Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 Next
Comments 57801 to 57850:
-
Esop at 03:18 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
Good stuff, Dana. Looking forward to the debunking of Solheims ridiculous claims. He is like our (Norwegian) local version of Pat Michaels, ie. a serial disinformer. Got a free pass to the press, while the realists, like Rasmus (Benestad) who submit a written debunking of the misinformation usually won't get their rebuttal printed. This is more often than not the case in Norways major newspaper, Aftenposten. Once upon a time, it reported the science, but has turned into a bona fide denialist rag, unfortunately. I sense that the disinformers are getting rather desperate these days. Could it have something to do with the fact that their own favorite dataset (UAH AMSU) is at an all time high level right now, indicating that 2013 could likely be the hottest on record, just like Hansen predicted years ago. Contrast that to the deniers forecast of dramatic cooling. Just like we saw back in 08 when Hansen predicted a record in 2010 while the denier choir were sure the temps would continue to drop. -
dana1981 at 03:09 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
From a purely psychological perspective it's not odd. James Hansen is one of the world's foremost climate scientists, one who has been making very good climate model-based predictions for decades, and one who actively advocates for moving away from fossil fuels immediately. Thus it's easy to see why "Hansen was wrong" is a psychologically appealing argument for those who are in denial about AGW. And the further he was 'wrong', the more it supports their denial, which is why they argue for Scenario A, even though it's actually the furthest from reality. For those of us who are climate realists it's very strange that they keep making this obviously wrong argument. But that's because it's difficult for a realist to understand the psychology of a person who's in denial. -
KR at 02:44 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
Dana1981 - it might be worth a combined graph, 1998 values first, then 2010 values to the right, to give some perspective under the same scale. Might even add some actual lines connecting the bars, although that could be a little busy visually. I would completely agree - arguing about differences from Scenario A is a complete strawman fallacy - one often tied to a "CO2 is the only forcing" error. I really find it odd that the 'skeptics' keep cycling back to such a bad argument. -
dana1981 at 01:40 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
Oh yeah Alex, longer timeframe = larger forcings = larger y-axis in the updated version. -
Alex C at 01:15 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
I was thrown off for a second by the seemingly smaller methane contribution over the longer period, then noticed the scales of the graphs are different. So, just a heads-up to anyone wanting to do comparisons between the two time periods. -
L. Hamilton at 01:10 AM on 17 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Using different survey data, analytical methods and "science literacy" indicators, we also found that more scientifically-literate respondents tend to be more polarized. Hamilton et al. (2012) "Public knowledge and concern about polar-region warming" in Polar Geography. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1088937X.2012.684155 There are some differences between our conclusions and those of Kahan et al., however. 1. In our analysis of both 2006 and 2010 General Social Surveys, the 2011 NCERA national survey, and 2012 statewide polls in New Hampshire, despite the polarizing effects we also found positive main effects for science literacy on concern/belief regarding climate change. It does not appear that science literacy's effects are totally overthrown by politics, although they are moderated. 2. Explanations for these patterns emphasize that science knowledge is not one thing. General background knowledge helps one to acquire and frame, perhaps selectively, true or false "facts" that reinforce one's prejudices. However, the specific content of those facts -- a more detailed kind of science literacy -- can be significantly different depending on politics. A new paper examining the behavior of more detailed climate science knowledge or is currently in review. -
curiousd at 00:49 AM on 17 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Hello All, Curious D back with more questions pertaining to explaining all this to a basic physics class. So.. 1. You folks have taught me that there is a logarithmic dependence of dF in terms of CO2 by empirical results or simulations. Therefore, an exponential growth of CO2 concentration leads to a linear increase in expected T with time. But.. 2. there are separate fast responses and long term responses. Therefore: 3. If by magic, all CO2 going into the atmosphere were to stop, there would still be another shoe (or maybe more than one shoe) to drop. I figured out the predicted temperature increase of Hansen's 1981 paper assuming only his CO2 alone plus the constant humidity water vapor based on his results from his "model one" and I think it gives just about the observed 0.8 degrees C. O.K. BUT 4. The "removing ice decreased albedo" feedback has not really struck home yet from assuming CO2 about 40% increase over pre industrial levels. Correct? Then: 5. Is a 40% increase in CO2 enough to eventually melt Greenland?(i.e. even in a magic world with no more CO2 Greenland ice is eventually toast anyway. Yes? No?) 6. How can there be a constant climate sensitivity, including long term feed backs, if large fractions of the world ice were gone? If there were no ice left would there not be an "as bad as it can get" effect on the climate sensitivity? No ice left means no ice-albedo feedback anymore? (Yes? No?) I am completely on board with the notion that AGW is probably an existential threat exceeding all out nuclear warfare, but for me it is really, really important to have all my ducks in a row when teaching this stuff. So I do not see how the idea of a constant eventual increase in temperature is associated with CO2 doubling if you compare the situation with lots of ice left (now) with no ice left (eventually BAU), because of the "as bad as it can get effect in terms of "ice melting - albedo lessening feedback". -
DSL at 00:37 AM on 17 June 2012There is no consensus
Example, Punksta? The social construction of knowledge via the scientific method takes the garbage out eventually. The more scrutiny the discipline gets, the quicker the garbage is taken out. I can't think of a discipline that is not funded by a political institution(s). Solely? Probably not. I keep thinking of Jeffrey Wigand's research while he was working for a tobacco company. He did good work, but he wasn't allowed to publish his findings (often the case with private research). The scientist wasn't the problem, though. Wigand wasn't pushing an agenda (well, not true - he was working on smoke-free cigarettes and that may be why he decided to work for the company); the political institution (the company) was the corrupting force (well, it didn't force Wigand to lie about his findings; it just prevented publication either in physical expression (engineered product) or in sharing with the rest of the world). The diversification and dispersal of science throughout the university system is a good way to keep politics (in the mainstream sense) from taking a heavy hand in most sciences. -
chriskoz at 21:22 PM on 16 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
I disagree that the real issue for climate is coal, because (as scaddenp & NSherrard seem to argue) we run out of oil very soon and there'll be no petroleum. Tar sands & shales will no doubt provide very large of domestic (CAN & US) reserves for potential petroleum production. And that's a very sad prospect for future generations, because shale is one of the dirtiest fuels: it produced the most CO2 per unit of usable energy. When we run out of oil, then tars & shales can become economically viable and will be exploited if no better alternatives are developped. The prospect of exploiting resources with big CO2 footprint is very tempting for environmental and scientific ignorants and certaqinly very possible by policy makers like Romney, if they listen to (-snip-) individuals like Singer. Therefore I totally understand Jim Hansen who turned to activism by joining the rally against Keystone pipeline & got himself arrested. And he succeeded with thisaction: Obama vetoed it later. IMO, that was a very impotant decision with respect of US economy's cabron footprint.Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. -
Punksta at 20:24 PM on 16 June 2012There is no consensus
So a consensus in science is different from a political one.
In theory, yes. Does though assume that scientists behave as scientists ought to, eg making their data available etc etc, and more generally searching for truth rather than pushing an agenda. Which, when the sole funder of a science is political institutions, may be easier said than done. And so an apparent science consensus may in reality be a political consensus in disguise. -
GillianB at 16:14 PM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
As things are now, it's refreshing to hear statements like this coming from Americans -- "Though my political leanings are most definitely right-of-center, and it would be convenient to believe otherwise, I believe there is sufficient evidence that global warming is a serious environmental concern." We could do worse than give them more oxygen in the US. It's a different story in Europe where even the right side of politics seems to gets it. For me, it's important to emphasise every time that the right/left politicization of climate issues is nowhere near universal. In 2009, when Copenhagen city council voted to become the world's first carbon-neutral city, how close was the vote -- 50/50 or perhaps a sweeping 80/20? It was unanimous. It's not surprising that they are on track so far to achieve their 2025 goal. -
sailrick at 15:41 PM on 16 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
@6 Rob Painting Thanks for the response. -
BodHod at 14:44 PM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
I'm a bit of a fence-sitter - interestingly both politically and on the subject of climate change risk. I find SkS to be a beacon amongst the many sources of dodgy and biased information on the subject - so you do a great job - thanks! I don't mind the personal bias of authors being evident, but at times authors stray beyond bias and make the occasional slightly barbed comment. This has certainly annoyed skeptic friends who I've referred to SkS in order to back up an argument. Therefore it does seem that, at least occasionally, the hard work you do explaining the science is spoiled by allowing your political opinions to taint otherwise politically unsullied argument. Keep up the good work. As far as possible keep out the politics. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:29 PM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
From his paper on prizesPrizes are no panacea. Indeed, barring some serendipitous discovery, there is no panacea for the climate policy challenge. Yet technology inducement prizes offer a relatively low-cost way to encourage greater innovation than traditional grant-based R&D funding. In order to encourage greater levels of technological innovation, it would also be desirable to reduce existing regulatory barriers to the development and deployment of alternative technologies, as well as to place a price on carbon, ideally with a simple and straightforward carbon tax.
When people argue that there is no possible technological fix for the carbon emission problem they are strengthening his argument for prizes. He also argues that the atmosphere as a commons needs super-competition since it cannot be protected by competition. An argument against his proposal is that prizes are a gamble. But considering the magnitude of the needed reductions, a seems like a worthwhile gamble to me, basically libertarian and a believer in innovation. -
Charliec65 at 12:25 PM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
The Kahn et al study corroborates other studies and observation in social psychology; Jonathan Haidt's, The Righteous Mind is worth a look. We're not rational creatures and are excellent at bending the facts to suit our ends, and we don't like being pushed. Community, friendship, commonly shared problems drive our social network. We're great warriors too, but wars cost lives and treasure. The best you're ever going to do is to engage people in making their own observations, and using their powers of reasoning, and one has to build on these innate skills and foster their use through practice. A story is worth way more than a pile of facts. -
Composer99 at 11:31 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
ralbin: Adler has discussed why a cap & trade solution is unsatisfactory from a conservative-libertarian perspective in the Atlantic article compared to the fee & dividend approach advocated by Hansen (namely, per Adler the former is more susceptible to rent-seeking & special interest interference than the latter). In addition, I am not certain how your claim Similarly, his recommendation that legal barriers to deployment be eased is essentially advocacy of increased governmental regulatory power. follows from what Adler wrote. In fact, the example he gives, where a wind power project has been postponed for some time by delays in obtaining permits, is much more likely to be the opposite of what you assert. Surely reducing permit requirements is a rollback of governmental regulatory power rather than an increase? -
Andy Skuce at 09:50 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Dave123 @ 15 I don't quite see it that way, but what does bother me in some of this analysis is that there's a bit of a patronizing air to it; at the extreme, treating your opponents' views as being the manifestation of some kind of social or psychological pathology that needs to handled with kid gloves, could easily appear condescending. To be sure, if I detected some "skeptic" trying to administer sugar-coated medicine to me, I'd be offended. I think that there are potential sources of blow-back if a culturally sensitive approach to communication is done clumsily. For it to work, your respect for the opponents' cultural values has to be genuine and I'm sure I'm not the only one in the climate debate who finds that kind of authenticity hard to fake. -
