Climate Change Debate Reflects the Greater Challenge

The Coffee Shop
1

Apologies for the length of this post, but considering the scientific consensus that exists on climate change as described by the National Academy of Sciences, it might be beneficial to consider how our debate on this issue reflects the greater challenge we face as a nation.

The following was taken from an article entitled Cultural Cognition and Scientific Consensus by Nancy Huynh. I trust that it is acceptable to inject edited excerpts of it here with emphasis added:

For years, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has released expert
consensus reports confirming the reality of global warming. However, intense
debate still persists over this and other issues scientifically proven and reported
by the NAS. The arguments do not revolve around criticizing scientists and their
evidence, so the main problem is not actually a lack of faith in the scientic method.
Rather, people on both sides of these debates believe that the science supports
their side. This phenomenon may be due to “cultural cognition,” and Yale researchers
at the Cultural Cognition Project (CCP) have been studying cultural cognition in a
variety of topics, ranging from nanotechnology to gay and lesbian parenting to
adjudicatory fact-findings. They aim to improve our understanding of how cultural
values influence the perception of risk and the potent effect that this phenomenon
can have on public policy.
**
*The cultural cognition theory postulates that people’s perceptions of risk reflect and reinforce the combinations of values defined by the intersection of two “worldview” dimensions. For example, hierarchical-individualists might be skeptical of environmental risk and have fewer qualms about nuclear power. They value markets and commerce and oppose restricting these activities. (Conservatives; R; Tea Party; inserted) On the other hand, egalitarian-communitarians are ambivalent about markets and commerce, which they blame for social inequity, so they are more likely to accept claims of environmental risk. (Liberals; D; Occupy WS; inserted). The CCP identified two main psychological processes that create cultural polarization over scientific information. *
**
The first is culturally biased information searching: people prefer to look for scientific information that supports, rather than opposes, their cultural predispositions. The second mechanism is culturally biased assimilation. When considering information from any source, people selectively credit or discredit in accordance with their cultural predispositions, becoming more polarized as they learn more. Ideally, people would evaluate all sorts of new information and update their beliefs appropriately. Under these circumstances, the increased dissemination of sound information would lead to consensus on the best available scientific evidence. However, because of cultural cognition, this does not actually happen. Instead, people with opposing values start with opposing beliefs about controversial issues. They search for and interpret information in biased, opposing patterns, ultimately resulting in persistent polarization on risk issues.
**
*We have already heavily invested in science research, so it only makes sense to invest in effective methods of communicating it. Scientific discoveries are ignored if people are polarized by their presentation. Given our understanding of cultural cognition, we need to work towards creating an environment in which people will not simply cling to their biases, but reach a consensus based on strong scientific evidence. *
**
The intensity of our discussions on this culture-war issue is the worst news of all, because when you challenge a person’s position on an issue core to his or her identity, facts and arguments are seen as little more than further attacks. Changing this dynamic and finding ways to break the logjam currently affecting this and other issues may well be the greatest challenge of our time.

2

**
*Given our understanding of cultural cognition, we need to work towards creating an environment in which people will not simply cling to their biases, but reach a consensus based on strong scientific evidence. *

Good luck with that!

3

** Good luck with that!

Hence the emphasis on the term *challenge, *but consider the ramifications of not rising to meet it.

What is needed is extraordinary leadership (sorely lacking on both sides) or some monumental (mutual) threat that brings us together despite our differences.

4

That sounds like classical Confirmation Bias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

We’re all guilty of this…even Slowman.

5

I would agree that there are groups of people on both sides that “Manipulate the science” in order to support their view. I don’t think that is really the problem at all however. “Deniers” are deniers and no matter what the circumstances these people will not look at the science in anyway that does not support their views. At the same time there are “Alarmists” on the other side that will not look at the science in any way that does not support their view to the opposite extreme.

Let’s for a moment disregard both of these groups as “Irrational”. Let’s then look at the 3rd group, the group that looks at the science and excepts it for what it is.

This group is then broken into the two groups you mention. Those that believe “The community” should attempt to “Act on the science” and those that believe “The market” will “React to the science”.

Both of these groups accept the science, but believe in completely different actions to be taken based on that science.

This has nothing to do with either “Effectively presenting the science” nor “Clinging to biases”, both of these groups agree completely on the science, they simply do not agree on the actions that should be taken based on that science.

THIS is the problem, not presentation or clinging to biases, simply different opinions on actions based on the evidence presented.

