Social psychologists are coming to the fore as the mad scientists of our age. Case in point is a recently published guide for intervening in public discourse regarding global warming/climate change. The title is a link to the paper Leveraging cognitive consistency to nudge conservative climate change beliefs by Gehlbach et al. December 12, 2018. Excerpts below with my bolds, followed by my modest suggestion for improvement.

The Rationale (Abstract)

People feel motivated to maintain consistency across many domains in life. When it comes to climate change, many find themselves motivated to maintain consistency with others, e.g., by doubting climate change to cohere with friends’ and neighbors’ beliefs. The resulting climate skepticism has derailed discussions to address the issue collectively in the United States. To counteract these social consistency pressures, we developed a cognitive consistency intervention for climate skeptics. We first demonstrated that most people share substantial faith in a variety of scientific findings, across disciplines ranging from medicine to astronomy. Next, we show that conservative participants who first acknowledge several general contributions of science subsequently report significantly stronger beliefs in climate science (as compared to conservatives who are asked only about their climate science beliefs). These findings provide an encouraging proof-of-concept for how an inclusive climate conversation might be initiated across the political divide.

The Methodology

Below are the two sets of questions put to participants, firstly on mainstream fields of science, and secondly on assertions from climate scientists.

Instructions: Please give us your opinions and thoughts about the contributions of different branches of science. (Responses on a scale of 1 to 7: 1 meaning Not at all, 7 meaning Extremely or Completely)

To what degree do you think the science of astronomy has helped us identify what other planets exist in our solar system?

How helpful do you think medical science is in advancing society’s understanding of what makes people sick?

How confident are you that the field of engineering is advanced enough to keep you safe when traveling on bridges?

How certain are you that physicists‘ theory of gravity accurately explains why objects fall when dropped?

How useful is neuroscience in helping understand the role of different areas of the brain?

To what degree do you agree with public health experts that smoking causes cancer?

How credible is the medical data that germs are a primary cause of disease?

Instructions: Please give us your opinions regarding different aspects of what scientists have concluded about climate change and global warming. (Responses on a scale of 1 to 7: 1 meaning Not at all, 7 meaning Extremely or Completely)

With how much precision has the science of climate change been able to identify the causes behind rising sea levels?

How helpful do you think climate science is in advancing society’s understanding of why the earth is getting hotter?

How confident are you that climate science is right in their theory of how greenhouse gases
trap heat?

How certain are you that global warming explains many of the new weather patterns we are seeing today?

To what extent do you agree with climate experts that humans burning fossil fuels is the major cause of our changing climate?

How useful are climate models in helping to predict how many species are likely to go extinct in the coming years?

How accurately do you think climate scientists will predict the exact number of degrees the average global temperature will change between now and the year 2050?*

How credible is the climate science data that ocean temperatures are rising?

(*Note. Questioners put the next to last question as a trap. They expected people answering honestly to be skeptical on that one.)

Results

For science in general, researchers found that regardless of social attitudes and self-identifying along a liberal/conservative axis, people of all stripes averaged about 6 on the 7 point scale. In other words, generally people expressed “very much” or “a great deal” of confidence or certainty in the assertions from various fields of science. When people were presented only the questions on global warming/climate change, the responses differed accordingly to social/political leanings:

They found that liberals were accepting of global warming assertions at the same level as other scientific fields, 6 out of 7, meaning “very much” or “a great deal” of conviction. While conservatives averaged 4 out of 7, a so-so response meaning “somewhat” credible or helpful.

The big news was that conservatives could be nudged toward greater acceptance of climate assertions if they were first questioned about other science fields (where they accept at a 6 level), followed by the climate questions. In that treatment, they become more certain about climate, the theory being cognitive dissonance arises when accepting in many fields, but skeptical in one.

Nudging is a Two-Way Street

Armed with these insights, let’s see if we can nudge people toward using their critical intelligence on scientific matters. All we need are some slight improvements in the questions. Below are my proposed questionnaires to help the public with these issues.

Instructions: Please give us your opinions and thoughts about the contributions of different branches of science. (Responses on a scale of 1 to 7: 1 meaning Not at all, 7 meaning Extremely or Completely)

To what degree do you think that astrology has helped us identify how other planets affect our lives?

How helpful do you think nutritional science is in advancing society’s understanding of what are healthy and unhealthy foods?

How confident are you that the field of engineering is advanced enough to keep you safe riding in a driverless car?

How certain are you that physicists’ big bang theory accurately explains the origins of the universe?

How useful is neuroscience in helping understand human consciousness and autonomy?

