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.
Meteorolog sam po struci, imam osnovne, master studije i doktorat iz fizičke meteorologije, dakle, meteorolog, zvanično. Uz to uvek idu četiri pitanja. To je jedino što uvek pogodim.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And those questions are, "Marshall, what channel are you on?"
A ta pitanja su: „Maršale, na kom si kanalu?“
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
"Dr. Shepherd, what's the weather going to be tomorrow?"
„Dr Šepard, kakvo će vreme biti sutra?“
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And oh, I love this one: "My daughter is getting married next September, it's an outdoor wedding. Is it going to rain?"
I da, ovo obožavam: „Moja ćerka se udaje sledećeg septembra, biće venčanje na otvorenom. Hoće li padati kiša?“
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Bez šale, dobijam ta pitanja, i ne znam odgovore na njih, tu nema nauke. Ali jedno koje mi ovih dana često upućuju je: „Dr Šepard, da li verujete u klimatske promene?“ „Da li verujete u globalno zagrevanje?“ Svaki put kad čujem to pitanje moram da se priberem. Zato što je pogrešno postavljeno pitanje - nauka nije sistem verovanja. Moj sin, koji ima 10 godina, veruje u Zubić vilu. I to mora da prevaziđe, jer ubrzano gubim dolare.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 veruje u Zubić vilu. Razmislite o ovome. Ova zgrada Banke Amerike se nalazi u Atlanti. Nikada ne čujete da neko kaže: „Verujete li, ako se popnete na vrh te zgrade i bacite loptu, da će ona pasti?“ To nikad ne čujete, jer gravitacija je nepobitna stvar. Pa zašto ne čujemo pitanje: „Da li verujete u gravitaciju?“ Ali naravno da čujemo pitanje: „Da li verujete u globalno zagrevanje?“
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, razmotrite ove činjenice. Američko udruženje za razvoj nauke, AAAS, jedna od vodećih naučnih organizacija, ispitivalo je naučnike i javnost o različitim naučnim temama. Evo nekih od njih: genetski modifikovana hrana, istraživanja na životinjama, evolucija ljudi. Pogledajte šta naučnici kažu u vezi sa njima, ljudi koji zaista izučavaju te teme, označeno crvenom bojom, naspram sive, onoga što javnost misli. Kako smo stigli ovde? Kako smo stigli ovde? Da su naučnici i javnost toliko udaljeni u pogledu ovih naučnih pitanja.
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."
Pa, vratiću se malo bliže svojoj temi, klimatskim promenama. Osamdeset sedam posto naučnika veruje da ljudi doprinose klimatskim promenama. Ali samo 50 posto javnosti? Kako smo stigli ovde? Ovo pokreće pitanje šta oblikuje stavove o nauci? To je zanimljivo pitanje o kome sam poprilično razmišljao. Mislim da je ono što oblikuje stavove o nauci u javnosti sistem uverenja i predrasude. Sistemi verovanja i predrasude. Priklonite mi se na trenutak. Jer želim da govorim o trima elementima toga: efektu potvrđivanja, Daning-Krugerovom efektu i kognitivnoj disonanci. Zvuče kao glomazni, fensi, akademski termini, a i jesu. Ali kada vam ih opišem, reći ćete: „Oh! Prepoznajem to; čak i znam nekog ko 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.
Efekat potvrđivanja. Pronalaženje dokaza koji podržavaju ono u šta već verujemo. Verovatno za ovo svi mi nekad pomalo snosimo krivicu. Pogledajte ovo. Ja sam na Tviteru. Često, kada pada sneg, dobijem ovaj tvit.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
"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 Šepard, imam pola metra globalnog zagrevanja u dvorištu, o čemu vi to govorite, o klimatskim promenama?“ Zapravo, često mi stiže taj tvit. To je simpatičan tvit, a i nasmeje me. Ali je toliko suštinski naučno pogrešan. Jer ilustruje da osoba koja tvituje ne razume razliku između vremena i klime. Često kažem da je vreme vaše raspoloženje, a klima je vaša ličnost. Razmislite o tome. Vreme je vaše raspoloženje, a klima je vaša ličnost. Vaše današnje raspoloženje mi ne govori ništa o vašoj ličnosti, kao što mi hladan dan ne govori ništa o klimatskim promenama, kao ni vreli dan, štaviše.
