Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Next
Comments 7901 to 7950:
-
MA Rodger at 23:50 PM on 7 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
factotum @10,
I had a read of your "AGW Deniers are Dumber than Plants" article and can't say I agree with it. Okay, I won't begin by asserting that the first three sentences are flat wrong, but beyond the pedantry of say, subjectivist epistemology, the overall thesis that "deniers are dumb" is simply incorrect. Similarly, the OP's YouTube video isn't correct in describing denialism as simply presenting a never-ending pack of lies. It is more complex than that.
I did have in mind linking to a particular OP I read some time ago but in trying to track it down I found this one instead which I'll share here as I rather liked the way it begins by saying that a google search on "Why are climate change deniers..." found the 'number one hit' was "Why are climate change deniers so stupid?" I ran the same search myself and found the following ten top of the search results:-
♣ Why are climate change deniers using the same twisted strategies as Big Tobacco to instill doubt?
♣ Why are Climate Change Deniers Bullying a 16-Year-Old Girl?
♣ Why are climate change deniers more likely to be racist?
♣ Why are climate change deniers still so prevalent?
♣ why are climate change deniers almost always awful people?
♣ why are climate change deniers so stupid?
♣ Why are climate change deniers like Stephens [Bret Stephens, a columnist for the New York Times] more interested in possible but unlikely scenarios like nuclear attacks by rogue states rather than the real and ongoing threat to national security and global stability posed by climate change?
♣ why are climate change deniers so dismissive of science and so ready to embrace continued subsidization, aka corporate welfare, for big oil billionaires?
♣ Why are climate change deniers like the Roman emperor Nero?
♣ Why are climate change deniers unjustified in their high standards of "skepticism"?This OP I link-to sets out the question "Are they just a bunch of idiots who are ignorant of science and incapable of understanding it?" and answers it saying For the most part “No.” Its a usefully brief account although I feel it fudges one point when it says:-
"Research has proven that humans are distinctly uncomfortable with events or phenomena without clear causes, and when we don’t know something, we tend to fill in the gaps ourselves."
Myself, I would take out the bit about "without clear causes". I see denialism as being powerful enough so as not to be restricted to issues "without clear causes," especially in this age of the interweb.
Of course the interweb isn't that powerful a tool as I failed to locate that article I had in mind about denialism.
-
factotum at 08:23 AM on 7 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
I may have sent this before, but I am moved to send it again:
http://dnusbaum.com/AGWdeniers.html. I suppose that it is possible that giving evidence that AGW deniers can not do logic (thus are dumb/stupid) is an ad-hominem attack. I consider it to be descriptive.
However, you may feel free to take the article and edit it as you see fit. I grant you complete freedom to do that.
-
dudo39 at 07:26 AM on 7 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Moderator,
rn
Thanks but no thanks for not posting my previous message, and for all the ridiculous comments.
rn
So much for "scientific discourse".
rn
Bye
Moderator Response:[PS] Your comment was deleted because it was offtopic. Scientific discussion is welcome on the appropriate thread. Scientific discussion contains links to evidence and arguments derived from them. Unsupported opinion is just sloganeering.
Moderation complaints are always deleted.
-
nigelj at 11:15 AM on 6 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
dudo39 @8
Your comments are mostly misguided. Sorry about that, you will get over it.
We already know and accept water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but you have to be able to explain why its increased in the atmosphere in recent decades, and the IPCC has determined this is because of the CO2 forcing causing evaporation. The proven underlying thing driving the warming is CO2, with water vapour as a feedback. We know the spectral properties of the water molecule so know how much warming this water vapour causes in comparison to the C02 molecule.
The one area of doubt is the effect of clouds, but most published research finds they have a slightly positive warming effect overall or are neutral. They cannot be sharply negative or there would be no warming.
You do not need one million argo floats to sufficiently sample ocean temperatures. And ocean temperature trends are broadly similar to atmospheric and land based trends which you would expect so this provides evidence there are more than enough argo floats, and that 'drift' is not a significant issue.
The issue with weather stations in northern Russia obviously has little significance for global temperatures, and you provide no link to back up your assertions about Russia. The urban heat island effect is taken into consideration and temperatures are adjusted downwards where its an issue. And research has determined its not a huge issue anyway.Regarding temperature adjustments, Read this article.
Since you are so conerned about facts, the global temperature dataset as a whole has been adjusted down because of a known issue with ships buoy issues. This is the reality, and is the complete opposite of the false denialist claims that global tempertaures have been adjusted upwards. Read this article.
Now go away and spread your useless, badly informed doubt somewhere else preferably in a hole in the ground.
Moderator Response:[PS] Enough. No more dog-piling please.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:14 AM on 6 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Dudo39,
"As far as I know"...
How far is that? How much exploring have you done?
Judging by the content of your post, nowhere near enough. Climate models are not statistical models, they are physical model. Plenty of info on that on the appropriate thread, and from NASA. Water vapor and cloud feedbacks have been extensively studied and figure in models. There are nunerous papers published by NASA and NOAA on their methods to adjust data, the reasons to do so and the benefits that it yields. Hint: it does not make temperatures look warmer. Appropriate threads for that also, not difficult to find, use the search function.
-
Eclectic at 13:09 PM on 5 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Dudo39 , the scientists are well aware of the actions of the various cloud types & differing latitude effects. Atmospheric humidity changes (in time and place) are patchy, but nevertheless have a long-term averaging which is well known. Likewise the cloud alterations have a long-term averaging ~ which has such a small marginal effect of change on climate, that the scientists are quite correct in pointing to the far greater importance of the rising levels of GreenHouse Gasses for AGW outcome (and so their prognostications of future change are largely correct).
If you wish to discuss this further, then you should post in a more appropriate thread i.e. not this thread, which is about "denial" specifically.
More on topic here :- As far as science denial goes, you seem to be assuming that if you don't understand the climate science, then the science must be wrong. That is the mark of a denier, not a skeptic.
Sauerj points out how easy it is to educate yourself on AGW / climate matters. It takes some time (more than just reading a few "denier" crackpot blogs on the internet ~ where some blogs misinform you, and others deliberately give disinformation ). You will also need to achieve a truly skeptical state of mind (something apparently difficult for those who start with pre-conceived ideas of the denier sort).
Moderator Response:[PS] Indeed. All further comments about cloud feedback to this thread please. Further offtopic comments will be deleted.
-
sauerj at 12:24 PM on 5 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
dudo39 @4:
Much of the science (on water vapor net warming contribution & cloud cooling/warming net contribution) has been long largely hammered out and is settled science (in fact, everything about AGW is pretty much fully settle science). In order to get an inside track on the depth of the science, I would suggest you contact someone at NASA (you could "like" their FB page NASA Climte Change, and start to inquire with them on how to seek extremely indepth help on this or any climate subject).I have seen posts on the NASA Climate Change FB page where NASA moderators provide posts that often contains massive lists of links to scores of reports. And, they seem to be able to do this on about any climate topic and at a drop of the hat. So, if you can garner someone's attention there, they should be able to supply you with tons of reports to more than satisfy your quest to know the truth on any part of climate science.
For starters, I'm sure you've already thoroughly read the SkS Intermediate article on water vapor (HERE). If not, then please read it carefully (it isn't too long) b/c it pretty much touches upon the points / questions that you have. Next, you could go to the much longer CSSR2017 report. It touches on water vapor and cloud influence quite a bit thru-out that long report (note that high clouds cause warming, and low clouds cause cooling ... not all clouds cause cooling).
Again, there will be realms of other science and reports on the subject of water vapor (and its net warming and positive feedback effect), and on clouds (and its net effect). Again, the above two articles are helpful, but best of all if somehow you could sit down with or talk to a scientist for just a few mins (or via email), then I am sure that they will quickly answer all of your questions. I would think someone at NASA might help, or else a good climate scientist or grad student at any university might be happy to help, especially if you had all of your questions lined up and sent to them in advance. They want the public to really understand the science, so any decent scientist should be more than happy to help you.
Hopefully, some of the more science repot savvy follks who read this blog will also help supply you here with even more reports to satisfy you on this water vapor subject. Maybe that person would also be kind enough to answer any other questions you have on a separate emails or two (as other questions of yours might get off topic).
Bottom-line: The totality of AGW science is extremely well settled at this date (in every which way). All you need to do is ask the right person, and you will get more stuff to read than you will ever have time to read to answer your questions in every possible way. It's all out there, it's just a matter, for the general public, to find a good source for getting help on getting answers explained answers both very well and very quickly. This SkS blog site is good, but there are also many, many others (such as NASA people). Just keep looking, the answers are all out there.
-
dudo39 at 11:05 AM on 5 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
You talk a bit too fast....
"Climate denial" to me is a negative and counter-productive label: To me, Science, by definition, implies arguments on both sides of an issue, and it is somewhat naive to assume that either side is right or wrong.
In so far as climate change / global warming is concerned, to me there is insufficient knowledge and understanding of the sciences behind either one, as well as insufficient reliable/accurate data. Also, it appears to me that the models used to prognosticate the future of the biosphere's thermal balance/imbalance utilize statistical methodologies to manipulate data, and as such the results are nothing more than a prognostication, albeit an opinion, and do not represent a solution to a problem.
Take, for instance, atmospheric H2O content: it is pretty much a fact that it varies over a relatively wide range (say from <<1% to about 3 to 4%) just about anywhere on earth over a period of 24 consecutive hours (no wonder why do temperatures can vary for up to and over 50 C during a 24 hr time span anywhere on earth) . It is also a fact that atmospheric H2O content contributes to over about 65% of the greenhouse effect (GHE). Thus, if in fact the temperature is rising, then more H2O must be being added into the atmosphere: the question is then, what is the net effect of this additional H2O on the thermal balance of the biosphere? Note that while H2O has a warming effect both because of its GHE as a gas and cloud droplets, it also has a cooling effect by the clouds reflecting the incoming solar radiation. As far as I know, this question has not been answered.Moderator Response:[PS] Offtopic. Also science is by definition the investigation of the natural world by logic, experiment and observation. Pseudo-skepticism relies on selectively ignoring observations that don't fit a value-based point of view. True scientific debate is about either interpretation of observations or the merits of alternative models which equally agree with observation.
"to me there is insufficient knowledge and understanding of the sciences behind either one, as well as insufficient reliable/accurate data." is argument from personal incredulity ignoring the vast amount of observation and study which constrain the models. Put up data or papers to back your position in an appropriate thread otherwise your comment is sloganeering and in violation of comments policy.
-
John Hartz at 09:16 AM on 5 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
Jonas: You're welcome again.
Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, there has been a significant drop in the number of views and engagements on the SkS Facebook page because of the Twilight Zone period we are living through. We have accordingly decided to reduce the frequency of posts from eight to four per day. This change will be evident in next week's edition of the Weekly News Roundup.
I just rechecked the metrics this morning, They are back to "normal" for all posts of the past few days. I suspect that Facebook had a glitch in its reporting system and has now corrected it. I'll now resume posting links to articles on a three hour cycle, i.e., eight per day.
-
Jonas at 05:36 AM on 5 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
John, I want to say thank you again, for continuing to collect and post the news roundup even in these times of short term crisis .. the mid to long term crisis does not go away .. but I can imagine that even SkS gets less page views these times.
-
bpl1960 at 02:01 AM on 5 April 2020Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
There seems to have been a discussion about how to calculate the greenhouse effect on Venus, Earth, and Mars. I published a paper in 2011 where that was an important part of the argument. Here's a link:
Moderator Response:[DB] Shortened link breaking page width formatting.
-
MA Rodger at 21:14 PM on 4 April 2020Models are unreliable
Whilst the comment @1158 has been snipped, it may be worth pointing out to the commenter OH YES that the court case for libel by Mann against Ball and co-defendants 'Frontier Centre for Public Policy' resulted in 'Frontier' apologising and settling out-of-court while the action against Ball was terminated by Ball pleading that his aging witnesses who would enable him to argue hs case were dead and dying and that he himself was old and irrelevant and so no damage was caused by him to Mann that could justified the much delayed court action against such a vulnerable defendant. Those in denial over AGW have little difficulty in denying the actual legal situation and so feel they can celebrate the 'dismissal' of the libel action as a victory.
-
OH YES at 08:08 AM on 4 April 2020Models are unreliable
Dr Michael Mann produced his "iconic" hockey stick graph ( model ) while working with the IPCC , which showed an exponential increase in global temperatures predicted .Dr Tim Ball publicly stated " Mann belongs in the state pen , instead of Penn State , because his model is a fraud , and his work was paid for by American taxpayers .Mann sued Ball for libel , in the supreme court of Canada ( Ball is Canadian) .Mann refused to show his raw data to the court , after 8 years of proceedings .Mann was charged with contempt of court for this . Ball was awarded all court costs , because he won the "Truth decision". Why was this climate change "trial of the century not " widely publicized ? It does not fit the government's agenda ! See the entire details at " Principia Scientific" .
Moderator Response:[PS] Multiple breaches of comments policy
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:40 AM on 4 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
YouTube in-platform corrections are not really a solution. Effective external correction of what is incorrect needs to be happening. YouTube could help by forcing someone who clicks on a misinformation containing message to first watch an ad with corrrect information. But even that will not effectively address all the nonsense.
Leadership legitimacy should depend on consistent actions to correct incorrect claim-making.
Sustainable helpful changes to the ways that Leaders are selected and rejected would be most helpful.
Everyone's actions add up to become the future. Everyone needs to constantly have expanded awareness and improved understanding with the learning applied to help achieve lasting improvements for Others, especially for the future of humanity.
A diversity of perspectives would be beneficial. But interests that are contrary to, or distracting from, achieving and improving on important objectives like the Sustainable Development Goals would need to be excluded from consideration by Leadership. Leadership would be expected to be the most aware and understand the need to dismiss disinformation and misinformation and publicly present the correct awareness and understanding.
Helpful Leadership pursuit of those helpful objectives should not be compromised by Any Other Interests. That would be helped by having "Leadership Representative Recall Rules" based on the actions of the leaders having to be consistent with what is required of Helpful Leadership. The mechanisms would be designed to remove an undeserving Leader based on evidence of their incorrect lack of Helpfulness, no need to wait for the next election.
Of course, there are now some developed political groups that would be expected to oppose that type of helpful corrective actions because they have developed their parties to be full of people who would be unable to maintain a Leadership position unless they reversed almost every political position they currently espouse in pursuit of popular support.
-
DavidOwen100 at 19:57 PM on 3 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
A few weeks ago I logged back into Facebook after many months' absence (I know; don't judge me). I started getting "recommended for you" notifications and the bulk of them were denialsts. Now, as I have never visited such posters on FB before, or anywhere else except very, very occasionaly to do a lot of teeth-sucking, why was that?
-
nigelj at 16:15 PM on 3 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
You tube's tendency to publish blatant and serious climate 'misinformation' is very frustrating, but you tube like facebook is a profit driven enterprise, and to maximise this means having as many users and as much content as possible. Imho Asking them to self regulate and not publish misinformation is asking them to reduce their profits (although probably only slightly) and they just aren't going to want to do this because it goes against their duty to maximise shareholder value. Or they will make token gestures.
And these guys are also strong freedom of speech advocates and so are a bit hard to time
We can and should put pressure on them and shame them, but I fear it will only go so far. Zuckerberg has basically thrown up his hands and said its too hard, the government need to set some content rules. And he's right. Only when you tube and facebook feels some pressure from rules and penalties will they sharpen up their act.
These platorms are no longer play things just for cat videos and sharing photos. They have the reach, influence and impact of news media organisations, so need to be accountable and subject to a regulatory framework like news organisations mostly are, that demands honesty, accuracy and accountability at the very least.
Right now they spew a lot of poison hiding behind freedom of speech principles and claiming they are just a provider and not responsible for conent, the same weak excuse the music file sharing websites made. Governments need to get tough while still allowing them room to breathe and not punishing everyday people for minor infringements. There's a balance to be had, but right now its tilted to far in favour of self regulation.
-
nigelj at 06:23 AM on 3 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
I suspect most "fence sitters " are really denialists that just don't want to be labelled denialists. In my experience that turns out to be the case because when pushed they tend to start attacking the agw consensus more than they reinforce it.
Perhaps some young people are legitimate fence sitters and need more information and I dont disagree with OPOFs categories, but the older generation has more than enough information to have made up their minds unless they have been living under a rock.
