EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:54 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 4:43 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20864
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavio ... ur-science

The newly energized debate about vaccines is a reminder that, when it comes to certain controversies, significant segments of the public refuse to believe the scientific consensus. Why so many people disregard clear and confirmed findings on issues ranging from the spread of measles to the dangers of climate change is a vexing question with alarming implications for the public welfare.

Newly published research provides at least a partial answer. It finds scientific findings that challenge the assumptions of a group you strongly identify with motivate people to derogate the research in online comments.

When informal membership in a group—say, the anti-vaccine movement, or those opposed to genetically modified foods—informs your sense of self, and/or provides a feeling of pride and belonging, a perceived attack on its basic beliefs is grounds for a counterattack. Today, that often means writing nasty, dismissive comments online.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2015 2:04 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2485
Location: Central Colorado
Here is another fact that flies in the face of science. To us it is treachery that in 2013 the US Govt. spent 1.9 trillion dollars on fossil fuel subsidies, and this year it will hit 5.3 trillion!!! Totally insane, yet it is happening with our mostly corrupt and deceitful government in all three branches and state and local level, too. Fracking and leaking methane, spills into rivers and on farmland, 'bomb trains' exploding, and pipelines leaking---this is against what most want and certainly against nature itself, and all life on our only planet.
"Fossil fuel subsidies to hit $5.3 trillion in 2015, says IMF study Last updated on 19 May 2015, 9:37 am
Governments could cut 20% of carbon emissions at a stroke if they stopped subsidizing oil, gas and coal
By Ed King

Subsidies for fossil fuels that cause climate change have soared since 2013, a new study from the International Monetary Fund has revealed.

Oil, gas and coal costs will be subsidized to the tune of US$5.3 trillion a year in 2015. The last time the IMF ran the data it calculated they were worth $1.9 trillion.

Economists say the latest figures are more accurate as they represent the “true” cost of energy, which includes the environmental, health and climate impacts of burning fossil fuels.
“Over half of the increase is explained by more refined country-level evidence on the damaging effects of energy consumption on air quality and health,” IMF officials Benedict Clements and Vitor Gaspar wrote in a blog.
The figure is larger than the health spending of all the world’s governments combined, a reckoning the pair called “shocking”."
- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2015/05/18/fossil-f ... 4b2vf.dpuf

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/05/18/fossil-f ... -says-imf/

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2015 6:23 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20864
Location: Southeastern US
Johnny, your link does not support your claims. The link discusses the Global subsidies, including the associated costs of health and environmental damage (not a direct subsidy), not the US government as you state.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:35 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 538
Wayne Stollings wrote:
. Today, that often means writing nasty, dismissive comments online.


Exactly what you do on this board to support AGW. But, I agree with you on the vaccine issue. Unlike climate science the vaccine science is backed up with proper, repeatable research that is not hidden from as many people as possible.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:21 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1395
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/threaten-my-group-and-ill-belittle-your-science

The newly energized debate about vaccines is a reminder that, when it comes to certain controversies, significant segments of the public refuse to believe the scientific consensus. Why so many people disregard clear and confirmed findings on issues ranging from the spread of measles to the dangers of climate change is a vexing question with alarming implications for the public welfare.

Newly published research provides at least a partial answer. It finds scientific findings that challenge the assumptions of a group you strongly identify with motivate people to derogate the research in online comments.

When informal membership in a group—say, the anti-vaccine movement, or those opposed to genetically modified foods—informs your sense of self, and/or provides a feeling of pride and belonging, a perceived attack on its basic beliefs is grounds for a counterattack. Today, that often means writing nasty, dismissive comments online.


What is this "newly published research"? Give it to us.

Quote:
When informal membership in a group —


All group membership is informal, until someone calls it formal. Sometimes that's okay though, especially if no belief is involved. If groups are formed around practical concerns then they are constructive and helpful but if they are formed under ideological concerns, they tend to create division which results in conflict and often violence.

Quote:
say, the anti-vaccine movement, or those opposed to genetically modified foods—informs your sense of self, and/or provides a feeling of pride and belonging,


Pfffff. Wayne ...... We already call ourselves by a nationality and often, by a religion. Don't these two major social forces already inform 'sense of self' and 'provide a feeling of pride and belonging'? 4th of July fireworks! BBQ's, flags waving. Didn't you just have that? Did the many celebrations give you any sense of belonging? Didn't they make you feel like you were connected to a great nation, one you should celebrate? Pride and belonging? The same psychology that is rightfully applied to the anti-vaxers and gmo'ers, is also rightfully applied to the nationalists and the religious. So, the question is ... why do we associate ourselves with groups at all?

Seems to me that what needs to be questioned here is the desire to belong. What is that about? (aside from the functional aspect?).

Quote:
a perceived attack on its basic beliefs is grounds for a counterattack. Today, that often means writing nasty, dismissive comments online.


Online ... Yes, it seems we do a lot of communication on line these days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:02 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20864
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/threaten-my-group-and-ill-belittle-your-science

The newly energized debate about vaccines is a reminder that, when it comes to certain controversies, significant segments of the public refuse to believe the scientific consensus. Why so many people disregard clear and confirmed findings on issues ranging from the spread of measles to the dangers of climate change is a vexing question with alarming implications for the public welfare.

Newly published research provides at least a partial answer. It finds scientific findings that challenge the assumptions of a group you strongly identify with motivate people to derogate the research in online comments.

When informal membership in a group—say, the anti-vaccine movement, or those opposed to genetically modified foods—informs your sense of self, and/or provides a feeling of pride and belonging, a perceived attack on its basic beliefs is grounds for a counterattack. Today, that often means writing nasty, dismissive comments online.


What is this "newly published research"? Give it to us.


If you had followed the link and read the article you would have also found the link to the research in question.


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0117476

Abstract
Experiencing social identity threat from scientific findings can lead people to cognitively devalue the respective findings. Three studies examined whether potentially threatening scientific findings motivate group members to take action against the respective findings by publicly discrediting them on the Web. Results show that strongly (vs. weakly) identified group members (i.e., people who identified as “gamers”) were particularly likely to discredit social identity threatening findings publicly (i.e., studies that found an effect of playing violent video games on aggression). A content analytical evaluation of online comments revealed that social identification specifically predicted critiques of the methodology employed in potentially threatening, but not in non-threatening research (Study 2). Furthermore, when participants were collectively (vs. self-) affirmed, identification did no longer predict discrediting posting behavior (Study 3). These findings contribute to the understanding of the formation of online collective action and add to the burgeoning literature on the question why certain scientific findings sometimes face a broad public opposition.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group