Byย John Cook,ย George Masonย University
A famous psychology experiment instructed participants to watch a short video, counting the number of times players in white shirts passed the ball. If you havenโt seen it before, I encourage you to give the following short video your full attention and follow theย instructions:
ย
Follow the instructions in this video before readingย on.
At the end, participants discovered the point of the video when asked if they had observed the gorilla walking through the players. Half the participants didnโtย notice the gorilla at all. The lesson? When we laser-focus on specific details (like players in white shirts), we can miss the gorilla in theย room.
What does this have to do with climate change? Iโm aย cognitive psychologistย interested in better understanding and countering the techniques used to distort the science of climate change. Iโve found that understanding why some people reject climate science offers insight into how they deny science. By better understanding the techniques employed, you can counter misinformation moreย effectively.
Every movement that has rejected a scientific consensus, whether it be on evolution, climate change or the link between smoking and cancer, exhibits the sameย five characteristics of science denialย (concisely summarized by the acronym FLICC). These areย fake experts,ย logical fallacies,ย impossible expectations,ย cherry pickingย andย conspiracy theories. When someone wants to cast doubt on a scientific finding, FLICC is an integral part of the misinformationย toolbox.
The five characteristics of science denial.ย Skeptical Science,ย CC BY–ND
Logical fallacies are a broad umbrella, including a number of other misleading techniques. For example,ย red herringย is a term that likely originated from the technique of using strong-smelling fish to throw dogs off a scent. Similarly, irrelevant information or arguments can be used to distract people from importantย information.
There is a special class of red herring โ a specific technique of denial often employed to distract people from important scientific findings. To maintain the fish metaphor, I characterize this as the blowfishย fallacy.
This is the technique of laser-focusing on an inconsequential methodological aspect of scientific research, blowing it out of proportion in order to distract from the bigger picture. If you persuade people to focus hard enough on specific details, they can miss the gorilla in theย room.
The 97 Percent Scientific Consensus on Climateย Change
One example of the blowfish strategy is the attempt to distract from the scientific consensus on climate change. Study after study, using aย wide range of independent methods, has found overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that human beings are causing globalย warming.
I was the coauthor of one of these studies. We read through 21 years of climate papers, identifying which papers endorsed or rejected human-caused global warming. Among the papers stating a position,ย 97 percent agreed that humans are causing global warming. Our research has beenย relentlessly attackedย by conservative think tanks, politicians and newspapers. Typically, criticisms of our study focus onย tiny methodological details or false assumptionsย that have little to no bearing on our finalย result.
Most criticisms fail to acknowledge that our study has beenย replicated by multiple independent studies. Every criticism of our study has avoided the fact that, even within our own study, we independently replicated the 97 percent consensus result. In addition to categorizing papers ourselves, we also invited the scientists who wrote the climate papers to categorize whether their paper stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among papers self-rated as stating a position, 97 percent endorsed theย consensus.
Replicating the Global Temperatureย Record
A number of different scientific teams have constructed global temperature records. They are all remarkably consistent with each other, confirming that we are in a period of long-term warming and experiencing record warm temperatures in the last few years. The fact that these basic findings have been replicated by so many different groups of scientists from around the world shows that our understanding of the increase in global temperature isย solid.
Global temperature records from NOAA, NASA, Berkeley, Hadley, and Cowtan & Way.ย Zeke Hausfather, Carbon Brief,ย Authorย provided
One way to distract from the strong understanding of how our climate is changing is to resort to the so-called blowfish fallacy. Recently, U.K. journalistย David Roseย claimed thatย methodological flaws by NOAA scientists cast doubtย on the global temperature record. Rose neglected to acknowledge that the data he was attacking had been independentlyย replicated by a number of other scientific teams.
Roseโs misinformation wasย promptlyย andย comprehensivelyย debunked. Within days, the so-called โwhistle blowerโ who was the source of the articleย distanced himself from Roseโs characterizations. Contrary to Roseโs breathless conclusions, data scientist John Bates said there was โโฆno data tampering, no data changing, nothingย malicious.โ
Roseโs out-of-proportion response was bestย summed up by science writer Scott Johnson:
โโฆitโs not much more substantial than claiming the Apollo 11 astronauts failed to file some paperwork and pretending this casts doubt on the veracity of the Moonย landing.โ
The Climate Changeย Gorilla
The case for climate change is a loud, unmissable gorilla. Our acceptance that global warming is happening is based onย tens of thousands of lines of evidence: not just thermometer readings butย melting ice sheets,ย migrating species,ย retreating glaciersย andย rising sea levels, to name just aย few.
Similarly, our scientific understanding that human beings are causing modern global warming is based onย many independent human fingerprints, observed byย satellites,ย surface measurements of infrared heatย and, in fact, theย shifting structure of our atmosphere.
To avoid seeing the climate gorilla requires conspiracy theories and distracting techniques such as the blowfish fallacy. Often these arguments are accompanied with the false narrative that our scientific understanding of climate change is like a house of cards โ remove one card and the whole edifice topplesย down.
Science is more like a jigsaw puzzle, with each line of evidence building a more complete picture. Removing one piece doesn’t change the overall picture. In the case of humanityโs role in causing climate change, we have many pieces and the picture isย clear.
John Cookย is Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Main image: Lego guy in a gorilla suit Credit: GreenPlasticAmy,ย CC BY–NCย 2.0
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts