Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
34 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: College education and Perceptions of Global Warming rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: hoax_deniers [+] [View All]
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gallup has some interesting poll results out, showing that College-Educated Republicans Most Skeptical of Global Warming. College educated Democrats are most likely to say the seriousness of global warming is underestimated. It's a quick read so head over and come back. The overall conclusion is that "education does not mitigate the partisan divide in beliefs about global warming but instead strengthens it".

here are the results:


Also
Gallup wrote:
Two other questions about global warming follow a different pattern:

Republicans and Democrats with higher levels of education are both slightly more likely than others in their respective parties to say they understand global warming "very well." The nature of this understanding, however, is obviously quite different between the two groups.

Republicans' views on whether most scientists believe global warming is occurring vary little by education. Republicans are much less likely than Democrats or independents to say that most scientists believe global warming is happening. Education is strongly related to Democrats' views on this question, with highly educated Democrats more likely than those with less education to agree with the statement.

They conclude that "education appears to harden the partisan battle lines, rather than build common bridges". Thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Elfbane wrote:
They conclude that "education appears to harden the partisan battle lines, rather than build common bridges". Thoughts?


Yes, education is supposed to do that. Critical thinking is something that needs taught and then exercised.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Elfbane wrote:
They conclude that "education appears to harden the partisan battle lines, rather than build common bridges". Thoughts?


It's not really a "partisan battle line." 97% of models overstated the warming of the last two decades. At this point whether or not AGW has been generally exaggerated is a simple question of fact. The Democrats appear to be in quite a bit of denial since the predicted warming hasn't happened.

All that warming was channeled into the Obamacare death panels, didn't you know that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Beaton
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
I have a cunning plan
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Elfbane wrote:
They conclude that "education appears to harden the partisan battle lines, rather than build common bridges". Thoughts?


It's not really a "partisan battle line." 97% of models overstated the warming of the last two decades. At this point whether or not AGW has been generally exaggerated is a simple question of fact. The Democrats appear to be in quite a bit of denial since the predicted warming hasn't happened.


You don't seem to understand how error bars work in science. If I say "the temperature will increase next year between 1 and 10 degrees, with 5 the most likely outcome" and the actual result is an increase of 3 degrees, then the prediction is accurate. But someone who doesn't understand math will say "they predicted a 10 degree increase and look how wrong they are". Even claiming that scientists predicted a 5 degree increase isn't accurate, because it doesn't take the uncertainty into account.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bimmy Jim
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
aiabx wrote:

You don't seem to understand how error bars work in science. If I say "the temperature will increase next year between 1 and 10 degrees, with 5 the most likely outcome" and the actual result is an increase of 3 degrees, then the prediction is accurate. But someone who doesn't understand math will say "they predicted a 10 degree increase and look how wrong they are". Even claiming that scientists predicted a 5 degree increase isn't accurate, because it doesn't take the uncertainty into account.


By that logic I can predict that I will get laid next year 1 to 100000 times. If I end up getting laid twice, I have not overestimated.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
They've under-predicted some things:

Big Shelves of Antarctic Ice Melting Faster Than Scientists Thought
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Susan F.
Canada
Lethbridge
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would really like to know why the media do not *ever* talk about the other major consequence of rising carbon dioxide emissions - ocean acidification. Is it just because you have to do a little math? Or is it because, as long as you can do that small amount of math, there can really be no debate? Or is the potential for complete destruction of the aquatic food chain irrelevant because the oceans will be fished out anyway so why should we care?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There's an interesting discussion of this poll going on over an academic listserv I'm subscribed to, and one of the posters wrote:

Academic Egghead from other conversation wrote:
This phenomena is well documented in the elite cues literature. Individuals with higher education are better able to and more likely to follow partisan messages about issues. Add in the selection bias for media sources (WSJ v. NYT for example) and there is nothing at all surprising or unusual in this outcome.

In this approach, individuals use media coverage to gauge the positions of elites and interpret the news based on their party and ideological identification (Lenz 2009). Kellstedt (2003) finds that elite cues interact with media coverage to shape aggregate changes in racial attitudes.

Is science information different? Darmofal (2009: 392) concludes that science is often superseded by ideological considerations: “When political elites offered dubious policy cues, many citizens followed these cues rather than rejecting them in favor of more valid cues from opposition elites.” Yin (1999) found that elite cues and media diffusion influenced public concern about environmental issues. In this vein, several studies have found that more educated individuals are better able to discern rival partisan positions; hence, their individual attitudes about climate change are more closely synchronized with those of their party leadership (Kellstedt, Zahran and Vedlitz 2008, Malka, Krosnick and Langer 2009, Borick and Rabe 2010, Hamilton 2010, Brewer and Pease 2008).

Lenz, G. 2009. Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming; Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):821-837

Kellstedt, P. S. Zahran, and A. Vedlitx. 2008. Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States Risk Analysis 28:1 113-126.

Kellstedt, P.M. 2003. The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes. Cambridge

Darmofal, D. 2009. Elite Cues and Citizen Disagreement with Expert Opinion. Political Research Quarterly. 58(3) 381-395.

Yin, J. 1999. Elite Opinion and Media Diffusion: Exploring Environmental Attitudes. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 4(3) 62-86.

Malka, A., J. Krosnick, and G. Langer. 2009. The Association of knowledge with Concern About Global Warming; Trusted Information Sources Shape Public Thinking. Risk Analysis 29(5): 633-647

Borick, C. and B. Rabe. 2010. A Reason to Believe; Examining the Factors that Determine individual Views on Global Warming. Social Science Quarterly 91(3) 777-800.

Brewer, P.R., and Pease, A. 2008. Federal Climate Politics in the United States: Polarization and Paralysis, pp. 85-103 in Hugh Compston and Ian Bailey, Turning Down the Heat: The Politics of Climate Policy in Affluent Democracies, New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Hamilton, L. 2010. Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change. 104(2): 379-422.

I'm not personally familiar with the literature on elite cues, however. Interesting stuff though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
aiabx wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
Elfbane wrote:
They conclude that "education appears to harden the partisan battle lines, rather than build common bridges". Thoughts?


It's not really a "partisan battle line." 97% of models overstated the warming of the last two decades. At this point whether or not AGW has been generally exaggerated is a simple question of fact. The Democrats appear to be in quite a bit of denial since the predicted warming hasn't happened.


You don't seem to understand how error bars work in science. If I say "the temperature will increase next year between 1 and 10 degrees, with 5 the most likely outcome" and the actual result is an increase of 3 degrees, then the prediction is accurate. But someone who doesn't understand math will say "they predicted a 10 degree increase and look how wrong they are". Even claiming that scientists predicted a 5 degree increase isn't accurate, because it doesn't take the uncertainty into account.

So the 48% of college educated democrats that say underestimated are farther off the mark than anyone else? Thanks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
So the 48% of college educated democrats that say underestimated are farther off the mark than anyone else? Thanks!

The models don't represent the 'seriousness', which is what the question asked. Did you miss that?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Rusty567 wrote:
I would really like to know why the media do not *ever* talk about the other major consequence of rising carbon dioxide emissions - ocean acidification. Is it just because you have to do a little math? Or is it because, as long as you can do that small amount of math, there can really be no debate? Or is the potential for complete destruction of the aquatic food chain irrelevant because the oceans will be fished out anyway so why should we care?

Yeah, ocean acidity is already up 30% (30% more H+ ions) and it's going to go quite a bit higher . . . and you never hear about it.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If only there was any actual evidence of warming, like increasing ocean acidification, melting glaciers, thinning thickness and volume of sea ice, shifting animal habitats, a CO2 value that we haven't seen naturally in, oh, say 800,000 years, coral reef damage, etc.....

