Slashdot Mirror
When We Don't Like the Solution, We Deny the Problem
Ichijo writes: A new study (abstract) from Duke University tested whether the desirability of a solution affects beliefs in the existence of the associated problem. Researchers found that 'yes, people will deny the problem when they don't like the solution. Quoting: "Participants in the experiment, including both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. They were then asked to evaluate a proposed policy solution to address the warming. When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read.
But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement. The researchers found liberal-leaning individuals exhibited a similar aversion to solutions they viewed as politically undesirable in an experiment involving violent home break-ins. When the proposed solution called for looser versus tighter gun-control laws, those with more liberal gun-control ideologies were more likely to downplay the frequency of violent home break-ins."
But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement. The researchers found liberal-leaning individuals exhibited a similar aversion to solutions they viewed as politically undesirable in an experiment involving violent home break-ins. When the proposed solution called for looser versus tighter gun-control laws, those with more liberal gun-control ideologies were more likely to downplay the frequency of violent home break-ins."
Never mix science with politics.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Sounds like the entire problem with American politics right now...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Yep, my customers do the same.
At first they have a problem that just has to be solved. Then I tell them what it will cost. After that they suddenly don't think that they have a problem anymore.
Turns out that if the cure is worse than the disease people don't want the cure and rather than living with a problem it feels better to be optimistic and downplay the problem.
#cuethedeniers
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Inhofe is now the head of the senate environmental commitee that oversee 100% of all climate change legislation and policies in the US.
He wrote a book 305 page book entirely on the subject of global warming. The name of this book is "the greatest Hoax".
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest...
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Sounds like they have their priors confused with their posteriors.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
Sounds more like if you give something that is ridiculous as the solution to the problem, people feel the problem is just as fictitious.
Usually I like hearing about research that 'confirms' very obvious features of human nature, because it's valuable to measure things, even obvious things, quantitatively. But this experiment doesn't sound all that rigorous.
Humans, or all creatures, have been driven to satisfy their needs to realize they have one.
Or is that too philosophical for the /. crowd?
Probably.
To solve this problem we should be more accepting of solutions we don't like? Nah, I don't buy it!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If the "solution" gives you more problem than the "problem" it is supposed to solve, you choose the lesser of the evils.
It's well established that people distort recall of facts, weighing of evidence, etc. to prove their ideas correct. This study seems to just say "what if the facts being distorted came from a scientific paper" and "what if the ideas were political (free market solves everything, we could get rid of all guns by making them illegal)."
It's such an unsurprising result that I'm amazed they ran the study.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
This is one of the earliest recognized phenomena in historical literature. It's evidenced here every frackin' day!
Ego trumps reality in arguments every time because it's more important to WIN then to be RIGHT. That's why bluffing is so important in poker.
There's a larger issue here in the examples given though - There's NO SCIENTIFIC RESOLUTION FOR THEM - They're moral and ethical arguments with subjective values. One side will argue that closing down coal plants will cost jobs and increase the cost of energy which will destroy the economy vs the other side arguing that carbon pollution from coal will destroy the environment. Both are hyperbolic but where you fall on the spectrum of "what matters" will determine how you argue, regardless of the "facts". Same with gun control - One argues that restriction of gun rights causes more crime while the other argues that more guns equal more gun crime. Both are objectively scientific facts but which fact trumps the other?
And the report says it's because people ignore science? I think that says more about the quality of the report and the reporters than the people being reported on.
"... our brave men and women ..." just fucked you over big time, Bubba.
Your message is, if I don't play, I'm a loser Commie anti-american terrorist.
Any valid points you may have (and you probably don't) got shit-canned when you trotted out that patriotic bullshit.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
You can always rely on social scientists (now there's an oxymoron) to demonstrate a false dichotomy and a few other logical fallacies.
1. The earth is going to warm 3.2 degrees in just over a century. Do you
a) raise taxes on everything now including fossil fuels forcing many people into life-strangling fuel poverty and condemning billions to staying in poverty or
b) adapt to the changes, encourage as many people as possible to survive through prosperity or
c) question the validity of the rise in future temperatures as an unquestionable fact. You CONSERVATIVE DENIER.
