Climate Skeptics Swayed by Consensus, Not Evidence

[Wiploc]

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

That's what brought me around. I was a conservative, reading the science essay in a science fiction magazine. The article described scientists studying different places, like high altitude temperature, surface air temperature, shallow ocean temperature, and deep ocean temperature. Then it said that "something like a consensus" had developed: the earth was warming up.

I was a climate skeptic up to that point, but that brought me around.

I'll guess this was around 1978.

 

[ronburgundy]

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



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

That's what brought me around. I was a conservative, reading the science essay in a science fiction magazine. The article described scientists studying different places, like high altitude temperature, surface air temperature, shallow ocean temperature, and deep ocean temperature. Then it said that "something like a consensus" had developed: the earth was warming up.

I was a climate skeptic up to that point, but that brought me around.

I'll guess this was around 1978.

Although being a Climate Skeptic in 1978 did not require the kind of self-delusion that is does in 2015. The science was younger, less in quantity and quality and not nearly as widespread in the public discourse as today. You might of been ignorant relative to experts of the time, but that's not the same as willfully ignorant and deliberately dishonest as many deniers are today. That doesn't change that consensus was persuasive to you and it is reasonable that it would be. I'm just pointing out that your sincere openness to being convinced was likely higher than today's conservative deniers who are really just manufacturing excuses to prevent any restrictions on corporate industry and the types of consumption that makes the filthy rich filthier.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Scientific consensus is a pretty darn strong piece of evidence--a non-professional should almost never go against it. The issue is when we don't have consensus yet--such as with all the conservatives trying to muddy the waters about global warming.

 

[Wiploc]

That's what brought me around. I was a conservative, reading the science essay in a science fiction magazine. The article described scientists studying different places, like high altitude temperature, surface air temperature, shallow ocean temperature, and deep ocean temperature. Then it said that "something like a consensus" had developed: the earth was warming up.

I was a climate skeptic up to that point, but that brought me around.

I'll guess this was around 1978.

Although being a Climate Skeptic in 1978 did not require the kind of self-delusion that is does in 2015. The science was younger, less in quantity and quality and not nearly as widespread in the public discourse as today. You might of been ignorant relative to experts of the time, but that's not the same as willfully ignorant and deliberately dishonest as many deniers are today. That doesn't change that consensus was persuasive to you and it is reasonable that it would be. I'm just pointing out that your sincere openness to being convinced was likely higher than today's conservative deniers who are really just manufacturing excuses to prevent any restrictions on corporate industry and the types of consumption that makes the filthy rich filthier.

I'm guessing that most of them believe there is no scientific consensus. The ringleaders are liars, but the followers are dupes.

 

[bilby]

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.

Scientific consensus is a pretty darn strong piece of evidence--a non-professional should almost never go against it. The issue is when we don't have consensus yet--such as with all the conservatives trying to muddy the waters about global warming.

Non-scientists muddying the waters might persuade other non-scientists that there is no consensus; But that does not affect the reality of whether or not a consensus exists - and with global warming, one most certainly does.

A simple comparison of the proportion of published papers in reputable journals by researchers with relevant qualifications, to determine whether the majority of such papers support or oppose a given position, is sufficient to determine this.

A 'quick and dirty' assessment can be had simply by looking at the search results on google scholar.
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=anthropogenic+global+warming - About 226,000 results
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=anthropogenic+global+cooling - About 76,900 results

That's a pretty strong hint, even before we look at those 302,900 papers to see what they actually say.

A closer look at the first page of results for anthropogenic+global+warming shows seven out of ten papers discussing the detailed effects of warming, one paper saying the a consensus on the topic exists, one saying that the way the media tries to present a 'balanced' view actually introduces a bias away from the consensus, and one discussing a technique for carbon capture and storage to mitigate the effects of AGW.

Meanwhile, a closer look at the first page of results for anthropogenic+global+cooling shows that nine out of ten discuss cooling in the context of aerosols (volcanic and/or man-made) masking some (but not all) of the effects of warming due to the greenhouse effect; while the tenth is an artcle debunking claims that there was a consensus regarding 'global cooling' in the 1970s.

Right there should be enough evidence to convince the intelligent layman. It is simply unreasonable to oppose such a strong consensus amongst experts, unless one first puts in the effort to become an expert oneself.

This technique is equally useful for almost any scientific question. If one has a personal belief that, when tested in this way, has a majority of Google Scholar results in the top twenty - ten from the 'for' and ten from the 'against' search - that oppose your position, then it is time to admit that you are wrong, lest you join the tinfoil hat brigade.

You don't even need to understand the papers - if ten for and ten against gives you between 15 and 20 papers with conclusions you don't agree with, then you are wrong, and should revise your position.

(Oh, and if you search for non-anthropogenic+global+warming, you get "About 1,860 results" - and the top ten of those are in a similar vein to those for 'cooling' - they do not suggest that AGW is not real, but rather discuss either the masking and/or additive effects of non-anthropogenic influences; or in one case, discuss the problems caused by media bias that is misinforming the public).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Scientific consensus is a pretty darn strong piece of evidence--a non-professional should almost never go against it. The issue is when we don't have consensus yet--such as with all the conservatives trying to muddy the waters about global warming.

Non-scientists muddying the waters might persuade other non-scientists that there is no consensus; But that does not affect the reality of whether or not a consensus exists - and with global warming, one most certainly does.

Actually, I'm thinking more of scientists in other fields--like what we see with the global warming denial.

