Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Political Ideology Shapes How People Perceive Temperature

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the and-who-wants-t'-know? dept.

Earth 193

benfrog writes "In what likely isn't that much of a surprise, a study has shown that political ideology shapes how we perceive temperature changes (but not drought/flooding conditions). (An abstract of the study is here. 8,000 individuals were asked about temperatures and drought/flood events in recent years, then their political leanings. Answers regarding drought/flood events tended to follow the actual changes in conditions, while answers regarding temperature tended to follow people's political beliefs."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The next question is... (5, Interesting)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703833)

...when looked at by political groupings, did any particular political grouping's perceptions of the temperate correlate more closely to reality than the others?

i.e. was there one or more political ideologies that was more divorced from reality than the others, by any meaningful statistical deviation? Or were they all off, just in different directions based on political ideology?

Re:The next question is... (5, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703855)

What do you think you're doing! This article is about an inflammatory correlation. If you don't limit your observations, you might be in danger of committing Science!

Re:The next question is... (4, Funny)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704087)

This would not get upmodded enough if it went to 11.

Re:The next question is... (4, Insightful)

IndigoDarkwolf (752210) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704379)

The abstract concludes that talking about changes in precipitation are more likely to convince people of climate change.

Sure it will. Until their favored politicians tell them one way or the other, at which point I'll bet dollars to yuan that the same statistical anomaly appears for perceptions in precipitation change.

Re:The next question is... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40703905)

Republicans: "It can never be warm enough, as long as it's profitable."
Democrats: "It's already way too warm."
Libertarians: "Don't worry about how warm it is at my house, just worry about your own house."

Re:The next question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40706547)

Republicans: "It can never be warm enough, as long as it's profitable."
Democrats: "It's already way too warm."
Libertarians: "Don't worry about how warm it is at my house, just worry about your own house."

Figures. Red States vs. Blue States vs. non-voters.

Re:The next question is... (4, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703941)

To quote TFA:

In fact, the actual trends in temperatures had nothing to do with how people perceived them. If you graphed the predictive power of people's perceptions against the actual temperatures, the resulting line was flat—it showed no trend at all. In the statistical model, the actual weather had little impact on people's perception of recent temperatures. Education continued to have a positive impact on whether they got it right, but its magnitude was dwarfed by the influences of political affiliation and cultural beliefs.

And those cultural affiliations had about the effect you'd expect. Individualists, who often object to environmental regulations as an infringement on their freedoms, tended to think the temperatures hadn't gone up in their area, regardless of whether they had. Strong egalitarians, in contrast, tended to believe the temperatures had gone up.

So nope, no matter what your political beliefs, your perception of the temperature is wrong (unless, possibly, you have neutral beliefs, I don't see anything that mentions that).

Re:The next question is... (4, Insightful)

slew (2918) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704317)

My personal opinion is that this whole exercise isn't much different than asking a person if they thought the price of milk or the price of gas went up more in the last decade (or similar question).

I'd wager that most people wouldn't have any clue because the random person doesn't pay any attention to these things, so they would guess. That guess would likely not depend at all on any variable except their political beliefs.

Re:The next question is... (2)

moogaloonie (955355) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705099)

As inflation has been a constant in my lifetime, I'd assume most people expect that the prices of most things will always go up. The relevant question here is whether people's perception of the strength of their money is influenced by how politically content they are at a given time.

Re:The next question is... (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705613)

You missed his point. The question he proposed was, "Did the price of gas or the price of milk go up more in the last decade?" He believes that few if any people would actually know the answer, so they would answer based on something other than the actual price of either. He is further postulating that the same is true of the temperature, very few people have actually tracked the changes in temperature over time, therefore there answer to questions about changes in temperature are based on their political beliefs, not the actual temperatures.

Re:The next question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40705761)

"I'd wager that most people wouldn't have any clue because the random person doesn't pay any attention to these things, so they would guess"

You lose! When I moved to California, back in 1997, the price of a gallon of gas at an Arco station was $0.87. Today the price approaches $5/gallon. I noticed. Some goes for dairy, the price of half & half was less than a dollar back then but now it's close to two dollars at the large chain grocery stores. Noticed that too!

Re:The next question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40706373)

Did I miss a memo? when did 1 person become "most people"??

