The 'Great Divide' Thoughts on why simple science and data can become so divisive?

[Gray-Wolf]

What is it about the 'discussion' about simple facts and figures that can cause such peturbation?

 

Surely the 'data' itself is mute so it has to be in the interpretation where problems arise?

 

General 'science' , those involved in the day to day study of 'change' seem united in their appraisal of what the data shows but there appears to be a point where this 'agreement' is lost and divides appear. Is it human nature that drives such? Is it certain 'personality types' ( if i may use such a 'grouping'?).

 

For me it has turned a life long passion into a 'burden' so how do you find things?

[Bobby]

I think generally because most people aren't interested in the simple science and data. They have own agendas, they believe what they want to believe and that's that. Some people believe in human caused global warming because it suits their agenda because they're green "tree-hugger" types, some disbelieve it because it's a conspiracy to steal their taxes and brainwash them with liberal hippie propaganda.

 

Then you have the other group who is just interested in the truth but I think these are much in the minority!

Edited July 8, 2013 by Bobby

[be cause]

currently Koyaanisqatsi rules ...

[Methuselah]

I thinks it's partly down to our penchant for automatically respecting anything wearing a well-pressed suit...And, let's face it, a fair few of the anti-science brigade deck themselves out in well-pressed suits. 

[Gray-Wolf]

Were that true Pete then it would come down to what bobby appears to be saying in that it has nothing to do ( for most) with the science but is merely a bandwaggon on which to air personal/personality grievances on?

 

This is where I maybe 'miss the cart' ?

 

I have often tried to understand why many folk appear so hostile to my concerns by thinking that the 'News' is hitting them like a bereavement and that they 'react' in line with a person suffering such a loss? ( Denial being the first stage, followed by blame/anger?) but maybe really the folk that shy away, or argue blindly, with accepted science do so out of something other than 'sceptisism'?

[Jax]

Sex sells, sadly that does not exclude science.

 

Make it sexy and voila!

[mike Meehan]

I think that there are many people with pre-conceived ideas and when they investigate they will pick up on the evidence which agrees with their theory to the detriment of other evidence which may be around.

 

Not the right way to do it but an understandable human trait.

[Methuselah]

Were that true Pete then it would come down to what bobby appears to be saying in that it has nothing to do ( for most) with the science but is merely a bandwaggon on which to air personal/personality grievances on?

 

This is where I maybe 'miss the cart' ?

 

I have often tried to understand why many folk appear so hostile to my concerns by thinking that the 'News' is hitting them like a bereavement and that they 'react' in line with a person suffering such a loss? ( Denial being the first stage, followed by blame/anger?) but maybe really the folk that shy away, or argue blindly, with accepted science do so out of something other than 'sceptisism'?

I was being a wee bitty facetious, Ian...But, you must admit, that in our present 'climate' of 'presentation trumps all', the glossily, over-edited diatribes from those opposed to science do have an - albeit superficial - advantage: your average Joe doesn't bother to get past their like/dislike, trust/mistrust of the presenter? 

 

Look at the anti-vaxxers, for example: slick presentation, camera-friendly presenters - and a message that is complete and utter cobblers...They are clearly not winning their arguments with logic or reason...

 

It's also curious how they are almost invariably anti?

[jonboy]

It is because many don't believe that the facts are simple the facts are based on complex beliefs and not fully understood causes.

The use of the term 'simple' in the original statement about facts and figures in itself implies to those who question the validity of these facts and figures that they are considered stupid for not believing the arguments presented. The debates therefore degenerate more because of the langauge and style of posts.

I was being a wee bitty facetious, Ian...But, you must admit, that in our present 'climate' of 'presentation trumps all', the glossily, over-edited diatribes from those opposed to science do have an - albeit superficial - advantage: your average Joe doesn't bother to get past their like/dislike, trust/mistrust of the presenter? 

 

Look at the anti-vaxxers, for example: slick presentation, camera-friendly presenters - and a message that is complete and utter cobblers...They are clearly not winning their arguments with logic or reason...

