Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 Next
Comments 14701 to 14750:
-
ubrew12 at 06:48 AM on 3 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
A friend on facebook forwarded Giaever's talk. I told him it shouldn't take someone 5 minutes of their time to find such a massive mistake. I refer people to this graph of the last 400,000 years of global temperature, CO2, and sea level, point out that the depths of the last ice age was only 3.3 C (6F) cooler than present, and then ask them if having Chicago under a mile of ice was a significantly different climate than present and, if so, why wouldn't 3 C warmer than present also be a difficult adaptation to make?
-
nigelj at 06:24 AM on 3 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
Knaugle, S Vedantum has indeeed written a book on the hidden brain, but he's a journalist and electronics engineer, not a psychologist, so I would be cautious about accepting absolutely everything he says. Its an interesting book worth a read, but thats as far as it goes.
The point is really not that we are all perfectly rational, because we aren't. The point is we clearly differ in how rational we are.
Understand that the article I originally quoted is saying low intelligence assocates with conspiracy thinking, but that high intelligence people can sometimes be accepting of conspiracy theories also, because some high intelligence people are poor rational thinkers.
"Some of the most "stupid" people I know are far smarter than I am." You prove my point exactly. Scott Pruitt is intelligent enough but says and does stupid irrational things and believes agw is all a hoax for example.
Its clear many climate denialists are conspiracy thinkers. Of course many are also influenced by politics, it's not an either / or thing.
The research I quoted showing as association between conspiracy theorists and low intelligence and / or poor rational thinking skills has been replicated many times, heres another relevant article on the research.
. -
william5331 at 06:23 AM on 3 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
One doubts that the average TV meterologist will actually be equiped or have the time to put weather events in the context of climate. At best they may be able to make a statement such as this storm is within the top quartile with respect to the amount of rain dumped in a given period or something similar. Besides, only when they collect a bunch of events and compare them with the historical record will their comments gain a modicum of scientific respectability. Hopefully they will have a climatologist on tap to make relevant statments for the TV presenters to use.
-
SirCharles at 03:11 AM on 3 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4lXjcnEOnB0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
-
SirCharles at 03:09 AM on 3 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
Under the Trump administration, the EPA has moved closer than at any point in its history to serving the needs of the entities it regulates rather than the agency's mission to serve the public, a new report in the American Journal of Public Health says.
=> Pruitt's EPA Is on the Verge of 'Regulatory Capture', Study Says
-
Xulonn at 02:32 AM on 3 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters, a former "Hurricane Hunter" crew member, co-founded The Weather Underground, Inc. in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. In the meteorology community, he was an early supporter the findings of climate science that indicated that AGW/CC (Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate
Change) was a looming disaster for human civilization.from Jeff was among the minority of meteorologists for many yearsOne of the subset of blogs at Weather Underground for several years was that of University of Michigan climate scientist and mitigation planner Dr. Ricky Rood. I participated at the Rood blog for several years, discussing science and doing battle with hard-core AGW/CC denialists, even as I continued to study climate science. I even took an online course (MOOC) in basic climate science from Canada's University of British Columbia.
Unfortunately, the Rood climate blog was discontinued a couple of years ago when IBM purchased Weather Underground for its weather analysis products. Fortunately, even though it does not produce a "revenue stream" Jeff Masters and his climate communication associate Bob Henson, continue to blog there - and they frequently discuss climate and AGW/CC.
During my years of participation at Dr. Rood's blog, I became acutely aware that, based on surveys, a majority of broadcast meteorologists were firmly in the "AGW/CC denialist" camp. Along with the engineering community, these were two major groups of science-based professionals that we should be able to convince with science and logic. But logic be damned, these professionals stubbornly resisted science and fact-based reality for many years. (Unfortunately, broadcast meteorologists - if they want to keep their jobs - are bound by the direcives of their employers to toe the corporate line and ignore AGW/CC - or treat it as a false alarm.)
It is great to see this significant change in the participation of broadcast meteorologists in the AGW/CC discussion. They probably reach and influence more laypersons than any other group, and are critical to informing the public of the reality of the dangers of anthropogenic global warming and climate change.
Engineers are another issue. Although they do not communicate daily with the public like broadcast meteorologists, many are still vocal in their denialism. Plus, it is an unfortunate reality that many engineers think that they and their technoogies can fix almost any problem - including AGW/CC. Engineering and technology solutions can generate massive revenue for corporations, so their proponents tend to ignore or overlook societal impacts and other externalities. Again, basic human nature makes us want to ignore or deny anything that would have a negative impact on our lives and economic well-being. Therefore many people will eagerly jump on the promises of technological solutions, adding yet more resistance to the unequivical necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emission.
But that is a "whole 'nuther problem" - and I am very happy to see the positive changes in the broadcast meteorology community.
-
Doug_C at 02:09 AM on 3 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
18 states are now suing the EPA over the arbitrary changes made under the Trump appointed Scott Pruitt.
California, 17 other states sue Trump administration to defend Obama-era climate rules for vehicles
-
Evan at 00:15 AM on 3 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
If you've read this far down into the Comments section, chances are you will be interested in the following post about Paul Douglas, one of the most respected weather forecasters who spoke out on Climate Change.
-
RickG at 00:01 AM on 3 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
I watch the Weather Channel quite a bit and have yet to see anything other than a passing comment concerning climate and that is quite rare. As for IQ being a reason for denial I don't encounter that. What I see in discussions from deniers is 100% politics. I can't enter a discussion, not even mentioning a person or anything political, and immediately get called a liberal.
-
knaugle at 23:02 PM on 2 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
#1
I would be very hesitant to say that those who believe climate change is a hoax have a lower IQ. As for motivation to be rational? There is a radio personality on USA Public Radio, Shankar Vedantum, whose book "The Hidden Brain" points to much evidence that most of us are far less rational than we think. Most of us have deeply held beliefs we have clung do for decades. Something as feeble as "facts" is not about to change that!
Only when you come to accept that that is the case can one move beyond one's personal biases. It has very little to do with relative intelligence. Some of the most "stupid" people I know are far smarter than I am. This is something to bear in mind when talking with a "true believer".
-
Evan at 22:43 PM on 2 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
Dr Ivar Giaever is a Nobel laureate who believes that global warming is a religion of sorts. So when an uninformed person is getting information from a person like Dr. Giaever, it can be confusing to determine what is the truth.
Meteorologists are important scientific ambassadors in this respect, but they also risk losing their jobs if they speak up too much on what is still a very controversial subject. We need to respect and support the effort and risk they are making by speaking up.
-
nigelj at 14:46 PM on 2 May 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
Scaddenp @28
I think it would be shades of grey on these moral foundation attributes in general. My personal observation is liberals do respect authority, loyalty and purity, but perhaps not as much as conservatives, and liberals are prepared to challenge authority and the accepted wisdom more than conservatives, and while conservatives do have more respect for authority in a general sense, this is not always the case - for example Obama was not too popular with conservatives, and neither are scientists, and they are a type of authority. Clearly then moral foundations can supersede each other, or can be somewhat ad hoc. However the basic moral foundation theory sounds very compelling to me.
However conservatives do seem to loathe protesters especially when it leads ro tresspass or property damage, and the scruffy dress maybe offends the purity value. Liberals accept pushing the boundaries of the law, but not to the extent of deliberate property destruction, only to the extent of obtaining information or making a point, which often seems reasonable to me. It's good to see a theory behind this sort of thing.
A lot of this is surely also about exactly how things are defined, and defining freedom is a case in point. Conservatives do seem to conflate freedom and selfishness, although ultimately I suppose it could be argued they are the same things in the sense complete freedom is the right to do absolutely anything. Yet clearly conservatives do not actually believe in that, as they are strong advocates for property law for example which limit freedom. It almost seems that conservatives are defining freedom as whatever their own form of preferred set of laws law says at some point in time, as opposed to some wider philosophical interpretation.
And people apply double standards to freedom, for example they want to be free do do what they like in the name of "freedom" but they certainly do not apply the same standard to other people, who they say should face restrictions, and this can apply to the exact same activity, or different activities. An example of the later is conservatives to do not believe, in the main that people should be free to take drugs, yet they do sometimes believe business should be free to sell products that demonstrably cause toxic environmental effects. Double standards and irrationality abound.
Of course some of this double standard applies to liberals at times, because although they don't promote freedom as strongly as a core value in moral foundation theory, they certainly have many views that involve questions of having freedom, for example they promote use and availability of medicinal cannabis, to name a recent example, while wanting various other activities restricted. However perhaps its not a double standard, as it seems to me Liberals do apply certain tests related to freedom, and question whether an activity is having a tangible and harmful effect on other people. Conservatives seem to have other criteria harder to comprehend.
Clearly your gun ownership dilemma is a good example of how trade offs are made on these moral foundation principles, and for conservatives it seems complicated, where for liberals the idea of fairness is clearly at the top of the hierarchy of values so is a clear lens for everything. So for liberals its fair people own guns for sensible purposes , but not fair on society as a whole that just anyone can buy any sort of gun. Or perhaps liberals would say "not rational". However I'm speculating.
Regarding freedom, there's an article on wikipedia titled "reactance (psychology)" and there's empirical evidence for it. Imho it seems like it might be a dominant conservative trait and explains distaste for certain things.
"Reactance is a motivational reaction to offers, persons, rules, or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. Reactance occurs when a person feels that someone or something is taking away their choices or limiting the range of alternatives."
"Reactances can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion. People using reverse psychology are playing on reactance, attempting to influence someone to choose the opposite of what they request."
-
jsmith at 14:20 PM on 2 May 2018Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
The Camp 2007 link is dead and should be fixed. Here's a working archived copy.
Moderator Response:[DB] Hyperlinked links breaking page formatting and updated link. Thanks!
-
scaddenp at 11:59 AM on 2 May 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
Moral foundation theory would say that liberals only pay attention to Care and Fair dimensions whereas Conservative also play with Authority, Loyality and Purity. Conservatives do respect care and fair, but balance those against the other dimensions as well. Freedom is also postulated as a moral foundation which would figure more heavily in conservative evaluation, though I find its actual practise in a moral argument hard to distinguish from a rationalisation for selfishness. Depends a bit I guess on whether someone is prepared to value others freedom of action as highly as their own; and how they would value freedom against possible harm to others (violation of care). Gun control debate in USA possibly says something about that.
-
nigelj at 08:30 AM on 2 May 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
Scaddenp @25, it's hard to argue with what you are saying on morality. An inconvenient truth would have been better filmed by someone more neutral like national geographic, but too late now. History is a messy, untidy process.
However it all goes both ways. Conservatives also need to respect liberal morality a bit more as well.
-
Doug_C at 08:00 AM on 2 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
The rats are leaving the sinking ship, it could be a very different political picture for the Trump WH next year.
