Friday
Jun152012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Geoff Chambers talks to Adam Corner
Jun 15, 2012 Climate: Sceptics BH regular Geoff Chambers chats to Cardiff University psychologist Adam Corner about being a sceptic.
There is a growing body of academic literature that seeks to understand, explain – and even overcome – climate change scepticism. But is it getting to grips with scepticism, or missing the point? In this unusual exchange (we hope the first of many) between Adam Corner (Talking Climate) and Geoff Chambers – (a regular and prominent commenter at several climate sceptic blogs), they discuss research on the psychology of scepticism.
Read it here.
Reader Comments (202)
Foxgoose
If you’re right, I’ll be there on the barricades with the crude tabloid mockery. (I can do that, and it might even pay better than astroturfing at CiF). In the meantime, why not try everything that turns up? I’m sure you’ve had interesting conversations with people you disagreed with : )
Discussing the question of vulgarity v politeness at Climate Resistance, the same military metaphors came up, and I pointed out that the army resolves this by division of labour. The officers plan and negotiate like gentlemen, while the NCOs motivate the troops with insults and foul language. If you see yourself as a Sergeant Major - fine. I’d have thought you were more officer material : )
Omnologos
If you don’t know Coward, think d’Annunzio in the suburbs, with songs by Vittorio De Sica.
Geof
I reall don't think that Prof Nick Pidgeon is all that junior! (also advices government)
from his bio:
"I have in the past led numerous policy oriented projects on issues of public responses to environmental risk issues and on ‘science in society’ for UK Government Departments, the Research Councils, the Royal Society, and Charities.
I am currently a member of the UK Department for Energy and Climate Change’s Science Advisory Group (SAG), and theme leader for the Climate Change Consortium for Wales"
http://psych.cf.ac.uk/contactsandpeople/academics/pidgeon.html
Ok, with the best will in the world, how are you going to have a conversation based on their terms, which appear to be 'we must discuss policy, the science is settled'? Where to start? I am not advocating not talking to them, I just can't see how we are able to, if they will not admit 'there is room for doubt.' Note that 'they' go scuttling back and won't talk. When our side posts on their blogs, we do not give up in a huff, we are moderated to bits. Tell me I have it wrong.
Rhoda - my comments at Corner's blog are my attempts at having a conversation. If they want to go ahead without the vocal/activist part of my skepticism, "all" they have to do is work on pain-free policies, eg figure out the so-called no-regret interventions.
I posted a message here last night: http://talkingclimate.org/understanding-climate-scepticism-a-sceptic-responds/
It hasn't appeared. So I suppose they're not actually interested in what sceptics think.
The gist of what I wrote was that my climate scepticism began one evening in February 2007, when I was watching channel 4 news, and Jon Snow declared in ringing words: "Global Warming is happening! Humans are to blame! The debate is over!" And at that moment, when he said "The debate is over", I realised that this wasn't science. Because in science (true science) the debate is never over.
That became my position in February 2007, and has remained it ever since.
No Geoff - you need an arts degree like yours to join the officer class in a media battle. We grease stained engineers are always going to be the Poor Bloody Infantry.
The advantage is, though, we're allowed the use of bayonets at close quarters which is quite satisfying - cos they don't like it up 'em.
Omnologos, I am stuck on that front too, because my idea of a wise policy even if I believed in the worst 'worse than we thought' would be to adapt. If only because we can't actually predict any particular climatic effect to go with our two, four or six degrees. I am prepared, as a great sacrifice, to carry on living in Oxfordshire even when it is as warm as Portugal is now.
It is the weekend (and I'm pretty sure Adam is out having a social life, so should I ! ) so it will pend moderation for a while. (all my comments have been approved)
------ A bit long ---- sorry..
Hi Adam, I would still love to have a chat with you.
But as a phsycologist surely you must be aware how 'sceptics' must percieve you, and the fact that perhaps you would be percieved as having your own ideological backage and biases as well.
Additionally, you must recognise it is hard to be percieved as a nuetral scientist, on the particular issue of climate change and climate policies, when you are policy advisor to COIN, which is percived as a totally activist, policy & political lobbying organisation,
and that you were carrying a banner at Copenhagen with 'Act Now' on it, and writing at the time as a green party candidate..
http://t.co/Hdqz9Wbn
Photo, and write up Green Party mag it came from -
http://t.co/ezqsBusb
Not that there is anything 'wrong' in that, ie lots of nice sincere people are greens, (my sister in law, having been a green party MP candidate, councilor, Green Party Press Officer, and the former editor of Greenworld, is a personal testament to that) but you must realise you will be percieved as an activist AND a lobbyist for policies (ie anti-fossil fuels, and nuclear?) who also questions aspects of capitalism, and you will be challenged as such.
You clearly believe having your own blog 'a hundred months and counting' and your other writing, that dangerous climate change is jus taround the corner. You consider the science is established enough on that, to state above:
"Scepticism about climate policies — and debate about what alternatives might be– seems much more important than a repeated doubting of well-established science."
Whilst I am mainly sceptical about policies, these are driven by the science, where very many sceptics do question, just how well established it is the science, at least the projections af dangerous climate change, believing that these depend in part on the models which are diverting now from reality. The example of Prof Judith Curry, at Tamsins' blog, being an expression of that - OVER estimated. The climate scientists will cheefully discuss whole areas of climate science where there is very low or medium confidence in the drivers of climate change. (this is all in the IPCC reports, in the main text of wg1)
Thus we hit the problem of climate communication, many want to move the debate on to policy (the science settled) yet many do not consider this to be correct, especially with respect to dangerous climate change. ie perfectly happy to accept, doubling CO2 will cause a degree or so of warming, with possible benign benfits. Prof Richard Betts warned a while ago, that environmentalists should not over hype 2C, that this could occur and impact be neglible .. ie it is all uncertain.
and rather than allow the debate on the issue of the science, we end up phsycologising reason for denial/secpticism of the science.
