From Yale University and the “I’ll bet this guy never reads RealClimate and WUWT” department:
Climate science literacy unrelated to public acceptance of human-caused global warming
Those who score highest on test are more politically polarized, study finds
Deep public divisions over climate change are unrelated to differences in how well ordinary citizens understand scientific evidence on global warming. Indeed, members of the public who score the highest on a climate-science literacy test are the most politically polarized on whether human activity is causing global temperatures to rise.
These were the principal findings of a Yale-led study published Feb. 5 in the journal Advances in Political Psychology.
In the study, a nationally representative sample of 2,000 U.S. adults completed a test measuring their knowledge of prevailing scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of climate change. They also indicated whether they believed that human activity is responsible for global temperature increases in recent decades.
Consistent with national opinion surveys generally, the study found that the American public is split on the existence of human-caused climate change.
“The study participants were deeply divided along partisan lines, with about 50% saying they do believe in human-caused climate change and 50% saying they don’t,” said Dan Kahan, professor of law and of psychology at Yale Law School and the lead researcher on the study.
Disagreement did not diminish, however, as the study subjects’ climate-literacy test scores increased. On the contrary, “those with the highest scores were even more politically polarized,” Kahan said.
The climate-science literacy test consisted of questions derived from reports issued by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
“Generally speaking,” said Kahan, “both those who accept human-caused climate change and those who don’t displayed very poor comprehension of climate science.” For example, he said, most participants recognized that carbon dioxide increases global temperatures, yet mistakenly indicated that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are expected to “reduce photosynthesis in plants.”
“If you know carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ but think it kills the things that live in greenhouses,” Kahan said, “then it’s safe to say you don’t know much about climate science.”
Regardless of whether participants said they accepted that human activity caused climate change, most recognized that scientists expect climate change to create serious environmental dangers, including increased coastal flooding. However, the vast majority of study participants also associated global warming with risks wholly contrary to scientific evidence, such as an increase in the incidence of skin cancer.
Study participants who scored highest on a general-science-literacy test did the best on the study’s climate-literacy test. But contrary to the researchers’ expectations, those participants were not more likely to agree on whether human activity is causing climate change.
“Despite consistently giving the correct answers to climate-literacy questions,” Kahan noted, “the most science literate study participants were even more politically polarized.”
Previous studies, Kahan said, have found the more science-literate members of the public are more polarized. “Nevertheless,” he stated, “one might reasonably have supposed that those individuals must at least differ in their levels of climate-science literacy, maybe because of biased interpretations of the evidence. But apparently that’s not what’s going on.”
Kahan dismissed as “ridiculous” the suggestion that the study implies there is no value in climate education. “We need even more research on how to communicate climate science effectively, so people can make informed individual and collective decisions.”
Nevertheless, Kahan said the results justify reassessing at least some popular common science-communication strategies. “One conclusion,” he stated, “is that it’s misguided to fixate on what percentage of the respondents in an opinion survey say they ‘believe in’ climate change. What people say they believe about global warming is not a measure of how much they know, or even how worried they are about it; it is an expression of their cultural identities.”
According to Kahan, the study also casts doubt on the value of social-marketing campaigns that feature the message that “97% of climate scientists” accept human-caused climate change.
“Republicans and Democrats alike already understand that climate scientists have shown we face huge risks from global warming,” said Kahan. “Just telling people that over and over — something advocacy groups have been spending millions of dollars doing for over a decade — misses the point: Positions on climate change have become symbols of whose side you are on in a cultural conflict divorced from science.”
“That’s what has to change if as a society we are going to make use of all we know about the dangers we face and how to abate them,” he said.
Kahan pointed to the success of local political leaders in southeast Florida in depoliticizing discussions of climate science, an example that is discussed at length in the study.
###
The study was sponsored jointly by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and the Skoll Global Threats Fund.
Related: a booklet from the U.S. Government on “climate literacy” here
Can anyone explain to me how a group can be more polarized than 50-50? Is it even scientifically possible? To me, Kahan’s statements above sound equivalent to claiming to have measured a temperature below absolute zero. It doesn’t make sense.
