Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Recent Comments

Comments 1 to 50:

supak at 06:13 AM on 21 July 2017

Planet Hacks: Stuff

Heh. Never mind. I remember now. They're just digging up old stuff and putting a new date on it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/?utm_term=.9b01eee867b2

supak at 05:33 AM on 21 July 2017

Climate denial is like The Matrix; more Republicans are choosing the red pill

Never heard of this paper, New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model, by Ned Nikolov* and Karl Zeller

Deniers crowing about this latest CO2 slayer. Anyone have any critique of what they're doing?

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

supak at 05:12 AM on 21 July 2017

Planet Hacks: Stuff

Never heard of this paper, New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model, by Ned Nikolov* and Karl Zeller

Deniers crowing about this latest CO2 slayer. Anyone have any critique of what they're doing?

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

Tom Dayton at 01:32 AM on 21 July 2017

Climate's changed before

Excellent article new at RealClimate: "The climate has always changed. What do you conclude?"

thoughts at 00:41 AM on 21 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

To MA Rodger above, re your response below to thoughts @50.

You say "I am trying to point out that some people seem to deny evidence for good reasons. I have probably said that too many times already."

Too many times? Indeed so. And as your "trying" seemingly cannot be improved upon, I suggest it is time for you to stop.

I will stop now. This site seems convinced that anyone who questions the AGW agenda is stupid, fearful, or self-interested. My suggestion that maybe that is not the case will not be heard. Thank you for your time. Carry on among yourselves!

Moderator Response:

[DB] This user has recused themselves from further participation here, finding the burden of compliance with this venue's Comments Policy too onerous.

Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped.

Eclectic at 00:39 AM on 21 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Perhaps rather than fear, it is resentment which is a prominent motivation of climate-denialists. (And resentment is but one point on the calm-versus-anger spectrum.)

In a changing world, conservatives look backward to a halcyon time — and resent whatever/whoever is causing a different future. Denial, resentment, anger, come together in a rejection of "the new reality" which is coming down the tracks. Immigration and demographic change bringing more of the ethnically/culturally/racially "different", who produce change in society & customs; and "unconservative" pressures, leading to alterations in governmental styles & taxation systems : these things can be resisted & voted against, to some extent.

But the physical alterations of the world with rising sea levels, melting ice, and altering climate/weather-patterns ..... those physical changes are resented so much, as to be better dealt with by steady denial. By ramming the head into the sand, so that an unpleasant reality need not be faced & addressed.

The tip of the denier pyramid is the wealthy group whose cynical selfishness impels them to propagandize & manipulate the lower orders of the pyramid — to postpone social change for as long as can be achieved.

Strictly speaking, all this climate-denialism is insane — insanity defined (in practical terms) as : "dealing with reality inappropriately".

Combine that insanity and anger — and we get that outspoken denialism which we see in the Anglophone world particularly. And we also see the on-line insanity & bizarre non-logic exhibited repeatedly by [for example] "CosmoWarrior" in his past (& current) iterations. And the on-line insanity & bizarre non-logic of WattsUpWithThat and similar websites.

SingletonEngineer at 23:33 PM on 20 July 2017

Climate denial is like The Matrix; more Republicans are choosing the red pill

The red/blue format, whilst nowhere near reasonable presentation of science, might backfire in Scott Pruitt's face.

If it reaches an audience that is currently anti-science and convinces a measurable fraction to change their stance, the result might start a landslide.

Yes, I know... I'm an optimist. But whatever we have been doing in the 38 months since the Colbert U-Tube clip hasn't got the train to the end of the platform. let alone travel to the destination.

MA Rodger at 21:37 PM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

thoughts @50.

You say "I am trying to point out that some people seem to deny evidence for good reasons. I have probably said that too many times already."

Too many times? Indeed so. And as your "trying" seemingly cannot be improved upon, I suggest it is time for you to stop.

Of course, the OP does rather support the idea that the reasons underlying denial can be "good" in that the OP concludes by stating that such reasons are not "bad".

"These factors don’t mean climate deniers are stupid, nor are Trump supporters. It doesn’t mean that they are bad people or immoral in any way. Rather, it tells me that their brain handles fear differently than mine and yours."

