Follow Topics

28 November 2012, 2.46pm EST

Science alone won’t change climate opinions, but it matters

Does scientific knowledge matter in the climate debate? Recent research suggests that it is not “what you know” but “who you are” that counts in making up your mind about climate change. What are the implications for the climate debate? Does it mean that initiatives to educate the public are fundamentally…

6vc3cnr7-1352870809 — Presenting scientific information isn’t likely to change made-up minds, but there are a lot of un-made-up minds out there. Department of Energy and Climate Change

Does scientific knowledge matter in the climate debate? Recent research suggests that it is not “what you know” but “who you are” that counts in making up your mind about climate change.

What are the implications for the climate debate? Does it mean that initiatives to educate the public are fundamentally flawed and destined to fail? Not necessarily.

World views and scientific literacy

Dan Kahan and colleagues reported a small negative correlation between scientific literacy and concern about climate change – but not for everyone in their sample. Specifically, those participants identified as “hierarchical individualists” (HI) showed the negative trend, but those who were “egalitarian communitarian” (EC) showed the opposite pattern – more literate, more concern.

Put crudely, HIs are opposed to government intervention and restrictions on industry, whereas ECs favour intervention and are suspicious of industry and commerce. The argument then is that each group adopts a position on the scientific information that fits with their personal view and interests. It is not the knowledge per se that is important but how it is incorporated into the way you see the world.

HIs see the societal upheavals necessitated by climate change as threatening their values and thus while “understanding” the science downplay the concern. ECs see action on climate change as important. The more they understand the science the more concerned they become.

So does this mean we should be abandoning attempts to communicate the science? If scientific understanding only “works” for the ECs, then are we just preaching to the choir?

This question is particularly pertinent for bodies like the Australian Climate Commission. Additional research shows Australia also has its share of HIs and ECs and that their respective beliefs about climate change follow the predicted pattern. Communitarians are four times more likely than their individualists cousins to believe that climate change is already happening.

Ditching the science?

Commentators have been quick to point out that there are serious risks in getting carried away with a “ditch the science” argument. Babies and bathwater spring to mind.

One important point is that Kahan et al did not measure scientific knowledge about climate change, but rather some basic scientific concepts (for example, is an electron smaller than an atom?). This information may or may not correlate with an understanding of how and why human activities affect the climate.

Large scale studies that have examined detailed knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate change do indeed find positive relationships between understanding, concern and intentions to behave pro-environmentally.

As noted by another commentator on the Kahan study, the Yale Six Americas Study found that 97% of respondents who identified themselves as “alarmed” about climate change received a “pass” on a test of climate knowledge compared to only 56% of those who were “dismissive”.

Others have argued strongly for the importance of getting the “mental model” rightbefore people will be willing to adopt policies or agitate for legislation that will address global warming. For example, if your understanding of global warming leads you to think that stabilising (rather than reducing) CO₂ emissions is sufficient for stabilising the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere – (as many people do)– then you might be less willing to support carbon reduction policies.

These studies all suggest that knowledge of the science can help. Indeed, one recent study found that just reading a simple 400-word description of the mechanism of global warming led to increased acceptance that climate change is real and happening.

So where does this leave us? Scientific knowledge certainly isn’t irrelevant to the debate – and it is clear that this was not the intended message of Kahan’s study (despite that spin being taken up by some in the media. But equally knowledge alone is not enough.

The Six Americas study mentioned above found that although the “alarmed” outscored the “dismissives” overall on tests of climate knowledge, for some questions performance levels reversed.

For example, only 66% of the “alarmed” correctly understood that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, compared to 79% of the “dismissives”. Despite this knowledge difference, the “alarmed” were much more likely to (correctly) say that switching from fossil fuels to renewables would do a lot to reduce global warming (89% alarmists vs 7% dismissives).

Finding the middle ground

The picture that emerges from these various findings is that at one end of the spectrum there is a section of the public who will be “on board” with action on climate change almost regardless of how much science they know. At the other end there is a group who will never be on board, again regardless of how much or how little they know. For these groups, perhaps, the science doesn’t really matter.

But by definition there are lots of people in the middle of the spectrum. By far the largest group in the Six Americas study comprise the “concerned and cautious” (54% of the sample) – those who are neither rampant “alarmists” (or ECs) nor head-in-the-sand “dismissives” (or HIs).

In Australia a similar group has been identified in CSIRO surveys as the 40-50% who think climate change is happening but is mainly due to natural fluctuation, and thus presumably less of a concern. For this large middle ground – the people who are not sure about what is happening or about what they should do, and want to know more – simple, targeted science about the mechanisms, causes and consequences of global warming could prove invaluable.

Scientific knowledge is not a panacea. Science alone will not eliminate the debate between the polarised ends of the spectrum, but along with many other factors – (not least personal experience) – it can help swing the pendulum of public opinion towards supporting policy that will slow the quickening pace of climate change.

Articles also by This Author

15 May 2013 Does thinking about professors make you more intelligent?

2 May 2013 Explainer: what is intuition?

17 April 2012 If you want to roll the climate dice, you should know the odds

26 July 2011 Climate change, personal experience and the vagaries of memory

28 March 2011 Without understanding psychology, can we really understand climate change?

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

95 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

Felix MacNeill

Environmental Manager

Thanks Ben - a well-balanced article.

I think, in the end, the key is to see scientific knowledge as a necessary, if not sufficient, condition, as you suggest.

I don't think you can fight ignorance with "ignore-ance" - which is why I'm very suspicious of some of the more glib arguments about reframing. They may not be as obviously doomed as the simplistic "don't mention the war" pseudo-strategy some recommend (think Obama at his worst), but I still think a lot of reframing looks vaguely deceptive…
Read more

Thanks Ben - a well-balanced article.

I think, in the end, the key is to see scientific knowledge as a necessary, if not sufficient, condition, as you suggest.

I don't think you can fight ignorance with "ignore-ance" - which is why I'm very suspicious of some of the more glib arguments about reframing. They may not be as obviously doomed as the simplistic "don't mention the war" pseudo-strategy some recommend (think Obama at his worst), but I still think a lot of reframing looks vaguely deceptive...as if people are backing away from the facts in the face of pressure...makes it look as if the facts aren't really facts...

The only sane strategy I can see is to continue to stand by the facts unequivocally and unapologetically and continue to point out the truth in the face of denial and contrarianism - but to do so as calmly and assertively as possible.

One of the mistakes I think some people make is to believe that the extreme denialists will cease their attacks if the rest of us call a truce. There can never be a truce with lies. The trick is to avoid hitting the undecided and partially-informed majority - the true key in a democracy - in the crossfire, while still refusing to retreat in the face of aggression.

This approach may be easier said than done, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect.

