Slashdot Mirror
Strong Climate Change Opinions Are Self-Reinforcing
An anonymous reader writes "A study recently published in Nature (abstract) looked at how personal beliefs altered a person's perception of climate change. Surveying a sample of people in 2008 and then the same people again in 2011, the study looked for 'motivated reasoning,' where 'high belief certainty influenced perceptions of personal experience,' and 'experiential learning,' where 'perceived personal experience of global warming led to increased belief certainty.' According to the article, 'When you categorize individuals by engagement — essentially how confident and knowledgeable they feel about the facts of the issue — differences are revealed. For the highly-engaged groups (on both sides), opinions about whether climate is warming appeared to drive reports of personal experience. That is, motivated reasoning was prevalent. On the other hand, experience really did change opinions for the less-engaged group, and motivated reasoning took a back seat.None of that is truly surprising, but it leads to a couple interesting points. First, the concrete here-and-now communication strategy is probably a good one for those whose opinions aren't firmly set — fully 75 percent of Americans, according to the polling. But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.'"
"I believe GW is happening and that it causes bad things. Today bad weather happened, must be due to GW."
or
"I do not believe GW is happening or that it causes bad things. Today bad weather happened, as it does from time to time."
"I did not believe GW was happening, but did believe it would cause worse hurricane. Today a bad hurricane happened, so now I have more faith in GW."
or
"I did not believe GW was happening, but did believe it would cause hotter summers.. We had snowfall in June so, therefore, no GW.
The far more interesting thing than the conclusion reached by the source is that none of these is a remotely scientific line of reasoning. Correlating personal experience (i.e., weather events) with climate is long acknowledged as foolish, just like jumping to the conclusion that you live in the most unsafe city in the world because you got mugged -- or that you live in the safest one because you've never been mugged.
I've read plenty of studies talking about how abnormally cold winters in many places are also the result of climate change. What you did there? It's a logical fallacy. You're assuming that scientists say that, then making an erroneous conclusion based on it. But your initial assumption isn't factual.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Cognitive bias is nothing new; it is not specific to climate change.
"A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations, which may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
Sent from my ENIAC
weather != climate
Scientists rarely say anything one way or the other. They publish papers and then the politicos, pundits and whatever you call us here on Slashdot and other sites start arguing and calling each other names over what they published.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
....when it's extremely cold in the winter, scientists say thats just normal weather, but when it's extremely hot in the summer, it's global warming?
Maybe you could make us a list of scientists who are saying that.
We know about global warming, not from observing warm days, but from longitudinal measurements from all over the world.
And of course, we understand the mechanism. The "greenhouse" property of certain gasses that we have been spewing into the atmosphere in ever-increasing amounts since the beginning of the industrial age has been known IIRC for about 200 years.
Also, global warming doesn't imply warm winters in any particular location. It means more thermal energy in our atmosphere and oceans, which can destabilize that very complex dynamical system that we call "weather".
For an example of a mechanism whereby global warming can make winter colder in specific locations, see "The Winters of Our Discontent" in the December 2012 Scientific American.
But then, I'm guessing that you're not particularly interested in learning how scientists figure out what's going on, or you wouldn't be posting such nonsense. A "first post!" would have made you look less foolish.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
To show how these things work, I've been thinking about setting up a denial campaign for an obviously factual event: "Hurricane" Sandy.
It wasn't really a hurricane. National weather service decided not to issue a warning. The roller coaster would not have landed in one piece as it is photographed. We could build a pretty solid case that it wasn't real. It would really piss off the people who were there :-)
Bruce Perens.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
A lot of the anti-globalwarming movement rely on classic FUD, throwing enough shit on the wall and counting on that something will stick.
Climate change is big business. Those in the profession who don't push the agenda end up hungry. Money corrupts all, and at this point I basically have a hard time believing anyone 100%. Scare tactics work, and generate money. And when caught in a flat out lie, over overexageration it becomes a 1 step forward, 2 steps back as far as trust with me.
So how come scientists in all the other fields are too stoopid to get in on the scam? Can't astronomers just make up claims about a non-existent asteroid that's going to smash us later this century if we don't poor big money into further research, and rely on greed to keep anyone from revealing the fraud? Physicists, astronomers, biologists, geologists - all too dull witted or honest to do what those clever climatologists have done.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.
The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.
As someone who thinks the "scientific consensus" on AGW is much more likely correct than not, I have to say I agree with this. History is littered with examples of scientific consensus that was later proven wrong, and indeed that is the very definition of scientific progress.
The key thing to consider when evaluating an unsettled scientific issue is to note whether the evidence for a particular hypothesis gets stronger or weaker as more and better research is done. By my admittedly layman's interpretation of what read, the evidence for AGW has only been getting stronger over time, and the evidence presented against it seems increasingly narrow. But even though I agree with the "scientific consensus", I hate hearing and reading it as the cliched soundbite and doubt it's convincing any of that 75% of people who are unsure (however they defined unsure).
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
The climate data isn't mere the preponderance of the evidence, it is overwhelming. A team that loses 5-4 can say the need a couple of breaks, a team that loses 11,000 to 24 – got hosed.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
And of course, we understand the mechanism.
Are you sure? The last glacial maximum was between 19-25000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum) during which time vast portions of North America and Europe were covered in ice sheets.
19,000 years is a pretty short period of time in the grand scheme of things. To think the location I'm currently living was underneath a kilometer of ice less than 20,000 years ago, and no there are no glaciers anywhere close, the logical conclusion is the earth has been warming up for a lot longer than just the time since the industrial age. In fact, from what I understand about earth's history, we've been a majorly tropical planet for most of the time and ice cover is somewhat rare.
There's no doubt we have some effect on the changing climate (in regards to temperature via the greenhouse effect), but to say that is the mechanism causing the earth to warm seems like a huge jump from basic logic.
I am pro-GW (I am in favor of it)
I'm guessing that that doesn't mean what it sounds like!
Joking aside, I appreciate your forthright post. And I despise the fact that people mod down posts that state views that they don't agree with. (Much better, IMO, to mod them *up*, so that the post and the refutations (or attempts) will be read by more people.)
But IMO, here's the crux:
Let me summarize the debate. One side believes there is sufficient evidence for theory X. The other side believes there is insufficient evidence. The side that believes there is sufficient evidence believes that the evidence is so overwhelming that to be skeptical of it is of the same order as being skeptical of gravity.
I am not a climatologist, but I do know a bit about how science works. And I know that the overwhelming majority of *scientists* believes that there is sufficient evidence for the fact (not theory) of global warming. So for me there *aren't* two sides.
Now scientists aren't divinely inspired, and are in fact sometimes wrong, but in the big picture science bases its views on evidence, and even goes out of its way to look for refuting evidence. So for me this is like asking whether I should invest in someone's flying car business when the overwhelming majority of aeronautical engineers say that the design won't actually fly, contradicted by a smaller number of non-experts who publish their views as editorials in the Wall Street Journal rather than engineering journals. There simply isn't the slightest reason to examine "two sides". Especially when the contradictors resort to arguments that the entire field of aeronautical engineering are lying because they want the venture to fail. It's just nonsense.
I personally believe rational argument is virtually impossible on the topic of global warming. Devout AGW believers will not be swayed by any argument. To them AGW is self-evident and the burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that it is not happening.
No, AGW is based on evidence. As I said, I'm not a climatologist, but I can read.
The fact that the vast majority believes AGW is undeniably real and even some kind of immediate threat to our species makes it even more unlikely that any real evidence will ever be gathered.
FWIW, I do believe that AGW is undeniably real, but that the only "threat" is poses to our species is inconvenience, and probably a lot of deaths in wars by nations trying to optimize their own convenience at the expense of others, but hardly an extinction-level event. (*Maybe* a runaway instability will render our planet uninhabitable, but I'm not aware of any evidence that that is our fate.)
The fact that the vast majority believes AGW is undeniably real and even some kind of immediate threat to our species makes it even more unlikely that any real evidence will ever be gathered. Why bother to gather evidence about something that the majority of the world has already decided is undeniably true?
As a matter of fact, scientists *are* busy gathering additional evidence. The fact that both old and new evidence overwhelmingly support one conclusion is hardly a reason to deny that conclusion.
These days scientists (and I use that term loosely) focus on refining and reinforcing the argument in favor of AGW. Not so much on proving that it exists.
Scientists are also busy studying gravity and the expanding universe, but as with global warming, they're far past the point of needing to determine whether those phenomena exist.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Link to the "actual data", please?
Sorry, but we don't have the technology for HTML links to alternative realities.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You could just stop listening to the political sides and listen to climate scientists instead.
Problem solved.
Wrong, because the scientists have politicized themselves and the science.
If a scientist advocates for some political action to be taken or not taken or policy to be enacted or not enacted then he has politicized himself, and his opinion is political, not scientific.
That's ridiculous. If astronomers detect an asteroid on a collision course with the earth and testify before Congress about it, does that disqualify them from having an opinion on the topic? (And justify ignoring the threat?)
Scientists do studies, perform experiments, and publish papers on purely scientific topics. They don't engage in political/ideological advocacy.
Scientists are people, and are entitled to advocacy just like everyone else. In fact, if they advocate for public policy based on facts, there's far more reason to listen to them than to most people advocating this or that.
Those advocating one side or the other are not scientists, at least while they are advocating.
So, no scientists have advocated one side over another, as the very act of advocacy disqualifies them as performing "science" and therefor their opions are not "scientific", but political.
Strat
That wins a prize for convoluted logic even on the internet.
If you don't like global warming, try arguing against the facts rather than for disqualifying the opinions of those who actually know the facts.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Oh please, humans can do practically nothing to affect the humidity (water vapor level) of the atmosphere. The planet is 75% covered by water, a ready source of humidity. Any excess humidity we add quickly* precipitates out to rebalance the level, any humidity we remove will be replaced quickly from the vast sources of water. Temperature is the primary controller of humidity and water vapor levels in the atmosphere.
*By quickly I mean in a matter of days, maybe a week or two.
Think of it this way:
Humans cause global warming with CO2 and similar.
a) Do nothing, climate gets worse, costs of a lot of money to adapt and repair damages.
b) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, long term gains only.
Humans do not cause global warming
a) Do nothing, no upfront costs, no long term gains
b) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, reduces pollution, extends life expectancy (due to reduced pollution), reduces dependence on foreign energy sources.
In my opinion, even if humans have absolutely no impact on climate, I still want us to change our energy sources and energy use - the long term gains from doing so are very much worth it.
No... there's a real measurable difference in modern R vs D. For example, 58% of R believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, while 41% of D feel that way. It's scary for both parties, but at least the rational majority in D get to set policies taking into account reality, while R makes a practice of selling scientifically proven false ideas to it's own people. R is not just ignorant about climate change. They're ignorant about evolution, and are continuing to push for it to be removed from our science classes. This level of "true conservative" group think is almost a new religion. Go look at who R puts on the House Science Committee. Good grief!
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell