|
|
NASA and the blogosphere
 | By Stephan Lewandowsky
Winthrop Professor, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia
Posted on 3 September 2012 |
I recently published a paper on the motivated
rejection of science that is forthcoming in Psychological Science. The
abstract of the paper is as follows:
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are
altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced
by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform
for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential
role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100)
of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance
and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find
that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics
predicts rejection of climate science (r @ .80 between latent
constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection
of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV
causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show
that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA
killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts
rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other
scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free
markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions
that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.
Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the
perception of a consensus among scientists.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this paper has caused a considerable media
response and a flurry of activity on the internet. I have also
received a fair amount of correspondence, so much in fact that I have
been unable to keep up with it. I apologize to those who have not
received a reply to recent messages, and I hope this post covers some of
the issues raised.
In a somewhat ironic twist, given that the paper addressed
conspiracist ideation, much attention has focused on the source of
participants, which were “Visitors to climate blogs voluntarily
completed an online questionnaire between August and October 2010 (N =
1377). Links were posted on 8 blogs (with a pro-science science stance
but with a diverse audience); a further 5 “skeptic" (or
“skeptic"-leaning) blogs were approached but none posted the link.”
To clarify, this means that participants were recruited from those
blogs that posted the link—not those that did not. One might therefore
presume that attention would focus on those blogs that provided entry
points to the survey, not those that did not, because it is entirely
unclear how the latter might contribute to the results of the survey.
For example, the website of the British RSPCA also did not post a link
to the survey, and neither did the Australian Woolworths website, so how
might their non-involvement affect the results? I am keen to hear about
potential mechanisms, perhaps we have overlooked something.
However, attention has primarily focused on those non-participating
blogs and their identity. I have been inundated with requests to release
their identities, and I have thus far declined to comply with those
requests because I believe that a presumption of privacy should apply to
my correspondence with potential participants in research.
Unlike some of the people who have been emailing me, my work is
subject to ethical guidelines and is subject to approval by my
University’s ethics committee—as is the work of any other behavioral
scientist in Australia and elsewhere. It is therefore not solely my
decision whether or not to reveal the identity of people who were
approached on the presumption of privacy.
Because this issue is likely subject to different opinions, I have
therefore approached the Australian Psychological Society and my
University’s Human Research Ethics Committee to provide guidance on this
decision.
There is an obvious asymmetry of potential harm here: If I release
the names but it turns out to have been unethical, this cannot be
undone. If I decline to release the names, as I have done to date, and
it turns out that this was unnecessary, then no harm is done if release
of the names is delayed by a few days.
I am therefore awaiting guidance on this issue.
In the meantime, I understand that there is a list on the internet of
individuals who have declared that they were never contacted. As we are
awaiting the decision about release of the names, just a matter of
general principle, there can be no harm if those folks were to again
check their inboxes (and outboxes) very carefully for correspondence
from my assistant at UWA in August and September 2010. I know how
difficult it is to locate individual emails among thousands received in a
year, and a double check may therefore be quite prudent. (Who knows, it
might even prevent some overly trigger-happy and creative people from
floating a conspiracy theory about how I just made up the fact of having
contacted those blogs, similar to the way NASA faked the moon landing.)
There are other issues that have been raised in connection with the
paper, including some interesting points regarding the statistics, and
they are worthy of further commentary in the near future. As it happens I
am attending a conference at the moment with one of my co-authors,
which ties us up for most of the time but which also provides an
opportunity for discussion that is likely to lead to further posts in
the not-too-distant future.
26 Comments
Comments 1 to 28:
-
I notice that no link to the paper is made here, nor the rather contentious title is not spoken..
"NASA faked the moon landing|
Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science"
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
Given that this was the reason a number of people were concerned,
perhaps just a tiny oversight, in attempts to clarify the concerns made
by 'sceptics' to the readers here?
As Steve Mcintyre - Climate Audit and Condon (The Air Vent are both
named in the paper, I do think it appropriate, that the authors confirm
thatthese 2 blogs were NOT approached - They both state that they were
not.
