Better Education Causes Climate Scepticism

Graduation day at Cambridge University, a recent US Government survey has found the better educated you are, the less your belief in the junk science of Anthropogenic Global Warming

Dont you just love it when a survey is commissioned, and those paying for the survey are confident that they will get the answer they want, then they get completely the wrong answer from their point of view.

This is has just happened to the US Government who were confident that their survey would confirm the Green lie that climate sceptics are anti-science, ignorant, have some sort of right wing disease/disability  and are all in the pay of big oil.

The survey confirms their worst fears, the better educated you are the less chance there is you will believe in the junk science of man made climate change:

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 first problem here is that only the poorly educated, those with religious beliefs and/or a political agenda could believe, or pretend to believe that science could ever be settled.

Thus, in a just-published US National Science Foundation-funded study, participants’ science knowledge and numeracy was tested and compared with levels of concern regarding climate change. The soft-studies profs were amazed, however, to find that as one moves up the scale of science knowledge and numeracy, people become more sceptical, not less.

According to the profs, this is not because the idea of imminent carbon-driven catastrophe is perhaps a bit scientifically suspect. Rather it is because people classed as “egalitarian communitarians” (roughly speaking, left-wingers) are always highly concerned about climate change, and become slightly more so as they acquire more science and numeracy. Unfortunately, however, “hierarchical individualists” (basically, right-wingers) are quite concerned about climate change when they’re ignorant: but if they have any scientific, mathematic or technical education this causes them to become strongly sceptical.

This confirms many recent findings that belief in mand made climate change is far less in the developed nations, than it is in the developing nations, though it is difficult to know if climate change belief in these nations is more about getting their grasping hands on billions of dollars of western money in the handouts, they believe is their right.

As scientific/tech knowledge and numeracy appears to be more common among “hierarchical individualists” than among “egalitarian communitarians”, this meant that in the sample as a whole the effect of more scientific knowledge and numeracy was to increase scepticism.

Given that the profs had assumed from the start that scepticism is wrong, this forced them to the conclusion that simply teaching people more science and giving them more facts and numbers is not a good idea as it will lead them into bad (sceptical) decisions

So much for right wingers being ignorant hicks, birthers and believing that world is only 6,000 years old, which is rapidly becoming the favourite warmist smear.

The survey also provides further evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a religion, as all religions need fear and ignorance to flourish and wither in the face of real science and fact, as this survey has proven.

They write:

This form of reasoning can have a highly negative impact on collective decision making … it is very harmful to collective welfare for individuals in aggregate to form beliefs this way.

The findings are that education is bad thing when free thinking individuals do not go along with what has been decided is the moral high ground of group consensus, and that if the great Anthropogenic Global Warming scam is to achieve its objectives then people need to be kept in fear and ignorance by telling them they don’t understand the science, and doubters marginalised as fringe lunatics.

Sound familiar?

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on May 31, 2012, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Global Warming, Green Lies, Population Control, Social Engineering, Wealth Redistribution and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.

  1. Yet another reason the Lefties have been gradually dumbing down our all of western education systems over the last forty or fifty years!

  2. “”For a mammal of its size the aardvark has a tiny brain…”( Encyclopedia Britannica)

  3. “This form of reasoning can have a highly negative impact on collective decision making … it is very harmful to collective welfare for individuals in aggregate to form beliefs this way.”

    Collective welfare is for sheep and cattle, NOT self-respecting human beings.

  4. Well duh, anyone educated in any science is going to be, by the very nature of the field, skeptical of the world and the way they view it will be more skeptical than non-science educated peers. Of course, non-science educated folk clearly are leaping upon this finding as revelationary, but any scientist would be surprised if the findings were to the contrary and all would welcome skepticism (evidence based reasoning) over denialism (opinion based conclusions without evidence).As usual, Tory Aardvark relies on the opinion of other denialist bloggers for the meat in this blog post, rather than the freely available source material (// which he could have in interpreted himself and looked like less of a mindless parrot.
    Like all scientific studies this one started out with a hypothesis and set out to test it. The hypothesis was wrong. Score 1 for science. For those of you who don’t understand – science wins regardless of the outcome as long as the scientific method is followed and the study can be repeated resulting in similar outcomes and therefore conclusions. I would first suggest that the basic flaw (us scientists call this ‘a limitation’) in this study was in the assumption that science educated minds would not be as skeptical as they really ought to be. Second the study samples 1450 people and asks questions like True or false, electrons are smaller than atoms? and Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria, true or false? to determine scientific literacy. Now it may be that you think these are questions that only a scientist would know, but personally I think anyone who paid attention through high school should know the correct answers here.

    • Brian G Valentine

      Skeptical? To be fair, I have never heard anything come from greenie thinking that sounded RATIONAL.

      “The polar ice will be gone in five years!” “We’re going to have 20% total electricity come from wind by 2020!” We’re going to have solar panels supply 7% electricity by 2020!” “We’re going to get gasoline from algae from now on!”

      The list goes on and on. It is complete idiocy. Greenies have done more to promote “skepticism” than anyone else has.

      Nothing I have done or said could demolish the greenie agenda as well as greenies themselves have. Unfortunately a lot of people have been put out of work by this, and it is long past the time for it to come to a screeching,


      • Are we on the same subject? I posted on the scientific method and how it promotes skepticism, the flaws in this study and the lack of rigour inherent in reblogging without even checking the source material. You on the other hand are ranting about left-wing environmentalists. There seems to be some confusion between science and politics. Scientists are not all liberals, nor are environmentalists. Roundly attacking anyone who one disagrees with as a liberal, is fairly close to fascism.

      • Brian G Valentine

        About all I did was to point out why “skepticism” appears to be so rampant amongst the sane.

        When it comes to lunatic environmentalism, many more liberals than conservatives seem to take leave of their sanity, I have noted.

        For some strange reason. I’m not going to elaborate why that might be, only note it as an observation.

        This dialogue is increasing in length, and has now (virtually) vindicated Godwin. It didn’t take as long as it usually does.

    • Preach it brother, Preach it!!!! If only there was any hope that those who need to listen to what you said do so, and internalize it…

  5. Hi Tory,

    I’m the politics editor at Before It’s News. Our site is a People Powered news platform with over 4,000,000 visits a month and growing fast.

    We would be honored if we could republish your blog’s rss feed in our Science category. Our readers need to read what experts like you have to say.

    Syndicating to Before It’s News is a terrific way to spread the word and grow your audience. If you are interested in syndicating with us, please contact me at

    sean [at] beforeitsnews [dot] com

    Thank you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: