In my latest essay for the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), I talk about why I think the public is seriously and systematically underestimating the risks from global warming. I believe that it has to do in part with the cognitive biases that are inherent to risk perception. Changing the way we talk about risk, then, may help get the rest of us on board.
You can find my other JREF essays (like this controversial one on free will) here.
Risk, Emotion, and Global Warming
I am not going to lie to you; I am freaked out about climate change. At least politicians today can say something to the effect of “it’s something that the next generation must face down,” seemingly abdicating their own responsibility. But I am a part of that next generation. Climate change is something that I am going to have to deal with, and I’m not sure if my generation and I can.
What strikes me is this: why aren’t more people taking note of the serious risks from climate change? Why has this issue not galvanized the people into immediate action? One answer, and a very legitimate one, is that there was (and still is) a very organized anti-AGW (anthropogenic global warming) campaign that has called into question even whether or not it is a real phenomenon. But what I want to talk about here is more subtle. I think what we are seeing is a fundamental misunderstanding of risk.
Moving forward I am going to assume two things. First, that global warming is happening and is human caused (as per the scientific consensus), and second, that most projections about the effects of climate change are grim. That is to say, whatever comes of climate change, it won’t be good.
Emotion and Bias
So why do people largely ignore the risks from AGW? Indeed, a recent Gallup poll shows that Americans worry about AGW risk almost the least among various environmental issues, and even less so now than in 2000. I think this has something to do with the cognitive biases that are inherent to risk perception.
The availability heuristic is a cognitive bias that links the frequency of an event, or a perceived probability that some risk will occur, to how available that event or risk is in your brain. Consider your brain as an open field. The more you walk one path in that field, the wider and more defined it becomes. The more you see or think about something, the more worn this cognitive pathway in your brain (representing more neuronal connections), making the event or risk easier to recall. This ease of recall influences our perceptions of probability. The classic example of this is that people who have seen more media images of plane crashes tend to overestimate their likelihood. Similarly, in 2001 there were a few isolated shark attacks off of the coast of Florida and the surrounding states that the media dubbed a “feeding frenzy.” Statistically, there were actually fewer attacks in 2001 than in 2000, but even so this media proclamation significantly reduced tourism in those states that summer. The point is that the more easily you can recall a risk or experience you have had with that risk, the more likely you think that risk is to happen.
In the case of AGW, I think that we are seeing the opposite side of the availability heuristic than the shark and airplane examples illustrate. I think that few people have experienced anything that can be linked to AGW, and therefore they underestimate the very real risk it poses. Admittedly, this is partly because science cannot yet definitively say this storm or that drought is due directly to climate change, but people are beginning to notice a trend. We will return to this a little later on.
Reblogged this on BIGTIX and commented:
Momentum, even if humanity is to reach a global consensus, not much time left enough time to stop this rogue locomotives. Landscape of global consensus on how to resolve the issues climate change is strained.
It is obvious that in this world, according to considerations of national interests and economic interests of enterprises, the odds are not very noticeable.
So global warming is the end of the world? Fail. :)
Seriously though, the climate has been changing throughout human history and the species has continued to survive. The truly libertarian solution is to enable individuals the freedom to move without artificial borders and encourage free market economic reforms so that individuals can make decisions based on true costs (signals of scarcity).
This website should do a good job answering any questions you may have: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
You should also know that climate science (and the occurrence of global warming) has been verified for well over 100 years (not to make an argument from antiquity); but to call this a huge century-long hoax makes a gigantic conspiracy for which there is no evidence to suggest that it is so.
Interesting, however you still shouldn’t panic.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/27/dont-panic-over-global-warming
Last I looked at the reports (circa 2010) I was not impressed with the lack of fundamental understanding in vapor / droplet modelling. Seems they still haven’t resolved it. I have a better understanding of CFD (Computational fluid dynamics) than the general population as I’ve used it in the study of compressible reactive flow of gases and reactor design.
From the article:
“Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.”
Kyle, yes you CAN do something about AGW: stop using carbon. Stop driving a car (as you do every day) stop using electricicy, stop heating your house. It will be hard to stop breathing and stop eating but those DO make CO2. If there is anything a skeptic ought to be skeptical of it is AGW. What do you want others to do that you are not doing? You want others to stop using carbon but you keep on using it? See what I mean? You seem to want others to make a big sacrifice to make a difference but you keep on enjoying the American life style. You want to keep on using carbon but to be told that it is causing no problems? That is what is happening but you do not believe it. I read your article about AGW now please read my article here
http://northskepticfiles.blogspot.com/2011/01/global-warming-my-take.html
Climate science is NOT solid, in fact it is not even science, because one can not experiment on it, you can not perform experiments on climate in a controlled way that one can with electricity for example in a laboratory. In your article you seem to imply that without AGW there would be no extreme weather. Remember that the invisible and the non existant look a lot alike.
John B