The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks

[joshcryer]

Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.

Source: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html

A trivial result (anyone could've pointed this out), but it's nice to see a study backing it.

[dipsydoodle]

1. "deficit in comprehension"

is a polite way of saying stupid - stupid being lack of understanding as opposed to ignorance which is complete lack of knowledge.

[bananas]

2. Prediction vs Actual Response

[joshcryer]

3. I think part of that is due to the science literate / numeracy types think we can solve it.

This is why I posit that geoengineering will be the fall back since nothing of significance is being done about CO2.