Do you think the best explanation for global warming denial is the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Question

I believe this suggestion was first put forth by gcnp. The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge tend to think they know more than they do.

1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.

2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.

3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.

4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

Considering the fact that most man-made global warming 'skeptics' have little if any science background, no climate science background, have generally done little research on global warming science, and yet think they know more about the subject than tens of thousands of climate scientists who study the subject every day - do you think the best explanation for global warming denial is the Dunning-Kruger effect? Or is there a better explanation?

Answer 1

It explains why they are so willing to believe theories from people like Carter, the ragin' Hungarian, the dowsin' Swede et al., and so unwilling to listen to more correct explanations from actual climate scientists.  But the fundamental reason why they are skeptics is emotional and political, as Bob says.  

Answer 2

Well the yokel who has never left the village ,tends to know everything

at least you cannot tell him anything ,because he will claim he knows it all

those of us who accumulate knowledge or data ,will always say ,that the more you know ,the more you understand things ,the more you realize that we know in fact hardly anything.

Because knowledge gives us a glimpse into the darkness still waiting to be discovered.

What strikes me as prevalent are the questions that are opinionated,but nevertheless ask for an insight ,

If you are dumb enough to give a detailed answer

the questioner may even get annoyed

he is not in the slightest interested in your thoughts



and is only happy with a response that echo's his belief.

Answer 3

I'm really disapointed with you Dana you didn't attack personally but you attack the person psychologically they are almost the same way you know.. But the fact is Global Warming is still a theory and I don't even bother. By the way Bob is right the politicians are also taking it's role for the masses to mislead them even they know the truth  behind global warming or not. Because they have the power to control the media Isn't it.

By the way you don't have psychological degree and individual Psychological examination also counts.

That will be a lot of work and research.

just to prove that person have Dunning-Krugger effect that your talking about.

Answer 4

I could go either way on this issue, and I've chosen to believe-- think we are all being groomed to be mere workers for the state.  Why would I think this?

There is a constant flow of things we are to be afraid of and for me it's been coming almost everyday for nearly 40 years.  The planet is cooling down, it's warming up, inflation, war, bird flu, mad cow disease, anthrax, holes in the ozone, shootings on the freeway, coffee is the miracle drink of the century-- coffee is is one more nail in the coffin.

Acid rain, terrorist attacks, possible terrorist attacks, global warming, global cooling, sunspot activity, higher taxes to combat global warming, beer is good for you, beer is bad for you, drink this, don't drink that--- wait, you can drink it, just don't drink *that*-- wait, no, this is okay, it's the other stuff that's bad for you.  Ooops, Y2K is upon us and we're all gonna die, now it's over, here we go, Global Warming and we're all gonna die!

Nope, now it's climate change and we're all gonna die, but that's what happened when we as humans are told to look upon ourselves as parasites and viruses when "mother Earth" kills off its creatures *( must be aligned with Planned Parenthood somehow.)  

So after all this living in a climate of fear, frankly it's gotten to be too stressful and when I hear all this c**p about we're changing the Earth's climate, and Al Gore is a god and we should all worship him and Hollywood because they know.  Most of it always turns out to be false and we all live in fear for no reason, but we've paid lots of money to stop something that wasn't happening.

Let them get around in furnished limousines and aircraft and let the minions and peasants ride bikes 30 miles to work.  And if the peasants decide to drive or use electricity, let them pay Uncle Al a tax so he can be wealthy and direct our attention and devotion to living as mindless slaves.  

  :cX

Answer 5

You're on to something.  There has to be a psycological reason that these people do not absorb the facts.

I've found that some people tend to be proud about their self inflicted ignorance!  What goes on here on YA ,is that the ignorant find the abundance of other 'like' minds reassuring,and empowering.  The more idiots on here that say AGW is a "hoax' or a "scam", the more emboldened they become. Informing these type of fools about AGW, is as feasible as  teaching a dog to play the piano!  

Answer 6

heck, i always thought it was Densa syndrome.

Answer 7

I think you are on to something here.

The root cause is as stated - an emotional reaction to the unsettling information that man is ruining the environment which gets expressed politically as opposition to the messengers.

