From the UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE and the “I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn” department. These fools really believe the horrendously flawed 97% consensus argument, which has been refuted by other scientific papers, wins over conservatives in the climate change debate. I’m reminded of this quote from Mark Twain:
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. – Mark Twain
Presenting facts as ‘consensus’ bridges conservative-liberal divide over climate change
In the murk of post-truth public debate, facts can polarise. Scientific evidence triggers reaction and spin that ends up entrenching the attitudes of opposing political tribes.
Recent research suggests this phenomenon is actually stronger among the more educated, through what psychologists call ‘motived reasoning’: where data is rejected or twisted – consciously or otherwise – to prop up a particular worldview.
However, a new study in the journal Nature Human Behaviour finds that one type of fact can bridge the chasm between conservative and liberal, and pull people’s opinions closer to the truth on one of the most polarising issues in US politics: climate change.
Previous research has broadly found US conservatives to be most sceptical of climate change. Yet by presenting a fact in the form of a consensus – “97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused global warming is happening” – researchers have now discovered that conservatives shift their perceptions significantly towards the scientific ‘norm’.
In an experiment involving over 6,000 US citizens, psychologists found that introducing people to this consensus fact reduced polarisation between higher educated liberals and conservatives by roughly 50%, and increased conservative belief in a scientific accord on climate change by 20 percentage points.
Moreover, the latest research confirms the prior finding that climate change scepticism is indeed more deeply rooted among highly educated conservatives. Yet exposure to the simple fact of a scientific consensus neutralises the “negative interaction” between higher education and conservatism that strongly embeds these beliefs.
“The vast majority of people want to conform to societal standards, it’s innate in us as a highly social species,” says Dr Sander van der Linden, study lead author from the University of Cambridge’s Department of Psychology.
“People often misperceive social norms, and seek to adjust once they are exposed to evidence of a group consensus,” he says, pointing to the example that college students always think their friends drink more than they actually do.
“Our findings suggest that presenting people with a social fact, a consensus of opinion among experts, rather than challenging them with blunt scientific data, encourages a shift towards mainstream scientific belief – particularly among conservatives.”
For van der Linden and his co-authors Drs Anthony Leiserowitz and Edward Maibach from Yale and George Mason universities in the US, social facts such as demonstrating a consensus can act as a “gateway belief”: allowing a gradual recalibration of private attitudes.
“Information that directly threatens people’s worldview can cause them to react negatively and become further entrenched in their beliefs. This ‘backfire effect’ appears to be particularly strong among highly educated US conservatives when it comes to contested issues such as manmade climate change,” says van der Linden.
“It is more acceptable for people to change their perceptions of what is normative in science and society. Previous research has shown that people will then adjust their core beliefs over time to match. This is a less threatening way to change attitudes, avoiding the ‘backfire effect’ that can occur when someone’s worldview is directly challenged.”
For the study, researchers conducted online surveys of 6,301 US citizens that adhered to nationally representative quotas of gender, age, education, ethnicity, region and political ideology.
The nature of the study was hidden by claims of testing random media messages, with the climate change perception tests sandwiched between questions on consumer technology and popular culture messaging.
Half the sample were randomly assigned to receive the ‘treatment’ of exposure to the fact of scientific consensus, while the other half, the control group, did not.
Researchers found that attitudes towards scientific belief on climate change among self-declared conservatives were, on average, 35 percentage points lower (64%) than the actual scientific consensus of 97%. Among liberals it was 20 percentage points lower.
They also found a small additional negative effect: when someone is highly educated and conservative they judge scientific agreement to be even lower.
However, once the treatment group were exposed to the ‘social fact’ of overwhelming scientific agreement, higher-educated conservatives shifted their perception of the scientific norm by 20 percentage points to 83% – almost in line with post-treatment liberals.
The added negative effect of conservatism plus high education was completely neutralised through exposure to the truth on scientific agreement around manmade climate change.
“Scientists as a group are still viewed as trustworthy and non-partisan across the political spectrum in the US, despite frequent attempts to discredit their work through ‘fake news’ denunciations and underhand lobbying techniques deployed by some on the right,” says van der Linden.
“Our study suggests that even in our so-called post-truth environment, hope is not lost for the fact. By presenting scientific facts in a socialised form, such as highlighting consensus, we can still shift opinion across political divides on some of the most pressing issues of our time.”
###
The paper (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0259-2
It should be noted that the authors, listed below, are well known for trying to enforce the consensus with “studies” like these.
-
Department of Psychology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Sander van der Linden
-
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
- Anthony Leiserowitz
-
Center for Climate Change Communication, Department of Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
- Edward Maibach
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ignorance is contagious. Who knew?
Science by ouija board, you just need 97% to agree with seance session 🙂
Or lie to them about the ouija board consensus, adding that if you don’t agree with the consensus you must be some kind of nut….
The Emperors’ new clothes are sooo wonderful …
And contain no petroleum-based fibers.
“Treatment”???? That basically says you are sick if you don’t agree with global warming. Let’s test if people are more likely to agree with global warming if we tell them they are sick if they don’t. I wonder how that would fly. “Line up here and get your treatment, my little contrarians”……(evil laugh).
Straight out of Uncle Joe Stalin’s playbook – if you disagreed with The State, then you were by definition “mentally ill”, and could be immediately taken into custody and given “treatment” for you own good.
Proof that you were well took the form of extensive confessions from those subjected to this treatment, and tearful promises to always Love the State and Obey the State and never Contradict the State on anything ever again.
My grandfather was treated like that. He spent 16 years in Lubyanka for his vocal opposition to Stalin. He never recanted or regretted it.
Jerome, I honour your grandfather.
So, if you present people with misleading information about an issue they might change their mind, is that their claim?
Propaganda defined is still propaganda…at least 97 % of the time.
Yes, reading this I was reminded of propaganda written in the 1930s by one Dr. Goebbels. They seem to keep regurgitating that work and not even realize where it leads.
Propaganda has very little to do with fact or science. It relies on numerous logical fallacies to progress, but is in the realm of psychology. They learn to change peoples’ minds, but not what is real.
According to a certain Herr Goebells…………“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Replace “State’ with whatever organisation holds political/social power
People who have worked with real-world temperature measurement know that it’s devilishly difficult to measure the temperature of something big and end up with a reasonable number. The bigger something is, the less meaningful it becomes to say it’s “this temperature.”
At some point, it becomes nonsense. No reasonable person would claim that “the temperature of Hawaii” is thus-and-so. The temperature of Hawaii isn’t even a thing.
Yet when guys put on a white lab coat and make pronouncements about the temperature of the entire earth, suddenly they’re high priests of the Science God, and disagreement is blasphemy.
Bro stop! common sense has no place in a Political Science discussion, especially one that has already been settled by popular vote.
Now add virtually unlimited government funding, secret climate alarmist computer software code and a compliant media and whaddaya got?
They already have Brexit from reality and the facts provide consensus. Or something like that
Cambridge University has “form” in the “intelligent but idiot” category.
Remember Professor Wahdams?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/22/professor-peter-wadhams-will-not-bet-on-his-own-sea-ice-predictions/
So basically, when you present bald-faced lies about the proportion of “scientists” who supposedly “agree” on the notion of human-induced climate catastrophe, you can “convince” more people to “believe” in CAGW BS. Sounds like the definition of “propaganda” to me.
Chapter 24 of Rupert Darwall’s book “Green Tyranny” talks about the spiral of silence as the way that consensus is enforced.
The 97% consensus is the argument …and if you don’t agree you are a science denier. So maybe that is the best thing to address. Who says that 97% of scientists agree with a AGW? Where did that come from? Is it true?
If you repeat a fabrication continuously, does that make it true?
It is true if you send out 5000 questionnaires and then throw out all the answers that don’t have what you have predetermined to be the “correct” credentials and thus wind up giving the result on fewer than 10% of respondents.
