back to article Study: The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate

A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens. The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

                        1. ElReg!comments!Pierre
                          Paris Hilton

                          Re: Plane crash

                          > PNAS estimates are [...]

                          I don't think you understand the concept of "scientific publication"

                          PNAS does not estimate anything, PNAS publishes stuff from external research groups.

                          PNAS also have a very convenient system where members can "fast-track" 2 papers per year without proper pear review (hence my stated contempt). In that case there's a disclaimer, but who checks that? Check their policies if you don't believe me. That's publicaly available material, everyone in the community knows that. Of course, armchair scientists might be oblivious of the fact.

                          The other references you cited are 15-lines opinion pieces, not proper scientific reports.

                          You claim you did some research, yet your posts show otherwise.

                          Back under the bridge you go.

          1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

            Re: Plane crash

            So to date that's 4 thumbs down. 4 persons who honestly believe that the "scientific community" as a whole predicts that man-made carbon emission will wipe out the human race in 50 years.

            Because that is the very assumption in the post I answer to.

            We are well and truly doomed. Not by carbon emissions but by rampant stupidity.

  1. AnonymousNow

    It is not profitable to think about global warming so we don't

    For those who still do not understand America, the title to this post will give you a clue.

    We have serious cultural issues that have been driven by the economics of the 1%. The corrupt MSM is the glue that cements it together and makes the insane normal.

    1. P. Lee
      Boffin

      Re: It is not profitable to think about global warming so we don't

      Profitable for whom?

      Scientists are finding it very profitable.

      Alternative fuel providers find it profitable too. As are the tile-providers to that shopping centre. All those yummy subsidies.

      Demand for oil is inelastic, so not much harm done to the oil providers, though they've always had a bit of an image issue. Nobody really likes heavy-industry dirt. With the bad PR from Japan, the main alternative to oil has been neutralised.

      The politicians find it rather profitable, with the "we'll save you! (no really, the taxes are for the environment's sake)" message.

      The only people it doesn't benefit are those inefficiently using energy, who will be castigated for it. People don't like being told they are doing something wrong.

      In fact, there aren't that many reasons not to like AGW, without going anywhere near the science. That concerns me, because it means the science doesn't matter and wouldn't change what is going on.

      The term "scientific consensus" disturbs me. The phrase calls on the reputation of the scientists rather than the science. It skims over the facts and says, you need to trust your social betters.

      It appears to imply that "all scientists, whether or not they are involved in AGW research believe in AGW, so you had better shut up." It appears to be newly coined and new phrases like that I pop in the "Registered Trademark" bin until they have stood the test of time.

      I'm happy to accept that AGW might be real, but the hard research appears to be rather thin. Its more of a collective feeling, a "consensus" rather than a well researched phenomenon. That's fine, just tell me that you don't have much data and the research is on-going. "The sky is falling, give us your billions," undermines your credibility.

      1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

        Re: It is not profitable to think about global warming so we don't

        > The term "scientific consensus" disturbs me

        As it should. There is no consensus, far from it. It is a hotly (if I may) debated subject. As it should damn well be.

        Special interest groups are trying to snuff the debate to preserve their funding sources but as you point out later in your post the evidence is indeed rather thin. And some of it has been proved to be outright fraud (North Pole ice and Hymalayan ice are melting indeed. Or not? Not.).

        The scientific community (to use the buzzword) is not even sure where to measure the supposed effects of global warming. Different layers of the athmosphere react differently. and the widely-used measures along the north-eastern coast of Canada have recently been shown to be compensated or even out-compensated by variations on the western side (between Russia and Canada), a part of the globe that had not been probed before.

        We do no know precisely how much energy came in (These solar flares are a bitch to quantify retroactively), we certainly do not know for sure how much energy is absorbed or sent back for the Greenhouse effect to deal with (albedo varies greatly from year to year, and from region to region), we certainly lack understanding on the buffering effect of the biosphere (right now with ~0.04% of CO2 in the biosphere, plants are positively starving. Believe it or not, the current low CO2 availability is the limiting factor for plant biosynthesis).

        And I could go on.

        I am all for reducing energy consumption and waste production. It just makes sense. But the doomsday scenarios are so out of touch with the reality that it's risible. Or it would be, if they were not the basis for schemes like the CO2 credit scam which has only one aim: ensuring that "developping" countries stay underdevelopped.