-
Mal Adapted at 00:12 AM on 3 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
Heh. Here's a comment by one "derpmochump", on a Carbon Brief interview with climate experts titled "Coronavirus: What could lifestyle changes mean for tackling climate change?" He's all in for nefarious intent:
Evil old gits of the technocracy, wielding political power using a hoax virus to launch a terrorist attack on the first world's standard of living. By the time you've empoverished the western way of life and stolen the future of all children not comprised of the ruling class, you bastards will be dead and in your graves and will have escaped justice.
Your crimes are endless along with the abuse of the slave classes minds, damaged by social engineering and the brainwashing of mythologised 'facts'. Truly disgusting and evil, you have no right to wield such power over the entire world, you are the great satan, liars and murderers all.
Sounds like derpmochump is a contender for the "World's Crankiest Uncle" title 8^D!
-
Daniel Bailey at 00:11 AM on 3 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
"I like to watch a lot of debates on both sides and it is complicated"
Actually, it's not very complicated at all. The scientific debate-train left the station, decades ago.
In the discussions around global warming and its anthropogenic causation, there are those who focus on the science using the scientific method and logic, seeking reproducible evidence that best explains what we can empirically measure.
Then there is everyone in the extreme minority, those who ignore the above in favor of slander, innuendo, unsupported assertion and character assassination in favor of promulgating false equivalence to support the ephemeral facade of "debate" and "sides".
But it is not about the science, the bulk of the science was settled, decades ago. Deniers posing as skeptics set up a charade tableau of false equivalence to poison the well of public acceptance of that science.
A parsimonious harping at the font of stolen, out-of-context and context-less emails proven not germane to the science is continuing on in the prosecution of the agenda of denial.
Truth, science and reputable journalism all sacrificed to the unholy alter of false equivalence under the guise of promulgating a fallacious "debate".
There is no debate. All that remains is the informed and the uninformed.
-
scaddenp at 14:18 PM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
Well duncan61, so which do you trust most? Information derived from a consensus of peer-reviewed scientific literature, even it is an unwelcome point of view; or information coming from non-climate scientists, non-scientists even, but which conform to what you would like to beleive?
The difficulty for laymen is, that unless they are willing to delve into the science (and learn it from impeccable sources), then you are having to decide what sources to trust.
A good start for critical thinking, is to decide what information/data would change your gut (value-driven) point of view. Scientists have no trouble telling you what measurements would change their mind on AGW. A pseudo-skeptic is more inclined to require the impossible, something science predicts cant be true (eg linear rise of temp with CO2), or the unmeasurable.
-
John Hartz at 13:29 PM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
duncan61 @7: You wrote:
I like to watch a lot of debates on both sides and it is complicated.
What "debates" do you watch. Please provide some links to them.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:36 PM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
JoeZ @5,
I believe it is more important to distinguish between:
- People who are less aware, with a related lack of understanding, who are interested and willing to learn.
- People who are less aware, with a related lack of understanding, who are unwilling to learn - including people who have a lack of interest in learning - especially people who sense that learning would require them to change their mind about things they have developed a liking for.
All skeptics are in the first group. And every scientist has to be a skeptic to be a successful scientist.
Given the depth and breadth of expanded awareness and improved understanding that is summarized in the IPCC Reports (since the very first IPCC Report), it is unlikely anyone today has a basis to be Skeptical of the Generally Understood Conclusions of the IPCC Reports.
Many people claim to be skeptical of some specific details of the science that is the basis of the IPCC Reports. But because of the massive diversity of investigations with consistent findings there is not likely to be a new validated learning that changes the Generally Understood Conclusions. If those people claim that their skepticism of a detail in the IPCC Report justifies dismissing the Generally Understood Conclusions of the IPCC Reports, they are clearly in the second category of people.
Some people even continue to try to claim that things like "already admitted typos in an IPCC Report" or "A few carefully selected Excerpts from a massive packet of stolen emails from climate scientists that are presented out of context" prove that the entire IPCC process and every bit of research that is referenced in the IPCC Reports of the Compilation of constantly improving understanding justifies being skeptical of the entirety of the IPCC. Those people are Conspiracy Theorists - Outright Deniers. And the people who arranged for the stealing of the emails, and organized the sifting through to find a few nuggets, and directed the development and dissemination of the misrepresentations are worse than Deniers.
So there are:
- Skeptics who would all accept the Generally Understood Conclusions of the IPCC Reports. Some of them just need to do more learning.
- Deniers who resist learning.
- Misleaders who know better but want to encourage Denial. They are the worst. And many of them are very wealthy, or have very powerful positions, or are both (the worst of the worst).
-
duncan61 at 12:02 PM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
I still believe that there are a lot of people that are seeking information on the entire concept of AGW.I like to watch a lot of debates on both sides and it is complicated.We have deniers and skeptics can I suggest a new group called middle earthers that are us layman that have an interest in this subject and are still on the fence.
-
Wol at 11:37 AM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
All the above is relevant to what we might call "professional" debaters - the Monctons, Delingpoles, chat show hostd etc.
What most of us encounter though is the thousands of deniers in the comments columns of the likes of the UK Daily Telegraph. The problem here - in addition to the list above - is the aptly named gish-gallop. Since we are dealing here with an arms-length, non simultaneous "debate", what always happens is that refuting some false argument leads inevitably either to the lack of any counter-rebuttal (so they think they've won) or a change to some other (well worn) false argument.
Ninety nine times out of a hundred the denier and his followers imagine they have "won" and therefore their argument is proven true. Since any reply might be hours old it's actually impossible to hold any meaningful exchange such as one might in say a radio chat show.
