Arguments
Understanding climate denial
Posted on 28 September 2011 by John Cook
There are a number of areas of science where the evidence has become so overwhelming that a scientific consensus forms. For example, the consensus on the link between smoking and cancer, that HIV causes AIDS or that humans are causing global warming. Where there is a scientific consensus, there are often movements that deny the scientific evidence. All of these denialist movements have been found to share 5 common characteristics, including cherry picking, conspiracy theories and fake experts.
Understanding the denial of scientific evidence is a crucial element to putting the climate controversy into proper context. The first step is recognizing that the process of denial is to be distinguished from cases where the title 'denier' is used derogatorily. Complaining about the word 'denier' can be a form of denial itself, using concern trolling to avoid a serious discussion of the scientific evidence.
Certain defence mechanisms are tell-tale signs of denial. In one experiment, people were asked if they believed there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Those who answered yes were shown evidence that there was no such link, including a direct quote from President Bush. Despite the overwhelming evidence, only 2% of participants consciously changed their mind (although interestingly, 14% denied they ever believed in the link despite indicating so in the initial survey).
The most common response was attitude bolstering. This involves bringing to mind arguments that support pre-existing views while denying any counter evidence. The process is reflexive and almost sub-conscious. Attitude bolstering has an unexpected and unfortunate consequence. When one encounters threatening evidence, the cognitive process of bringing supporting arguments to the fore results in a strengthening of one's views. This is known as the backfire effect, where debunking a myth can paradoxically end up reinforcing the myth. The effect is strongest among those whose views are already quite strong.
Is it any wonder that so few who deny scientific evidence change their mind? But don't forget that 2%. The rare person who was "skeptical" about climate change but then considered the full body of evidence is the exception that proves the rule. In Confessions of a Climate Change Convert, D.R. Tucker perused all the scientific evidence, became convinced that humans are causing global warming and uttered the famous pronouncement, "I was defeated by facts".
Craig Good from Skeptoid, describes how he came to be convinced of the evidence in I, Global Warming Skeptic:
Since [Peter Gleick's] talk I have spent a lot of time on a site he recommended, skepticalscience.com. There they have taken each of the most common science questions, numbered them, and carefully addressed them with the current science. The answers are even presented in basic, intermediate, and advanced formats so that there’s likely to be one matching the reader’s level of scientific knowledge.
With the caveat that a few of the questions don’t belong on their list (42, 63, 105 and 165, at least) because they are economic and/or political rather than scientific, I highly recommend the site.
So, yes, I am now persuaded that anthropogenic global warming is real. That’s because I’m a skeptic.
I recently received an email from a blogger Nathan McKaskle who informed me:
"You changed my mind about global warming. Up until today I was a big time skeptic for a number of reasons. Great site with a wealth of information that addressed most of my concerns."
Unfortunately Nathan closed his blog down (otherwise I would've linked to his blog post on this subject). Ironically, he closed down his site due to discouragement, not knowing whether he'd changed a single mind through his blogging. It's a sentiment many of us bloggers can relate to, I'm sure.
These examples of minds being changed by the evidence reaffirms Skeptical Science's key mission of presenting the many lines of evidence for man-made global warming. Another key to putting the climate controversy into proper context is understanding the phenomenon of denial. Skeptical Science will continue to examine the 5 characteristics of science denial and how they manifest in many climate myths. It is by understanding how some deny the evidence that we are able to point to the scientific evidence.
[DB] "I am not sure if it was one of you but the reaction to my statement that there are other factors that move sea level apart from temperature was greeted by one participant with the statement that (a) there were no such factors other than eg meteorites and (b) that since warming was the only explanation available it must therefore be right."
Actually, I believe it was CBD, here (feel free to correct me if it was a different commenter). And I believe you mis-quote him. I suggest you re-read it in its entirety (since you are unsure). In case of a language barrier, the examples given were ironical/fascetious.
[DB] Additionally, from the NAS publication Advancing the Science of Climate Change (Pp 21-22):
[Emphasis added]
[DB] Perhaps you missed this earlier response:
Additionally, from the NAS publication Advancing the Science of Climate Change (Pp 21-22):
[Emphasis added]
As for:
"The problem with the AGW theory is that there is no set of circumstances that could prove it wrong."
Actually, many things come to mind. For example, come up with a testable hypothesis showing that the radiative physics of anthropogenically-derived CO2 do not behave similarly to those of CO2 already present in the carbon cycle.
[DB] "What is interesting is the second part because the certainty is removed from it; it says only that the warming is likely due to human activities."
This is in the scienctific sense. In this case, it means a greater than 90% likelihood.
"While that may be true in many cases it is clearly not the situation in all cases and it is really a very arrogant position to take."
For someone so unacquainted with the field, you continually make similar statements.
[DB] "It is outrageous that he only releases data to his opponents when forced to do so by FOI Act requests."
Perhaps you are unaware that all of the data is available for download.
Given that the data is freely available, perhaps you'll then consider it outrageous that those proclaiming to be skeptics have done little with it other than to confirm the "hockey stick" is replicable using as little as 10% of the data because that is what the data show: a hockey-stick-like rise in global temps. Yet the anti-science drum beat continues.
[DB] "It's just that their proposition is untestable and their claims are in some cases outrageous and not backed by anything much at all."
If you have an actual example to cite, please do so. In the absence of concrete examples, please refrain from such blandishments.
"But I prefer a modest acceptance of our lack of knowledge to a pretence to extensive knowledge that we cannot possibly have."
The modest acknowledgement of a lack of understanding on your part does not preclude the existence of greater knowledge on the part of science.
I recommend studying more and commenting less.
[DB] "I note that you have not commented on my, admittedly short, critique of models as a "proof" of your own particular point of view and the lack of science in it."
That would be because models have far more appropriate threads than this one, so are OT here. And your "critique" lacks bones as well as meat. If you wish to focus on models, take that portion of your commentary to one of those threads (Search function).
"Nor do you seek to refute my comment on the lack of data sharing by some of the warmist community, which is the only method by which their views could be properly peer reviewed and a real consensus arrived at."
Again, OT here because there are many threads dealing with this, old, issue. Again, take it there.
And please note that block quoting, which you do, is considered poor form. Reserve quoting for a point-by-point dealing with things; otherwise, just referring to the particular comment with a link will do.
[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
Links to raw data, processed data, model outputs, and model code are handily collected on RealClimate's Data Sources page.