Nicotine and AGW: 'teach the controversy'

[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“zender”]Excellent work, Fortigurn!

And I’d like to thank Vorkosigan for being the poster with the moster (up-to date, accurate, and clear information on climate change).[/quote]

Thanks zender. I would like to point out that Mick has for a long time been a tirelessly patient presenter of informed commentary on the subject, and has made many excellent posts which have condensed the issues for the benefit of the less technically minded, such as myself. I have learned a lot from Mick’s posts.[/quote]

Good job Fortigurn!

Unfortunately I think the AGW deniers will have a far easier time than the tobacco deniers.

The damaging effects of tobacco can easily be observed in individual smokers. People can see that if you smoke, it will damage your health.
Global warming is on the other hand imperceptible to most people. It is difficult to show in a simple way that it is the the result of human activity, because we cannot observe an alternative (it is easy to compare the health of smokers and non-smokers).Global warming science involves predictions that are easy for the anti-science crowd to deny. And because smoking mostly damages the health of the individual smoker, its negative effects can be prevented simply by quitting. Unfortunately, individual action against global warming will not by itself make any difference to the problem. The solution requires collective action which is much more difficult to coordinate. Finally, the vested corporate interests in the fossil fuel industry are much more powerful the tobacco industry.

Good points Mawvellous. For many people, it’s largely about perceptions. We get to discussing a subject at work, or here on the forum, and all people have is hearsay, personal opinion, or some tabloid. You introduce a few facts from relevant scholarly literature, and people immediately dismiss it on the basis that it doesn’t agree with their limited personal experiences, isn’t in harmony with their personal opinions, or contradicts anecdotal evidence, or what the telly said the other night.

Then you get ‘Well of course we all have our different interpretation of what the truth is’, and ‘You can’t trust academics to get everything right’, and ‘Ivory tower elitists, what would they know?’.

People continue to remember and use information which they feel is useful to them. We learned the scientific method very well in high school, and I thought it was really great. A knowledge tool, a way of making sense of the world around you. But plenty of kids would have gone on to uni thinking ‘Scientific method? Well I’m not going to be a scientist, don’t need to remember that’.

The same thing happens at uni. They spend three or four years teaching you how to assess information about a subject, how to identify reliable sources, how to locate, analyze, and use peer-reviewed scholarly research, and why this is important in determining truth. Then people walk out of uni and promptly forget all about it because they’re going to be an accountant or engineer or something else which they think has no need of these skills.

What people don’t understand is that the very expensive tertiary education program they just went through is providing them with invaluable knowledge and information skills which are of considerable value in determining the facts in any given situation. They’re important tools which we are expected to be able to use for the rest of our lives. They’re not simply ‘things-you-learn-to-pass-exams’.

I work in the information industry. I’m actually a trained information professional. The most depressing fact which keeps turning up in the professional literature is that in this day and age, supposedly the era of the ‘information economy’, and the ‘information industry’, and the ‘knowledge worker’, the average level of information literacy in 1st world Western countries is utterly abysmal.

To draw an analogy, adults in places like the UK, US, and Australia have a level of information literacy which is at the finger painting and crayon drawing level of written literacy. This, despite the fact that so many of us have degrees.

In my Masters program we were expected to know the difference between an academic and a non-academic journal, as well as a peer-reviewed/refereed journal and a non-peer-reviewed/refereed journal. You either already know, or you learn the difference quick smart, or else you fail the assignments because your sources do not meet the reference criteria. I was amazed at the number of students who didn’t know. How can people manage to get to Masters level without picking up one of the fundamental research skills you’re supposed to learn at undergraduate level?

Thanks Fortigurn, a very interesting topic indeed. If I may make a contribution, there is a recent lecture from Naomi Oreskes, Answering Climate Change Skeptics, Naomi Oreskes . As is her specialty, she looks at the issue from a historical perspective, and in this talk focuses on her new book, “Merchants of doubt” which seems like it will be a good read. Its over an hour, so for those that might be interested in any/all of the lecture I summarized the video below. The section of “why did we fall for it?” is very good for anyone who might want to just watch a short part.

0 Introduction of Naomi Oreskes.
2.30 History of global warming and discovery.
16 Typical aggressive questions asked at lectures such as How do we know its not the sun? How do we know CO2 is not from volcanoes?
21.50 Where do people get their skeptical information. Asks why so many people believe the debate is ongoing.
24.30 Introduces her book, Merchants of doubt.
28 Marshall institute foundation and causes supported.
30.30 Seitz, and the tobacco strategy.
35.50 Why did we fall for it?
42 Why do we expect undeniable evidence.
48.30 Modern Journalism.
60. Q&A.

Thanks Mick, ‘Merchants of Doubt’ looks like a useful read.