Skepticism over climate change

New York Times' journalist Felicity Barringer interviewed Andrew J. Hoffman, a social scientist who does not believe in climate change. I will write a summary of this article in Q and A format.
(social science: the study of human society and of individual relationships in and to society.)

Q: What is the role of social scientists in the debate over climate science?

A: An idea has to first develop scientific consensus through data and models.
Secondly, it has to develop a political and social agreement where, "value-based, worldview-based, cognitive and cultural dimensions need to be addressed."
Social scientists have a lot of skills that allow them to determine whether the public accepts the conclusions of a scientific body.
Hoffman doesn't believe that data "speaks for itself." Data is most often politically and socially inflected.


Q: Have you ever seen the conflict between social science and physical science before?

A: Yes. For example the connection between smoking cigarettes and cancer had a scientific consensus for decades that this was a problem. Slowly, a social progress began and it became accepted.
Hoffman finds that the interesting thing about someone's position on climate change is strikingly based on one's political background. 1/3 of Republicans and 3/4 of Democrats think that climate change is real. To him that shows the political, ideological and cultural dimensions of this debate.

Q: Why is peer reviewed science rejected?

(peer reviewed science: when a group of scientists finish a study and write it up in an article and submit it to a journal to be published. Through some review from editors, the article may or may not be published)

A: There are many people who don’t trust the peer-review process and scientists. Hoffman feels that a lot of people will not be comfortable accepting a scientific conclusion if it may lead to outcomes they find objectionable.

People will be hesitant to accept the idea of climate change if it contradicts their ideas and values.

Q: What kinds of values?

A: How much do people trust the scientific process? Scientists? Faith vs. reason? Power?

Hoffman thinks that if you, “can’t define solutions on climate change and you’re asking me to accept it, you’re asking me to accept basically a pretty dismal reality that I refuse to accept. And many climate proponents fall into this when they give these horrific, apocalyptic predictions of cities under water and ice ages and things like that. That tends to get people to dig their heels in even harder.”

Q: What makes you see the science as unacceptable?

A: Can one trust the message? Can one trust the messenger? People will accept a message from someone that they think shares their values and beliefs.

And often, environmentalists are not that kind of person. Some people see environmentalists as socialists, trying to control people’s lives.

I chose this article because I thought it was interesting that some people still believe that climate changing is not real. Some people don’t even believe the data.

Citations:

Article: Barringer, Felicity. "Taking on Climate Skepticism as a Field of Study ." New
York Times 9 Apr. 2011: n. pag. Print.

Picture: From the article