Recent Comments

Prev  367  368  369  370  371  372  373  374  375  376  377  378  379  380  381  382  Next

Comments 18701 to 18750:

18701. Bob Loblaw at 10:35 AM on 20 July 2017
       Climate denial is like The Matrix; more Republicans are choosing the red pill
       

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

       

18702. chriskoz at 09:31 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Bob Loblaw@9

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

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

18703. thoughts at 09:25 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

       Moderator Response:

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

        

18704. thoughts at 09:20 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

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

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

       Moderator Response:

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

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

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

18705. Jim Eager at 09:18 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

       Cut off his oxigen by not responding to them.

18706. nigelj at 08:55 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

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

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

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

18707. nigelj at 08:32 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Thoughtful @50,

       Thanks, but here are a few thoughts in response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Moderator Response:

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

18708. One Planet Only Forever at 08:31 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       thoughts,

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

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

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

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

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

18709. scaddenp at 08:25 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

       I think "black hat" thinking about our own positions comes as naturally as breathing water. What highly intelligent people are good at is defending their positions. Furthermore, intelligence often leads to discovering/adopting right answers anyway so you can get away with minimal critical thinking skills. This leads to very good scientists "going Emeritus" all the time.
       
       The best critical thinkers I know among my colleagues are ones who found themselves in a wrong position early in career and were then forced to examine how they made that decision and practise the skills to not have it happen again.

       The pat answer to critical thinking is "what data/result/observation would make you change your mind". Sounds easy. Now think of a popular (not fringe) political party you dont like and then a policy of theirs that you abhor. What data/result would make think they were right? Chances are you would answer "none" and the reason for that is that it offends your political values. Working hard on a problem, it is all too easy to love a potential solution with the same strength as a value.
       
       In fact, as humans we suck at this. The best examination of a position is by getting others to look at this. Peer review - especially submit your paper suggesting the person who will hate your conclusions most as a reviewer. Science is filled will flawed humans, but the long process of review and examination makes the discipline of science our best invention for modelling reality.

18710. thoughts at 08:02 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       nigelj @ 48

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

        

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

       Moderator Response:

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

18711. nigelj at 07:57 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Thoughts says at 38;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18712. nigelj at 07:24 AM on 20 July 2017
       Climate denial is like The Matrix; more Republicans are choosing the red pill
       

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

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

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

18713. nigelj at 06:43 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18714. MA Rodger at 06:42 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

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

18715. thoughts at 04:59 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

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

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

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

18716. MA Rodger at 03:26 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       thoughts @42.

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

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

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

18717. Philippe Chantreau at 03:18 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

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

18718. thoughts at 01:53 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

18719. thoughts at 01:46 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

18720. Jim Eager at 01:11 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

       There, I fixed that typo for you.

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

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

18721. Tom Dayton at 01:11 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

18722. thoughts at 00:43 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

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

18723. thoughts at 00:20 AM on 20 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

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

        

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

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

18724. ajki at 22:52 PM on 19 July 2017
       Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?
       

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

18725. Mike Evershed at 19:42 PM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

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

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

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

       Moderator Response:

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

18726. nigelj at 18:59 PM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Scaddenp @35

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

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

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

18727. Digby Scorgie at 17:38 PM on 19 July 2017
       Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?
       

       ajki @3

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

18728. ajki at 14:45 PM on 19 July 2017
       Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?
       

       #2: "incredibly ironic"

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

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

18729. Digby Scorgie at 13:49 PM on 19 July 2017
       Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
       

       Tom Curtis @12

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

18730. scaddenp at 13:23 PM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

18731. Digby Scorgie at 13:03 PM on 19 July 2017
       Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?
       

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

18732. nigelj at 12:18 PM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

18733. nigelj at 11:56 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

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

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

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

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

       However more time should be devoted to science in schools.

18734. Mal Adapted at 11:44 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Elizabeth Gordon-Mills:

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

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

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

18735. nigelj at 11:16 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Thoughts @28, 

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

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

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

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

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

18736. ubrew12 at 10:48 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       At least in America, there's a culture divide as strong as any seen since the Civil War, and largely involving the same protagonists (one could even argue over the same issue: whether all people are created equal).  Fossil money just attached AGW to that divide and it became part of people's cultural identity.  My sister's an Evangelical Christian.  It's not that she doesn't think, in her heart of hearts, that fossil CO2 is causing the current warming.  It's that she's being told that until abortion is overturned, all other issues (even a sensible person's 'issues' with the current American President), take a backseat.  So you get this situation, in Red State America, where they are telling you to give up your 'Global Warming Religion' and at the same time building up renewable power as quick as can be.  That way they can serve the pulpit on Sunday and the planet the rest of the week.

18737. Elizabeth Gordon-Mills at 10:00 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       There is probably a mix of reasons why seemingly intelligent and well (?) educated people are often vehement deniers.  My theory is that is it largely due to the appalling standards of science knowledge in the population, particularly so in the USA. The lay public is so illiterate about science and how it works that they fall prey to the misinformation put out by deniers.  They will trot out all the old shibboleths which have been answered time and time again, but this hasn't got through to the general public.  

18738. thoughts at 08:56 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Thank you for well-considered responses here.   They are helpful.   My point was not to bring up all sorts of questions; my point was to rebut the opinion that started this thread: the opinion that "deniers" are motivated by fear or self-interest.  I intended here to show that "deniers" can be motivated by reason, by commonsense,  and by wanting evidence before they believe what they are told.  I do not think it is productive to label those who question as "deniers", or to suggest  that they motivated by fear and self-interest.  Listening and responding to questions is probably productive.  (I have a lot of reading to do before I get this!)   

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Abraham is using the word "denier" for those who are denying evidence which is the opposite from reason. True skeptics are not deniers. Pseudo-skeptics are skeptical about what is incompatible with their ideology and not remotely skeptical about any sort of fantasy that supports it.

18739. Doug_C at 08:50 AM on 19 July 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
       

       It's amazing the difference just a slight rise in temperature has in the wildfire situation here. The last few days have been a bit cooler with less winds and the wildfire threat has stabilized in many places. There are still over 37,000 people who have been evacuated and are waiting for conditions to improve greatly before they can return home... or rebuild for those who have lost their homes.

       BC has been pushed to the limit and is asking for international support, 50 fire fighters have arrived from Australia which is greatly appreciated. They give some of our crews a chance to rest and regroup.

       As this becomes the norm in the coming years there are going to have to be new measures taken in regions like western North America and many other places to deal with the new risks. Australia is another place that faces this challenge. International cooperation and sharing of resoures may be one method, I'm sure there are BC crews who would be willing to return the favour.

18740. Jim Eager at 08:45 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       @19: "Many do not see evidence for that “fact”.

       Then they either aren’t looking or they are in outright denial of labratory experiments that demonstrate the fact.
       For example, in this one Dr Iain Stewart shows very clearly how effective an IR absorber CO2 is:
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
       The IR energy from the flame is almost totally absorbed by the CO2 in the tube. What, exactly, do you think happens to the temperature of the gas in the tube after it absorbs that energy? Conservation of energy says that it can not simply disappear, it has to be converted into another form.

       @19: “I believe that CO2 continues to follow temperature (by about 2oo years) until they both reach a peak, when CO2 continues to follow temperature downwards.”

       Yes, in the ice core record it does, in fact the lag was more like 700-900 years, which is the length of time it takes for the full volume of earth’s oceans to respond to the inital warming. Again, it is orbitally driven changes in isolation distribution and timing that peak first and then reverse trend toward cooling. Therefore we expect CO2 to reverse after insolation does, since in this case it is acting as a feedback to the changes in insolation, not acting as the intial driver of those changes.

       For more see the basic and itermediat responses to the “CO2 lags temperature" argument here
       https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

       @19: "and other factors we do not yet understand.”

