According to a 2008 Pew report, better educated conservatives deny climate change even more strenuously than less educated conservatives. Ironically, the greater the education the greater the dogmatism. Just when liberals thought education was the key to persuading conservatives about the science of climate change, it appears we were wrong. What are the implications of this study for educating conservatives about climate change and the reaching of bipartisan solutions in the future?
We often believe that lying out the facts in cold, logical arguments is the best way to persuade, particularly with an educated group. For Democrats, the greater the level of education the greater the acceptance of climate change, but for Republicans, the reverse is true.
As background, basic physics tells us that CO2 molecules have radiative properties that trap infrared heat radiation that otherwise escapes to space, in the process warming the planet. Natural fluctuations, though known to exist, can not explain what we are seeing.
Curiously, among Republicans having a college degree did not appear to open one's mind to what scientists were saying. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. "Only 19 percent of the college educated Republicans agreed that the planet was warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college educated Republicans."
Just when conservative misinformation predominates and we can not leave our living rooms without hearing about death panels, the president is a Muslim, or the right's refusal to accept basic science, we find that logical arguments do not work to persuade even educated Republicans. Such a misunderstanding is common. In fact, when asked how to get congressional Republicans to accept the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change even President Obama's science adviser, Dr. John Holdren, incorrectly stated that it's an "education problem." As a punishment, Holdren may have to return his MacArthur genius grant!
As usual, Tea Party members are the most misinformed. For example, considerably more Tea Party members than ordinary Republicans thought there were disagreements among scientists on the subject of global warming (69 percent to 56 percent).
According to Yale researcher Dan Kahan: "If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate science e.g., a political conservative or "hierarchical-individualist" -- then more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other group-- "egalitarian-communitarians" or liberals -- who tended to worry more as they knew more science and math.
Paradoxically, sophisticated conservatives are more exposed to and consume more conservative opinion and thus are more likely to be hardened in their views than the less sophisticated ones. For example, even such conservative intellectuals as George Will dismiss climate change, citing a need for further research. On Fox News, any number of naysayers who mock climate science are trotted out one after another. The scientific consensus confirming climate change is replaced with a surreal air of disbelief.
Interestingly, the most hardened conservatives, the so-called authoritarians do not become their full ideological selves until some "authoritarian activation" takes place. It is very reminiscent of the "born again" experience that takes place among evangelicals. "Consuming a lot of political information seems to help authoritarians feel who they are -- whereupon they become more accepting of inequality, more dogmatically traditionalist, and more resistant to change."
For some reason, educated liberals remain open-minded. Factual argumentation and reasoning are still persuasive to them. For example, nuclear power as an energy source is distrusted by many liberals, contrary to scientists who widely consider that nuclear power risks are overblown, especially given the dangers of other energy sources like coal.
Among liberals, however, the more scientifically literate one was the more his views conformed to that of scientists, or the less worried he was about nuclear power. The results show liberals do not become as intransigent in their views as do conservatives.
Evidence then clearly has limited persuasive powers, especially in politicized areas where deep emotions are involved. "If you're a liberal who is emotionally wedded to the idea that rationality wins the day -- well then, it's high time to listen to reason." Research shows a growing insight into the minds of conservatives, but persuasion of the conservative mindset is as foreign to scientists as climate change is to conservatives.
Think about it, the people I mention above are supporting the Koch brothers by abusing fossil fueled travel. Obviously they really don't believe that CO2 is a dire issue. You have to stop listening to what people say and instead watch what people actually do. It is their actions that betray their lies. The answer to you question and the message to the public is that these people won't sacrifice their personal comfort and wealth in order to reduce CO2. Why should anyone else?
As the CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the air temperature increases due to the "greenhouse effect". That is your partial truth. But now, let's tell the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say.
Warmer air temperature could lead to increased melting of ice, which because of the higher temperature would mean more evaporation and hence MORE CLOUD COVER. These clouds would REFLECT (due to a higher albedo) more sunlight and allow less to reach ground level, which could serve to moderate or even cool the air temperatures; possibly counteracting the warming trend.
Then there is the dissolution of CO2 in seawater (higher temperatures mean higher solubility) in which a CO2/Carbonate ion equilibrium is established. Since all carbonates are INSOLUBLE, this would allow the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere and result in increased carbonate reef formation (more land mass?) Removal of carbonate ions from solution would, according to LeChatalier's Principle, drive the equilibrium to form more carbonate ions (less CO2 in atmosphere).
BTW, I have a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in chemistry and while I do concur that the climate is in a constant state of flux, I do not agree that: (1) the outcome can be predicted, (2) the consequences are necessarily adverse, or (3) that mankind can "control" the climate.
Also, regarding oceanic uptake of sea water, it appears the oceans are absorbing less co2 than they did even a few years ago. According to a study,
"Our result in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) unequivocally demonstrated that oceanic uptake of CO2 has been directly affected by warming-induced weakening of vertical ventilation," he says.
Lee adds: "In other words, the increase in atmospheric temperature due to global warming can profoundly influence the ocean ventilation, thereby decreasing the uptake rate of CO2."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/12/sea-co2-climate-japan-environment
No one says any outcomes can be precisely predicted and scientists usually speak in terms of ranges of probability. There is overwhelming research that suggests the outcome will be adverse, especially for low-lying countries like Bangladesh and much of the world's fresh supply that we get from the melting of mountain glaciers may be affected. We have "controlled" the climate in the sense of making it warmer and, if we can burn fewer fossil fuels, we can perhaps slow the temperature rise.
Why should we believe your amateur opinion over the careful, peer reviewed work of actual atmosphere specialists?
I sure don't.
Way to step up to the plate there.
It is interesting to note that there are so few articles attacking Democrats as a whole. Why is that? I would speculate that the reason for that is that, in general, the right doesn't feel the need to randomly marginalize the other side.
In fact, even in attempting to prop up and give an attaboy to your educated liberal brethren, you contradict yourself here:
"For some reason, educated liberals remain open-minded. Factual argumentation and reasoning are still persuasive to them. For example, nuclear power as an energy source is distrusted by many liberals, contrary to scientists who widely consider that nuclear power risks are overblown, especially given the dangers of other energy sources like coal." When they distrust the "scientists", how exactly are they being open-minded?
You may have some valid and in fact interesting points, Marv. But when they are mired in subjective and inflammatory language, they get lost in the ether. imho.
There was a time when the consensus was that the Earth is flat, but there were a few that challenged that notion and it was proven wrong. Your implied argument that there is a scientific consensus and that in itself is proof is a fallacious argument.
I guess my point got lost in the ether too. So let me try to explain again. I don't understand the glee about attacking "Republicans" all the time. You and I had a really exhilarating discussion not too long ago - kept it to facts, and kept the attacks to a minimum. It was a fantastic exchange of ideas!
If our goal is to reach bipartisan solutions in the future, as you started out saying, then you need to find a different approach. In that light, I would be looking at what are the barriers to consensus.
One barrier to dialogue is effort to marginalize with sentiments such as this:
"Just when conservative misinformation predominates and we can not leave our living rooms without hearing about death panels, the president is a Muslim, or the right's refusal to accept basic science, we find that logical arguments do not work to persuade even educated Republicans."
and
"As usual, Tea Party members are the most misinformed"
What would be nice to see as a take away from your articles, Marv, is a positive way to build bridges. As opposed to a list of reasons why the other guys are 1d10ts.
Am I making any sense here, Marv?
---------------------------------------------
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change...
Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much harder in the future.
----------------
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências Brazil
Academié des Sciences, France
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
Science Council of Japan, Japan
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
"THE East Antarctic ice sheet looks unlikely to release its frozen grip any time soon. A new model suggests that prehistoric sea-level rise long thought to have been caused by the ice sheet melting was actually the result of local subsidence (not ice melt)."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328564.800-sinking-land-shows-east-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-stable.html
The models are tuned to past climate events aren't they? Uncertainties? What uncertainties? I don't see any uncertainties? :-)
-----------------------------------
[W]hile future climate change and its impacts are inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. The combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming will likely cause the global average sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100... Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will experience increased flooding due to sea level rise and are likely to experience more severe storms and surges. In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have risen more than the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are being altered rapidly.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Climate_Change_Science_and_Economics.asp
The increase in science denier crapolla continues.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the leading climate science denier in Congress, believes that per the Bible God protects us from global warming.
http://tinyurl.com/7fr6z36
Many other prominent global warming "skeptics" -- including Dr. Roy Spencer (climate scientist favored by "skeptics"), Ross McKitrick (economist and purported "hockey stick" slayer), and Joseph D'Aleo (weatherman / Icecap blog) -- also preach that per the Bible God protects from global warming, along with other signatories of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming":
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Roy Spencer is moreover on the Cornwall Alliance's Board of Advisers:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/board-of-advisors/
More from the Cornwall Alliance on their belief that per Biblical prophesy God will protect us from global warming:
-----------------------
The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels... is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use...
We believe that idea... fails the tests of theology... with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible...
God’s wisdom, power, and faithfulness justify confidence that Earth’s ecosystems are robust and will, by God’s providence, accomplish the purposes He set for them.
------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/27murl6
Curryandwebster: "[AGW is] a religion not a science."
