The Fickle Science? (Hyperbole or Toilet Bowl)

Typically: When you are 18 years old you want to rearrange the world to suit your vision of utopia. Thirty or forty years later you are content to rearrange the furniture so you don’t fall over the table on your way to the toilet. Does this hypothesis hold in climate science? Does the task of saving the world from immanent climate related catastrophe have an inverse relationship to age?

Using the data of the 2008 survey of climate scientists I explore the relationship between age (using a proxy measure - years worked in climate science - but we are well accustomed to proxy measures) and hyperbole. (Hyperbel). The possible response categories for years in climate science were 1 = 0 to 5 years; 2 = 6 to 10 years; 3 = 11 to 15 years; 4 = greater than 15 years.

As a measure a of the assessment of the world being in immanent danger, the answers to the following questions are used:

How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to society? not at all 1 ... 7 very much

Hyperbole also has reference to communication, in this case the communication of climate science. Here two questions are employed in the analysis:

Some scientists present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts related to climate change in a poplar format with the claim that it is their task to alert the public, how much do you agree with this practice? not at all 1 ... 7 very much

Over the issue of climate change, the general public should be told to be
unconcerned 1 ... 7 very worried

So what is the relationship between age and the perception of threat of climate change?

How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to society?

First of all we need to note that the sample has a considerable number of scientists that have been working in the science for more than 15 years, and of those who have been working in the science for more than 15 years a considerable majority tend to think that climate change poses a serious threat.

What about those who don’t mind attempting to scar the hell out of Joe/Jane Public.

 Some scientists present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts related to climate change in a poplar format with the claim that it is their task to alert the public, How much do you agree with this practice? not at all 1 ... 7 very much

 
Here we see that older scientists are not overly prone to Halloween tactics. In fact, the vast majority do not agree with presenting extreme accounts of climate change’s catastrophic impacts and there are no surprises comparing expected and actual values.

The final measure has to do with what, not how, the public should be told, that is, should they be told to be unconcerned or very worried?

Over the issue of climate change, the general public should be told to be

 
Again, no surprises here between expected and actual values. And again, it looks like the public should be told to be worried.

So what’s happening here? Has the entire scientific community been duped by the IPCC consensus? Are the current claims against the IPCC report mere blasphemy?

In 2008 climate scientists were also asked in an open ended question: What do you think is the most pressing issue facing humanity? Answers ranged from the likes of ‘Lack of education accompanied by growth of religion’ to ‘over population’ to ‘the non-linear behaviour of the climate system’. To try and maintain some utility of the data the qualitative answers were recoded and the following frequencies were produced:

What do you think is the most pressing issue facing humanity?

Although social issues rank a much higher level of concern than climate related issues (in 2008) we should note that climate change being listed as the main issue falls to that groups of scientists who have been have been practicing climate science for more than 15 years.

So we have to ask here, over all, does experience generate a superior knowledge or simply a stronger vested interest? Do some scientists remain ‘activists’ or are they merely ‘concerned scientists’, or is there a difference? Does the recognition and reward structure of science need to be renegotiated? (i.e. does towing the line have its benefits?)

Once more to the survey: Activist - Non Activist

If you were to rate yourself in terms of being an environmental activist, where would you place yourself on the following scale?

There are a fair number of scientists who have no qualms about claiming activist tendencies. Is this a matter of reality or political correctness? I am afraid my data does not extend to such an analysis. (Have you recognized any activists at Davos - social and economic issues rank high on the list of concerns?)

After all that, if vested interest, towing the line and political correctness do play a significant role in determining scientists’ perceptions of their wares, it would be interesting to see the results of a new survey given the current climate of things climate. Is there a new ship leaving the harbour? Might some climate scientists have changed some perceptions of their science in the last few months?  For what reasons?

Correlations