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

never mix science and politics

[BringsApples]

Never mix science with politics.

Re:never mix science and politics

[Nemyst]

That's shortsighted. Science can't do much if you don't use it to guide policy, which, drum rolls, is politics. You can't divorce the two without severely hampering science's ability to improve our daily lives and without making politics an even bigger shithole than it already is.

Hell, politics would be an awful lot better if politicians were driven by scientific results instead of baseless ideologies.

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

[jythie]

In other words, you can not tell the difference between 'lie' and 'adjusting prediction as more information becomes available'.

Re:Senator James Inhofe

[Enigma2175]

See what I mean?
Posts like yours just go on to make more and more people not believe you.

IPCC said himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, had to admit they were wrong.
Polar ice caps would be ice free by 2010, Al Gore
Every year we would face numerous hurricanes more powerful than Katrina, hasn't happened.
Ocean level rise would make beach houses in Florida under water, isn't happening.
Because of increase CO2 temps would incread by .4 C by 2010, we currently have 18 years of NO WARMING.
Look at ANY IPCC prediction before 2007, now that we can measure it to reality, and evey single one is wrong.

The fact that I even have to list any of these because you didn't know show how absolutly in denial the AGW supporers are. You know damn well what the lies are, yet instead of admitting them and coming up with better scientific evidence instead you chose to attack me and claim I was lying. That is what I was compling about and thank you for proving me right.

All the examples you gave are failed predictions, not lies. Lies would be something like falsifying current data. Predicting the future is notoriously hard, to call failed predictions "lies" is assigning malice to the statements that I don't think exists. Perhaps if you toned down the rhetoric and didn't accuse people who don't share your views of lying there could be meaningful dialog on the matter. I doubt that will happen, because it is much easier to demonize your opponent than it is to present data that contradicts the hypothesis. Perhaps the people who believe AGW isn't happening should make some predictions of their own (glaciers will grow? Ice extent will increase or stay the same? Ocean levels will not rise?) and we'll see how their predictions hold up.

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.

Distrust of the source

[Chrondeath]

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...

This is Real

[Overzeetop]

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.

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.