From Yale University, it seems the climate debate has become completely tribal. On the plus side, this study blows the “if only we could communicate to the public better” meme out of the water. The great climate divide deepens even further.
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don’t understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match scientific consensus?
A study published today online in the journal Nature Climate Change suggests that the answer to both questions is no. Indeed, as members of the public become more science literate and numerate, the study found, individuals belonging to opposing cultural groups become even more divided on the risks that climate change poses.
Funded by the National Science Foundation, the study was conducted by researchers associated with the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School and involved a nationally representative sample of 1500 U.S. adults.
“The aim of the study was to test two hypotheses,” said Dan Kahan, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School and a member of the study team. “The first attributes political controversy over climate change to the public’s limited ability to comprehend science, and the second, to opposing sets of cultural values. The findings supported the second hypothesis and not the first,” he said.
“Cultural cognition” is the term used to describe the process by which individuals’ group values shape their perceptions of societal risks. It refers to the unconscious tendency of people to fit evidence of risk to positions that predominate in groups to which they belong. The results of the study were consistent with previous studies that show that individuals with more egalitarian values disagree sharply with individuals who have more individualistic ones on the risks associated with nuclear power, gun possession, and the HPV vaccine for school girls.
In this study, researchers measured “science literacy” with test items developed by the National Science Foundation. They also measured their subjects’ “numeracy”—that is, their ability and disposition to understand quantitative information.
“In effect,” Kahan said, “ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values. At least among ordinary members of the public, individuals with higher science comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group commitments.”
Kahan said that the study supports no inferences about the reasoning of scientific experts in climate change.
Researcher Ellen Peters of Ohio State University said that people who are higher in numeracy and science literacy usually make better decisions in complex technical situations, but the study clearly casts doubt on the notion that the more you understand science and math, the better decisions you’ll make in complex and technical situations. “What this study shows is that people with high science and math comprehension can think their way to conclusions that are better for them as individuals but are not necessarily better for society.”
According to Kahan, the study suggests the need for science communication strategies that reflect a more sophisticated understanding of cultural values.
“More information can help solve the climate change conflict,” Kahan said, “but that information has to do more than communicate the scientific evidence. It also has to create a climate of deliberations in which no group perceives that accepting any piece of evidence is akin to betrayal of their cultural group.”
In addition to Dan Kahan and Ellen Peters, other study researchers were Maggie Wittlin of the Cultural Cognition Project, Paul Slovic of Decision Research, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette of the Cultural Cognition Project, Donald Braman of George Washington University, and Gregory Mandel of Temple University.
Citation: The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks, Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1547.
The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School is an interdisciplinary group of scholars interested in studying how cultural values shape public risk perceptions and related policy beliefs. Previous studies, funded by the National Science Foundation and the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School, have looked at perceptions of environmental and public health risks and of expert scientific consensus on such issues. For more information, visit www.culturalcognition.net.
“More information can help solve the climate change conflict,” Kahan said, “but that information has to do more than communicate the scientific evidence. It also has to create a climate of deliberations in which no group perceives that accepting any piece of evidence is akin to betrayal of their cultural group.”
=================================
If this were impliimented years ago then the CAGW scheme would have been over much sooner and would have likely never gotten off the ground.
From the abstract of the study: “Why do members of the public disagree – sharply and persistently – about facts on which expert scientists largely agree?”
— For a following study, I suggest the researchers tackle the topic of when human life begins — specifically, whether it happens at birth as many people with a liberal ideology believe, or whether it happens much sooner, as science demonstrates.
Say it: conservatives reject AGW. Libs “believe” it.
A few months ago a Pew poll found only 19% of Republicans believe in man-made global warming. And now a poll finds that only 17% of conservative Canadians (voted for the Tories) “are concerned” about global warming: http://www.660news.com/news/local/article/365630–new-poll-says-global-warming-is-not-a-major-environmental-concern
And we know the reason why. Yes, the gig is up on the ideological motivations, the lying, and trumped up “science” of the leftist scare-mongers. But only conservatives seem concerned about these glaring problems with AGW.
The environmentalists have called for de-industrialization; I could recite quotes up and down this page attesting to that. The 80%+ CO2 cuts that the warmists demand are exactly what the de-industrialists dream of. Conservatives, never being too thrilled with de-industrialization to begin with, have been receptive to the glaring problems with the AGW science. On the other hand, leftists, in tune with the leftists behind the scam, tend to have the philosophy of leftist senator Tim Wirth who said ““We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”
Hence, the left – right political divide. It’s not any more complex than this. We don’t need an Einstein to figure this out.
“individuals with higher science comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group commitments”
… and since those with science training would therefore have the highest science comprehension, why wouldn’t AGW climate scientists also be the best at fitting the evidence to their “group commitments” ???
Based on that statement, the logical question is someone ought to study the “group commitments” of those leading the AGW charge. Given the known politics of many of the leaders, it would be shocking if that study didn’t show the group was overwhelmingly liberal. That would be a huge blow to their personal credibility & the overall credibility of AGW, in light of this study.
Now just to be fair, I wouldn’t be surprised if the opposite was true as well, with many skeptics being conservatives or libertarians.
So, where does that leave us? Probably means the truth lies in the middle (no strong “group commitments”) – maybe the “Lukewarmers” (some CO2 warming possible but nothing catastrophic) are most likely correct, if you believe the results of this study.
Something to think about anyway. Now, I have to get back to my “group commitments” :))
More seriously, we seem to be in a “Millerite” moment. You will recall that William Miller predicted the end of the world between Mar 1843 and Mar 1844. It caused considerable excitement in the USA and Canada, and even some in the UK and Australia.
When March 1844 was over, a new date of April the 18 was announced. When that went by, many stopped believing, but for remaining believers a new date of Oct 22, 1844 was predicted. When that date went by, there were still enough believers to form 3 sects (one of which morphed into the Jehovah’s Witnesses). Needless to say, the further dates of 1874 and 1914 also passed unfulfilled.
We have had predictions of Global Warming coming in 10 or 20 years for the last 40 years. Long enough for many to become sceptical.
But the believers have rallied in Yale University, still hoping for the end.
Anything out of Yale is suspect, IMHO. I got my bad attitude from the Yale Forum on Climate Change, or some such nonsense blog emitted by Peter Sinclair and Zeke Hausfather, and funded by financial wizard [but otherwise complete lunatic] Jeremy Grantham’s Left Of The George Soros Foundation Foundation. Or something like that. IIRC.
Anyway, for a peek at the future of global tribalism, see here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/if-greece-was-california
But don’t worry, the new High Speed Trolley will fix up California for sure, for a mere $100 billion+ down payment. Operating subsidies extra. The Trolley won’t go where folks want to go, but it will make some tribes feel good, because the hard-bitten Taxpayer Tribe and tribes in other States will be forced to pay for it. And feeling good is what matters most in California, right? Right?? [I call the HST the “Dead-on-arrival Urban Money Burner”: D.U.M.B.]
gnomish says:
May 27, 2012 at 5:47 pm
“you might whine and bleed, but you’ll be back for more.
and once all your gold is gone, you’ll eat lead.
it’s all been done before and looked just the same then. nobody hid his motives. nobody defended his rights until he had nothing to lose.
it’s all salvage, here on out. and there are no fairy godmothers or super heroes.
there was never anything but individuals – and they gave up without a fight.”
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Excerpt from ‘The Gods of the Copybook Headings.’
Rudyard Kipling 1919
the study clearly casts doubt on the notion that the more you understand science and math, the better decisions you’ll make in complex and technical situations. “What this study shows is that people with high science and math comprehension can think their way to conclusions that are better for them as individuals but are not necessarily better for society.”
============================================
…welcome to the borg
Why didn’t she just go on and say that people that don’t agree with her are morons………
yes and no are opposite and static, while data is ambiguous and continuous.
All of the numerous studies along these lines appear to be nothing more than market analysis and strategy.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
People with a sense of history will recognize this quote from a master manipulator of the masses.
Little have changes since then but for the fact that AGW is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind
This study is total and utter gibberish. The more literate people are about science and technology, the more likely they are to come to correct conclusions on areas of disagreement. When people DON’T understand the science and technology, THAT is when they are likely to fit the narrative that they don’t understand to their world view.
Understanding science and technology is by DEFINITION the ability to understand the issues accurately DESPITE one’s world view. These people have the whole thing exactly bass ackwards.
I believe it is about literacy and communication 😉
How about a good consolidated summary of such communication.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/04/vivid-illustration-of-how-global.html
Lat, it is scary…….
So at the basic level what they are saying is that even if a young male is scientifically literate he won’t turn into a skeptic because that would isolate him from the female population he’s desperate to mate with, thus further perpetuating generational group-think.
Paul Marko says:…
wow- that was excellent!
rudyard could really kiple, eh?
Is there no limit to the mental gymnastics they’re willing to undertake instead of just admitting that the more scientifically literate one is the less likely one is to accept that legislative action on climate change is necessary because the evidence is weak?
Looks like all they did is confirm John Dewey’s study.
““What this study shows is that people with high science and math comprehension can think their way to conclusions that are better for them as individuals but are not necessarily better for society.”” —Researcher Ellen Peters of Ohio State University
Well, Ellen, needless to say you won’t be reading what I write here since you know everything you can possibly need to know about what is better for society and why I am wrong. But let me fill you in anyway. The meme that your side pushes is that excessive CO2 is a tragedy of the commons and that warming from CO2 from guilty parties will cause numerous inconveniences or worse to innocent parties including present day severe weather. As pointed out in various hundreds of articles here and similar sites, that notion is wrong. But the core issue is that the use of fossil carbon to create atmospheric carbon dioxide is the basis of a civilized and prosperous society, a fact which you fail to understand since you only believe in central planning.
Sure, we could some “saviors” of the environment kill off 95% of the human population and allow the rest to live in caves with appropriate population controls. Or we could use one of your “reasonable” half measures and force millions in developed countries to choose between heat and food and a billion or more to die in the undeveloped countries once the developed countries go under. But even your merely half-depraved half measures will not stop the increase in CO2 and modeled increase in temperature. So not only is it incredibly immoral but incredibly stupid, so we reject it.
I would close with the thought that everything I have ever done and said on energy and climate issues is for the good of humanity, certainly not me as an individual or me as part of any group.
Paul and Gnomish…..
“When all the world would keep a matter hid,
Since Truth is seldom Friend to any crowd,
Men write in fable, as old Aesop did,
Jesting at that which none will name aloud.
And this they needs must do, or it will fall
Unless they please they are not heard at all.”
intro stanza to The Fabulists…by Kipling. 🙂
More academic, delusional drivel.
I am pretty far on the left but I don’t buy AGW anymore though I once did. I really can’t figure out how this is a left- right issue. It is a science issue. Since when did science become left or right?
And maybe that gets to the real problem, science is way too politicized. And yet, it seems like time and time again when we need scientists to really oppose the government propaganda of the day, scientists are off hiding under a rock.
This study is rotten to the core because simply being “numerate” and knowing something about science is NOT the same as understanding and living by the hard rules of scientific methodology. I might well have been taught to do calculus without grokking the fundamental methods by which rational inquiry proceeds.
As Mark in the very first post in this thread points out the Warmists are generally confused about where the burden of proof lies. This is one of the most fundamental concepts in epistemology. If you don’t understand the logical process of hypothesis formation and testing how can you possibly be “scientifically literate?” Then there are Warmists who know the methods of science, but willingly chose to abuse and degrade them.
The real climate war is the battle between the ideals of Enlightenment Science (transparency, reproducibility, testing against empirical data, etc.) and the forces of what has been called “Endarkenment,” which represent the values of consensus, passion, narrative, doctrine, coercion and political correctness over empirical measurement and cool scientific method.
True, it’s part of the larger cultural war going on. It’s the most important part, because if the forces of Endarkenment can degrade the methods of rational inquiry through abuse or by subversion, then they will have won the culture war, since their ultimate aim is to destroy the objective methods by which we measure and come to understand empirical reality. Once science is degenerated into just another post-mod narrative, then “The Truth” can be simply dictated to the masses by The Priesthood. No need to learn how to think critically and logically. In fact, to do so is already called the “Denialist” heresy.
The AGW hypothesis was early on appropriated as a critique of capitalism to revive moribund neo-Marxist ideas advocating command economics and limiting individual civil liberties in favour of collectivist values. The fact that the eco-Marxist appropriation of science for political coercion threatens to degrade science is a feature not a bug to the Greens, who well understand that systematically rational thought is their worse enemy.
Many well-informed warmists like Tim Flannery, (the Australian Climate Commissioner) and Paul Krugman have publicly said that lying to people is morally appropriate to fool them into supporting collectivist economics.
Therefore, the climate debate is about nothing at all, if it isn’t first and foremost about the proper conduct of rational inquiry, how we know what we know and how the rules of the scientific method should be enforced in research and taught in our schools.
Ah, yes! If you oppose Central Planning, you are opposed to a healthy scociety.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” —Frederic Bastiat
Since this is about communication, etc. there’s something evil comes this way. A great deal of the strength of the skeptic community is dependent on the internet. If the following comes to pass, I’ll give y’all three guesses who will be on the target list.
Quote:
House lawmakers will consider an international proposal next week to give the United Nations more control over the Internet.
The proposal is backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other UN members, and would give the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) more control over the governance of the Internet.
It’s an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it.
“We’re quite concerned,” Larry Strickling, the head of the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said in an interview with The Hill earlier this year.
He said the measure would expose the Internet to “top-down regulation where it’s really the governments that are at the table, but the rest of the stakeholders aren’t.”
At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are “not exactly bastions of Internet freedom.”
“Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks,” he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process.
Yet the proposal could come up for a vote at a UN conference in Dubai in December.
In an op-ed earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, McDowell warned that “a top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net.”
“Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body,” McDowell wrote.
He said some governments feel excluded from Internet policymaking and want more control over the process.
“And let’s face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity,” McDowell wrote.
More: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet