stirfry, why the fuck do you make me waste my time on this? I kicked your ass all over fp.com, when you tried mulitple times to post scientific information that allgedly "debunked" global warming, and within ten seconds on google I was able to demonstrate that the scientists you were citing, actually agreed that human emissions were contributing to global warming.
With this article, you've abandoned any pretense of trying to debunk the the scientific theory, which is now settled fact as far as science is concerned, and your citing some sociological study on people's perception to the media and propaganda wars. Its very telling that it is you, Asshat, and Battleborne that continue to cheerlead for the Flat Earth Society.
From your article
more informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming..... (this) is consistent with the notion that people trust that scientists will be able, somehow, to devise technical solutions to any problems that arise because of global warming and climate change.
Oops. The researchers you cite don't claim AGW isn't happening, or that its been debunked. They conclude that informed people aren't freaking out about it because they have confidence that science and policy makers will engineer a viable solution.
It should be noted that the information effects reported in this article are limited to self-reported information. Objective measures of informedness about global warming and climate change might produce different effects. And indeed there is some scholarly evidence to suggest that this might be the case. Durant and Legge(47) found that self-reported informedness and objective measures of informedness were almost entirely uncorrelated, and that their effects worked in opposite directions.
Translation: The level of "informedness" on the topic was limited to self-reporting, and not objective measures of information. Meaning, that those who read Wall Street Journal editorials and Fox News editorials on global warming may consider themselves "informed" on the matter. But the level of their informedness can be
inversely correlated (aka, WRONG) to the actual truth which is based on empirical, objective obeservation and information.
despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming and climate change are real phenomena that create risks for the earth's future, among the mass public, the more confidence an individual has in scientists, the less responsible he or she tends to feel for global warming, and the less concerned he or she is about the problem. Perhaps this simply reflects an abundance of confidence that scientists can engineer a set of solutions to mitigate any harmful effects of global warming.
Once again, there's nothing in your article that suggests that AGW has been debunked, or that the general public have dismissed it out of hand. Your article says that many people have a high level of confidence that we can
engineer our way out of the problem, and those people aren't freaking out like frightened little girls. Makes sense to me.
Please. Stop bothering me and wasting my time on your trollish (and admittedly hilarious!) attempts to debunk global warming.
and I can laugh at myself...unlike you...