To what degree do you agree with public health experts that smoking causes cancer in non-smokers?

How credible is the medical data that genes are a primary cause of disease?

(*Note. Questioners put the first question as a trap. They expect honest responders to know the difference between astrology and astronomy.)

Instructions: Please give us your opinions regarding different aspects of what scientists have concluded about climate change and global warming. (Responses on a scale of 1 to 7: 1 meaning Not at all, 7 meaning Extremely or Completely)

With how much precision has the science of climate change been able to identify the causes behind rising sea levels?

How helpful do you think climate science is in advancing society’s understanding of why the earth got hotter for awhile and then stopped?

How confident are you that climate science is right in their theory of how greenhouse gases
trap heat?

How certain are you that global warming explains many of the new weather patterns we are seeing today?

To what extent do you agree with climate experts that humans burning fossil fuels is the major cause of our changing climate?

How useful are climate models in helping to predict how many species are likely to go extinct in the coming years?

How accurately do you think climate scientists have measured the degrees of warming since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age?*

How credible is the climate science data that ocean temperatures are rising?

(*Note. Questioners put the next to last question as a trap. They expect people to be fairly certain on that one.)

Summary

Note that none of this is about scientific reasoning. It is all about adding climate assertions into a broader set of beliefs engendered by scientists. In other words, this is not an attempt to factually prove global warming/climate change, but rather an exercise in social manipulation. As I have remarked before, Leonard Cohen explains poetically why social proof is an uncertain guide to the truth.

Lyrics:

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died
Everybody talking to their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long stem rose
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that you love me baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that you’ve been faithful
Ah give or take a night or two
Everybody knows you’ve been discreet
But there were so many people you just had to meet
Without your clothes
And everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

And everybody knows that its now or never
Everybody knows that its me or you
And everybody knows that you live forever
Ah when you’ve done a line or two
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old black joe’s still pickin’ cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows

And everybody knows that the plague is coming
Everybody knows that its moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But there’s gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows

And everybody knows that you’re in trouble
Everybody knows what you’ve been through
From the bloody cross on top of calvary
To the beach of Malibu
Everybody knows its coming apart
Take one last look at this sacred heart
Before it blows
And everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Footnote:

I doubt Leonard Cohen had climate change in mind when he wrote this masterpiece. But he did have a pertinent poetic insight; namely, that social proof is an unreliable guide to the truth.

Once again Joe Public comes out smarter than politically correct opinion surveyors, fact checkers and journalists.  The latest evidence of elite blindness comes from a smart-alecky reporter writing at GlobalNews Survey says Canadians think Earth beat its heat record in only 10 of the last 18 years. They’re wrong Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Ipsos polling agency released “Perils of Perception” on Wednesday.

It’s an annual international survey conducted in 37 countries that looks at whether respondents have accurate, or inaccurate ideas about major issues.

This one ranked Canada 11th out of 37 countries when it came to accurate understandings of major issues.

One area of misunderstanding — climate change.

The survey found that Canadians are underestimating the number of years that the planet Earth has set heat records over the last two decades.  Canadians estimated that Earth set heat records in 10 out of the last 18 years.

It also found that Canadians are overestimating the share of energy that they consume from renewable resources.

I’ll save the renewables issue for another day. (See Exaggerating  Green Energy Supply) This post will show the reporter’s dog ate his homework, because there are large holes in his information.  He didn’t do professional due diligence so I will investigate to put the record straight for him and anyone else misled by the press.

What Ipsos Asked and Thought Was the Right Answer

Q. The World Meteorological Organization collects annual global temperatures, to see whether they are rising or falling across the world. How many of the last 18 years have been the hottest for the world as a whole since they began collecting data in 1961?

A.  17 of the past 18 years have been the hottest since records began. However, every country in the study underestimates the global temperature rise over the past 18 years. The average estimate across the study was 9 years.

Misdirection #1  Framing the Question to Exclude Undesired Data

Note the question context:  The World Meteorological Organization collects annual global temperatures (. . . began collecting data in 1961), to see whether they are rising or falling across the world. When you go looking for the data, WMO directs you to three datasets produced by others:  Hadcrut (UK Met Office), NOAA (US agency) and Gistemp (NASA, US agency).  So the frame serves to exclude satellite-based datasets, and limit the expected answer to three land+ocean products.  And as many will know, those records go back to late 1800s, far earlier than 1961.  Apparently, the surveyors wanted to put anyone off from thinking temperatures were warmer in the 1930s or 40s.

