Researchers discover inverse relationship between belief in science and belief in Global Warming. The researchers, and reporters at Scientific American, are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain why this is so. Occam’s Razor says go with the simplest explanation: the more people know about science, the less they believe in fairy tales.
This post was last modified on February 9, 2021
View Comments (14)
I used to have a subscription to Scientific American, which I promptly cancelled when they started becoming political.
Their "science" has nothing to do with science, it is based totally in liberal politics. They might as well revive the flat earth society for as scientific as they have become.
The moral of this article is: "Darned if you; darned if you do."
CC proponents have graduated to purity tests.
I've said it before but it is the unshielded thermo-nuclear reactor that one trillion times the size of earth and 8 light minutes away that has everything to do with temperatures.
And a . Lotofother phenomena as well. Worshipping the sun is more sensible than sweating CO2 emmissions.
Globull Warming has gone from science to a religious cult, these people are desperate for the money they know their is to be made from the carbon exchanges.
How dare you bring science into the debate? Darwin was ignorant of Occam's Razor as well. Human evolution is a direct result of hashish use on Galapagos.
Wel k, i mean, do you look like Cro.magnon man? No? Then you havevevidence of evolution. But the idea that my 200th great grandfather was a tree is far more of a fairy tale than anything in the Bible.
The simplest explanation? The general public only swallows so much bullshit then they say screw it and go on about their business.
When going to the article, I just knew there had to be an arbitrary in there somewhere, some kind of "everybody knows ..." factoid. Here it is:
"...affirming belief in scientific progress would diminish feelings of worldly disorder, and in turn reduce environmentally friendly behavior."
"environmentally friendly behavior".
As defined how, and by whom?
You see, in that term, are a TON of arbitrary factoids. It's environmentally conscious to recycle, right? Everybody knows that. But the fact is that except for aluminum and maybe (off the top of my head) newsprint, on net it is a waste of resources to recycle glass and plastic.
Everybody knows that driving a hybrid is helping save the environment, right? Nope. Ethanol pollutes more and requires more resources to create than gasoline. AND, it will destroy engines sooner, requiring even more resources to replace them more often.
The cleanest energy source is natural gas, not solar, not wind, not your cuckoo clock's pendulum. Just because you moved the pollution from the streets of Malibu to the sticks of China doesn't make you Mother Teresa.
There are more examples, but you get the point. It's actually a safe bet to just assume that anything the environmentalists want is going to be a net waste of resources and will pollute more. Betting on them to be wrong is probably the safest bet in the world.
But you have to first understand something about science, to understand ALL the ramifications in the save-the-environment debate. And once you do, you truly will act more environmentally friendly - just that idiots won't know that. So said idiots who have long since swallowed the kool-aid look at you and you don't fit into their idee-fixe's. So they resort to psych mumbo-jumbo. Yep, nothing like hard science!
Steel the most recycled metal there is. Glass bottles are worth it too but only the old way where they were washed and reused. You know like they did when we grew up or how they do it in third world countries.
When the eco-fascists start taking the environment seriously I will too. Until then it is just a lot of very unintelligent people that like to control people.
It's the fault of the left that we don't recycle glass the way we used to. They whined and complained that it wasn't sanitary, and made us melt down and re cast glass "For the children".
Groups overseas, s pecifically the Egyptian Christians whobrecy c le for a living, ar we appalled at what we decline to recycle. And even when recyclingis made easier with curbside pickup,etc., they are so.picky about what they accept you may as well not bother. I don't mind rinsing a can before throwing it only recycling, I am not hand washing everything before dumping it. And of course, plastic bags haven't been recy c led forcyears. They go from the store recycling bin directly to the trash.
" very unintelligent people that like to control people."
I've said that for at least the last 15 years - that all of these "causes" that people so ardently pursue, in 90% of the cases it is not really about the cause, but about promoting statism and reducing liberty.
It comes from elitists who are offended to no end by the financial (mainly) success that undereducated (meaning not having a graduate degree), and low-intelligence (meaning they are not interested in discussing the nuances of Kant vs Hegel, or the use of symbolisms by Tennyson and Byron, or for that matter anything at all that can be labeled a "nuance"), people can enjoy in the USA.
They feel that their place, as higher-intelligence people, is to rule "the masses". THEY have the right to enjoy the finer things in life. WE do not. That is what drives them to do things that otherwise seem illogical.
Radical egalitarianism. Except for the ruling class of course.