       So, you think that there is some mysterious climate forcing or source of CO2 that we don’t yet know about or understand, yet you outright reject a known and very well documanted source of CO2 (the burning of fossil carbon on a massive scale) and a totally natural forcing that we do know about and have known about for over 150 years? That is exactly the sort of magical thinking that science was invented to counter.

       @19: "Is this a "belief", or evidence based?”

       It is entirely evidence based. Belief has nothing what so ever to do with it, unless you count a belief in science to objectively observe and describe reality. See above for one example, among many, many others.

       @19: "I see that records show that atmospheric CO2 lags global temperatures”

       You are repeating yourself, but I also see that you are only looking at the ice core record, which only covers the last 750,000 years or so, during a period when we know that CO2 was not the initial forcing. Earth’s history is a lot longer than 750,000 years. Pseudoskeptics like to point out that earth's temperature has been warmer in the past. Indeed, much warmer. There have been several episodes during which an initial rapid but entirely natural elevation of CO2 in the atmosphere was the driver of global warming. The most recent was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) of around 55.5 million years ago, when a massive injection of CO2 over the relativly short geologic span of 20,000 years forced temperature up by around 5C (9F), about the same difference between the last glaciation of North America and today. After the peak warming of the Eocene we then see an example of the reverse: a long, slow decline of atmospheric CO2 due to accelerated rock weathering as the Himalaya and Tibetan plateau were forced upward, forcing down temperature far enough for Antractica to permanently glaciate.

       Now here’s another fact for you: we are currently injecting CO2 into the atmosphere much faster than nature did when it created the PETM.

18741. nigelj at 07:49 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Mike Evershed @16

       You are sceptical about the consensus. Well at least 5 studies show theres a 90-97% consensus that we are altering the climate, by Doran, Cooke etc. This is conclusive that a very large majority of climate scientists think we are altering the climate. No poll has found otherwise, and maybe think about that.

       You appear to also think the consensus is politically motivated, but you provide no evidence. Its just a poll of scientific opinion.

       The word denialism is not evidence of political motivation and not really directly related to a poll on consensus issues.  (Although I personally don't like the word, so partly agree with you its not a great word).

       I want governments to look at consensus positions, always. They may not ultimately all be correct, but it's the only sane choice. Listening to the eccentrics is no basis for public policy.

       Remember the small number of dissenting climate scientists are not terribly convincing. Many are funded by the fossil fuel lobby, and many have quite extreme ideological leanings.  

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Mike does not appear to doubt that consensus exists. He seems to think that any scientific consensus is likely to be wrong and that policy should not be guided by it.

18742. One Planet Only Forever at 07:27 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       thoughts,

       Spend some more time reviewing and understanding the information on the NOAA site linked in my comment.

       As a minimum, look to the CO2 history movie. Check the CO2 records for the CO2 response you believe should happen after the Little Ice Age. Note that the more recent CO2 values go well beyond a response post-Little Ice Age (which would be a recovery to levels pre-Little Ice Age) and their timing and rate correlate well with increased human deforestation and fossil fuel burning.

       There is a lot more information presented on the NOAA site that can help you better understand what is going on.

       Someone has tempted you with a false claim, but you can learn to discredit and ignore them.

18743. nigelj at 07:10 AM on 19 July 2017
       Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?
       

       The "energy independence" thinking is understandable, but it seems like a very inward looking, fortress mentality that has a lot of problems as well.The whole idea does indeed erode the whole idea of free markets and trade in general, and the benefits this brings. It assumes that trade is high risk and highly unreliable, but that really isn't the case in the main historically. There was admittedly the1970s opec oil crisis, but you can't let your thinking be ruled forever by that sort of thing, that was very temporary anyway.

       The only real argument is that energy is critical to national self defence, but America could form trade alliances critical to the military with friendly countries or a wide diversity of countries, rather than trying for total independence, which is near impossible anyway.

       It also begs the question why stop with energy independence, and not other products? Where do you draw the line?

       Energy independence and national planning of this is also hypocritical, given America preaches to the world about free markets, small government and capitalism.

       "Energy dominance" is just wishfull thinking. America is no longer big enough to dominate energy and other areas, as other countries and alliances have become huge. America has many hugely good qualities and can lead in other more enlightened ways.

