Bi-Weekly "Metapolitics" Discussion - How Should We Think About Climate Change?
Details
We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, not too far from our summer meeting spot in Washington Square Park. The cafe is near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.
Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside. If you're hungry enough to eat a meal, they have more substantial fare such as salads, soups & sandwiches which are pretty good and their prices are reasonable.
The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 1 block west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in either the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street or the Parkway Walnut Towers Garage near 8th & Walnut, both of which are just a block away.
----------------------------------------------------------
HOW SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?
Climate change is one of the most controversial issues of our day. Yet, as I began to poke around online and tried to locate the details on the expert consensus among climatologists & economists, it gradually became apparent that merely looking at what most of the experts agree on doesn't get us very far. Once we move beyond accepting that anthropogenic climate change is real and that it should be addressed with either a tax or cap on greenhouse gas emissions & subsidies for renewable energy, there's a fair amount of disagreement. Most of that disagreement stems from widely varying estimates about the amount of warming we may experience in the 21st century and the damage it will cause, as well as disputes over the best methods for climate change mitigation & adaptation.
Originally, I planned to structure the discussion outline for climate change similar to our discussion back in June on technological change (entitled "Singularity or Stagnation?"), since although the expert consensus is the global warming is occurring estimates on the risk level & the available time for climate mitigation vary quite a bit. However, I've bumped that outline to next time since I've realized that we have some pressing concerns about ideology & epistemology to cover first: How do we know if we can trust the expert consensus in climate science? And how do we that the expert consensus among economists on how to address climate change is correct? Aren't these experts prone to ideological biases, financial motives & groupthink? How do we account for uncertainty in the climate models? And how do we untangle differences in values that get baked into the various proposed solutions?
In general, I should probably explain that our meetup typically uses a working assumption that the expert consensus in an empirical field should get the benefit of the doubt, with perhaps some tweaking to adjust for the experts' ideological biases & financial motives. However, there's certain factors which cast doubt on the expert consensus and ways in which we can evaluate the credibility of a contrarian counter-consensus. We've dedicated previous meetups of the Philadelphia Political Agnostics & Skeptics in the Pub to these topics. To review this info, see the discussion outlines:
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/233763872/
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/235247693/
In this discussion, we'll start by looking at the psychological research on science communication & cultural cognition. Next, we'll look at political polarization & mistrust of the "expert consensus" has aggravated the debate over both climate science & related issues like nuclear energy, GMOs, and environmental economics. Third, we'll look at the how economists view greenhouses gases as "negative eternalities" and then quickly review the expert consensus among economists on how to address climate change. Lastly, we'll look at allegations that funding, groupthink & publication bias is skewing the climate change debate, and we'll consider the idea of using climate prediction markets to place a "tax on B.S."
The videos you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of the scholarly debates surrounding climate change. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just read my watch the numbered videos linked under each section - this should take about 59 minutes total to get through. I know that's a lot, and I apologize for continually revising the outline until the day before. If you can't watch all of the videos, don't worry - just watch as much as you can. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.
In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the 4 topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section. I've listed questions under each section which we'll do our best to address.
NOTE: I'm hosting a 2-hour discussion immediately prior to this one, also at Café Walnut from 1-3 pm, on "Climate Change & Bad Arguments" - i.e. sloppy arguments made by those who believe in climate change that either ignore basic economics or have flawed epistemology. The issues we cover in that discussion will be highly complementary to this one. If you're interested, go here to RSVP: https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/241725185/
I. COGNITIVE BIASES & MORAL FOUNDATIONS THAT SHAPE THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE: HOW DO INNATE ASPECTS OF PERSONALITY & "CULTURAL COGNITION" INFLUENCE PEOPLE'S VIEWS ON SCIENTIFIC ISSUES? IF MORE SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T DE-POLARIZE THE DEBATE, WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
1a) C0nc0rdance, "Climate Change and Cultural Cognition" (video - 12:08 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLYT54q9gEQ
1b) Newsweek, "How America Is Deeply Divided Over Climate Change" (video - 2:31 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz2qTyZIyNA
-
Dan Kahan, "What you 'believe' about climate change doesn't express what you know; it expresses who you are" (medium-length blog post)
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/4/23/what-you-believe-about-climate-change-doesnt-reflect-what-yo.html -
Cary Funk, "How much does science knowledge influence people’s views on climate change and energy issues?" (short article)
- Matthew C. Nisbet, "Rethinking Our Moral Vocabulary on Climate Change. Efforts to combat climate change may be most effective when they are localized and personalized." (medium-length article)
https://ensia.com/voices/rethinking-our-moral-vocabulary-on-climate-change/?viewAll=1
II. SPECIAL PLEADING ON "EXPERT CONSENSUS": SHOULD RIGHT-WING SKEPTICISM OF NEAR-TERM CATASTROPHIC WARMING BE TERMED "SCIENCE DENIALISM"? SHOULD LEFT-WING SKEPTICISM OF NEOLIBERALISM BE TERMED "ECONOMICS DENIALISM"? SHOULD POLITICIANS & THE GENERAL PUBLIC DEFER TO THE EXPERT CONSENSUS IN BOTH SCIENCE & ECONOMICS?
