College-Educated Republicans Most Skeptical of Global Warming

[ibx 2]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182159/college-educated-republicans-skeptical-global-warming.aspx


College educated Republicans are also more prone to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[airdvr 210]

ibx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182159/college-educated-republicans-skeptical-global-warming.aspx


College educated Republicans are also more prone to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Not sure you're making the point you intended.

ETA: "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Andy9o8 2]

Maybe.
Or maybe not.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Andy9o8

Maybe.
Or maybe not.

I am not sure you are right.

[lawrocket 3]

ibx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182159/college-educated-republicans-skeptical-global-warming.aspx


College educated Republicans are also more prone to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Quite the opposite. There is something to be said about critical thinking and challenging authority. I remember when it was liberals who were the ones that challenged thinking. They expanded their minds through drugs and became professors and global warming alarmists and Presidents. Recall that to even allege Dunning Kruger is a symptom of its effect.

In another note, Germans think their mental health system is top notch. American conservatives have been questioning that notion of German superiority. American liberals want America's mental health system to be more like Germany's mental health system because Germany's system is so great at preventing depressed citizens from committing mass murder. They even want to take guns away like Germany because take a gun away and mass murder won't happen, especially since mental health treatment is so great that any German can receive it

Can you tell your countrymen and country women that committing mass murder of foreigners in France is something that Germans should stop doing. The world was sick kf that by 1917.

When Germans can get mental healthcare and stop committing mass murders in France then I'll look for moral guidance from Germans.

Now I'll see what your response is on this. Will it be reflective of some cognitive bias in favor of Germany? Or will the response be cooly reflective and demonstrative of an understanding that the events of this week do show that Germany has problems. And that some critical thinking and proactive problem solving would prevented this last week's issue.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

lawrocket

***http://www.gallup.com/poll/182159/college-educated-republicans-skeptical-global-warming.aspx


College educated Republicans are also more prone to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Quite the opposite. There is something to be said about critical thinking and challenging authority. I remember when it was liberals who were the ones that challenged thinking. They expanded their minds through drugs and became professors and global warming alarmists and Presidents. Recall that to even allege Dunning Kruger is a symptom of its effect.

In another note, Germans think their mental health system is top notch. American conservatives have been questioning that notion of German superiority. American liberals want America's mental health system to be more like Germany's mental health system because Germany's system is so great at preventing depressed citizens from committing mass murder. They even want to take guns away like Germany because take a gun away and mass murder won't happen, especially since mental health treatment is so great that any German can receive it

Can you tell your countrymen and country women that committing mass murder of foreigners in France is something that Germans should stop doing. The world was sick kf that by 1917.

When Germans can get mental healthcare and stop committing mass murders in France then I'll look for moral guidance from Germans.

Now I'll see what your response is on this. Will it be reflective of some cognitive bias in favor of Germany? Or will the response be cooly reflective and demonstrative of an understanding that the events of this week do show that Germany has problems. And that some critical thinking and proactive problem solving would prevented this last week's issue.

But is it mass murder when it's just workplace violence?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,106]

turtlespeed

******http://www.gallup.com/poll/182159/college-educated-republicans-skeptical-global-warming.aspx


College educated Republicans are also more prone to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Quite the opposite. There is something to be said about critical thinking and challenging authority. I remember when it was liberals who were the ones that challenged thinking. They expanded their minds through drugs and became professors and global warming alarmists and Presidents. Recall that to even allege Dunning Kruger is a symptom of its effect.

In another note, Germans think their mental health system is top notch. American conservatives have been questioning that notion of German superiority. American liberals want America's mental health system to be more like Germany's mental health system because Germany's system is so great at preventing depressed citizens from committing mass murder. They even want to take guns away like Germany because take a gun away and mass murder won't happen, especially since mental health treatment is so great that any German can receive it

Can you tell your countrymen and country women that committing mass murder of foreigners in France is something that Germans should stop doing. The world was sick kf that by 1917.

When Germans can get mental healthcare and stop committing mass murders in France then I'll look for moral guidance from Germans.

Now I'll see what your response is on this. Will it be reflective of some cognitive bias in favor of Germany? Or will the response be cooly reflective and demonstrative of an understanding that the events of this week do show that Germany has problems. And that some critical thinking and proactive problem solving would prevented this last week's issue.

But is it mass murder when it's just workplace violence?

They are not mutually exclusive. But you know that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

kallend

*********http://www.gallup.com/poll/182159/college-educated-republicans-skeptical-global-warming.aspx


College educated Republicans are also more prone to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Quite the opposite. There is something to be said about critical thinking and challenging authority. I remember when it was liberals who were the ones that challenged thinking. They expanded their minds through drugs and became professors and global warming alarmists and Presidents. Recall that to even allege Dunning Kruger is a symptom of its effect.

In another note, Germans think their mental health system is top notch. American conservatives have been questioning that notion of German superiority. American liberals want America's mental health system to be more like Germany's mental health system because Germany's system is so great at preventing depressed citizens from committing mass murder. They even want to take guns away like Germany because take a gun away and mass murder won't happen, especially since mental health treatment is so great that any German can receive it

Can you tell your countrymen and country women that committing mass murder of foreigners in France is something that Germans should stop doing. The world was sick kf that by 1917.

When Germans can get mental healthcare and stop committing mass murders in France then I'll look for moral guidance from Germans.

Now I'll see what your response is on this. Will it be reflective of some cognitive bias in favor of Germany? Or will the response be cooly reflective and demonstrative of an understanding that the events of this week do show that Germany has problems. And that some critical thinking and proactive problem solving would prevented this last week's issue.

But is it mass murder when it's just workplace violence?

They are not mutually exclusive. But you know that.

Too bad your buddy Barry doesn't.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,106]

turtlespeed

************http://www.gallup.com/poll/182159/college-educated-republicans-skeptical-global-warming.aspx


College educated Republicans are also more prone to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Quite the opposite. There is something to be said about critical thinking and challenging authority. I remember when it was liberals who were the ones that challenged thinking. They expanded their minds through drugs and became professors and global warming alarmists and Presidents. Recall that to even allege Dunning Kruger is a symptom of its effect.

In another note, Germans think their mental health system is top notch. American conservatives have been questioning that notion of German superiority. American liberals want America's mental health system to be more like Germany's mental health system because Germany's system is so great at preventing depressed citizens from committing mass murder. They even want to take guns away like Germany because take a gun away and mass murder won't happen, especially since mental health treatment is so great that any German can receive it

Can you tell your countrymen and country women that committing mass murder of foreigners in France is something that Germans should stop doing. The world was sick kf that by 1917.

When Germans can get mental healthcare and stop committing mass murders in France then I'll look for moral guidance from Germans.

Now I'll see what your response is on this. Will it be reflective of some cognitive bias in favor of Germany? Or will the response be cooly reflective and demonstrative of an understanding that the events of this week do show that Germany has problems. And that some critical thinking and proactive problem solving would prevented this last week's issue.

But is it mass murder when it's just workplace violence?

They are not mutually exclusive. But you know that.

Too bad your buddy Barry doesn't.

Clearly you are confused. (Or deliberately obfuscating).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Remember that just because a person went and even graduated from college, doesn't mean they got an education and especially not in science.

I know a number of people who have gone to "religious" colleges and they can be dumb as a post about anything except their particular version of mythology.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

quade

Remember that just because a person went and even graduated from college, doesn't mean they got an education and especially not in science.

I know a number of people who have gone to "religious" colleges and they can be dumb as a post about anything except their particular version of mythology.

And I have known plenty of people who have college degrees from secular schools and can't reason their ways through a sime problem.

You know the type who say to open your mind and shut your mouth and fail to appreciate the hypocrisy of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

lawrocket

***Remember that just because a person went and even graduated from college, doesn't mean they got an education and especially not in science.
I know a number of people who have gone to "religious" colleges and they can be dumb as a post about anything except their particular version of mythology.

And I have known plenty of people who have college degrees from secular schools and can't reason their ways through a sime problem.
You know the type who say to open your mind and shut your mouth and fail to appreciate the hypocrisy of it.

I only pick on the "religious" colleges because to me the curriculum can be a complete joke of an education.

I knew one VP at a major company who graduated from one such college and could not write a simple sentence.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ibx 2]

Quote

Quite the opposite. There is something to be said about critical thinking and challenging authority. I remember when it was liberals who were the ones that challenged thinking. They expanded their minds through drugs and became professors and global warming alarmists and Presidents. Recall that to even allege Dunning Kruger is a symptom of its effect.

The problem is, you somehow think your hobbyist enthusiasm is equal to or more valid than the consensus of the experts in the field.

Comparing liberals who challenged authority by demanding equal rights and cleaner energy to conservatives denying basic scientific principles is a bit of stretch, don't you think?

[turtlespeed 226]

ibx

Quote

Quite the opposite. There is something to be said about critical thinking and challenging authority. I remember when it was liberals who were the ones that challenged thinking. They expanded their minds through drugs and became professors and global warming alarmists and Presidents. Recall that to even allege Dunning Kruger is a symptom of its effect.

