Dunning and Kruger on Republicans’ and Democrats’ Understanding of and Concern about Global Warming
I came across this chart, which originally appeared in the journal Climatic Change (Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects), in a blog post by Julia Hargreaves (Picture of the day). I offer it here mainly because I know it will amuse Barb Tomlinson:
January 30th, 2011 at 10:43 am
So the more Republicans understand AGW the more they see it for the scam it is, the more Democrats know about it the more they ignore the scam to further socialism.
January 30th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Either that or the Republicans felt “educated” because their preferred media provides copious commentaries of hoo-hah that AGW is a scam;
perhaps so much so that few could even admit they did not understand global warming at all (missing data point on the graph may also be telling about the bluster of Republicans.)
Looks like Democrats go from being skeptical (0.4) to not skeptical (1-0.8) the more they learn of AGW, whereas Republicans have found info sources to re-inforce their beliefs.
Perhaps all this is really tellign us is that most people ar in the 0.5 range, and that those with an axe to grind (or hatchet to bury) will claim they are more knowledgable than they really are. (Refer back to the missing data point for the worst offenders.)
January 31st, 2011 at 5:02 am
I think those are all reasonable points as long as you apply them to both sides of the argument. At this point AWG is more of a religious experience than anything else because we just don’t know enough and what we do know is tainted. Even Ms. Hagreaves, her husband and their merry band of underground scientists reinforce the skeptical mind “Frustrated with the un-reproduceable state of much work published using complex computer models…” if you read some of their papers you will find they have the same concerns Skeptics have except they are coming at it from a little different tact. They seem to be convinced the AGW proponents are right, they just made some little errors and they are going to find fixes to those errors without destroying the core belief, not great science but at least they seem to finding the errors.
In regards to the first link I think this says it all “Active response Web sites by climate scientists could prove critical to counterbalancing contrarian arguments.” this paper is just sure the only reason someone wouldn’t believe AWG proponents is there is something wrong with them, they aren’t informed, educated, something. What befuddles them is all the graphs go in the wrong direction for their predetermined conclusion so the answer is to blame Rush Limbaugh. As far as I can see they don’t even entertain the idea that just maybe the pro AGW folks could be the ones with something wrong with them.
January 31st, 2011 at 5:08 am
O yeah, I love the fact they base thier shock on the fact that some people don’t believe what was in a movie :)
January 31st, 2011 at 10:42 am
Wrong direction? 2010 tied for hottest year on record. I think the movie was an attempt to summarize for lay-persons the collosal volume of science from multiple disciplines all pointing to a AGCC. If you don’t like the movie, try a University:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm
And if you don’t like what the ersities say, then fine go back to your lobbyist paid talking heads but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.
January 31st, 2011 at 11:20 am
You misunderstood, by wrong direction I mean they thought that the more informed people were the more they would believe in AGW, anyone, Democrat or Republican. That was so with Democrats. In the minds of the authors of this paper the right direction is that whoever is more informed will naturally believe in AGW, but Republicans went the other direction, the wrong direction. The more they knew the less they believed, because they were informed of the scam aspect as well as the scientific aspect. The Democrats have ignored or downplayed the scam aspect in their media as much as it has been exaggerated by the more skeptical Republican leaning media. This paper doesn’t want to acknowledge that.
January 31st, 2011 at 11:22 am
your link kind of left out a few green house gasses, like water vapor :) 76% is co2?
January 31st, 2011 at 4:35 pm
“The more they knew the less they believed, because they were informed of the scam aspect as well as the scientific aspect.”
The more they CLAIMED they knew. I’d say the only scam is from the Repubs pretending to know what they are talking about.
In other news, it looks like some people might be putting shcb’s Operation Prairie Dog ( http://www.lies.com/wp/2010/10/08/it-is-a-bad-sign/#comment-211379 ) into action.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/25/news/arizona-test
January 31st, 2011 at 8:03 pm
You don’t have to go to the gym tonight Smith! You probably burnt 150 calories doing that stretching exercise.
January 31st, 2011 at 9:09 pm
shcb,
You’re right, I did misunderstand you. (I like your real point better than my misunderstood point.) And by your interpretation of wrong direction, maybe you actually made a valid point… assuming that was what they were looking for (more learning = more support for AGW regardless of political leaning.) But how do you know that was what they were looking for? I missed that if they said it (the article was a boring scan and horribly written.) I’m guessing that you just assumed they thought that because you’re naturally a cynical curmudgeon.
January 31st, 2011 at 9:28 pm
shcb,
The conclusion of the article is worth re-reading. As it seems obvious that you missed the point the first time (as I did), here you go:
January 31st, 2011 at 9:53 pm
interesting what the climate change skeptics really think…
from 2005… http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/betting-on-climate-change/
February 1st, 2011 at 5:18 am
To your point about the conclusion Knarly, I agree with the conclusion except for one small point
Why limit it to sites that discredit climate change concerns? Is it not possible that sites promoting climate change concerns are just as susceptible to the same dynamics?
Showing global warming on Mars is important if your point is that the sun is the primary factor since sunlight hits both planets but there is no burning of fossil fuels on Mars, since there are no fossils on Mars. This is just a very biased paper that has a bunch of references at the end, other than that it is just another blog post by a pro AGW person. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognize it for what it is.
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Well FOX News has all over it’s web site that we’ve been getting too much snow for their to be any warming of the planet.
Whew. I’m so glad they solved the mystery.
(even though warmer global temps. means more water in the atmosphere which means more percipitation — rain when its warm and snow when its cold — and more serious storms. Like we’ve been seeing so much of the past several years.)
But that takes a little bit of thinking so of course Fox will say, “Look, it’s snowing in February! GW is BS!”
Sigh.
February 3rd, 2011 at 1:16 pm
that sort of sh!t works great with bears of very little brain
2010 was tied for the hottest in modern history
the trend is not down, it is up
up is not down
it isn’t leveled off
up is up
wwnj is very much entitled to his opinion
and welcome to bellow it at anyone on the 48 crosstown bus
but the facts just don’t support his nonsense
good luck debating wwnj (it’s all about the sociamalism!)