The psychology of climate change denial

[Highlanders]

It is not conservative or liberal, it is scientific! Skeptics are from all over the world, and have nothing to do with US politics!
Why is it so difficult to understand that the concept of catastrophic man caused climate change,
is not supported by any empirical data. It is simply the output of computer models which used a
large range of assumptions for inputs.
If you want to argue the case for AGW, attempt to argue the science!

Why blame man for a normal abberation to weather and climate?

 

[vegas giants]

Why blame man for a normal abberation to weather and climate?

The scientific agencies disagree with your assessment

 

[Highlanders]

The scientific agencies disagree with your assessment

I agree, for two reasons, firstly, I'm not paid to frighten sheep, secondly, I'm not paid to give a predetermined outcome!

 

[vegas giants]

I agree, for two reasons, firstly, I'm not paid to frighten sheep, secondly, I'm not paid to give a predetermined outcome!

And you are not educated to make these pronouncements. Lol

 

[longview]

CO2 doesn't matter, it's a red herring!
Fuel in some nations is 10P a litre...... we pay a fortune because it vat, tax, duty, import tax, and to steal someone else's minerals. ISIS isn't cheap!
Producting fuel from CO2 is six times more expensive than normal fuel?
Solar, we don't have workable technology at present!
The power we do product, take hydro dams, every single dam, in Scotland can product substantially more hydropower, all generaterors were down graded, and sold off to speculators to hold the general public to ransom.
Most dams, owned by German companies can produce six times the power they produce at present, but if they produce more than the allotted allowed, they are severely financially penalised!

I agree that CO2 is a red herring, but producing fuel from CO2 need not be all that expensive.
The US Navy, says their process is 60% efficient, which means that a gallon of gasoline
that contains 33 Kwh of energy, would take roughly 55 Kwh of electricity to produce.
The actual cost of goods sold of electricity, is between ~ $.02 to .05 per Kwh,
In England, It says it is between 2 and 6 pence per Kwh, averaging about 4.5p.

Wholesale market indicators

Interactive data charts on wholesale price trends, security of supply, access and liquidity, competition, and investment and sustainability.

www.ofgem.gov.uk

If we take that out to a liter, 55 Kwh X £ .045= £2.48 per US gallon, or .65p per liter.
The Government likely has the flexibility to adjust the taxes, to make the carbon neutral fuel
equal in price (or lower) than the fuel made from oil.
A side effect of assembling molecules, is a massive increase in uniformity over fuel refined from oil.
They seem to only be able to make high octane fuels, I guess we will have to suffer through better fuel!
Think about if Scotland could utilize 100% of their hydro power, to make fuel for use in Scotland, possibly at lower prices?

 

[longview]

Why blame man for a normal abberation to weather and climate?

Human activity can affect the climate and weather, but the extent of that effect is not fully understood.
The Russian's clearly messed up the area around the Aerial sea, and denuding vast tracks of forest likely changes evaporation patterns.
As to our climate, the range of temperatures we live in is exceptionally stable!

 

[Highlanders]

Human activity can affect the climate and weather, but the extent of that effect is not fully understood.
The Russian's clearly messed up the area around the Aerial sea, and denuding vast tracks of forest likely changes evaporation patterns.
As to our climate, the range of temperatures we live in is exceptionally stable!

Goodness me, blame the Russians?
How about considering the hundreds of atomic bombs your nation practiced murdering people..... until... they murdered millions! Or how about the aircraft carriers, burning fossil fuel, to murder innocent civilians, or to carry away innocent civilians to torture chambers and death camps around the world!
Blame the Russians.... that's typical from a sheeple nation! Why one more climate change nonsense is as good as blaming Russians for American rape sodomy and murder of men women and children, nations your military have illegally destroyed to steal there assets oil, gold, finances or minerals!