2. Violent home break-ins are rising as the number of guns has reached saturation point. Do you
a) get armed yourself, increasing the likelihood that you or your children may be injured by having arms and ammunition in the house or
b) call for stricter gun controls, which limit legitimate gun ownership while doing nothing to prevent illegal gun possession or
c) question the validity of the rise in home break-ins as an unquestioned fact. You LIBERAL COWARD
3. You read a survey in a scientific journal and you possess a brain (rare on the Internet, go with me on this). Do you
a) accept its conclusions because its science
b) reject its conclusions because its flawed.
c) question the validity of the experiment because you probably think the moon landings were faked. YOU ARE A CONSPIRACY NUT.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
While Russia and China certainly are shameful examples of what NOT to do, the US is a complete mess regarding any remote view of organization. There's a permanent confusion between "freedom" as a licence to anarchy. As soon as the human factor was proposed, many very vocal detractors (paid surely by you know who) started the denying posts, throwing mud at environmentalists with lower adjectives than those used to dehumanize even the enemy in WWII.
You can never erase the spot on your honor coming from things like that; don't even try. Long after I'm gone, someone will still remember such things and throw them in your face.
Instead, repent, change your ways and become a champion for world cleaning and nature recovery from human pillage. BTW, this also applies to other polluting nations.
Just don't come posing as good guys, when you're even now lowering gas prices -- to what aim, if not to increase CO2 emissions?
When I see a commercial make a claim about a problem, and the solution to that problem just happens to be "Buy our new product!".....yes, I would say that the proposed solution tends to make me view the claim about the problem more skeptically. That seems totally rational to me.
I don't see why this would be any different. If it sounds like someone is pushing the need for tighter (or looser) gun regulations, it's reasonable to question if they've cherry-picked their statistics about the problem to support their case.
Maybe f they'd had one source give a totally neutral statement about a problem, and then a different source suggest a solution, and managed to prevent the subjects from realizing that the experimenters were responsible for both statements...
How could you have an "objective" and controlled study of this phenomenon if you use subjects of which the participants have at least partially formed an opionion and bias? I'm not denying that this psychological situation exists, but this "study" hardly proves anything. With the topics they used here, all that they have done is to identify existing political thought.
From the dictionary definitions, one would think that "liberal gun-control ideologies" would mean to encourage as wide as distribution of as many guns as possible. But this is not the case. But "liberal gun-control ideologies" actually means as few guns as possible to as few people as possible.
Just a random thought from a Blue State (WA) where another freedom of action was circumscribed despite the Red Wave that swept the rest of the country. See I-594, specifically the definition of transfers. No more borrowing a friend's shotgun.
You can always rely on social scientists (now there's an oxymoron) to demonstrate a false dichotomy and a few other logical fallacies.
And what are you saying? They demonstrated a very clear example of hiding your head in the sand. Maybe all they demonstrated is that people are NOT rational beings. Many decisions are illogical, emotional reactions to events, instead of rationed decisions.
Your statements seem to illustrate this exactly.
1. The earth is going to warm 3.2 degrees in just over a century. Do you
a) raise taxes on everything now including fossil fuels forcing many people into life-strangling fuel poverty and condemning billions to staying in poverty or
b) adapt to the changes, encourage as many people as possible to survive through prosperity or
c) question the validity of the rise in future temperatures as an unquestionable fact. You CONSERVATIVE DENIER.
Why would you raise taxes on "everything now"? They said "carbon taxes", which seem to imply the lower the input costs with fossil fuels, the less taxes something has incorporated. It means if something is using non-fossil fuels to manufacture and/or transport, it will have less taxes than something that is using fossil fuels for the same thing.
So how did you arrive at your ridicules statement that it is a "tax on everything" and "condeming people to poverty" ?
Your second option is also false. How do you have prosperity when most of the human population will have to move away as the seas rise? You have places like Netherlands that are actually below the sea level already, or very populous places like Bangladesh that will completely get flooded in the +3C scenario. How prosperous can this be when it will lead to war and migration of billions of people?
Anyway, all this confirms is people will attack the messenger if the message is not what they like. Your post and many others here prove that quite well, thank you very much.
Gee... I wonder which phenomenon this article relates to.
when presented with the lack of evidence of religious assertions or evidence that contradicts a belief: they will deny what is going on or branch out on some tangent.
Few people are really objective and will cling to all sorts of positions rather than change their minds.
