Oh i agree it is pretty hard to change a group think bias. I only suggest the thought experiment as a way of working on our own individual bias. Individual bias is hard to see as we all feel we are firmly planted directly in the middle right on the truth line.
You can never change a group, you can change one person at a time maybe, but the only thing we really control is ourselves.
“I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.”
- Marshall McLuhan
One thing that is hard for people to grasp in the process of thought is that many times there are more than one truth and that truth can even be a moving target.
I would say it depends greatly on what you mean by the word “truth”. By the common usage of the word “truth”, I would disagree vigorously. But by some widely used definitions, it could be.
A better word to use, I suggest, is the word “facts”. But even with the word “facts”, some would like to have the convenience of “alternative facts” when they do not want to face the facts.
I think what often causes part of the confusion is the very real uncertainty that is often associated with a fact or truth. We do not fully understand everything, and science, as has been pointed out already, works by advancing our understanding, slowly, with mistakes and biases slowly geting weeded out.
A good quote that captures some of this is:
“When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others.”
–Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
In the case of climate change the science is very clear. The best source of information I have found is the IPCC:
IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Which gives in depth reports, explicitly including the uncertainty, and collecting data from scientists across the world. But they also have summary reports that are oriented toward non-scientists as well. Since it is data rich, and written by scientists that address uncertainty and bias their reports can be a long read. But if anyone is interested, I am happy to use their reports as a basis for a disusiion.
All the species going extinct do not care about our arguments.
The problem is that most of the population is not scientists or even trained in the scientific process. The post of @Rookie you quoted even though they did better than most explaining the science and the likelihood of the premise being dead on gospel leads with the heading being a question rather than a fact but then answers the question with a bold text statement answering the question and injecting the word (could) both statements alarm us with a date timeline of 2025 just 2 years from now.
News is not science and be it subtle or in your face almost all of it puts a spin in one direction or another. In the world we live in today we get “news” feed to us in short blurbs on our devices. Just the headline and the first sentence. 99% of the time we react to it even though we may not even consciously realize we read it and most of us don’t click the link to read the rest of the story as Paul Harvey used to point out to us daily. This kind of news is like being hit by a grain of sand it doesn’t turn us but get hit by enough of them and you have an opinion and don’t know where you got it.
There is no better example IMO than Greta Thunberg on this topic. She is not a scientist she was just a kid that was being bombarded with information that by the age of 8 was suffering depression over the topic and a combination of her digging free of the depression and her parents wanting to help her and half the world looking for a undeniable spokesperson gave her the illusion of being some kind of savant and next thing we know the kid is addressing the United Nations being surrounded with only like minded influencers. She may well be speaking the truth or not but she is far from a climate scientist.
Anytime you take a very complex science like climate and we all know how much trouble they have predicting even the weather a week away with certainty. The trained people that should be telling us the story are far too boring and the message gets watered down with things like probability and facts and inconvenient truths. We look for a new well known person like Greta or Al Gore that are not scientists but good talkers that can cut thru all the facts and develop a simple truth we can understand like the hockey stick graph that maybe omitted a few to make it simple for non scientist to understand.
I watched a show the other day where a guy who spent his whole life on climate science decided to go on a road trip and visit about 500 climate data collection locations some set up in the 1960s. He finds one in the middle of a parking lot now and another right next to a huge brick building. A bunch of them that started out in remote settings it was clear that the modern world had snuck in on them. Even in my small town the climate station is located at our airport and just in my lifetime the airport has grown from a local landing strip to international status (Canada) and from a country setting to surround by suburbia.
There is true science out there mixed in with a lot that has a slant put to it. Then it gets picked up by the “news” and then relayed news to news then picked up by talking heads with a bias and then consumed by the masses as it has to be the truth or they wouldn’t put it on TV.
I was teaching a design course at our local college for a number of years and the first night of class in an attempt to break the ice and also get to know the personalities of the people in it I would start off with a test I told them that wasn’t for a grade unless they wanted it to be for an individual grade.
I handed them all a sheet of paper face down and told them don’t turn it over until I tell them. I would tell them they all had a different sentence on the paper so everyone was different.
In reality they all had the same thing written on them and it was
“Finished files are the result of years of scientific study combined with the experience of years.”
