Why thank you for the compliment (I think?), Graham....but I always figured you were much smarter than I : )

Indeed ma amie Poirot, yes he is and much much more : )

But why do lay-people or ordinary members of the public disagree on such things when the vast majority of experts don’t? Perhaps the answer can be found in the very site that Graham links to. Specifically, a peer reviewed paper by in fact the very same author (Kahan) - on the Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.

In essence, why do those who frequent OLO (for example) sharply and persistently disagree about facts on which the experts largely agree? The study showed that “cultural cognition of risk” (i.e. the tendency of an individual to form a perception of risk congenial to his or her own value judgement - cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and motivational reasoning perhaps?) over-rides what the experts in various fields of the climate sciences (for example) say.

In other words, the average OLO’er (not the smart ones of course) want to believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the experts say. They either deliberately misrepresent the science or more usually, misunderstand the science, to reinforce their own beliefs. As we have seen, this gets played out time and time again on blog-sites (including OLO) as aforesaid mentioned.

The paper goes on to discuss how this divergence in thought processing hinders the implementation of sound public policy, very topical in view of the outcome of Durban.

Poirot carry on squirming and wriggling all you like it is just re-inforcing the demonstration of your inablity to assess situations on the basis of available evidence.

Graham is a lot smarter than you two but he also open minded and is prepared to reassess his opinions in the light of evidence.

That's something you appear not to be particularly able to undertake.

Therein lies the difference in causes of self-deception and self-awareness.

bonmot,

Taking up the thread as to why there's been a shift in the public's view of climate change and why they're happy to ignore the majority consensus of scientists, Naomi Klein links it to a concerted effort by the Princes of Capitalism to spread fear that it's all an eco-socialist plot to relieve the West of its goodies. This resonates in the minds of ordinary folk.

She comments on the large and raid shift in public opinion on this issue. Where folk used to claim a nebulous interest and mild concern on the issue, rapidly shifting opinion now dictates that they are more interested in the issue, but mainly in proving that it's a hoax.

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

Poirot,
Your repost. I read it.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

It seems you haven't read it or you've indulged in a bit of 'confirmation bias' or straight out denial.

'An important clue came from some especially good ice core records that timed precisely the changes in the levels of CO2 and methane. The levels apparently rose or fell a few centuries after a rise or fall in temperature. At first this lag puzzled scientists, but they quickly realized that this was just what they should have expected. For it strongly confirmed that the Milankovitch-cycle orbital changes initiated a powerful feedback loop. The close of a glacial era came when a shift in sunlight caused a slight rise of temperature, and that evidently raised the gas levels over the next few centuries. The greenhouse effect then slowly drove the planet's temperature a bit higher, which drove a further rise in the gas levels... and so forth. On the other hand, when the sunlight in key latitudes weakened, that would not only bring more ice and snow, but also a shift from emission to absorption of gases, eventually causing a further fall in temperature... and so forth.'

It's even referenced. No 58. Shackleton (2000); etc

Then without reference or supporting data the article makes the following generalisation in it's conclusion:

'Our current situation was altogether different. The warming was not started by a small shift of sunlight, as in previous epochs. Our addition of gases to the atmosphere was initiating the process, with the temperature rise lagging behind the rise of gas levels. Emissions were climbing at a far swifter rate than anything in the Pleistocene record, so the lag was measured not in centuries, but mere decades. And already by the 1980s the levels of greenhouse gases had climbed far higher than anything seen for many millions of years.'

All other fundamental assumptions in the article were supported and referenced. But here no argument, no proof just a simpletons assertion.

Now surely there is a grand case of 'confirmation bias' if ever there was one.

Poirot, merci beaucoup

Naomi Klein’s article is a must read for all those who claim to have an open mind (I would be interested in seeing their comments, particularly in light of Durban).

Her analysis is truly revealing with each page a source of quotable excerpts (I note Klein also picked up on Dan Kahan’s study, bottom page 4).

There is a common theme in what Klein has identified, what Kahan has revealed, and what the Heartlanders exhibit - nutters would not have a clue what Dan Kahan is talking about. Ergo, see our own.

Of course, Klein makes much mention of the Heartland Institute – a favourite haunting ground of Joanne Nova/Codling/Evans and her partner in arms, as well as another OLO author in Lord Father Christmas, Christopher Monkton.

A few other antipodeans are regular star attractions as well – you know who they are.