Louis,
You’re right, of course, and it’s horrible that the illogical expression isn’t jarring to the people that wrote it.
My fellow Canadians have long been keen to declare how “polarized” American politics are. I have often pointed out that there are two parties…
Anyway, I’ve tried to think of possibilities for “more polarized”. Although the dictionaries only want there to be two poles in anything, there are multi-pole vectors in mathematics, apparently. (please no quiz on that!)
There are, of course three and four-pole relays and breakers, so maybe, having more poles might qualify as being somehow more polarized, even though they are less polarized.
He certainly hasn’t tried to disguise his bias.
I like the “send more money line”
” “We need even more research on how to communicate climate science effectively, so people can make informed individual and collective decisions.”
We don’t just need to communicate better, we need to research how to communicate better. And that is a mono-pole view amongst climatologists and associates. Apparently, there are physicists that hypothesize such a thing. (monopoles, I mean)
The purpose of this survey was to show that as knowledge becomes more accurate on climate one’s opinion more closely aligns with opinion of the researchers (or perhaps the corollary) . As it began to emerge that the researchers had failed to make this connection they felt more and more polarized with respect to their grant funders.
I read the booklet. One of many problems with their “science” is that it promotes politics as science:
The overwhelming consensus of Doctors polled in the study agreed that dietary cholesterol is the primary cause of heart attack and stroke. The study concluded that cholesterol intake was linked to early death.
+1
Ah yes! And not only that, but there are hundreds of peer reviewed papers (by REAL Doctors!) that endorse that belief. The cholesterol science is settled!
I have a feeling this one is going to become quite a thorn…
“Positions on climate change have become symbols of whose side you are on in a cultural conflict divorced from science.”
For those highly literate in climate science, this might be exactly backwards. I wonder how many see the climate scare as being similar to other scares in the past, adopted by government as a way to concentrate more power in the hands of the executive?
How many have come to see “climate alarmism” as justification for social engineering as the purpose of government. This is where I part company with modern liberals. I see that government should help people and institutions to adapt to technological and economic change. But I don’t accept that government should drive change according to an ideology or a blueprint. That was what was wrong with communism as implemented by the Soviet Union and other countries.
Nobody knows the best way to drive social and technological change. That’s the best reason for government not trying to do it. Leave it up to the people themselves to know how best to evolve as society.
(Fairly close to Thatcherism, but I am not a Thatcher conservative.)
It’s the role of religion in society to say how everybody should behave and to prescribe a certain way of life. It is one of the reasons Protestantism arose in the first place. Today it is one of the reasons why so few people practice religion in their everyday lives, no matter whether they are Christians (Protestant or Catholic), Jews or Muslims. Look about you and you see that the most fervent members of these religious groups do not shrink from attempting to force their beliefs onto others “even unto death”, as St Paul told us.
I was a social and political liberal at a time when I studied climate merely as a branch of science. But over time, while becoming more socially liberal, I have moved well into the camp of the political conservatives, Not the “Tea Party” kind of conservative, but the kind of conservative once called a “whig”, which included virtually all the signatories of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution.
If I voted in a US election I would have to vote for a conservative. And if the only conservative I could find was a GOP conservative who was not a social liberal, I would have to vote GOP. I might fee bad about doing that, but I would do it because that would be the best way to vote against what I see as the express train that is changing the President into a Princeps, heading an imperial presidency.
My vote would be against the religious belief that mankind is a blight upon the Earth. It would be a vote against the Green Express train that would damage not only the American economy, but the economies of most of the world’s countries, including the poorest. It would be a vote against corrupt use of environmental laws to return America to the poor lifestyles of their great-grandparents, when horses were used instead of fossil fuels, except wind and sun are more expensive than horses.
Positions on climate change have become symbols of whose side you are on in a cultural conflict divorced from science?
Your position in the cultural and political conflict may be inspired by whose side you are on in the science of climate change: those who became scientists to save the world from mankind or those who study science to learn how the universe works.
“Positions on climate change have become symbols of whose side you are on in a cultural conflict divorced from science.”
For those highly literate in climate science, this might be exactly backwards. I wonder how many see the climate scare as being similar to other scares in the past, adopted by government as a way to concentrate more power in the hands of the executive branch?
