As logical as it sounds to tell people to educate themselves by reading the paper (and supporting documents) for themselves to come to their own conclusion, that logic breaks down when you take into consideration all of the other issues that are important that people are expected to make informed decisions about, in addition to whatever topic is being discussed.
This is all true, however, something rotten is going on with the AGW debate. It's really a case of social engineering. A couple of people don't want any public policy on AGW, for whatever reason - perhaps they're anti-intellectual. The vast majority of scientists support the AGW case - there is consensus. There is no cogent argument against the scientific evidence.
So if you're powerful, and don't want those annoying scientists reigning on your parade, what do you do? You hire public relations firms to "adjust" popular perception. They have successfully pushed forward the idea that there's some sort of debate on the issue, when really, one side is being completely dishonest. It's science verses well funded marketing firms.
So Joe average comes along, reads a few sciency looking things, and believes that there must be some sort of religious dispute. Not being experts, and not having time or inclination to actually look at what's going on - voila - political action on global warming is stonewalled.
That's what's so frustrating about the whole situation. It's actually pretty transparent, when you start to follow references. The whole anti-AGW argument falls to pieces pretty quickly. It actually doesn't take that long to work out. Unfortunately, we instinctively think something is well researched just because there's a reference. This is not true. If you look at the references, it become apparent that one side is pulling stuff out of thin air, and the other side is actually trying to do real science.
There is just too much going on to be well-informed on every topic that could be important, and it is impossible to assign proper priority to each topic, without relying on expert opinion.
That's true, however, the what I *really* learnt from analysing the AGW "debate" was something about how society is structured, that seems 100x more valuable. This strays into the realm of political science, the stuff that Chomskey and Lakeoff write about. It's one thing to read about it, and another thing entirely to discover it for yourself. That's perhaps the best reason I can give for spending the time to look into it yourself. It's not too hard to work out what's going on - if you're determined.
Great, someone modded me flamebait for pointing out the truth. See here for more information on the exxon disinformation campaign. There's tonnes of information out there, if you read the references and follow the sources.
Lets take AGW, since it's the topic of the day. Exxon is spreading disinformation, successfully stopping public action. There should really be a law against what they're doing, but it's kinda a 1st amendment thing. So exxon is pillaging the public good, and my children will suffer.
Second hand smoke is linked to brain damage in fetuses. So is mercury. As for AGW, well, I educated myself on the issue and was horrified by what I found. That is an exercise left for the reader.
Isn't all science about finding patterns in numbers, and even more importantly finding the exceptions to the patterns?
Running statistical software against numbers is just a tiny part of science. One must create theories that explain observations - ideally experimental observations from which causal inferences can be made.
By analogy, you can use a computer statistical package to automatically translate from English into French, but a human translator is required to understand what they are doing.
Finding patterns in numbers is "atheoretical", and really not that useful. There are too many degrees of freedom, and too many ways to find "patterns", which don't really describe anything useful at all.
You do realise that friendsofscience is run by Ken Gregory who knows nothing about science, and is not a friend. Anyway, the Carlin paper is full of wingnut claims. For anyone interested, there's some information: here
How can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ?
Except they aren't with-holding something from the *scientific* community. The paper withheld is junk. Science has to meet certain standards, and rambling irrational non-sense is below the standard. If you don't believe me, then read that paper yourself, and read the references. That's how you know.
Yep, we have 100% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts.
One fact that you should be aware of is this: there is a corporate astro-turf campaign to spread pseudo-science that is meant to confuse people into thinking that there is some doubt about AGW. If you don't believe me, then I can only recommend actually reading all the arguments and check all the references. I warn you though, it will make you sick to your stomach.
The free market will always have a solution to the problem.
What's the free-market solution to smoking tobacco, and is it good for society? Didn't think so.
Every global warming theory uses the fallacy that technology does not naturally evolve.
There's a fundamental matter-energy problem at stake. A technological solution requires pretty much unlimited free power to pull that CO2 out of the atmosphere. If it's impossible, then laissez-faire economics wont be able to provide a solution.
You see, there's a problem with laissez-faire economics, which has evolved from the folkways of antiquity. It requires exponential growth, and is at odds with the fundamental matter-energy relationship we have with the earth. There will come a time when we reach some barrier, and make no mistake, we are staring down the barrel of a gun.
