Study: Global warming skeptics know more about climate science

[Wyatt earp]

Say it isn't so...

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

Study Global warming skeptics know more about climate science Fox News

 

[ScienceRocks]

If this is true...this is kind of sad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If this is true...this is kind of sad.

Yes, the idiocy of the warmers is sad.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am willing to have somewhat of an open mind that there is some global warming because of man's contribution to the increase of CO2. However, the dooms days predictions that go along with global warming is way over the top. History has shown that warmer is good and cold is bad for the survival of humans.

Also, CO2 is not pollution in the same sense as smog and such. A chemical reaction that produces water, CO2 and energy is consider to be the gold standard of a clean reaction......or at least it once was.

 

[edthecynic]

The Typical Denier know-it-all!

August 12, 2014
RUSH: Low-information people tend to overestimate their level of information.

May 29, 2012
RUSH: People like me have more scientific knowledge than the average advocate of global warming.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. ... The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well..........just take a look at this forum. Dominated by skeptics..........and all the threads that matter started by skeptics. Threads started by the AGW k00ks invariably die off in a matter of a few days!!! They are all canned hysterical drivel weve been seeing for years. Nobody cares.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Kind of funny this study was done by Yale and the mods quickly put this thread here , when it was more about the religion of the man made global warming cult and there ignorance of true science and not junk science

 

[edthecynic]

Kind of funny this study was done by Yale and the mods quickly put this thread here , when it was more about the religion of the man made global warming cult and there ignorance of true science and not junk science

We have a winner!

Actually the study shows something quite different than the FAUX spin on it.

Conservatives Don t Deny Climate Science Because They re Ignorant. They Deny It Because of Who They Are. Mother Jones

So are these people really "scientifically illiterate," as many in the science world might claim, or are they instead…something else?

This is a vital question in the field of science communication, because at its core is the issue of whether we are dealing with mass public scientific illiteracy on the one hand (which presumably could be fixed by education), or with something much deeper and more intractable. What's more, this problem isn't confined to evolution. The issue of climate change may be very similar in this respect. Ask a polling question about climate change in one way, and you may cause conservatives to reassert their ideological identities, and reject the most important finding of climate science (that humans are causing global warming). But ask it in another way and, well, it may turn out that they know what the science says after all (even if they don't personally believe it).

Such is the finding of anew paper by Yale law professor and communication researcher Dan Kahan, recently profiled in depthby Ezra Klein in a much read Vox article aptly titled "How politics makes us stupid." Kahan is becoming widely known for his research showing that political ideology interferes with our most basic reasoning abilities;even our math skills, it seems, go right out the window when political passions come into play. In this new paper, though, Kahan isn't showing how dumb we are. Rather, he's doing the opposite: Showing that if you ask the questions the right way, Americans know a lot more about climate science than you might think. (Even conservatives.)

"Whether people 'believe in' climate change, like whether they 'believe in' evolution, expresses who they are," writes Kahan.

To understand Kahan's analysis, it helps to start where much of his prior research—extensively covered by Klein, myself, and others—left off. Kahan has defined a measure that he calls "ordinary science intelligence," which assesses how good people are at mathematical and scientific reasoning and at questioning their own beliefs. Using this survey tool, he is able to present evidence showing that (1) as people get better at science, they are more likely in general to affirm that global warming is mostly due to human activities; but (2) as soon as you split people up in to liberals and conservatives, that conclusion goes out the window. Actually, liberals get way better in their answers as their science ability increases, and conservatives get considerably worse:

Probability of giving the correct answer on a question about climate change in relation to individuals' political ideology and science "intelligence." Dan Kahan.
This "smart idiot" effect has prompted a ton of hand-wringing on the left; by now, Kahan has captured it in many studies. In the context of the current research, though, he's just getting started.

Mirroring the NSF's approach to evolution, Kahan created a new questionnaire that he hopes can more extensively measure people's knowledge about the science of climate change. But—crucially—in this questionnaire, most of the questions started out with the phrase "climate scientists believe that…" Such is Kahan's attempt (only an initial one, he stresses) to disentangle people's identities and political ideology from what they just plain know.

