We all know — at least, we should — how easily misleading statistics can be. Trickier, though, is the correlation between apparent causes and effect. Two things happen at the same time. We tend to assume they’re causally related. Levitt and Dubner, in a style that favors the non-expert, use commonplace examples to show how our intuition about cause and effect can sometimes be off in unexpected ways. My favorite example from the book is the correlation between gun control (or lack thereof) and crime. Common arguments say statistics favor that more gun control equals less crime. Equally common rebuttals offer statistics to show that more guns equal less crime. Enter the rogue economists, whose own analysis suggests that gun control (or lack thereof) isn’t what influences crime levels. Rather, it is the legality of abortions that influences crime rates. It’s worth reading the entire passage from the book. But their provocative (to say the least) conclusion is that the fewer unwanted pregnancies, the lower the crime rate.
The point isn’t to discuss that particular conclusion, but to appreciate that Levitt and Dubner are trying to get people to dig a little deeper and think a little more. Sounds a bit like a columnist’s job, doesn’t it? Strictly by coincidence, this was the topic of my previous column in which I wondered why the root cause of any issue is never discussed while mere symptoms get pointlessly argued to death.
What’s with Skeptics?
Let’s revisit the issue by returning to a topic I wrote about sometime last year: global warming skepticism. On one hand, it’s gratifying to see awareness of the global warming issue spreading. On the other, I’m still really puzzled by the downright hostility expressed toward it. It’s like skeptics — though that’s not really the right word — object to the very notion of global warming and, on the basis of that objection, conclude that global warming just mustn’t exist. That’s right: global warming, like smog, is a repulsive idea dreamt up by people who think that the world doesn’t already have enough problems to worry about. Wait a minute, though. You can object to smog, but there it is, a big fat ol’ yellow cloud above the city. What does it care about our objections? The truth is that truth doesn’t care about our own personal feelings in the matter. So let’s ask the question: What is the issue underlying global warming skepticism?
Is it a fear that business will fall to pieces if we change how we manufacture and use our technological products? Nah. That argument’s not a boat, it’s a sieve. Business has plenty of smarts to make a profit from new technologies and environmentally-friendly solutions. Even the stock market, through socially-conscious funds, is seeing some small but growing change.
Could it be a loathing of government and regulation? Maybe. For people who want the least amount of government possible, environmental restrictions — whether for their businesses or private persons — may cause bristling. But, really, we have no problem with laws against theft, murder and fraud. Why should environmental destruction, which directly impacts our health and ability to live, be so far out of field?
Maybe global warming skeptics hate the environment? I doubt it. I’m pretty sure if you give them a choice between spending vacation time at a beautiful, pristine tropical beach and lying on their lawn chairs on a treeless, grassless, garbage-filled dump, they’ll go for the beach. I just can’t believe they hate the environment.
Wait! Wait! I know. It’s the media’s fault! They’ve brainwashed everyone so they can sell more newspapers and TV advertising. Nothing sells like disaster, right?
Blame the Media!
Well, skeptics do have a point. The media is rather incompetent at reporting scientific news. You have to read Discover or Scientific American if you don’t want something processed into sound bites telling you the latest trend in weight loss.
But if you really want to lay the blame, it probably doesn’t quite belong with the media. Sure, as a corporate-driven monolith, what sells tends to be more important than being precise, truthful and critical. It’s readers and viewers who make it possible, though. It’s the consumers spending their money and time who influence what they receive as much as slick marketing and barely subliminal advertising.
This brings me, of course, to the hidden side of the global warming debate, which really isn’t all that hidden when you think about it: a lack of scientific literacy. People just don’t seem to understand what science is, what it does, how it works. The media can’t make up for proper schooling. So it doesn’t even try. Result: People are confused about evolution, confused about global warming, confused about nutrition, and so on. Now that’s freaky.
