Climate Change and Comfirmation Bias

[LARED]

http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/12/scientific-literacy-climate-ch/print

The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax, according to a new study from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project.

Many science writers and policy wonks nurse the fond hope that fierce disagreement about issues like climate change is simply the result of a scientifically illiterate American public. If this “public irrationality thesis” were correct, the authors of the Yale study write, “then skepticism about climate change could be traced to poor public comprehension about science” and the solution would be more science education. In fact, their findings suggest more education is unlikely to help build consensus; it may even intensify the debate.

Led by Yale University law professor Dan Kahan, the Cultural Cognition Project has been researching how cultural and ideological commitments shape science policy discourse in the United States. To probe the public’s views on climate change, the Yale researchers conducted a survey of 1,500 Americans in which they asked questions designed to uncover their cultural values, their level of scientific literacy, and what they thought about the risks of climate change.

The group uses a theory of cultural commitments devised by University of California, Berkeley, political scientist Aaron Wildavsky that “holds that individuals can be expected to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce values that they share with others.” The Wildavskyan schema situates Americans’ cultural values on two scales, one that ranges from Individualist to Communitarian and another that goes from Hierarchy to Egalitarian. In general, Hierarchical folks prefer a social order where people have clearly defined roles and lines of authority. Egalitarians want to reduce racial, gender, and income inequalities. Individualists expect people to succeed or fail on their own, while Communitarians believe that society is obligated to take care of everyone.

The researchers report that people whose values are located in Individualist/Hierarchy spaces “can be expected to be skeptical of claims of environmental and technological risks. Such people, according to the theory, intuitively perceive that widespread acceptance of such claims would license restrictions on commerce and industry, forms of behavior that Hierarchical/Individualists value.” On the other hand Egalitarian/Communitarians “tend to be morally suspicious of commerce and industry, which they see as the source of unjust disparities in wealth and power. They therefore find it congenial, the theory posits, to see those forms of behavior as dangerous and thus worthy of restriction.” On this view, then, Egalitarian/Communitarians would be more worried about climate change risks than would be Hierarchical/Individualists.

Actual Study located here

http://climatequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Rosenbergetal2010_ClimChange_ScientistsPerspectives.pdf

[kristopher]

1. "survey respondents ...agree about ... causes, and consequences of climate change

Abstract
Climate scientists have played a significant role in investigating global cli-mate change. In the USA, a debate has swirled about whether a consensus on climate change exists among reputable scientists and this has entered the policy process. In order to better understand the views of US climate scientists, we conducted an empirical survey of US climate scientists (N = 468) in 2005, and compared the results with the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) physical science report and policy summaries.

Our results reveal that survey respondents generally agree about the nature, causes, and consequences of climate change, and are in agreement with IPCC findings. We also found that there is strong support for a variety of policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Climatic Change DOI 10.1007/s10584-009-9709-9
Climate change: a profile of US climate scientists’ perspectives
Stacy Rosenberg · Arnold Vedlitz · Deborah F. Cowman · Sammy Zahran




The "Reason" article has a different perspective than the authors' offer in their abstract. It seems to create a sort of false equivalency that is lacking in the original.

Link to download PDF: http://climatequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Rosenbergetal2010_ClimChange_ScientistsPerspectives.pdf

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. your post complements mine -- note that there are two surveys

One survey is of the general U.S. public; the other is of climate scientists.

Bailey has been a full frontal denialist for years, so he has strong incentives to distort both surveys. No reason not to read what he has to say, but anyone interested should go to the source(s).

[kristopher]

5. David Koch serves as a Reason trustee

The Reason Foundation is a self-described "libertarian" <1> think tank. The Reason Foundation's projects include NewEnvironmentalism.org and Privatization.org, as well as Reason Magazine<2> It is part of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation network.

The Reason Foundation is funded, in part, by what are known as the "Koch Family Foundations,"<3> and David Koch serves as a Reason trustee. <4>

According to the Reason Foundation's 2009 Internal Revenue Source 990 return form, it took in $6 million in donation income against $6.7 million in expenses, with only $639,236 in subscription revenue and $113,575 in ad revenue. <5>

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

Dr. Adrian Moore, Vice President of Public Policy of the Reason Foundation, is an Advisor to the American Legislative Exchange Council's Commerce, Insurance & Economic Development Task Force.<6> Reason Foundation representatives have also advised ALEC Task Forces on issues such as state budgets <7>, and health reform. <8>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation

[OnTheOtherHand]

2. oops, you posted the wrong link at the end

Bailey does refer to that paper, but the main paper under discussion can be downloaded via http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503">SSRN.

I've barely started to skim the paper yet, but one shouldn't rely on Ron Bailey's account. This paper seems to fit in well with a lot of literature that says that even if people have the chops to sort out policy issues (scientific or otherwise), they usually won't bother, because there is no incentive for them to do so -- being right on the issue doesn't confer any benefit. (The trajectory of climate change probably doesn't depend upon what you or I personally believe about it.) Agreeing with familiar opinion leaders does confer some benefit. That's a pretty grim argument, to be sure.

Bailey is kind of amazing. He makes much of the differences between liberal and conservative climate scientists -- especially on policy recommendations -- but it's apparent that liberal and conservative climate scientists generally agree on a hell of a lot.

[LARED]

4. Thanks for posting the link nt