6 months ago report
Linus Bowden

management consultant

Interesting. It seems that the Social Psychology hivemind has been feverishly repackaging the socialist versus liberals war into a science-literate "hierarchical individualists” (HI) versus 'thick-as' “egalitarian communitarian” (EC) cannon fodder. Nice.

6 months ago report
1. In reply to Linus Bowden
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
2. In reply to Linus Bowden
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
Peter Lang

Retired geologist and engineer

“So does this mean we should be abandoning attempts to communicate the science?”

No. But you need to answer the questions the climate realists want answered. They are sick to death of the preaching by Climate Catastrophists about what the catastrophists want to talk about. Climate realists want answers to the questions they feel are important – not continually being harangued, abused and called names like ‘denier’ etc.

Most climate realists would support economically rational policies to…
Read more

“So does this mean we should be abandoning attempts to communicate the science?”

No. But you need to answer the questions the climate realists want answered. They are sick to death of the preaching by Climate Catastrophists about what the catastrophists want to talk about. Climate realists want answers to the questions they feel are important – not continually being harangued, abused and called names like ‘denier’ etc.

Most climate realists would support economically rational policies to reduce CO2 emissions. Mostly that would mean ‘No Regrets’ policies. The options that could make a significant difference are largely blocked by the CAGW alarmists. That causes scepticism, angst and resistance to what the CAGW Alarmists preach.

Here are some of the questions:

1. Even if climate sensitivity is 3C, what does it matter? What are the impacts / consequences? This question is usually answered with a whole host of scary adjectives and statements based on beliefs. Usually they are cherry picked examples and exaggerations. They lack credibility. I’ll give examples below.

2. The CAGW alarmists advocate carbon pricing and renewable energy. What is the probability that these polices will control the climate, sea levels, etc.? This is an important question that is invariably dodged.

3. What are consequences of these policies? (see here for example: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/what-the-carbon-tax-and-ets-will-really-cost-peter-lang/)

6 months ago report
1. In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
2. In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
3. In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
4. In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
5. In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
6. David Arthur
  
  n/a
  
  In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Thanks Peter. To answer your questions,
  
  1) (noting that climate sensitivity is more likely to be greater than 3 deg C), impact and consequences include multi-metre sea level rise in the 22nd century, requiring wholesale abandonment of coastal cities and construction of new infrastructure on higher ground. Mind you, sea level as at 2200 may not be the extent of sea level rise; even then sea levels will continue rising for a couple of centuries more.
  
  With uncontrollable greenhouse gas emissions…
  Read more
  
  Thanks Peter. To answer your questions,
  
  1) (noting that climate sensitivity is more likely to be greater than 3 deg C), impact and consequences include multi-metre sea level rise in the 22nd century, requiring wholesale abandonment of coastal cities and construction of new infrastructure on higher ground. Mind you, sea level as at 2200 may not be the extent of sea level rise; even then sea levels will continue rising for a couple of centuries more.
  
  With uncontrollable greenhouse gas emissions from already-thawing permafrost (two stories on today's Fairfax media http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/where-even-the-earth-is-melting-20121127-2a5tp.html, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-top-of-the-world-is-melting-20121127-2a5ne.html) likely to induce large-scale heatwaves that will render such areas as the Ganges plain uninhabitable, the consequence of continuing with the radical greenhouse experiment that is our fossil fuel use will be deleterious, to say the least.
  
  You will simply bundle these up as being "alarmist", but they're actually the summaries of some pretty sober considerations.
  
  2. What is the probability that [policies] will control climate, sea level, &c? They won't prevent large impacts; it's too late for that. They will, however, forestall extreme impacts.
  
  3. Look, come back with a credible source.
  
  Mind you, it's not that I'm at all satisfied with the Clean Energy Futures package. I think it's a dog's breakfast, designed to truss (apologies to Warren) the Australian economy up and deliver it to the banksters of the EU and Wall St, the ones who brought us the GFC.
  
  I've been arguing for a simple fossil fuel consumption tax (FFCT) in these pages for some time. To date, no-one has been able to demonstrate any benefit of emission trading over a revenue-neutral FFCT.
  
  6 months ago report
7. In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
Tim Scanlon

Debunker

I love science. But not everyone is science literate, so it is reasonable to assume that some people need a different avenue to understanding. Makes sense.

6 months ago report
Comment removed by moderator.
1. In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
2. In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
Nev Norton

Farmer

This is a rather long winded way of calling climate change sceptics dummies.
Thats ok, I call man made climate change believers nieve.
I have worked in science allied fields and don't consider myself to be a dummy.
I can mostly understand sound scientific principles and logic.
I have also been around fifty years, and know a bit about people (Individuals, NGO's, Governments)
and their shortcomings as well, when it comes to proving a point and pushing a particular barrow, and the application of…
Read more

This is a rather long winded way of calling climate change sceptics dummies.
Thats ok, I call man made climate change believers nieve.
I have worked in science allied fields and don't consider myself to be a dummy.
I can mostly understand sound scientific principles and logic.
I have also been around fifty years, and know a bit about people (Individuals, NGO's, Governments)
and their shortcomings as well, when it comes to proving a point and pushing a particular barrow, and the application of money and other agendas to prove a particular outcome.
Manipulating data sets, poor modelling, selective funding, useless peer reviews, all these things are possible, humans being humans. Then we have the IPCC with their supposedly shonky practices according to journalist Donna Laframboise.
Climate change, undoubtebly and has since there was a climate.
Man made, I doubt it.
Fixable by humans, nope. Thats God syndrome.
Adaptability and work with change will be key. The status quo can't be maintained no matter how much some think it can.

6 months ago report
1. In reply to Nev Norton
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
2. Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician
  
  In reply to Nev Norton
  
  I am neither a denier nor a believer, Nev Norton. I simply prefer my climate science to be evaluated by climate scientists just as I prefer my bridges to be designed by engineers.
  
  Knowing the underlying science or principles and having the experience of application of those principles goes a lot further than denial or belief.
  
  6 months ago report
3. Mark Harrigan
  
  Dr
  
  In reply to Nev Norton
  
  Nev Norton may know someting about people - but it's apparent he is abysmally ignorant about climate and the science of it.
  
  It's also apparent he is comfortable making unsubstantiated allegations of malfeasance by scientists - which doesn't say much for his credibility or ethics.
  
  A collection of uncomfortable facts (not models) are that sea levels are rising, sea and land ice is melting, ocean heat content is increasing, nights are warming faster than days and winters more than summers and…
  Read more
  
  Nev Norton may know someting about people - but it's apparent he is abysmally ignorant about climate and the science of it.
  
  It's also apparent he is comfortable making unsubstantiated allegations of malfeasance by scientists - which doesn't say much for his credibility or ethics.
  
  A collection of uncomfortable facts (not models) are that sea levels are rising, sea and land ice is melting, ocean heat content is increasing, nights are warming faster than days and winters more than summers and climate related disasters are on the increase - and of course temperatures are on the rise (sometimes temporariliy masked by natural variability but decade on decade on the way up - all signs of a climate system that has more heat in it.
  
  We also have known for a century that CO2 is a GHG and that GHGs retain planetary heat. We know that there is no external heat source that can explain the observed phemonena I refer to above (solar output is on a gradual decline and if it were the sun nights and winters would NOT be earming more than days and summers). We also know that Geothermal heat is orders of magnitude too small to explain it. We have also observed increasing levels of CO@ being added to the atnosphere at rates never seen and we can tell it is humans by the isotopic nature of the excess CO2 that is there.
  
  It is for this reason that world's climate scientists and every single national science body of credibility concludes that the earth is warming that it is humans that are the cause.
  
  The evidence is also fairly clear the costs of this change may well exceed human civilisations capacity to adapt without significant loss of life, disruption and huge cost.
  
  So, what Nev "doubts" is clearly something he knows nothing about - which is to say he is in denial
  
  All the above can easily be found out by anyone genuine - but here are some links to get anyone interested started
  
  http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
  http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/piomas1.gif
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
  http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/glaciermasstrend1980-2010.gif
  http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1012_arctic_antarctic_anoms_smooth_560.png
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GRACE_2010.gif
  http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/unnatural-catastrophes/
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg
  http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint4.gif
  http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint6.gif
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/TempEscalator.gif
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Key_Impacts.gif
  http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/pics/lewandowsky/fordynamicsys.jpg
  http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
  http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices/12781
  "http://ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
  
  6 months ago report
4. Felix MacNeill
  
  Environmental Manager
  
  In reply to Nev Norton
  
  Nev, that's one of the most impressive examples of the PRATT principle I've seen in a long time.
  
  I've been around for 56 years. Does that mean my opinuion trumps yours?
  
  6 months ago report
Tom Keen

BSc

Thank you for an interesting, informative article.

I wonder how relevant the “what you know” vs “who you are” thing is in determining attitudes to suggested solutions to climate change. E.g. carbon pricing, nuclear power, wind farms, REDD, etc. My guess is that "what you know" is probably the smaller determinant for most of these issues too.

I also wonder how strongly the narratives surrounding these issues influences people's beliefs. I.e., if scientific knowledge was held constant across society, and we could change the narrative(s) about climate change on a large scale, how much change would we see in peoples' opinions/beliefs about climate change?

6 months ago report
1. Peter Lang
  
  Retired geologist and engineer
  
  In reply to Tom Keen
  
  People with a broader perspective see climate change as one issue amongst many. Those focused on a single issue cannot see their issue in the overall perspective.
  
  6 months ago report
2. In reply to Tom Keen
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
Peter Lang

Retired geologist and engineer

Just to acknowledge having seen DA’s re-statement of his beliefs. Seen it many times before.

We used to be told the oceans are going to boil off (James Hansen, 2009), 50 million climate refugees by 2010, Manhatten inundated, etc. Now we being asked to accept projections out two centuries, to 2200, to justify their case. Policies don’t last a decade, let alone two centuries.

Repeating the mantra over and over again is not in the slightest persuasive. Perhaps the psychologies could focus on getting the Alarmists to address the actual issues that are blocking progress – like advocating totally unacceptance, ridiculous policies.

6 months ago report
1. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Peter Lang
  
  I love the sound of denial. Misquoting, cherry picking, ad-hom, straight out lying, nothing more refreshing than seeing the same things repeated like a mantra over and over again and not being in the slightest persuasive.
  
  The PRATT principle applies here. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT
  
  6 months ago report
2. Felix MacNeill
  
  Environmental Manager
  
  In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Peter, your post above indicates that you seem to believe in the 'what I say three times is surely true' concept of evidence. Don't assume those with whom you disagree are as foolish.
  
  6 months ago report
Peter Lang

Retired geologist and engineer

Since bloggers here would prefer to talk about ideology than anything of substance, I’ll throw my 2 cents in.

“Recent research suggests that it is not “what you know” but “who you are” that counts in making up your mind about climate change.”

True. For example:

Left are inclined to be more accepting of Catastrophes. They are more gullible. They are inclined accept scaremongering. They believe in central control, big government knows best, big taxing regimes, more regulation to force their beliefs on society.

Right are more cautions, more economically rational, less gullible, and far less likely to believe that centralised control (big bureaucracies, big tax, and control by left wing NGO’s academics, media, etc.) are the most capable to make decisions and provides the best solutions.

6 months ago report
1. Mike Hansen
  
  Mr
  
  In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Well those claims fall apart at the first inspection.
  
  The most well known right-winger in Australia is Tony Abbott and he has not stopped predicting economic catastrophe over the introduction of the carbon tax. And I am pretty sure that Mr Abbott has established a few world records in scaremongering.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician
  
  In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Right are more rational and less gullible, Peter Lang?
  
  The US right are masters of the conspiracy theory.
  
  6 months ago report
3. In reply to Peter Lang
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
Sue Ieraci

Public hospital clinician

Thank you for an interesting article.

I am not apprised on the details of climate science, but I am fascinated by the clash between science and belief (or ideology), and the parallels with the anti-vaccination movement and the anti-science movement in general.

I am beginning to suspect that the anti-scientists are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and prefer the comfort of faith.

The fact is, science is about the best available evidence of the time, subject to refinement as new evidence emerges…
Read more

Thank you for an interesting article.

I am not apprised on the details of climate science, but I am fascinated by the clash between science and belief (or ideology), and the parallels with the anti-vaccination movement and the anti-science movement in general.

I am beginning to suspect that the anti-scientists are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and prefer the comfort of faith.

The fact is, science is about the best available evidence of the time, subject to refinement as new evidence emerges and gets incorporated.

Some phenomena that are directly observable are not open to review - for example, the shape of the earth, the structure of the kidney, the concentration of sodium ions in human serum. Others, like the cause(s) of autism or MS, whether there is recognisable life on other planets and the long-term implications of GM food are still open to development.

Climate change and its cause(s) is one of those areas in development, but in which there is a large amount of data and largely a consensus amongst scientists. So, when they say something like "the current data and knowledge suggests that human activity is affecting global temperature", we should act similarly to when occupational health people say "it seems that children might be affected by high lead levels in the soil and dust around mines."

Do we say "no - I don't think so", or do we accept that that is the best possible opinion we have until more evidence accumulates? Climate science is like any other science - the best available evidence we have at the moment, subject to refinement as more evidence comes in. It doesn't matter what we believe, but what the data points to, interpreted by people who understand both the data and the underlying science.

Will the current predictions be 100% accurate for all of time? No - life doesn't work that way.

6 months ago report
Comment removed by moderator.
1. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
2. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
3. James Jenkin
  
  EFL Teacher Trainer
  
  In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Hi Sue, very interesting comments as always, but I don't think it's as simple as a clash between science and anti-science.
  
  A lot of ideologues we're hearing from strongly support modern science in CERTAIN areas. For example, many Greens support climate science but oppose GM food (and - just guessing here! - are probably more likely to use alternative medicine). The anti-climate-action advocates I've read - like Andrew Bolt - are very pro-GM and conventional medicine and vaccination.
  
  It's an odd mix.
  
  6 months ago report
4. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
5. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
6. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
7. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
8. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
9. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
10. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
11. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
12. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
13. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
14. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
15. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
16. In reply to Stephen McCormick
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
Sean Lamb

Science Denier

It always amazes me how climate science brings out such a strong streak of intellectual dishonesty in academics
"The Six Americas study mentioned above found that although the “alarmed” outscored the “dismissives” overall on tests of climate knowledge, for some questions performance levels reversed.

For example, only 66% of the “alarmed” correctly understood that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, compared to 79% of the “dismissives”. Despite this knowledge…
Read more

It always amazes me how climate science brings out such a strong streak of intellectual dishonesty in academics
"The Six Americas study mentioned above found that although the “alarmed” outscored the “dismissives” overall on tests of climate knowledge, for some questions performance levels reversed.

For example, only 66% of the “alarmed” correctly understood that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, compared to 79% of the “dismissives”. Despite this knowledge difference, the “alarmed” were much more likely to (correctly) say that switching from fossil fuels to renewables would do a lot to reduce global warming (89% alarmists vs 7% dismissives)."

Clearly the "dismissives" understand the theory about switching from fossil fuels "doing a lot" to reduce global warming - they just think it is wrong. They understand the science, they just view it as overly simplistic.

But is really so surprising that a sceptic would know more on the subject than the average person on the street. The Holocaust denier is likely to know more about holocaust history than the average person, the Dawkinesque atheist is likely to be far better versed in Catholic theology than the average person in the pews.

6 months ago report
Comment removed by moderator.
1. In reply to Gerard Dean
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
2. In reply to Gerard Dean
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
3. In reply to Gerard Dean
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
4. In reply to Gerard Dean
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
Mark Harrigan

Dr

Opinion alone won't change the climate or it's science, and it doesn't matter.

Only actions (or inactions) based on evidence will have any impact. Those who hold the opinion that the climate is not changing, or that such change is not human induced, or that such change is not going to cost a lot in dollars, misery and lives are in denial of the evidence in so far as the best science can present and understand it. The climate doesn't care - it will just follow the laws of physics associated with…
Read more

Opinion alone won't change the climate or it's science, and it doesn't matter.

Only actions (or inactions) based on evidence will have any impact. Those who hold the opinion that the climate is not changing, or that such change is not human induced, or that such change is not going to cost a lot in dollars, misery and lives are in denial of the evidence in so far as the best science can present and understand it. The climate doesn't care - it will just follow the laws of physics associated with increased heat retention - more ice melting, higher sea levels, more dramatic climate extremes and irreversible shifts in regional climates that will significantly disrupt our existing global and local economic support systems.

Similarly those who cling to the notion that all we need to do is ramp up our use of renewables and that magically the problem will be solved are living in a wishful thinking land of their own from of denial.

We need to displace the use of fossil fuels, preferably yesterday, certainly as soon as possible if not faster. That means more solar PV in as many as possible domestic applications, as much widely dispersed wind attached to an intelligent grid with improved forecasting and demand management as we can do as well as rapid deployment of small modular modern nuclear using the latest fuel cycles (which means low to zero waste). Along the way geothermal, tidal and hydro (which are great but georpgraphically limited) and continuing to invest in solar CST to see if it can made scalable and economic (it's isn't yet).

That generation capacity will also need to grow, not just to meet the increasing demand of poverty alleviation but also to power as much of the transport fleet (personal, public and commerical) as we possibly can.

And yes personal action to reduce emissions, from driving less to lower cost lighting and more efficient building and patterns of consumption.

Anything less virtually guarantees the immoral stance of handing to our descendants a world we made a considerably worse place - along the way causing untold misery and human suffering to hundreds of millions.

6 months ago report
1. Matt Stevens
  
  Senior Research Fellow/Statistician/PhD
  
  In reply to Mark Harrigan
  
  Hi Mark, we agree :-) More emphasis on technological fixes. I worry like anyone about nuclear power, but it is hard to see how it cannot be part of the solution along with all the green energies you state. But there is strong resistance on nuclear which is mixed up along a number of sociological lines, including poverty. I think there is much onus on rich, technological countries to assist poorer nations, particularly those in low lying areas. I have some doubt on the accuracy of models on the effect in smaller geographical scales, so it will be also necessary to keep a close eye on small scale variations, and be in a position to assist and immediate where necessary.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Matt Stevens
  
  Senior Research Fellow/Statistician/PhD
  
  In reply to Mark Harrigan
  
  Dam auto type, it should read "assist and remediate"
  
  6 months ago report
3. Peter Lang
  
  Retired geologist and engineer
  
  In reply to Mark Harrigan
  
  Matt Stevens,
  
  You said:
  
  “More emphasis on technological fixes. I worry like anyone about nuclear power, but it is hard to see how it cannot be part of the solution along with all the green energies you state. But there is strong resistance on nuclear which is mixed up along a number of sociological lines, including poverty.”
  
  The worry is ‘nuclear phobia’ or paranoia. It is not rational. ‘Nuclear phobia’ is widespread in the rich countries. It has been caused by 50 years of irrational…
  Read more
  
  Matt Stevens,
  
  You said:
  
  “More emphasis on technological fixes. I worry like anyone about nuclear power, but it is hard to see how it cannot be part of the solution along with all the green energies you state. But there is strong resistance on nuclear which is mixed up along a number of sociological lines, including poverty.”
  
  The worry is ‘nuclear phobia’ or paranoia. It is not rational. ‘Nuclear phobia’ is widespread in the rich countries. It has been caused by 50 years of irrational anti-nuclear protests. Nuclear power is the safest of all electricity generation technologies http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html. Blocking nuclear is blocking the world from having cleaner and cheaper electricity. Blocking it is causing fatalities. If nuclear replaced coal for electricity generation world wide it would avoid around 500,000 preventable fatalities per year (60 fatalities/TWh x 8,277 TWh/a http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2011&subject=4-IEO2011&table=30-IEO2011&region=0-0&cases=Reference-0504a_1630 ) .
  
  Given this, how wise/helpful/constructive is it to be blocking nuclear and continually repeating statements such as you made here?
  
  Matt, you said:
  
  “I think there is much onus on rich, technological countries to assist poorer nations, particularly those in low lying areas.”
  
  Yes. The onus is to:
  
  1. encourage free trade and globalisation.
  2. encourage economic growth for the world – make the world richer as fast as practicable
  3. remove the barriers to low cost nuclear power. The USA is by far the best placed nation to lead this. The US President could do more for the world by removing the impediments to low-cost nuclear power and making it available for all the world than any other thing anyone can do.
  
  By the way, just this week, US DOE announced a program to facilitate design and commercialisation of a small modular nuclear power plant http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/26/nuclear-small-modular-reactors/1727001/. This is what is needed, but I don’t understand why only one design is being facilitated and why it will take 10 years to commercialisation. There are 43 small nuclear power plants in various stages of development from concept to operation described here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html
  
  6 months ago report
4. Alex Cannara
  
  logged in via LinkedIn
  
  In reply to Mark Harrigan
  
  Peter, thanks for the info & links. we're making some progress with Congress as well as DoE here. This is a US Senator, today...
  
  "On June 9, 2011, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) introduced the "Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011" (S. 1113). This legislation would direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on technical, economic, and policy issues associated with establishing a licensing pathway for the complete thorium nuclear cycle. S. 1113 has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which I am not a member. I appreciate knowing your interest in thorium as a potential energy source, and I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind should the Senate consider legislation on this matter during the 112th Congress.
  "
  
  6 months ago report
Grant Burfield

Dr

It's good to see cognitive psychology yet again leading from the front in climate change research. It's also pleasing to see Professor Newell refer repeatedly to the long forgotten term, "Global Warming". Despite some problems with measurement and definition, global warming is at least has a metric to define it. It can be measured and correlations investigated with other continuous variables. Climate change is a vapid, non-scientific term. Unlike the global temperature anomoly it has no unique metric that defines it.

Oh, and I think your site should revert back to the vote down button. I fear for Michael Wilbur-Ham's health if you don't.

6 months ago report
1. Mike Hansen
  
  Mr
  
  In reply to Grant Burfield
  
  @Grant Burfield
  You say
  "Climate change is a vapid, non-scientific term. Unlike the global temperature anomoly (sic) it has no unique metric that defines it."
  
  There is no single metric - rather multiple lines of evidence.
  
  http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
  Global sea level rise, global temp rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme weather events, ocean acidification.
  
  See also
  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
  
  6 months ago report
Alex Cannara

logged in via LinkedIn

Duh. Like politics, follow the $.

6 months ago report
Jane Rawson

Editor, Energy & Environment at The Conversation

Please try to keep your comments relevant to the content of the article, and avoid personal attacks. This is meant to be a discussion, so don't spam with multiple posts. Talk to one another, and be polite.

6 months ago report
1. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
  
  Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
  
  In reply to Jane Rawson
  
  Jane,
  
  When a post is deleted by the moderator the email doesn't tell us which post. So I have no idea which posts of mine have been deleted, and I have no idea whether any of my posts have been deleted because I didn't meet community standards or if my posts were deleted when the follow-up posts to someone else were deleted.
  
  I believe that it is vital that those who accept the science start debating how we can convince the public and our politicians to take more action, and we need debate on…
  Read more
  
  Jane,
  
  When a post is deleted by the moderator the email doesn't tell us which post. So I have no idea which posts of mine have been deleted, and I have no idea whether any of my posts have been deleted because I didn't meet community standards or if my posts were deleted when the follow-up posts to someone else were deleted.
  
  I believe that it is vital that those who accept the science start debating how we can convince the public and our politicians to take more action, and we need debate on what action is best.
  
  Unfortunately this debate cannot happen at The Conversation as long as those who don't accept the science are hijacking the conversation. As the article points out - the truth or otherwise of the science is irrelevant to some people. As proven in the conversations here - debating the science with these people will never achieve anything.
  
  But if this is the type of discussion that you want then it is probably time for me to stop reading (and contributing) to the comments.
  
  If anyone knows somewhere where those who accept the science can debate future actions without being disrupted by deniers then please let me know.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Mark Harrigan
  
  Dr
  
  In reply to Jane Rawson
  
  Jane - have to agree with MWH. I can see whole threads have been deleted - including comments directed toward me that I in no way found offensive (even if vigorous) and were certainly on the topic of accepting science and evidence in relation to climate change, it's impacts and possible courses of action.
  
  Moderation is great - but it would be better if the posts deleted were attached to the message saying they had been deleted (what standard had been breached would be helpful too)
  
  6 months ago report
3. David Collett
  
  IT Application Developer at Web Generation
  
  In reply to Jane Rawson
  
  Thank you for moderating the comments. It's quite a conundrum - working out how to facilitate conversation in a comments thread, without it degrading into the familiar old polarities. I like the play around with technology solutions to see if something better can be created.
  
  One such idea I had to make it more constructive was to use some sort of argument mapping framework to structure the comments. For example, such a framework is shown here: http://rationale.austhink.com/learn/argument-mapping…
  Read more
  
  Thank you for moderating the comments. It's quite a conundrum - working out how to facilitate conversation in a comments thread, without it degrading into the familiar old polarities. I like the play around with technology solutions to see if something better can be created.
  
  One such idea I had to make it more constructive was to use some sort of argument mapping framework to structure the comments. For example, such a framework is shown here: http://rationale.austhink.com/learn/argument-mapping.
  
  Using such a framework, those on both sides of the argument could build up the structure by indicating whether their comment agrees or disagrees with a previous comment. Over time the comments grows out like a mind map or a tree with many branches and leaves.
  
  I like this because both sides of the argument would be building a something together - instead of the usual fences over which we throw arguments at each other. By building something together, we might actually start building bridges and areas of consensus.
  
  6 months ago report
4. Jane Rawson
  
  Editor, Energy & Environment at The Conversation
  
  In reply to Jane Rawson
  
  Hi all, thanks for your comments on the 'your comment has been removed' email - I'll pass those on to the developers to see if the situation can be improved.
  
  If a thread consists largely of people arguing with one another about one another (rather than anything substantive; eg the content of the article) I tend to remove it. This is probably what happened to your posts. There was a long thread of people basically saying 'you're dumb'; 'no, you're dumb'. I didn't think it added much for the average reader.
  
  6 months ago report
5. Jane Rawson
  
  Editor, Energy & Environment at The Conversation
  
  In reply to Jane Rawson
  
  @MWH
  >If anyone knows somewhere where those who accept the science can debate future actions without being disrupted by deniers then please let me know.
  
  I haven't found one myself. You probably already know
  http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/
  and
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/
  Which you may enjoy.
  
  But perhaps the best option would be to set up your own site (say, on Wordpress), where you can republish any of our articles (they are all creative commons and we welcome their republication), and you can either have commenting by invitation or you can moderate to keep only the comments you want to read. I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic - it isn't meant to be, it's a serious suggestion.
  
  6 months ago report
6. Peter Lang
  
  Retired geologist and engineer
  
  In reply to Jane Rawson
  
  Editor,
  
  You said: “If anyone knows somewhere where those who accept the science can debate future actions without being disrupted by deniers then please let me know.
  
  I haven't found one myself. You probably already know “
  
  This shows the blatant bias of Conversation. Clearly you don’t want a conversation. You just want people to agree with you and accept your beliefs. If evidence is provided that does not support your beliefs you delete it.
  
  Furthermore, you encourage the name calling and vitriol by using terms like “denier” yourself. Who are the real deniers?
  
  6 months ago report
7. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
  
  Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
  
  In reply to Jane Rawson
  
  @ Peter Lang.
  
  The article is making the point that presenting the science won't change the minds of some people who disagree with the vast majority of climate scientists.
  
  Can you find me one example where a frequent poster here who initially disagrees with the consensus science on climate change has taken onboard the responses from those who accept the science, and thus changed their mind and now accepts that the majority of climate change scientists are right, and that we had better to much…
  Read more
  
  @ Peter Lang.
  
  The article is making the point that presenting the science won't change the minds of some people who disagree with the vast majority of climate scientists.
  
  Can you find me one example where a frequent poster here who initially disagrees with the consensus science on climate change has taken onboard the responses from those who accept the science, and thus changed their mind and now accepts that the majority of climate change scientists are right, and that we had better to much more and soon to prevent the world getting warmer?
  
  I call the frequent posters who disagree with the science 'deniers' because it is clear that presenting a rational scientific reasoning will not change their minds. For reasons 'above' the science they deny climate change - so all the scientific discussion here is a waste of time because, as the article says, science alone won't change their opinions.
  
  There is no scientific debate about the big picture of climate change. Allowing the deniers to hijack every conversation might give the impression of debate - but not only have I never seen a denier change their mind and accept the science, I've yet to see anything from the deniers that would convince a scientifically literate person that the big picture of climate change science is under threat.
  
  We now know that the tundra is starting to melt. We know that even if we stopped all emissions today that temperatures will continue to rise for a while, and this would melt the tundra even more. I think it urgent to debate how to convince the public and the politicians that more must be done.
  
  We need to convince the 80% of people open to the issue, and the fact that say 20% will remain locked in denial does not matter. So debate the science with these people achieves nothing.
  
  There is a new website called NewsFlock which is starting up soon. Perhaps this will be the place that articles here can be debated and the deniers can be voted down so that they don't hijack the conversation.
  
  6 months ago report
8. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Jane Rawson
  
  Morning Ms Jane ...
  
  No no no - no qualms or quibbles here. You ride herd on 'em ... edit and moderate these infringers into oblivion forever. Pay no heed to their wimperings and yelping. I'm sure it hurt you far more than them - etc.
  
  It just took me back to those old photos from the 1930's Politburo where they ended up being more notable who had been removed from history that year.... brushed out of the picture, quite literally and very crudely. Whole rows of 'em.
  
  So - an IED approach…
  Read more
  
  Morning Ms Jane ...
  
  No no no - no qualms or quibbles here. You ride herd on 'em ... edit and moderate these infringers into oblivion forever. Pay no heed to their wimperings and yelping. I'm sure it hurt you far more than them - etc.
  
  It just took me back to those old photos from the 1930's Politburo where they ended up being more notable who had been removed from history that year.... brushed out of the picture, quite literally and very crudely. Whole rows of 'em.
  
  So - an IED approach to moderation Ms Jane. A 9/11 moment. Take no prisoners. Leave no twig.
  
  Could I suggest leaving the odd riposte intact - so we can capture the full nuance and wit of the largely erased coshing? Be selective. Pick a side.
  
  Actually I'd like to see a return to established moral values - notably Leviticus - in TC's moderation and comment approach. We're talking stones. Sedimentary justice. Delivered by a frothing mob of your mates from the bowling club.
  
  Well a more virtual version. Award rocks to profiles. A pile to say 93. Then you're on "probation" with all your posts screened prior to posting.
  
  Even better, let us do it. One stone for each 10 red pebbles of scorn - or "guilty" votes ... placed by punters. Eviction but more innerlectchewle.
  
  That's the great thing about lynch mobs - crowd-sourced participation. Quite cathartic. Addictive. And the punishment is very re-affirming and final. Pure and simple. None of that clammy-handed rehab nonsense.
  
  So yes, no more limp and lonely "recommendations" on your comments - "If you can't say something nice you can't say anything at all." ( It must be like having Stalin for a nanny) - bring back the bitchy button!
  
  Big Brother!!!! Give us the means to vote people off for repeat offences ... habitual abuse, infringement of community standards, or just being boring or "up 'imself". Let us tweet in our verdicts just like on TV.
  
  Community standards, policed by the community, with a volley of gravel.
  
  PS I'm putting this comment here because I couldn't think of anywhere else. And this spot became available. Like a supermarket car park innit?
  
  6 months ago report
9. Peter Lang
  
  Retired geologist and engineer
  
  In reply to Jane Rawson
  
  "edit and moderate these infringers into oblivion forever."
  
  Yep. Burn them at the stake. Tattoo swastikas on them so we can identify them and send them to the stake. Allow none to comment. Our eco-nut religion is at stake if they should be allowed to present their case.
  
  Brilliant contributions, eh? Just what the Contribution contributors wants to see. Shut down argument.
  
  6 months ago report
10. Alex Cannara
  
  logged in via LinkedIn
  
  In reply to Jane Rawson
  
  MWH, you might read Richard Muller's newish book on why he flipped from denier, after the Kochs paid him to show the data wrong -- Muller found that it wasn't.
  ;]
  He also learned how the media work -- for their benefit...
  /www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaDOuUrQwKQ
  
  6 months ago report
11. Jane Rawson
  
  Editor, Energy & Environment at The Conversation
  
  In reply to Jane Rawson
  
  @ Peter Lang
  
  My comment was a quote of MWH's question. I am not looking for such a website. I am suggesting if MWH wants such a website, he is in the wrong place and may need to set up his own website. Please reread the thread carefully. Thank you.
  
  6 months ago report
Peter Ormonde

Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

Farmer

My goodness me! ... Murder, mayhem... moderated into obliteration. Someone got upset then. Blood spatter but no bodies. And I missed it all. People wandering off the topic and taking to each other with cudgels and switchblades. I hope everyone is recovering nicely. Go Jets!

Anyway. Excellent thoughtful piece, Ben.

For a sizable chunk of the population science, facts and evidence will never be adequate or acceptable. Not only ineffective - such evidence repels them. Facts cannot be allowed to challenge their deeply held assumptions about life.

You can give them various characterisations but by and large, for them, the future looks like the past but bigger.

The disturbing part is the ready lunge into conspiracies and plots to explain away the torrent of AGW science. World Guvvermint! Socialist Plot to Redistribute World's Wealth! Economic sabotage! This is the point where fear and foil take over the controls.

Pills!!!!

6 months ago report
David Arthur

n/a

Thanks for this, Prof Newell.

I'm interested by research that found reading "a simple 400-word description of the mechanism of global warming led to increased acceptance that climate change is real".

Perhaps the conversation would be facilitated if you sought the permission of the authors of that 400-word description, and reproduced it on this page, perhaps as an addendum to your article?

6 months ago report
1. Alex Cannara
  
  logged in via LinkedIn
  
  In reply to David Arthur
  
  Here's <400 words: GHG molecules absorb solar & ground infrared; couple vibrations to thousands of surrounding air molecules only nanometers away; all air get hot; air couple heat to surface & water; water evaporate; water strong GHG; air get hotter; couple more heat/infrared to earth; man burn stuff, make more GHGs; man get hot too; heat raise sea levels, flood good land; man ruin climate for all, but man's CO2 dissolve in oceans, make carbonic acid, ruin sea life growth; now fish & man starve. the end.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Ben Newell
  
  Associate Professor of Cognitive Psychology at University of New South Wales
  
  In reply to David Arthur
  
  HI David,
  The 400 words are embedded in the bottom paragraph on the first page of this paper by Michael Ranney and colleagues at Berkley. Let me know if you have trouble with the link.
  
  http://hamschank.com/convinceme/downloads/papers/RanneyEtAl-ICLS2012.pdf
  
  6 months ago report
3. Peter Lang
  
  Retired geologist and engineer
  
  In reply to David Arthur
  
  Ben Newell,
  
  There is large uncertainty on the climate sensitivity and the uncertainty is little changed in 20 years. The really important factor, the ‘Damage Function’ is very uncertain (Nordhaus http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf, e.g. Table 7-2, p130). Nordhaus states in “Accompanying Notes and Documentation”: “The major issue at this stage is that the database for impact studies continues to be relatively small.” (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Accom_Notes_100507.pdf, p24…
  Read more
  
  Ben Newell,
  
  There is large uncertainty on the climate sensitivity and the uncertainty is little changed in 20 years. The really important factor, the ‘Damage Function’ is very uncertain (Nordhaus http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf, e.g. Table 7-2, p130). Nordhaus states in “Accompanying Notes and Documentation”: “The major issue at this stage is that the database for impact studies continues to be relatively small.” (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Accom_Notes_100507.pdf, p24
  
  The four main inputs that are important for estimating the consequences of ACO2, and the costs and benefits of mitigation policies, are:
  
  1. climate sensitivity (Tx2CO2)
  2. Damage Function
  3. Rate of decarbonisation
  4. Probability that the proposed policy will achieve the beneficial changes to the climate, sea level, etc.
  
  In the comments that were deleted from this thread I provided several examples, e.g. from Treasury, which indicate that the damage estimates are likely to be too high.
  
  I also showed here how badly we are being misled about the claimed costs and benefits: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/what-the-carbon-tax-and-ets-will-really-cost-peter-lang/
  
  The rate of decarbonisation that could be achieved is also important. My comments showing what can be achieved with decarbonisation rate were also deleted from the thread.
  
  The link above shows that there is vey low probability that policies like carbon pricing and renewable energy will have any beneficial effect on the climate. But they will have seriously damaging consequences for the global economy and therefore for human well-being.
  
  The real argument is about; i.e. items 2, 3 and 4 on my list above, not about AGW theory..
  
  6 months ago report
4. Grant Burfield
  
  Dr
  
  In reply to David Arthur
  
  Professor Newell,
  
  It's no wonder people's eyes glaze over and they get on with more important things when Climate Science confronts them with the Reinforced Theistic Manifest Destiny theory.
  
  That aside, the 400 word description makes no mention of water vapour feedback which if strongly positive (as the models assume) can lead to 3.5 times as much warming as that produced by a doubling of CO2. The paper makes no mention of the fact that water vapour is by far the most dominant "greenhouse" gas and the mechanism of precipitation and its effect on temperature is poorly understood and modelled. If the feedback is weakly positive (or negative) then the ~ 1.2 deg K increase is what the models predict. We're well over half way there and the "C" in CAGW would not be required.
  
  <a href="http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/09/22/measuring-climate-sensitivity-part-one/">Science of Doom </a> has excellent articles on climate sensitivity.
  
  6 months ago report
Peter Ormonde

Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

Farmer

400 words!!!? That's a thesis!

At a near TV advertising speech rate - that's 4 whole minutes! Out of my life! Time torn from watching Friends re-runs! That's 8 ads!!!! Who could remember all that? Even if it was true. But we know it's not. We "commonsensers".

I talk to farmers a lot. Anyone any good at it is an enthusiastic follower of weather and a smattering of the science behind it. For conservatives, this is one area where change seems inevitable and constant.

They're not…
Read more

400 words!!!? That's a thesis!

At a near TV advertising speech rate - that's 4 whole minutes! Out of my life! Time torn from watching Friends re-runs! That's 8 ads!!!! Who could remember all that? Even if it was true. But we know it's not. We "commonsensers".

I talk to farmers a lot. Anyone any good at it is an enthusiastic follower of weather and a smattering of the science behind it. For conservatives, this is one area where change seems inevitable and constant.

They're not hard to talk to about climate change... not hard to find common ground. The curious part is extrapolating their very localised knowledge understanding into policy alternatives - like renewables, carbon markets and the like ... farmers tend not to think about that sort of stuff I guess.... probably why they live so long.

See I don't think there's an off-the-peg "explanation" of climate change that will convince the militantly unconvincible. That requires medication or a substantial investment in Alfoil.

As for the rest - that are at least open to discussion - then it is far more effective to bespoke the garment. Facts or numbers don't convince some folks. Others can't be convinced without them. But it is the willingness to listen that is the critical ingredient... the suggestion of a rational mind. Enthusiasm is contagious.

6 months ago report
1. Peter Lang
  
  Retired geologist and engineer
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Editor,
  
  I guess this would fit the description of what you would remove:
  
  "If a thread consists largely of people arguing with one another about one another (rather than anything substantive; eg the content of the article) I tend to remove it."
  
  This comment, like nearly all Peter Osborne's comment is flaming.
  
  6 months ago report
Peter Ormonde

Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

Farmer

See folks ... this is what I'm talking about ... here you are talking about 400 words and we dealing with folks who really have trouble grappling with two. Like a name.

Who is this flaming Osborne who haunts your sleepless nights Pete?

6 months ago report
1. Peter Lang
  
  Retired geologist and engineer
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Yes,
  
  My bad. My apolologies for spelling mistake.
  
  But your comment reconfirms my point. You and most of the others who share your eco-nut beliefs, are not interested in a discussion. You want to prevent it. You avoid the substantive arguments and carry on with stupid comments. What's more the Editors encourage it (as long as it supports their beliefs). You avoid the substantive comments and the Editors delete them.
  
