The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens. The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Science == skepticism
Yes, the search for the Higgs Bozon is rubbish as well, because they can't directly observe it, it's all just on paper, proper scientists tell the people at Cern to "prove it".
Seriously: You obviously know nothing about scientific method if you think that it all has to be proved experimentally, also that nothing in climate science can be proven experimentally.
Re: Science == skepticism
Correct! Bozons are not real- unlike Bosons...
Bozos on the other hand are many, and like to think the sky is falling.
Re: Science == skepticism
You're criticising a stronger statement than I intended to make. Maybe I shouldn't have put climate science in quotes - all I mean is it is qualitatively different from the Newtonian physics or Ohmic electrics or simple thermodynamics that you can confirm repeatably on a lab bench.
Yeah, I know that modelling and seeing whether the model fits the observed actual later data is also the scientific method, and that can say things are True in a scientific sense provided the assumptions in the model are correct. And yes, of course, the parts that are actually physics can be verified in a lab or an actual outdoor (undersea, ice-pack...) experiment.
It's the question of whether the model chosen was correct, is where I'm claiming that the more informed science or maths types rightly have skepticism; and also the more outlandish claims of armageddon due to societal changes.
Re: Science == skepticism
The sky is falling - or maybe instead the land is rising? ice sheets melt, more water, land floats, you know ;-)
I want to see that scientifically proven. And no, when proof is presented, i still don't believe it, because I'm a self-proclaimed Sceptic. Because who says that that proof is really proof? Yeah, thought so :-)
i like how commentards comment on how stupid, anti-intellectual, etc. others are, and then sign off with the best of typos... Bozons, towing the line, etc.
Probably to keep the land from floating away again...
Makes sense
"the US government should seek to fund a communication strategy on climate change which is not focused on sound scientific information."
Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic make all their decisions on the assumption that we're all stupid anyway.
Re: Makes sense
Except that's not what the article says. That's what Lewis Page tells you.
The article says *only* focusing on making science communication clearer will not persuade anyone of the risks climate change, because people's world views weigh more than the scientific evidence.
Ironically Lewis' article is a perfect example of this. He chooses to interpret the article in his own manner, and I really suggest you pay attention to the parts he has redacted with ".."s:
"communicators should endeavor to create a deliberative climate in which accepting the best available science does not threaten any group’s values."
Proof the article does *not* advocate not focusing on sound science. It advocates presenting the "best available science" but in a value neutral manner.
Re: Makes sense
You don't encounter sarcasm much in your everyday life, do you?
Re: Makes sense
"the US government should seek to fund a communication strategy on climate change which is not focused on sound scientific information."
Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic make all their decisions on the assumption that THEY're NOT stupid anyway.
Fixed it for you..
I think some of the comments are being a bit harsh on Lewis, he is simply reporting someone else conclusions.
Interestingly, most of the sciencists I've read seem to agree that global warming is happening and that humans are responsable for increasing the rate. What no one seems to know, is what is going to happen next. We are currently in an internacine period of warmth during a major ice age and no one knows when it may end.
This site is supposed to be above parroting rhetoric from a discredited, and utterly banal source in Fox News.
but
He isn't simply reporting someone elses conclusions, because he is presenting their conclusions in a twisted form. That's what people have spotted. Orlowski does it far more mind, but they are both pretty shoddy in this regard on climate change. At least Page actually writes well on other subjects (I think, anyway), whereas Orlowski, he's just shit.
There is reporting and then there is systematically cherry picking and spinning.
what it actually says
What it actually says is:
Nobody likes a Tory.
"the US government should seek to fund a communication strategy on climate change which is not focused on sound scientific information."
Has there ever been a government communication strategy that *was* based on sound scientific information?
Off the top of my head
The "Don't die of ignorance" communication strategy.
Re: Off the top of my head
Yeah, I was considering that one. It's genuinely the only one I can think of, even though it's, what, over 30 years ago now? Which is why it's the one everyone thinks of first (i.e. 'off the top of my head'). I suspect it would prove very hard to come up with another one.
It's rarety makes it memorable.
Jon
Or to put it another way...
If you're thick you're more likely to believe what "experts" tell you. For everyone else who has a reasonable understanding or appreciation of the complexities of climate you're smart enough to come to your own conclusion. (Or if they're familiar with climate change through history or are natural skeptics!)
Re: Or to put it another way...
