bluewave Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 How are liberals supposed to convince conservatives? How should conservatives go about trying to convince liberals? Is a meeting in the middle even possible any longer? Are the two extremes of the political spectrum like oil and water, incapable of seeing eye to eye? Health care, biological evolution, invade or not to invade...you name it. We ardently disagree, and will seek to have our views win even if it means subterfuge, lying and cheating. The ends justify the means apparently. One side to the other, "Take your ideology and shove it". The science itself is not amenable to compromise, half way acceptance and mitigative policies won't cut it. It's all in or nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 http://www.culturalc...e-conflict.html http://papers.ssrn.c...ract_id=1871503 The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased. We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: the individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication. I've wondered if part of the problem of getting people to accept the science is the result of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. From the Wikipedia article: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1] Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others" I believe we see the D-K Effect in action at both extremes of the AGW discussion. Certainly in this forum we have posters who simply cannot see the errors in their positions. But there are approaches to mitigating the effect. The primary one is by educating the unskilled person to the point where they can appreciate the complexity of the subject and how much they still have to learn before they are truly expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I've wondered if part of the problem of getting people to accept the science is the result of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. From the Wikipedia article: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1] Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others" I believe we see the D-K Effect in action at both extremes of the AGW discussion. Certainly in this forum we have posters who simply cannot see the errors in their positions. But there are approaches to mitigating the effect. The primary one is by educating the unskilled person to the point where they can appreciate the complexity of the subject and how much they still have to learn before they are truly expert. or you could just check everyone's give-a-crap-a-meter and you'd see the needle slumped below the "E" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 or you could just check everyone's give-a-crap-a-meter and you'd see the needle slumped below the "E" Speak for yourself, please. The use of terms such as "everyone" to make oneself sound like a crowd is one of the most tiresome tactics in rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Speak for yourself, please. The use of terms such as "everyone" to make oneself sound like a crowd is one of the most tiresome tactics in rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Speak for yourself, please. The use of terms such as "Average person" to make oneself sound like a crowd is one of the most tiresome tactics in rhetoric. How about that still doesn't change the truth of what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 How about that still doesn't change the truth of what he said. Well, speaking for myself - when people just post snark, or emoticons, and don't even try to comtribute to the discussion with a substantive comment, I can only assume they do so because they can't add anything intelligent - intellectually they are firing blanks. I just feel sorry for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Well, speaking for myself - when people just post snark, or emoticons, and don't even try to comtribute to the discussion with a substantive comment, I can only assume they do so because they can't add anything intelligent - intellectually they are firing blanks. I just feel sorry for them. ah c'mon now. see i wasn't going for intelligent there...i was more aiming for funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I feel that because climate change isn't effecting people now and is a slow process that what ever changes do happen are most likely not going to effect the average person. It makes it hard for people to worry about something in the future when there is plenty of more important things going on now that needs our attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I feel that because climate change isn't effecting people now and is a slow process that what ever changes do happen are most likely not going to effect the average person. It makes it hard for people to worry about something in the future when there is plenty of more important things going on now that needs our attention. And there you have it. Most people are more concerned with keeping their job, finding a job, living paycheck to paycheck, the safety of their kids, ect.. There is a long list of things that take priority in most people's lives and Climate change is damn near the bottom for the average person. Nothing is going to change that in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I feel that because climate change isn't effecting people now and is a slow process that what ever changes do happen are most likely not going to effect the average person. It makes it hard for people to worry about something in the future when there is plenty of more important things going on now that needs our attention. Until Greenland starts melting, its highly unlikely that 1-2 degrees of warming in mid latitudes is going to alarm many people. The price of fossil fuels are alarming people and causing positive change though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 And there you have it. Most people are more concerned with keeping their job, finding a job, living paycheck to paycheck, the safety of their kids, ect.. There is a long list of things that take priority in most people's lives and Climate change is damn near the bottom for the average person. Nothing is going to change that in the near future. What are people being asked to do with their precious time when it comes to the issue of climate change? Prioritizing of time and effort only matters when what is under consideration is time consuming or otherwise some sort of burden. What is so difficult about acknowledging what science has to say about climate change and how it is likely to effect our future? Most other things we take for granted without a deep first hand knowledge, we rely on experts to do the dirty work for us. I don't get this line of argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 