Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Science, well sort of…The experiment begins, on the topic of….


Well, I’ll tell you in a second.  Regular readers, and bless all 8 of you, will recall that I’ve taken on the task of exploring how one comes to a belief by conducting an experiment on myself  - right here, on this blog (background here). I’ve  picked a topic that is sciency and that I honestly don’t know much about and I’m going to document how I form my conclusions on it.  I guess the uber idea is to serve as a model of sorts, with the hoped for result of getting you to examine your own path to your beliefs as you see how I arrive at mine. When I announced this experiment, several of you suggested topics for me to examine.  I hated all of them, partly because I had already decided, but mainly because your ideas were far better than mine.  But my original idea stuck in my head, so I’m going with the topic of… fracking.

To start, I need to come clean about my overall biases. First I am generally skeptical about proclamations of absolute certainty on any topic.  So I’m assuming going in that my conclusion will be a nuanced one, with many shades of grey.  Second, I tend to dismiss sources that I deem to be purely ideologically motivated, both left and right.  But this can be a trap, because motivation does not necessarily make the claim factually wrong.  The problem with all biases is that we often unconsciously seek to confirm them by interpreting information to align with our preconceived notions.  So feel free to call me out if you see me erring.

In terms of the topic, the specific question I’m seeking to answer is whether fracking, and the resulting increase in the availability and use of natural gas, is on balance a ‘good thing’ as it relates to climate change. In other words, will fracking result in a meaningful reduction in GHG’s, and will the associated risks/costs be worth that reduction?  Easy one, right?

My Methodology
I thought I should set out my plan of how I’m going to go about this effort on the near non-existent chance that someone might seek to replicate it. First, you should know that I have been consciously avoiding reading or listening to anything on the topic of fracking since I picked it about a month ago. And quite frankly I had read little before then, so I truly am going into this pretty open.  My plan is for the next month to simply start reading everything that I run across on the topic.  This should be easy as my twitter feed and various news channels are replete with mentions of it.  But here is the first problem… I self-selected these sources, and I’m assuming the provided perspective will be a skewed one.  So to counter balance this I’ll also seek out other sources I might not otherwise stumble upon, and just see how it goes.  I’ll then report back on my preliminary conclusion and how I arrived at it.   And here’s where you come in. Over this next month feel free to point me to any data you think I should look at.  I’d particularly value sources that challenge the status quo, either pro or con.  I’ll include your suggestions in my search unless I judge them to be whacky.   My thinking is that this is how we generally come to conclusions about a topic, by just kind of drifting towards it with random inputs from various media, friends, etc.

After I report back on my initial conclusions, I intend to get serious, and actually seek out authoritative sources on both sides of the issue and ask them to make their case. Not yet sure who this will include, but I’m guessing the natural gas industry, various academics, and advocacy groups.  What fun.  Again I’ll ask for your suggestions.  I’ll give myself another month to absorb all this new information, see the impact on my beliefs and then report back again.

Finally, I’m going to go back and double check myself to see if I have allowed biases or other errors to creep in.  I’ll do this with the help of my friend Dr. Anthony Pratkanis who has spent a career researching belief formation and has a number if interesting strategies that will help in my self-assessment.  I mention Anthony by name in part to show you how serious I am about this, but mainly to impress you with the quality of my friends.  I’ll then issue my final conclusions…gulp.

So, what do you believe?

14 comments:

  1. Alex...

    It might be interesting to keep a kind of inventory of your sources of information... And to put them in a kind of matrix... So you list the source of information...what you think the information is saying.. and what your immediate and emotional reaction is to the source itself.... that is, I think we are all highly pre disposed to listen to and value certain kinds of sources and to discount others... So tracking your emotional journey vis a vis sources of information might be important. This is not just about data and arguments... but rather about what you want to believe and who you want to give credibility to...

    A good experiment and one that I think will show how hard, if not impossible, it is to achieve "data based decisionmaking"... Increasingly I see that data and interpretation of data are inseparable... and that interpretation is a heavily value laden and perspective driven enterprise....

    Anyway I look forward to hearing your machinations as you try to do an honest inquiry into a rich societal/science topic....

    BTW.... I do not know about fracking either but I do always distrust corporate claims of "no harm...."


    Mark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Mark...I had thought about keeping a tally of sources, but frankly I won't promise I'll be totally rigorous, mainly because of the second point you make...my decision will of course be value and emotion driven, as are all of our decisions...which, if I have one, is my main point ...

