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."

Comments

Senator James Inhofe

[goombah99]

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...

Re:Senator James Inhofe

[Gadget_Guy]

Wow! That's a pretty damning list. Now all you need to do is prove that they are in fact lies. The problem is, your list of lies contain lies of its own. And when it can be found that something was said that turned out to be incorrect, can you prove that those are lies as opposed to the results of early models that didn't have the sophistication of our current models? If you claim that someone is lying, then you are saying that they are attempting to deliberately mislead people.

Being wrong or making a mistake does not prove that deliberate misleading is going on, nor does a handful of claims invalidate the thousands of other claims that have been shown to be correct. Even the scientist who pointed out the mistake that the IPCC made about the glaciers still said that he believed that the errors shouldn't shake people's belief in climate science..

If you do believe that catching someone in a lie disproves what they are saying, what should we think about how you have misreported what people said? You claim that Al Gore said that "Polar ice caps would be ice free by 2010", but what he actually said was this:

Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.

So instead of the definitive claim that it would happen, he said that just some models predicted that there was just a chance that it COULD happen. A model being inaccurate does not constitute a lie. Misquoting someone to twist what they say into a lie, is actually a lie.

So did anyone really claim that there would be hurricanes more powerful than Katrina? It seems they did claim the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic that are as strong or stronger than Hurricane Katrina will increase twofold to sevenfold but that was for every 1 degree C increase, which hasn't happened the time of Katrina.

I'm getting bored, so I'll skip to the end. Your assertion that every single prediction of the IPCC from before 2007 is demonstrably wrong.

There is such a thing as fact

[rsilvergun]

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...

Fundamentals of AGW

[Tenebrousedge]

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.

yep. Greenpeace founder says nuclear required

[raymorris]

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.

No, she really didn't get it.

[Overzeetop]

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.