Yale Study: Climate Skeptics Know More than Climate Alarmists

[Jack Hays]

So much for condescension from warmists. It appears they believe as they do because they don't know enough. Anyone surprised? Certainly the finding is consistent with observed activity here on DP. This should change the dynamic of some discussions.

[h=1]A new study shows climate skeptics have more knowledge on climate science than alarmists[/h] Anthony Watts / 3 hours ago February 14, 2015
Fox News reports:
Study: Global warming skeptics know more about climate science
Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?
Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychologyby Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.
The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.
On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.
One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.
Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.
Liberals were more likely to correctly answer questions like: “What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.
The study comes on the heels of a 2012 study that found that global warming skeptics know just as much about science; the new study specifically quizzed people on climate science.
…
More: Study: Global warming skeptics know more about climate science | Fox News

---

The study will be published on the Advances in Political Psychology website
Kahan, Dan (2015) Expressive Rationality and Cultural Polarization: Theory and Evidence, Advances in Political Psychology, Vol 2,
Kahan, Dan M., Wittlin, Maggie, Peters, Ellen, Slovic, Paul, Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore, Braman, Donald and Mandel, Gregory N., The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change (2011). Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 89. Available at SSRN: The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change by Dan M. Kahan, Maggie Wittlin, Ellen Peters, Paul Slovic, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Donald Braman, Gregory N. Mandel :: SSRN
Jo Nova also has an analysis here

 

[Deuce]

People who know nothing about global warming say it's a problem and it's our fault.
People who know a bit about global warming say it's not a problem and it's not our fault.
People who know a lot about global warming say it's a problem and it's our fault.

 

[Jack Hays]

People who know nothing about global warming say it's a problem and it's our fault.
People who know a bit about global warming say it's not a problem and it's not our fault.
People who know a lot about global warming say it's a problem and it's our fault.

Too bad Yale disagrees.

 

[Deuce]

Too bad Yale disagrees.

Answering the questions in this study barely even reaches the "a bit" level of knowledge, let alone "a lot."

Yale does not disagree. This study did not measure anything that would contradict my statement.

 

[Jack Hays]

Answering the questions in this study barely even reaches the "a bit" level of knowledge, let alone "a lot."

Yale does not disagree. This study did not measure anything that would contradict my statement.

". . . The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.

On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.
One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.
Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land. . . ."

 

[Deuce]

". . . The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.

On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.
One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.
Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land. . . ."

Yes. So I read.

Is it your assertion that answering such questions demonstrates "a lot" of knowledge about global warming, or are you just misunderstanding me?

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes. So I read.

Is it your assertion that answering such questions demonstrates "a lot" of knowledge about global warming, or are you just misunderstanding me?

It is my understanding that answering such questions demonstrates that skeptics know more than warmists. Whether that's "a lot" depends on how high you think that bar is.

 

[Deuce]

It is my understanding that answering such questions demonstrates that skeptics know more than warmists. Whether that's "a lot" depends on how high you think that bar is.

Those are high-school level questions, so you can feel free to call that knowing "a lot," but I disagree.

I think PHD climatologists know a lot about global warming, maybe we should poll them to measure the third line of my assertion.

 

[Jack Hays]

Those are high-school level questions, so you can feel free to call that knowing "a lot," but I disagree.

I think PHD climatologists know a lot about global warming, maybe we should poll them to measure the third line of my assertion.

Do as you wish. As I noted, the importance of this study is to deflate the unmerited condescension of warmists.

 

[Jack Hays]

Those are high-school level questions, so you can feel free to call that knowing "a lot," but I disagree.

I think PHD climatologists know a lot about global warming, maybe we should poll them to measure the third line of my assertion.

From the linked commentary at JoNova:

Roy Spencer of course, understands what is going on:
“It’s easy to believe in the religion of global warming. It takes critical thinking skills to question it,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

 

[Verax]

The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.

On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

I suspected denial would be your response.

 

[Threegoofs]

Too bad Yale disagrees.

Actually, they don't.

From the abstract:

"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"

IRONICALLY:

The author is a major researcher trying to understand while seemingly educated individuals, such as yourself, can have such incredibly irrational beliefs about issues like climate change.

 

[Jack Hays]

Actually, they don't.

From the abstract:

"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"

IRONICALLY:

The author is a major researcher trying to understand while seemingly educated individuals, such as yourself, can have such incredibly irrational beliefs about issues like climate change.

And yet:

The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.
On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.

 

[Deuce]

And yet:

The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.
On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.

Asking nine high-school level questions with such a small disparity doesn't really mean much of anything.

Now, a study that asks real science questions would be interesting.

 

[Threegoofs]

And yet:

The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.
On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.

Yes. And the premise of the study was to understand the intensity of denialism among seemingly knowledgeable individuals.

The paper isn't out, so I'm not sure if he concluded it was a type of mental illness....but he certainly was clear that it's irrationality.

Congratulations for not being a member of the control group.

 

[Jack Hays]

Asking nine high-school level questions with such a small disparity doesn't really mean much of anything.

Now, a study that asks real science questions would be interesting.

Deny deny deny.:lamo

 

[Deuce]

Deny deny deny.:lamo

You guys are always harping on margin of error, but I can't help but notice its absence in your OP.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes. And the premise of the study was to understand the intensity of denialism among seemingly knowledgeable individuals.

The paper isn't out, so I'm not sure if he concluded it was a type of mental illness....but he certainly was clear that it's irrationality.

Congratulations for not being a member of the control group.

I have no doubt the paper's authors assumed the validity of AGW. That's what makes the result so credible, and so damaging to the AGW cause.

 

[Deuce]

I have no doubt the paper's authors assumed the validity of AGW. That's what makes the result so credible, and so damaging to the AGW cause.

Why do you think that's damaging to the cause?

 

[Jack Hays]

Why do you think that's damaging to the cause?

Because a huge part of the AGW argument is based on a claim of consensus and a posture of condescension.

 

[Threegoofs]

Because a huge part of the AGW argument is based on a claim of consensus and a posture of condescension.

Which the paper mentions is a characteristic of the irrational deniers...which I pointed out.

Funny how going to the primary source material always leads to the opposite conclusions of your Watts Bloggus Vomitus.

 

[Deuce]

Because a huge part of the AGW argument is based on a claim of consensus and a posture of condescension.

Clarification:
A portion of the AGW argument is based on scientific consensus on part of people who research climate for a living. And that is based on scientific evidence.

Quite frankly, the opinion of people who can't answer high-school level science questions is of no concern to me. Science isn't based on opinion polls. Carbon dioxide doesn't care who you voted for. Infrared radiation does not change its behavior based on your education level. Crops don't grow or fail based on the American public's education.

"Condescension" claims are just standard projection. It's easier to disagree with someone when you get to attack their character. Look how arrogant those liberals are! So condescending!

No, friend, the AGW argument is based on scientific evidence.

 

[Jack Hays]

Which the paper mentions is a characteristic of the irrational deniers...which I pointed out.

Funny how going to the primary source material always leads to the opposite conclusions of your Watts Bloggus Vomitus.

I assume you meant "the paper's abstract mentions." Here it is.

[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]"Abstract: [/FONT]
[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;] 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."

The passage in which you put so much stock strikes me merely as the authors trying to explain away a result that was contrary to their assumptions.

[/FONT]

 

[Deuce]

I assume you meant "the paper's abstract mentions." Here it is.

Did you read the next sentence too?