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.
Som vyštudovaný meteorológ, mám bakalársky, magisterský a doktorský titul z fyzikálnej meteorológie, mám preukaz. S tým zakaždým prichádzajú štyri otázky. Toto je predpoveď, ktorá sa mi vždy vyplní.
(Laughter)
(smiech)
And those questions are, "Marshall, what channel are you on?"
A tie otázky sú: „Marshall, na ktorom si kanáli?“
(Laughter)
(smiech)
"Dr. Shepherd, what's the weather going to be tomorrow?"
„Dr. Shepherd, aké bude zajtra počasie?“
(Laughter)
(smiech)
And oh, I love this one: "My daughter is getting married next September, it's an outdoor wedding. Is it going to rain?"
A túto milujem: „Moja dcéra sa ide v septembri vydávať, obrad bude vonku. Bude pršať?“
(Laughter)
(smiech)
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.
Nežartujem, naozaj také dostávam. Nepoznám odpovede; veda tu nepomôže. Ale najčastejšie sa ma dnes pýtajú: „Dr. Shepherd, veríte na klimatické zmeny?“ „Veríte na globálne otepľovanie?“ Po takej otázke sa vždy musím pozbierať. Pretože je to zle položená otázka: Veda nie je založená na viere. Môj 10-ročný syn verí na zubnú vílu. A musí s tým prestať, lebo ma to rýchlo oberá o doláre.
(Laughter)
(smiech)
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?"
Ale on verí na zubnú vílu. No povážte toto: Budova Bank of America, tu, v Atlante. Nikdy nepočujete nikoho povedať: „Veríš, že keď pôjdeš na strechu tej budovy a hodíš z nej loptu, spadne?“ To nezačujete, lebo gravitáciu všetci poznajú. Tak prečo nepočujeme otázku: „Veríš na gravitáciu?“ Samozrejme však počujeme otázku: „Veríš na globálne otepľovanie?“
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.
Nuž, uvážte tieto fakty: Americká asociácia pre napredovanie vedy, AAAS, jedna z popredných vedeckých organizácií, sa vedcov a verejnosti pýtala na rôzne témy. Tu sú niektoré z nich: GMO, pokusy na zvieratách, ľudská evolúcia. A pozrite sa, čo o nich povedali vedci, ktorí tie témy študujú, tu červenou, verzus verejnosť, tu sivou. Ako sme sa sem dostali? Ako toto nastalo? Že vedci a verejnosť sú si v tom natoľko vzdialení!
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."
Nuž, prejdem k tomu, čím sa ja sám zaoberám: klimatické zmeny. 87 % vedcov verí, že ľudia prispievajú ku klimatickým zmenám. Ale iba 50 % verejnosti? Ako k tomu došlo? To teda vedie k otázke, čo formuje vnímanie vedy. Je to zaujímavá otázka a veľa o nej premýšľam. Myslím, že to, ako verejnosť vníma vedu, formujú rôzne presvedčenia a predsudky. Systémy viery a predpojatosti. Chvíľu ma sledujte. Chcem vám totiž povedať o ich troch komponentoch: Konfirmačné skreslenie, Dunning-Krugerov efekt a kognitívna disonancia. Znejú ako veľké, efektné akademické pojmy. Aj sú. Ale keď ich popíšem, uvedomíte si: „Á, to poznám! Dokonca poznám niekoho, kto to robí.“
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.
Konfirmačné skreslenie. Nachádzanie dôkazov, ktoré podporujú to, čomu veríme. Asi všetci sme tým občas vinní. Pozrite sa na toto. Som na Twitteri. A keď sneží, často dostanem tento tweet:
(Laughter)
(smiech)
"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.
„Hej, Dr. Shepherd, mám na dvore pol metra globálneho otepľovania; o čom to hovoríte, aké klimatické zmeny?“ Taký tweet dostávam skutočne často. Je to zlaté a aj sa na tom zachichocem. Ale je to vedecky táák zásadne chybné! Pretože to ukazuje, že autor nerozumie rozdielu medzi počasím a klímou. Často hovorím, že počasie je vaša nálada a klíma je váš temperament. Porozmýšľajte o tom. Počasie je vaša nálada, klíma je váš temperament. Vaša dnešná nálada mi nepovie nič o vašom temperamente, ani chladný deň mi nepovie nič o klimatickej zmene, rovnako ako ani horúci deň.
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-Krugerov efekt. Prišli s ním dvaja vedci z Cornellu. Ak si o tom vyhľadáte vedecký článok, uvidíte veľa efektnej terminológie: Je to iluzórny komplex nadradenosti ohľadom vedomostí. Skrátka, ľudia si myslia, že vedia viac, než naozaj vedia. Alebo podceňujú, koľko toho nevedia.
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.
A potom je tu kognitívna disonancia. Tá je zaujímavá. Nedávno bol Groundhog Day, že? Nie je lepšej definície kognitívnej disonancie, než že sa ma inteligentní ľudia pýtajú, či je svišťova predpoveď správna.
(Laughter)
(smiech)
But I get that, all of the time.
Ale zakaždým sa ma pýtajú.
(Laughter)
(smiech)
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.
Ale počúvam aj o Farmárovom roku. Vyrástli sme na Farmárovom roku, ľudia ho poznajú. Problém je, že len 37 % jeho predpovedí je správnych, podľa štúdií na Penn State University. Ale žijeme v ére vedy, kedy skutočne vieme predpovedať počasie. Verte či nie (viem, že niektorí z vás si vravia: „No, iste!“), naše predpovede sú správne aspoň na 90 %. Máte však tendenciu pamätať si občasné chyby.
(Laughter)
(smiech)
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.
Teda konfirmačné skreslenie, Dunning-Kruger a kognitívna disonancia. Myslím si, že tie formujú predsudky a dojmy ľudí o vede. Ale potom sú tu gramotnosť a nesprávne informácie, aj tie nás obmedzujú. Počas obdobia hurikánov v 2017 museli médiá dokonca poveriť reportérov vyvracaním falošných predpovedí počasia. To je doba, v ktorej žijeme. Na sociálnych sieťach sa s tým stále stretávam. Niekto tweetuje predpoveď, toto je o hurikáne Irma, ale problém je, že to nie je z Hurikánového centra. Ale ľudia to zdieľali a stalo sa to virálnym. A pritom to vôbec neprišlo z Národného hurikánového centra.
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.
12 rokov svojej kariéry som robil v NASA, než som prešiel na University of Georgia, a predsedal som Poradnému výboru vied o Zemi. Akurát minulý týždeň som bol tam, v DC. A videl som pár veľmi zaujímavých vecí. Tu je model NASA a vedecké dáta zo satelitu o období hurikánov roku 2017. Vidíte tam hurikán Harvey? Pozrite na všetok ten prach prichádzajúci z Afriky a požiare na severozápade USA a západe Kanady. Tu prichádza hurikán Irma. Toto ma fascinuje. Ale priznávam, že ja som zaťažený na počasie. Dôležité je, že to ukazuje, že máme technológiu nielen na pozorovanie počasia a klimatického systému, ale i na ich predpovedanie. Máme vedecké poznatky, teda netreba tie dojmy a predsudky, o ktorých som hovoril. Máme vedomosti.
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...
Ale pomyslite na toto: Tu je Houston, v Texase, po hurikáne Harvey. Pravidelne prispievam do časopisu Forbes a týždeň pred tým, než ten hurikán zasiahol pevninu, som napísal, že zrejme naprší niečo vyše metra zrážok. Napísal som to týždeň vopred. Ale keď hovoríte s ľuďmi v Houstone, vravia: „Nemali sme tušenia, že to bude také zlé.“ A ja len...
(Sigh)
(povzdych)
(Laughter)
(smiech)
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.
Týždeň vopred. Ale... Ja viem, je to zábavné, ale v skutočnosti máme všetci problém vnímať niečo mimo našich skúseností. Ľudia v Houstone sú zvyknutí na častý dážď, bežne sú tam záplavy. Ale nikdy nezažili niečo také. V Houstone padne asi 86 cm zrážok za celý rok. Zrazu prišlo 1,3 metra za tri dni. Je to anomália, je to mimo normálu.
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.
Takže systémy viery, predpojatosť, gramotnosť a falošné informácie. Ako vystúpime zo škatúľ, čo krivia naše vnemy? Nemusíme ani ísť do Houstonu, stačí zájsť celkom blízko.
(Laughter)
(smiech)
Remember "Snowpocalypse?"
Spomínate na „Snowpocalypse“?
(Laughter)
(smiech)
Snowmageddon? Snowzilla? Whatever you want to call it. All two inches of it.
„Snowmageddon“? „Snowzilla“? Akokoľvek to chcete volať. Celých tých 5 centimetrov.
(Laughter)
(smiech)
Two inches of snow shut the city of Atlanta down.
5 centimetrov snehu odrovnalo Atlantu.
(Laughter)
(smiech)
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.
Ale bolo vydané upozornenie na snehovú búrku, a potom výstraha pred zimným počasím, čo mnohí vnímali ako zníženie rizika: „Ó, to nebude také zlé!“ Dojem teda bol, že to nebude až také zlé, lenže v skutočnosti šlo o zvýšenie. Zhoršovalo sa to, ako prichádzali nové modely, To je príklad, kedy sme v škatuli svojich dojmov.
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.
Otázkou teda je, ako rozšírime svoj obzor. Plocha kruhu je pí krát r na druhú. Zväčšíme obzor, zväčšíme plochu. Ako zväčšíme svoj obzor porozumenia vede? Tu sú moje úvahy. Vezmite si súpis svojich predpojatostí. A vyzývam vás všetkých, aby ste to spravili. Vezmite si súpis svojich predpojatostí. Odkiaľ pochádzajú? Vaša výchova, politické presvedčenie, viera – – čo formuje vaše predpojatosti? Potom zhodnoťte svoje zdroje: Odkiaľ máte informácie o vede? Čo čítate, čo počúvate, odkiaľ máte informácie o vede? Potom je dôležité o tom otvorene prehovoriť: Ako vyhodnocujete svoje predpojatosti, svoje zdroje? Vypočujte si tento 40-sekundový klip jedného z top televíznych meteorológov USA, Greg Fishel, v Raleigh, oblasť Durham. V tej oblasti je uctievaný. Ale bol klimatoskeptikom. No vypočujte si, čo o tom vraví:
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: Mojou chybou bolo, a uvedomil som si to len nedávno, že som hľadal iba informácie, ktoré podporovali, čo som si už myslel, a nezaujímal som sa o nič protirečiace. Raz som sa zobudil s touto otázkou v mysli: „Greg, nie si pod vplyvom konfirmačného skreslenia? Nehľadáš iba informácie podporujúce, čo si už myslíš?“ A ako som sa snažil byť k sebe úprimný, uznal som, že sa to deje. A tak, čím viac som hovoril s vedcami a čítal vedeckú literatúru a snažil sa správať, ako ma to naučili na Penn State, kde som študoval, tým ťažšie pre mňa bolo argumentovať, že nemáme aspoň nejaký vplyv. Možno ostáva pochybnosť o tom, aký veľký, ale tvrdiť „žiadny“ by bolo nezodpovedné odo mňa ako vedca či osoby.
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 práve hovoril o rozšírení svojho obzoru pochopenia vedy. A keď si rozširujeme obzor, nie je to pre vylepšenie budúcnosti, ale pre uchovanie života, ako ho poznáme.
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.
Takže naše rozširovanie obzorov v pochopení vedy je kľúčové pre Atény i Atlantu v štáte Georgia, pre celý štát Georgia a pre celý svet. Takže rozšírte svoj obzor.
Thank you.
Ďakujem.
(Applause)
(potlesk)