Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

FWIW, the original use of the one-legged stool was cow milking. I grew-up near a few Mennonite farms, where hand milking was still practiced, and have seen them used.

Not to make fun of stupid people or anything... But yeah, the proverbial"one-legged-stool" need not be so complicated.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Yes, I'm too much into values lock. As such, I've looked hard at my own perspective. I'm science first, politics second, religion third.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Ah, let me stop you right here because I believe we have identified a problem. You built your personal filters around one thing based in reality, followed by two things that are not.

Well, there are some problems that many people do not believe in the realm of science. I'll suggest morality, and many topics of philosophy as fields that do not lend themselves to the scientific method. I tend to agree that some questions cannot be directly answered using empirical methods. Do you disagree?

Would you have me throw up my hands and not address questions that cannot be addressed empirically?

Mind you, I prefer to reword moral, philosophical or other similar questions into questions that can be answered empirically if at all possible. Problems that can only be addressed under religious, philosophical or political terms tend to get icky real fast. There is no real data, and it is hard to agree on methodology and theory. One guy might be quoting from his Bible, while the next is meditating on his navel. Thus, you get opinions rather than answers.

And, as I said above, if I do have emotional attachments to things like Jefferson's political self evident truths, Philosophy's Golden Rule, or Christianity's commandment to love one's neighbor, I'd suggest reality checks. If a society pushes these principles to extremes, does the society remain stable and healthy? Is it possible to push such principles to the extreme, or in time of war does one have to build up a healthy hatred of one's neighbor? Can one apply the Golden Rule to the guy who is pinning one down in one's foxhole? If one feels really good about the Will of the Majority checked by the Rights of the Individual, is writing it down on paper enough, or must more be done to give the theory and edge, to make it work in reality as well as in theory?

Now, should you be able to reduce or reword Jefferson's self evident truths so that they become testable hypotheses, I'd be very very interested. Easily requested. Would you care to try it?

But I would quite agree that there is a distinction to be made between science on the one hand, and politics and religion on the other. The former should be testable. If one follows Popper, one can never find final and absolute truth. Strictly speaking one only has hypotheses that haven't been disproven yet. Still, after one tests a hypothesis for a while, one starts to feel pretty good about it.

But values are emotional stubborn irrational things. They feel good, but are even less provable than a scientific hypothesis, less easy to examine. Tricksy. As the guy said to Indiana Jones, "Very dangerous. You go first."

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Not to make fun of stupid people or anything... But yeah, the proverbial"one-legged-stool" need not be so complicated.

That seems to me to be an expensive and poor implementation of the idea. Not as easy to carry when maneuvering between cows. Doesn't absorb attention from hyperactive kids.

Still, I do like the idea of a large interface between chair and rear end. I'd prefer the Hudson Goods chair to a shaft only version.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, there are some problems that many people do not believe in the realm of science. I'll suggest morality, and many topics of philosophy as fields that do not lend themselves to the scientific method. I tend to agree that some questions cannot be directly answered using empirical methods. Do you disagree?

Actually, yes.

I think everything can be answered empirically though we will often choose not to.

Originally Posted by B Butler

That seems to me to be an expensive and poor implementation of the idea. Not as easy to carry when maneuvering between cows. Doesn't absorb attention from hyperactive kids.

Still, I do like the idea of a large interface between chair and rear end. I'd prefer the Hudson Goods chair to a shaft only version.

Dude... It's a log cut down to useful size. There are few things in this world easier to make.

By the way, ever milked a cow by hand? I have.

Just trust me on this one. Cows have their own methods of making hyperactive kids behave.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Rather pretty well. I do a fair bit of contract work generating and analyzing Phase I and II environmental site assessments. I generate and use proxies kind of a lot. Granted, pyrene/anthracene ratios as a proxy for types of primary-pollution issuers is different from the proxies these guys are using -- but there's kind of a hell of a lot of real-world experimental test data at least blocking off large chunks of the overall range. The ice core/sea ice proxies are 'validated' by not much more than an ANOVA and checked by what appears to be a t-test. Those are valid statistical methods for assessing corollation, provided a qualitative analysis has reasonably assured that no other driving mechanisms have been left out of the analysis.

Got any evidence that there is another driving mechanism or are we just supposed to take your implied one as a fact?

This is basic stuff; I'm pleased to be the one to help you understand a bit better.