Here are some of the questionnaire items, and how members of the public tended to fare on them, plotted in relation to how climate science literate they were:

Examples of "Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence" items and the public's probability of giving the right answers. Answers (from left to right, top to bottom) are "carbon dioxide," "true," "false," and "false." Dan Kahan.
Next, Kahan examined the patterns of responses based on ideology. This time, though, he no longer saw a performance split between those on the left and those on the right. Nor did he see a uniform pattern in which liberals tended to be more correct with higher levels of intelligence or science literacy, even as conservatives were more incorrect. Rather, sometimes the two groups were nearly the same in their performance, and sometimes one group did a little better or a little worse than the other:

Left right differences in responses to climate science "intelligence" questions. Correct answers (from left to right, top to bottom) are "carbon dioxide," "true," "false," and "false." Dan Kahan.
Granted, there is an argument to be made that part of this depends on the nature of the questions. Kahan threw in a number of trick questions, including one that almost everybody got wrong: "Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap melted as a result of human-caused global warming, global sea levels would rise." That's true of the South Pole, because the vast Antarctic Ice Sheet sits atop a landmass. It's also true of Greenland. But it's not true of the North Pole, where the ice cap is comprised of floating sea ice, whose melting won't raise sea levels any more than the melting of ice cubes on a summer day causes your glass of water to overflow.*

There was another noteworthy pattern in question responses. Whenever Kahan posed a question about a risk of global warming that turned out not to be real—for instance, "Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer in human beings"—he tended to trick liberals a bit more than conservatives. But that's simply because liberals were more inclined to believe bad things about climate change, and conservatives to dismiss them.

In any event, Kahan concludes, on the basis of these results, that the public basically does understand climate science, on both sides of the aisle. "Everyonehas gotten the memo on what 'climate scientists believe,'" he writes. It's just that there are certain questions, and certain ways of phrasing them, that lead conservatives to trumpet their political identities, rather than express their knowledge, in response to survey questions. Or as Kahan writes:

The problem is not that members of the public do not know enough, either about climate science or the weight of scientific opinion, to contribute intelligently as citizens to the challenges posed by climate change. It's that the questions posed to them by those communicating information on global warming in the political realm have nothing to do with—are not measuring—what ordinary citizens know.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Kind of funny this study was done by Yale and the mods quickly put this thread here , when it was more about the religion of the man made global warming cult and there ignorance of true science and not junk science

We have a winner!

Actually the study shows something quite different than the FAUX spin on it.

Conservatives Don t Deny Climate Science Because They re Ignorant. They Deny It Because of Who They Are. Mother Jones

So are these people really "scientifically illiterate," as many in the science world might claim, or are they instead…something else?

This is a vital question in the field of science communication, because at its core is the issue of whether we are dealing with mass public scientific illiteracy on the one hand (which presumably could be fixed by education), or with something much deeper and more intractable. What's more, this problem isn't confined to evolution. The issue of climate change may be very similar in this respect. Ask a polling question about climate change in one way, and you may cause conservatives to reassert their ideological identities, and reject the most important finding of climate science (that humans are causing global warming). But ask it in another way and, well, it may turn out that they know what the science says after all (even if they don't personally believe it).

Such is the finding of anew paper by Yale law professor and communication researcher Dan Kahan, recently profiled in depthby Ezra Klein in a much read Vox article aptly titled "How politics makes us stupid." Kahan is becoming widely known for his research showing that political ideology interferes with our most basic reasoning abilities;even our math skills, it seems, go right out the window when political passions come into play. In this new paper, though, Kahan isn't showing how dumb we are. Rather, he's doing the opposite: Showing that if you ask the questions the right way, Americans know a lot more about climate science than you might think. (Even conservatives.)

"Whether people 'believe in' climate change, like whether they 'believe in' evolution, expresses who they are," writes Kahan.

To understand Kahan's analysis, it helps to start where much of his prior research—extensively covered by Klein, myself, and others—left off. Kahan has defined a measure that he calls "ordinary science intelligence," which assesses how good people are at mathematical and scientific reasoning and at questioning their own beliefs. Using this survey tool, he is able to present evidence showing that (1) as people get better at science, they are more likely in general to affirm that global warming is mostly due to human activities; but (2) as soon as you split people up in to liberals and conservatives, that conclusion goes out the window. Actually, liberals get way better in their answers as their science ability increases, and conservatives get considerably worse:

Probability of giving the correct answer on a question about climate change in relation to individuals' political ideology and science "intelligence." Dan Kahan.
This "smart idiot" effect has prompted a ton of hand-wringing on the left; by now, Kahan has captured it in many studies. In the context of the current research, though, he's just getting started.

Mirroring the NSF's approach to evolution, Kahan created a new questionnaire that he hopes can more extensively measure people's knowledge about the science of climate change. But—crucially—in this questionnaire, most of the questions started out with the phrase "climate scientists believe that…" Such is Kahan's attempt (only an initial one, he stresses) to disentangle people's identities and political ideology from what they just plain know.

Here are some of the questionnaire items, and how members of the public tended to fare on them, plotted in relation to how climate science literate they were:

Examples of "Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence" items and the public's probability of giving the right answers. Answers (from left to right, top to bottom) are "carbon dioxide," "true," "false," and "false." Dan Kahan.
Next, Kahan examined the patterns of responses based on ideology. This time, though, he no longer saw a performance split between those on the left and those on the right. Nor did he see a uniform pattern in which liberals tended to be more correct with higher levels of intelligence or science literacy, even as conservatives were more incorrect. Rather, sometimes the two groups were nearly the same in their performance, and sometimes one group did a little better or a little worse than the other:

Left right differences in responses to climate science "intelligence" questions. Correct answers (from left to right, top to bottom) are "carbon dioxide," "true," "false," and "false." Dan Kahan.
Granted, there is an argument to be made that part of this depends on the nature of the questions. Kahan threw in a number of trick questions, including one that almost everybody got wrong: "Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap melted as a result of human-caused global warming, global sea levels would rise." That's true of the South Pole, because the vast Antarctic Ice Sheet sits atop a landmass. It's also true of Greenland. But it's not true of the North Pole, where the ice cap is comprised of floating sea ice, whose melting won't raise sea levels any more than the melting of ice cubes on a summer day causes your glass of water to overflow.*

There was another noteworthy pattern in question responses. Whenever Kahan posed a question about a risk of global warming that turned out not to be real—for instance, "Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer in human beings"—he tended to trick liberals a bit more than conservatives. But that's simply because liberals were more inclined to believe bad things about climate change, and conservatives to dismiss them.

In any event, Kahan concludes, on the basis of these results, that the public basically does understand climate science, on both sides of the aisle. "Everyonehas gotten the memo on what 'climate scientists believe,'" he writes. It's just that there are certain questions, and certain ways of phrasing them, that lead conservatives to trumpet their political identities, rather than express their knowledge, in response to survey questions. Or as Kahan writes:

The problem is not that members of the public do not know enough, either about climate science or the weight of scientific opinion, to contribute intelligently as citizens to the challenges posed by climate change. It's that the questions posed to them by those communicating information on global warming in the political realm have nothing to do with—are not measuring—what ordinary citizens know.

And what did you prove by this post to me?
That you are a snob and a butt hurt moron?
Is that what you are trying to prove?
Check, read you loud and clear.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The problem is not that members of the public do not know enough, either about climate science or the weight of scientific opinion, to contribute intelligently as citizens to the challenges posed by climate change. It's that the questions posed to them by those communicating information on global warming in the political realm have nothing to do with—are not measuring—what ordinary citizens know~

That's the most asinine quote I read in awhile

Here is an idea, go outside get off of your play box and play

 

[Kosh]

Kind of funny this study was done by Yale and the mods quickly put this thread here , when it was more about the religion of the man made global warming cult and there ignorance of true science and not junk science

We have a winner!

Actually the study shows something quite different than the FAUX spin on it.

Conservatives Don t Deny Climate Science Because They re Ignorant. They Deny It Because of Who They Are. Mother Jones

So are these people really "scientifically illiterate," as many in the science world might claim, or are they instead…something else?

This is a vital question in the field of science communication, because at its core is the issue of whether we are dealing with mass public scientific illiteracy on the one hand (which presumably could be fixed by education), or with something much deeper and more intractable. What's more, this problem isn't confined to evolution. The issue of climate change may be very similar in this respect. Ask a polling question about climate change in one way, and you may cause conservatives to reassert their ideological identities, and reject the most important finding of climate science (that humans are causing global warming). But ask it in another way and, well, it may turn out that they know what the science says after all (even if they don't personally believe it).

Such is the finding of anew paper by Yale law professor and communication researcher Dan Kahan, recently profiled in depthby Ezra Klein in a much read Vox article aptly titled "How politics makes us stupid." Kahan is becoming widely known for his research showing that political ideology interferes with our most basic reasoning abilities;even our math skills, it seems, go right out the window when political passions come into play. In this new paper, though, Kahan isn't showing how dumb we are. Rather, he's doing the opposite: Showing that if you ask the questions the right way, Americans know a lot more about climate science than you might think. (Even conservatives.)

"Whether people 'believe in' climate change, like whether they 'believe in' evolution, expresses who they are," writes Kahan.

To understand Kahan's analysis, it helps to start where much of his prior research—extensively covered by Klein, myself, and others—left off. Kahan has defined a measure that he calls "ordinary science intelligence," which assesses how good people are at mathematical and scientific reasoning and at questioning their own beliefs. Using this survey tool, he is able to present evidence showing that (1) as people get better at science, they are more likely in general to affirm that global warming is mostly due to human activities; but (2) as soon as you split people up in to liberals and conservatives, that conclusion goes out the window. Actually, liberals get way better in their answers as their science ability increases, and conservatives get considerably worse:

Probability of giving the correct answer on a question about climate change in relation to individuals' political ideology and science "intelligence." Dan Kahan.
This "smart idiot" effect has prompted a ton of hand-wringing on the left; by now, Kahan has captured it in many studies. In the context of the current research, though, he's just getting started.

Mirroring the NSF's approach to evolution, Kahan created a new questionnaire that he hopes can more extensively measure people's knowledge about the science of climate change. But—crucially—in this questionnaire, most of the questions started out with the phrase "climate scientists believe that…" Such is Kahan's attempt (only an initial one, he stresses) to disentangle people's identities and political ideology from what they just plain know.

Here are some of the questionnaire items, and how members of the public tended to fare on them, plotted in relation to how climate science literate they were:

Examples of "Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence" items and the public's probability of giving the right answers. Answers (from left to right, top to bottom) are "carbon dioxide," "true," "false," and "false." Dan Kahan.
Next, Kahan examined the patterns of responses based on ideology. This time, though, he no longer saw a performance split between those on the left and those on the right. Nor did he see a uniform pattern in which liberals tended to be more correct with higher levels of intelligence or science literacy, even as conservatives were more incorrect. Rather, sometimes the two groups were nearly the same in their performance, and sometimes one group did a little better or a little worse than the other:

Left right differences in responses to climate science "intelligence" questions. Correct answers (from left to right, top to bottom) are "carbon dioxide," "true," "false," and "false." Dan Kahan.
Granted, there is an argument to be made that part of this depends on the nature of the questions. Kahan threw in a number of trick questions, including one that almost everybody got wrong: "Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap melted as a result of human-caused global warming, global sea levels would rise." That's true of the South Pole, because the vast Antarctic Ice Sheet sits atop a landmass. It's also true of Greenland. But it's not true of the North Pole, where the ice cap is comprised of floating sea ice, whose melting won't raise sea levels any more than the melting of ice cubes on a summer day causes your glass of water to overflow.*

There was another noteworthy pattern in question responses. Whenever Kahan posed a question about a risk of global warming that turned out not to be real—for instance, "Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer in human beings"—he tended to trick liberals a bit more than conservatives. But that's simply because liberals were more inclined to believe bad things about climate change, and conservatives to dismiss them.

In any event, Kahan concludes, on the basis of these results, that the public basically does understand climate science, on both sides of the aisle. "Everyonehas gotten the memo on what 'climate scientists believe,'" he writes. It's just that there are certain questions, and certain ways of phrasing them, that lead conservatives to trumpet their political identities, rather than express their knowledge, in response to survey questions. Or as Kahan writes:

The problem is not that members of the public do not know enough, either about climate science or the weight of scientific opinion, to contribute intelligently as citizens to the challenges posed by climate change. It's that the questions posed to them by those communicating information on global warming in the political realm have nothing to do with—are not measuring—what ordinary citizens know.

Oh look a far left drone site is being used as "fact"..

Fact is only 4% of the CO2 in the air is produced humans..

 

[Kosh]

The problem is not that members of the public do not know enough, either about climate science or the weight of scientific opinion, to contribute intelligently as citizens to the challenges posed by climate change. It's that the questions posed to them by those communicating information on global warming in the political realm have nothing to do with—are not measuring—what ordinary citizens know~

That's the most asinine quote I read in awhile

Here is an idea, go outside get off of your play box and play

The problem is that the AGW cult has been able to push their religion through the press for 40 years..

AGW is not science and no real science has been able to prove this religion's belief system.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Say it isn't so...

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

Study Global warming skeptics know more about climate science Fox News

too funny. framing of questions and playing to ignorance. Most believers have probably not gotten into the science because they trust scientists.

