tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post396269715609648078..comments2024-03-29T09:21:04.576+00:00Comments on Variable Variability: Do dissenters like climate change?Victor Venemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-11545280937375253282015-12-03T22:56:41.810+00:002015-12-03T22:56:41.810+00:00Agree, there are many reasons, not just the one of...Agree, there are many reasons, not just the one of the above post.<br /><br />To be honest, I do not get why people would personally feel guilty about climate change. <a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/04/traveling-to-egu-conference-in-vienna.html" rel="nofollow">It is a tragedy of the commons.</a> No one can solve this problem alone. You can feel less guilty by making a joint solution possible by starting to engage in an adult discussion on the solutions rather than childishly pretend there is no problem.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-9301505205392342202015-12-03T22:51:14.472+00:002015-12-03T22:51:14.472+00:00...just two further thoughts on why people do deny......just two further thoughts on why people do deny climate change....<br /><br /><br />Layperson's razor<br />Like in Moon Landing conspiracy theories they just apply the layperson's formulation of Occam's razor,<br />"the simplest explanation is usually the correct one".<br /><br /><br />Judge, Juror and Culprit in one<br />It is easier, as my own judge, to acquit myself, than to accept anthropogenic climate change and the consequential effects of changing my way of consuming and producing.<br /><br />--<br />AloisAlois Schmitthubernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-88107090968931116172014-05-07T20:11:09.385+01:002014-05-07T20:11:09.385+01:00afeman, I have heard about the coal-Democrates wit...afeman, I have heard about the coal-Democrates with respect to politicians. Is that also important for the voters? That would explain some. At least the rejection of policies. I am still at loss why that has to mean to reject the basic science.<br /><br />Choosing France has also wondered me. It was quite some time after Freedom Fries, but still why not take some neutral example. Maybe Denmark, most will not even know it is in Europe.<br /><br />For many followers, the theory of just wanting to have the same opinion as the neighbours and being badly informed is likely a good explanation. Not fully sufficiently, because if everyone would look at their peers, we would have a consensus on almost anything after some time.<br /><br />The above post is more searching for an explanation for people that are very active. They could be well informed and they put a lot of effort into it. That is pure altruism. They cannot be expected to repaid for all their work with lower carbon taxes (and also their neighbours get this).<br /><br />I would not expect most of them to consciously go through the above thoughts to arrive at their opinion. The above mechanism, if it exists, would produce a brain module that nudges someone into harming other groups if that can be done at little risk to oneself. Or a preference for doing well relative to others, getting higher up in the hierarchy/ranking, rather than absolutely doing well.<br /><br />People also do not have children because they would like to out-reproduce others, they just want to have children, a family. The evolutionary question, why do people want to have a family, has as answer that this is good for reproduction.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-62926139925240150522014-05-07T19:53:41.324+01:002014-05-07T19:53:41.324+01:00As I understand it the rejectionist Democrats tend...As I understand it the rejectionist Democrats tend to come from coal producing states, particularly West Virginia. Illinois politicians can be unreliable about it as well.<br /><br />For the study about the farmer's attitudes, France is an odd choice to test for remote empathy. There is a streak of francophobia in the US particularly among conservatives, but visible even in centrist institutions like the NYT. It became quite virulent (rhetorically anyway) during the invasion of Iraq due to the French government's opposition, despite their being accompanied by most of the rest of the world. The researchers should have used somebody more sympathetic, like the Germans. :-)<br /><br />Anyway, I doubt most denialism is rooted in such a sophisticated understanding of the problem. For most of the more extreme it's a matter of team identification; the less committed, having been taught the controversy for so long, simply are under the impression that there is legitimate debate. I can't really blame them.afemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-18143172538958304392014-04-23T23:42:04.716+01:002014-04-23T23:42:04.716+01:00Tony Learns, still it might be a nice idea to star...Tony Learns, still it might be a nice idea to start your own blog. :)<br /><br />I am sure there are more factors. Also people wanting to have to same opinion as their peers is likely an important force. I think, Dan Kahan of Cultural Cognition sees that as important. That could also not be all, because otherwise we would have a consensus about everything after a certain time. This may be especially an important force for people that are not very interested.<br /><br />There are downright psychopaths, enjoying to hold humanity hostage. "Well you have to convince me, otherwise nothing will happen." After having clearly demonstrated that no evidence or argument will ever stick.<br />These are probably also the people that come up with arguments like that <a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2013/11/atmospheric-warming-hiatus-minor-small-deviation-peculiar-debate.html" rel="nofollow">global warming has stopped</a> or that CO2 is heavier than air and will thus stay at the bottom of the atmosphere (ignoring turbulent mixing) and cannot change the temperature. These people seem to enjoy to play with greenies like a cat plays with a mouse. The weaker and the more stupid the argument, the more it annoys the greenies. One should still explain why these people exist, even if in this case maybe insufficient selection pressure will do.<br /><br />Another mechanism that can almost any irrational behavior is wanting to belong to a group. Coalition building is very important for humans, alone we are prey, together we are the lords of the lands. Thus to get into a group is worth some losses. The more important the group is the more you may want to sacrifice. Like the initiation in student clubs, celibacy for catholic priests and destroying your intellectual credibility for pseudo-skeptics. <br /><br />To me relative suffering explains a lot of my interactions, but that is just subjective and those interactions are just with a small group of people, not with the large bulk of people rejecting climate science. But this is the small group that suffers the large reputation losses by publicly sprouting all that nonsense. <br /><br />In the experiment with the farmers, they only changed what would happen to the others. It would be an interesting experiment to explicitly change how well you do <i>relative</i> to the others. Maybe that would give an even clearer result, if I am right, which is currently not guaranteed. At the moment this idea is just an idea. I hope someone from the right field will read it and will try to make science out of it. Then we can hopefully quantify how important this mechanism is.<br /><br />What I am currently wondering about is why still so many US Democrats reject climate change. That is a minority, but still strange and cannot be explained with tribalism.<br /><br />If I wanted to show I am smart, I would select a defensible position or at least not a science related one that can be proven wrong. How about a fundamentalist free market position? In economics you cannot prove much and you can be sure that no one will be willing to implement it and destroy the economy. Thus you will never see any results that would show you wrong. A much saver weird position. :-)Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-54674718778200515302014-04-23T18:46:25.231+01:002014-04-23T18:46:25.231+01:00Excellent post again and fascinating comments.A nu...Excellent post again and fascinating comments.A number of these ideas had not occurred to me before and my natural inclination is to argue against your proposition.<br />SO I will go ahead and argue against your proposition ;-)<br />I don't doubt that there might be some truth in the idea of "relative suffering", and possibly some people it might be a dominant factor, but my experience leads me to think it is rarely the major motivation. <br />I see many of the more intelligent and knowledgeable deniers, very interested in "winning" arguments. Showing that they are smarter than the person they are arguing with (discussion of course is almost never an option). I think many delight in being part of an oppressed minority that is fighting against entrenched interests that are vastly more powerful than themselves. In my view they HAVE to protect their rationalizations from from any attack. this is why I think almost all deniers refuse to accept information that supports ACC in any area until it becomes obvious that only their fringe base will believe their arguments. I think that is why there are almost no arguments any more that subsurface volcanos are the source of increase in CO2. That argument is no longer persuasive with enough people to be convincing, so they stop using it. <br />That is also happening with "the Earth isn't warming" as well. though people like Goddard have made that such a central part of their conspiracy that he cannot easily give it up.<br />I certainly think that the strong politicization in the US on a host of issues have made ideology a central defining aspect to climate change. It HAS to be wrong because the people supporting it ARE the enemy. I think this is true of both the low and high information deniers. This allows "your" side, because it is in the right, to use any tactic in order to win. this blurs the line around facts and truth, so that they are not that important. Facts are ONLY useful if they can be used to defeat the enemy. Facts that support the enemies position must be countered in any way that limits their effectiveness. One can use or not use facts depending on whether they help your position or not. So there is no need for consistency or having a logically defendable argument.