STUDY: The more people know about science, the less they believe in global warming.
“The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.”
I have been saying this for years! Thanks Curt!
Yup….I trained as a chemical engineer, and studied all manner of physics, fluid dynamics, momentum-, heat-, and mass-transfer…and I also studied control processes, and statistical systems…enough to know when I’m being bullsh-tted like Algore and the Climate Activists do… It’s bunk, sez I, I know it and I can prove it…. but no one listens…
It’s a Religion, Greenoholicism…the United Warmenist Evanjellicle Church of Latter Day Savants.
CURT thank you,
global warming to my view is only A SALES PITCH,there is moneys to be distributed
around the world with that UN one among their other sales pitch,
they want richer government to pay them to redistribute the money to those COUNTRYS
poorer, but the money is in their hands in the mean time and enrich their coffer shamlessly,
while the people find it harder and harder to pay their taxes, for THE LEADER to send it TO THE UN to foreign COUNTRYS he simpatyse with more than AMERICA WHO’S FOOTING THE EXPANSES
KalashniKat, well done with humor too, I see you’re quite an expert,
you could make a lot of money if you where with them,
because you know the right scientific word to use better than they are using,
thank’s for the humor
Did anyone else read the .pdf and the study conclusions? Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit either didn’t, or didn’t understand what he was reading. His main point, The more people know about science, the less they believe in global warming, wasn’t the study’s point or conclusion at all. Apparently that’s how he understood this particular paragraph:
The difference was very small, indeed. So small, that it’s relevant only in that it refutes the notion that an ignorance of basic science correlates with disbelief in and lack of concern about climate change. There’s virtually no correlation one way or the other.
What the study actually revealed was that, among the general public, whether one is a climate change denier or believer correlates most strongly with one’s cultural orientation as a Hiearchical Individualist, or an Egalitarian Communitarian. (Loosely speaking, the first would be more typical of conservatives, and the second of liberals.) The strength with which one holds that opinion then correlates with the level of scientific literacy; as scientific literacy increases, the strength with which a person holds the opinion increases. Which opinion is held does not shift.
In other words, increased knowledge of basic science among the general public doesn’t much relate to what a person believes about global warming; it just reinforces whatever they were culturally predisposed to believe in the first place.
Hopefully this isn’t also true of a majority of professional scientists. If it is, no one is totally rational on the topic, and we might as well just flip a coin to get at the truth.
@Greg: Greg, the difference in scientists is those who get paid to study AGW and those who stay true to scientific methods. Isn’t it funny that those who continue to get grants for studying AGW continue to support it? While those who have left the church of AGW reveal the bias?
@Randy, #6:
It could also be pointed out that a majority of high-profile AGW deniers are associated with and/or funded by organizations that have serious monetary interests in discrediting supporting research and researchers.
GREG , so it tells me, the CULTURAL ORIENTATION AS A HIEARCHICAL INDIVIDUALIST ,
TIPICAL CONSERVATIVES, [those are big words]
would be more inclined to be less concerned with the GLOBAL WARMING NOTION,
and tend to be reenforce to stick to what they beleive as they get more knowledge of science,
I say , probably because not the acquire extra knowledge but another brain PLUS they have plenty of ,
that is good, old,straight as a steel bar, pure, ABILITY TO USE JUDGEMENT ,wich is acquired by that big word of HIEARCHICAL INDIVIDUALIST CULTURAL UPBRIGNING, AND FOR MANY IS DIRETLY FROM LIVING CLOSE TO NATURE, FROM OLD LEARNED ROOTS INGRAINED BY THEIR ANCESTORS
SINCE THE FIRST GENERATION WHO CAME WITH A SUITCASE IN THEIR BRAIN ONLY
BUT FULL OF NATURE KNOWLEDGE AND THEIR BASIC GOOD JUGMENT ENOUGH TO FOLLOW THE LESSONS OF THE NATURE, AND PASSING IT ON TO THE NEXT MANY GENERATIONS AS PURE AS GOLD
@ilovebeeswarzone, #8:
Those are complicated terms using annoyingly big words that I wouldn’t normally use. I only used them because they’re in the study report that was mentioned.
I think the terms have to do with a classification system that’s used by sociologists. I’m not a sociologist. As a regular person, I understand them to mean this:
Hiearchical Individualist — Someone who believes that a person’s place or rank in the social order should be entirely determined by his or her own abilities and efforts. They believe that the greatest good for all comes from a competition between individuals, who are all looking out for their own best interests.
Egalitarian Communitarian — Someone who believes that all individuals are deserving of equal rights and opportunities, and that the greatest good for society comes from a cooperative effort to achieve common goals that are good for everyone.
Most people aren’t purely one thing or the other. I think it’s safe to say that most conservatives lean toward the first way of seeing things, and most liberals lean toward the second. Maybe somebody else can define the terms better.
GREG, INDIVIDUALS who are pursuing their own best interest are far more
contributing in” all ” best interests also, by producing jobs to ” the all else”.
unless they have to pass thru a tierce group which are agencys from and government
trying their best to put a screw in their wheels instead of the oil that was use by the INDIVIDUAL.
while the EGALITARIAN COMMUNITARIAN VEGATATE BEHIND, WAITING FOR STIMULUS HANDOUT
If Global Warming is such a pure science, why does it have distinct political delineation?
The latest scientific scam says the increased pollution from Asia is causing the cooling trend and once those nations begin to implement measures to clean up their pollution, global warming will be back. “Hey China, keep polluting, I hate the heat!”
The nice thing about Global Warming theory is that it is completely flexible and requires no data or you can just make up your own data if necessary. You can blame any unpleasant events on AGW and the semi-literate among us will cower in fear, Gore can count his millions, Obama can redistribute America’s wealth among third world despots and his cronies, and Americans can watch their wealth being pissed away. What a noble science, the greatest fraud in the history of the world and if we don’t believe in it we are stupid, but something tells me that the greatest number of true believers couldn’t hack it in the science departments, no they preferred the Liberal Arts programs. Put in your time and get a piece of paper; but remember, if you believe in AGW you can identify with all the designated smart ones. Yea right, join the lost and bewildered and follow witless types like Obama, hear the piper? That’s your cue to sing and dance to the AGW myth like a true Useful Idiot, you too can have a feeling of self-importance, if you just participate and believe in the scientific theory based on faith rather than science. Too Funny, run and dance little Socialists, show Obama how he has your devotion and your vote: stupidity is strength and strength is stupidity. You serve the state of Obama and he will care for you .
Quotes from Orwell’s 1984, “Stupidity and unquestioning loyalty was not only expected, it was required”. (Mine)
SKOOKUM, I think GREG should be happy with you’re version better
elaborated,
thank you