Not at all. That would have involved this thingy you find from time to time in scientific writings, called a 'citation'. Granted, the stuff Bob posted wasn't the entire paper, and I'm sure there's a cite somewhere there that we just can't see.
If you had much experience with scientific journals, you'd know that this is a thing that indeed happens. Generally, it gets picked up in a response to the initial paper that one of the readers of the journal submits. Nobody's going to get everything right all the time -- that's why skepticism and criticism is perhaps the key virtue of science.

tl;dr: calm down, take a deep breath. It's alright.

Sincere skepticism is useful, fake skepticism of the denier crowd is less than useless.

Do you have any evidence that the proxy data is not trustworthy at all? A true skeptic would be able to point to some counter factual data. Fake skeptics cast vague aspersions towards the reliability of proxy data based on what could be wrong but not what they can show is wrong.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Got any evidence that there is another driving mechanism or are we just supposed to take your implied one as a fact?

Holy shit, are you serious? There are hundreds of driving mechanisms that we are aware of. In addition, there are cycles on longer time-scales than we've been able to even really meaningfully observe (meaning there are mechanisms of whose details we are not even aware).

Do you even understand what 'attribution' means, when climate scientists use the word? And how they do it? It really seems like not.

Sincere skepticism is useful, fake skepticism of the denier crowd is less than useless.

Ah... "You Infidels don't actually think what you say... you just hate Jesus". I come more and more to understand where you are coming from.

Do you have any evidence that the proxy data is not trustworthy at all? A true skeptic would be able to point to some counter factual data. Fake skeptics cast vague aspersions towards the reliability of proxy data based on what could be wrong but not what they can show is wrong.

Actually, a true skeptic would be perfectly reasonable to point out that a proxy reacts to other things than to the one supposedly being proxied. Like for example, tree ring width is a function not only of temperature, but of cloud cover, precipitation, local CO2 concentrations, the proximity of competing organisms, and so forth. In fact, to some of those, tree rings react more strongly than they do to temperature. Notice, the skeptic need not say "I know the right answer" to be perfectly correct in saying "you don't have the right answer". In fact, a situation where nobody has the right answer is pretty common and reasonable.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Hmm. The theory is old. Energy coming in from the sun comes at higher frequencies than energy radiating out. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses block the lower frequencies. There is an instrumental record showing the CO2 going up, and analysis shows that much of the increased CO2 comes from human activities. There are lots of records of how much fossil fuel is being burned. A former skeptic, in response to the climategate brouhaha, recently reevaluated the measured land temperature record from scratch. His version of the temperature record matched the older versions very well. The hockey stick was there.

Mikebert did create his own mathematical analysis based on the data and theory from scratch. It was a fairly simple model, intended to get global average temperatures rather than model the complex global climate system. Still, his results were quite in line with both the professional models and the raw data. The professionals have much more complex models that include local effects. The denialists don't.

Data? Methodology? Theory? They are all there if one has an open mind.



Again, I don't think it is my place to explain to a libertarian how libertarians think. As a progressive, I've had enough of other posters on the board telling me how I think. I try not to return the favor. If you wish me to better understand the basic world view and values of libertarians, perhaps you could talk of libertarians rather than Christians, Satanists and Atheists?

But I have observed that both Republicans and libertarians favor smaller governments, and tend to reject action to moderate AGW. I am making this observation empirically, not based on abstract theory, though my understanding of their theoretical world view is not incompatible with their words or actions. In making these observations, I am not implying that Republicans and libertarians are necessarily similar in any other way. I suspect that if I cared I could find many more similarities, and many more differences.

Are you really looking to claim that these empirical observations are not true? Do you believe libertarians or Republicans favor tax and spend government intervention to solve big problems? Do you believe libertarians or Republicans favor strong action to halt global warming? Seriously? I can see how your value system might force you to reject climate science, but I don't understand how or why you would be unable to understand basic Republican or libertarian positions.

We keep having this conversation, Bob, and you keep not hearing what is being said to you. It becomes less interesting -- at least pw is fun to fight with.

Originally Posted by B Butler

This is entirely off topic, but my sister the first grade teacher recently mentioned a use for a one legged stool. They have seats on top of the single leg, so they aren't just shafts, but still...

There are certain types of kids that won't stay seated in an ordinary chair. They are generally very physical kids. They have to be doing something. All too often they are running around pulling pigtails. Turns out that sitting on a one legged stool is just physical enough for some of them to keep in one place for a while. The effort is just enough in some cases that they don't feel the need to bounce off walls.

