Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
There has been much controversy over the last few weeks over a column that George Will wrote in the Washington Post about global warming. Now the Post has published a column by fellow SciBling Chris Mooney that really shreds the factual claims Will made in that article. But his column also points to a larger issue that I think is important. He addresses that larger issue right in the first paragraph:
A recent controversy over claims about climate science by Post op-ed columnist George F. Will raises a critical question: Can we ever know, on any contentious or politicized topic, how to recognize the real conclusions of science and how to distinguish them from scientific-sounding spin or misinformation?
This is an excellent question that helps put the debunking of Will's column in perfect context. What Will provided in his column was indeed scientific-sounding spin, quite similar to the kind of spin we often hear from creationists as well. It's the sort of thing that can be very persuasive for laypeople who don't have expertise in the subject being discussed. Chris highlights a couple examples from Will's column, like his repetition of the thoroughly debunked "70s global cooling" myth. And this one:
Will also wrote that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is one of many respected scientific institutions that support the consensus that humans are driving global warming. Will probably meant that since 1998 was the warmest year on record according to the WMO -- NASA, in contrast, believes that that honor goes to 2005 -- we haven't had any global warming since. Yet such sleight of hand would lead to the conclusion that "global cooling" sets in immediately after every new record temperature year, no matter how frequently those hot years arrive or the hotness of the years surrounding them. Climate scientists, knowing that any single year may trend warmer or cooler for a variety of reasons -- 1998, for instance, featured an extremely strong El Niño -- study globally averaged temperatures over time. To them, it's far more relevant that out of the 10 warmest years on record, at least seven have occurred in the 2000s -- again, according to the WMO.
A textbook example of taking a single isolated fact, changing just slightly what that fact means, and then building a narrative around it that is highly misleading. Mooney's conclusion:
Readers and commentators must learn to share some practices with scientists -- following up on sources, taking scientific knowledge seriously rather than cherry-picking misleading bits of information, and applying critical thinking to the weighing of evidence. That, in the end, is all that good science really is. It's also what good journalism and commentary alike must strive to be -- now more than ever.
I could not agree more. But I do not hold out any hope that this will actually happen or that it will have any impact on the public's understanding of complex scientific issues. The fact is that everyone reaches conclusions on most subjects on the basis of cognitive shortcuts rather than on actual study and logical analysis of the data and very, very few of us are either capable of or interested in studying the actual meteorological and climatological data.
And that is as true of intellectuals as it is of the average person. We may have an ethos that it is important to reach rational, considered conclusions - something most people do not have - but we simply don't have the time or the interest to study every single issue in the depth required to reach such conclusions. So we must rely on cognitive shortcuts as well.
Cognitive shortcuts are leapfrogs over study and analysis to reach a conclusion without going through those intermediary steps. The most common type of shortcut is group identification. If you place yourself within a group - political, religious, ideological, etc - and you are confronted by an issue you do not understand, the default response is to accept whatever the position of that group is and to presume that it must be correct even though you have not taken the time to do any study that would justify that conclusion.
If you're a conservative, you will blindly accept the standard conservative position on global warming. The leaders of the group you place yourself in have assured you that global warming is a myth, perhaps even a cover for evil intentions, and that is all you think you need to know. If you're a liberal, you will blindly accept that global warming is a serious problem for the same reason, because the people you respect and follow have told you so.
But in reality, a vanishingly small number of people in either group has ever looked at the actual data and an even smaller number is capable of understanding it, analyzing it and reaching rational conclusions about it. And that includes me. If I took a long period of time and researched the subject, I am certainly capable of understanding it and reaching well-informed conclusions. Though I am a layman without any particular training in science, I have long done so in regard to evolution and the geological history of the earth and that is why I can confidently and reasonably take positions on those subjects and defend them.
I have not done so with global warming, which means I'm using a cognitive shortcut as well. I defer to many scientists, some of whom and I know personally, who assure me that the evidence for global warming and a significant human role in making it worse is real. I defer to people like Chris Mooney, who has taken the time, in researching an entire book on the question and interviewing those at the center of the dispute, to do what I have not.
