« Climate Change »

Hi Roger,

You write, “Of course, if my point is to educate you about the futility of education, then I've gotten myself into an interesting paradox, haven't I?”

But this whole article seems to be based on a premise (which you support?) that when people are educated about global warming, they should feel more personally responsible and be more afraid. When that doesn’t happen, the authors seem to think something is wrong.

The authors never even seem to consider the possibility that the education is actually leading people to the correct answers. (That they are not personally responsible, and they should not be afraid.)

For example, there was the exercise you went through with one of your classes, wherein small groups got together to see how they would apportion limited funds ala the “Copenhagen Consensus.” Despite the vast indoctrination that I’m sure they received in their prior decade-plus of schooling, the students came to the same basic conclusions as the “Copenhagen Consensus,” i.e., that global warming simply shouldn’t be a priority, given limited funds and limited time.

The authors of the paper mention several times that many climate scientists think climate change is a big problem. Well, so what? I’m sure Paul Ehrlich thinks that the problems of the checkerspot butterfly are huge. How many scientists say, “The stuff I work on is not very important”?

The whole paper hints strongly that the issue is more a religious matter than a matter of science. Otherwise, why the emphasis on whether or not respondents, "...feel
less personally responsible for global warming...?"

When I hear, for example, an IPCC author say something like: "Now that the science is clear people will be able to make clear personal and policy choices" I cringe because, as we know, more information and "knowledge" doesn't in and of itself lead to informed decisions since there are other filters that come into play.

The "Personal Efficacy" study is interesting so far as it goes, but raises more questions than it answers. As they admit, the respondents self-report how smart/informed they are about global warming, and when I look at the actual questions-- "global warming and climate change will have a noticeably negative impact on my health/economic situation in the next 25 years," I personally would not be sure how to answer it since, for some in their field of tracking, reporting, reducing GHG emissions, there is built in job security for decades to come.

The authors state their findings were the opposite of their expectations, which suggests more research is needed to dig into why this is.

I'm fascinated by what is going on with Wal-Mart, both in terms of their internal transformation since Hurricane Katrina when they responded faster that FEMA could, and how they are motivating their employees (associates as they call them) to develop Personal Sustainability Plans (which 500,000 of them have done), but also how they are pushing their suppliers to track and reduce GHG emissions. From what I've seen, the leadership is well aware of what's happening with climate, but in their internal communications, the word "climate" is almost never used. Instead the buzzword is "sustainability" which they've translated as a way to transform the company, be more socially and environmentally responsible, and ultimately a way to get a jump on the competition by being more efficient and "green."

Time will tell how successful they are, but as the world's largest retailer, they have huge clout with their global supply chain, 1.4 million employees, and millions of customers who are motivated by affordability rather than lofty ideals. Wouldn't it be ironic if Wal-Mart was able to achieve through their focus on "sustainability" what no government program or international treaty has been able to achieve? Ultimately, I don't think we can consume our way to a stabilized climate, but it will be interesting to see what evolves in the coming years and decades.

When I hear, for example, an IPCC author say something like: "Now that the science is clear people will be able to make clear personal and policy choices" I cringe because, as we know, more information and "knowledge" doesn't in and of itself lead to informed decisions since there are other filters that come into play.

The "Personal Efficacy" study is interesting so far as it goes, but raises more questions than it answers. As they admit, the respondents self-report how smart/informed they are about global warming, and when I look at the actual questions-- "global warming and climate change will have a noticeably negative impact on my health/economic situation in the next 25 years," I personally would not be sure how to answer it since, for some in their field of tracking, reporting, reducing GHG emissions, there is built in job security for decades to come.

The authors state their findings were the opposite of their expectations, which suggests more research is needed to dig into why this is.

I'm fascinated by what is going on with Wal-Mart, both in terms of their internal transformation since Hurricane Katrina when they responded faster that FEMA could, and how they are motivating their employees (associates as they call them) to develop Personal Sustainability Plans (which 500,000 of them have done), but also how they are pushing their suppliers to track and reduce GHG emissions. From what I've seen, the leadership is well aware of what's happening with climate, but in their internal communications, the word "climate" is almost never used. Instead the buzzword is "sustainability" which they've translated as a way to transform the company, be more socially and environmentally responsible, and ultimately a way to get a jump on the competition by being more efficient and "green."

Time will tell how successful they are, but as the world's largest retailer, they have huge clout with their global supply chain, 1.4 million employees, and millions of customers who are motivated by affordability rather than lofty ideals. Wouldn't it be ironic if Wal-Mart was able to achieve through their focus on "sustainability" what no government program or international treaty has been able to achieve? Ultimately, I don't think we can consume our way to a stabilized climate, but it will be interesting to see what evolves in the coming years and decades.

Understanding what is happening in the world is not the same as knowing whether to change it. Science is generally good as identify specific relationships, but not very good at understanding how those relationships interact and their relative importance. Basically, science isn't good a seeing the big picture. As people learn more about the relationships we understand, they also are likely to realize that they are a very small part of a very big world.

Ultimately, the risks and uncertainty of the small amount warming we are doing isn't apreciably different than if what we are doing caused no warming. To me, warming causes us to focus too much certain risks that may or may not increase or decrease and ignore others which we should also prepare for. Even worse, the focus on prevention rather than preparedness provides a false sense of security. Whether GHG warming increases or not, we still don't know what the future climate has in store for us. We shouldn't be putting all our eggs in one basket.

I think we focus too much on what we know and not enough on what we don't know.

http://cumulativemodel.blogspot.com/2008/03/uncertainty-considering-what-we-dont.html

Understanding what is happening in the world is not the same as knowing whether to change it. Science is generally good as identify specific relationships, but not very good at understanding how those relationships interact and their relative importance. Basically, science isn't good a seeing the big picture. As people learn more about the relationships we understand, they also are likely to realize that they are a very small part of a very big world.

Ultimately, the risks and uncertainty of the small amount warming we are doing isn't apreciably different than if what we are doing caused no warming. To me, warming causes us to focus too much certain risks that may or may not increase or decrease and ignore others which we should also prepare for. Even worse, the focus on prevention rather than preparedness provides a false sense of security. Whether GHG warming increases or not, we still don't know what the future climate has in store for us. We shouldn't be putting all our eggs in one basket.

I think we focus too much on what we know and not enough on what we don't know.

http://cumulativemodel.blogspot.com/2008/03/uncertainty-considering-what-we-dont.html

Mark, the point, I think, is that we`re not entirely rational, and our brains play cognitive tricks on us. Did you see Ron Bailey`s post on this last October?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122892.html

"Mark, the point, I think, is that we`re not entirely rational, and our brains play cognitive tricks on us."

Where do you get that point from the article? What I get from the article is that the authors think that the people who know the most about global warming are getting the "wrong" answers.

They expect people who are more informed about global warming be more worried about global warming, and feel more personally responsible about global warming. (The personal responsibility angle seems particularly bizarre. I don't know why anyone would feel personally responsible for global warming.)

Mark

P.S. I probably should also put "know" in quotation marks, because the authors seem to take self-reported levels of knowledge as being equivalent to actual knowledge.

P.P.S. Yes, I read Ron Bailey's piece, but I don't see the connection to this paper.

This paper is interesting, but it raises more questions than it answers. The data admits many interpretations, including perhaps Mark Bahner's, but also the opposite, that better-informed people withdraw into denial to avoid feeling hopeless.

Some technical issues contribute to the ambiguity:
- Looking at Table 1, the first three concern items are focused on local/personal effects over a short time horizon. A more informed person might conclude that such effects are highly uncertain and not most important, and thus appear to be less concerned.
- The personal efficacy questions conflate attribution (humans are responsible) with efficacy (my actions matter). There is no global efficacy measure (e.g., effect of a carbon tax). Thus someone who believes that humans are responsible, but only collective actions matter, would score low. This also makes equating efficacy and responsibility, as in the conclusion, a dubious proposition.
- The "trust in experts" measure is misleadingly titled, because it actually asks about trust in government and interest groups, conflating expertise with self-interest.
- The level of information is self-reported. I'd only be a little tongue in cheek to assert that the ignorant are often the most confident.

I think this is an interesting contribution, but we have a long way to go before we toss out the education baby with the deficit bathwater. Still, I think I'll keep the location of the asteroid in earth-striking orbit that I noticed last night a secret until we know more.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: