SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For example, one on GM foods:
"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:
- GM foods
- Vaccination
- Homeopathic medicine
- Nuclear power
- Climate change
- Big bang
- Evolution
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 Wednesday August 24 2022, @10:26PM
Since you speak of my narcissism, let's talk about me for a bit. Way back in 1994, I joined a play money betting market (I think it started life as "Idea Futures" and later moved on to the Foresight Exchange [ideosphere.com] where almost 30 years later, I remain the second highest scoring player in that game.
Well anyway, they created a claim way back in 1994 that sea level would rise a meter by 2030. Being of open mind, I considered the possibility and did some research. Turns out sea level rise was somewhere over 3 mm per year back then. I concluded that there was no way it would hit a meter of sea level rise by 2100, much less by 2030. There were some suckers who felt otherwise and could get pretty hysterical about it. Needless to say, they contributed to my score in that game.
Since, I've seen almost 30 years of this sad, ridiculous bullshit. Something terrible was always going to happen in a decade or two, but it never did. Something scary was happening now - if you squinted at the data the right way. Sure, there is climate change, but the rollout is considerably slower than advertised and the consequences far less dire. Yet they keep doubling down with more over-the-top scenarios and fringe statistics like what's been discussed in this thread.
There's a reason I believe that the above study shows more than just a statistical quirk. Even the relatively knowledgeable advocates for climate change mitigation have their brains shut off. And everyone is so absolutely certain about crap nobody has a clue about such as the alleged unprecedented weather of the three studies mentioned earlier. It's precisely the sort of person this study was meant to study.
My take? I was right then, and I remain right now because I understand this phenomena better. It's not about climatology. It's about the human mind and its need for scary stories.