-
JoeZ at 06:17 AM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
It might be useful to distinguish between deniers and skeptics.
-
nigelj at 05:59 AM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
Mal Adapted @3, I guess you are right. It just amazes me how people can fool themselves that much. I have many failings but I just dont fool myself all that much.
And yes calling people liars and fools will just harden their attitude, it won't win hearts and minds. However the term intellectually dishonest is a bit less inflammatory and of course it is 'true' in reference to the denialists rhetoric.
And well done to the centre for climate change communication.
-
Mal Adapted at 03:18 AM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
nigelj:
Does it not all boil down to the denialists just being intellectually dishonest? (I wont say liars because its forbidden by moderation rules) . Almost all the logical fallacies, cherry picking, fake experts etc are essentially forms of intellectual dishonesty. If thats the case, why not just say so?
Well, because as you know, while the professional disinformers are dishonest, the volunteer AGW-deniers are fooling themselves first and foremost. In the US, standing before a crowd of Trump voters and calling them liars or fools is unlikely to sway any of them; it's more likely to reinforce their determination to fool themselves. Cultural identity is a powerful cognitive motivator for them!
Admittedly, I have little direct insight into the Trumpist mind-set. For that I turn to genuine experts, namely Republican politicians who recognize the need for collective action against AGW. Here I will praise John's employer, the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, located just outside the Capitol beltway in Northern Virginia. They're developing tools for climate realists to work the levers of power. I was linked from there to an item at Energy News Network last year, about former GOP Congressman Bob Inglis, who continues to work them despite losing his seat to a denier:
After his loss, Inglis formed RepublicEn to try to win over members of his party from outside the Beltway. He aims to persuade and activate 200 conservative voters in a set of target districts around the country. Mobilizing volunteers in those places should convert 25 Republicans in the House and 12 to 15 in the Senate, Inglis said. “And then we win.”
He approaches his goal like any seasoned retail politician, with a focus on how to find common ground with potential activists. Rather than start his conversation with voters in North and South Carolina about the local problem of rising sea levels and more intense storms, for instance, he first talks about free market tools to lower carbon emissions.
I'm assuming Inglis's membership in the GOP helps him with Trumpists. In any case, I suspect few of them would change parties even if they accept the need for collective mitigation. John's direct attack on denialist rhetoric may be better directed at Repubican politicians, who at least know what rhetoric is.
-
nigelj at 18:02 PM on 1 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
The following new published research may be relevant : Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit. (This is for real)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:17 AM on 1 April 2020Scientists share their grief, anger, and hope over climate change
This is a helpful sharing of knowledge and experience.
As an engineer I learned that it was essential to have a good understanding of a problem before coming up with potential solutions. When unacceptable results occurred, solutions that were developed without identifying the real cause of the problem were unlikely to be sustainable solutions.
And my MBA education in the 1980s, and observations since then, helped me understand that many people with Business Interests will limit their concerns and considerations to short-term Profit and Popularity (something that responsible engineers had to protect the Public from). Popularity derived from misleading marketing, especially from appeals designed to trigger desires or anxiety, could be effective ways to achieve Profit in the Short-Term.
And the ability to abuse misleading marketing in Politics, william's point about money in politics, is clearly abused by people who are inclined to try to personally benefit from their ability to influence leadership actions. An important part of politics is being able to influence the public in the very short-term of the critical few days when votes are cast in an election (and undeserving powerful people have even learned to abuse their power to keep some people from voting).
And the way laws and regulations get written and enforced can undeniably be influenced (compromised) to produce unreasonable and undeniably harmfully results that favour people who are focused on personally benefiting to the detriment of Others (any way they can get away with).
The establishment of the UN after WW2 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were the results of expanded awareness and understanding that the developed socioeconomic-political systems were producing many unsustainable harmful results that powerfully resisted being corrected. However, the UN structure itself was compromised by the powerful people at the time of its formation.
In spite of the flaws built into the UN by the powerful, the UN has been a mechanism for many global collaborative efforts to expand awareness and improve understanding and apply what is learned to help develop a better future for everyone. The 1972 Stockholm Conference was one of those helpful results. And the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the latest helpful compilation of understanding regarding what is required for the Future of Humanity to be Better.
What can be understood is that there are many people among the currently wealthy and powerful who are anxious about the changes required to achieve the SDGs. Minimizing climate change impacts has been understood to be an important action for the benefit of the future of humanity for a very long time. However, minimizing the harm of climate change impacts will reduce the perceptions of wealth and superiority that many wealthy people developed.
Many people will lose developed perceptions of wealth and opportunity if the global Leadership actually acts to responsibly curtail the use of fossil fuels. And those undeserving wealthy people have been fighting against that awareness and understanding becoming more popular. And as result, the ones who are wealthier today because of the delay of responsible Global Leadership action on climate change impacts undeniably deserve No Consideration, and in addition to their loss of wealth due to their Bad Investment Choices they may deserve penalties for knowingly trying to benefit more from being harmful.
Which brings the discussion back to the similarity between the Governing Objectives that everyone needs to be governed by in order to most responsibly deal with COVID-19, Climate Change, and so many other challenges to global Humanity. Everybody needs to ensure their actions "Do No Harm to Any Others". And everybody needs to try to "Help Others".
Many of the Richest will lose developed perceptions of superiority relative to Others, especially if those perceptions were from unsustainable and harmful activity that was deemed to be "Legal", or not monitored for and penalized for its potential to be understood to be illegal (Illegal should mean Harmful to Others). The required changes would include "Legal Corrections". And the correct legal and regulatory requirements can only be developed by excluding People who have interests that are contrary to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, which would require that the rule-making or its enforcement must not be compromised by Consideration of Popularity or Profitability.