       America is hardly likely to dominate coal markets, and the whole coal market is stagnant with no furure. Global production has stalled and numbers of new mines has dropped considerably. What use is dominating that sort of market? What is the purpose other than just an empty, symbolic power play?

       Here we have America and Britian turning inwards and backwards to the past. It looks like fear. Virtually every other country is embracing some form of liberalism, free trade and globalisation, not without problems, but that is the direction things are going in, and it looks inevitable.

18744. thoughts at 06:08 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       One Planet Only Forever -Thank you for your thorough and kind response.  I understand the feedback mechanisms.  But one part of your explanation leaves me puzzled still: 

       -Today what is seen is that CO2 levels are dramatically increasing. (NOAA provides lots of helpful information here) The only explanation for the rapid recent increase (since the mid-1800s) is human activity, particularly the unsustainable burning up of buried ancient hydrocarbons.

       I did not think that the only explanation for the current rise in CO2 was man's burning of fossil fuels.  My understanding was that for the past couple of hundred years  we have been  coming out of the "Little Ice Age".  Given that it  takes the oceans a couple of hundred years to respond to an initial rapid increase in temperature with an increased output of CO2, that inititial rapid temperature rise out of an Ice Age would  seem to be an explanation for  the current rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 .  Is this incorrect?

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Many misconceptions here. For the "coming out of little ice age", see here and here. For idea that CO2 is coming from oceans(!!) see here. You cannot claim CO2 is coming from oceans at the same time as CO2 content of ocean is increasing, and the isotope evidence is the smoking gun. (Not to mention that we know how much FF we have burned..). I strongly suggest you use the "Arguments" button on top left and check your myths.

       [TD] CO2 does not outgas from the oceans just because the temperature increases. CO2 constantly goes both in and out of the oceans. The net of those two opposite flows depends on the ocean temperature, the partial pressure of CO2 in the air, and the ocean chemistry (sort of the ocean equivalent of the partial pressure of CO2). When the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases quicker than the ocean's temperature increases, and/or when the surface water does not mix fast enough with deeper water to reduce the "partial pressure" of CO2 in the surface water, then the net effect is oceans continuing to absorb CO2. See "Why Ocean Heat Can't Drive Climate Change, Only Chase It." Then see "How Do Human CO2 Emissions Compare to Natural CO2 Emissions?" In each of those posts, after you read the Basic tabbed panes, read the other tabbed panes.

18745. Tom Dayton at 05:16 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Mike Evershed: Your response to me after your first sentence was not in fact a response, but a change of topic. Your original comment was "in fact the stronger the consensus the harder we should question the hypothesis, and the more open we should be to challenges to it." I merely extrapolated your comment, and your response was merely to contradict your original comment and then attempt to shift attention away.

18746. One Planet Only Forever at 05:04 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       thoughts,

       If you understand that 'one thing can lead to another', feedback behaviour, this may answer your question.

       The warming of the planet for reasons other than human impacts is all that is shown in the history of the planet, except for the most recent times. Human activity has been understood to have severe regional impacts. We have recently had the collective global human impacts, primarily due to the impacts of the highest per-capita impacting people, become large enough to be recognized as severe global impacts.

       When those other non-human reasons caused temperatures to rise there was often an increase in life activity on the planet. That added life activity resulted in more CO2 in the atmosphere which, because CO2 is a GHG, amplified the warming potentially further amplifying the initial warming factor.

       Today what is seen is that CO2 levels are dramatically increasing. (NOAA provides lots of helpful information here) The only explanation for the rapid recent increase (since the mid-1800s) is human activity, particularly the unsustainable burning up  of buried ancient hydrocarbons. The other possible non-human influences have been evaluated and without human impacts the global average surface temperature would be on a very gradual decline at this time (therefore, more than all - more than 100% - of the recent global average surface temperature increase in the land and ocean surface measurements or satellite measurements as you can see using the SkS Temperature Trend page, they are all increasing) is due to human impacts.

