Climate Change Denial and the Refusal to Accept Evolution

[InfiniteNow]

I'm not asking about the political realities this science inspires and the disagreements we experience in those arenas. I'm asking about the rejection of the science underlying the issues.

Please try not to conflate the two.

[CraigD]

Since I became acquainted with its ideas nearly a decade ago, I’ve tended to cast any “psychology of a political position” question in terms of the model proposed in George Lakoff’s “Moral Politics”. This model proposes that a fundamental driver of individuals’ politics is the relationship she or he learned to have with his or her parent(s), and divides these relationships into two major categories: Strict Father Morality, which goes with the political right; and Nurturant Parent Morality, which goes with the left.

Beginning with the assumption that most people don’t accept or reject evolution, climate change, or nearly any scientific theory through personal scientific testing or expert review of literature, but from authorities, such as science spokespeople and political and religious leaders, the question becomes one of choice in authorities

A prediction of the SF/NP model is that people disposed to SFM prefer their authority to come from individual people, while NPM prefers it to come from the consensus of many. I suspect (but, given the difficulty of testing hypotheses like these, can’t support very rigorously) that this difference is at the heart of an explanation of the correlation of acceptance of evolution, anthropogenic global warming, and science in general with the political left, and rejection of the same by the right, because authorities supporting these propositions are usually somewhat anonymous members of large, consensus-driven, non-hierarchal organizations (eg: the IPCC), while those rejecting them are usually charismatic individuals (eg: Rush Limbaugh).

This phenomena seems to me very robust (hard to alter), because scientific consensuses innately require many people agreeing to them in a peer-to-peer fashion, while denying them can be done by individual or small bands of “rebels” against the consensuses. Therefore, I doubt that very many people with SFM will accept scientific consensuses until these consensus become “common knowledge”, a process I suspect may take generations (30+ years), if it occurs at all.

[InfiniteNow]

The Reality-Based Community: Global-warming denialism as a conspiracy theory

Global-warming denialism as a conspiracy theory

"One largely unremarked aspect of global-warming denialism (as exemplified by George Will and demolished by Mike [below] and Zachary Roth at TPM) is that it amounts to a conspiracy theory. All of the world's actual climate scientists, and everyone in an a allied field capable of understanding their models, would have to be co-conspirators in the plot, with only a rag-tag group of economists, meteorologists, petroleum geologists, astrologers, and political pundits capable of seeing, and willing to say, that the emperor has no clothes.

Most of the glibertarians, cultural conservatives, and gadget-heads who constitute the useful idiots around the core oil-and-coal-company global-warming denialist constituency would be horrified to imagine themselves playing the role of 9/11 Truthers, or RFK Jr. pumping the thimerosal/autism link, or Thabo Mbeki claiming that AIDS isn't caused by HIV. But all four "movements" are alike in depending on compete mistrust of actual scientific experts. (Holocaust denialism is similar in that respect, but different in being almost entirely insincere: the Holocaust deniers seem to be saying, "Hitler didn't kill all those Jews, and I'm glad he did.")

One possible reason that global-warming denialism is more prevalent in the U.S. than elsewhere is that more Americans than Europeans are Biblical literalists. That involves believing that all biologists and paleontologists are either massively incompetent or deliberately trying to mislead the public about the central facts of their disciplines. [The alternative theory, held by some, is that the entire fossil record is a trick by Satan, intended to deceive those whose faith isn't firm.] I haven't seen any data on the overlap between global-warming denialism and creationism, but thinking about Sarah Palin and her fans you'd have to guess at a strong correlation between the two beliefs.

Global-warming denialism is a special case, of course: the policy implications of the facts about climate change threaten some very large economic interests and some dearly-held political beliefs. So global-warming-denialist brochures are printed on glossy paper. Other than that, though, it's fairly standard-grade fringe pseudoscience, not much different from the folks who write endless papers full of gibberish proving that Einstein was wrong.

And yet the Washington Post continues to make op-ed space available for flat-earth climatology.

There's legitimate dispute about what to do about global warming, how much to do, and how fast to do it. And there's uncertainty in the models. (Though that uncertainty, the deniers seem to forget, means that the models might be too modest, as well as too alarmist, in their warnings.) But denialism doesn't promote that serious debate: it merely introduces fake uncertainty, which makes it harder to see all the real uncertainty. "

Via Swans on Tea


"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. "

[InfiniteNow]

Okay, let me put this out on the table...


Is it possible that people who deny human induced global climate change and who deny the process of evolution by natural selection are too stupid to understand them and the consistency of data which we have in support?

[HydrogenBond]

Global warming is real. But the future is analogous to a glass of water that can been seen as being half empty or half full. The consensus sees the glass half full of gloom and doom. The fear causes one to want immediate action. Fear is based on the fight-flight reaction and is the strongest emotional potential. It needs quick action to reduce fear as fast as possible.

Global warming also has a bright side, which analogous to the glass being half full. This side of the coin is not stressed. The lower emotional potential is longer acting in time, which is why some appear to drag their feet. It is denial, but in the sense of denying consensus fear in favor of a calmer emotional potential. If you had a fire in a theatre, the more we panic the more likely we create a stampede because we only think right in front of us. If you stay calm, everything is more orderly.

Relative to the bright side of global warming; some of the major concerns of the future of the earth is human population growth, food and water. A warmer earth with more CO2, means more rain and more fresh water, more habitable land, and more crops for food. A warmer earth can better support a larger future population. But the glass is only half full, and there will be natural disasters until we reach steady state. But with modern early warnings, fewer humans will die compared to not being able to meet the futures needs for food and water for billions of people.

For example, say hurricanes and flooding increases. We can evacuate people from critical areas. The average hurricane may cause 10-100 fatalities. But with cooler temperatures, the earth can't produce as much food or fresh water and that could lead to hundreds of millions of casualties down the line. Say we lose the parts of the coastline, but large areas of Siberia, Canada, Greenland, etc. become more open to farming, the world food supply will increase for the future needs. The change will occur like lava flowing; slow. With early warning it will be more of an inconvenience until it reaches the warmer steady state. Then the earth is posed for the future.

When under the spell of fear, urgency can only see the short term, because that is how far in time fear looks, since it is naturally designed for immediate resolution. The current solution may be the best choice, in terms of the short term mindset of herd fear, but it may not time project enough to be the best solution in terms of a longer time scale. The analogy that comes to mind is one feels threatened, reaches for a bat and clubs someone. Based on 5 seconds of time, this may be the best solution to resolve fear. But based on the next 10-20 years it may not be the best choice.

One of the differences between conservative and liberals is time scale. Conservatives, like the name implies is long term or long time cycles. Liberal is more short term, and rapid change, so I can see the basis of the dividing line, with fear more appealing to a lower time scale set point.

[InfiniteNow]

Please see post #11 of this thread, HydrogenBond, and note that when I wrote it the first time it was in response to you.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Okay, let me put this out on the table...


Is it possible that people who deny human induced global climate change and who deny the process of evolution by natural selection are too stupid to understand them and the consistency of data which we have in support?

I'm not sure stupid is the correct word, i like to use ignorant by choice, these people are not stupid, if they were they wouldn't be so effective in convincing others of their party line, They are ignorant by choice, they choose to be ignorant about certain things so they can oppose them in good conscience, most of the people who really lead the anti Global warming drive have something to loose via the admission of global warming and or the technologies that would allow something to be done about it. The religious get involved because they take the stance that God will not allow us to ruin the Earth and it's our god given right to do what we want with the Earth. Both ideas converge via chosen ignorence.....

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Is it possible that people who deny human induced global climate change and who deny the process of evolution by natural selection are too stupid to understand them and the consistency of data which we have in support?

I think I’m too stupid to understand climate modeling well enough to understand the theories and data about it – and I have a high opinion of my own cleverness! Only because I’ve been around microbiologists since the 1970s (via an older cousin who got her PhD in 1972, and a lab and professorship years later), and was professionally involved in bioinformatics in the 1990s and 2000s, do I consider myself barely smart enough to claim a slight understanding of evolutionary biology.

