SoylentNews

You wrote that the study shows that agreement with the scientific consensus is linked with greater ignorance of the subject. In fact, the null hypothesis (r = 0) wasn't rejected at any of the three statistical significance levels used in the study. The authors do not claim that there is a positive relationship. You omitted that important information.

Given that there was such a link - a correlation - I was indeed correct to write that.

What's important about that information? I doubt they significance tested that climate change would be the only one of the seven questions they asked that wouldn't show the peculiar correlation noted above. Significance testing is dubious [xkcd.com] in the first place, but I have a reasonable hypothesis for why the correlation could be a real thing.

Also, let's quote the authors about why climate change is different:

In discussing why GM foods showed the pattern but climate change did not, Fernbach et al. (25) suggested that a potentially important difference between the issues is degree of political polarization, with climate change attitudes much more polarized by political affiliation than attitudes on GM foods. Political polarization refers to the degree to which people from different ideological groups (e.g., conservatives versus liberals) differ in their positions on an issue. When an issue is highly polarized, there may be less room for individual knowledge to influence attitudes because they are instead driven more by community influence.

You're an anecdotal example of exactly this. You do have a competent understanding of the climate system. However, it appears that your position on the issue is influenced heavily by your political views about the matter.

First, you exhibit genuine anti-scientific reasoning here - merely asserting stuff. I'll just note that if you had chosen not to perceive my position as "influenced heavily" by political views you have little knowledge or understanding of, then your argument would fall apart. An argument of this sort should be objective, independent of the opinion of the person making the argument.

Second, it's a silly argument because both climate change and GM food are heavily politicized. I think what's important here is who is doing the politicizing. With climate change, advocacy for a particular climate change interpretation and mitigation fix is heavily politicized. How else do you get the official cognitive dissonance of asserting that 1.5 C is the maximum global warming allowed and that it can be achieved by a near future ending of almost all greenhouse gases emissions, while ignoring both the serious economic consequences of that ending (such as increased poverty and human population growth) and that their models already have more than 1.5 C of warming baked in (more like 2 C of warming if we accept the assumption of 3 C of warming per doubling of CO2 equivalent)?

My hypothesis is that if we had instead gone with the consensus question of "Does global warming require an urgent, radical reduction in human greenhouse gases emissions?" we would find a strong reversed correlation with people with greater knowledge of the subject opposing the question.