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.
mib8 says:
May 28, 2012 at 4:37 am
……………..
“When forming my opinions based on evidence, I do not try to figure out what ‘group’ or ‘community’ I belong to.”
——————–
I didn’t used to either, until I read about the science of Gore, Hansen, Jones, Mann, et al.
I tried to believe then I heard:
Nobel Prize winner Gore said Yeah, I’m lying but, it’s ok you can ignore my environmental damage.
GISS Director Hansen said let me prove it and opened windows of the Capital to ensure the heat.
Professor Jones said no you can’t have the data and prove me wrong.
Professor Mann said here’s a tree that proves the team is correct (I’ll just hide the decline.)
As this continued I decided I could not relate to them. I could not be part of that TEAM.
The main reason I don’t accept the team conclusion (or is that collusion?) is I read the entire harry_read_me file. It reads like Jones and the CRU purposely and in secret destroyed the original data and now thinks it’s ok to have the team cherry pick and make things up. IMO That’s not how honest scientists treat data.
Harry (of read me fame) wrote while trying to save corrupted data:
“OH F*** THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”
———————————————————–
And this is what they use to prove CAGW.
And I’m the denier? nfw
cn
Missing are interviews with believers and skeptics on how they came to their views on this issue. It reminds me of the research back in the 1950’s showing that working people in big factories were alienated from their work, it being so impersonal and all.
Turns out, it was the social scientists who were alienated from their work. The factory workers saw themselves as doing productive work. But, a lot of papers and books were published about this.
Anyhow, I propose we start a series of testimonials by both believers and skeptics on how they came to their views on AGW.
Here is my personal story:
I voted for George Bush in 2000. Bill Clinton had stunk out the White House too much for me to vote for Al Gore, who really seemed alright (dull average) at that time. He had yet to show his true colors. I had doubts about how smart Bush was, however. When Bush announced he wasn’t going to support the Kyoto protocol, there was universal outrage. I was shocked myself. Like all unthinking people, I thought it must be a good idea, especially after the ozone hole problem was fixed by the Montreal treaty. (It was still to come that the ozone hole was not going to shrink despite banning certain aerosols.) So, I decided to find out if Bush was smart or dumb. I researched Kyoto. It took only a week or two to make me realize Kyoto was nothing. Bush was quite right. However, Kyoto had no chance to pass the US Senate. So, I decided Bush was smart, but he was a bad politician. He should have let the US Senate take the blame.
So, I began to pay attention finally to the global warming science (as an educated layman). The conduct of the believers has been totally outside the bounds of anything I associate with science, and completely accords with the behavior of any orthodoxy trying to suppress heresy. (I have read extensively about the Christian Church and the history of Soviet science). They even changed climate history and cowed people into silence. I read books and articles and interpolated. This isn’t science as I understand it.
So, without even crunching numbers, I know what is going on. And, it ain’t AGW.
I bet the lay believers have never investigated this question, but just accepted what they were told.
Is it any wonder that the “The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School” found “the need for science communication strategies that reflect a more sophisticated understanding of cultural values.”
This paper was nothing more than group-think. To any person with a couple of working neurons it’s obvious this paper is just self-promoting propaganda with a dash of arrogance.
“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.”
Would those “egalitarian values” be the same ones which say that we are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others?
So, they have confirmed it is, in fact, a division influenced by individual perceptions of reality. This is not strictly cultural. It is also related to defining science. Those who consider nuclear processes as inherently unsafe; who accept a consensus as a scientific concept; who defer individual dignity in favor of a collective; who conflate science with philosophy; are doing so in favor of their own perceptions and not any objective reality. Science, in particular, is a faith necessarily constrained to a limited frame of reference, or that which we refer to as “reality.”
This is about competing interests. There is nothing “egalitarian” about it. Not everyone will enjoy a beachfront property in Hawaii. There are finitely accessible resources and they will not be recovered without consequence. From a low-level it is about two contrasting ideological groups. From a high-level it is about alphas (or mortal gods), who desire to consolidate wealth and power through the exploitation of their followers.
This is the same nonsense which was prevalent throughout recorded history, but with a twist. This time, one side lacks integrity and will not acknowledge the articles of faith which underlie their philosophy or religion; and thereby cause the corruption of science specifically, and society generally. Well, at least they claim to have “good intentions.” They have managed to successfully obfuscate their motives from millions of people and exploit them for personal gain.
I know a lot of posters think this research is bunkum – after all, it must be obvious that the more scientific knowledge one has, the more robust one’s conclusions.
Well, confirmation bias not withstanding, I think there is plenty of real world evidence that these researchers may be on to something.
There are a number of people who say the moon landing was faked (I know, I know, but please bear with me). From what I can see, these beliefs emminate from a number of empirical observations: 1) No stars were visible in the dark sky on that iconic astronaut photograph; 2) The shadows of the astronaut and flag split into multiple shadows (implying multiple light sources); 3)The flag appears to wave in the breeze after planting; 4) Neil’s footprint is so well defined it could only have been made in “damp earth.”
Basically, people who were culturally predisposed to doubt that this monumental feat could have been achieved, applied limited scientific knowledge to back up their beliefs. Each of these “observations” has, incidently, been adequately explained by “Mythbusters”, but basically, the explanations are as follows: 1) Stars cannot be captured on film without exposure times of many tens of seconds; 2) When a shadow from a single light source runs over uneven ground, it can appear to break and split; 3) Without damping from air, a flag mounted on a thin aluminum frame, will continue to oscillate for minutes after being disturbed, giving the appearance of a breeze; 4) Using a type of dust most similar to moon dust, in a vacuum, a footprint does indeed look as if it is impressed into damp soil.
So, if these conspiracy theorists had a greater scientific knowledge, would they have still made the same mistakes? Well, I am certain that if they were complete ignoramuses, they would not have been able to reach these conclusions in the first place. But would more knowledge have helped? Maybe not. Maybe their cultural biases ruled out ever seeing explanations that conflict with their own prejudices – certainly, they have not yet recanted, despite these explanations.
Another group that springs to mind, are those who say Einstein was wrong. If anything, this group exhibits even greater mathematical and scientifc understanding that the first group. But rather than leading them back to the fold, it appears to have empowered them to concoct more and more ingenieous mathematical and logical arguments to reinforce their positions. Again, a complete ignoramus would never have entertained such a notion in the first place.
So, no. I don’t think there is evidence that the more scientific knowledge one has, the more likely one is to avoid making massive errors. Indeed, the greater the knowledge, the more tools one has to vigorously cling to these erroneous views.
Doesn’t surprise me.
Science education just means more who think they have a clue but don’t.
And more people who have more resources to come up with ingenious justifications for preconceived but crazy ideas.
I presume you’re referring to this study:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503
“Abstract
The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a se-rious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.”
……
“4. Rationality—individual vs. collective
The evidence we have presented is at odds with PIT—the “public irrationality thesis.” PIT implies that members of the public are divided about climate change science because they have limited scientific knowledge and limited capacity to reason about evidence in a scientific manner. Our data, how-ever, show that as individuals become more science literate and more proficient in the mode of reasoning featured in scientific inquiry, they don’t reliably form beliefs more in line with scientific consensus.”
In fact, they are LESS likely to form beliefs in line with the “scientific consnsus”.
I suspect that their original study was an attempt to demonstrate that those more skeptical were less informed about the risks of CAGW. Instead, they found the opposite, Better informed people are MORE apt to be skeptical of CAGW. THAT BS about “cultural polarization” was probably a post hoc data mining artefact: an attempt to get something pro CAGW, or at least not ANTI CAGW out of a devastatingly ANTI CAGW study.
TomRude: If this study was not rotten and biased it would not be on Nature Climate Change to start with…
Well said, precisely and concisely.
“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…” “Why do members of the public disagree – sharply and persistently – about facts on which expert scientists largely agree?”
There is a nasty element here. The assumptions that are so “obvious” they don’t even need naming as unevidenced assumptions, let alone discussing. They come from the same foul source as “The debate is over” said while holding the positions of power and refusing to debate. Bullying, sneaky, cowardly, orwellian.
“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.
In other words, they herd together like frightened sheep, afraid to actually form an opinion apart from the approval of the group. As such, they are not free.
Can they even be said to have free will?
Can they even be said to be individuals?
And some of them also believe it because it is something that makes them feel good, and gather with people who believe likewise to help them do so. Are we to believe things simply because we want to? Is this statement true for you?
As Thucydides wrote, men will accept without argument conclusions they find agreeable; but will bring all the force of logic and reason against those they do not like.
They will also bring all the forces of illogic and unreason.
If you see yourself using illogic and unreason, you need to ask yourself, “could I be wrong?”.
Most people never even look, many never will..
Are you free, or just another sheep?
Note that you can be just a sheep even if the herd you are gathering with believes something that is completely true, if you are believing it simply to stay with the herd or because it makes you feel good. Being just a sheep is not good, sheep get fleeced, sheep get eaten.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
The world looks with some awe upon a man who appears unconcernedly indifferent to home, money, comfort, rank, or even power and fame. The world feels not without a certain apprehension, that here is someone outside its jurisdiction; someone before whom its allurements may be spread in vain; someone strangely enfranchised, untamed, untrammelled by convention, moving independent of the ordinary currents of human action. Winston Churchill, politician and statesman (1874-1965)
“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
In other words, indivuduality is evil, being against “society”, while being part of the herd, “society”, is good. In other words, the author has shown here that the real reason for this article is to support socialism and attack freedom and individuality.
Also, note that “people with high science and math comprehension” are smart people. What they are saying is that smart people are deciding for indivudual freedom, and against socialism, and thus against things like CAGW which support socialism. What they say we want, therefore, it to be people with low comprehension, in other words, stupid people, who will decide against individuality and will just go dumbly along with the crowd because it is “better for society”.
Note also “people with high science and math comprehension can think their way to conclusions”., well we wouldn’t want that, now would we? Stop thinking, people, it’s bad for you! Just believe whatever we tell you, it’s so much easier!
In other words, they want us to simply be dumb sheep. Sheep are so much easier to fleese, and then eat.
So much given away in just one sentance…
“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
In other words, indivuduality is evil, being against “society”, while being part of the herd, “better for society”, is good. In other words, the author has shown here that the real reason for this article is to support socialism and attack freedom and individuality.
Also, note that “people with high science and math comprehension” are smart people. What they are saying is that smart people are deciding for indivudual freedom, and against socialism, and thus against things like CAGW which support socialism (“better for society”). What they say we want, therefore, it to be people with low comprehension, in other words, stupid people, who will decide against individuality and will just go dumbly along with the crowd because it is “better for society”.
Note also “people with high science and math comprehension can think their way to conclusions”, well we wouldn’t want that, now would we? Stop thinking, people, it’s bad for you! Just believe whatever we tell you, it’s so much easier!
In other words, they want us to simply be dumb sheep. Sheep are so much easier to fleese, and then eat.
So much given away in just one sentance…
Vince Causey says:
May 28, 2012 at 10:40 am
I think you need to differentiate scientific knowledge from knowledge of the scientific method. It’s my contention that many scientists have a weak understanding of the latter.
There is a rather glaring example in this paper.
about facts on which expert scientists largely agree?”
A fact is something that is empirically measured and isn’t open to debate, unless you are alleging fraud, incompetance or similar. What we disagree about is the interpretation of facts. Whether they support theory A or B. Etc.
According to Kahan, the study suggests the need for science communication strategies that reflect a more sophisticated understanding of cultural values.
In other words, coveying information is not enough, we need to make it into clever propaganda instead (“communication strategies”, note the word “strategies”). Clever, carefully crafted propaganda based on studies (“by people like me, send grant money”) of the people you are trying to propagandize. You make strategies when you are at war, who are they at war with?
“More information can help solve the climate change conflict,”
So long as it is carefully sanitized to be from our side only. I mean, look what heppened here, the people with more scientific understanding found out too much!
“but that information has to do more than communicate the scientific evidence, so, it has to have, what, a lot of unscientific “evidence” mixed in?
The messege is simple, scientific evidence is not what we want, it just drives them to disbeleive us. So, we must do something else. What, exactly?
The “truth” isn’t working, so lets try something else…
Fact is not working, lets try fiction.
George E. Smith; says:
May 27, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Did “researcher Ellen Peters” say just WHO gets to decide what is “society” and what is “best” for it.
Exactly.
Seven people are being paid to produce this rubbish?
I protest as a member of “society”: this kind of activity makes everybody poorer and stupider.
“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.”
Here is a question, if deciding that CAGW is wrong is “better for them as individuals”, then what is “better for society” must, necessarily be worse for them as individuals, and since this is supposed to be a global problem, it must be worse for all individuals globally. So, how can something be bad for everyone everywhere individually, yet somehow simultaneously be “better for society”?
This shows that these people are deliberately and knowingly doing something that they know will hurt everyone everywhere. They are therefor your enemy.
And if the individuals, all the people of the world, are considered separate from “society”, what, exactly, is their definition of “society”? These people are sociopaths, “a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others”.
So much from one sentence…
Babsy says:
May 28, 2012 at 8:06 am
Doug Proctor says:
May 28, 2012 at 7:13 am
“There is no divided opinion on gravity, nor that if you breathe in sea water you drown. Divided opinion reflects a subject not yet nailed down.”
Please note there is no consensus needed to validate gravity or drowning, and that gravity can be experimentally and reproducibly verified.
This may be the solution. The reason there is no consensus on gravity and breathing seawater is that those who believed gravity would not pull them down to the earth eventuall had to jump from the Golden Gate Bridge to prove their theory. in doing so, they fel into the bay, inhaled seawater, and now sleep with the fishes.
“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”
This is, of course, based on the assumption that AGW is proven correct by the ‘consensus’, and therefore all those people are in error.
Question: If AGW fails the test, will these researchers conclude that an artificially manufactured consensus is inferior to the public wisdom?
LazyTeenager says:
And more people who have more resources to come up with ingenious justifications for preconceived but crazy ideas.
—–
YOu mean like AGW, lazy?
And guess who has the most resources, lazy?
Sure as Hell not the Skeptics. We just have the greater education. One has Lots of time to think for themselves, when they are not on the government dole, trying to think for the politicians.
I think I get it. They expected people who weren’t AGW alarmists to have low science literacy and numeracy; instead they scored highly. The authors then sought an explanation that allowed them to marginalize the people who they disagreed with, ergo non-alarmists merely used their literacy and numeracy to reinforce their preconceived notions and serve their self-interest.
AGW science is largely self-fullfilling prophecy designed into models. If you take a high climate senitivity to a doubling of CO2 as given, then you adjust other parameters to make a fit with the temperature record, the correlation is pre-ordained, but not necessarily correct. Indeed, when the fit began to diverge, rationales for adjusting the temperature record came became the solution. The trouble was they had already adusted back to lower the temps of the 1930s and raise the temps at the recent end to allow the 1990s become the hottest decade on record. Now they, I’m sure, wish they had not adusted at all so that the 1990s didn’t stick up above the past 15 years.
When sea-level began to slow its ascent, there was delay in updating the graph for months while they added on glacial rebound – thereby changing what is being measured. I note another major delay in the sea-level graph that is now sitting at February 2012.:
http://climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif
After Climategate, Fakegate, and other disgraceful performances by the core scientists of the CAGW movement, the divide is certainly partly a moral one.
They don’t seem to place a value on truth, so can’t imagine people who do. The whole better for the individual versus better for society thing is a red herring. Truth is the foundation, the rock upon which both individuals and society must build.
Here is my presentation at the Heartland conference about the topic of the new paper just released in Nature Climate Change:
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/tom-harris-iccc7/
Comments/suggestions welcome indeed.
Tom Harris
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
Here is the video of my 20 minute presentation on the topic of the paper just out in Nature Climate Change:
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/tom-harris-iccc7/.
Tom