When
I see an obvious case of cognitive dissonance in the news, I like to point it
out so you can see reality through what I call the Persuasion Filter. Today’s
example comes from an article in SLATE about climate change.
The
author, Tim Requarth, correctly points out that
facts and logic have limited value in changing anyone’s mind about climate
science, or anything else. He speaks from experience because he teaches
workshops on how to better communicate science. I like this guy. He’s on the
right path.
But
the thing that got my attention was this bit from the article:
“Kahan
found that increased scientific literacy actually had a small negative effect:
The conservative-leaning respondents who knew the most about science thought
climate change posed the least risk. Scientific literacy, it seemed, increased
polarization. In a later study, Kahan added a twist: He asked
respondents what climate scientists believed. Respondents who knew more about
science generally, regardless of political leaning, were better able to
identify the scientific consensus—in other words, the polarization disappeared.
Yet, when the same people were asked for their own opinions about climate
change, the polarization returned. It showed that even when people understand
the scientific consensus, they may not accept it.”
Notice
how the author slips in his unsupported interpretation of the data: Greater
knowledge about science causes more polarization.
Well,
maybe. That’s a reasonable hypothesis, but it seems incomplete. Here’s another
hypothesis that fits the same observed data: The people who know the
most about science don’t think complex climate prediction models are credible
science, and they are right.
For
my purposes today, we don’t need to know which hypothesis is correct. Maybe
knowledge does nothing but make you more confident that your “side” is
right. But maybe the people with the most knowledge on the topic of science are
– wait for it – good at judging the validity of science in any particular area.
Keep
in mind that the entire public argument in favor of climate change alarmism is
that the people who know the most (climate scientists) are largely on the same
page. But that conflicts with the idea that the conservative-leaning citizens
who know the most about science don’t find their ideas entirely credible – at
least in terms of the prediction models.
And
what would historians say about this situation? I think they would say that the
people who don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it. (Because that’s
what they always say.) In my opinion, the conservatives who know the most about
science are looking at it from an historical perspective, and they see a
pattern here: Complicated prediction models rarely work.
That’s
how I see it.
In
order to change my mind on climate science, you would need to show me that in
this one special case, history is not repeating. You’d
have to show me that this one time in history is when complicated prediction
models got it right. And I’m not sure that argument can be made, even if true.
I
would like to add one more hypothesis to the SLATE article. Let’s consider the
possibility that the only reason any non-scientist believes climate change is a
danger to civilization is because of fear persuasion, not because of facts or
logic, and not because of a citizen-level understanding of science. If you fear
the world will become uninhabitable in your lifetime, you’re more likely to
embrace the experts who say they know what is wrong and they know how to stop
it.
Climate
scientists probably believe they have convinced about half of the public to their
side using their graphs and logic and facts. That’s not the case. They
convinced half the public by using fear persuasion disguised as facts and
logic. And it probably worked best with the people who have the
least knowledge of how often complicated prediction models have failed in the
past.
For
the purpose of this blog post, you don’t need to know who is right and who is
wrong about climate science. My point today is that cognitive dissonance is
preventing scientists from seeing what is actually happening here with their
messaging. Scientists believe their facts and logic convinced all the smart
people to their side already, so now they need a new strategy for the dumb
ones. A different version of reality, as seen through the Persuasion Filter, is
that citizens who don’t understand history are doomed to believe whatever the
experts tell them. Half the country has been persuaded to climate alarmism by
fear, not an understanding of the issue. At the same time, those who know the
most about both history and science realize that complex climate models are
generally not credible, so they are not persuaded by fear.
I
remind new readers of this blog that I’m not a climate science denier. The
consensus of climate scientists might be totally right, but I have no practical
way to know. My point here, and in past posts, is that you can’t sell a truth
by packaging it to look exactly like a huge lie. And those complicated climate
prediction models look exactly like lies we have seen before, albeit in
unrelated fields.
—
Facebook
Official Page: fb.me/ScottAdamsOfficial
You
might enjoy reading my book because ice is melting wherever it
is warm enough.
I’m
also on…
Twitter
(includes Periscope): @scottadamssays
YouTube:
At this link.
Instagram:
ScottAdams925
