"Consuming foods with ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming foods modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."
The primary conclusion is that for a number of claims that are generally held to be true by consensus, opposition to those results show interesting correlations: opposition correlates negatively with objective knowledge (what the final test indicated that the subject knew about the field), and positively with subjective knowledge (what the subject thought they knew about the field). Those who were most opposed tended to exhibit a large gap between what they knew and what they thought they knew.
Here's the list of subjects and then I'll get to the punch line:
Which one wasn't like the others?
Climate change!
The question was in the same vein as the rest:Most of the warming of Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century has been caused by human activities.
Unlike every other field listed in this research, there was a slight positive correlation between opposition to the claim and objective knowledge of the subject (see figure 2).
What other consensus viewpoints are out there where agreement with the consensus correlations with greater ignorance of the subject? Economics maybe?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 21 2022, @06:27PM
You're confirming my alleged hope.
Well, how severe again is this drought for the British Isles? I note that Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] mentions two in 1976 and 2003. Seems to be a bunch of them and didn't mention this year as anything special.
And the vague "Miyake Event" happened some point in 774 maybe. If it happened today, we'd have video timestamped to the second.
Our ability to determine rate of change degrades fast as we go back in time.