      Delete
  2. Great idea, I look forward to the process and the conclusions. I am interested in this topic, and have the same feelings about "all the talk". Vance

    ReplyDelete
  3. + 1 on fracking - a subject that i too have been trying to think about logically and critically.

    but HOW do you find on-line sources that are not already selected on the basis of other topics you have queried? i sit in my bathrobe, in my home office and revel in the ease with which i can connect with colleagues, ask questions about things i want to understand, and BTW go shopping. having thus built up an on-line history of who i am to date, i am increasingly suspicious of my ability to search for unbiased information about topics that might, in fact, change what i think and who i am on-line.

    i'm speculating that the biggest conclusion of your experiment might/might not turn out to be that person-to-person interchanges that are unmediated by web-based data trolling (do such things still exist?) are the critical determinants.

    GOOD LUCK!
    jill

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jill...yes indeed, my bias going is is that I'll get my best input from the face to face conversations...your other point is a reference to the notion of filter bubbles, which I wrote about a couple of years ago here

      http://www.contracostatimes.com/science/ci_18677465

      Delete
  4. What a great idea!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alex, a great project, and a fine topic with which to test it.

    I second the notion (thanks, Mark) to keep an inventory of your sources of information. One additional dimension of the issue of information sources is the rigor of the analysis versus the breadth/depth of distribution of that information. I suspect an inverse relationship. Stated bluntly, folks tend to shy away from rigorous sources because they become intimidated by them, or the nuanced analysis is considered too dense and boring; filtered sources with a splashy headline win a disproportionate influence.

    As a simple example of this effect, I just now Googled the topic looking for something scientific, and landed on a Duke study within 30 seconds. (Okay, not to try to influence you, but here is the link: http://biology.duke.edu/jackson/pnas2011.html.) Just looking at it: BORING! My hypothesis: the information gatekeepers still have an exponential influence, and only a tiny fraction of the public will invest the time to deepen their understanding with fact-based research before forming an opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks GB...well, I think you are likely right. I've run into the exact same thing as I explored climate change...when you get the the real sciency stuff, it is either so dry as to leave you nodding, or so obtuse as to run you off. So we rely on the filtered source, usually one we "trust" for a variety of our own reasons...our challenge in informal science education is to be just that trusted source...and so it goes.

      Delete
  6. Working at a science center located in the heart of the Haynesville Shale, Big Oil (Big Gas?) is the economic driver of the entire region. Those of us who rely on the largesse of this industry - either directly or indirectly - to buy memberships, make donations and sustain our operations and salaries will be anxiously awaiting your conclusions. Best of luck to you and I hope you find more through your research than just the tail wagging the dog.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alex, thank you for another intriguing experiment. Your stated question is whether fracking and the resulting increase in the availability and use of natural gas is on balance a 'good thing' as it relates to climate change. In other words, will it result in reduction in GHG's, and are the risks/costs worth that reduction?

    It seems to me this inquiry calls for both a quantitative analysis, and an exercise of moral judgment. To the extent natural gas is considered as a substitute for the burning of coal (which is where the market pricing is now), I don't think you will find any credible analysis that the all-in or full-cycle GHG generation is lower for any form of mined coal compared to natural gas. So to the extent natural gas substitutes for the next cheapest, incrementally available source of electricity, it will result in comparatively lower HGH generation. In contrast, if the problem is defined as nautral gas supplying demand at a level which would not exist without the incremental gas (i.e. increasing aggregate global energy demand due to the availability of more natural gas), then the situation is defined as one which causes higher HGH generation than if the incremental gas were unavailable. That brings me to the moral choice of whether I would deny others (essentially those enjoying less access to resources than lucky me in prosperous USA) the choice to consume energy from natural gas, or go without.

    For me the answer is to research, develop, enforce environmental and safety rules for natural gas production by fracking, at the same level as with other energy sources, so that environmental externalities (other than stright GHG creation) are no worse than other fuels. But not to prevent or stifle production of a relatively cleaner energy source on the basis that it will allow others to improve their standard of living to one closer to mine, at the cost of higher aggregate GHG production for the planet than if those people were still shivering in the dark, or otherwise prevented from accessing available resources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darn it...you're complicating things here...but really a great point. I attempted to narrow the question on fracking, but as you note, it may not be possible as the externalities go beyond simple GHG measurements.

      Delete
  8. maybe you should attend
    http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2013-04-02/fracked-nation

    I am sure you know that the fracking in CA is done mostly for oil not natural gas.
    great subject to explore and I look forward to the conclusion you come up with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darn...can't make the 4/2 event...will look for the recording...thanks for the tip

      Delete
  9. Alex - this is great! As a hydrogeologist, I have been asked for my "opinion" on fracking countless times, especially during my visits to my hometown in Western New York. However, I have not taken the time to study the issue. Now you are going to do my long-delayed homework for me! I am particularly interested in the groundwater contamination potential. EPA is studying potential impacts, and is releasing a report in 2014. http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/ Keep us posted on your findings!

    ReplyDelete