Republicans who won't be coming back to Congress after 2018 midterm elections
It's entirely possible there will be a number of Trump officials who will find themselves in prison over their actions of the last couple of years including Scott Pruitt. And possibly Trump himself.
At which point the process of rebuilding the EPA and US government itself can begin.
-
nigelj at 07:43 AM on 2 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
I find it astounding in the video that some people are still stupid enough to genuinely believe "climate change is a hoax", however this research gives some understanding of why. It finds conspiracy believers either have lower IQ, or lack a strong motivation to be rational.
And its great meteorologists are spreading awareness, and they are in a perfect position to bust open denialist myths that conflate weather and climate.
-
nigelj at 06:41 AM on 2 May 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
Regarding conspiracy thinking and related claims climate change is a hoax. Came across this interesting research.
“We show that reasonable skepticism about various conspiracy theories and paranormal phenomena does not only require a relatively high cognitive ability, but also strong motivation to be rational,” Ståhl, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, explained in a statement."
So belief in conspiracies and possibly hoaxes is essentially lazy thinking! Who would have thought.
Profile of climate denialist: Politically motivated, vested interests, conspiracy theorest and irrational lazy thinker.
-
John Hartz at 06:10 AM on 2 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
Recommended supplemental reading:
Industry Sway Over EPA Is Stronger Now Than Under Reagan, Study Says by Neela Banerjee, InsideClimate News, May 1, 2018
-
william5331 at 06:05 AM on 2 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
Pristine air, as provided by wind turbines and solar panels, creates far more wealth than the continuing use of fossil fuel. The problem from the point of view of the congress-critters (love that definition) is that the wealth is spread around through the population and doesn't go into the hands of the vested interersts that finance them. There is one and only one solution to this and a mirad of other problems. http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2018/01/wasted-effort.html
-
RightThou1 at 04:55 AM on 2 May 2018CO2 limits will hurt the poor
I want to point out one obvious thing. No 3rd world govts or organizations, have joined this discussion at all, saying "please don't do anything about global warming because it would kill our people".
Only entities other than those representing the worlds poor, have definitely become aware of this discussion and have commented. I could only speculate why.
-
RightThou1 at 04:26 AM on 2 May 2018It's too hard
What do you think of Drawdown.org. They have listed the "top 100 solutions to global warming". This raises many interesting questions which have been mentioned on the thread. I did a search of the website name on your site and it seems there has not been a discussion of it, so I have brought it up.
Interesting among the top 100 solutions to global warming are some observations here:
- the top 1 is to improve management of refrigerants, 2nd is to build more on shore large turbine windmills
- nuclear power is on the list, it is higher than halfway up the list
- many of the top 10 items refer to agriculture and food, and imply less meat eating. Many other items refer to clever uses of grazing animals.
- many curious, fascinating items are on the list which I had not heard of
It seems to me that in the future, the global warming debate will be more about politicking over which solution deserves the funding. Those who would in the future argue that clean coal and nukes should get all the funding, should be denied credibility in those future debates, if their position at this time is denial*. (*Regardless if they deny they are denying it while they deny it.)
-
nigelj at 17:35 PM on 1 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
Bozza @4
"Dana, don't blame democracy: blame the consuming pig who demands a Hollywood lifestyle."
Consumers are partly to blame, but the blame is at least partly with agencies that set weak environmental laws (eg Scott Pruitt). Without good environmental laws, do you seriously think human behaviour would change sufficiently? History shows it doesn't.
Environmental law is ultimately an extension of property law to the planet as a whole, ie everyones property, and is therefore totally legitimate.
"The basic folly with democracy is that it assumes a leader can be chosen!!"
Yes the trouble is heads of government agencies are often appointed by politicians, not the people. However there has been a tradition on both sides of politics of appointing reasonable people to head agencies. Trump has totally trashed this.
"Do you honestly think Democrats are clean-skins?"
Weak argument. Their behaviour in no way excuses White House and Republican failures, and the democrats certainly look cleaner anyway over the last decade. I'm an outsider in another country and political moderate looking in.
-
bozzza at 16:35 PM on 1 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
Dana, don't blame democracy: blame the consuming pig who demands a Hollywood lifestyle.
The basic folly with democracy is that it assumes a leader can be chosen!!
System corrupts man.
Do you honestly think Democrats are clean-skins?
-
Doug_C at 10:31 AM on 1 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
You know you're doing a bad job on protecting the environment and dealing with climate change when Bush era officials are critical of you.
NASA Reaches for Muzzle as Renowned Climate Scientist Speaks Out
"Dr. James E. Hansen, the top climate scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), believes that the world has little time to waste in reversing its current trend toward global warming. In late 2005, however, Dr. Hansen's ability to voice his concerns about global warming was severely compromised by NASA public affairs officials. After he called on the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a December 2005 lecture, Dr. Hansen found that NASA officials began reviewing and filtering public statements and press interviews in an effort to limit his ability (as well as that of other government scientists) to publicly express scientific opinions that clashed with the Bush administration’s views on global warming."
Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming
"A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.
In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports."
I guess the difference now is instead of just muzzling scientists and rewriting reports, the EPA under Trump is being destroyed from within. The Trump administration is trying to eliminate the ability to even regulate carbon dioxide emissions by gutting the agency responsible.
This is also happening in other areas, Trump is often not even permanently staffing hundreds of key positions in government. In a sense he and his administration can be considered an anti-government.
