[Ummon]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... -research/

[anasawad]

What does the size and colors of tje circle refer to.
The chart doesnt work without a key.

[Ummon]

The circle sizes are scaled so that their areas are in proportion to the relative population sizes in Pew’s massive sample (nearly 36,000 people!). The circle colors match the groupings in Grant’s graphic, though I used different colors just to be difficult.

http://ncse.com/blog/2015/05/evolution- ... on-0016359

[anasawad]

Aaah, i didn't read the link yet. I thought its a research for the globe in general not just the US.
Thats why i thought, like WTF, why is the Muslim circle so small when they're 1 sixth of the world population.

But one question. the ones on zero line of evolution or zero line of regulations. What exactly does that mean ? Neutral, divided, no data ?

[Ummon]

It means neutral. They basically asked them to fill out a questionnaire that had questions that measured one's support for environmental regulations on a gradient. So one could range from very strong support to very strong opposition

[Dr House]

No one reasonable actually denies climate change. Climate change skeptics (who like call themselves "lukewarmers") merely question 1) the extent of human involvement, 2) the actual long-term impact of climate change, and 3) whether it outweighs the negative impact of measures to control the supposed causes of climate change.

Climate change denial is a leftist slur.

[Pants-of-dog]

Climate change denial may be "a leftist slur" but then "leftist" is also a conservative slur, so it's not like you have the moral high ground.

Lukewarmers are now shifting their position because their previous position (i.e. climate change isn't real!) is obviously wrong.

The chart corroborates my idea that there is a relationship between climate change denialism and creationism. The JWs seem to be the only creationist group that does not also doubt climate change.

[Dr House]

Rational people change their minds in the face of evidence.

Right-wingers have moderated their position on climate change because it's clearly happening. It's however, clearly happening much more slowly than climate alarmists have predicted, with virtually none of the predicted negative consequences. Yet the left hasn't moved one inch from its position that climate change will destroy us all.

Yes, there are stupid people on the conservative camp. Shall I trot out a graphic connecting AGW support with hippie shamanism and wicca and that kind of crap?

[Pants-of-dog]

Rational people change their minds in the face of evidence.

Right-wingers have moderated their position on climate change because it's clearly happening. It's however, clearly happening much more slowly than climate alarmists have predicted, with virtually none of the predicted negative consequences. Yet the left hasn't moved one inch from its position that climate change will destroy us all.

Yes, there are stupid people on the conservative camp. Shall I trot out a graphic connecting AGW support with hippie shamanism and wicca and that kind of crap?

Why didn't right wingers change their mind when the evidence was first presented? The science was there and clear to see. Everyone else got it.

And now right wingers are claiming that climate change theory makes all sorts of alarming claims. This is doubtful.

There is a logical correlation between climate change denial and creationism: both are based on a willingness to ignore science in order to support a preconceived notion. If you can show a logical correlation like that for climate change science, I would be surprised.

[Dr House]

Why didn't right wingers change their mind when the evidence was first presented? The science was there and clear to see. Everyone else got it.

Not really.

And now right wingers are claiming that climate change theory makes all sorts of alarming claims. This is doubtful.

Al Gore basically predicted that the ice caps would have melted off and all the coastlines will have disappeared by now. It didn't happen, but that hasn't stopped leftist politicians and ideologues from claiming AGW to be the "greatest threat mankind faces".

There is a logical correlation between climate change denial and creationism: both are based on a willingness to ignore science in order to support a preconceived notion. If you can show a logical correlation like that for climate change science, I would be surprised.

Well, I can show a correlation between the left's general refusal to consider hard data or trade-offs, and the fact that they won't stop banging the drumbeat about energy usage -- despite the fact the IPCC itself has predicted the impact will be minimal, and Europe is notorious for people actually dying from artificially unaffordable heating bills, and occasionally from not having AC to weather heat waves.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not really.

That doesn't contradict anything I have said.

The fact that 97% of climate studies that express an opinion about climate change support the theory does not magically make right wingers exempt from understanding the situation.

Al Gore basically predicted that the ice caps would have melted off and all the coastlines will have disappeared by now. It didn't happen, but that hasn't stopped leftist politicians and ideologues from claiming AGW to be the "greatest threat mankind faces".

Oh, you meant right wing politicians when you said "leftists". I see.

Let's ignore the fact that Gore is not a leftist. What exactly did he say?

Well, I can show a correlation between the left's general refusal to consider hard data or trade-offs, and the fact that they won't stop banging the drumbeat about energy usage -- despite the fact the IPCC itself has predicted the impact will be minimal, and Europe is notorious for people actually dying from artificially unaffordable heating bills, and occasionally from not having AC to weather heat waves.

