John Cook discusses the 'consensus on consensus'

John Cook - a friend of
Beneath the Wisteria.

Climate activists frequently bump into people who don’t know about climate change, consider it a scientific matter of no import to them, or retreat to refuting it as a myth and something about which the only consensus is among those advocating its existence.

A Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, John Cook, who is also a critical part of the “Skeptical Science” website, has thought deeply about this matter for many years.

On the website he says: “Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts.

“It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

“That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the ‘consensus gap.’ Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%,” he says.

Check out what, John Cook has to say on his website, Skeptical Science - “Consensus on Consensus.”

Fossil fuel industry digs deep to confuse climate change conversation

John Cook -  A Climate
Communication Research
 Fellow from the
 Global Change Institute
 at The
University of Queensland.

The fossil fuel industry has spent many millions of dollars on confusing the public about climate change. But the role of vested interests in climate science denial is only half the picture.

Interest in this topic has spiked with the latest revelation regarding coalmining company Peabody Energy. After Peabody filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, documentation became available revealing the scope of Peabody’s funding to third parties. The list of funding recipients includes trade associations, lobby groups and climate-contrarian scientists.

This latest revelation is significant because in recent years, fossil fuel companies have become more careful to cover their tracks. An analysis by Robert Brulle found that from 2003 to 2010, organisations promoting climate misinformation received more than US$900 million of corporate funding per year.

Read the piece on The Conversation by the Climate Communication Research Fellow from the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland, John Cook - “A brief history of fossil-fuelled climate denial.”

John Cook takes a look a the IPCC

John Cook.

Beneath the Wisteria supporter and Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland, John Cook, considers why we trust the IPCC.

The creator of the website SkepticalScience.com, which won the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge, engages with several scientists to discuss the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Watch the near six-minute YouTube segment - “Why do we trust the IPCC?”

Making a simple thing complex and giving the wrong impression

Climate change is a simply thing, but, at the same time amazingly complex.

John Cook from the University
of Queensland.

That weird dichotomous connection has driven University of Melbourne research scientist, Will Howard, to write about it on The Conversation.

In a story headed: “Appeals to the climate consensus cangive the wrong impression” Howard discusses the confusion that arises from the term “consensus”.

“This to-ing and fro-ing might give the impression that climate science is somehow still under debate, but the scientific evidence that people are causing climate change is overwhelming, and mounting”, he wrote.

The “to-ing and fro-ing” Howard referred to related to discussion between Richard Tol at the University of Sussex and University of Queensland social scientist, John Cook.

John has a simple, but strikingly complex plan

John Cook at his desk in the
Global Change Institute at
the University of Queensland.

John Cook has a plan, simple, but strikingly complex.

The Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland is concentrating on disabusing global warming skeptics of the myths they adhere to.

John, who has completed a First Class Honours degree in Physics at the University of Queensland and is currently completing a PhD in Cognitive Psychology at the University of Western Australia, subtly evolved into concentrating why many people deny the realities of climate change.

He co-authored the book "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand" with environmental scientist Haydn Washington and the university textbook "Climate Change Science: a Modern Synthesis" with geologist Tom Farmer.

Although John believes there is much to be done if climate change is to be mitigated and its impacts softened, but within that there simply too much for any one person.

Subsequently, John, who is unsettled as most other in the world of science by the rejection that knowledge, has elected to simply “do what he can” and expose why and how people adhere to and maintain their lives through the personal and public proliferation of myths.

How do we change those who refuse to acknowledge climate change/global warming? John believes it is through inoculation – that is we demonstrate through undeniable realities that they are wrong and that mitigation can only be achieved by avoiding many things presently acceptable.

So, John has just one task – helping people understand the realities of communicating climate change, why it works and why it doesn’t – but it is as complex as the people who make up the ranks of those deny the dilemma.

John maintains the website Skeptical Science.

Faulty logic skews climate change conversation

Distorted logic distorts, equally, the climate change conversation.

John Cook.

Many older people appear to mistakenly equate 40 degrees Celsius with 100°F claiming that as a kid they lived through many 100 degree days.

“They appear to be unaware that 40°C is actually 104°F and that 43°C, a somewhat common experience recently in the Goulburn Valley, is a nearly 110°F,” Beneath the Wisteria convenor, Robert McLean said.

“Climatologists are predicting that within a couple of decades, days with temperatures close to 45°C, that’s 113°F, will be relatively common during summer,” Robert said.

Human survival becomes rather problematic he said when temperatures are regularly above 40°C.

The week leading up to the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires saw a run of high temperatures and the deaths among people from heatstroke far exceeded those of the actual fires.

Science illustrates that not only do humans struggle to survive the markedly increased temperatures, but other species that contribute to humanity’s wellbeing, are also put under severe stress.

The flawed logic of many people was discussed by the Climate Communication Research Fellow at the University of Queensland, John Cook, in a story headed: “’It’s been hot before’: faulty logic skews the climate debate”.

“Of course, heatwaves have happened in the past, including before humans started altering the climate. But, it’s faulty logic to suggest that this means they’re not increasing now, or that it’s not our fault,” he wrote.

 

The scientist agee, so why doesn't everyone else?

The Washington Post asks: “Scientists agree on climate change. So why doesn’t everyone else?”

The story says: “Here’s a finding that shouldn’t be all that surprising: Since 1991, roughly 97 percent of all published scientific papers that take a position on the question agree that humans are warming the planet.”

That statistic comes from and extensive new survey by John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli, who run the Australian Skeptical Science website.

Cook and Nuccitelli’s findings build on earlier studies that found the exact same thing.