It's An Availability Cascade, not a Conspiracy (1 Viewer)

[Jack Hays]

Orthodox warmists like to claim climate skepticism is based on a conspiracy theory. That's both silly and intellectually lazy, but it begs the question of why climate orthodoxy enjoys such widespread apparent belief. The phenomenon at work is known as an "availability cascade." It's the subject of a new paper.

Climate alarmism: The mother of all availability cascades

Guest essay by Iain Aitken An availability cascade is a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation by which an expressed perception triggers a chain reaction that gives the perception of increasing plausibility through its rising availability in public discourse.

Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation -Timur Kuran, Duke University – Department of Economics, Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Law School; Harvard…
Continue reading →

Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the whole ‘climate change debate’ is the way that the (non-sceptical) public consciousness has been captured by two very simple, easy-to-understand and certain ‘scientific facts’:

1. Climate change has (with absolute certainty, because the science is settled) occurred because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions (and it has occurred only because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions – nature had nothing to do with it)
2. Climate change catastrophe will (with absolute certainty, because the science is settled) result if we do not drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. . .

To question these ‘scientific facts’ is to be a ‘climate science denier’.

Despite the fact that both these ‘scientific facts’, as stated, are (with absolute certainty) scientific hogwash and despite the fact that I doubt it would be possible to find a single climate scientist in the world who would endorse either ‘scientific fact’ (even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ‘world authority on climate change’, and most alarmist of scientific bodies, would certainly not endorse either statement) these two beliefs (because that is all they are) seem to have become memes (beliefs that spread by cultural acquisition, e.g. peers, media). It is what the (non-sceptical) public think the scientific authorities are saying. . . .

This process has been characterised by psychologists as an ‘availability cascade’. Paraphrasing Wikipedia, this is a self-reinforcing cycle that explains the development of a collective belief (or meme) in a man-made climate change crisis. The idea that a great many phenomena (whether they be melting icecaps, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, floods, droughts, hurricanes, snowstorms, heatwaves, shark attacks or the rise of Islamic State) that actually have unrelated and complex causes can be explained by one, simple, easily understood cause, gains rapid currency in the popular discourse by its very simplicity and by its apparent insightfulness. Its rising popularity triggers a chain reaction within the social network: individuals adopt the new insight that we are experiencing a man-made climate change crisis because other people within their social network have adopted it, and on face value it sounds plausible (after all, we have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas and so it must cause global warming). The reason for this increased use and popularity of the ‘man-made climate change crisis’ idea involves both the ‘availability’ of this idea in the media (it’s hard to go through a day without someone on the radio, on TV or in a newspaper mentioning it as though it is simply a ‘fact’ in one form or another), and the need of individuals to conform with this idea, regardless of whether they in fact fully believe it. . . .

This is an ‘appeal to authority’; but as Leonardo da Vinci said, ‘Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence’. . . .

 

[Mithrae]

Stage One: Contrarians assert or (with varying degrees of unsubtleness) insinuate that the temperature records have been fraudulently manipulated, that the IPCC is an agenda-driven purely political process, that funding for the climate sciences is specifically channeled into "the man-caused side" (whatever that means), that the science has been driven by government policy (apparently in all countries, across the decades, regardless of the actual ebbs and flows of political influence), that humans aren't even responsible for the atmospheric CO2 increase, that the peak national scientific bodies around the world cannot be trusted and so on ad infinitum...

Stage Two: Less hysterical individuals point out that all of these, to greater or lesser extents, are unsubstantiated attempts to explain away the available evidence rather than come to terms with it, and that they all require that large numbers of people have behaved fraudulently and/or wildly contrary to expectations or remained inexplicably ignorant/silent while such distortion has occurred under their very noses: Two of the crucial and blindingly obvious characteristics of conspiracy theories of the chemtrails and 9/11 variety.

Stage Three: Contrarian posts an article which is not about the scientists analysing the temperature data, which is not about the IPCC, which is not about peak national scientific bodies, which is not about scientific funding etc. etc., only about developments in popular perception of a subject, and gloatingly declares that the "orthodox" critics were therefore wrong.



