Bishop Hill Paul Matthews on sceptics
Feb 11, 2015 Climate: Sceptics Paul Matthews has had a paper published in the journal Environmental Communication looking at global warming sceptics and their backgrounds:
Surveys of public opinion show that a significant minority of the population are skeptical about climate change, and many suggest that doubt is increasing. The Internet, in particular the blogosphere, provides a vast and relatively untapped resource of data on the thinking of climate skeptics. This paper focuses on one particular example where over 150 climate skeptics provide information on their background, opinion on climate change, and reasons for their skepticism. Although these data cannot be regarded as representative of the general public, it provides a useful insight into the reasoning of those who publicly question climate science on the Web. Points of note include the high level of educational background, the significant numbers who appear to have been converted from a position of climate concern to one of skepticism, and the influence of blogs on both sides of the climate debate.
There is a preprint here and Paul's blogpost on the subject is here.
Reader Comments (71)
Stewgreen "that there is a massive pressure for skeptics to hide their beliefs".
I have a relative who worked for a company whose director was a confirmed warmist and set up Monbiot to give a series of presentations on climate change. Just before the group went in for their indoctrination, they agreed they're were all sceptics but that it would all pass a lot quicker and with less trouble with the boss if they just sat in dumb silence.
Jonathan Jones issue is that once again we are 'treated ' to the idea that something is 'wrong' with a set of people because they fail to show unquestioning support to something which in no way has earned unquestioning support and therefore what matter is finding out is 'wrong with them'
The notion that they be right just dismissed, the idea that its those that offer the unquestioning support who may be wrong is not even consider and once again 'pop psychology' is employed to prove that the reason why snake oil salesman fail to sell snake is that the people their selling it to are to stupid or that its not being sold in the right way .
Ironical you only have to review SS, RealClimate or CIF to see that within AGW supporters their is rich , if grant poor , area for a little psychoanalysis work . But then careers , has 'Lew pape'r could tell you, will not be made be doing that way but they could well be killed off.
Well done Paul, and I agree with Jonathan.
Rupert Darwall’s Book and Bernie Lewin’s excellent GWPF paper on Lamb reminded me of just how much mileage the climate change alarmist industry had behind it before public scepticism started. It demonstrates again that “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”
In my view, the rapidity of the rise in public scepticism, after 2001, is a direct consequence of the PC and the Internet, but it should be recognised that climate scientists were computer savy and had much of the capability years earlier. In the early ’70s I sold minicomputers to, among others, universities and by the end of the ’70s networking and messaging between them was growing.
Eudora was developed in 1988 and was in use soon after at the CRU, who were in contact with the Russians early in the ’90s. They had the technology to themselves but, like many including me, never dreamt that a computer would be in every home so soon, or that FOI, let alone hackers, would be reaching into their’s. Until 2007 and Steve M's FOI requests to NOAA we only knew what the climate change alarmist industry wanted us to know.
Feb 12, 2015 at 11:02 AM | Registered CommenterJonathan Jones
Jonathan; if we do not provide a healthy critique of Paul's work then others, less sympathetic, will. Furthermore we will be indicted as "co-conspirators" in any alarmist comment on the work. We do not attack the man. We do not attack the funding. We do not trash National monuments , heritage sites and power stations. I certainly admire Paul for his persistence, much akin to escaping from prison by digging a tunnel with a teaspoon, but I am sure he appreciates comment from a benign audience before he has to confront it from the alarmosphere where all sceptics of CAGW are treated as knuckle dragging, sub-humanoid Neanderthals rolling in oil dollars with a mission to destroy the planet.
hunter,
"For me, the elephant in the room is the obvious idea the author seems to have over looked:
That skeptics are not merely better educated, but correct."
I'm not convinced that you understand what is going on here. Paul Matthews is a regular commenter here. He is of a skeptical disposition himself. He hasn't overlooked the idea that skeptics might be right.
Jonathan Jones
I'm not! I find it quite revealing actually - it seems like some sort of Pavlovian response to a Bishop Hill post. Since the Bish often quotes papers in order to criticise them, when he quotes one favourably/neutrally but does not explicitly express support in words of one syllable, it seems that a certain section of his readership start spitting venom without actually having bothered to look into it properly and develop an informed opinion.
Or I may be wrong, maybe (for example) Stephen Richards really did read the paper properly and find that it 'thoroughly disgusted' him. I can't see why it should though. I found it quite interesting, and I didn't see anything that suggested Paul was trying to draw psychological conclusions about the people whose views he was repeating - he just collated the views in order to identify the themes.
Either way, Paul, welcome to the 'hated by Stephen Richards' club! ;)
"blow the bloody doors off" - now why do I suspect Paul Mathews has or had a "proper" Mini Cooper?
:-)
Feb 12, 2015 at 7:24 PM | Richard Betts
I think if you read the comments more carefully you will find that 'thinkingscientist' and Stephen Richards were referring to the journal in which PM's paper was published.
The concept of a journal containing academic papers on the subject of 'Environmental Communication' gave rise to their comments.
I tend to agree with them that it seems to be a strangely unscientific subject of study.
Richard Betts
'Paul was trying to draw psychological conclusions about the people whose views he was repeating - he just collated the views in order to identify the themes.'
Your right it could have been worse he could have 'model them ' instead.
Meanwhile there is a great deal of wiggle room in which views you chose to collect and how you collect the, Lew papers 'research' used a similar approach and he produce nothing worth a dam at any academic level but much that was worth a lot at personal level .
There is a long and ignoble history of such psychoanalytical approaches being used to silence and condemn those the fail to show their 'unquestioning faith' in political outlooks of an authority which fits very nicely in with the approach of labelling AGW sceptics has being equal to holocaust deniers which has become such a normal part of the approach used by some seeking to promote 'the cause ' And it has been seen not just from joe public but ,to the shame of their fellows who have said nothing , also by professionals working in the area.
Andy makes an excellent point:
Good thing that "skeptics" aren't affected by such identity-related bias. Otherwise, I'd have to wonder why they form conclusions about associations between views on climate change and ideological orientation based on anecdotal evidence rather than empirically evaluated data.
Joshua so this just a fly by from Currys blog are you setting yourself as another 'sceptic baiter' here ?
Meanwhile its actual empirically evaluated data that often informs sceptical views , that is after all the normal approach for science. Not to mention poor pratice and poor behaviour and unjustified claims coming from climate 'scientists '
If you want blind 'faith' I would direct you toward the same 'settled science' that has time and again told us, without justification, that when it talks it is 'with unquestionable words of god'
KnR -
==> "Meanwhile its actual empirically evaluated data that often informs sceptical views ,"
Do you have any empirically evaluated data to make that claim? Because my guess is that ironically enough, you don't.
I have seen some empirical data that shows that "skeptics" as a group might be slightly more "scientific literate" than "realists" as a group - but the evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of the public, be they "skeptics" or "realists" or something in between, are not familiar at all with the empirically evaluated data. We also have empirically evaluated data that show a very strong correlation between views on climate change, views on many other issues related to risk assessment, and "world view" ideology. Causality is hard to establish there, but there is strong evidence to support conjecture that views on climate change and those other issues are related to group-identity factors. That's one of the reasons why we see the kinds of identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors that are so common amid discussions about climate change.
One of the most fascinating features of that empirically evaluated data that I spoke of, is that it supports conjecture that people on the different sides of the great climate change divide would be thoroughly convinced that they are superior in any number of aspects than the folks on the other side of the divide - even though they don't actually have evidence to support their beliefs.
KnR -
==> "Meanwhile its actual empirically evaluated data that often informs sceptical views ,"
Do you have any empirically evaluated data to make that claim? Because my guess is that ironically enough, you don't.