That said, the contrary idea that climate deniers are indeed stupid is given support by none-other-than than JS Mill who sees the stupidity infecting right-wing politics as undeniable:-

"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it."

qwertie at 21:06 PM on 20 July 2017

Humidity is falling

There is another, simpler and probably more common version of this myth, in which "humidity" means "relative humidity", even though "absolute humidity" or vapor pressure is what determines the greenhouse effect from water vapor.

A political operative on Forbes writes:

Relative humidity has substantially declined in recent decades, defying global warming computer models predicting higher amounts of atmospheric water vapor that will exacerbate global warming.
... Rather than keeping pace with modestly warming temperatures, relative humidity is declining. This decline has been ongoing, without interruption, for more than 60 years. After more than six decades of consistent data, we can say with strong confidence that absolute humidity is not rising rapidly enough for relative humidity to keep pace with warming temperatures.

The main trick here is to exploit your limited understanding of the relationship between temperature on the one hand, and the two different humidities on the other. However, the Forbes version of the myth goes further and links to a implausible graph made by the AGW denial organization "Friends of Science" - can anyone guess where this graph came from? It shows quite different information than the relative humidity graph posted by Tom Curtis.

One Planet Only Forever at 14:03 PM on 20 July 2017

Climate denial is like The Matrix; more Republicans are choosing the red pill

I wonder how the pushers of Red/Blue Teaming would respond to demands that:

before each topic of 'debate' the fullest summary of facts that fit into a 10 minute showing get presented. And the IPCC process would apply to determining what gets presented (with the major American and International science organizations specialists in climate science peer reviewing/validating what is presented)
A panel of specialist/information accessing people 'verify in real time every statement making a claim' before the discussion/presentation moves forward. After each stated claim there would be a delay until a 'green light confirmation citing/showing the sources of confirmation' or 'other light and correction with sources shown' occurred (this would be expedited if the points of claim are presented to the review group in advance of the 'debate')

Misleading marketing/debating/tweeting works because it is not instantly shown to be incorrect to everyone. There are likely to be some people who have made-up their minds so firmly with made-up thoughts that even that type of presentation would fail to change their minds. But it certainly would help those who genuinely want to better understand what is going on. And resistance to doing the presentation in such an open, honest and transparent fashion should also help people better understand what is going on.

nigelj at 11:58 AM on 20 July 2017

Climate denial is like The Matrix; more Republicans are choosing the red pill

The people in the cartoon have rather long noses. Reminds me of the legend of pinocchio, whos nose grew longer every time he lied.

nigelj at 11:28 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Thoughts.

I'm not going to comment further on the scientific specifics you have doubts about , like the nasa thing, as I have been told not to. Its sloganeering, and getting off topic, concern trolling etc,etc.

I wasn't sloganeering. Please note where I have made specific and controversial claims about specific scientists I have backed it up with some sources.

I haven't engaged in any ad hominems. This is attacking the person, rather than their views. I have not insulted anyone and have no wish to. I haven't criticised anyones political / religious / employment leanings and associated fears, simply noted that those leanings may influence their perception of climate, and that there is evidence of this, which I'm not going to repeat yet again. It's important to clarify theres a big distinction.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Thank you!

Digby Scorgie at 10:58 AM on 20 July 2017

Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?

ajki @5

I'm being sarcastic, not witty. And when I talk about "we", I mean all of humanity — rich and poor alike.

Yes, the rich should be driving the transition away from fossil fuels, but if you think fossil fuels are essential for the poor to thrive, you are flatly wrong. There is no reason why the poor cannot benefit from the transition.

I recall an article — unfortunately I cannot remember which one — in which the point was made that the above transition in the global economy would require full employment for about thirty years. To me that sounds like a good thing for the poor.

Bob Loblaw at 10:55 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

While I'm at it, this is the thread that made me think of the carton I posted over on the newer thread:

An Inconvenient Truth

Bob Loblaw at 10:53 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

As to the reason why so many of the "skeptical" viewpoints are not particularly convincing, it's because as a group they are mutally contradictory and often defy standard physics. As they say, you want to be open-mineded, but no so open-minded that your brain falls out.