        Oh, and by the way, about the "guilt" argument that many posters here seem to swallow hook, line and sinker: domestic CO2 production is in the low single-digit percentage, even in the US. You guys are tricked into cutting your personal "carbon footprint" so that you feel entitled when geopolitical decisions are made, aimed at choking developpement in 3rd-world coutries. The Man you think you are fighting, is playing you for fools.

  2. compdoc

    Why all these dumb articles about how safe we are?

    Everything is fine. Mankind in his multitudes has no effect on the planet. Its OK to pollute and wipe out species after species. Go ahead and burn your trash and fossil fuels, and cut down the forests. Its fine to pump chemicals from lawns & farms, and human hormones and medicines into the sea. Don't notice the humans killing each other over resources around the world. Those people being washed away in massive floods, and land being swallowed by the sea are nothing to worry about. Everything is fine.

    1. Robinson
      Unhappy

      Re: Why all these dumb articles about how safe we are?

      "...Don't notice the humans killing each other over resources around the world. Those people being washed away in massive floods, and land being swallowed by the sea are nothing to worry about. Everything is fine."

      This is called argumentum ad neurosis. I'm thinking a trip to see your GP would be a good idea.

  3. ElReg!comments!Pierre

    "Tell them lies...

    ... it's for their own good".

    Not much of a change if you ask me.

  4. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Boffin

    I'm a skeptic

    And proud of it*

    But since global temps are going up (give or take the odd data error here) and the temperature rise is caused by humans adding CO2 to the air (according to the greens) then we need a way to reduce CO2 emissions while maintaining our lifestyle.

    Hint: Nobody is going to vote for a politician who says "Turn off your A/C and central heating, get rid of your washing machine and dishwasher, and buy a smaller battery powered car"

    So .. a major source of CO2 emission is electricty generation, nuclear puts out no CO2, therefore let us change to 90% nuke generation over the next 10 years and reduce emissions that way, except the greens hate nuclear more than CO2

    But then you have to sell the idea of nuclear to a public thats been brought up on the belief that everything radioactive will instantly give you 2 heads and mutate your kids into hideous monsters (BTW that happens naturally at about age 13 anyway).

    The trick-cyclists should be finding ways to increase the public's education level so that they can understand the science being put forward regarding global warning and be able to tell the difference between the science and the emotional BS pumped out by the so called 'green' movement. Drowning puppies anyone?

    *Note, I'll be in the re-education camp with the rest of the skeptics soon

  5. Frederic Bloggs
    Facepalm

    Missed the real point

    The more scientifically and numerically literate one is, the more one can see just how ignorant and generally bereft of ideas or principles both the press and their bosom pals the politicians are. Hence all the fuss about pasties and static caravans.

  6. Albert Stienstra

    Circular viscerality

    The main point of Page’s article is that the more you know about science, the less worried you are about climate change, according to a group of letter-writers to Nature. The letter-writers also assert it is harmful to collective welfare to form such individual risk perceptions in aggregate. This can only mean that the letter-writers somehow “know” that a low risk perception of climate change is [absolutely] wrong. How do they know that?

    They then go on to say that ways should be found to make the public accept the best available [climate change] science. This can only mean that the letter-writers know what is the best available science. How can they know this? Looking at their affiliations, not one of them has any grasp of physics.

    In view of the above it is almost certain that the letter-writers belong to the group of egalitarian communitarians, as defined in their letter to Nature. This group is supposed to be more concerned with climate change risks and since the letter-writers have no grasp of physics they have acquired their beliefs from their climate science peers using system 1 reasoning, involving rapid visceral judgements and heuristics. Hence they can believe that climate change is highly dangerous and they can “know” which is the best climate science.

    Fortunately, this type of circularity is not likely to be very effective, nor is their type of science.

  7. Beachrider

    The Reg's interpretation is getting intermixed with the original intent....

    This is an important discussion. There is some climate change going on. We are mainly interested in the impact of the change and what we can do to survive.

    - If you are sure that there is NO climate change, then we probably cannot convince you here

    - Mankind's ability to turn-back the climate change by decreasing CO2 can be discussed, unless you don't believe in climate change at all.

    - The impact of non-human causes is very substantial e.g. (USGS studies on Methane increases from the Ocean floor)

    - The whole model isn't simple. Carbon-loading of the atmosphere and oceans has many possible causes and affects.

    - From a Geological perspective, history tells us that we are still coming out of an Ice Age.

    - Space/Mars probes indicate that the Sun is entering a warming phase, too.

    We really don't know how-much Mankind's CO2 generation feeds the whole process. It isn't zero, but there are some VERY LARGE components that are not associated with anthropological causes.

    It clearly helps us to manage our Carbon footprint. It might not be justifiable to levy taxes based on minor-changes, though.

    This IS about science, but the one-dimensional (liberal-conservative) analysis method is sufficient to render high impact judgements.

    1. Beachrider

      Re: The Reg's interpretation is getting intermixed with the original intent....

      INSUFFICIENT

    2. indulis

      Re: The Reg's interpretation is getting intermixed with the original intent....

      "We really don't know how-much Mankind's CO2 generation feeds the whole process. It isn't zero, but there are some VERY LARGE components that are not associated with anthropological causes."

      If you want one-dimensional analysis try the bunkum like "the climate stopped cooling ten years ago" which ignores La Nina etc (search for "Going Down the Up Escalator" ), and many other oft-repeated simplistic and invalid "proofs".

      Instead of the "VERY LARGE" components you claim, the best science that is available says that NONE of the components which can make the climate warm account for the large changes that we see, in a very short amount of time i.e. the changes we are seeing are happening too fast for it to be ice age changes or orbital changes

      As for your other statements- more/better satellites in orbit around the Earth measuring solar radiation hitting the earth say the sun is getting cooler- Mars climate changes are for other reasons, no evidence at ALL that solar incidence has gone up on Mars or other planets. Methane in the oceans is currently trapped and not venting, no USGS study says it is causing climate change. This is, not yet, but if we warm the oceans enough and melt some more icecaps by continuing with CO2 releases we just might be able to make the trapped methane release (that's positive feedback folks and not in a positive=good sense, see Arctic Climate Emergency).

      The whole IPCC report (please read!) is about a summary using multi-dimensional analysis, multiple lines of evidence, and the work which has been done across many different science disciplines to tease apart the different factors affecting climate now.

      1. Beachrider

        Re: The Reg's interpretation is getting intermixed with the original intent....

        As I said:

        - One dimensional analysis is insufficient, we appear to agree but I am not sure

        - People that don't believe in ANY climate change cannot be convinced of it in this discussion

        - The USGS doesn't know if the methane is venting or not, you made that up

        - I don't know what satellites your Solar-cooldown info, comes from. The heatup comes from Geological evidence AFAIK

        - Phoenix shows that Mars is warming up. MAVEN is supposed to explore WHY. I don't know where you got the info that all of this is false, already.

        - Methane is UP 2.6% since 1998. That is NOT in dispute. Methane is >50x as potent as CO2 in generating the greenhouse effect.

        - The multidimensional discussion is a point of agreement. My focus was that anthropomorphism through CO2 emissions ONLY was waaaay toooo narrow.

        I hope that helps...

  8. Will196

    Leading Them Along

    That’s right: Cultivate support though misinformation. After all, an uninformed, better yet misinformed, public is a lucrative public.

    Those who still think (apparently still in the majority) no longer buy the cataclysmic claims - for good reason. Global temperature hasn’t increased since the 1990s, even though CO2 has continued to increase.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?KEYWORDS=climate+scientists+panic

    And now it seems that even rising CO2 may not be connected to humans.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/19/what-you-mean-we-arent-controlling-the-climate/

    Confronted with reality, even a major figure behind those claims has been forced to concede the obvious.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html

    At least he’s still thinking.

    1. kirovs
      Flame

      Re: Leading Them Along

      Wall Street Journal? wattsupwiththat web site? This is some really serious science man! Radical! Thanks for sharing! What are you smoking by the way?

      And if you actually read what James Lovelock said you will see he is not rejecting the idea of global warming. He said that he extrapolated too far.

      The problem here buster is not that he could be wrong. The problem is he could be right. Maybe 50 years later. Well, if you don't give a shit about your offspring I guess you should not care...

  9. bigphil9009

    Hmmm

    Let's see:

    "Trick-cyclist" count = 4

    "soft scientist" count = 2

    "soft-studies" count = 3

    Lewis is like a small child who has discovered a new word, or someone who once got a laugh out of something he said and is trying to regain the acceptance that that laugh once gave him. Sad really.

  10. Doug Bostrom

    Reg credibility plunges again

    I'm left wondering if the article I just read here concerning a solid-state disk array is reliable. In that domain, I can't judge, I'm looking to El Reg for help. On the other hand, those of us who are familiar with the article described by Mr. Page know that his account is economical with the truth.

    So, is anything I read at El Reg useful? How are we supposed to know?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    Well, duh

    I get the impression from the Nature article that...

    1. If you have a strong science background and "belief" in climate change that you can use your knowledge of science to justify your position

    2. If you have a strong science background and no "belief" in climate change that you can use your knowledge of science to justify your position

    I mean really, isn't this just a bit obvious? Personal bias and scientific method have nothing to do with one another. There are plenty of biologists who don't believe in evolution.

  12. johnwerneken
    Holmes

    If it's "tricking" people to get then to change their minds 100% with no change in the facts, then let me tell you its very easy. Politicians, Priests, Magicians, and Hookers have all been doing it for at least 7,000 years. Just frame the issue a different way. On Climate for example, I bet 75% of the "skeptics" would hop to support a massive program addressing climate change, if it were done through a somewhat possible-seeming project to supply us all with plentiful low-cost energy. Note that the climate is risks largely because we seem to need that low cost energy...so I submit it is being practical, rather than sneaky, to propose such a reframe.

    Anyway I have been obtaining consensus for what I want for 50 years using that simple technique.

  13. GrantB
    Boffin

    "By Lewis Page"

    Haven't read the comments, but read enough of the article to see the entire point flying by Lewis's head. <sigh>

    If Lewis actually spent a few minutes trying to understand why he is wrong - even read some comments, then fine. For now, I won't bother reading any more.

  14. Qu Dawei
    Headmaster

    Stupidity

    ... is repeating errors, time and time again after having them pointed out. "Trick cyclists" refers to psychiatrists (a branch of medicine dealinng with abnormal psychology from a medical pint of view), not to psychologists or sociologists. I and others have pinted this out a number of times before. Until the author of this "article" stops making such elementary errors of using the wrong ter]ms, how can we be sure that the other facts are in any way correct (ignoring the point about it seeming as if it contains a cut-and-paste job from Fox news)?

  15. raving angry loony

    Saw title.

    Figured "either Page or Orlowski".

    Wasn't disappointed.

    Ignored.

    If I want propaganda, there's better sources. I find the shrill tone of those two annoying.

    There's "contrarian", then there's propaganda. One looks at all the evidence. The other only looks at evidence that suits their agenda, regardless of the source. I class L&O in the latter category.

    At this point, I don't even care if Lewis and Orlowski are correct - they're just too fucking annoying to read any more.

  16. Herby

    Be careful for what you ask for...

    ...you may just get it.

    Oh, scientific report requested on Global Warming? Here it is, but not what you expected.

    It seems that politicians do this quite often. Ask for recommendations from well meaning people, and then refuse to implement them for some reason. It works the other was as well. Implement something without ANY recommendations from well respected people.

    Never mind...

    P.S. there is a whole comic strip devoted to this and IT (Dilbert).

  17. Scott 19
    Devil

    Hey Lewis

    Do you notice that alot of people that comment on your articles have no idea about IT and just seem to come here and rant about consensus?

    I'd ask my usual TCP/IP question but they never seem to know the answer.

    I'm collecting red arrows this week please oblige Soros lovers.

  18. Madboater

    The arguments are just presented wrong

    And people who can think for themselves when presented with evidence are a little more sceptical. What a surprise.

    To date the argument has gone;

    We can prove climate change is happening, so you must all stop driving, or polar bears will lose their habitat.

    The problem with this is the evidence given doesn't support the action they want us to take, and the result of not taking the action doesn't effect us that much.

    To get people to realise the arguments need to be presented with the evidence as;

    1, Climate Change is Happening

    2, We are accelerating it un-naturally by our use of fuels etc

    3, The impacts of Climate change are going to be...

    4, These impacts are going to directly effect us by...

    As far as I have seen the only #1 has been proven. We have a fair idea of #3. However if we can do #4 then #2 may be irrelevant, as we should then be working to adapt to climate change and while we are at it, adapt to reduce our impact on it to.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I agree climate change is happening, but I do not worry about it.

