Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Among some social scientists there are claims that public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change have become ideological or cultural markers to such an extent that asking on a survey are you liberal/conservative, or Democrat/Republican, or accept/reject anthropogenic climate change -- behave as if they are 3 different indicators for the same thing.
There's also new research about "solution aversion" as one main dynamic behind this: people reject scientific warnings if they think the policy implications are ideologically unacceptable.
But if you interview people about *why* they believe what they do, you may just hear sciencey-sounding rationalizations. There's a whole blog industry out there to provide them.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
I'll answer your questions when I get home to a computer with a keyboard and you can use me for the interview
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
Bhumi
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2015 - 05:34pm PT
|
Thanks Limping Crab, much appreciated.
Chiloe...interesting thoughts. Can you point me to one or two of those articles you mentioned?
I've also seen data that shows education about climate change and climate science does little to alter someone's perspective about climate change.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Chiloe - that makes perfect sense in the US. But what about the rest of the world? How does the general opinion on climate change reflect political affiliation? Given the lack of Faux "News" brainwashing I suspect the rest of the planet might not line up in the same way.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
If its about the former, then Roland would be a great guy to interview
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/home/alumni/2007.pdf
In reading Roland Stull's page there it appears that he thinks overpopulation is the problem - that if there weren't so many people, the CO2 they produce would not be such a problem! Anybody want to do the math on how many people we can get rid of and then carry on as usual?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Who knows..but we will find out eventually.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
1. How would you describe your perspective on climate change? I believe the climate is changing and I believe humans are messing up the planet. I'm not certain how related those two things are. Maybe humans are effecting it, maybe they're not. I'm skeptical of people who are certain that they are.
2. Why do you feel this way? I feel this way because I have done a lot of research on the topic and there are many instances in science where someone was certain and later proved wrong. It's happened to me and it happened to the people who thought the climate was cooling and the people who thought the hole in the ozone layer was going to rapidly grow.
3. Are there any specific people who have influenced your opinion on this topic? My professors, specifically the class I took on climate change during my masters in ecology.
4. Are there any specific informational sources (news, websites) that have influenced your opinion on this topic? The discrepancies I see between information provided by science and environmental organizations and news agencies. I've received fundraising papers from the Sierra Club asking for money to prevent logging of Giant Sequoias. Nobody was trying to log Sequoias, there was the possibility of logging in Giant Sequoia National Monument but the majority of people who received that were deceived. Propaganda vs science, no matter what side it's one, drives me nuts and is a problem in the climate change arena as well.
5. Are there any specific statements about climate change that you find hard to believe? If so, why? The statement that it is scientific fact and a consensus. Anyone who has studied atmospheric chemistry knows how intensely complicated it is and to assume anyone can be certain about models is absurd. Is it likely that our contribution to greenhouse gasses directly effects the climate? Absolutely. Is it certain that this will happen and the planet does not have mechanisms to mitigate the change? Absolutely not, so people shouldn't attack those who are not completely convinced.
6. Is there anything else you would like to share about this topic? Science is not unbiased. For example, none of the three research grants I wrote in the past three years were related to climate change but I was advised (told) to include something about climate change in two of my proposals if I wanted funding. I did. It worked. Scientific research is HEAVILY influenced by money, whether from big oil companies or government grants for clean energy.
Let me know if you need any other info for your assignment, good luck!
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Chiloe...interesting thoughts. Can you point me to one or two of those articles you mentioned?
The "cultural" perspective has been developed most actively by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale, headed by Dan Kahan. Here's one of his most recent papers:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057
I think Kahan's right that there is a cultural element to public beliefs about climate science. Also, the patterns of response on surveys do indeed make it look as though climate beliefs, ideology and political party are all measuring one underlying dimension. On one recent survey, climate beliefs turned out to be the second most polarizing question, after approval of Obama.
On the other hand I think Kahan overemphasizes peer pressure and social interactions as the main source for these cultural beliefs. There's plenty of evidence for economic effects and top-down information/misinformation campaigns being important as well. One concept here is called "elite cues," where people form/strengthen their beliefs by listening to their political or media leaders. Also, "biased assimilation" whereby people seek out or retain information that supports their prejudices (very active on the "climate skeptics" thread here, where a number of posters get most of their talking points from politicized bloggers).
There also is psychological and even physiological evidence that some people are more disposed to see the world in black/white, us/them, good/evil categories, whereas others are more comfortable with complexity, uncertainty, shades of gray. Scientists are more often the latter; and some ideologues much more the former. Yet another strand of research, somewhat overlapping with both above, has looked at the role of "conspiracist ideation" (tendency to believe in conspiracies).
I've also seen data that shows education about climate change and climate science does little to alter someone's perspective about climate change.
There is active research on just how that works, or put more constructively, what works best. One issue has to do with "consensus communication," which means communicating just how strong (high 80s to high 90s) the consensus is among scientists that humans are now changing Earth's climate. Evidence has been advanced to support claims that consensus communication does, or does not, work. My own view is that nothing works for everybody, the question should be what works for whom.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Chiloe - that makes perfect sense in the US. But what about the rest of the world? How does the general opinion on climate change reflect political affiliation? Given the lack of Faux "News" brainwashing I suspect the rest of the planet might not line up in the same way.
Good question, one that international surveys are starting to answer. From the most recent I gather that rejection of climate science is occurring on ideological lines in other countries too, though often not so vociferously as in the US. Maybe some have caught up, as there are strong media interests pushing in that direction.
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
Limping...... you pass.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
Given the lack of Faux "News" brainwashing I suspect the rest of the planet might not line up in the same way.
Doug, you're assuming the media has a different role in any other country in the world?
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Doug, you're assuming the media has a different role in any other country in the world?
I don't consider Faux "media". It's a propaganda machine second to none.
What do you have in Canada that rivals it? Canada wouldn't let Faux in because of the blantant lies.
Just how familiar are you with Faux and their programs? Much less the fact there are people in this great nation that have that crap turned on 24/7/365. And I'm not kidding. My mother goes to sleep with it on. We can't even have a real conversation.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
I'm thinking maybe that people are interested in what class the assignment is for. Earth science? Psychology? Information science? Sociology? You're not looking for well informed perspectives (experts) - you're looking for poorly informed perspectives? Sorry - might be tough to find those in a public Internet forum :-)
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
Bhumi
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2015 - 12:22pm PT
|
This turned out nicely. Thanks LimpingCrab and AspenDougy for the responses.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Limpingcrab nailed it....
Waaay too much money involved to ignore that bias in "research" on the actual cause(s). On the other hand, can't ignore big pieces of white stuff dissappearing from my favorite rockpiles...
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Ok I think I fit the demographic of responders that you're screening for. I'll answer your questions even if you prefer not to answer mine :-) I'll do so in a public Internet forum for others approval/disapproval/amusement as well as to help you in your class. Here goes:
How would you describe your perspective on climate change? I think that it's probably changing due to man made activities. I'm uncertain of the extent and effects.
Why do you feel this way Are you looking for feelings or for thoughts? Maybe I'm doing this wrong.
Partly graduate education in biology and information science has taught me to by and large trust the scientific process while being skeptical that the information is interpreted and presented and regurgitated in an accurate way. It's complicated. I don't have the resources to conduct all of the research myself, so I need to rely on others to do so, and I've found that other people sometimes make mistakes. They're subject to misinformation and wacky human belief processes and their own agendas. But what are you going to do, it's advantageous to believe something.
Are there any specific people who have influenced your opinion on this topic? Surprisingly (just because I don't completely understand) Jesus has taught me that I need to think for myself and rely on my own beliefs.
are there any specific informational sources that have influenced your opinion on this subject?
Yes. Facebook is a big one. Even the well reputed intelligent scientists that I know still seem to fall prey to our wacky us/them thinking patterns where what we think makes more sense than what they think, while maintaining an unshakeable believe in the objectivity of their own information processing capabilities and results.
are there any specific statements about climate change that you find hard to believe? Yea. I don't think that Al Gore really started it all, even if he was a big part of promoting the idea.
is there anything else that you would like to share about this subject Sure thanks. I think that science is only as good as we are. If I understood every single bit of information that we know about climate change, how much would that be? Would that information lead me to a correct (true) belief about climate change, or a well reasoned well informed incorrect belief? The best we have is the best we have. That includes some wacky sh#t an overwhelming need for self confirmation bias just so we can get ourselves out of bed in the morning and out the door. We process information based on assumptions (am I telling the truth?) and then when we reach our conclusion we forget that we made an assumption. All in all given the resources that I'm willing to devote to climate change, yes I believe it's happening, and I'm skeptical that I honestly understand whether that's true.
Hey thanks best of luck to all of us.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
For the most part, the "skeptics" here are willfully ignorant cranks.
Good luck.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
I'm not sure what you mean by a climate change "skeptic," since skepticism forms the foundation of science. "Contrarian" or "denier" would be better choices, I think.
John is right, the term "skeptic" gets abused much in this context, as self-labeling by many people who are anything but skeptical -- inclined to believe whatever fits their ideology, and disbelieve whatever doesn't.
Whereas scientists in contrast (at their best anyway) often are truly skeptical, testing new and old ideas for themselves.
When the IPCC First Assessment Report came out in 1990, many (perhaps most) scientists were quite skeptical about this hypothesis that greenhouse gas buildup was changing the climate. Since then there has been a huge amount of research by tens of thousands of scientists in many different fields. That process and its findings persuaded most of the true skeptics, giving rise to the strong consensus among active scientists today that human activities are changing the climate -- agreement on this point ranges from the high 80s to the high 90s depending on who and what you survey.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!