4 ms·

Your response is far from unusual; in fact, it's probably a greater example of the psychology of AGW denial than any of the ones cited in the article. There is

Your response is far from unusual; in fact, it's probably a greater example of the psychology of AGW denial than any of the ones cited in the article. There is a pattern of thinking which is common in many areas of expertise, but is especially prevalent in technical professions. It goes like this: the best solution to a complex problem is a simple one, and if the problem is so complex that I can't understand it in ten minutes, then it isn't worth my time. So, for example, rather than taking the time to absorb the myriad complexities of climatology, and rather than reading the emails ourselves and analyzing their content and context, we instead take the "simpler" solution, the shortcut: we say, these emails are evidence of what I always believed all along, that the entire field of climatology is a hoax. And really, that's a beautifully simplistic explanation for a very complicated field. Rather than needing to understand the field, it's much simpler to just say, this thing is a global conspiracy, and then move on to the next simple solution to a complex problem. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the inconsistencies in claims and data that people love to point to are actually things that have explanations, that can be understood -- if someone takes the time and effort to do it. It's really rather like the Monty Hall Problem. Marliyn vos Savant ended up having mathematics professors -- among others -- writing to her for a long time after she published the correct solution to that problem. The solution they proposed instead -- while much simpler to understand -- was wrong. Understanding the right solution took much more effort, and required abandoning certain preconceived notions. Climatology is much the same in this respect.

mattmaroon 17y ago
It's similar to evolution in that regard. Much has been written by advocates of it that is wrong and disagrees with other things written about it. That does not mean one should throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I'd suspect most people don't think as deeply as OP. Most people take a side in this debate based solely on their politics and/or wishful thinking.
anamax 17y ago
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but the inconsistencies in claims and data that people love to point to are actually things that have explanations, that can be understood -- if someone takes the time and effort to do it. Oh really? The procedure that generated the hockey stick graph doesn't generate roughly the same graph almost independent of the input data? Unfortunately for the "it's all okay" theory, the CRU folks keep admitting things that show that it isn't. Today's is that they made up some of the "homogenized" data. The initial dump contained the uncontested statement that they can't explain the last decade's cooling.... And then there's still the data gathering problems. (Stations have been moved to hotter areas and others haven't been maintained in ways that cause them to record higher temps even if nothing actually changes.) > if someone takes the time and effort to do it. And you know this because....
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  > The procedure that generated the hockey stick graph doesn't generate roughly the same graph almost independent of the input data? I'll do a little looking, but do you have some more information on this? I'd love to see it. > The initial dump contained the uncontested statement that they can't explain the last decade's cooling.... This one I know off the top of my head. You're almost certainly referring to the now-infamous "trick", roughly related to tree ring datum. There is still apparently some debate among climate scientists over what the differences in tree-ring measurements versus expected measurements actually means. It's going to take a while to sort out. Does it mean that the trees are growing very differently under different climates? Is there some property of tree growth that's been overlooked? But either way, this is only one method of data gathering amongst many. To point to this one thing and say, "A-ha! This proves that the planet is actually cooling and thus this is a field that I don't have to understand" is exactly the same kind of tactic used by those who refuse to accept evolutionary theory for the divergence of species. This is the case, again, with the data stations. I wholeheartedly agree that more effort needs to be put into monitoring them, and from that standpoint at least, the work being put into cataloguing them is important. However, even given all of their differences, and even assuming that there was no other data to go off of, they still would not lead to a dramatically different climate model. The field of climate science is much more complicated than a smattering of weather stations and examinations of tree rings. > And you know this because.... Look at my comment history. I'm a former "AGW denier" who, years ago, was pissed that cans of spray paint stopped working right and was annoyed by emissions control systems in vehicles. However, climatology has remained one of my interests, and I've continued to try to understand it. I know far, far less about the field than any of the scientists actually involved in it, but I've seen enough to convince me that the human species is better off listening to their claims than the claims of those that can't be bothered to try.
