Jump to content
Science Forums

The psychology and sociology of the International Global Warming Debate


Michaelangelica

Recommended Posts

BrianG might make an interesting case study for this thread.

Here he talks about being cold so the earth mustn't be warming.

What is this logic?

Yes this is logic. I have been told that the earth is warming. My personal observations do not agree. Am I to trust my own observation, or experts who are testifying about science beyond my ability to personally recreate. In other words I need to take them on FAITH. Who else do we simply take on faith? Who dictates the list of those who must simply be taken on faith?

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this verbose sentence have a meaning?

 

I'm following your lead on how the political spectrum influences the global warming debate. Thank you for pointing out poor sentence construction.

 

Large government vs. small government

Group rights, equality vs. individual rights, freedom

Socialism vs. capitalism

 

 

In many ways, the political spectrum reflects different attitudes on how to adapt or mitigate global warming. The left wants large government programs, the right wants individual freedom. Thus we have choices between government run CO2 emission controls and individual freedom to produce and use the energy we need. We choose between government grants, tax incentives, mandates and subsidies and low taxes and a market that offers a wide choice for energy supplies.

 

How do you see the political spectrum influence the global warming debate? Do you see the right as fundamentalist, anti-science bigots who reject any notion of environmental stewardship? Would you please describe the left's interpretation of the debate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My water pipes froze yesterday and my car wouldn't start today, because of the cold. Running the tap and a space heater thawed the frozen pipes, popping the clutch in second gear while my brother-in-law gave me a tow started my car. There are empirical methods to solve some of life problems, I don't know what we'll do about climate change.

 

...Here he talks about being cold so the earth mustn't be warming.

What is this logic?

 

A second example is here,

 

Thanks, freeztar, I'm still concerned that the temperatures where we live are cooling, and the data that we see published show warming.

 

I believe the implication is a logical fallacy,

 

Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population.

 

...Untried, untested [ce]CO2[/ce] restrictions for climate change mitigation needs experimental testing.

 

I, again, think the implication is fallacious. Humanity can either instigate anthropogenic global climate change or mitigate anthropogenic global climate change. The two options are mutually exclusive meaning one option of the two must be chosen.

 

The implication is that we do not know enough, without experimental testing, about climate change mitigation to engage in the practice. Therefore, the choice must be NOT to mitigate until more is known.

 

The reasoning fails to recognize that choosing "NOT mitigate" is no different from choosing "instigate" and that one could just as easily say that we do not know enough, without experimental testing, about climate change instigation to engage in the practice. Therefore, the choice must be NOT to instigate until more is known.

 

Without more information either argument is illogical. It amounts to confirmation bias. The fact that not enough is known about global climate seems to confirm a previously-held belief either that 1) we shouldn't be instigating anthropogenic climate change, or 2) we shouldn't be mitigating anthropogenic climate change.

 

In reality, saying "we need more experimentation" is neither an argument for potentially altering earth's climate nor potentially mitigating our effect on earth's climate.

 

 

Yes this is logic. I have been told that the earth is warming. My personal observations do not agree. Am I to trust my own observation, or experts who are testifying about science beyond my ability to personally recreate. In other words I need to take them on FAITH. Who else do we simply take on faith? Who dictates the list of those who must simply be taken on faith?

 

They say that smoking cigarettes is unhealthy, but my great-aunt smoked a lot and she lived to be 95 and I've never known anybody... out of anyone that I've ever known... to die of lung cancer. I could conclude that smoking cigarettes is not unhealthy or I could claim that believing it to be unhealthy requires faith in what 'they' say.

 

But, I think that would be an availability heuristic,

Availability is a cognitive heuristic in which a decision maker relies upon knowledge that is readily available rather than examine other alternatives or procedures.

 

"There are situations in which people assess the frequency of a class or the probability of an event by the ease with which instances or occurrences can be brought to mind. For example, one may assess the risk of heart attack among middle-aged people by recalling such occurrences among one's acquaintances. Similarly, one may evaluate the probability that a given business venture will fail by imagining various difficulties it could encounter. This judgmental heuristic is called availability. Availability ia a useful clue for assessing frequency or probability, because instances of large classes are usually reached better and faster than instances of less frequent classes. However, availability is affected by factors other than frequency and probability. Consequently, the reliance on availability leads predictable biases,[...]"

