In his Foundation trilogy of science-fiction novels, Isaac Asimov envisioned a set of methods for manipulating large populations of people, which he termed Psychohistory. This, as it happens is now precisely what the folks behind this government-funded study have in mind, as by their measure, the results of the study went horribly awry. What they'd expected was that knuckle-dragging climate skeptics would be demonstrated to possess inferior (if indeed any) understanding of science when compared with the more enlightened, true believers in the Religion of Man-Made Global Warming.
Much to their dismay, the results were exactly the opposite of their postulate: the enlightened true believers were less scientifically literate than the skeptics. The "researchers" had assumed that the results of their study would bolster their view that it should be possible to convince the great unwashed masses, through enhanced scientific education, of the great danger to humans - and indeed, to the very planet - and therefore of the pressing need for strict governmental control over every aspect of their lives.
Well, that's out the window, and so they've concluded that teaching people more science and providing them with more facts will likely lead to increased skepticism. Obviously, this could negatively impact their grant funding.
Thus it is, according to the assembled profs, that the US government should seek to fund a communication strategy on climate change which is not focused on sound scientific information.