Trump Administration Has More Than 250 Unfilled Jobs
"Hundreds of jobs remain unfilled in the Trump administration, and many are being held by temporary appointees. But a federal law limits how long those temps can serve, and many are bumping up against the end of their terms."
-
scaddenp at 07:07 AM on 1 May 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
I think on climate, the damage has already been done - debate polarised on political lines from which retreat is difficult. Science is only part of the language. Who promotes it is important (Al Gore for example) because most people do not have expertise to evaluate science argument so who you trust is more important. Activism for your cause which breaches law and/or societial norms puts you offside with conservative morality immediately. Worse still are those who see climate action as a chance to push transparently anti-capitalism or similar agendas with a scant regard to the science.
-
scaddenp at 06:59 AM on 1 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17
william - more complicated than that. See here.
-
nigelj at 06:52 AM on 1 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
Scott Pruitt has other devious and insidious proposals as follows. Briefly, much of the original research on the effects of fossil fuels on human health used confidential health records of thousands of people, for obvious and legitimate reasons, and Pruitt is trying to attack the science on the basis that the science was 'hidden' because the records are 'confidential', which is of course absurd, but shows the astonishing extent he is prepared to go. It's just not normal human behaviour.
Most of us understand wealth creation and air quality are indeed not mutually exclusive, and have to exist in some sort of equal balance. In fact, purifying exhaust emisssions and the like is about creating the sorts of technologies that filter air or make engines more efficient and this product development in turn creates jobs and shareholder value, and this is in fact wealth creation. It just gives us clean air, as well as other goals like cars that go fast. Most normal people want both.
All the wealth in the world can't fix lung diseases. There's still no real cure for many of these.
Every conservative and Republican in America shares some responsibility for this current mess.
-
william5331 at 06:14 AM on 1 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17
If Amoc is slowing shouldn't this result in something of a recovery in the amount of ice created in the Arctic each winter...... which in turn should result in more deep ocean water produced from the brine.....which should result in the re-strenthening of Amoc. How much of the deep ocean water is created by the sinking of the cooling Gulf Stream and how much by sea water freezing - creating brine. Shouldn't we see the ice extent flick flacking back and forth for a while until we are re-established in a new climate regime.
-
RightThou1 at 06:01 AM on 1 May 2018The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
We are dealing with worldview bias rather than debating in a scientific framework, for the most part we are talking to global warming deniers, who deny they are deniers for the most part. Really I am surprised if any single global warming denier ever changes their mind.
They have been denying they are deniers, what do you think of the idea of using that against them. When you ask "is global warming real", they have sometimes shifted from answering "no", to answer "yes but".
Am I right in thinking that when someone agrees with you in an argument, you should rub it in? For example I know that when they say "yes but", that what is to follow is an explanation, "yes but it isn't caused by man, might be beneficial, is the same thing as the medieval period, etc". But for all that talk, as frustrating as it is, when they say "yes but", haven't they essentially said "you are right, but ..."? So that, I could rub that in.
For example, a politician from a particular political party which admits global warming is real like the rest of the world, could ask a politician from another political party which bitterly opposes any recognition of the reality of global warming, over and over: "I understand that you have admitted global warming is real, I really admire that". In response, "yes but (with long explanation)".
Because, I think the tactic of saying I admit global warming is real but here is my long explanation in which I try to have everything both ways and merely sow doubt and stall. It seems like a clever tactic and it is infuriating, but maybe it can be another liability for them.
-
ubrew12 at 05:33 AM on 1 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
Nuccitelli brings up this important point: Pruitt is being enabled by fossil-fueled GOP congresscritters, and wouldn't last a day without their support. Also, I was stunned by Milloy's statement: "Wealth is what makes people happy, not pristine air." My surprise was because I'd just read "The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels" on Skeptical Science last week, which included this: "The EPA estimates that the U.S. Clean Air Amendments cost $65bn to implement, but will have yielded a benefit of almost $2tn by 2020 in avoided health costs." As sanity might have suggested to anyone but Milloy, the pursuit of pristine air is quite compatible with wealth creation.
-
nigelj at 17:08 PM on 30 April 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17
Related article from Scientific American on gulf stream (amoc) slowing : Slow-Motion Ocean: Atlantic’s Circulation Is Weakest in 1,600 Years
And a climate scientist estimates gulf stream could slow enough by 2300 to cause north atlantic winter temperatures to drop 7 degrees. This is huge.
Moderator Response:[JH] More articles also listed in the 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17
-
nigelj at 11:40 AM on 30 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
Scaddenp, I came across this research: Framing discourse around conservative values shifts climate change attitudes
I would have thought science is a good universal language, but it is under attack from the conservative elite and White House. This makes things very difficult.
-
scaddenp at 07:33 AM on 30 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
You cant change the genetics but you can change the messaging. Too many environmental groups (yes, Greenpeace, I talking to you), take no account of that and do messaging that is feel-good for liberals and an anathema to conservative morality. Once you have polarized an issue on party-lines, then it is extremely difficult to get change, but it would be a good idea if issues that are really fact-based (eg climate change) rather than value-based, are communicated in ways that dont offend the morality of either. Conservatives play with larger deck in this respect so proceed carefully. The climate debate should have been about best means to solution not about denier memes.
-
nigelj at 06:34 AM on 30 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
Yes there's considerable of truth in chapeaureds / Roy's commentary. However I did make reference to politics being one of the main influences in climate denial, and the article was fairly specific about conservatives being a factor in denial. I was treading carefully around the issue, because I don't want to create even more division.