Also if you ask the question as “Do you think that some of the late 20th century warming is human caused?” or some similar wording where most people would answer – probably, it is theoretically true barring strong negative feedbacks, and thus mark yes. Then as a dishonest researcher who really needs the grant money, you write that up as 97% agree with the CAGW theory.
“Who says that 97% of scientists agree with a AGW? Where did that come from? Is it true?”
No, it’s a damn lie created by CAGW advocates to promote the CAGW narrative. As the article says: “The vast majority of people want to conform to societal standards, it’s innate in us as a highly social species,”, so if you lie about the societal standard and claim 97 percent of scientists agree with CAGW, then you have created a powerful propaganda weapon to use in the battle.
Every time you hear an alarmist on tv arguing their case, they always bring up the 97 percent lie because it is effective, if one believes it.
Not like psychology is science but, maybe they could figure out why the followers of CAGW get so extremely upset when you tell them your a heretic to that religion.
It defines who they are. You’re attacking their personhood, their “soul”.
So what are they proposing to do, institute “treatment” like “A Clockwork Orange”?
This rather reminds me of the later Soviet practice of dealing with prominent political dissidents through “psychiatry”, to “treat their antisocial condition”.
I guess we can expect more of the studies since their science is not holding up…
I’m waiting on the handbook…”How to trick intelligent people into believe your total bull crap”
What you believe or how you feel about a fact is not relevant to whether the fact is true or not. Hard sciences are not social political constructs. We do not get to vote on the correct answers. We may record our opinions, but that does not effect the correctness of our answers.
Aren’t these the same people that tell Christians (believe in God, etc) that there is no God?
I tell the conservatives there is no god.
And I tell the liberals the coming global warming disaster is a hoax.
The word “hoax” makes them go berserk, because Donald Trump used it.
Really high IQ, rich, liberals know nothing about climate science,
except CO2 is evil, and 97% of scientists say so.
Unfortunately, I have to wear a steel helmet at all times.
Beliefs and faith are all nonsense to me,
whether part of a conventional religion or a secular religion (CAGW).
That’s why we libertarians are lucky to get 1% of the US vote!
In the history of science,
the “consensus” is almost always wrong,
from slightly wrong to completely wrong.
Beware of any consensus of leftists —
they can’t think straight with Trump as president.
Not that they could think straight with Obama,
and his 1.5% average economic growth rate
over his eight years!
Richard,
“I tell the conservatives there is no god.”
“Beliefs and faith are all nonsense to me …”
It is utterly impossible to know that there is no God, even if there is no God . . (while the opposite is not impossible to know, since if a God does exist It could, by definition, inform one of It’s existence.) So, clearly you must be telling them based on your belief that there is no God.
I suggest you avoid acting like YOUR belief is not belief . . ; )
OK, this thread is not about God. Let’s quell this off-topic tangent please.
Why, Anthony? Do you actually think your “opponents’ are not going to attempt to woo and sway Believers? You must realize that the bulk of “conservatives” (in the US anyway) are Believers . . Do you WANT them to see climate alarm skeptics as the side that hates their guts? (That’s what I suspect, based on your treatment of me, sir.)
Mr. Knight,
You get the same treatment anybody else does here sir. When you veer science topics off into religion, it violates our site commenting policy.
You’ve been doing it a lot lately, which is why your comments are held for moderation.
I have no issues at all with religion, but I do have rules for discussion on WUWT, and religion is not a topic we mix with science here. Please kindly adhere to our policy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
Anthony Watts
AW,
Thanks for the reminder, good for me as well. In the heat of the comment reply, sometimes I forget your policies. I do not want to step over those bounds, although sometimes I do. Thank you for tolerance.
The topics here are so varied in content and breadth sometimes is quite broad, beyond science. It is what humanity is. We are often way beyond science as humans. Call it our human weakness. Good and bad.
Fortunately we are not all Mr Spoke’s of Vulcan. Nor are we all Dr McCoy’s.
Cheers,
Joel
I’m a Libertarian, and I believe in God.
The idea that only conservatives, and at that, all conservatives, believe in God is silly.
[snip – Sorry, but I’m not going to argue with you over religious viewpoints and comments here, either adhere to the commenting policy set forth, or you’ll find your comments deleted and at some point if you keep it up, you’ll find yourself banned after being warned. It’s really simple to get along here – don’t bring religion into comments per the policy. Your choice if you want to continue down this path or not, but we don’t have other commenters that have a problem with this. Kind regards, – Anthony]
Huh? Your beliefs are to be treated as unquestionable absolute truth . . here on your website, anyway? You sure had me fooled, sir, I thought you were fighting against such . .”elitism” in science. I’m stunned . .
[One more time, “Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of barycentrism, astrology, aliens, bigfoot, chemtrails, 911 Truthers, Obama’s Birth Certificate, HAARP, UFO’s, Electric Universe, mysticism, and other topics not directly related to the thread.”, that is part of the blog policy for commenting. You have been warned twice now…. ] MOD
The most appropriate observation rocketscientist. “Opinions” are acceptable as hypotheses, not scientific findings.
Talk to a recent college graduate, rocketscientist. They’re likely to tell you everything is subjective, including science. And if you disagree, you might well be a racist.
Except re climate science.
They seem to feel it is not an opinion that CAGW is bedrock science, and CO2 is the temp control knob of the atmosphere.
The dogma is fact to them, and hence den!ers, settled, and all the rest of the warmista jackassery.
I’m a highly educated conservative skeptic. Since I have a science degree you wouldn’t sway me with the 97% consensus argument. Science is inherently a skeptical process.
I have a science degree too, so what?
Nothing I learned in college prepared me for
the politics of climate change and the claims
of a coming climate catastrophe.
A coming catastrophe back then
was the period of time after we attached
a rubber hose to two high pressure faucets,
in chem. lab, and before the water explosion.
It’s not just a 97% “consensus”,
it is a 97% “consensus”, with 95% confidence,
soon to be 105% confidence, so even if 5%
of the climate computer gamers change their minds,
they are still at 100% confidence!
Back in 1997 it took me about ten minutes to see the scam,
as I wondered how anyone could measure the surface temperature,
of the ocean. When I read about the sailors and their buckets,
I knew “global warming” was junk science
I think geologists must be the most skeptical of CAGW, because the geologic record of the Earth shows the swings of climate from hot to cold very well, and also because two of the most vitriolic arguments in science occurred in geology, and THE most vitriolic certainly dragged geology into it.
The arguments involving the geology of the creation of the Channeled Scablands of Washington state, and those regarding Continental Drift/Plate Tectonics, resulting in much name-calling and mud-slinging that went on for decades in both those discussions before they were settled — scientifically, and not by consensus.
The endless arguments regarding evolution also pulled geologists into the fray, as fossils were so important to both sides — and being rocks, were useful for beating one’s enemies over the head..
Even a cursory knowledge of Earth history is sufficient to invalidate CAGW, as I see it.
As such, we see it is completely ignored, sidestepped, spoken around, and basically subjected to all manner of illogic and sophistry.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/ignorance
“The noun ignorance is not a synonym for “stupidity,” since its meaning is closer to “being uninformed” than “being unintelligent.” Ignorance implies that a person or group needs to be educated on a particular subject. You might have heard the phrase “ignorance is bliss,” which means that sometimes it’s easier when you don’t know the whole truth about something and can be blissfully happy, unaware of unpleasant realities.”
Anybody that is ignorant of a subject, is more likely to be swayed to believe in an ideology if presented as factual. Even if it is just a load of BS.
If that weren’t the case, People like Jim Jones would have no followers and those that did still follow wouldn’t drink the Cool-Aid
““The noun ignorance is not a synonym for “stupidity,” since its meaning is closer to “being uninformed” than “being unintelligent.””
That’s the fact, Jack!