By analogy, laisez-faire economics is like bacteria growing across a petri dish. The bacteria grow exponentially, until they hit the size of the dish. Necessity is the mother of invention, so then the bacteria start producing antibiotics to kill each other.
If you keep silencing dissenting scientific opinions, is it a true consensus?
Your correct, however, the paper being silenced is not a scientific opinion. It's pure astroturf junk. Read it and decide for yourself - and make sure you read the references, and find out a little bit about the characters involved.
The situation is like the SCO litigation. There's a crowd of well funded people playing with the system in an attempt to stonewall any progress. But like all FUD, ya just gotta shine a bright light on it. The problem is, it takes time, and 99% of people wont bother. Hence the FUD continues, is effective, and scientists just groan and try to get on with their work.
We stopped talking about mercury, PM2.5, smog, PCBs, etc and we started to focus very obsessively on CO2.
The reason why we started talking obsessively, is that a bunch of well funded loud-mouths are spreading disinformation specifically to stone-wall any societal action. They are funded by exxon, and are the very same people who did the very same thing to stonewall public action on smoking policy a few decades ago.
Basically these guys are soaking up lots of public mind-space, to stop any progress at all on AGW issues, and that leaves less room for other important problems. Basically, the message from corporate america is: "we'll fight you at every turn, and no trick is too dirty". So of course we can't move past the AGW issue.
There are lots of environmental problems, just as mercury in the oceans. They should all be addressed, really. However, the forces of greed and ignorance make any sort of progress extremely difficult. And then there's a bunch of hostile crazy environmentalists who sabotage their own case.
You talk about AGW "fear-mongers", which makes me think you really haven't understood what's really going on. What's really going on is a bunch of corporate public relations firms are spread disinformation on global warming, in a completely dishonest way. They know that people wont bother to look beneath the surface of their claims, and so the FUD stands. If you don't believe me, then you should read the original papers yourself, and then check the references
I'm fairly neutral on global climate *. I think both sides are entirely too biased, and reason is not prevailing.
Then I recommend actually educating yourself on the arguments. Read some papers from both sides, and then read the references. It takes time, and 99% of people wont do it, and that's exactly why exxon's astroturf campaign has been so successful in making people believe that there's some sort of religious debate. You see, one side of the debate is completely dishonest.
The tabacco industry did the same thing 50 years ago, to stall public policy on tobacco. Disappointingly, the guys who ran that public-relations campaign are exactly the same people spreading disinformation on AGW.
The government needs a certain amount of power to enforce policy. Your point stands regarding power and corruption, and the solution is checks and balances - the division of power. This isn't perfect, but consider the checks and balances in a corporation. We have stockholders who elect a board to make money for them. The stockholders have no legal responsibility for what the corporation does. This system leads to some horrendously amoral behaviour. The whole AGW "debate" is a good example of corporate power gone nuts - but to understand that you need to look deeply into:
The arguments from both sides, and link the arguments back to the stakeholders
The history of the debate
As it is, the governments seem very weak compared to corporate power.
I wonder how many of these reports on other things (crime, drugs, copyright, etc) have been censored too in order to only give the government's point of view?
I know paranoia is popular on slashdot, and nobody RTFA, however, don't you think it's at least reasonable to judge the EPAs actions on the merits of their arguments?
For what it's worth, some climate scientists wrote a short article on Alan Carlin's paper.
There is, of course, no substitute for reading Carlin's paper yourself, but you need to also read the references, and try to find out more information about the arguments. Then you can judge whether the EPA is just being manipulative
Your reasoning is only 50% correct. You see, there are these public image organisations who deliberately spread misinformation, and they are well funded. These astro-turf organisations have their finger-prints all over this report. The basic strategy is to simply make lots and lots of noise, and rely on the fact that 99% of people wont bother to check the facts for themselves. Not being able or bothered to check the facts, a reasonable person will conclude that there is some sort of doubt over the issue.
The tabacco industry did exactly this to delay public action on smoking policy - they were successful for decades. The very same people are being employed by exxon specifically to delay public action on AGW. The tactic is - delay, delay, delay. Pretty much just like SCOs legal case. It's just a bunch of C%@P.
Read the report yourself, and look beneath the surface. Read the references. Try to find out more information about the referenced arguments. I have done this myself, and it makes me sick to my stomach that some selfish corporate nutcases can stonewall important policy.
THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR READING *ALL* THE MATERIALS FOR YOURSELF
You will learn much more than stuff about AGW - you'll learn something about politics and how society is constructed.
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
Correction - ANYONE can comment on AGW theory.
[flame thrower on]An ecology degree or a degree in meteorology is what you you get when you can't do the math for your physics.[flame thrower off]
That's just funny.
I suspect he was speaking more from his economics degree.
I suspect he's talking from his pocket - part of some astro-turf organisation. Doesn't really matter, since if he has good arguments, they should stand on their own merits. The problem is, his arguments are *terrible*. Not even worth the paper they're written on. To understand that, you have to actually understand the paper and some AGW arguments for and against. Most people are fully capable of doing that.
For what it's worth, the realclimate crowd have written a short article on why the EPA did what they did: Bubkes
Economists are the Rheumatologists of the the math world. If you want to diagnose some strange condition, that every other Dr tells you is all in your head, and no one is able to diagnose, you go to a Rheumatologist.
I thought you're supposed to go see a priest.
The economist's job is to spot and analyze trends. Since global warming has everything to do with trend analysis, I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data.
Why do you think climate science is only finding patterns in numbers? And what makes you think that trend analysis will actually give you worthwhile answers? For example, the chicken might be happy to see the farmer appear in the morning, since the farmer has always previously brought food. This morning, however, the farmer is going to chop the chicken's head off. So you see, trend analysis is a poor substitute for understanding.
Read the article and understand for yourself, and then you'll have an informed opinion. It's not beyond you.
Anyone who has a scientifically rigours argument against AGW will win like a noble prize or something. Besides that, they'll give actual credible arguments to the legions of astro-turf corporate trolls who are engaged in a campaign of disinformation. It's not beyond a person of reasonable intelligence to understand the arguments for and against. I did it myself, it took about 4 intense days to go through everything, and I did it by playing devil's advocate with someone with a partisan position. We covered everything, and surveying the territory will make any moral person sick to their stomach.
Except a ecological degree guarantees that you are fully indoctrinated in the environmental dogma of the day...not necessarily that you understand the nature of natural phenomena.
Understanding, of course, is a lot more work than arm-chair philosophy.
Perhaps it'd be fairer to assess the actions of the EPA on the merits of their argument. The paper by Carlin in pure junk - not even of the quality that an honours student is required. That's an important piece of information - but you should read and assess the claims yourself to be certain.
The current regime are using the bad deeds of our fathers as leverage to commit evil deeds. The US/does/ need to stop going to war every few years, that's true. However, even if the USA was a saint, I really don't think it'd make a difference; the Iranian regime is acting like a paranoid psychotic.
The joy of psychological research is it tells us we're all fundamentally broken. Yes, we know that. What your research doesn't tell anybody is what to actually do about it. Nobody does.
That ain't true. There's/lots/ known about what to do. With racism, a key contribution on psychology has been understanding the flexibility societal norms. For example, if gay marriage were legalised across the USA, then in about 20yrs, nobody would care. Understanding this principle is what helped propel legislation on desegregating schools.
The future of 'racism' is that word will fall out of fashion and pretty much cease to exist in a generation or so.
That sounds a little like wishful thinking. In just a few generations we've made tremendous progress with prejudice, however, it is rampant in its grossest forms in much of the world, and about 10% of westerners, who are "ethnocentric".
Then there's covert racism, which is till common in modern society.
Peoples behaviour choices are influenced unduly by racial considerations - esp. when it's personal (eg: choosing a family doctor), or ambiguous (eg: I didn't employ the black person because of his credentials).
There are many ways to measure covert racism, however, be wary of the IAT, it's highly controversial, so take what the researchers say about it with a grain of salt. Behavioural measures are the best (ie: watching what people *do*).
It seems that prejudice is built into the human condition - at least at a subtle level:
We form groups as power units
We all generate an in-group bias - it's part of a healthy self-esteem
We use stereotypes as cognitive shortcuts for organising and quickly processing information. There is no way to/stop/ stereotypes from forming, they are basic mental formations. The trick is not to/believe/ in the stereotypes that somehow get implanted in your head. That's pretty darn hard, and is similar to not having opinions about people. The stereotype, like an opinion, is a mental schema with which we process information.
