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.
What all the CAGW skeptics said but also consider what are the solutions the fear mongers suggest.
There is one country that used to be known for good engineering that is closing nuke plants and putting solar panels on the roofs.
The 97% consensus can not reach a consensus on what to do.
From the article: “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.”
So there is a negative interaction between conservatism and higher education? How so?
I would say there is a positive interaction between conservatism and higher education: A good scientist has to be a skeptic first.
These people think conservatism is a negative because many skeptics are conservative and don’t agree with the CAGW narrative, but that’s only a negative for the believers and those who want to sell the narrative.
Their cognitive dissonance is so complete is has skewed their entire thought process from aardvark to zebra.
In at case, I do not believe a word of the assertions from the writers of this study, if it even is a study, and not just a contrived pile of opinion and misdirection.
“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.”
I thought this was a perfect description of the whole AGW paradigm. Who is more motivated to have a strong belief in a climate change crisis than the people who are actually making a living off the climate change crisis? No one. Motived reasoning is the only kind of reasoning among the so called consensus. But the authors here are trying to argue that it is highly educated conservatives that are inflected with this ‘motive reasoning.
My motivation for my skeptical view on a climate change crisis for the last 28 years has always been the simple fact that the ‘science’ behind it would not pass a 6th grade science fair. Before I looked at the science, I was actually on board. I didn’t have any political reason to be against it. Most of the crisis skeptics I know or have talked to, came to the same conclusion in the same way. They looked at the science and were gobsmacked. It was simply horrendous and pathetic, and remains so to this day. Any political stance developed much later, when it became apparent that science didn’t matter in climate change, at least not to those driving the paradigm.
My BS meter has kept me away from this consensus…since the start…More people need a BS meter.
After 5 or 6 total predictive failures any other theory would be forgotton by everyone.
After 4 decades of 0 from hundreds of predicted disasters by climate crooks we still have people who are desperate to believe while they are being fleeced.
It’s simplicity to fool most people but once fooled it’s almost impossible to convince them they’ve been had.
Such is the power of one’s pride.
What isn’t said about highly educated conservatives is they aren’t swayed by the consensus argument.They study the facts for themselves and don’t make their decisions based on “97% consensus”.
What is always very surprising to me is when I hear about lawyers and doctors who are True Believers.
These are people who should be more than capable of weighing evidence and understanding the importance of such things as observations, the willingness of people to make stuff up or be fooled, how often people can be wrong, even large numbers of seemingly educated and informed people, etc.
C S Lewis firmly believed that there was nobody as gullible as a university trained intellectual. He’ll believe anything if it’s published in the “right” paper.
I do not know about CS Lewis, but if someone is properly adhering to the scientific method, they are the opposite of gullible.
Childish psycho trick by desperate money obsessed liars.
You are not with the intellectual elite but if you agree with everything we tell you you will immediately become intelligent like us.
97% has to be a scientific fraud without inquiry
because of the ridiculous size of the number.
If you want to be an intelligent con artist you would us a number like 68%.
The way 97% was arrived at is nothing less than criminal.
I went back to the Doran and Zimmerman paper which first gave the figure of 97%. It’s here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf. Their sample consisted of “those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total).” Rather a small sample from which to make such a claim, no?
A more recent figure from Bray and von Storch (quoted by Bart Verheggen) is: “87.4% of respondents are to some extent convinced that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes.” Funny that we keep on hearing the 97% figure, not the later and presumably more accurate one.
And I’m wondering, given the overall political bias of academics particularly in the US, if figures like these actually tell us anything at all?
Neither are accurate.
Both are made up propaganda meant to reinforce a preconceived notion of those who want debate closed and conformity on the issue.
To use Climate Crusade rhetoric.
I could be influenced and may be persuaded. Which suggests I might arrive at believing the consensus.
However, it is also quite possible the opposite is true.
Now that’s settled, I’m certain and the debate is over.
One thing I learned in the CAGW debate is that peoples approach and attitude is divided in two. People who want to work together, forge an intellectual and political common view, to add power to the solution. People who want to question , make certain and take tough. hard decisions, if necessary. Its no coincidence that this reflects the left/right political situation. Both sides have undoubted evolutionary merits.
I would definitely be a lefty if I were sick. I would definitely be on the right if I were in charge of the tribe.
Its clear that the feel goods are on the left, but if you want to be sure you are correct, if you aim to be a scientist, you must fall to the right
You would make a terrible “Climate Scientist”.
I wonder if what they may be referring to is that even hard core skeptics will readily acknowledge that climates change, and that the globe has warmed?
97% was also Joseph Stalin’s favourite number when it came to elections.
Thanks to branrlcatt for posting the wonderful clip of the great Richard Feynman. Many of his lectures are available online and all are worth watching. In watching them you realise how shoddy much of modern science is now in comparison to just a few years ago. Interesting to note Feynman’s swipe at Psychology; how prescient of him!
I often wish Richard Feynman was still with us. However, if he was, I am sure he would take a very dim view of much of climate science and suffer the consequences of a spiteful academia.