Now I do applaud this blog post, it shows a willingness to talk, yet George Marshall, and many of your aquaintances and collegues) has done so much to polarise debate, with Halls of Shame, talking about denial, etc
This shameful language of deniers, anti-science, flatertahers, etc has made it into main stream political speech
@AJCorner
loving Brown calling people 'deniers' and 'luddites' on Cif. Tell it like it is Gordy! www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green
12:59 PM Dec 7th, 2009 from web
http://twitter.com/AJCorner/status/6429777167
Gordon Brown's speech reffering to flat-earther, anti-science climate deniers and luddites, appalled me, I thought it was dispicable ignorant POLITICAL rhetoric from the Prime Minister of my country, that with Ed Milliband frequent ignorant use of denier, and a shocking reference to 'climate sabatouer' (ie en par with terrorism)made me very concerned and is a part, why I started being very sceptical.
Yet my response does not seem to fit in your world view of why people are sceptical.
Perhaps you and your collegues could reflect on that.
Just going to quote from Bishop Hill, the fundamental problem we seem to have with communicating with each other..
"Ok, with the best will in the world, how are you going to have a conversation based on their terms, which appear to be 'we must discuss policy, the science is settled'? Where to start? I am not advocating not talking to them, I just can't see how we are able to, if they will not admit 'there is room for doubt.'" - Rhoda
May I ask if you see another reason why many are secptical, the sheer nastyness and political nature of the rhetoric of those champoiingthe cause.
What would you say personally about scepticism, to a cambridge professor, that has been put into a politicised AGW consensus, well funded USA website, 'Denier, Disinformation Database.
Tagged and labelled a climate denier, Part of the denial industry, responsible for 'disinformation' and' misinformation'.
basically a blacklist of dissentters, accused of, delieberatley lying and spreding faslehodos and propoganda. Would you be sceptical of motives of people that creted this database.
What would you say to Professor Don Keiller, treated like this publically, just a scientist disagreeing and asking questions of other scientists?
http://www.desmogblog.com/don-keiller
I know at least half a dozen people in that database. I would prefer not to be put in it mself. very nasty stuff. And yes I frequently get called a 'denier' in the above politicised context it really offends me.
Dr Tamsin Edwards had this to say a while back about me and Andrew:
"I am an example of a consensusist who has stopped using denier directly because of Barry, Bish and this forum.
Name calling is ever so counterproductive. Today I was defending you lot to (particle physics) friends, yesterday to climate/stats friends, saying that denier offends and there is a spectrum of opinions anyway." - Dr Tamsin Edwards
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/28/dellers-on-reason.html?currentPage=3#comments
At the time, I was writing about not calling those on the offensive consensus names. (even having an argument about it with James Delingpole earlier in the comments, as was Ben Pile, similar tone to me)
To repeat whilst at Copenhagen campaigning, you tweeted
@AJCorner
loving Brown calling people 'deniers' and 'luddites' on Cif. Tell it like it is Gordy! www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green
12:59 PM Dec 7th, 2009 from web
http://twitter.com/AJCorner/status/6429777167
So what is your opinion Adam, am I a 'denier' for questioning aspect of the science, have you moved on from that copenhagen tweet, about 'Deniers' & 'luddites'
As I said I would love to have a serious chat, but until the science is on the table, at least the more alarmist aspects of it, it would seem very hard to do this.
ps:
Mark Lynas used to be on the advisory board of the Campaign Against Climate Change (alongside George Marshall -COIN, and Tim Helweg Larsen PIRC - 2 organisatiuons behind this very blog - Talking Climate)
Mark has stepped down now from CaCC, and a while back said to me, that the Halls of Shame were shameful.
here: http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/15/an-opening-mind/#comment-76091
your thoughts?
pps sorry for the long comment, opportunities for frank exchanges can be quite rare.
I note that Adam has published a number of new reader comments on his block this morning - thereby confirming that he has disappeared all of the opposing comments which people took the trouble to reference or copy here.
He's obviously using the Real Climate technique of "proxy sock-puppetry" - where you use selected genuine comments to produce the conversation you wish had happened, rather than the one that actually took place.
It's as if when I have an argument with my wife, I tape the conversation edit out all the points I thought she won - and then play it back to prove to her that I was right.
It wouldn't work - and she'd throw something at me.
Very elegantly & concisely put David.
Says it all.
Foxgoose, 'if a man makes a statement in a forest where nobody can hear him, is he still wrong?'
Rhoda - I think that's a bit subtle for me.
Am I falling into a trap if I say "It depends what he said".
I also posted at talkingclimate but was rejected.
My point is and was that IPCC supporters no longer debate publicly with dissenters, and for a very good reason. Years ago, there were debates, and often the audience was more skeptical afterwards. I recall an NPR debate, and also the ABC (Australian tv) show I can change your mind on climate change where minds were changed away from IPCC conclusions.
So if a reasonable audience, selected only by their interest in the topic, are more persuaded by skeptical than alarmist arguments, what does that say about IPCC science?
Seeing the experiences of others trying to post at the Talking Climate blog, I won't bother with it. If Adam Corner or any of his colleagues or allies should read this, here is what I wish to say:
I always welcome civil, reasoned dialogue. Objective, accurate scientific research is always to be valued for its own sake, and for potential benefits to our lives. It is now not so clear that Corner's current psychology research is being conducted in a genuine scientific spirit or with objectivity. I'm not saying that it's impossible to be an activist and a scientist (assuming that psychology researchers try to think of themselves as scientific), but at the least there are obstacles. Both the substance and the public perceptions of the "research" may be tainted by the types of questions posed, the methods applied, the data selected or excluded, etc. I will not yet say that it's impossible for Corner's research to have any value, but that value may well be more in what it shows about Corner's own beliefs and assumptions.
It is now for Corner and his colleagues to show why they should be taken seriously, why anyone but a committed "Green" should be interested in what they do, and how their research projects really advance "psychological science" (allowing for such a possible discipline if there is one) as opposed to Green Party propaganda.
Barry Woods
I don’t disagree with the points you make, but do you really think Corner will want to discuss them on his blog? It’s his business (his and his colleagues’) what they put up there.
I persuaded him to put it up at the same time at Harmless Sky (which didn’t happen due to my not being able to contact TonyN, but never mind) so that everyone would be able to comment, and I persuaded him to allow comments because otherwise I didn’t see the point. But there’s only three of them and I expect they’ve got other things to do than full-time moderation. I hope he hasn’t been put off by the comments, which seem pretty reasonable by blog standards, but not everyone sees it that way.
Part of the problem is the psychology of blogs, and I hope Corner looks at it from his professional point of view. I said on RIchard Betts’ thread that my one problem with Betts’ interventions here was that it changes the atmosphere, like when the vicar walks into the pub. Now we all know what to do in real-life situations like that; you don’t say something blasphemous, but you don’t go down on your knees either. (The pleasure of watching Ricky Gervais in the Office or Michael Mann anywhere comes from the fact that they don’t understand the subtlety of human interaction). Blogging is new and different and standards haven’t been established. We act like we’re in a football crowd, but every word can be heard and reacted to.
Before this went up I spoke to Adam about doing another Q&A (in which I’d get to ask some questions) about the New Ecological Paradigm and the New Environmental Paradigm, which are tools used in his line of research. It’s an interesting subject, which never gets discussed outside his tiny world of environmental activist social scientists. I hope people would be interested in commenting, but I’d quite understand if he moderates out any off-topic comments about his political activities.
Adam, if you're reading this - we've had over 100 posts here now and you have been exposed to enough "homo sceptcaemius" to give you material for at least another half dozen Guardian articles.
The least you can do is repay us by putting in an appearance to answer all the questions you've been asked - and crush your opponents under the heel of your intellectual and moral superiority.
It would be really disappointing if this turned out to be just another Miles Allen/Rob Wilson style driveby.
RonC
Something similar happened in Corner’s research. There was a slight movement towards scepticism among both groups after they were exposed to sceptical and “consensus” material written by Corner . This was discussed in comments at http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/03/shrinking-the-sceptics.html
Well - not entirely Geoff. He siphoned public money out of two university budgets claiming the site was for "the dissemination of scientific research" - and then used it for political activism.
I don't accept that it's "off-topic" to point out that someone passing himself off as an objective and dispassionate scientist is a vigorous political activist in the field he is commenting on. It's essential background information for anyone who is going to enter into a dialogue with him.
There is another scientist, a "climate philosopher" at UEA (motherlode of all things climatological), called Rupert Read who writes in the Guardian; agitating for democracy to be superceded by having a cabal of "guardians" representing generations yet unborn - who would have a final veto over normal democratic government decisions.
The "guardians" would be people who understand the long term threats faced by the environment and future generations - selected by those with the best scientific knowledge etc etc. (ie people like Rupe & his UEA buddies).
In evaluating this interesting proposal to dismantle democracy (enthusiastically supported by dimwits like the Graun's Damian Carrington) it's useful to be aware that Rupert is also a Regional Organiser for the Green Party.
I don't know about you, but my determination to keep our creaky old democracy (with all its faults) is considerably stiffened by the thought that it might be Caroline Lucas's mad pixie face staring down from the Big Brother screen.
Geoff.
That blog is in part publically funded...on the topic communication if climates change, countering of scepticism.
So it is not just 'his' blog. Unlike mine, WUWT B hill, who would publish critical (non rude) comments.
So Damm right he should publish everything civil and on topic and critical from sceptics
Adam corner and his collegueas also recieve public funding for their work in the phsycology of denial/scepticism. His boss in on various government advisory bodies. One of which even went around met office, decc, etc.
Yet the organisations are activist organisations behind it, coin,PIRC and corner is policy adviser to COIN
Public money is spent on that blog!
I guess my comment was too Over The Top for the talkingclimate.org blog, so I thought I'd have a go here:
G.C. said: “.…Corner is not really investigating scepticism as we understand
it. He’s studying the psychology of belief, using scepticism as an example
of an area of belief, and seeing how it’s influenced by information.”
Quis studebit ipsos studiosus? (apologies to Juvenal) It seems to this clown
that the assumptions behind this blog –and the questions posed above– would
provide a rich mine of information on belief systems. Mr. Corner’s assumptions
and biases are displayed for all to see; when will some enterprising grad student
in psych decide to study _him_?
But scepticism is, in fact, the scapel which Science uses to free itself of dogma
and beliefs, of religion and myth, of superstition and ignorance. Lose it and you
lose the last several hundred years of human progress. Blunt it, dull it, cast
aspersions on it, and you open the door to a new dark age.
Huxley once famously said “the great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” Scepticism is that ugly fact. Get used to
it.
I apologise if this is too Over The Top for Bishop Hill as well.
I've been perusing the TalkingClimate.org site and I'm tempted to say it is simply a Green Party propaganda site dressed up as an academic output.
The only reason I say "tempted" is because some part this stuff is the official policy of all 3 major parties in the UK, so where does "Green Party" as a descriptor leave off? Still, there are many indications that this is all interwoven with Green Party activists, goals, and programs, so the GP can take ownership of it. Why exactly does it receive public funding and university sponsorship?
Since I am a US and not UK taxpayer I have no "vote" on that matter (but who really does have a vote in the UK anymore?), but it does seem that a lot of what is euphemistically called "climate communications" now is propaganda. Not basic communication of "facts" and information impartially established, but artfully constructed propaganda aimed aimed at changing beliefs and behaviors in politically directed ways. Green Party activists are quite proud of this mission, but websites and research programs which mask their true nature are ..... dishonest. Can we say it?
If I may add a North American connection, the Talking Climate website notes that it has one key "partner" for US and Canada, another pseudo-academic "climate communications" entity which has some fascinating materials also (some are unintentionally hilarious). The quoted passage below seems like a good overview of much of the focus upon "climate communications" which has developed in recent years:
[Talking Climate "About & Contact" page]: "Our US and Canadian partner in climate change communication is Climate Access - the network for those engaging the public in the transformation to low-carbon, resilient communities."
Talking Climate "About" page
Now this is from a handbook for "practitioners" in the North American partner:
Climate Communications and Behavior Change
[my emphasis below]:
"At its heart, global warming is a cognitive and behavior change challenge. Public support for taking action to address global warming is declining just as it is needed most to implement mission reductions and climate preparedness programs and push for new policies. Even if new climate policies are enacted, in the short term they are unlikely to stabilize emissions due to their long ramp-up periods and many challenges involved with implementation. This is particularly concerning given recent evidence that indicates global warming is ocurring more quickly than originally projected. Carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gas emissions must be dramatically reduced as soon as possible."
"To address global warming there must be a shift in thinking and behavior that motivates people and organizations to engage in emissions reductions and climate preparedness activities and support new policies. Mounting evidence shows that this shift is not only possible, but an important part of a national strategy. Even simple actions taken at the household and organizational levels can rapidly and significantly reduce carbon emissions. Making these changes would buy time and build public support for new policies that could spur greater reductions."
As with others on this site, I posted a comment on Corner's topic. The comment as follows was in moderation for quite a while but has now been "disappeared".
Adam Corner said:
“This is because scepticism about climate change is not primarily caused by a ‘misunderstanding’ of the science but by motivated reasoning processes – rooted in ideological differences – that mean that the ‘same’ evidence is not evaluated in the same way.”
I commented:
"Adam,
Your study of climate skepticism and its relation to ideology appears to assume that CAGW skeptics sprung wholly formed from nothing but their ideology. In my experience most skeptics initially credited the idea of deleterious man made climate change as sounding like a reasonable hypothesis but evolved to a skeptical view as the science did not advance the catastrophic meme. So where do the many apostates fit in with your tidy ideological pigeonholing?
Indeed, I maintain that your overt belief that skeptics are scientifically “wrong” fatally biases you as an observer for an academic treatise on this subject."
I further add based on my post deletion:
For a psychologist allegedly studying climate skepticism, Corner seems to be ultra sensitive to comment not suitably worshipful of his qualifications and motives. One would think that the so called rude responses would be grist for his study. In other words, he appears to be cherry picking comments to fit his preconceived views. Ergo, the disappearance of many replies strongly reinforces my allegation that Corner's biases prevent him from treating the subject of CAGW skeptics with academic rigour. And this opinion was developed before I had knowledge of Corner's activist "qualifications".
I suggest Adam Corner look in the mirror for an interesting psychological study prior to the attempted fitting up of CAGW skeptics for wingnut status.
Quoted by Skiphil: global warming is a cognitive and behavior change challenge
I wonder which part of my ideology raises flags whenever a topic is crushed by people jumping on the bandwagon??
My first post to Adam contained the following:
I think that the very fact that this is supposed to be a discussion about the psychology of scepticism says a great deal about the psychology of believers in CAGW.
This was allowed. Then Adma posted about name calling on BH and that he was called a bigot. I then posted the following:
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
Quote: "Scepticism about climate policies — and debate about what alternatives might be– seems much more important than a repeated doubting of well-established science."
If the cap fits.......
This was removed? Is English this man's first language?
humorous aside:
[the following quotation is from that handbook I linked above for training "practitioners" in the arts of climate change communication aka re-education of troglodytes]:
"You watch those commercials (about polar bears), and I cry when I see them. I just can't stand to see them sitting on their little ice floe that used to be Greenland and now it’s two ice cubes in the middle of the ocean."
[ok, when I first enjoyed side-splitting laughter from reading these words in a handbook for professional "pracitioners" I expected naively that the passage would go into why such extremes must be avoided, why people need to receive precise accurate information and not wild propaganda. It turned out that the writers of the handbook did not blink an eye at this quotation. They used it as an illustration of justified concern, it seems. The specific context is to discuss how "remote" the crisis feels in our every day lives where we don't experience polar bears on ice floes etc. Clearly the people turning out this garbage are not aware that Greenland has not melted away....]
Climate Communications and Behavior Change
[From Part One: the Role of Tension, Efficacy, and Benefits in the Global Warming Conversation" in the training handbook: "Climate Communications and Behavior Change: A Guide for Practitioners"]
I don't think this example is useful just to say "oh those fool Yanks!" because we have seen lots of execrable stuff coming out of the UK, Australia, and many places. The point is that too much of what is passing for "climate communications" is outright biased propaganda, sometimes at a rather low and incompetent level.
p.s. May I encourage others to download that handbook before it is updated/corrected? I sent the link to the Bish, too. This is such a delicious example of nutty cAGW propaganda.
Brilliant Skiphil - pure comedy gold!
I bet Adam Corner could easily get a grant to study why some weak minded people have been so brainwashed by "climate communicators" that they believe an entire country of two million square kilometers has been destroyed by a 0.7 C temperature increase.
What's he waiting for?
Got it Mr Skiphill
Interesting how the CAGW peeps all try so hard to "educate" or "communicate with" the rest of us but we do not seek out believers and try to pursuade them to our way of thinking (unless they happen to be politicians spending billions of pounds of our tax money), It is a bit like religion indeed (no offence to believers intended here), I get lots of people knocking on my door wanting to lead me to the true path but atheists leave me alone. Are we missing something here?
Geoffchambers
As our official interlocutor with the "climate psychology" movement - could you contact Adam and see of there's any chance of him returning to the fray and fighting his "Corner" as it were.
(On second thoughts, I recall from my days doing business with university academics that getting hold of them between Friday lunchtime and Monday late morning was always problematic).
Crusty, Barry, Foxgoose and others
I don’t disgree with you fundamentally. Many of the things you say I’d be proud to say myself. But there’s such a thing as diplomacy, tact, and tactics. There are other games in town than snap and beat your neighbour out of doors. Corner proposed this dialogue with the simple condition that it remain polite. He accepted my proposal of comments, and didn’t try to censor my remarks (I wasn’t particularly polite about the Guardian, for which he writes, for example). I’m interested in his psychology and he’s interested in ours, so maybe we can say something which is of mutual interest.
Ok, he holds lots of cards which we don’t. I’ve commented about COIN and PIRC at different times. (though I don’t think I’ve come across Rupert Read. Thanks Foxgoose. We are politically at one there).
I seem to be fated to feel the most empathy with people who argue the most violently against me, and get along well with people with whom I disagree totally. (I’ll have to have a talk about it with my Welsh friend Adam the Brain)
If you contact corner again pass on my message that i won't bother to read his witterings again, I posted in good faith on his blog and he disappeared it.
I wont get fooled by the little s**t again.
I really don't expect this to survive moderation, but hey the footballs over and there's mischief to be had.
Adam
Glad you caught my satire over at Bishop Hill. A bit surprised that you turn it into a threat, although I shouldn't be really as this exemplifies where alarm-ism creates mountains out of mole hills.
You should think about knocking that chip off of your shoulder if you really wish to engage in discussion. Just a suggestion!
Geoff
I have always been polite, infact far more polite than you were at Climate Resistance.
Additionally, I previously questioned a previous blog post there, before all of this,that asserted a strong scientific consensus based on Doran and Anderegg. These comments were not allowed. Only after a bit of public twitter discussion, were my subsequent comments allowed. The article was changed, but no mention of why it had changed or the reason it had chsnged. I do not see that as an intellectually honest way of doing something. Without my very public twitter comments about why comments not allowed,I think they would just have ignored it. Ie possibly thinking there detetion might get a write up somewhere sceptical. Which any other member of the public might not so easily do
George Marshall equally deletes and removes any of my comments.
I am tired of making comments, trying to engage with people that will delete criticism or inconvenient information, out of hand. Especially when publically funded.
So my perception is just another publically funded pr tool. Not intelectually honest communication
perhaps they could offer an explanation of why they did. I was civil and polite. But to criticise some people us to be percieved as attacking.
Sadly,That is my perception of events,perhaps they can offer a more innocent explanation.
If explaining and pointing out my reasoning for being sceptical and reasons why behaviour and perceptions of activists is impolite, which is counter to his perceptions,then there really is no hope.
If people want to communicate and engage the public, using public money, then they must be prepared for uncomfortable criticism. IF Adam Corner could persuade his collegues to drop talk of deniers and the Halls of Shame. Of people they disagree with, merely as a gesture of goodwill, then we might be able to move forward.
I posted right away at "Understanding Climate Science" because I was so pleased to see the opening for a possible real dialogue. I read Adam's first sentence "There is a growing body of academic literature that seeks to understand, explain – and even overcome – climate change scepticism" which seemed enough to clue me into where he was coming from - enough to pen a response. I didn't dare read more at first, for fear I got angry. And I wanted to keep the conversation light and open.
Adam posted my piece - following several from others I know from here, like Maurizio Morabaito, Barry Woods, etc. Then my reflection process started. I read the posts from Barry et al and I liked them. So I started another post to Adam "You have a goldmine of responses here. Please cherish them. Please, also, give us a chance to say whether you’ve represented us fairly, if you are going to use material here as evidence for your own work..."
Then I started exploring Adam's blog. I came across the post "George Marshall - how to talk to a climate change denier" and my hackles went up. Still, I moved outside my hackles and started to watch the video. Nice-looking open-faced guy, I thought - but within a couple of sentences, "the vast majority of people form their views from their social interactions" and that was enough. Is this how social scientists see reality? We don't fit this paradigm do we? Which of us here has not had to fight against their customary social interactions, as price of being a climate skeptic? You're discussing how to talk to me, yet as soon as you opened your mouth, you alienated me, made me feel gagged, imprisoned, racked, misrepresented without being heard, just like it's been all along.
Yet I was a warmist myself once. Did I say things like that? Quite possibly. So long as I still believed climate science was trustworthy, I was filled with "righteous indignation". Thankfully I also had enough "nullius in verba" in me to "trust but verify" generally before I spoke out too furiously. Thankfully I was blessed by two chance encounters with courteous climate skeptics who forced me to think again. And it was courtesy that won the day.
I'm glad I visited BH last. For, in thoroughly appreciating comments all round (with special thanks to Geoff) I was appalled to hear how many folk had been censored, and on what trivial grounds. Had I known that earlier, I would have been too miffed to stay light and courteous. But as things stand, I have on record:
Adam
You have a goldmine of responses here. Please cherish them. Please, also, give us a chance to say whether you’ve represented us fairly, if you are going to use material here as evidence for your own work.
I of course hope that you, like many of us, will at some point allow the contrary and unfamiliar evidence to speak for itself… and that you too may do a U-turn and “change sides”… but be warned. I was warned by a fellow Transition-Towner (yes I was high up that network) that I would lose all my friends… I lost many friends and contacts that way, but I kept my soul and my integrity. I would pay that price again any time.
For professional climate scientists, this situation is harder. Most have their whole livelihood to lose, if they speak out when they discover the corruption that has happened in Climate Science. Many of us skeptics are retired and don’t have that problem. Many climate skeptics who are active professional scientists post in the blogs under pseudonyms.
S**t Happens. It would not be the first time in history that “bad science” has overtaken the whole of society. Examine Tulipmania. South Sea Bubble. The Crusades. And of course Godwins Law — what lies behind that one.
Whatever happens, keep your integrity. Loss of a job can be remedied; but loss of integrity… passes on problems to the next generation.
It's good to keep a mirror handy. Adam may not realize how much he is projecting; but do I?
Lucy - I interpreted "the vast majority of people form their views from their social interactions" as the classic hammer describing the world as mostly full of nails.
The peril of having a website paid-for for a reason is that you need to keep justifying its existence.
