Temporary note: the publication date was set by the journal to be 7 May 2015 but as of 10am GMT the doi has not gone live. Until the link is live, copies of the corrected proofs can be obtained by emailing me.
The press release:
How climate science denial affects the scientific community
Climate change denial in public discourse may encourage climate scientists to over-emphasise scientific uncertainty and is also affecting how they themselves speak – and perhaps even think – about their own research, a new study from the University of Bristol, UK argues.
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, from Bristol’s School of Experimental Psychology and the Cabot Institute, and colleagues from Harvard University and three institutions in Australia show how the language used by people who oppose the scientific consensus on climate change has seeped into scientists’ discussion of the alleged recent ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ in global warming, and has thereby unwittingly reinforced a misleading message.
The idea that ‘global warming has stopped’ has been promoted in contrarian blogs and media articles for many years, and ultimately the idea of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has become ensconced in the scientific literature, including in the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Multiple lines of evidence indicate that global warming continues unabated, which implies that talk of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ is misleading. Recent warming has been slower than the long term trend, but this fluctuation differs little from past fluctuations in warming rate, including past periods of more rapid than average warming. Crucially, on previous occasions when decadal warming was particularly rapid, the scientific community did not give short-term climate variability the attention it has now received, when decadal warming was slower. During earlier rapid warming there was no additional research effort directed at explaining ‘catastrophic’ warming. By contrast, the recent modest decrease in the rate of warming has elicited numerous articles and special issues of leading journals.
This asymmetry in response to fluctuations in the decadal warming trend likely reflects what the study’s authors call the ‘seepage’ of contrarian claims into scientific work.
Professor Lewandowsky said: “It seems reasonable to conclude that the pressure of climate contrarians has contributed, at least to some degree, to scientists re-examining their own theory, data and models, even though all of them permit – indeed, expect – changes in the rate of warming over any arbitrarily chosen period.”
So why might scientists be affected by contrarian public discourse? The study argues that three recognised psychological mechanisms are at work: ‘stereotype threat’, ‘pluralistic ignorance’ and the ‘third-person effect’.
‘Stereotype threat’ refers to the emotional and behaviour responses when a person is reminded of an adverse stereotype against a group to which they belong. Thus, when scientists are stereotyped as ‘alarmists’, a predicted response would be for them to try to avoid seeming alarmist by downplaying the degree of threat. Several studies have indeed shown that scientists tend to avoid highlighting risks, lest they be seen as ‘alarmist’.
‘Pluralistic ignorance’ describes the phenomenon which arises when a minority opinion is given disproportionate prominence in public debate, resulting in the majority of people incorrectly assuming their opinion is marginalised. Thus, a public discourse that asserts that the IPCC has exaggerated the threat of climate change may cause scientists who disagree to think their views are in the minority, and they may therefore feel inhibited from speaking out in public.
Research shows that people generally believe that persuasive communications exert a stronger effect on others than on themselves: this is known as the ‘third-person effect’. However, in actual fact, people tend to be more affected by persuasive messages than they think. This suggests the scientific community may be susceptible to arguments against climate change even when they know them to be false.
Professor Lewandowsky said: “We scientists have a unique and crucial role in public policy: to communicate clearly and accurately the entire range of risks that we know about. The public has a right to be informed about risks, even if they are alarming.
“Climate scientists have done a great job pursuing their science under great political pressure and they have tirelessly rebutted pseudoscientific arguments against their work. However, sometimes scientists have inadvertently allowed contrarian claims to frame the language of their scientific thinking, leading us to overstate uncertainty and under-communicate knowledge.
“Knowing about one’s own susceptibility to outside pressure is half the battle: our research may therefore enable scientists to recognise the potential for this seepage of contrarian arguments into their own language and thinking.”
The study is published today in Global Environmental Change.
###
Paper
‘Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community’ by Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, James S. Risbey, Ben R. Newell and Michael Smithson in Global Environmental Change
NOTE: The paper will be here if they ever get their act together: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.013
Barry Woods writes in an email to me:
Pause for thought Ed Hawkins, Tamsin Edwards & Doug McNeall – Nature Climate ChangeThe recent slowdown (or ‘pause’) in global surface temperature rise is a hot topic for climate scientists and the wider public.We discuss how climate scientists have tried to communicate the pause and suggest that ‘many-to-many’ communication offers a key opportunity to directly engage with the public.
Doug McNeall @dougmcneall*brief pause while @NaomiOreskes googles me*
John Kennedy @micefearboggisClimate Scientist walks into a bar, says, “A pint of…………bitter”Barman: “Why the long pause?”Climate Scientist: <sobs>
John Kennedy@micefearboggis Sep 24I say Hi-ah-tus, you say Hi-ay-tus. Hi-ay-tus, Hi-ah-tus Hi-ay-tus, Hi-ah-tus Let’s call the whole thing off
Pause for thought Ed Hawkins, Tamsin Edwards & Doug McNeall
Tamsin – Cern TedXThe first problem uncertainty brings is the extra difficulty for the expert in explaining their results, and the non-expert in understanding them. For example, over the past 17 years or so there has been a slowdown, even a pause, in the rate of warming of the atmosphere. We’re confident the climate is still changing, because the ocean is still warming, the land losing ice, sea level rising, and we predict the atmosphere will start to warm again after this temporary blipI hope this list will grow, and start conversations that help us deal better with uncertainty in climate science – perhaps even with the messy business of science itself. So if you’re confused about climate … puzzled about the pause … surprised about sea level … or just uncertain about uncertainty … please come and find us. We’d love to talk.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gods forbid! We can’t have scientists of all people re-examining their own theory, data and models! Next thing you know they’ll be doing actual science!
In the words of Theodoric of York…………”Naaaaaaahhhh!”
Not only re-examining their own theory, data, and models, but being influenced by persuasive arguments! The horror!
So…they object to the “revelation” that Man’s CO2 causing global warming is debunked because as CO2 has risen the temps have not? “The Pause” is becoming a plausible debunker in (even consenus) scientific circles that Man-caused CO2 is not a cause of what has not happened?
(I know. An awkward sentence to follow. But, hey, so are the CAGWer’s rationalizations!)
There are scientists and there are politicians… and then there are political scientists who have achieved the level of BS.
There are always useful idiots in the turning of the tide by demonstrating their excess to others.
Lew: “We scientists…”. Rofl!
Precisely my reaction.
If I were a scientist, I’d be insulted.
I am. You’re correct.
Me, too.
Count me in, too. Lewandowski as “We scientists…” is beyond farce. It hit me immediately. Likewise Oreskes.
Lewandowski is not a scientist and he knows it. Or, rather, to the extend he understands what science actually is, he is aware he does not practice it. It is not for nothing that he flunks Methodology 101 every single time, consequently rendering the “results” of his “studies” impossible to reproduce.
The core issue, imo, is the naive admission that he himself considers warm-mongering climate scientists not be scientists at all. That consideration must be insultingly shocking to the scientists involved. One thing is to be conducting scientific research that, somehow, is unproductive or leading nowhere or based on assumptions later shown to be inappropriate. An entire different issue is to be considered akin to a quack.
Since the overwhelming majority of “climate scientists” are most likely NOT psychology experts, the very title of his paper is HILARIOUS!
“Seepage-noun: the slow escape of a liquid or gas through porous material or small holes.”
Kind of like letting the air out of a balloon. Or out of an atmosphere. Or an idiotic theory….especially the slow release of a whole lot of hot air…
I find it utterly fascinating that John Cook and Lew so often blatantly engage in the exact same “psychological mechanisms” that they feel the public needs to be warned about, while being completely oblivious to it! Or refuse to apply their crazy assumptions to ALL SIDES EQUALLY. For example-from the above press release:
“‘Stereotype threat’ refers to the emotional and behaviour responses when a person is reminded of an adverse stereotype against a group to which they belong. Thus, when scientists are stereotyped as ‘alarmists’, a predicted response would be for them to try to avoid seeming alarmist by downplaying the degree of threat. Several studies have indeed shown that scientists tend to avoid highlighting risks, lest they be seen as ‘alarmist’.”
So, when scientists are stereotyped as “deniers” or “skeptics”, a predicted response would be for them to try to avoid seeming “denialish” or “skeptical” by “upplaying” the degree of threat. Right Lew?
And this:
“‘Pluralistic ignorance’ describes the phenomenon which arises when a minority opinion is given disproportionate prominence in public debate, resulting in the majority of people incorrectly assuming their opinion is marginalised. Thus, a public discourse that asserts that the IPCC has exaggerated the threat of climate change may cause scientists who disagree to think their views are in the minority, and they may therefore feel inhibited from speaking out in public.”
Wow Lew. Really? Here’s how “pluralistic ignorance” is defined by other social psychologists-
“In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most others accept it, and therefore go along with it. This is also described as “no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes.”
“Pluralistic ignorance posits that in certain circumstances most people will falsely believe that others conform to certain ideas or standards, and will uphold them, too, while privately disagreeing with them.”
Meaning…that in order to be logical and unbiased, Lew must admit that it’s just as possible that the majority of climate scientists actually reject AGW theory, while incorrectly assuming/believing that most of their peers accept it, and therefore they go along with it. Because they think their opinion (that AGW is not a credible theory or threat to the planet) puts them in the minority, they therefore feel inhibited from speaking out in public.
Every time this man opens his mouth or types words, he makes his own biases and irrationality even more obvious to the average person. Which is why I always encourage John and Lew to talk as much as possible!
While true that these two are science clowns…
They’re making a pretty good living, and I’m one of the guys paying their salary.
Not real happy about that.
So, is it that we all privately believe the opposite of what we think we really believe, but not to look foolish, we say we believe what we believe everyone else believes? But we don’t really. Personally, I find that a bit hard to believe.
Eamon.
“Seepage” is the newest verb. It can be used for all types of slow motion of mindful material, like for example – money. Guess how much seepage there will be into the pocket of this Lewandowsky clown.
Eamon, you are just saying that so as not to look foolish.
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, from Bristol’s School of Experimental Psychology,
The scariest description of a “scientist” ever. That description of this guy scares the hell out of me, I picture a white coated bushy eyed guy saying
” Ve Hvafe vays to make yoo talk”
But then there is BIG OIL’s never ending money to keep them in their denialism, in Lew’s logic I guess xDDD
‘Professor Lewandowsky said: “We scientists..’
He isn’t a scientist. He’s a psychologist. I studied several units of psychology when I was an undergraduate. In those days they knew it wasn’t a science but they were trying to make it one. It still isn’t one, but I don’t know whether they are still trying or just declaring that it is.
From the press release of one of his other “scientific” papers
ƒ(µ)kt=iƒ(1,k)∩0ω maybe?
You know for entertainment we could get a trolling party together, get on tweeter and every time a new reason to explain the pause is announced. Take this paper and shove it down the announcers throats and call them deniers. Abusing them with their own propaganda is the fastest way to get them to denounce it.
The best way to use propaganda like this is against the “attempting to stay above the debate” group of propagandists aka your gavins, manns, hansens etc.
I like it, you are correct. This is the way to get them to denounce their own propaganda.
Your idea, unfortunately, has much to recommend it.
There’s no reason to be skeptical of the rate of warming by global climate models (-:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
“This asymmetry in response to fluctuations in the decadal warming trend likely reflects what the study’s authors call the ‘seepage’ of contrarian claims into scientific work.”
I guess that decadal stuff was so well known that these guys warned us well ahead of time that we’ll see 18 years plus of stability and that it would end on dd/mm/yyyy as predicted by their models. isn’t it like that Lew? Lew?… LOL
the psychologists are refining the play book, tuning the vocab here in language arts –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/01/climate-communications-strategic-use-of-climate-uncertainty-in-media-education-and-politics/
Maybe this pause is just like the pause that occurred from around 1945-1975. Maybe global warming, er, climate change really is real. But maybe, just maybe, it’s neither catastrophic nor majorly driven by human emissions. Maybe it’s just a natural outcome of post-glaciation. Nah.
Maybe this entire interglacial should be better evaluated.
What actually happens during interglacials should be compared to what’s happening today.
Forget about two decades or six decades or even 15 decades.
The only valid starting point should be our exit from the last glacial period.
Let’s use honest science this time.
They won’t because they know there is no CO2/Temperature control knob.
This time it’s different… except when it’s not.
“Recent warming has been slower than the long term trend, but this fluctuation differs little from past fluctuations in warming rate, including past periods of more rapid than average warming.”
“It’s the pause that refreshes!” – Coca Cola
Aren’t these the same guys who declared that scientists have to hide any uncertainty that they may feel because the cause was so important?
Oreskes & Lew, always the losers even in a mediocre field, by which of course I mean CPOTY.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/ladiees-and-gennulmen-we-have-a-winnah/
Pointman
I think Lew and company have awakened the SCHWARTZ !!! The results of which, will be total humor.
“pause”……implies predictive skills
Latitude,
Straight to the point, as usual.
As does “slowdown”.
Hard to believe English has no word for this..oh, wait, how about “stopped”? Or the eminently descriptive “atmospheric temperatures have leveled”. Precision in language is something I harp on with students, but it typically falls on deaf ears. Too much desire for shorthand (and sensationalism).
On prediction –
We know that the climate doesn’t remain steady state for long, so it will either warm or cool.
We know that we are 12,000 years into a 10,000 year interglacial.
Therefore, when the pause ends, we must hope that it resumes the upward trend.
Mike
Let me correct you there Mike…..we are ~ 15 K years in to an Interglacial that is period considered as to be ~15K year long period.
