Global warming

[Mintmaster]

Hmm., seems like he's an idiot.

Turns out that I was wasting my time, as someone has already thoroughly debunked his article:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html

 

[Scott_Arm]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

One of the worst things that ever happened to the climate change discussion was Al Gore making a movie about it.

 

[KimB]

That's not much of a counterargument. The real question is whether or not we include 2x more warming due to moist air or not. If yes, then there's cause for doubting our models.

No, it isn't. But then, why should I bother with a counter-argument when he didn't bother to present any evidence whatsoever to support his? That which has been presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[KimB]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

One of the worst things that ever happened to the climate change discussion was Al Gore making a movie about it.

Mooney is an ass. He seems to think that somehow if nobody talked about anything that would make anybody uncomfortable, things would be all hunky-dory. And what's more, the short-term effects of somebody being presented with something that counteracts their beliefs is completely irrelevant. If Mooney's thesis were correct, nobody could ever be convinced of anything whatsoever.

No, the worst thing that ever happened to the climate change discussion was the large infusion of cash from fossil fuel interests to conservative think tanks that resulted in the publication of vast swaths of misinformation and lies regarding climate change.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Mooney is an ass. He seems to think that somehow if nobody talked about anything that would make anybody uncomfortable, things would be all hunky-dory. And what's more, the short-term effects of somebody being presented with something that counteracts their beliefs is completely irrelevant. If Mooney's thesis were correct, nobody could ever be convinced of anything whatsoever.

I didn't really interpret that piece in that way. I think he was just saying we need to be aware of the way we make decisions, and to be conscious of the fact that we are all biased because of our physiology. I also thought some of the points were pretty interesting in describing some of the opinions expressed in this thread.

No, the worst thing that ever happened to the climate change discussion was the large infusion of cash from fossil fuel interests to conservative think tanks that resulted in the publication of vast swaths of misinformation and lies regarding climate change.

Yeah, you got me there. Al Gore in some sense didn't help, because he made the issue appear more political by being the messenger.

 

[KimB]

I didn't really interpret that piece in that way. I think he was just saying we need to be aware of the way we make decisions, and to be conscious of the fact that we are all biased because of our physiology. I also thought some of the points were pretty interesting in describing some of the opinions expressed in this thread.

Yeah, I think the problem is that you haven't been paying attention to what Mooney has been writing in this regard. He's been on this schitck for quite a while now that people shouldn't be what he calls confrontational such that, for example, the people to blame for all of the religious conservatives getting up in arms are the atheists who dare to speak out, stuff like that.

Yeah, you got me there. Al Gore in some sense didn't help, because he made the issue appear more political by being the messenger.

Maybe, I suppose. But bear in mind that the right-wing noise machine has been claiming it was all political long before Gore put together that film, and the fact that Gore had left politics when he made the film is strong evidence against it being political.

That the right-wing noise machine still claims it's political is no surprise. It seems to me that they'd have found something to whine about no matter what, so it hardly seems sensible to me to worry over-much about these things when getting the information out there. I mean, just look at the massive issue they made out of the completely benign climate-gate e-mail 'scandal'.

 

[rpg.314]

No, it isn't. But then, why should I bother with a counter-argument when he didn't bother to present any evidence whatsoever to support his? That which has been presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Yes and no. He didn't point out specifics, but he did raise a question about hot air balloons not finding what the models were assuming. And I believe that is something that should be discussed.

 

[pjbliverpool]

For what it's worth, Al Gores film completely changed my outlook on climate change. Before it I was in the "I'm not too sure" camp - basically I didn't know anything about it and just listened to the media. AFter the film though I'm a firm supported of climate change science. I keep trying to get my skeptic girlfriend to watch it.

 

[rpg.314]

Skeptical science seems like a nice site.

 

[Mintmaster]

I didn't really interpret that piece in that way. I think he was just saying we need to be aware of the way we make decisions, and to be conscious of the fact that we are all biased because of our physiology. I also thought some of the points were pretty interesting in describing some of the opinions expressed in this thread.



Yeah, you got me there. Al Gore in some sense didn't help, because he made the issue appear more political by being the messenger.

Agreed on both points. I thought the article was quite insightful. A bit depressing, but that last line is something we should all keep in mind:

In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.