Re:The next question is... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704729)

Education continued to have a positive impact on whether they got it right

Really?

Let's play a game. Let's ask people if they believe the following statement is true:

Education continued to have a positive impact on whether they got it right

Some people will say yes, and some will say no. Do you believe that the ones who say no will primarily on one side of the political spectrum or will the "No's" be equally divided?

On which side of the political spectrum will you find more "No's"?

Re:The next question is... (3, Informative)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#40706509)

People with higher education, especially in sciences, tend to be more left/liberal/democrat/socialist. This is common knowledge.

Re:The next question is... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705015)

I'm neither here nor there on temps going up or down, but I certainly can't help but notice dramatic shifts in weather patterns are happening more frequently.

and for the record I never refer to something as Global Warming, but as Climatic Disruption.

Re:The next question is... (2)

Dr Damage I (692789) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705133)

Or perhaps that more attention is being paid to dramatic shifts in weather patterns.

Re:The next question is... (4, Insightful)

BStroms (1875462) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703961)

Skimming the article, it doesn't even seem they considered a very real possibility. That political bias doesn't affect how people perceive temperature, but that people tend to answer polls in a way that reflects well on their personal beliefs even if they know that answer isn't entirely truthful.

Re:The next question is... (4, Insightful)

Greenspark (2652053) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704227)

That kind of bias is present in any self-reported survey. The findings should discuss what the population 'reported' and not what they 'believe.' Obviously, the article is also biased in it's title -- declaring that ideology shapes perception. It could also be concluded that perception determines ideology. In one paradigm, your affiliations warp what you perceive, and in another paradigm, you chose to affiliate with those who share your perceptions-- accurate or otherwise. So they need to remember that correlation doesn't imply causality.

Re:The next question is... (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704887)

So they need to remember that correlation doesn't imply causality.

No, it doesn't prove causality. It kind of implies it though, and gives you a very good hint as to which experiments to perform. If you got really sick every time you ate peanuts, your face swelled up and you had trouble breathing - if those symptoms correlated with eating peanuts, you would probably at least try to find out if you actually had a peanut allergy.

The whole "correlation doesn't prove causality" argument seems to be misunderstood. In fact, it appears that the whole idea of "proof" is misunderstood. It's a 17th century notion that has been pretty much replaced by the idea that you have a model, and your observations either support that model or they don't. As long as observations continue to support that model, it might be useful. At least that's what I've been told by a physicist friend. It kind of surprised me (though I hadn't really thought a lot about it). I guess he could have been joshing me or just wrong. He's got a pretty strange sense of humor, but he's pretty well-respected in his field. But it makes sense.

If you had a graph of phenomenon A and it matched exactly phenomenon B and the sampling was pretty large, you'd at least want to see if there was some causal relationship.

What I hear too much of is the idea that correlation is disqualified as a useful data point when trying to determine causality, which I hear a lot, especially in discussions regarding certain hot-button political issues.

Re:The next question is... (1)

Greenspark (2652053) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705421)

If you had a graph of phenomenon A and it matched exactly phenomenon B and the sampling was pretty large, you'd at least want to see if there was some causal relationship.

Definitely, you'd want to see -- and that would take more than a graph showing CORRELATION. That's because it's prefectly possible that phenomenon A causes a completely unmeasured phenomenon C, and it is phenomenon C that causes phenomenon B. You don't want to go around waving your correlation and raving about how A causes B, because you look kind of silly when phenomenon D shows up and independently wipes out C. Because then you've still got your A, but B doesn't come to the party, and you get discredited and loose your grant. It's also possible that A & B are results of some other cause C, and when D shows up and crushes A, you look silly again when B is still hanging around. Also, B might be the cause. And, even though these guys happen at the same place and time... they really might have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

So... let's repeat. Correlation does not imply Causality. Good.

Re:The next question is... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705847)

That's because it's prefectly possible that phenomenon A causes a completely unmeasured phenomenon C, and it is phenomenon C that causes phenomenon B.

Well, that's interesting Is it the taco that is giving me a stomach ache or the E.Coli in the taco?

Practically though, if every time you ate a taco at La Villa Loco Tacos you had to go to the hospital, you'd probably stop eating at that restaurant.

Re:The next question is... (-1, Troll)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704527)

Yes. It's called "denial". Republicans are full of it. And shit. And lies. And disinformation.