<br />I am guessing that 1. ego at being able to "beat" someone in an argument, 2. desire to convince others who read what you are writing that you are extremely smart, courageous and moral. and 3. public expression of defiance and strength to the nefarious powers you are standing against, are each powerful motivations. <br />I don't see your suggested motivation as being as large a factor as these. I certainly think it could be large part of a fall back position, but I am happy to "discuss" it further :-). <br />In the interest of not having you suggest I start a blog, I will truncate my response here.tonylearnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15168161576867493109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-44748480999819538722014-03-30T03:54:34.730+01:002014-03-30T03:54:34.730+01:00As a refugee from the Ozone issue (you could ask t...As a refugee from the Ozone issue (you could ask the Weasel or James) the major difference is that when it became political in the 1980s and 1990s the industry didn't much care because they knew they had replacements ready to go and they just took care that there was enough ramp up time to get them into place.<br /><br />Eli has heard it said that another difference is that the chemistry industry had a lot more chemists and the fossil fuel guys are all engineers. EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-88651529506089898542014-03-26T17:17:12.627+00:002014-03-26T17:17:12.627+00:00Thank you Adam. Unfortunately, blogger does not au...Thank you Adam. Unfortunately, blogger does not autolink, here are the three links in the same order:<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Dominance_Theory" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Social dominance theory</a><br /><br /><a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/25/0956797612457686.abstract" rel="nofollow">Lewandowsky et al.: NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Social dominance orientation</a><br /><br />I also have the impression that many climate dissenters are right-wing people. Many of the UK personnel in active in the UKIP. Monckton, e.g. was boss of the Scottische UKIP until he was kicked out and destroyed the party before leaving.<br /><br />HotWhopper links to a careful study of right-wing authoritarians:<br />Bob Altemeyer's <a href="http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Authoritarians</a> (for insight into behavioural traits common to climate science deniers as well as bigots (in regard to sexism, homophobia, racism etc))<br /><br />That is probably also part of the picture, some will hold these positions because people in power hold them. Finding your place in the peck order and sucking up to more powerful people seems a logical evolutionary strategy. The actual liking and encouraging of hierarchy and inequality is a bit weirder for those not at the top. That might need an explanation.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-5816637861335874992014-03-26T16:37:46.810+00:002014-03-26T16:37:46.810+00:00Victor,
Your relative suffering hypothesis seems...Victor,<br /> <br />Your relative suffering hypothesis seems loosely similar to social dominance theory: http://goo.gl/nEI47I<br /> <br />I recently discovered that there is an association between endorsement of free-market economics and rejection of climate science (http://goo.gl/Cl8oz), and it has me wondering if there is an association between social dominance orientation (SDO - http://goo.gl/ceN12K) and rejection of climate science. I know high measures of SDO are associated with high measures of religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism, which I learned while helping a friend work on a paper explaining the psychology behind religious-based prejudice towards sexual minorities. There might be part of an explanation for the relative suffering idea in there somewhere.<br /> <br />I haven’t had time to look into this much further, and my expertise on social psychology is VERY limited. Something to think about, maybe someone with more knowledge on this could help explain further or point us to more information.<br /> <br />Adam Nowakowski<br /> Adam Nowakowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-66189005560101488592014-03-26T01:16:44.425+00:002014-03-26T01:16:44.425+00:00Tim Harford, the uncover economist just wrote a pi...Tim Harford, the uncover economist just wrote a piece for the Financial Times on <a href="http://timharford.com/2014/03/four-steps-to-fixing-inequality/" rel="nofollow">reducing inequality</a>.<br />Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-33535741701296610892014-03-25T21:25:11.394+00:002014-03-25T21:25:11.394+00:00:-) Thanks Steve. Let's not exaggerate. Bloggi...:-) Thanks Steve. Let's not exaggerate. Blogging is a good exercise for my upcoming book. I would need a good editor. Especially this post was full of writing mistakes.<br /><br />Yes, inequality is also a big problem, for fairness, for economic growth, for market access and for our democracy. And the level of the discussion seems to be almost as low as for the climate "debate". <br /><br />"Well you do not want communism do you, with everyone the same salary?" As if there is no such a thing as an optimal distribution, somewhere between no variability and the current extreme inequality and the low level of social mobility in the USA.<br /><br />Relatively egalitarian nations with a strong state in Scandinavia are doing very well. Third world countries have high inequality and nearly no state. Are they desirable? If I may be just as polemic as the anti-communists. A non-functioning state is not much different from a totalitarian state. The local war lord is typically not the nicest guy. That is all somehow no argument and wasn't Chilly under Pinochet (?) a wonderful libertarian example country.