Science denier irony is eternal.
d. Even though we haven't designed our studies to determine "whose bias is bigger," the evidence we have collected show that the bias is plenty big enough for everyone to have cause for concern. Not cause for embarrassment; that would be like being embarrassed that one can't run a 3 min. mile or solve 4th-order polynomials in your head while listening to Led Zeppelin turned up loud. But concern b/c this constraint on our reason can lead us to make wrong decision on issues of tremendous consequence.
e. *I* might well be biased but to me it is more important to figure out what to reduce our institutions' vulnerability to this problem (there are things, I'm convinced, that help), then to figure out *whose* bias is bigger, given that to me it is clear everyone's vulnerability is "big enough" to cause them and others' harm. But of course I respect the curiosity of people who just want to know for the sake of knowing -- and the judgement of others who've looked carefully at all the existing evidence & being conscious of its limits come to a provisional conclusion different from mine (people who come to conclusions that are not merely provisional-- *they* are the ones who have an anti-science disposition).
more here...
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/1/10/more-on-ideological-symmetry-of-motivated-reasoning-but-is-t.html
--Dan
c. Our studies aren't designed to test whether the effect is "equal" across the ideological spectrum. I myself haven't seen good designs that could really permit confidence inferences about that. But I would say that one cannot draw confident inferences about symmetry or asymmetry of this effect from comparing the "size" of the bias displayed by one subgroup or another in a study. Motivated cognition is an experimental effect; experimental effects will inevitably be "lumpy" -- spread out in an uneven way across study observations or trials. That's why one uses a statistical test (like regression analysis) that determines if the relationship across the entire sample is statistically significant. Before one can conclude that the uneven distribution of an effect across the sample means that the effect is meaningfully different for different types, one has to design the experiment in a way that would be unlikely to generate such a pattern by chance -- & *then* use a statistical test that tells you that the concentration one is observing is not very likely (as in less than 5%) to have been that uneven or more by chance.
d. *If* one did studies like that, then *maybe* they'd show that this effect correlates w/ one or another kind of political outlook. I doubt it-- based on things I've seen & on reflection on the matter-- but I honestly don't know.
"To address this need, we reconstruct
Greenland surface snow temperature variability over the
past 4000 years at the GISP2 site (near the Summit of the
Greenland ice sheet; hereafter referred to as Greenland temperature)
with a new method that utilises argon and nitrogen
isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles. The estimated average
Greenland snow temperature over the past 4000 years
was −30.7°C with a standard deviation of 1.0°C and exhibited
a long‐term decrease of roughly 1.5°C, which is consistent
with earlier studies. The current decadal average surface temperature
(2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C. The
record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in
the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century‐long
intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–
2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean
temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of
natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that
seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum."*
*High variability of Greenland surface temperature
over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air
in an ice core
Takuro Kobashi,1,2 Kenji Kawamura,3 Jeffrey P. Severinghaus,1 Jean‐Marc Barnola,4,5
Toshiyuki Nakaegawa,6 Bo M. Vinther,7 Sigfús J. Johnsen,7 and Jason E. Box8
Received 26 August 2011; revised 10 October 2011; accepted 11 October 2011; published 10 November 2011.
----------------------
"The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years."
-- NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
14.2.2.2 Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles
"In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
14.2.2.3 Extreme events
"Extreme events are, almost by definition, of particular importance to human society. Consequently, the importance of understanding potential extreme events is first order. The evidence is mixed, and data continue to be lacking to make conclusive cases.
Even the IPCC acknowledges the inability to predict future climate events yet we are bombarded by media messages of future disaster. What is anti-science is spreading fabrications of future events based on models, which are diverging from reality, as if they are facts, and then frightening our children with tales of doom.
Do not stop questioning how political and financial institutions are using fear to push an agenda which is based on incomplete science where growing uncertainties that are emerging in the satellite and ocean buoy data.
What science is complete, by the way, and what are the growing uncertainties you seem to have discovered in the satellite and ocean buoy data?
What we can't predict is exactly where storms will hit and the time frame. So far, if anything the predictions scientists have made are way to conservative. Scientists don't know if San Francisco, Kansas City or New York will be hit first with a climate caused catastrophe, but they know it will happen.
"There is a clear analog with multi-decadal climate model predictions where no skill has been shown in hindcast predictions of changes in multi-decadal regional climate statistics. As we have reported in our paper"
Pielke Sr., R.A., and R.L. Wilby, 2012: Regional climate downscaling – what’s the point? Eos Forum, 93, No. 5, 52-53, doi:10.1029/2012EO050008
“It is ….. inappropriate to present [multi-decadal regional climate forecasts]…… to the impacts community as reflecting more than a subset of possible future climate risks.”
"Skill in multi-decadal regional climate model predictions of changes in climate statistics has not been shown (i.e. there are no “clinical trials” to show that the approach is robust) ."
"For future studies in the literature and media releases to present their results as anything more than a model sensitivity experiment (and that they should only be interpreted as, at best, a subset of what is plausible for the future climate), they would be guilty of climate science malpractice."
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/climate-science-malpractice-the-promotion-of-multi-decadal-regional-climate-model-projections-as-skillfull/