"If you're thick you're more likely to believe what "experts" tell you. For everyone else who has a reasonable understanding or appreciation of the complexities of climate you're smart enough to come to your own conclusion"
Except smart people believe what experts tell them, because they can take a judgement as to how expert someone likely is. The people who think that they can get an overview of a subject as complex as climate science, without serious study, and make up their own decision are the real idiots.
Re: Or to put it another way...
Also, I generally believe what my GP tells me, I have very little understanding of the human body.
Saying that only thick people go to experts is a ridiculous argument.
An interesting parallel with another time (back when thought-crime was even more rampant)
Way back in the '20s and '30s a very trendy pseudo-scientific belief known as "eugenics" was being peddled as the answer to many of mankind's problems. Some political leaders used it to justify mass genocides before and during WWII.
Read the foreword in Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" for a good recap of that low period in human history.
Since world over-population must clearly be the un-stated source (or at least a cause) of all things globally warming, perhaps educated types are now a little concerned as to where and how far the debate is going. Perhaps some are even expressing unhealthy skepticism towards the holy tenets of climate science. Something clearly something needs to be done or others will begin expressing skepticism too.
How about re-education camps to ensure that everyone gets with the program?
But first we will need to find a way to fliter out the clever ones, the independent thinkers, you know the type.... we can start by analyzing their internet browsing habits and forum memberships.
(Feel free to contribute to this non-exhaustive list)
Today, we can't:
1) Board airplanes without being physically molested,
2) Make jokes (electronically or otherwise) about bombs in or near airports
3) Earn a decent living or have a lifetime career.
4) Vote for intelligent public leaders...
5) Enjoy some degree of privacy while shopping on-line
6) Download free music, search for "naughty" sites, etc...
So what's next?
Do I just give up my second car (oops... did that already) or will you need my first-born child also?
And if the list of lost rights becomes any longer, can we petition for their return, or will it already be too late?
Freaky huh?
Brrrrr....... gotta go AC on this one, for obvious reasons
Psychohistory...
I thought it was a process for understanding mass psychology, and also reducing natural language down to mathematics (and therefore revealing true meaning and intent from diplomatic speak).
scam
The whole thing is about money and political power. Period. Keep that as your paradigm not science.
Pots calling kettles black?
What I find interesting is that whenever Lewis Page writes an article here in El Reg, he is accused of being paid by someone (since he only seems to write on climate change and defence contracts, perhaps he is in a somewhat polarized area). However, since he is a paid journalist, his whole point is to get people to read his work and thus why should anyone get upset about his rhetoric - that is what journalists do (and I personally find his work enjoyable to read so well done Lewis).
However, the people most keen to accuse him of this horrendous bias of being paid to write then go on and quote all kinds of other stories by other journalists with never a care about who pays THEM! Almost everybody in this debate is paid for their work on it in some way or another. Some people are paid directly and some indirectly, but to castigate anyone on this basis is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Get off it and look at what is written and use those supposedly skeptical faculties on that rather than shooting the messenger. Lewis writes interesting articles - enjoy them, but if you want to know the science, read the links he always includes with his articles and make your own mind up.
Re: Pots calling kettles black?
There's bias and there's blatant lies.
Lewis' subheading: 'Abandon focus on sound science', say trick-cyclists
Lewis "paraphrasing" the article: Thus it is, according to the assembled profs, that the US government should seek to fund a communication strategy on climate change which is not focused on sound scientific information.
What the Nature article says, but redacted by Lewis with ".."s: communicators should endeavor to create a deliberative climate in which accepting the best available science does not threaten any group’s values.
So they actually advocate best available science, not abandoning focus on sound science. What's Lewis' point again?
Re: Pots calling kettles black?
Indeed.
Lewis Page does tend to attract lots of flak in the comments on his articles, which after all, are only opinion pieces, much like any other journalism. As to where this opinion comes from, well you can read his book; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-And-Dinosaurs-Blundering/dp/0099484420/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338302704&sr=8-1.
Having read it, I have a lot of sympathy with his viewpoint; not dissimilar to Paxman's "Why is this bastard lying to me?" interview default with politicians.
"Follow the money" is usually a good thing to bear in mind when trying to understand differing sides to a story and the incentives to favour a particular narrative. There are undoubtedly lots of people with their noses firmly in the trough of public funds, and they most certainly do not wish this to attract too much attention. Resorting to an ad hominem is usually a fair indicator that something is getting too close for comfort.
Re: Pots calling kettles black?
There are undoubtedly lots of people with their noses firmly in the trough of public funds, and they most certainly do not wish this to attract too much attention. Resorting to an ad hominem is usually a fair indicator that something is getting too close for comfort.