  6 months ago report
Nev Norton

Farmer

Climate deniers, I had my little say a couple of days ago, the outcome was absolutely predicatable, I was surprised there wasn't more.
As I sit back and watch the progress of this thread, the one big thing that strikes me is the similarity between the CC supporters and the deniers and the goings on of the Spanish Inquisition, and I'm sure MWH should of been born in those times, so he could meter out swift justice or slow torture to the Deniers till they become believers.

Is this the real solution…
Read more

Climate deniers, I had my little say a couple of days ago, the outcome was absolutely predicatable, I was surprised there wasn't more.
As I sit back and watch the progress of this thread, the one big thing that strikes me is the similarity between the CC supporters and the deniers and the goings on of the Spanish Inquisition, and I'm sure MWH should of been born in those times, so he could meter out swift justice or slow torture to the Deniers till they become believers.

Is this the real solution to dealing with the Denier delinquents?

To the science of Climate change it seems to me to be the most perfect science out there, where every eventuality is covered and any deviation from the modelling can be easily explained away. Yet weather forecasting is pretty hit and miss, often more miss than hit. I find this troubling.
In any case dissent is normal and good, and will never prevent debate. Only enhance it.
Anyone who only wants to debate if there is only a 100% convergence of views I find troubling as well, seems a little like an Oligarchy structure.

6 months ago report
1. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
  
  Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
  
  In reply to Nev Norton
  
  Nev Norton has missed all my points.
  
  I've never said that there should be no debate on science vs non-science. What I've been pushing for is a place where those who accept the science can debate the important issues - how to move forward.
  
  There is lots to debate on these questions by those who accept the science. But the debate on how to move forward is prevented by each thread being hijacked by the deniers.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Nev Norton
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Nev Norton
  
  MWH, just how is the thread being "highjacked" as you put it, and just who is preventing you from having that debate. You seem more interested in having a whinge because not everyone agrees, I think Jane Rawson is right start your own, and only invite people who agree with your take on the world.
  
  6 months ago report
Peter Ormonde

Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

Farmer

Peter Lang.

The bloke over the road from me, Daryl, is a horse breeder and race trainer. Lovely fella. Knows everything there is about horses and then some. But he doesn't know a sneeze about chooks. I don't pay him much heed when he's giving me his insider's chook tips.

Now I know you would like people to take you seriously Pete. But I'm sorry, it is impossible to keep bickering with folks who will never ever agree with anything - who remain unconcerned by every or accept any suggestion…
Read more

Peter Lang.

The bloke over the road from me, Daryl, is a horse breeder and race trainer. Lovely fella. Knows everything there is about horses and then some. But he doesn't know a sneeze about chooks. I don't pay him much heed when he's giving me his insider's chook tips.

Now I know you would like people to take you seriously Pete. But I'm sorry, it is impossible to keep bickering with folks who will never ever agree with anything - who remain unconcerned by every or accept any suggestion of movement. Especially by those whose grasp of science seems omniscient - enabling them to leap disciplines and expertise in a single bound.

History has moved on Peter. We - along with the rest of the world - are now looking at what to do about Climate Change - whether the carbon pricing system will send a sufficient signal into the market to hasten the shift into renewables, the operation of the grid and the national energy market.... how to try and adapt. The jury is in.

You can continue to argue Peter. But fewer and fewer will be listening. We are just getting on with it. Let's hope you're right. But we're not banking the house on it.

And anyway Peter - simply ANYONE seriously "in the loop" knows that the real menace to Our Freedoms and Way of Life comes from the accursedly French Bureau des Poids et Mesures with their plot to decimalise the world. To make everything smaller. Or bigger. But more inconvenient. And expensive. Further away and heavier. The Tyranny of the Ten.

6 months ago report
1. Peter Lang
  
  Retired geologist and engineer
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Another constructive contribution from Peter Ormonde, eh? His comments and most of the others who share his ideological beliefs are about diversion and avoidance. And the Conversation Editors seem to love it and encourage it, as long as it aligns with their ideological beliefs.
  
  It's pretty clear it is these people who are the 'deniers'. The only argument they have left is name calling, diversion, avoidance.
  
  Pathetic!.
  
  I wonder why the Editors haven't banned long ago Peter Ormonde and those who behave like him. This comment I am responding to is an example of the absolute drivel posted on the Conversation all the time, and apparently encouraged by the Editors.
  
  6 months ago report
Robert Kelty

logged in via Facebook

I would like to know why scientific data is now referred to as "The science", can anyone explain this strange anomaly?

6 months ago report
Robert Kelty

logged in via Facebook

Also, I would like ask; What is the most common greenhouse gas?

and;
What is that gass proportion'to all the other gasses?

6 months ago report
1. Tim Scanlon
  
  Debunker
  
  In reply to Robert Kelty
  
  Less than 0.5% of the atmospheric gases are heat trapping gases, of these the largest is water. Water has a short cycle in the atmosphere and changes relative to the temperature of the atmosphere (relative humidity). The next largest are the ones that humans are altering: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. There are then another 100 or so greenhouse gases, such as CFCs and HFCs, about 65 of which science measures.
  
  The proportion isn't really that important though, as it is the heating…
  Read more
  
  Less than 0.5% of the atmospheric gases are heat trapping gases, of these the largest is water. Water has a short cycle in the atmosphere and changes relative to the temperature of the atmosphere (relative humidity). The next largest are the ones that humans are altering: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. There are then another 100 or so greenhouse gases, such as CFCs and HFCs, about 65 of which science measures.
  
  The proportion isn't really that important though, as it is the heating potential of the gases that is important. Nitrogen and Oxygen don't retain heat the way water, CO2 and NO do, thus that 0.5% of the atmosphere is the reason we have a habitable planet rather than a frozen ice brick. Now change the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and you change the normal cycles, which allows extra heat to be retained, which messes up air movements around the planet, which messes up our climate. Hence climate change.
  
  More on measuring the gases here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=133
  
  6 months ago report
Robert Kelty

logged in via Facebook

*gas'proportion* (pardon my dyslexia)

6 months ago report
Peter Lang

Retired geologist and engineer

Isn't it interesting how little media interest there in in Doha? What a contrast to Copenhagen, eh?

This chart is interesting. http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic? It shows the media interest. Doha doesn't even show up as a blip on the declining interest since Copenhagen (expand the time scale to see the detail).

Hardly a heartbeat. Almost dead.

I wonder why. Could it be that reality is getting through?

Who are the deniers now? I'd suggest it is those who don't understand how the real world works. The chart shows the reality. Reality is taking over again. The extremists are being sidelined by reality. It is the extremists who are the real deniers.

6 months ago report

World views and scientific literacy

Ditching the science?

Finding the middle ground

Articles also by This Author

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter