February 11, 2007
Help Me, G.M., With Global Warming Psychology
G.M., I need the help of you and your psychology buddies to help me understand if it's the other guys or me who is psychologically off base on this so-called global warming thing. An Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe wrote an op-ed piece that basically states that I'm nuts because I am skeptical about global warming claims.
I thought that skeptism was a good trait and kept us from making rash, bad decisions. She thinks that I'm in deliberate denial. Take a look at selections from her article:
.
The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.
How about 100 percent? The politically appointed scientists on the U.N. panel rely on consensus while real scientists use the scientific method and are certain of their results.
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
And, I would like to say that you aren't left wing, which is impossible to deny. GW skeptics (not deniers) are on par with Holocaust deniers?! I'm on par with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Someone who says that the future is uncertain is the same as someone who denies history? Just asking.
The folks at the Pew Research Center clocking public attitudes show that global warming remains 20th on the annual list of 23 policy priorities. Below terrorism, of course, but also below tax cuts, crime, morality, and illegal immigration.
Excuse us for worrying about today's real problems. You can't have everything that you want first.
One reason is that while poles are melting and polar bears are swimming between ice floes, American politics has remained polarized. There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science. Try these numbers: Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.
Oh, here we go again. More of these polar bears with no where to go (I thought that was proven wrong). And, there are differences between big-government Democrats and Republicans? Who would have thunk it? Maybe the college-educated Republicans weren't smoking weed for four years.
This next part about psychology worries me.
But there are psychological as well as political reasons why global warming remains in the cool basement of priorities. It may be, paradoxically, that framing this issue in catastrophic terms ends up paralyzing instead of motivating us. Remember the Time magazine cover story: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried." The essential environmental narrative is a hair-raising consciousness-raising: This is your Earth. This is your Earth on carbon emissions.This works for some. But a lot of social science research tells us something else. As Ross Gelbspan, author of "The Heat is On," says, "when people are confronted with an overwhelming threat and don't see a solution, it makes them feel impotent. So they shrug it off or go into deliberate denial."
I don't know about that. When I face an overwhelming threat with no solution, like my wife telling me that the grass is too high and I better do something about it, or else, then I find a solution. However, it's more cost effective to cut the grass rather than pave the yard--adapt vs. end. There's nothing that I can't solve under great pressure.
Can we change from debating global warming to preparing? Can we define the issue in ways that turn denial into action? In America what matters now isn't environmental science, but political science.
Oh. Here we go again. The so-called debate that never was is over, according to Ms. Goodman and Al Gore. It's time for the politicians to put guns to our heads for money for global warming. We could have Casey Kasem announce our nation's priorities each week. "Moving up eleven spaces to number nine this week is 'Global Warming' by Al and the Alarmists." But, remember, when it came down to it, the U.S. Senate, when V.P. Al Gore was President of that body, voted 95-0 against the Kyoto Protocol.
So, G.M. and his fellow psych-blogers, is it them or me who needs help?
Posted by Woody M. at February 11, 2007 12:10 AM | TrackBackEllen Goodman is not a scientist, nor a psychologist, yet makes pronouncements on both. Her science pronouncements have the advantage of being Conventional Wisdom.
I'm seeing everything as tribal these days, so no surprise I see it here as well. To know the conventional wisdom and believe it is more of a social skill than a scientific one. Ellen Goodman is attempting a social, rather than scientific, argument on the skeptics: "But everyone knows it. You look ridiculous. You look crazy. Don't you care that you look ridiculous? I would care if I looked ridiculous."
Yes, exactly. She would care if she looked ridiculous. It would be the end of the world for her. People who attempt such arguments announce to us that these persuasions would work on them. She tries to ramp it up by bringing in Holocaust Deniers, in effect saying "No, no, you guys don't understand. You look REALLY ridiculous." She believes that such arguments should be effective on people.
As there are not specific proposals on the table, just the "y'know, carbon stuff. Like SUV's and corporate responsibility, and, uh, whatever," it becomes even more clear that she is not trying to persuade people to take a certain action. She wants people to see things her way, and vindicate her by saying her tribe has been right all along. It's culture war, not individual psychology. You need to consult the sociobloggers, not the psychobloggers.
I say this as one who believes that carbon-emissions have indeed had some effect on the climate.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 11, 2007 08:01 PM
Good observation, AVI. Do people in her tribe have a problem with wanting to be accepted and popular--just like they neve made it out of high school?
As for me, I do what I think is right and don't care what someone else says. For her tribe, they find out what people are doing and expect, and go right along with no individual thought.
Have you ever noticed in groups (often evident on television) how someone will say something about the environment or something bad about Bush and will look around the room with great anticipation for similing approval? Then, the group typically applauds the liberal and boos the conservative. (It's rarely the other way around, and btw, Max Cleland is a liar.)
Here's an example of liberal group think and seeking of approval, and how Chris Hitchens called them out on it.
Christopher Hitchens agaisnt Bill Maher
Heaven forbid that someone doesn't go along with the group.
Posted by Woody at February 11, 2007 08:47 PM
Global warming is a political football. It as mostly about power and the global warming issue is being used to cease power.
If you look at what motivates people, the desire is high on the list. Most politicians seek power more than anything else. If they wanted money, they'd be in business.
Al Gore has been a politician virtually from birth. He couldn't fool enough people to get elected president, so he's moved in a different direction to get power and punish those that didn't believe in him (as in believe in "Al, lord and savior").
We seem to be suffering from an epidemic of control/power freaks lately. From smoking (I don't smoke), to trans fatty acids, to using cell phones in cars, to disciplining our kids, on and on, more and more people want to micro-control our lives.
What really irks me is that none of the global warming alarmists that I know personally, and very few of the ones I've learned about via the MSM, live a lower impact life style than I do and I'm not even trying. I'm just being frugal.
How accurate are weather forecasts on 24 hours in advance? Or, a week? Yet, somehow, the global warming alarmists see clearly 50 or 100 years into the future.
The level of the screaming is way beyond what is called for. We should always be conscious of our impact on the environment but the current global warming "panic" is all about power and control.
Posted by DADvocate at February 12, 2007 09:54 AM
Oops, I meant "sieze power."
Posted by DADvocate at February 12, 2007 09:55 AM
Having abandoned historical religion, Ellen Goodman and her compadres have decided to create their own, complete with infallible dogma and the auto-da-fe. Monty Python foreshadowed this years ago, and indeed the purge of heretics has already begun.
Posted by civil truth at February 12, 2007 04:38 PM
Todays Houston Chronicle had an interesting story on this subject. The state water board met to write their prognostigations for the coming 50 years. Their statement," climate change is uncertain enough that its not worth accounting for in its long range plans". Yippee! that is what you have been saying for ever.
Then Dr Gerald North, distinguished professor of geosciences at Texas A & M (not your usual liberal wild eyed, soft headed, leftist group), made this statement, "It is very hard to distinguish between ignorance and political motivation."
My question is are you deniers of GW quoting politicians (as I suspect) or have you actually found some geoscientist that produces your political aspect?
Posted by James S Melbert at February 12, 2007 06:05 PM
I forgot about the Monty Python skit so very true, but it seems that "Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere."
Found this at Power and Control. Theres a link is to UK Telegraph and also The Australian has done an article on Mr.Svensmark. Global warming may lead to us learning how much the Cosmos plays in our climate.
Posted by Mike at February 12, 2007 06:05 PM
James, easy to accuse. I'm no climate scientist, but I have read and reviewed scientific books on the topic. I have enough science background to follow general information. You'll have to do your own research from there whether there is any science untainted by politics out there, and whether we have availed ourselves of it.
The argument "yeah, but you guys probably haven't come by your opinions honestly" is not worth responding to.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 12, 2007 07:25 PM
James, to whom are you writing? There are no "deniers of GW" here...only skeptics of GW claims and its so-called solutions. Trying to control labels and definitions by the left doesn't work on us.
Posted by Woody at February 13, 2007 09:23 AM
Your skeptic is my denier. Subjective meanings aside, warming is warming. You may decide that you are helpless to make any changes, or you may decide that some effort is a goos thing.
I know that in general you are anxious about your pocketbook, so consider an effort to help the planet as an act of charity.
(aside to GM.) Not assassinating this character
Posted by James S Melbert at February 13, 2007 12:53 PM
James,
There is a world of difference between skeptic and denier. A skeptic asks questions and challenges established orthodoxy. A denier willfully (and sometimes maliciously) gainsays the truth.
In the GW debate, as exampled by Ellen Goodman's column that formed the basis of Woody's post (and she is not the first), GW denier is intentionally linked with Holocaust denier in an attempt to discredit and the skeptic and place their words outside the bounds of discourse; in other words, denier is used to strangle and end conversation on the topic.
Furthermore, one assumption you are making unquestioningly is that GW is necessary BAD. In so doing, you (as most people) are begging the question as to whether GW may actually be beneficial. For that matter, in line with the Law of Unintended Consequences, it is quite possible that the proposed solutions to GW may actually harm us climatically (as well as economically) rather than help. The history is science is full of solutions going awry. At least, it's a legitimate basis for continued conversation. Which means we still need to have skeptics around and not burn them all at the stake.
Posted by civil truth at February 13, 2007 03:43 PM
I would have been a skeptic about introducing rabbits to Austrailia, but noooo, I would have been called a denier...thus, they get what they have.
Posted by Woody at February 13, 2007 05:00 PM
I can't believe I'm commenting on this, but here goes:
Woody, how skeptical of global warming are you? 10%, 20%, 90%? Skeptical enough that you think we ought not to take serious action? Skeptical enough to put your money where your mouth is?
Let me put it this way: at this point, there is enough evidence on the public record that refusing to act to lessen global warming puts the lives and livelyhoods of many at risk. If you're willing to take that chance with the lives of others, I'd expect you to be pretty certain. So, will you put your money where your mouth is? I'll bet you $100 that humans are responable for increasing carbon emissions that have raised the earth's temperature by several degrees over the past fifty years, and that continue to do so. And if you will take my bet, what constitutes proof for you? I'm betting the answer has to do with Rush Limbaugh and the Weekly Standard.
Posted by Mavis Beacon at February 13, 2007 05:28 PM
Mavis Beacon - no, that is precisely not what is so. That is the stretch that we keep being sold. Warming does not necessarily imply human contribution. Human contribution does not imply climate dominance. Human contribution does not imply that there is much warming. None of it implies that warming is a bad thing, and absolutely does not imply that it is a catastrophic thing.
You are illustrating exactly what we are talking about. There is this huge leap from slight measured warming to a belief that death and destruction are likely upon us. You leap from A to Z with scarcely a downward glance. This overwrought rhetoric about "the lives of others is just crap." The proposed solutions are cheap or simple and the likely consequences are not dire.
Do you consider the NYTimes a reasonable source? I'm not sure I do, but you might try the following: New York Times Article Explaining warming TRENDS
James, I would make a similar statement to you: all warming is not alike, and equating Gore's 20-ft. waves with the gradual rise of 7 to 23 inches over a century is simply ludicrous.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 13, 2007 05:58 PM
I'm not making any leaps at all. I'm saying that an overwhelming body of scientific evidence reports that global warming is a real phenomenon and that it caused by human activity. The rest is conjecture, but certainly no more outrageous than to invade a country based on the suspician that it might one day attack us - even though such a capablity is currently impossible. In other words, when it comes to costs I'm guessing - everyone is guessing - but I think those concerns deserve to be taken seriously - not treated like the ravings of mental patients. Anyway, $100 bucks says global warming is a real thing caused by people. Take it or leave it. Let me know who you consider an acceptable authority and hopefully we'll make a real bet. Maybe I'll hire Woody to helpt me keep it tax-free.