How many have come to see “climate alarmism” as justification for social engineering as the purpose of government. This is where I part company with modern liberals. I see that government must help people and institutions to adapt to technological and economic change. But I don’t accept that government should drive change according to an ideology or a blueprint. That was what was wrong with communism as implemented by the Soviet Union and other countries. Nobody knows the best way to drive social and technological change. That’s the best reason for government not trying to do it.
It’s the role of religion in society to say how everybody should behave and to prescribe a certain way of life. It is one of the reasons Protestantism arose in the first place. Today, it’s one reasons why so few people practice religion in their everyday lives, no matter whether they are Christians (Protestant or Catholic), Jews or Muslims. Look about you and you see that the most fervent members of these religious groups do not shrink from attempting to force their beliefs onto others “even unto death”, as St Paul said.
I was a social and political liberal at a time when I studied climate merely as a branch of science. But over time, while becoming more socially liberal, I have moved well into the camp of the political conservatives. Not the “Tea Party” kind of conservative, but the kind of conservative once called a “whig”, which included virtually all the signatories of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution.
If I voted in a US election I would have to vote for a conservative and if the only conservative I could find was a GOP conservative who was not a social liberal, I would have to vote GOP. I might fee bad about doing that, but I would do it because that would be the best way to vote against what I see as the express train that is changing the President into a Princeps, heading an imperial presidency.
My vote would be against the religious belief that mankind is a blight upon the Earth. It would be a vote against this Green Express train that would damage not only the American economy, but the economies of most of the world’s countries, including the poorest. It would be a vote against corrupt use of environmental laws to would return us to the poor lifestyles of their great-grandparents when horses were used instead of fossil fuels.
Positions on climate change have become symbols of whose side you are on in a cultural conflict divorced from science?
Your position in the cultural and political conflict may be inspired by whose side you are on in the science of climate change, those who became scientists to save the world from mankind or those who study science to learn how the universe works.
Frederick Colbourne, you indicate that you have become more politically conservative while becoming more socially liberal at the same time. I’m curious about what you think of the idea of “redistribution of wealth.” Do you see that as a social issue because it supposedly helps the poor? Or do you see it as more of a political issue that affects the economy and limits free enterprise? Alarmists justify carbon taxes as a way to redistribute wealth from industrial nations to developing nations. What is your opinion on that?
Which shows beyond reasonable doubt it’s not a psychological question and the researchers’ expectations were both biased and irrelevant.
On the other hand, if large segments of climate science have actually went down on the slippery slope to become a full fledged pseudoscience, while others are still resisting, that’s exactly the kind of result you should expect.
“have gone down”, obviosly
Why do you have to be so negative? This is a tale about a scientist coming in with a preconceived notion, finding that he was wrong, admitting his error, and SPEAKING IN A PUBLIC FORUM in support of an unpopular position. While it is not a conversion or anything like that, he is speaking well of skeptics: explicitly stating that they are educated and understand what they are saying, and he is tacitly allowing that they may have valid points.
………..measuring their knowledge of prevailing scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of climate change. ………………
Are these supposed to be top universities in the States? Even someone who studied for a social science degree as a hobby in the UK could tell them that if you take the science consensus as the measure then you are biassing the survey. Even a raw British undergraduate social scientist could tell you that you also need to test their knowledge of the arguments against with equal weighting or the survey is junk and fundamentally flawed by making believers seem more educated than they are and opponents less so.
The only education needed is lesson one that science stands or falls on the accuracy of the predictions made by the theory and we were taught that at 11 in the UK in the old days but it is that is no longer the case worldwide. In real science “very likely” means it no longer qualifies as science.and ins merely a subjective opinion. Even engineers expect better than 90% correlation between the computer models and real for our commercial pound shop products and far better for life critical applications.
When will these kooks get it through their thick undereducated graduate heads that we need the following education at a minimum.
We need to see what methods they used to predict “normal” climate as engineers training has always led to to very different answer to that in the publicly available information from the self styled scientists.