(Better not forget Stage Four: Other contrarians 'like' and praise this once again not very subtle sleight of hand, while their contrarian-in-chief finds some other random unrelated material to C&P and reiterate the supposed victory of his supreme critical thinking abilities :lol: )

 

[Jack Hays]

Stage One: Contrarians assert or (with varying degrees of unsubtleness) insinuate that the temperature records have been fraudulently manipulated, that the IPCC is an agenda-driven purely political process, that funding for the climate sciences is specifically channeled into "the man-caused side" (whatever that means), that the science has been driven by government policy (apparently in all countries, across the decades, regardless of the actual ebbs and flows of political influence), that humans aren't even responsible for the atmospheric CO2 increase, that the peak national scientific bodies around the world cannot be trusted and so on ad infinitum...

Stage Two: Less hysterical individuals point out that all of these, to greater or lesser extents, are unsubstantiated attempts to explain away the available evidence rather than come to terms with it, and that they all require that large numbers of people have behaved fraudulently and/or wildly contrary to expectations or remained inexplicably ignorant/silent while such distortion has occurred under their very noses: Two of the crucial and blindingly obvious characteristics of conspiracy theories of the chemtrails and 9/11 variety.

Stage Three: Contrarian posts an article which is not about the scientists analysing the temperature data, which is not about the IPCC, which is not about peak national scientific bodies, which is not about scientific funding etc. etc., only about developments in popular perception of a subject, and gloatingly declares that the "orthodox" critics were therefore wrong.



(Better not forget Stage Four: Other contrarians 'like' and praise this once again not very subtle sleight of hand, while their contrarian-in-chief finds some other random unrelated material to C&P and reiterate the supposed victory of his supreme critical thinking abilities :lol: )

Feeling a bit defensive, I see. The phenomenon discussed in the OP link fits well with my view of a contest of paradigms a la Thomas Kuhn.

 

[Steve Case]

Stage One: Contrarians assert or (with varying degrees of unsubtleness) insinuate that the temperature records have been fraudulently manipulated,

It's a matter of fact that temperature records have been changed and
that those changes exhibit an obvious pattern. It's a matter of opinion
as to why the changes and why the pattern. Do I need to put up my
graph of all the changes GISS made to temperatures 2005-2015?

that the IPCC is an agenda-driven purely political process,

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective,
open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-
economic information relevant to understanding the scientific
basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential
impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports
should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need
to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic
factors relevant to the application of particular policies.​

It doesn't say ... natural and human-induced climate change...

The agenda is to study only human induced aspects.

that funding for the climate sciences is specifically channeled into
"the man-caused side" (whatever that means),

See above

that the science has been driven by government policy (apparently in
all countries, across the decades, regardless of the actual ebbs and
flows of political influence),

Government policy and money. In the United States it's $Billions every year.

that humans aren't even responsible for the atmospheric CO2 increase,

Who says that?

that the peak national scientific bodies around the world cannot be trusted

Read the Climategate Emails, here's a nice run-down

The Atheist Conservative

 

[Mithrae]

It's a matter of fact that temperature records have been changed and
that those changes exhibit an obvious pattern. It's a matter of opinion
as to why the changes and why the pattern.

At least four major independent analyses in the Anglosphere alone (HadCRUT, NOAA, GISS and BEST) have found entirely consistent results for instrumental global temperatures. Their analysis methods have been published in the peer reviewed literature, and your opinion about it means literally less than nothing, since your unscientific intentions are so obvious in your wording.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective,
open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-
economic information relevant to understanding the scientific
basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential
impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports
should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need
to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic
factors relevant to the application of particular policies.​

It doesn't say ... natural and human-induced climate change...

The agenda is to study only human induced aspects.