How can they live with themselves. I don't know.

Re:The next question is... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704665)

How can they live with themselves. I don't know.

This does bring up one of the many supposed phenomena in this area, namely, that certain groups seem to have unusual difficulty in understanding their ideological opponents. Obviously, you're just one of the many which are handicapped in this area.

Re:The next question is... (4, Insightful)

Quirkz (1206400) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705355)

That's not certain groups, that's almost universal. It takes a certain enlightenment to be able to understand people you disagree with or explain their positions without demonizing them. Very few people seem to be able to do that.

Re:The next question is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40706055)

Classic denial here, the report said neither side was particularly accurate. The way which their errors leaned had much to do with cultural and political differences... i.e. Democrats tend to estimate it was warming more than actual, Republicans less. Both sides got it wrong.

Re:The next question is... (3, Interesting)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703965)

...when looked at by political groupings, did any particular political grouping's perceptions of the temperate correlate more closely to reality than the others?

i.e. was there one or more political ideologies that was more divorced from reality than the others, by any meaningful statistical deviation? Or were they all off, just in different directions based on political ideology?

They gracefully side-stepped this in the Ars article: "And those cultural affiliations had about the effect you'd expect. Individualists, who often object to environmental regulations as an infringement on their freedoms, tended to think the temperatures hadn't gone up in their area, regardless of whether they had. Strong egalitarians, in contrast, tended to believe the temperatures had gone up."

Basically, the temperature is what you think it is. If you don't believe in global warming then it isn't getting warmer. If you do believe in global warming then it is getting warmer. The thing is, global warming over the past few years is very real, and only one group acknowledged that. The study did not explore the possibility that global warming believers might think that the temperature is going up even if it isn't..

Re:The next question is... (2)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704059)

Well the fact that they categorized by zip code may indicate an awareness of this. SOME not-insubstantial number of zip codes within the United States had decreasing average temperatures across the last decade, thanks to things like micro climates and the patterns climate shifts actually occur in. It is not unreasonable to presume that people might falsely believe there was a localized temperature increase when there was not. It's not necessary to oversimplify. It would be nice if THE DATA were available and they had GONE INTO DETAIL in the article, but what can you do?

Re:The next question is... (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704377)

It would be nice if THE DATA were available and they had GONE INTO DETAIL in the article, but what can you do?
Well, they were trying to prove a point and the data could probably be interpreted by different parties as disagreeing with the point.

Re:The next question is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704731)

The data was not archived and was eaten by the dog. But the Study should be enough for you.

Besides, why should they show you the data when your goal is to find something wrong with it?

Re:The next question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40705107)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Isn't the goal of all peer review to find something wrong with the data and if no problems are found then the data is cleared?

Re:The next question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704395)

Essentially you are saying the particular microclimate was not representative of the true climate these individuals sensed and responded about?

Maybe its eaiser to remmber house under water.... (1)

Isaac-1 (233099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704229)

Maybe its easier to member things like the house being under water, or there not being rain in 50 something days in an location that averages rainfall multiple times per week is just easier to remember than on average it is 1 degree warmer each day this month than last year or the year before when there is a 15 degree swing on the highs during the month. So when it comes to temperature people fall back on their political beliefs in the accuracy of temperature records, etc.

Re:The next question is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704419)

Do right wing types simply sense the approach of the hot flames of hell?

Re:The next question is... (1)

Straif (172656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40706321)

but wasn't it the left leaners who overestimated the temperature?

Re:The next question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704541)

It differs only by political affiliation (mostly) so that it is irrespective to the actual temperature. Neither group believes it because it's accurate, so any reality to either group is essentially purely coincidental (it may be skewed to a specific direction but needless to say that some years it will be hotter and others colder seemingly randomly so both groups will be accurate some times).

The article states that the temperature perceived is based almost entirely on political orientation and if that is the case than neither group is really more accurate. It's like if I was the weatherman and said it wouldn't rain every day, most of the time I'd be accurate but my predictions wouldn't have any basis to them (besides that a lack of rain is more common)

Re:The next question is... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40706231)

Since in most areas the temperatures actually have increased slightly, it would seem liberals' beliefs about temperature are on average a little closer to the truth. But there's no evidence that is based on perception of reality. It's based on an ideology that values science coupled with science that says on the whole temperature has gone up.

