Waffling on climate change? Consult friends, not science

By Sarah Laskow
June 7, 2012

Ever since climate scientist James Hansen first testified before Congress about global warming in 1988, the scientists, advocates, academics and former vice-presidents who work to stop climate change have presumed that the science matters. Hansen began his testimony by telling the assembled senators: “The earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements,” in full confidence that instrumental measurements would matter more than the weather outside the politicians’ front doors. Like Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, Hansen depended on graphs (he called them “viewgraphs”) and numbers to help make his case. Almost two decades later, when Gore first raised the alarm about climate change with his documentary, his strategy rested on that same science: I dare you to look at this PowerPoint and tell me climate change isn’t a problem! It is an expectedly rational assumption to make, that a rational science like science should be a trump card. Inconveniently, it’s not true.

A study published last week in Nature Climate Change, a leading, meticulously vetted journal of climate research, showed that the more scientifically literate people are, the less worried they are about climate change. “As respondents’ science-literacy scores increased, concern with climate change decreased,” wrote the study’s authors, a group that includes researchers from Ohio State, George Washington University and Yale University.

The decrease is small, but what’s telling is that the researchers didn’t come up with the opposite result. You’d expect to see that as scientific literacy increased, so should the sense that climate change is a serious problem. That, after all, is what scientists have assumed in their warnings for more than two decades.

If smart people aren’t relying on science to guide their climate-change views, the study did suggest a reason so many are willing to dismiss climate change: They belong to a social group that finds it advantageous to do so.

The researchers tested another hypothesis, too: that “cultural cognition” – which is to say, the tendency to form ideas based on group identity – determines belief in climate change. That idea checked out. “Hierarchical individualists” – think of a well-off owner of a small business who resents anyone interfering in his business decisions – rated climate change risks lower than did “egalitarian communitarians” — the type of people who hold up Sweden as a dream society. Not surprisingly, the first group tends to gravitate toward conservatism and the Republican Party, while the second has an affinity with liberalism and the Democratic Party. In either case, the study’s authors suggest, a set of climate change beliefs comes with a social advantage.

A hierarchical individualist who expresses anxiety about climate change might well be shunned by his co-workers at an oil refinery in Oklahoma City. A similar fate will probably befall the egalitarian communitarian English professor who reveals to colleagues in Boston that she thinks the scientific consensus on climate change is a hoax.

In other words, people form opinions about climate change based on their worldview and the views of the communities to which they belong. Science, yet again, has little to do with it.

These findings give heft to the vague feeling that’s been dogging climate campaigners, that political affiliation, not science, is what determines a stance on climate change. Note that Gore, who declined to talk to Reuters for this piece, followed up his first climate project by recruiting a cadre of volunteers to help spread climate science with a new presentation, an updated version of the Inconvenient Truth slideshow. The Climate Reality Project, which enlists and trains these volunteers, has worked “to try and recruit presenters from all walks of life and all demographics of life and to arm them with facts and slideshow,” says Kevin Curtis, the project’s program director.

But this second round of “climate reality” hasn’t ginned up the same horror Gore’s first slideshow did. Everyone he could convince already believes him; anyone who doesn’t trust him on this by now won’t ever believe him. Even with a fresh batch of recruits, a scientific slideshow can’t save the planet; it’s too tempting to simply shoot all of these messengers. The assailants don’t distrust science, necessarily. It’s just that they’re a skeptical bunch.

Remember, too, the evolution of Lindsey Graham, the senator from South Carolina. In 2009 Graham put his name beside John Kerry’s in a New York Times op-ed that declared: “We agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security.” Less than a year later, Senator Graham told reporters that “the science about global warming has changed … I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly.” Graham actually seemed to trust climate scientists. But he failed miserably at using scientific facts to rejigger the worldview of the political side he represents, and to keep his place in that group, he had to pull his own statements in line with its popular opinion.

And look at the creeping shift in Mitt Romney’s rhetoric on climate change, which keeps edging closer toward uncertainty. Romney’s been more mealymouthed than Graham about climate science, and it’s easy to interpret his drift toward skepticism as political opportunism. As recently as 2010, he allowed that human activity “is a contributing factor” to climate change; by the fall of 2011, he was saying that “we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.” Why should Romney be any less susceptible to the pull of “cultural cognition” than another educated person or politician? As a conservative, he may very well believe that climate change doesn’t pose a particularly worrisome risk to the world.

The study indicates, though, that liberals don’t hold any particular claim to superior scientific integrity. On climate change, rigorous science happens to uphold the worldview to which they subscribe, but a better understanding of science isn’t driving left-leaning Americans to support action on climate change. They support climate action because it fits in with their preconceived notions of how the world should work: It makes sense that carbon-spewing corporations are selfishly threatening the well-being of the rest of us.

Liberal defenders of science, after all, don’t always take the same hard line on facts as they do in the climate debate. They oppose, for example, the spread of genetically modified food crops, citing links to allergies, immune reactions, and the possibility of other, unknown health risks even though reams of scientific research have shown that GMOs pose little threat to the environment or human health. Last month, hundreds of protesters planned to rip up fields of genetically modified wheat crops at a research center just outside of London because they were a symbol of giant agribusiness. And giant business, no matter the kind, selfishly threatens the well-being of the rest of us, according to liberals. Mainstream science might say that GMOs are safe. But knowing that won’t change anyone’s – and certainly no liberal’s – opinion.

ILLUSTRATION: Elsa Jenna/REUTERS

27 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Interesting and unsurprising at the same time: the human race lacks an open mind.

Posted by PapaDisco | Report as abusive

Why do you hold that climate change is bad? Climate change has been ongoing since the earth first had weather. We have had ice ages, Hot and humid ages, plate movement and everything else that mother earth can conjure up. We can curb scarring the land and poluting our air and water. That would be good for our survival.
But stop climate change? That is almost laughable.

Posted by duet | Report as abusive

Duet,

Think it through. Mankind evolved to survive successfully in the current environment, not the environment of the dinosaurs (hotter, wetter, much higher O2 content, etc.). You may think we can adapt to anything, but that is still an unknown. Hotter + wetter = more tropical diseases; you want Dengue fever in the U.S.? How about malaria? Higher O2 content in the atmosphere means many more forest fires; how much fun is that?

Just to be dismissive with an “it’s happened before in the last 100 million years” attitude, ignores the fact that we’ve evolved to modern humans since the last glacial period of about 110,000 years ago.

Posted by PapaDisco | Report as abusive

“Liberal” skepticism of the science on GMOs isn’t as contradictory as it may seem at first blush. The science behind climate change comes largely from the government, an entity that if anything would benefit from the opposite conclusion, which lends its conclusions higher legitimacy than the science behind GMOs, which largely comes from the very people who would most benefit from its proliferation.

Taking action to curb and/or prepare for climate change is also similar to taking action to prevent the spread of GMO crops. Both stem from a predisposition to precaution.

Posted by Sanity-Monger | Report as abusive

the more people know about science , the more they realize the gray areas that are guesses and estimates. Climate change …yes , poor human stewardship…yes, humans are the cause of climate change…not likely.

Also most of the ‘solutions’ the progresives put worth only drive jobs and energy usage to 3rd world countries where the abuse would be much greater.

Posted by Gen | Report as abusive

It doesn’t make sense to me that people who are more scientifically literate than others are less likely to believe in global warming. I’m into electronics. That’s a science, and I’m used to finding out what’s wrong and how to fix it. So it’s easy for me to see what the climatologists are saying and acknowledge the problem and see what it takes to fix it.

Now to the author’s contention that GMO’s pose little little threat to the environment or human health. Oh yeah, Oh sure, you bet. NOT! See links below:

http://www.garynull.com/home/jack-adam-w eber-gmo-alert-startling-new-research.ht ml

http://aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

Posted by RaymondDeBrane | Report as abusive

We live in cultural cell blocks. As in prison cell blocks, inhabitants have to blend in to survive. We may not lose our lives by disagreeing with our neighbors on climate change, but we won’t get invited to as many parties. We’d rather play it safe…

Posted by rawbitz | Report as abusive

That’s why nobody likes me! I don’t give a darn about what they want to believe. It’s the truth that counts. You are correct. It’s such a sad commentary on the state of mankind. As Julius Caesar said “Men will willingly believe what they want to believe”. How true. Even the educated, connected, and affluent cannot deal with reality. We as a species will eventually make ourselves extinct, and rightly so.

Posted by possibilianP | Report as abusive

First it was “Global Warming” then the marketing department switched it to “Climate Change” so any anomaly in the weather would fit. I believe the climate is changing, I just don’t see the proof that mankind is the primary cause of it.

Posted by tougar | Report as abusive

This article sounds like nonsense.

What I find is that those with little of the science don’t care at all about climate change and those who know some of the science care more.

