A recent Yale University study funded by the National Science Foundation found that those with opposing views on climate change don’t hold those views because of insufficient scientific understanding, but because of “opposing sets of cultural values.”
To be specific, people have a rather solid foundation in science and mathematics, but they use scientific evidence to fit their cultural group’s values. In other words, global warming deniers aren’t stupid, they just want to fit in.
“In effect, ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values,” said Dan Kahan, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School. ”At least among ordinary members of the public, individuals with higher science comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group commitments.”
“More information can help solve the climate change conflict,” Kahan said, “but that information has to do more than communicate the scientific evidence. It also has to create a climate of deliberations in which no group perceives that accepting any piece of evidence is akin to betrayal of their cultural group.”
So, the next time you find yourself in the company of a global warming denier or skeptic, just remember they’re under a lot of pressure, okay?
The Yale study was published yesterday in the journal Nature.
May 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm, David Friedman said:
Of course, people who believe in global warming, for the most part, hold those views for the same reason. Only a small fraction of the people on either side actually know enough about the issues to be confident of their views.
As is also the case in many other controversies. How many believers in Darwinian evolution know enough about the evidence to do a competent job of defending their position against a really able creationist? Ditto for those for or against "stimulus," or Obamacare, or….
May 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm, Amol Kelkar said:
When one doesn't know all the details about a specific scientific topic, it is safe to side with majority of experts (read 'credible scientists with peer reviewed research'). So no, your argument doesn't hold for scientific areas like climate and evolution.
On the other hand, social 'sciences' like Economics are mostly pseudo-sciences, so other than educated guesses there is no 'truth' in any plans/predictions there.
May 28, 2012 at 7:14 pm, Joe ThePimpernel said:
"When one doesn't know all the details about a specific scientific topic, it is safe to side with majority of experts (read 'credible scientists with peer reviewed research'). So no, your argument doesn't hold for scientific areas like climate and evolution."
Oh, pulleeze.
Science is not about "consensus." It is about reproducibility.
AGW proponents do not share their source data unless forced to do so, because they know their results cannot be reproduced.
This is why Kieth Briffa had to cull the tree ring data upon which Michael Mann and Phil Jones based their scary "hockey stick" graph, and why Mann and Jones had to "hide the decline" when actual temperatures did not conform to that scary "hockey stick" graph.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=1392
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300877/climategate-continues-andrew-montford
And there are PLENTY of scientists who are climate change skeptics, so there goes your bogus "consensus" anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
May 28, 2012 at 5:16 pm, Art Valla said:
I believe in global warming. Memorial day in Seattle and it is not pouring rain. The world must be getting warmer….. oh, wait. It just started to sprinkle…..
May 28, 2012 at 5:21 pm, The Mighty Wailin' Burnin' Berry said:
There is something fundamental in the wiring of the brain in climate change deniers. I am especially fond of the "deniers" who sit in traffic jams, choose to live in "right turn only" burbia and never stop for a minute to think the sky may have limits. "You know better, but I know him" (those people also area a riot).
May 28, 2012 at 7:16 pm, Joe ThePimpernel said:
Science is not about "consensus." It is about reproducibility.
AGW proponents do not share their source data unless forced to do so, because they know their results cannot be reproduced.
This is why Kieth Briffa had to cull the tree ring data upon which Michael Mann and Phil Jones based their scary "hockey stick" graph, and why Mann and Jones had to "hide the decline" when actual temperatures did not conform to that scary "hockey stick" graph.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=1392
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300877/climategate-continues-andrew-montford
And there are PLENTY of scientists who are climate change skeptics, so there goes your bogus "consensus" anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
May 28, 2012 at 5:37 pm, Fred Stitt said:
Deniers keep denying and warming keeps warming. Seems
oddly balanced in some way.
May 28, 2012 at 7:19 pm, Joe ThePimpernel said:
There has been no "global warming" for fifteen years.
http://thegwpf.org/press-releases/5360-no-global-warming-for-15-years.html
Not that facts matter to misanthropes like you if they stand in the way of your draconian environmental and population-control wet dreams.
May 28, 2012 at 1:54 pm, Climate change deniers not stupid, just trying to fit in, says study – Death and Taxes « News « Bilal's Hardware said:
[...] Reading: Climate change deniers not stupid, just trying to fit in, says study – Death and Taxes Related [...]
May 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm, Bowie TX Rocks - Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change ... - Fox NewsBowie TX Rocks said:
[...] that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a …Climate change deniers not stupid, just trying to fit in, says studyDeath and TaxesGlobal warming skeptics don't lack science education but have different [...]
May 28, 2012 at 6:04 pm, Tamara Acar said:
May 28, 2012 at 6:16 pm, Andrew Thomas Russo said:
If the data on climate change do not fit ones beliefs about climate change there are 2 major possibliities, the data are not correct or ones opinion about the reality of climate change is wrong. If the data are not incorrect and one cannot reconcile the data with their current beliefs then the only rational course of action is to reevaluate those beliefs. To not take this course is simply ignorance and denial of the facts.
May 28, 2012 at 6:57 pm, Joe ThePimpernel said:
Science is not about peer-review. It is about reproducibility.
AGW proponents do not share their source data unless forced to do so, because they know their results cannot be reproduced.
This is why Mann and Jones had to "hide the decline," and why Briffa had to cull the tree ring data upon which Mann and Jones based their scary "hockey stick" graph.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=1392
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300877/climategate-continues-andrew-montford
May 28, 2012 at 6:30 pm, Randy Donabedian said:
We should be rounded up and institutionalized for our own welfare.
May 28, 2012 at 6:33 pm, Joe ThePimpernel said:
http://i.imgur.com/Y330Y.gif
May 28, 2012 at 6:40 pm, Michael Munsey said:
Interesting that instead of spending our tax dollars on trying to prove global warming, they are now spending them on finding out what is wrong with people who don't believe them.
May 28, 2012 at 6:44 pm, Joe ThePimpernel said:
AGW/Climate change is not about climate. It is about manufacturing a "crisis" for the collectivists to exploit for the purpose of implementing draconian environmental and population-control policies.
Even global warming believers don't believe in it, which is why Mann and Jones had to "hide the decline," and why Briffa had to cull the tree ring data upon which Mann and Jones based their scary "hockey stick" graph.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=1392
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300877/climategate-continues-andrew-montford
May 28, 2012 at 6:58 pm, Glen Jones said:
Why do things have to be studied that are obvious? You could say the same thing about almost anything (religion, attitude towards death, etc.). Our earliest conditioning influences what we believe, how we think, and how we act. Appreciating these beliefs is important, but also seeing it is just a safe bubble we create for Maslow's sake!
May 28, 2012 at 7:11 pm, Bill Smith said:
The converse can also be said: those who accept global warming do so to fit into their cultural group.
May 28, 2012 at 7:13 pm, Vince Everett said:
The problem is that your nation is full of Americans.
May 28, 2012 at 7:46 pm, Tim Nicholas said:
It seems to me that all the "evidence to support man made global warming" is based on computer generated models. Whereas the evidence to support the fact that real Climate change is based on real scientific historical evidence such as polar ice core samples. The earth waves back and forth between tropical and cold spells. I guess that the last several ice ages and tropical swings were cause by all the SUVs that were driven around by our ancestral predecessors. STOP pissing away our tax dollars on something you can do absolutely nothing about.
May 29, 2012 at 1:34 am, Andrew Thomas Russo said:
the evidence is the data that have been collected. Physical measurements of trends in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere either measured directly or estimated using methods like sampling ice cores. The models are used in the analysis of this data and to compare direct observations to the hiostorical patterns you mention. The fact is that we are currently deviating from the historical cycles and currently the best explanation for this off cycle warming pattern is increased atmospheric CO2 resulting from human activity. Please have a look at :
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
It is all explained very clearly.
June 01, 2012 at 12:50 am, Joe ThePimpernel said:
The data upon which Michael Mann and Phil Jones extrapolated their scary "Hockey Stick" graph comes solely from Keith Briffa's tree ring data, and he culled it to give the results that he wanted.
He also would not share his source data, so that his results could be reproduced. It took years to force him to do it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300877/climategate-continues-andrew-montford
Science requires reproducibility of results by other scientists. Any scientific discipline that routinely withholds source data ain't science.
January 09, 2013 at 1:37 am, Noah Baron said:
It's just a cultural group thing. It's OK. You won't be judged by your group if you come out on climate change (It's pretty obvious).
May 28, 2012 at 7:55 pm, Bob Martin said:
Their is not much argument whether the planet is getting warmer. The argument is whether it is man made or a natural cycle. If it is a natural cycle we may be damaging the environment by reducing CO2 now.
June 01, 2012 at 12:51 am, Joe ThePimpernel said:
There has been no "global warming" for fifteen years.
http://thegwpf.org/press-releases/5360-no-global-warming-for-15-years.html
May 28, 2012 at 4:11 pm, Climate change deniers not stupid, just trying to fit in, says study – Death and Taxes « Technology « Direct Global Media said:
[...] Climate change deniers not stupid, just trying to fit in, says study – Death and Taxes [...]
May 28, 2012 at 8:11 pm, Mitch Seligson said:
It's articles like the above (and the Yale study that is its basis) that help reinforce the skepticism that is growing in the general population.
I fall into the majority David Friedman referred to below. I am not a climate scientist, I don't have the ability to spend years studying the topic. So I am dependent on the press and other secondary sources to form an opinion.
Now if the question at hand were say, the existence of the Higgs boson it wouldn't matter that much to the general public (even though it matters a lot to physicists etc and a greater understanding of matter and the universe may lead to advances that affect us all). But the question of man-made global warming has immediate policy consequences that can have a major and immediate effect on the average person.
Perhaps the scientists involved are more used to internal debates over esoteric topics of little interest to "Joe Taxpayer", but whatever the reason, those making the case for the existence of, and urgent need to address man-made GW have done a terrible job.
First there were bombastic pronouncements and predictions (every hot spring day: "see it's GW!", all the "this is going to be the worst hurricane season ever – our computer models prove it!") which most serious climate scientists I heard/read did not sign on to, but they did not denounce until doubt was sown.
Then was the shift to what I call "the Sean Hannity" method of debate – he who shouts loudest and drowns out the other guy wins. This makes those who agree with the shouter feel good but leaves an undecided observer wondering "why is he afraid to engage in a real debate?".
And now the "Anyone who disagrees with us is certified nuts" (so there is no need for any conversation much less debate).
Anyone who really thinks AGW is a mostly proven, serious threat, needs to start a reset of the conversation with the public. Start by locking Al Gore up in his mansion and directly addressing some of the embarrassing events (such as the CRU emails) that have sown doubt in the minds of those outside the core of the arguments.
May 29, 2012 at 12:05 am, David Goldstein said:
A better study would be to compare IQs of conservatives to liberals. I will bet anything that they will find conservatives have lower IQ.