Where do we find unaltered data sets. What is the adjustment level to get the actual data. We should assume that the error is twice this as a minimum and ignore the results if the warming is less than a minimum of five times this error plus the random variation.
This warming difference must also relate as predicted by the models when using actual CO2 levels which in turn must be increasing in line with human CO2 , no more and no less, since the lack of the natural systems in the computer natural system makes this assumption inherent.
We need the education on where the climate scientists have got their data on the natural CO2 systems that are the basis of even the facile pathetic oversimplified CO2 dominated climate modes they use as there seems to be next to no research on the topic compared to the lavish funding for them.
Politically I am aligned to the all politicians are at least semi crooks on the make party for those interested.
I also believe the anti hacking laws in the UK were intended to make disclosures they would have made not admissible in court though they are surfacing years later anyway and these same laws are now being abused to suppress awareness of the “adjustments” made in science as happened in the UEA case.
Actually, high levels of CO2 are used by commercial growers to kill pests such as spider mites and whiteflies in greenhouses, whilst at the same time encouraging plant growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
High CO levels sometimes give “ a crop yield that is two to three times greater”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6808988/Dutch-aubergine-grower-pipes-carbon-dioxide-into-greenhouses.html
And from the BBC no less….
The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence. Above 5%(50,000ppm) CO2 is directly toxic.
Most national Health and Safety bodies set permissible exposure limits for Carbon Dioxide in the workplace at between 5,000 and 10,000 ppm.
The below from Kahan: http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Kahan_Tragedy%20of%20the%20Risk-Perception%20Commons.pdf
I’m now convinced. We ARE doomed! But not from CAGW. From American voters that average only 5.9 correct on this test. I can’t be certain, but would be willing to bet a lot that my 6th grade class in the 60’s would have scored 100% on this, or very close. Excluding the laser question – that was very new cutting edge in stuff in the early 60’s, but I think most of us knew it was LIGHT not sound, even then.
Somehow, discussing Milankovitch Cycles seems pointless when less than half of Kahan’s sample know what a “year” is and 1 in 4 do not even know what Copernicus figured out half a millennia ago.
Thanks NEA. Your members have done a swell job of teaching these last 50 years.
Bill Murphy, it can’t be that bad.
Perhaps people didn’t pay attention to the online survey and just clicked through?
These questions are pretty basic. Imagine the scorn that anyone would have if they failed basic questions in the arts:
How many daughters does King Lear have?
In which century did Bach write music?
Who painted Impression: Sunrise?
It would not be socially acceptable to be so unaware of Western culture and people would hide their failings – so it must be true of the scientific basis too.
I’d be surprised if more than 10% of Americans could answer all three questions correctly. It might not even be a majority among college grads. My guess is that most of them might know three Lear daughters, but many would be torn btw the 17th & 18th century (perhaps expressed as 1600s & 1700s) for Bach´s compositions & btw Monet (b. 1840), Manet (1832) & maybe Cezanne (1839) & van Gogh (1853) for the impressionist painting. Hope I’m wrong.
Sadly, I’m afraid it can be that bad, or worse. Milodonharlani’s “10%” above for your arts and lit questions may even be high. Concrete example: Shakespeare is being removed from secondary curriculum in many places in the USA. Reasons given? “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” promotes hallucinogenic drug use. “Romeo and Juliet” promotes teen sex and suicide. “Macbeth” promotes violence. And so on, Ad nauseam. There was even an attempt a few years ago to rewrite Shakespeare to make it “Politically Correct” and thus suitable for the modern classroom. As for Monet and the Impressionist movement in art? Forget it. Most high school students will never hear about it.
Anecdotally, a very long time ago I memorized Hamlet’s solilquy. About 12 years ago I moonlighted for a while as a broadcast engineer at a radio station in Arizona and one day while doing an air check I recited the solilquy (in my best Sir Laurence Olivier voice.) Of the 7 people there at the time, only 2 knew what it was. And one of them was educated in Belgium, not the USA.
Bill,
I am relatively well-self-educated, and I would have had trouble with those three questions. I’m familiar with King Lear & Bach (listened & played) but simply don’t remember such details. But those science questions are more on par with “Who wrote Romeo & Juliet” in the basic subject knowledge required.