Beliefs that Popularity or Profitability legitimize or justify something need to be curtailed, the sooner the better. That means ending the Libertarian Free-Market beliefs that Good Results will be developed if everyone is freer to believe whatever they want and do as they please. The expanded awareness and improved understanding of the SDGs makes that required correction undeniably obvious.
Everyone's actions add up to produce the future. Everyone needs to be Governed by "Do No Harm, Try to Help". Everyone Self-governing that way would be the only way for the Libertarian and Free-Market dreams to be realized. That will never be the reality. Responsible Leadership helpfully governing and limiting what is done and expanding awareness and understanding will always be required. The challenge today is figuring out how to undo the harmful developed compromising Global Leadership that abuses harmful and ultimately unsustainable popularity and profitability as excuses to Resist Helpful Correction.
-
nigelj at 06:39 AM on 1 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
These categories are convincing and endlessly fascinating. As someone who did a bit of psychology at university (college to you Americans) I identify immediately. But as someone who likes to also rebut the denialists and explain the issues to other people, I find the categories complicated. They look like the neural map of a denialists brain.
Does it not all boil down to the denialists just being intellectually dishonest? (I wont say liars because its forbidden by moderation rules) . Almost all the logical fallacies, cherry picking, fake experts etc are essentially forms of intellectual dishonesty. If thats the case, why not just say so?
-
william5331 at 05:28 AM on 1 April 2020Scientists share their grief, anger, and hope over climate change
Excellent point. Since we are the cause, we could also be the solution. The first step is to stop vested interests and especially the fossil fuel industry, financing our politicians. Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune and there is no field where this is more true than in politics. If this was stopped, there is just a chance that the politicians would start to act in our interests rather than in the interests of their finciers.
-
David Hawk at 05:22 AM on 1 April 2020Scientists share their grief, anger, and hope over climate change
In 1977 I wrote a book at the University of Pennsylvania on the topic of "regulation of environmental deterioration" as based on my two-year project based at the Stockholm School of Economics. The work was to evaluate approaches to regulation of human acts damaging the natural environment. It was a multi-million dollar project involving measurement of activities at facilities of twenty international companies, and then formalizing the manner of regulation carried out by six governments.
The results were a surprise to all. They put numbers on the deficiencies in the legalism basic to societal regulation. It was shown to be overtly analytic, thus always missing the points of a systemic nature. Its resulting legal order mostly covered even worse deterioration over the longer term. Cause-effect thinking, formalized into two-dimensional laws and then set up in a regulatory process assured failure in protecting life on the planet. This artificial process only encouraged expannded deterioration from the sciences, as exhibited in industrialization of the artificial. This was projected to only worsen the enviornment out to be protected, and thus threaten life on the planet at an ever deeper level.
A more appreciative method, called "negotiated order," as seen in the sense of Vickers "Appreciative Systems," and then Rapaport's "Prisoner's Delimma," was designed and posed. Results of first trials in factories were amazing.
In September, 1977, a head scientist from Exxon, who was a part of the project, presented findings to Exxon's Board, and myself, on how human activities, as we knew them, would change the climate of the planet. He suggested we radically rethink science, economics, business, and human affairs. At the time the Board was very appreciative of his advise. Later, the legal system advised them to act otherwise, at least in the US.
Sweden's Prime Minister presented the research findings to a meeting of OECD, advising them to avoid the US attitude and approch to legalization of environmental regulation.
In May, 2019 I was asked to post a comment on this history to a newly created AAAS Community Website. I did. It attracted about 900 responses, resulting in about 2200 pages of printout. Review by others showed that eighty percent of the scientist were more pessmistic then my initial comment.
In November, 2019 much of the 1979 book was republished as "Too Early, Too Late, Now what." It led to many questions. One raised questions about there being a relaion between the general idea of climate change from human activities and the concern with humans being human as outlined in the book. I suggested a year ago that we may seen a continuation of natural responses to human incursions via more, and more deadly, diseases human science can't manage or eventually comprehend. After a discussion on this with pre-book reviewers, and colleagues in China that study diseases, a new virus did emerge. It, and those following will better answer the concern raised a year ago.
One thesis from the book is that when its too late for humans to redesign what and who they are then its timely for nature to interviene. One method is of course via natural design of viruses that become more sophisticated and deadely, and further outside human capability to respond to, or control the effects. China's leading scientist in the area believes there are an array of such virses awaiting us. As such, they will deal with the problem of humans being human. This will be nature's means for resolving the seemingly intractable human problem of creating climate change. The book describes how and why such has become more serious during forty years since the Exxon model.
By the way how do you define ad hominem comments? I asked this via memories of the qualifier from 1991. There was a $2 million project I was going to transfer to New Jersey Institute of Technology. It was on the role of infrastructures in climate change. The proposed project was rejected by the then provost, Gary Thomas, as simply being "ad hominem." I transferred the funding elsewhere to a company that since grew from $30 billion/year to $200 billion/year of work.
Does "ad hominem" mean an idea is a precursor for humans reaching "it's too late?" I hope not, but am interested in what you think?
