinking.

We focused on three scientific issues; climate change, vaccinations, and the heritability of intelligence. The first two were chosen because of their known tendency to be rejected by people on the political right, allowing us to observe the potential moderating role of other predictors.

The latter was chosen because the belief that external forces such as education can improve people and their circumstances is a focus of liberalism.

the overall findings were quite clear. Conservatives were less likely to accept the norms of science, suggesting that the worldviews of some people on the political right may be in intrinsic conflict with the scientific enterprise.

Those people who accepted the norms of science were also more likely to endorse vaccinations and support the need to fight climate change.

Finally, we found no strong evidence that people on the political left are more likely to reject the genetic contribution to individual variation in intelligence. This negative result adds to the evidence that science denial is harder to find on the left, even concerning issues where basic aspects of liberal thought – in this case the belief that people can be improved – are in potential conflict with the evidence.

So "Conservatives" are "less likely to accept new ideas" different from established norms.
Did anyone have to pay money for this data?
I guess it's important to confirm the obvious sometimes.

 

[Estrid]

So "Conservatives" are less likely to accept new ideas different from established norms.
Lets list this news as revelations?

"a revelation"

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Conservatives were less likely to accept the norms of science, suggesting that the worldviews of some people on the political right may be in intrinsic conflict with the scientific enterprise.

Really? Leftists seem to have great difficulty accepting the science of life in the womb beginning at conceptions, and of biological sex. Not to mention changing genders is a biological impossibility.

As well as lots of other areas:
The new study, by University of Texas-Brownville sociologist Mark Horowitz and two colleagues, surveyed 155 academic sociologists. 56.7 percent of the sample was liberal, another 28.6 percent was identified as radical, and only 4.8 percent were conservative. Horowitz, who describes himself as a politically radical, social-justice oriented researcher, said he wanted to probe their views of the possible evolutionary underpinnings of various human behaviors. "I wanted to get at the really ideological blank slate view, it’s sort of a preemptive assumption that everything is taught, everything is learned," he explained.

Sure enough, the study found that these liberal academics showed a pretty high level of resistance to evolutionary explanations for phenomena ranging from sexual jealousy to male promiscuity.

In fairness, the sociologists were willing to credit some evolutionary-style explanations. Eight-one percent found it either plausible or highly plausible that "some people are born genetically with more intellectual potential than others," and 70 percent ascribed sexual orientation to "biological roots." Meanwhile, nearly 60 percent of sociologists in the sample considered it "plausible" that human beings have a "hardwired" taste preference for foods that are full of fat and sugar, and just under 50 percent thought it plausible that we have an innate fear of snakes and spiders (for very sound, survival-focused reasons).

Yet the study also found that these scholars were less willing to consider evolutionary explanations for other aspects of human behavior, especially those relating to male-female differences. Less than 50 percent considered it plausible that that "feelings of sexual jealousy have a significant evolutionary biological component," for instance, and just 36.4 percent considered it plausible that men "have a greater tendency towards promiscuity than women due to an evolved reproductive strategy.” While it is hard to be absolutely definitive on either of these issues (we weren't there to observe evolution happen), evolutionary psychologists have certainly argued in published studies that people exhibit jealousy in sexual relationships in order to ensure reproductive fidelity and preserve the resources that come from a partner, and that men are more promiscuous because they are not constrained in how often they can attempt to reproduce.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/28/liberals-deny-science-too/

 

[Estrid]

Really? Leftists seem to have great difficulty accepting the science of life in the womb beginning at conceptions, and of biological sex. Not to mention changing genders is a biological impossibility.

As well as lots of other areas:
The new study, by University of Texas-Brownville sociologist Mark Horowitz and two colleagues, surveyed 155 academic sociologists. 56.7 percent of the sample was liberal, another 28.6 percent was identified as radical, and only 4.8 percent were conservative. Horowitz, who describes himself as a politically radical, social-justice oriented researcher, said he wanted to probe their views of the possible evolutionary underpinnings of various human behaviors. "I wanted to get at the really ideological blank slate view, it’s sort of a preemptive assumption that everything is taught, everything is learned," he explained.

Sure enough, the study found that these liberal academics showed a pretty high level of resistance to evolutionary explanations for phenomena ranging from sexual jealousy to male promiscuity.

In fairness, the sociologists were willing to credit some evolutionary-style explanations. Eight-one percent found it either plausible or highly plausible that "some people are born genetically with more intellectual potential than others," and 70 percent ascribed sexual orientation to "biological roots." Meanwhile, nearly 60 percent of sociologists in the sample considered it "plausible" that human beings have a "hardwired" taste preference for foods that are full of fat and sugar, and just under 50 percent thought it plausible that we have an innate fear of snakes and spiders (for very sound, survival-focused reasons).

Yet the study also found that these scholars were less willing to consider evolutionary explanations for other aspects of human behavior, especially those relating to male-female differences. Less than 50 percent considered it plausible that that "feelings of sexual jealousy have a significant evolutionary biological component," for instance, and just 36.4 percent considered it plausible that men "have a greater tendency towards promiscuity than women due to an evolved reproductive strategy.” While it is hard to be absolutely definitive on either of these issues (we weren't there to observe evolution happen), evolutionary psychologists have certainly argued in published studies that people exhibit jealousy in sexual relationships in order to ensure reproductive fidelity and preserve the resources that come from a partner, and that men are more promiscuous because they are not constrained in how often they can attempt to reproduce.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/28/liberals-deny-science-too/

Goes to show nobody is any better than they ought to be.