Again, entirely off topic.

The issue with the one-legged stool then becomes how big an ass one has that sits upon it.

It's not just that the BEST study found global warming to be indisputable, it's the who/how it was done that should have given some pause to the hubris of the skeptics - 'hmmm, perhaps we don't know everything and those guys with PhDs that actually work in the field might know something more.'

But noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

I'm sure there are 1-legged stools relatively comfortable for most normal butts, but for those who continue to make huge asses out of themselve it's got to be a little uncomfortable.

I'm no expert on global warming, but I sure as hell know my way around stools as evident by this recent snapshot of me -



I'm the one with the glass; that guy with the can is some kind of low-life.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Data, methodology, and the coherent, cohesive theory that unites them with the hypothesis. Yeah; those have the potential to constitute 'proof' in a science context.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

We keep having this conversation, Bob, and you keep not hearing what is being said to you. It becomes less interesting -- at least pw is fun to fight with.

Hmm... Not here primarily to provide entertainment.

Being obsessed with values lock, the 'know thyself' directive becomes important. I do science first, politics second, religion third. I acknowledge being emotionally and irrationally attached to certain principles. Jefferson's self evident truths and the Golden Rule might stand as examples. While I am [understatement] not apt to budge off such principles without a catastrophic failure of said principles [/understatement], I will acknowledge them as emotional and irrational. Thus, before invoking them as magic wand cure all solutions, I'd take a good long skeptical look at how well they work in practice.

And, you know, giving the people of Iraq a chance for democracy didn't make the country's culture go away. Democracy doesn't. Anywhere Democracy is first introduced, there is apt to be problems for many decades before the culture of the country adapts to make it work. The Golden Rule is also a fine principle that often (not always) applies with members of one's own culture. It tends to fade after the act of war. I remember talk of turning middle eastern deserts into glass parking lots on September 11th, 2001. Thus, no matter how fond one is of certain political, religious, philosophical or moral principles, I find reality checks appropriate and necessary.

Thus, I'd rather not bet the farm on abstract principles, but steer conversations away from principles toward hypotheses that can be shown to be true or false through observation or experiment.

Hypothesizes such as, the arctic ice cap is melting the temperature data includes the hockey stick, and statistically on a large scale, many Republicans since Reagan shy away from the big government solving big problems approach. (Even then, you have to make exceptions for maintaining a strong military. The Republicans push many themes. Any broad brush stroke description is not going to be true of all Republicans, likely more so than similar broad brush strokes won't describe all Democrats or all libertarians.)

I've long relied on Constructing a Logical Argument, a beginner's introduction to logic and fallacy, tuned towards introducing the finer points of formal logic to the internet debater. The entry for argument from authority runs like this...

The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win support for an assertion. For example:
"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference to an admitted authority in a particular field may be relevant to a discussion of that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Stephen Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation" and "John Searle has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Searle is a linguist, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

Then there is...

This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. To commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people.

This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example:

"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."

"The Bible must be true. Millions of people know that it is. Are you trying to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?"

If the above are acceptable summaries of the fallacies, to reference a climate science paper in a debate on climate science would be neither Argumentum ad Verecundiam nor Argumentum ad Populum.

Occam's Razor does not truly apply, yet it sets a standard. If there are two theories that equally account for the facts, one rejects the more complex for the more simple. You suggested above that data, methodology and theory might be criteria for proof. In this case, which theory, denialist or alarmists, can make a claim to have the data, methodology and theory? Occam's Razor only applies if the other criteria are tied. Clearly the denialist case doesn't qualify on any of the three.

Last solar minimum, you found and placed in these threads a prediction that the solar cycles would stop. There were at the time two conflicting theories in the serious literature, of a mild upcoming solar cycle and a strong one. Turns out that this cycle is somewhat mild, but nothing close to stopped. Over the next few years the cycle is expected peak. If one doesn't like the extreme weather we've had the last few years, hang on boys, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Prior to that you pushed a theory on cosmic rays effecting climate, that the CO2 wasn't the dominant cause. There is a serious theory on this as well. Problem is, we've been monitoring cosmic ray levels for quite some time, and they aren't changing. The serious theory is that cosmic rays are more intense when our solar system is in one of the galactic arms, and less intense when in a void between arms as is the current case. The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way very slowly. We move in and out of galactic spiral arms on the same time scale that continents drift. There is no reason to expect cosmic ray levels to change on a fast time scale to cause the rapid changes we are seeing.

And yet, if one quotes any given professional paper, you are apt to find something to disparage, some reason to ignore the results. No error bars on the illustrations, for example. I can more or less accept that you cannot perceive that your selection of good sources and bad as biased. That is consistent with how I understand human thought to work. You will leap with enthusiasm on a half baked theory with nothing to back it up so long as it supports your desired result. You will find an excuse to ignore a professional paper if it says something you don't like.

So, yes, what we have hear is a failure to communicate. This isn't much fun from this side either.

As for Justin's claims about the Medieval Warm Period:

High Arctic Warming Surpasses That During Viking Era

OSLO (Reuters) - Temperatures high in the Norwegian Arctic are above those in a natural warm period in Viking times, underscoring a thaw opening the region to everything from oil exploration to shipping, scientists said on Thursday.

Last week, sea ice on the Arctic Ocean set a record low since satellite observations began in the 1970s. In recent years, mussels have been found off the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard for the first time since the Viking era 1,000 years ago.

The study showed that summertime temperatures on Svalbard were higher now than at any time in the past 1,800 years, including in the Medieval Warm Period from 950 to 1200, scientists wrote in the journal Geology.

Summer temperatures were 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 4.5 F) higher since 1987 than during the Medieval Warm Period, lead author William D'Andrea, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, told Reuters.

People sceptical that mankind is the main cause of global warming sometimes point to the Medieval spike in temperatures as evidence that natural variations can bring large climate swings, Columbia wrote in a statement.

"The warming of the past 25 years or so is more than in this record for the Medieval period," D'Andrea said. The Medieval warming has been linked to shifts in solar output and volcanic eruptions.

"It has been pretty well established...that the modern warming is largely due to human contributions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," D'Andrea added.

The data also indicated that the Medieval warming was not uniform across the northern Hemisphere. Studies in Greenland and parts of North America show temperatures were warmer from 950 to 1250 than today.

In Svalbard, the scientists studied sediments of algae buried in Kongressvatnet Lake that left indications of temperatures in the types of fats they laid down.

The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the globe due to emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, according to a U.N. panel of scientists.

When white ice and snow retreat, they uncover water or ground that are darker and so soak up more heat. The melt is threatening the hunting lifestyles of indigenous peoples and creatures such as polar bears, the Arctic Council says.

It is also making the region more accessible to oil exploration by companies such as Shell or Statoil and opening up areas for mining and for shipping across the Arctic Ocean.

Originally Posted by Odin

As for Justin's claims about the Medieval Warm Period:

High Arctic Warming Surpasses That During Viking Era

Talk about a non-sequitor, Odin. Justin's "claims" about the MWP -- aside from the clearly-established one that it did indeed happen, and the fairly-well-established one that it was more or less global in character -- is that it was completely absent from the supposed sea-ice reconstruction pretty-colored-line that someone posted up above. Bigger, smaller, hotter, colder, or whatever assorted comparisons with the warming of the past several tens of years (minus the last decade, naturally)... had nothing to do with what I pointed out, nor is it even relevant to the point I made.

But good job with the strawman-pounding. That's an important skill to have, I guess. Right up there with bait-and-switch.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Holy shit, are you serious? There are hundreds of driving mechanisms that we are aware of. In addition, there are cycles on longer time-scales than we've been able to even really meaningfully observe (meaning there are mechanisms of whose details we are not even aware).

Then stop being vague and present your evidence of which mechanism(s) were actually responsible for the trend. The climatologists presented their analysis of the data and all you've done is claimed that it could have been one of these other mechanisms. Vague aspersions aren't evidence of anything but what you wish was true.

Do you even understand what 'attribution' means, when climate scientists use the word? And how they do it? It really seems like not.

Ah... "You Infidels don't actually think what you say... you just hate Jesus". I come more and more to understand where you are coming from.

Show your cards. Don't just tell me you've got a full house.

Actually, a true skeptic would be perfectly reasonable to point out that a proxy reacts to other things than to the one supposedly being proxied. Like for example, tree ring width is a function not only of temperature, but of cloud cover, precipitation, local CO2 concentrations, the proximity of competing organisms, and so forth.

Several of your alternate mechanisms are in fact temperature dependent!
Dendrochronologists are well aware of CO2 concentrations. That's why climatologists rely upon data sets and not single samples. Do you really not understand how statistics like mean, median, and mode work?

In fact, to some of those, tree rings react more strongly than they do to temperature.