But no, I digress. MODELS !!

shake

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
AKA Halston Thrombeaux
United States
Lincoln
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
jonb wrote:
If only there was any actual evidence of warming, like increasing ocean acidification, melting glaciers, thinning thickness and volume of sea ice, shifting animal habitats, a CO2 value that we haven't seen naturally in, oh, say 800,000 years, coral reef damage, etc.....

But no, I digress. MODELS !!

shake



Incidentally, I'd also like to see some right-wing science on why carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelly K
United States
North Bend
Washington
flag msg tools
where is that koldfoot retard, he doesn't believe in global warming, maybe he has some bullshit to spout about why he is such a dumbfuck whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Erik17 wrote:
Rusty567 wrote:
I would really like to know why the media do not *ever* talk about the other major consequence of rising carbon dioxide emissions - ocean acidification. Is it just because you have to do a little math? Or is it because, as long as you can do that small amount of math, there can really be no debate? Or is the potential for complete destruction of the aquatic food chain irrelevant because the oceans will be fished out anyway so why should we care?

Yeah, ocean acidity is already up 30% (30% more H+ ions) and it's going to go quite a bit higher . . . and you never hear about it.


Well I hear about it, fairly often. But then I am college educated, a scientist and interested in the topic.

*sigh*

It is part of why CO2 emissions matter even if global climate temperature change wasn't happening, which the data indicates it actually is.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelly K
United States
North Bend
Washington
flag msg tools
Meerkat wrote:
I am college educated, a scientist
lol, could have fooled me
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kkoechel wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
I am college educated, a scientist
lol, could have fooled me


Well when you have put almost 20 years into researching nuclear waste clean up, along with a multitude of other cutting edge technologies at a National Lab and have numerous publications under your belt... then your perceptions about my intelligence and value as scientist might matter to me at least one iota. But I wouldn't count on it.

Just Sayin...
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelly K
United States
North Bend
Washington
flag msg tools
Meerkat wrote:
kkoechel wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
I am college educated, a scientist
lol, could have fooled me


Well when you have put almost 20 years into researching nuclear waste clean up, along with a multitude of other cutting edge technologies at a National Lab and have numerous publications under your belt... then your perceptions about my intelligence and value as scientist might matter to me at least one iota. But I wouldn't count on it.

Just Sayin...
I actually believed you the whole time
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BimmyJim wrote:
aiabx wrote:

You don't seem to understand how error bars work in science. If I say "the temperature will increase next year between 1 and 10 degrees, with 5 the most likely outcome" and the actual result is an increase of 3 degrees, then the prediction is accurate. But someone who doesn't understand math will say "they predicted a 10 degree increase and look how wrong they are". Even claiming that scientists predicted a 5 degree increase isn't accurate, because it doesn't take the uncertainty into account.


By that logic I can predict that I will get laid next year 1 to 100000 times. If I end up getting laid twice, I have not overestimated.


Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. That is how it works.

Although really, it would be you predict you'd have sex 50001 times, give or take 50000, and you'd predict that with some level of confidence, generally 95% or above, meaning that.. eh, here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, any substantive thoughts on the topic of the OP, i.e. the observed relationship between education level and perceptions of how serious global warming is?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
Erik17 wrote:
Rusty567 wrote:
I would really like to know why the media do not *ever* talk about the other major consequence of rising carbon dioxide emissions - ocean acidification. Is it just because you have to do a little math? Or is it because, as long as you can do that small amount of math, there can really be no debate? Or is the potential for complete destruction of the aquatic food chain irrelevant because the oceans will be fished out anyway so why should we care?

Yeah, ocean acidity is already up 30% (30% more H+ ions) and it's going to go quite a bit higher . . . and you never hear about it.


Well I hear about it, fairly often. But then I am college educated, a scientist and interested in the topic.

*sigh*

It is part of why CO2 emissions matter even if global climate temperature change wasn't happening, which the data indicates it actually is.


Not to mention air quality dropping in localities and things like that. The problem is, and I've been saying this all along, is pushing unproven theories and making idealogical screaming matches out of them.

This damages science. This damages discourse.

As Meerkat points out, there is provable, verifiable damage that CAN be pointed out, that shows there are things we should be doing anyway, whether AGW is correct or not.

But the partisans allow themselves to get swept up in the furor, it takes on idealogical, even "religious" connotations. And as a result nothing gets done. Nothing can get done.

If the scientists would just actually do what they are supposed to do and back off the politics, they and everyone else would be better off in this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tstone wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
Erik17 wrote:
Rusty567 wrote:
I would really like to know why the media do not *ever* talk about the other major consequence of rising carbon dioxide emissions - ocean acidification. Is it just because you have to do a little math? Or is it because, as long as you can do that small amount of math, there can really be no debate? Or is the potential for complete destruction of the aquatic food chain irrelevant because the oceans will be fished out anyway so why should we care?

Yeah, ocean acidity is already up 30% (30% more H+ ions) and it's going to go quite a bit higher . . . and you never hear about it.


Well I hear about it, fairly often. But then I am college educated, a scientist and interested in the topic.

*sigh*

It is part of why CO2 emissions matter even if global climate temperature change wasn't happening, which the data indicates it actually is.


Not to mention air quality dropping in localities and things like that. The problem is, and I've been saying this all along, is pushing unproven theories


A theory by definition is well-substantiated. In science there really is no such thing as a proof.

Quote:
As Meerkat points out, there is provable, verifiable damage that CAN be pointed out, that shows there are things we should be doing anyway, whether AGW is correct or not.


Well, AGW has a well-substantiated evidence base - that is why it is an accepted theory.

What science is trying to do is develop a predictive model for the climate. However that is a pretty difficult piece of work - many interacting and interdependent inputs. It is accepted (by scientists) that some models will fail, and some will require revision after revision. That doesn't invalidate AGW, it just reiterates that the climate is a complex system.

Quote:
If the scientists would just actually do what they are supposed to do and back off the politics, they and everyone else would be better off in this.


The scientists are doing what they are supposed to do, what they have always done.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
andyl wrote:
[

Well, AGW has a well-substantiated evidence base - that is why it is an accepted theory.


Well, apparently not so much.


Quote:

The scientists are doing what they are supposed to do, what they have always done.


We will disagree.

And thus the shouting match continues and nothing gets done.

Awesome.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Science in this area happens every day. You or anyone else can access websites where the science is explained and discussed in great detail. Sadly, too many people in this particular forum would rather post political screeds from right wing nutter websites by people who usually don't know their ass from their elbow concerning the science, rather than checking out the actual science.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Elfbane wrote:
Gallup has some interesting poll results out, showing that College-Educated Republicans Most Skeptical of Global Warming. College educated Democrats are most likely to say the seriousness of global warming is underestimated. It's a quick read so head over and come back. The overall conclusion is that "education does not mitigate the partisan divide in beliefs about global warming but instead strengthens it".

here are the results:


Also
Gallup wrote:
Two other questions about global warming follow a different pattern:

Republicans and Democrats with higher levels of education are both slightly more likely than others in their respective parties to say they understand global warming "very well." The nature of this understanding, however, is obviously quite different between the two groups.

Republicans' views on whether most scientists believe global warming is occurring vary little by education. Republicans are much less likely than Democrats or independents to say that most scientists believe global warming is happening. Education is strongly related to Democrats' views on this question, with highly educated Democrats more likely than those with less education to agree with the statement.

They conclude that "education appears to harden the partisan battle lines, rather than build common bridges". Thoughts?


A person who is smarter can self-rationalize proportionally better and out-argue others when they are wrong.

And I'm not poking at any particular side in that statement.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.