Ask the scientists and science followers who the deniers are actually arguing with these same questions. It would show the deniers to be the fools they are

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Kind of funny this study was done by Yale and the mods quickly put this thread here , when it was more about the religion of the man made global warming cult and there ignorance of true science and not junk science

We have a winner!

Actually the study shows something quite different than the FAUX spin on it.

Conservatives Don t Deny Climate Science Because They re Ignorant. They Deny It Because of Who They Are. Mother Jones

So are these people really "scientifically illiterate," as many in the science world might claim, or are they instead…something else?

This is a vital question in the field of science communication, because at its core is the issue of whether we are dealing with mass public scientific illiteracy on the one hand (which presumably could be fixed by education), or with something much deeper and more intractable. What's more, this problem isn't confined to evolution. The issue of climate change may be very similar in this respect. Ask a polling question about climate change in one way, and you may cause conservatives to reassert their ideological identities, and reject the most important finding of climate science (that humans are causing global warming). But ask it in another way and, well, it may turn out that they know what the science says after all (even if they don't personally believe it).

Such is the finding of anew paper by Yale law professor and communication researcher Dan Kahan, recently profiled in depthby Ezra Klein in a much read Vox article aptly titled "How politics makes us stupid." Kahan is becoming widely known for his research showing that political ideology interferes with our most basic reasoning abilities;even our math skills, it seems, go right out the window when political passions come into play. In this new paper, though, Kahan isn't showing how dumb we are. Rather, he's doing the opposite: Showing that if you ask the questions the right way, Americans know a lot more about climate science than you might think. (Even conservatives.)

"Whether people 'believe in' climate change, like whether they 'believe in' evolution, expresses who they are," writes Kahan.

To understand Kahan's analysis, it helps to start where much of his prior research—extensively covered by Klein, myself, and others—left off. Kahan has defined a measure that he calls "ordinary science intelligence," which assesses how good people are at mathematical and scientific reasoning and at questioning their own beliefs. Using this survey tool, he is able to present evidence showing that (1) as people get better at science, they are more likely in general to affirm that global warming is mostly due to human activities; but (2) as soon as you split people up in to liberals and conservatives, that conclusion goes out the window. Actually, liberals get way better in their answers as their science ability increases, and conservatives get considerably worse:

Probability of giving the correct answer on a question about climate change in relation to individuals' political ideology and science "intelligence." Dan Kahan.
This "smart idiot" effect has prompted a ton of hand-wringing on the left; by now, Kahan has captured it in many studies. In the context of the current research, though, he's just getting started.

Mirroring the NSF's approach to evolution, Kahan created a new questionnaire that he hopes can more extensively measure people's knowledge about the science of climate change. But—crucially—in this questionnaire, most of the questions started out with the phrase "climate scientists believe that…" Such is Kahan's attempt (only an initial one, he stresses) to disentangle people's identities and political ideology from what they just plain know.

Here are some of the questionnaire items, and how members of the public tended to fare on them, plotted in relation to how climate science literate they were:

Examples of "Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence" items and the public's probability of giving the right answers. Answers (from left to right, top to bottom) are "carbon dioxide," "true," "false," and "false." Dan Kahan.
Next, Kahan examined the patterns of responses based on ideology. This time, though, he no longer saw a performance split between those on the left and those on the right. Nor did he see a uniform pattern in which liberals tended to be more correct with higher levels of intelligence or science literacy, even as conservatives were more incorrect. Rather, sometimes the two groups were nearly the same in their performance, and sometimes one group did a little better or a little worse than the other:

Left right differences in responses to climate science "intelligence" questions. Correct answers (from left to right, top to bottom) are "carbon dioxide," "true," "false," and "false." Dan Kahan.
Granted, there is an argument to be made that part of this depends on the nature of the questions. Kahan threw in a number of trick questions, including one that almost everybody got wrong: "Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap melted as a result of human-caused global warming, global sea levels would rise." That's true of the South Pole, because the vast Antarctic Ice Sheet sits atop a landmass. It's also true of Greenland. But it's not true of the North Pole, where the ice cap is comprised of floating sea ice, whose melting won't raise sea levels any more than the melting of ice cubes on a summer day causes your glass of water to overflow.*

There was another noteworthy pattern in question responses. Whenever Kahan posed a question about a risk of global warming that turned out not to be real—for instance, "Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer in human beings"—he tended to trick liberals a bit more than conservatives. But that's simply because liberals were more inclined to believe bad things about climate change, and conservatives to dismiss them.

