Culture splits climate views, not science smarts

What's going on? Basically people with technical smarts just use their abilities to better rationalize their already-held views. And why is that? Fitting in with your friends matters a lot more to people than getting climate science right, suggests Kahan, by email (see his Cultural Cognition website for more details):

"...what an ordinary member of the public believes -- or does, as consumer or voter -- has no practical impact on climate change, and hence no impact on the risk he or she faces. So any mistake that individual makes on the science is really immaterial to his or her personal well-being. What matters a lot more is having a belief that fits in with her group -- it can really ruin your life to hold a position that is at odds with your peers on a controversial issue. So it makes sense that people will pay more attention to "getting it right" relative to their group. It doesn't take a lot of sophisticated thought to be pretty good at that. But if you are capable of technical reasoning -- and you know a lot about science (we measured that too) -- you can do an even better job finding support for his or her group's position and rationalizing away evidence that challenges that position. If that is how things work, then people who are good at quantitative reasoning will be even more polarized."

My Second-Most-Remarkable Moment

Vahrenholt’s left credentials, in contrast, have hit the German media full on. He’s had big-time interviews in Der Spiegal and Die Welt, and a TV production. Now the whole of Europe has been forced to look again at the 1,500-year cycle—in a period when the earth’s temperatures are no longer rising. The climate models’ predictions have been blown out! Does the solar-cloud theory now sound more plausible? What a remarkable turn of events!

Announcing the PL Green Weenie Award | Power Line

Second, let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the estimate of 150,000 heat deaths is completely correct!  The second major failing of environmentalists is the inability to weigh tradeoffs.  The 150,000 death estimate is roughly half as many as will be killed by a favorite environmental policy already on course: the CAFE standards requiring all cars to get much higher gas mileage.  Even the U.S. government admits this (you can find some of the most recent technical NHTSA papers here; the chart below shows one of the most simple approaches to the subject.  See also this older study.)  The mid-point estimate is that the new mileage standards, which will require smaller, lighter-weight cars to attain, will result in somewhere around 300,000 additional highway fatalities over the next century—twice as many as rising heat will supposedly cause.  So congratulations, enviros—just one of your preferred solutions to this problem will kill twice as many people as your program will save.