Course code: Denial101x, April 2015

I've long been a fan of distance learning. Done right, it provides a lot of insights without the overhead of student ID, parking pass, and fixed schedules interrupting my workday. So I found this course is starting in April:

About this Course

In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.

• Why the gap between the public and scientists?
• What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
• How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?

This course examines the science of climate science denial.

We will look at the most common climate myths from “global warming stopped in 1998” to “global warming is caused by the sun” to “climate impacts are nothing to worry about.”

We’ll find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. You’ll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.

With every myth we debunk, you’ll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you’ll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.

This isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.
​

Source: Making Sense of Climate Science Denial | edX

For those who advocate there is nothing going on and definitely not CO{2}, there is a free, audit option. It might improve your ability to avoid the less effective assertions . . . improving the quality of our discussions.

Bob Wilson

 

Ok,

You could signup for the full course, $100, which gives you a chance to state your position to the instructors and class. What a great forum and opportunity to participate in the course.

Bob Wilson

 

Well all enrolled and ready. I am looking forward to meeting the instructors: John Cook, Daniel Bedforce, Gavin Cawley, Kevin Cowtan, Sarah A. Green, Peter Jacobs, Scott Mandia, Dana Nuccitelli, Mark Richardson, Keah Schuenemann, Andy Skuce, Robert Way, and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.

Let's see, I paid $100 tuition . . . that must be how the climate change folks are funding their efforts.

So do the climate deniers also have training courses? I called UAH but they are apparently closed for Christmas/New Years. Still, an interesting chart:

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

Bob Wilson
Huntsville, Alabama

 

A fair question:

Back in the early days of bulletin boards and 300 baud modems, I was aghast at bizarre claims made and bitter backbiting about the Macintosh. As for politics, history, and religion, some claims were (and remain) disconnected from direct observations and often led to flame wars. So I invited folks to a pizza party:

Back then, pre-USB, digital cameras were gray-scale and operated over RS-232/422. Here is one of the last 'in real life' meetings before USENET evaporated:

Every time we met 'in real life,' the invective moderated. Something about posting, especially anonymous posting, enables a viciousness and disconnect from reality that disappears when one's face is within fist range of another. Sad to say, the Internet can be an enabler for verbal 'bomb throwers.'

In 1976, I saw ELIZA bring a young woman to the verge of tears before I 'pulled the plug.' But it reenforced the notion that there are verbal patterns, 'tells', Kabuki-like patterns that are disconnected from empirical observations. Whether it be Macintosh, religion, politics, Prius, grits, or climate change, they attract anti-advocates with similar behaviors.

I maintain we can (and should) treat these verbalizations like any other natural phenomena and it is worthy of study. I don't demonize these patterns any more than half a hundred other irritations in life. So I'm impressed by john1701a analysis of Prius skeptics and he accurately created a taxonomy of Prius skeptics. But thanks to the 'in real life' meetings, I've long moved beyond demonizing the honorable competition but study them and . . . perform experiments.

So all I'm expecting from this class is:

This course examines the science of climate science denial.

We will look at the most common climate myths from “global warming stopped in 1998” to “global warming is caused by the sun” to “climate impacts are nothing to worry about.”

We’ll find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. You’ll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.

With every myth we debunk, you’ll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you’ll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.​

If someone classifies themselves a climate denier or leans towards climate denial, this course could be 'an analysts couch.' It could be a chance to see themselves as others see them and might even show them how to avoid the 'tells'. But I have no great expectations of reformation. I learned from the 'in real life' meetings that behavior patterns in some are fixed. After a few months invective free, it would return.

At one extreme are those incapable of learning and change whereas empiricists are incapable of not learning. Empiricists wake everyday to a new world of wonder and experiment and this class will sharpen my understanding of how to deal with the non-empiricists.

Bob Wilson

ps. This is a practical example:

The tells:

• invective - "lie" and "bullshit"
• unsupported claims - "If 50% of meterologists"
• red Herring - "habitat of escargot in Southern France" "snail experts"
• bribery - "grant recipients" "grant money"

But this is an extreme and easy case. The more pernicious are raising character questions instead of looking at the facts and data.

pps. I enjoy the irony that those whose strongest 'tell' are ad hominem criticisms of empiricists have inspired a course by empiricists about the ad hominem attackers.

 

Dear Denial101x students,

We’re only two weeks away from the start of Denial101x: Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, and we’re getting really excited!

For the past 8 months we’ve been collecting interviews and lectures from climate science experts around the world. We’ve visited universities in Australia and England and Canada, participated in the American Geophysical Union Annual Conference in San Francisco and shot footage on location at The University of Queensland and at Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef that includes an interview with Sir David Attenborough.

During the course, we’ll be taking you to each of these places to find out what experts have to say about the ways in which climate change myths are spread and debunked. With each new week of our course, we will respond to myths using science and evidence, and we’ll also help you begin to develop your own responses to myths. We can’t wait to begin this course with you and see what you will contribute.

As we prepare for the beginning of the course, we would encourage you to:

• Follow the Denial101x team on Twitter at @denial101x or use #denial101x when tweeting and tell us why you are taking the course
• Like the Denial101x Facebook page - view and share some of the videos and images we’ve posted as we prepare for the course
• Recommend the course to friends who you might want to take this course with and ask them to register for the course
• Subscribe to our Denial101x YouTube Channel - watch and share the videos we’ve already posted

We are really looking forward to starting our course on 28 April!

--The Denial101x Team

 

The course opened on Tuesday and I'm about 2/3d through the first week. Some stuff I knew but other observations are new:

• Deniers with some math and physics backgrounds will become even more if presented with evidence. Ignorance is not the problem but something else.
  
• "World View" trumps science and engineering training. I've seen this in Huntsville any day of the week (i.e., "Don't confuse me with the facts. ...")

I do find the emphasis on the scientific consensus, ~97% by climate scientists, to be an interesting tactic. But dealing with the denial claims is a lot easier from information in this class.

You can take the course for free or pay a nominal stipend and get a certificate. Regardless, it is well put together and easy enough to follow.

Bob Wilson

ps. John1701a once wrote up a piece on hybrid deniers and there are parallels in this course.

 

A lot of the course content is already out there. However, the course has an outline, a frame that ties the parts together. It also has quizzes.

Quizzes and tests are a confidence builder. It lets the student know they have understood and mastered the subject.

Bob Wilson