 

It's also curious how they are almost invariably anti?

I rest my case!!

[jethro]

It's not the science which is divisive, it's the way it is used which causes conflict.

 

In this particular branch of science, where there are no black or white answers, the tendency is for people to decide for themselves what the most important facts are, which in turn must translate into belief, due to the lack of absolutes in the science. As with anything which becomes more belief based, rather than fact based, it becomes a personal crusade. Throw into that mix the human traits of pride and ego and you end up with a riddle without end, which frustrates anyone and everyone. Those wishing for just facts, struggle to decipher them from the jumble of personal interpretation. Those who are convinced they're right, struggle with the lack of acceptance from others who disagree with them. Those with just a curiosity about the topic, struggle with the insane level of hubris which flows in the debates.

 

And when you get complete strangers, psycho analysing others over an internet connection, reaching the conclusion that people who don't agree with them must be going through the phases of bereavement, well, that's bound to lead to conflict. That kind of conversation, or accusation, or even if it's passed off as an assumption, is so dripping in arrogance and ego that it's absolutely bound to annoy people. If I may say Ian, that is a prize demonstration of why these debates are so divisive. And it's not the science which is at fault.

[Gray-Wolf]

But Dawn? Is what you accuse me of not just what you have done?

 

for years now i have aked , nay pleaded, to understand why folk take on so. no matter my protestations folk still displace what they will onto me. no matter how carefully I feel I post folk tell me that I meant something other?

 

It is the science Dawn and I feel some folk try to demonise the person who causes them most discomfort ( look at the way the leading lights of climate science are portayed , then dismissed?).

 

Again I'd ask you play the ball and not the man?

 

Further up someone said folk grasp onto that which better suits their own personal agenda and I feel that there is a lot of truth in that. I believe that what Pete says about 'presentation' ( and the funding/grooming that allows such 'slick' presentation) also gives off an 'air' of authenticity to any old codswallop....otherwise marketing would be a non-event and comps are merely squandering millions for nothing?

 

The 'bottom line' is the data is solid.

 

When folk take such 'facts' and either bin them and say otherwise, or twist them out of recognition, to eek out a point I have to ask "Why"?

 

Surely it is not to serve the truth nor the science and' if not', then what?

[jethro]

But Dawn? Is what you accuse me of not just what you have done?

 

for years now i have aked , nay pleaded, to understand why folk take on so. no matter my protestations folk still displace what they will onto me. no matter how carefully I feel I post folk tell me that I meant something other?

 

It is the science Dawn and I feel some folk try to demonise the person who causes them most discomfort ( look at the way the leading lights of climate science are portayed , then dismissed?).

 

Again I'd ask you play the ball and not the man?

 

Further up someone said folk grasp onto that which better suits their own personal agenda and I feel that there is a lot of truth in that. I believe that what Pete says about 'presentation' ( and the funding/grooming that allows such 'slick' presentation) also gives off an 'air' of authenticity to any old codswallop....otherwise marketing would be a non-event and comps are merely squandering millions for nothing?

 

The 'bottom line' is the data is solid.

 

When folk take such 'facts' and either bin them and say otherwise, or twist them out of recognition, to eek out a point I have to ask "Why"?

 

Surely it is not to serve the truth nor the science and' if not', then what?

 

But it's not the science which causes the problems. Your post above rambles on about bereavement and it is this personalisation and arrogant assumption which causes the issues. It's not demonising the person who causes the discomfort because of the science, it's your accusations of the science causing discomfort and thus inducing mis-directed grief reactions, which create the problem. I know, to you the science is settled, that the Arctic is in dire straits and that you've followed this passionately for many years. You care deeply about the subject, you care deeply about the Arctic and do have genuine concerns about where this may lead for the planet as a whole. But, and this is the rub of it, you assume everyone else cares as deeply as you and if they don't, they should. I know as people we only have our own emotions with which to gauge others, but our emotions are as personal as our finger prints. No two people will react in the same way to any given situation. When you go down the route you took above, the personalisation, the emotive route, you tap into the emotive reaction of others. Take any person, in any situation, internet or real life and start telling them how they feel or how they should feel, and you'll get your head bitten off. Only with those who are the very closest to us can we have even a vague chance of knowing how they feel, and even then, there's a lot of luck involved. Assuming to know how the emotions of a complete stranger may manifest, is (and I'm sorry to use this word again) arrogant, with a liberal dose of egotism too. 

 

 

I expect you really are trying to understand why people react to your posts in the way they do and why it's sometimes so hard to get a sensible discussion in here. I'm not having a go at you, I'm simply trying to explain what happens and why I think it happens. 

[knocker]

Let's be clear about science education and engagement

 

Melanie Smallman and Simon Lock from UCL explain how the Wellcome Trust have misread their own survey

 

In last week's blog piece "The public don't want to be involved in science policy" Hannah Baker used the recent Wellcome Trust Monitor Survey to argue that rather than involving the public in decisions around science, we need to be focusing on educating them.

 

"Although this simple knowledge deficit model [which assumes that increasing knowledge about science will reduce scepticism] has now been largely discredited in the academic sphere, we should perhaps be wary of concluding that ignorance or misunderstanding of key areas of modern science doesn't matter," she says, going on to argue that involving the public in decisions around science and technology "is only possible if it is underpinned with a good base of science understanding, delivered through our education system".

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2013/jul/08/science-education-engagement?CMP=twt_fd

Edited July 8, 2013 by knocker

[pottyprof]

Pure and simply the science community shoot themselves in the foot by making things 'hush hush' and playing along with the politicians.  The press have been rumbled on their influence over politics and it won't be long before the same happens with science.  There is an unhealthy dose of politics involved which is why climate science has been given the rough treatment it has over recent years.  The backtracking recently on things that were supposedly set in stone goes to show how little we know.

 

The science is fine.  It's the way it is presented.  Some of the crap that has happened in this climate forum over the years has been down to people pushing their own self interest without any respect for anyone else.  It's the same with every other climate forum.  The people in the middle who don't know what to believe are left in limbo by arrogant attitudes from both sides and left feeling excluded from the subject.  Believing yourself as being right does not make your view accurate or accepted as fact by others.  Barking it over and over again will not make it any more accurate or make it happen.  Throwing a hissy fit or playing the pedant just turns people off when in actual fact, this time wasted could be used for common good.

 

There are new scientific discoveries made all the time.  The quantum world is showing that while the general rules of physics still stand, there are other things happening within that collection of rules that changes outcomes.  Do we fully understand what is happening?  No we don't so until we do, why is there this thing whereby we insist we are right when we may only be partially right?

 

The science is right.  The interactions and possible outcomes are yet to be understood properly.  That is where we are.

 

Please note the words 'you, yourself', etc are generalisations and not aimed at any individual.  People get so sensitive about this issue at times.

Edited July 9, 2013 by pottyprof

[SomeLikeItHot]

What facts are they? Ultimately there are very few pure facts most of the observations are theory laden - few dispute the most concrete facts, instrumental temperature records, atmospheric CO2 levels, or indeed the direct greenhouse effect of the CO2 molecule itself. These are based on really well established physical theories.

 

Beyond these facts we tend to go into increasingly theory laden facts - historical temperature reconstructions, results of global climate modelling and climate sensitivity - how does the change in radiative heat balance impact us in the long term or indeed what are the negative impacts on humans of a temperature change.

 

Other well verified facts are also well verified on only shorter timescales (eg artic sea ice extent) to go back pre satellite again there is less facts and more theory and anecdote.

 

The point being that while I may find much of this convincing others won't but in very few cases are they disputing facts rather than theories.

[SomeLikeItHot]

 

There are new scientific discoveries made all the time.  The quantum world is showing that while the general rules of physics still stand, there are other things happening within that collection of rules that changes outcomes.  Do we fully understand what is happening?  No we don't so until we do, why is there this thing whereby we insist we are right when we may only be partially right?