<br /><br />Really, really weird. <a href="http://globalklima.blogspot.de/2014/03/ist-leugnen-logisch.html" rel="nofollow">A German blog</a>, wrote a nice piece on this post and similar to you extended it to the radical free market ideology of the climate dissenters. This made me wonder whether relative suffering is behind the libertarian free market fundamentalism as well. Could be something for my next book.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-85465784745463577822014-03-25T19:45:11.400+00:002014-03-25T19:45:11.400+00:00Oops, had missed this until you linked it at ATTP,...Oops, had missed this until you linked it at ATTP, Victor. Great post, great comments. Maybe you should give up the blog and write a book? :)<br /><br />Anyway, I will have more to say after I digest this some more, but two things I'll note off the top of my head are the research finding that Republicans are prone to feeling disgust about out-groups (no link, sorry, but it shouldn't be hard to locate) and the fact that we have this <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/american-patrimony" rel="nofollow">process</a> going on. Krugman has much more on the subject of rising inequality, and IMO is worth following in detail.<br />Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-50174920747539560402014-03-24T17:04:43.989+00:002014-03-24T17:04:43.989+00:00Victor,
Alas, I do not own my company, but am mer...Victor,<br /><br />Alas, I do not own my company, but am merely a cog in a huge impersonal machine...<br /><br />And I was not insulted at all, but really wanted to just remind you that managers are just as human and fallible as anyone else and probably likely or unlikely to act morally.<br /><br />I’m afraid I haven’t time to read the mouse paper in any detail; from a very cursory look my immediate impression is that the lesson might be that removing distance from consequence of decisions makes those decisions less likely to be made morally rather than specifically for managers; from the conclusions:<br /> <i>Many people express objections against child labor, other forms of exploitation of the workforce, detrimental conditions for animals in meat production, or environmental damage. At the same time, they seem to ignore their moral standards when acting as market participants, searching and buying the cheapest electronics, fashion, or food, and thereby consciously or subconsciously creating the undesired negative consequences to which they generally object </i><br /><br />Another example might be in the selling of sub prime mortgages and their conversion to collatoralised debt obligations (CDOs). The further removed from the reality the more likely we are to make dubious decisions. Paying for things we can’t afford with credit cards is also more likely than with cash.<br /><br />However, I’m no expert in this and may have misunderstood something fundamental.<br /><br />My own perception from my experience is that managers are perhaps more likely to act morally for their company than when presented with the same decision privately. I was talking to my boss recently who openly advocates driving above the speed limit for fun on local mountain roads, something in my opinion which is dangerous and reprehensible. He would never dare to advocate such behaviour for his employees to save time on company journeys. Equally I’m sure this depends on company culture, circumstances etc.<br />VeryTallGuynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-75811405557702470542014-03-24T16:24:19.949+00:002014-03-24T16:24:19.949+00:00VeryTallGuy, Sorry, I did not want to insult any o...VeryTallGuy, Sorry, I did not want to insult any one, but did not know how to write that more friendly. :) Are you manager of a traded company? That was what I was talking about. If you own your company or have stable relationships with the owners and creditors, you have more possibilities to act like a human. And your costumers and employees appreciate that. Thus there are also advantages to visible moral behaviour.<br /><br />I formulated it carefully, just as a force in the wrong direction, thinking of the Apple example. I do not think they are representative. That is also why they made the news. Apple also did not pay dividends for a long time, while being highly profitable and still pays very little, while sitting on a bag of money.<br /><br />A nice study for non-managers was recently performed by economists from my university, Armin Falk and Nora Szech. They investigated <a href="http://www.cens.uni-bonn.de/team/board/armin-falk/morals-and-markets.pdf" rel="nofollow">moral behaviour in an economic game</a>. People could use the money that made to save a mouse from being killed. If they had to decide on their own, they were willing to pay more money to save a mouse as when they introduced a market.<br /><br /><b>Abstract.</b> <i>The possibility that market interaction may erode moral values is a long-standing, but<br />controversial, hypothesis in the social sciences, ethics, and philosophy. To date, empirical<br />evidence on decay of moral values through market interaction has been scarce. We present<br />controlled experimental evidence on how market interaction changes how human subjects value<br />harm and damage done to third parties. In the experiment, subjects decide between either<br />saving the life of a mouse or receiving money. We compare individual decisions to those made<br />in a bilateral and a multilateral market. In both markets, the willingness to kill the mouse is<br />substantially higher than in individual decisions. Furthermore, in the multilateral market, prices<br />for life deteriorate tremendously. In contrast, for morally neutral consumption choices,<br />differences between institutions are small.</i>Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-73582156614465394512014-03-24T16:01:33.988+00:002014-03-24T16:01:33.988+00:00Victor,