... As a result, the country mobilized against the threat. Strong government action by the Bush administration outlawed the worst of these gases, and brilliant entrepreneurs were able to discover and manufacture new cleaner energy sources. As a result of these brave decisions, our emissions stabilized and are currently declining.
The chart you link to of CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2013 shows that they have risen 10% over that time. The only years in which they fell were during the economic recession. Since that was caused by Reagan/Bush deregulation policies is that what you are suggesting to combat climate change?
It's just as easy to say, "When you give people a viable solution that doesn't crash the global economy, they stop arguing and go along to get along, even if they don't agree it's a problem."
This is why we can't do research on politics - we falsely assume each person's intent and put the cart before the horse.
Really, violent home break-ins are exceedingly rare. The likelihood of being a victim of a violent home break-in is so minuscule that it almost isn't even worth discussing. It's too bad that the republicans don't fear things that are actually reasonable.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I think it's laughable how many people believe their politics are based on scientific fact these days. Sure - on a specifically scientific issue like this you may take the side of scientists. But you can't even have a position on something as quantifiable as economics without first defining what the objectives should be. That requires your whole sense of what is morally/ethically right and wrong. That sense you pulled out of your ass or learned from someone who pulled it out of their ass. Your politics are ultimately no more or less "scientific" than someone who believes they got theirs from a mystical being.
You get to KEEP your climate... *IFF* you allow me 2 tax anything on the planet that haz 2 do with carbon!
Note: This is known as a fool's bargain.
Some nice "Denier" music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lx8c3-djc8
I'm not sure what that means. I suspect you mean that politicians should never get involved in any scientific debate. However it would also mean that mean that scientists should never petition for political solutions to problems.
Neither of these are realistic. Problems with some scientific basis often have solutions with wide ranging political impacts. The facts are rarely unambiguous.
The problem was stated incorrectly. The problem is not that there will be a slight 3% rise in temperature. The problem is that the summers in the Southern and Middle States will get so hot that people, animals and crops will die. And you won't be able to do anything about it except to die then. The problem is when you wait there will be no solution other than to move.
I wonder what the Democratic response would have been to AGW if in the proposed solution set they had stated that "traditional" conserve+carbon credit schemes were unlikely to be successful and the only realistic solution would be wide-spread adoption of nuclear power and geo-engineering solutions like aerosol distribution of scary sounding chemicals.
See this..
There are basically no credible scientists arguing if global warming is a thing. There are also no credible scientists arguing over whether it will negatively impact humanity. The argument is over what's causing it and the magnitude of the damage. Please note that the consensus is that the damage will be massive, it's just about _how_ massive....
As for social science, human behavior can be measured and predicted. You seem to dismiss this outright because our methods to date have been less than prefect. Also, if you're not actually in the social sciences and taking time out of your day to read the entirety of their works it does appear like a false dichotomy because you're reading sensationalized summaries from click hungry news sights. They're not going to go over the discussions of grey area in the main papers since those don't make good headlines...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This also works the other way. If people like the solution they are more likely to believe the problem excists. Clearly way to informed decision is to start out with understanding the problem, too bad most decision makers in any field lack that capability and are much better at opinioning on solutions.
" A new study (abstract) from Duke University tested whether the desirability of a solution affects beliefs in the existence of the associated problem. Researchers found that 'yes, people will deny the problem when they don't like the solution. "
Anyone who finds this surprising has never dealt with aged parents or teenage children.
This got FUNDED?!
"The NSA is killing your privacy"
- "Uh oh!"
"Stop using facebook and dropbox!"
- "I have nothing to hide anyway!"
Actually, they appear to have shown malleability in the belief of the subject in a problem based on whether the solution was favorable or unfavorable to their closely held beliefs.
I see it all the time in my job. I get called out to assess structural problems in peoples homes, and also to consult on renovations and modifications. Most of the time, people who find a fault in their home complain about why the local inspections office didn't catch the substandard building practice when it was built. Most people who have to pay me design a correctly engineered wall or beam are angry that the building department is making the process so difficult and expensive by requiring special design and inspections for a "simple" change.
