Based on how the issue is often framed in the media, you might assume that people of higher intelligence would be more likely to take the ‘alarmist’ position in climate change: that climate change is a serious problem and it’s caused mostly by human activity.
After all, it is said that there’s an overwhelming scientific consensus supporting the ‘alarmist’ position. And you’d expect that people of higher intelligence would be more likely to share the views of scientists.
However, that’s not what a recent study found.
Two psychologists – Adrian Furnam and Charlotte Robinson – gave the ‘Climate Change Attitude Survey’ to a sample of 500 European adults, selected through the platform Prolific. This is a 15-item questionnaire, measuring people’s beliefs about climate change:
As you can see, some of the items (e.g., 1, 2 and 3) deal with whether climate change is happening, while other items (e.g., 10, 11, 12) deal with whether individual actions can make a difference.
In order to disentangle these two aspects of the survey, the researchers factor-analysed respondents’ answers. They identified a factor that was strongly associated with the answers to items 1–7 and 8. Which is fancy way of saying they created a variable that gave substantial weight to these items.
Note that the items all deal with whether climate change is happening, whether it’s a serious problem, and whether it’s caused by human activity. Hence the corresponding variable can be seen as an overall measure of agreement with the ‘alarmist’ position on climate change.
Aside from the ‘Climate Change Attitude Survey’, respondents were given an intelligence test, and were asked about their religious and political views. The intelligence test was a 16-item version of the ‘Wonderlic Personnel Test’ – a well-known and respected instrument.
So what did the researchers find? Overall, there was no correlation between intelligence and attitudes to climate change climate change. People with higher intelligence were neither more nor less likely to take the ‘alarmist’ position.
On the other hand, political views were strongly associated with people’s attitudes: those who identified as “liberal” were much more likely to take the ‘alarmist’ position than those who identified as “conservative”.
When the researchers carried out a multivariate analysis of people’s attitudes (by including many different predictors in the same model) they found that political views was the only statistically significant predictor. This is shown in the table below:
Overall, Furnham and Robinson found no evidence that people of higher intelligence were likely to take the ‘alarmist’ position on climate change – a result they described as “surprising”. Contrary to what many would have us believe, climate change ‘sceptics’ are not deficient in cognitive ability.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The article makes a fundamental error in the first paragraph. It is increased prosperity and inventiveness which have improved the lot of the bulk of the people. This has been done by individuals alone and in voluntary association doing what Adamn Smith said they would do.
Capitalism, free enterprise or entrepreneurship (call it what you like) has produced a huge increase in peosperity and along the way many useful new products and methods have been developed. I struggle to think of a single one which has come about due to state run institutions.
For a useful account of how health has improved as income has improved this site provides a great deal of information in an accessible form:
Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics
“In addition to the extensive static graphs below, the following superb BBC FOUR broadcast by Professor Hans Rosling shows how health improved in step with wealth over the last 200 years “200 countries over 200 years using 120,000 numbers – in just four minutes“
The article assumes some very egregious and religious gospels which are false:
-viruses (flying) exist – they don’t
-DNA/RNA can survive outside a host – they can’t
-viruses cause measles et al – they don’t
-quackcines reduced death from diseaese – they didn’t
Too much disinformation which negates the obvious reality that your health, diet, your lack of imbibing toxins, your mental state, is your wealth.
Ferdlll, I am in general agreement with many of your posts but I am a bit thrown by your opinion on flying viruses. Are you saying that airborne viruses are not a thing, and illnesses cannot get passed on through the air?
I read a paper showing that the Spanish Flu, which did go around the world, beat any of the transport ships at the time. The Flu appeared to follow the natural climate circulation. It seemed a convincing argument. I also noted that Covid got into some Antarctic research bases despite stringent checks on staff health. Again an airborne spread seems feasible.
I suspect what got in to Antarctic research bases was a shed load of PCR tests and nothing more.
Please forgive me, but if a virus does not cause measles, what does?
Yes, a virus.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-measles-guidelines/measles-factsheet
” A reduction in inequality and evidence-based health policies have been central to this success”
Well there certainly has been a reduction of ‘evidence based medicine’. Probably to do with the power of Big Pharma and vested interests!
“most deaths during the Spanish Flu, before modern antibiotics were invented, were likely due to secondary bacterial infections.”
Some say most of the deaths were associated with the mass vaccine program at Fort Detrick. And the malnutrition from WW1.