 

[Jack Hays]

Goodness me, blame the Russians?
How about considering the hundreds of atomic bombs your nation practiced murdering people..... until... they murdered millions! Or how about the aircraft carriers, burning fossil fuel, to murder innocent civilians, or to carry away innocent civilians to torture chambers and death camps around the world!
Blame the Russians.... that's typical from a sheeple nation! Why one more climate change nonsense is as good as blaming Russians for American rape sodomy and murder of men women and children, nations your military have illegally destroyed to steal there assets oil, gold, finances or minerals!

“We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.” --Colin Powell, 2003

 

[longview]

Goodness me, blame the Russians?
How about considering the hundreds of atomic bombs your nation practiced murdering people..... until... they murdered millions! Or how about the aircraft carriers, burning fossil fuel, to murder innocent civilians, or to carry away innocent civilians to torture chambers and death camps around the world!
Blame the Russians.... that's typical from a sheeple nation! Why one more climate change nonsense is as good as blaming Russians for American rape sodomy and murder of men women and children, nations your military have illegally destroyed to steal there assets oil, gold, finances or minerals!

If you want to discuss the technical aspects of a sustainable future, it is within our grasp,
If we have Governments good enough to get us there is questionable.
Human activity is capable of affecting the climate, but to the extent that such change is attributable to added CO2,
it is a subtraction methodology. They look at the warming, and subtract off everything they think causes warming,
and what is left must be from added greenhouse gasses.
The flaw in that logic, is that any new advance in concepts that can cause warming, is moved away from the greenhouse gas remainder column.
So a finding that the Northern Hemisphere, experienced massive brightening of the solar radiation incident at Earth's surface,
from 1992 to 2001, completely throws off the greenhouse gas attribution.

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

 

[Highlanders]

We are a life form, we are on earth, we will create some difference!
But CO2 is part of the earth process for if not, no life would exist!
Any changes we as humans make are negligible, to say otherwise would be absolute nonsense. We scratch the surface just as mice and ants do!

 

[Highlanders]

We are a life form, we are on earth, we will create some difference!
But CO2 is part of the earth process for if not, no life would exist!
Any changes we as humans make are negligible, to say otherwise would be absolute nonsense. We scratch the surface just as mice and ants do!

 

[Buzz]

Please consider that while the Sun is approaching a solar minimum at ~1.1 W/m2 lower than it peak in 1958,

LISIRD

Discover, visualize, and download solar data from a variety of missions, instruments, and laboratories.

lasp.colorado.edu

the regulations or aerosols implemented almost everywhere in the late 1970's, have had an enormous effect on the amount
of sunlight that actually reaches the ground.

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

"Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an
increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22). "
So While the TSI at the top of the atmosphere, has declined by 1.1 W/m2 since 1958,
the amount of energy reaching the ground, has increased by at least 6 W/m2, from the atmosphere being clearer.
While the cause is still Anthropogenic, the nature of how the warming is attributed to CO2, could be greatly
depreciated. (The IPCC claims the attribution of CO2 from 1750 to 2011, is 1.68 W/m2.)

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg

You keep claiming that this 6W/m2 is entirely due to aerosols but that is not what your quote says. It says this increase in energy is due to a decrease in reflectance. The only problem is that aerosols are not the only thing that can decrease reflectance. Loss of snow and ice over much of the Northern hemisphere has definitely decreased reflectance. Since your quoted source is behind a firewall it would be nice if you linked to whatever you cut and pasted that line from so we can see if you are mischaracterizing another study or not.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Media have for a long term underreported about climate change and it's devastating effects and instead giving air time to deniers.

Climate change 'cause of most under-reported humanitarian crises'

Report says few headlines sparked by food crises that ravaged Madagascar, Ethiopia and Haiti

www.theguardian.com

Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study

Climate deniers have garnered far more media attention than prominent climate scientists over the years, fuelling public confusion and slowing the response to global warming, researchers reported Tuesday.

phys.org

So it therefor positive that climate change was one of the subject in the last presidential debate, there the topic had been ignored in the previous two presidential elections debates.

Climate Change Became a Debate Question Because You Asked for It

The candidates couldn’t avoid talking about the biggest issue on Earth

www.sierraclub.org

 

[Highlanders]

Media have for a long term underreported about climate change and it's devastating effects and instead giving air time to deniers.

