I think I’ve found the root of Joe Romm’s problem. He needs to go back to school and learn more maths and natural sciences! At least that’s what a recent Yale University study shows.Somehow this paper got by me. Maybe this is old news, and so forgive me if this is already known. It’s nothing you’d hear about from the “enlightened” media, after all.
Recall how climate alarmists always try to portray skeptics as ignorant, close-minded flat-earthers who lack sufficient education to understand even the basics of the science, and if it wasn’t for them, the world could start taking the necessary steps to rescue itself.
Unfortunately for the warmists, the opposite is true. The warmists are the ones who are less educated scientifically. This is what a recent Yale University study shows. Hat tip: www.politik.ch.
Professor Dan M. Kahan and his team surveyed 1540 US adults and determined that people with more education in natural sciences and mathematics tend to be more skeptical of AGW climate science. Of course this means that people will less education are more apt to be duped by it.
Surprised? Here’s an excerpt of the study’s abstract (emphasis added):
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.
Time for you warmists to go back to school (though I seriously doubt many of you are capable of learning much of anything, on account of extreme cultural cognition disability).
To learn more, here’s a video on Cultural Cognition and the Challenge of Science Communication which looks at risk perception w.r.t. the issues of climate change, and here’s a video on Cultural Cognition Hypothesis.
9 responses to “Yale Paper Shows That Climate Science Skeptics Are More Scientifically Educated”
Watched the video. Kahan is right that people with an individualistic perspective don’t want restriction of commerce and so are skeptical of the enviro-message’s aspects.
But he does not delve into the question of WHY people develop the individualistic perspective in the first place; and that is because commerce WORKS and saves lifes every day that would perish under the ham-fisted rule of central planners.
But wait, I hear you say, what about the fabled Cuban’s life expectancy?
Simple – if ham-fisted central planners are good at anything, it’s cooking the books:
Right you are. Today’s weatern prosperity, which has spilled to many other places all ofer the world, is due to free markets and allowing people to enjoy the fruits of their labour. All other political systems where governments try to run things have failed and ended up in a heap of rubble.
Is it fair to refer to the EPA as eco[nomy]-terrorists now?
“Because there is another way of looking at that $130 billion “expense”. One industry’s expense is another industry’s sales bonanza.”
Sigh. Can’t count anymore the occurences of the Broken Window fallacy. The enviros sound like a broken record.
Talking about enviro-madness: here’s Der Spiegel reporting that Swiss and German researchers have found a way to use formic acid as hydrogen storage.
“One Liter of acid contains 53 gram of Hydrogen” they say. So you would fill up your car with formic acid… wait. 53 gram per liter? Is that a lot?
From http://www.rps.psu.edu/hydrogen/form.html :
“The problem, explains Eklund, is that “when it comes to energy density, gasoline blows hydrogen away.” While hydrogen packs more energy per pound than gasoline — roughly three times more — it fills four times the space. To visualize: A standard 15-gallon fuel tank holds about 90 pounds of gasoline. To get the same amount of energy from hydrogen, you’d only need about 34 pounds of fuel, but holding it would take a 60-gallon tank.”
So to get an equivalent of 15 gallon of gasoline you’d need 17000/53=320 liters of formic acid. Oh, and during the release of the Hydrogen the formic acid also releases CO2 says Der Spiegel… nevermind.
Install a €100,000 mail sorting system to save €100 in wages per annum (if it ever works at all). Business as usual. A surefire entrepreneurial scheme.
BTW: Any news of the Italian perpetuum mobile thatwas to be shipped soon?
from Sept 16th:
More tests, more devices, allegedly working…
“Time for you warmists to go back to school (though I seriously doubt many of you are capable of learning much of anything, on account of extreme cultural cognition disability).”
My degree is in Electronics (specialising in radiocommunications). I thought I was a sceptic of AGW. When I saw how my ‘side’ were getting trounced by the ‘opposition’ in both blogs and the science, I decided there was only one solution…
As a result I’ve realised that my former scepticism was a product of lazy thinking and I now read climate science as a hobby.
Yet I think AGW is one of the most pressing issues we face. In the short term (first quarter of C21) resource depletion and the transfer of economic power to the east is the most serious, but in the medium to long term (second quarter of C21 and likely afterwards) AGW is the pre-eminent threat.
So no I won’t go back to school (I’m too busy as the RF specialist where I work), and I certainly won’t take any lectures from someone who whips up such poorly considered posts based on marginally significant differences.
PS I’m not a warmist, I’m a real sceptic.
Re resource depletion: Björn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist” dispels that notion. Don’t confuse reserves and resources. We have energy resources for 1,500 years. Similar for the other raw materials.