Consensus

Science is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. It is evidence that does the dictating.- John Reisman

Evidence:

  • Satelites q miden la cantidad de calor que se libera al espacio, en los ultimos 40 yrs han detectado menos calor libreado. Esto indica que la huella humana,esta generando más cantidad de GH gases, atrapando el calor dentro de la atm y calentando el planeta.
  • Medidas tomadas en la superficie terrestre, han detectado mas radiacion infraroja , o calor, bajando de la atm a la sup terr.
  • Cooling upper atm and warming lower atm is a distinct human fingerprint.

  • La capa upper atm se esta encogiendo! pq se está enfriando, se condensa más.

    Joke: YES! The sky IS falling.- Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt.

  • En resumen, la evidencia es:

    • Winter warming faster than summer
    • Nights warming faster than days
    • Less oxygen in the air
    • More fossil fuel carbon in trees
    • More fossil fuel carbon in air
    • More fossil fuel carbon in ocean
    • More fossil fuel carbon in coral
    • Patter of ocean warming
    • Shrinking upper atm
    • Cooling upper atm
    • Less heat escaping to space
    • More heat returning to Earth.

  • RESULT: Humans are adding heat-trapping greenhouse gases to atm. WE ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.

  • Different climate drivers:

    1. Greenhouse gases
    2. Sun
    3. Volcanoes
    4. Internal variability (Driven by ocean cycles) (AL FINAL SE DICTÓ Q NO GENERA CAMBIOS CLIMÁTICOS SIGN)

  • Pero sólo la GHG generan TODOS los aspectos que generan cambios climáticos, es decir, considerado como Climate Driver:

    1. Cooling upper atm (Caused by GHG)
    2. Less heat to space (GHG)
    3. Rising topopause (GHG, Sun, Volcanoes)
    4. Annual cycle (GHG)
    5. Daily cycle (GHG)
    6. Ocean warming (GHG)
    7. More heat back to Earth (GHG)
    8. Land warming faster than oceans (GHG, Sun)

Scientist consensus

  • Según articulos publicados, 97% de cientificos expertos en climate change, afirman q el global warming esta causado x humanos.

  • Hay un pequeño grupo que no está de acuerdo creando: MAGNIFIED MINORITY & FAKE EXPERTS

    • "Petition of 31 000 dissenting scientists proves no consensus", que indica q el global warming NO es causado x humanos.
    • PERO esto sólo requeria un grado de bach en cualq ciencia. NO DE EXPERTOS.
    • Ese 31 000 personas, solo representabn al 0.3% de personas con grado de ciencias en USA.
    • De lo cual, solo el 0.1% de esos 31 000 eran climate scientist.
    • Hace q el num se vea grande, cuando en realidad representa una minoria.

  • IPCC Statements:

    • IPCC 1995: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate"
    • IPCC 2013: "It is extremely likely (more than 95%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century"

What requieres a scientific consensus?

  1. Evidencia.
  2. Todos los involucrados acuerdan los estándares de esa evidencia.
  3. El acuerdo es de dif grupos de defierentes areas.

  • A correct knowledge-based consensus should have:

    1. Consilience of Evidence: evidencia de dist areas pero q llegan a una misma conclusión.
    2. Social calibration: Usar los mismos standards de evidencia. Acordar los conceptos para llegar a una conclusión.
    3. Social Diversity: Acuerdos q vengan de distintos grupos con dist areas de investigación. And groupthink.

Psychology of Denial

Ideological Bias

Kahan, D et al (2007). The second national risk and culture study: Making sense of-and making progress in-the American culture war of fact. GWU Legal Studies Research Paper (370), 08-26.

In the case of climate science, the motivating factor is usually political. Some ppl reject the science bcs they dont like some of the possible solutions. Facts alone wont change their ideological and cultural worldviews. For exmpl: we can emphasize that there are small government, free market solutions to the climate problem. Explaining the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, and how the greenhouse effect works, can also help break through those barriers.

Five characteristics of science denial

  • Fake experts : Magnify minority
  • Logical fallacies : Cortinas de humo --> misrepresenting science, jumping to conclusions without evidence and false dichotomy (presenting only 2 options when other options are available).
  • Impossible expectations : cubierta bajo el lema "evidencia insuficiente"
  • Cherry picking : cuando se basan en data exclusiva que lleva a otra conclusión, se enfocan en una pequeña data en lugar de ver TODA la data q el consenso evalúa.

  • Conspiracy theories :

    Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors. Environmental Research Letters (John Cook, Pter Ellerton, David Kinkead, 2018)

Dragons of Inaction

Dragons of inaction: There are a number of psychological barriers preventing ppl from acting to prevent climate change.

  • Spatial discounting: when an events seem far away, ppl tend to discount them.
  • Overoptimistic about climate change impacts: understimate the risk.
  • Pessimism about self-efficacy: about our own ability to make a difference to climate change.
  • Social norming: why should i change if they wont?
  • Token behaviour: short term behaviour instead of long term.
  • Consensus gap: aun hay personas q piensan q los cientificos aun se debaten 50-50% sobre si el climate change es causado x humanos. Pero la verdad es q, ya el 97% de cientificos afirma q el climate change es cuasado x humanos.

  • Political beliefs: More conservative ppl, free market ppl, lead to an increase of consesus gap. Diferente a liberal ppl. --> Ignorance (desinformation) & confusion (misinformation).

    • Conservative: free market lovers: they think that the government shouldnt be involved in their free market policies. Thats why they tend to reject the findings from climate change.
    • Conservative think: We are going to have to have to take steps to curb the carbon production so that we can reduce the amount of CO2 in the air. That means a bigger central government. As political conservatives, we dont want a big central government. It means we are going to have to put some constraints on capitalism. That's socialism,

    The problem it's not driven by the lack of information, the problem is driven by ppl not wanting to believe the science bcs they dont like its implications.- Naomi Oreskes.

  • El debate del cambio climático es un debate político que se ha hecho pasar por un debate científicio.