Dear All:
I believe that the public would have more confidence in global warming
claims if they were given more, not less information about the subject, with
links to the supporting data, including "chapter and verse." While we, the
masses of unwashed ignoramuses, are awash in sound bytes equivalent in
volume to the Holy Bible and the Koran (it seems) every day, we are capable
of, and even desirous of, more information, evidence, and proof of claims,
regardless of the source. Continuing to patronize us does little to shore up
our confidence in the scientific authorities. Calling us "denyers,"
"deniers," and "unbelievers" (heretics, heathen, etc.) dredges up bad
memories (memes, karma, or whatever) for us.
For example, if a really sharp science writer would include a brief, but
adequately detailed interpretation of just how the present "hockey stick"
fits into a longer diagram of climate history, we would be more easily
convinced that it is not a "blip" like other blips in the history of global
climate change. We would also be interested in predictions of the probable
consequences of doing nothing and those of doing something--say, a range of
alternatives from the feasible to the fantastic, from the economical to the
end of civilization as we know it. We would like to know (the evidence of)
just how much of the hockey stick is due to anthropogenic (shall we say
"human-caused") causes and how much is due to natural causes? We would like
to know which periods in the earth's climate history correspond to the hell
that is coming if we don't mend our ways and endorse carbon credits, etc.
Please don't send us to textbooks and other authorities--help us by
interpreting all that complicated stuff for us.
By the way, please stop lumping anyone and everyone who has questions in
with the deniers--we get enough of straw-man fallacies from advertisers and
politicians. We really do have sense enough to understand that global
temperatures are going up, and we don't doubt that human activities
contribute to the rise--we just don't know how much is directly and
indirectly attributable to anthropogenic causes. We also are convinced that
too much energy is being consumed and that too much CO2 is being released.
And, yes, please convince the really nutty skeptics among us that this is
not a plot by the nuclear power industry. Some of us are even conspiracy
theorists or adherents to them.
WT (one certified heathen brethren)
"If you can't explain it to your neighbor, you don't know enough about
it." --Author forgotten
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shermin ds" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dear Dawn and colleagues,
I recently went to an eye-opening talk by Jon Krosnik regarding this issue
of the seeming decline in "belief" about climate change (talk abstract and
other details below). He showed us a long series of very carefully worded
poll results conducted over 20 years that demonstrated that Americans had
NOT changed their views regarding climate change very much at all, and in
fact around 75% acknowledge it nationwide; moreover, in the past decade or
more, there has been if anything an IMPROVEMENT in the number of people
reporting their confidence at how well informed they felt. Scientists
therefore seem to have done a better job than they or the media give
themselves credit for. Politicians, on the other hand, need some help
understanding what it is that their constituents want and therein lies the
discrepancy. He also demonstrated that poorly worded surveys can distort
these results, and pointed out specific instances in which results were
exaggerated for effect by various media outlets and pollsters.
Please don't take my word for it, for more on this fascinating and carefully
conducted research, see below.
-Shermin
--
Shermin de Silva, Ph.D
http://elephantresearch.net/fieldnotes
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sdesilva
*The Harvard University Center for the Environment and Bank of America
presents Green Conversations with:*
*Jon A. Krosnick**
*Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences and
Professor of Communication, Political Science, and Psychology at Stanford
University
“What Americans and Massachusetts ResidentsThink About Climate Change:
Attitude Formation and Change in Response to a Raging Scientific
Controversy”
*Discussants:*
*Stephen Ansolabehere*, Harvard University Department of Government
*Andrew J. Hoffman, *Visiting Professor of Management, MIT; Holcim Professor
of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan
*Moderated by*
*Daniel P. Schrag*, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Professor
of Environmental Science and Engineering; Director, Harvard University
Center for the Environment
*Wednesday, April 6*
*5:00 pm*
* *
***New Location***
*Science Center A*
*One Oxford St.*
*Cambridge, MA*
During the past decade, many climate scientists have been frustrated by the
American public's apparent indifference to climate change and the threats it
may pose. And in recent years, headlines on newspapers across the country
have proclaimed: "Scientists and the American Public Disagree Sharply Over
Global Warming" and "Public Concern About Climate Change Wanes". Is it
really true? Do Americans really not accept the opinions of scientific
experts on climate change? In this presentation, Professor Jon Krosnick will
describe findings from a series of national surveys that he has designed and
conducted since 1996, trackingwhat Americans do and do not believe on this
issue and what they do and do not want to have done about it. And one of his
newest surveys focused exclusively on residents of Massachusetts,
illuminating what they want government to do and how they want their
Senators and Congressional Representatives to vote. Surprising results
challenge many widely-held presumptions about public opinion in the nation
and in Massachusetts, illuminate the increasing politicization of the issue,
and set the stage for future discussion of climate change in Washington and
in Boston.
A leading international authority on questionnaire design and survey
research methods, Professor Krosnick has taught courses for professionals on
survey methods for 25 years around the world and has served as a methodology
consultant to government agencies, commercial firms, and academic scholars.
His books include “Introduction to Survey Research, Polling, and Data
Analysis” and "The Handbook of Questionnaire Design" (forthcoming, Oxford
University Press), which reviews 100 years of research on how different ways
of asking questions can yield different answers from survey respondents and
on how to design questions to measure most accurately. His recent research
has focused on how other aspects of survey methodology (e.g., collecting
data by interviewing face-to-face vs. by telephone or on paper
questionnaires) can be optimized to maximize accuracy. For more about
Professor
Krosnick: http://communication.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/
Green Conversations are sponsored by the Harvard University Center for the
Environment with generous support from Bank of America. This lecture was
originally scheduled for February 2. Reception to follow. Free and open to
the public.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Dawn Stover <[email protected]> wrote:
In the mainstream media, I see very little "he-said-she-said" reporting on
climate change anymore. And yet fewer Americans now "believe" in climate
change than just a year or two ago. I think this has a lot more to do with
the political climate and with cultural affiliations than with anything
science journalists are writing. When people have a certain cultural
mindset, they are very resistant to any facts that do not fit that
mindset.
In fact, information that conflicts with their viewpoint often tends to
REINFORCE that viewpoint instead of undermining it.
Dawn Stover
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
