Climate Skeptics Swayed by Consensus, Not Evidence

[Perspicuo]

Climate Skeptics Swayed by Consensus, Not Evidence
http://www.livescience.com/25355-consensus-convinces-conservatives.html

Conservatives are less likely to accept the reality of human-caused climate science when presented with supporting scientific evidence. But tell them that 99 out of 100 climate scientists agree on the subject, and conservatives will be more likely to accept that humans are altering the climate, according to a new pilot study.

The findings, presented today (Dec. 7) at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, suggest that scientists shouldn't break out the graphs and tables when talking climate with conservatives. Instead, climate advocates should emphasize how much of the scientific community agrees on the subject.

Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't. --W.Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark

 

[OLDMAN]

I know the earth is warming, have seen evidence of it firsthand. But I have to disagree on the end of the world scenario that follows such events. There will be and always have been winners and losers in any changes on the planet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know the earth is warming, have seen evidence of it firsthand. But I have to disagree on the end of the world scenario that follows such events. There will be and always have been winners and losers in any changes on the planet.

Survivor bias--we are descended from the groups that made it. The ones that failed are only noticed by the archeologists.

 

[Jokodo]

I know the earth is warming, have seen evidence of it firsthand. But I have to disagree on the end of the world scenario that follows such events. There will be and always have been winners and losers in any changes on the planet.

Survivor bias--we are descended from the groups that made it. The ones that failed are only noticed by the archeologists.

It can't be true that infant mortality was in the double digits before modern medicine - 100% of my ancestors made it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I know the earth is warming, have seen evidence of it firsthand. But I have to disagree on the end of the world scenario that follows such events. There will be and always have been winners and losers in any changes on the planet.

Survivor bias--we are descended from the groups that made it. The ones that failed are only noticed by the archeologists.

So true. Hooray for the good old days when child mortality was 50% and higher, and we all died before 45.

 

[Perspicuo]

Human evolution. We were selected for survivability as a social species, so we care more for what the troupe says and for troupe survival than anyting else at all.

As followers of the likes of C.Linnaeus, Ch.Darwin, G.Cuvier and F.deWaal, we should note and utilize this information, and give them studies and meta-analyses and effect sizes and collections of statements by professional organizations, universities and so forth.

Let the primate know s/he is alone and the way to come back to the troupe... hoping the troupe is not the local fringe pastor. This can be better addressed if you also cite well-respected churches and church organizations.

 

[fromderinside]

Survivor bias--we are descended from the groups that made it. The ones that failed are only noticed by the archeologists.

It can't be true that infant mortality was in the double digits before modern medicine - 100% of my ancestors made it.

Ah ha, ah ha, ah ha, burp, drip, snoozzzzzzzzzzzz .......

What about all those relatives of your ancestors that didn't make it. Care to compare numbers ...... wheeze

 

[Perspicuo]

Well-respected churches and church organizations say on climate change, science and Christian responsibility,
as an example of suing our evolutionary psychology knowledge to effect behavioral change:

http://www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/booklet/booklet_sustainable.pdf
http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/events/1998/climate.html
http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/catholic-teachings/bishops/

http://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/resources/religious-statements-on-climate-change/
http://www.interfaithpowerandlight....release-joint-statement-about-global-warming/
http://www.webofcreation.org/ncc/statements/cob.html
http://www.elca.org/JLE/Articles/101?_ga=1.17602105.1236905874.1427132770

The idea is to make them heed to the need of belonging to the troupe, in the case which is occurring, that they are cognitive-emotionally blocking all reference to the evidence in scientific research.

 

[skepticalbip]

It can't be true that infant mortality was in the double digits before modern medicine - 100% of my ancestors made it.

Ah ha, ah ha, ah ha, burp, drip, snoozzzzzzzzzzzz .......

What about all those relatives of your ancestors that didn't make it. Care to compare numbers ...... wheeze

You don't have to go to relatives of ancestors. Most people only have two to eight ancestors that have survived out of the millions of their ancestors. In my case, of the millions of ancestors dating back to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, there are none that have survived - they are all dead. Must be bad genes?

 

[Jokodo]

Ah ha, ah ha, ah ha, burp, drip, snoozzzzzzzzzzzz .......

What about all those relatives of your ancestors that didn't make it. Care to compare numbers ...... wheeze

You don't have to go to relatives of ancestors. Most people only have two to eight ancestors that have survived out of the millions of their ancestors. In my case, of the millions of ancestors dating back to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, there are none that have survived - they are all dead. Must be bad genes?

Nobody's saying humans are immortal. But out of all those millions, 100% straight survived long enough to reach sexual maturity. That should be enough to throw the myths floating around about pre-industrial infants mortality rates out of the window for good, shouldn't it?

 

[dystopian]

Most people only have two to eight ancestors that have survived out of the millions of their ancestors. In my case, of the millions of ancestors dating back to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, there are none that have survived - they are all dead. Must be bad genes?

Does that mean the vampire-to-human ratio is about 8:1000000 ?

 

[skepticalbip]

You don't have to go to relatives of ancestors. Most people only have two to eight ancestors that have survived out of the millions of their ancestors. In my case, of the millions of ancestors dating back to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, there are none that have survived - they are all dead. Must be bad genes?

Nobody's saying humans are immortal. But out of all those millions, 100% straight survived long enough to reach sexual maturity. That should be enough to throw the myths floating around about pre-industrial infants mortality rates out of the window for good, shouldn't it?

You seem to have missed the sarcasm (taking the word survive literally).

But to your idea that pre-industrial infant mortality rates are exaggerated, You have to remember that the population growth rate before say 1500 was quite slow even though women giving birth to six or eight children (or even more) was fairly normal. With that birth rate, why wasn't the population expanding wildly? Today, world birth rates average significantly less than three per family and the population is exploding. The reason is that before 1500 infant mortality was high so few reached adulthood... today infant mortality rates are low and the overwhelming majority reach adulthood.

 

[Jokodo]

Nobody's saying humans are immortal. But out of all those millions, 100% straight survived long enough to reach sexual maturity. That should be enough to throw the myths floating around about pre-industrial infants mortality rates out of the window for good, shouldn't it?

You seem to have missed the sarcasm (taking the word survive literally).

But to your idea that pre-industrial infant mortality rates are exaggerated, You have to remember that the population growth rate before say 1500 was quite slow even though women giving birth to six or eight children (or even more) was fairly normal. With that birth rate, why wasn't the population expanding wildly? Today, world birth rates average less than three per family and the population is exploding. The reason is that before 1500 infant mortality was high so few reached adulthood... today infant mortality rates are low and the overwhelming majority reach adulthood.

My "idea that pre-industrial infant mortality rates are exaggerated"?

I think you are the one who has missed the sarcasm.

 

[skepticalbip]

You don't have to go to relatives of ancestors. Most people only have two to eight ancestors that have survived out of the millions of their ancestors. In my case, of the millions of ancestors dating back to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, there are none that have survived - they are all dead. Must be bad genes?

Nobody's saying humans are immortal. But out of all those millions, 100% straight survived long enough to reach sexual maturity. That should be enough to throw the myths floating around about pre-industrial infants mortality rates out of the window for good, shouldn't it?

I guess I'm not the sharpest knife in the chandelier today....

 

[Jokodo]

Ah ha, ah ha, ah ha, burp, drip, snoozzzzzzzzzzzz .......

What about all those relatives of your ancestors that didn't make it. Care to compare numbers ...... wheeze

You don't have to go to relatives of ancestors. Most people only have two to eight ancestors that have survived out of the millions of their ancestors. In my case, of the millions of ancestors dating back to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, there are none that have survived - they are all dead. Must be bad genes?

Going back to your "two to eight" figure, why eight as an upper limit? And for that matter, why two as a lower limit? In my wider family alone, there were people whose father had fallen in war by the time they were born, and people who had living great-great-grand-parents.

 

[skepticalbip]

You don't have to go to relatives of ancestors. Most people only have two to eight ancestors that have survived out of the millions of their ancestors. In my case, of the millions of ancestors dating back to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, there are none that have survived - they are all dead. Must be bad genes?

Going back to your "two to eight" figure, why eight as an upper limit? And for that matter, why two as a lower limit? In my wider family alone, there were people whose father had fallen in war by the time they were born, and people who had living great-great-parents.

That was "most" people. It was just a wild stab at most people having both parents alive (two ancestors) and some of their grandparents (maybe four ancestors) and maybe two great-grandparents (two more ancestors). Of course there are some like me that have none of those, some with more great-grandparents, and maybe some with some great-great-grandparents. But I think the majority would fall into having parents (two) to having parents and grandparents... so two or a few more.

 

[Mageth]

That was "most" people. It was just a wild stab at most people having both parents alive (two ancestors) and some of their grandparents (maybe four ancestors) and maybe two great-grandparents (two more ancestors). Of course there are some like me that have none of those, some with more great-grandparents, and maybe some with some great-great-grandparents. But I think the majority would fall into having parents (two) to having parents and grandparents... so two or a few more.

When doing your back-of-the-envelope calculations, don't forget that the parents, grandparents and great-grandparents are people too! And the older you get, the fewer living ancestors you tend to have. So they will bring down the expectation of what "most people" will have somewhat, I think.

E.g., I just have one, and my mom has none. My wife has one, and her dad has none. My son has four. So that's one person with four, two people with one, and two people with 0. In this example family, most (four out of five) people have fewer than two living ancestors!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my experience conservatives tend to be people who aren't too into thinking for themselves. Is it any wonder they pay more attention to how they perceive the crowd to believe than in figuring it out?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In my experience conservatives tend to be people who aren't too into thinking for themselves.

From the mouth of babes.

Is it any wonder they pay more attention to how they perceive the crowd to believe than in figuring it out?

You forgot to mention personal anecdotes. You like that too.

 

[ronburgundy]

A couple thoughts.

1) This research focuses on conservatives only because it focuses on climate change and conservatives (both economic and religious) are the vast majority of those who deny climate change. It is likely that liberals also get swayed more by scientific consensus than evidence on issues where liberals take the unscientific position.

2) On complex topics, looking to expert consensus is not a bad thing and often better than "thinking for yourself". Most people lack either the foundation knowledge or cognitive skills to understand and reason about the evidence on climate change or even to know what is and what is not evidence relevant to the question.
IF they "think for themselves" and find themselves at odds with 95% of scientists in that area, the rational thing would be to distrust themselves and defer to the scientists. Also, when it comes to non-rational bias, it impacts the thinking of single individuals in a specific direction moreso than the scientific community, because there really is no "community" in science, just individual scientists looking for ways that each other are wrong. Thus, consensus in science is much less likely to be influenced by personal bias than views by a few individuals, scientist or not. Whether one defers to relevant expert that apply reason and evidence versus unjustified faith-based authorities makes all the difference in whether that deference is rational.

3) When people have a desire to reject science, they need a rationalization to do so. It is easier to find flaws with particular pieces of evidence and then ignore the other evidence that makes up for those flaws, than to convince oneself that 95% of the world's scientists are secretly colluding to destroy the free market by pointing the finger to practices at the core of most current production and consumption activities. The latter requires something just short of a tinfoil hat.
The former is something that people do all the time. We see it here constantly, everytime someone responds to a post that has many pieces of evidence by just pointing to the imperfections of one piece of evidence, and acts like that is a reasonable counter argument. It the mindset behind almost every mention of "Geez bro, don't you know that correlation doesn't equal causation", without actually presenting a more plausible causal account of the data which are often far more nuanced an complex than simple bivariate correlations.