On the contradictions side, SkS has a page devoted to the subject:

https://skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php

On the incoherent side, Benestad et al wrote a paper on it:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-015-1597-5

and it has been discussed over at RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/anti-scientists/

Bob Loblaw at 10:35 AM on 20 July 2017

Climate denial is like The Matrix; more Republicans are choosing the red pill

I first thought of this old cartoon on one of the other threads, but it also fits here.

An Inconvenient Truth

chriskoz at 09:31 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Bob Loblaw@9

Thanks for briging in the evidence that we're dealing with authoritarian system that US democracy is just morphing into. John himself stops short of using that term although his article argues this case without a doubt.

We know many examples of more or less authoritatian states, past and present. US in its current form is not yet as strong authoritatian state as the ultimate example of Nazi Germany (and likely will cannot be because their constitution would not easily allow it) but what is unique is the absudly low level of their leader (T-man) who can only be described as an abomination of a human being. Calling those who elected such an abomination to the WH, a "basket of deplorables" is politically incorrect but a very accurate characterization. T-man ridiculed himself so many times, called that he could kill someone and still be voted in for president, lost all presidential debates in the opinion of all experts, yet still absurdly got elected. Simply the ultimate denial in the minds of authoritarians (both leaders and followers): the denial of reality. So strong are the phychological mechanisms leading to the formation of authoritatian states, that they defy any reason.

thoughts at 09:25 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Moderator: You did not see the sloganeering, inflammatory, and ad-hominem in the post above it, to which I was responding? It would seem fair to call both sides on this. This is not a site for discussions. My mistake.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Moderation complaints are always offtopic. This is site where science can be discussed but only in conformance with comments policy. For you that means backing your assertions.

thoughts at 09:20 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Moderator: You did not see Nigelj, to whom I was responding, as sloganeering and inflammatory? Here is a snip from there of what i was responding to:

"Of course the sceptics look at wattsup for opinions that the science is allegedly wrong, as it gives them an excuse. They exercise a total lack of critical analysis of what they read. Five minutes checking the usual denialist myths shows they are genuinely absurd. But perhaps they dont "want" to exercise any critical analysis? Because the whole climate issue threatens various beliefs they have and political views."

I think that this site is meant only to discredit anyone who questions its position, mostly with name calling and insults, this is not for real discussions. My mistake.

Moderator Response:

[PS] "I read that it is has been practically impossible to get any research paper published unless it supports the AGW view, that a scientist can lose funding / job if not on board with the AGW view."

That is sloganeering. You have making statement without supporting evidence.

This site exists to debunk those who lie, misinform and otherwise create myths. These myths are debunked by quoting published science, unlike the sites you seem to look at.

Jim Eager at 09:18 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

So-called "thoughts" is engaging in nothing more than concern trolling as cover for spreading run of the mill science denial claptrap.

Cut off his oxigen by not responding to them.

nigelj at 08:55 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Scaddnp @51, I suppose you are right. In fact you make some good points.

I don't claim to be super exceptionally intelligent, but I defended myself in a couple of civil courts cases, and was very inventive and focussed at the exercise, and I won both cases. This seems to be consistent with your theory.

I agree its hard for us to do be objective about politics, as its so tempting to let instincts take control. However I have worked at it and become rather good. I do now accept parties I despise sometimes get specific things very correct. Its also made me a political / economic moderate because the extreme positions just dont convince when carefully examined.

I totally suck at many other things in life, but I would claim to be a reasonable critical thinker.

nigelj at 08:32 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Thoughtful @50,

Thanks, but here are a few thoughts in response:

You said "I read that it is has been practically impossible to get any research paper published unless it supports the AGW view, that a scientist can lose funding / job if not on board with the AGW view."

You don't say where you read this, and certainly provide no proof or credible information. Anyone can make outrageous claims like this so, surely you dont take them at face value?.

Willie Soon and Nicolas Scafetta are climate sceptics, and have published papers, just do a simple google search. They have not complained that anyone is stopping them publishing to my knowedge. The trouble is their ideas have not stood up to scrutiny and are in a minority.

It just seems that in general terms you take sceptical material on wattsup and places like this at face value, without checking any of it.

"I read that NASA has been falsifying data to support the AGW agenda,"

Where and on what basis? Wheres the evidence? You provide nothing of any substance.

Again anyone can make any ridiculous claim? Do you always believe such simplstic claims without checking them? Even if you just checked a few things on denialist websites the holes would become apparent to you.

We are also not reliant just on nasa. For example there are numerous sets of temperature gathered in different ways by different organisations. Even the raw, unadjusted data shows strong warming.

"I have no way of knowing which scientists and which organizations on which sides are really not motivated by personal agendas "

Yes you do. Just do some research and I have already given you specific examples on specific scientists.

Polls discussed on this website show conservatives are more sceptical of climate change than liberals. Clearly political agendas / ideologies have at least some influence. I'm not claiming they are the only thing.

There is also a big diffrence depending on funding. I think its rather unlikely that governments would want scientists with public funding to come up with some global warming nightmare. No government wants this! Scientists have simply discovered a problem by doing what they do: namely research. In comparison scientists funded by the fossil fuel lobby will be expected to find a certain result, if they want more work. Ultimately just apply some commonsense, as well as critical thinking.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Please do not respond to the rote denier sloganeering and obvious baiting. If the user to which you are responding cannot abide by this venue's Comments Policy, they will very soon be recused from further participation here.

One Planet Only Forever at 08:31 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

thoughts,

Please explain why you consider the sources of information you refer to to be more reliable providers of good information/understanding than the sources you imply are more misleading.

There is undeniably a group of people who focus on any single 'error' by a media source as all the evidence they need that the source is unreliable Fake News, while at the same time having only rare cases when their preferred sources are actually correct about something.

A rational person would seek the "more reliable" source, understanding that even the most reliable source will have occassional cases of error. An example is the case of the typo on one page of the entire IPCC report where some missed zeros presented a point of information that was clearly incorrect. It was reported by media such as WUWT as evidence that the entire IPCC report process was fraudulant.

However, having personally reviewed WUWT in detail many years ago, I concluded it was a highly unreliable provider of information. A case in point was the nonsense article about a US submarine in the Arctic many decades ago claimed to be proof that the Arctic was ice free many decades ago. It took me less than 10 minutes to find correct reports about that incident including the actual ship's log. The submarine had pushed up through ice that was thin enough to be broken through and was not at the area of the thickest ice at the time. WUWT had failed to even spend that small amount of time, 10 minutes, to verify that story before re-spawning it. And my review at the time found many similar easily debunked or misleading or just plain wrong reports on WUWT. I occassionally return to the site and can always quickly find one easily debunked report. WUWT is a very unreliable source of good understanding.

So in the interest of better understanding what the thoughts are of a person who trusts a clearly unreliable source such as WUWT more than the far more reliable MSM, it would be helpful if you could reflect on your thoughts and share why it is you developed the preferences for media you considered to be more reliable, even though it is fairly easy to determine that they are actually less reliable/less correct.

scaddenp at 08:25 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Nigel. "But would very high intelligence people really have poor critical thinking skills?"

I think "black hat" thinking about our own positions comes as naturally as breathing water. What highly intelligent people are good at is defending their positions. Furthermore, intelligence often leads to discovering/adopting right answers anyway so you can get away with minimal critical thinking skills. This leads to very good scientists "going Emeritus" all the time.

The best critical thinkers I know among my colleagues are ones who found themselves in a wrong position early in career and were then forced to examine how they made that decision and practise the skills to not have it happen again.

The pat answer to critical thinking is "what data/result/observation would make you change your mind". Sounds easy. Now think of a popular (not fringe) political party you dont like and then a policy of theirs that you abhor. What data/result would make think they were right? Chances are you would answer "none" and the reason for that is that it offends your political values. Working hard on a problem, it is all too easy to love a potential solution with the same strength as a value.

In fact, as humans we suck at this. The best examination of a position is by getting others to look at this. Peer review - especially submit your paper suggesting the person who will hate your conclusions most as a reviewer. Science is filled will flawed humans, but the long process of review and examination makes the discipline of science our best invention for modelling reality.

thoughts at 08:02 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

nigelj @ 48

Now you are saying that scientists sceptical of AGW are motivated by other interests besides the science (besides being fearful). We all read different things, but from what I read, it is mainly the AGW folks who are motivated by other interests. I read that it is has been practically impossible to get any research paper published unless it supports the AGW view, that a scientist can lose funding / job if not on board with the AGW view. I read that NASA has been falsifying data to support the AGW agenda, that the IPCC exists only to support the AGW agenda. I do not know what is true. Yet again - I have no way of knowing which scientists and which organizations on which sides are really not motivated by personal agendas - even doing the best critical thinking I know how. How is the general public to know what is so?

MA Rodger @ 47 At risk of endlessly repeating myself, I am not defending or discussing any specific issues. I am pointing out here that there are views which are readily available which do not conform to the views of this site. My responses are conforming to the subject of this thread, which is suggesting reasons why some people "deny the evidence". I am trying to point out that some people seem to deny evidence for good reasons. I have probably said that too many times already.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Sloganeering and inflammatory snipped. Please conform to this venue's Comments Policy.

nigelj at 07:57 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Thoughts says at 38;

"For decades, people have seen that they have been misled by the media on many subjects, so people in general do not trust what the media tells them. They are not just fearful or self-interested.""

The media do sometimes get things wrong, but its the IPCC telling them, not some investigative journalist with some dubious opinion and limited facts gathering. Its not really the media as such.

But I concede people might not trust in the "elites" and maybe some see the IPCC as an "elite". I will give you that much. But isn't this all just missplaced and ridiculous fear of elites, so we are back to fear? There's certainly no rational reason for the degree of distrust in elites, and it's clearly not universal either. It may dominate in America with Trump supporters, but clearly not in France, given who they have just elected.

"The population now needs clear evidence in the real world before they believe what they are told."

There is clear evidence in the real world. We see clear data of increasing temperatures, in multiple different sets of data, photos of receding galciers and so on. You would have to be a conspiracy theorest to deny so many different lines of evidence.

So I have to conclude peoples climate denialism is largely driven by politics, dislike of environmental rules or taxes, religion and factors like this. I concede some may be poor understanding of the science as well.

Of course the sceptics look at wattsup for opinions that the science is allegedly wrong, as it gives them an excuse. They exercise a total lack of critical analysis of what they read. Five minutes checking the usual denialist myths shows they are genuinely absurd. But perhaps they dont "want" to exercise any critical analysis? Because the whole climate issue threatens various beliefs they have and political views.

nigelj at 07:24 AM on 20 July 2017

Climate denial is like The Matrix; more Republicans are choosing the red pill

The IPCC preocess is huge, and has already settled these questions. This weak, watered down red / blue version of the IPCC process makes no sense at all.

The absurd red blue team idea is a stacked panel out of proportion to the real weight of opinion. It's a last desperate attempt to find a contrived process that will maximise opportunity for mischief and missdirection.

The Republicans must be desperate to be prepeared to go to such extreme lengths to deny the science and reports on coal. The only reasonable conclusion is it's their is their politics, beliefs, and vested interests in business as usual.

nigelj at 06:43 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Thoughts @38, with respect, you are entirely missing the point. Certainly some scientists deny climate science, including a very small number of climate scientists, and some other scientists.

But there's evidence that at least some of these people have various ulterior motives, rather than just purely scientific objections and this could extend to various fears, beliefs and vested interests that colour their conclusions on the science. I would suggest you will find the vast majority have these motives.

For example some sceptical climate scientists have been funded by fossil fuel lobbies like Willie Soon. Now are you seriously going to claim this doesn't alter their mindset? Of course it could, because these lobbies will expect a certain result.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

Roy Spencer is a sceptical scientist, and has strong religious convitions that "man couldn't fundamnentally destabilise" the planet. He also has strong libertarian political leanings so would definitely be suspicious of carbon taxes etc. Its perfectly reasonable to conclude these things colour his conclusions about the science to some extent.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Climate_change

Richard Lindzen is a sceptic, and has expressed something very similar that the planet is self correcting. He also has or had interests in the coal industry.

Other sceptical scientists I have come across have strong fiscally conservative views, or libertarian leanings,and may be worried about government involvement or taxes. Its reasonable to think this could be a cause of their scepticism of the science.

I think you will find many sceptical scientists, probably most are influenced by a range of ideological issues, personal interests, and fears.

MA Rodger at 06:42 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

thoughts @46.
Your response to me seems to be saying that you consider the work of Larry Bell who wrote a book (apparently no spoof) entitled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax" as being in your view entirely credible. Do note I do not here "engage in a discussion of these issues" set out by Larry, but they are entirely ludicrous. That you consider such nonsense credible strongly suggests that in SkS you have come to the wrong place. You do tell us that you "understand how to exercise critical thinking" but for myself, a bit like your reluctance to accept AGW, I am reluctant to accept your claim as see no evidence of your "critical thinking."

As for my enquiry @45, that 5-year-old Wattsupian web page may contradict "the information given on this site" (and I'm sure that is very important to you) but that doesn't make it any less nonsensical than the work of Larry. Note that if it were a useful analysis, where is it now? Oh yes! It's still buried in a 5-year-old Wattsupian web page.

thoughts at 04:59 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Philippe Chantreau @44. Re: "How? Verify."

I understand how to exercise critical thinking. No one can do the science for themselves - so when reputable scientists (PhDs) and reputable sources present contradictory evidence and assertions, critical thinking is not much use. I agree with the red flags you caution against (strawman, ad hominem, sloganeering....) - I see those red flags on this site.

MA Rodger @ 45. To answer your question, my rationale for the link to that page "@ Planet Wattsupia" [n.b. this is name calling, or ad hominem]] was to illustrate what is out there to contradict some of the information given on this site.

Your phrase: "written by a denier so convinced that a worrying AGW-filled-reality will steal his comfort-filled-reality " is nothing more an ad-hominem comment. Denigrating anyone who has a conflicting opinion from yours is not a discussion. [I was originally encouraged by the Comments policy on this site, but they seem not much use.)]

MA Rodger at 03:26 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

thoughts @42.

You say you do not try to engage in discussion about the reasons for AGW being scientifically a 'no brainer', but that you wish to demonstrate why "deniers" deny. In you attempts to set out this demonstration, what is your rationale for the link to Planet Wattsupia you provide @39?

Your arguments prior to this were that the evidence for AGW is not set out clearly enough (@13), that you disagree-with/misunderstand the reasons for AGW (@19 & @21 & @24), issues you do not want to "engage in" (as you manage to remember @28), then (@38) present an example of the nonsense AGW can create by linking to a web page written by a denier so convinced that a worrying AGW-filled-reality will steal his comfort-filled-reality that he writes a whole book to argue "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax," and your final input you describe the problems a denier has in not knowing they are latching on to comforting denialist nonsense (@43).

In all this I can understand where you are coming from, yet your comment @39 does not make sense to me. So why the link to that page @ Planet Wattsupia?

Philippe Chantreau at 03:18 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

How? Verify. Exercise critical thinking. Do these claims hold water? What is the scientific evidence they are based on? Are there science papers cited? If yes, go and read what they actually say. Was anything taken out of context? Distorted? Misrepresented? Cherry picked? Graphs doctored? Scales manipulated to create a desired effect? Flaws in reasoning such as strawman arguments, ad hominem, non sequitur, red herrings? Is opinion substituted to actual expertise or presented as equally valid? Is the consensus one of opinion or one of research results? Where lies the weight of the evidence? Adjustments are put in doubt, fine. What do the people making the adjustments have to say on the reasons for the adjustments? Are there papers published on the adjustments?

When I was in school, I was fortunate to be taught about mind manipulation techniques. We learned about WW2 Germany, the USSR, advertisement and marketing techniques, how to trigger emotional reactions, how our emotions impair our judgment. This has remained with me ever since. It also helps to be somewhat scientifically litterate and have the quantitative thinking afforded by basic math and physics education. Thoughts was probably not around when WUWT had their Antarctic carbonic snow article. Credibility on scientific matters is not that hard to ascertain.

thoughts at 01:53 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

p.s. Contradictory information is everywhere. How is anyone to know which scientists and which information to believe, whether to believe SkepticalScience or CFACT or Whats Up With That, or what?

thoughts at 01:46 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Please do note that I am not here trying to engage in a discussion of these issues. This thread is about the motivation of "deniers". I was trying to show why people labelled here as "deniers" have reasons for their opinions - besides fear and self-interest. If the population is instructed to research into scientific literature for clear answers, it seems a good explanation for why "deniers" doubt the media and the science. It seems impossible to make this point on this site.