Tversky and Kahneman (1974)

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I believe the implication is a logical fallacy,

 

 

I don't believe I've ever said the Earth average temperature isn't warming. I do note the discrepancy between personal observation and global temperature averages and I question how average global temperature is measured. Who get's to judge what constitutes sufficient evidence?

 

 

 

I, again, think the implication is fallacious. Humanity can either instigate anthropogenic global climate change or mitigate anthropogenic global climate change. The two options are mutually exclusive meaning one option of the two must be chosen.

 

The implication is that we do not know enough, without experimental testing, about climate change mitigation to engage in the practice. Therefore, the choice must be NOT to mitigate until more is known.

 

The reasoning fails to recognize that choosing "NOT mitigate" is no different from choosing "instigate" and that one could just as easily say that we do not know enough, without experimental testing, about climate change instigation to engage in the practice. Therefore, the choice must be NOT to instigate until more is known.

 

Without more information either argument is illogical. It amounts to confirmation bias. The fact that not enough is known about global climate seems to confirm a previously-held belief either that 1) we shouldn't be instigating anthropogenic climate change, or 2) we shouldn't be mitigating anthropogenic climate change.

 

In reality, saying "we need more experimentation" is neither an argument for potentially altering earth's climate nor potentially mitigating our effect on earth's climate.

...

~modest

 

I don't follow how experimental testing would constitute a confirmation bias.

 

You're not taking my point, experimental testing is the way we evaluate policy, it's how we measure efficiency. We don't use fossil fuel because we want to alter climate, we know from century's of testing how fossil fuel provides heat and how to mitigate the effects of it's smoke. We have learned how fire helps us adapt to climate change, to cook our food, heat our homes, stampede game and change forest to prairie or crop land. That knowledge isn't based on observation alone, its based on real world models that are constantly tested and improved.

 

Confirmation bias can be used to argue that if humans change climate, then we are already mitigating against a cooler climate, and now we must decide if a warmer or cooler climate is more desirable. Ignoring our million years of CO2 emissions from fire and it's effect on climate cooling and focusing only on future warming is a logical bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m inclined to believe the scientists when they say that we’ve already poured so much carbon into the atmosphere that the world climate is going to change, drastically, whatever we do about it. And that if we don’t start mitigation efforts soon, things will get even worse than that...

 

Current efforts suggest that we aren’t going to do anything about it. If so, and if the scientists are right, the next few decades are going to see some spectacular changes.

 

Why isn’t the message getting through? Could the scientists be wrong? One touchstone I’ve always found useful in any debate is to see which side tells the most lies. In this case, it’s very easy to see. No matter how often the lies are shown up, the denialists keep on using them. Which is why I’ve decided that the scientists are probably right. I’m clearly abnormal in preferring an uncomfortable truth to a comfortable lie.

 

Maybe age gives perspective. I can remember being lied to in the past, and remember noticing that no matter how bare-faced and transparent the lie, there were people willing to believe it. I’m thinking particularly about the old Soviet Union. Things were so bad that they had to put a fence around it and shoot people trying to escape. Yet we still had left-wing “intellectuals” denying the obvious, still talking about a Workers' Paradise. Stalin called them “useful idiots”. I see a clear parallel here.

 

We can see the "useful idiots" at work. But who, in this case, is “Stalin”? If you trace back the denialist talking points to their origin, you’ll find that they’ve been financed largely by the fossil energy industries. Are they evil organisations, dedicated to bringing down the human race? Clearly not. They’re made up of people like us, with families, friends, children, grandchildren. So why do they do it?

 

Take a look at the psychology of the situation. These people are being paid a lot of money. They need to feel that they’ve earned it. To do that, they have to protect the share value of the company at all costs. It’s an instinctive reaction, just as it was for the Soviet spokesmen in the latter half of the twentieth century. They know where their loyalty lies, and act without further thought.

 

I have to say, though, that I don’t think it’s the end for the human race, still less for the planet. We’ll finish the century sadder, probably much fewer in number, hopefully wiser, and with a strong sense of a job to do... reviving damaged or dead ecosystems, cleaning, regenerating, experimenting, learning. But then, I’m a cockeyed optimist :naughty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m inclined to believe the scientists when they say that we’ve already poured so much carbon into the atmosphere that the world climate is going to change, drastically, whatever we do about it. ...

 

This is an interesting post, on the subject:

...Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

 

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

 

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

 

No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds

 

I can't swear Wolfgang isn't in the pockets of big oil, Geophysical Research Letters, he might be a petroleum geologist. I better check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took me less than three minutes to check it out.

Bristol research does not support climate change denial « Jones The News

... Dr Knorr is adamant that we must still address climate change, and favours mandatory caps on emissions. I ask him if that’s what we need to do and he says, “There is no other way”.

You prove my point. Old talking point, already debunked, continuing to be raised by useful idiots... :naughty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try reading his research, instead of reading what somebody else says it says. He does NOT say that carbon dioxide levels aren't increasing.

 

You claim to be sceptical about the science - try being sceptical about the sites you get this stuff from. Otherwise you'll continue to look stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donk, is this the site I should check?

 

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO emissions increasing?

 

Wolfgang Knorr

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

 

...This study re‐examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero...

 

http://europa.agu.org:8005/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0921/2009GL040613/2009GL040613.xml&t=Knorr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the one. Now, would you like to explain to the class what you understand by the term "airborne fraction"?

 

And please remember the title of the thread - we're not discussing the pro- and con- arguments about global warming. I'm trying to understand why people get things so terribly wrong - you're providing a few clues here :naughty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. Still wrong. Airborne fraction, remember? :naughty:

 

You're so off-target that I'd better give you the answer:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html

The 'airborne fraction' refers to the amount of human CO2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere. Approximately 43% of our CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere with the rest being absorbed by carbon sinks. But is the airborne fraction increasing? A paper published in November 2009 found no statistically significant trend (Knorr 2009). Anthony Watts labeled this result the "Bombshell from Bristol"A potentially devastating result for anthropogenic global warming. Was it such a shock? The 2007 IPCC verdict on the airborne fraction was "There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period." (IPCC AR4) I'm not sure the move from "not much" happening "to" not much happening still warrants the label "bombshell".

In other words, carbon dioxide IS increasing, but the proportion caused by burning fossil fuels remains at around 43% of the total. Understand? Now run back and explain it to your friends. Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a psychological basis for belief in catastrophic climate change (CG Jung Page - Archetype of the Apocalypse ). People have an urge to feel important, that they are at the center of the world ( Psychology in Perspective ) and that might be a psychological basis for some of the belief that man dominates climate change.

 

Please allow me a disclaimer, I make no claim anyone here holds these beliefs. I make no claim that the science is based on psychology. This post on the psychology and sociology of the debate is more pertinent to popular belief and media story templates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right - the Chicken Little theory of "Alarmism". "Nothing to worry about, folks - just some religious nuts praying for the apocalypse..."

 

Unfortunately, the religious nuts have some pretty good science backing them up. So it's important to discredit the science. If that isn't possible, discredit the scientists.

 

So we see websites like wattsupwiththat, heartland and climateaudit . Google search for AGW-related subjects will show them high on the list. The unwary see a lot of people talking what appears to be high-grade science, and all of them saying the same thing: AGW is a myth cooked up by people who want to control YOU! This plays especially well in the USofA, with its tradition of individuals vs organisations, but also finds resonances worldwide. Brian and his ilk go to them, read, and are convinced. Why shouldn't they be? There aren't any contrary opinions posted, so it has to be true, doesn't it?? They come away with a strong missionary zeal and jump on to sites like this one.

 

What they find here astounds them: people disputing all the things that have been proved to them over and over again! What's going on? Can intelligent people really be fooled so easily?

 

Yes, Brian. They can ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Can intelligent people really be fooled so easily?

 

Yes, Brian. They can ;)

 

I agree 100%, it's almost as if people want to be fooled. There is no end to human naiveté, it happens in science, too. The Cardiff Giant was quickly debunked but Piltdown Man was accepted for 40 years. Eugenics, purging and bleeding was consensus science.

 

Hoaxes in science

 

How do you suppose we teach people to distinguish hoax from reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...