Sticking points in accepting human-caused global warming; from a Republican, Mormon former skeptic

Utah geophysicist and former doubter Barry Bickmore had doubted human-caused climate change, since his understanding was that:

• There was lots of scientific controversy about human contributions;
• Climate projections were based solely on complex computer models of physical systems, which (having worked on them, he knows) are easy to screw up;
• There’s always uncertainty involved in science.
  

In this recorded presentation, Barry says, "I briefly talked about how I had made the transition from being a climate change “skeptic” to being an outspoken advocate of mainstream climate science. I then discussed how it is that people like me can so effectively avoid the truth about climate change."

The talk is well worth watching for anyone who still harbors doubts; its conclusion, which is quite strong, also serves as a guide to what's covered:

These contrarian objections almost always have a kernel of truth:

* Liberals do sometimes spin environmental issues;
* There are some legitimate climate scientists who object to the consensus;
* There might be a climate Galileo on the horizon;
* Non-experts should try to figure out climate science as much as we can;

There’s always room for doubt, especially in science. But when we are:

* turning veterinarians & metallurgists into climate experts;
* pointing to articles in dog astrology journals;
* putting forward potential Galileos who can’t put together any decent evidence;
* and relying on a fake member of parliament who claims to have developed a miracle cure-all;

- then we’re trying too hard to avoid the truth.

(It's 40 minutes long, so if you're short on time, you can read the notes.)


For more detail (on climate physics, etc), see Barry's previous talk, Climate Change: What We Know and How We Know It.

A musing on TV & movie bad behavior

Tea Partiers confident in doubting climate science - The Economist

From American public opinion and climate change: No green Tea -

"Tea Partiers, unsurprisingly, tend not to believe in the phenomenon (the 53% who don't believe in global warming just outnumber the 52% who don't believe humans evolved from other animals) and are the most strongly opposed to all sorts of government action on the issue (yet quite keen, like majorities in all sorts of polling, on research into new energy sources). They also distinguish themselves in their assessment of their knowledgability, with 30% considering themselves very well informed on the issue and a majority happy that it needs no more information on the subject."

Ahem...

The humble climate contrarian - an oxymoron

Is it humble, to feel that with no training you're a better judge of a scientific field than the scientists who've spent their lives in it? - or just to feel that it doesn't signify anything, if their understanding of the meaning of their research* differs from yours?

Open question - help me interpret this?

A caution, for those jumping to conclusions: this community does have (rather) more than one community leader.

What does it mean when a community leader answers a question readily & in the negative, when you're not recording, but when afterward you have second thoughts and (repeatedly) email him and leave voicemails asking he'd be willing to be recorded answering no, he doesn't respond?

Assume that the Q is one that's it's legitimate to ask.

Yes, I'm pretty sure I know what this means; but if there are plausible alternatives...

Of people and pit bulls

(Something to chew on, as a masticatory exercise for the reader. And apologies in advance - this is a breedist post, based only on old reading about pit bulls and no personal experience with them. Perhaps they're just more susceptible than (some) other breeds, to influence from bad upbringing.)

The problem with pit bulls is that they either don't recognize, or don't care to heed, the normal social "ok, I'm not fighting you" body-language message sent by other dogs - once the other dog gets assigned the "enemy" role, that's where it stays.

I think we've all known people that act the same way.

Brin on blackmail

Food for thought, when you see someone in a position of influence behaving wildly out of character. Includes this advice:

Setting the record straight - nearly impossible, unless...

A good one from Coby Beck, reporting that...

"...simple human nature, of the sort the most earnest and conscientious of us all possess, lends itself to being deceived by whomever yells loudest, even when the verifiable truth follows quietly and obsequiously after. An article titled "Setting the record straight almost impossible" describes a new study... by Ullrich Ecker and colleagues...that shows just how insidiously difficult it is to remove misinformation once it is planted in the mind.

... even strong retractions do not undo the damage... But one line from Dr. Ecker: "If you make them suspicious of why that information was presented in the first place, such as by saying it was a deliberate attempt to mislead you, then they can more readily dismiss it," does give some ... hope. "

Mind vs. machine (on the Turing test)

From the March 2011 Atlantic, via Grist, read Brian Christian's Mind vs. Machine; it does bring to mind certain online communities and commenters...
Among the findings reported: computers are really good at starting & maintaining a fight.

Productive thinking: Mercier on how to avoid confirmation bias

Don't think alone; and do seek out people who disagree: (link)

"People mostly have a problem with the confirmation bias when they reason on their own, when no one is there to argue against their point of view. What has been observed is that often times, when people reason on their own, they’re unable to arrive at a good solution, at a good belief, or to make a good decision because they will only confirm their initial intuition.

On the other hand, when people are able to discuss their ideas with other people who disagree with them, then the confirmation biases of the different participants will balance each other out, and the group will be able to focus on the best solution. Thus, reasoning works much better in groups. When people reason on their own, it’s very likely that they are going to go down a wrong path. But when they’re actually able to reason together, they are much more likely to reach a correct solution."