  - jonallanharper 17y ago
    > I'm a former "AGW denier" [I'm very similar to you (but a more progressed version)... do i have your trust now?] > I've seen enough to convince me that the human species is better off [... this is what I believe. So, you should agree with me.]
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Your response is far from unusual; in fact, it's probably a greater example of the psychology of AGW denial I hear "we've created a computer model from ten thousand variously interacting systems and we can predict temperature change in a hundred years" and I grab my wallet. I would think, as somebody familiar with complex systems and computer models, that I am acting rationally. But who knew? As it turns out I have deep psychological problems that are expressing themselves in my opinions. I have no idea what the climate is doing. And I'm perfectly happy with that. Others are completely entrenched in the idea that some future catastrophe awaits us all that demands immediate action. Which group was it that is the example of some kind of psychological condition?
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  I'm familiar with your point of view on this. You're practicing argument-from-ignorance: you can't predict an outcome, so nobody else can, either. Additionally, psychology does factor into all kinds of decisions, even those by "rational" persons. Sites like lesswrong and others on cognitive biases focus on exactly this. Remaining ignorant of it doesn't make it less true.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
brc 17y ago
I think you've answered the question for the wrong side. Climatology is an incredibly complex field and working out what the climate is requires multivariate modelling in order to try and work out what has happened and what will happen. However, to try and simplify the theory for the man on the street, the AGW theory proponents have watered down the complexities to one villain : CO2. They are saying that, despite the complexities, despite the many variables, an increase in one of the least significant greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic (the word is everywhere - cue the screaming girl) warming. The rational thinkers don't think the field of climate science is a hoax or conspiracy. What they think is that a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it. A hoax implies forethought and planning. The reality is that they are caught up in the populuarity of the theory and the fame and fortune that it brings, and so are (probably) indulging in a good old 'us and them' groupthink session.
- jbooth 17y ago
  "a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it" That is in fact the definition of a hoax. Tell you what. Why don't you publish your competing theory which explains global warming in a more convincing fashion. You do have a competing, more plausible theory, right? BTW -- the theory of evolution has poor explanations for several things in the natural kingdom. Does that mean it's a fraud, being perpetuated by a small group of scientists who are keeping a lid on more plausible explanations? EDIT: Downrated? So, in response to an article talking about how people shut down their brains and respond emotionally, you start downrating people you disagree with rather than responding intellectually?
  - brc 17y ago
    "a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it" No, a hoax is when people deliberately create a plan to deceive others, and know they are lying the whole time. It's different to when people fervently believe in something and get involved in groupthink, ignoring dissenting opinions and developing an 'us and them' mindset. "You do have a competing, more plausible theory, right?" No, I don't. But then I'm not asking anyone to give me their money, either. The Earths climate has always been changing, and the causes have never been fully understood. Why did the medieval warming period occur? Why the little ice age after that? It's not up to sceptics of a theory to provide a competing theory that's better. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory to prove it is true. Something many people believe has not yet been achieved with the AGW theory.
kiba 17y ago
I get nervous around science that have political prescriptions mostly because of what I know about government intervention and how it have a tendency to create unintended consequences. AGW can provide powerful excuses for expanding governmental power so I am naturally weary of the science. That is not to say I don't think AGW is real. I accept the possibility that it could be real for the lack of climate knowledge. The only question is how much it should factor if at all in my long range decision making standard operating procedure.

mattmaroon 17y ago

It's similar to evolution in that regard. Much has been written by advocates of it that is wrong and disagrees with other things written about it. That does not mean one should throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I'd suspect most people don't think as deeply as OP. Most people take a side in this debate based solely on their politics and/or wishful thinking.

anamax 17y ago

> Not to put too fine a point on it, but the inconsistencies in claims and data that people love to point to are actually things that have explanations, that can be understood -- if someone takes the time and effort to do it. Oh really? The procedure that generated the hockey stick graph doesn't generate roughly the same graph almost independent of the input data? Unfortunately for the "it's all okay" theory, the CRU folks keep admitting things that show that it isn't. Today's is that they made up some of the "homogenized" data. The initial dump contained the uncontested statement that they can't explain the last decade's cooling.... And then there's still the data gathering problems. (Stations have been moved to hotter areas and others haven't been maintained in ways that cause them to record higher temps even if nothing actually changes.) > if someone takes the time and effort to do it. And you know this because....

thaumaturgy 17y ago
> The procedure that generated the hockey stick graph doesn't generate roughly the same graph almost independent of the input data? I'll do a little looking, but do you have some more information on this? I'd love to see it. > The initial dump contained the uncontested statement that they can't explain the last decade's cooling.... This one I know off the top of my head. You're almost certainly referring to the now-infamous "trick", roughly related to tree ring datum. There is still apparently some debate among climate scientists over what the differences in tree-ring measurements versus expected measurements actually means. It's going to take a while to sort out. Does it mean that the trees are growing very differently under different climates? Is there some property of tree growth that's been overlooked? But either way, this is only one method of data gathering amongst many. To point to this one thing and say, "A-ha! This proves that the planet is actually cooling and thus this is a field that I don't have to understand" is exactly the same kind of tactic used by those who refuse to accept evolutionary theory for the divergence of species. This is the case, again, with the data stations. I wholeheartedly agree that more effort needs to be put into monitoring them, and from that standpoint at least, the work being put into cataloguing them is important. However, even given all of their differences, and even assuming that there was no other data to go off of, they still would not lead to a dramatically different climate model. The field of climate science is much more complicated than a smattering of weather stations and examinations of tree rings. > And you know this because.... Look at my comment history. I'm a former "AGW denier" who, years ago, was pissed that cans of spray paint stopped working right and was annoyed by emissions control systems in vehicles. However, climatology has remained one of my interests, and I've continued to try to understand it. I know far, far less about the field than any of the scientists actually involved in it, but I've seen enough to convince me that the human species is better off listening to their claims than the claims of those that can't be bothered to try.
- jonallanharper 17y ago
  > I'm a former "AGW denier" [I'm very similar to you (but a more progressed version)... do i have your trust now?] > I've seen enough to convince me that the human species is better off [... this is what I believe. So, you should agree with me.]

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Your response is far from unusual; in fact, it's probably a greater example of the psychology of AGW denial I hear "we've created a computer model from ten thousand variously interacting systems and we can predict temperature change in a hundred years" and I grab my wallet. I would think, as somebody familiar with complex systems and computer models, that I am acting rationally. But who knew? As it turns out I have deep psychological problems that are expressing themselves in my opinions. I have no idea what the climate is doing. And I'm perfectly happy with that. Others are completely entrenched in the idea that some future catastrophe awaits us all that demands immediate action. Which group was it that is the example of some kind of psychological condition?

thaumaturgy 17y ago
I'm familiar with your point of view on this. You're practicing argument-from-ignorance: you can't predict an outcome, so nobody else can, either. Additionally, psychology does factor into all kinds of decisions, even those by "rational" persons. Sites like lesswrong and others on cognitive biases focus on exactly this. Remaining ignorant of it doesn't make it less true.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

brc 17y ago

I think you've answered the question for the wrong side. Climatology is an incredibly complex field and working out what the climate is requires multivariate modelling in order to try and work out what has happened and what will happen. However, to try and simplify the theory for the man on the street, the AGW theory proponents have watered down the complexities to one villain : CO2. They are saying that, despite the complexities, despite the many variables, an increase in one of the least significant greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic (the word is everywhere - cue the screaming girl) warming. The rational thinkers don't think the field of climate science is a hoax or conspiracy. What they think is that a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it. A hoax implies forethought and planning. The reality is that they are caught up in the populuarity of the theory and the fame and fortune that it brings, and so are (probably) indulging in a good old 'us and them' groupthink session.

jbooth 17y ago
"a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it" That is in fact the definition of a hoax. Tell you what. Why don't you publish your competing theory which explains global warming in a more convincing fashion. You do have a competing, more plausible theory, right? BTW -- the theory of evolution has poor explanations for several things in the natural kingdom. Does that mean it's a fraud, being perpetuated by a small group of scientists who are keeping a lid on more plausible explanations? EDIT: Downrated? So, in response to an article talking about how people shut down their brains and respond emotionally, you start downrating people you disagree with rather than responding intellectually?
- brc 17y ago
  "a small group of influential scientists is doing poor science and going to any length to keep a lid on it" No, a hoax is when people deliberately create a plan to deceive others, and know they are lying the whole time. It's different to when people fervently believe in something and get involved in groupthink, ignoring dissenting opinions and developing an 'us and them' mindset. "You do have a competing, more plausible theory, right?" No, I don't. But then I'm not asking anyone to give me their money, either. The Earths climate has always been changing, and the causes have never been fully understood. Why did the medieval warming period occur? Why the little ice age after that? It's not up to sceptics of a theory to provide a competing theory that's better. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory to prove it is true. Something many people believe has not yet been achieved with the AGW theory.

kiba 17y ago

I get nervous around science that have political prescriptions mostly because of what I know about government intervention and how it have a tendency to create unintended consequences. AGW can provide powerful excuses for expanding governmental power so I am naturally weary of the science. That is not to say I don't think AGW is real. I accept the possibility that it could be real for the lack of climate knowledge. The only question is how much it should factor if at all in my long range decision making standard operating procedure.