http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs…
Before any discussion of global warming (or climate change if you prefer) can begin, one unfortunately is expected to state up front if they accept it or are a skeptic. So my disclosure is that I currently accept anthropogenic (i.e. human caused) Global Warming (AGW) as a scientific fact, despite considering myself a 'skeptic' in general. I wasn't born believing that AGW is real though. When I first heard of AGW years ago, it was through the mainstream media. I got the impression from the media that there was a strong legitimate debate about the veracity of AGW. At first I did not know what to believe, but suspected that humans weren't the cause of global warming, if it was happening at all. I never much liked the environmentalism movement and was therefore skeptical of all their claims, whether they made sense or were hyperbolic. As I got more involved with the skeptical community, I learned which sources were trustworthy and which were less so on various scientific issues. I also learned about the non-rational psychological processes that can lead people to believe or not believe certain ideas. But honestly, I do not know exactly when, how, or why my views changed, but it's interesting to briefly look back and examine why I did not accept AGW, and perhaps it can give us some clues as to why others still don't.
I find that most people that are skeptical of global warming do not have good rational reasons for their skepticism. According to a recent article in my local paper (originally from Agence France-Presse), people do not accept global warming because it would negatively impact their desire to consume. I think this theory may help explain some AGW doubt. People do not want to feel guilty about their habits. In order to assuage guilt, we either attempt to fix the cause of the guilt, which takes effort, or we deny that the problem exists, which is much easier. This denial is not done purposefully, it is done subconsciously. Through psychological factors such as cognitive dissonance, our brain decides for us what we should believe, on an instinctual level. We don't actively choose what to believe, we are influenced in many ways and our beliefs are then formed. Rational judgement of scientific evidence is only one of these influences on our beliefs. In fact, for the case of AGW, I'd even argue that the scientific evidence plays an even smaller part in someone's acceptance. The more complex a topic is, the harder it is to rationally judge the scientific evidence, therefore we use other methods to subconsciously decide what to believe. Before someone can confidently say they accept or don't accept AGW for rational reasons, they must first honestly admit that they have seen, and understand, the relevant scientific evidence. But most people, myself included, can be intimidated by all the climate models, core samples, and temperature charts that are tossed around. Because of this intimidation, we turn to other non-rational belief influences.
I have not yet seen Al Gore's Nobel prize winning film ';An Inconvenient Truth';. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because I was a AGW skeptic when it came out and now that I accept AGW I don't feel the need to go rent it. Regardless, I think the title is brilliant. It perfectly sums up why I think people have trouble accepting AGW. AGW truly is an inconvenience. If it were true, not only would we have to consume less, but more importantly it can shake our very core beliefs. The sorts of beliefs that AGW would trouble include political/economic and religious beliefs. I won't judge these core beliefs that people have, but they are key to understanding why AGW is doubted. Just as a religious world view could cause someone to not accept evolution, it too can make them less likely to accept AGW. One of these religious views holds that nature exists for humanity's benefit, and therefore, is at our whim and cannot pose danger to us.
AGW poses a direct threat to some forms libertarianism and right-wing capitalism. I think that this may have played a strong role in my personal AGW skepticism, and perhaps in other libertarians. As I discussed in a previous blog post, values can determine whether someone considers themselves a libertarian, liberal, conservative, etc. One important value of libertarianism is the desire for smaller government. This rubs up against the problem of AGW. If the problem of AGW is real, and if we have any hope of solving it, we would most likely require development of gross regulations from governments. This is exactly what is going on right now in Copenhagen. Those who fIs critical thinking the key to curing global warming denialism?
Kudos for Abrahms for having what it takes to admit he was wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think he's typical of the denier crowd. They are sticks-in-the-mud and proud of it. I'm not very tolerant of willful ignorance when it impacts my life in a negative fashion.
I didn't see Gore's movie til late in the game, but I do recommend you see it so you know what all the fuss is about. I came away impressed, overall.
I remember encountering a libertarian in junior college years and years ago, and listening patiently to his passionate appeal to join him in his belief system. But by the time he'd finished, I remember thinking very clearly that this system of belief was flawed and not for me. Your last full paragraph is a powerful one, worthy of reading over again and reflecting on it, no matter where you stand.Is critical thinking the key to curing global warming denialism?
No common sense is.
YES
Yeah.
As a ';critical thinker'; I'm inclined to ask the following regarding a scientific conclusion:
Where is your original data?
How was it collected?
Is there other data that you didn't incorporate? Why?
Did you adjust the original data? If so, did you document why?
And the last question: Why, in the name of all that is sacred, would you NOT provide all of that in order to showcase your findings in the brightest light?
No, critical thinking is the key to extricating the masses of brainwashed dupes from the Warmist cult.
Wow. In his whole rant, the author didn't offer up an ounce of scientific proof. Instead offering up his opinion, which is what bloggers do. And the blogger comes from that so conservative part of the country, San Francisco.
Yes. It is the flat out refusal to read the science because they don't like the economics.
Total Bull.
Typical liberal. No facts. Just feelings. He based his decision on what?
I think the cure will come once we have some actual science applied to the investigation. Actual science isn't about hiding data or black box computer models generating an artificial consensus.
The truth will eventually be known. But I don't think we know it now. That is why you have true believers and deniers because we don't have knowers.
Chicken little is right this time.THE SKY IS FALLING.Take it from a guy that been around for 73 years,change is coming,and I don't mean Obama's change.I've been an outdoors man 60 of my 73 years,and have seen many species disappear.A big change is coming.Will it be as drastic as the tree huggers claim? I don't know,and probably won't be around to find out.
Yes, but the key is getting deniers to think critically in the first place. Critical thought is exactly what denial prevents.
Abrams is willing to keep an open mind, examine his own biases, and prevent them from ultimately biasing his conclusions. That's the sign of a true skeptic. But as we all know, deniers aren't skeptics, as their answers to this question make painfully obvious. Calling him a liberal, claiming he's from San Francisco which *obviously* makes him delusional about AGW, etc.
Alas, no.
You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Abrams is a rare exception.
A very good point. I would agree that critical thinking is always important, whether you are sceptical on AGW or accepting. It doesn't anyone to just parrot a line without every wanting to change your mind.
You should be aware, though, that the website you refer to is the product of a massive corporate PR firm with a very partial agenda - it is NOT an impartial forum . Here's what Dr Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, says about them:
Environmental Media Services (a project of Fenton Communications, a large public relations firm serving left wing and environmental causes; they are responsible for the alar scare as well as Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign.) created a website, realclimate.org, as an ‘authoritative’ source for the ‘truth’ about climate. This time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to organize this web site and ‘discredit’ any science or scientist that questioned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The web site serves primarily as a support group for believers in catastrophe, constantly reassuring them that there is no reason to reduce their worrying.';
There are those who will try and claim that a professor of meteorology at the world's leading science university is somehow not in touch with real climate science. Laugh at these people. Point at them and laugh.
If a drunk walked up to me and asked me for money so he could get something to eat I would be skeptical because he's drunk and I know he's going to go out and buy more alchohol.
When AGW alarmist tell me we need money to stop global warming because prostitution in the Philippines is on the rise I'm even more skeptical because I know for a fact prostitution has nothing to do with global warming. There's a reason it's called the worlds oldest profession, and it has nothing to do with global warming.
When an AGW alarmist tells me we need money to stop global warming and the people of Darfur are suffering because we are causing droughts I'm skeptical because I know for a fact that region has suffered droughts for centuries and if you simply take a look at a map it's on the edge of a desert! Besides the fact that they suffer because of a corrupt government that doesn't support their own people with an infrastructure that can sustain the population, and because of religious and tribal feuds.
When AGW alarmist tell me we need money to stop global warming because the Ganges delta is flooding, people living at sea level on atolls are in danger, next hurricane season.. well the next one ... if not this one for sure the next hurricane season is going to be really bad, yes, I'm skeptical.
When common sense makes it's way into the AGW alarmist arguments they might gain some ground. When they start presenting scientific evidence, facts and data instead of preaching how it's obvious that it's CO2 when it's not, I'm so tired of being linked to sites that simply come to the conclusion without showing any evidence and when I am shown evidence I find out it's being modified on the upside to make it appear that it's unprecedented to show the biggest effect. Previous upsides are being eliminated, I'm told about a consensus that only exist among those who are being payed to prove that CO2 is the cause, when I've been shown by scientist reasonable and plausible explanations to the contrary, but I'm then told that those scientist are the stupid ones.
No, my skepticism has nothing to do with the lack of critical thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.