An interesting analogy you develop here. ...Victor,<br /><br />An interesting analogy you develop here. There is an English idiom, “keeping up with the Joneses” ie it’s not *what* you have that counts but whether it is better than what your neighbours have that counts. In the same way it’s not whether climate change affects you or not that matters, but whether it threatens your superiority in the world. I’m sure there will be proper psychological research that could be quoted here, rather than my musings, however.<br /><br />My real reason for commenting is, however, to take you to task on:<br /><br /><i>3. I guess managers are a special case. The task of a company is to make money for its shareholders. Nothing else. A manager may have moral values in private, but if he would act on them professionally, he is more likely to be replaced. This system creates a force towards amoral behaviour</i><br /><br />I think this is simplistic at best, writing as a manager in a company! <br /><br />The reverse of what you write can also be argued: That the inherent morality in human nature and our innate altruism creates a force from human managers to drive companies towards moral behaviour. <br /><br />A recent example:<br />http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook-climate-change-sceptics-ditch-apple-shares<br /><br />It is often written that certain companies behave immorally, and that the company managers must be lacking in moral direction, a theme often developed by George Monbiot for example. Working for a company sometimes described as such, all I would say is that those actually working in such a company have the desire to act morally as those outside. They simply disagree on what is the right thing to do. This may be motivated reasoning of course, or they may be right; animal testing labs might be a good example to think about for instance.VeryTallGuynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-73321427833355599202014-03-23T04:06:12.118+00:002014-03-23T04:06:12.118+00:00Hi Mark, thank you for your kind words and wonderf...Hi Mark, thank you for your kind words and wonderful comment. Given the length of your comments, I would almost suggest to start a blog. :) (Not that I mind.) You seem to like thinking and writing.<br /><br />1. I wonder whether the dissenters like the consequences in private or subconsciously. It would be interesting to listen to their <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dinner_at_agu.jpg?w=960&h=575" rel="nofollow">private diner conversations</a>.<br /><br />The quality of their "arguments" is a big give-away. If they really had an issue with the science and wanted to understand the climate better, they would put more effort in the quality of the arguments and they would protest much louder when presented crap at WUWT and Co. But they love the crap.<br /><br />2. It is interesting that parties allied to the dissenters call themselves conservative and Christian, while they are not particularly conservative or Christian. Wouldn't one expect that a conservative would preserve nature and the environment? Instead they support every financial, business and social innovation that uproots communities and social structures. Some of these may be good for the economy, more typically good for existing business, which is not the same, but these innovations are not especially conservative. The main reason why conservatives would deserve their name is that they typically support policies that reduce social mobility.<br /><br />The loss of US power is one of the hopeful points. It makes more sense to invest energy in relative suffering if you are at the top. n the middle you would invest your energy in improving your own lot. That could be the reason that Europe is more active in mitigation. Unfortunately, it will still take some decades before the world is again more multipolar.<br /><br />3. I guess managers are a special case. The task of a company is to make money for its shareholders. Nothing else. A manager may have moral values in private, but if he would act on them professionally, he is more likely to be replaced. This system creates a force towards amoral behavior. <br /><br />Given this fundamental difference between humans and companies, I do not understand why companies are nowadays almost treated as if they have human rights. With the first stock companies in The Netherlands it was very clear that people understood the problem and that they were willing to revoke the license of a company if they would not behave well.<br /><br />I think you are right, that we should focus our communication on the moderates and not the 10% extremists. A problem is that these moderates are hard to reach, because they are not very interested in the topic. They are mainly informed by main stream media about climate and the media play a strange role in the climate debate by treating scientific matters in the way one would treat political matters, something they do not do for other scientific topics.<br /><br />It will be hard to prove, but I am not so sure there at greens that would resist new scientific findings. There is certainly a group that would like to present the scientific findings in the most alarming way possible to get people to take the problem seriously.