Individual trees, yes. All trees in a data set, from multiple locations? Not hardly.

Notice, the skeptic need not say "I know the right answer" to be perfectly correct in saying "you don't have the right answer". In fact, a situation where nobody has the right answer is pretty common and reasonable.

Except climatologists have laid out the evidence and drawn a well supported inference. Fake skeptics don't like the inference's implications so they try and pretend that the evidence is faulty in some vague, hypothetical way. They never bother to actually provide counter evidence that a true skeptic would use.

You are the epitome of a fake skeptic.

I believe the following Geology article is the basis for Odin's post recently disparaged by Justin. Mild Little Ice Age and unprecedented recent warmth in an 1800 year lake sediment record from Svalbard. The main article is behind a pay barrier. The abstract follows...

Originally Posted by Geology

The Arctic region is subject to a great amplitude of climate variability and is currently undergoing large-scale changes due in part to anthropogenic global warming. Accurate projections of future change depend on anticipating the response of the Arctic climate system to forcing, and understanding how the response to human forcing will interact with natural climate variations. The Svalbard Archipelago occupies an important location for studying patterns and causes of Arctic climate variability; however, available paleoclimate records from Svalbard are of restricted use due to limitations of existing climate proxies. Here we present a sub-decadal- to multidecadal-scale record of summer temperature for the past 1800 yr from lake sediments of Kongressvatnet on West Spitsbergen, Svalbard, based on the first instrumental calibration of the alkenone paleothermometer. The age model for the High Arctic lake sediments is based on ²¹⁰Pb, plutonium activity, and the first application of tephrochronology to lake sediments in this region. We find that the summer warmth of the past 50 yr recorded in both the instrumental and alkenone records was unmatched in West Spitsbergen in the course of the past 1800 yr, including during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, and that summers during the Little Ice Age (LIA) of the 18^th and 19^th centuries on Svalbard were not particularly cold, even though glaciers occupied their maximum Holocene extent. Our results suggest that increased wintertime precipitation, rather than cold temperatures, was responsible for LIA glaciations on Svalbard and that increased heat transport into the Arctic via the West Spitsbergen Current began ca. A.D. 1600.

Again, the Medieval Climate Anomaly is more complex that Justin represents. There was a warming trend (Medieval Warm Period) followed by a cool trend (Little Ice Age) in the European area, with effects rippling world wide, but the effects varied from place to place and were not all coherent in time. Recent theories suggest El Nino or North Atlantic Oscillation like blocking patterns were involved, and likely some ocean current changes as well, though volcanic activity and solar cycle anomalies are also involved. There was a lot going on. Propagandists on both sides of the global warming discussion can cherry pick stuff out of a complex and incompletely understood era to score political points with, or as an excuse to ignore data. A full understanding of the time period is a work in progress.

This one particular study working locally at one specific location does show modern temperatures warmer than the Medieval Optimum. This seems neither a strawman or a bait and switch, but neither is it a smoking gun.

Stories I have heard recently include that fish are getting smaller, and apple farmers in North Carolina are losing most of their apples; all because of global warming. CA crops are suffering too. The skeptics may soon have to pay lots more for food, thanks to what they and their politicians deny.

Here is an article Bob will like:

The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science — and Reality

I can still remember when I first realized how naïve I was in thinking—hoping—that laying out the “facts” would suffice to change politicized minds, and especially Republican ones. It was a typically wonkish, liberal revelation: One based on statistics and data. Only this time, the data were showing, rather awkwardly, that people ignore data and evidence—and often, knowledge and education only make the problem worse.

Someone had sent me a 2008 Pew report documenting the intense partisan divide in the U.S. over the reality of global warming.. It’s a divide that, maddeningly for scientists, has shown a paradoxical tendency to widen even as the basic facts about global warming have become more firmly established.

Those facts are these: Humans, since the industrial revolution, have been burning more and more fossil fuels to power their societies, and this has led to a steady accumulation of greenhouse gases, and especially carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. At this point, very simple physics takes over, and you are pretty much doomed, by what scientists refer to as the “radiative” properties of carbon dioxide molecules (which trap infrared heat radiation that would otherwise escape to space), to have a warming planet. Since about 1995, scientists have not only confirmed that this warming is taking place, but have also grown confident that it has, like the gun in a murder mystery, our fingerprint on it. Natural fluctuations, although they exist, can’t explain what we’re seeing. The only reasonable verdict is that humans did it, in the atmosphere, with their cars and their smokestacks.