Like most people, I accept the theory of anthropogenic global because I accept statements of many qualified and respected scientists and spokespeople who do, more than I accept statements by a smaller number of less respected and qualified people. If there is, as some of AGW’s opponents claim, a vast conspiracy of the UN, NASA Goddard, Al Gore, the Nobel Committee, etc, to hoax me the rest of the world, it’s succeeded. My experience with how difficult it is to pull off a hoax of much more modest scale, however, leads me to believe it vanishingly unlikely.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Global warming is real. But the future is analogous to a glass of water that can been seen as being half empty or half full. The consensus sees the glass half full of gloom and doom. The fear causes one to want immediate action. Fear is based on the fight-flight reaction and is the strongest emotional potential. It needs quick action to reduce fear as fast as possible.

Global warming also has a bright side, which analogous to the glass being half full. This side of the coin is not stressed. The lower emotional potential is longer acting in time, which is why some appear to drag their feet. It is denial, but in the sense of denying consensus fear in favor of a calmer emotional potential.

I agree with HBond’s comments on optimism and pessimism, the psychology of fear, and that some people are motivated by a sense of calm optimism to be skeptical of extreme change in reaction to the predictions of climate science.

I think it’s critical, however, to understand that many, I suspect most, people who self-identify as “denying global worming”, are motivated not by acceptance of climate science predictions and the belief that climate change can be beneficially managed, but by a distrust, often promoted by religious and political leaders, of science in general, and fear that measures to reduce carbon emissions will cause economic and political trouble that will hurt or kill them. There is also clear, undisputed evidence that many individuals and organizations strongly and vocally opposed to such measures are paid supporters of companies and trade groups of companies that stand to be economically disadvantaged by regulations to implement and pubic opinion in favor such measures, as well as strong anecdotal evidence that such businesses are unwilling or unable to consider the long term consequences of their policies. In short, I don’t believe that people who deny global warming are more rational than people who accept it, or that business can be trusted to put public interests ahead of their own, even when such a policy is advantageous to them in the long term.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

One of the differences between conservative and liberals is time scale. Conservatives, like the name implies is long term or long time cycles. Liberal is more short term, and rapid change, so I can see the basis of the dividing line, with fear more appealing to a lower time scale set point.

HBond, can you support this claim with any links or references?

Although I know of no poll or behavior study correlating self identification as conservative vs. liberal with beliefs about the future, but believe there is a well-supported correlation between self-identifying as “conservative” and believing that a supernatural end of the world will occur within their lifetime, and a correlation between self-identifying as “liberal” and believing that many future generations of humans will continue to live on Earth with successively better physical and social conditions. Thus, I don’t agree that “Conservatives … is long term ... Liberal is more short term.”, nor believe that there the terms “conservative” and “liberal” are useful as a major psychological classification scheme.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I think I’m too stupid to understand climate modeling well enough to understand the theories and data about it – and I have a high opinion of my own cleverness! Only because I’ve been around microbiologists since the 1970s (via an older cousin who got her PhD in 1972, and a lab and professorship years later), and was professionally involved in bioinformatics in the 1990s and 2000s, do I consider myself barely smart enough to claim a slight understanding of evolutionary biology.

I see your point Craig (with which I agree), but I think you are being way too humble.

Like most people, I accept the theory of anthropogenic global because I accept statements of many qualified and respected scientists and spokespeople who do, more than I accept statements by a smaller number of less respected and qualified people.

I agree to an extent. We are not climate scientists, so it is in our best interest to leave such judgements up to the authorities. Yet, we are science-minded individuals and as such are capable of analyzing climate data much more adequately than the uneducated, and unscience-minded, individual. The reason I personally keep tabs on new climate science is because I hate to just go along with an idea without fully understanding it. I presume that all the pages of these climate threads on Hypography show that I'm not alone.

[InfiniteNow]