It is obvious the summers in the NE are becoming wetter over all and cooler because of more extensive cloud cover. That was predicted to happen over 30 years ago. Gore’s efforts came about 20 years later than the earliest scientific predictions I was hearing about on TV and in print.

Global warming theory is at least as old as when I was an undergraduate almost 40 years ago. And back then I thought global warming was a phenomenon too soon to tell.

The climate in the NE is becoming more Seattle like and that was a prediction over 35 years ago. Every hot day seems to be accompanied by a wet afternoon and raining evening. Today we got rain only about an hour ago. That is the terrarium like effect that was predicted over 40 years ago.

Maybe the writer is talking about exaggerated fears about global warming but the wetter warm weather is going to be a big problem up here. Summer vegetable gardens are not going to do well because they aren’t getting full sun most of the time. My house is getting more green molds on the North exposure and the shingles and woodwork are never dry enough, long enough to paint. I have no doubt we are going to have more problems with mold, mildew, carpenter ants and rot. I am getting a very extensive moss cover on walkways since the summers have become far wetter.

To hell with “our survey says”. It’s getting continuously soggy up here and that is very strange.

So-called “liberal” concern about GMOs, is not always about safety as much as about their effect on plant diversity and corporate control over agriculture. GMOs require subscriptions to an entire cycle of seed, weed killer, fertilizer supplied by the patent holding corporation that made them. It’s almost tenant farming 21st century corporate style.

I have no idea what that cartoon at the top of this article is supposed to imply?

Posted by paintcan | Report as abusive

Here is a series of facts that educated people are most likely aware of that make them skeptical of the magnitude of the effects of global warming and even more skeptical that its causes can be realistically stopped.

1) At first it was “Global Warming”, New York was going to be under water in 10 years, and the temp was going to increase so that the whole planet becomes a desert. Now its “Climate Change” and its 2 degree C over the next 100 years. I can live with that.

2) People attribute ANY oddity in the weather to global warming. This is especially frustrating when long established ocean patterns (el nino/la nina in the US) are the obvious cause for such weather. Global warming did not cause last winter to be 20 degrees warmer than normal.

3) On a geological scale, we have been measuring temperature for an absurdly short period of time. Therefor, most of our evidence should be filed under “anecdotal” at best.

4) Do you really think there is a single hydrocarbon atom on this planet that won’t be burned by someone somewhere by the time all is said and done? Example – if we say no to Canadian oil sands crude, they’ll just sell it to the Chinese.

5) If you floated a hose that carried the volume roughly equivalent to that of the one in your garden 18 miles into the atmosphere and pumped out sulfur dioxide to mimic the effect of a small continuous volcano, you would completely negate the cumulative effects of all prior global warming. I’m serious, look it up.

Posted by CapitalismSays | Report as abusive

wish this article had more about the GMOs… or less.

Sanitymonger, I’m not sure if the govt would “benefit” from the opposite conclusion or any conclusion.

My problem with GMOs is the patenting of seed stock and lawsuits against farmers into whose field the pollen blows.

But the biggest issue is unmentioned here and it deserves some space.

What about the unknown quality of the food we shovel in our pieholes?

Most of the GMO food we eat is modified to withstand heavy doses of chemical pesticides, that’s the scary part.

It’s not modified to feed more people (that would be like giving away free food after all).

It’s modified by the seed/chemical companies to withstand more poison, which they naturally will sell you in a package deal.

What scientific study says that glyphosate (main part of Roundup) is okay to consume?

It’s a carcinogen.

Another ingredient in the toxic stuff Roundup that’s sprayed all over the world is “inert surfactant polyethyloxylated tallowamine (POEA). On a weight basis, this surfactant is approximated to be three times as toxic as that of glyphosate.”

I don’t trust our corporate masters but I do tend to trust common sense regarding nutrition.

Keep chemicals and corporations out of my meals!!!!

Where does your food come from Ms Laskow? Are you digesting corporate-grown, GMO pesticide-resistant (read: pesticide-soaked) “franken-foods”?

Or do you eat/grow organically?

One is costly in the short term, the other causes cancer.

What GMO foods benefit society not (copro-) corporations? That’s the question without an answer………….

Posted by atom_b | Report as abusive

I always like these “Huge”events. It was asbestos that would kill all of us. Then it was Refrigerant R-11 and R-12. Then farmed Salmon will be the end of us. This is not science, but scare tactics to keep Governments in power, and keep to grant money flowing. I think if our Congress and President stopped using jet fuel to futher their causes by flying around, and did more homework they might even be able to make informed decisions. I think that the number 5 item by CapitalismSays is a solution to the problem, but won’t be done because it won’t get votes or keep the research money flowing.