I really think Gore hurt the movement more than he helped it. Part of it is bad luck, as a lot of the counterarguments weren't as thoroughly debunked at the time, but he made too many assertions that were easy to refute (even if most of the objections by denialists have no merit), his energy use (whether carbon offset or not) makes him an easy target for the hypocrite label, and his political history makes him the wrong spokesperson.

 

[Mintmaster]

Yeah, I think the problem is that you haven't been paying attention to what Mooney has been writing in this regard. He's been on this schitck for quite a while now that people shouldn't be what he calls confrontational such that, for example, the people to blame for all of the religious conservatives getting up in arms are the atheists who dare to speak out, stuff like that.

Here's the thing, Chalnoth: You don't need to convince people who are already convinced. You need to convince some of the rest.

If we're talking about something like racism, where it's mostly squashed and only a minority of people are causing the biggest problems, go ahead and use mockery of racists without giving a shit what they think. I think it'll work quite well. For something like AGW, where around half the populace and the majority of elected politicians (in the US) don't believe in it, what you suggest won't work.

The rise of secularity and science in the last few hundred years has been though education and truth, not riling up the conservatives. If I were to make a documentary about AGW, for example, I would point out the hypocrisy of GreenPeace's protests against nuclear power, and how it lead to the proliferation of coal. You need a hook to make yourself look credible to the people that you're trying to convince.

 

[KimB]

Here's the thing, Chalnoth: You don't need to convince people who are already convinced. You need to convince some of the rest.

The problem is that you can't do that by pandering to their beliefs. If you pander, you just give them a way to duck out and continue to believe their nonsense. Making them feel comfortable, in other words, works against your goal of convincing them, because it allows them to fit whatever you have said into their worldview.

The only way to convince them that their worldview is actually wrong is to shake them up, to make them uncomfortable. Obviously Mooney is correct that when you do this, the short-term effect is to make them hold to their old beliefs more strongly. But if they keep being bombarded with the facts, and don't get continual reinforcement from elsewhere, then many will eventually be forced to accept the facts.

If we're talking about something like racism, where it's mostly squashed and only a minority of people are causing the biggest problems, go ahead and use mockery of racists without giving a shit what they think. I think it'll work quite well. For something like AGW, where around half the populace and the majority of elected politicians (in the US) don't believe in it, what you suggest won't work.

The rise of secularity and science in the last few hundred years has been though education and truth, not riling up the conservatives. If I were to make a documentary about AGW, for example, I would point out the hypocrisy of GreenPeace's protests against nuclear power, and how it lead to the proliferation of coal. You need a hook to make yourself look credible to the people that you're trying to convince.

Um, the problem is that education and truth rile up the conservatives. People like Mooney are suggesting that we compromise on education and truth in order to avoid this. And that's bullshit.

 

[Squilliam]

I think Global warming would be well on it's way to being solved if people used Kelvin rather than Celsius or Fahrenheit. If the weatherman stands up and tells you that 300K is a sunny day and 290K is a warm day and 280K is a cool day then it wouldn't be hard to grasp that a mere 1% change in temperature is actually significant. Especially if they remind people that a 1% movement in body temperature either way is pretty dangerous to ones health.

 

[Mintmaster]

The problem is that you can't do that by pandering to their beliefs. If you pander, you just give them a way to duck out and continue to believe their nonsense. Making them feel comfortable, in other words, works against your goal of convincing them, because it allows them to fit whatever you have said into their worldview.

I disagree. If you don't pander, then outright rejection will let them continue believing all of their misplaced beliefs. You can only convince someone gradually.

But if they keep being bombarded with the facts, and don't get continual reinforcement from elsewhere, then many will eventually be forced to accept the facts.

You can't do that to a group as large as the AGW denialist camp, because they will bombard themselves with twice as many counter arguments. That's why I mentioned the racist example.

Um, the problem is that education and truth rile up the conservatives.

Come on, now you're just being a condescending prick. Why do you think they listen to Rush Limbaugh and read the Bible? Because they want education and truth. They're just getting it from the wrong place, and see no reason to believe other sources that run so completely counter to their belief systems.

You, for example, automatically assume everything from Fox News is shit because their track record conflicts with your belief system (ignore for a moment that your belief system is based on science, because that's irrelevant in terms of human psychology). If they had some information that was true but against your preconceived notions, what would it take for you to take them seriously? Certainly not packaging it with the rest of the Fox News BS. What they would have to do is enter your belief system and introduce the fact that way.

People like Mooney are suggesting that we compromise on education and truth in order to avoid this. And that's bullshit.

