Skeptical of Science: Social scientists may be able to shed light on cultural doubt about climate change as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
Image: Photo by theqspeaks, courtesy Flickr
Stop being so skeptical of climate skeptics, says one researcher who believes there's been a failure to understand the mounting cultural doubt around atmospheric warming.
The national discussion on climate change is brimming with economic models, scientific findings and wonky plans to fix it. But something is missing: academic explanations of why people flout reams of scientific conclusions, bristle at the notion of cutting carbon and regard climate change as a sneaky liberal plot.
"The social sciences are glaringly missing," says Andrew Hoffman, an expert on the sociological aspects of environmental policies at the University of Michigan, for which he's researching climate denial. "That leaves out critical questions about the cultural dimensions of both defining the problem and finding solutions."
He provides unvarnished reasons for that. One concerns his colleagues' dismissal of the conservative movement. They deny the deniers, he seems to say, by tending to "ignore the far right." More broadly, social scientists -- like sociologists, psychologists and communication researchers -- are generally disengaged from public policy debates.
"Both of those are problematic," Hoffman says. "Within academia, the currency that matters is in A-level journals. And therefore, the chief thread has to be theoretical. This is an empirical phenomenon."
That means observation. His research partner put that emphasis on collecting evidence to work by attending a conservative conference on climate change last May. She came away with themes that will sketch an outline of the skeptical movement for future research: Adherents tend to be middle-aged, white males who resent government, are suspicious of scientists and their peer-reviewed protocols, and believe global warming is made up to hit them in the wallet.
They find 'palpable anger'
"Palpable anger among speakers and participants" is one of the cataloged observations.
"Frequently heard terms" is another, describing climate advocates as warmists, alarmists, lefties, Obama-ites and communists. The research also notes that attendees referred to scientists who don't believe in climate change as "heroes."
One conservative at the conference, Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was among those noticed by the researcher, who attended the meeting with a "skeptic insider." Horner stood out to the academic because of this quote: "The environmental agenda seeks to use the state to create scarcity as a means to exert their will, and the state's authority, over your lives."
Horner is not impressed by the research topic. He says it's one more attempt to justify climate change -- and the policies that go along with it.
"From this confusion they pretend to play Jane Goodall peering in on this strange culture standing in their way," he wrote in an e-mail. "Sorry. I'm too busy to give something like that a whole lot of thought right now."
All of this paints a complex picture for the researchers, who aim to ascertain whether the cultural barriers that separate conservatives and climate change can be bridged, or whether the ideological impulses have already become as strong as those surrounding abortion.
"Some may argue that the climate skeptic movement is small and thus irrelevant to the debate on what to do about climate change, but as social scientists, we cannot endorse such flippant dismissal," says a paper by the researchers that will be published in the journal Strategic Organization next summer.
Similarities to abortion politics
"If, as we suspect, skeptics invoke climate frames that resemble abortion politics, this has serious policy implications. As long as members of the skeptic movement are included in the policy debate and sway the opinions of some lawmakers, their discourse is critically relevant."
This comes amid a conservative rise in the House and Senate following midterm elections that often rewarded candidates who dismissed climate science. Days after that outcome, up to 45 climate scientists are now being deployed through media "rapid response teams" to promote their findings that support the occurrence of global warming.
The plan is not a reaction to the elections, says one organizer, but rather an effort to reboot the debate around scientific facts. Still, it might be seen as attempt to convince skeptics they're wrong, rather than understand the cultural reasons driving their beliefs.
"When you talk about dealing with skepticism outside the scientific community, much of that skepticism isn't founded on good science," said John Abraham, who researches thermal fluid processes at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota and is participating in the response teams. "Some skepticism is so divorced from the science that it's very difficult to have a conversation and find compromise."
Hoffman cautions against the long-held philosophy of scientists to state the facts -- and expect leery audiences to shed their doubts. His paper says skeptics view climate science as a "covert way" for liberals and government to manipulate the financial markets and "diminish citizens' personal freedom."
"Simplistic notions," he said in an interview, "that we merely have to present the science and we're done -- that ignores some of the deeper cultural elements at play such as freedom, privacy, proper role of government, our place within the environment, the balance between development and environmental protection."
See what we're tweeting about
51 Comments
Add Comment"This is a tough one to find a smoking gun on," said Hoffman.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerfect closing line! The confusion comes from the muddy rhetoric, the very unscientific assumption that there is one and only one cause for climate change. Geological evidence shows climate change which predates mankind, but all change now is clearly caused by human activity.
Clearly there is some good science being done on global warming, but it is obscured by idiots who think that being able to create a computer model constitutes absolute proof of the causes and absolute certainty of predictions of the future.
