Mooney talks about five studies that find a positive correlation between one’s scientific literacy and global warming skepticism. Obviously, they also come to the conclusion that those on the right tend to be more skeptical. He comments on the scientific competence of Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre in what seems to be a compliment.
In my experience, climate skeptics are nothing if not confident in their ability to challenge the science of climate change–and even to competently recalculate (and scientifically and mathematically refute) various published results. It’s funny how this high-level intellectual firepower is always used in service of debunking—rather than affirming or improving—mainstream science. But the fact is, if you go to blogs like WattsUpWithThat or Climate Audit, you certainly don’t find scientific and mathematical illiterates doubting climate change. Rather, you find scientific and mathematical sophisticates itching to blow holes in each new study.
To a reasonable person, this is an endorsement. Mooney however seems to think that debunking bad science is a bad thing and McIntyre should look at affirming warmist papers instead. Does this guy grasp science? Science is skeptical, science is critical and if someone writes a paper through of flaws, it has to go.
His final statement is quite simply dumbfounding. On the papers that skeptics are generally more informed;
To me, there’s an interesting way to read this. It can be expressed as a familiar aphorism, which is actually a slight misquotation of Alexander Pope, pictured above: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” For the planet, anyway.
That is an interesting way to read this. His logic is incomprehensible. Ignorance is the ally of the warmist.