Posted by Mavis Beacon at February 13, 2007 10:00 PM
Mavis, again you are incorrect. There is slight warming and the trend is equally possibly caused by a number of factors NOT associated with anthropomorphic CO2. Too, there have been periods when CO2 is much higher than now and that was during an ice age. So, CO2 cannot be the sole answer. Now, how to "prove it" since the scientists don't all agree? I don't know, so you are safe in making your bet, knowing that if it is accepted by woody there is no way to "prove" it and if he doesn't accept it then he looks like a piker. Sorry, that won't fly, that dog won't hunt or what ever phrase appeals to you. ;-)
Posted by GM at February 14, 2007 03:19 AM
Mavis,
Find out how much you think you know about global warming by taking this test.
Posted by Former Lurker at February 14, 2007 04:48 AM
Oh, and by the way, I'll take your bet.
Posted by Former Lurker at February 14, 2007 04:50 AM
People who are so alarmed over global warming are your typical knee-jerks who join the anti-U.S. movement wherever possible.
I regularly read comments from the left that they were against the Iraq war from the very beginning. Based upon what and THAT time?
Likewise, I would like the GW alarmists to tell us when they became convinced about the impending GW disaster and what was the evidence at THAT TIME, not later, that convinced them of this potential calamity.
Of course, we will find that the science was even more suspect and lacking earlier and that these backers made choices on bad and incomplete data and models and observations--but, more likely, politics.
If someone was convinced of mankind global warming as an extreme danger ten years ago, then they are liars or idiots--and, they are dangerous today since they want to tax us more and ruin our economies and take away from education and medical research for their cause which still is in doubt by scientists who are brave enough to stand up in the face of attacks.
Posted by Woody at February 14, 2007 08:07 AM
I wrote a post in response yesterday, but it got deleted. Suffice to say that I will be glad to bet $100 to any of you who will not stipulate that global surface temperatures are increasing and that this increase is, at least in part, a result of human activity.
If I've got any takers, please run an authority by me - a government, scientific, or other body whose word you would accept on such a matter. If we can agree on an authority and GM will consecrate the bet, perhaps with a post, then $100 will be on the move.
Posted by Mavis Beacon at February 15, 2007 01:04 PM
Mavis, today's acronym is GIGO. That is, you need to ask the right question to get the right answer. Clearly, we are in a period of rising global temperature. And clearly it is reasonable to suggest that human activity may have some part to play. But that's not where the controversy is, so even though I agree with your requested stipulations stated above, I still would call myself a GW skeptic.
And that is because the important questions (apart from the usually ignored question of whether GW is beneficial) are 1) how significant is the human contribution relative to non-human contributions; 2) how effective on the environment are actions we could take to slow down the rise in human-generated (apart from the "commons" questions of how we get everyone else to go along); 2a) if we (the U.S.) act unilaterally (funny how unilateralism is good when it comes to GW but bad when it comes to foreign policy, but I digress), what impact will we have; 3) counterbalanced with what will be the cost.
And this cost question is not just simply dollars and cents to the U.S. taxpayers; this also addresses the cost to the world if we stiffle our economic activity, keeping in mind that there are other bad actors who don't share our altruisim who will just take advantage of our self-sacrifice. Along that lines, see today's NYT opinion piece about China and other countries undermining our foreign development initiatives towards encouraging responsible government and cutting off corruption.
Thus while one might feel righteous about doing one's part to "save the world" from GW (which as stated above is a questionable premise), wishing won't make it so, and in fact might perversely make it harder to save the world.
So folks, slow down on the jihad for GW; you might need sooner than you think the heads you're seeking to chop off.
Posted by civil truth at February 15, 2007 02:48 PM
I tried for hours to post this last night.
mavis - You have two comments: "there is enough evidence on the public record that refusing to act to lessen global warming puts the lives and livelyhoods of many at risk."
and
"I'm saying that an overwhelming body of scientific evidence reports that global warming is a real phenomenon and that it caused by human activity. The rest is conjecture..."
How do you resolve this? On the one hand you say that "lives and livelyhoods (sic)" are at stake, but on the other hand you retreat to a "Hey, I only said there was warming" position.
Even if warming exists, and even if it is carbon-driven, that is still not evidence that anything needs to be done. Not only is there no consensus among scientists saying that disaster looms, there is not even majority opinion for that.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 15, 2007 05:34 PM
Let me try and explain things as best I can.
First, as far as I'm concerned, it has been proven that global warming is a real phenomenon caused by humans. Scientists and science organizations including the Union of Concerned Scientist, the International Council for Science, the International Panel on Climate Change, the Australian Academy of Science, the Novartis Foundation, our own cautious National Academy of Sciences, and many more have all spoken clearly. These are serious operations with a slew of professional scientists who have all come to the same conclusions based on widely available data. To me, and most of America, that's pretty convincing.
The second part is the leap from the existence of climate change to the concern for human life and the world economy. Everyone acknowledges that we can't look into the future. But it is valuable for scientists to make projections. Many of the projections created by these same organizations show that global warming will continue to accelerate even if we emit no more carbon into the air, starting today. Unfortunately, we are certain to produce increasing amounts of carbon in the coming years and decades, increasing the speed of global temperature increase even further. What does this mean for people? Well, there is some argument, but again, many of these credible organizations are concerned that small changes in temperature can have an enormous impact on weather systems leading to droughts (I live in Los Angeles), floods (still in Los Angeles), hurricanes, an increase in sea level, and other unpredictable problems. These are just projections, but I take them very seriously and I do not think very highly of anyone who mocks them. And, of course, the problem is that if we wait and see who's right, it may already be too late to stop much of the damage. I'm sorry if that sounds like some kind of trick to you, but it's the way nature works on this one. If my side is wrong, and given the evidence I find that unlikely, the economic consequences are noteworthy, but manageable. If your side is wrong (and how certain are you that you're not wrong anyway?), the consequences in lives and economic damage will be much more severe. Your "skepticism" strikes me as high-stakes gambling.
Posted by Mavis Beacon at February 16, 2007 12:32 PM
(I had to chop things up because of the spam filter. Sorry for the very long post. Just trying to be thorough.)
Now let me try and clarify how I see your argument. I see a lot of people who don't want to do something about global warming. That strikes me as the primary goal - inaction. The arguments I've heard along the way began with, "maybe global warming isn't real," include, "perhaps it's not caused by humans," now feature, "what if global warming isn't so bad," and finish with the fatalistic, "we can't really stop it anyway so forget about it." Fantastically, these arguments are all furnished by the same people. As the science disproves one argument, a new one pops up to take it's place, usually less plausible than the previous positions. I'm sure you all see it differently, but that's what I see: a bunch of folks with a policy of inaction already chosen grasping for justifications that have nothing to do with science. That certainly looks like denial to me. I'm sure you see it differently. Feel at liberty to explain.
Posted by Mavis Beacon at February 16, 2007 12:35 PM
By the way, I've just noticed that GM's bog hates fre*dom! I can't use the word "fre*" or the spam filter gets you.
Posted by Mavis Beacon at February 16, 2007 12:36 PM
Mavis, I just wanted to acknowledge and thank you for presenting your position on global warming in a coherent and thoughtful fashion, without demeaning me and others here who are skeptics on the matter. Your civility here set a tone that often times is lacking in GW discussions (and I'm referring primarily to certain other sites I visit, where the commenters substitute invective for reasoning).
You've also given a logical explanation of your use of the term denial, demonstrating that you are using the term legitimately rather than as a rhetorical bomb, as practiced by Ellen Goodman and others of her ilk, whose article formed the starting point for this thread. I don't agree with being characterized as a denier, but on this I accept that we have an honest disagreement.
I still remain a skeptic for various reasons, some of which I have expressed previously, but I do have a good understanding of your thoughts and reasoning on the matter. Thanks for making the effort to write up your views in this fashion.
Posted by civil truth at February 16, 2007 08:44 PM
