Study shows that climate skeptics are smarter than alarmists

[brenthutch 444]

"Last week, an intriguing study emerged from Dan Kahan and his colleagues at Yale and elsewhere–finding that knowing more about science, and being better at mathematical reasoning, was related to more climate science skepticism and denial–rather than less."

This explains everything.

[JohnRich 4]

Abstract:

"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. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: Respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased. We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: The individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this, “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication."

Link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503

[Skyrad 0]

I think only an idiot would deny that the climate is changing, the real question is how much if at all humans are contributing to the rate of change.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[brenthutch 444]

for the purpose of this thread climate change = man made global warming

[lawrocket 3]

The paper went with a different track that either you or the OP suggest.

Quote

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.

According to the abstract, the paper assumes climate change is happening. It has more to do with the perceptions of threat.

I also like that the more scientifically knowledgeable a person was, the more firm in their beliefs the person became. Yeah. I'm shocked, too.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

the real question is how much if at all humans are contributing to the rate of change.

The science that CO2 is a driving force is pretty clear. We, as a species, cannot keep pumping 15GT/year of CO2 into the atmosphere as a way of life.

Saying that CO2 is the only driving force is wrong, as there are many driving forces in the earth's weather systems. The magnitude and timing of the warming change is not fully understood.

It's unfortunate that alarmists are forcing poor choices, with massive economic consequences, as solutions to this issue.

It's simply not called for.

We are all engines of karma

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

the real question is how much if at all humans are contributing to the rate of change.

The science that CO2 is a driving force is pretty clear. We, as a species, cannot keep pumping 15GT/year of CO2 into the atmosphere as a way of life.

The evidence does not support your statement. The temperature anomaly has been flat over the last decade while CO2 continues to rise.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

It supports his statement that CO2 is not the only forcing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

Yes the warming that is happening by co2 is being masked by other natural factors that would otherwise herald a new ice age.

Perhaps the only thing keeping the world from being overtaken by glaciers is co2.

To "save the planet" we must redouble our mining, drilling and fracking.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It supports his statement that CO2 is not the only forcing.

His initial statement was pretty unequivocal in claiming CO2 increase as a forcing - the evidence does not support that statement.

His other statements about additional forcings stand on their own.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[434 2]

There was quite a few intelligent nazis to. However, none of them was believed to be "original thinkers"

I would believe those who think we do not influence our earth with our consuming, and using the resources faster than ever are a bit naive if a am allowed to say so.

A bit more respect for mother earth could not harm anyone, or what?

[lawrocket 3]

Mike. It is a forcing. And other forcings participate, too. Had other forcings not been present, then we would certainly expect to see an increase in temperature versus the pause in warming we've seen.

Example: CO2 is a forcing. But a big ass volcano erupts and releases aerosol particulates and sulfur, which counteract the other forcings and cause the planet to cool.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Mike. It is a forcing. And other forcings participate, too. Had other forcings not been present, then we would certainly expect to see an increase in temperature versus the pause in warming we've seen.

Disagree. CO2 lags, not leads, temperature changes. It's a reaction *to* temperature changes. The historical record shows multiple times where CO2 has been many times greater than present day with no catastrophic "tipping points" having occurred.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

It supports his statement that CO2 is not the only forcing.

Certainly not. As skydivers, we should be more concerned with the forcing of methane and hydrogen sulfide.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

It supports his statement that CO2 is not the only forcing.

Certainly not. As skydivers, we should be more concerned with the forcing of methane and hydrogen sulfide.

*groans*

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

You're in rare form today, Andy. Every now and then it's nice to cede "asshole on the block" duties to another.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

groan

Actually, that would be mostly carbon dioxide.

[mnealtx 0]

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[brenthutch 444]

The first post from an alarmist and the NAZI bomb is dropped?!?! Surly this is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

The evidence does not support your statement. The temperature anomaly has been flat over the last decade while CO2 continues to rise.

The physics of CO2 radiation absorption are indeed well established. Actually, any molecule that has a dissimilar collection of atoms in it will interact with radiation.

Let me point out the remainder of my statement:

Quote

Saying that CO2 is the only driving force is wrong, as there are many driving forces in the earth's weather systems. The magnitude and timing of the warming change is not fully understood.

It's unfortunate that alarmists are forcing poor choices, with massive economic consequences, as solutions to this issue.

It's simply not called for.

Bottom line, alarmists are missing something. We just don't know what. Along those same lines, it is pretty clear we can't keep pumping 15GT of carbon into the atmosphere as a way of life for our species.

We have time to change, and we should. Lisa Jackson is the WRONG person to be leading this.

We are all engines of karma

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Bottom line, alarmists are missing something. We just don't know what.

Agreed.

Quote

Along those same lines, it is pretty clear we can't keep pumping 15GT of carbon into the atmosphere as a way of life for our species.

Disagreed. There is no evidence to support the statement. CO2 levels in the historical record were dozens to hundreds (or more) times the levels of today and there was no climategeddon.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Bertt 0]

Dan Kahan the law professor ?

At any rate, a better background in science frequently leads to skepticism. Not that they don't believe it, just that they look for evidence rather than accept what CNN told them.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Disagreed. There is no evidence to support the statement. CO2 levels in the historical record were dozens to hundreds (or more) times the levels of today and there was no climategeddon.

Hey, let's count this as progress in the discussion. Which historical record are you referring to?

We are all engines of karma

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

"Last week, an intriguing study emerged from Dan Kahan and his colleagues at Yale and elsewhere–finding that knowing more about science, and being better at mathematical reasoning, was related to more climate science skepticism and denial–rather than less."

This explains everything.

"Dog bites man". Science is all about skepticism.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

"Last week, an intriguing study emerged from Dan Kahan and his colleagues at Yale and elsewhere–finding that knowing more about science, and being better at mathematical reasoning, was related to more climate science skepticism and denial–rather than less."

This explains everything.

"Dog bites man". Science is all about skepticism.

Except when it comes to Global Warming. Then the science is settled. Remember?