-
John Hartz at 04:39 AM on 1 April 2020CO2 is plant food
Recommended supplemental reading:
CO2 can increase plant growth in greenhouses while also negatively affecting ecosystems and human societies by Nikki Forrester, Climate Feedback, Mar 19, 2020
-
MA Rodger at 03:33 AM on 31 March 2020Milankovitch Cycles
mkrichew @32elsewhere,
The inclination of our slightly-less-than-round Earth doesn't appear to impact the area subject to insolation by very much. The Earth's dimensions are given as a polar minimum radius of about 6,357 km and an equatorial maximum radius of about 6,378 km. If we were to consider the Earth as an elipsoid with these dimensions, its area facing-the-sun with a pole pointing at the sun would be just 0.3% greater than with the tropics-facing-the-sun but that would be assuming the axis is tilting through 90º relative to the sun and staying there throughout the year. Yet the actual change in tilt is nothing like 90º and is only fully acting at the solstices.
The tilt varies between 22º & 24½º through its 40,000 year cycle, so just a 2½º variation, and that inclination is achieved relative to the sun only at the solstices, twice a year. So the increase in Earthly area facing the sun would vary by perhaps (0.3% x 3% x 70% =) 0.006% or a forcing of very roughly 0.015Wm^-2. That's only about 4-months-worth of AGW so not exactly significant. And bear in mind the bigger winter/summer temperature range at the two poles resulting from any increase in tilt. That would firstly see more energy leaking away into space (as the energy loss to space is T^4 so a constant temperature is more energy-efficient than hot-summer:cold-winter) and secondly the albedo change from the greater area of winter snow will reduce solar warming. These two cooling effects should well-exceed the warming from the greater earthly area catching the sun from there being a greater axial tilt.
(Note also the calculated effect of orbital eccentricity in the link @54 is 0.167%, some 30x greater. Even with this larger increase in insolation leads John Baez to the conclusion "if changes in eccentricity are important in glacial cycles, we have some explaining to do.")
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:31 AM on 31 March 2020The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming
A significant reason to stop using concrete block is that cement production is a significant source of excess CO2.
If new materials for making things like concrete blocks sustainably are developed, Then and only Then, should the block building approach be used for new structures.
Until that sustainable block is developed actual sustainable ways of building need to be employed.
For tall structures where block building systems are not practical, wood structures are indeed being built as a sustainable alternative to steel and concrete. An example is the recently built 18 storey structure on the University of British Columbia campus.
However, I think it would be better if all new structures were limited to something like 8 storeys. The shorter structures can have all floors reached by current day fire-rescue ladders. And water services can be delivered to the top without the need for mid-height water reservoir and pump stations (The pressure needed to pump water to the top of a taller building requires impractical pressure resisting water system features at the base of the building).
Another benefit of shorter buildings is that many people would be capable of climbing up to the 8th floor. That would reduce the power demand for elevators. And reduced energy demand by people is an important part of the changes required for sustainable development.
-
michael sweet at 22:48 PM on 30 March 2020The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming
I live in Florida. Many homes and commercial structures here are built using concrete block. Presumably that is because block is hurricane resistant (there are also a lot of manufactured homes because they are cheap). You use what works best where you live.
Properly managing forests and using the wood to build structures would be a good idea even without cliamte change. Undoubtedly properly managed forests would yield more money. I hear that forests in Europe are better managed than forests in the USA. Does anyone here know the facts about forest management in various parts of the world?
-
JoeZ at 21:55 PM on 30 March 2020The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming
nigelj,
I suspect wood will always be prefered for building over cement/mud/straw. We can have "wood products" while increasing carbon storage in forests. There is now a movement to build very tall buildings with wood rather than steel using cross laminated timber (CLT): https://info.thinkwood.com/clt-handbook and https://www.archdaily.com/922980/is-cross-laminated-timber-clt-the-concrete-of-the-future and many other web sites. It's beautiful, sustainable, and the wood holds carbon.
-
scaddenp at 11:50 AM on 30 March 2020CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
I have responded to mkrichew in the appropriate place.
-
scaddenp at 11:48 AM on 30 March 2020Milankovitch Cycles
Responding to comment here.
Perhaps you need to spell why you dont "beleive" in Milankovich cycles since the cycles themselves are extremely well observed in astronomy and the effect of the cycles on the insolation hitting the earth is readily calculated. Ie this is not some hand-wavy speculation. From memory, Milankovich did the calculations by hand while in prison so not too daunting. The detail of the maths and the results are detailed here (among many other places) - see bottom of the page.
The match of the variation of insolation at 65N from Milankovich and the glacial cycle as revealed from ice cores and benthic forams is extraordinary. Any competing theory would need to do at least as well.
-
mkrichew at 08:25 AM on 30 March 2020CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
Thank you for your kind response. As you may have guessed I am the author of the Mike Krichew Theory of What Causes Ice Ages which I wrote sometime after Al Gore released his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" and conservative elements responded as President Trump did, suggesting a conspiracy. At the time I suggested a comet tail reflecting sunlight might account for the increased insolation that would warm the oceans causing an increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels which would warm the atmosphere and further warm the oceans. At the time I was not much of a believer in the Milankovitch cycles theory. However, the other day it occurred to me that if the earth is indeed an oblate speroid or ellipsoid in shape then it may be possible for the earth to present different size cross-sectional areas to the sun during the cycle. This would result in different insolations. Someone with a talent for mathematics might show the different cross-sectional areas if it has not already been done. Someone else with an interest in celestial science might calculate where the minimums and maximums of cross-section occur and plot them on the slightly sinusoidal graph of climate change over time. If there is any correlation, it should then be possible to calculate and model the increased insolation that occurs during the cycle. If this has already been done, a reference would be nice.
Moderator Response:[TD] Please copy and paste your comment into a relevant thread you find by typing Milankovich into the Search field at the top left of the page--for example, this one.
-
nigelj at 05:52 AM on 30 March 2020The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming
There are several ways of reducing use of timber. You can build nice sustainable homes with mud bricks or straw bails, and only use timber for the roof framing, so this means we are increasing the amount of timber in a forest (although that must surely reach a limiting factor) but still milling some for the roof. It also means we can expand the area of forests more easily.
The trouble is mud brick homes are expensive, because they are labour intensive. I'm not sure how to overcome this.
The other solution is concrete block homes, again just with timber roof framing. Concrete block is really good, very hurricane resistant, but again is a little bit more costly than timber framed homes, and people go for the cheapest option that has the biggest area, which is timber framing. It is also rather significant in carbon content.
Given the climate problem one solution might be for governments to give people tax credits if they build with mud bricks. There might not be many takers at first but it might lead to innovations which reduce costs.
-
JoeZ at 02:20 AM on 30 March 2020The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming
Just to clarify- when I said above 6,000 acres of forest destroyed to build solar farms- I should have said just in tiny Massachusetts. I don't have the figures for 2018-2020 but they're popping up faster than before. I did a rank amateur video of the construction of a solar farm behind my neighborhood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYYVZKgusU4&t=5s
-
JoeZ at 22:47 PM on 29 March 2020The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming
WLU, also, trees evaporate vast amounts of water which has a cooling effect.
-
JoeZ at 22:44 PM on 29 March 2020The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming
Wilddouglasscounty, all of your concerns are intensily discussed and debated here in New England and have been for many years. I've been involved with these debates for decades. I've been promoting a kind of forestry that will produce wood for our economy while having the overall amount of wood in the forests always going up- (with the harvesting being very carefully done) -not as fast as they would with no forestry industry- but it's a tradeoff. I don't think anyone wants to build a home with cement or have plastic furniture or no paper products. But it's a tough fight- there are still logging enterprises which prefer to butcher the forests, there is a huge demand for more housing and many who'd like to continue with urban sprawl, and much forest land is currently being totally destroyed for solar "farms"- about 6,000 acres between 2012 and 2017 according to a recent report by Mass. Audubon.
-
MA Rodger at 06:35 AM on 29 March 2020CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
mkrichew @30,
I would say it is a bit lax to substitute 18 for 19 within the OP but given the situation the OP describes, it makes zero difference to the argument presented. The "19 billion tons" figure in the OP is described as "roughly" the ΔCatm required to give a +2.4ppm(v) increase which is given as the rate of CO2 increase "recently."
We could be more precise and say that a +2.4ppm increase would require ΔCatm = 18.7 Gt(CO2), but given the wobbles caused by ENSO to the annual increase in atmospheric CO2, it is impossible to be that precise about it. The OP was written in 2012 and the source of the MLO CO2 data cited ESRL give a value for the 2012 annual MLO CO2 increase as +2.61ppm = 20.4Gt(CO2) although if the average of the 12-month increases through 2012 is used to calculate a value the result is +2.20ppm. Or if the ESRL Global data is used instead of MLO data, ΔCatm for 2012 is given by ESRL as +2.39ppm while tha average of the months yields +2.00ppm =15.6Gt(CO2). Or an alternative source of the value would be the Global Carbon Project's 2012 ΔCatm of 5.07Gt(C) = 18.6Gt(CO2) (altough note the 2012 LOC emissions are a long way from zero which is the assumption made in the the OP).
-
WLU at 06:30 AM on 29 March 2020The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming
By planting trees not only is carbon sequestered from the air but the radiant energy from the sun it is turned into chemical energy rather than thermal energy. While planting trees will produce a darkened landscape they will not respond like a landscape of darkened rocks. Rocks absorb the radiant energy from the sun and heat up radiating in the infrared which is blocked by greenhouse gasses causing global warming. Green plants don't do this. They tend to inhibit global warming.
-
mkrichew at 05:06 AM on 29 March 2020CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
mkrichew:Having difficulty understanding how 2.4 ppm change annually ( or 19 billion tons ) atmospheric CO2 translates to delta Catm = 18 billion tons.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:13 AM on 28 March 2020Aggressive action to address climate change could save the world $145 trillion
nigelj's point is an important awareness and understanding. Additional awareness and understanding is that wasted food can be put to better use ... but there is no Profit to be made doing that.
I have taken left over platters of food from meetings and conferences to a nearby charity that provides food or shelter. And there are some restaurant operators who donate their end of day food, prepared foods that they can't keep to sell the next day, to charity.
And in several cities in Canada charitable groups have recently set up the ability to get grocery store food that would otherwise be wasted delivered to people who 'need food', people without the wealth to afford adequate basic food or shelter or clothing or a job that pays enough - many of the desperate work a job or even 2 but do not earn enough for a decent life - and the most desperate are the excess people that the economy has no use for.
The people doing this good work expend their personal effort without earning any money. And that is the root problem. Charitable efforts are often not profitable. They certainly do not earn the return on investment that Investors look for ... immediate high rates of personal return being more desired than benefits for others in the future. And that is the root of the insidiously incorrect application of 'Discount Rates' to evaluations of the merit of correcting harmful unsustainable economic developments like the burning up of non-renewable buried ancient hydrocarbons.
-
nigelj at 12:34 PM on 27 March 2020Aggressive action to address climate change could save the world $145 trillion
"In developed countries, consumers throw out excess food"
Yes, however much is also wasted in the supply chain. Supermarkets often throw out anything past its best before date, although such food is still edible and generally fine, and damaged or not perfect looking fruit and vegetables is often thrown out because its hard to sell.
-
Haiburton42 at 04:53 AM on 27 March 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #12, 2020
"accidentaly trickling sand into a precision gearbox"
What a hook!
Prev 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Next