As power units, groups compete, which is fertile ground for distrust and conflict (think republican vs. democrat)
Group cohesion relies on dumbing down individual processing. This has been experimentally shown. People are smart, but groups are stupid
The confirmation bias means that a lot of information just doesn't get critically analysed.
That's just who we are as human beings, and it means that we're always going to tread a fine line between in-group preference and out-group prejudice, and have difficulty even seeing that that's what we're doing. And that's in ideal situations when there are plenty of resources for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
As logical as it sounds to tell people to educate themselves by reading the paper (and supporting documents) for themselves to come to their own conclusion, that logic breaks down when you take into consideration all of the other issues that are important that people are expected to make informed decisions about, in addition to whatever topic is being discussed.
This is all true, however, something rotten is going on with the AGW debate. It's really a case of social engineering. A couple of people don't want any public policy on AGW, for whatever reason - perhaps they're anti-intellectual. The vast majority of scientists support the AGW case - there is consensus. There is no cogent argument against the scientific evidence.
So if you're powerful, and don't want those annoying scientists reigning on your parade, what do you do? You hire public relations firms to "adjust" popular perception. They have successfully pushed forward the idea that there's some sort of debate on the issue, when really, one side is being completely dishonest. It's science verses well funded marketing firms.
So Joe average comes along, reads a few sciency looking things, and believes that there must be some sort of religious dispute. Not being experts, and not having time or inclination to actually look at what's going on - voila - political action on global warming is stonewalled.
That's what's so frustrating about the whole situation. It's actually pretty transparent, when you start to follow references. The whole anti-AGW argument falls to pieces pretty quickly. It actually doesn't take that long to work out. Unfortunately, we instinctively think something is well researched just because there's a reference. This is not true. If you look at the references, it become apparent that one side is pulling stuff out of thin air, and the other side is actually trying to do real science.
There is just too much going on to be well-informed on every topic that could be important, and it is impossible to assign proper priority to each topic, without relying on expert opinion.
That's true, however, the what I *really* learnt from analysing the AGW "debate" was something about how society is structured, that seems 100x more valuable. This strays into the realm of political science, the stuff that Chomskey and Lakeoff write about. It's one thing to read about it, and another thing entirely to discover it for yourself. That's perhaps the best reason I can give for spending the time to look into it yourself. It's not too hard to work out what's going on - if you're determined.
Great, someone modded me flamebait for pointing out the truth. See here for more information on the exxon disinformation campaign. There's tonnes of information out there, if you read the references and follow the sources.
The biggest corporation in the world at worst can offer you take it or leave it.
Not true. They can shape public culture, like educating children into becoming better naggers.
Lets take AGW, since it's the topic of the day. Exxon is spreading disinformation, successfully stopping public action. There should really be a law against what they're doing, but it's kinda a 1st amendment thing. So exxon is pillaging the public good, and my children will suffer.
Second hand smoke is linked to brain damage in fetuses. So is mercury. As for AGW, well, I educated myself on the issue and was horrified by what I found. That is an exercise left for the reader.
I'd say it's worth paying attention to the man. Even if he's on the verge of retirement, 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.
If it's worth paying attention to him, then you'd actually RTFA, and the references, and work out that it's really just remedial junk.
Isn't all science about finding patterns in numbers, and even more importantly finding the exceptions to the patterns?
Running statistical software against numbers is just a tiny part of science. One must create theories that explain observations - ideally experimental observations from which causal inferences can be made.
By analogy, you can use a computer statistical package to automatically translate from English into French, but a human translator is required to understand what they are doing.
Finding patterns in numbers is "atheoretical", and really not that useful. There are too many degrees of freedom, and too many ways to find "patterns", which don't really describe anything useful at all.
You do realise that friendsofscience is run by Ken Gregory who knows nothing about science, and is not a friend. Anyway, the Carlin paper is full of wingnut claims. For anyone interested, there's some information: here
How can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ?
Except they aren't with-holding something from the *scientific* community. The paper withheld is junk. Science has to meet certain standards, and rambling irrational non-sense is below the standard. If you don't believe me, then read that paper yourself, and read the references. That's how you know.
Yep, we have 100% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts.
One fact that you should be aware of is this: there is a corporate astro-turf campaign to spread pseudo-science that is meant to confuse people into thinking that there is some doubt about AGW. If you don't believe me, then I can only recommend actually reading all the arguments and check all the references. I warn you though, it will make you sick to your stomach.
