Dog Bites Man; Water Is Wet...

...the more real science you know, the more skeptical you are about global warming. Yankeefried sends in this interesting article:

The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate

A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens.

The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: Rather, the researchers and trick-cyclists who carried it out were doing so from the position that the "scientific consensus" (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact, and the priority is now to find some way of getting US voters to believe in the need for urgent, immediate and massive action to reduce CO₂ emissions.

The plan was to establish a link between knowledge and increased acceptance of global warming theories; figuring that increased awareness would make folks more likely to accept the sacrifices that need to be made to reduce factors responsible for global warming. The problem with the theory is that global warming isn't based on hard science, despite what the true believers want to think - and as it turns out, the more of a background folks have in science and mathematics, the more skeptical they are likely to be about the claims put forth by global warming.

So what's the response from the global warming community?

It does not follow, however, that nothing can be done ... Effective strategies include use of culturally diverse communicators, whose affinity with different communities enhances their credibility, and information-framing techniques that invest policy solutions with resonances congenial to diverse groups. Perfecting such techniques through a new science of science communication is a public good of singular importance.

Apparently it's to create a paragraph so devoid of actual meaning that folks get confused and wander off, eventually forgetting why they were ever looking into the background of global warming. Seriously, could they have packed more buzzwords into that paragraph? Was the goal to use the most number of words to say absolutely nothing as possible? The response to the evidence that more education = more skepticism? Of course! More diversity!

Do it again, only harder - seems like the gun controllers aren't the only ones that adhere to this philosophy...

That is all.