Mainstream news outlets spent a lot of time in 2011 covering the record-breaking year for extreme weather in the U.S. But only a few of them spent much time exploring the link between those events and global warming (see With No End in Sight for Texas Drought, ABC News Explains: “Every Farmer in the World Will Be Affected by Climate Change” and links below).

So PBS deserves a special mention for a segment that aired yesterday looking at how global warming is influencing extreme weather events. As Jeff Masters, co-founder of the Weather Underground (and periodic contributor to this blog) explained in the piece: “They all tend to get increased when you have this extra energy in the atmosphere. I call it being on steroids … for the atmosphere.”

Watch the full segment:

Watch How 2011 Became a ‘Mind-Boggling’ Year of Extreme Weather on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

And here’s the transcript:

Read more

by Brenden O’Donnell, cross-posted from the Rocky Mountain Institute

This is part two in a three-part series published at RMI on Turbocharging energy efficiency programs.

The Debunking Handbook is a guide to debunking myths, by John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky. This Handbook boils down the psychological research on misinformation into a short, simple summary, intended as a guide for communicators in all areas (not just climate).

This is part four in a five-part series cross-posted from Skeptical Science.

The third and arguably most potent backfire effect occurs with topics that tie in with people’s worldviews and sense of cultural identity.  Several cognitive processes can cause people to unconsciously process information in a biased way. For those who are strongly fixed in their views, being confronted with counter-arguments can cause their views to be strengthened.

One cognitive process that contributes to this effect is Confirmation Bias, where people selectively seek out information that bolsters their view. In one experiment, people were offered information on hot-button issues like gun control or affirmative action. Each parcel of information was labelled by its source, clearly indicating whether the information would be pro or con (e.g., the National Rifle Association vs. Citizens Against Handguns). Although instructed to be even-handed, people opted for sources that matched their pre-existing views. The study found that even when people are presented with a balanced set of facts, they reinforce their pre-existing views by gravitating towards information they already agree with. The polarisation was greatest among those with strongly held views.¹

What happens when you remove that element of choice and present someone with arguments that run counter to their worldview? In this case, the cognitive process that comes to the fore is Disconfirmation Bias, the flipside of Confirmation Bias. This is where people spend significantly more time and thought actively arguing against opposing arguments.²

Read more

by  Jocelyn Fong and Shauna Theel, in a Media Matters cross-post

In 1994 Rush Limbaugh declared, “There is no global warming going on,” adding that scientists “admit” they “may need 20 years more data to prove it.” Since then, Limbaugh has managed to shield his brain from 18 years of mounting evidence that humans are changing the climate. “Science has made enormous inroads in understanding climate change and its causes,” according to the National Research Council’s latest report assessing the state of climate science. “There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities,” the report said.

Limbaugh, whose radio show reportedly reaches roughly 14 million people per week, remains the most prominent and cocksure denier of human-induced climate change in the news industry. His unyielding belief that the world’s earth scientists are perpetrating a “hoax” has led him to some interesting places this year, from declaring that the heat index is “manufactured by the government,” to accusing NASA of sabotaging its own research satellite, to announcing that the National Academy of Sciences has “lost all credibility.” Given his large following, Limbaugh’s extreme and misguided position may well have influenced the Republican presidential primary by discouraging candidates from speaking about the threats posed by global warming. Indeed, Limbaugh made this litmus test explicit, saying “bye, bye, nomination” after Mitt Romney acknowledged the human contribution to climate change. For all this, on top of his typically bombastic distortions and obfuscations of climate science, Limbaugh wins the distinction of 2011 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.

Read more