Title: Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high
Abstract Standards of proof for attributing real world events/damage to global warming should be the same as in clinical or environmental lawsuits, argue Lloyd et al. The central question that we raise is effective communication. How can climate scientists best and effectively communicate their findings to crucial non-expert audiences, including public policy makers and civil society? To address this question, we look at the mismatch between what courts require and what climate scientists are setting as a bar of proof. Our first point is that scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context. Our second point is to recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommend more prominently the use of the category “more likely than not” as a level of proof in their reports, as this corresponds to the standard of proof most frequently required in civil court rooms. This has also implications for public policy and the public communication of climate evidence. more »« less
Although scientists agree that climate change is anthropogenic, differing interpretations of evidence in a highly polarized sociopolitical environment impact how individuals perceive climate change. While prior work suggests that individuals experience climate change through local conditions, there is a lack of consensus on how personal experience with extreme precipitation may alter public opinion on climate change. We combine high-resolution precipitation data at the zip-code level with nationally representative public opinion survey results (n= 4008) that examine beliefs in climate change and the perceived cause. Our findings support relationships between well-established value systems (i.e., partisanship, religion) and socioeconomic status with individual opinions of climate change, showing that these values are influential in opinion formation on climate issues. We also show that experiencing characteristics of atypical precipitation (e.g., more variability than normal, increasing or decreasing trends, or highly recurring extreme events) in a local area are associated with increased belief in anthropogenic climate change. This suggests that individuals in communities that experience greater atypical precipitation may be more accepting of messaging and policy strategies directly aimed at addressing climate change challenges. Thus, communication strategies that leverage individual perception of atypical precipitation at the local level may help tap into certain “experiential” processing methods, making climate change feel less distant. These strategies may help reduce polarization and motivate mitigation and adaptation actions.
Significance Statement
Public acceptance for anthropogenic climate change is hindered by how related issues are presented, diverse value systems, and information-processing biases. Personal experiences with extreme weather may act as a salient cue that impacts individuals’ perceptions of climate change. We couple a large, nationally representative public opinion dataset with station precipitation data at the zip-code level in the United States. Results are nuanced but suggest that anomalous and variable precipitation in a local area may be interpreted as evidence for anthropogenic climate change. So, relating atypical local precipitation conditions to climate change may help tap into individuals’ experiential processing, sidestep polarization, and tailor communications at the local level.
Despite increased calls for the need for more diverse engineers and significant efforts to “move the needle,” the composition of students, especially women, earning bachelor’s degrees in engineering has not significantly changed over the past three decades. Prior research by Klotz and colleagues (2014) showed that sustainability as a topic in engineering education is a potentially positive way to increase women’s interest in STEM at the transition from high school to college. Additionally, sustainability has increasingly become a more prevalent topic in engineering as the need for global solutions that address the environmental, social, and economic aspects of sustainability have become more pressing. However, few studies have examined students’ sustainability related career for upper-level engineering students. This time point is a critical one as students are transitioning from college to industry or other careers where they may be positioned to solve some of these pressing problems. In this work, we answer the question, “What differences exist between men and women’s attitudes about sustainability in upper-level engineering courses?” in order to better understand how sustainability topics may promote women’s interest in and desire to address these needs in their future careers.
We used pilot data from the CLIMATE survey given to 228 junior and senior civil, environmental, and mechanical engineering students at a large East Coast research institution. This survey included questions about students’ career goals, college experiences, beliefs about engineering, and demographic information. The students surveyed included 62 third-year students, 96 fourth-year students, 29 fifth-year students, and one sixth-year student. In order to compare our results of upper-level students’ attitudes about sustainability, we asked the same questions as the previous study focused on first-year engineering students, “Which of these topics, if any, do you hope to directly address in your career?” The list of topics included energy (supply or demand), climate change, environmental degradation, water supply, terrorism and war, opportunities for future generations, food availability, disease, poverty and distribution of resources, and opportunities for women and/or minorities. As the answer to this question was binary, either “Yes,” or “No,” Pearson’s Chi-squared test with Yates’ continuity correction was performed on each topic for this question, comparing men and women’s answers.
We found that women are significantly more likely to want to address water supply, food availability, and opportunities for woman and/or minorities in their careers than their male peers. Conversely, men were significantly more likely to want to address energy and terrorism and war in their careers than their female peers. Our results begin to help us understand the particular differences that men and women, even far along in their undergraduate engineering careers, may have in their desire to address certain sustainability outcomes in their careers. This work begins to let us understand certain topics and pathways that may support women in engineering as well as provides comparisons to prior work on early career undergraduate students. Our future work will include looking at particular student experiences in and out of the classroom to understand how these sustainability outcome expectations develop.
Khatami, Seyedeh N.; Gopalappa, Chaitra(
, Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering)
In the absence of pharmaceutical interventions, social distancing and lockdown have been key options for controlling new or reemerging respiratory infectious disease outbreaks. The timely implementation of these interventions is vital for effectively controlling and safeguarding the economy.Motivated by the COVID-19 pandemic, we evaluated whether, when, and to what level lockdowns are necessary to minimize epidemic and economic burdens of new disease outbreaks. We formulated the question as a sequential decision-making Markov Decision Process and solved it using deep Q-network algorithm. We evaluated the question under two objective functions: a 2-objective function to minimize economic burden and hospital capacity violations, suitable for diseases with severe health risks but with minimal death, and a 3-objective function that additionally minimizes the number of deaths, suitable for diseases that have high risk of mortality.A key feature of the model is that we evaluated the above questions in the context of two-geographical jurisdictions that interact through travel but make autonomous and independent decisions, evaluating under cross-jurisdictional cooperation and non-cooperation. In the 2-objective function under cross-jurisdictional cooperation, the optimal policy was to aim for shutdowns at 50 and 25% per day. Though this policy avoided hospital capacity violations, the shutdowns extended until a large proportion of the population reached herd immunity. Delays in initiating this optimal policy or non-cooperation from an outside jurisdiction required shutdowns at a higher level of 75% per day, thus adding to economic burdens. In the 3-objective function, the optimal policy under cross-jurisdictional cooperation was to aim for shutdowns of up to 75% per day to prevent deaths by reducing infected cases. This optimal policy continued for the entire duration of the simulation, suggesting that, until pharmaceutical interventions such as treatment or vaccines become available, contact reductions through physical distancing would be necessary to minimize deaths. Deviating from this policy increased the number of shutdowns and led to several deaths.In summary, we present a decision-analytic methodology for identifying optimal lockdown strategy under the context of interactions between jurisdictions that make autonomous and independent decisions. The numerical analysis outcomes are intuitive and, as expected, serve as proof of the feasibility of such a model. Our sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the optimal policy exhibits robustness to minor alterations in the transmission rate, yet shows sensitivity to more substantial deviations. This finding underscores the dynamic nature of epidemic parameters, thereby emphasizing the necessity for models trained across a diverse range of values to ensure effective policy-making.
Sustainability has increasingly become a more prevalent topic in engineering as the need for global solutions that address the environmental, social, and economic aspects of sustainability have become more pressing. However, few studies have examined students’ sustainability related career outcome expectations for upper-level engineering students, and, in particular, how these interests can be used to broaden participation in engineering. This time point is a critical one as students will be transitioning from college to industry or other careers where they may be positioned to solve pressing problems facing the environment, society, and the economy. To fill this gap, in this paper we answer the question, “What differences exist between men and women’s attitudes about sustainability in upper-level engineering courses?” in order to better understand how sustainability topics may promote women’s interest in and desire to address these needs in their future careers. We used data from a pilot of the CLIMATE survey given to 228 junior and senior civil, environmental, and mechanical engineering students at a large East Cost research institution. We asked the same questions as the previous study focused on first-year engineering students, “Which of these topics, if any, do you hope to directly address in your career?” with a list of ten sustainability outcome expectations. We used Pearson’s Chi-squared test with Yates’ continuity correction to compare men and women’s answers. We found significant gender differences in students’ desire to address energy, terrorism and war, water supply, food availability, and opportunities for woman and/or minorities in their careers. Some of these differences persist from first-year through upper-level classes, as compared to the results from a previous study in first-year students, while others develop during students’ undergraduate education. Our results begin to help us understand the particular differences that men and women, even far along in their undergraduate engineering careers, may have in their desire to address certain sustainability outcomes in their careers.
Peters, Ellen; Boyd, Patrick; Cameron, Linda D.; Contractor, Noshir; Diefenbach, Michael A.; Fleszar-Pavlovic, Sara; Markowitz, Ezra; Salas, Renee N.; Stephens, Keri K.(
, Translational Behavioral Medicine)
Abstract
Climate change poses a multifaceted, complex, and existential threat to human health and well-being, but efforts to communicate these threats to the public lag behind what we know how to do in communication research. Effective communication about climate change’s health risks can improve a wide variety of individual and population health-related outcomes by: (1) helping people better make the connection between climate change and health risks and (2) empowering them to act on that newfound knowledge and understanding. The aim of this manuscript is to highlight communication methods that have received empirical support for improving knowledge uptake and/or driving higher-quality decision making and healthier behaviors and to recommend how to apply them at the intersection of climate change and health. This expert consensus about effective communication methods can be used by healthcare professionals, decision makers, governments, the general public, and other stakeholders including sectors outside of health. In particular, we argue for the use of 11 theory-based, evidence-supported communication strategies and practices. These methods range from leveraging social networks to making careful choices about the use of language, narratives, emotions, visual images, and statistics. Message testing with appropriate groups is also key. When implemented properly, these approaches are likely to improve the outcomes of climate change and health communication efforts.
Lloyd, Elisabeth A., Oreskes, Naomi, Seneviratne, Sonia I., and Larson, Edward J. Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high. Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10292930. Climatic Change 165.3-4 Web. doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03061-9.
Lloyd, Elisabeth A., Oreskes, Naomi, Seneviratne, Sonia I., & Larson, Edward J. Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high. Climatic Change, 165 (3-4). Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10292930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03061-9
@article{osti_10292930,
place = {Country unknown/Code not available},
title = {Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high},
url = {https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10292930},
DOI = {10.1007/s10584-021-03061-9},
abstractNote = {Abstract Standards of proof for attributing real world events/damage to global warming should be the same as in clinical or environmental lawsuits, argue Lloyd et al. The central question that we raise is effective communication. How can climate scientists best and effectively communicate their findings to crucial non-expert audiences, including public policy makers and civil society? To address this question, we look at the mismatch between what courts require and what climate scientists are setting as a bar of proof. Our first point is that scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context. Our second point is to recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommend more prominently the use of the category “more likely than not” as a level of proof in their reports, as this corresponds to the standard of proof most frequently required in civil court rooms. This has also implications for public policy and the public communication of climate evidence.},
journal = {Climatic Change},
volume = {165},
number = {3-4},
author = {Lloyd, Elisabeth A. and Oreskes, Naomi and Seneviratne, Sonia I. and Larson, Edward J.},
editor = {null}
}
Warning: Leaving National Science Foundation Website
You are now leaving the National Science Foundation website to go to a non-government website.
Website:
NSF takes no responsibility for and exercises no control over the views expressed or the accuracy of
the information contained on this site. Also be aware that NSF's privacy policy does not apply to this site.