I would tell them first to turn over the paper and read their sentence and then turn the paper back over. Then I would say now turn it over again and count the number of times the letter …… lets say F was used and then turn it over again. Take your time. Then I would say now write that number on the back of the paper. They would write 3-4-5 or 6 on the back. then I would ask a few what number they came up with for their sentence and they would all hear different numbers convincing them they all had different sentences. I would then tell them this is really important so please flip your sheet again and count them one more time. normally one or two would say oh crap and flip the paper over and change their number. After that I would say are you all sure or would you like to count one more time as it is important we be accurate about this. Most times they would all say we are collage students we know how to count. I would then ask who is 100% sure they have the right number and the majority would raise their hand. One or two of the smarter people would at this point start questioning my sanity and saying what does this have to do with machine design? I would take a look and they would have a 3 written on the paper. I would say so you can count to 3 and three is your answer without any doubt and they would say yes. I then would make that person an offer saying I don’t know what sentence you had but would you bet an A against an F for your grade for the class based on your answer? I tell them if you are correct you cannot come to class unless you want and get an A as a final grade. They would say sure I will always bet on a sure thing. So I accept.
I then tell them well I didn’t tell you everything truthfully that you all have the same sentence on your paper. I then give the person that was so sure he was right the chance to back out and 9 out of 10 they said no.
I then tell them flip your paper over and I tell them the correct number and betting person says no way and one of their classmates will say you missed the f in of three times.
The one betting will be a little shocked knowing he was getting an F for a grade of counting F’s.
I would tell him that he wasn’t going to get an F it was just an experiment dealing with what is true and what we believe to be true and they can sometimes even be different when it comes to the simple task of counting. I would tell them when it comes to design the problems will be a million times more complex and not be between an A and F but life and death. No matter how good we think we are we always have to remain humble and know we could be wrong. I was thinking about this the other night watching a preview for the movie Oppenheimer and him talking to Einstein about the likelihood of the bomb catching the atmosphere on fire with the first bomb and ending the world. It was something even these great minds didn’t know for sure 100%. Talk about something to keep you up at night.
Nice way to engage your students and illustrate how we are not very good at observing accurately.
And exactly why scientists that are good spend so much time and energy looking for biases, hidden assumptions, mistakes. It is why peer review is so important. It is why double blind studies are the gold standard. It is why duplicating studies, and verifying studies using different data and techniques to see if the conclusions hold is so important. Science is not easy.
There is a whole book about biases in our thinking, you may have read it, if not it is well worth a read:
Thinking, Fast and Slow: Kahneman, Daniel: 9780374533557: Amazon.com: Books
Everyone is human and makes mistakes. Everyone has biases. Magicians are really good at exploiting this. Optical illusions are a really good example of how it can be difficult to avoid being biased, even when you know you are biased. But together, using carefully thought out scientific procedures and standards, we can come close to understanding and having solid conclusions.
Great book selection and I will check it out.
I totally agree that the true scientific process is hard to beat. Is that what the IPCC is doing? There mission statement clearly says there is a problem and I have only dug down a few levels into the million studies and hundred of scientist they list as contributing. I would like to read what the dissenters in their group argue. I don’t know if they open the discussion to those with different ideas. The agenda is based around a 1.2c or 1.5c change in the next so many years. The culprit is carbon output from fossil fuels. And the solution is basically more revenue is required from the richer countries to help the greater impacted poorer countries. The forest fires in Canada that have hazed our air most of the summer and has everyone with a slight sore throat I doubt is factoring in.
Yesterday the temp at my house changed about 30f during the day and at the hottest part of the day there was a 5f difference between one side of the house and the other. It maybe was on average 20f different than last year and it is warmer this year and everyone is talking global warming and last week we had a windstorm and it was climate change. I know science is special and supposedly can measure and predict a 1.2c rise over 10 years and what that will do. The Little Ice Age 1300-1850 was about a 4f drop according to whoever measures such things and effected most of the northern hemisphere and then reversed itself. So there is no doubt in my mind small changes non manmade can have huge impacts on climate.
