Friday
Jun152012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Geoff Chambers talks to Adam Corner
Jun 15, 2012 Climate: Sceptics BH regular Geoff Chambers chats to Cardiff University psychologist Adam Corner about being a sceptic.
There is a growing body of academic literature that seeks to understand, explain – and even overcome – climate change scepticism. But is it getting to grips with scepticism, or missing the point? In this unusual exchange (we hope the first of many) between Adam Corner (Talking Climate) and Geoff Chambers – (a regular and prominent commenter at several climate sceptic blogs), they discuss research on the psychology of scepticism.
Read it here.
Reader Comments (202)
@geoffchambers
'More like studying the psychology of religious belief (or disbelief), in which case I’d think the researcher would do well to ignore quotations from the Bible'
So WTF *is* he going to study?
He wants to understand why people are sceptical of climate science. I explain why I am sceptical....because a lot of the 'science' is plain junk IMO. Then he (and you seemingly agree) disbars my contribution because it discusses climate science. and the reasons to be sceptical. Like the man says 'Duh??? Go figure that one'
WTF else should it discuss?
Clmate scepticism and its relation with the crop circles of Old Scrumpy and Falling Over in Wurzelshire?
The influence of the rock bands Yes, Pink Floyd, The Archies and the Bay City Rollers on climate scepticism (D Phil thesis to follow).
Jimmy Savile.. a reappraisal. How Jim'll Fix It led the way to Denierdom? Appendix: Multi-Coloured Swapshop and Mr Blobby's contribution to the Big Oil Denier Conspiracy.
I'm beginning to think that Corner is truly away with the fairies. Sad to see that you appear to be colluding with him.
Latimer Alder
“So WTF *is* he going to study?”
People, what they believe and why they believe it. I don’t agree with his moderation policy, I think it’s daft to say you want to know what people think and then sift the data by your own criteria of what’s relevant. It’s too like what goes on in climate science, for a start. On the other hand, it’s perfectly reasonable for a psychologist examining belief in climate science to say he’s not interested in discussing the science itself.
I believe Corner has made a big mistake here. The quantity and quality of replies have provided him with a mass of material from which interesting conclusions could be drawn by a researcher with an inquiring mind. One conclusion which springs to mind is that there is no correlation between politeness and intelligence. The anger that Corner has provoked is something he should reflect on, in my opinion.
Geoff it is very difficult to 'talk' to people that delete you, lack of trust/red flag, etc
I have offered to talk less publically, I hope he takes me up on it.
BUT, if people want to talk about communication of climate change and reasoning ofr scepticism, with 'secptics' about that. What is the point if he deletes people's perfectly valid reason for becoming sceptical!!! just because it is a bit close to home (and embarrasing to him, to claim off topic is laughable)
He has used public funds for that blog, but refuses to publish civil, factual (frank) reasons and publically available material that explains in part, my scepticism.. I am very willing to talk, but this was NOT my first experience of Talking Climate and a policy of deletion. The disallowed my comment, but actually changing the article because of it, (no explanation to the reader) as described earlier in the threads.
I will not communicate with people, who are intellectually dishonest with them selves to delete, relevant on-topic information (the fact that he percieves it to be personally critical) is tough welcome to PUBLIC debate. or people that frame the debate in such away that whole areas are not allowed off topic, ie climate science itself!!
As Foxgoose states if you communicate on an issue, write specifically about a field in the Guardian, publish in the field, it is materially relevant if you are an actvist in that field!
He is a clever chap, but being deleted is personally irritating and sympomatic of the problem where debate is supressed. (being deleted at Guardian, Realclimate, Yale Climate forum, etc)
Mark Lynas, Tamsin Edwards, Judith Curry do not behave like this on their blogs, and I have been far tougher on them than Adam
(Mark Lynas, one of the early proponents of Holocause denial and scepticism) who through open and sincere debate, now describes Deniers Halls Of Shame as shameful.. and has stepped down from an organisation, that Adam's founders and advisory board supports.
Adam Corner is policy advisor to groups whose founders and advisory board, patrons, are responsible for THREE 'Denier' Halls of Shame, with photos of politicians scientists and journalists they disagree with. This is politics, of the worst sort. These are the people that refuse to debate about science, I would like to enage in debate, but if my comments are deleted - I see absolutley no goodwill or respect..
What does it matter so much, my comment, with my factual reason, relevant on topic, that require it to be delted, on a blog which is Alexa ranked 7,000,000 plus.. surely it won't bring down the climate change consensus.
A reason I'm sceptical is that so many vocal scientist have become activists. (he is one of them) if he cannot allow that comment, why should he get public funds. All I want is my comments are allowed.
