I'm a meteorologist by degree, I have a bachelor's, master's and PhD in physical meteorology, so I'm a meteorologist, card carrying. And so with that comes four questions, always. This is one prediction I will always get right.
Ja sam meteorolog po struci, završio sam prvostupnički, diplomski i doktorski iz meteorologije, dakle, ja sam meteorolog, od glave do pete. I s tim dolaze četiri pitanja, uvijek. To je jedno predviđanje koje uvijek pogodim.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And those questions are, "Marshall, what channel are you on?"
A ta pitanja su: "Marshall, na kojem si programu?"
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
"Dr. Shepherd, what's the weather going to be tomorrow?"
"Dr. Shepherd, kakvo će vrijeme biti sutra?"
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And oh, I love this one: "My daughter is getting married next September, it's an outdoor wedding. Is it going to rain?"
I, volim ovo: "Moja kći se udaje sljedećeg rujna, svadba će biti na otvorenom. Hoće li padati kiša?"
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Not kidding, I get those, and I don't know the answer to that, the science isn't there. But the one I get a lot these days is, "Dr. Shepherd, do you believe in climate change?" "Do you believe in global warming?" Now, I have to gather myself every time I get that question. Because it's an ill-posed question -- science isn't a belief system. My son, he's 10 -- he believes in the tooth fairy. And he needs to get over that, because I'm losing dollars, fast.
Ne šalim se, pitaju me to, i ne znam odgovor, znanost to još ne zna. No, u zadnje vrijeme me često pitaju: "Dr. Shepherd, vjerujete li u klimatske promjene?" "Vjerujete li u globalno zatopljenje?" Moram se sabrati svaki put kad me to pitaju. Jer je pitanje loše postavljeno, znanost nije sustav vjerovanja. Moj sin, ima 10 godina, vjeruje u Zubić vilu. I to treba proći jer gubim novac, brzo.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But he believes in the tooth fairy. But consider this. Bank of America building, there, in Atlanta. You never hear anyone say, "Do you believe, if you go to the top of that building and throw a ball off, it's going to fall?" You never hear that, because gravity is a thing. So why don't we hear the question, "Do you believe in gravity?" But of course, we hear the question, "Do you believe in global warming?"
Ali on vjeruje u Zubić vilu. Razmislite o ovome. Zgrada Bank of America u Atlanti. Nikada nećete čuti da netko kaže: "Vjeruješ li, ako odeš na vrh zgrade i s nje baciš loptu, da će ona pasti?" To nećete čuti jer je gravitacija prihvaćena. Zašto ne čujemo pitanje: "Vjeruješ li u gravitaciju?" Ali naravno, čujemo pitanje, "Vjeruješ li u globalno zatopljenje?"
Well, consider these facts. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, one of the leading organizations in science, queried scientists and the public on different science topics. Here are some of them: genetically modified food, animal research, human evolution. And look at what the scientists say about those, the people that actually study those topics, in red, versus the gray, what the public thinks. How did we get there? How did we get there? That scientists and the public are so far apart on these science issues.
Pa, razmislite o ovim činjenicama. Američko društvo za unapređenje znanosti, AAAS, jedna od vodećih organizacija u znanosti, ispitala je znanstvenike i javnost o različitim znanstvenim temama. Ovo su neke od njih: GMO, istraživanja na životinjama, ljudska evolucija. Pogledajte što znanstvenici kažu o tome, ljudi koji proučavaju te teme, crveno, u odnosu na sivo, što javnost misli. Kako smo došli do toga? Kako smo došli do toga, da su znanstvenici i javnost tako podijeljeni u znanstvenim pitanjima?
Well, I'll come a little bit closer to home for me, climate change. Eighty-seven percent of scientists believe that humans are contributing to climate change. But only 50 percent of the public? How did we get there? So it begs the question, what shapes perceptions about science? It's an interesting question and one that I've been thinking about quite a bit. I think that one thing that shapes perceptions in the public, about science, is belief systems and biases. Belief systems and biases. Go with me for a moment. Because I want to talk about three elements of that: confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger effect and cognitive dissonance. Now, these sound like big, fancy, academic terms, and they are. But when I describe them, you're going to be like, "Oh! I recognize that; I even know somebody that does that."
Objasnit ću na nečemu što mi je blisko, klimatskim promjenama. 87 % znanstvenika vjeruje da ljudi doprinose klimatskim promjenama. Ali samo 50 % javnosti? Kako smo došli do toga? Tako dolazimo do pitanja, što oblikuje mišljenje o znanosti? To je zanimljivo pitanje o kojem sam dosta razmišljao. Mislim da pogled na znanost u javnosti oblikuju sustavi vjerovanja i predrasude. Sustavi vjerovanja i predrasude. Pratite me na trenutak. Jer želim govoriti o tri elementa toga: sklonosti potvrdi, Dunning-Krugerovom efektu i kognitivnoj disonanci. Zvuče kao veliki, otmjeni, akademski pojmovi, i jesu. Ali kad ih opišem, reći ćete: "O! Prepoznajem to, čak znam nekoga tko to radi."
