Climate skepticism linked with more scientific knowledge

For years, the left has claimed that conservatives and others who do not view global climate change as a “crisis” are simply “anti-science.” The reality, according to a new study, “High science literacy actually boosts the likelihood that certain people will challenge what constitutes credible climate science.”

If you ARE someone who takes science seriously, this finding should not be surprising (although it was apparently surprising to the folks doing the study). After all, anyone who is more knowledgeable about a given topic is likely to be more willing to buck the dominant paradigm and have their own views on various issues. The ignorant, on the other hand, are likely to fall in line with whatever the media and/or the so-called “experts” say.

Given that the media and government so often work hand-in-hand to promote the belief that more government is always and everywhere the answer to all of our problems, the role of organizations like the Rio Grande Foundation is to encourage skepticism of these institutions through education.

HT: Ted Berthelote

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Replies to “Climate skepticism linked with more scientific knowledge”

    1. No one supports air pollution, least of all, capitalists. After all, pollution is just another word for waste. Entities operating in a capitalist system have strong incentives to reduce waste. We also support common-sense regulations that reduce the harm to human beings inflicted upon them by pollution.

  1. “… least of all, capitalists.” Are you kidding? Talk about lip service.

    Capitalists are in favor of minimizing costs to their enterprises, and maximizing revenues and growth of their enterprises. If they are responsible, true capitalists, that is all they are interested in; that is their job, their mandate, as capitalists. The delta, of course, is profit.

    Whether or not society benefits, or is harmed, is of little or no consequence as long as business is not compromised. See for example the tobacco companies, McDonalds, gambling casinos, et.al.

    If capitalists’ costs can be shifted to the commons, that is the public sector, then they are greatly in favor of doing just that.

    My goodness, have you ever viewed the history of pollution in this country, along with some of the most egregious examples? Can you doubt that capitalists are not in favor of pollution as long as it doesn’t impact them personally, or result in costs to their enterprises?

    Examples … since you’ll no doubt insist on some: The sulfuric runoff from the abandoned mines in Butte, MT, Love Canal, Rocky Flats, Peabody Coal Company, any number of oil-drilling messes that I could take you to personally in WY, CO and elsewhere. Oh, and please, if that’s not enough, challenge me for fifty or sixty more examples!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.