Misdirection #2  Failing to Do the Math

Getting data right now out of US federal agencies is problematic since websites are shut down.  It seems many federal employees are taking leave in order to help reduce the government deficit.  Fortunately, the Met Office has a site ( here) providing the relevant annual global temperature anomalies from the three sources. I compiled a table which makes the asked for comparisons.

The table shows 1998 was the hottest of all preceding years in the record, with slightly different values in the three datasets.  Years in blue were cooler than 1998, while years in red were reported hotter than 1998.  The math says in the last two decades, compared to the previous record year 1998, there were 6 hotter years in Hadcrut4, 8 hotter years in NOAA (NCEI), and 9 hotter years in GISS. Considering “hottest” to mean hotter than all previous years, the table shows exactly 5 hottest years in the last 18 years, with 2016 setting the record.

Ipsos says 17 of the last 18 were the hottest. Really?  Epic Fail: That so-called “correct” answer is three times too high!  Around the world people said 9, and that’s much closer to the truth. Canadians said 10, perhaps biased higher by all the fake news around.

Misdirection #3  Failing to Do the Statistics

Now it may have occurred to you that some of the hotter years were not much warmer.  When you consider the 95% confidence intervals, some years fall out of the list.  For example, Hadcrut also provides each year a calculation of the upper and lower bounds on the error range, combining bias, measurement uncertainty and coverage uncertainty.

As the table shows, they estimate about +/- 0.09 for a typical year.  So for  1998, they say with 95% confidence the true anomaly lies between 0.45C and 0.63C.  Graphically the error range looks like this:

The chart shows that after considering the estimated uncertainty, it is actually the last three years that were hotter than 1998 in Hadcrut4.  The other land+ocean datasets have similar uncertainties and results (five hotter years in NOAA and GISS).

When it comes to UAH satellite dataset, we have this analysis:
University of Alabama Huntsville  Summary:
Globally, 2016 edged out 1998 by +0.02 C to become the warmest year in the 38-year satellite temperature record, according to scientists. Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would technically be a statistical tie, with a higher probability that 2016 was warmer than 1998. The main difference was the extra warmth in the Northern Hemisphere in 2016 compared to 1998. Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170104130257.htm

No wonder they wanted UAH excluded.  And others say the confidence ranges are much larger than these estimates, which consider processing uncertainties not including errors of the instruments themselves.

Such characterizations are absurd, according to Richard Lindzen, a meteorology professor at MIT and one of the world’s foremost skeptics that global warming represents an existential threat.

“It’s typical misleading nonsense,” Lindzen said in an e-mail. “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such small fluctuations – even if real – don’t change the fact that the trend for the past 20 years has been much less than models have predicted.”

 

 

 

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.  The EU bureaucratic wheels were turning and needed a routine submission from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development as input for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety regarding a programme rule change.

The Rapporteur for opinion happened to be UKIP member John Stuart Agnew, who actually knows something about climate matters and agriculture, and drafted a submission accordingly.  The full document is here,( H/T WUWT)  and his case is put admirably.  Excerpts below in italics with my bolds.

The LIFE program is due for renewal in 2020. It has hitherto used its funding to act as a test bed for small projects which are expected to improve the environment. Examples have included management techniques to improve numbers of wild species or maintenance of wetlands. The success of such innovations can be quantified and demonstrated. The funding comes direct from Brussels.

If such projects are successful, they become popular with farmers who then make these investments using the Pillar 2 grants from their member states. The addition of the words ‘Climate Action’ in the present LIFE regime has added an entirely new concept to the way that taxpayer’s money should be used. The term has also occurred in the latest proposal from Commissioner Hogan on CAP reform. The addition of the term ‘Climate Action’ coincides with a 60% increase to the budget of the LIFE Programme. What is conspicuously missing are definitions of the actions required and the outcomes that are desired.

If the words ‘Climate Action’ had been substituted with the words ‘Pollution Action’, then it would be possible to measure air, soil and water pollution and measure the effectiveness of strategies to alleviate these problems, against a target figure for each of the three elements. A war to reduce pollution can be won, using the weapons of technology and legislation. A war against the world’s weather will never end, because ‘victory’ cannot be defined.

The Rapporteur has met the team of four from the Commission who between them have had varying levels of input into this proposal. The Rapporteur asked them what outcome would be considered desirable, as a consequence of financial investment. The answer was – ‘a reduction in CO2 emissions’.

By mentioning the concept that reducing CO2 levels will serve to take action against an unsatisfactory climate, the Commission is ignoring the factors that really do change our climate.
1. The galaxy: in the form of Cosmic Ray fluctuations. Can induce changes of 10 o C over millions of years.
2. The solar system: Gravitational pulls can induce changes of 2-3 o C.
3. The sun: Its variations of orbit and tilt along with its five separate documented cycles can the cause earth’s temperature to vary by up to 5o C.
4. Ocean Currents.
5. The ‘Greenhouse’ gas: Water Vapour, in the form of cloud cover.