- NOTE: This section & the next one assume some basic familiarity with both the IPCC consensus on climate change, i.e. anthropogenic global warming is real and we need to dramatically reduce carbon emissions to avoid a rise in global average temperatures exceeding 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F), as well as basic familiarity the current consensus in mainstream macroeconomics - the neoclassical-Keynesian synthesis. We covered the economic consensus in a previous discussion: https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/234098615/
2a) Richard Lindzen, "Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?" (video - 5:04 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
2b) Naomi Klein, "Capitalism vs The Climate: Naomi Klein on Need for New Economic Model to Address Climate Crisis" (video - 8:00 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W3scqbuJVQ
*Dan Kahan, "Annual 'new study's finds 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change; public consensus sure to follow once news gets out" (short article)
*John Cook, "On the Value of Communicating Scientific Consensus: John Cooks Responds [to Dan Kahan]" (short article)
http://www.culturalcognition.net/john-cook-on-communicating-con/
- Eduardo Porter, "Liberal Biases [Against GMOs & Nuclear Power], Too, May Block Progress on Climate Change" (medium-length article)
- Michael Tobis, "Who Decides What Is True? How Does Science Proceed from Hypothesis to Fact to Common Knowledge?" (medium-length article)
https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd
- Judith Curry, "Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness" (medium-length article)
https://judithcurry.com/2015/08/24/climate-change-epistemic-trust-and-expert-trustworthiness/
III. HOW DOES ECONOMICS DEAL WITH "NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES" LIKE GREENHOUSE GASES & CRISES BROUGHT ON BY EXTREME WEATHER? WHAT IS THE OVERALL ECONOMIC CONSENSUS ON ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE?
- Adriene Hill & Jacob Clifford, "Environmental Economics" (video - 8:22 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlAfFgKQ5r8
- David Roberts, "Economists Agree: Economic Models Underestimate Climate Change" (medium-length article)
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/8/9869918/economists-climate-consensus
https://secure.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/a/8/d/0/event_466063216.jpeg
https://secure.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/a/8/c/e/event_466063214.jpeg
IGM Expert Panel Polls Relevant to Climate Change (Weighted Poll Results):
Carbon Tax - 95% of surveyed economists agree a tax on the carbon content of fuels is superior to a collection of cap & trade policies like "corporate average fuel economy".http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/carbon-tax
Carbon Taxes II - 78% of surveyed economist agree that a US carbon tax of $20/ton, increasing at 4% per year, would have fewer harmful net distortions than a marginal tax increase on labor income that generated the same revenue.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/carbon-taxes-ii
Ethanol - 93% of surveyed economists agree that ethanol requirements raise food prices without significantly reducing CO2 emissions. 100% of them agreed that carbon taxes or emissions permits would be superior to ethanol requirements at reducing CO2 emissions.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/ethanol
Price Gouging (During Extreme Weather Events) - 77% of surveyed economists disagreed with bills that criminalize price gouging in the wake of extreme weather events.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/price-gouging
California's Drought - 87% of surveyed economists agree that all Californians would be better off if all end users paid the same price for water (adjusted for quality, time & place), even if food prices rose sharply and some farms failed.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/californias-drought
IV. BIASES & BETTING - DOES FUNDING, GROUPTHINK & PUBLICATION BIAS SKEW THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE? COULD CLIMATE PREDICTION MARKETS HELP ALLEVIATE THESE CONCERNS & DIRECT THE PUBLIC TOWARDS A STRONGER CONSENSUS?
4a) Stefan Rahmstorf, "Is the IPCC Too Conservative?" (video - 2:59 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ6HAo_FtD8
4b) Patrick Michaels, "ClimateGate - Are Climate Scientists Afraid of Peer Review" (video - 2:05 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEw-DmukwRs
4c) Mark Boslough, "Using Prediction Markets to Evaluate Various Global Warming Hypotheses" (video - 23:44 min, watch til 18:55)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTqnN9QeEGs
- Christian Harlos & Tim Edgell, "Study Reviews 1,154 Climate Science Results, Finds No Evidence of Publication Bias" (short article)
https://futurism.com/study-reviews-climate-science-results-no-evidence-publication-bias/
- Patrick J. Michaels & Paul C. Knappenberger, "Bias in Climate Science" (short article)
https://www.cato.org/blog/bias-climate-science
- Douglas Fisher, "'Dark Money' Funds Climate Change Denial Effort" (medium-length article)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
- James Taylor, "'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research" (medium-length article)
*Nate Silver, "Best Idea of the Day: Climate Change Futures Markets" (short article, right after "Climategate" in 2009)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/best-idea-of-day-climate-change-futures/
- Mike Thicke, "Prediction Markets for Science: Preliminary Review and Thoughts" (longer article from 2014)
http://thebubblechamber.org/2014/01/prediction-markets-for-science-preliminary-review-and-thoughts/
Bi-Weekly "Metapolitics" Discussion - How Should We Think About Climate Change?