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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Reblogged this on THE SURF REPORT.
It is very simply stated that knowledge of science doesn’t equal objectivity. Alarmists are masters at manipulating reality to fit their agenda. They claim to be scientific but using science to distort reality is about as anti-science as you can get in my book. At least they made that point correctly that knowledge of science doesn’t mean they are right about whatever conclusions they draw and many people with scientific knowledge are good at manipulating it to fit whatever agenda they have.
Their attitude makes me doubt they even see their own hypocrisy. They sound like typical liberals that see their faults in everyone else. At least they identified that particular fault which is better than most of them.
With well over 200 semester hours in math, science and engineering (as well as having earned a living for almost 50 years in a very diverse assortment of technical fields), I consider myself quite capable of grasping at least the fundamentals of most mathematical, scientific, and engineering arguments. It does take some interest on my part to motivate me to attempt to fill the many specialized niches which may be lacking, but I have invested considerable time and effort to understand the subject called global warming. The thing that brings the most emotional reaction to me is not whether it fits my preconceptions (there were essentially none) or whether it fit in with the views of my associates. It is the perceived difference in the attitude of the alarmists and the skeptics.
The skeptics appear to be willing to enter into discussion, show the original data, and show their methods of processing that data. There is a lot of spirited dialog regarding their process and their conclusions on the internet. The alarmists appear to hide their data and their methods of processing that data and to be very unwilling to discuss the data, the process, or the conclusions. Indeed, they appear to be willing to violate laws to hinder such discussions. There is also good reason to suppose that they are altering the data before processing it and making false statements concerning those alterations. They appear to make a great effort to suppress any questioning of their conclusions and to suppress any opinions which differs from theirs.
I discriminate on appearances and I would no more waste my time on an alleged scientist that appears to be secretive than I would buy a used car from an individual whose appearance and manner fits some of my stereotypes.
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
Since when was egalitarian the opposite of individualistic?
The opposite of individualistic would be collectivist or communitarian. But I guess they sound too socialist. So the authors thought it better to corrupt the English language.
“If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match scientific consensus?”
Not necessarily, because science isn’t about “consensus”, it’s about proof. Presumably a more scientifically literate public would know that.
Just put in perspective this simple, indisputable, fact from our government in the US.
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pr/pr_images/glacier.jpg
Sounds like this will become another stick they will try to beat us with – claiming that we “don’t believe” because are afraid to step away from the opinions of our friends. In other words, we are emotionally weak. Frankly, I’ve never come across a Realist (skeptic, if you prefer) that wasn’t willing to stand alone.
Paul Coppin says:
May 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm
What a great post. This is my view exactly but I never had the eloquence to express it so well. We are in the age of sound-bite knowledge. Modern debate consists largely of people merely exchanging a selection of fatuous ‘smart-arsed’ comments at a most superficial level. Critical thinking has given way to advocacy and cAGW belief is merely one symptom.
“”””” 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.” “””””
Well excuse me !!
When did individuals become responsible for “society” ? Persons are responsible to and for themselves. In most family oriented cultures, persons (majors) are also responsible for any minor children (maybe also a spouse on the off chance that one exists these days).
If everybody toed that line, most of the world’s problems would not exist.
Did “researcher Ellen Peters” say just WHO gets to decide what is “society” and what is “best” for it.
And did she construct a list in order of merit of what are “the better decisions” Well in her researcher humble opinion of course.
I wonder how many job offers Ellen Peters has received in the last month/12months from profit making enterprises who have job openings in her much needed specialty; so that she can start to contribute to society !
Here is where we are?
It is a matter of sense, no?
I am not sailing, period………
In turn, China points to the repeated failure of rich countries to cut their emissions as far as mainstream science indicates they should – particularly those such as the US, Japan, Russia and Canada that have opted not to take further emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol.
