An impending study to be published in the journal Advances in Political Psychology points out that, according to Fox News, climate realists (aka skeptics) scored the same and in some cases higher on questions of climate science. Man-made global warming proponents would usually deride skeptics of being ignorant about climate science. But the new study drawn up by Yale Professor Dan Kahan shows that is not the case and, in fact, realists know more.

The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.

On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.

One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.

Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.

Back in 2012 a study done along similar lines came out and revealed that climate skeptics knew just as much as alarmists about climate science. This study, on the other hand, asks people specific questions about certain topics. While the manuscript’s results are not surprising, the author makes a very true statement on the matter of climate change. Professor Don Kahan states that the issue has become so polarized that people pick their side based on politics and not an understanding of the science.

The reason why the pro-side is losing is that they demonize and talk down to their opponents. Kahan correctly points out that is they want to convince people they should discuss the science. Unfortunately, the issue of climate change was the result of politics almost from the beginning. Environmentalist groups obviously got assistance or enlisted the help of like-minded scientists in order to attempt to make the issue out that humans are the cause. The same way as was done in Europe in an attempt to ban or regulate neonicotinoid pesticides.

It did not help climate alarmists that they instead decided to resort of spokespersons like Al Gore who used the issue to make money. Or scientists, like Michael Mann, who would conduct sloppy research and attempt to change certain aspects of their studies in order to make them fit the theory.