For the editorial staff, in the face of the constant politicization of facts on critical societal issues, it is increasingly important to develop ways of communicating effectively with the public on scientific issues.1,2 We welcome recent behavioural research for addressing an issue of greatest interest to this debate: do people with more education and scientific skills have more polarized beliefs on highly controversial topics such as climate change? Several recent correlation studies3,4 have suggested this and concluded that increased education and science skills could increase rather than reduce polarization on issues related to political and religious identities. While this is a significant concern, these conclusions cannot be drawn from correlation data. As a result, we have tried (1) to reproduce these discoveries and (2) to study an unexplored but critical question: does the communication of scientific knowledge lead to a polarization of faith, especially for the more educated public? In particular, we conducted a large nationally representative online survey experiment (N-6.301) with qualtrics to study one of the most polarized political topics in the United States: climate change5. Our analysis of the basic data from the experiment replicated the results of previous studies3,4 and showed a reasoned cognition: higher education is positively associated with beliefs about scientific consensus, while political conservatism is negatively correlated. It is important that there be significant negative interaction, so that a more conservative ideology associated with higher education leads to a decrease in the acceptance of climate science (Additional Table 2). However, in our experiment, we exposed half of the sample to a descriptive standard6: „97% of climatologists concluded that global warming is man-made.“ We measured consensus evaluations at the beginning of the survey (before) and at the end after exposure (postior) with different „deterrences“ between the two to mask the true purpose of the experiment. This allowed us to evaluate the prediction of polarization, especially among more educated viewers. We find no sign of polarization: liberals and conservatives have updated their beliefs in accordance with the scientific standard (fig. 1), the effect being more visible among conservatives, as shown by a positive and significant interaction (additional table 2) between the experimental state (scientific consensus), education (superior) and ideology (conservatism). Indeed, the arrival of men in the scientific consensus has eliminated the negative interaction between education and conservatism and reduced the polarization of faith by 50% (Cohens d -0.88, Fig.

1). Van der Linden is known for the Gateway Offer Model (GBM), [8] a duale theory of thought. The model postulates a two-step adjustment change process. First, the concepts of convergence between a group of influential speakers (for example. B experts) influence important private attitudes that people may have on a subject (for example. B that global warming is caused by man). In turn, these central cognitive and emotional beliefs are presumed to form public attitudes and support for science. In other words, the model suggests that what underlies people`s attitudes towards science (often controversial) is their perception of scientific consensus. Correcting the (erroneous) perception of a scientific agreement on an issue is therefore considered a tor cognition[9] to cause subsequent changes in related beliefs that inhibit people on controversial social and scientific issues.

With consensual heuristics as the main mechanism for initiating attitude change, the model has its theoretical roots in other prominent socio-psychological theories such as the heuristic and systematic model and the Likelihood elaboration model. [10] The model has been applied in a wide range of contexts, including climate change[11][12] Vaccinations,[13] of the Brexit debate[14] and GMOs. [15] An analysis of Skeptical Science of 37 published papers,