Re:The next question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40706503)

did any particular political grouping's perceptions of the temperate correlate more closely to reality than the others?

We can't answer that until we settle on what reality is.

How does this support my theory (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703837)

That Republicans and Tories are all cold-hearted?

Re:How does this support my theory (-1)

Antipater (2053064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703939)

Wouldn't this instead show that all liberals are cold-blooded?

Re:How does this support my theory (-1, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704011)

That Republicans and Tories are all cold-hearted?

It assumes they have a heart.

Re:How does this support my theory (-1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704303)

What is TRULY cold-hearted is bossing people around as if they were puppets (or too stupid to make their own decisions). The pro-big government types fit that model perfectly. Example:

You WILL buy hopsital insurance, and you WILL buy complete coverage even for piddly doctor visits, because we've arbitrarily decided that catastrophic/high deductible insurance is outlawed (true under both Romney and Obamacare). In fact "cold hearted" is probably too weak a term. "Dictatorial" is probably better. Though they'd probably describe themselves as "parents" over the citzens (who they consider too dumb to rule themselves).

Re:How does this support my theory (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704381)

looking at some great examples of US citizenry of late I must conclude that indeed they do not deserve any better and cannot live without big brother taking care of them. This fits into majority of tea partiers quite nicely....

Re:How does this support my theory (0)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704433)

Non-sequitur, but what the hell.

Funny how you see that as unnecessary big government forcing into people's lives rather than a limiting of the disgraceful ways those same people have been treated by profit-mongering companies for decades.

Re:How does this support my theory (1)

Dr Damage I (692789) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705195)

By requiring them to buy a product from those same profit-mongering (that's a bad thing, right?) corporations? Good plan!

Re:How does this support my theory (-1, Troll)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704479)

The democrats were perfectly happy offering the single payer plan where they would not force anyone to buy insurance but a basic level of care would be handled by the government, it was the conservative republicans who demanded a hand out for their lobbyists.

Re:How does this support my theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704955)

The democrats were perfectly happy offering the single payer plan where they would not force anyone to buy insurance and a substandard level of care would be force on them by the government. It was the conservative republicans who demanded people be responsible for themselves.
----
TFTFY - and your atrocious run on sentence too.

Re:How does this support my theory (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704861)

Yeah, those are your employees, and you should be allowed how much or little medical care they can have!

Re:How does this support my theory (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704941)

*allowed to decide

Re:How does this support my theory (3, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705121)

Yeah. That Heritage Foundation are CRIMINALS for designing such a policy!

Belief will make it so. (1, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703893)

while answers regarding temperature tended to follow people's political beliefs.

It's been wicked hot lately, so I'm thinking of becoming a Republican and denouncing global-warming to cool things off.
You can thank me later. Note: I also want a fancy pony - like Mitt. :-)

Re:Belief will make it so. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704467)

I'm Republican. I can honestly say that's it's been extremely hot these last two summers. HOWEVER I can also honestly say that's it's been extremely cold these last three winters. One of our yard squirrels froze solid.

So maybe we're experiencing both global warming and cooling at the same time! (Or maybe the earth got thrown off its axis and is doomed..... ala the Hugo Nominated movie The Day the Earth Caught Fire.)

Re:Belief will make it so. (4, Informative)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704549)

From what I've read, the global-warming theories call for unpredictable temperature swings - hot and cold - as the planet adjusts, so extreme cold at times is expected...

Re:Belief will make it so. (2)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704727)

From what I've read, the global-warming theories call for unpredictable temperature swings

The weather model has unpredictable temperature swings built into it already. It would be disingenuous to claim phenomena which will occur no matter what is somehow dependent on a particular theory.

Re:Belief will make it so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704865)

Too Hot?
Too Cold?
Too little rain?
Too much rain?

No worries! We have the answer! Global Warming!

Yes Ladies and Gentle, we have the theory of everything. It accounts for all the weather we see, good and bad. It's a one stop shop for blaming Man and SUVs and moving your big Government, High Taxes agenda forward without a shred of real evidence.

*Restrictions apply, not available in Rhode Island. Consult you local meteorologist before going on a picnic.

Re:Belief will make it so. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704587)

1) Any particular year could just be a fluke. Anyone who claims a hot/cool year is evidence for/against climate change is completely ignorant of basic climate science and/or thinks you are.
2) "So maybe we're experiencing both global warming and cooling at the same time!" -- That is exactly correct -- the climate is changing. Parts will get hotter, parts will get cooler. The overall trend is up, hence the name "global warming". We're going to lose some arable land but we'll gain some as well. What scares me is sea level rise -- take a look at population density maps over the world to see what I mean.
3) There is no good faith debate on whether the climate is changing, and practically none on whether it is the result of human activities. But that doesn't mean that every climate scientist with a model knows the future, or that any particular prediction is correct. What we do know for sure is that human activities are having measurable effects on a highly chaotic system on which we depend for the survival of our civilization. I like to keep my experiments in the lab.

Re:Belief will make it so. (1)

moogaloonie (955355) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705193)

1) 2) "So maybe we're experiencing both global warming and cooling at the same time!" -- That is exactly correct -- the climate is changing. Parts will get hotter, parts will get cooler. The overall trend is up, hence the name "global warming". We're going to lose some arable land but we'll gain some as well. What scares me is sea level rise -- take a look at population density maps over the world to see what I mean.

The human body is mostly water, so overpopulation should offset a rise in the sea level. Failing that we could build lakes and reservoirs. We are good at solving those problems we take seriously enough.

Re:Belief will make it so. (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705047)

I'm politically somewhat to the left of Karl Marx, and I can honestly say the weather's been pretty much the same as it's always been. It's been a pretty wet summer, but last year was pretty dry so I guess it all averages out.

Same as it ever was...

Re:Belief will make it so. (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704517)

It's been wicked hot lately, so I'm thinking of becoming a Republican and denouncing global-warming to cool things off.
It has been much hotter than usual where I live the last two years as well, but not nearly as hot as it was when I was a kid, so given that data I am unable to determine what my political affiliation is.
Oh, and I call BS on the whole study. Liberals and Conservatives are equally likely to complain about the heat or the cold. All that differs is whether they blame it on Global Warming or just the weather.

survey says (0)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703895)

Individuals who followed George W. Bush all thought the temperature was "awesome".

Correlation != Causation (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40703915)

This seems like a bit of a stretch. Wouldn't it be easier to assume:
People who are inland are more likely to be republicans.
People who are inland are more likely to have different perceptions of temperature.

Why would you make this mental leap?
Republicans perceive temperature differently because they are indoctrinated ("changes in local temperatures have been more heavily politicized")

The correlation/causation seems all out of whack.

Where's the data? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703925)

I really really really really despise articles that are subjective analysis of data that don't include any sort of access to the data itself. "Trust us the numbers say X" is the single most intolerable statement to a rational human being.

Re:Where's the data? (3, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704013)

The data is behind a paywall (click the PDF link in the abstract). Welcome to the world of scientific journals.

This doesn't surprise me (5, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703937)

Basic cognitive dissonance modelling has demonstrated repeatedly that when a person encounters incontrovertible facts that contradict deeply held beliefs, the facts are discarded.

Re:This doesn't surprise me (3, Interesting)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704357)

I've noticed recently that many people who have kids don't believe in climate change or Peak Everything.
Of course, the idea that your kids or grandkids will have a much worse life than yourself is intolerable for many.
Me, I have no children so I can think freely.

Re:This doesn't surprise me (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704645)

True, but it's worth pointing out that this effect is larger [salon.com] in conservatives. The more a conservative learns about a topic the stronger his preconcieved beliefs are.

The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.

Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate scienceâ"e.g., a political conservative or âoehierarchical-individualistââ"then more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive.

Contrast liberals, where learning more about a topic is more likely to change his belief.

Nuclear power is a classic test case for liberal biasesâ"kind of the flip side of the global warming issueâ"for the following reason. Itâ(TM)s well known that liberals tend to start out distrustful of nuclear energy: Thereâ(TM)s a long history of this on the left. But this impulse puts them at odds with the views of the scientific community on the matter (scientists tend to think nuclear power risks are overblown, especially in light of the dangers of other energy sources, like coal).