(snip)
Moderator Response: Part of this comment has been snipped due to extensive cutting and pasting of a comment that makes accusations of fraud.
-
"In the meantime, I understand that there is a list on the internet
of individuals who have declared that they were never contacted."
You may also be interested to hear of a list on the internet of blog
hosts who say you have their permission to reveal any contact you had
with them regarding this survey, here.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tweet-your-permission-for-lewandowsky-to-out-you/
Names include: Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Marc Morano and many, many more.
-
Actually strike Marc Morano, I don't see his explicit permission there.
-
There is another asymmetry in your words. If Nasa really had faked
the Moon landings, the conspiracy behind it would have been involving
thousands of people across many decades (to this day, in fact!).
It is actually simple to retort any conspiracy theory about NASA and the
Moon landings by saying that, if they really faked it, THAT would have
been by itself an even bigger accomplishment than the landing.
On the other hand, for you to make up having contacted this or that
blog, all it takes is for...you (and you alone - your co-authors don't
even have to be involved) to make up having contacted this or that blog.
Not a conspiracy by a long shot, and impossible to dismiss using the "thousands of people across many decades" argument.
Therefore the analogy "....floating a conspiracy theory about how I just
made up the fact of having contacted those blogs, similar to the way
NASA faked the moon landing" is deeply flawed. Same applies AFAIK to all
examples of "conspiracy" described in your paper, all of them extremely
unlikely hypotheses based on the nefarious cooperation of untold number
of conjurers (BTW: I do not believe in any of them).
None of that is remotely comparable to the idea that reluctance to
divulge names may be due to something else than privacy considerations.
-
One might therefore presume that attention would focus
on those blogs that provided entry points to the survey, not those that
did not, because it is entirely unclear how the latter might contribute
to the results of the survey.
You stated the idea of exposing your survey to skeptic blogs in the paper
; a further 5 skeptic" (or skeptic"-leaning) blogs were approached but none posted the link.
Why did you tell us that in the paper, if, as you say "it is entirely
unclear how the latter might contribute to the results of the survey"?
Once one reads that isn't is reasonable to ask: What made you think of
exposing your survey to skeptic blogs? What then made you give up after
only the first 5 skeptic blogs rebuffed you?
-
Entertain us please with an explanation of any possible relevance
of the British RSPCA or Australian Woolworths not posting a link to your
survey
-
Having examined the data in some detail, I am far less concerned
about which "skeptical" blogs that were contacted, but the consequences
for the results of not having them included. Looking at the four
questions on climate science, it possible to score from 4 (complete
rejection) to 16 (complete acceptance. 125 scored from 4 to 7 compared
with 854 who scored 13 to 16.
On the conspiracy theories (excluding CYNewWorldOrder and CYClimChange) I
found an average score of 1.55, with little difference between Pro
& anti science groups.
-
FWIW, the pressure on the usual skeptics to sign up to the tweet
going about is likely to make the Human Subjects folk not allow Prof. L.
to name them on the grounds that they were subject to group social
pressure
-
There are several logical leaps in Eli's desperate attempt to blow smoke.
The current premise is that there are no "Human Subjects" and as more
and more known sceptical blog proprietors add their voices, this will
become increasingly apparent.
Unless of course Stephan has approached the proprietors of five "sceptic
blogs" which no-one in the sceptic community has ever heard of.
That scenario would carry a quite powerful message of its own.
-
Given that blogs are categorically 'public', I don't see how there
can be an expectation or assumption of privacy. The editor of a
newspaper or company couldn't expect any correspondence *to* him to be
kept secret.
There are a number of other things about the contact between the researchers and the bloggers that might be useful to know.
1. How were the blogs chosen -- what was the criteria?
2. How were the bloggers approached?
3. What was said/written in the request in each case?
4. Was the text of the request the same in each case?
5. Were there any existing relationships/friendships/etc between the researchers and the bloggers?
6. How were these potential contaminating influences anticipated, excluded, or managed by the researchers?
-
"there are no "Human Subjects"
Well Eli would not have been quite so blunt.
