Group dynamics
THE overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe the Earth is warming as a result of man's activities. The American public is more sceptical. About a quarter of Americans still have doubts about global warming, and even more believe that the threat is being over-hyped. It would seem, then, that more needs to be done to help these sceptics understand the science that has the professionals so concerned. Or not. An interesting new study in Nature shows that the science comprehension thesis (SCT)which posits that divisions over climate change are a result of the public's incomprehension of the scienceis wrong. If it were right, increasing scientific literacy would correspond to greater agreement with the actual scientists, who generally believe global warming is a serious threat. But that's not the case. So if it's not a lack of scientific literacy causing disagreement with the experts, then what is it? The authors of the study looked at an alternative explanation referred to as the cultural cognition thesis. This thesis posits that individuals try to fit their interpretations of scientific evidence into pre-formed cultural philosophies. More specifically, those with a hierarchical, individualistic worldview were expected to be sceptical of climate-change risks, the acceptance of which might lead to unwanted restrictions on industry. Those with an egalitarian, communitarian worldview were expected to agree with the experts, as they are generally less troubled by commerce-cramping regulations. The data bore this out. And, perhaps most fascinating of all, increased scientific literacy only increased the cultural divide. David Roberts captures the upshot of all this. The operative concept here is motivated reasoning. The idea is, we begin by absorbing the values of our tribeswhat is and isn't important, what is and isn't a riskand use whatever numeracy and scientific literacy we possess to seek out facts and arguments that support those views. Getting smarter, in other words, only makes us better at justifying our own worldviews. It does not necessarily give us more scientifically accurate worldviews. Perhaps, then, I am simply justifying my own worldview (though I have no love for regulation) when I suggest that global warming is real and problematic. And perhaps the scientists who study global warming are doing the same. If you believe this, I am going to have trouble convincing you otherwise. If the study is correct, the increasing amount of data showing a warmer climate is a feeble weapon in this fight. Rather, the authors suggest that "communicators should endeavor to create a deliberative climate in which accepting the best available science does not threaten any group's values." But how? Eventually values must be translated into policy. But if policy fears are driving empirical views, then the whole contemplative process is out of whack. This makes it very hard to craft a message, on theoretical and policy grounds, that will win over those who still have doubts about global warming. This newspaper has tried, conceding uncertainty while comparing the world's climate-change efforts to householders insuring their homes against disaster. More recently, Jonathan Adler made a conservative case for action on the basis of property rights, particularly the rights of those poor folks in Bangladesh who might lose their homes if China keeps cooking coal. But he, like us, proposes putting a price on carbon, and I imagine that is where we lose potential converts. The fact is that good climate policy will entail regulations that are anathema to some. And this study suggests that as long as that is the case, the more comfortable course for those people will be to question the science.