The problem is, you somehow think your hobbyist enthusiasm is equal to or more valid than the consensus of the experts in the field.

Comparing liberals who challenged authority by demanding equal rights and cleaner energy to conservatives denying basic scientific principles is a bit of stretch, don't you think?

Absolutely not. The hypocrisy is glaring.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

ibx

Quote

Quite the opposite. There is something to be said about critical thinking and challenging authority. I remember when it was liberals who were the ones that challenged thinking. They expanded their minds through drugs and became professors and global warming alarmists and Presidents. Recall that to even allege Dunning Kruger is a symptom of its effect.

The problem is, you somehow think your hobbyist enthusiasm is equal to or more valid than the consensus of the experts in the field.

Comparing liberals who challenged authority by demanding equal rights and cleaner energy to conservatives denying basic scientific principles is a bit of stretch, don't you think?

No. Because si find that most of the alarmists are anti science. They are no more scientific than deniers. Because basic scientific principles are hypothesis, test, observe, conclude. Both sides have forgotten this.

Skeptics question when they find bs. They are needed for science to advance. A skeptic will doubt that science says that carbon taxes on the top five percent are the best way to solve issues. A skeptic will ask questions.

Basic scientific principles is an attempt to frame the debate. Cut the shit. Give me empirical evidence of the climate in Hamburg in 2030. The skeptic will say that's a tall order. And will be correct.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

lawrocket

Basic scientific principles is an attempt to frame the debate. Cut the shit. Give me empirical evidence of the climate in Hamburg in 2030. The skeptic will say that's a tall order. And will be correct.

A theory (definition used in science, as opposed to idiots on street) is essentially a prediction of future events. It's something that has been researched, studied, vetted, and the vast majority of scientists will have consensus on.

It says when this happens, that happens.

If an apple drops from a tree, it drops toward the earth; not away from it.
If a light reflects off a mirror it will do so based on the angle of incidence.
If you want to send a space ship to Mars, you need to launch it on so and so date, so with this amount of fuel burn it can intercept the planet as it swings through millions of miles in it's orbit.

It doesn't have to show the empirical evidence from the future and brought back to the present. It predicts it with a degree of accuracy you know "if this, then that."

This is where we are. If we do this, then that will happen.

And yes, the Earth is getting warmer due to humans and will continue to do so until humans do something about it.

When you can disprove that, you'll have done something interesting in this debate and you'll also have the attention of the world. Until then, you're simply continuing a silly "debate" when, in fact, the debate part is over.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***Basic scientific principles is an attempt to frame the debate. Cut the shit. Give me empirical evidence of the climate in Hamburg in 2030. The skeptic will say that's a tall order. And will be correct.

A theory (definition used in science, as opposed to idiots on street) is essentially a prediction of future events. It's something that has been researched, studied, vetted, and the vast majority of scientists will have consensus on.

Ah. It appears that you need a bit of a refresher. A theory is an explanation that fits with the observations for which there is enough empirical evidence to justify its elevation. For example the theory of Gravity. There's newtonian and relativity. We have enough empirical evidence tk be able to make predictions about the gravity. Vey precise predictions. Hence we do not project the trajectory to the moon. We predict the locations of satellites at certain times. We predict the fall rate.

A theory is an explanation and we use it to predict. Experiments have proven that CO2 increases the Heat content of an atmosphere, like putting a lid on a pot on a stove. This AGW has reached theory level.

From a theory we make predictions. Those which are observabke and measurable. Using that theory we make predictions.

But theories can fall apart. We can get a sense but when variables are introduced like n body for gravitation, predictions become impossible. Like the climate system. At that point projections come in.

Quote

It says when this happens, that happens.

Right. But it's limited by variables. More variables means greater chaos. It's why climate models project.

Quote

If an apple drops from a tree, it drops toward the earth; not away from it.
If a light reflects off a mirror it will do so based on the angle of incidence.
If you want to send a space ship to Mars, you need to launch it on so and so date, so with this amount of fuel burn it can intercept the planet as it swings through millions of miles in it's orbit.

Yes. These are very simple concepts with few variables. You are talking about things that are on the order of laws of nature.

It doesn't have to show the empirical evidence from the future and brought back to the present. It predicts it with a degree of accuracy you know "if this, then that."

Quote

This is where we are. If we do this, then that will happen.

But that's not what climate models do. They project what can happen on the basis of assumptions. It is way more complex and you know it. We could predict to the second when Apollo 8 would lose signal behind the moon.

Quote

And yes, the Earth is getting warmer due to humans and will continue to do so until humans do something about it.

Barring other events like volcanoes and sulfur emissions in developing countries. Variables.

Quote

When you can disprove that, you'll have done something interesting in this debate and you'll also have the attention of the world. Until then, you're simply continuing a silly "debate" when, in fact, the debate part is over.

All else being equal I totally agree with you. Bt I disagree that all things are equal. They are not. And once that is recognized then we can have a more fruitful discussion

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,106]

lawrocket

No. Because si find that most of the alarmists are anti science. They are no more scientific than deniers. Because basic scientific principles are hypothesis, test, observe, conclude. Both sides have forgotten this.

No-one ever won a Nobel in any field of science for showing that a consensus view is correct. Yet you deniers continue to claim that the climatologist community is motivated to do just that. But the scientific kudos actually goes to the scientists who show that a consensus view is wrong.

Despite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon, the deniers have yet to prove that the consensus is wrong.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

quade

***Basic scientific principles is an attempt to frame the debate. Cut the shit. Give me empirical evidence of the climate in Hamburg in 2030. The skeptic will say that's a tall order. And will be correct.

A theory (definition used in science, as opposed to idiots on street) is essentially a prediction of future events. It's something that has been researched, studied, vetted, and the vast majority of scientists will have consensus on.

It says when this happens, that happens.

If an apple drops from a tree, it drops toward the earth; not away from it.
If a light reflects off a mirror it will do so based on the angle of incidence.
If you want to send a space ship to Mars, you need to launch it on so and so date, so with this amount of fuel burn it can intercept the planet as it swings through millions of miles in it's orbit.

It doesn't have to show the empirical evidence from the future and brought back to the present. It predicts it with a degree of accuracy you know "if this, then that."

This is where we are. If we do this, then that will happen.

And yes, the Earth is getting warmer due to humans and will continue to do so until humans do something about it.

When you can disprove that, you'll have done something interesting in this debate and you'll also have the attention of the world. Until then, you're simply continuing a silly "debate" when, in fact, the debate part is over.

Wrong
You have to prove it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***

No. Because si find that most of the alarmists are anti science. They are no more scientific than deniers. Because basic scientific principles are hypothesis, test, observe, conclude. Both sides have forgotten this.

No-one ever won a Nobel in any field of science for showing that a consensus view is correct. Yet you deniers continue to claim that the climatologist community is motivated to do just that. But the scientific kudos actually goes to the scientists who show that a consensus view is wrong.

Despite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon, the deniers have yet to prove that the consensus is wrong.

I have proved there is not concensus
That is just a bs story you wish to keep living
and I have also posted that the US gov spending with alarmists GREATLY exceeds anyone else
Try another lie
It suits you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,106]

rushmc

******

No. Because si find that most of the alarmists are anti science. They are no more scientific than deniers. Because basic scientific principles are hypothesis, test, observe, conclude. Both sides have forgotten this.

No-one ever won a Nobel in any field of science for showing that a consensus view is correct. Yet you deniers continue to claim that the climatologist community is motivated to do just that. But the scientific kudos actually goes to the scientists who show that a consensus view is wrong.

Despite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon, the deniers have yet to prove that the consensus is wrong.

I have proved there is not concensus


Maybe in your "Through the Looking Glass" world. In the real world you haven't proved anything at all, except that you can't spell.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

No one will give a crap in 10 years.

The government will throw enough money at it to satisfy the AGW crowd and the media will get bored. The United States will never, ever, do the things it would take to eliminate our part of this facade. There's too much money at stake. Look me up in 2025 and we'll see who's right.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,070]

>I have proved there is not concensus

And at least three separate, independent studies have proven you wrong. I guess you'll have to shout louder and cover your ears more effectively.

[billvon 3,070]

>No one will give a crap in 10 years.

I'll bet you $200 (payable to your favorite charity) that they will. This isn't a problem that is just going to go away, despite its inconvenience.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>No one will give a crap in 10 years.

I'll bet you $200 (payable to your favorite charity) that they will. This isn't a problem that is just going to go away, despite its inconvenience.

This is true. In ten years I predict they'll be saying the same thing as today. Which is what they said a decade ago. Though they might not call it climate change anymore. Maybe they'll call it weather change or non average yearly weather or generation therapy because we are resented by our children for leaving them with a climate different from the one we said we wanted.

People will care. We could go another decade without a major hurricane and a dearth of tornadoes and wildfires and enter into a period of global cooling. But there will be people whose careers are complaining about it.

Climate alarmism is like herpes. It'll flare up regardless of how long it's dormancy is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.