But I recognize that this is still a cognitive shortcut and that's why I rarely make bold claims about global warming, because I don't feel like I can defend them and I don't think it's intellectually honest to make bold claims one can't defend. I have little reason to doubt the scientific consensus on global warming, and I'm certainly capable of recognizing bad arguments like those offered by George Will when I see them, but I still haven't done the work necessary to say, "X is true and here's how I know."
And that is exactly why I agree with Chris on the need for commentators and opinion makers to do that work before speaking out on a complex subject. The vast, vast majority of their readers do not, indeed cannot, evaluate the evidence with any depth or rigor. That is precisely why those of us who write persuasively for others need to make sure we are doing it, because like it or not - and believe me, we all like it very much - we do have influence.
That influence needs to be tempered with intellectual honesty, which means we have to be as objective as possible in evaluating the evidence. It also means we have to be able to admit what we don't know and show a little humility when we know that we don't know something.
Politics
Comments
You nailed it! Every point!
Posted by: Coturnix | March 25, 2009 9:36 AM
This is an excellent post. Very few people would even admit that they take cognitive shortcuts, because it may sound like they are lazy or that they just don't have "common sense". And that is a shame.
My introduction to ScienceBlogs was due to hearing a presentation lifted straight from Answers in Genesis that was uncritically recited at a church youth group event. I knew very little of it made any sense, but there were questions I could not have answered with my own knowledge at the time. Searching through any material I could find, and especially rebuttals going both ways, was how I secured in my mind that the presentation was indeed loony.
I also learned quite a bit on the journey, and any "weaknesses" pointed out ended up leading me toward discovering another ingenious approach to filter out noise in a measurement or isolate some characteristics impact.
My first boss told me that nothing was intrinsically difficult to learn. You just needed to understand it each step of the way, and sometimes there are a lot of steps to digest.
Posted by: Odie | March 25, 2009 9:41 AM
", because like it or not - and believe me, we all like it very much - we do have influence. "
Loved that line.
Posted by: rmp | March 25, 2009 9:42 AM
When I first read Will's piece my impression was not that he was a global warming skeptic (he apparently is) but was railing against the sensationalism surrounding it. And in that aspect I agree with him. Smart people do get things wrong. And I've been told incredibly stupid things over the years by experts in their fields. However Will make some statements that make you wonder if he has any fact checkers working for him anymore. Maybe he should stick to baseball stories.
Posted by: yoshi | March 25, 2009 9:50 AM
Technically he's an ex-fellow Scibling since Chris has moved to the Discover blogs.
I agree with you about the use of cognitive shortcuts. One of the things that I really like about the science blogs is that I can get understandable explanations of scientific issues as well as the controversies within science. This helps me reach conclusions and form my worldview. It's still a shortcut, but it's a slightly longer one in that I am weighing evidence for myself--albeit "dumbed down evidence" from experts.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | March 25, 2009 9:54 AM
Excellent post, Ed. The observations regarding cognitive shortcuts are especially spot-on.
Posted by: Wes | March 25, 2009 10:20 AM
The easiest way to tell when George Will is lying? Look for his byline.
He applies the same rigor to the global warming debate that he has, in the past, to a parade of GOP idiocy.
Posted by: democommie | March 25, 2009 10:40 AM
I was able write and publish a 500 word rebuttal I wrote of Will's column printed in our region's newspaper of record: http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/local_story_052094540.html
My column touched on only a few of Will's lies given 500 words is not sufficient to adequately fisk a liar.
Will's column was unconscionable. I continue to be upset that all newspapers' editorial page editors even published it for several reasons:
1) Will bases all, not some, all his arguments on false assertions, assertions that can easily be fact-checked.
2) The Washington Post Editorial Page Editor defended Will's column and allowed Will to publish a second opinion piece that was equally dishonest; the editor's defense was that this was Will's point of view. In fact, the best critiques were not that Will was a denialist or that he argued we should not make policy decisions by informing ourselves of what science understands (crazy, but that was his argument), but that the premises he used to make his argument were grossly dishonest. Like Will's false claim that scientific certainty existed for global cooling in the 1970s when in fact the ratio of papers was already running 6:1 in favor of warming while cooling evidence correctly recognized the CFC threat that we subsequently mitigated because of those cooling papers and/or was overwhelmed by greenhouse gas forcing.
