Of Trolls and Screamer.

The thing that always fascinates me is motive.

Whether we are talking about climate change, peak oil, air pollution, or whether the moon landings were real, you always have people willing to froth with religious fervor that, “it is not true”. I work with some of them and it is interesting to probe their thought processes.

Generally I find four root causes:

1) Selfishness: Some are quite open about this. The high performance/luxury vehicle makes them feel important and special. They will not give it up, no matter what the cost to others.

2) Hatred of the group promoting the issue: If party “X” is promoting it, then it must be bad.

3) Fun: They enjoy being a troll. It give them a sense of power. Here in the south I see a lot of this. People hang a rebel flag or act like a redneck, just to piss the rest of the country off. They love to watch the liberals dance in anger. It almost has reach the status of a sport.

4) Delusion: Never underestimate the need for people to delude themselves. Life can be really hard. Sometimes insisting that a perpetual motion machine works is part of their coping strategy for dealing with the loss of their job, loved one or social status. I see this with some of my evangelical friends. They were on a path to self destruction till they found “X”. Now that they have “X”, “It is in god's hands”.

Which isn't to say that dissent is not a valid and useful thing. It keeps science honest. In fact, at work I have pretty must taken on the role of dissenter. They call me “Mr. Sunshine”, because I always tell them the flaw in their big idea. The difference is, that I have had decades of experience in my field and actually know my subject. Sometimes they overcome the flawed logic, sometimes they don't. But to be a valid dissenter you need to know your subject and have real world experience in science and technology (as apposed to deluding yourself that you know a subject).

As a citizen in a democracy, we have several choices when science, politics and beliefs collide.
1) Read up on what real scientists are saying (not the TV talking heads) and accept their judgment.
2) Get a college degree for the field in question, then spend decades working in that field.
3) Read legitimate science literature and try and apply your life experience.

All three choices have problems:

Blind acceptance of authority is never a good thing.

College degrees are expensive and time consuming. If you tried for a degree in every field you had a question, you would spend your whole life in college. An this assumes you don't get the all important real life experience in that field, or that you are any good in your field of study.

Reading legitimate scientific literature is a good start but unless you have had years of science and technology experience in the real world, your going to make invalid assumptions.

Yes, I know this sounds elitist, but others have made some good comparisons on this subject. One of my favorites was second guessing the airline pilot every time you fly on a commercial airliner. Owning a flight simulator program is not a valid reason to break into the cockpit, and wrestle the controls from the pilot. Not if you want to keep living.

In the case of peak oil and climate change, I have used a three pronged approach.

1)I looked at what the experts had to say.
2)I then went looking for the data behind their conclusions.
3)Then I went looking for the dissenters to see what they had to say.

My advantage in looking into these subjects, is that I spent several decades in a large scientific bureaucracy working as a physicist. I was use to analyzing raw data and avoiding the inherent pitfalls. I am also use to dealing with how personnel self interest, or politics could distort findings. An organization does not willing publish information that cuts review streams.

In the final analysis, it all comes down to whether the predictions are true. Is the arctic melting? Is climate changing? Is oil getting more expensive? Are we drilling for oil in more remote and hostile environments?

If reality matches the predictions (or is worse than predicted), yet you keep coming up with excuses not to accept the data. Then it is time to take a real hard look in the mirror.