First, if one is an objective thinker, one knows there is no such thing as a "scientific consensus". Science and the scientific method is without opinion, agenda, or any emotion. So In my mind When I see the words "scientific consensus" my spidy sense tingles and get ready to raise the Bravo Sierra flags, because by definition consensus is not scientific, it is cultural… be it the culture in a region of the world, a political party or an office space full of cubicles.

Second, I am a firm believer in simplification of thought particularly if one is trying to prove a point. Sure technical descriptors are one thing wordy gobblie gook is generally hiding something if not just trying to add merit to an otherwise weak idea. To be honest if the authors of this paper had done the former an did the “Condensed Kiddies Book” version at least in the introduction I might have been able to read more then ½ of the document.(Read half and skimmed the rest)

Also, this really sparked my interest because I can genuinely see how ones regards science in general can apply to real world situations such as jury selection. The last time I had the honor to report for jury duty was actually chosen to participate. Some interesting things I noted from the selection process is that all members were technically astute, had a good understanding of science and the scientific method. Out of the six chosen I remember one being a senior partner in an engineering firm, another being a Biologist of some sort and myself having 20+ years in Environmental/Engineering/EH&S/and Geo Tech. The other three I don’t remember, but it was the defense that wanted to have us on the case. After the fact It became clear to me that the defense wanted rational thinks and the State wanted emotional thinkers. Hmmmm? (That still does not sit well with me particularly after watching the TravonGotsShot Fieasco) BTW: Never got to see the case, the arresting officer never showed up and was “Out of state” WTF? Also found out after the fact that this was the third attempt to get this case to trial but the State had some kind of “issue” but refused to drop it.

So my conclusion is the type of argument tells us more than we may realize. What type of argument is being made, objective or emotional? What is the background of the author, University Professor (academic world)or Industry Professional (has signed the front of a paycheck or submitted a competitive bid )? What are the real world risks?(Even if global warming is true is it worth the cost to our economy?)And what words are being used…. Words mean things

First, if one is an objective thinker, one knows there is no such thing as a "scientific consensus". Science and the scientific method is without opinion, agenda, or any emotion. So In my mind When I see the words "scientific consensus" my spidy sense tingles and get ready to raise the Bravo Sierra flags, because by definition consensus is not scientific, it is cultural… be it the culture in a region of the world, a political party or an office space full of cubicles.

Second, I am a firm believer in simplification of thought particularly if one is trying to prove a point. Sure technical descriptors are one thing wordy gobblie gook is generally hiding something if not just trying to add merit to an otherwise weak idea. To be honest if the authors of this paper had done the former an did the “Condensed Kiddies Book” version at least in the introduction I might have been able to read more then ½ of the document.(Read half and skimmed the rest)

Also, this really sparked my interest because I can genuinely see how ones regards science in general can apply to real world situations such as jury selection. The last time I had the honor to report for jury duty was actually chosen to participate. Some interesting things I noted from the selection process is that all members were technically astute, had a good understanding of science and the scientific method. Out of the six chosen I remember one being a senior partner in an engineering firm, another being a Biologist of some sort and myself having 20+ years in Environmental/Engineering/EH&S/and Geo Tech. The other three I don’t remember, but it was the defense that wanted to have us on the case. After the fact It became clear to me that the defense wanted rational thinks and the State wanted emotional thinkers. Hmmmm? (That still does not sit well with me particularly after watching the TravonGotsShot Fieasco) BTW: Never got to see the case, the arresting officer never showed up and was “Out of state” WTF? Also found out after the fact that this was the third attempt to get this case to trial but the State had some kind of “issue” but refused to drop it.

So my conclusion is the type of argument tells us more than we may realize. What type of argument is being made, objective or emotional? What is the background of the author, University Professor (academic world)or Industry Professional (has signed the front of a paycheck or submitted a competitive bid )? What are the real world risks?(Even if global warming is true is it worth the cost to our economy?)And what words are being used…. Words mean things

http://thebruha.blogspot.com/2013/10/wor...

Lol, the scientific "findings" of this paper seem to be supported by the comments denouncing them ;)

Whether or not you think this paper represents solid scientific method, it brings up some cultural issues that would be interesting to talk about (for the record, I think the paper's method is flawed- they set out trying to prove a hypothesis rather than testing and then examining the results to form a conclusion. The actual experiment is fine, if limited. Their analysis of the results not.)

So. Issues. When did the public decide it was okay to disregard scientific fact?!? Sure there have always been doubters, but when did scientific doubt become a cultural norm, and even a badge of person's political beliefs? I think it can be correlated (hey, there's a science word) with social media sites, particularly the big 3: Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. These sites do two things: first, you as a user get news feeds tailored to your preferences. This makes it easy for someone to construct a personal reality and disregard conflicting opinions from outside their circle. Second, the sites give standing based on popularity instead of merit i.e. "User A has 1000 followers while User B has only 500, therefore A is more credible." And User A might be some guy in his basement who never finished high school, but who has charisma. Ah the power of the internet.
But we all know this. And that may be what contributes to our skepticism. When a man is presented in public as "an expert" we instinctively ask "according to who?" There are no Ultimate Standards anymore.
So as a culture will we emerge wiser because of our questioning, or is this the beginning of something we can't recover from?

Actually, having reached the Medicare age, I tend to question, regardless of who I am with. If my doctor suggests a drug, I say, "Who funded the study" - which he usually does not know. I then do my own research. I also ask what perks the drug company gave him, which then irritates him. All these answers matter.
When the government said we had to have Mercury filled light bulbs, I did some research. I found a German study on the health hazzards, which I sent to my Congressman - as they were about to vote. He had never seen it. So, we have to assume idiots in Congress are voting for things they do NOT study at all. Freon was banned by Congress based on a faulty NASA study, but Congress never came back and reversed their naive acceptance of the first study when told of the corrections.
As to Global Warming, as Al Gore put it, it has now been 17 years since we had that. Scientists are beholding to government for grants and funding, and are often threatened if they go against the prevailing winds. When Earth Day just happened to be placed on Lenin's birthday, and Gorbachev was trying to get the Green Agenda in US schools, it is definitely caution time. When sensors measuring global warming were place in brick courtyards and near jet exhaust, it was caution time. When I asked my Congressman how much HAARP was costing taxpayers and what harm it might do to the weather by heating the ionosphere - I got no answer. That is one answer I want before any scientist tells me about climate change, esp. since Russia and various industries are now using their own versions of HAARP to control the weather. I do not want Federal regulations on my life, based on easy science which fails to even consider the above. I want to know just how all the weather devices are changing the climate overall, and why is Congress not even willing to talk about them. I once had a philosophy professor who detested the word expert, and insisted there was no such person.You can really get burned by not asking your own questions, titles men little, incompetence abounds in all fields.

I can't get past the abstract which says "scientific consensus" more times than I can stomach. The bias is inherent in the introduction. Science does not include ignoring certain data and accepting other data. People are skeptical when they smell agenda behind climate change studies. Although people are skeptical of Evolution as well-which is completely irrational. I agree with your comments below but disagree with the author's conclusions and bias in the introduction.

In short, we tend to agree with and thereby validate experts who agree with us. When presented with facts opposed to our commitments, we denigrate the status of the provider. This ties in with another theme: The Big Sort by Bill Bishop. Over the past generation, Americans have come to socialize only with those who agree with them politically. In the 1960 Presidential election, Kennedy won over Nixon by about 1 vote per precint, and largely, it was just that: a nation mostly divided narrowly near the middle. Now, precincts tend to be overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat.

It is not just gerrymandering (though there is that), but the fact that people choose to live among those whose political values already mirror their own. The research data show that this correlation is strongest among those with more education. The guys on the bowling team might disagree and still hang out; their bosses on the golf links do not.

Today, perhaps more than a third of working American adults hold bachelor degrees, with the master's being the new bachelor's. University education apparently failed to achieve the lofty goals of Karl Popper and Mark Van Doren two generations ago for a society open to ideas, whose participants benefited from a liberal education embracing literature, mathematics, science, and fine arts.

This is really just another arithmetic validation of what we know as the "confirmation bias" and the "attribution fallacy." Richard Feynman warned young scientists about the need for ruthless honesty in his famous speech on "Cargo Cult Science."

Can you explain in plain spoon-fed language what they're talking about in the conclusion?

I think the reason for denial is wishful thinking. I think it's similar to my eating a bad diet and them feeling tempted to come up with a justification for it. I always think, "Well in the 80s they thought fat was bad for you, and now they're finding it's not that simple and some fats are good for you. Maybe Taco Bell will turn out to be healthful."

I also wonder if some of the denial is because no one has a good solution. The only thing we have is limiting carbon emissions. It seems to really make a difference we need to go to a pre-industrial lifestyle and world population. Since that option is as bad as the future costs of climate change, people stick their heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away.

Reporters who are not knowledgeable about science find it easy to report every issue by getting a quote from one side and the other side, even if the issue is Earth: flat or round. Interest groups have someone on hand to give a quote in favor of flat.