Jim Eager at 01:11 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

"There is so much misinformation available that contradicts..."

There, I fixed that typo for you.

"here is another link: https://wattsupwiththat.c...."

Citing that luny bin does not help your argument or your credibility one bit. That's it, I'm done with you. You will waste no more of my time.

Tom Dayton at 01:11 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

thoughts: Every one of the claims in that CFACT article is either false or misleading. All of them are countered by facts with details and references to peer-reviewed literature here on SkepticalScience. Use the Search field at the top left of every page here, and click the "View All Arguments" link at the bottom of the list of top myths that is under that Search field. Given the falsehoods in that CFACT article, you might reconsider relying on CFACT.

thoughts at 00:43 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

To possibly explain why "deniers" are still puzzled about the truth of AGW, here is another link:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/

thoughts at 00:20 AM on 20 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Re: This thread that "deniers" deny because they are fearful or self- interested.

There is so much information available that contradicts what the AGW believers claim, that a reasonable person does not know what to believe. Many reputable scientists (not just a few "eccentrics") do not believe the AGW claim.

One small example: http://www.cfact.org/2017/06/19/decades-of-climate-hysteria-unsupported-by-data/

For decades, people have seen that they have been misled by the media on many subjects, so people in general do not trust what the media tells them. They are not just fearful or self-interested. The population now needs clear evidence in the real world before they believe what they are told.

ajki at 22:52 PM on 19 July 2017

Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?

#4, most people living aren't particularly enjoying anything while depending on the use of fossil fuels in many indirect and invisible ways. They don't have anything to decide regarding energy regimes, food chains, infrastructure.... within their whole lifetime. And then there are the unborn of exactly the same people - for them the living demanders strive for at least some amount of the wealth of the rich people (nothing fancy). When even the rich part of the world currently seems unable or unwilling to change the trend of using fossil fuels, then 8 billions or more of the 12 billions in 2050+ can't even think about any catastrophe to come - they are struggling with the catastrophe they're living by. So: wrong, nothing ironic or whitty here.

Mike Evershed at 19:42 PM on 19 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Thanks to Nigel and for the reference to studies on consensus.

And apologies to Nigel and the Moderator PS for being insufficiently clear in the wording of my post .- I said one of the reasons for lack of acceptance of the science was that it was bound up with politics. But but I should have been clearer that wasn't because I think the science itself is politically motivated. The problem comes further down the road when it is used in party politics. Here in the UK "climate change denier" is a label used by politicians of the left. So when people like me with right leaning politcal views see the consensus view being used in this way by politicians we distrust, we instintively distrust the science as well.

And also to be clear - I think we should question consensus views in science - not that we should ignore them in policy. It is reasonable for politicians to take action based on the consensus. But it is also reasonable for them to subject the consensus to hard questioning in proportion to the scale of the policy shift demanded.

On a lighter note re gravity - one possibility astronomers are considering is that our current theories may be wrong at astronomical scales, and if so this may help explain some of the observations on "dark matter".

Moderator Response:

[PS] "Reasonable for politicians to subject the consensus to hard questioning"? Seriously, politicians are better making that judgement than the combined investigations of thousands of scientists? Please show an example of a political process overturning a scientific consensus. What politicians need to be sure about is that there is a consensus. That consensus is the only rationale guide to policy.

nigelj at 18:59 PM on 19 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Scaddenp @35

But would very high intelligence people really have poor critical thinking skills? The two would mostly go hand in hand surely? However I could see they could turn those skills off, due to political reasons, maybe without even realising they are doing it.

I do agree we are all probably susceptible to rationalising things unless challenged, me included, at least in certain situations where instincts conflict with facts etc.

I have changed my mind a little on the whole issue a little. I still think fears, greed and politics are a big factor in denial, but poor critical thinking / science education etc is probably a factor with some people. But its probably relatively easy to turn many of those people around with good explanations, if that's the only problem they have. Its people with a political / belief related issue as well that may be harder to convince from what I have observed.

