Situationist Contributor Dan Kahan, Hank Jenkins-Smith, and Donald Braman, have just posted another fascinating paper, “Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus” on SSRN.  Here’s the abstract:

Why do members of the public disagree – sharply and persistently – about facts on which expert scientists largely agree? We designed a study to test a distinctive explanation: the cultural cognition of scientific consensus. The “cultural cognition of risk” refers to the tendency of individuals to form risk perceptions that are congenial to their values. The study presents both correlational and experimental evidence confirming that cultural cognition shapes individuals’ beliefs about the existence of scientific consensus, and the process by which they form such beliefs, relating to climate change, the disposal of nuclear wastes, and the effect of permitting concealed possession of handguns. The implications of this dynamic for science communication and public policy-making are discussed.

(...) The cultural cognition thesis posits that individuals tend to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce one or another idealized vision of how society should be organized. Building on the work of Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky (1982), cultural cognition relates risk perceptions to worldviews, or preferences for modes of social ordering, that vary along two dimensions: hierarchy versus egalitarianism; and individualism versus communitarianism.

Thus, generally speaking, persons who subscribe to individualistic values tend to dismiss claims of environmental risks, because acceptance of such claims implies the need to regulate markets, commerce, and other outlets for individual strivings.

Persons with more egalitarian and communitarian values, in contrast, resent commerce and industry as forms of noxious self-seeking productive of unjust disparity, and thus readily accept that such activities are dangerous and worthy of regulation.... See more

Finally, like those who subscribe to an individualistic ethos, persons who subscribe to hierarchical values resist claims of environmental risk, which they perceive as subversive indictments of social and governmental elites.

Cultural cognition might be expected to shape beliefs about expert consensus through the interaction of values and the “availability heuristic. Imagine that when individuals consider an issue like climate change they perform what amounts to a mental survey of experts they have observed offering an opinion on this issue. The impact “scientific consensus” will have on their thinking will thus turn on how readily they can recall instances of experts taking positions one way or the other. The cultural cognition thesis predict that individuals will more readily recall instances of experts taking the position that is consistent with their cultural predisposition than ones taking positions inconsistent with it.

A cultural availability effect of this sort could result from the influence of other mechanisms of cultural cognition. To start, cultural cognition influences perceptions of credibility. Individuals more readily impute knowledge and trustworthiness to information sources whom they perceive as sharing their worldviews; indeed, they tend to disbelieve those whose worldviews they perceive as different from theirs. Accordingly, if the putative experts who share individuals values tend to take the position that matches individuals’ predispositions, and the putative experts who hold opposing values tend to take the position that contravenes individuals’ predispositions—as would happen if the putative experts are also subject to forces of cultural cognition—individuals of opposing outlooks will end up with different impressions of what “most” credible experts believe.

Even if there is no discernable correlation between experts’ positions and those experts‘ perceived values, however, other mechanisms might cause individuals of opposing worldviews to form opposingly skewed mental inventories of expert opinion. For example, individuals tend to search out information congenial to their cultural predispositions. Accordingly, we might expect individuals to work harder to find expert opinion supportive of their existing, culturally informed perceptions of risk than they do to find expert opinion that challenges those perceptions.

Finally, even if biased searching is removed from the equation, biased assimilation could generate culturally valenced availability effects on perceptions of expert views. Confronted with a purported expert source, individuals must decide whether that source really does possess expertise before they can determine whether and how to update their mental inventory of expert positions. The same tendency individuals have to attend to information in a biased way that reinforces their priors could lead them to form biased assessments of the authority and knowledge of putative experts in a manner that fits their predispositions. This process, too, would lead individuals of opposing outlooks to arrive at radically different results when they conjure examples of “expert opinion” on particular issues.

On this account, then, what most scientists believe is simply another empirical fact no different from any other that bears on a disputed question of risk. As such, scientific consensus cannot be expected to counteract the polarizing effects of cultural cognition because apprehension of it will necessarily occur through the same social psychological mechanisms that shape individuals’ perceptions of every other manner of fact. (...)

 callum wrote: 
Callum, I'm simply pointing out that some of the Climate Authorities aren't willingly giving up access to their research/data upon which they make their claims.

Some people who wish to verify have resorted to litigate/FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) to try and get access.

Again, I don't doubt the warming and cooling of our climate, but I would like to see more observation/study and open and objective analysis of the research.

Regards

 miamizsun wrote: 
I'm not sure where you are going with this?  We don't need to worry about changing climate because it will settle out in the end?  People are corrupt and therefor climate changing isn't real?  Our climate is changing and we are only going to be able to adapt for so long.  Massive changes in climate are going to endanger our lives and the lives of our children.  And we should not do anything about it because people are trying to make money at the same time?

 callum wrote: 
Callum, scientist/researchers usually are proud of their work and are eager to share it with everyone, including peers for review/critique.

Here's an example of what I was referring to.
"We all have heard the average environmentalist get a bit hysterical with tales of impending catastrophes as a way to motivate us. But these reports were edited by scientists. Can we count on them always to be honest and apolitical? The only way to know is transparency.

So let's revisit the case of Kevin Trenberth, who is head of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis Section. This week on National Public Radio, he blamed the heavy snowfall, in part, on global warming, proving that even very smart experts can use weather to further the cause.

Trenberth, who has no problem taking a salary and nearly full funding from taxpayers, is not as keen on complying with Freedom of Information Act requests.

He, through NCAR lawyers-also paid for by you (and doing a wonderful job)-claims to be immune from such intrusions.

Then there is NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Chris Horner at the free market-advocating Competitive Enterprise Institute has been trying for years to have NASA release information about the inner workings of Goddard. As a government agency without any national security issues to worry about, it has an obligation to comply.

Shouldn't NASA want to comply? After all, the science of climate tragedy is irrefutable-so obvious, in fact, that those who resist can be compared to Holocaust deniers.

It is true that most reasonable people concede there has been warming on the planet and that most concede they can't possibly fully understand the underlying science. I certainly can't, despite my best efforts."

Link

Regards

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Richard, we (the individuals/taxpayers) fund everything now. Government has no money, they take ours and borrow on the taxpayer credit card to fund the difference.

The UN/World Bank loans money through the IMF to countries with the intent to develop that country. Loans are usually impossible to repay and the development is done by crony corporate connections.

It is nothing more than enabling the systematic exploitation of  their resources. (see John Perkins - Economic Hitman)
Regards

 kurtster wrote: 
They were all genuine predictions.  We are 'due' for an ice age - where is it?  Its been very cold this winter, but not especially so.  The cold snap was caused by a strong prevalent wind in the jet stream coming down from Russia over the north atlantic.
We can't control the sun, however the changes in the sun's activity are unlikely to make any difference - its a small effect.  Besides its getting warmer and we are at a solar minimum.

 Your last point is very true - we will need to adapt, and quickly to some of the changes.  Bangladesh- where are those people going to go?  Will Holland be able to build the levies higher again?  The problem is that we have a complex delicate system.  Imagine a child's mobile ceiling toy.  It spins gently in a complicated slow patter.  We are coming up and putting a piece of bluetack on it; disturbing the balance. A little bit of bluetack is OK, but eventually it will be too much, the whole thing will tangle and end up not spinning any more.  If we warm the atmosphere too much we could end up with a world that we can't live on.

 callum wrote: 

Right you are.  The increasing extremes or range of change is as I was taught back in school in the 50's and 60's.  It comes as no surprise to me.  I was taught in basic general science in grade school that geologically or historically speaking the 20th Century had some of the mildest weather swings in discernable history.  At least as it was taught back then.  I doubt there was an agenda back then and what am I supposed to think when what I was taught so long ago comes true ?  At least I have lived long enough to see it come true.

Since then, I have seen hysteria in the 70's of an impending mini ice age and in the past 20 years talk about how we will all overheat and suffocate.  Both were/are proclaimed with certainty.  There has been enough doubt cast on both outcomes for me to say that we should find ways to cope with harsher weather rather than to buy and sell futures in a commodity of bullshit.  We are a nano portion of a blink of an eye in the 4.5 Billion year scope of things here.  We cope with weather, we cannot change it.  No amount of human interference is going to change what nature has in store for us.  Belief that there is a way to change climate on our own volition is the latest snake oil coming down the trail.  And boy is this snake oil really expensive.

Oh my gosh, the house I built on the cliff by the edge of the sea is going to fall into it !  It's because of rising sea levels and increasing erosion caused by global warming !  Some one please save me and my house, this isn't fair !  Or, jeez am I stupid !  I built a house on an eroding cliff on the seaside and I should have seen this coming, it was a risk I took and it sucks to be me.  Which is it ?

The lake freezing, sure its an occasional event, though very odd during an El Nino winter, we are usually very mild during El Nino's.  It really sucks around here during La Nina.  That's why this event is noteworthy, but only note worthy.  We need to see future range extremes between the boy and the girl.  We only became aware of the Ocean Children in the last part of the 20th Century and we are beginning to look at weather data and reconstructing the timing and appearances of the Ocean extremes, El Nino and La Nina.  This no scienticfic Ocean data available to know for sure before the 80's such as acurately recorded mid ocean temps and satellite imaging.  Now we know and can forecast the comings and goings of the Children. 

It's about the Sun, then the Ocean and then the Atmosphere and lastly, man.  We cannot control the Sun, we cannot control the Oceans, nor the Atmosphere, just as we cannot control man.  There is always going to be a group that just isn't coming to the party.  One volcano eruption will undue decades of man's efforts to influence weather and vis a vis, climate.  Earth quakes can be tied to extremely high tides and the pull of the moon in the Pacific Rim.  Our Mother Ocean, that's where we need to focus, all else will fall into place.

So it's getting hotter than normal and colder than normal, let's get our act together and build better and more energy efficient shelter and find crops that can handle these extremes.  More hurricanes coming, then let's get ready instead of complaining about them.  The Gulf Stream changing ?  Sucks on the other side of the Atlantic, I doubt there is anything that can be done other than to prepare for the eventual change.  The Sahara used to be a lush rain forest.  The only constant is change, resistance is futile and an unnecessary expense. 

 romeotuma wrote: 
My girlfriend is going crazy over this; she is already shopping them! I'm like let's wait a couple of years till they price below 100,000 and you can have it serviced closer than 300 miles away!

In other words, we're all gonna get wet.

 kurtster wrote: 
Weather is the short time local conditions.  Climate is the long term averages in these conditions.  Averages have random maxima and minima.  Another prediction made by global warming is that the 'tightness' of the average climates will decrease (ie extreme events will happen more often/be more extreme).

Climate Extremes: Observations, Modeling, and Impacts
	Authors:	David R. EasterlingA1, Gerald A. MeehlA1, Camille ParmesanA1, Stanley A. ChangnonA1, Thomas R. KarlA1, Linda O. MearnsA1
	Author Affiliations:	no affiliations available
	Source:	Science, Volume 289, Number 5487 (September 22, 2000)
	Page Numbers:	2068 - 2074
	Available Full Text:	Full Text: Open in New Window Format: HTML Location: Publisher's Site Authentication: Publisher's Site
	Abstract:	One of the major concerns with a potential change in climate is that an increase in extreme events will occur. Results of observational studies suggest that in many areas that have been analyzed, changes in total precipitation are amplified at the tails, and changes in some temperature extremes have been observed. Model output has been analyzed that shows changes in extreme events for future climates, such as increases in extreme high temperatures, decreases in extreme low temperatures, and increases in intense precipitation events. In addition, the societal infrastructure is becoming more sensitive to weather and climate extremes, which would be exacerbated by climate change. In wild plants and animals, climate-induced extinctions, distributional and phenological changes, and species’ range shifts are being documented at an increasing rate. Several apparently gradual biological changes are linked to responses to extreme weather and climate events.
	Citation:	David R. Easterling, Gerald A. Meehl, Camille Parmesan, Stanley A. Changnon, Thomas R. Karl, Linda O. Mearns . Climate Extremes: Observations, Modeling, and Impacts. Science, Volume 289, Number 5487 (September 22, 2000), pp. 2068-2074, <http://0-ejournals.ebsco.com.lib.exeter.ac.uk/direct.asp?ArticleID=6GG5PMNR7E5DCJPR0U2L>
	URL:	http://0-ejournals.ebsco.com.lib.exeter.ac.uk/direct.asp?ArticleID=6GG5PMNR7E5DCJPR0U2L