-
I've noticed a couple of curious things.
Firstly, blogs that regularly smear scientists are most upset, claiming
they were not invited to take part. (This includes blogs that have
maligned Prof Lewandowsky in the past.) These bloggers could consider
that they are making a post-survey contribution, providing data for
further research. The comments made by people on these blogs tend to
align very well with the responses to the initial survey so I doubt that
it would generate a complete new paper.
Secondly, 'skeptical' bloggers appear to confuse crank conspiracy
theorists with extremist right wing views. My reading of the paper is
that the survey found extremist ideologies (laissez faire variety) were a
stronger predictor of the rejection of climate science than holding
more generalised conspiracy theories. The findings are very clear in the
paper, yet lots of people do not seem to have picked up on this.
Finally, many people have expressed an opinion about the title of the
paper. I have some suggestions on my blog that should satisfy any
concerns:
1. No Market is 100% Laissez-Faire - Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
2. Societies elect Governments - Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
Others suggestions eg "I resent paying tax - therefore ..."
-
PS I'm told that at least some of these bloggers who 'denied' being
invited to post a link to the survey have finally found the email
requesting they post a link to the survey, which they ignored at the
time.
Could you make up this stuff?
-
(snip)such a survey is wide open to be treated with contempt with some
participants deliberately taking the “mickey” out of it depending on
mood, predilection and sensing the survey inclination.
Clearly that does mean that the type of site chosen for the survey does affect the results (snip)
The other issue is your claim of having asked a number of skeptical
sites to participate and they declined. A number of these most popular
“skeptical” sites have stated that they were not contacted and have
given you public permission to name them.
You seem to duck for cover behind an illusory ethical dilemma which
could easily be dispelled if you so choose. Simply contact those five
sites and ask for permission to disclose their identity. Then, equally
simple, make public those results by naming those which gave you
permission. If zero, then state it clearly.
You may indeed be right that some of those sites who claim not to have
received the invite may be in error and I am inclined to accept that.
But it is hard to see how your approach and excuses help.
Moderator Response: Parts of this comment
have been snipped due to violation of the 'No inflammatory tone; no
accusations of deception' parts of our Comments Policy.
-
Sou, there is an old Irish saying (non PC perhaps) which translates
as "a woman told me that a woman told her", which indicates possible
unreliability of the information being offered.
"I'm told that at least some of these bloggers who 'denied' being
invited to post a link to the survey have finally found the email ..."
seems to fit this pattern quite well. If any of the said bloggers have
in fact said that they have found the email request, there should be no
impediment to providing those specific names. Without such names, to use
your own words, you could indeed be making up this stuff.
-
Steve McIntyre punctures the conspiracy theory about the survey by
conceding that yes, he did receive an invitation (twice).
"In Lewandowsky’s post today, he reported that the inquiry was not sent
out by him personally but by his research assistant. I searched again
this time under the term “uwa.edu.au” and located an email from Charles
Hanich on Sep 6, 2010 asking that the survey be posted by Climate Audit
and a second request two weeks later.
Like many people, I get lots of emails. I didnt know Hanich and I didn’t
pay any attention to the request at the time. I didnt reply."
Can the readiness of the conspiracy theorists to accept a conspiracy theory about the survey itself lead to an addendum?
-
oneillpt has a conspiracy theory about the deflating of the conspiracy theory.
-
Might be interesting if the questionnaire was now distributed via
the sceptical blogs. In the interests of the fuller picture. Would this
be possible, and would it now be accepted as part of the study?
-
Ian Woolley, no need - seriously. Not only does the analysis of
the survey results conform quite well to findings in similar studies,
comments on the 'skeptic' blogs discussing this topic support the
findings very well.
onillpt - you could check it out for yourself. I did. Of course, going
by some of the comments I read, some 'skeptics' will 'believe' it's all
a conspiracy and that someone was impersonating Steve McIntyre when he
admitted to finding the two requests after all.