An objective scientific assessment from what you quoted, not a political one, so you've proven certain other contrarians wrong even there. Of course if you had ever actually picked up one of their reports you'd know that they thoroughly cover all types of natural forcing, feedbacks and internal variation. But since natural variation is a) less likely to cause predictable problems of any similar magnitude to human influence and b) difficult if not impossible to control even if it did, the main focus of risk and mitigation assessment are human influences. Once again all you're demonstrating is your own warped agenda and personal ignorance.

that funding for the climate sciences is specifically channeled into "the man-caused side" (whatever that means),

See above

You've been a participant in threads where I've shown that a thorough understanding of natural variation is essential for a) testing models' accuracy through historical hindcasting, b) detecting and attributing the anthropogenic influence and its magnitude to date and c) projecting the future scale and spatial and temporal distribution of human impacts. Talking about funding for "the man-caused side" is rhetoric which only appeals to the scientifically illiterate among us. Thanks for clarifying where you stand :lol:

that humans aren't even responsible for the atmospheric CO2 increase,

Who says that?

Judith Curry has promoted a talk by Murray Salby in which he not only tries to cast doubt on that fact, but explicitly states that “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.” Jack Hays then promoted it his thread CO2 Doesn't Matter - introducing it as "Murry Salby taking down the CO2 lobby" - which was in turn approved by several other contrarians on the forum.

Of course given his objections to being associated with that view on at least one occasion when I've brought this up, I don't for a second imagine that Jack (or Judith) actually believe the tripe which they've promoted - it's just random bull**** propagated in the hopes it would reach someone gullible enough to contribute to their 'scepticism.'

 

[Jack Hays]

At least four major independent analyses in the Anglosphere alone (HadCRUT, NOAA, GISS and BEST) have found entirely consistent results for instrumental global temperatures. Their analysis methods have been published in the peer reviewed literature, and your opinion about it means literally less than nothing, since your unscientific intentions are so obvious in your wording.



An objective scientific assessment from what you quoted, not a political one, so you've proven certain other contrarians wrong even there. Of course if you had ever actually picked up one of their reports you'd know that they thoroughly cover all types of natural forcing, feedbacks and internal variation. But since natural variation is a) less likely to cause predictable problems of any similar magnitude to human influence and b) difficult if not impossible to control even if it did, the main focus of risk and mitigation assessment are human influences. Once again all you're demonstrating is your own warped agenda and personal ignorance.



You've been a participant in threads where I've shown that a thorough understanding of natural variation is essential for a) testing models' accuracy through historical hindcasting, b) detecting and attributing the anthropogenic influence and its magnitude to date and c) projecting the future scale and spatial and temporal distribution of human impacts. Talking about funding for "the man-caused side" is rhetoric which only appeals to the scientifically illiterate among us. Thanks for clarifying where you stand :lol:



Judith Curry has promoted a talk by Murray Salby in which he not only tries to cast doubt on that fact, but explicitly states that “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.” Jack Hays then promoted it his thread CO2 Doesn't Matter - introducing it as "Murry Salby taking down the CO2 lobby" - which was in turn approved by several other contrarians on the forum.

Of course given his objections to being associated with that view on at least one occasion when I've brought this up, I don't for a second imagine that Jack (or Judith) actually believe the tripe which they've promoted - it's just random bull**** propagated in the hopes it would reach someone gullible enough to contribute to their 'scepticism.'

For the record, I believe (with Henrik Svensmark) that CO2 follows temperature rather than driving it.

 

[Mithrae]

Feeling a bit defensive, I see. The phenomenon discussed in the OP link fits well with my view of a contest of paradigms a la Thomas Kuhn.

No it doesn't, and asserting so suggests that you either don't understand the scientific process, or don't understand Kuhn's work, or don't understand the concept of an availability cascade - if not all of the above.

Maybe it genuinely did escape your keen eye that what you've C&Ped uses the terms 'public' and 'popular' no fewer than six times and explicitly contrasts their perceptions with what the IPCC and scientists generally actually say. It wouldn't be the first time you'd failed to read your own material :lol:

If that's the case then the thread title/assertions may be simply a mistake rather than deliberate sleight of hand. It's still interesting information, don't get me wrong, but the gloating was more than a little misguided.

 

[Jack Hays]

No it doesn't, and asserting so suggests that you either don't understand the scientific process, or don't understand Kuhn's work, or don't understand the concept of an availability cascade - if not all of the above.

Maybe it genuinely did escape your keen eye that what you've C&Ped uses the terms 'public' and 'popular' no fewer than six times and explicitly contrasts their perceptions with what the IPCC and scientists generally actually say. It wouldn't be the first time you'd failed to read your own material :lol:

If that's the case then the thread title/assertions may be simply a mistake rather than deliberate sleight of hand. It's still interesting information, don't get me wrong, but the gloating was more than a little misguided.

I agree completely about the difference between popular beliefs and what the science actually supports. That is the authors' point about the foundation of misguided popular belief. The scientists themselves have been reticent to call out this misperception, presumably out of loyalty to the paradigm it defends.

 

[Deuce]

Orthodox warmists

silly and intellectually lazy,

Ya don't ****in say.

 

[Jack Hays]

Climate News
[h=1]Renounce Climate Alarmism[/h]Guest essay by Leo Goldstein “There is no greater mistake than to try to leap an abyss in two jumps” – David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister in WWI I think the Republican administration should renounce climate alarmism and climate pseudo-science sharply, unequivocally, and irrevocably. Climate alarmism is a tool used to wreck America and…

 

[Jack Hays]

Study finds a natural cause for early 20th century Arctic warming – but kowtows to CO2 in the present

From the universities of Kyoto & San Diego comes this old tired catchphrase, along with a polar bear picture to go with the press release. Is a warmer Arctic a canary of global warming? Since the 1970s the northern polar region has warmed faster than global averages by a factor or two or more, in…
Continue reading →

". . . . The paper “Early 20th-century Arctic warming intensified by Pacific and Atlantic multidecadal variability” appeared 30 May 2017 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, with doi: 10.1073/pnas.1615880114
Pacific North American circulation pattern links external forcing and North American hydroclimatic change over the past millennium
Significance
We have developed a new reconstruction of changes in the wintertime atmospheric circulation over North America based on data distributed across the region. The record spans almost 1,000 years and shows how variation in ocean temperatures, solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and greenhouse gases has affected circulation over this period. We show that the circulation pattern is strongly correlated with fluctuating drought conditions in the western United States. Climate models do a poor job of simulating the reconstructed record of circulation change, and thus may have difficulty predicting future patterns of drought influenced by changing winter storm tracks across this region.

Abstract
Land and sea surface temperatures, precipitation, and storm tracks in North America and the North Pacific are controlled to a large degree by atmospheric variability associated with the Pacific North American (PNA) pattern. The modern instrumental record indicates a trend toward a positive PNA phase in recent decades, which has led to accelerated warming and snowpack decline in northwestern North America. The brevity of the instrumental record, however, limits our understanding of long-term PNA variability and its directional or cyclic patterns. Here we develop a 937-y-long reconstruction of the winter PNA based on a network of annually resolved tree-ring proxy records across North America. The reconstruction is consistent with previous regional records in suggesting that the recent persistent positive PNA pattern is unprecedented over the past millennium, but documents patterns of decadal-scale variability that contrast with previous reconstructions. Our reconstruction shows that PNA has been strongly and consistently correlated with sea surface temperature variation, solar irradiance, and volcanic forcing over the period of record, and played a significant role in translating these forcings into decadal-to-multidecadal hydroclimate variability over North America. Climate model ensembles show limited power to predict multidecadal variation in PNA over the period of our record, raising questions about their potential to project future hydroclimatic change modulated by this circulation pattern. . . ."

---

 

[Lord of Planar]

For the record, I believe (with Henrik Svensmark) that CO2 follows temperature rather than driving it.

I am confident that this is the fact. CO2 will make minor changes in temperature, but not the driver of it.

The driver of CO2 levels are the ocean temperatures. Relatively large changes over a short time like out output has been will take hundreds of years to equalize, but if we completely stopped now, and had the same ocean temperatures as 1750 when the IPCC said it was 278 ppm, then we would still equalize to under 290 ppm.