1. The public is absurdly lacking in science knowledge and interest in science. This is something I suspected, but I have a distorted view of the public. Hearing this from an expert and public figure in communication with the public made me squirm. It's a very uncomfortable thing to know.
2.
Scientists don't get in fights. I don't mean academic arguments, I mean fist fights. Apparently, you are more likely to find a climate denier in a room full of climate scientists than a scientist who has punched another person or been punched by another person. Which brings me to three:
3. 97/100 climate scientists consider the evidence for global warming to be overwhelming. It is happening. Out of 100, two might have some doubts about how much it's happening and 1/100 will say it's not happening at all. Now I'm going to borrow an analogy from Don Shelby to explain what that means. Suppose you are getting on an airplane, perhaps to visit family for Thanksgiving, 97/100 mechanics say this plane will not make it to it's destination, 2/100 say it might make it and 1/100, who happens to also be an executive for the airline that will lose a lot of money if they have to rebook all of the passengers, says there's absolutely no problem, this plane will definitely make it!
Are you going to get on the plane?
4. Balance is bias [peer reviewed literature!]. Somewhere along the way people thought that in order to do good journalism you had to present both sides of the story. However, giving equal space to the 97/100 people who agree and the 1/100 people who disagree give a significant bias to the 1/100 who disagree. An unbiased approach would be to give space to each side in proportion to their numbers in the real world. So why is it that so many news pieces are so biased?
According to Don Shelby, the deregulation of news media led to consolidation of businesses and consolidation of viewpoints. In an unconsolidated market a fringe viewpoint has a very narrow audience and is less likely to be tolerated by a majority of subscribers. However, consolidated across the country, the audience for a fringe, non-reality based viewpoint is large enough to support a business, and you get Fox News. But even Fox News can be a bit of a mystery. Why do people like Glenn Beck put on such insane acts?
5. Follow the money. Clearly, a lot of people have an interest in the status quo. If you're making money now, and dealing with a major human interest problem is going to get in the way of your cash flow, you marginalize the problem. Apparently, it's cheaper to hire lawyers and pay scientists to lie than it is to change your business model or invest in a new model. This probably says something about the marginalization of science, but perhaps it relates to more deeply psychological issues. There is an inherent danger in the unknown. You would never eat a random mushroom you see growing in your lawn. Yet being able to adapt to new environments is perhaps the key trait that has allowed humans to dominate most of the earth. Maybe our brains are wired for experimentation and adaptation to new situations when the stakes are small. For most of human existence there has been very little personal wealth, and therefore relatively little to lose. But if you own mega-yachts, mansions around the world and a few politicians, you might feel like you have a lot more to lose. The more wealth you perceive yourself to have, the less adaptable you are to new environments.
For more coverage see Eye on Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment