In this lead up to the Copenhagen meetings, it seems to me that we’re seeing a distressing up-tick in activity from the climate denial crowd. You’d think we’d be well past this point now.
Some people seem prepared to take the lack of 100% agreement as a legitimate justification for inaction. That’s illogical.
I’m a parent, and I look at it this way: if, as a parent, someone said to you that there was an 80% chance of something terrible happening to your child if we failed to take some course of action, would you tell them to come back when they were 90% or 100% certain?
David Huntley // Nov 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Seth’s question is related to what is known as “Alexander’s Question”.
Alexander’s question is “What new information would be sufficient to change your decision?”, a question that should be asked whenever a decision is being made. In this case people on both sides should be asked the question. This will help to “uncover assumptions and associations that may be confusing your judgment. Asking what information would be needed to change your mind can help bring faulty reasoning to light, and it can also point out what facts you should be researching before committing yourself and others to a course of action.” (quote from the web site below).
For a good account of the origin of Alexander’s question see
http://everything2.com/title/Alexander%2527s+question
It is an interesting story, described in Gina Kolata’s book “Flu”, amongst others.
Greg DePaco // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:01 am
No amount of evidence will ever “convince” these people, at least as far as public pronouncements are concerned, as their role is to keep on calling black white endlessly, regardless of what they may personally believe. It’s like trying to “convince” a PR person in the employ of a company that their competitor’s product is superior – your evidence notwithstanding, they’re just going to stick to their position, come hell or high water. There seems to me little point in engaging these people, and far more gain in exposing their role so that the public can afford their position the weight it deserves.
Just one example – a newspaper printed a piece by one of these guys and described him in the byline as a respected climate expert, but then when he later sued the paper for printing a letter to the editor critical of his piece, the paper described him in their court defense as an utter charlatan.
Cenk Guven // Oct 30, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Iglika Ivanova is most probably right. The reason may be the backlash against science in general. However, Iglika should not be shocked that an economist is among those deniers. I’m personally not shocked at all. The most of the economists, certainly (and thankfully) not all, only fight to keep the current system going, even it’s affecting our healths (look at the health care discussions in the US). They (those economists) don’t believe any of this because they will have to change their behaviours, beliefs, mindsets, arguments, habits and lifestyles. They won’t be able to make the profits that they analyze, dream of and promise to their capital holders. Maybe we should be looking at who those people in the denial crowd are and what their background is to better answer Seth Klein’s question.
Pat Truelove // Oct 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The climate change deniers thrive for the same reason as do phony cancer treatments: we desperately want to believe in another reality. Be honest. When you read a piece by one of these kooks, isn’t there a little part of you that thinks, “Oh, could that maybe be true? Maybe it’s all a bad dream.” As long as we fear the truth, there will be an audience for a comforting fiction, however baseless.
I think the response lies in focussing on positive messages, promoting hope based on possible, practical solutions.
Oemissions // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:27 pm
why don’t they just be a pedestrian for a couple of weeks or have their kids stand beside streets with heavy traffic or beside a few idling vehicles for a hour or 2?
Will they argue that its good for their health?
Will they deny that their is NOISE and stinky fumes?
Sandy Black // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Some would suggest another question. What will it take for the climate change enthusiasts to consider the temperature data instead of the models?
Ron Blakely // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:52 pm
In some ways the situation is similar to smoking. The tobacco industry deliberately and skillfully set up phony “research” institutions to cast doubt on the true science. Which doubt was eagerly accepted by the addicted.
Keith Reynolds // Oct 29, 2009 at 11:57 am
I really thought Stephen Hume did a good piece of work on this in the Sun.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/book+outlines+effort+behind+climate+change+skeptics/2153760/story.html
His report on the book by James Hoggan, written in collaboration with former Vancouver Sun writer Richard Littlemore outlines in great detail that the dispute over climate change is not a scientific debate but a systematic attempt to undermine science.
Hume writes, “Particularly interesting for me is a chapter dissecting the mass media. Manipulating the journalistic principle of balance in coverage — get both sides and let readers decide — and the media’s appetite for conflict — the more vigorous the better — provided spin doctors with a mechanism for creating the perception that there’s actually a scientific argument over global warming, “
Iglika Ivanova // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:22 am
I don’t think it’s all that surprising, really. The key is understanding that people don’t actually behave as a rational agents and do not act based on a cost-benefit analysis taking into account the actual probabilities of events happening. Shocking, I know, especially coming from an economist.
This is the whole reason why the facts by themselves compel very few people to action and why communications/marketing/PR are big business.
I would argue that one (longer-term) way out is to strengthen public education and focus more on logic and critical thinking in schools. However, in my experience, we’re actually moving in the opposite direction and seeing a backlash against science in general in the 21st century.