 

The science is right.  The interactions and possible outcomes are yet to be understood properly.  That is where we are.

 

 

Unfortunately that is the case with most science but in this case we have results of science telling us of a potentially dire catastrophe. If that's so we can't just proceed as normal waiting for science to improve over the next hundred years. To me the whole thing should have been argued as a risk management issue, yes there is chance the science could be revised over time but we need to mitigate the risk that it is mostly right now.

[pottyprof]

Unfortunately that is the case with most science but in this case we have results of science telling us of a potentially dire catastrophe. If that's so we can't just proceed as normal waiting for science to improve over the next hundred years. To me the whole thing should have been argued as a risk management issue, yes there is chance the science could be revised over time but we need to mitigate the risk that it is mostly right now.

 

I totally agree.  I'm not against preparing and trying to prevent.  I am however, against political involvement and people claiming things are right when really, we don't know.

 

As a starter whoever allowed building on flood plains and financing these developments over recent years need prosecuting.  The idea that we may be entering into a period of wetter weather isn't a new one.  The money from the fines could be spent on flood prevention or providing housing and business premises in more suitable locations.

Edited July 9, 2013 by pottyprof

[loafer]

What facts are they? Ultimately there are very few pure facts most of the observations are theory laden - few dispute the most concrete facts, instrumental temperature records, atmospheric CO2 levels, or indeed the direct greenhouse effect of the CO2 molecule itself. These are based on really well established physical theories. Beyond these facts we tend to go into increasingly theory laden facts - historical temperature reconstructions, results of global climate modelling and climate sensitivity - how does the change in radiative heat balance impact us in the long term or indeed what are the negative impacts on humans of a temperature change. Other well verified facts are also well verified on only shorter timescales (eg artic sea ice extent) to go back pre satellite again there is less facts and more theory and anecdote. The point being that while I may find much of this convincing others won't but in very few cases are they disputing facts rather than theories.

I agree with this.When it comes to facts and data, of course, people who believe in a certain viewpoint post when the live data backs up their position and go quiet when it doesn't and that applies to both sides of the arguement.More annoying still are posters who look forward at what disasters or recoveries might happen in an almost excited tone because it validates their opinion, when the eventual outcome is often very different.

[Crepuscular Ray]

 

As a starter whoever allowed building on flood plains and financing these developments over recent years need prosecuting. 

John Prescott and Hazel Blears for a start.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Crepuscular Ray

[songster]

OK, here's a perfect example.

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-11#entry2732662

 

Keithlucky posted the DMI temperature graph in the "sceptic" thread and said there was no melting north of 80 degrees.

 

I followed up, politely pointing out that that this was wrong for three reasons: firstly that DMI temperatures are a model rather than data, secondly that even though temperatures are below average, they are still above melting point, and thirdly that the mass balance buoys in the area do indeed show both top and bottom melt in the area above 80 degrees.  Everything I posted was factually accurate and presented politely.  My post has vanished.

 

What is going on?  Is nobody allowed to post even verifiable, neutral facts in these threads unless they are somehow (by whom?) registered as official sceptics?  How can people be allowed to post mistakes (note, I do not say lies, I say MISTAKES) without these being set right? What are we trying to create here, simply a set of parallel echo chambers and mutual suspicion?

 

Edit:  At the very least I would appreciate a private mail from whichever mod deleted my post, saying why they did so and what rules I've infringed.

Edited July 9, 2013 by songster

[SomeLikeItHot]

Editted to get to the point I was trying to talk about.

I totally agree.  I'm not against preparing and trying to prevent.  I am however, against political involvement and people claiming things are right when really, we don't know.