Posted by fred5407 | Report as abusive

Capitalism_says is exaggerating in reverse.

If the rest of this summer has hot, wet days, as we did last summer, and if I see next year doing the same thing, I’ll drop the last of my skepticism and accept the fact that the planet is pumping carbon dioxide from 89 million barrels/day of oil(somehow that doesn’t sound right but that was what I found), and about the same of coal and natural gas, into the atmosphere and that isn’t good.

I really doubt the last paragraph. Volcanic eruptions are more or less a constant. The massive CO2 releases aren’t. The idea of the garden hose sounds sillier than crazier theories. It sounds like wishful thinking that a garden hose volume of emissions could neutralize industrial scale emissions.

It will be a lot easier to say the problem isn’t real. I make a small fossil fuel footprint because I heat with wood and don’t drive much. But I like to live this way and barely believed a word of global warming theory 40 years ago when I first heard about it. I always thought it was too soon to tell. 40 years was a long time to finally accept it as fact. 80% of the atmosphere is within the first ten miles from the surface as I recall.

The theory I heard never predicted massive sea level change unless global warming had increased average atmospheres temps by over 4 or 5 deg F. and caused the major ice caps to melt completely.

And I never believe industry reports automatically anymore. They lie too easily.

Posted by paintcan | Report as abusive

The problem I have is that the proposed solutions would have almost zero impact on carbon for an enormous cost in money. Most of the proposals seem to be intended to transfer wealth from established nations to emerging nations. That is not science, it is Marxism.

Posted by stevedebi | Report as abusive

Heh – most of the people commenting on this article are only affirming the author’s premise.

Posted by Poalima | Report as abusive

So what if it’s Marxist? China is an enormous country and is trying to introduce the principals of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights into a society that has always had a very sketchy definition of human rights. If they priced themselves at parity with the rest of the developed world, they would be a gigantic economy and dwarf everyone combined. And they could have anything they wanted. If they started to encourage their populations to move around the country more and buy and sell real estate with big mortgages, and to spend like Americans spend, and to base a derivative economy on those transactions, wouldn’t they grow staggeringly large. They would increase in size so many times they that I think they are doing the responsible thing by not rushing. The cost is manufacturing jobs here but could be the crushingly expensive rise in the cost of living here.

Fascist military regimes can make an idol of the rich man, be brutal to the poor, and use war to prop up their lack of equality and opportunity. I think all of the developed and developing world can go that way and we’ve already had ten years of it.

But China’s fundamental analysis of economic life was always Marxist. They evidently study capitalist theory as well. It is only theory. They know what works so well for them and what isn’t working so well for us now. I figure when push comes to shove, the Chinese will support their investments as good capitalists abroad and something mixed at home. It’s also good for business letting someone else cowboy around the globe as the avenging angle and military savior. They don’t have to exhaust themselves and their treasuries doing that. They can come in afterward and rebuilt the wreckage. They could have such awesomely subtle hands as well and I’m never comfortable thinking about that.

Instead of reenacting the late days of the Roman empire, the over priced hacks in Washington should figure a better model of the US economy but they can’t because they have to accept a larger role for government and more central planning. China coordinates all provincial development according to national plans.

Isn’t it safe to say that the global corporations aren’t really concerned with what happens to nation states? If they had to, they could all relocate corporate headquarters to Dubai, or even build their own island and claim they are a small nation state, or they could just buy a small state. They could call it the “Free State of Enterprise”. I’m making a joke, but what would really stop them? They might find a willing labor force to live in a complete “company state” with all the benefits set at rates they always control. They could built 21st century perfect environments and let the landed states sink under their own bad planning and corruption. Maybe they let them kill each other off in sectarian or regional disputes over resources. They can talk the locals into protection their resources as the patriotic thing to do. One oil company did that in Libya. There are a lot of people who wouldn’t mind seeing a reduction on over all human numbers. If they were certain they could keep their ways of life intact, why wouldn’t they?

The corporations or others – corporations of private people – could adapt a variant on early Christian communities. They were a very tangible life support system in a collapsing system. The cost of living in the decaying Roman empire must have gone way up toward the end. People donated massive wealth to that early church because they saw tangible benefits that were more substantial than afterlife dreams.

