Found This Interesting

[Gawron]

I found this interesting.

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change

Quote from the 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 serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.”

Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503

Often the argument is made that those who question the notion of AGW simply do not understand the science, usually because they are to stupid to do so. This study appears to challenge that supposition.

Then the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication put out this study entitled “Knowledge of Climate Change Across Global Warming’s Six Americas”.

The six “Americas” are defined by this chart:

The “alarmed and concerned” respondents were categorized as follows:

However, the “Doubtful and Dismissive” respondents were categorized in this manner:

So, those who doubt or dismiss have as good or “sometimes” better understanding than those who are alarmed and concerned. In addition, the “alarmed and concerned” apparently suffer from a higher incidence of being confused about the whole question.

The study does address the fact that many individuals, including those part of the survey, may not need to study or be aware of all the information concerning AGW within their daily lives. This is acknowledged to have been a factor in how the respondents answered the questions posed.

Quote:

“Further, many of these questions are outside the everyday practical needs of most people. Most people don’t need to know about Climate Change in their daily life, thus it is not surprising that they have devoted little effort to learning these details.”

Source for Yale Study: http://www.environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Knowledge_Across_Six_Americas.pdf

Before the inevitable responses begin pouring in, posting this is not meant to start a debate on AGW, but rather on the notion that those who question it are simply a bunch of ignorant misanthropes.

 

[Blayz]

Your post is all over the place, and the first link site is down. From the second, when grading the 6 categories over 81 questions (Grading A to F)
49% of alarmed passed (A,B or c)
33% of concerned
16% of cautious
5% disengaged
17% doubtful
4 % dismissive


It looks like ignorant misanthrope is a perfectly apt title. Either that or cherry picking things from population studies is a stupid idea. One of the two.

 

[Gawron]

The site is only temporarily down. In addition, for some reason one of the charts meant for the OP did not post. I have fixed it and perhaps this will clarify matters.

It is not an apt title, your comment only indicative of the standard categorization made of those who don't subscribe to the groupthink. Perhaps discussion without derision would be in order.

 

[MattRose]

Even if we buy into this, does this change what the people in the field of meterology (or whatever is most closely related to the science behind GW) agree is the truth behind GW? Don't most meterologists (or whtever they are) think GW is happening? Shouldn't the experts be believed even when they say things we don't like? The politics behind "who thinks what" is the problem. These guys make the most noise and cause the most harm either by being doomsayers or by claiming it's a myth.

If I take the position that GW is a myth, can I not still want less pollution? Eastern Europe and Africa don't care about the environment (for the most part) and thus they will always be able to produce certain things more cheaply than western countries. Relaxing laws on pollution here will only cost us money downstream (literally). I have never understood why conservatives don't conserve, but liberals do. Why is it so important for conservatives to pollute. Is that biblical?

 

[Cabal]

How is being aware of greenhouse gases (and knowing it's not about the ozone layer) "understanding the science"?

That's scarcely scratching the surface of what global temperature involves - and a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

 

[Blayz]

It is not an apt title, your comment only indicative of the standard categorization made of those who don't subscribe to the groupthink.

No, it was a reflection of one of the tables in the study.

Perhaps discussion without derision would be in order.

OK then. This was a study on the communication of GW to the general populace. It clearly shows better communication is in order. However, the majority of people accept that it is correct, so they are not doing such a bad job overall.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Removed Post.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

This study doesn't really seem to prove that knowing more about global warming leads people to disbelieve in it, but it is interesting. It brings up questions about how people go about getting information about politically hot-button issues. How many people who believe in global warming only believe in it because they know that the majority of scientists agree that it's happening, and how many people who are dismissive have picked up their information from politically biased sources that lead them to think (indirectly, by appealing to scientists who disagree with the consensus) that the majority of scientists don't agree that it's happening?