Anyone else see the irony in this comment? This looks like the world's biggest ad hominem covering all climate scientists, other scientists whose research outcomes support AGW, and the institutions they belong to, the publications, the peer reviewers.
This must be why
Every prominent climate agency and scientific academy is skeptical about global warming. Oh wait, none of them are. They all publicly endorse the notion of climate change and of it being man made.
What I want to know is why The Register is so firmly in the denialist camp. Is it just for trolling and the lulz or is someone paying them to do it.
Re: This must be why
Err... We all pay them to do it, every time we press F5. The adverts!!!!
Re: This must be why
> Every prominent climate agency and scientific academy is skeptical about global
> warming. Oh wait, none of them are. They all publicly endorse the notion of climate
> change and of it being man made.
Absolutely not. And the very well-publicized fraction who does endorse it is worried about the extent to which they are teleguided by external interests (see the leaked emails from East Anglia). They might be right, or they might be wrong (but the data strongly suggests that solar activity may very well be the major factor there, with CO2 _following_ due to it's lesser solubility in warmer ocean water - by far it's biggest reservoir. Not that we should not watch our energy use and waste generation of course. That's another matter. That's science and it can be discussed. The topic of this article is not science, it's indoctrination).
My point is, the idea of a "scientific consensus" on that matter has been invented by crooks for consumption by science-illiterate idiots.
And I _am_ a filthy commie.
Re: This must be why
@Pierre: Just stating what you believe doesn't make it true.
Re: This must be why
That is not what I believe. The fact that only the man -> CO2 -> apocalypse fraction is the only one you hear in the media doesn't mean that it is the consensus in the scientific community. The fact that their concerns about the extent of political pressure they feel is only revealed when private emails are leaked doesn't make it less true either.
If you read a bit of the litterature (I mean the real one, not the politico-economic propaganda by one side or the other) you will see that there is in fact no consensus, and that the man-made CO2 hypothesis consistently fails to deliver in terms of fitting real-world data (it fits reasonnably well /a posteriory/ but that's easy, it's just some fiddling with the model's parameters; predictions on the other hand consistently failed to materialize). Which doesn't necessarily means that it's wrong, by the way.
Climate science is not an easy thing, especially as we have a very flimsy handle -at best- on the ins and outs of it. People babbling about "scientific consensus" on that issue are either crooks or morons.
Re: This must be why
@pierre, Wikipedia provides this useful list of specific endorsements by leading scientific institutions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations
That endorsement easily qualifies as scientific consensus, representing the informed opinion of the members of those institutions. Consensus does not mean every last scientist in the world, including the cranks concur with an opinion. Consense requires that the large majority do and that is clearly the case.
Of course if you consider it to be a "fraction", provide a list of institutions of equal scientific standing who dissent.
Now I don't know about you, but if 98 doctors said my son was dying and needed urgent treatment and 2 said to wait and see or denied the illness outright I'd sure as hell know who I'd believe. The question is why when the question is applied to climate change that people choose the other option.
Re: This must be why
> Wikipedia provides this useful list of specific endorsements by leading scientific institutions:
Yeah, Wikipedia, right? I must fold then. My PhD, 5 years of post-doc and 1 year in an academic position in a major uni can't possibly match your overwhelming evidence. It's not like I've been trained to analyse data and litterature for more than 15 years, solid, including nights and week-ends, is it? (and don't even start talking about holidays. I've heard some people take them).
> Now I don't know about you, but if 98 doctors said my son was dying and needed urgent treatment and 2 said to wait and see or denied the illness outright I'd sure as hell know who I'd believe.
www. whatthefuckareyouramblingabout.swf.
Amazing...
Movable type!
We must keep these from the surfs. They might start getting ideas.
Re: Amazing...
>keep them from the surfs!
I agree, never trust those Californians!
Came expecting the usual reg-hates-climate-science spin,
was not disapointed
also got an aded bonus of sociologists-pretending-they-do-real-science
11/10
In other news
"Sea levels resume rising and falling after mysterious 9000-year hiatus"
"Populations (again) forced to migrate due to climate pressure"
Until 100-200 years ago, migration didn't overly matter - and while everyone's making panic statements about it, bear in mind the following things
1: UK population has only increased 10-15% since 1970. The world's population has more than doubled in that time.
2: More people have moved from the north of england to the southeast of england than from all the migrants from outside the country combined. Blaming external migrants for crowding is simply choosing the easiest minority to pick on.
3: For every X permanent migrants in, there are Y permanent migrants out. Getting tough on migration may mean having to take a lot of expats back (The number of british illegals in Australia/NZ alone is something around the 150k mark. It's a lot higher in USA/Canada and higher still in SE Asia.)
Settlements have been abandoned for climate-related reasons along all of history (and prehistory). Sooner or later the USA is going to realise that it's not worth trying to keep new Orleans Dry and let the swamps retake it, just as there are a number of old villages which used to be marked on middle ages UK maps as "lost to the sea".
The _real_ problem is the increasingly high barriers being placed to migration in the name of "national identity" and "economic security". It's arguable that migrants are necessary for the long-term economic health of any country on the basis that you have to have a fair amount of motivation for betterment to make the journey and that motivation doesn't stop when the journey does. the only people benefitting from the current situation are criminals.
(As for climate: humans will survive and adapt. They always do. Countries/economies may not. That's not to say there isn't a problem, but it's not armageddon. Even the climate experts agree on that one.)
Re: In other news
You speak too much sense to be commenting here.
Assumptions
The problem with the discussion here is that the study made some assumptions. Whether or not the're correct can be debated but the position of the authors is that it's correct to have a high level of perceived risk about climate change. They knew going into the study that the level of perceived risk in the population is lower than they considered correct. In order to explain this they considered two hypotheses. One that people were too scientifically illiterate to appreciate the risk and secondly that people's ability to perceive risk is biased by their social environment (peers don't believe it so it's best if they don't either). The first hypothesis was proved incorrect and the second one correct.
It would have been interesting if as a control they considered the belief in god or evolution instead of just risk associated with nuclear, although that is a bit different to perceived risk... Maybe risk of eternal damnation then?
For your consideration Mr. Page
Mr. Page,
While I have only read some of your articles, I feel like I have read them all and because of you, I now realize that the whole idea of climate change is based on bad science and the rants of tin foil wearing tree huggers. Thank you, I can now buy that SUV I have my eyes on, leave all my lights on 24/7 and burn pools of oil in my back yard without fear of global consequence.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could now tackle another thing that makes me feel bad. You see, I am a smoker and constantly feel bad about myself for not quitting. If you could do a series of articles debunking the whole smoking is bad for you thing that would be great. I believe that there are studies from the 50’s and 60’s that say that smoking is actually good for you, so if you just republish and expand on those, that should be a good start.
Thanks in advance for your attention to this.
I've no idea which paper Lewis read
but the one I just read simply concludes that peer pressure and political bias are by far the strongest influences on people's attitudes to subjects in which they have no personal expertise.
You could argue "no shit, sherlock".
Or you could argue ... whatever it is that this article is wittering about.
Plane crash
What people often failed to see is that we have a fatal crisis in the making. It may be 50 years down the road, but we will not be able just to turn around when we finally see it coming (or the 50% percent brain dead right wing ideologues).
So we should ask ourselves-what are the chance the scientific community is right? 50%? 30%? 10%?
Would you let your kid take a plane, knowing there is a 10% chance this airplane will crash?
How does this coal and oil now smell to you?
Re: Plane crash
> So we should ask ourselves-what are the chance the scientific community is right? 50%? 30%? 10%?
I think the point is that the scientific community does not say what you think it does.
Re: Plane crash
I am - you're the one making the claims that require the most testing - that is the planet isn't in trouble, where 90%+ of scientists* in the field believe it is, so you prove your point, maybe citing a single source would be a start.
(*Number deliberately understated.)
Re: Plane crash
No, I am not making any claim. I am just a bit surprised that the scientific community as a whole has predicted the end of the world in 50 years. Which was the claim I answered to.
And which I know for a fact to be wrong, despite your and the OP's claims to the contrary.
and that 90% is not understated: it's pulled out of an ignorant's ass whose culture on the matter consists entirely of mass-media sensationalist claim (and perhaps a bit of Greenpeace spice on top).
As for sources for the lack of consensus I am pretty damn sure that all you have is spin from the IPCC and Greenpeace so I am just going to point you towards PubMed* and let you do your homework. Focus on papers that try to describe or explain climate variations, not the ones that make a passing mention of climate variation.
As for sources for the "man-made CO2-caused global warming is not going to wipe humanity in 50 years", well I'm trying hard not to laugh, I don't think that even needs sources. Even the whoriest attention whore in the field or the looniest loony in the surrounding loony bin never dared to pretend that. Which is why I repeatedly asked...
*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed
This topic is closed for new posts.
