Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
bear513LONDON -- 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?
Proudly?That quote is from the author of the study so proudly cited by the OP, YOUThe 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
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
JoeMomaIn otherwords many don't have a clue about the details, but simply beleive because some such as Al Gore says so.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.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.
No. You Try again.In otherwords many don't have a clue about the details, but simply beleive because some such as Al Gore says so.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.
No. Try again.
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.
We have a winner!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
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.
funny thing is you can NOT refute one single fact on NASA's web page on climate science Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQWe have a winner!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
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 My GOD! You quoted Mother Jones as credible? First SKS and now Mother Jones... Have they invited you to their Mother ship to talk yet? You use hack left wing sites in an effort to appear credible... Now that's funny. Next thing you know you will be using Hotwhooper as a credible site too...
Kahan could find his ass if both hands were on it. He is a left wing political hack. He also has little or no science training.. Just like Miriam at Hotwhopper a hack that has no credibility of any kind.
Again, Kahan is the author of the study that was PROUDLY cited in the OP.We have a winner!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
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 My GOD! You quoted Mother Jones as credible? First SKS and now Mother Jones... Have they invited you to their Mother ship to talk yet? You use hack left wing sites in an effort to appear credible... Now that's funny. Next thing you know you will be using Hotwhooper as a credible site too...
Kahan could find his ass if both hands were on it. He is a left wing political hack. He also has little or no science training.. Just like Miriam at Hotwhopper a hack that has no credibility of any kind.
Facts do NOT matter to Silly BobAgain, Kahan is the author of the study you PROUDLY cited in your OP.We have a winner!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
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 My GOD! You quoted Mother Jones as credible? First SKS and now Mother Jones... Have they invited you to their Mother ship to talk yet? You use hack left wing sites in an effort to appear credible... Now that's funny. Next thing you know you will be using Hotwhooper as a credible site too...
Kahan could find his ass if both hands were on it. He is a left wing political hack. He also has little or no science training.. Just like Miriam at Hotwhopper a hack that has no credibility of any kind.
Link, Kosh, link. You see, we know that 43% of the CO2 in the air is from human activities. So where the hell are you getting that 4% figure? Out of your ass?We have a winner!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
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..
No, because every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state that AGW is a clear and present danger. If an auto mechanic states that you don't have a cancer, but an oncologist states that you do, you just ignore the oncologist and go with what the auto mechanic states, correct? Well, for you 'Conservatives', that is a correct statement.In otherwords many don't have a clue about the details, but simply beleive because some such as Al Gore says so.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.
Again you are dead wrong..funny thing is you can NOT refute one single fact on NASA's web page on climate science Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQWe have a winner!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
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 My GOD! You quoted Mother Jones as credible? First SKS and now Mother Jones... Have they invited you to their Mother ship to talk yet? You use hack left wing sites in an effort to appear credible... Now that's funny. Next thing you know you will be using Hotwhooper as a credible site too...
Kahan could find his ass if both hands were on it. He is a left wing political hack. He also has little or no science training.. Just like Miriam at Hotwhopper a hack that has no credibility of any kind.
No, because every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state that AGW is a clear and present danger. If an auto mechanic states that you don't have a cancer, but an oncologist states that you do, you just ignore the oncologist and go with what the auto mechanic states, correct? Well, for you 'Conservatives', that is a correct statement.In otherwords many don't have a clue about the details, but simply beleive because some such as Al Gore says so.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.