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.
Daning-Kruger. Dva naučnika sa Univerziteta Kornel su došla do Daning-Krugerovog efekta. Ako potražite recenzirani članak o tome, videćete raznoraznu prefinjenu terminologiju: to je iluzorni kompleks superiornosti, kada mislimo da znamo nešto. Drugim rečima, ljudi misle da znaju više nego što zaista znaju. Ili potcenjuju 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.
Potom, tu je kognitivna disonanca. Kognitivna disonanca je zanimljiva. Nedavno je bio Dan mrmota, je l' da? Nema bolje definicije kognitivne disonance nego kada me inteligentni ljudi pitaju da li je prognoza glodara tačna.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
But I get that, all of the time.
Ali i to me stalno pitaju.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Ali takođe čujem i o „Farmerovom almanahu“. Odrasli smo uz "Farmerov almanah", ljudi znaju za njega. Problem je u tome što je tačan samo 37%, prema istraživanjima sa Državnog univerziteta Pensilvanije. Ali nalazimo se u vremenu nauke u kome zaista možemo da predvidimo vreme. Verovali ili ne, a znam da neki među vama misle „Da, kako da ne,“ imamo 90% i veću tačnost vremenske prognoze. Samo ste skloni da upamtite povremene promašaje, jeste.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Dakle, efekat potvrđivanja, Daning-Kruger i kognitivna disonanca. Mislim da oni oblikuju pristrasnosti i stavove koje ljudi imaju o nauci. No, uz to, tu je pismenost i dezinformacije koje nas takođe drže u određenim okvirima. Za vreme sezone uragana 2017. godine, mediji su morali da zadužuju novinare da odbacuju lažne informacije o vremenskoj prognozi. U takvom vremenu se nalazimo. Time se stalno bavim na društvenim mrežama. Neko će tvitovati prognozu - to je prognoza za uragan Irmu, ali evo u čemu je problem: ona nije došla iz Uraganskog centra. Ali ljudi su to tvitovali i delili, i proširilo se. Uopšte nije proisteklo iz Nacionalnog uraganskog 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.
Proveo sam 12 godina svoje karijere u Nasi pre nego što sam došao na Univerzitet u Džordžiji, i predsedavam njihovim Savetodavnim odborom za nauku o Zemlji, baš sam bio tamo prošle nedelje u Vašingtonu. Video sam neke vrlo zanimljive stvari. Evo Nasinog modela i naučnih podataka sa satelita koji pokazuju sezonu uragana 2017. godine. Vidite tamo uragan Harvi? Pogledajte svu tu prašinu koja dolazi iz Afrike. Pogledajte požare u severozapadnoj Americi i u zapadnoj Kanadi. Evo uragana Irma. Ovo je za mene fascinantno. Doduše, ja sam štreber za vreme. Ali, što je važnije, ovo ilustruje da imamo tehnologiju ne samo da posmatramo vreme i klimatski sistem, već i da predviđamo. To je naučno razumevanje, dakle, nema potrebe za onim stavovima i predrasudama o kojima smo govorili. 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 sledećem... Ovo je Hjuston u Teksasu nakon uragana Harvija. Periodično pišem prilog za časopis „Forbs“, i napisao sam članak nedelju dana pre nego što je uragan Harvi udario kopno, u kome sam rekao: „Verovatno će biti 1 000 do 1 200 mm padavina.“ To sam napisao nedelju dana pre nego što se dogodilo. Ipak, kada razgovarate sa ljudima u Hjustonu, oni kažu: „Nismo imali pojma da će biti ovoliko loše.“ Ja prosto...
(Sigh)
(Uzdah)
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Nedelju dana ranije. Ali - znam, zabavno je, ali u stvarnosti, svi se mi mučimo sa shvatanjem nečega što je izvan našeg iskustva. Ljudi u Hjustonu stalno imaju kišu, stalno imaju poplave. Ali to nikad nisu doživeli. Hjuston primi oko 860 mm padavina tokom cele godine. Dobili su 1 200 mm za tri dana. Taj događaj je anomalija, izvan normalnog.
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.
Dakle, sistemi uverenja i predrasude, pismenost i dezinformacije. Kako da izađemo iz okvira koji sputavaju naša opažanja? Pa, ne moramo ni da idemo u Hjuston, možemo da budemo blizu kuće.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Remember "Snowpocalypse?"
Sećate se „snegopokalipse“?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Snowmageddon? Snowzilla? Whatever you want to call it. All two inches of it.
Snegmagedona? Snegzile? Kako god da nazovete. Od čitavih pet centimetara.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Two inches of snow shut the city of Atlanta down.
Pet centimetara snega je blokiralo grad Atlantu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Ali istina je da smo bili u stanju pripravnosti zbog zimske oluje, davali smo savete zbog zimskog vremena, a mnogo ljudi je to shvatilo sa umanjenim značajem: „Ma, neće biti tako strašno.“ A u stvari, percepcija je bila da neće biti tako loše, ali je zapravo došlo do pogoršanja. Stvari su postajale gore kako su modeli dolazili. To je primer toga kako se zaglavimo u okvirima svoje percepcije.
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.
Postavlja se pitanje kako da proširimo radijus opažanja? Površina kruga je „pi puta r na kvadrat“. Povećamo radijus, povećamo površinu. Kako da povećamo naš radijus razumevanja nauke? Evo šta ja mislim o tome. Napravite popis svojih predrasuda. Izazivam vas da to uradite. Napravite popis svojih predrasuda. Odakle one proističu? Iz vašeg vaspitanja, političke perspektive, vere - šta oblikuje vaše predrasude? Onda izvršite procenu svojih izvora - odakle dobijate informacije o nauci? Šta čitate, šta slušate kako biste došli do informacija o nauci? A onda je važno govoriti o tome. Razgovarajte o tome kako ste procenili svoje predrasude i svoje izvore. Hteo bih da poslušate ovaj snimak od 40 sekundi jednog od najboljih TV meteorologa u SAD-u, Grega Fišela, iz Ralija u oblasti Daram. Njega veoma cene u tom regionu. Ali bio je klimatski skeptik. Slušajte šta kaže o iznošenju ovoga.
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 Fišel: Greška koju sam pravio, a nisam to shvatio do nedavno, bila je da sam samo tražio informacije koje su podržavale moje već postojeće mišljenje, i nije me zanimalo da čujem ništa što je bilo suprotno tome. Tako sam se probudio jednog jutra i javilo mi se pitanje u glavi: „Greg, da li si podlegao efektu potvrđivanja? Da li samo tražiš informacije koje podupiru mišljenje koje već imaš?“ Ne bih li bio iskren prema sebi, a pokušao sam da budem, priznao sam da se to dešava. I tako, što sam više pričao sa naučnicima, čitao recenziranu literaturu i pokušao da se ponašam onako kako su me učili kada sam bio student na Pen Stejtu, postalo mi je veoma teško da iznesem argument da ne doprinosimo bar malo. Možda je i dalje postojala sumnja u vezi sa time koliki je doprinos, ali reći „ništa“ bilo bi neodgovorno od mene kao naučnika i kao 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.
DžMŠ: Greg Fišel je upravo govorio o širenju svog radijusa razumevanja nauke. A kada proširimo taj radijus, ne radi se o borbi za bolju budućnost, već o očuvanju života kakvim ga 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.
Dok razmišljamo o širenju naših radijusa razumevanja nauke, to je od ključnog značaja za Atinu i Atlantu u Džordžiji, za državu Džordžiju i za svet. Dakle, proširite svoj radijus.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)