Yale University Study Finds that Global Warming "Deniers" Are More Informed About Science Than Those Who Accept Theory

Those who believe man is causing dangerous global warming, er climate change, generally believe that people who don't agree with them are simply ignorant of the facts regarding the changing climate.   In other words, "deniers" are dumb or are just uneducated about the science.

Well, maybe not.  A Yale study, released in June of 2011, considered the scientific knowledge of people holding various opinions regarding climate change.  The conclusion:  people who were more scientifically literate were LESS likely to believe climate change to be a serious threat.  Quoting from the abstract of the report:

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.

The study goes on to also say that the more scientific knowledge people have, the more polarized their views are on the subject.   In other words, scientific knowledge reinforces one's respective political positions as to climate change. 

The Yale study is not the only one to reach this sort of conclusion. A 2008 study by three Texas A&M political science professors began their study with the following hypothesis:

As people are exposed to more information about what scientists know about how human activities like CO2 emissions are related to increasing global temperatures, then one should expect two things. First, one should expect to see higher amounts of information to be related to higher degrees of personal efficacy and responsibility for global warming and climate change.  Second, one should expect to see higher amounts of information to be related to heightened perceptions about the risks of global warming and climate change. Together, these hypotheses are straightforward applications of the knowledge-deficit model to the issue of global warming.

Unlike the Yale study, which measured overall scientific knowledge, the Texas A&M study measured global warming/climate change knowledge and the effect that knowledge had on the concern about the problem.  Even though they stacked the deck, they failed to prove their hypothesis:

Turning to the coefficients for the new variables estimated in Column 2, we see that, in sharp contrast with the knowledge-deficit hypothesis, respondents with higher levels of information about global warming show less concern about global warming smaller—than had previously been believed.  Turning to the coefficients for the new variables estimated in Column 2, we see that, in sharp contrast with the knowledge-deficit hypothesis, respondents with higher levels of information about global warming show less concern about global warming.

The Texas A&M professors tried to explain the result by suggesting that the perhaps the more knowledge one has, the more likely he or she is to believe science will come up with a solution to the problem of global warming.

Or, here's another possibility.  Perhaps those more knowledgeable, unconcerned people know the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth is one of a constantly changing climate, including periods when the planet was warmer and had higher CO2 levels than today, long before industrialization and cars.  Even if you accept, as I do, that the activity is man is causing some climate change, there is nothing to suggest that man is a significant factor above and beyond those natural forces that have long affected the Earth's climate.

Further, why is today's climate somehow the ideal climate?  Inevitably the climate of the planet will change and there will be winners and losers when that change comes.  For example, throughout most of the Earth's history, there has not been ice at the poles.  There is nothing man can do to stop the ice from eventually melting in Antarctica and causing a rise in sea levels.  There will be winners and losers from the rising sea levels.  This is not something that can be stopped. It's the natural cycle of the Earth's climate, a cycle that's been going on throughout the history of the planet.

What is rarely pointed out is that the fortunes of man have always flourished in warmer, more tropical periods.  Rather it is the ice ages that cause us fits. The "Little Ice" which lasted approximately 1280-1850 featured a number of plagues which devastated Europe's population.  Now an new Ice Age...that's something to be worried about.

Note: Here is a blogger's interesting take on the Yale report.