The corporate version sounds like a nightmare but who knows? Its sounds suspicious when corporate types talk of “love”. It’s always spelled like a Valentine’s heart.

If the established economies become very tight and growth remains stagnant or becomes even slower, and the quality of life deteriorates, that option could look very attractive to many. I’m a senior on a very low income. My growth is approaching zero and going negative. That is who would be left in the collapsing systems.

With real imagination, perhaps the federal government should consider rehousing the entire nation in environments for 21st century concerns, and the long term welfare of the planet and resources. They could design ways of life that are somewhat standardized with enough income difference that they are interesting and innovative but not so much that they become predatory.

They could adopt a master planning strategy for a sustainable economy. The future economy will always face a question of how “fat” the people, over all, should become. They may have to ration growth and, by then, they may have come to realize that growth makes its own addiction to growth. But that’s from an old person who is no longer physically growing. It feels very different.

And the future may want to encourage that feeling because it isn’t as explosive. Young people may have to learn to live like old people. Less aggressively and ambitiously. Asian population levels have obvious effects on the way of life there. They take their aggression out in business expansion now and their sex drive in porn.

Has anyone looked at the ocean floor on Google earth? It is scratched in many directions and one place off the coast of Africa seems to have been furrowed like a giant field larger than southern Europe. It looks man made: what natural feature ever looks like a rectangle?

I have no doubt now that human beings can destroy the planet. Ever since I was nine or ten years old and met the man who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Tibbets, I have more or less accepted the fact that mankind can, if not commit suicide, really ruin his future for a long time. I also lived through 40 years of improvements to water quality, air quality, and even the quality of urban life and I accept that things could have been much worse here. And now many want those conditions to return because of the influence of China and the developing nations who still live with a lot of environmental damage. It makes environmental protection look like a luxury here. It is a luxury, just as living in a well maintained house looks luxurious compared to a run down dwelling in a slum.

It’s easier and cheaper to live in the slum. It is also very easy for a wealth class to build environments that can make them forget the existence of the slums they frequently help to create.

Posted by paintcan | Report as abusive

We are an arrogant lot humans. Thinking the Earth will adopt to us rather than the other way around. Of course when the damage comes, the fools will say it was God’s will.

Some of these comments (shills for big business aside) are quite amusing:

“Why do you hold that climate change is bad? Climate change has been ongoing since the earth first had weather. We have had ice ages, Hot and humid ages, plate movement and everything else that mother earth can conjure up. We can curb scarring the land and poluting our air and water. That would be good for our survival.
But stop climate change? That is almost laughable.”

Did you get that everyone, what’s wrong with climate change? After all WE, yes WE, have had ice ages, etc… How long ago were the ice ages again? Never mind the fact that someone from a mere 100 years ago would look at us today and think we were Gods. How much coal and gasoline were they burning in the ice ages? What was the human population again? Did they have iPads and cars and nuclear weapons in the ice ages?

It’s comments like these that are truly laughable.

Posted by TheUSofA | Report as abusive

I like the argument that without Global warming 10,000+ years ago there would be no human race. Or the argument that without global warming millions of green jobs and whole industries would not have been created. I guess the dust bowls of the 1920′s were a precursor to global warming. I wonder what is more toxic to humans…sugar or global warming. Who knows, maybe evolution will produce a new species that thrives on global warming emissions and put the human race out of its misery.

Posted by snowsurfer | Report as abusive

The dust bowl was the result of the early 20th century settlers to the West Texas-Oklahoma region overestimating the suitability of the prairie to support agriculture.

The settlers turned the sod over and discovered it was much thinner than they were led to believe and it blew away.

If human beings left Africa and stated a very slow creep across Europe and into Asia about 45,000 years ago, the last ice age must have meant an enormous die off of early human inhabitants wherever the glaciers penetrated. But they didn’t wipe out all human life south of the glacier zone.

It must have been a very slow expansion of human life across the northern continent because it apparently took over 10,000 years for humans to settle the area between North Africa, the Levant and The Bering Straits. A man on foot might actually walk that distance in a year or so. Early man may not have liked wandering too far from home.

The danger of global warming is that it will wreck havoc on infrastructure, buildings and coastlines. Some of the most valuable real estate in the world is located on coastlines and repeated damage to it won’t do the highly leveraged economies of the developed and developing world any favors.