Tom Smerling at 09:23 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Ralbin @#5 I fully understand why some of Adler's far-right critics say that given what Adler wrote, he can't be a real conservative. I have a harder time understanding why we would want to reinforce that logic, thereby forcing people to choose between climate science vs. their identity and their peer group. How is that a winning strategy? BTW, Dan Kahan (referenced in Andy Skuce's SkS post immediately before this one) explores this issue in great detail through his research on "Cultural Cognition." Maintaining one's identity and one's status among peers trump objectivity almost every time. -
Tom Smerling at 08:47 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Dennis - re: think tanks, I was actually thinking of Peter Wehner, who is at the neo-con Ethics & Public Policy Center, described by SourceWatch as "the cutting edge of the neoconservative-driven culture war against progressive theology and secularism, and the associated effort to ensure right-wing control of the Republican Party." To be more accurate, I could have written "academia or some think tanks." -
shoyemore at 07:31 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
One point about the Kahan study is that it is US only. The US has the most "structured" right-left (or right-centre) divide in the democratic world. Boundaries are much more fluid in Europe, and I think the Kahan results would not be duplicated there. However, I could not hazard a guess on how different - probably the alignment of minimizing climate risk and hierarchical-individualism would be weaker. Here is a recent Eurobarometer Poll, where (in general) Europeans rate climate change as a worse problem than the economy, but behind provision of food and water for the world's poor. Eurobarometer Poll on AGW Australia seems to more resemble the US rather than Europe. But I could be wrong there. -
Dennis at 06:42 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Tom @4: Do you know of any of the conservative think tanks (e.g., Cato, Heritage, AEI) that accepts the IPCC scientific reports, or major scientific organization (e.g., AAAS, NAS, AGU) scientific statements on climate change? My mind wanders to a guy like Patrick Michaels at Cato, who clearly does not. When you write about "tolerance of diversity of opinion" at conservative think tanks, I can't think of any regarding climate science. In fact, I find the opposite, as I mention above. Adler is at a university -- a very different beast entirely -- and yet another community that conservatives routinely attack as part of the "liberal bias" -- even for science! -
Dave123 at 06:34 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
This is a somewhat political opinion but all this talk of the need to defer to the delicate sensibilities of the alleged conservatives is simply a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome...and in the long run is counter productive. You don't end temper tantrum politics by coddling the miscreants. -
shoyemore at 06:28 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Andy S, Yes, the perceptions of risk in climate change, and the policies you are prepared to support are closely aligned (as you say). However, Roberts did not make any remarks refuting the useful observation of the Brookings poll that personal experience counts more than scientific evidence, to which the public get only limited exposure. If anything, it shows the importance of highlighting the scientific explanation on occasions where public attention is held by important weather events. -
ralbin at 06:23 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
While Adler deserves some credit for breaking away from the party line, this piece isn't a "conservative's approach" it's a white flag of surrender. Conservatives traditionally have 2 responses to externalities like global warming - deny they exist (Milton Friedman) or claim that property rights can be assigned to construct a market (Ronald Coase). The latter is the cap and trade strategy. Adler's piece is an implicit repudiation of bedrock principles of conservatism. The claim that a carbon tax is a "small government" solution is dubious. Any effective carbon tax will have to be global, requiring considerable international negotiations and considerable adjustments of present world economic arrangements. These are hardly "small government" tasks. Similarly, his recommendation that legal barriers to deployment be eased is essentially advocacy of increased governmental regulatory power. Adler is trying to run away from conservatism while maintaining some rhetorical cover. That Adler proposes remedies that violate conservative principles, at least those of American conservatives, demonstrates the bankruptcy of conservative ideas. -
KR at 06:10 AM on 16 June 2012Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
balanceact - See the intermediate version of this post - his sensitivity estimate was 4.2°C/doubling. -