3) Will writes an article about science, and as Carl Zimmer pointed out repeatedly, never even consulted with experts in the field to develop this story. Instead Will relied on spin provided by denialist websites where their publishers are not even climatologists.
4) The WaPo's new ombudsman refused to even tackle the core problems the thousands of people who wrote on this topic argued. He did forward select emails to the Editorial Page Editor, one of which was mine. I was in an email dialogue with him on this matter and his first reaction was to coil away in fear; a reaction Carl Zimmer was privy to and fisked well in his blog.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 25, 2009 10:45 AM
I guess I'm not a liberal then, because I'm only 99% sure about global warming. I *do* feel that's enough certainty to go ahead and treat it as real, but then, I have *also* noticed that most of the steps needed to combat global warming are the same steps needed to fix our economy, end our dependence on oil imports, and fix our other proven environmental problems such as species loss, deforestation, soil erosion, aquifer depletion, ocean acidification, etc.
Posted by: xebecs | March 25, 2009 12:27 PM
Ed - When reading your blog post, I think some readers might characterize your argument as being that the cognitive shortcuts we all use are of equal quality and therefore equal disadvantage when it comes to making an argument on a position where we are not extremely well-informed. At a minimum you don't appear to make an argument that one can make cognitive shortcuts that will generally turn out well while others will not, besides referencing the fact that you are able to spot and easily discredit bad arguments.
As an example, I've discovered there is a vast qualitative difference between my accepting the conclusions of climatologists regarding global warming even though I'm not a scientist compared to other non-scientists rejecting such a conclusion. The difference is that I am accepting a theory that has been put through the scientific process where the adherents and data continue to pile on to the point of near universal peer-acceptance. At the same time, nearly all denialists rely on arguments whose premises are not true, nor have they rebutted the premises put forth by experts in the field, nor do they even point to peer-reviewed work that can't be discredited by climatologists arguing for warming.
Therefore, my cognitive shortcut of accepting scientific theories that are generally or absolutely peer-accepted is far superior to the cognitive short-cut of conservaties adopting their political leaders' positions. I'll take that bet every single time.
It is also this very scientific process and one's intimate understanding of it that allows us to distinguish some arguments from others in spite of not having the in-depth knowledge of a topic who relies on this process. This will not work when studying alternative peer-reviewed papers, but it will when considering a peer-reviewed and accepted argument to one made by anyone making an argument that is not peer-reviewed in a relevant journal, e.g., peer-reviewed papers on evolution vs. Behe, Well's and Dembski's books.
So while I too am not an expert on climatology and the global warming theory, my cognitive shortcuts are far superior, so far at least, to denialists merely because I'm accepting a position arguing for global warming because it has successfully navigated a stellar process while their cognitive shortcuts have proven not to correlate with historical outcomes when they merely rely on the talking points and beliefs of their political and religious leaders.
I agree that when we have competing scientific theories we need to be careful about taking a position unless we are a well-informed expert in the field. In fact, I will not since I'm not capable of distinguishing the difference in arguments - string theory for example. However, from my experience, my acceptance of global warming as a non-expert is a far superior position to those denialists whose arguments I've encountered due to the processes Science uses to form a position.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 25, 2009 12:44 PM
Excellent piece Ed. I continue to try to find places to read where something is brought to the table besides politically motivated cognitive shortcuts. Some form of cognitive shortcut is essential because we don't have infinite time, as you describe very well.
I believe it is the knee jerk reaction to all these issues rather than the actual cognitive shortcuts that really get us in trouble. Just mention a term such as "Palin" or "Creationist" or "Communist" for example and any facts being presented become nothing more than background noise.
I'd argue that at least if we are aware of the cognitive shortcut process taking place (along with our own bias) we can get an order-of-magnitude better understanding of a subject than when we mindlessly filter everything with our own prejudice.
Posted by: Rich | March 25, 2009 1:14 PM
"As an example, I've discovered there is a vast qualitative difference between my accepting the conclusions of climatologists regarding global warming even though I'm not a scientist compared to other non-scientists rejecting such a conclusion. The difference is that I am accepting a theory that has been put through the scientific process where the adherents and data continue to pile on to the point of near universal peer-acceptance. At the same time, nearly all denialists rely on arguments whose premises are not true, nor have they rebutted the premises put forth by experts in the field, nor do they even point to peer-reviewed work that can't be discredited by climatologists arguing for warming."
Michael, three questions:
1) Are you ruling out there being any science that does not match these results? Or are you classifying any conflicting results as not "real" science?
2) Are all denialists (very loaded term there) politically motiviated, and all real scientists not significantly influenced by political motivation?
3) Doesn't the quality of science often become degradded when there is near-universal acceptance of complex issues?
There may indeed be far more to learn about the role of human component to warming that could greatly change our response. At any rate we may well be past a point where shutting off all human chemical input can stop the process, and only active intervention will do the job.
Just imagine the political arguements we'll hear when presented with making vast climate interventions with unpredictable results. We're just getting warm on this subject...
Posted by: Rich | March 25, 2009 1:37 PM
After reading the headline I think “Shreds” is a little strong. Closer to the truth would be Mooney *Disagrees* with Will on Global Warming. It appears Will’s accuracy, for the most part, is holding up. It’s the interpretation of his “Short cuts” that seem to create the disagreement. Of course to me the larger point of Will’s article is not that he’s a scientist or represents them, but that the science has been inconsistent for some time and remains that way today.
Posted by: Trey | March 25, 2009 1:51 PM
Rich: I know your questions were directed at Michael; but FWIW, here's my quick answers:
1) Are you ruling out there being any science that does not match these results? Or are you classifying any conflicting results as not "real" science?
I, for one am not aware of any such actual science. The only objections I've seen so far, come from non-scientists with non-scientific agendas, and have been proven to be flawed or dishonest.
2) Are all denialists (very loaded term there) politically motiviated, and all real scientists not significantly influenced by political motivation?
No, some denialists are just batshit insane and have no connection to any real-world political agenda. As for scientists' motivations, repeatable experiements and peer review will separate the valid science from the agenda-compromised work.
(I suppose you could call a scientist "politically motivated" if he was acting on the belief that political decisions should be based on good information from good scientists.)
3) Doesn't the quality of science often become degradded when there is near-universal acceptance of complex issues?
Not sure what you're asking here, but there's a note of paranoia in the question: the implication that if almost everyone accepts an idea, it's a sign of something nefarious.
It's true that ideas can gain universal acceptance for a long time, and then get proven wrong by a new generation of scientists. That, however, does not mean "the quality of science become degraded" at any point; it just means that no new information became apparent for a long time, for a variety of possible -- and totally non-nefarious -- reasons.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 25, 2009 1:55 PM
Raging,
"As for scientists' motivations, repeatable experiements and peer review will separate the valid science from the agenda-compromised work."
I asked this one precisely because many people don't believe this to be true. It may be true of course, but there is a great deal of mistrust of science based on funding sources and the agenda of those politicians who propose following science when it seems to fit their agenda.
"Not sure what you're asking here, but there's a note of paranoia in the question: the implication that if almost everyone accepts an idea, it's a sign of something nefarious... it just means that no new information became apparent for a long time, for a variety of possible -- and totally non-nefarious -- reasons"
I'll be more clear. No paranoia on this one. I'd argue that one of those totally non-nefarious reasons is that when a complex subject is considered closed, very little science gets funded or persued on the subject. Only a tiny percentage of all areas of study are deemed worthy of study with limited funds.
Posted by: Rich | March 25, 2009 2:06 PM
Re Trey
I would point out to Mr. Trey that Mr. Will quote mined some scientific papers and came to conclusions that the authors of the papers themselves discredited. Who is more competent to assess conclusions from scientific papers, the scientists who wrote them and performed the work that was therein described or an oped writer like Mr. Will with no scientific background or expertise in the subject area? In fact, it is fair comment to call Mr. Will a liar because he repeated his comments in a subsequent oped article, even after being apprised by the authors of the papers cited that his conclusions and comments were inaccurate and unreliable.
Posted by: SLC | March 25, 2009 2:15 PM
Rich @ 2:06:
"I'd argue that one of those totally non-nefarious reasons is that when a complex subject is considered closed, very little science gets funded or persued on the subject. Only a tiny percentage of all areas of study are deemed worthy of study with limited funds."