Such is what is known to science–what is true (no matter what Rick Santorum might say). But the Pew data showed that humans aren’t as predictable as carbon dioxide molecules. Despite a growing scientific consensus about global warming, as of 2008 Democrats and Republicans had cleaved over the facts stated above, like a divorcing couple. One side bought into them, one side didn’t—and if anything, knowledge and intelligence seemed to be worsening matters.

Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one’s political party affiliation, one’s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one’s level of education. And here’s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

For Democrats and Independents, the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science—among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.

This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the “smart idiots” effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It’s a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists—and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.

And most of all, for many liberals.

Let’s face it: We liberals and progressives are absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about “death panels.” People seriously thinking that President Obama is a Muslim, not born in the United States. Climate-change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can’t comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist.

And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them—to argue, argue, argue about why we’re right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right-wing misinformation’s defeat is nigh, if we could only make people wiser and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.

No less than President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren (a man whom I greatly admire, but disagree with in this instance) has stated, when asked how to get Republicans in Congress to accept our mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, that it’s an “education problem.”

But the facts, the scientific data, say otherwise.

Indeed, the rapidly growing social scientific literature on the resistance to global warming (see for examples here and here) says so pretty unequivocally. Again and again, Republicans or conservatives who say they know more about the topic, or are more educated, are shown to be more in denial, and often more sure of themselves as well—and are confident they don’t need any more information on the issue.

Tea Party members appear to be the worst of all. In a recent survey by Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, they rejected the science of global warming even more strongly than average Republicans did. For instance, considerably more Tea Party members than Republicans incorrectly thought there was a lot of scientific disagreement about global warming (69 percent to 56 percent). Most strikingly, the Tea Party members were very sure of themselves—they considered themselves “very well-informed” about global warming and were more likely than other groups to say they “do not need any more information” to make up their minds on the issue.

But it’s not just global warming where the “smart idiot” effect occurs. It also emerges on nonscientific but factually contested issues, like the claim that President Obama is a Muslim. Belief in this falsehood actually increased more among better-educated Republicans from 2009 to 2010 than it did among less-educated Republicans, according to research by George Washington University political scientist John Sides.

The same effect has also been captured in relation to the myth that the healthcare reform bill empowered government “death panels.” According to research by Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan, Republicans who thought they knew more about the Obama healthcare plan were “paradoxically more likely to endorse the misperception than those who did not.” Well-informed Democrats were the opposite—quite certain there were no “death panels” in the bill.

The Democrats also happened to be right, by the way.

The idealistic, liberal, Enlightenment notion that knowledge will save us, or unite us, was even put to a scientific test last year—and it failed badly.

Yale researcher Dan Kahan and his colleagues set out to study the relationship between political views, scientific knowledge or reasoning abilities, and opinions on contested scientific issues like global warming. In their study, more than 1,500 randomly selected Americans were asked about their political worldviews and their opinions about how dangerous global warming and nuclear power are. But that’s not all: They were also asked standard questions to determine their degree of scientific literacy (e.g, “Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria—true or false?”) as well as their numeracy or capacity for mathematical reasoning (e.g., “If Person A’s chance of getting a disease is 1 in 100 in 10 years, and person B’s risk is double that of A, what is B’s risk?”).

The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.

Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate science—e.g., a political conservative or “hierarchical-individualist”—then more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other group—“egalitarian-communitarians” or liberals—who tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate change—which, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls.

So much for education serving as an antidote to politically biased reasoning.

What accounts for the “smart idiot” effect?

For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what they’re supposed to think about the issues—what people like them think—and to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. They’ve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, they’ve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain “facts” or claims, and their deeply held political values. And they’re ready to argue.

What this suggests, critically, is that sophisticated conservatives may be very different from unsophisticated or less-informed ones. Paradoxically, we would expect less informed conservatives to be easier to persuade, and more responsive to new and challenging information.

In fact, there is even research suggesting that the most rigid and inflexible breed of conservatives—so-called authoritarians—do not really become their ideological selves until they actually learn something about politics first. A kind of “authoritarian activation” needs to occur, and it happens through the development of political “expertise.” Consuming a lot of political information seems to help authoritarians feel who they are—whereupon they become more accepting of inequality, more dogmatically traditionalist, and more resistant to change.

So now the big question: Are liberals also “smart idiots”?