I have seen some empirical data that shows that "skeptics" as a group might be slightly more "scientific literate" than "realists" as a group - but the evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of the public, be they "skeptics" or "realists" or something in between, are not familiar at all with the empirically evaluated data. We also have empirically evaluated data that show a very strong correlation between views on climate change, views on many other issues related to risk assessment, and "world view" ideology. Causality is hard to establish there, but there is strong evidence to support conjecture that views on climate change and those other issues are related to group-identity factors. That's one of the reasons why we see the kinds of identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors that are so common amid discussions about climate change.
One of the most fascinating features of that empirically evaluated data that I spoke of, is that it supports conjecture that people on the different sides of the great climate change divide would be thoroughly convinced that they are superior in any number of aspects than the folks on the other side of the divide - even though they don't actually have evidence to support their beliefs.
Yes, he does, Joshua.
Mark
As a graduate respondent to the quoted TAV piece, could I please opine that Paul, you have iexpressed the subject fairly and accurately. Having become familiar with many of he other people who described themselves, through their blog comments since then, reinforces my comment. We did know each others philosophies back then. It seems that few if any have changed their early thinking very much at all, one way or the other.
Jeff at TAV has good memories for me. Good science there.
Congrats, Paul, Jeff & Andrew.
I doubt it, Mark. But maybe you have some. Don't be shy.
Joshua, the guy who does Dan Kahan's thinking for him. If you read Dan's site you'll see him teeter on the edge of understanding and then up pops Joshua who diverts him with warmist bluster. He's the equivalent of those suited guys who lurk behind people who are thinking about leaving the scientologists. He monitors everything written and administers a reprogramming whenever he sees Dan stray.
And yes, Dr Betts, sceptics don't always read things from climate scientists or psycologists properly and attack first and think later. Perhaps that's because they're both fields where there's a high percentage of opinion and a low percentage of demonstrable fact. Or maybe people are just fed up with being attacked and expect nothing else? I view your attempts to get 'denier' removed from the fight is sensible but it's just a sticking plaster on an infected wound.
Tiny -
Thanks for demonstrating "skeptics" devotion to science and reason by showing up to explain that Dan's my puppet, and doesn't form his opinions independently of my string-pulling.
Joshua is his own as usual ungraspable self, oscillating between a total misunderstanding of what others say, sweeping pop psychology judgments based on one or two Internet comments, and fantastic statements that will puzzle generations of future historians.
With Kahan situation is simple. A professional psychology researcher approaches a field with opinions A B and C and wants to study what's behind A and B blissfully unaware this will apply to C as well. As it happens he's a strong believer in C, making his research not science but partisan psychologizing.
I know, there's me going on observations when I should have used a model instead.
You were thinking puppet and strings, I was thinking Alastair Campbell. Good to know where your mind goes to.
"I doubt it, Mark. But maybe you have some. Don't be shy."
Man you are daft. IIRC, you are the troll over at WWUT and occasionally Climate Audit that has some intelligence, but prefers to play the "see how we can twist what this means" game. I'm sure you do the same over at Curry's website.
Statements such as these are moronic at best. It's akin to "I'm rubber and you're glue" or "Shut up! No, you shut up! No..." Sigh. Phil Plait does that too. He's just as big an idiot that gets to demonstrate on TV (street creds indeed). The evidence people like me and many in here is posted everywhere, and it is often the same as what people like you tout as some come to Jesus revelation of doom. You know this, but you would rather play this child's game as if you have some sort of superior insight that we simpletons cannot fathom.
It really irks you that so many of us really DO have a relevant background and a track-record of competent, useful results. It must also irk you that your heroes so often get hung out to dry by we simpletons. Maybe if your house was a little better at self-policing its own work, it wouldn't have to suffer so many embarrassments. Maybe if they asked people like Steve McIntyre for help, rather than playing the "Lalalala I can't hear you" game, we'd be a little farther along the line to actually understanding what is happening with the climate, and, more importantly, what our short-comings are.
Mark