Earlier this month, The
Wall Street Journal ran a three-part series on confirmation bias by Matt
Ridley. The final installment, entitled “How Bias Heats Up the Warming Debate”
discusses announcements of two preliminary new papers on climate by opposing
schools of thought and how each uses confirmation bias to support its findings.
Courtesy: The Wall Street Journal. |
Confirmation bias is the art of “if-then modeling”- using
data and models to prove what you already believe to be true. This is used in
every facet of life, sometimes unknowingly. Not only does this affect our
ability to accurately predict the future of global warming, but it colors our
view of the present facts as well. Ridley points out that oftentimes unusually warm
and wet summers in the U.S. and U.K. are interpreted as proof of a rise in
global warming while overly cold winters are written off as “weather.”
Protesting a proposed wood-burning plant in Michigan. Photo by Earth Melzer. |
Just as biases exist on both sides of the climate change
issue, they are also present in arguments for and against waste-to-energy
technology. The tendency among certain environmental organizations to use vocal
and aggressive campaigns against prospective WTE projects is common and
sometimes the speed at which these are put together begs the question of
whether time has been given to adequately research the new technology and
consider it with an open mind.
Representatives from the other side can be just as guilty of
confirmation bias in their efforts to promote the benefits of WTE technology.
While radical environmentalists like to zero in on the failures of past
attempts by different technologies, proponents of WTE prefer to sweep them
under the rug, assuring residents that something like that could never happen
with newer technologies. While these proponents may be correct and have ample
information to back their claims, it is still a form of confirmation bias.
Supporters of Biomass Projects. Courtesy: MassLive.com |
While we at the Better BTU strive to be as objective as
possible when presenting arguments, we can’t ignore that we too are guilty of a
confirmation bias. As steadfast believers in the biomass WTE movement, articles
we pick and topics we present are often designed to illustrate our thoughts on
the benefits of WTE technology as well as to create debate on highly
controversial topics. We try to account for bias by also reporting on projects
that don’t always have happy endings, such as the cancelled plans for a plant
in Missoula, Mont. or the chaos that has ensued in Ada County as Dynamis tries
to install its first commercial plant stateside.
Bias is inherent in all of us, but recognizing the bias and
having multiple centers for scientific research to avoid a monopoly are the
best ways to deal with it.
Further Reading:
How
Bias Heats Up the Warming Debate – By Matt Ridley, The Wall Street Journal (Aug. 3, 2012).
Confirmation
Bias: Why Both Sides of the Global Warming Debate are Nearly Always Right
– By Larry Bell, Forbes (Aug. 14,
2012).