How well is New Orleans doing now? All Google Earth shows are roofs and the building gaps look filled in. I can’t see what the roofs conceal and yet the roofs look new. I think the city draws its primary income from the Gulf wells and they can’t afford repeated disruption and expensive repairs. If damages were too frequent, it might become impossible to get insurance for Gulf rigs or coastal property. Who knows?

Posted by paintcan | Report as abusive

Mr. Gores’ story of whats going on with nature is neither the truth nor is it a lie, but the “fact” is life has been changing with nature forever, nature is perfect, its a fact

Posted by running | Report as abusive

Than @running – what’s “perfect” nature up to?

The glaciers still melt and the seas slowly rise? A warmer average temp means they also expand in volume a bit. But “a bit” in a few hundred feet of depth, is quite a bit.

Perfect nature seems to have a fondness for freaks of nature too. She also has an enormous appetite for blood. Think Durga or Kali, not Gaia.

It isn’t healthy to get to know that kind of “perfection”. It makes nonsense of the word. She may also dislike so many people being alive at one time? You could very well be one of the tidbits she feeds her favored children. Even hear of the Thugees? They loved nature’s destructive power and total lack of scruples or moral principals too!

Posted by paintcan | Report as abusive

“The researchers tested another hypothesis, too: that “cultural cognition” – which is to say, the tendency to form ideas based on group identity – determines belief in climate change. That idea checked out.”

How was it tested, and what does the highly unscientific phrase “checked out” actually mean? In some English dialects, it would mean that it died, but that doesn’t appear to be what you mean here.

The three claims of this paper taken together strongly imply that scientific literacy is positively correlated with being a small business owner (and what’s a small business owner doing working in an oil refinery anyway?), whereas intuitively you’d expect there to be no correlation overall (even in the high-tech industry, the owners tend to be marketing people) – and indeed a small negative correlation in an economy with a strong publicly-funded university sector, such as the US. Treating this as what scientists call a “sanity check”, it casts doubt on the claims themselves.

THERE IS A FAR SIMPLER EXPLANATION WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE APPEALS EITHER TO POORLY ARTICULATED HYPOTHESES OR TO POLITICAL PREJUDICE. It’s simply “worry fatigue”, to give it a trendy name that will appeal to an op-ed journalist. As noted in the article, the scientifically literate have been worrying about this since the 1970′s and 1980′s. They are now living as frugally as they can reasonably manage, and know that the rest depends on their neighbours doing the same; the problem is out of their hands. One might as profitably worry about the overdue next eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano. But its much more profitable to worry about stuff you can actually affect.

Posted by Ian_Kemmish | Report as abusive

The article reads as if the author assumes that the people deciding what constitutes “the science” and when it is justified to cross fields from the science to the political advocacy, are somehow immune, at least on this subject, from the effect she describes.

Better minds than ours have explained convincingly that the scientists are not immune. For example: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/ 02/CargoCult.pdf

Perhaps those with more knowledge knowledge of science are more familiar with the consequences of these failings of human nature, hence, a little less inclined to accept the incontrovertibility of anthropogenic global warming.

Posted by Phil54 | Report as abusive

Actually no body should talk about doing something to alter climate change, can’t do anything abt it, it’s being like this for millions of years.
What we all must talk and DO something, is abt toxic waste, plastics, carbon firing, oil firing.

Nature can heal itself, but we shouldn’t leave rocks and potholes on her way.

Posted by hanlong | Report as abusive

“As respondents’ science-literacy scores increased, concern with climate change decreased,” wrote the study’s authors.
Looking at the graphs, it would be more accurate to say that the level of concern became more extreme: higher if already high, lower if already low. Maybe the scientifically literate are more confident of their own judgment.

Posted by haruspoex | Report as abusive

If the Science is flawed the Entire Argument is Pointless.
There either is or is not Verifiable Scientific Evidence that CO2 is a Poisoning Climate gas or is a Life Sustaining Gas that Most if not all life forms need for survival.
Any other Conclusions are Driven more by Monetary Concerns or a Flawed Ideology based on Flawed Science and Poor Scientific Theory.
It may be high time to call out the Supposed Climate Change Gods for what they STAND TO MAKE FINANCIALLY and be less concerned with there Fantasy of what a Future World may look like.
I’m old enough to remember the first time the Environmental Gurus tried this . If I remember correctly according to them we should not even be having this Conversation because we have long since FROZEN TO DEATH! So same tired lines, the only thing that has changed is the Direction of the Mercury in the Grand Global Green Movement.

Posted by ottisdurka | Report as abusive