Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 Next
Comments 18751 to 18800:
-
thoughts at 04:59 AM on 20 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Philippe Chantreau @44. Re: "How? Verify."
I understand how to exercise critical thinking. No one can do the science for themselves - so when reputable scientists (PhDs) and reputable sources present contradictory evidence and assertions, critical thinking is not much use. I agree with the red flags you caution against (strawman, ad hominem, sloganeering....) - I see those red flags on this site.
MA Rodger @ 45. To answer your question, my rationale for the link to that page "@ Planet Wattsupia" [n.b. this is name calling, or ad hominem]] was to illustrate what is out there to contradict some of the information given on this site.
Your phrase: "written by a denier so convinced that a worrying AGW-filled-reality will steal his comfort-filled-reality " is nothing more an ad-hominem comment. Denigrating anyone who has a conflicting opinion from yours is not a discussion. [I was originally encouraged by the Comments policy on this site, but they seem not much use.)]
-
MA Rodger at 03:26 AM on 20 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
thoughts @42.
You say you do not try to engage in discussion about the reasons for AGW being scientifically a 'no brainer', but that you wish to demonstrate why "deniers" deny. In you attempts to set out this demonstration, what is your rationale for the link to Planet Wattsupia you provide @39?
Your arguments prior to this were that the evidence for AGW is not set out clearly enough (@13), that you disagree-with/misunderstand the reasons for AGW (@19 & @21 & @24), issues you do not want to "engage in" (as you manage to remember @28), then (@38) present an example of the nonsense AGW can create by linking to a web page written by a denier so convinced that a worrying AGW-filled-reality will steal his comfort-filled-reality that he writes a whole book to argue "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax," and your final input you describe the problems a denier has in not knowing they are latching on to comforting denialist nonsense (@43).
In all this I can understand where you are coming from, yet your comment @39 does not make sense to me. So why the link to that page @ Planet Wattsupia?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:18 AM on 20 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
How? Verify. Exercise critical thinking. Do these claims hold water? What is the scientific evidence they are based on? Are there science papers cited? If yes, go and read what they actually say. Was anything taken out of context? Distorted? Misrepresented? Cherry picked? Graphs doctored? Scales manipulated to create a desired effect? Flaws in reasoning such as strawman arguments, ad hominem, non sequitur, red herrings? Is opinion substituted to actual expertise or presented as equally valid? Is the consensus one of opinion or one of research results? Where lies the weight of the evidence? Adjustments are put in doubt, fine. What do the people making the adjustments have to say on the reasons for the adjustments? Are there papers published on the adjustments?
When I was in school, I was fortunate to be taught about mind manipulation techniques. We learned about WW2 Germany, the USSR, advertisement and marketing techniques, how to trigger emotional reactions, how our emotions impair our judgment. This has remained with me ever since. It also helps to be somewhat scientifically litterate and have the quantitative thinking afforded by basic math and physics education. Thoughts was probably not around when WUWT had their Antarctic carbonic snow article. Credibility on scientific matters is not that hard to ascertain.
-
thoughts at 01:53 AM on 20 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
p.s. Contradictory information is everywhere. How is anyone to know which scientists and which information to believe, whether to believe SkepticalScience or CFACT or Whats Up With That, or what?
-
thoughts at 01:46 AM on 20 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Please do note that I am not here trying to engage in a discussion of these issues. This thread is about the motivation of "deniers". I was trying to show why people labelled here as "deniers" have reasons for their opinions - besides fear and self-interest. If the population is instructed to research into scientific literature for clear answers, it seems a good explanation for why "deniers" doubt the media and the science. It seems impossible to make this point on this site.
-
Jim Eager at 01:11 AM on 20 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
"There is so much misinformation available that contradicts..."
There, I fixed that typo for you.
"here is another link: https://wattsupwiththat.c...."
Citing that luny bin does not help your argument or your credibility one bit. That's it, I'm done with you. You will waste no more of my time.
-
Tom Dayton at 01:11 AM on 20 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
thoughts: Every one of the claims in that CFACT article is either false or misleading. All of them are countered by facts with details and references to peer-reviewed literature here on SkepticalScience. Use the Search field at the top left of every page here, and click the "View All Arguments" link at the bottom of the list of top myths that is under that Search field. Given the falsehoods in that CFACT article, you might reconsider relying on CFACT.
-
thoughts at 00:43 AM on 20 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
To possibly explain why "deniers" are still puzzled about the truth of AGW, here is another link:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/
-
thoughts at 00:20 AM on 20 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Re: This thread that "deniers" deny because they are fearful or self- interested.
There is so much information available that contradicts what the AGW believers claim, that a reasonable person does not know what to believe. Many reputable scientists (not just a few "eccentrics") do not believe the AGW claim.
One small example: http://www.cfact.org/2017/06/19/decades-of-climate-hysteria-unsupported-by-data/
For decades, people have seen that they have been misled by the media on many subjects, so people in general do not trust what the media tells them. They are not just fearful or self-interested. The population now needs clear evidence in the real world before they believe what they are told.
-
ajki at 22:52 PM on 19 July 2017Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?
#4, most people living aren't particularly enjoying anything while depending on the use of fossil fuels in many indirect and invisible ways. They don't have anything to decide regarding energy regimes, food chains, infrastructure.... within their whole lifetime. And then there are the unborn of exactly the same people - for them the living demanders strive for at least some amount of the wealth of the rich people (nothing fancy). When even the rich part of the world currently seems unable or unwilling to change the trend of using fossil fuels, then 8 billions or more of the 12 billions in 2050+ can't even think about any catastrophe to come - they are struggling with the catastrophe they're living by. So: wrong, nothing ironic or whitty here.
-
Mike Evershed at 19:42 PM on 19 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Thanks to Nigel and for the reference to studies on consensus.
And apologies to Nigel and the Moderator PS for being insufficiently clear in the wording of my post .- I said one of the reasons for lack of acceptance of the science was that it was bound up with politics. But but I should have been clearer that wasn't because I think the science itself is politically motivated. The problem comes further down the road when it is used in party politics. Here in the UK "climate change denier" is a label used by politicians of the left. So when people like me with right leaning politcal views see the consensus view being used in this way by politicians we distrust, we instintively distrust the science as well.
And also to be clear - I think we should question consensus views in science - not that we should ignore them in policy. It is reasonable for politicians to take action based on the consensus. But it is also reasonable for them to subject the consensus to hard questioning in proportion to the scale of the policy shift demanded.
On a lighter note re gravity - one possibility astronomers are considering is that our current theories may be wrong at astronomical scales, and if so this may help explain some of the observations on "dark matter".
Moderator Response:[PS] "Reasonable for politicians to subject the consensus to hard questioning"? Seriously, politicians are better making that judgement than the combined investigations of thousands of scientists? Please show an example of a political process overturning a scientific consensus. What politicians need to be sure about is that there is a consensus. That consensus is the only rationale guide to policy.
-
nigelj at 18:59 PM on 19 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Scaddenp @35
But would very high intelligence people really have poor critical thinking skills? The two would mostly go hand in hand surely? However I could see they could turn those skills off, due to political reasons, maybe without even realising they are doing it.
I do agree we are all probably susceptible to rationalising things unless challenged, me included, at least in certain situations where instincts conflict with facts etc.
I have changed my mind a little on the whole issue a little. I still think fears, greed and politics are a big factor in denial, but poor critical thinking / science education etc is probably a factor with some people. But its probably relatively easy to turn many of those people around with good explanations, if that's the only problem they have. Its people with a political / belief related issue as well that may be harder to convince from what I have observed.
-
Digby Scorgie at 17:38 PM on 19 July 2017Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?
ajki @3
We know business as usual leads to catastrophe, but it's too difficult even to contemplate a safer course so, what the hell, let's enjoy our fossil fuels while we can. Right?
-
ajki at 14:45 PM on 19 July 2017Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?
#2: "incredibly ironic"
I don't think so - the guest author simply relies on one of many possible scenarios / projections. It may well be BAU or something similar. For the time being it is hard if not impossible to say where things are heading - many are quite pessimistic if the Paris Agreement goals will be met or at least be met in a wider timeframe.
So, the author is free to use a BAU demand - it may be more realistic than other demand projections.
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:49 PM on 19 July 2017Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
Tom Curtis @12
I hope anticorncob6 is satisfied with your comprehensive explanation. In my case I concluded from the paragraph I referred to that there was indeed an explanation but that the details were complicated. That was enough for me.
-
scaddenp at 13:23 PM on 19 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
People with very high intelligence and minimal critical thinking skills are extremely adept at constructing rationalizations to defend there positions. I suspect every one of us will do that in some aspects of our lives unless someone challenges us.
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:03 PM on 19 July 2017Is energy 'dominance' the right goal for US policy?
I find it incredibly ironic that the author sees nothing unusual in demand for fossil fuels continuing to increase so significantly in the future. Contrast this with the earlier SkS article on Mission 2020, where emissions need to peak in 2020 and then decline to zero over about 20 plus years. Can nobody put two and two together? Reducing emissions at such a high rate demands that fossil-fuel use decline at a similarly high rate. I give up.