The other Greenhouse gases, CO2, Methane and Nitrous Oxide have a negligible effect on our climate. CO2 is, however, an irreplaceable plant food. Methane degrades into CO2 and H2O; NOx gases eventually change into Nitrates.

If the effect of CO2 levels on our climate is negligible, the effect of human activity on changing those CO2 levels is also negligible.

The two world maps below perfectly demonstrate this.

Calculated areas of higher CO2 concentrations due to human emissions

– Actual areas of higher CO2 concentration
– SCIAMACHY observations on the ENVISAT satellite (agree with Japan’s IBUKU data)

The predictions of the experts and the measurements by satellite are contradictory. The total absence of CO2 hotspots over Europe indicates there is no problem for the Commission to solve. The only potential risk of a major CO2 event in Europe is an erupting volcano.

The naturally high concentrations of CO2 above our natural rainforests create an interesting dilemma for those who want one without the other. This is not made any easier when it is realised that rainforests are also major emitters of methane and water vapour.

Ever since the Rapporteur joined the Parliament in 2009, it has been fashionable for MEPs in AGRI and ENVI to work the phrase “tackling Climate Change” into their speeches. It sounds worthy and virtuous. It is based on predictions made in the 1980s of rapidly rising world temperatures and sea levels that never ultimately occurred. The Commission has listened to these speeches as opposed to observing the reality. At some stage somebody has to say “The king isn’t wearing an invisible suit, he’s just not wearing any clothes!” The Rapporteur is presenting this opportunity to his colleagues.

Some MEPs have been elected solely because of their antipathy to CO2. They will not change their views.

The Rapporteur urges other colleagues though to reflect on the fact that the precedent of ‘Climate Action’ in the LIFE Programme is setting the stage for ‘Climate Action’ in agriculture, where 40% of future budgets is destined to be spent fighting CO2, one of agriculture’s greatest friends.

The Rapporteur has amended the proposal to delete all references to “clean energy” as this implies “CO2 free” energy, as well as the references to ‘climate change mitigation’ but incorporated the term ‘climate change adaptation’ into the text of the legislative proposal. There is a big difference. We need to prepare for the next ‘Maunder Minimum’ or mini ice age – which might last 200-300 years. Some solar physicists believe this cycle has technically already started.

Footnote Regarding Future Cooling

Both the Pacific (PDO) and the Atlantic (AMO) are due for a cooling phase. If that happens coincidental with diminished solar input (indicated by the lower sunspot proxy), we are looking at planetary cooling as suggested by some solar physicists.

The situation reminds of governmental failure in North America to manage the educational system to match demographic shifts. The bureaucratic response comes too late to cope with the current reality. After WWII came the baby boom, and many schools became overcrowded and new ones built. Then the sexual revolution and female liberation produced a baby bust due to smaller families, so schools emptied with surplus capacity. Just as the government got serious about closing schools came the baby echo, unanticipated by the authorities. Despite smaller families, there were many more of them, these being the married adult boomers. Echo babies were a new pulse of children hitting a school system undergoing downsizing in response to the previous baby bust.

Similarly, the climatists would have us assume endless warming and require cessation of reliable affordable energy just as we enter a mini ice age.

An editorial at Investor’s Business Daily poses the question: Why Hasn’t The California Heat Wave Sparked The Usual Global Warming Hysteria?  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

It wasn’t long ago when the mainstream press took every opportunity, no matter how weak the connection, to blame bad things on global warming. So far, at least, we haven’t found one major story using the heat wave gripping the southwest to sound the alarm about global warming.

This lack of alarmism has not gone unnoticed.

Writing at the New Republic this week, Emily Atkin complained that despite record-breaking heat and a wildfire season that, she says, is already worse than usual, “there’s no climate connection to be found in much news coverage, even in historically climate-conscious outlets like NPR and The New York Times.”

When Atkin contacted NPR for an explanation, the network’s science editor said “You don’t just want to be throwing around, ‘This is due to climate change, that is due to climate change.‘”

Wow.

Also this week, Chris Hayes of the uber-liberal MSNBC responded to a complaint on Twitter that his network wasn’t clanging the global warming alarm bells loudly enough or regularly enough with this tweet:

“every single time we’ve covered it’s been a palpable ratings killer. so the incentives are not great.”

So why this sudden outburst of common sense among the mainstream press?