Absolutely not. They are suggesting that you gradually expose the truth rather than scare people away from it. The backfire effect is very real and shows you how not to educate a populace.

Consider how Barack Obama convinces the conservative public to invest in renewable energy. He says that the rest of the world has already decided AGW is real and is demanding clean energy. So he says that we must invest in R&D, create local demand to keep the US as the industry leader, etc. Eventually, you can stake a claim that railing against AGW is unpatriotic, because it's a huge US industry.

 

[rpg.314]

The problem is that you can't do that by pandering to their beliefs. If you pander, you just give them a way to duck out and continue to believe their nonsense. Making them feel comfortable, in other words, works against your goal of convincing them, because it allows them to fit whatever you have said into their worldview.

The only way to convince them that their worldview is actually wrong is to shake them up, to make them uncomfortable. Obviously Mooney is correct that when you do this, the short-term effect is to make them hold to their old beliefs more strongly. But if they keep being bombarded with the facts, and don't get continual reinforcement from elsewhere, then many will eventually be forced to accept the facts.

There are plenty of deluded idiots around to give them reinforcement.

 

[KimB]

There are plenty of deluded idiots around to give them reinforcement.

Yes, this is true. And this is why it is almost impossible to ever convince anybody who is in the core of a particular belief structure that they're wrong. It does happen on very rare occasions, but it just isn't common. Instead, you have to whittle them away from the edges: the people who are only barely connected.

And, it is simply a fact that showing that those beliefs are nasty and evil is a good way to get many people to disown those beliefs. If it wasn't, then the right wing noise machine wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is.

 

[KimB]

Come on, now you're just being a condescending prick. Why do you think they listen to Rush Limbaugh and read the Bible? Because they want education and truth. They're just getting it from the wrong place, and see no reason to believe other sources that run so completely counter to their belief systems.

And the only way to convince them to pay attention to other sources is to demonstrate that those sources are wrong. That basically requires showing where Rush Limbaugh lies, showing where Fox News Lies, and showing where the Bible is blatantly false or immoral. In other words, you need to do exactly the sorts of things that people like Mooney say you shouldn't do.

 

[Mintmaster]

And the only way to convince them to pay attention to other sources is to demonstrate that those sources are wrong.

No, that's not the only way. The better way is to convince them bit by bit, leveraging their own belief system. Science didn't progress because it attacked religion, it simply ignored it and showed its merit bit by bit.

There are a lot of things in the Quran that are wrong/immoral, but you don't stop Islamic extremism by pointing them out. In fact, that makes the problem worse.

Anyway, where are these Mooney articles that you object so strongly to?

 

[KimB]

No, that's not the only way. The better way is to convince them bit by bit, leveraging their own belief system. Science didn't progress because it attacked religion, it simply ignored it and showed its merit bit by bit.

There are a lot of things in the Quran that are wrong/immoral, but you don't stop Islamic extremism by pointing them out. In fact, that makes the problem worse.

Anyway, where are these Mooney articles that you object so strongly to?

Well, here is one example
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2010/02/vaccine-saga/

And here's a (rather lengthy) takedown:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/02/building_bridges_to_the_leaders_of_the_a.php

The main point here is that the people that become more strongly convinced of their views when faced with opposition were never going to be convinced in the first place. The best thing we can do, really, is tar the whole movement as stupid and moronic (because it is), making it difficult for those who are either marginally attached or who haven't gotten into it to want to be associated with the movement.

 

[KimB]

By the way, for a bit more of an argument as to why this sort of non-confrontational bullcrap is actually counterproductive, just take a look at the political arena. Starting around the 80's, we saw a shift in the political strategies of the right and left. The right took on an ideological, take-no-prisoners approach, while the left took on a more milquetoast "talk to the center" approach.

And how has that worked out?

Well, politically, the Republican strategy has been much more effective, with the Republicans having their first resurgence in control of congress since the Great Depression, and the presidency controlled by Republicans for the majority of the last three decades.

But then, much more damning, is the specific policy proposals that are now deemed acceptable. Policies which were once proposed by Republicans are now demonized as "socialist" (e.g. the recent health care reform legislation). Far from helping to convince anybody, shifting to the center in order to keep from offending people has allowed the Republicans to capture still more people to their views.

While there is a very good place for straightforward analysis that doesn't go out of its way to offend, there is zero place for compromising on truth in order to prevent offense.