    Why? because there is always climate change, the fact we may have a small effect on the climate has to just be accepted as a product of our industrialization, so rather than cry about it and live as cave men again, lets just find industrial solutions to the problems.

    Go nuclear, fission in the short term, fusion long term.

    Plant more crops/trees, suck up that CO2

    If we need to cool the planet, put up a few solar shades.

    All three are perfectly doable and non harmful (fission produces minimal waste, reprocessing recovers fuel, and IF we worked on it, the remaining radioactive sludge/debris would be usable in some kind of massive nuclear battery as anything radioactive is emitting alpha/beta/gamma radiation, that generates heat, so use it in an RTG).

  20. PeterM42
    Facepalm

    Just shows that politicians are stupid

    .....those "with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."

    But if you are a stupid politician, you will believe anything - including "global warming" which has long since been disproved to be caused (if it exists at all) by human beings.

  21. Tim Almond
    FAIL

    Effects...

    The important word here is "effects". Look at the climate change ad that was shown, with footage of puppies drowning in water, as though our whole world is going to dramatically change into something out of a Roland Emmerich movie if we leave our TVs on standby.

    Assuming the science is right (and I don't believe that the models have reached a sufficient level of accuracy, considering how close the temperature is to the margins of being "statistically significant"), we're looking at a problem that will still be smaller than malaria. Not that you'd get that impression from how much coverage climate change gets.

  22. deadfamous
    Boffin

    Soylent Green

    So simply make sure your population is ignorant of the scientific realities of carbon, the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle - then you can recycle and follow environmentally sound policies no matter how distasteful or immoral the solution.

  23. Eddie Edwards
    Paris Hilton

    El Headline

    El headline summarizes this research differently than most other reports.

    And yet, if you know more science than Lewis Page, you're probably more worried about climate change than he is. El Reg's position on this is political, not scientific. And this political position informs the way they pick and choose which evidence to report.

    Which is EXACTLY how everyone else is reporting this story - that your belief on climate change typically depends on your politics, and not on your level of scientific literacy.

    But any El Reg reader realized this a long time ago, at least as it applies to journalists. The fact that Page pretends he's smart enough to reinterpret the paper using a magically privileged viewpoint ("this is what the scientists are *really* trying to do") underlines this point quite nicely. To Page, not only is it a political issue, but everyone involved has purely political motivations. One sees the world through one's own eyes, after all.

  24. energonic

    Obvious

    Perhaps the most likely reason why more education results in more scepticism is that the figures are all open to interpretation. What degree of certainty can anyone put on a global warming prediction some years in advance of it happening? This is the realm of probability and it is notoriously hard to get right.

  25. cityeyrie

    A lot of human activity threatens humans, not just climate change

    As usual this is treated as a 'we got the message wrong' problem as opposed to honouring people's possible good sense. What were people actually asked? I am not in the business of denying that human induced climate change is happening, but as an 'egalitarian communitarian' American 'with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge' than the majority I must say I that the whole climate change hoopla has distracted us from the overt, measurable and directly human-caused problem of pollution, which relies on no model projections in the future but which can be seen killing people or otherwise impacting on their lives right now. Whatever the cause, as the climate changes people can adapt to it, as they have over the millenia. Pollution, however, of our air, water and food seems to have been forgotten in the drive to install a corrupt carbon credit scheme and in the debate over green tech. I am not particularly sceptical about whether climate change is happening, but question its importance as a threat compared to the many more direct ways humans are making the planet uninhabitable for themselves.

  26. Who Is John Galt?
    Facepalm

    Ah, so the best course of action is for the dumb people to tell the smart people how wrong they are

    Soooo.....

    Smart, educated people who understand science have doubts about the science behind the conclusion, while people who are ignorant about science agree with the conclusion unflinchingly?

    And the response to this is to try to convince the smart, science-understanding people that they're wrong and that the "egalitarian" science-ignorant people are right? About SCIENCE?

    This sounds like the people on Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares who argue with Ramsey -- who has been awarded THIRTEEN Michelin Stars -- and tell him he doesn't know anything about cooking and they know better (as they continue to fail due to poor cooking). Maybe there should be a new version of the show where "egalitarian" failing cooks undertake massive campaigns to change Gordon Ramsey's mind about how poor their food is.

    The longer I live, the more I find myself scratching my head at the immense foolishness of the human race.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.