<br /><br />However, if science would find there was a mistake and no problem with climate whatsoever, I see no reason why that should be a problem for these people. There are sufficiently other social problems to work on and almost all of the policies related to mitigation would still make sense for other problems. The emphasis for the various options may change and doing so sensibly given limited resources would make sense.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-51349270409823429532014-03-23T00:17:22.515+00:002014-03-23T00:17:22.515+00:00Another interesting exploration, Victor; it touche...Another interesting exploration, Victor; it touches on something that I have recently thought a great deal about. I see your point about 'relative suffering', but see also that it is a tricky argument to make; I would like to add three points, which may contribute.<br /><br />1. It is no accident that one can almost never find anybody stating they welcome the predicted consequences of global warming. Some norms are so fundamental and universal, that most people would not dare to publicly question them, even if they question them privately. The potential damage of global warming is one of these cases. It's why I think the argument has not been framed in terms of values, but in terms of climate science being false -if we accept the facts of global warming, we are bound by ubiquitous and deeply rooted norms to also accept it is a bad thing and must be prevented. The pseudosceptical movement is, I think, an effective way of avoiding the normative question altogether, simply because "if it isn't true, there is no conversation about whether it is good or bad". Note the tobacco companies realised early that they had no mileage in arguing that cancer was the smoker's own fault, and not the cigarette maker's responsibility -they instead tried to attack whether the link between smoking and cancer was a fact at all.<br /><br />2. Valuing (ie: appreciating, respecting) one's society is more important for conservatives than for any other social group. They interpret the political implications of AGW as an attack on the morality of their society and way of life - Green might be the 'new black' for inner-city hipsters, but it is definitely the 'new red' for conservatives. <br /><br />The baby-boom is over; changing economic axes of power, particularly the relative decline of the USA as the world economic engine, makes the current era quite unsettling for the conservative demographic. The deep-set psychology of the conservative is to respond to the uncertain world around them -with all its threats and challenges- by looking back to what they imagine was a better time. This impulse naturally alienates them from environmentally oriented scepticism or criticism of their generation.<br /><br />3. Having said this, there are surely some interests who are quite conscious of the dangers of global warming, but nonetheless deliberately spread misinformation -if you think of what kinds of personalities these are likely to be -ambitious, covetous -the kinds of people who sit on boards of Wall Street banks also sit on boards of Enron etc. These corporations must serve their shareholders, and will learn from tobacco and others, how to seed doubt.<br /><br />These interests only needed to bankroll the re-framing of the science as though it were really just a left-wing invention. The rest of the work could then be done by a veritable environmental counter-movement of true believers.<br /><br />This is why I like where you are heading in your closing paragraphs, about re-framing the global warming issues so that you align more with conservative values. I find one useful way to think about this is to use the metaphor of "political forcings". If the sum of political forcings for a group or individual is reasonably balanced, then there is plenty of room for dialogue; but if the political forcings are skewed very strongly, there is no practical hope of rational dialogue. I suspect there is an 'ineducable 10%' at either pole of the global warming spectrum -the Jo Novas and Anthony Watts of this world are ineducable, and I have met several greens who I'm sure would resist the any new development in the scientific consensus that found AGW was not the problem we all thought it was. The productive dialogue is with the middle, although 90% of what is actually publicly said (particularly on the internet) is actually an argument with one polarised minority.<br /><br />Thanks for these interesting posts, Victor!<br /><br /><br /><br /> Mark Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-63910489362103916812014-03-21T16:13:02.136+00:002014-03-21T16:13:02.136+00:00Thomas, yes more poor as rich people will die due ...Thomas, yes more poor as rich people will die due to climate change and I am happy that we belong to the group with moral values that find this to be important.<br /><br />However, this will not make the poor go away. The main causes of death are chronic disease and car accidents. Everything else makes headlines, but is marginal in practise.<br /><br />The rich will lose their money and thus power. Their mansions in the mountains and outskirts will be hit by fire and their condos along the beach by storms and sea level rise. They won't die if they are not too stupid to try to defend their property against nature, but they will lose wealth.<br /><br />Farmers will still have something to eat, but droughts and floods will eat into their profits. During the dust bowl in the 1930s many farmers had to give up and move to the cities in the hope of getting a job. I would guess that this is a demographic group more likely to be climate change dissenters. Somewhat ironically, as this is also the group that may be able to notice climate change with their own eyes, without having to rely on measurements by the weather services.<br /><br />I do not have any proof, but intuitively I would expect more casualties among the poor, but simultaneously most loses among the rich. It would be nice if someone working on climate impacts could clarify this or study the data with this in mind.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-12538705145527976312014-03-19T22:15:56.397+00:002014-03-19T22:15:56.397+00:00I disagree with Global Warming being an "equa...I disagree with Global Warming being an "equalizer". It is true, that we affluent people have more to lose, but Climate Change will act rather like supply-side economics: Farmers in New England and France may face fewer and less severe droughts, but have droughts ever been a problem there? In Germany and much of Asia, increased precipitation may even increase flooding, whereas in the Southern US, precipitation may even decrease, worsening droughts.<br /><br />In this light I also judge the latest controversy over droughts in the USA. It's a variation of the "it's not bad" myth: warmer climate means increased precipitation, and sure our drought-affected farmers would not want Climate Action to ruin them.<br /><br />Might this lead to the republican voter base suddenly oppose supply side economics? I don't know.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01751493792596112088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-18493500987460287562014-03-17T03:17:29.522+00:002014-03-17T03:17:29.522+00:00About a week or two ago I was wondering about the ...About a week or two ago I was wondering about the idea of climate deniers actually believing in climate change, and did a cursory look to see if anyone had written about it. Anyway, I feel like this post is important and worth thinking about. Firstly, the idea that the reaction of deniers is a survival strategy is something that resonates for me. I think it's important, though to make a distinction between deniers who are among the wealthy elite, and the populist deniers. My hunch tells me that there are at least some elite "deniers" who know climate change is real based on the facts on the ground, but perhaps have underestimated what it's capable of doing, and are looking to capitalize on the disaster while retaining a fossil fuel system that profits them as long as possible. Historian Gwynne Dyer has spoken on the subject of climate change and warfare, and he knows that for the military and security industries, climate change will provide plenty of opportunities and job security, which fits right along with the post 9-11 mold that has already been created at least in some parts of the Western world. And I think this can cross party lines. For example, I don't think it's an accident that John Kerry likened climate change to a weapon of mass destruction even as his State Department found nothing of note in the flawed, industry friendly Keystone environmental assessment. If you are following developments in US Homeland Security and constitutional rights, we are seeing evidence of a corporate state preparing it's "immune system response" through the lens of police state disaster management while guiding the public perception in advance. <br /><br />American, religiously leaning conservative deniers outside of the upper crust I think are guided by a contradictory mix of a sense of personal freedom and obedience to authority, in which punishment and judgement play a role, invoked by a righteous ruler. Liberals as well as intellectuals (climate scientists) are a threat to this for a variety of reasons. There's a lot to unpack there, and I won't go into it more, but I personally think that finding a way to demonstrate how being a steward of the environment might make you more free or a better Christian (in the US) might actually be an effective frame.<br /><br /><br />You stated that "Also the climate dissenters will have all of these modules and are also capable of empathy." I think you're missing the point that there are in fact people within the population exhibiting anti-social personality disorder, or clinical psychopathy, who in fact are well suited for high level government and corporate positions, whose personality profile indicates they do not have a sense of empathy, and openly deceive for personal gain. There are a number of characteristics that form this pathology, and the corporate structure, which places shareholder interests over the general population, creates a kind of pathological system in which these personalities can operate. These are the Machiavellian strategists and CEO's I mentioned earlier, who are influencing public perception from the pulpit and the office. Recognizing these social and psychological divisions creates the need for a more comprehensive strategy, as I believe, and as you have indicated, "denial" could be a kind of survival mechanism. In the case of upper crust psychopaths who have no trouble using covert destabilization, assassination, torture, fraud, or what have you, to advance an agenda, climate change also has an upside. Another thing about psychopaths and survival, like clinical narcissists, they can be quite self assured and charismatic on a surface level, in spite of their lack of in depth knowledge and their cold ability to dispense with those who get their way.Luke Ohttp://www.convergence-state.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-7906672294438598952014-03-16T21:49:03.539+00:002014-03-16T21:49:03.539+00:00Hallo Pieter,