If he cannot do that, he is pushing for a write up elsewhere, where it will certainly get a lot more views (Alex rank - 18,112)
Surely he recognises as a phsycologist, the more tyou try to silence people, generates a scepticism in motives nad encourages people to get their views heard (whether right or wrong) All I wanted was to have a civil chat and explain reasons. The blog article seemed to be a good opportunity. But so far he has blown it. All I really want is for the intelectuall honest to allow other s comments (civil, non abusive)
Criticism is NOT abuse. Peter Gleick publically described me as 'incredibly offensive' to him and it turned out the reason for this was me publically discussing ' the science 'Hide the decline' and just being associated with Bishop Hill.
http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/
Yet he thought nothing of publically labelling me as abusive as those that sent those every ugly emails to Dr Katie Hayhoe and Phil Jones
Adam seems to be in a similar mould, refusal to discuss, reason for scepticism, due to the science, if he cannot allow my comments. (PUBLICALLY funded blog) why should I bother. I have tried.
@geoffchambers
'On the other hand, it’s perfectly reasonable for a psychologist examining belief in climate science to say he’s not interested in discussing the science itself'.
Either there is some subtlety of his experimental method that I have completely missed, or he is a fraud.
If my testimony about belief or otherwise in 'climate science' is to be banned because it discusses that very subject 'why I believe (or not) in climate science', how is he to draw any conclusions at all?
Does he have some secret (known only to psychologists) electronic device that can read my brain in Surrey and relay the results to Cardiff? Or does he just sit in his lab and by some combination of teleconnections and telepathy conclude
'I know...all sceptics are sceptics because of their suppressed Jungian Id and they all are all serial killers liking nothing than more than biting the heads off babies and sticking pins through wax models of The Team while bowing to effigies of mcSteve. And they've got a secret handshake and big ears. They are very very very Bad People''
And then he thinks....'no data, but good enough for a paper. Yippee - that's another three years secured'
I used to think that a lot of psychology was psuedo-intellectual crap. On reflection I was over-generous in my assessment.
Geoffchambers
I'm sorry geoff, but I really can't buy the "any discussion is progress" or "we can only make our point politely" arguments.
Ever since Gramsci (maybe before for all I know) people of "progressive" inclination have realised that it's quite difficult to stir up normal peace loving folk with revolutionary rhetoric - but much easier to subtly shift the terms of reference of public debate without them noticing.
In my lifetime in this country, I've seen a gradual movement leftwards in policy direction, achieved not by public debate bringing issues out into the open - but by infiltration of key areas of state activity in education, health and broadcasting by "right minded people" of similar persuasion and a "reframing" of public discourse.
Now, as a self proclaimed "Guardian reading lefty" you're probably quite relaxed about this, since it moves society in what you perceive as a more civilized and communitarian direction - but, in my view, "progress" by stealth is profoundly threatening to democracy.
The early progressive movements, led by people like Wilberforce, Shaftsbury & Pankhurst, achieved much needed social change by pointing out injustices and demanding public debate on them - often at great personal sacrifice.
Their modern equivalents hide away in NGO's, quangos, the education establishment and the BBC and try to push through "progress" while desperately avoiding any public debate.
The whole "the science is settled - so lets stop talking about that and shift the discourse to understanding the psycho-social problems of the people who don't agree" movement is simply a well trodden Gramscian gambit to put argument about climate science out of bounds - in the same way that the left were able to stop perfectly civilised politicians like Michael Howard discussing the wisdom of uncontrolled immigration by branding the discussion "playing the race card".
Adam Corner and his buddies are hard line activists who understand this process well and use it instinctively - by insisting on polite and non-controversial dialogue with them on the ground they have set out - you are simply giving them credibility and helping them divert attention from the real weakness of the climate change hypothesis.
I think they've got some tecnical problems, 50 comments were not visible,last few were, fixed that, now first 50 appear, subsequent ones don't
Additionally my post refering to actvists scientist, using adam as an example has been removed, it was pending moderation (published a B Hill earlier)
One last chance.
I have written a comment, re-writing the same point, that when the public see activist scientist, this is definatley a factor in the phsycology of scepticism.. Thus Totally on topic, and non personal eaxample (James Hansen) If this does not appear, then what is the point in anybody bothering with Talking Climate.
Comment Pending:
when public see scientists in the media (usually the same few faces) that appear to them or percieved to them as more activist than scientist, I do think this is valid reason that is directly relevant on the phsycology of scepticism.
A perfect example, is of course James Hansen.
I asked Prof Arnell at the Walker institue about this, he has a slide about over the top hypeing of science, etc, and he agreed with me that certain actions like Hansens were an example of alamist rhetoric and not helping the communication of climate science. When the public, or 'sceptics' see scientists in the media, I do think they feel this reflects on climate science as a whole, and then it is the vast majority of climate scientists that then get critisicm (unfairly because of it)
Most climate scientists I know distance themselves from envrionmental groups, merely because of the just the possible perception of being seen as actvist and not neutral on the subject.
Thus, I suggest this is a factor that needs to be looked at in the 'phsycology of scepticism'.
I would love to chat Adam ( I don't bite - Mark Lynas and Leo Hickman can testify to that - I even 'know here Mark Lives' !! - no worries - I gave him a lift to lunch at Brasenose college with Jonathan Jones and I'm really ever so nice.
you have my number.
spartacus
Corner's article now states that "ANY POST GOING INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE SCIENCE WILL NOT GET THROUGH" (his caps), which suggests that he doesn't really want a discussion at all. His headline inclusion of inverted commas around 'sceptics' didn't really bode well, either.
