Climate Change: Fact, Fiction, Something in Between?

[jacob]

The problem is that the audience is scientifically illiterate and are thus easily persuaded by rhetorical tricks. Now it could be that all it takes is a balancing effort comparable to that of the fossil fuel industry's think tanks that were used in the free-market/fossil fuel country (UK, US, and Australia) to obfuscate the issue to right the ship.

Note how only those countries have a significant percentage of deniers.

The question is whether the argument really needs to descend (sorry for being elitist here) to TV ads, posters, debate skills, and soundbites just because those are proven to work when it comes to people (most people really) who lack the specific understanding to have any way whatsoever of rationally judging this highly technical field.

I mean, what you're really asking is for the science community to bring every American up to at least an undergraduate level understanding of physics, biology, meteorology, geology, astrophysics, computational modeling, and scientific literacy.

That is, you're asking for the scientific community to do what most colleges fail to do despite having access to student brains for 2-4 years to 60% of the population.

I think that's a lot to ask. I mean, I'm very widely read (I've only known a couple of people to have read more than me) and I have a PhD in physics which is pretty much the most fundamental science and even I lack the knowledge to cover all these fields---I have to spend hours reading background information just to understand some of the simulations.

Can we expect this of Joe Public?

I doubt it. Therefore any "debate" will have to resort to psychology and rhetorical tricks.

This is why I'm NOT in favor of a public debate.

[jacob]

It may be that what's needed is that equivalent of the Scopes Money trial (and the subsequent equivalents). As far as I understand, the outcome of such debates really depend more on the lawyer representing---what they focus on in their argument and what the judges think (the zeitgeist+their scientific understanding) than the veracity of the underlying case---so I'm not sure whether gambling the 22nd century on the outcome of a few trials is the best approach.

[jacob]

This actually makes me wonder ... on a more general level (maybe a new thread is required) ... whether our current ruling system is the optimal given the complexities of a technology using civilization.

Direct democracy was used by the Greeks. This makes sense because everybody understood "life's complexities" and could make a sound decision. As the world became more complex, direct democracy was replaced by representative democracy. If you look at congresss, most of them have a legal or a business background. There are almost no scientists or technologists there. This is a big problem when it comes to matters of technology---which also, unlike the 18th century when that system was designed---is wholly inadequate. Maybe it's time to revamp the system and add a technocracy-layer just as a "representative"-layer was added once societies grew beyond city-size...

[GandK]

The question is whether the argument really needs to descend (sorry for being elitist here) to TV ads, posters, debate skills, and soundbites just because those are proven to work when it comes to people (most people really) who lack the specific understanding to have any way whatsoever of rationally judging this highly technical field.

Yes. Yes it does. Unless the only goal of the climatologists is creating debate. Debate can take place with only a handful of individuals. Sea change (NPI) requires the involvement of the masses. If we rule out the scientific education of voters as impossible - which I think we must - then the alternative is marketing.

Yes, I'm sorry to say it: scientists need to become better marketers. Especially when you consider that their findings run afoul of the business models of multi-billion dollar organizations who aggressively use the media to spin the hell out of their own positions. How much blame can we place on people with questionable levels of understanding who are subjected to such advertising blitzes, and then "don't get it" about global warming?

[Felix]

Interesting. If you take the influence propaganda, marketing and clever rhetoric have on humans as a given, does it mean that scientists have to engage in it to fight for the truth?

The argument for it would be that it seems to be the only way to get the point across. If the other side plays dirty, you play dirty, too. Otherwise you lose the debate to an opponent with the scientifically weaker -or even demonstrably wrong - position.

One could argue for this in terms of application in the public sphere.

The argument against it that I see is that you end up putting the science up for debate in a fight based on propaganda techniques.

The comparison would be fighting a holy war about who has the true god. The winner is the one with superior weaponry and warfare skills, not necessarily the one who has the true god.

The winner of the debate is the one who propagandizes better, not the one who actually has the science behind him. Engaging in a propaganda war would give legitimacy to the unscientific side.

The saying "Don't debate with idiots, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." comes to mind.

The question would be if this is something that cannot be avoided.

Jacob's answer would be to cut out the circus completely and simply just let those who have shown to have the required knowledge of the topic make the decision.

[jennypenny]

Jacob's answer would be to cut out the circus completely and simply just let those who have shown to have the required knowledge of the topic make the decision.

I see two problems with that. First, that's not how our system is set up. Second, would you apply that theory to all issues? (for example, let [only] bankers decide fiscal policy?)

The problem is also a difference in facts (clear) and policy (not so clear). The example of flu shots is a good one. Fact--flu shots prevent the flu. Policy--everyone should get flu shots. Not everyone agrees with that.

Who is qualified to decide policy? If lawmakers are (as our system is currently designed), then it is incumbent on the science community to convince lawmakers. It is then the lawmakers job to convince the public that the policy is sound. That eliminates the situation where you have Joe Scientist trying to explain the intricacies of climate science to Joe Public. (although the information should always be available to the public) It also allows for debate over policy in the forum where it belongs.

That should be happening anyway on most issues. It isn't because lawmakers have done a terrible job of maintaining the trust of the public, and extreme lobbying has overcome the better judgement of lawmakers. I don't think we need a new system. We need to fix those two issues in the current system. That would go a long way toward improving this, and many other, issues.

[Felix]

Yes, a science committee that decides on all matters scientific would go against the idea of democracy. Maybe requiring a certain percentage of scientists (or other groups) in politics would work?

[jacob]

Well, there's a certain committee of bankers(*) deciding all monetary policy, so ...

(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Op ... _Committee

In the name of satirical consistency, then, shouldn't we have D&R congress members trade the yield curve with unlimited reserve money seeing at they were democratically elected and therefore fully qualified and capable of acting on the public's democratic wishes wrt money policy?

I don't really think having a science board dealing with science issues would be too hard to implement. Board members sit for life or 15 years (anything longer than the political cycle, really). Each president gets to nominate new members for vacant spots. Just like the supreme court. I mean, why doesn't the public get to vote for these guys?

[jennypenny]

Well, there's a certain committee of bankers(*) deciding all monetary policy, so ...

who must appear before congress and answer to them ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Op ... _oversight

Are you being serious with your question about congress? If so, then no, they should decide whether policy should focus on job growth, low inflation, maintaining the value of the dollar, etc, and task the FOMC with implementing said policy.

(if you aren't being serious then cut it out, I'm trying to watch the Liverpool game )

[Felix]

@jacob: That was perfect.

Ignorance and propaganda are the obvious weak spots of democracy.

So the proposal is to have an FOMC equivalent for different fields?

Also, how's the FOMC doing?

[jacob]

@jennypenny -

Bingo! Of course the science board will answer to congress and implement whatever policies congress desires(*) BASED ON THE BEST SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING rather than being vulnerable to public (and public representatives') obfuscation as is the case with the current system [which has been in place since it was designed at a time where science and technology were largely irrelevant in most people's lives].

(*) I already listed some policies early in this thread. Can kicking, mitigation, life boat strategy, food and water wars, atmospheric blankening, ... E.g. suppose the voters decide, like they did with oil usage, that the best strategy is to maintain their way of life and invade regions of the world where food will be grown in the future once the southern deserts move into the Midwestern corn belts. Well, then the science board can say where that is and which are the priority targets, etc.

Doing it this way will at least insert a layer between the current combination of congress members most of whom have zero scientific background and whom are subject to lobbying and a similarly illeducated public which are prone to propaganda efforts.

Just like the Feds, the military, the supreme court, the NSA, ...

This way we avoid having, say, smoking policy _guided_ by talk-shows and the ratio of pro-tobacco billboards and anti-smoking TV ads and instead have it _guided_ by scientific research.

[Ego]

Our last Surgeon General was obese and our current director of the National Institutes of Health is a pro-life evolutionary creationist. Imagine what the nominees for the scientific-supreme court would look like. Hah!

[jennypenny]

Bingo! Of course the science board will answer to congress and implement whatever policies congress desires(*) BASED ON THE BEST SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING rather than being vulnerable to public (and public representatives') obfuscation as is the case with the current system [which has been in place since it was designed at a time where science and technology were largely irrelevant in most people's lives].

But they will have to make their case in a public forum and to a mostly non-scientific community (and without the condescension lest they lose their position/funding), which would eliminate what I was complaining about. I realize that most in the public wouldn't be interested. If at any point their policies are too intrusive on people's lives or fail to produce the advertised results though, more will take notice and demand accountability.

...our current director of the National Institutes of Health is a pro-life evolutionary creationist. Imagine what the nominees for the scientific-supreme court would look like. Hah!

Do Dr. Collins' views affect his job performance? Do they imply that he's not a good physician?

[jacob]

I realize that most in the public wouldn't be interested. If at any point their policies are too intrusive on people's lives or fail to produce the advertised results though, more will take notice and demand accountability.

You mean just like the public did with the TSA, NSA, SEC, FOMC, etc.

I think the story over the past 10-15 years shows that unless it concerns the next American Idol or who twerked what, most of the public aren't interested no matter how crazy policies get as long as 1) things happen to someone else; and/or 2) they happen slow enough to escape notice.

Two military invasions, a huge upgrade of the state security apparatus, several natural disasters that could have been prevented, two financial bubbles, a major ongoing recession, a bungled health care system... and yet people are kinda okay with that.

[Ego]

Do Dr. Collins' views affect his job performance? Do they imply that he's not a good physician?

As the Director of the National Institutes of Health, if he professed the (equally implausible) belief that Hercules was indeed the god of health as the ancient Greeks believed, would it affect his job performance?

[jennypenny]

Do Dr. Collins' views affect his job performance? Do they imply that he's not a good physician?

As the Director of the National Institutes of Health, if he professed the (equally implausible) belief that Hercules was indeed the god of health as the ancient Greeks believed, would it affect his job performance?

I wasn't asking a hypothetical question. I'm just following your request for evidence-based decision making. Do you have any evidence that his beliefs adversely his job performance at NIH or as a physician? Or is it just your belief that it does?

[Ego]

Of the challenges to climate change listed above, the greatest challenge is the scientific ignorance of the American populace. By far the largest obstacle to overcoming that ignorance is religion. The fact that he as a public official professes his beliefs so forcefully, and the fact that he holds himself up as the government face of science/faith compatibility .... they make the obstacles to scientific literacy stronger.

Collins has professed belief in various miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection.... etc. There is no evidence that magical thinking will solve our problems. There is evidence (link above) that magical thinking is correlated with the belief that climate change is not a problem. When a government scientist says magic is possible, it undermines the science.

[jennypenny]

Sticking with the climate change topic only...

I won't speak for all Christian denominations, but the Catholic Church does not debate/deny the science behind climate change. In fact, you can see from the dates quoted below that the Catholic Church has been on board for a couple of decades.

I'm just trying to set the record straight here. Ignorance of the climate issue is not promoted by the Catholic Church. On the contrary, the Church tries to educate its membership about the issue.

From the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/20 ... te-change/

On January 1, 1990, Pope John Paul II delivered his World Day of Peace message to Catholics around the world, and for that year’s address he lamented a “widespread destruction of the environment.” World peace, he warned, was threatened not only by arms, conflict, and injustice, but by “a lack of due respect for nature.”

John Paul II’s message on that day pointed to a worldwide ecological crisis, and while it did not mention climate change by name his references were clear. “Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment,” he said. “The resulting meteorological and atmospheric changes range from damage to health to the possible future submersion of low-lying lands.”

…

“At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures,” the bishops said in their 2001 statement. “It is about the future of God’s creation and the one human family. It is about protecting both ‘the human environment’ and the natural environment. It is about our human stewardship of God’s creation and our responsibility to those who come after us.”

…

The Catholic Church today, from the Vatican to the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops to individual parishes in communities across the country, works to increase awareness about climate change and its risks among lay Catholics; educates individuals, churches, schools, religious colleges and universities, and other Catholic institutions about how to cut energy use and live more sustainably; and advocates in support of legislative action by state governments, the U.S. Congress, and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to curb carbon emissions.

The Vatican and, significantly, U.S. bishops clearly say they support the scientific consensus on climate change

…

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church’s leaders have taken a strong stance on the issue, framing the climate change challenge in language that is particular to Catholicism but also common among people of other faiths. Taking action to curb carbon emissions is, at its core, a moral imperative, the Church teaches.

[Tyler9000]

Politicians making executive decisions on scientific policy with no public accountability is not the answer (they'll claim everything is "science" and do whatever the hell they want), just as scientists trying to explain complicated topics directly to the uneducated masses is also not the answer. Honestly the system we have now, while certainly imperfect, is not so bad.

People just get pissed when they're convinced they're right but can't influence enough people immediately, and usually start pitching some erosion of individual liberties as a solution. Sometimes consensus and policy take time to coalesce, and in the field of climate change with the types of "solutions" being tossed about I'd argue that rushing too quickly on policy is just as shortsighted as ignoring the topic altogether. As I said before, focusing only on the science but ignoring the political wolves looking to use said science as an excuse for their unrelated policy agendas is noble but naive.

Scientists should continue studying science. Politicians, lobbyists, and activists should stay the F out of it. And in time the path forward will make itself obvious and public opinion will shift accordingly. Of course, that naturally drives some people insane when they're convinced they have everything figured out right now if only people could be compelled to listen. But IMHO that's a common character flaw of the (self-nominated) intellectual elite.

In the meantime, make changes in your own life for the better! Leading by example is the best way to instigate change in others. FWIW, I respect Jacob for his personal dedication to living with a small carbon footprint even more than I respect his deep knowledge of climate science. For the scientifically illiterate, that's all the evidence they'll have. So the first step to changing everyone else is to change yourself.

Along those lines, while some may rightfully label me as an anthropogenic climate change skeptic I live my life in much the same way as the true carbon footprint advocates. I guess my objections are more to the political machinations of the issue rather than the practical side, and while I am highly skeptical of government edict I see great personal, environmental, and (yes) spiritual benefits in choosing a non-consumerist lifestyle. On that we can all agree.

[jacob]

Scientists should continue studying science. Politicians, lobbyists, and activists should stay the F out of it. And in time the path forward will make itself obvious and public opinion will shift accordingly.

Doing nothing is also a policy choice.

Titanic example. So the policy here is that we continue studying ice bergs even as 97% of scientists agree that we're going to hit one with 90% probability and sink the ship. In time, we'll then hit the iceberg and public opinion of the passengers will shift towards manning the lifeboats only to discover that there are too many of them and too few boats. Then drowning obtains. Also see, Katrina.

Based on historical precedent I suspect that's more or less how it will go down.