 

Expected impacts of climate change on extreme climate events
	Authors:	Serge Planton 1, Michel Déqué 1, Fabrice Chauvin 1, Laurent Terray 2
	Author Affiliations:	1: Météo-France, centre national de recherches météorologiques/groupe d’étude de l’atmosphère météorologique (CNRM/GAME), 42, avenue G.-Coriolis, 31057 Toulouse cedex 1, France  2: Centre européen de recherches avancées en calcul scientifique, 31057 Toulouse cedex 1, France
	Source:	Comptes Rendus Geosciences, Volume 340, Number 9-10 (September 2008)
	Page Numbers:	564 - 574
	Available Full Text:	Full Text: Open in New Window Format: Unknown Location: Publisher's Site Authentication: Publisher's Site
	Abstract:	An overview of the expected change of climate extremes during this century due to greenhouse gases and aerosol anthropogenic emissions is presented. The most commonly used methodologies rely on the dynamical or statistical downscaling of climate projections, performed with coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models. Either of dynamical or of statistical type, downscaling methods present strengths and weaknesses, but neither their validation on present climate conditions, nor their potential ability to project the impact of climate change on extreme event statistics allows one to give a specific advantage to one of the two types. The results synthesized in the last IPCC report and more recent studies underline a convergence for a very likely increase in heat wave episodes over land surfaces, linked to the mean warming and the increase in temperature variability. In addition, the number of days of frost should decrease and the growing season length should increase. The projected increase in heavy precipitation events appears also as very likely over most areas and also seems linked to a change in the shape of the precipitation intensity distribution. The global trends for drought duration are less consistent between models and downscaling methodologies, due to their regional variability. The change of wind-related extremes is also regionally dependent, and associated to a poleward displacement of the midlatitude storm tracks. The specific study of extreme events over France reveals the high sensitivity of some statistics of climate extremes at the decadal time scale as a consequence of regional climate internal variability.
	Citation:	Serge Planton, Michel Déqué, Fabrice Chauvin, Laurent Terray . Expected impacts of climate change on extreme climate events. Comptes Rendus Geosciences, Volume 340, Numbers 9-10 (September 2008), pp. 564-574, <http://0-ejournals.ebsco.com.lib.exeter.ac.uk/direct.asp?ArticleID=4E9497430DB25FC70F79>
	URL:	http://0-ejournals.ebsco.com.lib.exeter.ac.uk/direct.asp?ArticleID=4E9497430DB25FC70F79

 

 kurtster wrote: 
Kurt, you are making a common mistake here, brother, of confusing weather with climate...  this year's weather has nothing to do with long-term patterns of the climate... fifty years from now, when all the glaciers are gone and much of the world has lost its source of fresh water, there may still be an occasional freezing at the Great Lakes...

I am gonna add something exciting going on in your neck of the woods...  I am posting this from another forum, but that forum has faded away, and this is good news, and good news is good, so I am posting it here—

Ford Transit Connect EV Specs Revealed
By Eric Loveday
February 14th, 2010

"The Ford Transit Connect EV will be one of the company's first electric drive vehicles.  It is expected to come to market near the end of the year.  Up until a few days ago, little was known about specific data of the Transit EV.  Now that has all changed."

"With the Transit Connect EV scheduled for its North American debut at the Chicago Auto Show, Ford has finally presented full details about the vehicle.  This particular EV will offer an 80 mile range and hit a highway capable top speed of 75 miles per hour.  It can be recharged in about 6 to 8 hours with a 240 volt charger."

 miamizsun wrote: 
You have access to all of the research.  The papers are published in established journals.  For instance here are links to all the publications from my department.  If youw ant access you will have to pay a small fee to the publishing agency in some cases, but it is freely available.  Just go look up the journals.  To get you started:
jstor.org - a directory of lots of journals
scholar.google.co.uk/

Have fun!

edit: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2006JD008091.shtml - the abstract of a paper on increasing average daily global extremes in temperature.

 hippie wrote: 
This just in, but if you lived here you already new it :

     Lake Erie Frozen over; First Time in 14 Years Updated: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:34 PM

Following a cold snap in the Northeast, Lake Erie's surface is virtually frozen over for the first time in about 14 years.