Maybe I just have this perspective because I still remember walking to school on the very first Earth Day...doing my part to prevent the impending ICE AGE!!!
Well, no doubt this article points out a very interesting challenge for social scientists. Figuring out how to prevent warming is probably pretty easy compared to figuring out why certain humans are compelled to deny reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis research and article amount to a really insulting ad hom argument. "We dismiss your position without comment, we want to study you to figure out how you could possibly be so stupid." Really thats been the line of warmist all along, this is just more professionally done. Please tell me these socialogists aren't getting any government money for this research. We know there is plenty of it around for climate scientists that will tow the line on warming, I guess this is a way for socialogists to get a piece of that pie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWasn't there already a smoking gun found for the deniers and the gun was being held by those with vast wealth from oil?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKen, I think this is what you might call a false memory. Or perhaps you are confusing nuclear winter with climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thing that bothers me about this whole debate is the pervasive all or nothing mentality. I believe that global climate change is happening, and scientific data (FACTS) proves that conclusively. I also believe that explanations of the causes of the data (THEORIES) are not conclusive; rather they are largely speculative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author, along with most "believers", seems to dismiss the possibility that people like me exist. We are an uncomfortable truth, those of us who see that theory regarding systems of such vast scope and complexity CANNOT be proven because there is no planet sized laboratory in which to experiment.
Computer models can prove that a theory is plausible, not that it is factual. In the case of global warming theory, we don't even know what all the variable ARE, much less have the computing power to include them all.
So we simplify, assume, and thereby come up with computer models designed to prove our assumptions. Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.
Cosmic, do some research. Throughout human history, there have been periodic shifts between predictions of global warming and global cooling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the late '60s it was global cooling...not just nuclear winter, but particulate matter was going to get so thick that it would block out the sun.
YOU might call it false memory, since the truth is so inconvenient.
By the way, I DO believe it is important for us to limit carbon and particulate emissions. I DO believe it is important for us to be good stewards of the environment. However I find it hard to get behind with all the alarmist nonsense put forth and all the speculation being foisted on us in the guise of fact.
AGW's fall into three categories: 1) those that are conspiracy theorist (it's all a commie plot, like community water fluoridation and contrails), 2)those who don't understand science (the "how do we know anything" crowd), 3) and those that agree it's happening but for various reasons (read: political) they are reserving judgment until a scientific consensus is made (already happened).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFourth category : Those of us who DO understand science, KNOW the difference between facts and theories, HATE oversimplification of such very complex issues, and LIVE IN FEAR that the end of the world will come NOT from global warming, but from some moronic attempt to reverse it by covering the Pacific Ocean with reflective glitter or pumping particulate matter into the atmosphere. (Note: read carefully, I don't hate YOU, just your oversimplification ;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt kills me that the researchers report they found "palpable anger". So if you tell somebody you want to study them to find out how they could be so weird as to not share your belief system they tend to get a little testy. Imagine that!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason so many are so staunchly resistant, even to the point of doubting seemingly incontrovertible data, isn't because the data is, necessarily, fallible. People who don't understand the underlying science more likely to lump "global warming" or "climate change" into one whole and are likely incapable or unwilling to segregate what I believe to be a few areas related to the data, namely; data proving global warming is occurring, data proving humans are the cause, models predicting what the future will look like given anthropogenic global warming, and what can be done about it. If a body disagrees with any one aspect, all the rest tend to fail in the mind of most. There are brash assumptions on both sides of the argument. Many on the skeptical side of the argument erroneously denounce the science because the don't get it. Many who are skeptical of the skeptics dismiss, just as flippantly, the opinions of those they would consider doltish sheep. The problem is with both parties, i.e. some of the science is obviously sound and some of the opinions of the skeptics are obviously valid. They may not have the facilities to understand the science, but it is likely that their beef doesn't even really lie there. It's likely the skeptics, though they may not have defined it, are mostly concerned about what ought to be done about it. They, rightly I believe, understand that the propositions being suggested will be little more than token efforts (given China and other developing nations' energy demands). Unfortunately too many issue a blanket denial because the consequences have been defined by the same scientists with the following logic: Global warming exists, it is caused by humans, there are possible grave consequences if we don't act now, and therefore, government policies must be put in place to force compliance with our suppositions based on the gravity of us being right. I think the big problem isn't that there aren't real concerns, but that many are being told they ought to give up far too much based on the suppositions of what they already consider to be an inept government. It's too bad that good science and good scientists get thrown under the bus, but they have to prove, not just that humans are making it happen (maybe already done?) but what are real solutions to fixing it. The greatest tool we have to address these concerns are our economy and ingenuity, which must be run on energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't get the oil argument, as an aside. If we are reaching peak oil, can't we just use it up real quick so we can move on?
Don't know what all the fuss is about. Mankind has always survived during global warming, cooling or whatever. Simple thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWarming? Make new beachwear or fans!
Cooling? More parkas or gloves and hats!
Warming? Make more air conditioning (more jobs).
Cooling? Make more parkas! (More jobs).
Now, is it next Tuesday when we're gaining 25 degrees ALL AT ONCE or is it all a LOSS on next Saturday?
Everybody just relax. Mankind survives.
Bodelco
"The confusion comes from the muddy rhetoric, the very unscientific assumption that there is one and only one cause for climate change."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've never once seen a paper that states there is only one cause for climate change (and I've read quite a few). The fact there climate change research is spread into a number of different fields is proof enough of that. You're not going to find a "there's only one reason" in the conclusion of any reputable scientific literature. Nature isn't that simple.
"Geological evidence shows climate change which predates mankind, but all change now is clearly caused by human activity."
Silliness. The scientific community has never said that all change is clearly caused by human activity. Case in point cow-produced methane which has been well studied. What has been shown though beyond reasonable doub and through a variety of different studies (be it ice cores, coral bleaching, changes in glacial depth and many more) is that the rate of temperature increase is faster than it has ever been on the planet. A rate so fast that it is not at all consistent with past warming events.
"Climatology is based on theories with no way to confirm
experimentally what the theories suggest. This flies in the face of what true science is."
I've never read climate research that isn't supported with hard numbers which can be independently reproduced. Please cite a specific journal article to back up your claim.
"results that are paid for by the people footing the bill."
The people footing the bill are more often than not taxpayers. Unless you distrust the average countryman. At the end of journal articles funding sources are cited. Any conflicts of interest must be clearly stated by the authors.
Let me save you a lot of trouble. As human beings, 100% of us have been fooled or brainwashed by politicians, corporations and religions to one huge degree or another. Throughout history even scientists have been brainwashed into believing erroneous things for centuries until some brilliant revelation occurs by a doubter. To be skeptical and analytical of everything is to be intelligent. But in this particular case, the problem lies more in the huge expenditures proposed for conservation and behavior modification efforts, which are not going make a dent in the climate. Climate is just too massive, and people are just too unwilling, and populations grow too fast, and large countries are maturing too fast. Any hope for affecting climate must come from Scientists and Technologists tackling climate control head-on, i.e. CO2 absorption or conversion, etc., and for that we need a lot more scientists and technologists working on direct climate control, and a lot more money to finance it. We need a national and world mindset that intelligent Science and R&D careers rule over everything else, and push parents to push their kids towards science and technology in droves, like there's no tomorrow. Solutions will come from new creative ideas, not giving the public a false sense of security and accomplishment by getting them to buy a hybrid or electric vehicle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisO.K., so what you are saying is that we (you were quoting others, as well as me) are completely right, except for our perception of this absolutist attitude which you say does not come from scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a fair point, and not one to be taken lightly. Perhaps we get this belief from the press and other non-technical people who argue blindly to support what science says. Perhaps the vast majority of "believer vs. non-believer" arguments take place without scientific supervision.
If so, eliminating the extremist, alarmist and absolutist rhetoric from BOTH sides would be a good starting point for the kind of social research the author was advocating.
I have long felt that science education in recent years has eroded to a dogmatic presentation of "science says so, so don't question it", when REAL science ALWAYS questions itself. Students should learn to ask good questions, and ask them often...a Herculean thing to ask of most K-12 level educators.
As to the point of "results that are paid for by the people footing the bill", taxpayers have no direct input into what science gets funded and what doesn't, so somebody (or some small group) makes those choices. I submit that SOMETIMES scientists overstate their certainty and gloss over their assumptions because it is easier to get grant money for "scientific facts" than for theories, given that it is rarely scientists who allocate the money, but lawyers and accountants who don't know the difference and don't have time to care.
I agree with just about everyone who's posted comments, specifically Cindy and Ken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Solutions will come from new creative ideas, not giving the public a false sense of security and accomplishment by getting them to buy a hybrid or electric vehicle."
Amen. Politics, intellectuals... it all makes me sick. It seems like the people with genuine concern for the planet, our species, and life in general are never the ones who get exposure, power, or influence. Perhaps that only surprises me because I'm young and ign'ant.
It's so very hard for me to be positive about the future of our species.