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the work done by the Dickcovering Institute re: Intelligent Design.
Posted by: democommie | March 25, 2009 2:18 PM
Posted by: Taz | March 25, 2009 2:18 PM
Rich asked me:
I was careful to parse my words in a way to convey that I have not been recently exposed to authentic scientific papers that either argue for something other than global warming or discredit that warming either occurring and/or humans are a primary factor. For the past several years all I've encountered have either been dishonest arguments like Will's or bad arguments skewing legitimate research where those arguments are contrary to what the scientists who published that work believe (e.g., cherry picking data or quote-mining). I have not seen any papers published recently where the scientists who published such papers argue against either warming or human agency. Given my cognitive shortcut is peer-acceptance, I would of course back-off my support for the warming theory if a large contingency of qualified scientists begin either publishing peer-reviewed work or accepting peer-reviewed work that may discredit global warming as a theory and/or its causes.
Rich asked me:
I can't describe everyone's motivation. My observation is that the denialists whose arguments I've experienced discount it not for scientific reasons but for religious reasons, political reasons, and for the reason Ed pointed out, their leaders do. Several years ago we saw a lot of denialists that appeared to argue against it because they believed it would hurt them economically, that seems to have died out for the most part.
When it comes to scientists, I believe there continues to be an enormous financial opportunity for a set of scientists to publish findings that discredits global warming. The fact we are not seeing this and the fact that most energy companies accept the theory comforts me that current peer-acceptance and the peer-review process has put forth a legit theory. I tend to use RealClimate.org to evaluate the validity of contrarian arguments.
Rich asked me:
In terms of climate change, the papers I've read and the climatologists who blog would never claim that climate change enjoys near-universal acceptance in terms of all the elements that comprise the theory. There is a ton to learn and we are still relative neophytes in understanding climate change. However I accept their current conclusions given they are generally peer-accepted, their statistically significant confidence levels, and their ability to accurately predict outcomes so far, in fact their previous measured responses continues to show they've underestimated the rate of change, not overestimated it.
I refuse to use the word "believe" since this is our best understanding (not knowledge) we have and if it's true, requires actions from us if we care about economic security and minimizing human suffering.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 25, 2009 2:22 PM
I think that the biggest reason behind global-warming denialism is that politics in the West has been dominated by "european liberalism" (read: Locke), which is a blind commercialism tied to a rape of the planet in exchange for immediate profit and economic ease and tempts the whole world to do the same, for the same self-absorbed reasons, in the ignorant conviction that everyone can go on doing it forever. If "property" is central to one's politics, and natural resources are seen as "property," of course one will endorse anything that allows them to carry on behaving as though this place is made just for us to use.
Posted by: jws | March 25, 2009 2:31 PM
I have to take intellectual shortcuts in lieu of time to study the data, too, so please help me out if I'm wrong about something here:
Disbelievers of anthropogenic global warming always only talk about CO2 levels so they can first argue measurements and then indict the integrity of greenhouse gas studies in general, but isn't that entirely separate from the effects of particulate matter on polar ice, much of which comes from coal-fired plants? These people aren't famous for advocating new environmental regulations, of course, and many of them are actually pushing the "clean coal" fraud, so is it safe to say that they neither have nor especially care to find any solution to this catalyst of climate change?
Posted by: Jon Lester | March 25, 2009 2:33 PM
I asked this one precisely because many people don't believe this to be true. It may be true of course, but there is a great deal of mistrust of science based on funding sources and the agenda of those politicians who propose following science when it seems to fit their agenda.
The mistrust arises primarily when uneducated people hear things from scientists that they aren't ready to hear or willing to process and act on. And the mistrust is exacerbated by dishonest politicians, religious "leaders," and activists. What, exactly, do you suggest scientists do about this? Placate and equivocate?
I'd argue that one of those totally non-nefarious reasons is that when a complex subject is considered closed, very little science gets funded or persued on the subject. Only a tiny percentage of all areas of study are deemed worthy of study with limited funds.