Then show me the correlation.

Confusing climate with weather, as you did here, is not germane.

[Dr House]

That doesn't contradict anything I have said.

The fact that 97% of climate studies that express an opinion about climate change support the theory does not magically make right wingers exempt from understanding the situation.

It does mean that the left lied about it. In reality, fewer than 1/3 of studies actually supported the theory. Most were silent (studies tend to be silent on issues they simply do not consider relevant)

Then show me the correlation.

Confusing climate with weather, as you did here, is not germane.

1) The left cries bloody murder about the environment.
2) The government, in an effort to curtail those evil nasty emissions, creates a variety of controls and taxes designed to prevent people from "over-using" energy. The price per unit of electricity and gas heating skyrocket.
3) people die from completely preventable complications related to adverse weather.

Is that simple enough for you? Am I going too fast?

I'm not even going to engage the No True Scotsman about Democrats.

[Pants-of-dog]

It does mean that the left lied about it. In reality, fewer than 1/3 of studies actually supported the theory. Most were silent (studies tend to be silent on issues they simply do not consider relevant)

We are discussing how the right took so long to understand.

None of this is relevant. Also, no one lied, unless you count the newspapers that always misrepresent the findings of studies.

1) The left cries bloody murder about the environment.
2) The government, in an effort to curtail those evil nasty emissions, creates a variety of controls and taxes designed to prevent people from "over-using" energy. The price per unit of electricity and gas heating skyrocket.
3) people die from completely preventable complications related to adverse weather.

Is that simple enough for you? Am I going too fast?

I thought you were going to show me an actual correlation, but instead you seem to be telling me some possible (and yet implausible) scenario .

I'm not even going to engage the No True Scotsman about Democrats.

Are you a right wing US citizen?

If so, that would explain why you think Obama and Gore are leftists.

The most important thing about this debate is that these "leftists" have done almost nothing to deal with climate change, thus contradicting the claim that this is part of some power grab by politicians.

[Ummon]

Climate change denial may be "a leftist slur" but then "leftist" is also a conservative slur, so it's not like you have the moral high ground.

Lukewarmers are now shifting their position because their previous position (i.e. climate change isn't real!) is obviously wrong.

The chart corroborates my idea that there is a relationship between climate change denialism and creationism. The JWs seem to be the only creationist group that does not also doubt climate change.

I disagree. It just shows on the right a broader pattern of science denialism. Because as we all know the Large Hadron Collider is a gateway to hell and doing math on a plane implies you're a terrorist

[Dr House]

I disagree. It just shows on the right a broader pattern of science denialism. Because as we all know the Large Hadron Collider is a gateway to hell and doing math on a plane implies you're a terrorist

Economics is a science, and the left loves denying it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Economics is a social science.

It has as much standing as other academic pursuits that the right often dismisses entirely, such as sociology.

Also, any real Marxist (i.e. actual leftists and not Obama or Gore) incorporates economics into their social analyses.

[Ummon]

Economics is a science, and the left loves denying it.

Economics is a science in the same sense as psychology. Biology, chemistry, and physics are more central because for example in economics like in psychology you can't easily replicate experiments.

Here is a good example of how a misunderstanding of motivation arose by only looking at the American population:

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672109/why ... al-science

Of course this has implications for things like game theory which impacts economics...

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Economics is a science in the same sense as psychology. Biology, chemistry, and physics are more central because for example in economics like in psychology you can't easily replicate experiments.

Here is a good example of how a misunderstanding of motivation arose by only looking at the American population:

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672109/why ... al-science

Of course this has implications for things like game theory which impacts economics...

The problem is most likely not that results are more difficult to replicate, but that for decades results have been generalised beyond the populations the samples represent, i.e. it was/is fallacious thinking of researchers and the general public that the behaviour of American college students can be generalised to everybody around the world.

It's quite likely that most published research is false and most results are never replicated. Furthermore, researchers and journals seem to have a tendency to resist corrections and retractions. Basically, at this point in time, unless you are a specialist in a field, knowledgeable about the statistical techniques used, have access to the full paper and the underlying data and a lot of time on your hand to check the research for accuracy, you won't know if what you are reading is true or not.

Research published on arvix, i.e. chiefly physics and a subset of other fields, is probably the only exception to this.

[Saeko]

Economics is a science, and the left loves denying it.

Economics is to capitalism what theology was to feudalism. And both have the same relation to science.

[Dr House]

Economics is to capitalism what theology was to feudalism.

Theology doesn't have 150 years of consistently successful results, plus pocket successes throughout history going back to the beginning of civilization, to back itself up. Theology doesn't heal the sick, capitalism does. Theology doesn't feed the hungry, capitalism does. I could go on.