"Corner's article"
Actually, it's a comment by him. He's also away, apparently.. :-)
I can see the BBC headline for the next election already:-
"Many people are concerned that extremists on the Tory right may try to play the climate denial card"
There is a difference between talking about "the science" and talking about the principles of science having been observed to conflict seriously with how science is practised - and how that affects one's perception of science as a social reality, one's concerns with ensuing effects regarding policy and politics, and one's consequent social interactions.
It is wellnigh impossible to discuss the perception of science having gone seriously adrift, without looking at hard examples from the science. And even looking at one example requires the fourfold setup of a "court in law" ie (1) the Case for the Prosecution, (2) the Case for the Defence, (3) Prosecution's Answer to Defence, and (4) Defence's Answer to Prosecution's "Answer".
It is the fourth stage that holds the dynamite IMHO. But this fourth stage cannot be appreciated or believed without running through the three preceding stages. So I strongly believe we need to find the way forward by drawing on this archetypal setup from the realm of Law.
I think this is the case that needs to be made...?
I've put down some thoughts about the advisability if engaging with a debate like this on its own terms
Pathologizing Dissent
I think it can only be justified if people call for a reciprocal analysis - "Understanding AGW Belief". I've suggested it to Mr Corner.
Don't think he'll be up for it though.
Thank you everyone for what I regard as important discussion here. Thank you Barry Geoff Skiphill Foxgoose to name but a few.
I remember Edison's words about not" finding the way to make a light bulb", but "finding 700 ways not to make a light bulb" [before finding a way that worked]. Maybe we are now at six hundred and fifty. Only another fifty to go, to eliminate all 699 ways "not" to talk to a climate warmist psychologist.
I am a firm believer that the mediation process will, eventually, yield results - and that, exactly the same way in mediation as in good science, non-results can be taken pragmatically as revealing part of the situation. At the very least, I feel heartened and hopeful (AND more scientific AND more alert to further opportunities) when I am pragmatic rather than judgemental, so it is good for my health, quite apart from that of anyone else.
I haven’t got time to answer in detail now, but I find so much to agree with in the points made by Lucy Skywalker, Latimer, Barry and Foxgoose (particularly Foxgoose’s characterisation of what’s wrong with the left) that I’m beginning to wonder if I agree with myself : )
What Adam Corner should read next is this:
Matt Ridley's "Scientific Heresy" Angus Millar RSA lecture
(Since I stumbled onto BH more recently I only now discovered this gem -- it is also highly recommended to anyone else who missed out)
One can correct or argue about some details but it is an excellent overview of one path toward becoming a climate 'skeptic' (sorry, I can't help using my vulgar Americanized spellings).
BH thread on the Ridley lecture
Geoff there is more to come.....
That adds to green party placard carrying perceptions of activism
Ie more activism, and I think a definite conflict of interest.
Contact me via realclimategate.org if you wish.
Don't beat yourself up Geoff, I think your dialogue with Adam performed a very useful function.
Usually scientactivists are timid creatures who hide the "activist" bit in the background.
A combination of your silken tongue and Adam's youthful inexperience/vanity lured him out into the open so that the naturalists amongst us could have a good look at him in his natural habitat - and the big game hunters could get a clear shot.
I wonder what Nick Pidgeon thinks though.
LucySkywalker wrote:
"I am a firm believer that the mediation process will, eventually, yield results - and that, exactly the same way in mediation as in good science, non-results can be taken pragmatically as revealing part of the situation."
I just fundamentally don't agree Lucy, I'm afraid. I think once you agree to a discussion within parameters set by the "other side" you've already give up more ground than you can ever win back. The mere concession that skepticism *can* be discussed from a psychological viewpoint is just providing more oxygen to that toxic POV. Which, judging by the Nature publication, is already getting enough.
If this dialogue idea has got any small chance of being positive then it has to be reciprocated. Mr Corner has to be prepared to do another debate about "Understanding the Psychology of AGW Belief" or the whole thing is revealed as not much more than a PR exercise.
I've suggested it to him, but he said he's reluctant because mr Woods and others have made it "personal", whatever that means. Is anyone else trying to set up such a thing, with any better results?
Quid Sapio
re: Corner and "personal"
I can understand why he feels that way on an emotional level but from any "scientific" basis that's ridiculous. He thinks it's too "personal" that people have noticed that someone who purports to be doing scientific* research on a subject is a highly engaged partisan for one point of view? This is not a case of bringing in someone's opinions from a distant topic, he is an activist in a movement and he claims to be scientifically impartial about studying topics intimately related to that movement.
All the more reason he needs to prove his rational and impartial abilities at analysis of evidence, without regard to where the process may take him. If psychology as a discipline has any scientific pretensions at all then Adam Corner needs to avoid the emotional recoil and demonstrate his rigorous academic and scientific bona fides now. This is now a public issue of integrity, even if he never anticipated matters taking this turn.
*if one can credit research in social psychology with scientific aspirations.
foxgoose.
It was George Marshall: "How to Talk to a Climate 'DENIER' " video... (not sceptic)
http://talkingclimate.org/george-marshall-how-to-talk-to-a-climate-change-denier/
yes he put the denier in quotes, but as he is party (advisory board and founder) of 2 seperate groups with Deniers Halls of Shame, is he really very sincere, or just realising ever so slightly that this is not really working
Adam allowed my comment, when it was posted onto Talking Climate.
George Marshall did not, when I originally commented on his version at www.climate denial.org
http://climatedenial.org/2012/03/29/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-change-denier-dissenter/
( I think George may have added dissenter) his blog post first, but when repeated on Talking Climate the title does not have dissenter....
Wrote a really long post on adam's blog and it was of course censored in standard fashion... it is overall meaningless dealing with these people when they control the comment section as they censor non-approved thought... worse since I spent over an hour writing it I feel personally insulted by this wanna be low life coachrock that claims to be doing research... of which the only research he intends to do is create propaganda to push the agenda of the religious doomsday cult known as global warming
Final amusing diversion on "Cornergate".
An individual called Paul Vincelli has turned up at Talking Climate to castigate Geoff for not getting his science from approved "peer reviewed sources".
Paul goes to some length to explain that he is not a climate scientist - but a quick Google soon reveals he's lying.
He teaches a program on climate science at Kentucky Uni, lists the content as a "publication" on his website - and does a bit of climate activism here and there for good measure as well.
There must be a fruitful area for Adam's research into "Why exposure to climate science erodes the function of the temporo-parietal junction area of the brain where ethical & moral judgements are decided".
I posted the following which is doubtless destined for Adam's "memory hole":-
“Paul Vincelli June 18, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Mr. Chambers, please consider pursuing your skepticism in venues that scientists value. … Do you study the research published in peer-reviewed journals? …
I am a publishing scientist myself (though not in climate science), and I find very solid support for the fundamentals of anthropogenic climate change in these venues”
Are you the Paul Vincelli of Kentucky University who presents a program called “Climate Change Extension: Presenting the Science Is Necessary but Insufficient”
http://c12.cgpublisher.com/proposals/259/index_html
Are you also a co-author of “Climate Change: A Brief Summary for Kentucky Extension Agents.”
http://www.ca.uky.edu/agcollege/plantpathology/people/vincelli.htm
Are you therefore telling the truth above — or are you really another of the “scientactivist” community posing as a neutral commentator?
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Quid Sapio: LucySkywalker wrote:
"I am a firm believer that the mediation process will, eventually, yield results - and that, exactly the same way in mediation as in good science, non-results can be taken pragmatically as revealing part of the situation."
I just fundamentally don't agree Lucy, I'm afraid...
I should have clarified my time scale. I don't expect this particular dialogue to be "won" by us.
once you agree to a discussion within parameters set by the "other side" you've already give up more ground than you can ever win back.
Not if I do so with the free consent of my soul - to stand more strongly in his shoes so that my eyes can see more keenly the points of strength and weakness in his soul so that, like Socrates, one can lead him by his own arguments.
Foxgoose
Thanks for the information on Vincelli. As I know well, it’ s possible in minor universities to teach subjects in which you have no qualifications. So you may be wrong about him lying.
I’m replying at TalkingClimate to some points that come up there. Since moderation is likely to be slow there, I’ll be replying to any more comments at Harmless Sky
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=581
where the original article has gone up.
Cheers everyone.
Do you know the one about the little bird dying of cold? A child picks it up and puts it in a cowpat to keep it warm, from which it’s rescued by a passing fox.
Which goes to show: it’s not always your enemies who put you in the shit, and it’s not always your friends who get you out of it.
Foxgoose
That's a fascinating background to that comment on the Talking Climate blog. I wouldn't consider that "lying" as he presumably meant he is not publishing "peer reviewed" papers in climate science (he appears to be a plant physiologist), but it is arguably a form of deception by omission, to make it appear to the blog reader as though he is simply some disinterested passing scientist when he is actually running a program in "climate science communication" (thus is an evangelist for CAGW and has a paid professional interest in the subject even if he is not publishing in the science of climate). I think he left readers with an inaccurate impression of his role and interest in the subject but I think that's more by omission than commission.
What I find also interesting is his partner in this extension program, who has no stated scientific qualification at all:
==========================================================
Judith Humble
Private Clinical Therapist, Consultant
Lexington, KY, USA
Judith Humble is a licensed clinical social worker with 25 years of clinical experience. She considers climate change to be the critical issue facing humanity today.
==========================================================
In the USA a "LIcensed Clinical Social Worker" (LCSW) often practices psychotherapy in a less structured, less theoretical framework than an old school psychoanlyst...... here we see the school of climate communications as psychotherapy, perhaps???
Geoff/Skiphil
OK - he wasn't lying.
He was just deliberately concealing the truth (hiding his "inclinations"?)
He pontificates on "climate science communication", like Adam and, apparently, thousands of other scientactivists in disciplines that have bugger all to do with physics or meteorolgy - which bizarrely doesn't stop them calling themselves "climate scientists" when it suits them (or their grant applications).
Interesting about Judith Humble - is she the first of the genus "climate psychotherapist" to be discovered?
They'll obviously need a lot more when they start opening the "climate denial re-education facilities" - won't they?
Lucy - I take your point, and I think you're probably right in an ultimate honest one-to-one way. I'm concerned about the more *dis*honest way that this debate is being conducted and in which I fear Mr Corner's analysis was meant to play. I think it was intended as - or will be used for - PR. And the CAGW claim, being essentially based on a deception, has always used PR in place of argument. So something like this is just providing them with free ammunition.
When you suspect the game is rigged, or the referee is biased, should you play on? Will you look like a good sport, or a mug?
Just posted at Talking Climate:-
Rhoda
Of course the game is rigged and the referee is looking the other way. That’s why I decided to try playing a different game. (Same opponents, but the guy who trips you up on the soccer pitch is hardly going to do the same thing across the chessboard, is he?
(Meanwhile Foxgoose rushes on to the board, tackles Queen’s Rook, knocks over a pawn, oh, he’s offside...)
Similar remark to Quid Sapio. Of course Adam Corner may use this for PR purposes. What we say is data to him. That’s why I’m being much more polite, and more careful how I express myself. It’s proving a useful learning experience.
Geoff
You're an intelligent, thoughtful, amusing and articulate person.
Why are you wasting your time playing games with a twenty odd year old activist who is still at the stage of his life where his main pre-occupations are waving placards, going on "Occupy" demos and jumping up and down to loud music.
http://pic.twitter.com/Hdqz9Wbn
https://twitter.com/AJCorner/status/129938196602699776
http://wearecardiff.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/cardiffs-nightlife-might-be-a-haphazard-affair-adam/
Sure we all went through the same quite enjoyable stage of life - but grown-ups didn't waste much of their time listening to us.
Rhoda says:
"When you suspect the game is rigged, or the referee is biased, should you play on? Will you look like a good sport, or a mug?"
Exactly! And I'm not sure the major players in this debate are grasping that.I keep saying that someone needs to try and get agreement for a counter-analysis because it's an important actual and dialectical position to claim. Otherwise in future time when the media references the `"studies" on the psychology of skepticism there will be no equivalent to offer back.
I really think, as Judith Curry also suggests, someone should engage in a reciprocal analysis of the "psychology of AGW belief." Are there any obvious candidates?
Foxgoose
Please. My wife may be reading this. Grownups certainly don’t waste much of their time listening to us. But they do listen to Adam, who has a column in the Guardian, and all the official backup you and others have noted. Unfair, as Rhoda said.He’s interested in how to change minds, using the latest techniques of persuasion. So am I.
Well, 10,000 of them are gathered together, at our expense, in five star hotels in Rio as we speak and I'm sure a good number of them will be "climate psychologists".
What a golden opportunity for them to start work on psychoanalysing their peer group.
Don't hold your breath though.
Hmmmm.
As the very late Professor Joad (I think) used to say ......... "It all depends what you mean by grownups"
Geoff said:
"Grownups certainly don’t waste much of their time listening to us. But they do listen to Adam, who has a column in the Guardian, and all the official backup you and others have noted. Unfair, as Rhoda said.
He’s interested in how to change minds, using the latest techniques of persuasion. So am I"
This sounds as if you're according the hardline AGW proponents (whom Adam seems to speak for) the strength and significance they would like you to think they have. Don't believe it. The rational position is always the strong (and grown up) one, and the rational position on AGW is agnosticism at this point. The advocates of belief are noisy but not as numerous as it might seem, and they have the ephemeral nature of all those who assert certainty in an irresistibly uncertain world :-)
I intend to write my own blog post, so I have posted the following questions at Talking Climate.
As Adam is not just an academic, but someone with a media profile (column in the Guardian, writes for ecologist and New Scientists. and also has a publivcall funded blog communicating climate change (Talking Climate) he also tweets publically as @TalkingClimates I think they are fair and not 'personal'
------------------------
Hi Adam
May I ask a few of questions, to clarify your thoughts, please (ie us proponents/opponents of an issue need to talk to understand each other)
1) I earlier mentioned a phsycological reason for scepticism, when the public (including conservatives ;-) ) might percieve a scientist to be activist with respect to a cause (I don't mean signing a direct debit for RSBP, Greenpeace, etc) ie very publically with a media profile and this raises a concern.
The most well know example I gave was James Hansen, being arrested, etc,etc coal trains death trains, etc.. (and of course the 'other' example I gave, many others are also available)
Would you agree that for the public (or a subset conservative) this might be a reason to doubt? ie perceptions perhaps of objectivity lost for the 'cause' amongst conservatives or the wider public
2) this is my opinion, but PIRC, COIN would by many I think be percieved as activist and/or lobbying organisations for 'climate change' (nothing wrong with that in itself) do you understand why the general public may percieve this and have a doubt or 2?
3) I do not mean to be personal, but I think the wider general public would see it as relevant. similar to question 1) do you percive yourself as an activist or campaigner (I understand this maybe compartmentalised into personal) and you belive you can seperate this from your work, which is of course possible)
a) But the question is with respect to phsycology, I'm asking about the publics perception how do you think the public (or conservative subset ) would percieve this? ie like with James Hansen who does actually not disagree that he is an activist?
b) again how we percive ourselves and others percieve us can be very different and lead to confuson/doubt. If a scientist (or professional) is also an activist or campaigner, when it directly related to subject of their professional field.
Do you think the 'sceptic', public or conservative subest potetial reason for scepticism?
LIke with Hansesn do you agree that the public might percieve yourself as a campaigner?
An analogy being an economic academic researcher,who also writes/has a column for say the
BBC? ;-) ! /Daily Mail /Times that writes publically, about the EU, etc. Who is also say a UKIP candidate, and a policy advisor to a think tank that is eurosceptic.
4) I would be very interested in your thoughts from a phsycological perspective, as I do believe both examples (economic/climate) would be at least amongst the general public be a reason (small perhaps) for a degree of scepticismm would you agree that this might be a likley public response? (amongst which groups)
I would very much like to hear/discuss your answers to those questions. As I intend to write a blog article myself, and I thought, (with some advice - not from my 'side') that it would only be fair to give you an opportunity to respond.
Thanks
Barry
ps please note, I'm NOT saying professional objectivity IS lost for a cause (though it is a recognised risk) but amongst those groups that you describe, it is merely the 'perceptions' of objectivity lost for a cause, that cause a degree of scepticism.
Hence a non ideological reason (ie with my example, a labour or of the left grouping of people, AND wider general public, I would think would ALL be sceptical to various degrees of the economic analogy)
One more (I took a look at one of Adams papers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I might take the moment to say thanks for the database of papers, which are fascinating.
I took a look at one paper, written by yourself and colleagues, that cites the 97% of scientists consensus, and looks to understand why despite this consensus amongst scientists, that scepticism amongst the general public is falling.(ie why science arguments are not working)
And it set out in a controlled way to look into this.
However this '97% of scientists say' is percived by a number of sceptics to be widely misquoted in the media and politicians, ie it is used to go beyond the consensus derived by the questions of the survey.
(As a side note: There was some criticism of the the 2 relevant questions in how they were phrased constructed (for the record I would have to answer yes to both))
ie we (the public) hear people in the media say '97% of sceintists say' and then use it to justify a statement of say major future climate change, or dangerous climate change, and typically the person is only vaguely aware of the source (or not at all)
And a very informed member of the public (or sceptic) realises that this additional statement or similar is not actually justified by the survey questions & results? Thus further scepticism arises because of a realisation that the claim linked to the phrase 97% of scientists, actually goes way beyond the survey questions. and gives concerns of the motivations and lack of knowledge using science in ignorance to make another cliam
(I don't mean I think this is happening in the paper I mention!)
So 2 question:
1) The particular survey in question is the Doran/Zimmermann EoS paper, are you aware of the criticisms of this and see why this use of it rasies non ideologically motivated concerns?
2) And more importantly have you read for yourself the original source of 97% of scientists result, that the Doran paper cites?
As I think many would recognise the flaws in this survey, which is the starting point for claims in the media and some research.
To summarise 2), have you read the Zimmermann paper, consensus on the consensus (not the DoranEoS paper) but the actual cited reference in Doran?
Barry, I think the "97% of scientists" refers to samples of just 200 in one case and 75 in another? It might be worth emphasising that. I think there are links to analyses of the two surveys online.
Have you seen Adam Corner's latest blog comment? It's really quite concerning. There are many people out there who believe strongly in the theory of AGW, but most of them will at least admit that skepticism to some degree can be legitimate. But not Adam it seems. Adam is convinced "climate science" is synonymous with "science that supports AGW theory". He doesn't even seem to realise or accept there is any other kind - and information to the contrary seems to fall on deaf ears. His paradigm, it seems, simply can't encompass skepticism as anything other than a flight from the Truth he sees as absolute.
I'm sure he's sincere, but I really don't know how much value there is in trying to debate with someone whose convictions are that fixed, do you?
I *definitely* wouldn't feed the misconception even further by agreeing to talk about the "psychology of skepticism", as I don't think it will help him or the debate.
The "97%" figure was in response to a pair of questions that were absurdly broad in scope, such that even few "skeptics" would reject any temp rise in 2 centuries. The questions are NOT about anything "catastrophic" -- few people dispute that there has been some warming in 2 centuries (starting long before any AGW) or that there is *some* significant human contribution (including non-CO2 issues such as land use, agriculture, and urbanization). Saying 'yes' to those questions does not get you anywhere near the claim of "catastrophic" AGW.
The survey also used a biased sample originally, but it didn't matter because they (a) used ridiculous questions, and (b) winnowed the responses down so carefully that they made sure they got their 97% (questions are hyper-linked to survey results):
"97% of climate scientists agree the sun will rise tomorrow" (sic)
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Yes Barry (and QS) it's amazing how many arguments with warmists (even in self styled science blogs like Real Climate) end up with the believers trotting out the bogus 97% figure.