If a subject is "considered closed," it's probably because repeated experiments lead to the same results time after time, with no sign of uncertainty hinting at further avenues to be explored; and all reasonable objections have been satisfactorily answered with no more questions arising. And yes, funds for research are always limited, but if plausible questions to an accepted theory arise later on, someone, somewhere, will start looking into it, and publishing valid objections, with or without public or corporate funds; and soon other scientists will see the potential for wealth, fame and success in following a whole new line of inquiry. Look at Galileo: he did his own independent work to overturn centuries of geocentrism, with no major funding from any of the established institutions of his time, and no previous public interest in questioning the basic belief that the Earth stood still.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 25, 2009 2:36 PM
Posted by: llewelly | March 25, 2009 3:17 PM
Jon Lester:
You might be pleased to know that the EPA issued a "Whoa, there, podner" to the Hackingoffmountaintops Energyextraction bidneth in the form of several hundred stop orders.
Posted by: demcommie | March 25, 2009 3:51 PM
If there is any question regarding the public's confusion about global warming, click on the link above provided by Michael Heath. Read the article and then look at the bottom of the page. You will see a link to info on the Great Global Warming Hoax. No wonder people don't know what or who to believe. It's a sad world we live in, on, or whatever.
Posted by: Strummer | March 25, 2009 5:25 PM
demcommie, yes I am pleased that the EPA is making an effort, especially after that big spill in Tennessee lately, but unfortunately there is no one who can compel the Chinese to stop opening new coal-fired power plants at such a rapid rate. The Russians could go completely green tomorrow and there would still be a major soot problem originating from China.
Posted by: Jon Lester | March 25, 2009 7:42 PM
"Only a tiny percentage of all areas of study are deemed worthy of study with limited funds."
Those damned elitist scientists did not think my proposal "Inventing The Wheel" was worth funding.
Posted by: t_p_hamilton | March 25, 2009 10:16 PM
Jon Lester said:
"Disbelievers of anthropogenic global warming always only talk about CO2 levels so they can first argue measurements and then indict the integrity of greenhouse gas studies in general, but isn't that entirely separate from the effects of particulate matter on polar ice, much of which comes from coal-fired plants?"
I disagree, Jon. I find that deniers talk about anything but CO2 levels just to muddy the waters, and take people's eye off the ball.
And there IS a ball to keep one's eye on, there IS a smoking gun in the global warming issue. And that is CO2 levels.
The undeniable fact is that as CO2 levels increase, so does the amount of heat captured in the atmosphere. This is immutable physics. And this is what the deniers want to dismiss, or obfuscate, try as they may.
Now the planet is a huge buffering system for heat changes, atoms, and molecules, so there is not going to be linearity in global response to the increased heat in the atmosphere. These nonlinearities are what deniers love to point out and imply that their existence nullifies the hypothesis of global warming. But that is sophistry, because the amount of heat in the atmosphere keeps on increasing, just as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps on going up.
Here is an excellent graph from the IPCC which puts much of this into perspective - we should all memorize this graph, and the one after it, which displays CO2 levels over the last several hundred years:
Drivers of atmospheric warming: http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/image/110153444/original
CO2 levels over time:
http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/image/110133316
Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 26, 2009 8:49 AM
Gingerbaker, I trust you're not including me among the deniers; my understanding of the greenhouse effect began a long time ago with comparisons to the planet Venus. I'm sure you would agree the particulate matter issue remains as an aggravating factor in climate change.
Posted by: Jon Lester | March 26, 2009 1:43 PM
Very well said regarding cognitive shortcuts, Ed. I'm in the same position as you -- I've got an excellent layman's grasp of evolutionary theory; I know the creationists' arguments better than they do, and can explain precisely where they go wrong. My understanding of climate science, contrariwise, is rather thin. For the most part, I try to judge which sources are reliable and just take their word for stuff.
Just this morning, though, I found an excellent series of videos by potholer54 on climate change. His previous series of videos on the age of the earth were both easy to follow and scientifically accurate. I can't judge the accuracy of his videos on climate science, but they are easy to follow. And based on his previous videos, I've got him pegged as a trusted source.
Check out his videos here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
(Only the first three videos on climate change are up so far; I'm looking forward to the rest of the series.)
Posted by: maurile | March 27, 2009 1:42 PM