As for making Shakespeare PC – they’ve done it with Mark Twain: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-05/entertainment/chi-books-twain-nword_1_new-edition-parents-and-librarians-craig-hotchkiss
And on a similar aside: My (homeschooled) son is doing his first monologue for his drama class – and of course he chose Hamlet’s…
TonyG:
I agree, except since most of them are T&F they’re more like “William Shakespeare wrote Romeo & juliet (T or F)” which means 2000 flat worms in a T maze would have scored ~50%. And a sample of adult citizens only come in ~20% above that? Sad.
Good luck to your son.
Regards
That may be true in the USA but it seems unlikely due to the narrow-minded parochialism of the researchers.
Here in the UK all three political parties – across the divide – are fervent AGW catastrophists (at the top of the parties, at least). Yet research here shows that the more scientifically literate you are the more confident in your sceptical / fearful position.
So, with a different culture and no cultural conflict the same findings are observed. Thus I question the conclusion.
And I note that others above are sceptical despite being left of centre or center.
Mathematically, this is a measure of uncertainty of some hypothesis, in the same sense that the correlation coefficients of randomly correlated sets will range from +1 to -1. That is, if you try to compute the correlation between two sets of vectors which are independent of each other, then you’ll find that half will tend to have the same polarity and the other half will tend to have opposite polarity, on a continuous scale.
What is the hypothesis is being tested here? I think it is obvious that it is the CAGW Hypothesis: man-made CO2 causes climate disasters. Virtually all climate experts, skeptics and warmists alike, understand and accept the concept of greenhouse warming.
So it is the implication of “climate disaster” that is, IMHO, shown to be uncertain here (man-made or otherwise).
The hypothesis was that knowledge of facts about climate would correlate with a support of political efforts to reduce CO2. He did a test on this by having two prongs in the test, facts and position.
When the results came in, he rejected the initial hypothesis and the meat of this article is describing the pattern that emerged: those with strong knowledge of the facts involved came down firmly on one side or the other. People without strong knowlege were more likely to be ambiguous.
Yes, agreed, Kahan tested the political hypothesis, that climate expertise is correlated to politics. But there is another hypothesis, purely scientific, underlying the political hypothesis, which is that man-made CO2 causes climate disasters.
It is the ‘extreme’ uncertainty of this hypothesis which, IMHO, drives the curiously political hypothesis. Furthermore, without this uncertainty, there would be no political alignment of climate expertise according to degree of skepticism.
The buzzwords “raising awareness” and “educate the public” are surefire signs of a con job.
The entire survey evaporates right there.
Kahan being bashed here, I can not really see why. See also:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/30/climate-psychologys-consensus-bias/
A defense of Kahan at Judith Curry’s doesn’t absolve him of the systemic bias evident in the quotes I pointed to just above. Now the question is – can this robust bias prevent him from phrasing questions that are intellectually neutral and scientifically sound? Psychologists generally can’t (warning, sweeping generalization ahead) – they often do not understand the science anywhere near well enough to compose surveys about it, let alone interpret the results. So, what’s an observer to do – go through the minutiae of the survey to see if the surveyor actually has a clue,or dustbin the results as likely meaningless and carry on? At the outset, I have a problem with a survey of 350 million having any serious validity when N=2000, regardless of the selection methodology.
+/- 3%
Einstein once said that there are only two limitless things: the universe, and human stupidity, and he’s not sure about the universe.
That pretty much sums up my opinion on this most recent study.
“The study was sponsored jointly by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and the Skoll Global Threats Fund.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skoll
“Skoll owns a Tesla Roadster from Tesla Motors, a battery electric sportscar, the third Tesla off the line P2/VINF003.[10] He is also an investor in the company.”
“Skoll is also the founder, owner and chairman of Participant Media (formerly Participant Productions), a Los Angeles based media company he created to fund feature films and documentaries that promote social values while still being commercially viable……Subsequent films have included An Inconvenient Truth…”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts
“What’s the bottom line? FactCheck.org is a LEFT-BIASED organization that has sold itself as “Politically NEUTRAL” to America’s voters and media personnel.
The fact is, the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms.”
So to paraphrase
The most scientifically literate and climate literate group disagrees with climate scientists and the study authors.
Therefore they are the most partisan?
And then there are those of us who agree that the dramatic global warming of the last three decades of the 20th century was indeed anthropogenic, but that greenhouse warming theory is wrong and that global warming is over. Where do we fit in?
You are absolutely correct, the dramatic global warming of the last three decades of the 20th century is entirely mann made.
The only place it appears “dramatic” is in the published works of men.
The raw data does not show it.
The tree rings do not know it.
Sea ice grows below it.
Given the kudged mess that the official holders of the historic weather data have made there of, the absurd claim of a significant trend , less than the base data error, we are left with the more broad indicators.
If warming is dramatic and global, then an arctic ice is what?
davidbennettlaing says:
…there are those of us who agree that the dramatic global warming of the last three decades of the 20th century was indeed anthropogenic…
First, there was no “dramatic global warming”. What was observed is the same warming step changes that have occurred repeatedly in the past, before human emissions mattered:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
When you start out with a false premise like that, then you will reach a false conclusion.
db, I used to believe that graph. Now I know the 1910-1940 rate of warming is adjusted downwards to give the trend that is seen. In other words, the rate of unadjusted warming in the instrumental record is higher.
“Generally speaking,” said Kahan, “both those who accept human-caused climate change and those who don’t displayed very poor comprehension of climate science.” For example, he said, most participants recognized that carbon dioxide increases global temperatures, yet mistakenly indicated that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are expected to “reduce photosynthesis in plants.”
“If you know carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ but think it kills the things that live in greenhouses,” Kahan said, “then it’s safe to say you don’t know much about climate science.”
I stopped reading, basically, after this quote. What type of climate comprehension test would ask a question that had as an answer that carbon dioxide would reduce photosynthesis in plants? Really! If this represents the quality of the questions asked, then I would have to wonder what value the test would be. As for the higher the score the more polarized, well, I would have to wonder how anyone could actually score “high” on climate comprehension and NOT be aware that AGW is bogus. The suggestion is that there are those that scored high that think AGW exists, thus automatically disproves that they have climate comprehension. And as for his final comment regarding greenhouse gases, I wonder how much he “comprehends” climate.
I really hate it when those polarized tendentious buttheads on the opposite side of this political and scientific debate think they have a right to speak for me.
Here’s what I understand. With increasing CO2, we face huge risks of growing more food. We face huge risks of deserts turning greener. IF the planet does warm slightly due to CO2, then we risk a more liveable world, with less need for burning fuel to heat homes, leaving more fuel to more cheaply transport and deliver that food and material to the poorer people in the world, improving their lives. I understand that almost the entirety of dire predictions come from climate models, and those climate models DON’T WORK. I understand climate scientits claim they DO WORK! One of us has to be wrong.
I understand that weather records are incomplete, imperfect, are constantly undergoing adjustment. I understand that the short span of human record-keeping cannot capture the variability of the climate on geologic time scales. I understand the funding is easier when you’re a climate alarmist, and so alarmism is rampant among so-called objective scientists. Among many other things, this is what I understand.
So, in future, Mr. Kahan, please let my words speak for me, and let YOUR words speak for you. Try not to do it like this, however, unless you want to appear ignorant: “I’m not an alarmist. But if we don’t do something about CO2 soon, we could be in big trouble.” – Gavin Schmidt (stitched together from a comment thread on RealClimate)
Climate Change зависит от альбедо Earth и от солнечной активности,CO2 and метан,антропогенный фактор только ускорители Climate Change.Однобокий рост внутреннего ядра http://go.nature.com/w6iks3 деформируя кору изнутри http://shar.es/1njxx0 меняет форму Earth от которой зависит угол падения и отражения солнечных лучей.
I recently took one of these “tests” just for the heck of it. They asked the questions which you know the answers they wanted to hear from how the questions were phrased. At the end had 65% v 50% average but then I believe their “correct” answers were BS. Some times it pays to lie and so much for PC surveys. It is all in how they ask the question and provide the answers in the boxes to tick.