It's a question that makes environmentalists feel like they are banging their heads against a tree: How can global-warming deniers ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence? In this week's highlighted post, Jay Ingram delves into how public opinion on "scientific controversies" such as global warming and nuclear power are driven by culture and value judgments rather than scientific data. This goes for environmentalists and their foes.
"Belief Is Biased: It's Vital to Know How Our Values Trump Logic"
by Jay Ingram (Alternatives Journal, September 2012, v.38 no.5, pp30-31)
Some of the most important controversies we face today are those with a scientific underpinning—but a public consequence. Anthropogenic climate change, GMOs and nuclear power are among them. The curious feature of these so-called “scientific” controversies is that most members of the public take a stance, pro or con, without regard for the data.
To put it another way, the science really isn’t that important. Instead, a set of social and cultural values determine whether citizens will, for instance, accept that we are changing the climate and vow to do something about it, or instead argue that climate fluctuations are natural and we would be foolish to do anything.
Please consider supporting our work.
I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don’t depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We’re supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise.
Our work isn’t hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to In These Times.
