Comments 1 to 12:

1. nigelj at 17:40 PM on 7 August, 2019

   The fact that research shows that communicating consensus studies to the public has a positive effect should come as no surprise. Just look at the deniers tactics, and they have years of experience delaying action on tobacco etc, so they know what works without needing research on the matter:

   "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming with the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.” (Frank Luntz)

   watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/cascading-doubt-shaping-the-publics-perception-of-science/

   0 0
2. BaerbelW at 22:18 PM on 7 August, 2019

   For those of you who'd like to read any of the studies in the list, please hover your cursor over the author name(s) shown in the table. We've added all of the references to our glossary and while doing that found most of the full papers either on the journal website or a freely available PDF elsewhere.

   0 0
3. RBFOLLETT at 04:57 AM on 8 August, 2019

   So let’s end this Crisis and have a public debate on the subject and once and for all shut up all the Deniers.  In fact I don’t think there has ever been any debate, let alone a public one, between the Global Warming Scientists and the Denier Scientists so maybe the public should actually get to see both sides of the Debate.  And let’s be specific and not try to muddy the waters, “How Much Does Increased CO2 Levels In The Atmosphere Contribute To Global Warming”.  And let’s make it clear that “THE DEBATE” that has been supposedly over forever, only ever happened within the Global Warming camp and the new Debate will actually present BOTH sides to the argument.  

   Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [DB] The vast majority of what you wrote is better-suited for other posts on this forum, not this one.  Should any wish to respond, please respond on one of those more appropriate posts with a redirect here.  Thanks.

   Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

   Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
    
   Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

   Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

   Off-topic snipped.

4. nigelj at 06:30 AM on 8 August, 2019

   BaerbelW, hovering the cursor over the authors names doesn't do anything.

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [DB]  Were you perhaps looking in the References section?  Hovering over the names in the table produces the stated effect, at least for me.

   [BW] Do you have the Glossary active for "Beginner level" definitions as explained in the blog post I link to? If yes, you should see dotted underlines for the author name(s) and many other terms throughout the blog posts and rebuttals. If not, try to refresh the page and if they still don't show up, please send us an email to let us know your particular browser & OS-combination. We'll then try to replicate it.

5. SirCharles at 23:20 PM on 8 August, 2019

   Good summary. That's why The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters ...

   

   0 0
6. One Planet Only Forever at 03:10 AM on 9 August, 2019

   My efforts to constantly improve my awareness and understanding of what is going on have developed a personal understanding (open to improvement by the presentation of Good Reason to change it) that, to limit the amount of harm done by pursuits of status (power, popularity or profit), the acceptability, merit, or value of actions must be based on the helpfulness of the actions to the development of sustainable improvements (benefits for the future of humanity including benefiting those yet unborn in the distant future). The Sustainable Development Goals are a robust basis for determining the proper value or merit of actions. They include Climate Action Goals which are directly associated with the IPCC actions and the Paris Agreement and their constant improvement.

   Of course, improving awareness and understanding of the climate science consensus is not the only required helpful action. However, it is undeniably a helpful action (no scientific investigation basis required to confirm that it is helpful). And it is not harmful to the achievement of the required corrections of developed human activity. But it undeniably will face unjustified resistance from people who deserve to lose perceptions of status that have been obtained through harmful unsustainable actions.

   Similarly, putting a significant surcharge onto CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is not the only helpful corrective action. And all of the Sustainable Development Goals need to be achieved not just the Climate Action Goal.

   There is undeniably a diversity of resistance to correction of many aspects of the developed status quo, particularly resistance to correcting incorrectly developed perceptions of 'status' and the related 'stories made-up, and made popular, to defend the status quo from being questioned and corrected'.

   Attempts to argue against efforts to improve awareness and understanding of the consensus of understanding regarding climate science and the related impacts of human activities beg an explanation. A well reasoned consideration of the issue, without a rigorous science investigation basis (abductive reasoning applied to best explain what is observed to be going on), should conclude that such an action is helpful, not harmful, to efforts to increase the rate of correction of developed human beliefs and related harmful unsustainable activities. That leads to fairly obvious questions:

   • What is the reason for criticism of efforts to helpfully improve awareness and understanding?
   • Are the critics attempting to limit the rate of improvement of awareness and understanding of the required corrections of developed popular and profitable, but undeniably unsustainable and harmful, human activity?
   • Are the critics trying to defend unjustified perceptions of status obtained by some members of current day humanity via harmful unsustainable actions?

   Undeniably, undeserving wealthy powerful people have many ways to effectively influence the stories that get told, how they are told, and how prominently they are promoted. The Propaganda Model (PM) developed by Edward S. Herman and presented in “Manufacturing Consent” in 1988 (with assistance from Noam Chomsky), predicts that powerful interests are able to significantly influence the people who tell stories to the population - manufacturing the stories that become common beliefs or understandings. It predicts that part of the attack on the climate science identification of corrective actions would be restricting the opportunity for reward or positive recognition of any promoter of the improved understanding, including unjust attacks on the character of such promoters. That type of pressure, or the awareness of its potential to be applied, could make very smart people question the merit or value of promoting the climate science consensus.

