• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The paper they don’t want you to read!

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
18,615
Reaction score
9,262
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The subject of the paper (actually two), could have fit into the Environment & Climate Issues forum or the Science & Technology forums but I have decided to post in this one:

The Paper They don't want You to Read

Rejection of climate science was strongly associated with endorsement of a laissez-faire view of unregulated free markets. This replicates previous work (e.g., Heath & Gifford, 2006) although the strength of association found here (r ~.80) exceeds that reported in any extant study. At least in part, this may reflect the use of SEM, which enables measurement of the associations between constructs free of measurement error (Fan, 2003).

A second variable that was associated with rejection of climate science as well as other scientific propositions was conspiracist ideation. Notably, this relationship emerged even though conspiracies that related to the queried scientific propositions (AIDS, climate change) did not contribute to the conspiracist construct. By implication, the role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science did not simply reflect “convenience” theories that provided specific alternative “explanations” for a scientific consensus. Instead, this finding suggests that a general propensity to endorse any of a number of conspiracy theories predisposes people to reject entirely unrelated scientific facts.

Links to the papers:
MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE

Recursive fury: conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere
 
Incredibly shallow and stupid. Sweeping generalizations are OK in sociology, provided you provide the exceptions. This one didn't bother to address scientists themselves who reject the warmist gods.
 
Incredibly shallow and stupid. Sweeping generalizations are OK in sociology, provided you provide the exceptions. This one didn't bother to address scientists themselves who reject the warmist gods.

Your absence of links or credible background information render your statement to have the intellectual weight of an amoeba. A small one.
 
Your absence of links or credible background information render your statement to have the intellectual weight of an amoeba. A small one.

In other words, it was over your head. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom