BMEWS
 
 

Junk Stats From Junk Scientists

“Global Warming Skeptics Slightly Better At Science Than True Believers”

To their amazement, the greenies ran some quiz, and found that nay-sayers knew just as much science and statistics as the worshipers of the Goreacle. To my non-amazement, both sides utterly bombed a squat-simple quiz, proving neither side knows much about anything.

Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science?

Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried, as determined by their answers to questions like:

“Electrons are smaller than atoms—true or false?”

“How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?”

“Lasers work by focusing sound waves—true or false?”

The quiz, containing 22 questions about both science and statistics, was given to 1,540 representative Americans. Respondents who were relatively less worried about global warming got 57 percent of them right, on average, just barely outscoring those whose who saw global warming as a bigger threat. They got 56 percent of the questions correct.

If those 3 examples are representative, I’d have to drive cross country to kick any of my readers in the nutz if they got less than an 80. ["ansers": 1) true; 2) one year; 3) false as you darn well already knew!] A red-assed baboon could score an 80 on this test I think. So I know I won’t be wasting a drop of 87 octane, because you’d all do way better than a pathetic 57.

Oh, and the statistics folks will notice that a score difference of 1% from a poll of 1540 is at the very fringy edge of meaninglessness. By which I mean that the differences are too close to call. Maybe they should have made it a 200 question exam instead.

“As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased,” the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes.

Yale Law Professor Dan Kahan, the lead author of the study, cautioned that the survey results are not evidence for or against climate change.

“This study is agnostic on what people ought to believe,” he told FoxNews.com. “It just doesn’t follow to say this finding implies anything about what people should believe on this issue.”

That statement is pure organic compost. This was not a literacy exam, this was a science and statistics quiz ... unless there was some other exam, or some kind of educational level admission on the application form? This doesn’t jibe at all with what the examples purport to show; neither does an average score of 57% support any kind of claim to increasing literacy, unless half of the test takers were drooling imbeciles more likely to eat the test paper than to check off the boxes.

Kahan said that he thought another finding of the study was more important: That people’s cultural views – how much they value things like individualism and equality—affect their views on global warming much more than actual knowledge about science. Regardless of how much they know about science, individualists were relatively unconcerned about global warming, whereas those who value equality were very concerned.

AH HA. Now we get to the meat of things.
There HAD to be more to this study than just an analysis of a 22 question science quiz. And what the REAL take-away is, is that people who can think for themselves - individualists - are far less likely to buy into the scare=scam than are groupists - hive minded members of the Borg Collective, another pathetic sheep following the herd. Mentally lazy folk who need to be told what to do, what to wear, where to go, and what to believe in. Hypnotards.

And that’s the whole thing, in a nutshell.



Posted by Drew458    United States   on 05/28/2012 at 06:46 PM   
 
  1. My first thought after reading the first paragraph - what a bunch of id10ts! Only 57% correct answers for silly little easy questions like those. If those were representative questions, imagine how well our elected leaders would do - 15, 20%?

    It’s a sad state of affairs when those being measured are smarter than those doing the measurements!

    Posted by jackal40    United States   05/29/2012  at  05:36 AM  
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Clint Eastwood's daughter in the news, and it's pretty dumb but it's ART. oh well.

Previous entry: I really stepped in it…

<< BMEWS Main Page >>