I actually had a woman who was angry with me because I told here she'd need to install a beam if she took out a support post in her basement. The beam looked continuous from the wall, over the post, to the second post, and she was pretty sure it would be fine if they just removed it, but the building official said she couldn't make the change unless she had someone design a beam for it. She told me she probably wouldn't apply for a permit, since nobody would ever see the work getting done. As I was about to leave, she asked about a large crack in the basement wall of her addition that was put in about 10 years ago. I looked at it and there was no reinforcing or filled cores in masonry, and the back fill was too high for an unreinforced CMU wall. I told her this and she asked - with a straight face - how could the town inspectors have allowed the contractor to build it incorrectly, without requiring someone to design the wall? Wasn't that their job?
So if you ask whether government oversight is good or bad, for this woman it was clearly bad when it was going to cost her money, but it would have been good if it had prevented her house from being damaged. Same woman, same inspections office, same requirement that an engineer design a structural building element. The effect is very real.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
There are useless predictions, damned lies, and statistics all around if you want to look. Clearly the scientific community has failed to predict all aspects of the future. This has nothing to do with the evidence for AGW and you're disingenuous for suggesting so.
There is a very simple set of measurable facts that are the foundational basis for the theory. Solar irradiance is constant to within .1% as far as we have been able to measure. Carbon Dioxide is known to absorb outgoing long-wave radiation. Human activity has increased the partial pressure of CO2 markedly, extending the CO2-rich region further out into space. There is only one way for the Earth to radiate heat to space. That is enough to determine that CO2 causes warming, and what the direct effects of a doubling of CO2 will be (roughly 3.7 W/m^2 of warming).
However, it is well known that Earth has large reservoirs of a much more potent greenhouse gas covering about 70% of its surface. Given that warmer air can hold exponentially more water vapor, it is unlikely that the CO2-water vapor feedbacks will be anything but strongly positive. By itself, a doubling of CO2 would only produce about 1 degree C difference to the global average temperature. With water vapor and other feedbacks, no one knows for sure, but you can read the IPCC report if you would like to know what the current estimates are.
You can argue as much as you like about the scientists' moral character, about their predictions, and whatever credibility you think they do or do not have. The science is inarguable, and you can even measure the warming effect of CO2 yourself with simple lab equipment. The deniers need to bring more facts to the table. Unless they can poke holes in the fundamental theories of radiative transfer, all the rhetoric on either side is worthless.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
So even liberals would be against a free market way of reducing Co2? There is no reason to be against that, weather your a global warming believer or not. The whole global warming thing is made up of people wanting to profit from it, not from any real facts, just predictions which I have yet to see one correct.
Gun-control laws is not going to fix any problems. Bad people will still get guns, why make it more of a hassle for good people to get a gun because a few are bad.
There are generally no reliable researchers disagreeing if climatic change is a thing. There are also no reliable researchers disagreeing over whether it will adversely impact humankind.
Indeed. Most dems go apeshit when you point out that even the co-founder of Greenpeace has said that nuclear is the _only_ feasible solution for most,of our energy needs, and he lays out exactly why. Cognitive dissonance to the max.
He opened one article by saying that he and his friends had slightly exaggerated the risks of nuclear power back in the 1960s-1980s, but a think to get most of their former followers to do the right thing they'll have to come right out and say "we lied to you". That's the only way the people most concerned about global warming will support the one solution that can actually work in the real world. They'll keep chasing magic energy until there is a complete famine rather than acknowledging the solution is something they were told to dislike.
Senator Inhofe is a well-known climate change denier. That he is in such a position makes me want to weep.
(See eg http://www.desmogblog.com/jame... )
For counterpoint book recommendations, I suggest:
'The Merchants of Doubt' by Oreskes and Conway
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.or...
'This Changes Everything' by Naomi Klein
http://thischangeseverything.o...
In other words, you can not tell the difference between 'lie' and 'adjusting prediction as more information becomes available'.
I think what you're missing is that on first read, your sentence could be taken as a joke or satire of someone caught lying. To many people, "adjusting prediction as more information becomes available" is what gets said after WMDs are not found in Iraq, or the theory of ether as a medium everying lives in or reefer madness or (perhaps) string theory or weird evolutionary psych research no one else can reproduce yet gets reported.
Without smoking guns, even though it's hard to prove people become suspicious about motivations and agendas, especially if what is being pushed isn't something you want to hear. Those in the sciences are not immune from lying or agendas or even self-delusion or aggrandization or defensiveness, and while I believe in global warming for sound technical reasons, I do believe climate modeling is an area where its claims and predictions have gotten so far ahead of the science or our capabilities that it's eroded public trust in both it as a field and used as a tool against science in general.
