Given the preponderance of evidence for man-caused global warming and the weight of the vast majority of climate scientists who believe it, I've long thought that the deniers were just right-wing jackasses whose ideology always trumps truth. This article points to research into the underlying influences of belief from various perspectives.
See the post on that paper a couple of posts down. Of course those are just more government-sponsored (social) scientists with ulterior motives doing research...
Given the preponderance of evidence for man-caused global warming and the weight of the vast majority of climate scientists who believe it, I've long thought that the deniers were just right-wing jackasses whose ideology always trumps truth. This article points to research into the underlying influences of belief from various perspectives.
Over the past few months, polls show that fewer Americans say they believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite a raft of scientific reports that say otherwise.
This puzzles many climate scientists — but not some social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one's beliefs.
Take, for example, a recent debate about climate change on West Virginia public radio.
"It's a hoax," said coal company CEO Don Blankenship, "because clearly anyone that says that they know what the temperature of the Earth is going to be in 2020 or 2030 needs to be put in an asylum because they don't."
On the other side of the debate was environmentalist Robert Kennedy, Jr.
"Ninety-eight percent of the research climatologists in the world say that global warming is real, that its impacts are going to be catastrophic," he argued. "There are 2 percent who disagree with that. I have a choice of believing the 98 percent or the 2 percent."
Individualists And Communitarians
To social scientist and lawyer Don Braman, it's not surprising that two people can disagree so strongly over science. Braman is on the faculty at George Washington University and part of The Cultural Cognition Project, a group of scholars who study how cultural values shape public perceptions and policy beliefs.
"People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view," Braman says.
The Cultural Cognition Project has conducted several experiments to back that up.
Participants in these experiments are asked to describe their cultural beliefs. Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the "individualistic" group. Others are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry. Braman calls them "communitarians."
In one experiment, Braman queried these subjects about something unfamiliar to them: nanotechnology — new research into tiny, molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products.
"These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says.
The individualists tended to like nanotechnology. The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous. Both groups made their decisions based on the same information.
"It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.
Rejecting Information That Threatens Beliefs
So, what's going on here?
"Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values," says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The Cultural Cognition Project.
Kahan says people test new information against their preexisting view of how the world should work.
"If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way," he says.
And if the information doesn't, you tend to reject it.
In another experiment, people read a United Nations study about the dangers of global warming. Then the researchers told the participants that the solution to global warming is to regulate industrial pollution. Many in the individualistic group then rejected the climate science. But when more nuclear power was offered as the solution, says Braman, "they said, you know, it turns out global warming is a serious problem."
And for the communitarians, climate danger seemed less serious if the only solution was more nuclear power.
The 'Messenger' Effect
Then there's the "messenger" effect. In an experiment dealing with the dangers versus benefits of a vaccine, the scientific information came from several people. They ranged from a rumpled and bearded expert to a crisply business-like one. The participants tended to believe the message that came from the person they considered to be more like them.
In relation to the climate change debate, this suggests that some people may not listen to those whom they view as hard-core environmentalists.
"If you have people who are skeptical of the data on climate change," Braman says, "you can bet that Al Gore is not going to convince them at this point."
So, should climate scientists hire, say, Newt Gingrich as their spokesman? Kahan says no.
"The goal can't be to create a kind of psychological house of mirrors so that people end up seeing exactly what you want," he argues. "The goal has to be to create an environment that allows them to be open-minded."
And Kahan says you can't do that just by publishing more scientific data.
...but they should really drill down on the sources, the governments, bureaucrats and bankers that fund practically all of the scientists and their true motivation and credibility relative to the issue(s) and especially their proposed solution.
Because this might still just be a gigantic conspiracy waiting to be uncovered? One which, through remarkable cooperation, they are all engaged in together? Scientists not wanting to be unemployed (as if there aren't enough subjects to study in science)? Governments wanting to take away your 'freedom' and increase taxes (see the ideology as the article stated)? Banks to make obscene amounts of money (ditto with the ideology)?
Again, the scientific evidence (going back to the '30s) is one thing. Creating policy to address the implications, another.
However, if the science is pretty much correct (as the majority of experts see it), then as Naomi Oreskes in the presentation on recent denialism more or less pointed out, laissez-faire isn't a solution or really an option.
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. (...)
Richard, after quickly gleaning this article, I understand what they're saying and why they're saying it, and I don't disagree. Yes we should recognize the political and philosophical aspects of the general public, but they should really drill down on the sources, the governments, bureaucrats and bankers that fund practically all of the scientists and their true motivation and credibility relative to the issue(s) and especially their proposed solution. You know that anytime that suspect people aren't open and honest, I get suspicious.
Ice shelves are rapidly retreating in the southern Antarctic Peninsula, warns a new report from U.S. Geological Survey researchers, who point to climate change as the leading suspect.
Working with the British Antarctic Survey, the USGS showed for the first time that every single ice front in the peninsula's southern section has been melting since 1947, with the most dramatic reductions occurring after 1990. The peninsula is one of the continent's most quickly changing regions since it's farthest from the South Pole, and its melting problem could foreshadow a slushier future for other parts of the vast Antarctic ice sheet.
In the meantime, the researchers say the dwindling ice shelves could raise sea levels if temperatures continue to rise, endangering coastal communities and low-lying islands around the world. "The loss of ice shelves is evidence of the effects of global warming," says USGS scientist Jane Ferrigno. "We need to be alert and continually understand and observe how our climate system is changing." (Source: ScienceDaily)
Depicting a cause-and-effect scenario that spans thousands of miles, a scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego and his collaborators discovered that ocean waves originating along the Pacific coasts of North and South America impact Antarctic ice shelves and could play a role in their catastrophic collapse.
Ice shelves are rapidly retreating in the southern Antarctic Peninsula, warns a new report from U.S. Geological Survey researchers, who point to climate change as the leading suspect.
Working with the British Antarctic Survey, the USGS showed for the first time that every single ice front in the peninsula's southern section has been melting since 1947, with the most dramatic reductions occurring after 1990. The peninsula is one of the continent's most quickly changing regions since it's farthest from the South Pole, and its melting problem could foreshadow a slushier future for other parts of the vast Antarctic ice sheet.
In the meantime, the researchers say the dwindling ice shelves could raise sea levels if temperatures continue to rise, endangering coastal communities and low-lying islands around the world. "The loss of ice shelves is evidence of the effects of global warming," says USGS scientist Jane Ferrigno. "We need to be alert and continually understand and observe how our climate system is changing." (Source: ScienceDaily)
Climate change is melting the floating ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula, giving scientists a preview of what could happen if other ice shelves around the southern continent disappear, the US Geological Survey (USGS) says.
Not the answer to my question. If those 'evil governments' should not tax 'the people' or maybe not even corporations (who, where possible - and by the use of clever accountants who help screw the system - evade taxes anyway), who is supposed to fund such expensive research?
Richard, I'm not against all government, just corrupt, bloated and unsustainable government. Also, I'm not opposed to the idea you posted about the NGO, I think it may be one of the best viable alternatives to the IPCC. I'm also not opposed to putting this stuff to a vote and/or asking for funds. More when I get some time.
A historical perspective (for/on the more recent denialism) from UCTV:
Eerily familiar? ~45min: "(Reynolds and other cigarette makers have) responded to these scientifically unproven claims by intensifying our funding of objective research into these matters"
Not the answer to my question. If those 'evil governments' should not tax 'the people' or maybe not even corporations (who, where possible - and by the use of clever accountants who help screw the system - evade taxes anyway), who is supposed to fund such expensive research?
Dont you know? The Carbon Industry companies should pay for it! In their own labs too. I'm sure their findings would be less than reliable.
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.
Not the answer to my question. If those 'evil governments' should not tax 'the people' or maybe not even corporations (who, where possible - and by the use of clever accountants who help screw the system - evade taxes anyway), who is supposed to fund such expensive research?
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. (...)
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, 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.
Location: its wet, windy and chilly....take a guess Gender:
Posted:
Feb 18, 2010 - 4:02pm
miamizsun 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."
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?
,,,sure helps sometimes !
excellent interview. 