THIS is also what leads to the fringe groups. As each side becomes more and more irritated by the other side not agreeing with direction to be taken each sides tends toward more and more “Radical” perspective of the evidence at hand. This leads to “Global warming is a hoax” and “We will all be dead in 50 years if we don’t all move into a cave this week”.

There is no “Solution” to this problem other than finding a path that appeases to both sides. “Free marketers” will never agree to accepting more of the opposite and “Communitarians” will never accept a free market based solution, unless it also includes “Saving the planet”.

~Matt

6

. . . . the group that looks at the science and excepts it for what it is.This group is then broken into the two groups you mention. Those that believe “The community” should attempt to “Act on the science” and those that believe “The market” will “React to the science”. Both of these groups accept the science, but believe in completely different actions to be taken based on that science. THIS is the problem, not presentation or clinging to biases, simply different opinions on actions based on the evidence presented. There is no “Solution” to this problem other than finding a path that appeases to both sides. “Free marketers” will never agree to accepting more of the opposite and “Communitarians” will never accept a free market based solution, unless it also includes “Saving the planet”. ~Matt

If only this were true.

Those that accept the science have no objections to a free market solution. In fact (we) would embrace that approach if only it would materialize. There is no bias favoring a government regulated approach, just a belief that market forces have no incentive to adjust the status quo (certainly as long as record profits persist). Don’t lose sight of the fact that big oil, coal and other affected industries are behind the denigration of the climate science consensus.

Would the tobacco industry have really followed scientific opinion without forceful government intervention?

Not a chance.

7

I would agree that there are groups of people on both sides that “Manipulate the science” in order to support their view. I don’t think that is really the problem at all however. “Deniers” are deniers and no matter what the circumstances these people will not look at the science in anyway that does not support their views. At the same time there are “Alarmists” on the other side that will not look at the science in any way that does not support their view to the opposite extreme.

Let’s for a moment disregard both of these groups as “Irrational”. Let’s then look at the 3rd group, the group that looks at the science and excepts it for what it is.

This group is then broken into the two groups you mention. Those that believe “The community” should attempt to “Act on the science” and those that believe “The market” will “React to the science”.

Both of these groups accept the science, but believe in completely different actions to be taken based on that science.

This has nothing to do with either “Effectively presenting the science” nor “Clinging to biases”, both of these groups agree completely on the science, they simply do not agree on the actions that should be taken based on that science.

THIS is the problem, not presentation or clinging to biases, simply different opinions on actions based on the evidence presented.

THIS is also what leads to the fringe groups. As each side becomes more and more irritated by the other side not agreeing with direction to be taken each sides tends toward more and more “Radical” perspective of the evidence at hand. This leads to “Global warming is a hoax” and “We will all be dead in 50 years if we don’t all move into a cave this week”.

There is no “Solution” to this problem other than finding a path that appeases to both sides. “Free marketers” will never agree to accepting more of the opposite and “Communitarians” will never accept a free market based solution, unless it also includes “Saving the planet”.

~Matt

Well said, Matt.

I’d add one further dimension to those that accept the science, though. There are those on both sides who knowingly twist the science to rally support for their socio-political-economic interests. The intention is to sway those who cannot understand the science themselves. “Deniers” may deny and “Alarmists” may alarm strictly to influence policy.

It’s sort of like Ron Paul. I think he has some great ideas, and I’d love to see the country move slightly and slowly in his direction, but he scares the shit out of me if everything he advocates were suddenly implemented.

8

Those that accept the science have no objections to a free market solution. In fact (we) would embrace that approach if only it would materialize.

No, no you wouldn’t because a “Free market solution” is/has and always does “Materialize”. The fact of the mater is that you don’t like the solution.

To a “Free market” if the outcome is the complete and utter destruction of the human species, THAT is a solution…that’s the point of a free market, no one controls the outcome so any and all outcomes are a possibility.

There is no bias favoring a government regulated approach, just a belief that market forces have no incentive to adjust the status quo (certainly as long as record profits persist).

Ummm, yes of course there is. Those that believe that there must be a “Community solution” believe that certain outcomes are not acceptable. The very fact that “certain outcomes are not acceptable” mean that in order to attempt to make sure those outcomes do not happen that certain variables with in the system MUST be controlled. Thus “Certain outcome” can not equal “Free market”.

Furthermore there is no entity that can use “Force” to control certain factors of the economy OTHER than the government and thus, by default short of a very few possibilities, “Certain outcomes” IS equal to “Bias favoring government regulation and control”.

**Don’t lose sight of the fact that big oil, coal and other affected industries are behind the denigration of the climate science consensus. **

Again, “Science” is not the question here. We are speaking of two different groups of people BOTH which agree with the science. Both are immune to whatever actions big “Fossil fuel” or “Alarmist environmentalist” take to try and blur that science.

Would the tobacco industry have really followed scientific opinion without forceful government intervention?

Science is not “Scientific opinion”. Science is the fact that the earth is warming and that is caused by man burning fossil fuels. “Science opinion” is what is used to try and create “Government policy” in order to “Create a specific outcome”.

It may be “Science” that at current rates of burning fossil fuels the seas will rise 3 meters. It’s is “Scientific opinion” that “We should stop burning fossil fuels”. One is science, the other is opinion.

If I go to the doctor and am diagnosed with cancer, that is science. I may even be given the statistic of my outcomes if I take chemo therapy. That is Science. The doctors “Opinion” is what he thinks I “Should” do. I however can believe the science and NOT follow the doctors opinion even if that means my own death.

Forcing me to take Chemo therapy is not “Free market”. Allowing me to make the choice to die or take chemo IS free market.

~Matt

9

…Those that accept the science have no objections to a free market solution. In fact (we) would embrace that approach if only it would materialize. There is no bias favoring a government regulated approach, just a belief that market forces have no incentive to adjust the status quo (certainly as long as record profits persist). Don’t lose sight of the fact that big oil, coal and other affected industries are behind the denigration of the climate science consensus.

Would the tobacco industry have really followed scientific opinion without forceful government intervention?

Not a chance.

The data does not support this position. It’s been discussed on several threads already, but the IPCC’s own model scenarios show only about a 10% difference in the increase in global temperatures between aggressively attempting to reduce GHGE and basically doing nothing.

In other words, 90% of the warming modeled to occur in the next 50 years will happen regardless of what we attempt to do about it.

This strongly suggests that the AGW “movement” is more interested in effecting social, political, and economic changes that suit their agenda than actually making substantive reductions in global temperature.

EDIT to add link: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=3461970#3461970

10

I think he has some great ideas, and I’d love to see the country move slightly and slowly in his direction, but he scares the shit out of me if everything he advocates were suddenly implemented.

This is, and always has been, the downfall of the Libertarian party. Rather than speaking about “Steps to take” and “Why”, they speak about the “Utopian outcome” and implementing it tomorrow.

The Fed Reserve was created in 1913, 100 years next December. SS in 1933, Almost 80 years. Medicare, 1963, almost 50. Things that are “Easy to do”, like SS, Medicare is like eating and getting fat. Reversing those things are like changing your lifestyle and eating healthy and losing weight. It often takes longer to loose the weight and gain healthy habits back than it does to lose them and get fat.

In essence speaking of a world without a fed reserve or SS is like talking to a 450 lb, couch potato about doing an IM, it’s foreign and REALLY scary. However talking to the same person about only eating 6 donuts instead of a dozen for breakfast tomorrow is at least “Imaginable”.

~Matt

11

To a “Free market” if the outcome is the complete and utter destruction of the human species, THAT is a solution…that’s the point of a free market, no one controls the outcome so any and all outcomes are a possibility.

Come on, your “free market” advocacy in this case is excessive. Of course all outcomes are solutions in a sense, but not all are acceptable or worthy of consideration. This isn’t a fantasy, you are dealing with real world consequences affecting everyone on the planet.

If I go to the doctor and am diagnosed with cancer, that is science. I may even be given the statistic of my outcomes if I take chemo therapy. That is Science. The doctors “Opinion” is what he thinks I “Should” do. I however can believe the science and NOT follow the doctors opinion even if that means my own death.Forcing me to take Chemo therapy is not “Free market”. Allowing me to make the choice to die or take chemo IS free market.

Matt, this isn’t really analogous to our discussion. If the choice is purely a personal one, then I would agree you should have the freedom to choose your course of action. Here your belief in the rightousness of the free market could be justified.

If on the other hand, your choice of therapies (or lack thereof) affected ***everyone ***with cancer, perhaps a ***solution ***would have to be decided upon by means beyond the realm of what you envision as the wisdom of free market.

12

“Free Market”

I honestly find the “Free Market” one of the most annoyingly ill defined terms of all time. It’s used in so many different ways (by different people) that I never know what it’s supposed to mean. Some people use to to refer to “competition” (which some people say can be driven by government intervention), some people use it as another word for “libertarian”, and anything in between. It wouldn’t suprise me if by some definitions, it could subsume all of reality and nature (eg. the line of thinking that: we live in a free market world, it’s just that the governments are the ones who truly own all the land).

(I’m not trying to call you out on your usage of it, btw. It’ just when I was reading your post, I had a: “I wonder what he truly means by ‘free market’. I have no idea how to interpret this.” moment)

13

…*Those that accept the science have no objections to a free market solution. In fact (we) would embrace that approach if only it would materialize. There is no bias favoring a government regulated approach, just a belief that market forces have no incentive to adjust the status quo. *

The data does not support this position. It’s been discussed on several threads already, but the IPCC’s own model scenarios show only about a 10% difference in the increase in global temperatures between aggressively attempting to reduce GHGE and basically doing nothing.
In other words, 90% of the warming modeled to occur in the next 50 years will happen regardless of what we attempt to do about it.

This strongly suggests that the AGW “movement” is more interested in effecting social, political, and economic changes that suit their agenda than actually making substantive reductions in global temperature.

This is a shortsighted approach that distorts the IPCC’s findings by focusing on the near term.

Consider instead this rationale taken from The Sunbelt Ag News, not exactly a bastion of radical liberal thought. It encourages a market sector to make choices free of government regulation.

Their editorial perspective benefits all with perhaps one powerful exception.

*By not reducing carbon emissions in our farming operations and not engaging in farming practices that increase carbon sequestration in our soils we contribute directly to global warming. In addition by turning away from farming practices that increase carbon sequestration–practices that also increase the ability of the soil to resist erosion and increase the absorption of water—we put ourselves at risk of increased erosion during the fewer but heavier rain events that are predicted. *In addition, we may be unprepared for the shift in crop mix and the associated infrastructure that would be required.
**
On the other hand, if we reduce our use of fossil fuels and engage in farming practices that sequester carbon in our soils, and it turns out that global warming is the hoax that some claim it to be, what is the worst thing that can happen? We have spent less money on increasingly expensive fossil fuel. We have created a soil that has greater carbon content and an increased ability to hold water and other plant nutrients. Our yields may be down a little, but our costs are lower as well. And the infrastructure that we have built up to handle our present crop mixes still works well.

Part of our response to issues where the answers might not be as clear as we would want them to be is to understand that our response needs to be an engagement in risk assessment, looking at the worst case scenarios and determining which set of risks we want to take and how we respond to those risks. At this time, not all farmers agree on the science behind climate change, but all need to engage in a risk assessment exercise and determine what response they are going to make on their farm. To do nothing is to make a choice.

14

Maybe guns are the only thing we fundamentally disagree on. I like your thinking on this.

I for one do believe in climate change, but is it manmade? I don’t know. At one time I did believe the hype, but then I saw convincing evidence that perhaps solar activity and Earths relative positioning to the sun plays a greater role. So I don’t know what to believe, though I lean towards the belief that it is a natural phenomenon. I also believe that political and elite interests have exploited it for their own gain. These same interest don’t behave in a manner consistent with their message. The debate is further complicated when the solutions proposed to date appear to serve as a means to enrich these interest. For instance, a cap and trade scheme proposed by man here has been in existence for years in Europe and what it has managed to do is crowd out smaller player while benefitting larger one. It has enriched elite players and politicians and done little to reduce emissions. In fact, they have increased yet we continue to buy into these solutions because the intentions are good. That is just one example of the many.

I believe that the only solution would be a reactive market approach, because until the danger is clear and present; deniers, skeptics and those on the fence like myself will not buy into any solutions proposed for a threat that may or may not exist. We will also have a greater incentive then for solutions that work.

15

Come on, your “free market” advocacy in this case is excessive.

Not at all, this is the essence of what a free market is. You can’t “Control outcomes” and have a free market, period, end of story.

**This isn’t a fantasy, you are dealing with real world consequences affecting everyone on the planet. **

Yes, but this is no different than any other choice billions of people make on this planet hundreds of times a day. They ALL have real world consequences.

**Matt, this isn’t really analogous to our discussion. If the choice is purely a personal one, then I would agree you should have the freedom to choose your course of action. Here your belief in the rightousness of the free market could be justified. **

If on the other hand, your choice of therapies (or lack thereof) affected *everyone *with cancer, perhaps a *solution *would have to be decided upon by means beyond the realm of what you envision as the wisdom of free market.

The freemarket has a mechanism for dealing with personal actions that cause “Harm” to others, it’s called restitution.

If for some reason my choice to not take Chemo harmed others in some way I would be liable for that harm. The “Cost” of that harm would then weigh on my decision on whether to get the chemo or not.

Global warming has no way to calculate this “Harm”. They can’t calculate this harm because the very people being harmed are also the very people causing the harm. “Self harm” is acceptable in a free market.

Furthermore the “Harm” being caused is largely speculative based on an assumption of human reaction to global warming. Yes sea levels will rise. We know that border cities will go under water. Ok we can calculate property loss. However how much of the sea rise was caused by the people who’s cities went under water? Furthermore we can’t calculate any further damages beyond that as we have no idea how these people will react.

To make matters worse the time frame we are talking about is longer than much of this property damage will take place. IOW many buildings, homes etc will likely have to be replaced before they are “Over run” by the sea. IOW it’s quite possible that much of what we are calling “Damages” won’t take place at all as people will see the trend of the rising sea and move their location on new builds.

In short I would be 100% behind a system that could lay out damages and how I am responsible for them and to what extent. I would then be glad to either make lifestyle changes to mitigate those damages or pay my fine if that was my choice. However that can’t and likely won’t take place and anything else is simply a guess and probably more damaging than allowing the free market to run it’s course.

~Matt

16

It’s used in so many different ways (by different people) that I never know what it’s supposed to mean.

I don’t disagree, most people use it incorrectly. Of course “Liberal” and “Conservative” are used incorrectly as well. That doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t use these words in their correct form.

~Matt

17

Maybe guns are the only thing we fundamentally disagree on.

I don’t think we fundamentally disagree on guns either. I think people should be allowed to owe guns without restriction, protect their property and families with deadly force if necessary. That however does not mean that when forced to it’s a reason to celebrate any more than when forced to government must step in and remove fraud from a free market. Both are necessary upon infringement, neither are something to be in the least bit happy about or strive for as an end goal.

I believe that the only solution would be a reactive market approach

The thing is that this is the only solution ever. Complete Socialism or slight government regulation only works if the market allows it to. The market is like gravity, it’s a natural law you can’t simply ignore, manipulate and expect the rock to not hit the floor. It will, eventually.

In the case of AGW we may be able to institute policy to attempt to limit GHG’s. That may work, or be a complete failure. What will make it work or fail is the market.

The market is made up of people, people will do what is best for themselves. They will do this regardless of government policy, regardless of regulation, and regardless of AGW. Only when people see that “What is best for themselves” is also “What is best to stop AGW” will the market “End AGW”.

~Matt

18

*In addition by turning away from farming practices that increase carbon sequestration–practices that also increase the ability of the soil to resist erosion and increase the absorption of water—we put ourselves at risk of increased erosion during the fewer but heavier rain events that are predicted. *In addition, we may be unprepared for the shift in crop mix and the associated infrastructure that would be required.

On the other hand, if we reduce our use of fossil fuels and engage in farming practices that sequester carbon in our soils, and it turns out that global warming is the hoax that some claim it to be, what is the worst thing that can happen?

And THIS is the solution to global warming. These farmers aren’t making decisions based on AGW, they are making decisions based on “Better farming practices” that will “Benefit them” regardless of the outcome of AGW.

This is ENTIRELY different than asking the whole of a society to do something that has a negative impact on them, I.E. a tax or other personal property removal or regulation, based SOLELY on the idea that global warming exists and for the sole purpose of staving off global warming. In this case the “Worst that could happen” is the whole of society has given up their property to enhance the lives of a few and to their own detriment.

I have stated time and time again the answer to global warming is presenting situations like the above farmers to everyone. Build houses that cost the same yet are farm more efficient and save the buyers money in the long run. Offer them cars that cost the same but run on far less fuel or electricity. In short offer product that are better and produce less CO2 and other GHG’s.

This is the natural course of things as fossil fuels become more and more expensive and needs no “Help” from regulation.

No one needs to make a regulation to make these farmers adapt these farming methods anymore than those that survived the dust bowl adapted soil conservation farmer methods. They KNOW that this is best for them and happily adopt these methods. THAT is free market. A home buyer KNOWS if they buy a house that consumes 20% less energy that that will save them money and paying slightly more or the same price for that house is well worth the cost.

~Matt

19

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

I don’t see where “consensus” is mentioned there.

20

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/...entific_method.shtml

I don’t see where “consensus” is mentioned there.

That makes sense, because the state of climate science is not based on consensus. Climate science is done in the same peer reviewed manner as all other science (and is done in collaboration with non-climate scientists).

The only reason you hear consensus thrown around is to help fight the non-scientific denier propaganda. Unless of course you’ve found that most climate science papers say something like “our conclusion is true because we did a consensus poll with all other scientists, and we all agree”.