Is Reasoning Built for Winning Arguments, Rather Than Finding Truth?

This is fascinating (and, after this evening, apropos). Mercier and Sperber, via Mooney:

"If reasoning evolved so we can argue with others, then we should be biased in our search for arguments [since] In a discussion, I have little use for arguments that support your point of view or that rebut mine. Accordingly, reasoning should display a confirmation bias: it should be more likely to find arguments that support our point of view or rebut those that we oppose. Short (but emphatic) answer: it does, and very much so. The confirmation bias is one of the most robust and prevalent biases in reasoning. This is a very puzzling trait of reasoning if reasoning['s purpose was]... bettering our beliefs—especially as the confirmation bias is responsible for all sorts of mischief….[but] Interestingly, the confirmation bias needs not be a drag on a group’s ability to argue. To the extent that it is mostly the production, and not the evaluation of arguments that is biased—and that seems to be the case—then a group of people arguing should still be able to settle on the best answer, despite the confirmation bias…As a matter of fact, the confirmation bias can then even be considered a form of division of cognitive labor: instead of all group members having to laboriously go through the pros and cons of each option, if each member is biased towards one option, she will find the pros of that options, and the cons of the others—which is much easier—and the others will do their own bit."

Why we need other people to bounce stuff off of: (whether we realize it or not)

"When people reason alone, there will often be nothing to hold their confirmation bias in check. This might lead to distortions of their beliefs. As mentioned above, this is very much the case. When people reason alone, they are prone to all sorts of biases. For instance, because they only find arguments supporting what they already believe in, they will tend to become even more persuaded that they are right or will develop stronger, more polarized attitudes."

The only known antidote to error

"Not even those of us who are scientifically trained actually do objective science consistently well. Like all other humans, we are predisposed, with biased, emotionally prejudiced human minds, to first see what we want or expect to see.
...
The one tool that has ever allowed humans to penetrate the veil of their own talented delusions...is called Reciprocal Accountability. Or criticism, the only known antidote to error. We may not be able to spot our own mistakes and delusions, but others will gladly point them out for us! Moreover, this favor is one that your foes will happily do for you! (How nice of them.) And, in return, you will eagerly return the favor. In our enlightenment - and especially in science - this process is tuned to maximize truth-output and minimize blood-on-the-floor. But it requires some maturity. Some willingness to let the process play out. Willingness to negotiate. Calmness and even humor.

It doesn't work amid rage or "culture war." Which is precisely why culture war is being pushed on us. By those who want the enlightenment to fail."
- David Brin

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science - Mooney, in MoJo

How our brains fool us on climate, creationism, and the vaccine-autism link; in the latest issue of Mother Jones.
"...motivated reasoning... our positive or negative feelings about people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts..." etc.

Very much worth reading.

Drivers beware - Motorcycle Toy Run today, noon-?

Followup, at KNCO: Problems Suspend Toy Run for Next Year (throwing candy, candy mess on roads, bikers w/o helmets)

If you don't want to get stuck at an intersection for a half hour or so, you need to avoid travel in & between our towns starting at midday today - the toy run starts at noon in Nevada City & goes to the fairgrounds ("1:00-3:30 pm"), circuitously and without ever stopping to let motorists (or peds?) through.

I once asked a participant how long he thought was acceptable, to have motorists wait; he refused to answer.

I looked on the Toy Run website for a map of the run, to see what routes if any are still available to drivers while the run is in progress, but the only map they provide is one showing how to reach the [Rood Center] starting point.

Putting on my Keachie hat, what the organizers could do, if they wanted to avoid inconveniencing the community, is divide the bike traffic into 10-minute "slugs" at the outset, with 2 or 3 minutes in between; then the ride could still be nonstop for the bikers, but cars could still get through while the ride was in progress.
And providing a route map - ideally with estimated start/end time the bikers will pass through each segment - would be helpful too. (Does Google let you do animated route maps?)

National Journal: today's GOP is, uh, "unique"

"The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones. ... It is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here."
- from Ronald Brownstein's Oct. 9 National Journal article GOP Gives Climate Science A Cold Shoulder

The Lysenkoists are alive and well.

"So quickly did [Lysenko] develop his prescriptions - from the cold treatment of grain, to the plucking of leaves from cotton plants, to the cluster planting of trees, to unusual fertilizer mixes - that academic biologists did not have time to demonstrate that one technique was valueless or harmful before a new one was adopted.

He used his position to denounce biologists as "fly-lovers and people haters," and to decry the "wreckers" in biology, whom he claimed were trying to purposely disable the Soviet economy and cause it to fail.

Lysenko's 'new' methods were seen as a way to make peasants feel positively involved in an 'agricultural revolution'. ..." (link)

Another thought on why we bury the lede

We bury the lede (aka take our time in getting to the point, aka circumlocute) because that's what we've been socialized to do in conversation, where if we don't, we get tagged with less-than-favorable labels.

The NCFocus staff seems to be averaging one thought a year on this topic; here's last year's.

The Psychology of Cleaning (and the importance of framing)

The reason people hate to clean house is that they're looking at the job wrong.

Those of you who know me in real life will find it hard to believe that you could learn anything about cleaning (beyond cautionary tales) from this space, but bear with me.

With the advent of Nevada County Voice(s) I've been reading Shawn's streamlining/organizing/efficiency blog Project Simplify regularly. So when on top of her indoctrinations I read in Paul Graham's excellent essay on Stuff his belaboring of the obvious (to everyone but me) fact that:

One reason [a cluttered room saps one's spirits], obviously, is that there's less room for people in a room full of stuff...

...it triggered an insight - namely, that I've been looking at household entropy reduction the wrong way.

Cleaning is not serving and caring for your home. When you clean, you are not your house's servant.

Cleaning is defiantly reclaiming space that the vile (but spineless! so easily beaten back!) god Entropy thought it could slyly claim via adverse possession, while you were otherwise occupied.

It seems to be working, so far...
(and Shawn, if you already made this point and it's only now springing back out from my subconscious...thank you!)

A bolus of quotes

Taleb:

Why do we, scientists or nonscientists, hotshots or regular Joes, tend to see the pennies instead of the dollars? Why do we keep focusing on the minutiae, not the possible significant large events, in spite of the obvious evidence of their huge influence? And, if you follow my argument, why does reading the newspaper actually decrease your knowledge of the world?
[the News that oozes issue]

Laura Rozen:

The phenomenon of local papers like the KC Star avoiding publishing well reported material that local political constituencies would perhaps find inconvenient is an enormous disservice to the cities they cover. *

Philip Meyer:

We are trying to push journalism toward science. Almost everybody else, it seems on most days, is trying to push it toward art....

One response to information overload has been the elevation of spin. When attention-getting is more important than discovering and imparting the truth, the marketplace rewards those who are skilled at creating appearances. Our goal needs to be to find a way to help the marketplace reward the truth-tellers....*

Greenwald:

the predominant criticism of our media is not based on a desire that [reporters] act more like partisans than journalists. It is based on the fact that they do not act like journalists at all.*

As for columnists -

Interestingly, almost *none* of these noted pundits ever call us to ask questions about our operations, or the deal, or our perspective. They just opine. *

DeLong:

If there is a point to mainstream journalism at all--rather than dueling press releases--it is that reporters get to ask questions. *

BillG:

having access to a blog as a platform is useful, but for almost everyone using that platform to respond to a reporter’s story is about as effective as talking to yourself in an empty room.*

Anon:

...every time a smart [blogger] invests a paragraph in pointing at [particular person's] stupidity, or makes a detailed analysis of the corruption of the big-money US media, while one of the smart person's friends is doing the same on her/his blog, good ideas and important facts are being crowded out.*

Zimmer:

Obviously, the blogosphere gets a lot of its strength from its decentralized structure, but it seems to me that productive debate is a lot like life. If you pack a lot of enzymes and DNA and other molecules in a tight package, you get life. Disperse them, and you get a few random reactions. Pack comments about a particular paper in one place, and a real debate can emerge. Disperse them across the blogosphere, and you encourage cheap shots and irrelevant tangents, while good observations go unappreciated. *

TNH:

There are two kinds of debaters: those who think debate is a method for testing the validity of propositions, and those who think it's about who wins. That second sort isn't worth anyone's time or trouble. *

Unfogged:

when someone shows himself unable to understand or accept overwhelming evidence for a theory that is conceptually rather elegant and simple, it does indeed throw his intelligence and judgment into question. *

And, returning to Taleb:

certain professionals, while believing they are experts, are in fact not. Based on their empirical record, they do not know more about their subject matter than the general population, but they are much better at narrating -- or, worse, at smoking you with complicated mathematical models. They are also more likely to wear a tie.

Thoughts on burying the lede

*

Why can't these smart, talented speakers make their ideas stick? The first villain is the natural tendency to bury the lead - to get lost in a sea of information. ... *

So why do reporters feel the "natural temptation to bury the lede*"?

Assertion: it's because we're social animals and maybe we're a little bit insecure, so when we reach a conclusion, and we want to show it to our readers, we don't want to coerce them, and we want company, especially company in which we're the expert, so we try to lead readers to our conclusion along the same path we took to get there, figuring that with someone to lead them, they'll have an easy time of it - it'll be like a field trip, they'll admire the flowers we point to along the way and the lovely path we've made for them, and then will be awestruck upon sighting the hike's destination. And it's that much more fun for us to keep them in suspense along the way.*

But instead the readers get tired and cranky when we're only partway there, because they don't see the point.