Reality isn't always perception, part 2

Part 1 of this post described context for the human tendency to disconnect perception from reality. Part 3 draws logical conclusions. The following is a good example that shows the human tendency to disconnect perception from reality.

Climate change

For non-experts, its reasonable to look for consensus among mainstream climate science organizations and the main thought leaders. Ascertaining the problem is primarily a scientific issue, not a political one. For many people, what one chooses to believe and do about it is probably more political or human than scientific. As far as I can tell, there is a great deal of consensus among authoritative climate organizations that (1) we have a serious problem, (2) it is made worse to some degree by human activity and/or (3) it may be something we can at least somewhat ameliorate if we choose to.

However, if you Google the phrase "scientific consensus on climate change" you get links to articles that dispute the consensus belief or perception. That forces decisions. Is there consensus or not? Is climate change a big deal or not? Is there anything we an do about it or not? Should we care about it or not? How are non-experts supposed to decide?

There are several ways to decide. Two main ones come to mind. One can resort to common political perceptions (ideology) or one can try to stick with the mainstream science (facts as best we can tell) and then decide what to believe and do. That leads to several different scenarios.

The conservative mind set: The usual conservative perception is that government action is usually bad. Dealing with climate change would likely require some sort of government action (cap and trade, carbon taxes, whatever). Given the conservative perception, there is psychological pressure to believe that climate change (i) isn't a problem, (ii) can't be affected even if it is a problem and/or (iii) human activity has nothing to do with it. Most climate science skeptics (but no major authoritative organizations I am aware of) believe some or most of that. I suspect this is the perception and belief for most conservatives.

The liberal mind set: The usual liberal perception is that government action is usually good. There is psychological pressure to believe that climate change (i) is a problem, (ii) can be affected and/or (iii) human activity has a great deal to do with it. Many authoritative scientific organizations apparently agree with some or most of that. I suspect this is the perception and belief for most liberals.

The realist/pragmatist mind set: Realists don't care about what conservatives or liberals want to believe. They want to figure out what is real and what isn't, i.e., do we have a major problem on our hands and, if so, is there anything we can do about it? If not, then fine and we do nothing. If we have a big problem, then fine (sort of), but what do we do, if anything? Some realists may also ask themselves, what if I am wrong?

When perception trumps reality

If climate change is a serious problem that we may be able to do something about if we act, it is easy to see how political policies that let perception substitute for reality can lead to failure. For the climate change issue, one side or the other has to be more right than the other. Their opinions are mutually exclusive. Four simplified scenarios illustrate choices and outcomes.

Scenario 1 - Science has it right that climate change is a problem that we can do something about and we act accordingly. That averts catastrophe. In this scenario, reality successfully guided political policy and it worked for the best. Two groups of people got it right, realists and liberals.

Scenario 2 - Science has it right that climate change is a problem that we can do something about but we do not act accordingly. That leads to catastrophe. Here, reality did not guide political policy. That was a political failure. Realists and liberals got it right, but they simply lost the political policy fights.

Scenario 3 - Science says there is no global climate problem but that is wrong and we fail to act based on faulty science. That leads to an avoidable catastrophe. Here, realists and conservatives were wrong.

Lesser Kudu
(eastern Africa, not endangered)

Scenario 4 - Science says there is no global climate problem that is wrong and we try to solve the problem anyway. That avoids an avoidable catastrophe. Here, the science was wrong but did not guide policy. Realists and conservatives were wrong.

One of those scenarios has to be closer to the truth (reality) than the others. When the realists failed and got things wrong, they got it wrong mostly because the science was wrong. When the liberals or conservatives got it right or wrong, that was their ideology or perception of reality talking.

If that isn't persuasive, then why is it that conservatives tend to be the climate change skeptics and liberals don't? Is it because of the science, the ideology or a combination of the two? Why is there a split like that when identifying the problem is in fact grounded in science, not political or religious ideology? For this issue, perception tends to be reality, regardless of what reality actually is.

End of part 2 - link to part 1.