So are liberals âoesmart idiotsâ on nukes? Not in Kahanâ(TM)s study. As members of the âoeegalitarian communitarianâ group in the studyâ"people with more liberal valuesâ"knew more science and math, they did not become more worried, overall, about the risks of nuclear power. Rather, they moved in the opposite direction from where these initial impulses would have taken them. They become less worriedâ"and, I might add, closer to the opinion of the scientific community on the matter.

Re:This doesn't surprise me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40706121)

I see it differently. I've spent a lot of time looking into "climate science" and found that the "big research" like the IPCC all came from a single source, the CRU in England. The guy who ran it refused multiple FOI requests and even deleted the original data instead of risking someone getting a hold of it and double checking his work. There is actually NO peer review of the original methods and data used in the UN's IPCC reports. Thats right, there is NO peer review by people who agree or people who disagree. In addition the guy who ran the CRU admitted to no provable statictically significant warming even after he admitted to manipulating the data to prove such existed.

If it were such an obvious conclusion, and the scientific evidence backed it up, he would have been spreading the data and methodology all over the place. Since we only have the word from a single guy, who admitted to wrongdoing, I'm not sure how anyone could agree with it. If you agree with IPCC reports you are basically having faith in one guy's opinion and no scientific proof actually exists.

India and Japan are so skeptical that they have begun their own climate study programs because the UN is threatening them with CO2 taxes based on the IPCC reports. Those countries don't think its fair to be taxed based on faulty research they can't double check.

So, actually the more you REALLY know, the more you know its been a farce for decades. If you look for facts from both sides, this is what you will find.

Yes, but it's a dry heat. (2)

BMOC (2478408) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703977)

except when taxes come due, then I feel a lot of cold water on my plans.

Holy jump to correlation bat man (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703979)

I think the REAL correlation is people who were polled tended to BELIEVE the stance of the political party they ascribe on climate but having not been swayed by their party on drought/flooding one way or the other simply answered according to their observations.

or not..

Re:Holy jump to correlation bat man (2)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704595)

Well, the other answer is that people answer subjectively about a subjective question and objectively about an objective question. It is pretty hard to deny that a flood or drought is occurring, but the temperature on average changes so little (about half a degree Celcius in the last 70 years) that it comes down to a matter of opinion.

Colour Me Shocked (-1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40703983)

Conservatives don't believe in climate change. News at eleven.

Re:Colour Me Shocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704659)

Conservatives don't believe in climate change. News at eleven.

Or equivalently, Liberals exagerate the effect of climate change. That study seems to indicate that there was no actual predictive power by people in regards to temperature (liberal or conservative), go figure. People that don't specialize in studying temperature, don't know what the trend is. That's news?

<rant>Personally, I find people that resort to using fallacies (like a fallacy of composition) in arguments really just shows how much of a disservice much of the activisim has been to the whole climate debate. Does anyone really expect someone who might be swayed about evidence of climate change, to say: I must change all my principles to be Liberal if I change my position on this subject or it doesn't count? No. There are only 2 reasons people say CRAP like this. Either they have an alternate political agenda, or it's because they are unable to process information and need green and magenta labels to put on people to help them make sure they are not accidentally getting the wrong message. You aren't helping the cause of trying to get something done about the climate...</rant>

Significance level? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704001)

I cannot access TFJA, just websites talking about it. What was the significance level of their results? I mean, I've seen articles with very low significance and high p values (that the article says that there is no evidence what they measured exist) but the press still passed it around like it blew open entire fields.

It wasn't by any chance (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704035)

...made by some Dutch professor in Social Sciences right ? Lately 2 professors turned out to be frauds, exactly in this area, and this article could be another: unfunded conclusions by a vague questionnaire...
Not saying that it is of course, but erm... just saying :)

Another possibility (5, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704081)

Look at a political map of the US, and what's the first thing that pops out at you? A lot more conservatives live in the southern US. Most of the places where conservatives tend to live are warm, while liberals tend to live in cooler areas. People in areas that are normally cooler would be more likely to notice an increase in temperature than people in areas that are generally warmer. Personally, I'm used to 80%+ humidity and upper 90s-low 100s myself, so this summer has actually seemed pretty mild in comparison to what I'm used to. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in global warming. It has more to do with the kind of weather I am acclimated to.

Re:Another possibility (0)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704147)

Please, show some manners. We're trying to have a partisian shitfest here and here you are, attempting to bring reason into the mix. Clearly, favoring Rush and Drudge enables people to magically become more resistant to heat. THAT'S the logical answer.

Re:Another possibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704877)

Partisan Shitfest is the name of my Mötley Crüe cover band

Re:Another possibility (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704391)

That makes some sense although the droughts should put a damper on it.
In fact, most Alaskans (red state) believe in climate change because it's obvious to them.

Re:Another possibility (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705239)

What would be interesting is to attempt to reproduce this in a different country.

As we get older we become less tolerant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704135)

...of cold and we move to Florida.

Conservatives think it's cooler? (4, Funny)

Eevee (535658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704163)

It seems the other way for me. I'm a rather left-leaning type and I say it's 33 right now, but the conservative in the next cube over keeps saying it's 97.

Re:Conservatives think it's cooler? (2)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704695)

Your cubicle must be nearer the a/c vent.

33C is only 91F

But anything over 300K is too hot.

Re:Conservatives think it's cooler? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704915)

its 295 here...

How would I know? (2)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704251)

It's kind of hard to miss a flood when you live in your parents' basement. It gets damp and the sump pump wakes you up at night. But temperature? I'd have to actually go outside to know what it is. Otherwise, all I have to go on is my belief in global warming.

Save on energy costs, by changing my ideology? (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704627)

So can I save on air conditioning, by having a cold political ideology in the summer?

And save on heating costs, by having hot political ideology in the winter?

Surprising? (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704675)

People with a vested interest in the sky falling, notice something that could at the wildest extrapolation mean the sky is falling.

People without such interest, disregard such signs.

Or it could be that some are pantywaists that get in a twist over trivia, and some aren't.

Re:Surprising? (1)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704769)

People with a vested interest in the sky falling. . .

"Sky is falling" as in "we could cause our only viable ecosystem to spiral into an uncontrollable and unsurvivable climate upheaval"?

Or "sky is falling" as in "The status quo may be slightly inconvenienced by the need to do something innovative about energy consumption"?

You reap what you sow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704685)

Global warming alarmists are the ones who decided to politicize the issue.

Thanks for nothing, guys.

OMFG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40704691)

Correlation is not causation...

Not really (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704737)

Gee. I think a bit of warming would be a good thing. But it has nothing to do with politics. I simply live in the cold north lands. Warming would open up more of our season to being able to grow things. City folk and southern folk don't understand this aspect. Not surprisingly, most liberals come from urban areas.

I'm pro-Global Warming. Think about it. The greatest biodiversity has been during periods of warming. The greatest die offs, not caused by things like astroids, was during ice ages. Warming is good.

Oh, and no, I'm not a political conservative.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40705307)

I simply live in the cold north lands.

So why not move instead of hoping that the climate will come to you? Consider that while a few extra degrees of warmth may increase your growing season, they may render other areas unable to support agriculture. They may also render those places less habitable, at least without massive infrastructure remedies to encroaching deserts and oceans.

So you can wear one less sweater, and grow a few more varieties in your vegetable garden, and enjoy the expanded biodiversity of few billion new neighbors who will be trying to scratch out an existence in your back yard.

In other news... (3, Interesting)

CCarrot (1562079) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704783)

Chronological Age Shapes How People Perceive Temperature

"You just don't get the summers we used to get when I was a lad..."

Financial Circumstances Shape How People Perceive Temperature

"Almost froze my ass off last winter, didn't have enough newspapers stocked up since everybody's reading the bloody online bloody news these days..."

and

Number of Children / Grandchildren / Pets Shape How People Perceive Temperature

"Well, Susie has her skating class, then Molly has her hockey game, but Andy and Billy were invited to that Winter Festival / tobogganing birthday party at the same time...oh, and could you walk Rover when you get home?"

Face it, 'perception' of temperature is a pretty worthless measure overall. Stick with the measurements, assign a margin of error (note: not 'corrections') suitable for the technology / location, and go from there.

And in related news (2)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704799)

People who work in well air conditioned offices don't feel as hot as those who have to perfotm manual labor outside, or in less well cooled (and dehumidified) environments

And people who are very wealthy aren't concerned about global warming, they can just build a new summer home firther north.

The Glass is Half Full (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40704967)

And it's melting...

No, it's half empty and it's thawing.

Liberals feel warmer (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40705177)

... because they are slightly closer to hell.