[might be duplicate, pls delete first one - lots of typos]
Geoff
Is Adam really interested..
Take a pause look at the title of his article. 'sceptic' - is in quotes.
One of the more recent memes is of course scepticism is good, all good scientists are sceptical, yet those criticising climate change are not 'real sceptics', they are people that cherry pick evidence, motivated by ideology not evidence, etc. and the theme is basically climate change sceptics have appropriated the term sceptics.
and that 'true scientists' need to take back the word sceptic... (from the 'deniers')
Skeptical Science (John Cook) has been pushing this, and it does seem to have been taken up.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html
Carbon Brief review the book:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/05/new-book-aims-to-reclaim-climate-skepticism
"Now Cook has released a book. Entitled " Climate Change Denial: heads in the sand" it is co-authored with environmental scientist Hadyn Washington and billed as an "an in-depth examination of the social science behind denial" - particularly denial of climate change."
"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming."
AND:
"….refusing to accept the overwhelming 'preponderance of evidence' is not skepticism. It is DENIAL and should be called by its true name".
Geoff, and everyone else I suggest should read that Carbon Brief book review..
GEOFF, perhaps ask Adam, just why exactly has the title of his article a 'sceptic' reposds has you in QUOTES
just give the impression to me he really wants to say 'denier' but that is not PC.
Especially given the criticicms of the other Talking Climate (George Marshall) post about how to Talk to A Denier. George Marshall did not allow my comments on his blog, where it appeared (www.climatedenial.org)
After some twitter, publicity/prompting Talking Climate started to allow my comments where the article was repeated, criticising George, especially the lackof self awareness, that if you call people denier, link to politically motivated Deniers - Hall of Shame (on a website/group that George Marshall started) don't be surprised if they are not very receptive to what you have to say..
http://talkingclimate.org/george-marshall-how-to-talk-to-a-climate-change-denier/
Adam has made it quite clear, that he sees scepticim as motivated resoning based on ideology, and no other reasosn are thought of, or allowed (despite many examples). He refuses to consider rational scepticism of the science, and frames the debate suiting his worldview.
So Geoff - Why not ASK Adam why you are in quotes a 'sceptic'
To Quote: above Carbon Brief link. I don't think Adam is really allowing you to be a sceptic at all.
"…people who are true 'skeptics' looking to for the truth. People who are willing to stop deluding themselves. People who will seek to bridge the gap between concern and action"
Talking Climate: - Understanding climate scepticism: a ‘sceptic’ responds
so Geoff.. just why are you portrayed in 'quotes'
Jun 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM | Skiphil
Phil, thanks for the link. It is the most ludicrous rubbish I have ever set eyes on.
I really think these people are terrified they will not be able to adapt to weather. Much worse weather has happened in the past but the eco-freaks are obsessed with the slightest deviation from mild weather. I think they're the ones who need help with their psychosis.
Barry
What Cook appears to be saying here is that only scientists are allowed to be sceptical though why his physics degree qualifies him when there are hundreds, if not thousands of similarly qualfied people who are by his standards not qualified to hold a different view is hard to comprehend.Could this be because sceptics are still looking for any sort of evidence that supports man -made global warming — at least to the extent that the scientists (actually I prefer the word 'technicians' for the same reason that I don't think they guy who fixes my washing machine is an 'engineer') pretend.Assertion I have seen. Also bluster, bullying and hand-waving. Mix in a little ad hominem, sprinkle with obfuscation and mendacity and you have climate science — as practised and approved by Cook, Corner, et al.
And, yes, there are those who leap on every dissenting comment and take it at face value regardless but they are not sceptics; they're idiots. Just like the eco-activists who take every sloppy piece of research and any extravagant claim about the catastrophes that are (not) about to befall us are also idiots.
Correction to that last sentence:
"Just like the eco-activists who take as gospel every sloppy piece of research and any extravagant claim about the catastrophes that are (not) about to befall us are also idiots."
Thanks for responses, and the reason I am mentioning that handbook on this thread, even though Adam Corner might dismiss it as not his or Cardiff U's output (obviously true) is for the context of what this "climate communications" movement is about. This is an official handbook from Adam's "partner" organization in North America, and I also note that it boasts of a university affiliation with the University of Oregon logo on the title page and one of the three co-authors affiliated with the Univ. of Oregon (I'm very interested in the funding and other intersections between activists and academics which we are seeing in much of the climate communications activity):
CARA PIKE
Director, The Social Capital Project at The Climate Leadership Initiative
BOB DOPPELT
Director, The Resource Innovation Group & The Climate Leadership Initiative
Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon
MEREDITH HERR
Project Coordinator, The Social Capital Project at The Climate Leadership Initiative
[emphasis added]
In case this fails moderation over at 'Talking Climate' I will post it here.
Adam,
Interesting discussion. I agree with the comments made by Maurizio. I personally find it off-putting when attempts are made to rationalise skepticism from a socio-cultural perspective. I understand why debates are framed this way — in the mind of the enquirer the science is already settled and unarguable and therefore this becomes an exercise in exploring skepticism as a social deviation.
I cannot speak for anyone else but I do know the origins of my own skepticism and I must tell you that it is genuine skepticism. I am a real believer in facts, logic and science — evidence based arguments will always sway my opinion. However since my skepticism began in 2002 the scientific evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change has weakened and my skepticism has strengthened. The word catastrophic is important because there are many dangers facing society and we really do need to ensure that todays limited resources are directed at the most urgent issues.
As I recall my first concerns probably arose because of the type of person I am. I have an enquiring mind, I do not often accept things because I have been told to accept them. I want to know, as far as my intellect will allow, why I am being told things. In this sense there might be a social sciences angle, I am not a person who takes the word of higher authority blindly, I am not religious in any way.
I was told about the greenhouse gas effect — I understood that – it made sense. I was shown the chart which seemed to confirm a temperature relationship between CO2 and global temperature. I was told by the IPCC that practically all scientists were 90% certain that man was accelerating global warming, that this was dangerous and that we all had to change the way we lived. We were facing global catastrophe of biblical proportions with 90% certainty. These last two sentences are important to my skepticism because they are essentially political. Science is one thing but politics is another, when science has become political it requires deeper understanding.
My first thoughts were – how can scientists be so certain? Climate on earth has been changing for billions of years and the temperature record goes back 100+ years. Is such a small period of time viable to make such a bold statement? Surely the first thing to do is put recent warming in context with natural temperature variables? I found very little in the mainstream media that challenged the warming orthodoxy or examined the natural baseline, I had to find out for myself. What I found made me deeply concerned, not about a warming planet but about how so few could alter the lives of so many. I am not sure that this is a grand conspiracy either, more like a cabal of scientists with deeply held beliefs stumbling into the creation of a new global scientific religion where they became the equivalent of high priests. They were the initiators of an unstoppable movement that, like most religions, has to eventually suppress dissent as a necessity of self-preservation.
I think I understand why the science was quickly politicised and widely accepted. This small band of earnest scientists knew that the certainty was overstated but given the complexity of the science they couldn’t afford time for debate — they believed they were running out of time for action. They really believed that they were right, that there would be a disaster and they staked their reputations on it. They had to fast-track the science by dubiously claiming consensus and by feeding alarm to the media. The media, who love catastrophe, were unquestioning, hungry for the images of disaster being painted by the high priests of climate hell. The politicians and the public had no chance. The corporations saw it first as a threat then as an opportunity as the subsidies to incentivise change were rolled out.
At the heart of the climate religion is reliance on complex climate modelling. I have some experience of using complex models. Simple models are great – because you cannot hide behind a simple model, anyone can see your assumptions and either agree or easily pull them a part. A modeller of complex models has great power, very few people can challenge the output of your magnificent machine – especially if you are keen not to share your data. Modellers protected by authority have the ability to make a model perform in any desired way. Transparency is the biggest clue when judging whether a model or a modeller is trustworthy. My sceptical enquiries found that climate modelling was far from transparent and that the certainty of the model output was controlled by a clique who were reluctant to allow access to data and source code. I also found that the greenhouse effect is largely undisputed in models which contributes around 0.8c of warming (a good cross check agains reality). The real scientific concern is not the physics of the greenhouse effect but the modelling of the warming feedback assumed in models. There is great uncertainty in this area and yet it is this feedback which determines whether climate is catastrophic or not and whether resources and action are required or not. The certainty of catastrophic warming seems to have been oversold.
The reason I am a skeptic is because I have considered what I have been told on CAGW and found that there are a multitude of alternative, plausible scientific challenges which are being prevented from being properly debated. There is now too much at stake, too many careers, too much money and time invested in a theory which cannot be allowed to fail. The sometimes frantic desire to suppress scientific dissent through the manipulation of the peer-review process or through placement of lead authors in the IPCC is frankly astonishing.
Before we spend a penny more on mitigation we really need to tackle the uncertainty question and look carefully at :
. The bias of the models and respect their limitations
. The bias in the scientific community – IPCC processes, leadership, peer review etc
. The bias in the temperature record – the limitations, the inaccuracy
. The natural cycle and alternative theories for recent warming
The measures that have already been taken to mitigate climate temperatures are enormous and even if CAGW is real I think the challenge to change is beyond the agreement of all of humanity. We are potentially wasting our precious resources and progress on world health and development on a bet that we are unlikely to win.
The world is in financial crisis. It is time to pause, draw a breath and re-assess the path we are on. There are many other pressing environment issues we can spend our valuable time and trillions of pounds/euros on.
With deepest concern.
@ChairmanAl (Climate Chimp)
Lucy
Hang on. You formed a view of Adam from his photo, then another, contradictory view from a one-sentence summary of a fairly standard finding of social science, and decided, on that basis, that that was enough? On the basis that you’re not like that? Ever heard of outliers?You say:
A point I make in the dialogue, and have made over and over again in comments here and elsewhere, is that there are magnitudes of difference between numbers of informed sceptics of the kind who comment here and those who are picked up by opinion surveys. There are tens of thousands of us informed sceptics (maximum, in the UK) and millions who will express doubt about global warming when stopped in the street by a pollster. Adam confounds the two. I hope to help him to see the error of his ways.
But you know this, because you continue
Well, exactly. A minority fight against the customary social interactions. But these customary social interactions exist, and are studied by social scientists. That’s what they do. It’s their job. Some here think they shouldn’t exist. Others that they shouldn’t be funded by government and obscure charitable trusts. Still others confuse them (deliberately, or from ignorance?) with psychoanalysts. It’s your right. It’s also Adam’s right not to let you express these opinions on his blog.
I personally think Adam has made a big mistake in censoring so many comments that were neither rude nor off-topic. He should have defined clearly what he would and wouldn’t accept at the outset, or provided for some off-line conduit for free expression of opinions which he didn’t want to appear on his blog. As it is, he looks like someone who’s filtering the data to suit his own views, and Gaia knows, we’ve seen plenty of that elsewhere. The net result has been that most commenters here have ignored the content of our exchange and concentrated on demonstrating that Corner is not worth talking to, because he’s censored their particular comment.
If you get to negotiate with an opponent more powerful than yourself, you start by discussing the kind of details on which you can hope to reach some agreement. The Palestinians don’t normally start negotiations with the Israelis by pointing out all the wrongs they’ve suffered since 1948. They talk about access to water and medicine, and take it from there. If I ever get invited to tea with the Archbishop of Canterbury, I won’t go in waving Dawkins at him. I’ll maybe ask him to clarify some obscure points in the thirty nine articles. I might learn something.
I hope to continue our dialogue, concentrating on particular criticisms that I have of aspects of his kind of research. I’ll try and get it posted at a sceptic blog and at Talkingclimate simultaneously, so everyone can have their say.
The post is now up at
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=581
where you can comment to your heart’s delight. Adam has just written to me saying that he wiped comments that got into climate science, hockeysticks etc. and he was sorry to lose interesting critical comments on his research. I suggested that he come here to explain his criteria for eliminating comments. It might clear the air, and aid future discussion.
Barry Woods
Yes, I know ‘sceptic’ is in quotes. What do you want me to do, call off negotiations because of a pair of inverted commas?
When he showed me that intro, I wrote back: “I like 'a sceptic' as in 'a sceptic writes:' It has a nice letter-to-the-Telegraph-in-green-ink feel about it : )” That’s how I interact with people. I know it’s not always understood, but it’s my modest attempt to move beyond the pointless trench warfare which characterises so much discussion.
I really appreciate the kind of research you and many many others do, turning up links and quotes that save hours of research for others. I’ve done some myself, and it can seem thankless. In another context, on another thread, I’d love to discuss the particular points you make. (Maybe here at BH in Discussion?) Here and now, I’m going to concentrate on some questions I have about the kind of research Corner does; specifically, his use of the New Environmental Paradigm. I hope if it proves fruitful it will go up at Talking Climate and Harmless Sky simultaneously, and anyone who finds the subject interesting can join in.
Hi Geoff
Thanks for picking me up on my words. Perhaps rather than saying "that was enough", I should have said "at that point I had to stop, because it set off such strong thoughts - and some alarm bells too - that I had to attend to those before I could go any further" but was seduced by the apparent economy of my shorter phrase.
But I was also watching my own processes, simply putting down things as they happened and noticing how closer encounter could send me veering into unbalanced knee-jerk reactions. That's why I ended with the words about a mirror. IOW it's easy to blame others, and if I want to criticize Adam here, I have to be prepared to find the same fault in myself.
Geoff
First, let me applaud your thoughtful efforts in this initiative with Adam Corner. While I find I am concerned about him and his work the more I learn about it, I encourage you to pursue the dialogue and I will read with interest what develops. You don't need my encouragement but I don't want my comments on "climate communications" and Adam Corner to be seen as any lack of respect for what you are doing. It is worth knowing more about all of this.
You said above, "Still others confuse them (deliberately, or from ignorance?) with psychoanalysts"
As one of the people who made a quip about "psychoanalysis" I assure you for whatever that's worth that I am highly aware of the differences between psychoanalysis (widely regarded as discredited or at least as un-scientific) and various empirical forms of psychological research. My quip was mainly to suggest that Corner and his colleagues may be much less scientific or objective than they purport to be, but I am well aware of at least the broad lines of difference among a variety of types of psychological research. I even have a real, trained psychoanalyst in my extended family, one of the last of the 1950s era psychoanalysts from one of the leading US institutes in that field, and we have discussed issues of that practice and psychology more widely over many years. Yes, "psychoanalysis" was meant as a disparagement of what Corner seems to be doing vis-a-vis "skeptics" but no, it was not meant literally, and I did not write that in ignorance of (some of) the meanings and history of the term.
Finally, my first approach to many intellectual and policy matters focuses upon ethics (as relevant): professional, personal, public, and/or research ethics. That is a major part of my background (doing serious philosophical research, teaching, and writing on various ethical topics). When I see a variety of prima facie indications of dubious activity then my ethical interest is engaged. In this case I am plenty curious about Corner and his associates, but more interested than most in seeing what standards of ethics inform their research, public "climate communications", and related activities.
@geoff
'Adam has just written to me saying that he wiped comments that got into climate science, hockeysticks etc'
He wants to study scepticism, but doesn't want to know about climate science? Like studying theology by deleting all references to the Bible or the Koran or the Talmud ..........
I'm going to need a lot of convincing that he is not just an academic charlatan.
Latimer Alder
Re-reading your and other comments up-thread which were deleted in moderation at the Talking Climate blog, it is difficult to believe that these comments were deleted on any credible, objective basis. Corner wants to understand how 'skeptics' come to their positions but doesn't want to allow people to post their actual reasoning and observations about instances of "climate science, hockey sticks etc."???
There are many intricacies, but I'd like to know what criteria relevant to his research (other than a subjective "I don't like this one") could have excluded those comments.
Geoff
This guy is not just a social scientist, he is an environmental activist and a card carrying warmist. I accept your point that those at BH are atypical and that there are hundreds of thousands of sceptics who do not have a grasp of the science and that is legitimate to ask why? However Adam is not an open minded observer and his actions suggest that any observations he makes will be worthless.
I think I understand Corner's way of doing his psuedoscience
1. You formulate your hypothesis
2. You collect data
3. You throw away all the data that does not agree with your hypothesis
4. You publish that you have proved your hypothesis.
Much like making hockey sticks. Same principles, same lack of inegrrity, same bunch of shysters.
Lucy
Thanks for that thoughtful comment. I too have been “watching my own processes” during the whole interaction I’ve had with Adam, first privately, then in the article. I’ve made joking references to “trench warfare” and the Stockholm Syndrome. Behind the gags is a serious concern about how the whole saga will play out, psychologically, sociologically and politically.
We’re never going to see the President of the Royal Society or the head of GISS make a Maoist-style confession of their errors. Social and psychological research is a small corner of the environmental debate where I think I can usefully engage with people whose views I don’t share. There are many others c/Corners that others might like to work in/on. Let a hundred flowers bloom, I say.
Skiphil, Dung
The ethical questions about combining activism with objective research are interesting ones, but not ones I’m likely bringing up in my dialogue with Corner, which I see as a negotiation from a position of weakness. I’m not going to get anywhere by telling him that what he’s doing is morally wrong, am I?
Anthony Giddens is a social scientist who combined objective research with rewriting the programme of the Labour Party (and hence the history of the UK). I can see big problems with that, but it’s not the personal ethics of the man which would interest me (and it’s certainly not the subject I’d bring up if I ever bumped into him in the pub).
Latimer Alder
More like studying the psychology of religious belief (or disbelief), in which case I’d think the researcher would do well to ignore quotations from the Bible.