Take a trip - Science vs. the Conservive Mind set

[handmade34]

2. this gem from the article...

Scientists tell us that carbon dioxide is warming the planet. But basic common sense tells many people that plants breathe carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. They claim that the more carbon dioxide we produce, the more plants thrive, and the more oxygen they make for us.

they neglect to ponder the fact that because of humans "Deforestation undermines this important carbon sink function. It is estimated that 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions are the result of deforestation"

picked this up to read on flight a few days ago...

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

In the U.S., climate change somehow has become a litmus test that identifies you as belonging to one or the other of these two antagonistic tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking, People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this. For a hierarchical individualist, Kahan says, it’s not irrational to reject established climate science: Accepting it wouldn’t change the world, but it might get him thrown out of his tribe.

“Take a barber in a rural town in South Carolina,” Kahan has written. “Is it a good idea for him to implore his customers to sign a petition urging Congress to take action on climate change? No. If he does, he will find himself out of a job, just as his former congressman, Bob Inglis, did when he himself proposed such action.”

Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. “We’re all in high school. We’ve never left high school,” says Marcia McNutt. “People still have a need to fit in, and that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always trumping science. And they will continue to trump science, especially when there is no clear downside to ignoring science.”