People are not scientist and I doubt the average guy could handle a half hour of the IPCC website. Last week the president was telling us we need to outlaw gas water heaters and today he was advising the people in Arizona to drive to movie theaters to get out of the high heat and not to forget to bring water along. Having spent time out there I haven’t seen many people who didn’t have AC and everyone I met had stacks of cases of water in the garage and 1-2 in the trunk of the car. My son lives out there now and I called him asking how he was doing and he said people here know how to do heat. He said bring them to the Great Lakes in February and then you need to worry. Now a case can be made why people ever moved there in the first place and the only answer I can come up with is the electrification of the country and the invention of AC. Take both away and people will soon be out of there.
Getting back to your book recommendation and how people think. I once knew a general manager who told me when he hires someone for a top leader spot he likes to take them out to lunch and watch if they taste their food before they add salt. He said we are looking for people that know how to act fast and without all the information. Said a lot about how large companies and governments work.
I saw this video at work back in the 80s. Oldie but goodie. Only today there are two groups of people reacting the same way only different cities.
The lack of the general population not being taught the basic principles of science is a disgrace of our education system.
Just to play devil’s advocate on potential bias…shouldn’t people on both sides of nonscientist debating climate change have been pointed out, not just Greta and AL Gore. Are they the only ones that might not fully understand what they are talking about? Was this an example of bias?
It is a common mistake to equate local weather data to global climate data. Which today is measured largely by satellite telemetry. Ocean levels, water temps, air temps, ozone, CO2, ice cover, etc. are measured on a global scale.
Charles David Keeling did his postdoctoral work on CO2 on top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii. This spot was chosen for its remote location because it is up upwind of any local industrial activity which could influence the measurement. It is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. This classic study is what caught the attention of science. I learned about this study in college during the early 70s. The fact that it is a greenhouse gas isn’t debatable.
Let’s take a look at some of the data. This video put out by Nasa showing the global distribution of CO2 over the period of one year (2006) is an eye opener. Note what part of the world and which seasons show the most production of CO2 being mixed into the atmosphere. The data isn’t biased it is what was measured by the instruments on board the satellites. It wasn’t measured at the airport. The good thing about it is you don’t have to read a boring paper. I don’t think you have to be a scientist to have some understanding of what is going on in the video.
People fear what they do not understand, hence the anti-science sentiment among much of the US population. After decades of lowering the bar for science and math achievement in high school, how could we expect anything else? To be clear, I do not blame teachers or schools. The pressure for social promotion is too intense, and funding is often tied to graduation rates rather than student learning. I blame us, as parents. We elected the politicians and school boards that allow high schools to produce graduates with no concept of the scientific method, who cannot write a coherent paragraph, and are stumped by simple arithmetic (never mind elementary algebra).
There’s lots of justifiable worry these days about other countries gaining a global competitive advantage. Could it be that they also expect kids to learn math, science and now, tech?
More Data
Here is a spiral Graphic put out by Nasa.
Video: Climate Spiral (1880-2022)
Credit: NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio
This visualization shows monthly global temperature anomalies.
Video: Climate Spiral (1880-2022) – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)
The Abilene Paradox is a classic. Similar to another problem in group decision making, often called group think.
The IPCC is an international group trying to assess the science of climate change. Asking if they are doing the scientific process, I would say yes and no, depending upon what you mean by that. they are in the sense that they are providing a peer review of the science of climate change. But they are not running experiments and analysis of specific data sets themselves, as far as I know. Perhaps another way to summarize what they are doing would be to say they are doing a meta analysis of climate science, if you will. To me, they value they bring is having all the various studies on climate change in one place, and assessing the confidence one can have in the various studies.
Unfortunately, I agree that our schools do not do a good job of creating people knowledgeable about science and how it is done. Distrust in science is a big problem.
And from my experience, sometimes individual scientists themselves are to blame, by being what one could call “stealth advocates”, meaning they want to effect change by advocating for their own views, but use their standing as scientists to give people trust in what they are advocating. I have had to deal with some who do that. There is another book that is worth a read about this subject:
All depends upon what your expectations are of scientists and the role they should be playing. They are human, and have strong feelings about where things are going, just like some of the members who posted above seem to have.
Unfortunately, this does happen, but I think it’s relatively rare. Sometimes, you just have to follow the money. If a study showing great health benefits from eating pickles was funded by the Pickle Producers of America, well…
And the research grant game encourages scientists to make big claims too early. Nothing like a headline in the WaPo or NYTimes to turn on the money spigot.
Is this just alarmism? Are we qualified to decided?
The world’s oceans are off-the-charts warm — and the worst could be yet to come (nbcnews.com)
Again, in the news more data on global ocean temps breaking all recorded records. Graphics included of the actual data are presented in the news report. The oceans are a major planetary heat sink and have absorbed about 90% of the heat trapped on the planet from greenhouse gas emissions since 1970. Take a look at the graphs or not. It’s understandable if you are tired of the latest disturbing climate data and would rather not read about it. I would rather know so as to try and make informed decisions.
For full disclosure I happen to believe what the science is showing us. I also realize that the conclusions that are made from the data may not be fully accurate. However, we are seeing many of the earlier conclusions playing out. I feel we ignore the consequences of our actions at a cost to many life forms on our planet not just to us.
On a different environmental topic. Tom and I picked up a bucket full of trash at the takeout while paddling on the Enoree River yesterday. It was just a drop in the bucket you could say.
Thanks for picking up the trash! Too bad more people don’t do this.
As an older person, I know I can choose to ignore and not be greatly impacted by what is happening around. I have less time left on this planet and more resources to “play” 'til the end. This is not the case for the folks who are ages 40 and under. If they don’t looked with alarm the “global warming” signs, they risk having to undertake greater, more rapid and costlier steps to adapt.
And, not all have the ability and resources to adapt… https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/small-islands-rising-seas The mass migration not only internationally but domestically - think Miami, New Orleans, Corpus Christi, Plum Island/MA – and attempts to accommodate or repel become the ingredients of a dystopian situation.
Younger folks don’t have the luxury of waiting and finding out whether they under appreciated the changes that are happening all around us. Changing demographics of who are active and influential in the political realm, in the USA and elsewhere, will lead to more action. We boomers will be out soon. The question is whether this happens fast enough.
Ok, boomer.
sing
If only it were this easy…
sing
Proud to be a boomer! For the most part what a great time to have lived!!
My Dad will be 100 in about 3 months born in the 1923 when the population of FL was only 2 million (today it is about 22 million). Horse drawn wagons were still being used as were mules drawing plows beside early cars and tractors. Lived through the Great Depression. Flew P51 and P38s in the Pacific during WW2. Saw the first photos of the aftermath of the first atomic bomb as they were developed in his photo recon unit’s dark room. Watched men land on the Moon. Uses modern day computers and smart phones. He is still alive due to the medical advancements that were developed during this time period What an amazing time to live so full of wonder as the modern world came into existence.
If only they had an idea of its repercussions for the future the Planet is facing. Of course, they didn’t know. It wasn’t until 1958 when the first measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere were just starting to be measured. They didn’t realize that the wonder of plastic would have the environmental impact it is having, or the wonder of refrigeration would impact something called the ozone layer etc.
But we know those things now. Yet it is so slow for a large portion of our population to accept primarily because it is costly, and we have to change how we live our lives. This is the inconvenient truth, not that we are driving global warming which drives climate change, but that we have to change how we live.
I don’t find it strange that few have checked out these two Nasa videos I posted earlier to this thread. They present uncomfortable information that supports that need to change. Here they are again in case anyone missed them. I will stop posting more on this thread unless directly replied to as I have posted enough already.
(5) NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth’s CO2 - YouTube
Video: Climate Spiral (1880-2022) – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)
I first thought I would do a deep dive into the IPCC recommendation going back to the late 1990’s and within an hour I figured out I might not live enough years to complete any kind of a DIY fact check. The old information is not directly on line and requires downloading that I did and each report is 100s of pages of technical jargon and the conclusions are somewhat vague in comparison of how the news media condensed them at the time to be mostly alarming. So I thought lets Google (IPCC fact check) and see if someone has done the work for me. As we all know Google filters results both to their bias and based around what they know about a searcher, but I figured I would start there and see what I got on the first few pages. The first page was pretty much articles countering others that tried to fact check the information in a reverse fact check denying the fact check as a hoax. That can be an endless rabbit hole worse than doing it myself and then if I did conclude something relevant and say negative no matter how honest I would just fall to the fact checking of the fact checker scenario. I read a dozen or so links and a few pages down there was a sponsored link that I found odd as you would think a sponsored link would be something they paid to turn up early in the string. It was put out by PragerU so I was suspect to a bias, but then saw it was a video made by the Under Secretary of Science during the Obama Administration Steve Koonin. These type of videos are not being made for the scientists to watch they are more like 5 minute junior high videos to catch the short attention span of people that never will likely become scientists but nonetheless deserve some “unbiased” ideas. I figure if he worked in the Trump Administration most would lend this no credence.
To make it clear and to @castoff assertion I’m in no way against the science. I had a great 44year work life based on science. What I’m more interested is the co-opting of science. Even a huge group like IPCC does not do the science and they just don’t report the science, but rather in many ways control the outcome of the science.
Well here is my first find a little 5 minute video that I can actually say I related to the sentiments of the author.
I highly recommend investing in a subscription to “New Scientist”, a weekly and very readable magazine published in England that contains summary reports on new discoveries both in natural science and in the development and implementation of innovative technologies. The Brits are ahead of us in independent research and in being rational about science without succumbing to political pressure, and also scrupulous about peer review.
I’ve got a lifelong interest and education in Science, especially Geology, Paleontology and Archaeology, also a professional background in infrastructure engineering and construction. I’ve been aware of and concerned about the threats of climate change and humans’ destructive practices and their impact on the environment for over 60 years. It dismays me to see people go down the rabbit holes of “bad science” claims and hysteria on both the “pro” and “con” sides of climate change that they glean from rando internet searching. While we non-scientists are wringing our collective hands over what we see as “hopeless doom” or scoffing at those who point out what needs to be done, the REAL scientists are continuing to learn more about what is really happening and they are coming up with potential actions we can take. There are many nations that have made great progress in converting their economies and infrastructure already to mitigate negative human impact. You’re not going to hear about that if you focus on US mainstream media and politically funded popular “news” sources or ill-informed bloggers with personal agendas.
In fact even a utility industry magazine (that I still get monthly since I retired from project management in that field) reports on the huge shifts in the USA towards renewable energy and how rapidly fossil fuel power generations is being deconstructed (this is not just about being environmentally “green” but is because of the “greenbacks” that power companies can save by shifting to the cleaner technologies. I spent many years working on projects at coal fired and gas power plant sites and they are immensely costly to maintain, requiring almost constant cycles of shut down and maintenance due to the waste products and filth they generate. Utilities and industries WANT to convert, not just for environmental conscientiousness but because it helps their bottom line. But there are entities out there that want the public to either give up hope and do nothing, or to disbelieve that they should support and even demand the shifts we need to make in our use of resources. Reality is that there are a lot of power and money greedy self-centered old people in too many positions of influence who don’t care what happens to the world or the people in it as long as they can enjoy their own wealth and profligacy for the few years they have left. Brainwashing those who will still be around to suffer to act against their own interests is part of their strategy. It’s up to us to oppose anti-science and to avoid giving in to despair/
Anyway, enough of my rant. Trust me – pick up a copy of New Scientist (many Barnes and Noble stores stock issues) and check it out. It isn’t densely technical like Scientific American or colorfully entertaining “science lite” like National Geographic. It’s kind of in between the two but better than either. Great photography and layout and a mix of short reports on new studies and tech and more extensive articles on important issues and findings across scientific disciplines. Some of the articles are surprisingly amusing, like one on a study of animal behavior that found that most pigs will selflessly aid other pigs in freeing them from being trapped in compartments. Each issue has tongue in cheek cartoons (usually making fun of themselves as geeky scientists, see below) and crossword and math puzzles.
Sample of some of the articles in the issue I got in the mail yesterday: “How can we keep homes cool without air conditioning?”
“QAnon and other conspiracy theories should be treated like a pandemic”
" Discover the tumultuous history of our volcanic planet Earth"
“New malaria vaccine shows promise against relapsing form of the disease”
“temperature controlling blanket extends life and performance of electric vehicle batteries”
“One easy climate win: scrap crytocurrencies”
All the articles are backed up by references to the legit research sources.
I know I feel more optimistic and better informed when I read each week’s issue.
