Does increased knowledge of science make you more likely to be worried about environmental issues?

According to PISA (the international student assessment body), American students have an above-average level of optimism regarding environmental issues. This has been linked to the fact that out of the 30 countries tested by PISA, American students rank 21st for scientific knowledge.



Within America, PISA also reported that there was a fairly consistent trend where, the less students knew about science, the more likely they were to be optimistic about the dangers posed by environmental issues.



Here is the report: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/28/鈥?/a>



So, do you agree that it seems likely that being more scientifically knowledgeable makes you more likely to see the threats caused by enivornmental problems? And does that, in turn, imply that a lack of concern about environmental problems is caused by ignorance?Does increased knowledge of science make you more likely to be worried about environmental issues?Yes, I think that's very true.



Global warming is a particularly good example. The more a person researches the subject, the more they tend to be concerned about it. Just look at this site - the people who say we don't have to worry about global warming are the ones who don't understand the basic science, and often can't even distinguish between local weather and global climate. The ones who have researched the science are the ones who are concerned about the subject. In fact the people who know the most about the subject - climate scientists - are the most concerned about it.Does increased knowledge of science make you more likely to be worried about environmental issues?
No, you could be less concerned about environmental issues, if you actually spend time in "the environment." If you're stuck in the middle of Chicago, New York, LA, Calcutta or Bejing, you don't see, experience or understand much about "the environment." If you live in Montana, rural Washington, Minnesota or Alaska, you know that the environment has no problems and that it's much stronger than the total of human beings.Does increased knowledge of science make you more likely to be worried about environmental issues?Okay, thanks, I've read it now.



I would think it fairly obvious that this is self selection - people who are concerned about their environment are far more likely to take an active interest in it, and therefore to pursue a career in science. They are already more likely to be pessimistic about the environment *before* their education rather than because of it.



Here's the theory of self-selection bias:



""Self-selection makes it difficult to determine causation. For example, one might note significantly higher test scores among those who participate in a test preparation course, and credit the course for the difference. However, due to self-selection, there are a number of differences between the people who chose to take the test and those that didn't"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-select鈥?/a>

.Does increased knowledge of science make you more likely to be worried about environmental issues?
yes, i agree. more science knowledge = better understanding of the coming human induced climate crisis.



i couldnt find the original, but these reports do seem to show it is a worrying trend;



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200鈥?/a>

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cn鈥?/a>







i find this u.s. gov. report equally worrying, as it seems to concentrate on criticizing the pisa method and ideology rather than addressing the results.

http://www.magisnet.com/pdf/us.education鈥?/a>Does increased knowledge of science make you more likely to be worried about environmental issues?Yes I would imagine . I am 57 and have researched it on my own however . It does not take a rocket scientist to know there is change occurring . The world may have become smaller place yet in some ways we here in the USA are so isolated with in our cities from the environment .
The desire for ignorance (paradise) is the cause of all the worlds problems.Does increased knowledge of science make you more likely to be worried about environmental issues?
It has more to do with understanding science than accumulation of knowledge. That won't go over well with alarmists because they are not typically the types that are into actually understanding something. They are more like the high school students in their first science class that think they understands the nature of the universe. If you don't have the ability to think for yourself and have only limited knowledge (which is pretty much a given since nobody truly understands climate), you could be fooled by algore, Mann, Hansen and other politically motivated activists. Gore is certainly not qualified to have a relevant opinion based on his abysmal display of science knowledge yet much of the knowledge from the poll obviously comes from the blathering of algore and other activists. Only an ignorant person would claim that he knows that it is going to be significantly warmer because of the CO2. There is nothing scientifically relevant to base that on. It isn't particularly meaningful if a bunch of ignorant children listen to some politician or activist blathering on about it yet that is exactly the sort of evidence that is given by global warming activists. As a scientist, I tend to ignore groups who use political methodology to advance agendas. They deserve a much higher burden of proof from a rational point of view since they obviously aren't motivated purely by what is true. That is especially true when you actually learn how pathetic and baseless the theories that underpin their propaganda are.
In short, yes.



I think this is a damning reflection of failures in American society as well. During the 1960s, American education in science was excellent, due in some part to the impetus of the space programme.



Since then, things have got much worse. Is this due to the influence of the religious right in America which has suppressed honest teaching of science, especially evolution? Is it due to the perception (all too prevalent in Britain as well) that science is a hard subject and that is much easier to study the arts? Is it down to a lack of specialist science teachers? I can't speak for America, but I know in British schools, when I was growing up in the 1980s, we had separate physics, biology and chemistry lessons - now these tend to be rolled into combined science.



I also think you could chart the rise of New Age quackery as a failure of scientific education. If you are not taught the scientific method and how to distinguish facts from rubbish, then you are open to all sorts of people trying to fleece you with rubbish about homeopathy, crystal healing, osteopathy, etc.



Finally, is it in the government's interest to have a populace who can examine evidence, question facts and look for answers for themselves, or a bunch of mindless sheep who will believe whatever propaganda they are told?Does increased knowledge of science make you more likely to be worried about environmental issues?
Our water is getting cleaner. Our air is getting cleaner. Our soil is getting cleaner. Our industries are becoming more efficient. What part of that is alarming to you. Instead of believing everything you read and having a knee-jerk reaction that Americans are stupid because they are too optimistic, perhaps you should examine your own need to be pessimistic, assuming you agree with the article which based on your presentation of it, you do.



Alarmists are always quick to blame humans for everything bad in spite of evidence to the contrary. Human life has improved dramatically every century. Three hundred years ago, you probably wouldn't be able to care so much about the environment because you would worry where your next meal was coming from. London was a open sewer. All big cities were cess pools. Now we have clean water, plenty of food, plenty of health care to live to old age, etc. But now we have bred a bunch of spoiled brats that don't have any appreciation for it. They whine and complain that things are so bad.



There is a saying: Those that don't have enough food, have one problem. Those who have plenty of food have many problems. I think we simply have too much food in the world today and it has bred a unhealthy appreciation in too many people of how well off they really are.
where's the guy who claims that the more educated you are, the more likely you are believe in that biased, untrustworthy, peer reviewed nonsense, as opposed to looking out your front door and obviously see that it's cold, and we've obviously started into a global cooling phase since 1998, when temps.... ah since 2007, when temps started falling precipitously, because the sun has shut off, and we're scheduled to have an 80 - 15,000 year ice age starting in 2020.



(Aoife, what i've said really has been posted. honest. ask any of several long time posters.)



So, to directly answer, Yes, and No.



There are some scientists that deny global warming. Lindzen and Singer are among them.



On the other hand, the consensus of all honest science organizations is that it is a problem.



http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-clima鈥?/a>



%26lt;%26lt;January 22, 2009 A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.



The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent).%26gt;%26gt;



97% of climatologists think that there's a problem, and we're causing it.



http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2009geoeng鈥?/a>



From the American Meteorological Society: %26lt;%26lt;Human responsibility for most of the well-documented increase in global average temperatures over the last half century is well established. Further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate changes that can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations%26gt;%26gt;



%26lt;%26lt;Human responsibility for most of the well-documented increase in global average temperatures over the last half century is well established. Further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate changes that can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations .... impacts are expected to include further global warming, continued sea level rise, greater rainfall intensity, more serious and pervasive droughts, enhanced heat stress episodes, ocean acidification, and the disruption of many biological systems. These impacts will likely lead to the inundation of coastal areas, severe weather, and the loss of ecosystem services, among other major negative consequences.%26gt;%26gt;



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_鈥?/a>



%26lt;%26lt;With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.%26gt;%26gt;



IE, NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL.

(In contrast to the frequent denier claim that some/ many/ most scientists are beginning to doubt that global warming is real.)

In addition, it is worthy of note that the last group to admit the problem was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.



Quite clearly, increased education is an indicator of increased knowledge, and increased concern about global warming.
Absolutely. Taking on the topic of this forum, global warming is the epitome of a "data-driven" scientific topic. Analogy.



Doctors have a very hard time getting patients to take blood pressure medications. Patients don't see any noticeable benefits, it just changes some numbers on a blood pressure test. And their risk of heart attack, stroke, etc. There often are side effects, which may be somewhat unpleasant.



Most people don't "see" global warming, unless they're maple syrup farmers in Vermont, hunters in Maine, or something like that. The risks are only some numbers changing on a chart, and changing pretty slowly, a few hundredths of a degree per year. The change is pretty much swamped out by variations in weather they DO notice.



I've thought that if a serious "skeptic" here like Meadow, got a degree in science, her attitude would no doubt change a great deal.



EDIT - From Meadow: I've got a post-grad in political science - does that count? :-)



Only in showing that you have a sense of humor. %26lt;grin%26gt; Otherwise, it's about the same benefit here as a degree in Philosophy.
Increased knowledge, as a general principle, increases awareness, because with that knowledge base you are able to see patterns and trends that you did not see or understand before. This is true of science, as well as other subjects such as history and math. With regard to the environmental issues and the issue about knowledge, whether science in general concern would logically be related to increased scientific knowledge. With regard to specific issues such as climate change, carbon dioxide emissions, other greenhouse gases, sulfur dioxide emissions, carbon monoxide emissions from coal-fired plants,dioxin emissions, waste heat going into the environment, hot water from cooling towers of nuclear plants going into the ocean, undersea vocanoes, hot springs in the Artic, the variablity of the Sun in the amout of energy it puts out and its relation to the solar cycle, as well as climate records from tree rings sections and ice cores, are all knowledge driven as to the amount that you know about the specific factors that affect the conditions related to the specific issue.



Its should be noted that there has been concern expressed that the ocean is getting more acidic. It has also been noted that when carbon dioxide disolves in water the water becomes more acidic. It has been concluded therefore that the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in causing the ocean to become more acidic. It should be noted that there are numerous other substances that can increase the acidity of water, and that the acid formed by carbon dioxide is only a weak acid, and water does not disolve a lot of carbon dioxide unless it is under pressure, as when you favorite soda is made---that is why bubbles appear and it fizzes when the bottle is opened. This is an example of how scientific principles are misapplied in debates about environmental issues.



Igoranance does not result in lack or concern, but ignorance does result in confusion.
Yes, I would agree when people do not take the time to learn the science behind environmental issues they may not realize the real harm that can be done to the environment. The difficultly comes when knowledge and philosophy get mixed together. When political groups try to use issues such as AGW to force political change other groups on the other side of politics become resistant. To many people on the left, learning about science means you agree with our cause not just with science. They are not asking people to understand science but to change their nature and lifestyle, which is just not likely. Environmentalist need to understand that people aren't going to abandon capitalism or make real changes without more evidence.
I'm sitting here watching the NBC show, Today as I answer this question, and it occurred to me that we are bombarded every day with so much information that it all gets muddled and blurry and it is difficult to discern fact from fact or fact from fiction. In this show I have observed fashion, weather, weight control, TV commentary, who's on a TV show or who's off, world news, the economy, status of wars and on and on. Being knowledgeable in an area does make you more aware and at the same time makes you realize the immense problems associated with the solutions. Studies, polls, etc. can be skewed and are a matter of interpretation. Is the glass half full or half empty as an example. While simplistic it does show that your view is the one that influences you and how you perceive a situation or problem.



I agree with some posters that education was as I perceive it was better in the 60's and that classes were more individualistic in subject matter. I did have chemistry, biology, math, history, english, language (German), sports %26amp; physical education. We went to school longer hours and longer in the year.



Knowledge is empowering and makes one more aware of one's surroundings. While concerned by the lack of concern shown by our students in many areas, it is equally disturbing that our leadership

(some of them) are as ignorant if not more, than the people they represent. People who believe the earth is 6000 years old, use a book ( the Bible) justify their actions. While New Age has had it's day, New Thought is a viable alternative to the re-born movement and allows science in the equation.
It's an interesting thing to ponder and two cliches spring to mind: "Ignorance is Bliss" and...uhhh..."fear of the unknown." I think both are true in the case of climate change, depending on the personality of the individual. Ignorance is Bliss is pretty self-explanatory, but I would add to fear of the unknown the tendency for people to band together and react with what we describe as mob mentality. We have been seeing that a lot in political circles, and since climate change has become such a political issue mob mentality behavior seems to be a significant and growing factor; rather than engaging in dialogue and trying to resolve problems we can observe more and more demagoguery, ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, swiftboating and other tactics that only further the impasse as one mob takes up their brickbats and pitchforks against the other, which begins to react just as emotionally.



That aside, I think study of the issues and greater knowledge of science does not in and of itself make one more worried about environmental issues. Knowledge is power, and with it comes the optimism that problems can be addressed and resolved. If one subscribes to the cliche of knowledge being power, perhaps worry is not the best term to describe the general outlook toward environmental issues held by people more knowledgeable about the science of climate change...



...I'd probably suggest that 'worry' would be more apropos to describe the feeling that many people have in the face of conflict and the tactics used by opposition groups to slow down or stop what the those concerned about the environment see as important steps to take.



Perhaps as a sidebar but relevant to the comment about "the less students knew about science, the more likely they were to be optimistic about the dangers posed by environmental issues," we might consider that in the U.S. we are pretty much brought up to have a high degree of faith in our collective wisdom, and by default, our own judgement and common sense. So when we get into very complex issues that are so heavily shaded by politics such as environmental problems, rather than looking toward the science many of us tend to go more with our political loyalties and 'gut feelings' than investigate and learn the details. You can come to your own conclusions about the origins of the impasse we're at now, but I think it's pretty evident.
Kind of, but not for the reason you are trying to insinuate. If you know about American college football, you seriously concern yourself with whether or not they are going to have playoffs. The further you are from it, the less that you care. Same with the idea that the more you study, the more you care.



There are two problems that are really occurring. 1.) Every researcher tends to get more funding based off of the amount of fear they can instill if there research is not done. You don't really get paid for saying everything is good. 2.) Most "educated" people tend to read the conclusions as opposed to looking into the study. Many times scientists state conclusions that are not supported by their research, either because they intend to research the topic more and think this will be the ultimate conclusion or for political reasons. You need ot understand what the research actually says not what the scientist claims it says.



Overall though using this research to bolster your claims and insult skeptic as uneducated and stupid, is fine. They have also show that the more educated you are about C%26amp;T legislation, the more likely you are to be opposed to it. Thus you are also uneducated and stupid and since we are both in the same state, perhaps we should desist from constantly insult one another.