The bold parts are especially interesting.

Quote:This article shows that even modest amounts of scientific dissent reduce public support for environmental policy. A survey experiment with 1000 Americans demonstrates that small skeptical scientific minorities can cast significant doubt among the general public on the existence of an environmental problem and reduce support for addressing it. Public support for environmental policy is maximized when the subjects receive no information about the scientific debate, indicating that the general public's default assumption is a very high degree of scientific consensus. Accordingly, a stronger scientific consensus will not generate public support for environmental policy, unless skeptical voices become almost silent.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...1113002141

The last sentence made me very uncomfortable. What are they trying to suggest?

Maybe the public is just sick and tired of the doom and gloom of we're all going to freeze, we're all going to burn, the planet will die no matter what we do.

Eh.

(12-30-2013 10:58 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Maybe the public is just sick and tired of the doom and gloom of we're all going to freeze, we're all going to burn, the planet will die no matter what we do.

I think this is more of a demonstration of the negative effects of mixing politics, public police, and science. I find it disturbing, regardless of the reality of their results, that the author would write an abstract that seems to suggest that silencing the opposition is a viable course of action.

He should publish on reddit.

(12-30-2013 11:04 PM)Paul M Wrote:  He should publish on reddit.

I found this article on reddit.

(12-30-2013 11:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 11:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 11:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

Wait, one more

(12-30-2013 11:18 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 11:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 11:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

Wait, one more

That looks like my old Jeep.

She's kinda hot. I would have stopped to pull her out.

I'm not sure why I should be pissed off.

Just shows how important skepticism is, lest any nitwit claims he has scientific evidence for something and we all must do his bidding now.

(12-30-2013 10:58 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Maybe the public is just sick and tired of the doom and gloom of we're all going to freeze, we're all going to burn, the planet will die no matter what we do.

...and many of us also do not have an agenda to push. Not making money on it, or depending on it for a job, etc.

(12-30-2013 10:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The bold parts are especially interesting.

Quote:This article shows that even modest amounts of scientific dissent reduce public support for environmental policy. A survey experiment with 1000 Americans demonstrates that small skeptical scientific minorities can cast significant doubt among the general public on the existence of an environmental problem and reduce support for addressing it. Public support for environmental policy is maximized when the subjects receive no information about the scientific debate, indicating that the general public's default assumption is a very high degree of scientific consensus. Accordingly, a stronger scientific consensus will not generate public support for environmental policy, unless skeptical voices become almost silent.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...1113002141

The last sentence made me very uncomfortable. What are they trying to suggest?

This has been the language of the left. Trying to put disagreement on CAPGW with Holocaust denial. If you're the only voice in the room it's easy to own the crowd but if there is even one candle in the dark it's not so easy.

So lets keep people out of journals, let's dismiss them as being "in the pocket of oil".

Just like Abortion... It can't be a discussion about when Human life begins, or when it should legally begin... No if you're pro life it's because "you hate women".