The free market will always have a solution to the problem.
What's the free-market solution to smoking tobacco, and is it good for society? Didn't think so.
Every global warming theory uses the fallacy that technology does not naturally evolve.
There's a fundamental matter-energy problem at stake. A technological solution requires pretty much unlimited free power to pull that CO2 out of the atmosphere. If it's impossible, then laissez-faire economics wont be able to provide a solution.
You see, there's a problem with laissez-faire economics, which has evolved from the folkways of antiquity. It requires exponential growth, and is at odds with the fundamental matter-energy relationship we have with the earth. There will come a time when we reach some barrier, and make no mistake, we are staring down the barrel of a gun.
By analogy, laisez-faire economics is like bacteria growing across a petri dish. The bacteria grow exponentially, until they hit the size of the dish. Necessity is the mother of invention, so then the bacteria start producing antibiotics to kill each other.
If you keep silencing dissenting scientific opinions, is it a true consensus?
Your correct, however, the paper being silenced is not a scientific opinion. It's pure astroturf junk. Read it and decide for yourself - and make sure you read the references, and find out a little bit about the characters involved.
The situation is like the SCO litigation. There's a crowd of well funded people playing with the system in an attempt to stonewall any progress. But like all FUD, ya just gotta shine a bright light on it. The problem is, it takes time, and 99% of people wont bother. Hence the FUD continues, is effective, and scientists just groan and try to get on with their work.
There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this.
The theory isn't controversial amongst *scientists*.
We stopped talking about mercury, PM2.5, smog, PCBs, etc and we started to focus very obsessively on CO2.
The reason why we started talking obsessively, is that a bunch of well funded loud-mouths are spreading disinformation specifically to stone-wall any societal action. They are funded by exxon, and are the very same people who did the very same thing to stonewall public action on smoking policy a few decades ago.
Basically these guys are soaking up lots of public mind-space, to stop any progress at all on AGW issues, and that leaves less room for other important problems. Basically, the message from corporate america is: "we'll fight you at every turn, and no trick is too dirty". So of course we can't move past the AGW issue.
There are lots of environmental problems, just as mercury in the oceans. They should all be addressed, really. However, the forces of greed and ignorance make any sort of progress extremely difficult. And then there's a bunch of hostile crazy environmentalists who sabotage their own case.
You talk about AGW "fear-mongers", which makes me think you really haven't understood what's really going on. What's really going on is a bunch of corporate public relations firms are spread disinformation on global warming, in a completely dishonest way. They know that people wont bother to look beneath the surface of their claims, and so the FUD stands. If you don't believe me, then you should read the original papers yourself, and then check the references
I'm fairly neutral on global climate *. I think both sides are entirely too biased, and reason is not prevailing.
Then I recommend actually educating yourself on the arguments. Read some papers from both sides, and then read the references. It takes time, and 99% of people wont do it, and that's exactly why exxon's astroturf campaign has been so successful in making people believe that there's some sort of religious debate. You see, one side of the debate is completely dishonest.
The tabacco industry did the same thing 50 years ago, to stall public policy on tobacco. Disappointingly, the guys who ran that public-relations campaign are exactly the same people spreading disinformation on AGW.
I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago, think it ended up scoring (1, Troll)
;-)
Copy your post and sources into a reply and I'll tear it to pieces on the merits of argumentation. That's if you dare
As it is, the governments seem very weak compared to corporate power.
I wonder how many of these reports on other things (crime, drugs, copyright, etc) have been censored too in order to only give the government's point of view?
I know paranoia is popular on slashdot, and nobody RTFA, however, don't you think it's at least reasonable to judge the EPAs actions on the merits of their arguments?
For what it's worth, some climate scientists wrote a short article on Alan Carlin's paper.
There is, of course, no substitute for reading Carlin's paper yourself, but you need to also read the references, and try to find out more information about the arguments. Then you can judge whether the EPA is just being manipulative
Your reasoning is only 50% correct. You see, there are these public image organisations who deliberately spread misinformation, and they are well funded. These astro-turf organisations have their finger-prints all over this report. The basic strategy is to simply make lots and lots of noise, and rely on the fact that 99% of people wont bother to check the facts for themselves. Not being able or bothered to check the facts, a reasonable person will conclude that there is some sort of doubt over the issue.
