Are skeptics of man-made Global Warming more knowledgeable of science than those who say AGW is happening?

Without even looking at your article I can say yes, and I am not alone in this matter.

Quote by John Dewey: “Scepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind.”

Quote by Gerrit van der Lingen, scientist: “Being a scientist means being a skeptic.”

You have proponents of AGW who even ADMIT AGW is a scam and yet the believers and alarmists blindly suck up the faulty logic given by the likes of Gore, Ehrlich an Mann.

Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

An ignorant person just sees the smoke, whereas, the intelligent one sees the smoke and beyond..

Interesting. Perhaps that shows that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. However, if you're trying to take that as proof of your scientific literacy, you not only need to go back to school to study science, but also logic.

The ones that really know the science are the scientists, though--particularly the ones in that field. Certainly not the lay people that answered the survey. There is essentially no climate scientist that denies anthropogenic climate change, and only a few that think it has not been a significant cause of the warming.

It's pretty funny that you think you have a good knowledge of science, though, when you not only deny AGW, you also deny physics, biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

EDIT: Ooh, touched a nerve, didn't I Maxx? I'm not sure who these "little people" are that you are talking about, but I will say without apology that those who ARE trained in a subject like climate science, or physics, or geology, or medicine...or anything, really, are generally much more knowledgeable about the subject than those that aren't. Do you seriously believe that's not true? Do you live in a Bizarro world where the more you study the subject, the less you know?

On the other hand, there certainly are lay people that can be highly knowledgeable and have applied themselves toward learning it. In your particular case, however, you believe that the universe (well, at least the Earth) is 6000 years old, so you've applied your intellect to learning religious teachings rather than science. You probably know WAY more about the Bible than I do or ever care to--but you're profoundly deluded if you think your Bible studies qualify you as an expert on science. And clearly, if you think since you're one of these "skeptics" (the term is laughable when applied to deniers), that you're more knowledgeable about science than others, you're a fool.

As far as paying "bigger taxes," just when have you heard me advocate paying bigger taxes?

Another EDIT: People might be interested to know what shows "science literacy" in this study. It amounts to the following eight (yes, just 8!) questions on science, more or less at the elementary/junior high school level.

1. The center of the Earth is very hot [true/false].

2. All radioactivity is man-made [true/false].

3. Lasers work by focusing sound waves [true/false].

4. Electrons are smaller than atoms [true/false].

5. Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?

6. How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun? [one day, one month, one year]

7. It is the father’s gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl [true/false].

8. Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria [true/false].

Two of the questions are not independent (6 would not be asked unless 5 was answered correctly) and the first question is subjective. There is nothing about thermodynamics, equilibria, fluid mechanics, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, atmospheric science, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be able to answer these questions before they graduate from high school--it hardly makes them science literate. It just means that their education hasn't been a complete waste.

>>Are skeptics of man-made Global Warming more knowledgeable of science than those who say AGW is happening?<<

No. In fact, I would say that the opposite is true.

>>According to a study funded by the National Science Foundation the answer is YES.<<

No it's not.

>>The study found that as the respondents' “science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased.”<<

See? It said they were less worried about climate change, not that they were more skeptical of AGW.

>>Article: National Science Foundation Study<<

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/28/global-w...

Thanks, but I think I will take the fake news version of reality with a grain of salt.

My evaluation would probably be that people who are more knowledgeable about science are generally less worried about climate change simply because they realize it's not going to lead to sudden global catastrophe and that we can still do things to keep the situation from getting worse. Also those same people are probably actively trying to do their part.

For instance, I'm fairly sure I would get every question correct [based on the link Trevor provided], however, I'm not very concerned about climate change. That isn't because I don't accept the science or don't think that the consequences of doing nothing would be bad...I'm just not prone to being alarmed by much of anything especially when there is something I can do and I have plenty of time to work with.

Reading the actual study would be very enlightening...the article was pretty pointless.

Edit:

>>Big Gryph - Foxx didn't misrepresent anything,<<

Of course they did. That's what they do...

>>the only reason a person would lack *concern* about the planet's demise is if they didn't believe it,<<

So if I walk into a burning house, it's not because I'm sure I can get back out without significant injury, it is that I don't believe in fire or don't believe that fire is hot? (ok, wood/building materials fire)

>>thus a skeptic. That's what skepticism is.<<

No it's not. Skepticism is keeping an open mind and following the evidence though an answer may be apparent, not desperately holding on with both hands to the belief that the evidence is absolutely wrong. A real skeptic would still accept that they could be wrong and AGW could still be a real thing and a possible threat. You don't, so you are not a skeptic.

Edit 2:

>>Trevor - The more science you know the less you worry about man-made Global Warming. That's what the study found.<<

No, it isn't. You truly only see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear, don't you?

>>And if you want to quibble that a lack of concern does not equal being a skeptic, that's fine, but it's also illogical and weak.<<

No, it isn't.

>>The only reason a sane person would be unconcerned about predictions of global catastrophe is if they doubted it was true and that is a skeptic by definition.<<

Now you are talking about something else... You seem to be very confused about your own beliefs in this matter. Read what I said above about how I accept AGW, but am not concerned about 'global catastrophe' [actually even less so that climate change] because it's not immediate or entirely likely and it's still something we can do something to prevent/mitigate if we (humans) stop being greedy, selfish idiots.

Edit 3: [re: Pindar's answer]

>>Some warmers however are very clever and do know a lot of science but lack basic common sense (trevor) in which case I suppose the religious side must be kicking in.<<

lol Nice ad hominem... Not.

>>Would love to do the actual test , do u have a link?<<

Did you read Trevor's answer? Of course not... Try it some time.

Edit 4: [re: Ian's edit]

"The more science you know the less you worry about man-made Global Warming."

>>That's actually exactly what the study showed.<<

The point that I was trying to make is that the study in the original question is talking about climate change. If he can't keep the terms (and they are straight-forward and have been explained many times) straight, then how can we take his arguments seriously?

From the abstract of the paper linked to in the article you linked to:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-...

"We also find that confidence in scientists has unexpected effects: respondents with high confidence in scientists feel less responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming."

Now personally, I don't feel very responsible for AGW, though as a human and especially as an American, I do. However, as I said, I'm not very concerned because we can still do something about it and I am actively working on doing more.

_

You don't need to be a scientist to see that the AGW predictions do not match reality.

For Example

In 1988 Hansen did an interview with Rob Reiss. Hansen was asked (as they looked out a NY city window) “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?”

The answer was “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water."

Well it's 24 years later and the last time I looked the West Side Highway is not under water or anywhere close. So far the AGW predictions have been 100% wrong.

Well that's not really a surprise after a lengthy period of observing believer's answers on this site is it? Believers always show a total disregard and lack of understanding of the scientific method. For example 'consensus' is not evidence or proof and to parade it as such is a non argument in scientific terms. The cleverer ones amongst them cherry pick their data shamelessly. They seem to like grasping at the unproven and disregarding the basics of science and sadly you're never gonna get the complicated stuff right if you ignore the basics.

Some of the things I've heard here are quite simply ridiculous eg It's ok for Tim Flannery alarmist extraordinaire 'who states That sea levels will soon cover 8 story buildings near the shore', to be the climate change adviser of a major country like Australia because (wait for it) - he's academically qualified !. you couldn't make it up ! lol.

Some warmers however are very clever and do know a lot of science but lack basic common sense (trevor) in which case I suppose the religious side must be kicking in.

Would love to do the actual test , do u have a link?

Whenever a media source fails to link to the study, you have to be careful. The media has a way of glossing over nuance, and stretching conclusions. Here's a link to the study:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurre...

Note the fourth graph, showing that increasing scientific literacy polarizes perceived climate change risk. Egalitarian/communitarians, who start out concerned about climate change, become even more concerned with increasing scientific literacy. Hierarchical/individualists, who start out unconcerned about climate change, become even less concerned with increasing scientific literacy. Combined, increasing scientific literacy results in a net decrease in concern, because the hierarchical/individualists are more strongly polarized than the egalitarian/communitarians.

But we already knew that education has a polarizing effect on climate change views in America. A study in 2011 showed Democrats/liberals were more likely to believe climate change with a college degree, Republicans/conservatives were less likely to believe climate change with a college degree. ( http://environment.arizona.edu/files/env/McCright%... [PDF] )

So, the poll is another interesting data point confirming the observation that education is polarizing on this issue, just like it is on many political issues.

First of all, this is a survey of the general population, not scientist. The study shows no significant difference in knowledge about very general science and statistics questions among the general public.That is why the tile says "as knowledgeable" as it does a couple of pleases in the paper. The paper notes 57% of skeptics got the general questions about general science and statistics right while 56% of the those who thought climate change is a threat. It uses the phrase "barley outscoring" not "significantly higher." No difference. Test a different randomly selected group and the outcome may be reversed, but still not significant. The difference cannot be distinguished from random chance.

Second, the questions were necessarily related to climate change. It test general science and statistics, and showed no SIGNIFICANCE difference among respondents (I would not you to know what that means, it would be a stretch for you).

Third, what the author feels is the important finding was 'That people’s cultural views – how much they value things like individualism and equality -- affect their views on global warming much more than actual knowledge about science. Regardless of how much they know about science, individualists were relatively unconcerned about global warming, whereas those who value equality were very concerned.' Social-political views determine beliefs in the general population, not general knowledge about science and statistics (there is no difference.)

Fourth, they state (showing that Fox News has a very poor understanding or is being deliberately deceptive) that "As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased" which is INCORRECT given what they published so far. They also fail to provide the name of the study, or a link to it (if it is published in the public domain). I check Nature and it is not in the current issue (May 24), but that doesn't mean that it isn't available in a early web edition on-line. Maybe somebody can find a link to the issue table of contents (that should be free).

Jeff has the link.

I found another recent article by the author (and others) "The Cultural Orientation of Mass Political Opinion" PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS Volume: 44 Issue: 4 Pages: 711-714 by Gastil, J (Gastil, John); Braman, D (Braman, Don); Kahan, D (Kahan, Dan); Slovic, (Slovic, Paul). It may have similar results.

Another good summary is from the NSF. A little easier to read.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=1176...

However, this article is about the general public and does not reflect the consensus among the experts in the scientific community about climate change. This article explains why the public doesn't buy into the consensus - political views dictate what you believe, not your knowledge of the subject or even your ability in general science and statistics. Gee, I wonder why they did not survey scientists who have a knowledge of the subject? Oh yeah, they think that climate change is a serious man-made problem.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/10031...

The quote comes from a correlation analysis that the authors use to determine which comprehension theory to use to formulate testable measures. The Science Comprehension Theory (SCT) suggest that more scientifically literate people should be more concerned with climate change. There are a couple of decision-making process that people use to determine what they believe. System 1 suggest people will use experience to make decisions (heuristic decision making) if they have sufficient technical knowledge of a subject and this is what we use most everyday. This group typically arrives at a more inaccurate decision about climate change because it is outside their experience. System 2 of decision-making is more typically used by more the scientifically literate to reduce the inaccuracy in system 1 decisions. It draws more on scientific knowledge to arrive at decisions. The small, significant NEGATIVE correlations suggest the SCT does not apply to decision-making regarding climate change.

The cultural cognition thesis (CCT) is better correlated and consistent with perceptions about climate change. In the CCT, individuals tend to form perceptions of societal risks that cohere with values characteristic of groups with which they identify as a result of complex of psychological mechanisms. The study suggest CCT fits better as a model of how people decide about climate change than SCT, and that is why they analyze CCT measures.

The quote posted does not mean that scientifically literate people are more knowledgeable about AGW, as Fox and Maxx would have you believe. You decide if they are being deceptive. (read page one at least).

concern does not mean not believing ,i believe in climate change and i am not to concerned if the the statement read more scientists believe or or disbelieve then that would hold some more significance we know on both sides of this debate that some little knowledge is a confusing thing and we also know that with passion comes well the bending of the truth or the taking out on context to try and convince and this happens on both sides

the issue is only blurred by he said she said arguments all this debate should be argued on is data and concerning facts surveys are not reliable enough and can and are skewed by the phrasing of the question

The headline was what fox used to draw attention to the article. It is not the name of the study nor do they even provide a link to the actual study, tainting the artice as opinionated.

Secondly this was,t a group of skeptics and warmists. The study was given to what the article called "representative Americans" Representatives of what. representatives of tupperware or child pornographers??/ Nowhere does it say ths survey was given to skeptics and warmists. It only says that people with a science knowledge were LESS CONCERNED about global; warming. You have been swayed by the article title. This in no way means skeptics have more scientific knowledge.and it was a single survey given to who knows who.. In fact from some of the denier answers here, I wonder if we are dealing with middle school graduates.

Of course a 1% difference is very important to deniers!!!

Simply put, concern doesn't equal skepticism.

Nice try but like most denier questions and answers, no proof.

You are jumping to conclusions just like many others will do because the writer decided to use an alarmist title without any real evidence that the survey supported that. Fox does this a lot. So does daily mail in England. Their headlines have little to do with the actual studies they quote and they rarely provide a link to the source.

It;s orobasble that the more you know about science the more you feel able to tackle difficult subjects. so you chose the difficult precise subjects over those of mere opinion, no?.