He is author of What Climate Scientists Think about Global Warming (Heartland Institute, 2007) and coauthor of State Greenhouse Gas Programs: An Economic and Scientific Analysis (Heartland Institute, 2003) and New Source Review: An Evaluation of EPA's Reform Recommendations (Heartland Institute, 2002).
He has presented environmental analysis on the CBS Evening News, CNN, and Fox News Channel; on numerous national radio programs; and in virtually every major newspaper in the country.
Taylor received his bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College and his law degree from the Syracuse University College of Law, where he was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and founder and editor-in-chief of the Federalist Voice.
Latest posts by James M. Taylor (see all)
- Study Confirms Natural Gas Economy Has Lower Methane, Global Warming Emissions - October 20, 2016
- Obama’s Energy Secretary Champions Nuclear Power To Fight Global Warming - September 20, 2016
- Heartland Daily Podcast – James Taylor: Debate on Global Warming - March 31, 2016
(This piece was first published at Forbes.com.)
Jeopardy champion: “I’ll take ‘Science’ for $800, Alex.”
Alex Trebek: “The answer is, ‘Inferior scientific literacy.’ ”
Jeopardy champion: “What is one of the peer-reviewed factors distinguishing global warming alarmists from global warming realists?”
Alex Trebek: “That is correct! Pick again.”
Jeopardy champion: “I’ll take ‘Science’ for $1000, Alex.”
Alex Trebek: “The answer is, ‘Inferior technical reasoning capacity.’”
Jeopardy champion: “What is another one of the peer-reviewed factors distinguishing global warming alarmists from global warming realists?”
Alex Trebek: “You are correct again!”
In light of a new peer-reviewed study published in Nature Climate Change, don’t be surprised if the above scenario soon becomes a real-world Jeopardy show.
A team of researchers, led by a professor at Yale University, tested more than 1,500 U.S. adults on their scientific literacy and technical reasoning capacity, and then asked them to assign a numerical value to how concerned they are about climate change.
According to the study, published earlier this week, “Members of the public with the highest degrees of scientific literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change.”
Indeed, “As respondents’ science-literacy scores increased, concern with climate change decreased.”
It seems the media needs to reverse whom it deems “anti-science” and “science deniers.”
Not that Al Gore calling climate scientists at MIT, Harvard, Princeton, etc., “Flat Earthers” was ever a believable scenario. The same applies to minimally educated newspaper reporters/advocates referring to scientists at NASA, NOAA, Columbia, Penn, etc., as “anti-science.”
When you get right down to it, it has been painfully obvious for quite some time that one side in the global warming debate is supported by objective scientific evidence and the other side is supported by ideology, the need to keep the billions in government gravy-train dollars flowing, and speculative, ever-failing computer models that they program themselves.
Hurricane activity has been near historic lows during the past several years. Tornadoes have become less frequent and less severe as the planet has warmed. Droughts have become less frequent and global soil moisture has improved. Deserts are shrinking. Crop production sets new records nearly every year.
Alex Trebek: “Now on to Final Jeopardy. The topic is, once again, ‘Science.’ How much would you like to risk?”
Jeopardy champion: “I’ll bet it all, Alex.”
Alex Trebek: “The answer is, “Railroad engineering and astronomy.”
Jeopardy champion: “What is the training of the top ‘scientist’ overseeing the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the top ‘scientist’ overseeing official U.S. government temperature compilations?”
Alex Trebek: “That is correct! Congratulations, you are our new Jeopardy champion!”