(Another approach would be to ask all the various 'skeptic' bloggers to
release all the emails they sent and received in 2010. There are lots
of 'skeptic' bloggers. You never know - they might all be happy to
provide all their emails on the internet in the interest of openness and
full disclosure.)
-
Sou - good use of the word 'conform'. As Geoff Chambers points out
at the Bishop Hill site, with Prof Lewandowsky giving a presentation at
Monash university a mere 3 days after the second email to Steve McIntyre
which included the following slide:
Lewandowsky & Gignac (forthcoming)
•Internet survey (N=1100)
•Endorsement of climate conspiracy (“hoax by scientists to get grants”)
linked to endorsement of other conspiracies (“NASA faked moon landing”)
•Conspiracy factor without climate item predicts rejection of climate science
(snip)
Moderator Response: Part of this comment has been snipped due to violation of 'No accusations of deception' part of our Comments Policy.
-
Ian Woolley - so you are saying that you don't accept the evidence from this particular survey, is that correct?
Do you also not accept scientific evidence that matches the physics of global warming?
Out of curiosity, if you answered 'yes' to both the above, what other conspiracy theories do you 'believe'?
Also out of curiosity, what are your political leanings? (Whatever your answer to the above questions.)
Evidence suggests that more extreme laissez faire views are a good
predictor of climate science rejection. However it doesn't follow that
all people who have such views reject climate science. Nor does it
follow that a left-leaning person will accept climate science.
-
Perhaps the authors could adress some of the concerns raised at the
blog Skeptical Science. Despite the title, this is a non 'sceptic' blog
and as Stephan Lewandowsky contributed to this blog, interestingly at
the same time as the survey was put on line there. Perhaps these
thoughts will recieve due consideration, as they cannot be dismissed as
just 'sceptics'
(snip)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/AGU-Fall-Meeting-sessions-social-media-misinformation-uncertainty.html#84398
I do think this other comment desreves some response as well from the authors of the paper:
(snip)
Moderator Response: Part of this comment
has been snipped due to violation of 'No copying and pasting from other
comments' part of our Comments Policy.
-
I think this spate of comments is what is sometimes disparagingly
referred to as 'blog science'. 'Skeptics' come out in force, ironically
probably including those who, had they responded to the survey, would
have supported the results. They want every blog comment addressed. Par
for the course in anything to do with climate science.
There are channels for commenting on published papers, including writing
rebuttals. Blog review doesn't have quite the same status.
(Incidentally, reporting on interim findings of an internet survey can
be done very quickly. I can provide interim results within an hour or
so of downloading responses to date. Had McIntyre posted a link when he
received the first request, N quoted in the Sept presentation and
subsequent paper would maybe have been higher. Even had he posted a
link when he received the second request a couple of weeks later, N in
the presentation and subsequent paper may have been higher. But McIntyre
didn't post the link at any time.)
-
The whole thing is a great argument for the OSX and Mail, because the search function actually works.
But we are now well into the Gish Gallop phase of the thing. Tally ho!
-
Sou - what's your take on Tom Curtis's opinion as quoted above by
Barry Woods? My take, to answer your question, is that the results may
well be 'significantly affected' given 'the low number of "skeptical"
respondents overall'.
Second question,(physics of global warming): not sure. There seems to be
an awful lot of back and forth. But also, how we respond politically is
much the more interesting question. And that *is* unsettled.
Conspiracy theories I believe in: I think the coach-ticket booking
service for the National Express coaches here in Britain is rigged to
ratchet-up the cost of 'funfare' tickets if you leave the site (to
compare prices with other service providers)and come back even within
minutes. I am absolutely convinced this is the case. There's no way the
prices would jump that quickly in that short an amount of time. And also
pan-dimensional beings run H&M (the 'Swedish' clothing company).
Political leanings: so tricky these days isn't it? Left and right are
hollow categories. I'm suspicious of anyone who sincerely describes
themselves as socialist because I just think you can't seriously have
missed the last 20 years, can you?
Anyway, what do you think of Tom Curtis's comments? Does he have a point?
-
Ian, thank you for your response. I take it you are not sure about
the science and are more interested in the policy responses. Policy
responses are becoming critical every year.
Re my take on Tom Curtis' remarks, if you read my comments in the same
thread on skepticalscience.com (and my blog, which should be linked to
my name from that same site) you will get a good idea.
-
Sou - my apologies for doubting you. I had in fact of course tried
to check it out for myself, and found nothing at Climate Audit or at the
Blackboard, the two obvious places to look. A comment from Steve
McIntyre now appears at the Blackboard confirming what you reported,
together with a discussion of WordPress cache problem preventing
comments being seen for a period other than by people who posted a
comment there themselves.
I would have been less suspicious had you said plainly that "Steve
McIntyre comments at the Blackboard ..." rather than "I'm told that at
least some of ...", not helped by your previous reference to suggestions
at your own blog, without providing any link to that blog - I do
actually like to check out things for myself, and you are as unknown to
me as I probably am to you.
Unfortunately, I've had long experience of dubious claims based on
dubious (or even not so dubious) surveys. It does lead to a rather
suspicious mindset. See below for an example.
Drawing conclusions from a very small number of respondents in a survey
can be very unwise, and when latched upon by activist groups downright
dangerous.
As a cautionary tale, and draw any parallels you may wish, take one
survey I felt compelled to comment on, many years ago, during a
particularly divisive divorce referendum (divorce at that time being
prohibited under the Irish constitution). One activist claimed that
"statistics show that stepfathers are five times more likely to molest
their stepdaughters than are natural fathers" and another activist group
claimed that "virtually half the girls with stepfathers were
victimised". On going back to the original survey (I do like to check
for myself as I said) it turned out that the first claim was based on
only two claims of sexual victimisation by a stepfather in 530 responses
from female students, and the second claim cleverly omitted the minor
detail, on the same page in the source article, that of the 30
respondents with a stepfather, 14 had claimed victimisation by others,
and that "paradoxically some of these stepdaughters were victimised
prior to meeting their stepfather".
Both claims however were accurate quotations from the source article.
They just omitted qualifications such as "If we were to extrapolate on
the basis of this data, something we are not really entitled to do,
given the limitations of the sample". Unfortunately the author, David
Finkelhor, in the journal "Child Abuse and Neglect", contributed to the
misuse of his survey by failing to resist the temptation to provide
these "useful" quotes even while admitting that they were not justified
given the limitations of the data, and in fact warning in his book on
the subject that "such small numbers are not a reliable basis on which
to calculate prevalence accurately"
In the context of removing a constitutional ban on divorce I did
mischievously ask in that newspaper comment whether we should abolish
farms as the same survey claimed a victimisation rate of 44% (7 of 16)
for those who lived on farms.
MikeH: MikeH has a conspiracy theory about oneillpt having a conspiracy
theory about the deflating of the conspiracy theory. Over to you.
Recursive conspiracy theories are such fun.
-
"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions
are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain
unconvinced by the scientific evidence."
Really?? I've actually never encountered a human that has ever disagreed
with the assertion that CO2 and other GHGs have a non-zero impact on
long-term trend temperatures since (say) 1950. I congratulate you on
finding such a person - that itself demonstrates exceptional powers of
investigation.
That said, there ARE many people (who I believe are known colloquially as "skeptics," "deniers" (snip) who have expressed 1 or more of the following opinions:
- Data quality is poor, due in part to incomplete adjustment for UHI effect.
(snip)
- "Consensus" modelling from sources such as the IPCC have consistently
overstated the rate of trend, typically extrapolating short-term
cyclical effects in perpetuity
- As such models exceed the known physical properties of GHG, degrees of
feedback are assumed which some believe have not been factually
established and which they doubt are as high as the parameters modelled.
- Recent cyclical factors have produced an extended period of flat
temperatures inconsistent with the models, while not inconsistent with
the multi-decade trend
- Ocean temps, unaffected by UHI, show shorter trends
- Some projected outcomes of AGW such as sea levels, undershoot some claims of either scientists, activists or both.
They may also believe that there are positives and negatives in
atmospheric CO2 and that a clear cost-benefit analysis has not been
articulated by policymakers. For example, obvious benefits of higher CO2
rarely discussed in policy debates are:
- Dramatically increased plant yields, and therefore a first order effect on global food production
- increased viability of large tracts of land in Asia, Europe and North America for habitation, mining and agriculture
- greater rainfall circulation and therefore potentially improved potential for water capture and storage
- fewer cold-related deaths on average (cold and related illness killing more than heat annually)
- impaired cyclogenesis and reduced landfall due to higher ocean temperatures and greater wind-shear
- AGW is self-limiting by finite carbon-based fuel reserves
Now since you talk about "the science" some other views of "deniers" are
irrelevant to your work, as they relate to politics and social sciences
generally. But in case of any future research, I include them here.
These can include:
- A unilateral carbon tax results in "forum shopping" for emission-intensive industries but little actual abatement.
- Australia's carbon tax is higher than any carbon price elsewhere in
the world (including nominally higher but narrower taxes cited by
Combet)
- There are adverse consequences of higher carbon prices than peer groups
- Other countries such as UK, Canada, Japan and NZ have deferred,
watered down or reversed previous abatement / pricing pledges recently.
- The quality of carbon credits is very low and subject to rampant fraud / resale.
- Some certificates reflect artificial constructs rather than actual
abatement - such as making HCFCs for destruction, closing uneconomic
power plants past their useful lives, promising not to cut down existing
trees or similar.
- Supporters of carbon pricing are highly correlated to receivers of
subsidies under CEF (e.g. AGL, GE, eco-consultancies, or by the count of
some skeptics 295 out of the 300 signatories to a recent petition in
support of the carbon tax).
- Some activists give mixed messages which reduce the persuasiveness of
their arguments in that they often oppose renewables such as hydro or
low carbon intensity methods such as nuclear energy
- Wind requires such rapid load adjustment and typically operates at
such a small fraction of headline capacity that the net abatement is
zero or near zero as carbon-based baseload has to operate in
conjunction.
- Renewables are vulnerable to rampant fraud and rorting, eg running
"solar" at night by spotlights or "wind" by plugging in
diesel-generators due to the higher feed-in for "green" power.
- Solar in the home is over-subsidised and requires excessive
infrastructure investment to cope with power flowing in the "wrong
direction."
- Since the government is a net beneficiary of carbon taxes, they may be
"steering" the message by employing activists instead of impartial
public servants.
- Flannery meets such a definition.
- Media outlets owning commercial eco-ventures such as Earth Hour is a
breach of independence, influences coverage and makes them participants
inappropriately in the political process given the current debate.
Unrelated to politics, but within your field of psychology, they may be curious about the following:
- "The science" is not perfectly homogenous, and therefore there is
debate about the extent of feedbacks, consequences, trends,
non-anthropogenic influences, weather phenomena and other factors.
However, a "skeptic" saying that the science is not settled (apparently a
self-evident statement) typically receives wildly disproportionate
criticism.
- The "unbalanced" media coverage goes well beyond facts not in dispute
(such as the GHG properties of CO2) and extends to policy responses that
are legitimately debated. For example, (-Snip-)
No doubt there is a vast spectrum of views on the Science, the politics,
policies and other matters. I congratulate you on being able to
identify correlations to apparently unrelated fields such as smoking,
9/11 and lunar exploration.
(snip)
Moderator Response: Parts of this comment
has been snipped due to violation of the 'No profanity or inflammatory
tone; no accusations of deception' part of our Comments Policy.
Post a CommentYou need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or register a new account. |
|
Relevant events (mainly in Australia) will be announced here as they become available.
|
|
About Us 