In Britain, a politician has just been condemned for lying in his campaign. When the US abandons the right to lie it might just start to make some sensible decisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis study shows that people's brains fill in when they lack control over their situation. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;322/5898/115/DC2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who are feeling overwhelmed, with insufficient information, also feel out of control over their situation. In those situations, you can't trust yourself to have accurate perceptions. You may also be more likely to latch onto conspiracies or superstitions that seemingly explain and answer the unknowns when you feel out of control. This brain habit, to mentally fill in the blanks with an alternative paradigm, operates in EVERYONE under uncertain and stressful situations.
Climate science has shown, and continues to show with ample evidence, a definite relationship of CO2 forcing the climates and ocean temperatures to be warmer. The oceans are also acidifying in the arctic. These are problems to solve, they are not agendas to cause harm.
Perhaps the cynics can find some time to answer some real research questions instead of repeating the same old sarcasm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey can start with:
(1) We can predict the behavior of CO2 using equations from quantum mechanics; we can confirm the predictions with laboratory experiments; Why in the heck does it behave differently in the atmosphere? What mysterious mechanism blocks heat gain from CO2?
(2) Climate cycles come & go; perhaps the cynics could identify an actual climate cycle in the geologic record that explains the current warming. The cynics logic about climate cycles is clearer if restated:
"The last 2 times my son was in the hospital, he had broken bones. "
"He is now in the hospital."
"Therefore he has broken bones" (so concludes the cynics)
The last two times the climate was this warm was during the sunniest part of the Milankovitch cycle, but we are certainly not in the sunniest part of a Milankovich cycle now.
(3) The cynics should provide solid evidence of the mysterious force currently causing the climate to warm (since warming due to CO2 is counteracted by the mysterious mechanism in #1 above); perhaps they can also provide some reasoning to dismiss the whopping big coincidence of CO2 increasing in the atmosphere in virtual lockstep with rising trend in temperatures.
Its astonishing to me how far SA has slipped from science into this strange reality. Here's a primary rub with 'skeptics." There are people who believe they are all knowing and are hell-bent on changing the way we live with their enlightened views. Their views are based on the species-esteem issues that consider the human race a stain on this planet. I disagree. I think the human race is incredibly blessed and this planet and our climate are essentially unaffected by us. Look at real science free of political rhetoric. Google "Vostok Survey" and click IMAGES....look at the trend and retract this ridiculous article before your reputation is further tarnished.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe situation from where I sit is pretty clear. The vast bulk of the scientific evidence, to the point where there is really no serious disagreement on the basic facts, is that we are rapidly and profoundly altering fundamental Earth systems, climate, ocean chemistry etc. This is really not much less certain than that the sun rises every day. If I run into someone that refuses to believe the sun rises in the morning what am I to think? It is asking a lot of me to give said persons opinions on that subject even the slightest credence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeyond that we simply can't afford to sit back and debate this stuff anymore. We just wasted $1 trillion this year by doing NOTHING. Sitting around debating with people that refuse to link up with reality seems like a profound waste of time and precious resources when there is a vast work needing to be undertaken, one that really can't wait.
Surely social scientists are going to look at us and say "gosh your attitude is antagonistic". Darn right it is antagonistic, the HOUSE IS ON FIRE. If it is antagonistic to say that then maybe what we need is MORE ANTAGONISM! I realize shouting louder isn't likely to be a solution but lets see, we've tried REASON. That failed. I'm finding it hard to see a way to deploy bribery or deception. The list of obvious solutions is getting almost as short as the time left available to deploy them. What is next, force? Really, just what is the moral equation here? How far do we go to get done what needs to be done? It begins to become a question of what ISN'T justified, not what "might help".
Please present your evidence. Mine is stated above as a 600 thousand year trend with 4 heating cycles preceded by periods of increased dust particulates thousands of years prior to the heating cycle. Google VOSTOK SURVEY and then click IMAGES for the plot of real data. The data says we need to be buying parkas for the upcoming ice age. Then present your evidence, not your opinion of what you consider obvious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer to the title question is "No." Social scientists are part of the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate change has been going on since recorded time. The proof that our climate policy conflicts with our energy policy, and vice versa, is: Using ethanol in vehicles emits MORE carbon dioxide into the air than using gasoline. That scientific fact is true.
