Fred Clark at the Slacktivist has a good post up about how being right doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to convince anyone. The specific issue is climate change, but I think it applies in a lot of areas. Facts will persuade the merely uninformed or honestly misinformed. They will not, alone anyway, persuade the liars or the deluded.
The case of the liars is not very interesting. It’s the old Upton Sinclair quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” The deluded are a more interesting case. A person’s mental framework can simply get in a state where it resists persuasion by facts. Say a person really, really hates Al Gore for whatever reason. They’ll reject facts that tend to suggest he’s right.
One such “ideology” or framework that I’m convinced plays a large role in American climate-change denialism is the quasi-religious desire to believe that harmful consequences can only result from deliberately malicious actions. If climate change were shown to be the work of a clearly identifiable villain — something more along the lines of the pollution narratives of A Civil Action or Erin Brockovich — then they might be more receptive to the idea. But they cannot accommodate facts that suggest the possibility of calamity due to the aggregate effects of billions of mostly innocent decisions.
Another related one that has stuck with me since I read a blog post is the notion that it’s “arrogant” to think that humans could cause such global devastation. As if it would, in the author’s mind, diminish the worth of God’s creation if puny humans could muster up the strength to screw it up.
Anyway, if you care, here is NASA’s page with a bunch of evidence for global warming. I don’t have any trouble believing it since the geological record shows that humans are extremely incidental to the history of the earth. The planet being particularly habitable for the likes of us might be the exception rather than the rule.
I think Mr. Clark fails to recognize that his thesis applies to himself as well. Some people are going to believe whatever they want to, because it “fits” their own views.
Some random thoughts about this whole thing.
First, “science” of any kind is heavily laden with rivalries, plus personal and political agendas. If someone expects published materials (of any kind) to be devoid of bias and uncertainty, they are the deluded ones. Being published equals being funded. Do I need to explain the motivations behind that kind of inducement?
Second, notice how this has changed from being marketed as “global warming” to “global change”. A whole thesis on whether this is simply a clarification or a devious propaganda twist. After all, who in their right mind could deny that the climate “changes”?
Third, buried in one of those NASA pages was the statement that the IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change) had concluded that “(i)n its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there’s a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.”
A whole 90%, eh? Sounds pretty high, right? Nine out of ten, whoa. In scientific terms, it effectively means that they are guessing. That’s right, taking a stab in the dark. One might posit that with “evidence” like they claim, that the statistical “confidence level” would be 99% (which is the benchmark for “we are absolutely correct”). But sadly, no. Researchers shouldn’t even be publishing theories that they can’t twist up statistically over the 95% threshold. I am not amused. And the IPCC as “independent” scientists? Puh-lease. Hello, funding cash cow. Plus the words “govermental” and “United Nations” lowers my confidence level significantly every time, no matter what the subject matter is.
Finally, it was a poor choice to make Al Gore the poster child of the global warming movement. Even today, I wouldn’t have much trouble picking his estate out from the air in the dark at 37,000 feet. Plus, jetsetting around to harangue people about their contributions to “global climate change” seems more than a tad bit hypocritical. Should have found themselves more of a Euell Gibbons type, or maybe a modern day Luddite, rather than another stuffy Harvard man. Especially one whose interests seem more inclined to inventing things, like the internets. Hmm, inventing things – interesting.
In the end, do I believe that the climate is changing? Yes. After all, we do live on a dynamic planet, not a static one. Jeez.
Do I believe that we humans contribute to climate change? Yes, but I differ in degree. Does that make me “deluded” or a “liar”? I think not. Am I simply misinformed? Possibly. But, at least I allow for the possiblity.
Am I going to convince anyone? Well, in that, Slactivist and I can agree on a resounding no. It’s black or white anymore, and fie on those who don’t agree with “us”.
Allowing for the possibility of being wrong, and caring about that possibility, is really the most important part of the equation. Certainty is a significant learning disability.
Since the Bible claims that humans screwed up creation in the garden of Eden, Christians better not take that line of thinking.
Fact based politics and policy have never faired well in our society. Since we fail to hold people to their words and allow those who lie and cheat to get ahead and prosper, we cannot blame people for making things up to fit their agenda. mitch and his ilk on education have based a whole policy of privatization on no facts–just hype. The mistake people made in trying to argue against him was that they were trying to use facts instead of emotions and slogans. I kept telling them that we should not rely on the facts, mitch did not. A good slogan, like aiming higher, while not based on facts or performance, and it fact probably based on just the opposite, has a bigger impact on people than claiming that mitch is shoveling tax dollars to his cronies.
The republicants have made a whole policy out of willful ignorance and have perfected that process during the last two years. If you are doing something illegal or immoral, claim it is the other party that is doing it (see any faux media for a story along these lines) and ignore your own actions. Be for something, then against it as if you never were for it. Be in the moment, never admit the past, keep claiming it is the other party that is immoral, socialist, elderly hating, big government liberal elites (peggy noonan wrote an article on how she and us could not relate to the elites–willful ignorance shameless lying) and do not answer questions. But it seems we deserve the coming tide of boehners, pences and other purveyers of lies and ignorance (Paul, sorry for the purely childish rants).
Apology accepted.
Doug, I agree that it is important to recognize that we do not know everything. Apparently this report does that. My concern would be that it is “buried” in the details that NASA is only about 90% sure. Knowing it was somewhere in the link provided, I tried looking for it, and couldn’t locate it.
Second question: If you were on a jury (I incidentally received a jury summons today, so it is on my mind), and you were 90% sure someone had committed a crime, would 90% be “beyond a reasonable doubt” and you would send them to jail? Or are we still “not guilty” of global warming/climate change? (Yes, I realize I am switching contexts a bit).
To me it’s just common sense: put 10 cars in a closed garage and run them for 10 minutes while you sit there. Boom you’re dead.
Now multiply the cars by several hundred million and you by 7 billion. How can that NOT have an effect?!? And now think of all the stuff we do and build and use BESIDES cars.
This ain’t rocket science folks…
Paul, if you are still watching this. The 90% statement was the lead paragraph of the section “The role of human activity” on the Causes tab of the NASA page under discussion.
I look at Climate Change/Global Warming from about three perspectives. There is the science and it seems well established.
Second, I consider the fact that it took hundreds of millions of years to sequestrate all of that carbon in the form of coal, gas and oil. In the last 200 or so years, how much of that fossil fuel has been consumed? 25%, 50%, 75%. It seems intuitive to me that releasing that much carbon in the form of CO2 would have a massive effect.
Finally, I look at the “neutral barometers.” By this, I mean natural evidence of animals moving their habitat northerly, the earlier planting seasons, evidence such as this. For example, when I lived in Minnesota, opposums were moving into Minnesota. Years earlier, they could not tolerate the winters when it might plummet to 25 below or more. With the warmer winters, they can tolerate the weather. Also, armadillos are extending their range northward.
Additionally, I have noticed that the crop planting dates are moving back in Northeast Indiana. I am from a farm background. 20-30 years ago, corn and beans were planted in early May. Now it is late April.