It's enough to make it seem like there isn't consensus.

 

[bilby]

Non-scientists muddying the waters might persuade other non-scientists that there is no consensus; But that does not affect the reality of whether or not a consensus exists - and with global warming, one most certainly does.

Actually, I'm thinking more of scientists in other fields--like what we see with the global warming denial.

It's enough to make it seem like there isn't consensus.

Only to morons.

When appeal to false authority fallacies arise because people can't tell the difference between a PhD in Biochemistry and a PhD in Climatology, that is a failing of the educational system. You don't need to be a scientist to spot that not all scientists are equally qualified in every field; or to spot that there is no significant difference between the utterance of a scientist from an unrelated field and that of a non-scientist.

You wouldn't trust a plumber or a plasterer to re-wire your house; Why would you trust a Biochemist or a Mathematician to tell you about climate change?

 

[Rhea]

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

What, you say conservatives are swayed by Appeal to Authority? Who knew!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Since they like consensus, perhaps we should explain how 99 out of every 100 climate skeptics are morons.

 

[Bomb#20]

Since they like consensus, perhaps we should explain how 99 out of every 100 climate skeptics are morons.

That will be kind of self-defeating, when you have to explain that it's because 99% of everyone are morons.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Since they like consensus, perhaps we should explain how 99 out of every 100 climate skeptics are morons.

That will be kind of self-defeating, when you have to explain that it's because 99% of everyone are morons.

I don't think they understand percentages.

 

[Perspicuo]

That will be kind of self-defeating, when you have to explain that it's because 99% of everyone are morons.

I don't think they understand percentages.

Haha! "100%??? I got 200%, that's a whole 100% more than you!"

 

[bilby]

Since they like consensus, perhaps we should explain how 99 out of every 100 climate skeptics are morons.

That will be kind of self-defeating, when you have to explain that it's because 99% of everyone are morons.

99% of me certainly is.

 

[fromderinside]

Scientific consensus is a pretty darn strong piece of evidence--a non-professional should almost never go against it. The issue is when we don't have consensus yet--such as with all the conservatives trying to muddy the waters about global warming.

Wrong. Scientific consensus is antithetical, a "no" directive to the religious. The more professional the less religious findings show. So the great unwashed religious are all stamping their feet here. BTW these are proportional to the number of the ones not on wall street.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Scientific consensus is a pretty darn strong piece of evidence--a non-professional should almost never go against it. The issue is when we don't have consensus yet--such as with all the conservatives trying to muddy the waters about global warming.

Wrong. Scientific consensus is antithetical, a "no" directive to the religious. The more professional the less religious findings show. So the great unwashed religious are all stamping their feet here. BTW these are proportional to the number of the ones not on wall street.

The issue is that they don't realize the consensus exists.

 

[fromderinside]

Wrong. Scientific consensus is antithetical, a "no" directive to the religious. The more professional the less religious findings show. So the great unwashed religious are all stamping their feet here. BTW these are proportional to the number of the ones not on wall street.

The issue is that they don't realize the consensus exists.

Yes most of them do. They are either holding two contrary views and working through that pattern or they are using denial a for political cover.

 

[maxparrish]

And just who is moored to the model speculations by the "consensus" hawkers rather than empirical evidence?

Oh my...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And just who is moored to the model speculations by the "consensus" hawkers rather than empirical evidence?

Oh my...

Oh, my, indeed--cherry picking at work.

Note that they are only looking at 20 degrees south to 20 degrees north.

In practice we are seeing less warming in the tropics and more in the polar regions.

 

[WAB]

TOP DEFINITION
the great unwashed
Coined by Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, "the great unwashed" refers to the lower classes.

The common people.
The great unwashed enjoy reality TV and shopping at Wal-Mart.




bireksnstocks - peasants - backed up togs - .... inferior -... lower order...- the scum - underclass - unwashed - weak.

- from Urban Dictionary


*

Noun[edit]
great unwashed (plural only)
(idiomatic) A contemptuous term for the populace, particularly the working class.

- Wictionary


**Edited in for clarity:

fromderinside: I don't know why you would use a term that is associated with the uneducated poor when the group you [might/seem to] have a more important political disagreement with are generally not the uneducated poor, but educated, filthy rich people who willfully ignore reality in order to cling to beliefs that support their absurd claims to eternal comfort and prosperity, in direct contradiction to the lowborn Jew Who taught that they should not desire worldly wealth and fame—people like the blustery Rush Limbaugh, frinstance?

 

[maxparrish]

And just who is moored to the model speculations by the "consensus" hawkers rather than empirical evidence?

Oh my...

Oh, my, indeed--cherry picking at work.

Note that they are only looking at 20 degrees south to 20 degrees north.

In practice we are seeing less warming in the tropics and more in the polar regions.

If by "cherry picking" you mean that some other set of unselected data would somehow offset the implications of this discrepancy then it is little more than wishful thinking. It is well known that much of the Earth’s global mean temperature variability originates in the tropics, and that is where the models consistently predict more rapid warming - which is also the place where the disparity between model results and observations are greatest. If one wishes to see if simulations and trend observations are compatible trends, this region should provide a clear signature of the trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse forcing.

That, at a latitude 62.5 models and observations eventually converge is of little consolation. Global Climate Models that are only accurate for Great Slave Lake in the Yukon but increasingly useless for all points south is not going to 'save' your argument.

Oh my, sure enough.