Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

nitpicker

(7,153 posts)
Fri Oct 25, 2019, 04:41 AM Oct 2019

((opinion)) The real reason some scientists downplay the risks of climate change

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/25/the-real-reason-some-scientists-downplay-the-risks-of-climate-change

The real reason some scientists downplay the risks of climate change

Climate deniers often accuse scientists of exaggerating the threats associated with the climate crisis, but if anything they’re often too conservative

Dale Jamieson, Michael Oppenheimer and Naomi Oreskes

Fri 25 Oct 2019 08.00 BST Last modified on Fri 25 Oct 2019 08.13 BST

Although the results of climate research have been consistent for decades, climate scientists have struggled to convey the gravity of the situation to laypeople outside their field. If anything, the wider public only recently seems to have awakened to the threat of the climate crisis. Why?

In our new book, Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for Public Policy, we attempted to illuminate how scientists make the judgments they do. In particular, we wanted to know how scientists respond to the pressures, sometimes subtle, sometimes overt, that arise when they know that their conclusions will be disseminated beyond the research community – in short, how scientists are affected when they know the world is watching.

We explored these questions with respect to assessments of acid rain, ozone depletion and sea level rise predictions from the west Antarctic ice sheet.

While climate skeptics and deniers often accuse scientists of exaggerating the threats associated with the climate crisis, the available evidence suggests the opposite. By and large, scientists have either been right in their assessments, or have been unduly conservative. We noticed a clear pattern of underestimation of certain key climate indicators, and therefore underestimation of the threat of climate disruption. When new observations of the climate system have provided more or better data, or permitted us to re-evaluate earlier conclusions, the findings for ice extent, sea level rise and ocean temperature have generally been worse than previously thought.

One of the factors that appears to contribute to this trend of underestimation is the perceived need for consensus, or what we call “univocality”: the felt need to speak in a single voice.

Many scientists worry that if they publicly air their disagreement, government officials will conflate their differences of opinion with ignorance and use this as justification for inaction.

Others worry that even if policy-makers want to act, they will find it difficult to do so if scientists fail to send an unambiguous message. Therefore, scientists actively seek to find their common ground, and to focus on those areas of agreement. In some cases, where there are irreconciliable differences of opinion, scientists may say nothing, giving the erroneous impression that nothing is known.

How does the pressure for univocality lead to underestimation? Consider a case in which most scientists think that the correct answer to a question is in the range one to 10, but some believe that it could be as high as 100. In this case, everyone will agree that it is at least one to 10, but not everyone will agree that it could be as high as 100. Therefore, the area of agreement is one to 10, and this will be reported as the consensus view. Wherever there is a range of possible outcomes that includes a long, high-end tail of probability, the area of overlap will lie at or near the low end.

We are not suggesting that every example of under-estimation is caused by the factors we observed in our work, nor that the demand for consensus always leads to underestimation. But we found that this pattern occurred in all of the cases that we studied. We also found that the institutional aspects of assessment, including who the authors are and how they are chosen, how the substance is divided into chapters, and guidance emphasizing consensus, also generally tilt in favor of scientific conservatism.
(snip)
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
((opinion)) The real reason some scientists downplay the risks of climate change (Original Post) nitpicker Oct 2019 OP
Much simpler than THAT. democratisphere Oct 2019 #1
Exactly !!! SamKnause Oct 2019 #2

democratisphere

(17,235 posts)
1. Much simpler than THAT.
Fri Oct 25, 2019, 04:45 AM
Oct 2019

No one wants to face the fact we are ALREADY well on our way to a mass extinction and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

SamKnause

(13,091 posts)
2. Exactly !!!
Fri Oct 25, 2019, 05:37 AM
Oct 2019

People of power and influence have known about climate change for decades.

People of power and influence have lied about climate change for decades.

It is too late !!!

There is NOTHING that can be done to stop catastrophic climate change.

We are currently in the 6th mass extinction.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»((opinion)) The real reas...