Free-Market Economics Supporters Less Like To Believe In Sci

[AiA in Atlanta]

Do they "not believe in science" or deny science?

Those who believe in a popular conservative economic theory are also more likely to not believe in science, according to a recent study.

People who endorse free-market economics -- an economic theory, which argues the markets regulate themselves and work better without too much government intervention -- are more likely to deny climate change, according to a study published last month in Psychological Science.

Based on a survey of climate blog visitors, the researchers also found that those who endorse free-market economics are more likely to reject other widely accepted scientific theories. About 97 percent of climate researchers believe climate change is real, according to a 2010 study from the University of Illinois.

“Endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science,” the researchers wrote. “Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.”

Some prominent free-market backers have been known to deny climate change in what critics argue is an aim to stop the government from placing stricter environmental regulations on businesses. The billionaire Koch Brothers have funded groups that push free market ideology as well as groups that deny claims that global warming is taking place and that it’s caused in large part by humans.

Still Ronald Reagan, one of the most famous supporters of free-market economics, made moves to curb humans’ detrimental effect on the environment during his second term as president, according to a November New York Times op-ed by Cass Sunstein, a former Obama Administration official.

Reagan became the prime leader in an international push to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals, despite his skepticism of environmental regulations, according to The NYT piece. That’s because Regan’s economists discovered that stopping manmade harm to the ozone -- a phenomenon that is different, but not entirely unrelated to climate change -- would cost a lot less over the long term than letting it go on.

[IQS.RLOW]

Link?

Sounds like the discredited Lewendowski survey...

[Super Nova]

Link?

Sounds like the discredited Lewendowski survey...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 ... 28472.html

[AiA in Atlanta]

Link?

Sounds like the discredited Lewendowski survey...

why would this surprise you? the ones that say "the grand canyon is only 5000 years old and God created it *with age built in*" are always the biggest proponents of *free trade.*

[mantra]

People who endorse free-market economics -- an economic theory, which argues the markets regulate themselves and work better without too much government intervention -- are more likely to deny climate change, according to a study published last month in Psychological Science.

Of course they would deny it publicly. This is why we have so much conflict amongst scientists over climate change. There are those who work for industry and those who work independently or for the government.

Some of the most vocal pro-climate change scientists after decades of issuing dire warnings have suddenly changed their tune. When you delve into their background to find out why, you discover that they've recently invested in, or work in, oil, chemicals or some similar polluting industry.

About 97 percent of climate researchers believe climate change is real, according to a 2010 study from the University of Illinois.

It would have to be an anonymous study because a good proportion of them won't admit to it openly.

[IQS.RLOW]

Link?

Sounds like the discredited Lewendowski survey...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 ... 28472.html

Huffington post...I should have known

And yes, they have done this story based around the discredited Lewandowsky paper
http://www.ambitgambit.com/2012/09/06/f ... ad-part-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


They say that fish rot from the head, so could the drop in Australia’s performance in education be due to the quality of some of the academics holding tenured positions at universities rather than what happens in primary and secondary school?

If credentialled, well-funded and tenured tertiary institution staff are capable of dishing-up research which should fail an undergraduate, what chance have lower echelons.

Which brings me to the case of Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, who has been recently making a career trying to link what he calls “climate denial” with delusion.

His latest project is a study entitled MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE and sub-titled “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”.

It could have been sub-titled “The man who polled his prejudices and mistook them for the facts”. Prof Lewandowsky’s paper is certainly motivated, but it is not scientific or competent.

[AiA in Atlanta]

I come across these people all the time here in the States. In fact, a Georgian member of Congress called science "straight from the pits of hell." He is a staunch conservative. Other comments I hear from the rabid conservatives is anti-science talk like "China sent that hurricane to the US" or "There were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark" or "Carbon dating is all wrong."

[IQS.RLOW]

I come across these people all the time here in the States. In fact, a Georgian member of Congress called science "straight from the pits of hell." He is a staunch conservative. Other comments I hear from the rapid conservatives is anti-science talk like "China sent that hurricane to the US" or "There were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark" or "Carbon dating is all wrong."

That you are only able to recognise one end of the extreme spectrum does not mean that the socialism masquerading as pseudoscience is settled. In fact, that the climate avengers haven't been able to sell their pseudoscience only shows how many holes they have in it.

Yes, evolution etc has many holes but those that rail against creationist dogma being introduced to a curriculum are hypocrites if they expect global economics and business to adopt the climate change dogma...because that is what it is equivalent to.

Climate change economic intervention= creationism

[AiA in Atlanta]

IQ's American Vacation















http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/ ... d=all&_r=0

[IQS.RLOW]

Nice...pity it will all be underwater in 100 years