New research on climate skepticism

Learning more about science in general may not make individuals more likely to accept the science behind climate change, according to a new Yale research paper.

In a large-scale study conducted by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, researchers determined that understanding science does not make people more likely to base their beliefs about the risks of climate change on scientific evidence. Instead, the researchers concluded that as scientific and reasoning skills increase, people who are skeptical of climate change become more doubtful, while those who are worried about climate change become more concerned. Researchers attributed this finding to individuals rationalizing science in favor of their pre-established worldview, an ability that increases with scientific understanding.

“This is the first time we have shown that the impact of peoples’ values in shaping their perceptions of risk is actually amplified by their science literacy and numeracy,” said researcher and Yale law professor Dan Kahan. “The fact that the disagreement intensifies in step with science literacy and numeracy tells us that the role culture is playing in this disagreement is much more complicated than people otherwise would have presumed.”

In a survey of over 1,500 adults, researchers measured participants’ understandings of basic science through questions such as “It is the father’s gene that decides whether the baby or a boy or girl — true or false?” and scored their quantitative reasoning skills through simple mathematical word problems. The researchers also gauged cultural values by asking participants to evaluate statements about gender, race and class, such as, “Society as a whole has become too soft and feminine.”

These results were then compared to the participants’ numerical ranking of their view on climate change risk. Individuals with a “hierarchical, individualistic” perspective tended to be skeptical toward climate change, while people with an “egalitarian, communitarian” worldview tended to believe in it, an effect that was positively correlated with scientific literacy and quantitative reasoning skills.

“This finding is robust and advances the field,” University of New Hampshire sociology professor Lawrence Hamilton wrote in an email to the News. In a phone interview, Hamilton credited the research for “confirming and extending” the conclusions of recent studies in the growing field of climate change perception research.

Hamilton questioned Kahan’s finding that people with better knowledge of science and stronger reasoning skills are slightly more likely to be skeptical of climate change than people with lower levels of comprehension, stating that the conclusion is “not yet ready for strong generalization.”

If confirmed, Kahan’s research would oppose the popular belief that controversies over climate change stem from the public’s inability to understand and interpret scientific evidence. Instead, the study demonstrates that the controversy over climate change results from the fact that peoples’ positions on climate change carry additional meaning as signals of their cultural values.

“Science is not coming through in a pristine sense,” University of Toronto sociology professor Shelly Ungar said. “Instead it is being bent by ideology. [People] are picking the science they like based on their ideology.”

Ungar, Hamilton and Kahan all attributed some of the dispute to the polarized way science is communicated in the United States. Kahan called for a “neutralize[d]” dialogue to avoid adding cultural significance to scientific fact. “We’ve got to avoid communicating that the position somebody takes on an issue has a consequence for the kind of person you are,” Kahan said.

For example, Kahan said, the only people who saw former Vice President Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” were those who already believed that climate change was a danger.

Fifty-eight percent of the American public says there is solid evidence that the average temperatures on earth have been increasing, according to a May 2011 Pew Research Center release.


  • CharlieWalls

    ‘Individuals with a “hierarchical, individualistic” perspective tended to be skeptical toward climate change,..’ That is not an obvious category to one not versed in sociology. The two words seem opposed. Secondly, the main question is human influence, primarily by oxidizing fossil carbon. That didn’t seem to be part of this study. Understanding how effective small concentrations of CO2 can be in absorbing radiant heat from the earth’s surface and an appreciation for the significance of measured isotope ratios in tracing atmospheric CO2 back to its fossil source is not easy even for an experienced scientist. Hence, this reported study seems way too vague or irrelevant.

  • Don_Harvey

    “Fifty-eight percent of the American public says there is solid evidence that the average temperatures on earth have been increasing, according to a May 2011 Pew Research Center release”.

    Well, since there is no solid evidence that average temperatures have been increasing then the 58% are wrong, aren’t they? And, one must ask, increasing since when? Wasn’t there an ice age and after that a “green” Greenland? Sounds to me that climate has a temporal variation or is cyclical in nature. For an educated scientist one must look at the evidence and the statistical variation, the means of measurement and the calibration of the measurement systems, the placements of the systems, and finally, the science of greenhouse gasses itself.

    Respecting carbon dioxide, the atmosphere is essentially saturated and has been for a long time. That is to say, a bit more CO2 has little effect on the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat. Methane, on the other hand, as well as water vapor has not saturated the atmosphere respecting the greenhouse effect.

    It seems to me that the sorts of people who fear man-caused global warming are only looking to stifle free markets and capitalism. Not a scientific statement, I know, but there is certainly more evidence proving that than the former.


  • redman

    Again climate change is not the issue. It’s the cause that is the issue. The climate has been changing since the earth was created. Now it is claimed that the climate is changing due to man’s activity. Everyone should be skeptical of that. During the middle ages the earth experienced a warming period, during the late 1800’s the earth experienced a cooling period. During the 1900’s the earth experienced a warming period. There is a lot of money in science today causing questionable science to be done .

    Researcher Faked Data in Sleep Apnea Study
    Researcher accused of faking red wine studies
    Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.
    A professor at Tilburg University has been caught using fake data in over 30 scientific papers.