"When we don't like the solution, we deny the problem"
Yeah - like, when we discover the solution will cost many billions more than just riding out the problem then we might declare "it's not that big of a problem". Unfortunately, riding out the problem only needs to take 70-80 years and then we don't care anymore. If you can stretch your problem to 80 years then by all accounts it's not a problem. :)
Why is the summary only citing republican figures and not democrat?
Could it be because their scores were even more laughable?
Slashdot is so disgustingly left leaning it's hilarious. To be more left than libertarian on a website like this shows that people, even techies, are not that intelligent.
And yet, the Blue State of Washington saw the Republicans take over the State Senate (they previously had a coalition majority with 3 Democrats), and they gained seats in the State House.
594 in particular largely ran unopposed, and it's not like the Local media was going out of the way to inform the public of the poorly written definitions in the initiative. You seriously don't think Voters READ the text of the law? Or even the voter's pamphlet pro/con essays?
Well "duh". And water is wet.
All about me
Sorry but in my experience engineering is constantly making tradeoffs, and very few absolutes or right ways to do things.
Another way to put it: When the solution is too complex, we solved the wrong problem.
I've observed the same behavior in software development, particularly in the open source world. Some project maintainers are happy to have people helping by reporting the problems they find, while others will deny that a problem exists (and sometimes go as far as trying to discredit the reporter) if they don't happen to be affected/bothered by it. I guess inconvenient truths are hard for some people to accept.
How weird is it that this got at least 2 downmods when it is such an on-topic demonstration of the principal in the article?
Frame the issue in a way that is palatable to the intended audience if you want to get results.
I'm curious if the people who modded it as flamebait object to the factual (and cited!) points in the message or find the idea that such framing lines up with/against their own biases about themselves/others?
You obviously missed her subtle and ironic point.
The customer showed you a previous situation where she did pay money for inspections and to ostensibly follow regulations, with supposed expert oversight of the contractors/workers and the work was still crap. So she pays twice, or rather four times:
1) First permit and inspection. $
2) First job. $$
3) Second permit and inspection. $$$
4) Repair job. $$$$
And still has no confidence the work or the oversight are any damn good. Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap.
Of course she resents having to pay more money for an inspection and regulations when her experience directly shows that those were, if not completely worthless (I guess her house didn't fall down. Yet. She should be grateful for those inspectors!), certainly not as advertised.
TLDR: The country is corrupt and sucks. Most people are assholes. The hubris of experts. Of course people are frustrated and angry.
For once I can read the word "looser" without cringing at someones horrible spelling. Thank you for finding a proper context to use this dying word.
I am transgender, and few times I have seen parents of children who may be trans come and post in trans communitys asking for help. Although they dont say it, some of them are looking for a 'cure' for their child, rather then how to get them the help they really need (eg gender therapists and eventual puberty blocking and hormone replacement) These people are generally not happy with the responses, which in trans communitys tend to be very pro-transition.
Ah, what a beautiful reversal of meaning: "liberal gun-control ideologies" is the new term for "restrictive gun-control ideologies". I think that tells you pretty much all you need to know about this "study".
No, the irony was entirely lost on her. It's hard to convey her intent and emotion in a post. She was really put out that she was being required to build something to code and that she was considering just avoiding the inspectors. She was also astonished that the inspections were so minimal that they missed a glaring error - or possibly that they didn't catch someone who didn't even apply for a permit previously. There was no connection between the two in her eyes, no "how come I have to do it but they didn't". The same people who were incompetent for not catching the first work were incompetent for keeping her from skirting the regs this time.
Also, she bought the house after the inferior work was done. She assumed it was done right because she assumed it was inspected by the town. She paid no money the "first time" for the inspection. In fact, it's unlikely there was any inspection the first time...it was before our town did much more than note that work was being done with a "permit" but no inspections were regularly made on residential work (or any work for that matter). So no inspection, bad work, owner mad. Today there's required inspection, guaranteed proper work, owner is mad.
