UPDATE: A copy of the paper has been provided to me, the language is stunningly bad in this paper. See below.
From the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (whatever that is, no word on whether WUWT or Real Climate was part of the study, since it is paywalled, but apparently, blogs on both sides of the debate matter)
College Park, Md and Annapolis, Md — A new study from researchers at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) demonstrates that the highly contentious debate on climate change is fueled in part by how information flows throughout policy networks.
The UMD and SESYNC researchers found that “echo chambers”–social network structures in which individuals with the same viewpoint share information with each other–play a significant role in climate policy communication. The researchers say that echo chambers may help explain why, despite a well-documented scientific consensus on the causes and drivers of global changes in climate, half of U.S. senators voted earlier this year against an amendment affirming that climate change is human-induced.
A peer-reviewed paper based on the study was published online May 25 in the journal Nature Climate Change.
“Our research shows how the echo chamber can block progress toward a political resolution on climate change. Individuals who get their information from the same sources with the same perspective may be under the impression that theirs is the dominant perspective, regardless of what the science says,” said Dr. Dana R. Fisher, a professor of sociology at UMD and corresponding author who led the research.
In summer 2010, researchers surveyed the most active members of the U.S. climate policy network, including members of Congress and leaders of non-governmental organizations and business and trade unions. Respondents were asked questions about their attitudes toward climate science and climate policy, as well as questions to establish their policy network connections. For example, respondents were asked to identify their sources of expert scientific information about climate change and with whom they collaborate on a regular basis regarding the issue of climate change.
“This time period was particularly interesting for studying climate policy because legislation regulating carbon dioxide emissions had passed through the House of Representatives and was being considered in the Senate. If passed, this bill would have been the first case of federal climate legislation passing through the U.S. Congress,” Fisher said.
The researchers then used an exponential random graph (ERG) model–a complex statistical model for analyzing data about social and other networks–to test for the presence and significance of echo chambers among members of the U.S. climate policy network. In the “echo,” two people who have the same outlook or opinion on a relevant issue share information, reinforcing what each already believes. In the “chamber,” individuals hear information originating from one initial source through multiple channels.
“The model we used gives us a framework for empirically testing the significance of echo chambers,” said Dr. Lorien Jasny, a computational social scientist at SESYNC and lead author of the paper. “We find that the occurrences of echo chambers are indeed statistically significant, meaning our model provides a potential explanation for why climate change denial persists in spite of the consensus reached by the scientific community.”
The researchers say that echo chambers explain why outlier positions–for example, that climate-warming trends over the past century are likely not due to human activities–gain traction in the political sphere. The answer lies in the disproportionate connections among ideologically similar political communicators.
“Information has become a partisan choice, and those choices bias toward sources that reinforce beliefs rather than challenge them, regardless of the source’s legitimacy,” Fisher said.
Jasny and Fisher point out that the debate on climate change is not indicative of inconclusive science. Rather, the debate is illustrative of how echo chambers influence information flows in policy networks.
“Our research underscores how important it is for people on both sides of the climate debate to be careful about where they get their information. If their sources are limited to those that repeat and amplify a single perspective, they can’t be certain about the reliability or objectivity of their information,” Jasny said.
###
This work was supported by National Science Foundation grants no. BCS-0826892, and no. DBI-1052875 awarded to the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC).
The research paper, “An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks,” Lorien Jasny, Joseph Waggle, and Dana R. Fisher, was published online May 25 in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Abstract:
Diverse methods have been applied to understand why science continues to be debated within the climate policy domain. A number of studies have presented the notion of the ‘echo chamber’ to model and explain information flows across an array of social settings, finding disproportionate connections among ideologically similar political communicators. This paper builds on these findings to provide a more formal operationalization of the components of echo chambers. We then empirically test their utility using survey data collected from the community of political elites engaged in the contentious issue of climate politics in the United States. Our survey period coincides with the most active and contentious period in the history of US climate policy, when legislation regulating carbon dioxide emissions had passed through the House of Representatives and was being considered in the Senate. We use exponential random graph (ERG) modelling to demonstrate that both the homogeneity of information (the echo) and multi-path information transmission (the chamber) play significant roles in policy communication. We demonstrate that the intersection of these components creates echo chambers in the climate policy network. These results lead to some important conclusions about climate politics, as well as the relationship between science communication and policymaking at the elite level more generally.
The methodology of the survey is described in the Supplemental Information (PDF)
UPDATE: the language is stunningly bad in this paper, as seen from a snippet below. The bias of the author is clearly evident. And, why not name Hansen and Christy?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The model we used gives us a framework for empirically testing the significance of echo chambers,” said Dr. Lorien Jasny, a computational social scientist at SESYNC and lead author of the paper. “We find that the occurrences of echo chambers are indeed statistically significant, meaning our model provides a potential explanation for why climate change denial persists in spite of the consensus reached by the scientific community.”
Oh wonderful. Yet another “explanation” for why we Orwellian climate thought criminals still exist despite the efforts of Climate Alarmist Big Brother to get us all converted to “right thinking”. One wonders how much more tolerance Climate Alarmist Big Brother has for us climate thought criminals before really drastic measures have to be taken against us.
I understand that the NSA surveillance program to help fight terrorism has been allowed to lapse in Congress. Perhaps they need to start a new one for climate thought criminals. Sounds fitting.
Obama has declared doubt a security threat.
Heh, I wonder if he realizes how tautological he sounds.
=======================
Do they even hear themselves? Perhaps they’ll be able to hear the laughter directed towards their utter stupidity.
Funded by the NSF – the result of the study was preordained.
The “consensus” is the mainstream climate science echo chamber bouncing ball. Why wasn’t that in their models?
The consensus is ill-defined
despite a well-
documentedfunded scientific consensus on the causes and drivers of global changes in climate…FixedThe consensus is often misunderstood, but IMHO it really does exist. It is that anthropogenic CO2 causes some warming on climate, but the actual amount so far is under a serious controversy. Is it 0.5°C, or 0.8°C? A huge difference! And the scientists have a wide range of opinion on the conclusions. Mitigate or adapt? Doom or lukewarming? What is the size of the natural variation on different time scales? What is the sensitivity? How much aerosols affect? Where is the hot spot, and why?
So they take a well known phenomena, group think, and give it a new name “echo chamber” and announce a miraculous discovery?
You left out the step where they scored that grant money from the National Science Foundation.
There’s no echo chamber like a bought and paid for echo chamber.
“Group think” and “echo chamber” are distinct concepts.
But group thinking can cause echo chambers and vice-versa.
Where, then, does confirmation bias enter the word game?
“policymaking at the elite level “
What century are these people living in?
Have they heard of democracy?
They refer to that group which are our moral and intelectual superiors, of which, they themselves are members. Of course. From the towering heights of their position, we seem to be nothing more than knuckle-draggers. And bitter clingers. But not to worry, they know what is best for us.
With 97% of scientists, 100% of science societies, a constant drone from the MSM, high profile reports from the UN’s IPCC called Summary for Policy Makers distributed to governments world wide, one wonders how much work it would take for someone like Inhofe to isolate themselves enough that all their communication was restricted to an echo chamber of their own making.
The Science is Settled
We are all who we are destined to be
We have no choice in how we face the world
Although we like to think our will is free
When faced with mutitudes of choices swirled
In cyclones ’round us we will only see
Those alternations that we have not thrown
unconsciously aside. How sad that we
Are blinded to things not already known
We’re bound so by our personality
That contradiction leads us to bemoan
The unexpected. Rationality
Requires that we embrace the unknown
The truth demands more than banality
Honesty is lost in venality
“The researchers then used an exponential random graph (ERG) model–a complex statistical model for analyzing data about social and other networks–”
WTF! I work in evaluating networks all the time, and my results need to hold up because major telecoms put their own dollars behind the results. This kind of analysis is contingency analysis, and requires the formulation of association rules, and a simple frequencies test, like a Chi-squared. The use of a continuous function, alone, indicates that they were shopping for a method to drive an expected outcome.
In addition to the language, which indicates a biased frame of reference, the time frame used in the study represents a major bias in selection. Dems were ramping up the climate debate in Congress because many knew, at that time, that they would be in the minority by Jan 1 2011.
The reference to “consensus” indicates that these are not serious sociologists. At the most, the use of the phrase “widely held” is as far as a serious social researcher would go in describing any “state” within any social system.
The primary problem in any social research is to find a means of being a neutral observer of a social dynamic, social belief system, or social structure, and then to measure the change or inertia. These bozos were none of the above.
The entire paper is based on ‘marketing speak’ rather than using real terminology.
So by ‘Climate Change Denial’ they do NOT mean denying climate change which no-one does. They mean denying anthropogenic global warming leading to catastrophic/irreversible climate change.
Strangely, the proponents of anthropogenic global warming leading to catastrophic/irreversible climate change, have to deny previous changes in climate to justify their position, and are therefore themselves climate change deniers. (see the shaft of the hockey stick and the “must get rid of the medieval warming period” quotes)
This shows that they are suffering from ‘psychological projection’ claiming that what they are doing is the problem with their opponents.
Ian W,
You’re right. But “anthropogenic global warming leading to catastrophic/irreversible climate change” is a little unwieldy. We know that’s what they mean, but they can’t say it like that because they would look ridiculous.
I sort of like “dangerous man-made global warming”. Maybe ‘dMMGW’ would do for those who know the secret handshake.
The whole debate is ridiculous when you think about it. William Connolley and Michael Mann are both constantly repeating “climate change denial”. That ridiculous phrase makes no sense to any thinking person. Which probably explains their audience.
“Individuals who get their information from the same sources with the same perspective may be under the impression that theirs is the dominant perspective”.
they shouldn’t be so hard on the IPCC.
Hey, be fair now – the IPCC has lots of sources for their information.
There’s Greenpeace, and the WWF, and the Sierra Club, and…
Maybe, just maybe, this paper is the beginning of an epiphany within the warmist ranks, and they’re on the verge of realizing that only by engaging in critical debate with the ‘other’ side can they ever hope to get their point across. ‘Course we all know what would happen if they actually did have to put their work up for real scrutiny…
I know. I’m a dreamer.
A dreamer?
No, you are a climate change denialist.☺
I openly admit that I deny that I should be made to suffer fools.
Yep. Your a dreamer. The only way to read this is: Anyone who questions any part of the CAGW meme, or the “solutions” that they would impose on the world, is just part of an anti-science cult.
Not interested in debating us, only “deprogramming” us and reintegrating us into the “mainstream”.
“meaning our model provides a potential explanation for why climate change denial persists in spite of the consensus reached by the scientific community.”
Change the sign of a few model parameters and the whole thing makes much more sense:
“meaning our model provides a potential explanation for why true belief in CAGW persists in spite of the contrary evidence discovered by the scientific community.”
“Our research underscores how important it is for people on both sides of the climate debate to be careful about where they get their information. If their sources are limited to those that repeat and amplify a single perspective, they can’t be certain about the reliability or objectivity of their information,”
Self-awareness isn’t a strong point among some of these social scientists.
One of the authors says on twitter:
“Climate denial persists due to echo chambers. See our new paper”.
Two things wrong with that.
1. If there are echo chambers, that doesn’t explain ‘climate denial’ – no causation has been established.
2. We could equally well say “Climate activism persists due to echo chambers”.
This is a text book example of psychological projection. They are attributing the echo chamber effect onto their critics, but it is they themselves who are behaving in exactly the way that this article describes.
But this is not unexpected.
After all, many people use this psychological ploy, without realizing it, over and over again for their entire lives
I think it would be fair to say that some of this goes on with all groups of people in today’s overheated political climate.
People tend to spend the majority of their time discussing things with like-minded folk.
The farce is indeed strong with this one.
First as farce, soon as tragedy.
==========
It is typical. If someone doesn’t agree with you its obvious that they are in an echo chamber. Unfortunately for alarmists they are in the echo chamber and refuse to look at ALL the facts and refuse to debate.
Funny that they managed to avoid mentioning how Echo Chambers might effect their own point of view. After all when you have a “consensus” it seems likely if not impossible that you are not sitting in a room full of like minded people. I have no doubt there are echo chambers within the skeptic community, it seems stupid to think there are not.
Of course that stupidity is dwarfed by the sheer volume of stupidity and ignorance that it takes to write a paper slamming echo chambers of the other side, from within your own echo chamber.
The “Echo Chambers” idea, generally, started getting a lot of play soon after Obama came into office, and had his appointees in place.
But the elitist totalitarians have had this idea for a while.
Ever since the rise of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of AM talk radio, which is largely “conservative,” they have needed a good-sounding justification for controlling the media.
[think about it – they are afraid of am radio.]
This is their argument. We live in a participatory democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy
[With most of the elitist totalitarian ploys, the error is in the first or second assumption. Our Constitution does not spell out a participatory democracy. There are aspects of this in our political structure, but this is not our political structure.]
The alternate is that we live in a “deliberative democracy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy
[With most of the elitist totalitarian ploys, the error is in the first or second assumption. Our Constitution does not spell out a deliberative democracy. There are aspects of this in our political structure, but this is not our political structure.]
As media has advanced, and gets tailored to our interests (i.e., internet links, browser-based suggested content, etc.), we get ourselves in an ever-increasing echo-chamber of news we prefer and people of similar opinions.
Somehow, according to the elitist intellectuals, having the internet, with all of its view points, and having anyone be able to pilot a talk show and try to get it picked up by any of the many possible venues (AM radio, FM, satellite, cable TV, internet radio, etc.), we are distinctly worse off.
This will be the downfall of civilization – it is worse than we think.
To remedy this, there must be a governmental board that oversees all media, and ensures that the correct “diversity” of opinions is included in all media streams.
“Echo Chamber”, what Echo Chamber? “There is a Consensus, There is a Consensus, There is a Consensus…..” “Denier, Denier, Denier….” “The Science [is settled], The Science [is settled], The Science [is settled]…” “Big Oil, Big Oil, Big Oil…” “Koch Bros, Koch Bros, Koch Bros….” etc
On Twitter-
Me: someone needs to write a paper about the echo chamber in social science!
Dana Fisher: great idea, go for it!
The amplification seems to be the most harmful aspect of the echo chamber. It happens here most often in terms of predictions of loss of life or economic harm expected from developing alternatives. I have no problem with fossil fuel competing against any of the alternatives on a level playng field without subsudies.
At realclimate, the amplification is directed toward climate sensitivity and into extinction arguments.. The hyperbole extends far beyond even the IPCC worst case.
Ray Ladbury is a hoot.
Dave Worley, you have mis-characterized the debate. No one here talks about the economic harm of developing alternatives. What we talk about is the economic harm of forced reductions in fossil fuel use when no viable alternatives yet exist. If you were to propose a Manhattan-style project to find viable alternatives, you would find much support on this site.
Not from me, and I’m not alone.
Way more money and effort has been spent on the search for viable alternatives than Manhattan ever dreamed of. At least M gave bang for the buck.
========
“Abstract: Diverse methods have been applied to understand why science continues to be debated within the climate policy domain.”
So the authors began with the premise of:
The science of how the world’s climate works is settled. The future trajectory of world and regional climate is known. The impact of climate trajectory upon anthropocentric infrastructure is known. The costs, benefits, and risks of renewable energy sources are completely known along with how mass implementation will affect climate trajectory and therefore the anthropocentric infrastructure. So how can people be so stupid as to debate the science?
Apparently the authors do not know how science works.
Because they couldn’t cobble together an evaporative heater to sell. It’s got to be the science.
I think that these warmists, like many, believe that SkS’s rebuttals of contrarian claims are conclusive, and that if only WUWTers were exposed to them our ranks would shrivel. (But why is it then that it is their side that avoids debates?) They believe this because they haven’t read enough material on skeptical sites where, in a scattered fashion, various SkS claims have been given a going over.
This is why a head-on heavy-duty response to SkS’s list, on a point-by-point basis, is necessary. Perhaps the GWPF would help get it rollin. Lubos Motl has made a start.
Very good point.
We complain that the Warmists won’t debate – because they refuse to face up to sceptics – but we don’t engage with them either.
SkS has a list of Sceptic arguments and why we are wrong. Let’s reply to each line.
And add lines for what we do actually think.
It would be polite.
I am going to give it a go starting immediately.
SkS will ban anyone attempting this.
“SkS will ban anyone attempting this.”
Which will break my heart.
NOT!
Menicholas,
Good luck with that!
The Australian cartoonist, who likes to dress up like a N*zi, is unlikely to let you make a fool of the jack*ss. But good on ya.
Thank you Sturgis.
But, do you mean to say that the fool is not a jackass already?
My impression is that he hardly needs my help in that regard.
The editing of comments without it being noted is about all you need to know to get a read on what kind of people are running that blog.
Yes, of course, after “the debate is over, the science is settled”, the “consensus” talk among each other and shun the skeptics. That’s an echo chamber.