Confirmation bias versus the truth

You are entitled to your own set of facts, but not your own opinions... Or was that the other way around?

It’s difficult to tell what the real (versus alternative) facts are these days, given the amount of misinformation and disinformation available through social media. You often have to dig deeper to get to the truth. You may not want to do further research, however, if you are easily presented with misinformation that supports your views.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, favor, and interpret information in a way that confirms or supports a person’s personal beliefs. It’s a tendency that comes naturally to us. Education and training in critical thinking skills can help us resist the inclination.

Science relies much on education and training in critical thinking skills. It also relies on peer review and publication as guardrails to support, as much as possible, its quest to get closer to the truth. If science says something like climate change, and humanity’s role in it, is a fact, then you can bet that there is evidence to support it. If new peer-reviewed information comes along to dispute what was previously accepted, then our understanding may need to be altered. In regards to the science of climate change, this has not happened. Although our understanding is continuously being refined, no evidence has been brought to light to dispute that it’s occurring and that human activity is responsible. In fact, the opposite is the case.

When someone comes along to disagree with the science, the questions we should ask are: what credibility do they have, what evidence do they present, and have they published a peer-reviewed scientific paper or article on the subject? There is no shortage of people, some appearing to be quite rational, who wish to “debate” the facts of climate change. Such disinformation is often given credence from certain media outlets. But there is no debate about such facts any more than there is one about whether the earth is flat.

We may not want to believe that climate change is happening, or that we humans are responsible, so we may still wish to favor information to support this view. But such confirmation bias doesn’t help us understand the facts. Or to get closer to the truth.

How much land?

How much land would be needed to generate 50% of our energy needs from renewables such as solar and wind? An April 21, 2021 article by David Merrill in Bloomberg News provides some useful information. I learned that in order to fulfill President Biden's vision of an emission-free grid by 2035, the U.S. needs to increase its carbon-free capacity by at least 150%. Expanding solar and wind by 10% annually until 2030 would require the amount of land equal to the state of South Dakota. By 2050, when Biden wants the entire economy to be carbon-free, the U.S. would need up to four additional South Dakotas to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories, and more. 

Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? It's not quite so bad, though, because some solar can be installed on rooftops, and some wind farms can be built offshore. Also, nuclear and hydroelectric power can be added to the mix.

According to Forbes, renewables are already less expensive than fossil fuels. And dirty fossil fuels continue to enjoy some of the subsidies that they've received for the past 100 years. While it's true that renewable energy is only part of what needs to be a global solution, we have to get to zero emissions. Our future depends on it.

Another LTE - The Spherical Earth Hoax

Note - this is in response to the Brunswick Post's reader poll question.

Those “scientists” are at it again. They told us that the “pandemic” was bad and that we should be vaccinated. We all know what a hoax that was. And the whole climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions is another big one. But the biggest hoax of all is that the earth is round.

Any thinking person with a reasonable amount of common sense knows that it is flat. Yet the supposedly learned men and women have been saying for years that us flat-earthers are ones who are wrong. Here’s the thing: we true believers can’t even get any traction on the news. So many times, we’ve tried to arrange debates with scientists about the true nature of the earth’s flatness. We’ve tried to start by saying, “You say the earth is spherical, and we say it’s flat. Let’s debate.” But they don’t even seem to want to bother with us.

Okay, let me get a little more serious now. This was in response to today’s Post Reader Poll, ‘Do you believe that climate change is real and caused by carbon buildup?’ Why are we even debating such a thing? We no longer debate whether the earth is round, whether a virus caused the pandemic, or whether electricity exists because those things, like climate change, are scientifically proven.

The debate ought not to be whether it’s happening. That’s a given. It needs to be about what we should do about it. 

James Baker’s column got it mostly right. It’s a global problem, and the United States can’t solve it alone. But we can and should provide leadership to the rest of the world in order to resolve it. And of course, Republicans must get on board and engage on the issue. By establishing markets and incentives, our climate leadership can also be a boon to our economy.