   The PM also predicts that the resistance to the efforts to improve awareness and understanding that is contrary to the interests of the powerful in the developed status quo in Free Market Capitalism driven cultures would include claiming that the corrective actions are Socialist plots (or communist or terrorist or any other developed label that can be successfully unjustifiably applied in efforts to maintain or prolong stories, beliefs and perceptions that are actually undeniably unsustainable because they are harmful to the future of humanity).

   0 0
7. nigelj at 06:54 AM on 9 August, 2019

   BaerbelW, yes I was looking at the list of references, not the table. Working now. Sorry about that.

   0 0
8. nigelj at 07:03 AM on 9 August, 2019

   OPOF @6, if I had to reduce the climate issue down to its essence, the basic issue is the world is addicted to oil. It varies of course person to person, country to country, organisation to organisation, and some are more in denial about it than others. But  you take the sum total of all the complexity of the issue, the resistance to change and the motivations to hold onto status, I think it boils down to an addiction. It sure has the characteristics of an addition, and the addicts go into denial and justification like any addicts. Not saying I'm entirely immune, but I have always been able to step back and see things for what they are.

   0 0
9. One Planet Only Forever at 09:07 AM on 9 August, 2019

   nigelj @8,

   I agree with considering that a large portion of the global population is seriously addicted to fossil fuels (and many other unsustainable harmful popular and profitable developments). The 1972 Stockholm Conference and efforts since then that have produced many things, most recently the Sustainable Development Goals and the related IPCC reports, have strengthened the understanding that many of the developed socioeconomic-political systems have been making unsustainable and harmful activity popularity and profitability, and making correcting the problem more challenging as more people become more addicted, with more undeserved perceptions of status to lose.

   And the interventions required to help break any addiction require a person to admit they have failed to protect themselves from becoming harmfully addicted.

   The real trouble-makers are the Pushers, the people who continue to try to keep people harmfully addicted, try to delay the improvement of awareness and understanding because it would be contrary to their interest in maintaining their undeserved status. The Pushers are among the wealthiest and most powerful. Not all wealthy and powerful people are Harmful Pushers of unsustainable addictions, but the nastiest of the wealthy and powerful have many ways to get other people to 'admire and excuse them and tell nice but totally made-up stories about them' (and attack anyone who tries to correct that desired perception).

   0 0
10. Loz73 at 10:45 AM on 11 August, 2019

    In Australia the reason that, “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming with the scientific community” (Nigelj) is that no Australian scientist has ever persisted in telling them otherwise. As a retired biological scientist with 10 years of activism in BREAZE (Ballarat Renewable Energy & Zero Emissions) I am in a state of despair. Parts of Australia are in the worst drought in history; the Barrier Reef and the Murray Darling basin are in terminal decline; our Prime Minister fondled a lump of coal in parliament and told us not to be afraid; and neither of the main political parties opposed the giant Adani mine. Virulent attacks on young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and school strikers here confirm how terrified those on the hard right of politics and media are of the youthful threat but they’re nowhere near terrified enough yet. As the life support systems of all creatures face extinction, though, comment by Australia’s climate scientists continues to be so subdued as to be ineffectual.
    Scientists have one last chance of redemption. It doesn't involve the safe pathway of publishing ever more articles in prestigious journals to fine-tune what we already know. Instead, we are suggesting that climate scientist show leadership and join students to form an alliance that cannot be silenced. If we are to avoid the catastrophe of a 2 degree temperature rise we need activism on the scale of the Vietnam era protests, with kids in every school screaming for action and screaming for their parents to support it, and we need to have kids supported by loud and hard evidence from fearless scientists. Now is the time for action and hope.

    0 0
11. BaerbelW at 17:25 PM on 11 August, 2019

    Loz73 @10

    In Germany, Austria and Switzerland we have Scientists for Future (S4F) who do exactly what you'd like to see in Australia: it started as an organised effort to collect signatures for a statement in support of the Fridays for Future (FfF) movement, corroborating their demands. They managed to get 26,800 signatures within a couple of weeks from a wide variety of scientists and have been visible and vocal in the regular strikes and other activities organised by FfF. They also held a big press conference (in German) to publish their statement which in turn got a lot of press. Currently, S4F helps FfF  - if asked - with material for presentations or provides speakers at strikes and other events - it's an impressive if still fledgling effort. Please feel free to touch base via our contact form if you'd like to know more (I'm involved with S4F in Germany).

    0 0
12. nigelj at 07:28 AM on 12 August, 2019

    I think we all need to push hard to try to get the consensus studies mentioned more in the daily newspaper media and the like. The media might resist this, because it suggests the scientific debate is really largely over, and the media prefer to keep controversies going because it gets people buying their product, but try anyway.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.