What are people being asked to do with their precious time when it comes to the issue of climate change? Prioritizing of time and effort only matters when what is under consideration is time consuming or otherwise some sort of burden. What is so difficult about acknowledging what science has to say about climate change and how it is likely to effect our future? Most other things we take for granted without a deep first hand knowledge, we rely on experts to do the dirty work for us. I don't get this line of argument. Have you ever lived paycheck to paycheck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 If you ask 100 people are you more worried about climate change or an alien invasion, I think alien invasion would win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 This conversation makes it easier to understand the dominant state of mind in Europe during the summer of 1914......... a few unsettling events in the Balkans didn't bother them until they started getting sent to the front starting August 4th. Within a month, a couple of hundred thousand were dead... The people then could at least say that there wasn't much they could do to avoid it. Too bad we can't say the same...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 This conversation makes it easier to understand the dominant state of mind in Europe during the summer of 1914......... a few unsettling events in the Balkans didn't bother them until they started getting sent to the front starting August 4th. Within a month, a couple of hundred thousand were dead... The people then could at least say that there wasn't much they could do to avoid it. Too bad we can't say the same...... This is exactly like WWI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 This is exactly like WWI. Much worse. Look at how we have prospered because we stood up to the challenge, took advantage of a dire threat, and came out the other end better for it. Here we are content to just allow the enemy to run roughshod over us. Many of us will not even acknowledge the enemy which the best of modern science is telling us is poised to do incredible damage to our world's wellbeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 This is exactly like WWI. yep the similarities are endless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Much worse. Look at how we have prospered because we stood up to the challenge, took advantage of a dire threat, and came out the other end better for it. Here we are content to just allow the enemy to run roughshod over us. we should do something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 we should do something It's a joke, right? You don't take it seriously, right? So, you have devoted at bit of your precious time and decided the science is a crock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I feel that because climate change isn't effecting people now and is a slow process that what ever changes do happen are most likely not going to effect the average person. It makes it hard for people to worry about something in the future when there is plenty of more important things going on now that needs our attention. That's because you deny any association between rising global temps, sea level rise, flooding and drought with ongoing climate change. It's all just natural cycles....right? Or, nothing unusual is going on, right. What is going on in the arctic is natural, and the interconnections between the arctic and general circulation are just all natural or overblown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 If you ask 100 people are you more worried about climate change or an alien invasion, I think alien invasion would win. Those would be 100 very ignorant people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 It's a joke, right? You don't take it seriously, right? So, you have devoted at bit of your precious time and decided the science is a crock. That's because you deny any association between rising global temps, sea level rise, flooding and drought with ongoing climate change. It's all just natural cycles....right? Or, nothing unusual is going on, right. What is going on in the arctic is natural, and the interconnections between the arctic and general circulation are just all natural or overblown. Those would be 100 very ignorant people. you sound kind of mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 you sound kind of mean. It's the thread topic, this has become a cultural 'war'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 It's the thread topic, this has become a cultural 'war'! Also, the anti-science crowd has brought knives to the fight while those promoting the scientific conclusions have been relying on societal integrity, logical discourse, a public steeped in common sense and respect for science. Sadly that strategy has been loosing ground. It's time for those representing science to bring in the heavy artillery and fight fire with fire. It's going to become a knife fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Also, the anti-science crowd has brought knives to the fight while those promoting the scientific conclusions have been relying on societal integrity, logic discourse, a public steeped in common sense and respect for science. Sadly that strategy has been loosing ground. It's time for those representing science to bring in the heavy artillery and fight fire with fire. It's going to become a knife fight. keep up the good fight. eventually posting on this climate forum at all hours will bring about big changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 keep up the good fight. eventually posting on this climate forum at all hours will bring about big changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 That's because you deny any association between rising global temps, sea level rise, flooding and drought with ongoing climate change. It's all just natural cycles....right? Or, nothing unusual is going on, right. What is going on in the arctic is natural, and the interconnections between the arctic and general circulation are just all natural or overblown. I'm not denying anything do i believe that natural cycles may play more of a role then you may think yes. But again flooding drought heatwaves etc has always happened and will continue only thing new would be sea level rise and that will be a slow process so again average person will not see the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 keep up the good fight. eventually posting on this climate forum at all hours will bring about big changes. The AGW community just needs to build a rocket big enough to fill it with the entire earth supply of hydrocarbons and shoot it into space, or just bury it where we cant find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.