Digby Scorgie at 17:38 PM on 19 July 2017

Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?

ajki @3

We know business as usual leads to catastrophe, but it's too difficult even to contemplate a safer course so, what the hell, let's enjoy our fossil fuels while we can. Right?

ajki at 14:45 PM on 19 July 2017

Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?

#2: "incredibly ironic"

I don't think so - the guest author simply relies on one of many possible scenarios / projections. It may well be BAU or something similar. For the time being it is hard if not impossible to say where things are heading - many are quite pessimistic if the Paris Agreement goals will be met or at least be met in a wider timeframe.

So, the author is free to use a BAU demand - it may be more realistic than other demand projections.

Digby Scorgie at 13:49 PM on 19 July 2017

Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths

Tom Curtis @12

I hope anticorncob6 is satisfied with your comprehensive explanation. In my case I concluded from the paragraph I referred to that there was indeed an explanation but that the details were complicated. That was enough for me.

scaddenp at 13:23 PM on 19 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

People with very high intelligence and minimal critical thinking skills are extremely adept at constructing rationalizations to defend there positions. I suspect every one of us will do that in some aspects of our lives unless someone challenges us.

Digby Scorgie at 13:03 PM on 19 July 2017

Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?

I find it incredibly ironic that the author sees nothing unusual in demand for fossil fuels continuing to increase so significantly in the future. Contrast this with the earlier SkS article on Mission 2020, where emissions need to peak in 2020 and then decline to zero over about 20 plus years. Can nobody put two and two together? Reducing emissions at such a high rate demands that fossil-fuel use decline at a similarly high rate. I give up.

nigelj at 12:18 PM on 19 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

I just want to clarify I think education about science, and climate science and climate denialist myths and foolishness is important, but simply everyone having a Bacheor of Science degree probably won't change every climate sceptics mind. At least half of the issue has become political / ideological / tribal, and slippery slopes indeed. Download the song Money by Pink Floyd.

nigelj at 11:56 AM on 19 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Elizabeth Gordon-Mills @29, I agree there are a range of reasons for climate denialism, although I think fear is a constant factor through many of them. It is just incredibly obvious.

Science knowledge isn't great, but I dont know that poor science knowledge is a basic cause of climate denialism. I'm not sure better education would change peoples views much on climate issues. Its become political.

The denialists probably accept einsteins theories but not climate science, so go figure.

Most people get taught the basics of science, but its a question of whether they trust this way of thinking about the world. America is a very politically driven, and strongly religious nation, and this may have an effect on thinking.

However more time should be devoted to science in schools.

Mal Adapted at 11:44 AM on 19 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Elizabeth Gordon-Mills:

There is probably a mix of reasons why seemingly intelligent and well (?) educated people are often vehement deniers.

WRT AGW-deniers including lack-, luke- and luckwarmers, the simplest explanation is unwillingness to pay their marginal climate change cost of transferring fossil carbon from geologic sequestration to the climatically active pool. They'd rather just keep on making other people pay them.

They're afraid a carbon tax that internalizes a fraction of their future marginal cost, requiring them to pay a few bucks more for a tankful of gasoline, is on a slippery slope to forcing them to pay for the accumulated socialized cost of their entire lives and allow illegal immigrants' kids to attend school with theirs, or something.

nigelj at 11:16 AM on 19 July 2017

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Thoughts @28,

There are probably a small number of climate sceptics who just have doubts about the science, and no other real motives, sort of contararians, but they are probably in a minority.

But I think the main reason for scepticism relates to various fears and vested interests and ideological issues.

Consider that people working in the fossil fuel industry are more sceptical than average about climate science, as in this peer reviewed study. It's hard to believe fears about job security are not a factor that leads to denial of the science.

uni.no/media/manual_upload/339_wp_3_2014__tvinnereim.pdf

Libertarians and fiscal conservatives are also more sceptical than average in various polls. They likely see government becoming too involved, and this could lead to denial about the science. Its hard to see any other reason why they would be over represented. Theres no evidence they have a superior knowledge of the science.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments

Smartphone Apps