Note that, had she tried to remove that post, the whole first floor would likely have sagged 1.5-3 inches almost immediately, if it didn't actually break/collapse. Since I see buildings fail (actually collapse) due to poor workmanship on a regular basis, I think I have a bit of a strong position to argue that this is not some expert hubris, but actual experience. There are some things in the building code which are of pretty limited value to most people. And the structural provisions don't really matter but once in 50 years (our design is for a 2% or 50 year return period storm/event), which is non-trivial for construction. However, most people I've encountered get pretty wrapped around the axle when they find a load of snow in their kitchen, or their front yard in their basement, or their garage on the ground in pieces after a thunderstorm.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You lost faith in the democractic party due to Al Gore? He hasn't done anything political since losing in 2000 when he learned that he could make more money using his name recognition to fear peddle instead of run for office. Kinda like Palin. Republicans shouldn't lose faith based upon her actions. Of course, things change if either party runs one of these doofuses. Name dropping is differnet since it invokes the perception of the person and not the actual person (see Ronald Reagan).
There's nothing inherently irrational about this. For example, if your daughter says to you, "My grades are bad and my teacher says I need to spend more time studying", you'd believe her. But if she says, "My grades are bad and my teacher says I need to stay up later", you might not. The incentive to exaggerate or misstate evidence depends on the consequences of accepting the evidence, and thus the reliability of evidence depends on its consequences as well.
People do what agrees with their world view (and requires minimal effort). Like people who wind their clocks back 5 minutes instead of going to bed 5 minutes earlier.
Seriously, is Slashdot becoming the Climate Change news channel? It's nearly every day now... Is Slashdot owned by Al Gore or something? wtf...
When you hear a prediction, you ascribe a degree of confidence to it. If some of your friends say they will be on time to leave for the game, you can start walking to your car knowing they will pull in before you get to it. Others - for others you have back-up plans for going alone. The above statements were made by people representing themselves to be trustworthy in their statements. You can't know everybody in the world and have established personal opinions of their trustworthiness. You hope to be able to trust people with educations and in positions of responsibilities. These people and organizations made their statements. You may say they only made predictions. Very well, they were only predictions and they were not at fault when the predictions failed. That being the case, we must reduce our level of trust in them. That is what people are really doing when they call them liars. They are saying they can't be trusted. Considering the vehemence surrounding many of those predictions, how are people wrong to no longer trust them?
If a person can't verify the validity of the assertion, is it any wonder they will base their opinion on the proposed solutions?
A person is told the sky is falling. They can't verify it, but are told the potential consequences.
Then the person is told the 'needed' solution, say, cut off everbody's right leg.
Well the cure sounds pretty bad, and the impact of the cure on the person is very clear.
So two possibilities: one is unverifiable, the other well understood. Which one would a person choose?
Science and politcs, the former deals in speculation, the latter in tangible consequences. There should not be tangible consequences to mere speculation. That is just wrong-headed. History is replete with examples of 'scientifically supported' facts, resulting in barbaric consequences eg. the atrocities of WWII. We can look back _now_ and say 'the science was wrong', but _at the time_ the science was held up as the justification for action.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
This research brought to you by the letter "Duh!" and a grant from the Really Freaking Obvious foundation.
I suppose it's good to have a study to back up the obvious. It's just that, according to the study, the people most in need of convincing are exactly the same people who are going to most vigorously deny the validity of the study.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
As much as your tirade on why formal logic is not taught is appreciated, it saddens me to see that you never learned it yourself. Or at least never took to to heart. Did you even read what you just wrote?
When you start with a stupid question why would you expect any sane answer? We are 14 years into the century and there has been no statistically significant warming. Flat lined! So to get a 3.2 degree warming you would need record warmth for the rest of the century. Highly unlikely given that we are in the negative phase of the PDO, the AMO has peaked and is on the way down and the sun has gone very quiet. We are in for a few more decades of either cold, very cold or OMFG cold according to Dr Easterbrook's and Dr Libby's predictions. I cite them because their predictions have matched what has happened and their record is way better than the IPCC and their dozens of models (of which none work).
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
And when there is a particular solution that people want to implement, they'll find or invent a problem that necessitates said solution.
given that "the problem" and "the solution" are unverifiable assertions coming from the same source. If I don't agree with "the solution", of course I will tend to distrust the source and anything else they say, especially if "the problem" they postulate seems to be only a vehicle to advertise "the solution". If I don't like the product, I probably won't like the ad for it.