"These divisions, researchers have found, are better at explaining different responses to information than any other factor.

Our ideological filters encourage us to interpret new evidence in ways that reinforce our beliefs. "As a result, groups with opposing values often become more polarised, not less, when exposed to scientifically sound information."

As a result, corporate involvement in climate change is impossible to their conservative supporters...... and health care reform of corporations is just another way to Kill Granny.

Here is a link to the new study mentioned.....

Met Office analysis reveals 'clear fingerprints' of man-made climate change

Climate scientists say the 100 studies of sea ice, rainfall and temperature should help the public to make up their own minds on global warming

Hostility? Gosh, I wonder why.

#3 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2010-03-09 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag: not very bright

While I'm at it, dimwit, the IPCC was established in 1988.

"the IPCC doesn't do research."

I agree, therefore we agree we shouldn't listen to them..

I hope that most of you will take the time to actually read the article. It is interesting. What people believe is less dependant on the factual truth than it is on who the speaker is, and what "side" they are on.

Mod,

This was linked on Realclearpolitics - I read it earlier today.

All of the recently-exposed climate scandals and exposure of poor data gathering notwithstanding, to be fair to climate scientists, part of the problem with the 2007 IPCC report was that the IPCC demanded that they dumb-down, or simplify their findings to a point where laymen could understand the conclusions - so that politicians could read the report, understand it, and then use it to try and formulate environmental policies. Some of the scientists whose work was used complained about this stating that dumbing-down their findings painted an inaccurate and incomplete picture.

Does it make you re-think your opposition to the evidence concerning MMGW in the slightest?

Does it make you re-think your opposition to the evidence concerning MMGW in the slightest?

No. Only because I haven't made up my mind about AGW one way or another. The theory isn't developed enough, IMO to either dismiss it or embrace it.

As you probably know, my BIG issue is with the political 'solutions' to the problem. Capntrade on a national scale and Kyoto on an international scale do almost nothing to slow the rate of warming but drastically cut into the standard of living of the affluent, and will wreak havoc on the truly poor.

THAT is why I get so charged about this issue.

The science will continue to work itself out over time.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-09 04:29 PM

The cap 'n' trade solution is bull shit. Some environmentalists even think so. The idea that trading around pollution allowances will some how fix the earth is insane. The government should do what it's supposed to do, regulate shit. Set high standards of efficiency for automobiles, appliances, etc. And invest in clean energy (like nuclear).

What we should be battling is these global warming alarmist/fraudsters like Al Gore. I feel a lot of hositlity toward crackpots like him who want to enrich themselves not by providing a product or service in the market that people want, but rather by using fraud to get government policy changed so he can make money at our expense.

You are just a reality denier Corky, you are bitter and you cling to your outdate global warming mythology.

And invest in clean energy (like nuclear).

I could get behind nuclear.

As for the rest of 'clean energy'...define what you mean by 'invest'?

Here is an investment that I could get behind:

End ALL subsidies and preferential treatment for existing green energies. Now. These technologies, as they currently exist, suck ass. They provide SO little in terms of actual usable energy, that the minimal spike in price for carbon-based fuels would barely be noticed. In fact, we could take HALF of the annual outlay of these subsides, apply it exclusively to R&D toward the development of viable alternative energy sources (we could use the other half toward deficit reduction) and end this bullshit charade that ethanol and wind power are ever going to amount to shit as they currently exist. Think about it. We are actually incentivizing a lack of technological development by propping up shitty energy.

Nuclear is an exception. It is nearly as effective (output relative to cost) as coal-based energy.

As for the rest of 'clean energy'...define what you mean by 'invest'?

Here is an investment that I could get behind:

End ALL subsidies and preferential treatment for existing green energies. Now. These technologies, as they currently exist, suck ass. They provide SO little in terms of actual usable energy, that the minimal spike in price for carbon-based fuels would barely be noticed. In fact, we could take HALF of the annual outlay of these subsides, apply it exclusively to R&D toward the development of viable alternative energy sources (we could use the other half toward deficit reduction) and end this bullshit charade that ethanol and wind power are ever going to amount to shit as they currently exist. Think about it. We are actually incentivizing a lack of technological development by propping up shitty energy.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-09 04:41 PM

R & D is what I meant by 'invest.'

Cool.

Seriously, can you explain in rational terms the enviro-lovefest with energy sources that are way worse than shitty?

Is it purely emotionally-driven?

Seriously, can you explain in rational terms the enviro-lovefest with energy sources that are way worse than shitty?

Is it purely emotionally-driven?

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-09 05:34 PM

It's political driven (along with Money). If Iowa weren't so important in the presidential Race then ethanol(sp) wouldn't have the status it enjoys.

Move Iowa down to 9th or 10th in the caucus order and I wouldn't be surprised to see many changes in energy and food processing.

You are just a reality denier Corky, you are bitter and you cling to your outdate global warming mythology.

#15 | Posted by member2586

roflmao! The monkeys have learned to mimic the humans.

Let's see. It went from global cooling in the 70's to global warming. Then the brown stuff dripping out of the pseudo-research centers caused them to morph to climate change. Now anyone who does not believe in that nonsense is characterized, as in this thread's title, as "opposing climate research."
No one opposed climate research. The global warming...I mean climate change research has just been substandard and manipulated for the sake of politics.
It's a hoax. If ANYONE opposes climate research, it would be the global warming hoxsters who do not adhere to proper scientific research.

"The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has prompted the world-renowned Institute of Physics, with a membership of over 36,000 physics-related scientists, to publish a report condemning junk climate science."

Zat...any insult, err, comment?

UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Battling Hostility With Dishonesty since 1998.

Those of us who never believed that global warming was manmade are not the hostile ones. It's the ones who finally 'woke up', and realized that they were being duped, that are hostile.