No, and the SA article you cite does not seem to support that notion either.

Does the slam you made towards your husband indicate that he may not be your husband in the near future?

So you think having doubts over anthroprogenic global warming makes someone an "unintelligent" person? Looking at the cover ups at the East Anglia University in 2009 whereby factual evidence and data was being hidden and covered up, data which showed a DECLINE in global temperatures!

Science has no absolutes, everything is up for debate and absolute truth is religion.

There is always an agenda for everything, in 2009 on the day of the UNELECTED EU President

Herman Van Rompuy, he stated "2009 is the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the finanical crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet"

I am a liberal. However, the persons who wrote that second link report about conservatives being less intelligent are not liberals. The are extreme left wing nutbars. My liberals are the ones who find studies about intelligence amongst races or cultures or gender as offensive. That study is the same thing. Offensive.

I don't find it useful to general groups into conservative and liberal. Both sides are very diverse and don't agree amongst themselves on many issues (My first paragraph is an example).

Sociology and social science is seeming more and more to being co-opted by the extreme left for the purposes of advancing their ideology. It's Trofim Lysenko all over again. It's not going to work but it will be a road bump in human progress. How big a bump is yet to be seen.

In answer to your main question, yes I think conservatives are more likely be opposed to global warming and the proposed solutions than liberals. And I base that on the idea the ideology guides us quite often, especially in matters we don't fully grasp.

There are more vastly unintelligent people in here than Ian. Thing is, I don't think Ian is unintelligent. He is ignorant, yes. But he lets his hate and trolling nature drive his arguments. I suspect he's probably sitting there at his computer with a smirk on his face. He does not listen to any logical discussion in these forums at all. He still sticks to his guns much as those young Earth creationists staring directly in the face of science and spitting on it. I suspect, if he continues this trend, he is going to be going even more downhill. He already agrees that there is a vast conspiracy in climate science. Next thing we'll know is he will be stating much the same conspiratorial thinking Billy does. He's already pretty much in line with Pat.

Couldn't possibly say since I don't know most denialists. Also, the pop study you refer to doesn't say conservatives are unintelligent, it says they are less intelligent than the liberals in those samples. There is a big difference.

Anyway, one thing which is abundantly clear is that the population of denialists on Yahoo Answers (which I am familiar with) consists largely of unintelligent people who are also ignorant and at times arrogant. Oh, and dishonest. Not sure of their race/sex tho.

If you are so smart:

1. Define Climate Change in a method that could hold up in court.

2. Prove that there is climate change caused by man..

3. Show us examples of climate change in the last 100 years which is detrimental to the Earth or mankind.

Since the IPCC has never scientifically or legally defined Climate Change, other than, "Climate Change is a change in climate," at this time I don't think it is possible. If you accept that definition, your husband deserves a separation from you. You are too dangerous to be around. I hope he keeps all sharp objects away from you, for your own good.

Gary F: I suggest that you take a real course in science. One with tangible principles. If the designer of an airplane, for instance, sold someone an airplane that didn't fly and the design went against the known force of gravity, the purchaser could sue and win in an honest court. Plus the fact that gravitational effect is accurately used in many sciences. Back in 1958, GE had a computer which plotted the many factors of space travel. According to them, the Moon was finished and they were plotting Mars. (That was with vacuum tube technology) This same data was used by the US and even Russia in their successful Moon shots.

<“We follow the WGI definition of climate change as a statistically significant variation in the mean state of the climate or its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer).”

> And you are scientifically alright with that? It is easier to define the exactness of a cloud than that definition of climate change. My goodness, that reasonably could mean one thing to one person and another thing to another. That is voodoo, not science, and you should know that.

Familiarize yourself with ASTM and their methodology of exactness. then come back with a definition.

Jeff M: You used to have a lot of actual scientific input, but lately you have degraded to name calling and personal destruction. This is a sign that you can't hold your own on a purely scientific discussion.

< He still sticks to his guns much as those young Earth creationists staring directly in the face of science and spitting on it. > Let s see how scientific you are. You believe in the big bang theory? Go take a stick of dynamite and go to some safe place, then set it off. When the explosion produces a Rolex, I will start believing in your theory. When you study the Theory of Evolution thoroughly enough, and I have, you will find out there isn't just a missing link, there is a missing chain.

I would say most are conservative, but I can't agree with unintelligent. They are certainly not free thinkers and being led around by the nose doesn't make you smarter. It is safe to be a denier and let someone else do your thinking for you.

You will find this type of single mindedness among men who support pro life and reject women's autonomy and equal employment.

By definition, a denier is one who denies reality. Centuries ago we had the flat earthers and those who believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. It is tough to break through that veil of ignorsnce especially with those who have little scientific understanding.

In the U.S. they do tend to be extreme conservatives and paranoids. They see evil everywhere and trust no one. These tend to be people who don't even trust their family doctor, much less the body of scientific research.

Yale University tracks the political attitudes of population segments based on their beliefs around Climate Change. The updated segmentation study is online, although it does not break-out men versus women. The political beliefs are those that are generally held by older white men more than other groups.

You can download the segmentation study here if you choose to read it.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/

A poll in 2011, conducted by a group related to the U of Michigan, did break-out by gender. And you are correct in that more men than women are deniers. 30% of men are unaware of the scientific evidence whereas 22% of women are unaware. But there is no difference between white and non-white. But the gender difference is not nearly as great as Republicans versus Democrats. 42% of Republicans are unaware of the solid scientific evidence whereas only 15% of Democrats are unaware.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/researc...

I don't think I'd say that, but what I've found is that they:

1. Are not scientifically literate--they are particularly deficient in physics and math.

2. Have poor logic skills.

3. Have poor reading comprehension.

Many of their questions (at least some that have been asked today) are due to their own misunderstandings of what other people have said, due to 2 and 3.

In North America there are lots of white males. The less intelligent ones are more easily duped by 4th hand recycled fossil fuel industry anti-science disinformation concerning global climate change. The studies cited in this question are, however, fundamentally flawed by accepting uncritically the label "conservative" which FAKE conservative ignoramuses give themselves. There is nothing "conservative" about being stupid or lying like hell.

Here is a REAL Conservative, one of the most famous of all time, speaking 25 years ago on the subject, LONG before most of the nitwit dupes now denying this science had even HEARD of it: