A study that started in 2009 by University of California physics professor Richard Muller has found the earth is warming. This has been shown a thousand times over so why is this study important?
1) Professor Muller WAS a climate change denier
2) Funding for the study was provided by the Koch brothers - Republican, Tea-party supporting, billionaire US industrialists that lobby against man-made global warming.
3) Several years ago, there was a media storm concerning a scandal called "Climategate", in which the emails of climate scientists were hacked and posted online in an effort to expose supposed data manipulation that exaggerated the planet’s warming trends. Leaders in this firestorm of ridicule, were FOX news and professor Muller.
"Climategate" received several hours of media attention. How much did the new findings receive? Less than 30 seconds on MSNBC and CNN, and ziltch on FOX. This is the problem. The public still thinks there is a debate because the only source for their science info is the media, who created and sustain an imaginary conflict that hasn't existed in the scientific community for decades!
Let me hit you with some real stats. 98% of scientists agree climate change is real. Of those, 95% agree that it is man made (1). Therefore, I refuse to blog about the "debate" on climate change. Doing so would suggest there is one. Let me just say that the evidence for man-made climate change is irrefutable, but deniers have been clever in misrepresenting the data. This link explains a few examples very clearly: http://www.fool-me-once.com/
Another problem seems to be the term "Theory". Some say climate change and evolution are ideas not fully accepted by scientists because we call them theories. For scientists the term "theory" is an accurate description of the natural world. For example, gravity is a theory. If you don't believe in gravity, please float away!
What I've been immersed in recently is the psychology behind the denial. I can sum up why it's hard for a denier to accept a well-supported but opposing view in three points:
1) Confirmation bias, 2) Goalpost shifting and 3) False equivalence.
Confirmation bias is the unconscious tendency to favor info that confirms your own preconceptions. For example, after reading "95% of scientists believe in man-made climate change", how did you recieve that info? If you believe in climate change, you might say "Ah ha! climate change is real and I'm right!". If you are a denier, you might say "Wow, 5% of scientists are also deniers. Therefore climate change must be a huge conspiracy with 95% of all scientists in on the scam!".
Goalpost shifting is when you rework your position to fit the evidence after the fact. An obvious example is the religious fanatic Harold Camping who predicted the rapture in the 90's, and then on May 21st, and then on Oct 21st, and then on...you get the picture. Many climate change deniers said they'd accept whatever Professor Muller found. But after Muller switched opinions, the deniers say he was brainwashed by those crazy climate scientists and the data was manipulated.
False Equivalence is to equate two things without taking into account the underlying differences which make the comparison completely invalid. A perfect example comes from the media attention towards climate change. Although 95% of scientists and an overwhemling number of publications (over 10,000) have shown strong evidence to man-made climate change, the media still gives roughly equal attention to scientists who express views that climate change is caused by humans (53%) as they do to those who say it is caused by nature (47%).
1) Professor Muller WAS a climate change denier
2) Funding for the study was provided by the Koch brothers - Republican, Tea-party supporting, billionaire US industrialists that lobby against man-made global warming.
3) Several years ago, there was a media storm concerning a scandal called "Climategate", in which the emails of climate scientists were hacked and posted online in an effort to expose supposed data manipulation that exaggerated the planet’s warming trends. Leaders in this firestorm of ridicule, were FOX news and professor Muller.
"Climategate" received several hours of media attention. How much did the new findings receive? Less than 30 seconds on MSNBC and CNN, and ziltch on FOX. This is the problem. The public still thinks there is a debate because the only source for their science info is the media, who created and sustain an imaginary conflict that hasn't existed in the scientific community for decades!
Let me hit you with some real stats. 98% of scientists agree climate change is real. Of those, 95% agree that it is man made (1). Therefore, I refuse to blog about the "debate" on climate change. Doing so would suggest there is one. Let me just say that the evidence for man-made climate change is irrefutable, but deniers have been clever in misrepresenting the data. This link explains a few examples very clearly: http://www.fool-me-once.com/
Another problem seems to be the term "Theory". Some say climate change and evolution are ideas not fully accepted by scientists because we call them theories. For scientists the term "theory" is an accurate description of the natural world. For example, gravity is a theory. If you don't believe in gravity, please float away!
What I've been immersed in recently is the psychology behind the denial. I can sum up why it's hard for a denier to accept a well-supported but opposing view in three points:
1) Confirmation bias, 2) Goalpost shifting and 3) False equivalence.
Confirmation bias is the unconscious tendency to favor info that confirms your own preconceptions. For example, after reading "95% of scientists believe in man-made climate change", how did you recieve that info? If you believe in climate change, you might say "Ah ha! climate change is real and I'm right!". If you are a denier, you might say "Wow, 5% of scientists are also deniers. Therefore climate change must be a huge conspiracy with 95% of all scientists in on the scam!".
Goalpost shifting is when you rework your position to fit the evidence after the fact. An obvious example is the religious fanatic Harold Camping who predicted the rapture in the 90's, and then on May 21st, and then on Oct 21st, and then on...you get the picture. Many climate change deniers said they'd accept whatever Professor Muller found. But after Muller switched opinions, the deniers say he was brainwashed by those crazy climate scientists and the data was manipulated.
False Equivalence is to equate two things without taking into account the underlying differences which make the comparison completely invalid. A perfect example comes from the media attention towards climate change. Although 95% of scientists and an overwhemling number of publications (over 10,000) have shown strong evidence to man-made climate change, the media still gives roughly equal attention to scientists who express views that climate change is caused by humans (53%) as they do to those who say it is caused by nature (47%).
So with all this said, will the false debate on climate change ever end? No way.
Deniers have built elaborate arguments and rationalizations that they can't let go of, even in the face of direct factual refutation. They claim their views are based on science, but clearly take politicized positions and attack climate scientists (scientists in Australia have to work under high security because of death threats and vandalism to their property). The emotional tone itself reveals that these attacks on science are motivated attacks.
Muller's data won’t change anything. It is just fuel for the fire. No scientific result, of any kind, is going to end the imaginary debate in the public arena (it ended long ago in the scientific arena). There is only one way to make deniers go away. We need climate change policy. When that day comes, the debate becomes irrelevant. The deniers still won’t buy it. But they will have ceased to matter, even politically, and the media and audience will have to move on.
Galapagos Islands
(1) Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". PNAS)
No comments:
Post a Comment