But I don’t think you can get to denial without the effect you describe.

The incompetent lack the cognitive ability to recognize their own incompetence.

So you have people who get emotional and run off the rails because they lack the ability to critically consider the situation - even their own argument.

And they never get to understanding because they simply lack the tools. How do you impart a lifetime of education in the sciences to the non-scientist?

I think we need to stop dancing around these issues and attack them head on.  In the last eight years, an incredible amount of damage has been done, and critical opportunity lost, by incompetent political hacks.

In academic circles crappy arguments are demolished and the proponents embarrassed. Then time stops getting wasted and problems start to get solved.

We have so utterly demolished the denialist arguments here that it begs the question of why they continue to post.

I suggested before that you read Dale Carnegie – “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. I’m dead serious, you should read it.

I don’t follow his advice here – I post to directly confront the misinformation. I do so deliberately to antagonize and discredit the intellectually lazy fops who congregate here - because there is no other popular open forum where they can get away with it.

But in the wider world, the first attempt at an environmental movement has failed. It failed because the first environmentalists of this movement, including me, stood up and said:

My God! You unbelievably stupid people are destroying the world and condemning us and the natural world to horrible deprivation suffering and extinction.

According to Dale, this is exactly the wrong way to go about it.

The trouble is, the positive opposite is to say:

Let us all work together for our mutual benefit to avoid these presently irritating and in the future possibly catastrophic problems.  

And we show them the problems over and over.  But the incompetent don’t / won’t / can’t see that we have a problem.  And time continues to run out.

I don’t have the answer.

It’s time to quit beating a dead horse and focus on those who can be persuaded. I know it seems distasteful that you have to “persuade” someone of a scientific fact, but that’s just human psychology.

Enough people will come around in time, or they won’t.  We will squeak by with something to salvage or we won’t.  Ours is not to question the way of the universe, only to do what we think is true and right.  

The sad fact is, if we can’t persuade people and they won’t listen, then we deserve our fate.

I think in general, in spite of our achievements, we are not as smart as we think we are.

Answer 8

Well...there are no alarmists here with any genuine skills.  Proven by their words over and over again.  You'd think they would have some scientific knowledge so that they could prove their worthless theories, but I doubt any have.

The deniers/skeptics are still of free will and mind...something you and others lost apparently.  Give some proof of what you're saying basically, or quit saying it.  The burden of proof rests with the greenies, not anyone else.  Quit plagarizing your leftist teachers and learn to think for yourself.  Is it really that hard to do?

Answer 9

I think it's part of it, possibly the main part but there probably are other things going on.

Some of the things the lunatic fringe of the environmental movement (who I'm not sure should be called environmentalists) have said may have also turned off a certain type of person, you've probably noticed how many of the denialists are politically conservative or libertarian and consider global warming just a way for taxes to be raised).

Answer 10

I am not fit to answer your question for the following reasons:

1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.

2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.

3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.

Otherwise I would say yes.

.

Answer 11

It's hard to believe that the cult of global warming has grown bigger than the one called scientology.What in the name of xenu happened to people???!!!

The reason people are fighting over this is because this is a serious issue.But I don't believe the lie of man-made global warming.I believe that it has the potential to bankrupt our economy based on flawed and overblown data that has been declared nonsense by a substantial portion of the scientific community.

I also believe that elevated c02 levels are benificial in many ways.Trees grow better,which helps put oxygen into the air,and the food crops grow and produce more food.

I guess you could label me a skeptic.

Answer 12

Dana this for me goes a long way to explaining how adherents of the AGW theories are able to continue their support for them in the face of massive evidence that the theories are the result of bad programming and bad math. So yes I would say the religious support of AGW by yourself and others does show that they are victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Answer 13

No...I'm still leaning "historic data" as the source of my AGW denial, but you might want to check a mirror (this question alone fits your numbers 1-3...not so sure about 4).

Edit:  ...and your background in psychological analysis is....?

Answer 14

One sees this trait passed through the hierarchical social echelon constantly. From the bottom up to the top down it's something that's not exclusive. Like this question, I can't count the times I've experienced selective exampling in the GW section. If your really posing it as a psychological analysis. The solution should come from the proclaimed Therapist that you mention. I only say this because self assessments are not recommended in 'Challenge Studies'.  

Answer 15

Some people just want to be allowed to engage in certain activities - others want the power to shut down activities they don't like - and AGW believers like Adelaida consider the FIRST group "greedy."    Just amazing.

"You're greedy because you won't comform your daily life to my whims."

And then Dana chimes in "and you're anti-scientific too."

Just incredible.

As for yokels who have never left the village - I'm getting pretty sick of kids who have never left Cambridge who think the planet is overcrowded - clearly these kids have never taken a 4 hour drive up rte 1, rte 93 or rte 3, or a 2 hour drive out rte 90.

Answer 16

Overall that's probably an oversimplification.

That obviously describes a relatively common phenomena, there are plenty of global warming deniers who think that because they have a few newspaper articles or studied geography, etc. that they are experts.

However since i started an earth science degree, i've noticed a lot of these people no longer argue with me. Whilst I'm not an expert, most denailist arguments are based on poor understanding of the basics. There are some who i don't believe will ever listen or acknowledge the fact that other people may have a better grasp of the subject then they do.

I can certainly think of specific people whom that applies to. Including certain reporters and people like David Bellamy.

Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen are another matter, many of these people have previously worked for industries such as the tobacco industry, i think they are primarily driven by greed.

It might be worth re-posting that question under psychology, it might noticed by someone with a background in psychology.

Answer 17

"alm0st - this is not a personal attack, it's a psychological analysis question."

Doesn't this belong in the psychology section of Y!A then? If you truly wanted to find an answer to the question, it would be better suited in that particular section.

Answer 18

Kind of reminds me of another psychological observation - one in which the arrogant, having taken a position on a particular argument, will use all their skills and intelligence to continue to argue for their particular view point in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary. Often referred to as the intelligence trap. Others are just plain arrogant and dismiss anyone who has the temerity to challenge their view point and this is very dependent on the relative positions in the “food chain”. Such smug, self righteous global warming supports as Jim Salinger fit right into this category.

I suspect you are hugely insecure and need affirmation from such forums as Y.A. and, from what I have read from you, definitely a fit for the  Dunning – Kruger effect. Otherwise, as is true to your usual form, you feel free to attack other people in this forum, yet will report anyone who might question your motives or integrity. Hmm, you might just want to consult someone.  

Answer 19

I debated on whether to weigh in or not.  Here goes.

The simple answer to your question is no, I think there are a myriad of explanations.  This effect would explain away some of the skeptics.

But I have to disagree in that the attack does seem personal.  It's coming from your frustration in using this site, isn't it?  

I have more to say, just can't find the words this morning, but I guess I just wanted to go on the record saying that I don't support the general tone this kind of question contains.  If we post in this section we must respectfully agree to disagree, and state our positions as well as we can.  

Answer 20

"Best explanation"?  No.

The best explanation is political.  Many deniers are simply Conservatives who take politics to ridiculous lengths.  They maybe should listen to these guys:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Those people are marked by strange assertions devoid of any scientific fact.  "It's a scam"   "It's a liberal plot"  "There is no proof", etc.

The people who raise scientific arguments, no matter how silly; "CO2 levels are too small to cause warming"  "it's all the Sun", "climate has changed naturally before" etc. of course must suffer from the effect strongly.  The idea that climatologists haven't considered all these things carefully; and that some non-scientist understands them better, is a peculiar one, and no doubt the effect plays a role there.  But they're actually a minority of the deniers here, or in the real world.

Answer 21

No, I think that not every body is as eager to believe in Global Warming, because the ones that are promoting it so heavily are also many money off from it.

I will be the first to admit that I don't know enough about it to be for or against,

however I am open minded enough to accept the possibility of Global Warming.

I also know that once you start challenging someones opinion all you do is increase their resolve to stand their ground even when they are proven wrong.

And you never win a argument by challenging someone Else's intelligence.

Answer 22

I have to laugh a little because I think this Dunning thing explains the scientists who believe in man made Global Warming. I have an enironmental degree and I think GW is total BS; there have been periods of slight warming, but thats just mother nature.  We are exiting an ice after all. We should focus on real problems, like feeding the worlds bloated population.

Its just one of those things, like religion, either you believe or you dont and nothing anyone says will change it.  But its good to discuss it, Im still waiting for some sort of proof that makes sense....if it comes, I will believe.

Answer 23

You have made a mistake in saying that people who don't believe in the theory of man made global warming are non-scientists. In fact the majority of climate scientists know there is no scientific evidence for this theory. The only reasons a scientist says that man is to blame for global warming are if he/she is stupid (not likely) or if he/she needs to do so to acquire funding for research.

Answer 24

I don't understand why the "scientists" that support global warming refuse to debate the issue.  No other viewpoints are allowed and anyone with an alternate interpretation of the data is automatically accused of being in the pocket of "big oil", and their interpretation is quickly ignored.  

I also find it odd that all the people that publicly support AGW stand to gain from it.  As in cashing in on the carbon credit scam or getting grant money to keep them "researching" until the next environmental fad comes along.

By the way has anyone ever said why a slightly warmer climate would be a bad thing?  Wouldn't it mean a longer growing season?  Lower energy bills?

By the way isn't it amazing that right in the middle of this global warming Anchorage Alaska is having one of the coldest years ever?  But I forgot that no matter what happens it only proves AGW is happening.  If it is too hot one year then it is proof of AGW.  If it is too cold the next year it also proves AGW is going to bite you in the ***.   Must be nice to have a theory that bulletproof.

The real problem is that I have yet to meet a messenger that seems trustworthy.  Especially smug masters of science that love to use jargon to avoid issues.

Answer 25

Dana - This is an attack. Even some of your fellow proponents felt it was an attack. The thing is Dana, I see a lot of people on both sides of this issue that claim they know something when they don't. It doesn't matter if you use qualifing words, all of us will feel like it's an attack on us.

Also, have you ever asked the people that believe in global warming who ask dumb questions to stop doing that? I've considered it. Even though I agree with some of what my side says, I've considered asking them to stop asking that type of question, since it's been asked waay to many times already and it only hurts our cause.

I sometimes feel you think I'm intelligent, since you seem to like most of the questions I ask, and answered most of them. But then you ask something like this and make me wonder why I bother caring what you think.

Answer 26

Dana - You are making a personal attack on every single person who disagrees with you.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with being critical of the theory of AGW, and just because someone is doesn't mean they are incompetent.

I trust Roy Spencer, John Christy, Reid A. Bryson and some other professionals in the field who carefully talk about real observations - not models with subtle variables and results that don't match the satellite data Christy himself gathered.

I suggest you learn some humility - even scientists can be wrong and mistaken.  It is extremely arrogant of you to suggest that anyone who denies AGW is incompetent and I think most people here will see the elitism of your claim.

I have to say I'm disappointed; it's one thing to say someone's ignorant, and completely another to look down on everyone who disagrees with you that the Earth is in crisis.

For shame.

There IS a better explanation, and it's that reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the subtle uncertainties in climate science!  I never hear you talk about the uncertainties; it just seems deliberately misleading.  

Christy's data seems to disprove the models you have so so much faith in.  

If, as you claim, you are open-minded you'll take a second look, but I'm not holding my breath because AGW is CLEARLY the most important thing in your life.  You cannot risk the horrible reality all the little green things you've done don't change the climate at all.  It's not really about the Earth though is it Dana?  It's about your bourgeois "responsibility", hybrids, bikes and all the cool things *YOU* can do.  It tells you what to buy, how to live, and even gave you your first real job!  Bravo!

Onward to victory Dana Quixote!  Onward!  Let not those windmills stand in your way!  Crush the deniers and the unwashed masses!

So again you discount legitimate scientific differences with an attack on the motives of of Christy and Spencer.  This kind of thing happens all the time with religious disputes.  Take a look at your lifestyle - AGW is your religion my dear friend.  You go to church everyday on your little scooter or whatnot.  If I didn't know better I'd say you're grasping for something that AGW can't give you.