-
nigelj at 12:18 PM on 19 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
I just want to clarify I think education about science, and climate science and climate denialist myths and foolishness is important, but simply everyone having a Bacheor of Science degree probably won't change every climate sceptics mind. At least half of the issue has become political / ideological / tribal, and slippery slopes indeed. Download the song Money by Pink Floyd.
-
nigelj at 11:56 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Elizabeth Gordon-Mills @29, I agree there are a range of reasons for climate denialism, although I think fear is a constant factor through many of them. It is just incredibly obvious.
Science knowledge isn't great, but I dont know that poor science knowledge is a basic cause of climate denialism. I'm not sure better education would change peoples views much on climate issues. Its become political.
The denialists probably accept einsteins theories but not climate science, so go figure.
Most people get taught the basics of science, but its a question of whether they trust this way of thinking about the world. America is a very politically driven, and strongly religious nation, and this may have an effect on thinking.
However more time should be devoted to science in schools.
-
Mal Adapted at 11:44 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Elizabeth Gordon-Mills:
There is probably a mix of reasons why seemingly intelligent and well (?) educated people are often vehement deniers.
WRT AGW-deniers including lack-, luke- and luckwarmers, the simplest explanation is unwillingness to pay their marginal climate change cost of transferring fossil carbon from geologic sequestration to the climatically active pool. They'd rather just keep on making other people pay them.
They're afraid a carbon tax that internalizes a fraction of their future marginal cost, requiring them to pay a few bucks more for a tankful of gasoline, is on a slippery slope to forcing them to pay for the accumulated socialized cost of their entire lives and allow illegal immigrants' kids to attend school with theirs, or something.
-
nigelj at 11:16 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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.
-
ubrew12 at 10:48 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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.
-
Elizabeth Gordon-Mills at 10:00 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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.
-
thoughts at 08:56 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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.
-
Doug_C at 08:50 AM on 19 July 20172017 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.
-
Jim Eager at 08:45 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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.
-
nigelj at 07:49 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:27 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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.
-
nigelj at 07:10 AM on 19 July 2017Is 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.
-
thoughts at 06:08 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:16 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:04 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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.
-
thoughts at 04:07 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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).
-
Mike Evershed at 04:00 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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?
-
thoughts at 02:46 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:32 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering 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?
-
Johnboy at 02:08 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
I think many folks can't get their arms around the significance of a 2°C temperature change or how really fast this is happening relative to "natural" change. Maybe we need to excise the use of the word "since" in weather reports. You know, "warmest 18th of July since..." or "driest, since", "longest drought since".
As far as the rapidity of change, I like to ask my denialist friends to think about growing up living "across the street" from the glacier terminus at the end of the last ice age. Their great grandfather would be telling them that the glacier was there when he was born and his great grandparents said the same. It was permanent source of ice for us forever. For the temperature to have dropped 1°C would have taken 400 generations (10k years). Who would have noticed? Being born at the beginning warming, you would tell your great grandchildren the same thing, only now it would be a "mere" 40 generations to see a 1°C rise. Maybe relatives from 8,000BC left could have drawn a picture of it on the cave wall across from where the glacier was.
-
Mike Evershed at 02:06 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
I think this article misses an important reason for doubting the consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Some of us are sceptical of consensus views, especially when they are so strongly bound up with politics and expressed in abusive terms. (Has anyone on this site ever questioned whether it is respectful to call someone a "denier". It smacks of the sort of things "believers" say about outsiders.) So I, for one, will continue to look at the facts and question some of the consensus assumptions. The world has undoubtedly warmed in recent years, and it is a reasonable hypothesis that man made CO2 has made a significant contribution, but it is hardly beyond doubt - in fact the stronger the consensus the harder we should question the hypothesis, and the more open we should be to challenges to it.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is sloganeering -assertions without any backing evidence. What is your evidence that the consensus of worldwide climate scientists is "politically motivated". Why should we challenge the consensus on say gravity or atomic theory again? If you want back your assertions for doubt about climate, provide evidence.
Our comments policy prefers respectful language but denier is a reasonable term when applied to someone who flat out denies evidence.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:53 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
thoughts@13,
Jim Eager has done a fine job of correcting some of your expressed "thoughts"/preferred beliefs.
As a structural engineer I can add that my work (and the work of all other engineers - appliers of science) includes using analysis models to 'predict' the performance of a structure under a variety of conditions.