This is also the selling tactic that climate “false witness” Katharine Hayhoe uses when she goes on the Evangelical Christian speaking circuit to Sunday congregations of Texas-Oklahoma ranchers and farmers. She sells her Climate Paganism as “consensus” to those groups. She sells her climate paganism as a mental Plug-in App to Christianity. She is a snake oil seller.
In biblical times, Miss Hayhoe would have fit right in with the Temple Pharisees and money changers that Jesus had much disdain for.
It’s also an admission that the scientific data is not persuasive so one has to properly market the idea, rather than present actual scientific facts. I have no idea what a “social” fact is—I guess that’s the new term for “propaganda when the real science fails”. There is a move toward the social “science” now in AGW. Somehow the science failed them, so bring in the adjustable “facts”, the philiosophy bunch and try a new angle? Guess they ran out of options.
““Our findings suggest that presenting people with a social fact, a consensus of opinion among experts, rather than challenging them with blunt scientific data, encourages a shift towards mainstream scientific belief – particularly among conservatives.”
Should be:
Our findings suggest that if we call come up with a new term for “LIE”, & call it a “SOCIAL FACT” instead, we can fool people into changing their short term beliefs. We have found that peoples’ “beliefs” are much easier to alter that are blunt scientific data. (We also got our names on another peer reviewed paper … yah!)
Thanks Sheri and DonM,
Filed away for future thought and comment after processing and convolution.
Most published research findings are wrong. link
The alarmists have been spouting the 97% consensus for a long time and it hasn’t budged public opinion. I’m not sure what these researchers are suggesting to do differently.
Good point, commieBob. The 97 percent lie isn’t getting many converts on WUWT, but I imagine it does influence people out in the larger universe, who do not know the subject very well.
It’s an effective “argument” if your listeners are not familiar with the subject, and it is a very good “argument” to use since it is so easy. What is easier than saying “97 percent of scientists agree with me” and then smiling smugly?
The 97 percent claim usually shuts down further argument, unless one wants to argue the accuracy of the 97 percent claim, and few tv personalities are prepared to do that, so the lie is left to stand as the truth.
97% of climate scientists have concluded that, WRONG that is not what the research found at all. Even if you ignore it’s deep methodological problems this paper did not make this claim. Always best to make sure it is a ‘fact’ before making claims about how people react to facts.
Talking about presenting facts, the usual propagandist of the CBC Bob McDonald cries about mountain glaciers disappearing…
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/blog/watch-the-retreat-of-glaciers-up-the-rocky-mountain-slopes-1.4439494
Commenting is of course restricted since it would be easy to debunk the latest inane stuff:
“The Rocky Mountains date back to the time of the dinosaurs, with their sharply sculpted slopes and U-shaped valleys telling a tale of multiple ice ages that came and went, with vast glaciers that completely filled those valleys almost all the way up to the peaks.”
Confusing orogenesis time and landscape sculpting shows the poor guy is clueless about geology and tectonics.
“From a personal perspective, my first visit to the Columbia Icefields was in 1973. Over the years since then, during every visit, I have literally watched the glacier vanish before my eyes. Last year I stood on the same spot I was on 44 years ago and looked across a vast field of gravel and meltwater towards the toe of the glacier more than a kilometre away. It has also lost a great deal of mass and sits much lower in the valley.”
So what Bob? Have you heard about atmospheric circulation? Warm air advection? He should have, since we are experiencing a 1047 hPa continental anticyclone over the US sending strong winds over the Rockies and coastal mountains (Santa Ana winds)… Hardly global warming when large cold air masses engulf a full continent…
“Mountains stand as a visible testament to human influences on the planet.”
Grandstanding based on ignorance of processes. LOL
I visited the columbia Ice field in 1990.
One item I noticed was the number of annual morrianes on the east side of the highway dating back to the early 1800’s. The highway intersected the morraines dating from the 1910-1920’s as I recall. The amount of glacier retreat from the early 1800’s through the 1920’s greatly exceeded the amount of glacier retreat from the 1920’s through 1990.