I always look up the stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40705359)

When someone tells me it's never been hotter, or colder, than now, I always look up the relevant local stats and history. It's almost always been hotter, or colder, on any given day, at some point in the past 100 years, than it is today. Even when the local weather report says it is a record breaking day, I've come to the conclusion based that their records only go back as far as 10 or 20 years - there's almost always a day in the longer term record that beats it.

I've always thought that facts are facts, and not subject to whims or belief.

Research Funds (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40705461)

So, research funds are being spent on measuring (and eventually manipulating?) public sentiment? Rather than actually counting tree rings, measuring glacial melt, refining atmospheric and oceanic models, etc.

This is what is meant by 'science'?

And then there's reality (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40706053)

Well leeettt's see .... this is the hottest year on record :

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/05/climate-weather-warmest-year-on-record-/1 [usatoday.com]

so I guess people who were motivated by their political ideology to minimize the temperature are what's known as reality-deny fanatics.

Yeah, that's pretty much all there is to say on that topic.

You might be a liberal... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40706211)

If you're dumb enough to believe the Earth is really getting warmer fast enough for you to feel it.

Oh and just for good measure (2)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40706491)

Oh and just for good measure, this:

http://act.350.org/signup/reckoning/?akid=2086.624457.CWuv92&rd=1&t=2 [350.org]

Here's the analogy. We're all on a ship in the ocean. Engineering below has alerted the captain that we're definitely headed for an iceberg. The rich people who are partying on the ship don't want the party to stop.

Since they're the Big Money on board and have the Big Connections , they have outsized say in what the captain decides to do. They shout down the engineers, accusing them of being jealous of the first class passengers.

The rest of the passengers are worried but unable to get captain to change course.

After a while, engineering gets more and more agitated and the passengers can see the panic in their faces. The first class passengers become more even recalcitrant and adamant because now it's a matter of pride.

The rest of the passengers start quietly meeting amongst themselves, talking in low voices, moving about the ship in small groups.

You guess how this movie finishes.

OK times up. It finishes with a lot of well heeled people floating lifelessly in the frigid waters as the ship veers safely past the iceberg with the passengers on board, safe and going home to their loved ones.

No one is going to let deniers crash this ship and kill everyone on board. There comes a time when no one cares what your "rights" are or if SCOTUS has decided that money is speech or even what fucking SCOTUS says. Civilization at its core isn't based on "civil rights" or "free speech" or SCOTUS decisions. We got by without any of that shit for a few, ten thousand years. It's based on survival. Anyone who threatens survival will find themselves outside of the laws of civilization pretty fucking fast.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If you make people fight for their survival, if you're identified as one of the deniers who drove civilization to the brink of extinction you can pretty well plan on dying a pretty fucking barbaric death, possibly involving blow torches and such like medieval -level implements of torture . It's nothing I'd wish on anyone, but moderate, peace loving, live and let live liberal bunny people like me aren't going to be able to hold back revenge seekers very well. Prominent personalities deeply involved with denialism may want to take pause here.

My colleagues think we should spare you from the full horror of what's going to happen when, say, the food web in the ocean begins to collapse. They think that because they think by building bridges we can eventually bring you along, but if we paint the full picture of what the future will bring to your flesh, you'll fucking tighten up, become defensive and go full off into denialand and "stand your ground" until the bitter end.

I have another perspective. I think by explicitly laying out for you likely or possible scenarios and what part you'll play in them your brain will start to work in favor of your own survival despite your pansified, airy-fairy post-modernist "you have your experts and I have mine, you have your reality and I have mine" bullshit you learned from cocksucking FoxNews.

Don't think your money or guns or survivalist skills are going to count for jack fucking shit when the world's intelligence agencies collectively decide that you're a clear and present danger to humanity and bring to the party everything in their labs and the kitchen sink to make sure that your dealt with. That's how this is going to go down in the end because you know what? The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Not enough data (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#40706595)

I would think geographical location during the persons upbringing would have an effect on the perception of temperature. It would also have an effect on political ideology. Correlation != causation. Perhaps temperature perception shapes political ideology.
Condition of housing may also have an effect. Living in a cold area in an expensive warm house would not be the same as living in a cheap cold house. The difference there is the cost of the house and implies a higher family income.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?