Some say that masks made the situation worse, by providing a breeding ground for the secondary bacterial infections, which allegedly can be more problematic for the human body than the primary virus. Perhaps we should consider that respiratory viruses are pretty delicate little rubber dinghies with SAS operatives on a mission: they need exactly the right cells to invade and subvert into making more viruses; bacteria are more like aircraft-carriers that carry an entire food manufacturing machinery and weapon repair stations. The whole idea of humans being constantly at war with respiratory viruses rather in symbiosis with them might be a notion put about by BigPharma to boost sales.
Good point.
Yes. I believe that around 3 million Us soldiers were “vaccinated” against smallpox, ostensibly because the military were worried the Germans would use smallpox as a bioweapon (same as the military allegedly used it against the native Indian).
This trashed many immune systems leading to a prevalence of bacterial pneumonia.
Good old uncle sam again.
The real genius was getting it to be known as “Spanish Flu”. Fort Detrick Flu doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
” taxpayers in the U.K. and elsewhere have been working hard to fund the 100-day vaccine programme” – how to work hard without noticing it.
That picture: Where’s the meat and dairy? Not a balanced diet.
That’s the diet that health fascists will
force on us
Excellent article. It demonstrates well that our health is (largely) within our own hands. None of which is rocket science, good diet/exercise/sleep etc. However it does need repeating to push home the message that pharmacology shouldn’t be the first port of call.
An appalling article. The author misunderstands most things. Improved health followed improved prosperity which was caused by individuals being allowed the freedom to pursue their own interests rather than following the diktats of the local lord or bishop. ‘Public money’ does not exist; it is simply money extorted by the robber state. Different people value health differently and choose to make different trade-offs.
The author is a coercive collectivist out to impose his version of what is good on everybody else. ‘I’m from Public Health and I’m here to help’ are some of the scariest words in the English language.
I agree with some of your comments though I think it’s harsh to call it an appalling article. The analysis of the deeply corrupt “public health” industry is correct – it’s the remedy we disagree on.
You and I probably agree that we can do without a “public health” industry, the author thinks it could be replaced with something actually helpful. But I think we’d just end up with mandatory broccoli eating (I love broccoli with garlic, Mrs ToF does it very well).
I think this illustrates what we are up against- even people who saw the “Covid” scam for what it was think that everything can be made better if only more sensible and honest people were put in charge. Hardly anyone wants to just get rid of vast swaths of public bodies.
Amen!
Could not have put it better myself.
Also we should not forget the whole surveillance industry setup to monitor infectious diseases around the globe. A lot of people would be out of jobs, including a lot of people working for the WHO.
Vaccines are killing millions. Autism now one in thirty-six post kids immunisation. Ask any parent with an autistic child when it started. They can pinpoint the day! mRNA covid poisons are currently killing millions but first causing horrific adverse events. Please wake up.
Over 7% of UK school age boys are autistic. That is 1 in 14. That is based on official statistics in England and official statistics for Northern Ireland. The NI stats prove it is nothing to do with better diagnosis or greater awareness. They show that 60% of the boys are non-verbal which means they are impossible to miss.
How about just admitting that vaccines NEVER solved any problems and NEVER helped reduced illness? On the contrary, the first vaccines were totally poisonous (just read the history of how the first smallpox vaccines were created and distributed) and modern day vaccines have their famous adjuvants, which are often poisonous on their own.
The immune system is amazingly complex and we have a very, very long way to go before we (if ever) completely understand every implication of attempting to modify or “assist” a minute part of it.
In the meantime, we are surely all aware of the dangers of mRNA vaccines. I cannot believe the author wrote the following, so maybe I misunderstood something:
We don’t yet know the long term consequences of causing inflammation and cell death in the ovaries of young girls, or the results of stimulating inflammation and probable cell death in a foetus in a pregnant woman. However, having given these injections to a lot of children and pregnant women, we should understand this better in the future.
The too typical argument of the medical profession: vaccines are a modern marvel and you have to be really very unlucky to die or become permanently disabled from them. Smile.
In my simple mind, the body has two main defences against pathogens: the respiratory system and the digestive system. Also, if I should have an open wound, the body is quick to seal the wound and “disinfect” the area, thus also acting to prevent pathogens entering the body.
But a vaccine directly injects a pathogen of sorts into the bloodstream, thus bypassing all bodily defences. The idea is to provoke some sort of advance warning inside the body so that, when I eventually am exposed to a particular disease, my body will react immediately to conquer that disease. But what is the difference when I encounter a disease without prior vaccination? Will my body not also immediately respond against that disease?
I think the whole idea of vaccination is completely flawed and, with it, the whole idea of the human race being eradicated by some modern “Pandemic”.
I’d be more comfortable believing in flying viruses if someone could isolate the little devils.
Saying, “If viruses don’t cause disease, then what does?” is rather like saying, “Well, if she’s not a witch, then why did the crops fail.”