In any event, Kahan concludes, on the basis of these results, that the public basically does understand climate science, on both sides of the aisle. "Everyonehas gotten the memo on what 'climate scientists believe,'" he writes. It's just that there are certain questions, and certain ways of phrasing them, that lead conservatives to trumpet their political identities, rather than express their knowledge, in response to survey questions. Or as Kahan writes:

The problem is not that members of the public do not know enough, either about climate science or the weight of scientific opinion, to contribute intelligently as citizens to the challenges posed by climate change. It's that the questions posed to them by those communicating information on global warming in the political realm have nothing to do with—are not measuring—what ordinary citizens know.

this is almost always the case with the wingnuts like the OP

 

[edthecynic]

The problem is not that members of the public do not know enough, either about climate science or the weight of scientific opinion, to contribute intelligently as citizens to the challenges posed by climate change. It's that the questions posed to them by those communicating information on global warming in the political realm have nothing to do with—are not measuring—what ordinary citizens know~

That's the most asinine quote I read in awhile

Here is an idea, go outside get off of your play box and play

That quote is from the author of the study so proudly cited by the OP, YOU

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

edthecynic and bear513


too friggin funny

 

[Wyatt earp]

LONDON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Wednesday dodged a question about whether he believes in evolution.

Speaking at the Chatham House foreign policy think tank London, Walker was asked: "Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?"

"For me, I am going to punt on that one as well," he said. "That's a question politicians shouldn't be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I'm here to talk about trade not to pontificate about evolution."

More: Scott Walker Dodges Question On Whether He Believes In Evolution

Punt? Well, Scotty, if you have any serious hope of becoming president - you'll have to answer that question. It sounds like you've already signaled that you don't believe in evolution. What about global warming?

The problem is not that members of the public do not know enough, either about climate science or the weight of scientific opinion, to contribute intelligently as citizens to the challenges posed by climate change. It's that the questions posed to them by those communicating information on global warming in the political realm have nothing to do with—are not measuring—what ordinary citizens know~

That's the most asinine quote I read in awhile

Here is an idea, go outside get off of your play box and play

That quote is from the author of the study so proudly cited by the OP, YOU

Proudly?

What a fucking moron, hey I just posted the story, which we all know who is indoctrinated.and who goes out side

Blind faith in junk science is not healthy never was

 

[edthecynic]

LONDON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Wednesday dodged a question about whether he believes in evolution.

Speaking at the Chatham House foreign policy think tank London, Walker was asked: "Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?"

"For me, I am going to punt on that one as well," he said. "That's a question politicians shouldn't be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I'm here to talk about trade not to pontificate about evolution."

More: Scott Walker Dodges Question On Whether He Believes In Evolution

Punt? Well, Scotty, if you have any serious hope of becoming president - you'll have to answer that question. It sounds like you've already signaled that you don't believe in evolution. What about global warming?

The problem is not that members of the public do not know enough, either about climate science or the weight of scientific opinion, to contribute intelligently as citizens to the challenges posed by climate change. It's that the questions posed to them by those communicating information on global warming in the political realm have nothing to do with—are not measuring—what ordinary citizens know~

That's the most asinine quote I read in awhile

Here is an idea, go outside get off of your play box and play

That quote is from the author of the study so proudly cited by the OP, YOU

Proudly?

What a fucking moron, hey I just posted the story, which we all know who is indoctrinated.and who goes out side

Blind faith in junk science is not healthy never was

Yeah PRODLY! You posted the OP because, without actually looking at the study but solely because your fellow deniers told you what you wanted to hear, you thought it established superior knowledge for deniers. then when you read something not from your dishonest sources you PROUDLY proclaimed the author of your OP an asinine idiot.

You are the ass who has blind faith in the liars who feed you your denial gospel.

 

[Crick]

Say it isn't so...

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

Study Global warming skeptics know more about climate science Fox News

There are far more AGW believers than deniers. Thus they represent a broader segment of the population and their average interest level in climate issues would be significantly lower than the average deniers.

 

[JoeMoma]

Say it isn't so...

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

Study Global warming skeptics know more about climate science Fox News

There are far more AGW believers than deniers. Thus they represent a broader segment of the population and their average interest level in climate issues would be significantly lower than the average deniers.

In otherwords many don't have a clue about the details, but simply beleive because some such as Al Gore says so.