Don't ignore climate skeptics – talk to them differently

[BridgeTheGap]

The American debate over climate change turns on two main themes. One is the science of the problem; the other is government measures to fix it. Many believe these themes cover the entire debate. They're wrong.

Far more than science is at play on climate change. At its root is a debate over culture, values, ideology, and worldviews. One of the strongest predictors of an American's beliefs about global warming is political party affiliation. According to a 2009 Pew survey, 75 percent of Democrats believe there is solid evidence of global warming compared with only 35 percent of Republicans.

Climate change has been enmeshed in the culture wars where beliefs in science often align with beliefs on abortion, gun control, health care, evolution, or other issues that fall along the contemporary political divide. This was not the case in the 1990s and is not the case in Europe. This is a distinctly American phenomenon.

AN ENERGY QUIZ: 'Are you smarter than Al Gore?'

Based on some of my recent work on the cultural and ideological issues of the climate debate, I analyzed the ways that climate skeptics frame the issue both at a major conference and in US newspaper editorials from 2007 to 2009. What emerged was a set of cultural themes that reflect the deeper ideological undercurrents of this debate.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0624/Don-t-ignore-climate-skeptics-talk-to-them-differently

[izquierdista]

1. "Make academic science accessible"

Academic science has always been accessible -- you just have to be smart enough. For the stupid, there is always the misspelled sign and angry yelling.

[KurtNYC]

2. and for the truly smart there is attitude-free pragmatism

excellent article

[izquierdista]

4. Where is this 'attitude' coming from?

I'm not going to fault the bright and scientifically capable if, at times, they get a little exasperated at the culture of stupid and lash back. Nerds and geeks have gotten a little more respect since the dawn of the digital age, for if you want all your digital toys to work right (who you gonna get to fix it for you?), you need to call out the geeks. However, anti-intellectualism is still a huge problem.

When stupid Sen. Inhofe maintains that there is no global warming, when junior high science fair experiments can prove the cause and effect, stupid has too much of a stake at the table. In a perfect world, the people making decisions would be the informed people. The closest we get to this in the U.S. government is some of the rule making in various agencies. They are quite a few excellent scientists and engineers at the GS-12, -13, and -14 level and the various contractors that work for them. Unfortunately, the higher you go, the more political the decision becomes, which means money can buy out the process. This adds even more to the exasperation of the scientifically capable, having to settle for a watered down result.

By the time you get to the House and Senate, scientific testimony is cherry-picked to give a predetermined result (remember the testimony on the public option). As long as there is business willing and ready to spend money to buy a result that helps them, there is little hope that informed people will win out in the decision process.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. That comment deserves an essay in rebuttal.

Here's the super-short version:

Start with the fact that scientific journals mostly exist only in academic libraries or behind pay-walls online. Wanna spend $30 for each article you want?

Also, journals are written in technical language that is relatively inaccessible to those not trained in the specific discipline.

You're equating "smartness" with technical education.

Perfectly intelligent people often have no clue about what is going in science on because science journalism has failed them.

[Kolesar]

5. the discussion must move away from positions and toward the underlying interests and values at play

...The focus of the discussion must move away from positions (climate change is or is not happening) and toward the underlying interests and values at play. It must engage at the deeper ideological levels where resistance is taking place, using new ways to frame the argument to bridge both sides.

For example, when US Energy Secretary Steven Chu refers to advances in renewable-energy technology in China as America's "Sputnik moment," he is framing climate change as a common threat to economic competitiveness. When Pope Benedict links the threat of climate change with threats to life and dignity, he is painting it as an issue of religious morality.

When the Military Advisory Board, a group of retired military officers, refers to climate change as a "threat multiplier," it is using a national-security frame.

And when the Pew Center refers to climate change as an issue of risk management, it is promoting climate insurance just as homeowners buy fire insurance. This is the way to engage the debate; not hammering skeptics with more data and expressing dismay that they don't get it.

"Climate brokers" can also help bridge the divide. People are more likely to feel open to consider evidence when it is accepted or, ideally, presented by a knowledgeable member of their cultural community. Given that a majority of Republicans do not believe there is solid evidence of global warming, the most effective broker would best come from the political right. At present, no one is readily playing this role.
...
Great article!
It is about linguistics and public relations.

[The Croquist]

6. I disagree. I am a skeptic.

What I think needs to be done is education and having the average person look at data. Most people never look at the data but choose sides based on their political affiliation. Both sides insult those that disagree with them. A few examples in the first five responses:

izquierdista: Fri Jun-24-11 10:26 AM
"For the stupid"

izquierdista: Fri Jun-24-11 11:23 AM
"the culture of stupid and lash back."
"stupid Sen. Inhofe"

From the article:
"So, the focus of the discussion must move away from positions (climate change is or is not happening) and toward the underlying interests and values at play. It must engage at the deeper ideological levels where resistance is taking place, using new ways to frame the argument to bridge both sides."

Later:
"This is the way to engage the debate; not hammering skeptics with more data and expressing dismay that they don't get it"

Maybe the focus should be in education, data and debate. Al Gore has declared that "The debate is over". When did the debate start? It seems disingenuous to announce that you shouldn't ignore climate skeptics but at the same time ignore their concerns.

The author also confuses global warming with man made global warming. There is a difference. A huge difference.

"Climate skeptics who ask critical questions for whatever reasons (as differentiated from disbelievers who engage in a close-minded campaign to debunk the science) should not be ignored or dismissed. In a representative democracy, diverse worldviews and constituencies must be heard and engaged.

To do otherwise risks burying climate change in a "logic schism," an intractable and stalemated debate in which the two sides are talking about different issues (such as life and choice in the abortion debate). They then seek only information that confirms their opinion and discounts those of others.

Instead, the discourse of the debate has to also be framed in ideological terms. Studies show that providing more contrary scientific evidence to people disinclined to believe the science could actually make them more resolute in resisting conclusions at variance with their cultural beliefs."

I agree but it needs to go both ways. Maybe people who believe in man made global warming shouldn't simply dismiss those disagreeing as stupid, or "Koch scukers" and instead actually try to listen to their points and look, with an open mind, at what they are saying. That rarely happens.

"So, the focus of the discussion must move away from positions (climate change is or is not happening) and toward the underlying interests and values at play. It must engage at the deeper ideological levels where resistance is taking place, using new ways to frame the argument to bridge both sides."

This is presupposing that the skeptics do not have a valid point and further expecting them to all of a sudden agree that they don't have a valid point. Bad news. It ain't gonna happen.

"Climate brokers"
What the heck are "Climate brokers"?

[Viking12]

7. No, you're a denier.

Skeptics are intellectually curious and intellectually honest.

[The Croquist]

9. I am a skeptic

I read allot about climate change from both sides of the issue. I gather data. I look at both it and the quality of it. I don't blindly accept anybodies statement because it is what I want to believe.

I don't know that man is not significantly warming the planet. I know that CO2 is rising annually and I am confident that it is caused my man. I know that sea level is rising but I also know that it's been rising for 22,000 years and it's average increase was a much faster rate then we are currently seeing. I know that most glaciers are retreating but they've generally been retreating for 22,000 years. There are lots of things I know. There are also lots of things I don't know.

[Viking12]

10. Exactly what adenier says...

from both sides of the issue.

Skeptics look at the science and apply the scientific method. Deniers like you repeat out of context nonsense.

[The Croquist]

11. Out of context such as 90% of USHCN stations

are out of compliance? Is that nonsense?

Such as sea level has averaged rising at twice the current rate for 22,000 years? Is that nonsense?

[Viking12]

12. Like that, yes.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

You should run for Miss USA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_PlKdumDBs

[The Croquist]

13. I address the second issue first

I couldn't win a "Miss Piggy" look alike contest let alone run for Miss USA.

On the first:

I've dealt with it before so a relatively brief (for me) response.

For those of you who didn't look at it, it is NOAA's response to the Surface Stations project organized by evil skeptic Anthony Watts. At no tax payer cost and no corporate funds Watts and a group of volunteers looked at and rated about 80% of the about 1,221 USHCN surface stations that generate temperate measurements in 48 states. The results to say the least were embarrassing to climatologists who rely on the data. Less then 10% of the sites met minimum requirements set by NOAA. As a result Watts has been vilified by many of this site. Shortly after the project was started the USHCN website was restricted "to protect the privacy" of the volunteers. Later he was ignored but eventually his results had to be addressed. The first link is the address. A few quotes:

This conclusion is based on recent photographic documentation of stations in the USHCN indicating that the widespread installation of the electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) and Nimbus‐type thermistors, which began in the mid-1980s, often caused measurements to be taken much closer to heated buildings, paved surfaces, and other artificial sources of heat than was likely the case for the thermometers that they replaced: Liquid in Glass (LiG). LiG thermometers were generally housed in wooden Cotton Region Shelters (CRS; also known as Stevenson Screens) that were more easily located further from the buildings where the observers worked or resided.

This is an acknowledgment that when they switched to an automated system they blew the insulation. A Stevenson Screen by the way is a white painted box with louvered sides that the thermometer sits in.

Notably, only 71 USHCN stations fall into the good exposure category, while 454 fall into the poor category. Fortunately, the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne <2004>, are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average (see their Figure 7). This is because the number of spatial degrees of freedom in the surface temperature field across the CONUS is much smaller than the number of USHCN stations . We note also that only about 30% of the good exposure sites currently have the newer MMTS‐type sensors compared to about 75% of the poor exposure locations.

These numbers were taken from Watts before he reached the current number and shows about 14% of the stations in compliance. In essence they are acknowledging that they're existing sites are a disaster. The focus on this study was the 71 sites that were in compliance.

Given the now extensive documentation by surfacestations.org that the exposure characteristics of many USHCN stations are far from ideal, it is reasonable to question the role that poor exposure may have played in biasing CONUS temperature trends. However, our analysis and the earlier study by Peterson <2006> illustrate the need for data analysis in establishing the role of station exposure characteristics on temperature trends no matter how compelling the circumstantial evidence of bias may be. In other words, photos and site surveys do not preclude the need for data analysis, and concerns over exposure must be evaluated in light of other changes in observation practice such as new instrumentation.

I like the line far from ideal. When 86% (now 92%) flunk the test it's worse then "far from ideal". Your 5th grader getting a C in math is "far from ideal". Your fifth grade getting 4 Fs and an A is a disaster.

Now the Menne-etal 2010 paper uses the 71 acceptable sites to show statistically that the data gathered over the last 130 years is still acceptable but it ignores the crucial question. That question is "What did the sites look like 20, 50, 100 or 130 years ago?" This system was originally set up to measure weather not climate. The measurements were taken manually, twice a day by unpaid volunteers supposedly at the same time everyday. Now some of these volunteers were no doubt diligent. There is also no doubt that some were not. People get sick. They take vacations. They don't like to go out in the rain.

They were also measuring temperatures within a degree. When quoting temperatures to within 100th of a degree, starting with numbers within 1 degree isn't a good idea. As the people aged they handed the task off to friends, neighbors and relatives. Very little of this was documented and even today some of the stations were found a significant distant then records showed. Some stations were listed as closed even though they were still recording and sending data. Some stations were listed as open even though they hadn't sent data in years. In short the quality of data sucks. That's simply the way it is. To defend the data is to either show ignorance or a complete bias.

How do we know that the 71 stations that Menne-etal 2010 were in compliance in the past? The answer is simple. We don't and without knowing that we can only conclude that the surface USHCN record is crap. This is the US record. Think about the records in Africa, Central Asia, South America, Australia. Do you think that they were anymore reliable?

[kristopher]

16. You are a denier ...

...trying to rebrand a tarnished and discredited effort to "deny" reality.

[The Croquist]

17. Who is the denier?

A study shows that 90% of the USHCN surface stations fail their own minimum standards and you deny that it is significant.

The same USHCN stations that are 90% out of compliance have never been audited by NOAA who operates this therefore nobody knows what it looked like for the last 130 years. You deny this is important.

You basically deny anything that contradicts your preconceived notion. Like I said, who is the denier here?

[kristopher]

18. The only thing I deny is that you are engaged in anything resembling the process of "science"

You are engaged in a political debate that has nothing to do with scientific merits of the discussion on anthropogenic global warming.

The range of proofs associated with the process of climate change that is underway is huge. In nearly every specialty of the physical sciences we have people confirming the predicted effects of dumping massive amounts of CO2e emissions into the atmosphere. It is a sick joke when you think that nitpicking the variability and imperfections inherent to real world record keeping and derivation of data sets is in any way substantive criticism of the body of work that is out there. Nothing but a sick fucking joke.

The actions of non-corporate compensated deniers are a the equivalent of a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum to get attention.

[Kennah]

8. I was a skeptic for a long time ...

... and Land Rover Liberals were a big contributor to my skepticism. They talked the talk but didn't appear to walk the walk.

There is clearly a cultural divide cutting through the political landscape in America, and Climate Change is but one of the issues affected.

I know there are still Land Rover Liberals out there, but I guess anymore I'm so over them. Lots of people are fakes on at least some issues.

The good news, IMHO, is that I believe there is a right to left, conservative to progressive, tilt occurring in America. As an ex-conservative I know I am part of it.

[The Croquist]

14. Do me a favor BridgeTheGap

Could you pull up the site nearest you and take a look ate it?

You can find it here:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=20

Page 14 of the CRN Site Information Handbook lists the classifications for site quality:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

I'm curious to see what you find.

[chillspike]

15. Here is one of the best video series I've seen on the climate debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

It was made by a science journalist who covered much of the climate change debate. It's 13 of so parts but just awesome from start to finish. Highly recommended.