Maybe the masses don't want to be agitated

John Tierney of the New York Times' Tierneylab has this interesting tidbit about the larger public's perception of "global warming," and it fails to conform to the Gore et al. propaganda machine notion that scoffing at Gore's pet cause is a result of ignorance - quite the reverse:

After asking a national sample of more than 1,000 Americans how much they knew about global warming and how they felt about it, the researchers report that respondents who are better-informed about global warming “both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.” Another unexpected result: “Respondents who showed a great deal of confidence that scientists understand global warming and climate change showed significantly less concern for the risks of global warming than did those who have lower trust in scientists."

Tierney, at least, is honest in admitting his own views about "global warming," unlike many journalists. That helps to keep his postings and articles on the subject relatively free of sanctimonious BS posing as "objective" journalism.

The result is striking. I don't know how well or poorly educated these surveyed people are about the subject in an absolute sense. And the way the survey is worded necessarily narrows down the scope of the answers. But it does show the strong connection between the hysteria about "global warming" and lack of scientific literacy. The hysteria feeds on ignorance and fear. It couldn't be otherwise.

(Hat tip to Instapundit. As Reynolds points out, once we get to July, the "climate" will be "warming" again, of course.)