Why People "Fly from Facts" - Scientific American 3/3/15

Here's another worth-reading article that fits right into my project.  I hope these excerpts encourage you to read the complete original.  Though I think they left out something important in their conclusions.  

Namely, the key roll of our innate  'personal ego' and 'self certitude'  - the feeling of revulsion at having to admit we are wrong about something, or don't know everything.

What's been lost (or was never found) is self-skepticism… or an appreciation that mistakes are learning opportunities… or god forbid a touch of healthy self-deprecation and humor and recognizing our own flaws.

_________________________________

I sent Dr. Friesen an email letting him know about this post, 

his response is worth sharing, so with his permission:

"… You mentioned 

"Namely, the key roll of our innate  'personal ego' and 'self certitude'  - the feeling of revulsion at having to admit we are wrong about something, or don't know everything." 

as playing a role about not wanting to admit when one is wrong and I think you're definitely right about that. We touched on that point in the original journal article but probably glossed over it for sake of length in the Scientific American article.

If I can offer a reading recommendation that I think you might find

interesting--I really enjoyed it--it's the book "Mistakes were made

(but not by me)" by social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot

Aronson.  They cover a lot of research on why people refuse to admit

they're wrong in order to maintain their feelings of self-worth.

Best regards,"

_________________________________

Why People "Fly from Facts"
Research shows the appeal of untestable beliefs, and how it leads to a polarized society

March 3, 2015 | By Troy Campbell and Justin Friesen

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/

...

Our new research, recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, examined a slippery way by which people get away from facts that contradict their beliefs. Of course, sometimes people just dispute the validity of specific facts. But we find that people sometimes go one step further and, as in the opening example, they reframe an issue in untestable ways. This makes potential important facts and science ultimately irrelevant to the issue. 
...

In other words, we observed something beyond the denial of particular facts: We observed a denial of the relevance of facts. 

Lindzen's slander as weapon for scientific persuasion.

{updated with some information regarding the interviewer and his for profit "think tank" 3/8/15}

Now I get to one of the architects and a Godfather of 'slander as a weapon for scientific persuasion' and profit, Dr. Richard Lindzen.  

I submit this text-book example of why he deserves that honorific.  I found it in one of Dr. Dessler's video shorts, though the original is from an interview at the Center for Industrial Progress' "Power Hour."  This is only 2:20 minutes long, but it says plenty.

Lindzen talks about environmentalists (there is no visual)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtIL3sEG4bM

dessler2

____________________________________________________

0:00 Lindzen: ... you're touching on something interesting, which is environmentalism, whatever it's nastiness and ugliness, it is largely an urban phenomena.  And I think it really, really depends on people having no sense of what nature is at all.

~ ~ ~

What an astoundingly hostile and ignorant thing to say. 

"Environmentalism" is a term defining an attitude towards recognizing the biological webs that sustain our planet's life support system - also known as our biosphere.

It's not a people, nor a party - but Lindzen won't allow himself to recognize that.  All he sees is enemies. 

Listen to Lindzen going straight for the jugular:

 "environmentalism = nastiness and ugliness"  

There's nothing rational about it, it's political theater and hate mongering for votes and profit, nothing more. 

Consider for a moment what "Environmentalism" actually is:

Bart, it's about dissecting tactics

There's a very cool website by Bart Verheggen an atmospheric scientist, called "My view on climate change" - it's what I'd classify as a "big boys and girls" blog in that the issues are dealt with in an educated civil manner.  The science gets front and center stage over there.  It's fun to look in on and sometimes toss in my two cents.  It's also fun because he's got an "Open Thread" which is just what it implies.  He has humored me and allowed various musings over there.  Recently there was an interesting exchange that I won't rehash, because my comment is plenty self-explanatory - this version has been enhanced with hindsight and editing. 

Bart Verheggen Says: March 6, 2015 at 17:59
Citizen and cjw, You’ve both said what you wanted to say it seems, let’s leave it at that. The current conversation is no longer constructive.

citizenschallenge Says: 

March 6, 2015 at 19:40

Bart, yes, sort of, kind of… but you see, there is a lesson in it though.

I appreciate that I’m a bit irritating to some of you more serious educated folks. Still, my little thing is to really get inside the structure of the rhetorical manipulation going on – study it at close range, learn to understand it, watch it in action and hopefully from time to time be able to write about it and explain it along with highlighting it’s intellectual bankruptcy.

This little exchange with cjw was another interesting example. Please consider her opener:

March 3, 2015 at 20:37 @citizenschallenge cjw: “I skimmed the article and initially failed to get the gist of it. The text is poorly structured and the writing style unappealing. Not to mention the irrelevant comparison between an historic event and multidisciplinary science.”

~ ~ ~

Then go through cjw’s subsequent torrent of words. Nowhere do we get back to this: “irrelevant comparison between an historic event and multidisciplinary science” – or examples of my poor writing style. I have not acted defensive and welcomed, hell I practically begged for critique – but all I get is superior folks telling me it's too irrelevant to consider.

This is what a scientist sounds like - Dr.Dessler's video shorts

Here are five short videos by Atmospheric scientist Dr. Andrew Dessler explaining various aspects of climate sensitivity including a look at Lindzen and Spencer's failed cloud feedback study.  I think these videos are fine examples of a real scientist in action explaining the facts.  Tell me you don't notice a huge difference between Dr. Dessler's approach to his topic and the weird handwaving and innuendo laced approach of folks like Dr. Singer or my man Steele.  
(I put together the notes so any mistakes in them are mine alone.)

Summary of Dessler GRL 2011

Is the climate sensitivity less than 2°C?

Stratospheric water vapor feedback

Climate sensitivity calculations, Kummer and Dessler, GRL, 2014

Decision making under uncertainty

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Summary of Dessler GRL 2011

Uploaded on Sep 5, 2011 | dessler2 | 3:45 minutes

"Cloud variations and the Earth's energy budget"

published in Geophysical Review Letters

Dessler examines Lindzen and Spencer's suggestioin that it's clouds causing warming and that human influence warming.

Willie Soon as Traitor to Humanity

Been trying to sidestep the Dr. Willie Soon kerfuffle since I'm already drowning in projects.  Besides, I started doing reviews on his words a couple times, last time even completing my transcription phase of a talk, but by then I was so upset, the guy is such a ruthless dirty player, that I put the project away because I didn't need to deal with the upset and depression.  My feelings haven't changed, but since this Soon certainly belongs in my rogue's gallery of Traitors to Humanity (that would be our younger generations.) I've taken the time to do a lot of cutting and pasting from a handful of recent articles, plus a list of SkepticalScience.com's collection of posts that relate to Soon's faux science going back to 2011.  

I like to think of it as my Willie Soon Information Kiosk.
{hat tip to Darron}

Doubling down on doubt.

by Peter Dykstra | March 5, 2015 | The Daily Climate

Cry for me, Willie Soon

by Greg Laden on March 3, 2015 | scienceblogs.com

Willie Soon saga

AndThenThere'sPhysics.wordpress.com

The Soon fallacy

Gavin Schmidt | February 24 2015 | RealClimate.org

Things just got very hot for climate deniers’ favorite scientist

By Terrence McCoy | February 23, 2015 | Washington Post

The SkepticalScience.com collection of articles looking at Soon's science.

__________________________________________

This is what a scientist sounds like - Dr. Dessler

On my way back to Mr. Steele's 'Climate Science Horror Series' I came across a YouTube video of Dr. Singer talking to Dr. Dessler's class about Merchants of Doubt.  I tell you, talk about another perfect vehicle for continuing my investigation into the mechanics of their fraud, so I made a U-turn, returning Jim to the back-burner.  

Starting on that, I spent some time viewing another Dr. Dessler YT video, then another, and another. Particularly his short series explaining the basics of climate science.  

They were such a pleasant break from the cynical,  infuriatingly dishonest spiel of Mr. Steele or Dr. Singer, that superstar of the Republican/libertarian PR campaign, that I decided to take a break and focus a couple posts on a genuine climate scientist explaining real climate science.  The contrast in substance and style is astounding.

Dr. Dessler is an example of how to enable constructive learning, as opposed to dog-chasing-tail debates. With Dr. Dessler's blessing I'm posting this informative climate science lecture - as an example of how serious scientists approach their subject.  

For the interested student I have included time-signature notes of highlights.

______________________________

The Human Influence of Climate

A.E. Dessler, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences

Texas A & M University

Jan. 2011 seminar given to the TAMU Petroleum Engineering Department.

Published on Sep 19, 2014 | dessler2

https://www.youtube.com/embed/7ImRv58XJO8

___________________________________________________________

notes:  

Dr. Dessler shares his intention early on: 

"What I'm going to try to convince you of is that it's really a much simpler problem than you may be led to believe.  You can use freshman physics to convince yourself there's good chance that if we keep emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere we're really going to see very large warming over the next century, and that's my goal…"

0:41 I like to start off with this iconic plot (NASA GISS Global-Avg. Surface Temp Record 1880-2009), it's the global surface temperature record measured by thermometers that are all across the globe…

This is what manufactured denial looks like. - Readfearn

Here's a recent must read article that I'd love to repost over here since it fits right into my collection.  But, I don't think this one's in the cards.  I can still post this teaser that hints at what you'll find within Readfearn's thorough expose'.  

_______________________

What happened to the lobbyists who tried to reshape 

the US view of climate change?

Climate change skepticism

Graham Readfearn

Friday 27 February 2015 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/27/what-happened-to-lobbyists-who-tried-reshape-us-view-climate-change

"In early 1998, ... 

Representatives from major fossil fuel corporations and industry groups had joined forces with operatives from major conservative think tanks and public relations experts to draft what they called their Global Climate Science Communications (GCSC) plan. 

In a memo the plan boldly declared its goal …"