 While I would appreciate someone standing up and saying this honestly, getting that point of view across in the media is more difficult. You can just see the press conference. Scientist:  we are 95% confident that global warming is occuring and there is a strong possibility it will be catastrophicJournalist: So you are not 100% sure this is occuringScientist : We are 95% confident  that it is occuring, we can't be 100% sure science is always subject to revision as new data comes along" Headline:  Climate Scientist not 100% sure about global warming: Says it may be "subject to revision".   So  while I can hold a nuanced opinion, knowing my comments won't be mis reported this is more difficult for a public figure to do so. Just look at the way the comments on expecting te next ten year or so to have more chance of having wetter than average summers. Reported as "10 years of washout summers" in the press, then at a BBQ on the weekend basking in the hot sun  your neighbour says "two weeks ago they said it was going to rain all summer for the next ten years and now look at it". Edited July 9, 2013 by SomeLikeItHot

[Paul]

OK, here's a perfect example.

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-11#entry2732662

 

Keithlucky posted the DMI temperature graph in the "sceptic" thread and said there was no melting north of 80 degrees.

 

I followed up, politely pointing out that that this was wrong for three reasons: firstly that DMI temperatures are a model rather than data, secondly that even though temperatures are below average, they are still above melting point, and thirdly that the mass balance buoys in the area do indeed show both top and bottom melt in the area above 80 degrees.  Everything I posted was factually accurate and presented politely.  My post has vanished.

 

What is going on?  Is nobody allowed to post even verifiable, neutral facts in these threads unless they are somehow (by whom?) registered as official sceptics?  How can people be allowed to post mistakes (note, I do not say lies, I say MISTAKES) without these being set right? What are we trying to create here, simply a set of parallel echo chambers and mutual suspicion?

 

Edit:  At the very least I would appreciate a private mail from whichever mod deleted my post, saying why they did so and what rules I've infringed.

 

I'm not the person who deleted your post, but if you were to read the title of the thread, the description of it, and the various reminders about posts within the thread, then you'd know why the post wasn't kept on there - it's all well and good expecting the team to let you know when they've taken action (which they try to do as often as possible, time allowing), but ultimately it's down to everyone to pre-moderate themselves and make sure they know what threads they're posting into and whether their post is suitable for them.

 

You are free to respond to that post within the appropriate thread, and although that seems backward unfortunately the threads have been bought about because many people were incapable of keeping personal snides out of the discussion, so by removing that option the aim is to take the debate away from ego and name calling, and back to the topic in hand. 

 

This is the problem in debate and on forums, and particularly climate related discussions (not just here), a lot of people have a view which they've decided they 'own' and nothing with change it (seemingly), they then can't see why others don't agree, and resort to shouting (over and over again), and/or name calling to try to convince people they are right. This makes others ever more defensive, and you end up with a cluster of ranting, raving and bickering with little or no reasoned debate in between. 

[Gray-Wolf]

Buty this is a separate topic of 'moderation' Paul?  What has been removed from the sceptic thread over the past few days have been 'factual corrections' and not snides, pokes or other?

 

I have always believed that the threads 'serve' the lurker ( the 'views tend to support this understanding?) and so they deserve the best possible service. You have tried to bring this about by attempting to limit bickering but removal of facts , merely because they 'correct' the previous assertion ( for the sake of clarity lest the 'lurkers' be mislead and that 'confusion' leads to further unecessary debate), smacks of tossing the baby with the bathwater?

[Methuselah]

Buty this is a separate topic of 'moderation' Paul?  What has been removed from the sceptic thread over the past few days have been 'factual corrections' and not snides, pokes or other?

 

I have always believed that the threads 'serve' the lurker ( the 'views tend to support this understanding?) and so they deserve the best possible service. You have tried to bring this about by attempting to limit bickering but removal of facts , merely because they 'correct' the previous assertion ( for the sake of clarity lest the 'lurkers' be mislead and that 'confusion' leads to further unecessary debate), smacks of tossing the baby with the bathwater?

Aye, but there's been far too muck bickering...We can't have the entire moderating team policing one, single area 24/7.

 

And, as has already been pointed-out: you can always copy a post into its appropriate area and discuss it there.

Edited July 9, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[knocker]

I was actually going to copy the post into my latest post in the Arctic thread which is the only thread that seemed applicable to the original post anyway but decided against because Songster had already adequately replied.