The same for me. It is a complicate...Hallo Pieter,<br /><br />The same for me. It is a complicated post. On the one hand it combines many things I have been thinking of, which produced the large number of internal links. On the other hand, I am not really expect on impacts and that makes writing harder. <br /><br />And because it combines so many ideas, it became much too long. I should probably write a summary somehow and could write long posts about many of the details. Writing this post was an interesting journey. It is one of the nice things of blogging that it helps you to sort your thoughts.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-4098945854092134322014-03-16T21:29:01.991+00:002014-03-16T21:29:01.991+00:00Victor,
I had to read this article more then once ...Victor,<br />I had to read this article more then once and still have to think about. I hope I can practice the wise part.<br />It is anyhow a good start for handling discussions on coming IPCC reports.<br />Thanks.<br /><br />PieterPieter Zijlstranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-85480241908095037182014-03-16T19:18:07.422+00:002014-03-16T19:18:07.422+00:00They do not have to think it is good for Brisbane,...They do not have to think it is good for Brisbane, just that it will be worse elsewhere. However, I do not want to claim that relative suffering is the dominant mechanism for everyone. The most common is likely that people want to have the same opinion as their peers. Another simple egoism.<br /><br />However, egoism cannot explain why you like it that French farmers get ill. An egoist would be indifferent. And it also cannot explain the enormous activism of the climate dissenters. That is not relevant for your family, but the people that attack climate science put an enormous amount of time and effort in their political campaign. <br /><br />Even if many of them have a tip jar, I do not think that that will repay them for their time. That is altruism (towards their group) or at least they may think it is. And the minimal additional costs for renewable energy and energy saving cannot be counted as fitness advantage, everyone in their group contributes similarly.<br /><br />And it is not just time, but also enormous loses in reputation. They make utter fools of themselves. Especially, the scientists involved, who used to be well respected before in the scientific community. (Maybe the flood of comments by the fools repay for that a little, but I would personally think that you like to be respected by people you respect.)<br /><br />That many old people are against mitigation could be because that makes sense for egoists, the benefits will come too late for them. Old people will also be richer and thus maybe expect to suffer less than average. And old people no longer have to care about their reputation any more, they no longer have to reproduce or raise children, where you do not want to look like a fool or may need help from other parents.<br /><br />P.S. Sorry about blogger. In retrospect I would have used WordPress, there are many small annoyances, but it is now too much work to change.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-30363642196531329322014-03-16T18:22:55.782+00:002014-03-16T18:22:55.782+00:00Victor,
When I first started reading your post I...Victor, <br /><br />When I first started reading your post I was in disagreement - I felt that the contrarians in my family who live in hot Brisbane do not really think climate change will be good for the place - but by the end of your post I found myself agreeing with you.<br /><br />I think it's telling that many contrarians are older and so have fewer years left on this planet and so are unlikely to see the worst of climate change. Following your logic, they are relatively better off under business as usual today than future generations will be under business as usual. So they discount the rights of future generations for their own benefit today, something which I feel is wrong.<br /><br />And now I want to complain about blogger. If I want to comment using my regular handle with a link to my blog, it won't let me receive email updates to this comment thread. This is very annoying. Rachelhttp://quakerattled.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-79918520637045937332014-03-16T12:32:06.570+00:002014-03-16T12:32:06.570+00:00Sou: "Thing is, it requires shifting the disc...Sou: <i>"Thing is, it requires shifting the discussion. Most of us probably tend to let other people take the lead in discussions, such as is seen on Twitter. It's the deniers who keep shifting to another topic when they lose a point. However that means we're letting deniers set the ground rules - and for them there are no rules."</i><br /><br />Well said. And not letting them change the topic, them keeping doing that and you explicitly pointing to that, shows that they do not have evidence for their weird claims.<br /><br />Sou: <i>No-one wants more fires and floods, for example. Drought is another thing that spells a lot of hardship, not just for farmers but for city dwellers as well.</i><br /><br />Some may partially or subconsciously want more of that, as long as others get even more of that.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.com