The ice ranges in thickness between paper thin along the northern shore and several inches along the southern shore, where many people are ice skating.

GoErie.com reports that the lake hasn't completely frozen since the winter of 1995-1996.

Although the ice cover is considered complete, prevailing winds have created some cracks in the ice.

There are also reportedly ice chunks floating off the coast of Dunkirk, N.Y., which is one of the deepest parts of the lake and would naturally be one of the last places to freeze.

Lake Erie, with an average depth of 62 feet, is the most shallow of the five Great Lakes, which is why it is the only one that completely freezes over.

Since lake-effect snow depends on warmer lake temperatures compared to the air, the frozen lake will deter large amounts of snowfall to the lee of the lake.

The current cold snap will keep the lake mostly, if not completely, frozen for at least the rest of the month.

Story by AccuWeather.com's Gina Cherundolo

Hey brother, could ya spare a cup of that global warming ya got there, we could really use some.

Don't bogart that heat my friend,
Pass it over to me ...

Watching Nova "Extreme Ice" scientists have set up cameras for a year to take time lapse pictures of the quickening of the disappearance of all mountain glaciers in the world; you can visually see the incredible calving taking place. They are predicting that all mountain glaciers will be extinct in 50 years; which is amazing considering that Global Warming is a myth n' all. Yes, the world is indeed a mysterious place.

 RichardPrins wrote:
Even if they themselves don't, others apparently do...
That's why they are paid so well !
Good gig,,big bucks for spreading shit all over the world !
Freedom of speach at its best !
 

 hippiechick wrote:
Even if they themselves don't, others apparently do...

 romeotuma wrote: 
Do these people really believe the crap that comes out of their mouths?

 miamizsun wrote: 
1. Who's going to provide and fund these resources?
2. You leave out the role of the corporations/private sector in Eigen's talk. They're just as (and perhaps even more) willing/culpable of corruption (unless the game is changed, as Eigen's organization attempts).

Aside from corruption, it's interesting to note that the World Bank is mostly driven by neoliberalism, which of course is very suitable to corporations.

 RichardPrins wrote:

Kudos to Eigen, I like the idea(l) that he is attempting to put forward. (but it has issues too)

I'm a big TED fan, and this presentation really illustrates what I'm speaking about. Credibility and trust.

The World Bank, its tentacles, and its organizational roots are blatantly corrupt.

Eigen states in his numerous examples that he saws hundreds of "worst were first" projects, severely corrupt, for literally billions of dollars, one for 300 million alone get done.

When he spoke out, he was quickly reprimanded by the World Bank leadership.

"Two years in Kenya as director of World Bank operations there convinced Peter Eigen of what he had begun to realize when he focused on Latin America: corruption was endemic, and, to put it mildly, seriously undermining development.

Since the World Bank was pouring billions of dollars into development, it seemed only natural that it should do something about it.

Mr. Eigen's colleagues in Africa had also seen enough. The response was "enthusiastic," he recalled, when at a World Bank meeting in the African nation of Swaziland in 1990, he proposed that the bank work with governments and multinational companies to develop a code of conduct.

But senior bank officials ordered Mr. Eigen to stop his anti-corruption efforts, saying they went beyond the bank's mandate, he said. He was not even to do it on his own time."

So we know the World Bank(the UN Bank) has been corrupt for over 50 years and now the United Nations has positioned two of its minions, the IPCC to declare catastrophic global warming caused by man made CO2, and the World Bank to collect astronomical amounts of money in the form of global carbon taxes and administer the finances for the projects.

Sound familiar? Pass the smell test? These folks credible to you? This is the best answer put forth by our government(s)? (if it is, we're in trouble)

Rolling over and letting the biggest criminals on earth boink us in the name of saving humanity is insane.

I don't doubt that the climate is always warming or cooling. It has been for billions of years.

I think we (the honest, intelligent people on this planet) should demand access to all of the data/research.

Direct all available resources to get to the bottom of this ASAP.

Get a true point of reference for where we currently stand, the cause, and action, if possible to correct it.

Can't we make a "war type" effort here if it means saving the planet?

Regards