Study in Nature Climate Change Journal - "Deniers" more Science Savvy than Warmists

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/28/global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-science-new-study-claims/?test=latestnews

Ok 57% vs. 56% is almost certainly not a statistically significant difference...but I could not resist. The big point is, however:

"As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased," the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes.



So the more radical and ....."Eco- Nutty" warmists are, the less they really understand about the subject.

Which is what I have been saying all along.......


Honestly folks, if those 3 sample questions are representative of the test, (and assuming they did not take this sample from people living under a bridge), anything less than 90% in my opinion you are to ignorant to drive a car, much less vote on policy re. climate change.....

 

Here's the science questions: (pdf)

Knowing the answers to these questions makes someone more science savvy? Give me a break.

"Honestly folks, if those 3 sample questions are representative of the test, (and assuming they did not take this sample from people living under a bridge), anything less than 90% in my opinion you are to ignorant to drive a car, much less vote on policy re. climate change....."
Almost agree with you; I 'd change your "90%" to "100%".

 

It's hardly that: the regression slope is a whopping -0.05!

In other words, answering these questions well or poorly does not predict opinion on climate change risk. The fact that the slope is barely below zero is a pretty thin reed to cling to. So of course Faux Snooze clings to it.

Regarding the level of the questions, all I can say is: as usual, Alabama is in the bottom quartile.

 

As usual, you do not understand the point. That being the more radical warmists (like you) scored more poorly than those more towards the middle. But takje it up with the Yale professors who make that point...

as usual, Alabama is in the bottom quartile Proof please.

 

This is a post for idiots...of course it would come from Fox news.

I am from Alabama and I got them all right.

And as far as surveys go...every one should know they are the least relable source of information.

I'll just mosey on back to mah still now.

 

A few things for folks here to think about:

When I put up posts on this forum showing how to confirm the NASA/NOAA/CRU global-average temperature results with raw data and "hand rolled" computer code, all those "science savvy deniers" seemed to go MIA.

When I demonstrated that UHI was not a factor in the warming trend, I got no meaningful responses from any "science savvy deniers".

When I demonstrated that adjustments/homogenization are not needed to confirm the NASA/NOAA/CRU warming trends, I got no substantive responses from any "science savvy deniers".

When I demonstrated that the "dropped stations" claim made by Anthony Watts was completely wrong, still no responses.

Even when I described exactly what I did and shared my code -- still no substantive responses from any of those "science savvy deniers".


So when I hear all this chatter about "deniers" who really understand the science, the first question that pops into my mind is, "Well, where are they?".

It would seem to me that if the "deniers" here were so science-savvy, they'd jump all over a thread where real results from real data were presented. But for some reason, that does not seem to be the case.

 

The other obvious issue is that the science literacy scores in this study were seriously non-Gaussian, and therefore standard statistical tests are not necessarily valid. That includes the tests for statistical significance (which just barely reached the 95% significance threshold).

 

What gets me...what really grates my cheese...is when a simple weapon to fight global warming is proposed that would only benefit people, such as planting more trees, or reclaiming deserts, or improving grazing practices...

They fight that too!