There’s no doubt that more knowledge—or more political engagement—can produce more bias on either side of the aisle. That’s because it forges a stronger bond between our emotions and identities on the one hand, and a particular body of facts on the other.

But there are also reason to think that, with liberals, there is something else going on. Liberals, to quote George Lakoff, subscribe to a view that might be dubbed “Old Enlightenment reason.” They really do seem to like facts; it seems to be part of who they are. And fascinatingly, in Kahan’s study liberals did not act like smart idiots when the question posed was about the safety of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is a classic test case for liberal biases—kind of the flipside of the global warming issue–for the following reason. It’s well known that liberals tend to start out distrustful of nuclear energy: There’s a long history of this on the left. But this impulse puts them at odds with the views of the scientific community on the matter (scientists tend to think nuclear power risks are overblown, especially in light of the dangers of other energy sources, like coal).

So are liberals “smart idiots” on nukes? Not in Kahan’s study. As members of the “egalitarian communitarian” group in the study—people with more liberal values–knew more science and math, they did not become more worried, overall, about the risks of nuclear power. Rather, they moved in the opposite direction from where these initial impulses would have taken them. They become less worried—and, I might add, closer to the opinion of the scientific community on the matter.

You may or may not support nuclear power personally, but let’s face it: This is not the “smart idiot” effect. It looks a lot more like open-mindedness.

What does all of this mean?

First, these findings are just one small slice an emerging body of science on liberal and conservative psychological differences, which I discuss in detail in my forthcoming book. An overall result is definitely that liberals tend to be more flexible and open to new ideas—so that’s a possible factor lying behind these data. In fact, recent evidence suggests that wanting to explore the world and try new things, as opposed to viewing the world as threatening, may subtly push people towards liberal ideologies (and vice versa).

Politically and strategically, meanwhile, the evidence presented here leaves liberals and progressives in a rather awkward situation. We like evidence—but evidence also suggests that politics doesn’t work in the way we want it to work, or think it should. We may be the children of the Enlightenment—convinced that you need good facts to make good policies—but that doesn’t mean this is equally true for all of humanity, or that it is as true of our political opponents as it is of us.

Nevertheless, this knowledge ought to be welcomed, for it offers a learning opportunity and, frankly, a better way of understanding politics and our opponents alike. For instance, it can help us see through the scientific-sounding arguments of someone like Rick Santorum, who has been talking a lot about climate science lately—if only in order to bash it.

On global warming, Santorum definitely has an argument, and he has “facts” to cite. And he is obviously intelligent and capable—but not, apparently, able to see past his ideological biases. Santorum’s argument ultimately comes down to a dismissal of climate science and climate scientists, and even the embrace of a conspiracy theory, one in which the scientists of the world are conspiring to subvert economic growth (yeah, right).

Viewing all this as an ideologically defensive maneuver not only explains a lot, it helps us realize that refuting Santorum probably serves little purpose. He’d just come up with another argument and response, probably even cleverer than the last, and certainly just as appealing to his audience. We’d be much better concentrating our energies elsewhere, where people are more persuadable.

A more scientific understanding of persuasion, then, should not be seen as threatening. It’s actually an opportunity to do better—to be more effective and politically successful.

Indeed, if we believe in evidence then we should also welcome the evidence showing its limited power to persuade–especially in politicized areas where deep emotions are involved. Before you start off your next argument with a fact, then, first think about what the facts say about that strategy. If you’re a liberal who is emotionally wedded to the idea that rationality wins the day—well, then, it’s high time to listen to reason.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Stories I have heard recently include that fish are getting smaller, and apple farmers in North Carolina are losing most of their apples; all because of global warming. CA crops are suffering too. The skeptics may soon have to pay lots more for food, thanks to what they and their politicians deny.

I've heard both of these. There is a family in Florida that has been taking tourists on boats for fishing for several generations. Part of the ritual is standing on the dock taking pictures of the fish. They recently shared their fish picture archive with scientists. The fish are definitely getting smaller.

During the Bush 43 years, and maybe still today for all I know, there were two sets of planting maps. Given one lives in a given place, what sort of plants will thrive in the climate? The first set of maps were put out by the government, and have not changed in decades. The other set of maps are put out by the seed companies, and have.

Originally Posted by Odin

Here is an article Bob will like:

The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science — and Reality

It states the obvious, though it limits itself to Republicans rather than extending the principle to the many sets of world views and values one might find abroad. The attempts at saying why were interesting. Yes, a progressive would be open to trying new things.

It's kind of weak on what to do about it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

It states the obvious, though it limits itself to Republicans rather than extending the principle to the many sets of world views and values one might find abroad. The attempts at saying why were interesting. Yes, a progressive would be open to trying new things.

It's kind of weak on what to do about it.

No, it looked in the mirror too, and found the values lock to be ideocentric on the authoritarian right. You are right that there are no prescriptions for making changes.

FWIW, I've actually heard this discussed in the past as a genetic trait. Some people have an easily triggered fight-or-flight reaction, while others have one that's suppressed. People in the first group are defensive, and tend to take precautions to safeguard themselves and their families even when not threatened. The second group are risk takers, with all that implies. Society has needed both types over the millenia, so both traits are equally in demand in the gene pool. Because risk taking in today's world is likley to be more in line with starting a business, most of the cutting edge entrepeneurs come form that group. Once established, the risk-averse come in to manage the business and keep it going.

There is also the issue of universality. I don't think it's a given that an entrepeneur is also an extreme sports addict, but plenty are. I'm sure the correleatoin is high, though far less than 1. Now, apply that to politics. You have libertarians with lower risk aversion (and likley more persuadable based on the facts), and authoritarians with high risk aversion wh are less persuadable. There is also the divide between individualists and communitarians, but that was already discussed in the article.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not trees. They take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
But animals, yes:
Authors Claim Pets Are More Damaging to Environment Than SUVs

Most plants do both (night and day) but net, true.

Brings uop the issue that more trees take a net of carbon out. More trees grow when it's warm. Balance.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Perhaps I should leave Eric to tie himself in knots here, but -- hell, I can't.

The total carbon footprint is not the relevant measure. The CHANGE in the carbon footprint over the past century or so is what's important. Delta-C, not C.

So modified to ask the real question, one hundred percent is due to industrialization (not just in the U.S., of course -- gawd but you do love your straw men) and zero percent is due to plants and non-human animals, except for those animals that are domesticated by humans.

No. The relevant issue is proportion. If industrialization causes a 10% increase, that has an effect. If it's a 0.01% increase, probably not.

So answer the question. What percentage comes from industrialization in total.

Then tell what percentage of that is from Amercians.

Then tell me what percentage you are willing ot sacrifice.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well no, but the world would most assuredly be better off without Republicans and red states. However, not being in favor of genocide and mass murder, there must be other ways in which to make the world better off as such. Perhaps demographic changes will do the trick. Perhaps a mass or gradual awakening to the truth will accomplish it. We can hope and pray; including for you, Mr. young conservative Wallace!

Eric, where are you going ot run to when you progressives run out of everyone else's money? Other Californians have already made their choice.

See you in Texas!

Besides, I'm really a libertarian, not a conservastive I think.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Eric, where are you going to run to when you progressives run out of everyone else's money? Other Californians have already made their choice.

See you in Texas!

Besides, I'm really a libertarian, not a conservative I think.

Conservative in my book. Trickle-down theory, "other peoples' money" yadda yadda.

I'm happy here in CA, and CA is doing better. Silicon Valley is booming again. At least CA is doing something about global warming, so we'll have a better climate, even if some rich energy company execs have less money. I won't worry too much about that.

Housing costs a lot here, because it's such a great place to live. But those who can't afford it anymore have to move to Texas. I understand that. But that's not a place you'll "see me." I don't need to move there.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Conservative in my book. Trickle-down theory, "other peoples' money" yadda yadda.

I'm happy here in CA, and CA is doing better. Silicon Valley is booming again. At least CA is doing something about global warming, so we'll have a better climate, even if some rich energy company execs have less money. I won't worry too much about that.

Housing costs a lot here, because it's such a great place to live. But those who can't afford it anymore have to move to Texas. I understand that. But that's not a place you'll "see me." I don't need to move there.

I am with you on all this, Eric. Personally, I love Frisco!

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Besides, I'm really a libertarian, not a conservastive I think.

Don't forget that libertarian can go left and right just as easily as authoritarians can. For every nanny-stater trying to regulate the size of soda you can buy, there's a counter-part on the right holding up a bible and preaching for legislation to end of some other social vice.

Similarly, there are some people who are libertarian in outlook, yet understand things like utilities, economic commons, positive/negative externalities... They don't really agree with the anarcho capitalists who think we'd all be better off if five companies were competing to build independent road networks through your neighborhood.