Scienceglobalwarminghoax

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 04:27 PM

Another dumb climate psychology paper

https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/another-dumb-climate-psychology-paper/
A paper Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities was published yesterday in Nature Climate Change. The six authors, Bliuc et al, come from Social Science and Psychology departments in Australia. There is also an associated News & Views article by Tom Postmes, Psychology: Climate change and group dynamics. The paper is truly awful, in so many ways, and effectively illustrates the blinkered thinking that is endemic in the field, nicely summarised by Andy West in his recent post at Climate etc. The following paragraphs raise some of the problems with the paper.

It starts badly, with unquestioning assertion of the Cook et al 97% consensus paper. As usual this is stated in an unclear way, “97% agree that climate change is caused by humans” (what, some of it? Most of it? All of it?), a feature that Ben Pile refers to as consensus without an object. Then the paper simply declares that “The public is divided between climate change ‘believers’ (whose views align with those of the scientific community) and ‘sceptics’ (whose views are in disagreement with those of the scientific community)”

One of the issues they asked ‘sceptics’ and ‘believers’ about is their “anger at the opposing group”. The numbers came out (on some scale) at 2.84 for sceptics, but 4.10 for believers. We’ve seen recently several examples of the obscene vitriol directed towards even those who are moderately sceptical about climate change. But the way this data is reported by Bliuc et al is astounding: “We note, in particular, that part of the sceptic group consciousness is anger at climate change believers”. The smaller number (sceptic anger at believers) is highlighted, while the considerably larger number (believer anger towards sceptics) is ignored.

One of the issues they asked ‘sceptics’ and ‘believers’ about is their “anger at the opposing group”. The numbers came out (on some scale) at 2.84 for sceptics, but 4.10 for believers. We’ve seen recently several examples of the obscene vitriol directed towards even those who are moderately sceptical about climate change. “We note, in particular, that part of the sceptic group consciousness is anger at climate change believers”. The smaller number (sceptic anger at believers) is highlighted, while the considerably larger number (believer anger towards sceptics) is ignored.

In summary, we have a biased paper promoting political activism, exacerbating division and with a main conclusion that has already been stated many times in the literature. How did this rubbish get published? Oh, it’s in Nature.

4 replies, 676 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Another dumb climate psychology paper (Original post)
Jack Burton Apr 2015 OP
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2015 #1
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2015 #2
EGTrise Apr 2015 #3
Argentina Apr 2015 #4

Response to Jack Burton (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 06:00 PM

1. Denial101x: Making Sense of Climate Change Denial | UQx on edX | Course About Video

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 06:02 PM

2. For this thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 08:05 PM

3. An assistant math professor at the University of Nottingham.

With a climate denial blog. Rendering his opinion on a psychology paper. Double yawn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Original post)

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:08 PM

4. Baloney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Scienceglobalwarminghoax