Couple comments:
First, I would suggest that the inability to perceive the effects of cultural bias are a classic case of denial.<blockquote>A very wide range of environmental topics are tied to the central narrative of imminent (on decadal to one century scale) catastrophe, and accepting skeptical data upon any of them these days, has come to be seen by climate culture as a betrayal of [...] even one’s children and one’s grandchildren plus most of the life on Earth and the planet itself. This is a far more cogent barrier to acceptance than mere disagreement! [4] Climate cultural judgments based on misinformation about the certainty of catastrophe are underwriting dangerous practices that are draining economies worldwide, increasing the price of energy (causing consequent poverty and excess deaths), plus enabling the bio-fuel debacle. The latter is both harming the environment and also hitting the poor by pushing up the cost of food production (hence yet more hardship and a potential increase in starvation).</blockquote>Once they've become identified with the narrative, changing their position would involve accepting responsibility for the many <i>"dangerous practices"</i> and <i>"hitting the poor"</i>, a fertile ground for denial.<blockquote>A very wide range of environmental topics are tied to the central narrative of imminent (on decadal to one century scale) catastrophe, [...]</blockquote>I've made a fairly detailed study of the early days of Christianity, especially the mission of Paul and his fellow apostles. What I think I see is a pattern of receptivity to his apocalyptic message among people who <b>already felt a sense of impending doom.</b> That sense of doom was justified: in 68CE the Imperator Nero <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors" rel="nofollow"><i>"committed suicide", touching off civil war and the "Year of the Four Emperors"</i></a><blockquote>The suicide of emperor Nero, in 68, was followed by a brief period of civil war, the first Roman civil war since Mark Antony's death in 30 BC. Between June of 68 and December of 69, Rome witnessed the successive rise and fall of Galba, Otho and Vitellius until the final accession of Vespasian, first of the Imperial Flavian dynasty, in July 69. The social, military and political upheavals of the period had Empire-wide repercussions, which included the outbreak of the Batavian rebellion.</blockquote>These events followed on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War" rel="nofollow">Jewish Rebellion</a> in 66, an event with enormous importance to the Jews and <i>"God-fearer"</i>s Paul was proselytizing. It makes sense to me that many of these people could see the trouble coming, probably unconsciously, and felt a sense of impending doom that made them receptive to Paul's end-of-the-world message.
If we reason by analogy (keeping in mind the caveats), we might suppose that people who are receptive to the <i>"climate catastrophe"</i> meme are responding to an unconscious sense of impending doom due to some other social trend. Given the high correlation between <i>"liberal/radical"</i> ideology and acceptance of the <i>"climate catastrophe"</i> meme it would make sense that they are foreseeing something that <i>"liberal/radical"</i> people would regard as a catastrophe while most everybody else doesn't.
With this hypothesis in hand, we can speculate just <b>what</b> about the future is really making (some?) <i>"liberal/radical"</i> people feel threatened?
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Don Monfort
I was thinking along the lines of a cavalry charge, where the troops line up, draw their sabres and all proceed in the same direction.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Jonathan Abbott
Joshua,
I think that my experience is “pretty typical” based on other sceptics/whatevers saying similar things. Paul Matthew’s post here contains other examples:
https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/converts-to-scepticism/
Of course, this is all anecdotal, but I’m not claiming any absolute truth here. Just explaining my personal experience.
Next, you claim I’m an outlier for looking at the science myself, which I am in terms of the general population but it puts me smack in the middle of the herd for anyone engaging in the climate debate, which includes everyone posting here.
Finally, why should I read Kahan when his central premise appears to be based on his believing that people like me simply don’t exist.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by JCH
We’re in great shape.
Acting as an individual, which one of you today is in the mood to take that hill? – General Halftrack.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Joshua
Jonathan –
==> “Just explaining my personal experience.
Actually, you weren’t just doing that. You were asking why scientists don’t generalize from your personal, anecdotal experiences, to explain a larger phenomenon.
==> “Finally, why should I read Kahan when his central premise appears to be based on his believing that people like me simply don’t exist.”
I don’t think that’s accurate (and if you hadn’t read him or interacted with him, then how would you know?). I think that you are projecting yourself, emotionally, into his analysis of the data about the public more generally.
IMO, he appropriately considers you an outlier. He’s quite clear that trying to generalize from the group that you have just stated that you use to understand the larger patterns of phenomenological mechanisms, is rather precisely an example of the problems being described.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by omanuel
Skeptics can’t grasp why only 97% of the climatologists receiving funds agree with the conclusion they are paid to endorse.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by aaron
I don’t recall, were these climatically polorized people equally politically polorized on other issues?
What were the trends for the two groups on other issues?
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Schrodinger's Cat
I think the psychologists are looking at the wrong population. In any other branch of science the modellers would have serious doubts about their understanding and assumptions. The psychologists should be wondering why there is any consensus in a field with so little understanding and so much uncertainty and so much divergence between theory and observation.
They should study the data fiddling, corruption of peer review, intimidation of those who question the science and ask why scientists should do this.
They should ask why the establishment, centres of excellence and respected bodies at the pinnacle of the scientific profession should actively support what is going on.
↧
Comment on Snowpocalypse – not by Diag
I like the wolf. The breakdown of the rest of the “people” is interesting. There is one alarmist who continually misunderstands things and broadcasts his alarm and spreads it to all the rest, who are very gullible and demand action of the mayor. Which is ironic in this case, since the mayor is the only one who debunks the alarmist and calms the others. One alarmist, one skeptic, and the 97% gullible masses. Close enough for Muppets. or sheep.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by ceresco kid
There is a certain entrenchment going on between both sides and that is a carryover from a variety of issues broader than climate. Much like a build up of grievances between spouses, tension has accrued over the years and the players are having difficulty admitting they are wrong or the other side is right. Scoring one against the opposition and chalking up a gotcha are certainly part of the dynamics.
The fact that Dan has misinterpreted so badly how skeptics see the world and how they may have come to their conclusions based on scientific facts and deductive reasoning, is indicative of a blind spot shared by many in his camp. I see the thought process exhibited by countless skeptics as fairly simple and straightforward. The difference between Dan and me is that he sees every one of the skeptics as wrong while I only question the other side for their absolutist position. I don’t see them as wrong. I see them as being hopelessly entrenched and a prisoner of their unimaginative worldview.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Joseph
despite well-documented holes in the science
Who decided there are “well-documented holes in the science?”
↧
Comment on Towards mass marketed electric vehicles by bill_c
blue tooth can’t be all of that. gps and the regular cell signal is what is used – I’m not even sure any of it, unless your phone is talking to your car on Bluetooth to get on board data, which I doubt for most cars. Bluetooth range is a few meters….
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by popesclimatetheory
Evolution does promote survival and we are a product of survival, that is why we are here, now.
Evolution may make the the lives of people more pleasant or more unpleasant, it does both, the people who survive make the rules. When the rules don’t work, a war or something, will change them.
This is not a simple problem with a simple solution, but is is how things work.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by popesclimatetheory
Yep, history shows that warm times are better than cold times for humans.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by mt
.@SenSanders re GOP & climate: “It is not that they are just wrong, it really is an int’l embarrassment” 16 min in http://www.c-span.org/video/?324070-1/newsmakers-sen-bernie-sanders-ivt and that’s all folks!
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Joshua
ck –
Agree with you here:
==> “There is a certain entrenchment going on between both sides and that is a carryover from a variety of issues broader than climate.
But then you change horses from the one that brought you here:
==> “The fact that Dan has misinterpreted so badly how skeptics see the world..”
A fundamental category error. Dan is relatively unconcerned with how the group you’re referring to have come to their conclusions.
Y’all just ain’t that important. You’re outliers.
Even if he is wrong in believing that the more general patterns apply to you and the rest of the “skeptics” we might find here (and I, for one, don’t think that he is – I think that the basic mechanisms of motivated reasoning applies broadly to both the “realists” and “skeptics” I’ve encountered in the blogospheric climate wars) – it says nothing about his point of focus, which is the patterns among the general public (on climate change as well as other scientific issues that are, likewise, characterized by high levels of polarization that is associated with ideological orientation).
Consider that the patterns associated with climate change mirror very similar patterns in other issues.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Joshua
And keep in mind that one of the more interesting aspects of the reaction to Dan’s work is that folks on both sides of the climate change divide think that his analyses don’t apply to them.
‘Cause everyone likes to think they’re special.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by ordvic
Don,
I always thought Obama an ‘The new Sheriff'” had parrallels:
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by A. Voip
Eruptions for example.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by A. Voip
↧