Certainly psychology should be able to explain much of the problem with getting people to accept the reality of man-made climate change. First of all, there is the situation of those feeling economically threatened by the solutions implied by the the discovered causes. It is fairly natural that they would have the sort of emotional reactions we see in pretty much any discussion of the topic. On the other side are the methods used to convince others. The use of emotional manipulation, false and misleading "facts" is apparently a much more successful way of convincing people than honest presentations of scientific evidence (not to mention scientific uncertainties). Not that I would recommend scientists start using these sort of manipulation techniques. Given how prevalent this sort of thing is in our society, in advertising and politics especially, I think what is most needed is educating people in the forms of manipulation being used and the ways to counteract them. I think this needs to be an intrinsic part of every child's education just as much as reading and math. The whole purpose of education is to enable people to function effectively in society. But how can we do that when we are constantly being manipulated by anyone who is willing to put their own self interest above that of everyone else?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment is humorous because it is based on your feeling that you do understand science and yet you don't know the scientific definition of theory. A theory is something for which there is abundant evidence (fairly close to "fact" in science). I think you mean hypotheses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink, for a second, of what people on each side of this debate have to gain if their view is supported. Now think again about who's view is driven by their desire for personal gain. No amount of scientific evidence will convince you of anything because you've already decided based on politics or your gut. That's called "confirmation bias" and it'd be worth looking it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we need is a study on why so many well-educated people want to believe in this nonsense so badly. They'll lie, they'll support other liars, they'll supress anybody that disagrees with them, and they sometimes are so far gone with their faith that they'll honestly see things that just arent there. They'll say there is a mountain of evidence to support it but can produce none of it, and when they try they'll show you the most flawed nonsense ever. They'll make arguments so weak that they themselves would never be persuaded by their logic if they were talking about any other subject. Let's get the psychologists and socialogists to work on that one because it's a big problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@rodestar,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Would you be talking about the hard evidence that
left egg on the face of the climatologists just before
the last summit and blew their whole raft out of the water."
No, That would be you confusing fossil fuel propaganda with the truth. Why is it you guys so blindly repeat everything you hear?
"After being caught cooking data..."
That did not happen. Oh, I forgot you like the comforting lies.
"they acted like it was no big deal and that the assumptions based on this data were still valid..."
What data is invalid Rode? Name it. Name the specific database. Is it a glacier mass loss? Total solar irradiance? Sea level rise? Is the database a temperatures one? If so what type of temperature database? Ground? Satellite? Balloon? Ocean Buoys? Is it paleoclimate? If so, again, what type? Borehole? Coral? Ice? Pollen? Please be as specific as possible.
You know what is funny? The fact that I am betting that you never knew that all the of the above databases even existed; not to mention the fact that to spite using different techniques instruments they all give roughly the same result.
Now your job is to give the specif stolen E-mails that address all of this data. I do not want excerpts I want the primary document. Link to it. Go ahead.Prove to me you are not a dupe.
To be clear, I am not saying anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist. That said, I find it interesting that there are a few other correlations I know of between temperature and CO2. The Medieval Warm Period(MWP) correlated to higher atmospheric CO2. The Little Ice Age (shortly after the MWP) or Maunder Minimum correlated to lower CO2. The Dalton minimum correlated to lower CO2. Our current higher temperatures, as you correctly state, also correlate to higher atmospheric CO2 levels (perhaps higher than ever before. What has my panties in a knot, though, and perhaps you can help here, is that (and I am unsure of the MWP) there is another important correlation with these phenomena. Namely, nearly all of them correspond to either a decrease(as in the Maunder and Dalton Minimums for example) or an increase (as in the current Modern Maximum) of solar activity. I am sure you aware of this because many AGW deniers try to use this argument, but I still feel it is important that we try to understand those correlations. Also, it would seem to me that out of those three phenomena, there is only one that is capable of affecting the other two as neither rising atmospheric CO2 nor rising global temperatures could cause an increase in solar activity. Now I also understand that I am only speaking of 3-4 events, hardly of statistical relevance, but I would have to argue that current climatologists suffer from a similar lack of appropriate sample material. Again, it's not that I don't believe our massive pollutions over the last century aren't of concern, or aren't even causing problems, perhaps even globally, but I am equally concerned that many may be looking for answers where they want to find them, and not necessarily where they are. Scientists are no more or less people than every other ignorant mammal on this planet. I appreciate your feedback on this matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistharter, your argument suffers a little. Let's make the assumption that man-made global warming exists and is about to be catastrophic. The real question becomes, "What can be done about it?" Obviously we have tried campaigns, movies, commercials, Earth Day, and even some mild policy changes to try to affect change. You argue, and if the models are accurate perhaps I agree, that not enough has been done. In fact, it would seem we have accelerated what is about to (according to you) become our own demise. You suggest force as a viable option because of how important this message of earth's destruction really is. But here is where I feel your argument becomes poignantly weak.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurely you understand that this earth is much more complex than our polluting American ways. While it is true that, per capita, we spew significantly more waste than anywhere else in the world, the rest of the world is catching up to us very quickly. Our fecundity in the US and Europe has dropped significantly, so it could be argued that our problems are declining, if ever so slightly. But move south a little and you will find populations are growing, and the wealth and waste, per capita, of those nations are also increasing. So in order to make a dent in GHG emissions, not only do Europe, the US and Japan need to be controlled (we obviously won’t do it on our own), but China, Brazil, Latin America, Africa, etc. all need to be controlled. This will not happen without significant upheaval in the current order of things. That means lots of war and lots of bloodshed. By contrast, doing nothing, according to you, will lead to global catastrophe, causing a great decline in population, energy usage, and, ipso facto, pollution. It seems like either way, we are in trouble.
Your argument suffers because you think you could force people into changing their beliefs to be closer to yours. At least this is what they will consider. In that respect, and in their minds, you are no better than any other religious fanatic who has tried to forcibly deny people their rights and beliefs. Whether you are right or wrong about AGW isn’t even, unfortunately, that relevant. If AGW is a problem, someone needs to figure out how to better spread the gospel. Please let me know what you think would actually work.
Very well put! I've been reading the SA article responses a lot more lately; and while a nice chunk of folks seem to belong to the polarized camps, it's a GREAT feeling to know that there are folks like you, and some of the other voices of reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs has been mentioned plenty of times, scientists are people too, and will not shy from attempting to force others to believe them or follow what they dictate to be right or true, whether or not they have science on their side.
Maybe this is just my ignorance talking, but isn't it possible that we just don't know as much as we think we do? I'm not saying climate change isn't a problem, mankind isn't evil, blah blah blah, but hasn't "the truth" been disproven tons of times throughout the course of human history, even when science is on its side?
No, I'm afraid I can't provide specific examples. I'm a lowly biology undergrad, and haven't delved quite deep enough into anything to give you some meat. Please, enlighten me.
What else is new? The same can be said in quintuplicate about evolution, which has evidence on the macroscopic, microscopic and molecular levels in all forms of life. Why not be concerned more about the dumbing-down of America, which is oxymoronically trying to downsize itself (cut education budgets) into prosperity and greatness. Again, what else would you expect?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I would submit to you that I don't have a job proving
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis at all because other members of the same team admitted it and chastised the individual involved..."
I am wholly confident that you are lying through your teeth. Disagree? Then present the evidence. I want you to link the to the original E-mail that's content corroborates your account. Not a excerpt or a quote in an article. I want the real Mcoy.
"...and the "social scientist" who don't understand doubters..need to realize that doubting is a good thing"
How can you doubt something legitimately since it is blindingly obvious that you are utterly ignorant of the subject?
@Rodestar,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it you can not or will not provide the original E-mail? Any way since you refuse to provide evidence allow me to dissect your copy pasta.
1. No where does it say in your article anything you claim the E-mails said. No admission of wrong doing no evidence of "cooked data" if this is the best you can do then I got a bridge to sell you in Kansas.
2. "Trick" is often used in science and math as a shorthand for a neat way of doing an analysis. This can be easily demonstrated by going to Google Scholar and entering the word "trick".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=math+trick&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1&as_subj=eng&as_sdts=5&hl=en&as_vis=1
Are all of these papers with the word trick in the TITLE admiring to fraud?
3. Further the allegation that Jones is trying to hide a decline in world temperatures is absurd. For one thing, there are several data bases using different methodologies to record surface temperatures and they also record a rise of the surface temperature. Then we have the satellite record, sea surface record. We have not even begun to touch on the fact that we can see the biological and physical environment responding to these temp rises; such phenomena as sea level rise, glacial mass loss, the expansion of pest to more northerly latitudes, mass coral die offs, etc, etc.
Yet, we are to believe that a lone guy in the U.K has distorted all of this data. Like I said I got a bridge to sell you in Kansas if you are that gullible.
P.S Where is my link to the original E-mail?
Can social scientists ease the nation's rift over climate change? No, social scientist can't do that and that's not their job. Climate scientists can do it by doing an honest job.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny, why don't SciAm ask, can social scientists ease the rift over dark energy? Maybe because astrophysicists say they don't know when they don't know rather than pretending that they know.