Perhaps they’ve come to the realization that after decades of end-of-the-world predictions and oversaturation coverage, during which time global temperatures have barely budged, the public has stopped paying attention. You can only predict the end of the world so many times, after all, before people start to get skeptical.

The attempts by scientists and environmental activists to blame everything on global warming has probably increased public skepticism as well. Case in point is a video running on the Weather Channel app about a study that claims to have found a link between suicides and climate change. Even an uninformed public will start to question the validity of all these wild claims.

The public may also have noticed that the most vocal preachers of climate change doom — Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, etc. — don’t act like there’s any crisis whatsoever. They still own huge energy sucking mansions and party on massive gas guzzling yachts.

They aren’t the only global warming hypocrites. A survey earlier this year by researchers at the University of Michigan and Cornell University found that those who said they were “highly concerned” about global warming were the least likely to take individual action. Skeptics were more likely to do the things the alarmist demand: recycle, use public transportation and so forth.

How big a crisis can climate change be if those who scream the loudest about it can’t be bothered to change their own behavior?

Whatever the cause of the climate ennui, it’s clear that years of proselytizing about the “existential threat” posed by a warmer planet has failed to win many converts.

In fact, a recent Gallup survey asked people to name the most important problems facing the country today. Neither “climate change” nor “global warming” even showed up on the list of more than 45 items. Just 2% named “environment/pollution.”

We’d say the public has it right. But don’t be surprised if the media returns to its climate change obsession, if only to take a break from its Trump obsession.

Update July 28:

As if on cue the mainstream media is now awash with headlines claiming AGW is causing heat waves and forest fires.

Summary

The editors are referring to major mainstream media not rising to the bait as usual.  Of course, the activist alarmist websites and blogs have been going crazy with this momentary weather situation.  I noticed, however, on one of the twitter threads comments from a few climate researchers confiding that they don’t speak out lest they be branded as Alarmists.

Now that is progress if scientists are taking to heart the need to be balanced and objective conveying information.  Fame and fortune may still await a breakthrough scary climate finding, but now responses will include skeptical voices. The public is not as naive and gullible as before, having been spoofed too often.

See Also:  On climate polling trickery The Art of Rigging Climate Polls

And why climate and suicides do not mix Stanford Jumps Suicide Climate Shark

 

Review from Newsbusters New Magic School Bus to Kids: Use Clean Energy or Monsters Will Eat You Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The Magic School Bus is back in the new Netflix series The Magic School Bus Rides Again! Overall, it’s still a nice, fun 13-episode series like we remember from when we were kids, but with some left turns. There is a pretty predictable take on climate change propaganda for little kids, but that wasn’t the worst. That dubious honor goes to the episode that teaches kids that a monster will eat them if they don’t use alternative clean energy sources.

Of course, conserving energy is a good thing and we should be kind to the earth, but this climate change hysteria is taking over. Usually, somebody will say that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, and I was surprised that figure didn’t come up in this episode. Could it be that they know how easily debunked that number is? Given the way Dorothy Ann presented man-made climate change as fact, I doubt it.

This issue tends to play incredibly well in the mainstream media, as they use climate change as the universal bad-guy, so I’m sure there were plenty of parents who actually thought this episode was a good idea. I find it hard to believe any parents were happy about this next one, though.

https://www.mrctv.org/embed/518271

Episode 12, “Monster Power,” teaches kids that a monster will eat them if they don’t use alternative clean energy sources. Albert, one of the students, has seen a movie in which the evil monster loves pollution and is “coming for us next for what we’ve done to this planet!” With the class camping in the woods, Miss Frizzle and the other students help him come up with clean energy alternatives (wind, water, etc) so they won’t be eaten. Instead, Miss Frizzle could tell him that monsters aren’t real, but I guess that didn’t occur to her.

While it makes sense to teach kids the science of pollution and about all kinds of energy (I wouldn’t have minded some talk about oil in the dinosaur episode, to be honest), why would they tell kids that a monster will eat them for using the wrong energy source? I may not have the teaching credentials of Miss Frizzle, but I’m pretty sure that’s not scientifically accurate. They must really hate fossil fuels as much as their friends on the left. Keeping in mind that the TV-Y rating for this series means it’s for kids 2-6, I’m sure there are going to be some parents pretty irked at bedtime when kids are scared of the blot monster.

Overall, this is a cute series and fun bit of nostalgia for those of us who enjoyed the original books (or TV series) as kids, but I could have done without the climate change propaganda, and telling kids that traditional energy sources attract monsters is way over the top. Can’t kids just learn without an anti-scientific social agenda?