Those 'models' are developed based on the best developed understanding to date. And the behaviour of every part of the real structure is understood to not be exactly modeled, just very well represented in general so that the general behaviour is well enough understood to result in successful designs based on analysis models (btw, these are not toy models like model trains or model cars and they are not 'fashion models that may only be popular for a moment').
So from my perspective people who repeat a claim that analysis models are not relevant, or complain that 'models' do not 'exactly' represent things or 'exactly' predict what will happen, only proves that they 'do not really understand the matter that they are commenting on'.
The propensity for some minds to not properly understand issues, making-up thoughts about what is to be believed, is tragic when it becomes popular. Especially tragic is when those made-up minds lacking understanding get away with winning popular support by complaining that a concensus understanding among people who would better understand an issue is not relevant, is a conspiracy.
Why people fail to better understand matters like climate science is a serious problem. I still contend that many people who resist better understanding climate science also resist admitting the unacceptability of personally benefiting from unsustainable activity that cause harm to, or creates challenges for, others including/especially future generations of humanity. Many people resist understanding/admitting that their developed perceptions/beliefs are unjustified/poorly excused.
-
Jim Eager at 00:21 AM on 19 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
@13: "Deniers accept that GHGs may exacerbate the effects of the Milankovitch cycles, etc.”
If you actually knew anything about the Milankovitch cycles you would know that they currently favour a slow global cooling, not warming.
And what are these “et cetera” that you mention? Be specific.@13: "What is needed is a clear explanation as to how mankind's addition of maybe 4% of the natural gas CO2 to the atmosphere can affect global climate."
Your personal ignorance or incredulity of such an explanation is not the same as the absence of that explanation. Furthermore, your estimate of the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is anthropogenic is off by an order of magnitude. It is 30% (400 - 280 = 120 ppm out of the current 400).
"Many "deniers" have seen Al Gore's chart showing that CO2 follows global temperatures, both rising and falling, and cannot therefore be a cause of temperature”
A basic logic fail repeated ad nausium. We know for a fact that adding CO2 causes warming. 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. That in no way negates that fact that rising CO2 then produced still more warming. 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.
"What the 'deniers' see is computer models, not proven science.”
That’s becuase you don’t bother to look past the computer models. Don’t blame scientists for your failure to look at the established science that the models are derived from. You might try employing some actual *thought* before repeating such misinformed talking points.
-
thoughts at 23:30 PM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
I do not think that either fear or self-interest is motivating "denial of the evidence." Disrespect for others does not make a case for AGW. Many "deniers" are not afraid to accept that the global climate is changing, and that it will affect us. "Deniers" accept that we are adding pollutants like SO2 and CO to the air, and that we prefer clean air. Deniers accept that GHGs may exacerbate the effects of the Milankovitch cycles, etc. But insisting that everyone agrees (97%!) does not make a case. What is needed is a clear explanation as to how mankind's addition of maybe 4% of the natural gas CO2 to the atmosphere can affect global climate. Many "deniers" have seen Al Gore's chart showing that CO2 follows global temperatures, both rising and falling, and cannot therefore be a cause of temperature, whether it is the 96% natural or the 3% man-made. What the 'deniers' see is computer models, not proven science. What the "deniers" do not see is clear evidence that mankind can affect the global climate. Calling them "fearful" does provide the needed evidence.
-
Nick Palmer at 22:38 PM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
I don't think fear is a consicous motivation for denial of evidence - or at least fear of the results of climate change. From tackling many denialists, I suspect that if fear is a factor, then it is fear of change that provides the fertile ground for the deceit to grow in. Fear of having to change one's life, one's aspirations, one's hopes and dreams. Fear of wasting all that time and money invested in some parts of education, job qualifications, business experience etc which are only useful in the current status quo and would be redundant in a climate friendly economy.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:03 PM on 18 July 2017Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
Digby Scorgie @11, I do not currently have access to Steig et al due to its being paywalled (and budgetary constraints). On the assumption that its content largely matches the second half of Steig's PhD thesis, then paragraph four of the section of the OP, "Creating a straw man" is not a full response to anticorncobb@66. Specifically, the "other graphs [which] where reconstructions [that] also showed warming globally" in the PhD thesis were reconstructions using pseudo-proxies rather than actual proxies, and therefore evidence of the adequacy of a statistical technique rather than evidence of global warming.
The reason the pseudo-proxy reconstructions showed, while the genuine reconstructions did not show warming appears to come down to two factors. First, ice core proxies are effected not just by temperature. The PhD thesis shows that pseudo-proxies reflecting all factors (Figure 2.6) do not reproduce the global temperature record as well as those reflecting temperature differences only (Fig 2.12). With real proxies, it is not possible to isolate the temperature influence from other influences is a similar way, leading to a significant amount of noise. Second, while pseudo-proxies can be generated anywhere that feels convenient, genuine proxies must actually be obtained by drilling in available ice. In this case that means that the pseudo-proxies came from 105 locations scattered across the Arctic, Antarctica, Himalayas, Andes and the Rockies. In contrast, the actual proxies are restricted to just 40, from 7 locations within Greenland, 5 locations from the rest of the Arctic, 23 locations from Antarctica, and just one from the Himalayas and no others from outside of polar regions (Fig 2.1). The highly biased distribution of proxies means the proxy network poorly captures global temperature trends - a feature reinforced by the dominance of Antarctic sources, with the majority of Antarctic experiencing little warming over the 20th century (with the exception being the West Antarctic Pensinsula).
The problem of noise generated by other influences can be combated by having a large number of proxies, prefferably of different types, such that the noise tends to cancel out. The limited number of proxies, and geographic bias of proxy locations can be combatted by using a wide variety of proxies from different parts of the world. At least one proxy based reconstruction of 20th century temperatures have bas been done using a greater number of proxies of different types, and it does in fact show global warming over the 20th century. But, as it turns out, the limited number of ice core only proxies used by Steiger et al does not.
-
Digby Scorgie at 20:17 PM on 18 July 2017Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
anticorncob6 @9
The answer you want is in the fourth paragraph after the heading "Creating a straw man".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:40 PM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
I believe one of the most powerful and prevalent fears in the minds of climate science deniers (miss-understanders, delayers fighting against correcting incorrectly developed human activity), is the fear of having to admit that their developed perceptions of personal wealth, prosperity and opportunity are not justifiable, are not actually deserved.
-
nigelj at 11:36 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
JW Rebel @6,
I agree totally, but everything you mention comes back to fear of something. For example it is exaggerated fear of government, fear of rules applying to business, fear of loss of power or privilege, paranoid fear of loss of individual rights. All this can obviously become excessive and deluded.
Individual rights are obviously important, but self evidently do not give people the right to damage the environment or harm the community or expect government to ignore environmental matters.. That sort of world can’t work and we don’t have to put up with it. People promoting it are ultimately toxic.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:01 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
The aspect of fear applies to the followers more than the leaders. Some people have a real knack for scaring the $#!^ out of people, and then reassuring them that they will be saved if only they follow the One True Path.
A long but very interesting read on the psychology of much of this is Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians. (Free download at the web page I have linked.)
A shorter, less-scholastic blog post is The Long Con. Also very interesting.
-
Funkypants at 10:11 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Ironically, when people like Al Gore, Michael Mann or Bill Nye expound the impending dangers of AGW they get howled down as Alarmists & Fear Mongers.
-
JWRebel at 09:57 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Mixing in Trump, Russiagate, and electoral fraud in a "false facts" narrative does help the case. Not all false claims are related, and many false narratives have been propagated on many fronts historically, and often refuse to die, like zombies, no matter how fastidiously they have been debunked. Russiagate has no publicly verifiable facts, and there is a decades old literature on electoral fraud in the USA. Contrary to accepted opinion, US elections do not set a standard of democratic integrity for the rest of the world; on the contrary, basic controls are so poor or even absent that monitoring organisations state that it is not even possible to monitor US elections, putting them behind monitored elections in Kazakhstan or Syria. Americans do not seem capable of enacting electoral reforms.
-
JWRebel at 09:45 AM on 18 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
I agree that fear is an underlying ground for much denialism — many scientists were also reluctant to accept the magnitude of the problem as it became clearer and clearer the past 50 years.
But there are other important aspects. One is international context. Vociferous denialism seems a peculiarly Ango-Saxon disease. Why would that be?
- The concentration of news into the hands of the likes of Rupert Murdoch, always printing ammunition for "scepticism".
- Corporate disinformation and ideological think tanks.
- The strong anti-governmet anti-left narrative that has taken hold since Reagan was president. Don't forget that Reagan won by scuttling Carter's energy policy, telling Americans they were great, and everything would go back to how it was in the fifties — without all these perplexing modern problems.
These factors play much less of a role in most other countries of the world.
A further factor is group loyalties. Many people's views on many subjects are informed by loyalty to their tribe and how the tribe has decided to view the matter. Loyalty is a big part of conservative and religious denialism, but it is precisely this loyalty that can be used to change the narrative [loyalty also means not running down the family farm before handing it to your children].
As for people like James Delingpole, there have always been a small number of irredeemable miscreants who find their claim to fame in serving evil.
Prev 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 Next