The press and media add to the problem by sensationalizing what the science says, thus making it seem as believable as a the usual Hollywood disaster movie. The cry wolf syndrome is easily invoked, especially if one also wants to preserve one's lifestyle. Facts and graphs which show the general trend should be presented through the media, and not spectacular assertions that the continents in a hundred years or so will be covered by 50 meters of water. Especially in America where gasoline and power-consuming cars have been the major cool thing, with Drive your car down to the sea as a Brian Wilson anthem, and where anything threatening tends to be identified with communism, there will be a root feeling that there is a conspiracy going on. So they couldn't sell communism to us the regular way, so now they are disguising it as climate warning… To those who do not know, this will seem highly plausible, and to those who do not want to know, it will too. We have, also, this inductively based idea that our Earth is enormously stable, since our inductions are based on not much real personal experience. It would therefore, to conclude, be better to inform, and to stop with all the Warning!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) We can predict the behavior of CO2 using equations from quantum mechanics; we can confirm the predictions with laboratory experiments; Why in the heck does it behave differently in the atmosphere? What mysterious mechanism blocks heat gain from CO2?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I used quantum mechanics to predict temp. change due to infrared photons absorption by CO2 molecules. Doubling CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 560 ppm will increase temp. by 0.3 C. The higher temp. sensitivity quoted by IPCC is due to various positive feedbacks which cannot be predicted by quantum mechanics as they are governed by classical thermodynamics.
Yes, this is confirmed by laboratory experiments by Dr. Heinz Hug. The radiative forcing cited by IPCC is vastly overstated. Laboratory experiments behave differently from atmosphere bec. you can't simulate feedbacks in the lab. There is no mysterious mechanism. They all follow the laws of physics.
(2) Climate cycles come & go; perhaps the cynics could identify an actual climate cycle in the geologic record that explains the current warming.
Earth is still warming since coming out of the last Ice age 12,000 yrs. ago. The warming in the last 100 yrs. can have many possible causes and not necessarily attributable to long-term climate cycles.
(3) The cynics should provide solid evidence of the mysterious force currently causing the climate to warm (since warming due to CO2 is counteracted by the mysterious mechanism in #1 above); perhaps they can also provide some reasoning to dismiss the whopping big coincidence of CO2 increasing in the atmosphere in virtual lockstep with rising trend in temperatures.
There is evidence of warming (global temp. data) but there is no solid evidence for one single cause as there are many possible causes, e.g., radiative forcings due to cloud formation and water vapor, heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere and vice versa. These processes cannot be predicted accurately by climate models.
100,000 yrs. of ice core data show that increase in temp. precedes increase in atmospheric CO2 by 800 yrs. on average. It's possible that warmer temp. releases the CO2 in the ocean into the atmosphere as warmer water stores less dissolved CO2.
Despite Hoffmann's claim, some social scientists *have* looked at denialism. For example: http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/the-situation-of-scientific-consensus/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck related posts for others.
I find it interesting that the comments at the end of any article in S.A. attempt to argue the issues regarding anthropogenic global warming. As a mathematician and a sociologist I have neither the time nor the expertise to research the science or non science relating to AGW. I tend to rely on people who are much more knowledgable than I. I tend to accept what the National Academy of Science has to say about things. They are chosen to advise the president and the nation on things scientific and to evaluate the current state of science. When I look at who they are and what they have accomplished, I am not about to question their judgement especially when they discuss things outside of my area of expertise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a sociologist, I understand that people often have some deeply held beliefs about the nature of reality. That is why religion is so important in virtually all societies. One of those beliefs is that nature is vast and relatively unchangeable by humans. Another commonly held belief in our society is that humans have a manifest destiny and that we are capable and destined to accomplish great things.
Unfortunately, there is another side to humans and that is our capability to easily lie to ourselves. The greatest difficulty in trying to treat alcoholics is to break through their denial that anything is wrong.
My anthropological training also has taught me that whole societies can become deluded and think that truth is false and that which is false is true. I know from experience that an awful lot of Germans thought that Hitler could do no wrong. The Babylonians thought they could irrigate their fields forever and ignored the creeping salinification of their soil.
For my children and grandchildren's sake I sure hope we don't mess up this beautiful place we call home. I won't be around to witness what happens but I certainly do have a responsibility to do my part to leave my home at least no worse off than I found it.
Interesting coincidence, this article just came out helping to explain why some people are so resistant to admitting there is a problem:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scienceblog.com/40310/doomsday-messages-about-global-warming-can-backfire-new-study-shows/
I definitely agree. Similar to an above poster, I too trust **to some degree** the knowledge, expertise, and authority of those who know more than me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSay there are no flaws, and it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that some disaster will befall us if we don't stop x, y, and z. Without question, there will still be deniers and naysayers. This could be a few individuals, a significant portion of the U.S. or other populations, or maybe an entire country. What exactly do we "do" to them? Take away their property? Put them in jail? Kill them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry Rodestar but your claims are simply not true. You have failed to provide evidence and have simply repeated the lie. Where is that evidence?
I agree. Whole societies can become deluded and think that truth is false and that which is false is true. Hitler was the authority. He can do no wrong. Only a few Germans like Einstein thought he was mad. Of course to most Germans, Hitler was their hero and savior. Likewise, IPCC is the authority. It can do no wrong. Only a few skeptics dare question the almighty and infallible. Of course to most people, IPCC is their hero and savior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGalileo said the arguments of 100 authorities are worth less than a single observation. There are countless examples in history of whole societies being deluded. The common theme is the perpetrator of the delusion is the authority, the almighty, the infallible. A few ‘crackpots’ seem incapable of deluding the whole society. But they are very well capable of resisting delusion.
The authority Catholic church and Ptolemy declared earth is the center of the universe. Only a crackpot Galileo was dumb enough not to believe. Special creation, young earth hypothesis, catastrophism, static universe, Y2k bug, decelerating universe, impossibilities of heavier than air flight, space flight, x-rays, radioactivity, nuclear power, etc., etc. These delusions were perpetrated by the authorities. The people who challenged them were a few crackpots.
As for your children and grandchildren, it is sobering to note that earth has been warming since the last Ice Age 20,000 yrs. ago. Sea level rose 375 ft. Instead of wiping out humanity, primitive man flourished during this global warming period from a few thousands to 7 billion today. Plant and animal life also flourished in the warm climate. For some inexplicable and incredible coincidence, earth reached its perfect temp. at the end of last century. So much so that any further increase in temp. and 1 ft. rise in sea level would be catastrophic. Are we so extremely lucky that we live at a time of perfect temp. or we just think 15 C is perfect bec. it happens to be the temp. today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople living in places where temp. is <10 C will be happy if the climate is 2 C warmer. Sure coastal towns will flood. That’s like blaming the volcano for the destruction of the town located at the volcano’s danger zone. Hello! Sea level has been rising for 20,000 yrs. Oh I forget. We can’t remember that since civilization is only 5,000 yrs. old. Too young to remember the recent geologic past.
Let’s disabuse our mind of the authorities and listen once in the while to the “crackpots.” Read the crackpots:
http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf
http://www.coyoteblog.com/Skeptics_Guide_to_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_v1.0.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConversations about climate change need to address what we can do for one another as human beings.
Well I hope everyone can understand my distrust of this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismovement because my posts with regards to Mr Jones who was caught cooking data have been removed allthough some
of the responses to my post were left. If we are going to
have an honest discourse we must listen to both sides...you people are really sad....
GOOGLE JONES AND CLIMATE CHANGE and put them in context
with your original article. Couple that with the fact that my posts have dissapeared and you have the answer to why we distrust this movement without the need to do research that will waste everyones money.
"Well I hope everyone can understand my distrust of this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismovement because my posts with regards to Mr Jones who was caught cooking data have been removed allthough some
of the responses to my post were left."
No rational people do not trust rumor mongers who repeat baseless lies? Why will you not link directly to the unedited E-mails that you purport to support your accusations?
My comment was also pulled. It seems only one side of this discussion is allowed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatsup
Hmm, I'd say that social scientists have, in a sense, CREATED the rift between empirical reality and the reality espoused by the right-wing echo chamber. This article amazes me by skirting around the real issue, which is not so much that people are choosing climate denialism after access to facts, but rather that climate denialism is, quite simply, deliberately and strategically manufactured. It is propaganda, mostly covert propaganda. Mass persuasion. Social scientists have worked out the methods of propaganda a long time ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA more useful topic for social scientists would be how is this current propaganda campaign created, disseminated, and reinforced? How is propaganda deployed, and why is it so effective? What's the difference between education and propaganda? How can lies, spin, and distortion be corrected? Let's talk more directly about what's happening here. For example, industry-funded PR firms pay folks to post on forums, posing as concerned citizens. What about the front groups, who don't reveal the sources of their funding, who pay for political ads? What about biased "news" outfits, that have close ties to industry?
The "potent beliefs" around climate science, more than anything, reflect potent sources of money and PR skill. Sure, there's a lack of information, and genuine misinformation, but overwhelming there's a concerted, paid-for-secretly-by-industry, deliberate campaign of DISinformation out there about climate science. Disinformation is malicious, and is designed to protect and increase industry profits at the expense of sane public policy. PR (the benign term for propaganda) is a system designed to promote bias as much as possible. Science is a system designed to remove bias as much as possible.
So, we really can't discuss climate science denialism until we look at the social science of propaganda.
I agree social scientists should study the social science of propaganda/advocacy. They should study IPCC and Al Gore as they have the loudest voice and the greatest influence on intergovernmental policy making. Not to mention they both won the Nobel Peace prize, the award for propaganda/advocacy. They are truly the master propagandist. Heads of government listen to Mr. Gore. Who cares about the few denier/crackpots?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this