Skeptics accuse Believers of 9 cognitive biases. Believers and Skeptics mutually accuse each other of 4 more. Why don’t Believers accuse Skeptics of any others?
Skeptics accuse Believers of:
- Overconfidence — in the predictions of their computer models.
- Hindsight Bias — Because the computer models have (admittedly) been tweaked to post-dict past cimate changes, Believers assume wrongly that past climate events were more ‘predictable’ than they really were, according to Skeptics.
- Illusion of Control — Believers think that human reductions of greenhouse gases will make a large enough contribution to reduce global warming, but Skeptics think that’s an illusion.
- Loss Aversion, exacerbated by Endowment Effects — Skeptics claim Believers overestimate the costs of warming (compared to the benefits).
- Bandwagon Effects
- Appeal to Authority Fallacy
- Availability Bias with Focusing Effects — due to the vividness of climate catastrophe scenarios.
Mutual accusations include:
- Ad Hominem claims — by Believers that Skeptics are beholden to oil company money: by Skeptics that Believers are seeking grant money, are anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, anti-free trade, anti-development/growth, anti-consumer, or are socialist, communist, anarchist, etc.
- Status Quo Bias — Skeptics claim Believers want to keep the climate stabilized at its present level, and Believers claim Skeptics want stability for present manufacturing processes, distribution of wealth, SUVs, etc.
- Confirmation/Disconfirmation biases — leading to irrational belief persistence
Finally, I accuse the whole gang of subjection to Polarization Effects.
But where are the Believers’ accusations of bias in the Skeptics?