Because each individual piece of CAGW evidence fails on close examination - they inevitably retreat to "well even if that isn't certain there's enough other evidence to convince 97% of all scientists in the field".
The advantage of getting the non-technical defenders of the faith, like Adam Corner, to evaluate Zimmerman et al in detail is that they can understand the statistical sleight of hand - where they couldn't begin to evaluate issues like tropospheric heating or deep ocean heat measurement flaws.
Maybe Geoff should concentrate on this in his next round with Corner - if there is one.
Geoff will get no concessions from this man, IMHO. The other side never concede a point, they always shift their ground. Or go off in a huff, which is what my models predict in this case, with a high degree of confidence.
Posted at Corner's, maybe it won't appear for 24h...
Adam — I’m confused. You wrote: “ANY POST GOING INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE SCIENCE WILL NOT GET THROUGH” and then went yourself into discussing the science. Please clarify.
Also you haven’t had time as yet to respond to one of my original contentions, namely that it’s not “older white men” who are more skeptical, rather that they are more vocal about their skepticism, that is, they find it worthwhile to speak up their minds. Could it be that you’re simply studying why “older white men” spend time on the internet??
Another thing I have noticed is that you’re stuck in absolutes. You believe the only alternatives are, total belief in upcoming catastrophes, or total belief in a worldwide conspiracy of evil scientists pushing AGW. This indicates you have got very little from Geoff, whose views are much more nuanced than that (likewise regarding me, Barry, Foxgoose and many others).
Along the same lines you refer to “if you dont accept that climate change poses risks to society”: again, it’s not an either-or situation, it is possible to accept that climate change poses risk WITHOUT accepting that climate change poses risks that are big and certain enough to warrant the wholesale destruction of modern society.
You might not know it, but the debate has matured into “is there a catastrophe going to befall upon us or not”. Answering “no” or “not likely” is the mark of 2012 climate change skepticism.
I would have a lot to say about those statements of yours. But for now…please stick to your field of expertise, or allow your commenters to enter the topics you are introducing yourself.
Hopefully you’ll agree that I, like many others, have not been insulting in any way at all.
thanks in anticipation
Quid Sapio
I don't think there is a problem with Adam's definition. What he is saying is that there is "climate science" which, as you say, is "science that supports the AGW theory".
By extension there is also "real science" or "proper science" which doesn't "support" any theory but looks at the matter objectively using reliable data and carrying out experiments and observations from which one can draw reasonable conclusions which either support or do not support the original hypothesis.
I'm sure that's what he will have meant.
This is getting odd. Adam won't publish my question (above), but answer me (though I think it he is answering the question I think he thinks I'm asking... not my actual question!)
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam
I think you assumed what I was asking, and answered your own question, not mine.
(I was quite, specific, why not publish my actual question?)
For avoidance of doubt. I am NOT saying the case for climate change is built on Doran/Zimmermann!! . it was just an opinion survey. not atmospheric physics!
Though a lot of politicians misquote it
I have some concerns about it. please a simple question, have you read Zimmermann for yourself Yes/No
As it goes to my point, I became very sceptical at hearing this 97% stated in ways when the survey did not justify statements linked to it. ie things like 97% of scientists say, future impact will be dangerous, that sort of thing (and the person making this statement citing/referencing when asked Doran and/or Anderegg, ie these surversy make no claims on the thoughts of the scientist with respect to dangerous future climate change)
I'm NOT questioning the whole of climate science because of it, just saying that to the public this survey gets misused, in a way that sound like a soundbite.
And so the public,it just sounds like yet another soundbite/political rhetoric not just climate realted) which they hear all the time and have started to tune out, which goes to the heart of what you are looking into, ie public more sceptical despiute the scientists views (the Carbon Brief touched on this recently) that over hyping of the science findings (going beyond the science) is not helping and cause climate fatigue amongst the public.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/05/overstating-climate-findings-its-just-not-helpful
I am just curious to know if you have read Zimmermann yet, no more no less (the fate of climate) science does not rest on this answer)
please just Yes/No
------------------------------------------
this is exactly on topic...
Adam said yes.. now we can move on..
---------------------------
Thank you..
Your thoughts on appendix G and F?
In the above, you say where where am I advocating ‘catastrophic’ climate change?
I notice looking back you say 'dangerous'.
As I commented before, you have your own blog, called - ahundredmonthsandcounting !!! so I'm assuming you agree?
This gave me the impression that you considered dangerous, unstoppable (catastrophy) quite likely. As many think that (nef?) this means dangeors or unstoppable climate change is going to happen if action is not taken to reduce emission by 40% by 2020)
(on a side note - On a political level (politics,economics - NOT science) I do not belive that there is any chance of the political will to make this happen. Thus a reason to be sceptical, why can't the actvists ee that this is not going to happen politicall - ie ref Pielkes Iron Law)
This again is open to debate as a subjective term.