       The expected result, since CO2 is a GHG, is temperature increases slightly lagging the forced human increases of CO2, unlike the previous history without human impacts where CO2 levels responded to some other factor.

       And the feedback from added water vapour in the warmer atmosphere is a significant factor. By the way, when hydrocarbons are burned (oxidized) the main products are the GHGs CO2 and H2O with H2O even being more powerful (but the amount of H2O valour in the atmosphere is limited by how warm the atmosphere is).

       Hope that helps you better understand this matter.

18747. thoughts at 04:07 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Further thought: the latest I read is that Dr. Andrew Weaver, climatologist at the University of Victoria, says that yes, CO2 lags temperature in the global records.  He changes the subject to now to assert that all the Greenhouse Gases (95% water vapor) support the temperature changes which are caused by other factors.  The question remains: When CO2 levels lag Temperature levels, why are we to believe that  CO2 levels affect temperature levels?   

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] The real issue is the degree to which we can temporally resolve CO2 and temperature changes in the past vs those which are happening now.  The temperature proxies of the past are what they are.  Which is immaterial, as we know that human activities are driving the current rise in atmospheric concentration increase of CO2 (through a variety of methods)...and because we can precisely measure the timing of the increase in CO2 and the timing of the increase in temperatures, we know that our understanding of the radiative physics of CO2 are spot on.
       
       As an illustrative example, the Koch Industries-funded BEST team found that, WRT 'Is CO2 leading or lagging temperature rise':

       "we know that the CO2 is not coming from the oceans but from human burning of fossil fuels"

       And

       "it is clear that it is the CO2 that comes first, not the warming"

        

       Please unsure that future comments are constructed to be in compliance with this site's Comments Policy and are also on-topic for the thread on which you place them.  Thousands of threads exist here on virtually every topic pertaining to climate change that one could think of (use the Search Function).

18748. Mike Evershed at 04:00 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Hi Tom - of course not - you have to make a judgement. But doctors are a good case in point - there have been strong medical consensuses in the past on the value of bleeding people, of using surgery for ulcers rather than antibiotics, and lots of resistance to change. As for gravity....I've conducted a lot of personal experiments falling off things, so I'm not quite so dependent on the consensus in that area! My point is the more moderate one that in science, when everyone agrees, it is usually time to start looking for the anomalies in the theory.  All the recent data adjustments for example - doesn't that ring alarm bells for anyone on this site?

18749. thoughts at 02:46 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       To keep a reply short, I will respond to above:

       "A basic logic fail repeated ad nausium. We know for a fact that adding CO2 causes warming."   Many do not see evidence for that "fact".

       "We also know that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record because orbital changes were the intitial forcing, not CO2, so of course it follows temperature. "  I believe that CO2 continues to follow temperature (by about 2oo years) until they both reach a peak, when CO2 continues to follow temperature downwards.  The downwards trend is probably also caused by earth's cycles, activity of the sun (and other factors we do not yet understand.)  It does not appear that downward trends are initiated by a fall in CO2 levels either.                 

        "That in no way negates that fact that rising CO2 then produced still more warming."    Is this a "belief", or evidence based?

       "Furthermore, this point flatly contradicts your first one listed above. So which is it, CO2 and other greenhouse gases do cause warming, or they can’t?   Get your story straight."  Sorry if my point was not straight for you.  My point was that "deniers" do not simply "deny" everything - my point was that there are unanswered questions.  Getting hot under the collar about it is not an answer.  Regardless of what may have been the original causes of temperature changes,  I see that records show that atmospheric CO2 lags global temperatures, both up and down.  If there is a "fact" that shows otherwise, there are many who would like to see it.    

18750. Tom Dayton at 02:32 AM on 19 July 2017
       Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
       

       Mike Evershed: So as you get more and more doctors' opinions that you immediately need heart surgery, you become less and less convinced that you really need it? 

       Has goes your hobby of jumping off buildings, inspired by the consensus on gravity?

Prev  367  368  369  370  371  372  373  374  375  376  377  378  379  380  381  382  Next