As a side note – the columbia ice fields are a great place to visit since you can see the steady retreat over the last 200 years (with little accelleration). Activists always like to show only one picture from the past to imply that the retreat is due tha AGW instead of showing the long term history which disputes the story line
Indeed, great comment.
So true about the columbia ice fields. My first visit there was in the mid-50’s. Last time was late 90’s.
The ice fields are a lesson in general climate warning since mid 19th century. The 30’s took their toll on the ice fields. Same thing for all the Rockies. Lake Louise also had many before/after pics showing retreat of the glacier there.
I wish agw mavens could have seen the north american glaciers over 60 years and could see the diagrams at the ice fields and see how long glacial retreat has been going on. Some historical context is most helpful.
Scraft – but if I only show you one picture from the 1950’s or 1960’s and one recent picture – then I can prove that glacier melt is accelerating geometrically due to AGW.
Showing a detailed year by year graph since the late 1700’s or early 1800’s would be “cherrypicking”
sarc – in case anyone missed the obvious.
Double sarc – since the first sentence is a common trick of the warmists/activists
What??
What utter self important nonsense…
““Mountains stand as a visible testament to human influences on the planet.””
So, humans made those mountains?
J – tom rude’s comment regarding the mountains looks to be a typo of some sort
He probably meant to say something to the effect that “mountains stand as a visible testament to the lack of human influences on the planet” or something in a similar vain (based on the gist of his overall comment)
Yes, it is a ridiculous statement. Not mine as I am quoting CBC’s Bob McDonald opus…
He was quoting, not claiming.
gateway belief – is what Cook/Lewandowsky bang on about.. and the backfire effect is not what it seems (ie only if people aren’t paying attention).. Lewandowsky has just published on this earlier this year. despite him promoting the backfire effect to start with.
Abstract
People frequently rely on information even after it has been retracted, a phenomenon
known as the continued-influence effect of misinformation. One factor proposed to explain the
ineffectiveness of retractions is that repeating misinformation during a correction may
inadvertently strengthen the misinformation by making it more familiar. Practitioners are
therefore often encouraged to design corrections that avoid misinformation repetition. The
current study tested this recommendation, investigating whether retractions become more or less
effective when they include reminders or repetitions of the initial misinformation. Participants
read fictional reports, some of which contained retractions of previous information, and
inferential reasoning was measured via questionnaire. Retractions varied in the extent to which
they served as misinformation reminders. Retractions that explicitly repeated the misinformation
were more effective in reducing misinformation effects than retractions that avoided repetition,
presumably because of enhanced salience. Recommendations for effective myth debunking may
thus need to be revised.
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/Ecker.2017.JARMAC.pdf
“To conclude, we presented evidence that repeating misinformation in the course of its
retraction can reduce continued-influence effects. However, the influence of misinformation
persisted despite the availability of causal alternatives and the repetition-enhanced effectiveness
of retractions.” Ecker, lewandowsky, et al
H’mm, one of the co-authors a RICO20 signatory? I wonder to what extent such advocacy affects his qualification as an “honest broker”?
+100!
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”
– Dr. Michael Crichton
we need more Crichtons
They’d just assassinate them too.
People of Crichton’s education, stature, and readily available public megaphone are impossible to find nowadays. Today when a few on the Right that have a credential set approaching Crichton’s they get shout-off the stage, protested to get the university to dis-invite their commencement speech etc.
Condoleeza Rice comes to mind. The Left orchestrates a campaign to get her talks or commencement speeches cancelled, and she’s probably a climate change believer.
What, like the consensus on plate tectonics? Or on the formation of the moon?
I thought patriotism was the first refuge.
> “For the study, researchers conducted online surveys of 6,301 US citizens that adhered to nationally representative quotas of gender, age, education, ethnicity, region and political ideology.“
Uhhh no. They have a subset of people who self identified and were willing and able to take an online survey. That the authors are not cognizant of the problems with their socioeconomic cachement speaks to the quality of the study.
+1000!