It's important to realise we won't convince the ultra conservative climate denialists, and its people towards the centre of the bell curve that will be receptive, and it's important not to alienate them by labelling them and suggesting they are inherently inferior in some way.
Imho if we look at classic liberal and conservative traits, and characteristics there's mostly value in both, and its when they become extreme in expression that the trouble seems to start.
People have genetically inherent leanings towards liberalism or conservatism, but they are not rigidly fixed either if you read the research.
Even the Economist.com, a centre right publication favouring moderately small government, has just done a huge article promoting universal health care (april 28th edition). Robotics and other factors are likely to lead inexorably towards a 'UBI' (universal basic income). Business has to be regulated or the system spins out of control. The ultra conservatives might hate all this, but its coming anyway because it makes sense and is inevitable.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:08 AM on 30 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to Roy's post. I remember one poster, issued from communist dominated Estern Europe, who immediately jumped to the conclusion that a coral study was fraudulent when there was one element he did not understand on the first read. He was guided back to correct understanding of said study by other SkS contributors but never fully owned up the altered judgment caused by his emotional attachment to a certain ideology.
I am especially concerned about how extremist the free market ideology has become. T. Boone Pickens' ideas were by any means radical, extreme and destructive, yet any cursory reading of the Wall Street Journal will reveal that they have become mainstream in the business community, just like there is no doubt in any of these people's minds that "greed is good." Now we have an entire class of very powerful people who have developed a strong emotional atachment to that ideology, of which any studying shows that it is very destructive.
This, however, is going to hit the big singularity looming on the horizon: the pursuit of profit by any and all means now implies widespread automation; the automation capabilities that already exist have the potential to put out of work the majority of the world's population. The barriers to their implementation are not really technological. I am more familiar with the aviation world, from the point of view of the pilot; in aviation, a major factor is the long life and high cost of airplanes. All the planes produced now that are designed for a 2 person crew have the potential to be flying safely and efficiently for the next 3-4 decades. The most recent ones will be realtively easy to convert to full automation but the previous generation will take more effort, so they are more likely to be exploited "as is" until they are decomissioned. These specific hurdles are absent from many other industries. There is no doubt in the military world that even fighter pilots will eventually be a thing of the past, the technology is already here.
The automation capabilities including A.I. that will exist by mid-century could completely remove the human from even a huge part of software coding works. By 2050 to 2075 there will be some very radical rethinking to do about what economic activity should be like and the place of humans in it. The engine of the consumption society is consumption, which implies that people must have some sort of income with which they buy stuff; a central tenet of the conservative ideologies is that people should not get money for doing nothing, unless perhaps they are physically unable. A serious problem arises when there is hardly anything left for immense numbers of people to do and earn money. As we stand now, a sizeable portion of the population already has abilities that fall short for the complexity of our current world. Interesting times we are witnessing, for sure.
-
chapeaured at 01:33 AM on 30 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
I think the article and the comments on the article all miss the basic cause of the problem. And the basic cause is one that almost no one knows about because almost no one wants to talk about it.
Nearly all strong deniers are strong conservatives and they are genetically predisposed to be conservatives. They are genetically predisposed to be xenophobic, more religious, more repressive of women’s rights, much less concerned with fairness/equity and they hold a darker view of human nature than their counterparts. Conservatives are much less open to new experiences of any type. Conservatives are much more prone to authoritarianism (the opposite of scientific thought) and to group think. Liberals have the opposite traits to all of the conservative traits. Individuals are genetically predisposed to be conservative or liberal. Genetics is responsible for about half, or just a bit more that half, of our political orientations.
Conservatives believe in the prevailing conservative ideologies of the societies they live in in the same way that religious people believe in the teachings of their religious group. One of the most amaziong findings is that strong conservatives are the least capable of thinking logically/critically/rationally about anything that comes into conflict with their conservative ideological beliefs.
Conservatives perceive correctly that if man-caused global warming is true, then government needs to play a key or lead role in dealing with the problem. Much worse, horror of horrors, the major governments of the world all have to collaborate together to solve the problem. That is totally anathema to the prevailing free market belief system. So therefore, man-caused global warming cannot be true. Therefore, it is not true. It is a hoax.
It is the best educated conservatives that are the least capable of thinking critically about global warming. Being better educated they have a much greater pool of concepts and facts to draw upon to rationalize their beliefs. And there is no equivalence on the liberal side. It is the best educated liberals who are the most capable of thinking critically about global warming.
I am a very strong liberal. In August 1995, I joined an Internet discussion group of American foresters that for some reason unknown to me, was dominated by very strong conservatives (Austrian Hayek school of economics, Libertarians and the like). They all believed that global warming was a hoax. They believe that we have no significant environmental problems of any type. I had never encountered people like this before. I didn’t know much about global warming at the time, so for about four years, I would check out their sources – and I found them all to be bogus or questionable. Then for another 10 years or more, I argued directly with them. The stronger the scientific evidence I presented them with, the more it reinforced their beliefs. I tried a bit of everything. I came to believe that they were sincere in their beliefs. I finally came to the conclusion that there was no reasoning with them. I gave up.
Then, about two years later, I read “The Republican Brain” by investigative journalist Chris Mooney and he described almost exactly what I had experience. He summarized peer reviewed social sciences research that shows the problem is genetic. Since then, I also read “Our Political Nature” by evolutionary anthropologist Avi Tuschman. Nearly all of what I have written above is a summary of their findings in the two books. Tuschman also goes into what scientists believe to have been the evolutionary selective forces that left us with such genetically defective brains – and the selective forces for the set of characteristics grouped under the heading of “tribalism” are really mind bending.
Most of this seems overall, very discouraging. I’m still trying to digest what it all means. I see two areas for potential optimism:
1. Our genetically driven political orientations all lie on a bell curve. Most of us are somewhere in the middle – moderately conservative or moderately liberal. I assume that the closer to the center conservatives are, the more open they are to the environmental influences – the more open they are to evidence and logic and reasoned argument.
2. Conservatives are much more subject to group think and to belief in the prevailing conservative ideologies of the societies they live in. But those prevailing ideologies do seem to evolve substantially over time. The conservative ideologies of the 1950s in the US probably lie to the left of the Democratic platform of today. The extremist Free Market ideologies now predominate. They can certainly evolve – they can moderate or they can become even more extreme.
Cheers,
Roy Hagen -
nigelj at 14:19 PM on 29 April 2018The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels
Despite decades of research linking fossil fuel particulates and gases as dangerous to human health, Scott Pruitt (no surpise) is trying as hard as possible to undermine this science.
Much of the research used confidential medical records understandably, and Pruitt is challenging the research on the basis that this use of confidential records in 'suspect' because "the science is hidden" . Sigh, I try not to hate people, but.....
-
DPiepgrass at 14:00 PM on 29 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
@nijelj If someone invents a new and innovative kind of wind turbine, they don't need government permission to build it. That's a fundamental difference between nuclear and renewables, and as I watch technical presentations on MSRs, government regulations and permission comes up again and again; it's no exaggeration to say that finding a way through the regulation minefield is what drives the design of nuclear reactors. For that reason, I disagree that "it's in the hands of the nuclear industry to provide cost effective power built within stated time frames". It's hardly in the hands of the industry at all; their success depends entirely on the political will to accept nuclear energy for climate change solutions. In turn this depends on public support. The U.S. market seems particularly difficult, as the regulations are designed for solid-fueled, water-cooled reactors, so would-be MSR builders have to pay out-of-pocket for the government (NRC) to write new regulations for them. That's tough for startups - it's not the old guard nuclear players doing this.
Anyway I can hopefully publish an article series on MSRs here soon.
Moderator Response:[JH] MSR = Molten Salt Reactor?
-
BaerbelW at 23:05 PM on 28 April 2018Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing
Peter Sinclair released a new video about the
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:17 PM on 28 April 2018The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels
Minor revision of my comment @7,
"That is how free-markets are supposed to work. The responsible people decide if they want to act to reduce their costs of clean-up or pay a higher cost for the clean-up."
Back to my comment @1. The undeserving among the wealthy today would prefer to have future people pay for the clean up. They will also try to argue that the math makes sense as long as the costs others have to pay, as today's undeserving wealthy people figure it, is less than the lost opportunity for personal benefit the undeserving among the current wealthy would suffer, as they figure it, if they were forced to reduce their Private Interest creation of future costs.
It is undeniably unacceptable/unethical/immoral for any current day pursuit of Private Interest to create negative consequences for anyone else, no matter how the Private Interested people want to try to justify it. And people desiring to benefit from unsustainable and harmful Private Interests have proven they will try to get away with being as unethical as possible in pursuit of maximizing their 'competitive advantage' in their negative-sum pursuit of appearing to be a bigger winner.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:58 AM on 28 April 2018The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels
nigelj@6,
I agree with your points in general. But would add that currently there is a competition to develop CO2 removal technology (See this link). And the people who got wealthier from the burning of fossil fuels owe the future generations the reduction of the excess CO2 using the best of these technologies (no profit for the action, just a charitable non-profit action paid for by all the appropriate wealthy people including those who don't want to have to pay for it).
And that CO2 removal cost would be reduced by those same wealthy people pushing for the rapid reduction of increased CO2 that they would have to pay to remove. That is how free-markets are supposed to work. The responsible people decide if they want to act to reduce their costs of clean-up or pay the full cost of clean-up.
Understanding the corrections required for the future of civilization has been a work in progress since before the 1972 Stockholm Conference. The currently developed best understanding of the required corrections is achieving all of the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals. It is clear that achieving all of the goals is the only way to a better future for humanity. Not achieving any one of the goals means that none of the other goals will have been sustainably achieved.
For quite a while now, global political and business leaders, and all of the wealthiest around the world, have had no excuse for not being aware of the required corrections. Their actions, including actions in the past, that are contrary to achieving those goals, including attempts to delay the proper awareness and understanding in the general population, needs to become the ethical/legal basis for the international community of caring powerful people ensuring that the undeserving among the winners lose their ability to influence things until they prove they have meaningfully responsibly considerately changed their minds and decided to become helpful rather than harmful.
Albert Einstein understood that it was essential for sovereign freedoms to be given up if humanity is to have a future when he wrote: "This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war? ... As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of the problem: the setting up by international consent of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations. ... Thus I am led to my first axiom: the quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action, its sovereignty that is to say, and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security." (to Dr. Freud (q.v.), July 30, 1932)
-
nigelj at 09:38 AM on 28 April 2018The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels
Given the costs of vehicle and power station emissions on both the environment and human health, the reasons to reduce emissions are clearly overwhelming, but human stupidity and the brainwashing campaign of the denialists is getting in the way, along with politicisation of the issue into near hysterical attacks on governments proper role.
Humanity is "kicking the can down the road" onto future generations, not just with climate change, but with other environmental issues, and in the huge government and private debt that is building up globally. Its not fair on future generations and various other at risk groups.
I know we can't see all ends and some technical solutions may be found for some things, but to me the main point is to at least make an informed judgement on what future technological solutions are plausible, and which ones are low probability, and in that respect dreams like fusion power or sucking C02 out of the atmosphere are either low probability or likely to remain very expensive.
Right now humanity risks collapase of civilisation. We have numerous environmental, social, economic and debt problems and all these things are happening on a fast time scale in terms of human history and the large combination of dangerous factors looks unprecedented in our history.We cant quantify the things or predict them accurately, but imho humanity is loading the dice incressingly towards the collapse of civilisation in the name of very short term gains of profitability or short term pleasures and excesses.
-
nigelj at 09:23 AM on 28 April 2018The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels
DCrickett @4, I agree particularly about the fight against racism, and I would add bigotry in general.
I can totally understand parents taking children to school in high risk places like Mexico or some American cities, but in New Zealand most of the reason for this habit appears to be "stranger danger" related to an exaggerated fear of paedophiles, orginating with various historic sex cases against these people in recent decades. Don't get me wrong, they should be locked up for a very long time, but most sexual assaults of this kind happen within families or institutions, not children being picked up or molested on the street.
All we are doing is creating a generation of spoilt and physically unfit obese children, more grid lock on the roads, and high CO2 emissions. In addition, a recent check of our cities and main roads showed levels of particulate emissions and nitrogen oxides well above acceptable levels for public health.
-
Dcrickett at 08:43 AM on 28 April 2018The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels
Re #2… My wife & I lived in Mexico City thru most of the 1990's and saw streets around schools clogged with cars. Particularly while schools were letting out. From conversations with friends, neighbors, co-workers etc we knew that even when a family lived fairly close to a kid's school, a parent (or servant) would drive to pick up the scholar. Indeed, chauffering their scholars was a major reason for some people to have a car who otherwise will might not. And during a Level 3 smog alert, one thing one never heard on radio or TV was an admonition for the kids to walk. Why? Kidnapping. One then-prominent politician (Diego Fernández de Cevallos) stated that kidnapping was one of the few profitable businesses around. (He himself was later kidnapped!) Poor people walked their kids, of course.
Some friends of ours here in Chicago (they are blacks) also drive their teenage son to & from his high school every day. To protect him from gang recruiters (who do not take "no" for an answer). This is a major problem for Latins also.
Even a car provides only partial protection to scholars. Not too long after he got his driver's license, my "ethnically diverse" son was stopped by cops while driving to school with a classmate. They got off easy; they were only slapped around and insulted for a while and then, strangely, let go. (They were written up of tardiness, tho, once they got to school.)
Our fight to protect the environment must include our fight against racism, socioeconomic inequality, crime, etc. And our efforts must go far beyond the linear thinking that handicaps our "leaders" — our problems run deeper than we realize. (Viz. the essay on which we here comment!)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:45 AM on 28 April 2018The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels
windrunner,
Having to redesign and rebuild already incorrectly developed urban zones is a major competitive disadvantage for every one of those incorrectly developed urban area. And the New World portion of the current Winners of socioeconomic competition are full of those 'incorrectly developed expensive and time consuming to correct' urban areas. That is part of the reason there is strong opposition to rapid transition to a lower energy consumption non-fossil fuel powered future. And those current incorrectly developed bigger winners also have abundant fossil fuel resources.
The reluctance to understand climate science becomes pretty obvious from that perspective. It puts many of the current Biggest Winners at a serious competitive disavantage. They do not deserve their developed perceptions of superiority and prosperity relative to others. And so much of today's world has developed to be damaging competition to appear to be superior to others, better off than others any way that can be gotten away with.
And it is really easy to get away with harming future generations; future generations have no current day votes or any other current day ways to get even with people today who get away with causing problems future generations have to deal with.
A similar thing can be seen to happen with wealthy nations and corporations causing problems poorer nations suffer from without any ability to 'get even' or correct the immoral unethical behaviour of the Bigger Winners.
-
windrunner at 23:26 PM on 27 April 2018The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels
"redesigning urban spaces to make it easier and safer to commute by foot, bicycle, and public transportation, and transitioning to a more circular and sustainable economy."
The concluding paragraphs of the article held the above gem. The first thought that sprang to my mind was the herd of large SUVs converging to disgorge and retrieve the young during the 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. migrations to and from our centers of youthful indoctrination. While the instructions of "Right Think " are drilled into them, they would never consider walking or riding thier bikes to school, or submitting to the stigma of riding the bus. Parents think that they are providing a safe secure conveyence to the schools, where the kids are sheltered from the travails of the world, while securely belted in to thier heated leather seats, lost in their cocoon of smart phone social contacts. These are the same citizens who will rail about pipelines and social justice, oblivious to the contribution they make to the perpetuation of the same.
-
michael sweet at 21:16 PM on 27 April 2018CO2 effect is saturated
Arf,
My understanding is a little different from yours, just a little. To review your points:
1) I think the energy of photons is fixed so energy is not lost each time. I am not sure what you mean by lost energy. This point is not important.
2) Check.
3) Check.
4) This is the important step for the greenhouse effect. We agree that the escape altitude increases.
