"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 Monday August 22 2022, @09:58PM
Indeed. I imagine if you had actually looked at history rather than bloviate about history, you would have indeed found written evidence for many nasty UK isles droughts over the historical period.
How about "driest July since 1935" [express.co.uk]? The story mentions five droughts in recent times (including the two I mentioned) as well as a more severe (as in more severe than any of the droughts mentioned so far including the present one) drought that lasted from 1765 to 1768.
There's a reason that extreme weather is the cutting edge pseudoscience of climatology.