Andy Skuce at 05:55 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Chris G @ 9&10 I found the reporting of the statistics in the Kahan Study hard to understand. A few more tables, bar charts and crossplots would have made things much easier to grasp. Also, some of their classifications were not very clearly defined. On their Figure S4 there are supposed to be dotted red lines showing standard deviations, which don't appear on the document I downloaded. -
Tom Smerling at 05:46 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Dennis @#3 -- Adler has been saying this for several years (check out his links above). To my knowledge he is still widely-regarded as a conservative analyst in good standing, as is Peter Wehner and others. There's more tolerance of diversity of opinion in think tanks than, say, among Republican political candidates. BKSea @#1 Nobody claims that Adler is going to change anybody overnight. What I'm saying is that if we're serious about getting movement on climate policy, it is very important to encourage and promote intellectally-honest conservatives who accept the science, are searching for solutions, and can serve as role models for others. That would make it a lot easier for rank-and-file conservatives -- I'm not talking here about denizens of denial websites -- to take a stand. Think about old ad slogan for Levy's Jewish rye bread: "You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's" They increased their market share, and made it into the Ad Slogan Hall of Fame. If we want to make progress, we need to be able to say "You don't have to be liberal to accept climate science." -
Andy Skuce at 05:21 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
shoyemore@8 The Kahan Study dealt with the perception of climate change risk, not whether people thought the climate was changing or not. What policies people are prepared to support is, I would guess, closely aligned with the level of risk they perceive. So, I think the energy policy parts of the poll are more comparable to Kahan's study, particularly because the responses were more politically polarized than the purely climate focussed questions. But I certainly agree, perceptions of the reality of climate change have a lot to do with the weather trends they are experiencing. I suspect that on the subject of smoking it was both personal experience and the clear scientific evidence that caused the shift in public opinion. The fact that smoking also affects others nearby makes it an easier bad habit to portray as anti-social than, say, overeating/obesity, where the damaging health effects are confined to the individual (Michael Bloomberg, take note). -
balanceact at 04:53 AM on 16 June 2012Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
What was Hansen using as the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 back in 1988? Perhaps it is mentioned somewhere but I'm failing to see it. -
Dennis at 04:37 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
I have to agree with BKsea. Adler will simply get labled a RINO (Republican in Name Only) because he deviates from the party line. I hear it over and over again in the USA. Climate science is now no different from tax policy, health care reform, and social welfare programs to America's conservatives. Watch this guy get shunned by his fellow conservatives and show up later as a Democrat. -
DSL at 04:31 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Well, that could be read alongside Michael Fumento's piece in Salon. Or perhaps Fumento first and then Adler. -
BKsea at 04:25 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
I put on my conservative hat to read this and here is what I got: First paragraph: "la la la la substantial uncertainties remain la la la" Second paragraph: "effects will be most severe in those nations that are both least able to adapt and least responsible" [Yeah! not us! stop reading] Third paragrpah: "la la la tax la la la tax la la la tax" Lots of people have been saying these same things without getting the conservatives to listen. Why do you think they will listen now? -
dana1981 at 03:54 AM on 16 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Interesting, attacks on the peer-review process seem to be becoming more frequent, presumably as attacks on the science itself become more difficult. -
pvincell at 03:31 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Just to weigh in here, Skeptical Science is a remarkably valuable resource for understanding the peer-reviewed science on climate change. The Kahan paper doesn't cause me to question SkSc in any way. You guys and gals do us a great service--don't ever go away! What the paper *does* do is reinforce for me the need to seek ways to respectfully engage Americans with diverse worldviews. All Americans must be part of the solution to climate change, so maybe we who understand where the science is on this controversial topic can do a better job of reaching out to those who think differently from us. This really tests our commitment to diversity, no? -
Chris G at 03:23 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
From the paper: "...highly science-literate and numerate hierarchical individualists are more sceptical, not less, of climate change risks..." I'm having a hard time finding just what was their cutoff for determining 'high' from 'low'. Another way of saying my alternate explanation is that how an individual arrives at a belief is not necessarily the same within all individuals within a population. Both social coherence (agreeing with members of the group) and scientific literacy are strategies that people can use; there is no guarantee that all individuals within a population use the same strategy. It could be that if you are very highly skilled, your own skills tend to dominate the conclusions you reach, and if you have low skill, you tend to rely more on what your group thinks. In between, there would be a mix of people not only using different strategies, social versus rational, but even the ones attempting to arrive at a science-based conclusion might not applying the same set of rules (choosing to focus an clouds and discount water vapor, or vice versa). It could be also that the rules applied are unconsciously filtered based on social group compliance. Hah, let's test those with limited social coherence tendencies (on the Asperger scale) in comparison with those at the opposite end of that spectrum. -
Chris G at 02:04 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Thanks Tom, I had guessed that the bar for competence might be lower than I imagined, but I had no idea it was that low. Wondering what the cutoff was between the high and low groups. I think this leaves some room for non-linearity between a different set of groups: a) Not at all competent. b) Competent enough to be right more often than not. c) Highly competent. One could speculate that those who typically have no idea how things work would be more willing to agree with authority figures than those who are marginally competent. I would expect that the ones who are highly competent tend to agree with each other, if only because the same information processed through a consistent set of rules tends to lead to similar conclusions, and science rules are designed to be consistent. Within this framework, you would expect the highest polarization amongst the marginally competent; the members of the group have the same information, but their rules for how to process it are not highly consistent with respect to other members of the same group, and they are used to being right. Sorry, it's probably in the supplementary information, but did they say what the cutoff was between an individual being assigned to the Low or High groups, and were the groups of equal size? In a normal population sample, highly skilled (at whatever the skill is) individuals will be a small fraction of the general population. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:30 AM on 16 June 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
I find it is best not to get too hung up on terminology - sometimes the theory comes first, for example the hypothesised existence of the Higgs boson that CERN et al are trying to confirm comes from a theory that attempts to explain subatomic physics. IIRC we only think that the Higgs boson exists becase theory predicts that it should. Likewise there are some that would regard AGW as a hypothesis rather than a theory. -
vrooomie at 23:44 PM on 15 June 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Dikran@28, and all who followed on, may I respectfully suggest a slight change? As I recall, the step of 'formulating a *theory*" is ~not~ the first step of a scientific investigation; rather, it is to formulate a *hypothesis*, then gather data, run tests, interpret data/tests, which ~then~ leads to a theory. At least, that's what they taught me way back in the 90s...;) Then again, dammit, I'm just a geologist, Jim, not a English major! -
Composer99 at 22:33 PM on 15 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
I can only say that if Dr Carter asserts that money can corrupt science [snip] It looks like this, combined with Dr Carter's previous FP article (debunked by Skeptical Science) is another instalment of the National Post/Financial Post "war on science".Moderator Response: TC: Accusations of dishonesty snipped. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:13 PM on 15 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Carter writes "Scientific knowledge, then, is always in a state of flux. Much though bureaucrats and politicians may dislike the thought, there is simply no such thing as “settled science,” peer-reviewed or otherwise. Gavin Schmidt writes "Unusually, I’m in complete agreement with a recent headline on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page: “The Climate Science Isn’t Settled” ... The phrase “the science is settled” is associated almost 100% with contrarian comments on climate and is usually a paraphrase of what ‘some scientists’ are supposed to have said. The reality is that it depends very much on what you are talking about and I have never heard any scientist say this in any general context – at a recent meeting I was at, someone claimed that this had been said by the participants and he was roundly shouted down by the assembled experts. -
CBDunkerson at 21:01 PM on 15 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Well, it is official now. Having absolutely no grounds on which to refute the peer reviewed science, the 'skeptics' have now switched to 'refuting' peer review itself. Bob Carter claims peer review is corrupt. -
shoyemore at 18:08 PM on 15 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Andy S #3, Roberts' comments were related to energy policy aspects of the Brookings poll, not to the climate change aspects. I thought the question regarding the drivers of changed opinions on climate change tells us something, allied with the Kahan paper. The public do not see climate change through the lens of scientific findings, but (1) thought the perspective of their group (Kahan), and/ or (2) their personal experience of climate as long term weather (Brookings). That represents a challenge to educators of the public on climate change, but it is also an opportunity. For example, what changed public perspectives on nicotine? Was it scientific findings reported (with opposition) in the media, or personal knowledge of a nicotine-addicted friend or relative dying of lung cancer or emphysema? Or was it both? -
Andy Skuce at 14:42 PM on 15 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Tom, I agree and I made much the same point, but in less detail, in my "Caveat" #1 above. But, the genuinely scientifically literate or numerate were present in this sample, they just were not distinguished as a sub-category by the tests. Remember, also, that the "conservative" people were very slightly more scientifically literate on average. My hunch is that the number of people who are genuinely (as you put it) scientifically literate and numerate, and with some specific knowledge of climate science (which wasn't measured at all in the survey), are probably very few in a sample of 1500. They could have included some non-controversial climate-related questions, for example: What causes the seasons? Sunspots/the Sun getting closer to the Earth in summer/the tilt of the rotation axis. My guess is that of the 32% who know that the Earth goes around the Sun, many would not get that right. If we could get everybody to understand that, surely that would be a good start? -
Tom Curtis at 13:45 PM on 15 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
To avoid over interpreting these results, it is worthwhile actually looking at the questions used to grade numeracy and scientific literacy. In each case, the percentages given after each question is the percentage of respondents who have the correct answer. Numeracy:"EVENROLL. Imagine that we roll a fair, six-sided die 1,000 times. (That would mean that we roll one die from a pair of dice.) Out of 1,000 rolls, how many times do you think the die would come up as an even number? 58% PCTTOFREQUENCY1. In the BIG BUCKS LOTTERY, the chances of winning a $10.00 prize are 1%. What is your best guess about how many people would win a $10.00 prize if 1,000 people each buy a single ticket from BIG BUCKS? 60% FREQUENCYTOPCT1. In the ACME PUBLISHING SWEEPSTAKES, the chance of winning a car is 1 in 1,000. What percent of tickets of ACME PUBLISHING SWEEPSTAKES win a car? 28% COMPFREQUENCY. Which of the following numbers represents the biggest risk of getting a disease? 86% COMPPCT. Which of the following numbers represents the biggest risk of getting a disease? 88% DOUBLEPCT. If Person A’s risk of getting a disease is 1% in ten years, and Person B’s risk is double that of A’s, what is B’s risk? 64% DOUBLEFREQUENCY. If Person A’s chance of getting a disease is 1 in 100 in ten years, and person B’s risk is double that of A, what is B’s risk? 21% PCTTOFREQUENCY2. If the chance of getting a disease is 10%, how many people would be expected to get the disease: A: Out of 100? 84% B: Out of 1000? 81% FREQUENCYTOPCT2. If the chance of getting a disease is 20 out of 100, this would be the same as having a __% chance of getting the disease. 72% VIRAL. The chance of getting a viral infection is .0005. Out of 10,000 people, about how many of them are expected to get infected? 48% BAYESIAN. Suppose you have a close friend who has a lump in her breast and must have a mammogram. Of 100 women like her, 10 of them actually have a malignant tumor and 90 of them do not. Of the 10 women who actually have a tumor, the mammogram indicates correctly that 9 of them have a tumor and indicates incorrectly that 1 of them does not have a tumor. Of the 90 women who do not have a tumor, the mammogram indicates correctly that 81 of them do not have a tumor and indicates incorrectly that 9 of them do have a tumor. The table below summarizes all of this information. Imagine that your friend tests positive (as if she had a tumor), what is the likelihood that she actually has a tumor? 3% SHANE1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? 12% SHANE2. In a lake, there is a patch of lilypads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? 27% "
Even given that these results are obtained from a demographically representative sample of the US population, these results are stupefying! It is known that people, even well trained people find Bayesian reasoning counter intuitive, so the 3% success rate for Bayesian reasoning is the least surprising result; but based on this survey, just 3% of the US's population is not functionally innumerate, with around 25% not being numerate at all. Science:"EARTHOT The center of the Earth is very hot [true/false]. 86% HUMANRADIO All radioactivity is man-made [true/false]. 84% LASERS Lasers work by focusing sound waves [true/false]. 68% ELECATOM Electrons are smaller than atoms [true/false]. 62% COPERNICUS1 Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth? 72% COPERNICUS2 How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun? [one day, one month, one year] 45% DADGENDER It is the father’s gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl [true/false]. 69% ANTIBIOTICS Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria [true/false]. 68%"
Bear in mind that only respondents who successfully answered question COPERNICUS1 where asked COPERNICUS2. That means only 32.4% of a representative sample of US citizens know both that the Earth goes around the Sun, rather than the reverse; and that it takes a year to do so. Given the very poor scores for scientific literacy and numeracy, the proper analysis of this paper is that it shows that the abysmally misinformed on science and mathematics have stronger opinions on the risk, or lack thereof, of climate change than do the completely ignorant. It tells us nothing about the opinions of the genuinely scientifically literate and numerate, for they appear to have escaped the net cast by this survey.Moderator Response: [AS]I have added a comment to the post to clarify that not everybody was asked the COPERNICUS2, as Tom correctly points out.45% of those asked the question got the answer correct but only 72% were asked it. -
Lloyd Flack at 12:30 PM on 15 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Ooops! Incomplete post. Continued. To a lot of scientifically literate people science is more a basis for technology than it is a way of understanding nature. They aren't really interested in nature much. As well interest in some technologies can develop intuitions that actually hinder understanding of climate science. Since technology usually depends on the well understood aspects of science there is a tendency for those for whom it is thir primary interest to only deal with science which is alwmost certain and to dismiss anything else as speculation. I notice this in information technology people a lot. Also some people are mostly interested in the new discoveries and breakthroughs in science and not in the consolidation part where you check things out and see how any discoveries add to the overall picture. Scientists are more interested in how discoveries fit into the big picture. In conclusion, familiarity with the results of science without a real appreciation of its methods can be fuel for denialism. Familiarity with the methods tends to counter denialism. I'll talk about the ideas of communitarianism in this work later. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:09 PM on 15 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
All participants, please note: Rufus9 has requested that his SkS account be terminated. I have formally passed that request on to the proper authority. Please respect Rufus9's wishes in this matter by letting this interlude pass without further comment. Thanks in advance. -
Lloyd Flack at 12:02 PM on 15 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
I think there is a bit of conflating of different things going on in this paper. Some key distinctions are not being made. One is the distinction between understanding the results of science and understanding how science is done. The other is the distintion between communitarianism as social cohesion and communitarianism as universal altruism. I post a lot on a site with libertarian and conservative mebers all of whom are scintifically literate. I have noticed a big difference in the acceptance of AGW between actual scientists on that site and non scientists. The scientists nearly all accept the reality of AGW but I think a majority but not all of the non scientists do not. The scientists understand how other scientists do their work even if they are in other fields. They are much more sceptical about any attacks on the integrity of other scientists seeing them as attacks on science itself. I think a lot of scientiffically literate people are actually more interested in technology than in science. To them -
KR at 11:45 AM on 15 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Rufus9 - Real scientists will, upon notice of raised issues, pull a paper while working it out. And that is what Gergis et al have done. This particular paper and the issues involved are in discussion at RealClimate, incidentally. The "pal-review" papers discussed in the OP have not, on the other hand, been pulled, retracted, or updated with any information that withstands scrutiny against observations, despite the multiple issues that have been raised. I would (IMO) consider that poor behavior on the authors part. At this point, Rufus9, I would have to consider your comments on this thread simply trolling. You've presented zero support for your Tu Quoque fallacies, zero response to other comments, and continue to try to minimize the faults of the de Freitas papers. No amount of Tu Quoque fallacies will excuse the documented excesses of that set of papers. Enough. You are just making pointless noise. -
Rufus9 at 11:02 AM on 15 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Here is one - "on hold" http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/paper-claiming-hottest-60-year-span-in-1000-years-put-on-hold-after-being-published-online/Moderator Response: [DB] Note: this has been discussed over at RealClimate for several weeks now. This is a normal part of the peer-review/publication process. -
Andy Skuce at 09:38 AM on 15 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
I think that David Roberts addressed that poll very well in Why climate polls don’t mean much. Telling quote: The pollsters did get at that [social cues vs weighing of the argument] a bit. They asked about “federal regulations” to reduce greenhouse gases and got 42 percent approval from Republicans; when they rephrased the same thing as “the Obama Administration’s current policy to use the Clean Air Act,” Republican support fell to 28 percent. When Dems heard Obama’s name next to the policy, their support became more intense. Obama’s name, in an of itself, serves as a heuristic. The poll answers depend on the framing of the question. The response to the framing depends on cultural triggers.
Prev 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 Next