The tabacco industry did exactly this to delay public action on smoking policy - they were successful for decades. The very same people are being employed by exxon specifically to delay public action on AGW. The tactic is - delay, delay, delay. Pretty much just like SCOs legal case. It's just a bunch of C%@P.
Read the report yourself, and look beneath the surface. Read the references. Try to find out more information about the referenced arguments. I have done this myself, and it makes me sick to my stomach that some selfish corporate nutcases can stonewall important policy.
THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR READING *ALL* THE MATERIALS FOR YOURSELF
You will learn much more than stuff about AGW - you'll learn something about politics and how society is constructed.
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
Correction - ANYONE can comment on AGW theory.
[flame thrower on]An ecology degree or a degree in meteorology is what you you get when you can't do the math for your physics.[flame thrower off]
That's just funny.
I suspect he was speaking more from his economics degree.
I suspect he's talking from his pocket - part of some astro-turf organisation. Doesn't really matter, since if he has good arguments, they should stand on their own merits. The problem is, his arguments are *terrible*. Not even worth the paper they're written on. To understand that, you have to actually understand the paper and some AGW arguments for and against. Most people are fully capable of doing that.
For what it's worth, the realclimate crowd have written a short article on why the EPA did what they did: Bubkes
Economists are the Rheumatologists of the the math world. If you want to diagnose some strange condition, that every other Dr tells you is all in your head, and no one is able to diagnose, you go to a Rheumatologist.
I thought you're supposed to go see a priest.
The economist's job is to spot and analyze trends. Since global warming has everything to do with trend analysis, I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data.
Why do you think climate science is only finding patterns in numbers? And what makes you think that trend analysis will actually give you worthwhile answers? For example, the chicken might be happy to see the farmer appear in the morning, since the farmer has always previously brought food. This morning, however, the farmer is going to chop the chicken's head off. So you see, trend analysis is a poor substitute for understanding.
Read the article and understand for yourself, and then you'll have an informed opinion. It's not beyond you.
Anyone who has a scientifically rigours argument against AGW will win like a noble prize or something. Besides that, they'll give actual credible arguments to the legions of astro-turf corporate trolls who are engaged in a campaign of disinformation. It's not beyond a person of reasonable intelligence to understand the arguments for and against. I did it myself, it took about 4 intense days to go through everything, and I did it by playing devil's advocate with someone with a partisan position. We covered everything, and surveying the territory will make any moral person sick to their stomach.
Except a ecological degree guarantees that you are fully indoctrinated in the environmental dogma of the day...not necessarily that you understand the nature of natural phenomena.
Understanding, of course, is a lot more work than arm-chair philosophy.
Perhaps it'd be fairer to assess the actions of the EPA on the merits of their argument. The paper by Carlin in pure junk - not even of the quality that an honours student is required. That's an important piece of information - but you should read and assess the claims yourself to be certain.
The current regime are using the bad deeds of our fathers as leverage to commit evil deeds. The US /does/ need to stop going to war every few years, that's true. However, even if the USA was a saint, I really don't think it'd make a difference; the Iranian regime is acting like a paranoid psychotic.
The joy of psychological research is it tells us we're all fundamentally broken. Yes, we know that. What your research doesn't tell anybody is what to actually do about it. Nobody does.
/lots/ known about what to do. With racism, a key contribution on psychology has been understanding the flexibility societal norms. For example, if gay marriage were legalised across the USA, then in about 20yrs, nobody would care. Understanding this principle is what helped propel legislation on desegregating schools.
That ain't true. There's
That sounds a little like wishful thinking. In just a few generations we've made tremendous progress with prejudice, however, it is rampant in its grossest forms in much of the world, and about 10% of westerners, who are "ethnocentric".
Then there's covert racism, which is till common in modern society. Peoples behaviour choices are influenced unduly by racial considerations - esp. when it's personal (eg: choosing a family doctor), or ambiguous (eg: I didn't employ the black person because of his credentials).
There are many ways to measure covert racism, however, be wary of the IAT, it's highly controversial, so take what the researchers say about it with a grain of salt. Behavioural measures are the best (ie: watching what people *do*).
It seems that prejudice is built into the human condition - at least at a subtle level:
That's just who we are as human beings, and it means that we're always going to tread a fine line between in-group preference and out-group prejudice, and have difficulty even seeing that that's what we're doing. And that's in ideal situations when there are plenty of resources for everyone.