Academics discover civlity –
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A study into why skeptics are not persuaded by the apocalyptic predictions of broken climate models has concluded that the solution is better communication.
According to the Toronto Star;
““When talking to skeptics it is probably important to focus on aspects that both skeptics and believers have in common rather than the differences between them,” said Ana-Maria Bliuc, a behavioural social scientist at Australia’s Monash University and one of the authors of the study.
As an example, the focus could be on “things like cleaner air, low power consumption, improved public transport, better waste management, efficient agriculture, reforestation … (they) are all in public interest, regardless of position on climate change,” she said.
Improving communication between the two sides of this big divide could be an effective pathway to reaching consensus, said Bliuc.
According to the study abstract;
“Of the climate science papers that take a position on the issue, 97% agree that climate change is caused by humans, but less than half of the US population shares this belief. This misalignment between scientific and public views has been attributed to a range of factors, including political attitudes, socio-economic status, moral values, levels of scientific understanding, and failure of scientific communication. The public is divided between climate change ‘believers’ (whose views align with those of the scientific community) and ‘sceptics’ (whose views are in disagreement with those of the scientific community). We propose that this division is best explained as a socio-political conflict between these opposing groups. Here we demonstrate that US believers and sceptics have distinct social identities, beliefs and emotional reactions that systematically predict their support for action to advance their respective positions.
The key implication is that the divisions between sceptics and believers are unlikely to be overcome solely through communication and education strategies, and that interventions that increase angry opposition to action on climate change are especially problematic. Thus, strategies for building support for mitigation policies should go beyond attempts to improve the public’s understanding of science, to include approaches that transform intergroup relations.”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nclimate2507.pdf
This isn’t the first time researchers have blamed “communication” for climate skepticism.
Given that the abstract bases its rather imprecisely defined assumption of climate consensus on the heavily discredited Cook study http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/ , I suspect there may be problems other than communication which need to be addressed, before a common understanding can be achieved.
Doesn’t piss me off to be called a “denier”. I do find lots of people getting irate with me, however, when I tell them my position.
wickedwenchfan,
After you ask them what they think you’re denying, ask a couple more questions:
• What fraction of the air is CO2? [0.00004 – .04%]
• How many years has it been since there was global warming? [At least ten, more likely 18]
There are lots more, but I’ve found that the majority of people cannot answer the first [if you ask for a guess, I’ve gotten answers like, “25%?”]. And hardly anyone is aware of the second answer.
Most people learn their ‘science’ from the media. They may still argue with you. But it will make them start to think about what you told them.
dbstealey, I also suspect that many don’t know that sea levels have generally been rising for thousands of years. Maybe you can add that to your questions. I can’t recall the number of times I’ve read words to the effect of “But sea levels are rising!” Do bears sh!t in the woods is my answer, then I go onto explain that it’s about acceleration or not. PS they also say but the ice caps / glaciers are melting. I point out post LIA.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig68.jpg
They get hostile? Do you tell them that at this point, anyone using the term “denier” is either a lying propagandist or a complete know- nothing dumbass?
It works every time (and then you don’t have to listen to any more of their screed.)
I and the Minnesotans are proud deniers:
The “science community” stands no chance at all with me until I see that they have started being honest and open with all data and viewpoints as science should be.
There is hardly any field of endeavor where I have not seen massive coverups and cheating. Besides that is the punishment of anyone who would challenge the “consensus”. That, my friends, is not science.
I bet we could get a riotous 500 comment thread going on almost any topic from medical science for example. Is the CDC open and honest?
If you want to persuade someone do:
* Not insult their intelligence by parroting debunked papers
* Not insult them personally by calling them names – always a sign that you have an extremely weak case
* Show real evidence for what you are claiming
These are three very simple steps but the Gruber academics who author this paper proceed to break those three rules. Disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, Nature publishes these papers insulting the intelligence of many of their reducing readership
The failure of leading climate scientists to engage in open debate on the subject clearly demonstrates to me that they know their science will not stand up to public scrutiny.
Just the other day I saw a broadcast where Gavin Schmidt of GISS appeared on TV, but refused to debate another guest on the program. This does nothing to encourage me that he is being scientifically honest.
I would never vote for any politician that refused to publicly debate his opponents. I sure as shooting am not going to blindly trust a scientist that refuses to publicly debate the issues. If he is a better scientists than debater, he should not be in a position of authority, as head of a publicly funded organization.
If you are unwilling to engage in public debate, then you don’t belong in a position of authority to promote policies that affect the public, funded from the public purse.
The points of agreement being suggested are ones I commonly hear as though they are what Climate Change is all about, but these are nothing to do with Climate Change of the IPCC. Since when did clean air, sustainable production practices etc have anything to do with IPCC political views of CAGW or Climate Change or Global Climate Disruption or whatever else is the current catch phrase?
@neil
…apply:
1/ Stop lying to me.
2/ Give me the whole story, IE: stop lying to me by omission.
3/ Leave my religion alone, attempting to insult me by attacking my personal moral and ethical beliefs is never a good place to start, especially reading some of the unethical, immoral things you better than me so called scientists have and are doing.
4/ Stop lying to me. …
Actually, stopping threatening to cut my head off would be a better start!
But note that their problem is; if they don’t lie to us, they have no case at all…
I promise mate, if I ever became a muslim, I would not threaten to chop any of your body parts from any other. Sound good?
Sometime between 1950 and 1960, our planet switched off all its natural climate cycles and became reliant on made made ones caused by CO2.
It is perfectly logical that all raw temperature data need to be constantly homogenised/manipulated/tortured.
Climate research is underfunded and needs more money.
The ice caps are catastrophically melting.
The polar bears are dying off.
The much quoted 97% figure is real and accurate.
Anyone can see that sea levels are rising at an alarming rate.
Climate can easily be fixed, without any fluctuations, at little cost to our economies.
Wind and solar power are cheap and reliable and the way of the future.
Climate scientists always uphold the highest standards of statistics and science.
The results from climate models are obviously right because they are very sophisticated and are run on super computers.
The geological record is full of examples of CAGW, such as is happening now.
Tropical storm Sandy and the recent ice blizzard in New England are proof of man made climate change.
Only the most honourable of politicians believe in man made climate change.
Current temperatures are the highest ever, especially in this Holocene interglacial period.
The recent 15-18 year pause in global temperatures is easily explained by man made climate change theory.
It is self-evident all the above are complete nonsense, but these are the core beliefs of the alarmist community and why I, as a scientist, am a sceptic.
The most recent and often repeated talking point from the climate fearosphere: “the recent announcement that 2014 was the hottest year ever, makes a lie of the claim that there was a multi- year pause in rising temperatures”.
The reason why communications is a problem is because it’s hard to convince people if you don’t have actual evidence.
This made me very angry. I am one of the non scientific dumb arse public. “You know”,the kind of person called upon to sit on juries and make up our minds about the veracity of opposing arguments. Ana-Maria Bliuc et al are patronising in the extreme to both, the likes of myself and many learned skeptical scientists.
The use of that stupid 97% reveals their closed minds. i suspect, btw that skepticism among scientists is actually higher than among the dumb arse public.(which i understand exceeds 50%). I for one am not swayed by pseudo expressions of reconciliation.
I don’t understand … John Cook is a Research Fellow in Climate Change Communication according to the UQ web site, and even won a prize in 2011 for his efforts:
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2011/09/top-honour-uq%E2%80%99s-eureka-prize-winners
With brilliance like that on the AGW side, how could the public be so misguided? Heck he was one of the most “talked about” paper writers recently:
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/01/uq-climate-change-paper-has-whole-world-talking
Shame he was pipped by a paper on Sodoku. I guess that shows how much Climate Change rates anymore… I like how the Global Change Institute link is broken. Good communication guys!
“This isn’t the first time researchers have blamed “communication” for climate scepticism”
It isn’t communication that is the problem, it is the communication of the truth that is the problem with all AGW scientists. The moment they and the media give a platform to an alternative viewpoint then their so called communication problems will be resolved, which of course they know will be against their own twisted and self serving view point.
A commenter above opined that the loss of jobs and increase of unemployment in the US had nothing to do with “the gummint.” As one who got out of real estate when Dodd and Frank and the rest of the Democrat establishment in government eased all of the qualification rules for buying real estate, I disagree strongly with that statement. The “recession” started because, from the late 1980s or early 1990s on, banks were forced, in many cases against their better judgment, to lend money to people who no longer had to prove they could pay it back. People could then buy property much more expensive than they could afford, thus also sending prices skyrocketing and making appraisal an “I can out-value you” sort of business. (These are generalizations, of course; exceptional, careful people still existed, but the new laws no longer supported their caution.) Since I had over a decade in the real estate business, including teaching courses such as real estate financing, I could foresee to some extent what had to happen. Inevitably, buyers who had not had to qualify rigorously for their loans (and had no savings cushion) would lose their jobs or have a medical crisis or for some other reason suddenly would incur expenses that made continued payment on their house impossible, thus leading to default and foreclosure. The real estate collapse was as inevitable as it was unforeseen by Dodd, Frank, and the whole set of debt enablers who sat by and watched as homes were lost, lenders went under as bad debts flooded their portfolios, and suddenly other sectors of the economy (cars, etc.) underwent quick transitions from prosperity to penury. The government had everything to do with that collapse. It could happen again; certainly the current administration is doing everything it can to exacerbate the situation.
Is civlity a accidental or deliberate typo as exists in dozens of places on webpages?
latest CSIRO on sea temp http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/articles/media-releases/report-shows-how-climate-change-is-and-will-be-slugging-australia.html
These studies make me laugh. They have the feel of early observations done on foreign animals and cultures where the researcher never left home. I wonder if the lack of real engagement is because they fear if they talk to us directly they might be in danger of going native? Do you think they’ve got a poster on the wall that states ‘start an intervention if you catch me saying “actually sceptics have a point”‘.
They want people to believe their side.
The only people I’ve read about reversing their position on CAGW were alarmists coming to their senses.
I’ve never read one case of a skeptic falling for the CAGW meme and switching support for alarmist’s BS.
Not one thinking person has considered and started supporting the IPCC position.
This isn’t the first time researchers have blamed “communication” for climate skepticism.
… there may be problems other than communication which need to be addressed, before a common understanding can be achieved.
There aren’t any communication problems, the message has been received.
I know what they’ve said:
I hear them when they blame storms on Global Warming
I hear them when they say the planet needs to be saved
I hear them when they say we are reaching a tipping point.
I know they think the polar bears are nearing extinction.
I’ve heard the meter or more end of the century predictions for rise in sea level.
I just don’t believe them, because 27 years after Dr. James Hansen’s testimony before congress none of it is coming true.
It’s not even close to coming true.
Dr. James Hansen – the boy that cried wolf.
Ah, the progressive way. Let’s focus on messaging not on actual truth And then we can get our way to empose crushing taxes and end capitalism. Fascism with a smile.
The disconnect comes from a different definition of what a fact is.
For example, Jimbo gives many examples of what sceptics consider to be “facts”. They are observations, testable statements about observations and all related to the physical world. In short, sceptics are empiricists. Our facts are untidy and not necessarily systematic. They just are what we find.
Our opponents use “facts” that are ideal. They are valorised not by observation but by neatness. Their origin isn’t observation of the physical world but rather the social structure. “97% of X says Y so we believe Y as X is authoritative”. The fact that Y keeps not happening is irrelevant to the authority of X.
The current computer climate models are the best we have. They don’t reflect reality (confirmed by IPCC AR5 box 9.2) but they are the best we have so they must be correct enough. The experts who made them are the best experts we have – evaluate the sources – the best must be more right than everyone else..
When we sceptics are accused of denying the science they mean we don’t accept the authority of the experts. When we accuse them of pseudoscience we mean they don’t accept that their hypotheses don’t reflect what actually happens.