Richard Betts discussed dangerous climate change at Bishop Hill
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/9/dangerous-climate-change.html
"Most climate scientists* do not subscribe to the 2 degrees "Dangerous Climate Change" meme (I know I don't). "Dangerous" is a value judgement, and the relationship between any particular level of global mean temperature rise and impacts on society are fraught with uncertainties, including the nature of regional climate responses and the vulnerability/resilience of society"
i recommend reading it all, and the comments. (for some insights in sceptics thinking. )
And before you say mentioning your blog is personal.. I only found that blog by reading a Guardian article!, where you state to the public, you blog at ahundredmonths and counting
Adam has agreed in principle to the idea of the follow-up discussion on the Psychology of AGW Belief. I think this is very good news.
Geoff - AC tells me you and he agreed some ground rules for the previous discussion that were very helpful, I'm assuming you agree with that and think they'd be useful to use again?
BTW - any thoughts about the best way to frame such a discussion?
QS
Adam said today on his blog that his belief in climate change wasn't based on authority arguments like the 97% A & Z paper - but by "100's of science papers such as the ones from IPCC".
The first question he needs to answer is, since his degrees are in psychology and he hasn't even got a first degree in a technical subject - how does he interpret and evaluate all these highly technical papers and arrive at his conclusion that AGW is 1) significant and 2) a threat to humanity.
It seems to me that, in the absence of any technical expertise himself, he must be relying on weight of third party opinion - even if he chooses not to admit it to himself.
As a psychological researcher, I would have thought he need to examine this area of his own thinking honestly and dispassionately.
Quid Sap
The ground rules Adam and I agreed were simply to be polite and stick to his subject of psychological research, as far as I remember. They’re in a series of email exchanges and were totally informal.
I went much further (or rather, held back much further) in that I didn’t throw everything I had at him, which is what Barry Woods has been doing, I think. Sticking to the rules is not a sufficient condition for establishing a dialogue. I saw our experiment as the equivalent of a first meeting between low-level diplomats, preparing the ground for later high level talks.
The danger of my approach is that it can be interpreted as fraternising with the enemy, or smoothing over differences that should be brought out into the open. I assure you that I’m not going to be led into some vague midway position on the essentials. For example, Doran and Zimmerman and Oreskes are non-negotiable, I think. No serious person can take their papers seriously.
I just don’t think it’s tactically a good idea to go into negotiations determined to reveal your opponents’ weakest spots. It reveals our own weakest spot, which is that our desire to “win” the argument goes far beyond any scientific disagreement about the sensitivity of the planet to CO2 concentrations. That’s exactly the argument made by Corner.
The most difficult thing I’ve found is not marshalling and presenting the evidence, (I’ve hardly begun) but in observing and controlling my own reactions (Lucy Skywalker had some good observations on this).
It’s no fun being criticised by the likes of Foxgoose, and praised by Hengist McStone.
I can sympathise geoff.. (as on the Climate Resisatance threads you were very critical of Adam, etc, much more so than I)
I have also held back a LOT, and I mean A LOT. As the dust has settled I've told Adam, just exactly how much (well not quite all) I held back (which I could have thrown into the equation, right from the start) I hope he can appreciate that. I also added a comment that I hope he would publish in full ( but I also said cut here), or in part that expllained this, and suggested an alternative venue.
It still has some potential. so lets see if talking Climate is brave enough to see any more articles may happen.
I just suggested, why not the next artcile take it to a neutral (some would disagree on that) to facilitate the discussion, so that the blog owner the moderator is not not a participant in the debate (either sides blog)
I volunteered Tamsin Edwards (bit presumptious) as I would be completely happy with her moderation style (and with an Agreed framework for the moderator to work to) perhaps Andrew could jointly co-moderate any really contentious point.
I also volunteeerd Mark LYnas (never had any trouble making comment there) and Mark 'trusts' me another to give me his home address (I gave him a lift) ! I 'know here you live' ! (unlike greenpeace)
Maybe more geoff,and adam, but I would love to see Adam or his colleague Nick Pidegon, etc, have a discussion with Mauritzio, or Andrew Montford, or say Ben Pile.
What has struck me, is that only the sceptics were talking, where were the 'other side'!
One question that I might ask, the Cardiff and Nottingham phsycolofgists is how well do you know/understand the 'eductaed sceptics (out of the mass public) which Judith Curry acknowledged.
if the phsycologists, Cardiff, Nottingham and in the UK do not read (regulalry) say Bishop Hill, or Climate Resistance, Climate Audit or even The Blackboard, Jo Nova, especially Donna Laframoboise (all three not old white males) how on earth can they think they understand sceptic.. or the argument. or make any attempt at phsycology.
How on earth can they try to communivcate with people they have no understanding or empathy with.
I find it very interesting that Adam has read Doran (why can't seethe flaws just there) but NOT Zimmermann. I wonder if he will make the effort to read Zimmerman
In a debate,/discussion attempting to understand you opponents position, even better than your own, is absolutely the best tactic. and of course this gives rise to the possibility that you re-consider your own position !!