Confirmation bias. Finding evidence that supports what we already believe. Now, we're probably all a little bit guilty of that at times. Take a look at this. I'm on Twitter. And often, when it snows, I'll get this tweet back to me.
Sklonost potvrdi. Pronalaženje dokaza koji potvrđuju ono što već vjerujemo. Vjerojatno to svi ponekad radimo. Pogledajte ovo. Na Twitteru sam. I često, kad pada snijeg, pošalju mi ovo.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
"Hey, Dr. Shepherd, I have 20 inches of global warming in my yard, what are you guys talking about, climate change?" I get that tweet a lot, actually. It's a cute tweet, it makes me chuckle as well. But it's oh, so fundamentally scientifically flawed. Because it illustrates that the person tweeting doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. I often say, weather is your mood and climate is your personality. Think about that. Weather is your mood, climate is your personality. Your mood today doesn't necessarily tell me anything about your personality, nor does a cold day tell me anything about climate change, or a hot day, for that matter.
"Hey, dr. Shepherd, imam 50 cm globalnog zatopljenja u dvorištu, o kakvim klimatskim promjenama vi pričate?" Često mi to, zapravo, pošalju. Slatka objava, nasmijem se na to. Ali je u temelju znanstveno pogrešna. Jer pokazuje da osoba koja to objavi ne razumije razliku između vremena i klime. Često kažem, vrijeme je vaše raspoloženje a klima je osobnost. Razmislite o tome. Vrijeme je raspoloženje, klima je osobnost. Vaše raspoloženje danas ne govori nužno išta o vašoj osobnosti, niti mi hladan dan govori išta o klimatskim promjenama, ili topao dan isto tako.
Dunning-Kruger. Two scholars from Cornell came up with the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you go look up the peer-reviewed paper for this, you will see all kinds of fancy terminology: it's an illusory superiority complex, thinking we know things. In other words, people think they know more than they do. Or they underestimate what they don't know.
Dunning-Kruger. Dva znanstvenika s Cornella su izmislila Dunning-Krugerov efekt. Ako pogledate recenziran rad o ovome, vidjet ćete svakakvu otmjenu terminologiju: To je iluzorni kompleks superiornosti, misliti da znamo stvari. Drugim riječima, ljudi misle da znaju više nego što znaju. Ili podcjenjuju ono što ne znaju.
And then, there's cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is interesting. We just recently had Groundhog Day, right? Now, there's no better definition of cognitive dissonance than intelligent people asking me if a rodent's forecast is accurate.
Zatim imamo kognitivnu disonancu. Kognitivna disonanca je zanimljiva. Upravo smo imali Sviščev dan, zar ne? Nema bolje definicije kognitivne disonance nego kad me inteligentni ljudi pitaju je li prognoza glodavca točna.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But I get that, all of the time.
Ali me to stalno pitaju.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But I also hear about the Farmer's Almanac. We grew up on the Farmer's Almanac, people are familiar with it. The problem is, it's only about 37 percent accurate, according to studies at Penn State University. But we're in an era of science where we actually can forecast the weather. And believe it or not, and I know some of you are like, "Yeah, right," we're about 90 percent accurate, or more, with weather forecast. You just tend to remember the occasional miss, you do.
Također čujem za Farmerski almanah. Odrasli smo s Farmerskim almanahom, ljudima je poznat. Problem je što je samo oko 37 % točan, prema studijama Sveučilišta Penn State. Ali mi smo u eri znanosti i zaista možemo predvidjeti vrijeme. Vjerovali ili ne, i znam da neki od vas misle: "Da, stvarno", u oko 90 % slučajeva ili više, točni smo s vremenskom prognozom. Vi obično zapamtite povremene propuste.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
So confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger and cognitive dissonance. I think those shape biases and perceptions that people have about science. But then, there's literacy and misinformation that keep us boxed in, as well. During the hurricane season of 2017, media outlets had to actually assign reporters to dismiss fake information about the weather forecast. That's the era that we're in. I deal with this all the time in social media. Someone will tweet a forecast -- that's a forecast for Hurricane Irma, but here's the problem: it didn't come from the Hurricane Center. But people were tweeting and sharing this; it went viral. It didn't come from the National Hurricane Center at all.
Sklonost potvrdi, Dunning-Kruger i kognitivna disonanca. Mislim da oni oblikuju predrasude i percepcije ljudi o znanosti. S druge strane, pismenost i dezinformacije nam također zatvaraju vidike. Tijekom sezone uragana 2017. godine, mediji su zaista morali zadati novinarima da zanemare lažne informacije o vremenskoj prognozi. U takvom razdoblju živimo. S time se moram stalno boriti u društvenim medijima. Netko objavi prognozu - ovo je prognoza za uragan Irmu, ali tu je problem: nije ju izdao Centar za uragane. Ali ljudi su je objavljivali i dijelili, brzo se širilo. Nije ju uopće objavio Nacionalni centar za uragane.
So I spent 12 years of my career at NASA before coming to the University of Georgia, and I chair their Earth Science Advisory Committee, I was just up there last week in DC. And I saw some really interesting things. Here's a NASA model and science data from satellite showing the 2017 hurricane season. You see Hurricane Harvey there? Look at all the dust coming off of Africa. Look at the wildfires up in northwest US and in western Canada. There comes Hurricane Irma. This is fascinating to me. But admittedly, I'm a weather geek. But more importantly, it illustrates that we have the technology to not only observe the weather and climate system, but predict it. There's scientific understanding, so there's no need for some of those perceptions and biases that we've been talking about. We have knowledge.
Proveo sam 12 godina karijere u NASA-i prije dolaska na Sveučilište Georgia i vodio sam Savjetodavni odbor za znanost o Zemlji, prošli tjedan sam bio tamo u Washingtonu. I vidio sam nešto vrlo zanimljivo. Ovo je NASA-in model i znanstveni podaci sa satelita koji pokazuju sezonu uragana 2017. Vidite li tamo uragan Harvey? Pogledajte svu prašinu koja dolazi iz Afrike. Pogledajte sve požare na sjeverozapadu SAD-a i na zapadu Kanade. Evo uragana Irme. Ovo mi je nevjerojatno. Doduše, ja sam zaljubljenik u vrijeme. Još važnije, ovo pokazuje da imamo tehnologiju, ne samo da promatramo vrijeme i klimatski sustav, nego da ga i predviđamo. Postoji znanstveno shvaćanje, stoga nema potrebe za nekim od onih percepcija i predrasuda o kojima smo razgovarali. Imamo znanje.
But think about this ... This is Houston, Texas, after Hurricane Harvey. Now, I write a contribution for "Forbes" magazine periodically, and I wrote an article a week before Hurricane Harvey made landfall, saying, "There's probably going to be 40 to 50 inches of rainfall." I wrote that a week before it happened. But yet, when you talk to people in Houston, people are saying, "We had no idea it was going to be this bad." I'm just...
Ali razmislite o ovome... Ovo je Houston, u Teksasu, nakon uragana Harvey. Naime, povremeno pišem za časopis Forbes i napisao sam članak tjedan prije udara uragana Harvey te naveo, "Vjerojatno će biti 101 do 127 centimetara oborina." Napisao sam to tjedan prije nego što se dogodilo. Međutim, kad pričate s ljudima u Houstonu, oni govore: "Nismo imali pojma da će biti ovako loše." Samo...
(Sigh)
(Uzdah)
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
A week before. But -- I know, it's amusing, but the reality is, we all struggle with perceiving something outside of our experience level. People in Houston get rain all of the time, they flood all of the time. But they've never experienced that. Houston gets about 34 inches of rainfall for the entire year. They got 50 inches in three days. That's an anomaly event, that's outside of the normal.
Tjedan dana prije. Ali... Znam, smiješno je, ali zapravo, svi se borimo da shvatimo nešto iznad naše razine iskustva. Ljudi u Houstonu stalno imaju kišu i stalno imaju poplave. Ali nikad nisu ovo iskusili. Houston dobije oko 86 cm oborina za cijelu godinu. Sad su dobili 127 cm u 3 dana. Taj događaj je nepravilnost, izvan uobičajenog.
So belief systems and biases, literacy and misinformation. How do we step out of the boxes that are cornering our perceptions? Well we don't even have to go to Houston, we can come very close to home.
Sustav vjerovanja i predrasude, pismenost i dezinformacije. Kako da izađemo iz okvira koji određuju naše percepcije? Ne moramo ni ići u Houston, možemo biti i blizu doma.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Remember "Snowpocalypse?"
Sjećate li se "Snijegokalipse?"
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Snowmageddon? Snowzilla? Whatever you want to call it. All two inches of it.
Snijegmagedona? Snijegzille? Kako god to želite zvati. Svih pet centimetara toga.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Two inches of snow shut the city of Atlanta down.
Pet centimetara snijega je zatvorilo cijeli grad Atlantu.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But the reality is, we were in a winter storm watch, we went to a winter weather advisory, and a lot of people perceived that as being a downgrade, "Oh, it's not going to be as bad." When in fact, the perception was that it was not going to be as bad, but it was actually an upgrade. Things were getting worse as the models were coming in. So that's an example of how we get boxed in by our perceptions.
U stvarnosti, bili smo u pripremi za snijeg, bili smo kod savjetnika za zimsko vrijeme i puno ljudi je to shvatilo kao ne toliko važno, "O, neće biti tako strašno." Zapravo, percepcija je bila da neće biti tako strašno, ali je to zapravo bilo pogoršanje. Situacija se pogoršavala kako su modeli dolazili. I to je primjer kako smo pod utjecajem naših percepcija.
So, the question becomes, how do we expand our radius? The area of a circle is "pi r squared". We increase the radius, we increase the area. How do we expand our radius of understanding about science? Here are my thoughts. You take inventory of your own biases. And I'm challenging you all to do that. Take an inventory of your own biases. Where do they come from? Your upbringing, your political perspective, your faith -- what shapes your own biases? Then, evaluate your sources -- where do you get your information on science? What do you read, what do you listen to, to consume your information on science? And then, it's important to speak out. Talk about how you evaluated your biases and evaluated your sources. I want you to listen to this little 40-second clip from one of the top TV meteorologists in the US, Greg Fishel, in the Raleigh, Durham area. He's revered in that region. But he was a climate skeptic. But listen to what he says about speaking out.
Tako nastaje pitanje, kako da proširimo naš radijus? Površina kruga je "π x r na kvadrat". Ako povećamo radijus, povećat ćemo površinu. Kako da povećamo naš radijus razumijevanja znanosti? Ja mislim ovako. Napravite popis svojih predrasuda. I sve vas izazivam da to napravite. Napravite popis svojih predrasuda. Odakle dolaze? Iz vašeg odrastanja, političke perspektive, vjere... Što oblikuje vaše predrasude? Zatim, ocijenite izvore... odakle dobivate informacije o znanosti? Što čitate, što slušate da dobijete informacije o znanosti? A onda, važno je da progovorite. Razgovarajte kako ste ocijenili svoje predrasude i izvore. Želim da poslušate kratki isječak od 40 sekundi jednog od najboljih TV meteorologa u SAD-u, Grega Fishela, u Raleighu, iz područja Durhama. Cijenjen je u tom području. Ali je bio skeptik oko klime. No, poslušajte što kaže o progovaranju.
Greg Fishel: The mistake I was making and didn't realize until very recently, was that I was only looking for information to support what I already thought, and was not interested in listening to anything contrary. And so I woke up one morning, and there was this question in my mind, "Greg, are you engaging in confirmation bias? Are you only looking for information to support what you already think?" And if I was honest with myself, and I tried to be, I admitted that was going on. And so the more I talked to scientists and read peer-reviewed literature and tried to conduct myself the way I'd been taught to conduct myself at Penn State when I was a student, it became very difficult for me to make the argument that we weren't at least having some effect. Maybe there was still a doubt as to how much, but to say "nothing" was not a responsible thing for me to do as a scientist or a person.
Greg Fishel: Pogreška koju sam činio, a tek sam je nedavno primijetio, bila je što sam tražio samo one informacije koje bi potvrdile ono što sam već mislio i nije me zanimalo što kažu oni suprotnog mišljenja. I tako sam se probudio jednog jutra s jednim pitanjem u glavi, "Greg, upuštaš li se ti u sklonost potvrdi? Tražiš li samo informacije koje potvrđuju ono što već misliš?" I da budem iskren sa sobom, a trudio sam se biti, priznao sam da se to događa. I što sam više razgovarao sa znanstvenicima i čitao recenziranu literaturu te se pokušavao ponašati onako kako sam naučen ponašati se na Penn Stateu gdje sam studirao, postalo mi je jako teško braniti argument da nismo imali barem nekakvog učinka. Možda je još bilo sumnje koliko točno, ali reći "ništa" nije bilo odgovorno od mene kao znanstvenika ili osobe.
JMS: Greg Fishel just talked about expanding his radius of understanding of science. And when we expand our radius, it's not about making a better future, but it's about preserving life as we know it.
JMS: Greg Fishel je govorio o proširivanju radijusa razumijevanja znanosti. A kad širimo radijus, ne radi se samo o poboljšanju budućnosti, nego o očuvanju života kakvog poznajemo.
So as we think about expanding our own radius in understanding science, it's critical for Athens, Georgia, for Atlanta, Georgia, for the state of Georgia, and for the world. So expand your radius.
I dok razmišljamo o proširivanju našeg radijusa razumijevanja znanosti, ključno je za Atenu u Georgiji, Atlantu u Georgiji, za državu Georgiju i cijeli svijet. Stoga proširite svoj radijus.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)