As you know the amount of energy radiated is related to the temperature. The temperature at the escape altitude must be high enough for all the energy that comes from the sun to escape to conserve energy. This fixes the temperature at the escape altitude. When more greenhouse gas is added the temperature at the new altitude increases so that energy is conserved.
The temperature in the troposphere (the lower atmosphere) increases as you decrease in altitude. The rate of increase is called the lapse rate. The lapse rate is about 6.5C per kilometer. The lapse rate is a physical property of the atmosphere and is fixed by basic physics and chemistry laws and properties.
The temperature at the altitude of escape is fixed by the law of conservation of energy and the temperature varies in the atmosphere according to the lapse rate. When the altitude of escape is increased that results in an increase in temperature at that altitude. This is then passed down to the surface according to the lapse rate.
It is interesting to note that an increase in the altitude of only 100 meters results in an increase in the surface temperature of 0.65C. 2C is only 300 meters increase in escape altitude.
On Venus the CO2 concentration is much higher so the altitude of energy escape is much higher. That results is the surface of Venus being about 462C. This temperature can be calculated using the equations that describe the greenhouse effect on Earth.
Your explaination seems OK to me but does not well describe the changes in the atmosphere.
-
Eclectic at 20:53 PM on 27 April 2018CO2 effect is saturated
Arf @459 , the usual explanations follow the course of IR photons (of the bandwidth absorbed/emitted by CO2 molecules) as they are radiated out from the warm surface of the land/ocean. Layer after layer of atmosphere absorbs and re-emits IR photons in all directions (as you are already aware, of course).
Rising through air, as the layers become less dense, the individual photon "journeys" (between CO2 atoms) become longer — yet each same-depth layer is still emitting the same previous total of upwards and downwards amount of IR radiation (of course). Only in the most tenuous uppermost layers, does this "stacking" of upward/downward emissions begin to break down, as an increasing percentage of upward IR photons evade reabsorption and make a straightline escape to outer space. In effect, we can think of the upper atmosphere as producing only back-radiation (at this particular bandwidth we are interested in) as far as the Earth is concerned.
I am sure I am telling you nothing new, in all this. I will point out that at an individual level, each IR photon maintains its same energy level, as it is "reincarnated" — the individual CO2 molecule recipient of photonic energy "cools itself" by imparting kinetic energy to a neighbouring N2 or O2 . . . and at a later time regains energy kinetically from a neighbouring N2 molecule, and "reincarnates" & emits an IR photon of the same energy level as previously received but in a random direction. Of course, as intermolecular distances increase, and the kinetic temperature of N2 molecules reduces, then these "deaths & reincarnations" of IR photons (per second per cubic mm) must reduce. But the final total product is back-radiation towards the Earth's surface plus upwards "lost" radiation (and of course the totality of all "lost" radiation over the whole spectrum must equal what's originally entered the planetary system from the sun, at equilibrium — or at least extremely close to that total while the system is in transition to equilibrium).
Myself, I find it easier to mentally picture these events if you rotate the Earth surface 90 degrees. Instead of a horizontal surface emitting upwards, choose to picture the surface as the y-axis and the atmosphere layers stacked outwards along the x-axis. The cool outermost layers of air are losing radiation outwards to space, and are emitting "back-radiation" inwards. Through the bulk of the atmosphere, each layer is transmitting fractionally more energy inwards than outwards, and these fractional differences integrate to produce a gradient of temperature, highest at the surface and "sloping down" to the outermost air. Hence the surface is warmer than the outermost air.
When the atmospheric CO2 concentration becomes raised, the x-axis is extended further (so to speak) . . . and the same gradient produces a higher cumulative back-radiation at the planetary surface: in other words, the surface becomes warmer than under the previous conditions.
-
arf at 16:26 PM on 27 April 2018CO2 effect is saturated
As a brief background to this comment, I had an encounter with a denialist last week who stated that Arrhenius' observations regarding CO2 as a greenhouse gas had been debunked. In hindsight, I should have asked precisely what he meant by that. Instead, I retorted that this was news to me, at which he remarked that my kind was unlikely to look up the facts (I have a masters degree in Physics, and found this an interesting example of projection rhetoric...). Anyway, here I am.
I'm trying to follow the argument here, so that I can express it in layman's terms. It seems the idea of greenhouse warming isn't as straightforward as I thought. I get Angstrom's counter-argument to Arrhenius about current CO2 levels absorbing all IR radiation long before it has a chance to escape the atmosphere and that, therefore, adding more CO2 won't alter things. I'm having a problem grasping the explanation in response the Angstrom being put forward here. If I may paraphrase what I understand of it:
1. IR photon from surface is repeatedly absorbed and re-emitted (by CO2) in random directions (losing a little energy each time). Check.
2. Photon is finally able to escape into space at a high enough altitude. Check.
3. Adding more CO2 increases the density, and hence the altitude this escape occurs. Check.
4. Being higher means lower temperature, and hence less energy is emitted. Errm... as a general consequence of a blackbody spectrum, sure. As a discrete energy photon emission, of what significance is the temperature?
I'm not saying the explanation's wrong, but it is very hard to follow, and is even counterintuitive (we're talking about rising temperatures, and then lowered temperatures? It's hard enough for me to follow, let alone someone without a scientific background)
My own quick explanation would be that increasing CO2 concentrations reduces the mean free path of IR photons, and that increases the number of scattering (heating) events before the photons can escape. It seems a lot more concise and intuitive than the explanation put here, but is it right? What am I missing?
Prev 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 Next
