Everybody has a theory. From ancient man to modern man. Maybe future man will add a piece of the puzzle until the true picture emerges. There will probably be those that say its wrong regardless.
|
Everybody has a theory. From ancient man to modern man. Maybe future man will add a piece of the puzzle until the true picture emerges. There will probably be those that say its wrong regardless.
Yes no doubt ancient man had a theory as to why climate change caused the ice age to end, the point is every scientific advance has been demonstrated to be only a small part of the puzzle in the light of later advances. We have advanced greatly though the use of vaccines and antibiotics but we may have actually provided our own demise. We have advanced greatly through the use of energy and machines but we may have provided our own demise. We are the sorcerers apprenticeQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
If this were happening then it would be considered scientific fraud. This is somewhat a different question.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Well tutt there was actually scient6ic fraud in some of the findingsQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Tut, I don't have the link handy but it is absolutely true that a sizeable number of monitoring stations were placed near heart sources and in heat sinks.
U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say | Fox NewsQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
But there's a problem: Nearly every single weather station the U.S. government uses to measure the country's surface temperature may be compromised. Sensors that are supposed to be in empty clearings are instead exposed to crackling electronics and other unlikely sources of heat, from exhaust pipes and trash-burning barrels to chimneys and human graves
Read more: U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say | Fox News
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Pictures worth a thousand words.
Odd sites
Intentional or accidental, the data must be recollected with stricter guidelines and better procedures. A clear lack of quality control, and that's unacceptable.
Yes it seems the researchers like collecting data in cities and on tops of volcanoes, just about anywhere but way out in the middle of nowhere where their equipment is a little inaccessibleQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
FYI, from a Yale study on science comprehension:
So with the religious folks there is a "modest negative correlation" when it comes to science that is no big deal. Look what else he found though...Quote:
The respondents, btw, consisted of a large, nationally representative sample of U.S. adults recruited to participate in a study of vaccine risk perceptions that was administered this summer (the data from that are coming soon!).
Both science literacy and CRT have been shown to correlate negatively with religiosity. And there is, in turns out, a modest negative correlation (r = -0.26, p < 0.01) between the composite science comprehension measure and a religiosity scale formed by aggregating church attendance, frequency of prayer, and self-reported "importance of God" in the respondents' lives.
I frankly don't think that that's a very big deal. There are plenty of highly religious folks who have a high science comprehension score, and plenty of secular ones who don't. When it comes to conflict over decision-relevant science, it is likely to be more instructive to consider how religiosity and science comprehension interact, something I've explored previously.
What was that? Tea Partiers know their science?Quote:
In my paper, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, I found that the Cogntive Reflection Test did not meaningfully correlate with left-right political outlooks.
In this dataset, I found that there is a small correlation (r = -0.05, p = 0.03) between the science comprehension measure and a left-right political outlook measure, Conservrepub, which aggregates liberal-conservative ideology and party self-identification. The sign of the correlation indicates that science comprehension decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction--i.e., the more "liberal" and "Democrat," the more science comprehending.
Do you think this helps explain conflicts over climate change or other forms of decision-relevant science? I don't.
But if you do, then maybe you'll find this interesting. The dataset happened to have an item in it that asked respondents if they considered themselves "part of the Tea Party movement." Nineteen percent said yes.
It turns out that there is about as strong a correlation between scores on the science comprehension scale and identifying with the Tea Party as there is between scores on the science comprehension scale and Conservrepub.
Except that it has the opposite sign: that is, identifying with the Tea Party correlates positively (r = 0.05, p = 0.05) with scores on the science comprehension measure:
I know, it doesn't matter, you'll hammer your silly flat earther narrative regardless of the facts.
speech there is no correlation between research and comprehension, just a perfect correlation between research and funding. What do they say in academic circles; publish or perish?
What I comprehend from the research is that even if we stop all emissions immediately we will suffer climate change for at least the next century, so environmentalists want us to go back to the stone age for nothing. Now that hypothesis only tells us the further research is futile since the science is settled. The view of religion and science is in total accord; shiite happens
The point being science indicates the narrative about right wingers being scientific illiterates is false and meaningless.
You should read the comments from peers, they aren't fans of the process that arrived at that conclusion.
And that should surprise me? How dare he go against the consensus pulled out of thin air by really, really smart people that conservatives are anti-science flat earthers?
P.S. The groupthink that automatically dismisses any scientist that goes against the grain in this ridiculous narrative that defies logic should be your first scientific clue it's wrong.
The report is rather interesting. It certainly says that conservatives are not flat earthers when it comes to science. While being knowledgeable in science I am wondering if they are less likely to allow science to influence their political, religious and cultural beliefs in general?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Or fiscal prowess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Who knows? If you got the hypothesis then it is possible to work the data.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You mean like understanding you can't spend unlimited amounts of money you don't have and that eventually you run out of other people's money?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
10-15% debt is a nice number for government to work around, but incurring a 24 billion dollar bill and screwing with the national economy didn't help us any. Government shutdowns like you guys want ain't the way to grow an economy, or create jobs for FACT.
Quite the opposite. Stick to your hollering points and win a few more elections and keep your hands off the money until you get the votes.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:14 AM. |