Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says

  • Thread starter Thread starter K-McD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

K-McD

Guest
Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science?

Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried, as determined by their answers to questions like:

"Electrons are smaller than atoms – true or false?”

“How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?”

“Lasers work by focusing sound waves – true or false?”

The quiz, containing 22 questions about both science and statistics, was given to 1,540 representative Americans. Respondents who were relatively less worried about global warming got 57 percent of them right, on average, just barely outscoring those whose who saw global warming as a bigger threat. They got 56 percent of the questions correct.
Click to expand...
“As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased,” the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes.
Click to expand...
Link

I didn’t need a study.
 
And yet the common climate change supporter views the other side as a den of unscientific idiots at worst. :hmmm:
Or, at least from my experience.
 
The scariest part for me is that the repondents only averaged about 56% to 57% on these 8th grade science questions. Our education system is in serious trouble…

I’ve always thought that people that weren’t concerned about climate change just understood that the effects likely won’t be felt for 50 to 70 years from now and that they don’t care because they will likely already be gone. Those that are concerned either don’t understand that, or their concern is for the next generation…
 
57% to 56% of 1,540 is statistically insiginificant. What is interesting is this:

Kahan said that he thought another finding of the study was more important: That people’s cultural views – how much they value things like individualism and equality – affect their views on global warming much more than actual knowledge about science. Regardless of how much they know about science, individualists were relatively unconcerned about global warming, whereas those who value equality were very concerned.

The real issues seems to be theological, protestant individualism and Catholic solidarity.
 
The problem is that you could dis-prove gravity using the “scientific process” that the climate change movement is utilizing right now. Why aren’t alternative theories actively being entertained by the IPCC? Why isn’t open debate occuring between Al Gore and the skeptic community? If a climate catastrophy is truly approaching, then why isn’t public opinion on enviornmental issues approaching panic levels as people start to see the empirical evidence in their life instead falling off the radar in the political world?
 
This reminds me of a published sociological study we discussed in CAF a couple of years ago which found that:
  1. Protestants know more about Christianity than Catholics do,
  2. Atheists know more about Christianity than Catholics do,
  3. Both Protestants and Atheists know more about religion, in general, than Catholics do.
 
K-McD said:
Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science?

Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried, as determined by their answers to questions like:

"Electrons are smaller than atoms – true or false?”

“How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?”

“Lasers work by focusing sound waves – true or false?”

The quiz, containing 22 questions about both science and statistics, was given to 1,540 representative Americans. Respondents who were relatively less worried about global warming got 57 percent of them right, on average, just barely outscoring those whose who saw global warming as a bigger threat. They got 56 percent of the questions correct.

“As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased,” the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes.

Link

I didn’t need a study.
Click to expand...
Good thing, because you haven’t read one. At least, not something that isn’t pure junk, if this story is to be believed.

Studies that are not total hogwash use random sampling, not “representative Americans.” Studies not used as propaganda are evaluated by actual scientists who know that a 1% difference in results is not considered, scientifically, to have any validity whatsoever. That is, the difference is not considered significant. And isn’t. Studies that are scientifically conducted are conducted by scientists, surprisingly enough, not by lawyers:
Yale Law Professor Dan Kahan, the lead author of the study…
Click to expand...
Both sides of the global warming debate say the study’s findings support their views. Those who worry about global warming say it shows that cultural biases blind even smart people to the “scientific consensus.”
Click to expand...
Smart people? The average for getting the questions correct was 56.5%. That’s failing.

Global warming is not something to “believe in.” It’s an on-going process that is studied. By actual scientists. Determining the IQs of a random sampling of people and then determining their beliefs about Global Warming might reveal something about whether the “belief in” GW is related to one’s ability to understand, not some level of essentially irrelevant raw data stored in a person’s brain. But maybe not:
Kahan said that he thought another finding of the study was more important: That people’s cultural views – how much they value things like individualism and equality – affect their views on global warming much more than actual knowledge about science. Regardless of how much they know about science, individualists were relatively unconcerned about global warming, whereas those who value equality were very concerned.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps not, as this “study” is of no objective value unless there are a lot of things that just were not reported. (certainly possible) And what kind of comparison is “individualists” as opposed to “equality valuers?” You can’t be an individualist and value equality?

The story has no link to the journal article or even the journal website. I couldn’t find this “study” in the latest issue nature.com/nclimate/current_issue.html but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there, I often have issues negotiating websites. Maybe someone else will find it and link it here. .
 
Using the ignorance of a base of supporters to disagree a scientific theory is a logical fallacy at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst. Scientific theories could and should be proved or disproved using scientific methods, anything else is just marketing that has nothing to do with reality and a lot to do with blind acceptance.

The same ignorant people that either support or negate AGW believe that DNA can be used as a proof to analyze genetic associations. Would we honestly say that genetic associations through the study of DNA are not realistic because most of the supporters are ignorant about the size of an electron?
 
Julia_Mae said:
…Studies that are not total hogwash use random sampling, not “representative Americans.” Studies not used as propaganda are evaluated by actual scientists who know that a 1% difference in results is not considered, scientifically, to have any validity whatsoever. …
Click to expand...
I think that you are confused about the proper use of statistic for inference.
The use of representative samples is necessary in statistics for a lot of studies, random samples could be much more biased than “representative samples”. For example if we were trying to infer the average length of a menstrual cycle and we were to randomly sample the population of the USA we would obtain that the average length is years if not decades and we know that to be wrong.
I also think that you are wrong when you say that a 1% difference is not considered valid from a scientific point of view. There are a lot of people that assess the quality of their manufacturing capabilities to numbers that are 0.01% or below. You must also understand that even if you are not able to prove that two things are different that still does not mean that they are the same.
 
K-McD said:
Link

I didn’t need a study.
Click to expand...
And how is this relevant to the overwhelming evidence which actual scientists accept, other than a few paid by polluting industries, and some religious crackpots (in this context)?

What puzzles me is why to the religious crackpots care so little about our planet? Would someone who is in that camp, please explain that.
 
Julia_Mae said:
Smart people? The average for getting the questions correct was 56.5%. That’s failing.
Click to expand...
Then those who who are concerned about global warming must be ‘failing’ too?

Skeptics answered on average of 57% of questions correctly. Those who were concerned about global warming answered 56% of questions correctly. According to the study, those skeptical about global warming have no less scientific knowledge than those who are concerned about global warming.

Study link:

nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html
 
_Abyssinia said:
Then those who who are concerned about global warming must be ‘failing’ too?

Skeptics answered on average of 57% of questions correctly. Those who were concerned about global warming answered 56% of questions correctly. According to the study, those skeptical about global warming have no less scientific knowledge than those who are concerned about global warming.

Study link:

nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html
Click to expand...
The full article is extremely interesting on many different points 🙂 I am disappointed that I cannot find the 22 science questions which were asked–are they there and I missed them? I looked in the article and the supplementary material.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
…The real issues seems to be theological, protestant individualism and Catholic solidarity.
Click to expand...
You are ignoring Catholic subsidiarity. I would say that if there is a spectrum, it would look more like this: (if they are not all on one line, please imagine them so!)

Communism/socialism…progressivism… Catholic subsidiarity/solidarity… Protestant individualism… libertarianism…

**If **GW or CC is true, then it would be a matter for solidarity, but not everything is related to solidarity, which is balanced by subsidiarity in Catholic thinking.
 
St_Francis said:
**If **GW or CC is true, then it would be a matter for solidarity, but not everything is related to solidarity, which is balanced by subsidiarity in Catholic thinking.
Click to expand...
How do you see that balance currently being worked out?
 
tgrath said:
And how is this relevant to the overwhelming evidence which actual scientists accept, other than a few paid by polluting industries, and some religious crackpots (in this context)?

What puzzles me is why to the religious crackpots care so little about our planet? Would someone who is in that camp, please explain that.
Click to expand...
Right after you or any of you 56%ers produce actual, tangible, physical evidence of global warming. No data, study, or research will be acceptable here. I want actual evidence.
 
St_Francis said:
I’m not exactly sure what you mean in your question?
Click to expand...
I may have misread you but it seemed you were discounting the appropriateness of solidarity or trying to diminish it on this issue. And I was puzzled also because solidarity is a question of “who to identify with” while subsidiarity is a question of “what level ought to be responding”.

It seems to me that Catholic leadership is taking global warming as a real and serious threat. Do you agree?
 
So the shrinking of the Polar Ice Cap is made up for political reasons?

There is no doubt about the earth’s climate change,

The debate is what’s actually causing it.

Myself, I believe it’s the shift in the earth’s axis, which happens on a regular basis.

It’s either that, or the earth is actually being drawn into the sun, as a nun once told my class as how the world would end. 😃

Jim
 
Surveys of this kind only prove statistical facts about the groups of people who were surveyed. They don’t prove anything about other people (eg. what the experts think) or the subject (in this case, AGW).

A couple of years ago there was a study which found that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than believers do, and that among believers Protestants know more than Catholics. Which doesn’t prove that the Pope and Catholic bishops are dumber than the new atheists and the Anglican clergy, or that Catholicism is wrong.

Survey: Atheists Know More About Religion Than Believers
Why did atheists do so well? The study concluded that those who reject faith often do so after growing up in a religious household, and studying and deliberating keeping the faith. Also, atheists and agnostics tend to be better educated in general. Why did Christians do so poorly? It may be because once someone accepts a faith, they stop examining it.
Click to expand...
That particular link doesn’t have the extra information I mentioned about the relative knowledge of Catholics and Protestants, but it was in the original survey we discussed here two years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top