Neither side cares what the other thinks as neither side respects the others definition of a fact.
M Courtney, all of us here would entirely agree with you. Since this morning, I have read all 106 comments on this post. Like many here, I have thought long and hard about this ‘divide’ between Skeptic and Warmist.
Despite the article’s claim that “misalignment” (quote) is due to “political attitudes, socio-economic status, moral values, levels of scientific understanding, and failure of scientific communication.”, the conflict between our ‘Rationalist’ community is mostly caused by the opposition’s ‘Sophist’ indoctrinated mindset. The claims made by CAGW proponents rely mostly on clever factual distortion to create sensational ‘evidence’ and quibbling arguments that all appear fundamentally unsound. That is what a ‘Sophist’ does. In contrast, we ‘Rationalists’ rely on reason rather than intuition to justify our beliefs or actions based on observations and, above all, what we can see Mother Nature is up to by simply looking outside our windows.
Because of the CAGW deceit, the ‘firm stance’ now taken by both sides of the argument is intensified by SIX main factors – and not just political attitudes, socio-economic status, moral values, levels of scientific understanding, and failure of scientific communication as observed above. The real factors are:
1. DEBATE. Historically, debate has always been discouraged by the CAGW Sophists to the point of avoiding any opportunity for rational discussion. They have dug their heels in so hard that it is little wonder that their opposition turns to rebellion.
2. FINANCIAL GAIN. From the evidence, the Sophist mindset is invariably driven by money, greed, protection of already heavily vested interests and to preserve grant funding (such as Ana-Maria Bliuc, the behavioural social scientist at Australia’s Monash University as cited in the above article). This ultimately causes us Rationalists to question the level of corruption and conspiracy within the CAGW meme.
3. MELODRAMA. The melodramatic messages and exaggeration used by the apocalyptic Sophists to captivate their largely gullible audience has, for them, been a success. Those who are hungry for ‘juicy’ news, ‘ravishing’ revelations and ‘fabulous’ facts become totally absorbed. The result (for example) is that the gullible conform unquestioningly when headlines shout “CO2 reaches 400ppm” because it means, to them, an incredibly massive amount of gas up there in the sky – when in fact it’s minuscule.
4. BALANCED INFORMATION & HYPOCRISY. This is all about playing on a level playing field. From the evidence, the Sophist has never (and will never) provide all the information needed for society to form a balanced opinion. We are urged to ‘reduce our use of fossil fuels to combat climate change caused by human produced greenhouse gases, chiefly Carbon Di-Oxide ’, yet we are not told (for example) to ‘refrain from human cremations’, ‘reduce any process that involves fermentation’ and that ‘bricks and cement manufacture must come to an end’. By default, the deliberate obfuscations of ‘the whole picture’ by the Sophist community has created friction between both sides. A good example of unbalanced information is the recent ‘Warmest Year Evah’ proclamation – which completely ignores all historical evidence (even as far back as before primates inhabited our planet).
5. DRACONIAN MEASURES. To combat CAGW, the introduction of a rigorous code of laws and policies seem unfair, often severe and sometimes even cruel. Renewable subsidies linked to feed-in tariffs is a case in point – whereby those who are unable to afford to ‘invest’ in 16 x solar panels bolted on to the roof of their homes, are financially penalised by increased utility bills to offset the subsidies awarded to the wealthy homeowners who can.
6. LOGIC, COMMON SENSE & LIES. Many of the claims (or excuses) made by the CAGW Sophist are preposterous – they lack scientific knowledge, law and plainly just don’t add up. One excellent example is the figures for the amount of anthropogenic CO2 versus naturally occurring CO2 with many proponents (incl. Hot Whopper’s Sou) claiming that 400ppm (current levels) less 260ppm (pre-industrial levels) = 140ppm is caused by man! Another example is that radiated atmospheric heat can penetrate (and completely ignore) a layer of freezing cold water and hide in the deep ocean.
So, the reasons why us ‘skeptics’ have become dissident, and a nemesis to the ‘warmists’ party line is due to the CAGW proponents clever factual distortion to create sensational ‘evidence’, the blocking of debate, corruption and conspiracy for financial gain, melodrama, unbalanced information, hypocrisy, draconian policies and an unreasonable line of logic and reason.
There I’ve said it. Sorry, sometimes I get very opinionated when I am told what I should be doing differently to ‘solve’ a non-existent man-made ‘problem’ and to help ‘save’ the planet from catastrophe. Right, I’m off now to shovel the snow from our front path.
Very good analysis, GeeJam. What do we do about the problem?
Thank you dbstealey – yet, I do not have a solution. As a child, my maroon school uniform was reason enough to get beaten-up by pupils from another local school whose uniform happened to be green. This example of adolescent immaturity was stopped by the Head teachers of both schools. With our climate conflict – maybe a neutral ‘third party’ in authority should step in and say ‘enough is enough’. That ‘third party’ at the moment is Mother Nature.
Definition of an Expert: ‘X’ is the unknown quantity, and ‘spurt’ is a drip under pressure.
This study fails completely to understand that skepticism is an integral part of the science instead of separated and in opposition to the science. Until non scientists realize that, there will be little progress.
Wrong place but thought it could for a chuckle-
https://www.picotech.com/library/application-note/improving-the-accuracy-of-temperature-measurements
“Figure 1 shows sensors at three different heights record the temperatures in one of Pico Technology’s storerooms. The sensor readings differ by at least 1°C so clearly, no matter how accurate the individual sensors, we will never be able to measure room temperature to 1°C accuracy”
oh my, good for a chuckle.
Well, I guess if you can’t question the science, you have to question something else.
I have no issue in ‘warmists’ promoting sensible construction policies, like not building houses that leak heat like a sieve. Nothing to do with global warming that, it’s just common sense. I tend to focus on the misery of the human beings inside a badly built house rather than carbon dioxide levels, after all, since if global warming were going to rid us of the problem imminently, then I wouldn’t need to focus on it, would I?!
This article suggests that ‘warmists’ are actually politicians not scientists, looking for communication strategies to dupe the ‘skeptics’ rather than actually confronting the scientific issues at hand.
Perhaps if a deal were struck to link 3rd world aid to the abandonment of the ‘global warming’ guff you might get places quicker??!!
I wasn’t even a skeptic when the use of the term completely pissed me off. I was sitting on the fence basically thinking that the jury seemed to be out on ‘man made global warming’, not taking that much interest in the whole thing (having a life and all). Then, on a televised presentation, I saw a nobel laureate professor at Melbourne University (Australia) , Peter Doherty (a microbiologist I gather), effectively call another Melbourne U professor, Ian Plimer (a geologist) a “denier” via an overhead slide listing vaccination, flouride and the Holocaust as matters “denied” by scientific perverts and then added ‘global warming’ / ‘climate change’ to the list in a deliberate and calculates smear.
I was utterly appalled at the sheer arrogance, the viciousness and the cowardice of the incident that it quite destroyed any respect or faith I might have had for the AGW argument and its prosecutors. Sitting behind the hired assassin was none other than Professor David Karoly also of Melbourne U, of IPCC infamy and co author of the Gergis et al hockey schtick cartoon purporting to evidence a southern hemisphere version of Mann et al’s fraud. Karoly was sitting there po faced but you know he was inwardly smirking at the job being done on Professor Plimer.
Even “experts” have to watch their credibility as witnesses. You can be a nobel laureate and talk through your sphincter, have blind prejudices, be comnpletely arrogant, form alliances with scumbags and start to believe that you are above scrutiny.
PS I absolutely agree with UK Marcus and that same bon mot was given to me and 400 other freshman engineers in our first lecture just to circumcise our potential arrogance then and there.
“Shock study results: Calling climate skeptics ‘deniers’ just pisses them off”
Read Feynman’s book “What Do You Care What Other People Think?” and maybe like me you won’t be pissed off.
I am not one for saying “I told you so.” But believe me when the time comes, I am going to enjoy doing just that, at least where global warming is concerned.
“What Do You Care What Other People Think?”
Failing to care what other people think is unwise. It is the hallmark of autism and Asperger’s syndrome to not care what other people think, as a result of which most employment opportunities are somewhat stunted.
Perhaps this book refers to appropriate responses to what other people think.
“the book’s title is taken from a question she often put to him when he seemed preoccupied with his colleagues’ opinions about his work.”
Well yes. Scientists are seldom employed by scientists, computer programmers seldom employed by computer programmers. So what your employer and colleagues think is quite important. They could easily form an alliance against you and truth is not much of a shield. Documentation, on the other hand, is a pretty good thing to have from time to time.
And this is why academics usually fair very, VERY poorly in the real world anywhere outside of Academia. Think Sheldon from the Big Bang theory. Do you think when we watch that show that we’re laughing with him?
Street Smarts >>> Book Smarts every single time for the Win.
Stop calling a beneficial gas pollution.
and stop calling CO2 “carbon.”
This always drove me nuts cuz I work with carbon fiber. I used to work as a science teacher for two years (was and still am a climate skeptic, I committed my apostasy long before that), and I had a little girl ask me if her breathing was a crime and if she was going to get taxed for breathing.
I had teaching moment about the carbon cycle, photosynthesis, logic, rationality, common sense, and the concept of being REASONABLE.
At 1:22 PM on 3 February, SABicyclist had recounted:
Hm? Whenever I’ve been asked that question by a young person (and they do ask about such taxation; who’da thunk?), my response has tended to start with:
“Why, of course the progtard bastids would do that to you if they think they can get away with it. But they’ll only tax you for exhaling, so just take deep breaths and try to keep your respiratory rate down.”
Reductio ad absurdum. And when it comes to discussing the preposterous AGW bogosity, it’s all absurd.
I’m waiting for those leftwing ‘viro fascisti to pick up their noise about methane, whereupon they’ll require all within their respective jurisdictions to wear monitors that keep track of flatulence.
Yes, and yes.
“…things like cleaner air, low power consumption, improved public transport, better waste management, efficient agriculture, reforestation…”
Let’s take a crack at this:
a) cleaner air; Well yes, we all want clean air. Didn’t the green lobby win this one back in the 1980s. Generaly, NA has very clean air, so while I care about this, it isn’t an ongoing pressing issue here.
b) low power consumption:; I care only insomuch as it saves me money on my monthly bills, and our power grid can handle the current and future predicted demand.
c) improved public transport; I live in Western Canada. Our population is so spread out, public transport is generaly not effective, and very cost inefective. Really, it is very low on my priority list. i would be more concerned about available parking donwtown.
d) better wast managment; We seem to have fairly good wast managment that is reasonably cost effective. I am not concerned.
e) efficient agriculture; Isn’t this an issue of economics for the farming community. Why would I, as a city person, care about efficient agriculture? Seems kind of silly. I wouldn’t want farmers trying to influence my industy for some preceived nobel cause, why would I try to interfear with theirs
f) reforestation; Well isn’t this a fun one. More atmospheric CO2 = more forest. As for our forests in NA, again, our government now has responsible policies to insure we keep our forests healthy. This issue was again won by the green lobby back in the 1980 (or earlyer?)
A) None of them have anything to do with the scientific ~theory~ that one more molecule of CO2 in 20,000 will cause or is causing catastrophic global warming. B) None of them have anything to do with assessing whether or not being warmer is good or bad.
Conclusion: Every issue they bring up here is simply subterfuge designed to drag you away from discussing actual science in regard to AGW. They do NOT want to discuss science, their theory has already lost so much credibility that these points of diversion comprise the only comfortable refuge they have left. Give them no quarter.
Well yes, you are correct to address the ‘Ignoratio elenchi’ falacy (aka red herring). By even engaging in disscussion of these issues, you are allowing them to get away from the point (i.e. the don’t have the science to back them up). I was just addressing the points, and how they are kind of moot.