The Interglacial started ~7.5K years before the very top of the interglacial optimum was reached…….and we are now ~7.5K years after that very top happened.
Tip…….a conjunction with Mayan calendar suggest a long shot possibility of the Interglacial end to be as per December 2012.
According to Mayans, as per my understanding, the period after is considered the Era of the Dark Sun (a very cool indeed period or era).
Cheers
whiten
Mayan calendar “problem” is simply that they stopped carving symbols in stone at the second Venusian eclipse in 2012 – very much like our printed calendars today “stop” at the end of December. Then begin at the top of the next page.
RACookPE1978
May 8, 2015 at 3:42 am
Hello RACook.
Thank you very much for the reply.
Sorry for such a late reply to you, apologies, …..but no much free time these days.
first I ma glad that at least your reply seems to suggest that you do not disagree with the first part of my reply to Mike above.
When it comes to the “Tip”, the Mayan calendar implied connection or conjuncture…..if I understand your point right….I am unable do dismiss their science simply on the grounds of coincidence.
I am not saying that your point is not valid to me, but from where I stand, even with a superficial observation, to me is very difficult to consider the Mayan science as a coincidence.
If it helps I will say this, the Mayan calendar in question (the ~5K years long one) is to me what we may call a predictive tool…….but there is not only it……there is another calendar that this one in question belongs to, a longer one calendar, which can be considered as an estimating tool. That one depicts a ~20K year period. not as thoroughly and finely and to such a resolution, but never the less it is there.
Maybe I am imagining here but I think that a simple search could just spark some thought about this one point.
To me, the Mayan knew better than us about what we today call climate and climate change.
I know that sounds silly…yes. 🙂
cheers
“The Goat Effect”
Basically when you finally cant milk any more out of the latest fashionable cause go and milk the nearest Goat to death.
only to find out it was a male goat…
Al Goat?
The idea that Barry Sanders is no longer playing in the NFL, just because he is no longer playing in the NFL is absurd. Blogs that claim that Barry Sanders is no longer playing in the NFL simply do not understand the science of being Barry Sanders.
Or maybe there’s just no scientific explanation for Barry Sanders …
Come on now, that’s ridiculous.
But then your comment made me think, there has been no global warming since Barry Sanders retired. Barry Sanders being un-retired correlates perfectly with global warming!
Isn’t he running for president? Bubba Cow would know.
“Oreskes- ‘but theres no pause’”
Isn’t this the lunatic who’s argued that when it comes to “climate change” we don’t have the luxury of open-mindedness? How pathetic, coming from an academic Either way, this last tweet seems to sum it all up, and not in the way Ms. Oreskes imagines.
She can stick her fingers in her ears and go sing LAH, LAH, LAH all she wants. The pause doesn’t care.
18 years + and counting.
LAH, LAH, LAH
Wouldn’t it be rich if someone did a survey and found that a majority of climate scientists agree that warming has paused? That would mean Oreskes denies the scientific consensus when she states that there is no pause.
What phrase or word will they use when the pause turns into the expected cooldown?
They’ll change the paradigm by saying something like “As predicted, heightened public awareness of the coming Armageddon has dalayed its arrival; but we are not out of the woods yet. Thus the urgent need for increased funding.”
In other words, claim credit for the pause.
“What phrase or word will they use when the pause turns into the expected cooldown?”
easy, Climate Change. Yep, CO2 can do that too…
When the pause first started all of them, particularly Gavin if I remember correctly, were saying that when it starts rising again, it’ll be much steeper this time (to catch up with where it should have been).
So far the miniscule amount of natural variation (their words) has had so much influence that it’s completely blotted out the ever rising temperature.
If and when the temperatures start to fall, and I believe they will, they’ll all have to retire early.
That too will be further proof that the planet has a fever.
In their make-believe world, there is no negative feedback, no reversion to the mean, no cyclical forces at work. It’s a one-way ticket to planetary doom, where CO2 is the control knob that turns every other physical and biological force into a co-conspirator of the existential threat.
Why do you think they are all in full panic mode? They believed that it would be MUCH easier to send society into a panic and deconstruct our evil, fossil fuel driven infrastructure than it has been. Had it gone as they had hoped it would, we’d be living in a wind powered green world when the cool down started, and thus they would have been able to take full credit for saving the world! Temperatures are NOT rising as they were before, and they are running out of time.
Lew is still living in the big D and I don’t mean Dallas.
Are you talking about a river in Africa?
That would be the one…
Looking forward to the full paper then I can check the Abbreviations Used section and find out what “climate change denial” is.
‘Pluralistic ignorance’ describes the phenomenon which arises when a minority opinion is given disproportionate prominence in public debate, resulting in the majority of people incorrectly assuming their opinion is marginalised.
So Dr Lewandowsky, I have a question.
How is it that the climate science community can steadfastly claim that 97% of their colleagues agree with them, yet also have the perception that their opinion is marginalized? Please pick one, they cannot both be true.
“Please pick one, they cannot both be true.”
Obviously you’re not a climate scientist.
Neither is Loo
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Alice in Climateland.
CLIMATe CHANGE IS PAUSED?
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have reached a new monthly record of 400 parts per million, according to scientists.
‘The milestone was announced by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa). They said it was the first month that the entire globe broke 400ppm, reaching levels that haven’t been seen for about TWO MILLION YEARS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32625429
[TYPo? .mod]
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Game over.
{And more completely and nicely written by SAMURAI, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/07/a-disturbance-in-the-farce-another-hateful-and-pointless-paper-from-stephan-lewandowsky-and-naomi-oreskes/#comment-1928083 }
Help Wanted ad seen in several obscure but significant newspapers for about 5 years now (no qualified applicants, yet…):
e mail us TODAY! happycamps@controllers.com {Note: if this is a real address…. (eye roll)}
**************************************************
#(:))
Clowns.
blackadderthe4th
May 7, 2015 at 10:53 am
“CLIMATe CHANGE IS PAUSED?
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have reached a new monthly record of 400 parts per million, according to scientists.”
The name WARMunist comes from WARMING. And IT STOPPED WARMING.
lol (great punctuation, Dirk). #(:))
Somehow… I don’t think it’s problem of needing reading glasses… .
Please reformat the tweets, they are difficult to read this way.
Since we are doing jokes:
A cop pulls over a guy who went through a red light.
“But I slowed down”, says the scofflaw.
“The law says stop”
“I went REALLY slowly, though”.
“You need to stop”
“What the hell is the difference”.
Cop pulls out billy club and womps the guy on the head.
“Now, do you want me to stop, or do you want me to slow down?”
BTW, isn’t climate “science” a bit of a smorgasbord now, without adding something called a discipline called “Experimental Psychology” being added to the mix?
Oh, sorry, we aren’t really talking about science anymore, just politics. Silly me.
There is no discipline of Experimental Psychology, the field is a mish-mosh of people doing small scale treatment-measurement exercises on human subjects and then reporting effects, that are slightly greater than chance, as if they are an important contribution to a theory or theories that are equivocal at best or completely idiotic at worst. The field has not advanced our understanding of human behavior one bit in the last 50 years. The only thing useful about a degree in the field is that it requires a solid grasp of ANOVA and an appreciation of the difference between a measurement model and a structural model. After that anyone that pursues an academic career in the area will spend a lifetime grasping at straws. Maybe that’s why Lew is so desperate, this is the only straw he can grasp.
But it’s a most excellent joke!
Lewandowsky says:
Multiple lines of evidence indicate that global warming continues unabated…
That might even be justified, if the right time frame was picked. We know that since the LIA, global T has naturally risen. But that isn’t what Lew is implying. He’s trying to convince people that global warming has not stopped, or ‘paused’ for the past 12 – 18+ years (depending on which data set is used). But even the UN/IPCC acknowledges that there has been no recent global warming.
I will give Lew one thing: he has a knack for coming up with memorable phrases, like: ‘seepage’ of contrarian claims into scientific work. And: Pluralistic Ignorance, Recursive Fury, Counterfactual Thinking, Conspiracist Ideation, etc.
But Lewandowsky is a thoroughly despicable character, and it should be remembered that his Recursive Fury paper was forced into retraction. And of course, his completely false claim that “97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming” has been so thoroughly debunked that it’s become a joke among all but diehard climate alarmists.
Finally, I recall reading what one of his Australian students wrote about Lewandowsky:
Have a bath, grub. LOL!
Yes, the new Lew paper attempts to clean up the seepage.
Thank you. I’ll be here all week, folks.
There has been a great disturbance in the farce known as “the consensus”, forcing “scientists” to grudgingly admit to shortcomings in their “science”. Suddenly, Lew and Co. start flinging wet noodles in a vicious counter-attack.
The Climatist Empire strikes back.
“I think we only have hours to stop global death due to climate change.”
“That’s nice. How long have you thought this?”
“Oh, for years now.”
“Impressive. Have you received your MENSA invitation yet?”
So here is someone objecting to the phrase ‘the pause’ in climate discussions yet uses the term ‘Climate change denialists’ in the opening of his press release. Wow!