The US isn’t a Kyoto signatory. We refused to buy into the obligations then and now pompous pipsqueaks are scolding us for not complying with obligations we don’t have.
davidgmills says:
May 27, 2012 at 7:42 pm
“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?”
Excellent comment. AGW [and CAGW] is not a left-right issue. It is a question of scientific truth. Either there is runaway global warming caused by the rise in CO2, or the “carbon” scare is a lie based on money and political power.
The planet is making clear that the rise in CO2 is not a problem. At all. Therefore, honest people like yourself do not buy into the AGW conjecture. Climate alarmists don’t like that fact, but if there is any evidence to support the AGW scare, they have to produce it. Now. The ball is in their court.
Dr. John M. Ware says:
May 27, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Stark Dickflüssig says:
May 27, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Philip Bradley says:
May 27, 2012 at 8:25 pm
You guys are touching on something very important here. I reject the conventional left-right dichotomy; there are just as many communitarian nannies on the right as on the left. The important distinction is between the socialist/communitarian school of thought and individualists/libertarians.
In the last couple hundred years, scores of millions have been sacrificed on the altar of socialism by people determined to eliminate “people with high science and math comprehension [who] can think their way to conclusions that are better for them as individuals but are not necessarily better for society”. People like Thomas Edison and Bill Gates for example.
The most dangerous people I know of are those that, because they genuinely believe that their ideas will benefit society, are willing to inflict their “solutions” on the unwashed rabble. Somehow, because their goals are noble, whatever they do MUST be for the best, whatever the cost.
“””””
Steve O says:
May 27, 2012 at 6:27 pm
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. “””””
Well on a larger scale, there is a belief that “life” began some 4 1/2 billion years ago or so.
I’m not aware of any evidence for life ending or beginning again, since that first event; and when restricted in the extreme to just humans (izzat a single species), maybe we have to go back as much as a few million years, or perhaps as little as 100 k years (I dunno).
As to your very much restrictive question of when a single person’s existence begins; the “liberal” answer of “at birth”, is surely not correct; but then so are some of the more “scientific answers” that are offered, in particular by many “religious persons” and that term is simply a categorical one; not a judgemental one; because many non-religious persons hold the same view; perhaps the most definitive position being “at the instant of conception.”
Well “at birth” and “at conception” are equally wrong; the second having a clear existence proof of error. There are many millions of people on earth; who simply do not exist, if you believe a human life begins “at the moment of conception”. They don’t exist, even though they are alive and well, because “at the moment of conception” huge numbers of persons simply were not present; ergo they cannot exist. The only alternative explanation, is that these strange people are the result of the most garish of all birth defects; they were born in multiple autonomous separate parts.
Science calls them identical twins or triplets; maybe even octets; although I am not sure identical octets have ever been authenticated; but triplets for sure. At least half of all these persons simply were not present at the moment of conception; somebody else was there in their stead.
So I go with my earlier belief; life began maybe 4 1/2 billion years ago; and so far as we know, it has never happened again. I did say as far as we KNOW.
The informed and logical eloquence found throughout this thread is a joy to behold.
Many thanks.
If this study was not rotten and biased it would not be on Nature Climate Change to start with…
“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.”
LOL
Another way to say that scientifically educated people are no suckers for AGW and thus are a threat to society and this has to be addressed by all means…
Ecototalitarians at work.
That is a considerable overstatement, in that it is implicitly weighed-against by:
1) the number of apostates from the Climate Cassandra Camp.
2) The percentage of leftists (20%?) in the Climate Contrarians Camp.
3) The alternate explanation given below for the overlap between Contrarianism and Conservatism (basically, hardheadedness):
1} CHALLENGE TO ALL COMENTERS, TO FIND BETTER ANSWERS
You constantly use the terms: ‘’thermodynamics and convection’’ but never implement it.
IT’S, THE SELF ADJUSTING MECHANISMS: to be same warmth units in the troposphere every hour of every day / year and millenia
Factor 1] when troposphere warms up – oxygen + nitrogen expand, INSTANTLY. They are 998999ppm in the troposphere. Volume of the troposphere increases INSTANTLY. Nobody talks about it; if they did – they would have proven their misleading is WRONG. Because of bigger cities, bitumen / bricks / more people are having hot showers and cooking than 150y ago; the air in those cities is always warmer than before (city island heat) From 500km3 of air is expanded to 550km3. Those extra 50km3 are increasing the volume of the troposphere. Take in the account the contribution of every big city on the planet; conservative estimate: the ‘’troposphere’’ has expanded by 5-7m up; that extra volume intercepts and redirects enough extra coldness ‘’to CANCEL the extra heat’’. That extra coldness doesn’t fall back into those cities; because in few minutes falling down – by spinning the planet fast eastwards + horizontal winds on the way down disperse that extra coldness somewhere far west = far west of every big city is fraction colder. ‘’Fraction, because that coldness is distributed on much larger are, than the city. Overall, same warmth units in the troposphere every hour of every year and millenia.
Factor 2] usually, HORIZONTAL winds take the heat from the ground; VERTICAL winds take that heat to the edge of the troposphere; discharge the heat into the unlimited coldness; and exchange it for coldness, which takes about 3,5 second > that extra cold air gets to the ground in minutes. WHEN HEAT INCREASES on the ground > VERTICAL WINDS INCREASE.
Warmer air expands > increases volume > on the way up. Hot air balloon is a good example; because is using the heat convection – to get up, and stay up. The power of warm air wants to go up – the warmer it gets – the more powerful vertical winds. Lifts 100kg balloon + the gas bottle + the basket + 5-6 people in it – it’s lifting 600kg, over half a ton. In that balloon is lots and lots of CO2+H2O; but doesn’t prevent it of going up, to release heat. Example: if the balloon instantly disappeared – that warm air inside the balloon would have shot up as a rocket – to take the heat to the edge on the troposphere and replace it with coldness.
Can CO2 and water vapor prevent the warmed air from getting up? A: When the gas burns to warm up the air inside the balloon; the flame turns the gas into CO2 AND ‘’VATER VAPOUR’’. If those two molecules CO2 + H2O were preventing expansion of oxygen + nitrogen inside the balloon; the balloon wouldn’t have taken off the ground with that extra weight. That is factual / proof of their lies / Warmist ‘’smoking gun’’.
After 1/2h up in the air; in the balloon is over 20 000ppm of CO2 + lots of water vapor!
Q: can CO2 + water vapor prevent the warm air into the balloon of expanding and going up? A: you know the answer; don’t let them get away with their cheap lies.
BIGGEST CHALLENGE TO ALL COMENTERS, TO FIND BETTER ANSWERS
Temperature in the atmosphere is NOT same as in human body; when under the armpit is 1C warmer than normal = the WHOLE body is warmer by that much. In nature is opposite. Time for mature debate; for real proofs, it’s time for the secular Skeptics to get on the front foot.
Q: do you know that: oxygen + nitrogen are 998999ppm in the troposphere, CO2 only 260-400ppm? Q: do you know that O+N expand /shrink INSTANTLY in change of temperature? Q: do you know that; where they expand upwards; on the edge of the troposphere is minus – 90⁰C? Q: why O+N expand more, when warmed by 5⁰C, than when warmed by 2⁰C? A: when warmed by 5⁰C, they need to go further up, to release MORE heat; to intercept more extra coldness, to equalize. Q: if O+N are cooled after 10minutes to previous temperature, why they don’t stay expanded another 5 minutes extra? A: not to intercept too much extra coldness, to prevent too much cooling. A2: they stay expanded precisely as long as they are warmer – not one second more or less – that’s how they regulate to be same warmth units overall in the troposphere, every hour of every year and millennia! (Past GLOBAL warmings were never global!)
Q: do you know that: if troposphere warms up by 2⁰C extra – troposphere expands up into the stratosphere by 1km, how much extra coldness is there to intercept? A: intercepts extra appropriate coldness, to counteract the extra heat in 3,5 seconds > that extra coldness falls to the ground in minutes Q: if O+N are warmed extra for 30minutes, why they don’t shrink after 15minutes, or after one day? A: if O+N after cooled to previous temperature; stayed expanded for a whole day extra -> they would have redirected enough extra coldness, to freeze all the tropical rivers / lakes.
Q: can CO2 of 260-400ppm prevent oxygen + nitrogen (998999ppm) of expanding when they warm up? A: O+N when warmed extra – they expand through the walls of a hi-tensile hand-grenade. Q: do you believe in the laws of physics, or in IPCC and the Warmist cult? The laws of physics say: part of the troposphere can get colder than normal – only when other part gets warmer than normal. B] if the WHOLE troposphere gets colder -> air shrinks -> intercepts less coldness on the edge of the troposphere > retains more heat and equalizes in a jiffy. C] both hemispheres cannot get warmer simultaneously for more than few minutes – if they doo -> troposphere expands extra -> intercepts extra coldness and equalizes in a jiffy. Q: do the O+N wait to warm up by 2-3⁰C, before they start expanding; or expand instantly extra, when they warm up by 0,000001⁰C? Mitich formula: EH>AE>EHR (Extra Heat >Atmosphere Expands >Extra Heat Releases) Tons of extra CORRECT proofs, why I am a GLOBAL warming Infidel. I believe in climatic changes; big and small – I know that human can improve the climate / because water controls climate = to a degree, human can control water. On the other hand, ALL the phony GLOBAL warmings are, yes, phony.
Lots of B/S makes fertile imaginations. Money corrupts even honest people, lying is bread and butter to people involved in climatology, don’t blame them. Present our own ‘’honest’’ proofs. Warmist believe in 90% possibility of GLOBAL warming – the face Skeptics believe 101% in global warming. Can I join your circus?… DON’T BE COWARDS, CONFRONT THE CHALENGE
“Why do members of the public disagree – sharply and persistently – about facts on which expert scientists largely agree?”
or perhaps ‘about facts on which a small sub-set of highly activist expert scientists largely agree’?
“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
Day by day, week by week, month by month, it appears that the AGW movement is reaching the “pound the table” stage.
“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.”
Ignorance is strength
If this study is correct (and thats a big IF), then we all make our minds up first and then choose the interpretation of the science that supports our position. Which, incidentally, is what we have been accusing the alarmists of all along.
So now we, the sceptics are doing the same thing
In that case, where would we look for people who are immune to this human condition ?
the people who changs sides ? the number of anomalies ?
It seems to me that more people are leaving the CAGW bandwagon than are joining it, and I have heard a lot of less well off people in the UK complaining of higher energy prices yet refusing to take free solar panels on their roofs
These researchers can’t think straight to save their lives. They claim that since more knowledge and ability leads to greater conviction on both sides, then both sides must be doing the same thing. Absolute non-sequitur. Knowledgeable alarmist-leftists cherry pick evidence and dismiss contrary reason and evidence while knowledgeable skeptics are skeptical of alarmist claims precisely because they don’t cherry pick, but look at all the evidence. The researchers never consider such an asymmetry for either side. This guy Kahan has zero grasp of logic:
It is very easy to document that there is a glaring asymmetry and that it is the alarmists who dismiss contrary evidence. See my post: “Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5.”
While Kahan’s analysis is puerile there is at least some value in the raw date he collected. Still, the fact that green money is going not just to climate science but also social science about climate science can only be destructive. Not a penny goes to any climate scientist who does not affirm the alarmist position and the same thing will happen in social scientist. Yes, they are already a bunch of leftists, but don’t think that they can’t be corrupted even further. This army of paid eco-propagandists is just getting its boots on. There is going to be a flood of this garbage down the road.