Climate change 'cause of most under-reported humanitarian crises'

Report says few headlines sparked by food crises that ravaged Madagascar, Ethiopia and Haiti

www.theguardian.com

Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study

Climate deniers have garnered far more media attention than prominent climate scientists over the years, fuelling public confusion and slowing the response to global warming, researchers reported Tuesday.

phys.org

So it therefor positive that climate change was one of the subject in the last presidential debate, there the topic had been ignored in the previous two presidential elections debates.

Climate Change Became a Debate Question Because You Asked for It

The candidates couldn’t avoid talking about the biggest issue on Earth

www.sierraclub.org

There is enough bull in presidential debates, without taking them going further into the realms of fantasy and climate change, get a life!

 

[ataraxia]

I agree, for two reasons, firstly, I'm not paid to frighten sheep, secondly, I'm not paid to give a predetermined outcome!

The science of climate change is no different than any other science. It has been evolving from numerous different disciplines, from physics,chemistry, and biology, to public health and geology, over the last century. Any claim otherwise is kooky conspiracy theory.

 

[ataraxia]

We are a life form, we are on earth, we will create some difference!
But CO2 is part of the earth process for if not, no life would exist!
Any changes we as humans make are negligible, to say otherwise would be absolute nonsense. We scratch the surface just as mice and ants do!

That goes against what every single scientific organization is saying. So where are you getting your info?

 

[Jack Hays]

Restoring Scientific Debate on Climate
Guest essay by Jim Steele The political genius of Abraham Lincoln’s efforts to unify the country during America’s most divisive time has been attributed to assembling a “team of rivals”. Likewise, scientific research is published so rivals and supporters of a hypothesis can independently and critically examine it. The great benefits of a team of…
Continue reading →

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Restoring Scientific Debate on Climate
Guest essay by Jim Steele The political genius of Abraham Lincoln’s efforts to unify the country during America’s most divisive time has been attributed to assembling a “team of rivals”. Likewise, scientific research is published so rivals and supporters of a hypothesis can independently and critically examine it. The great benefits of a team of…
Continue reading →

The debate about climate change is over that the evidences are overwhelming and all the world leading scientific societies are acknowledging the urgent need for action. Like for example these 31 American scientific societies.

American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Public Health Association, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, American Society of Naturalists, American Society of Plant Biologists American Statistical, Association Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation, Association of Ecosystem Research Center, BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium, Botanical Society of America Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Entomological Society of America, Geological Society of America, National Association of Marine Laboratories, Natural Science Collections Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society for Mathematical Biology, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Society of Nematologists, Society of Systematic Biologists Soil Science Society of America and University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

https://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf

While the few studies that refute the urgent need for action are not just full with errors but also contradict eachother.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

Scientists who deny climate change are not modern-day Galileos.

qz.com

 

[Highlanders]

That goes against what every single scientific organization is saying. So where are you getting your info?

Common bloody sense, education, and living without fear!
Look at the facts for yourself, do not be led like a sheep, make your own decisions, come to your own conclusions....!
Who says they are scientific organisations and of those that are.... where is the funding coming from?

 

[Highlanders]

The science of climate change is no different than any other science. It has been evolving from numerous different disciplines, from physics,chemistry, and biology, to public health and geology, over the last century. Any claim otherwise is kooky conspiracy theory.

Or as I said, you are easily led!
Ask yourself one question..... who benefits? It boils down to money every time, just some are too stupid to take off the rose tinted glasses to see for themselves!
We have engines now that are cheaper and more cost effective to use, why don't we?
We have alternatives to petrol and diesel, who owns the patent?
We can make cars that could last decades, why don't we?
Carrots are sprayed so they rot within weeks, carrots stored properly can last a year, why are they sprayed?
Same with size and weight of potatoes!
Washining machines last five years...if your lucky, you can take out insurance if they break, they could last twenty years as they did previously why on earth do you think they don't? Why do we need insurance instead of reliability?
You lot complain about plastics in the ocean, and how to remedy the problem, from casting huge nets, collecting plastics at dumps, to compacting plastics! Christ, how bloody stupid, just stop oil companies producing plastics and as they did before, pay for the privilege to dispose of they're own waste!
Return glass bottles and paper bags, human health may improve without plastics as seventy years ago, before the invent of plastics, it was one cancer death in seventy where now it's one in two!
Get a bloody life!

 

[Jack Hays]

The debate about climate change is over that the evidences are overwhelming and all the world leading scientific societies are acknowledging the urgent need for action. Like for example these 31 American scientific societies.

American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Public Health Association, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, American Society of Naturalists, American Society of Plant Biologists American Statistical, Association Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation, Association of Ecosystem Research Center, BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium, Botanical Society of America Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Entomological Society of America, Geological Society of America, National Association of Marine Laboratories, Natural Science Collections Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society for Mathematical Biology, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Society of Nematologists, Society of Systematic Biologists Soil Science Society of America and University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

https://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf

While the few studies that refute the urgent need for action are not just full with errors but also contradict eachother.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

Scientists who deny climate change are not modern-day Galileos.

qz.com

You have once again shown that you are part of the problem.

 

[Jack Hays]

Asking the Non-Consensual Questions, My New Book on Climate Change
October 4, 2020 By jennifer 4 Comments


He is calling it the ‘thinking sceptics’ guide to climate change. The article is by journalist Graham Lloyd in The Weekend Australian. It is about my new book, Climate Change: The Facts 2020 (CCTF2020). Graham Lloyd has read the book – all 20 … [Read more...]

 

[longview]

You keep claiming that this 6W/m2 is entirely due to aerosols but that is not what your quote says. It says this increase in energy is due to a decrease in reflectance. The only problem is that aerosols are not the only thing that can decrease reflectance. Loss of snow and ice over much of the Northern hemisphere has definitely decreased reflectance. Since your quoted source is behind a firewall it would be nice if you linked to whatever you cut and pasted that line from so we can see if you are mischaracterizing another study or not.

The Study, looks Public to me.

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

The Title is
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface
Wild, 2005!
The Study, is as the title suggests, about the dimming and brightening of the solar energy striking Earth's surface.
The Above quote was about a collaboration study called Earthshine. which Wild, et al says agrees with their findings.
While the actual cause of the 6 W/m2 is mostly from aerosol clearing, it is not necessary that all of it could be.
Consider that during the same time window, increases in Greenhouse gasses, could have increased the downward
LW radiation by 0.27 W/m2. In any case the massive increase in energy at Earth's Surface,
should change the way we model the effects of greenhouse gasses!

 

[Paradoxical]

I have been very puzzled at the rhetoric and arguments of climate deniers. It has seemed really odd how readily, for example, they deny the strong and unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet, but jump all over a Manhattan real estate guy’s Declaration that it’s all just a Chinese hoax. No amount of evidence seems to be enough. They either deny it, or twist it, or just grasp at any crazy website or charlatan they can find who may have an opposing opinion. It just seems so disconnected from reality and reason.

It did not make sense, until I saw this article about why otherwise rational people can become climate change deniers, young earth creationists, believe in ESP and UFO abduction stories, deny modern medicine and think they can treat their rececently diagnosed cancer with all-natural herbal teas and yoga, become an anti-vaxxer, etc...

It’s a psychological optical illusion: when scientific facts are so unfamiliar, so uncomfortable, so against one’s view of what the world is like or should be, that it becomes preposterous to accept it. So they start to see their skepticism as being smart. The science, so readily accepted in other areas, becomes a conspiracy to destroy capitalism or give their kids autism or something. It’s not A matter of presenting even more evidence, or being more logical or rational. This is not about facts or logic.

Great article on the psychology of such science-denial:

Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost Life

I think the way to try to convince these folks is not to keep presenting more evidence for climate change. It’s not about the evidence. Clearly no amount of evidence is going to change their mind. The thing that bothers them is probably that if true, it is going to involve government intervention and spending. Or that they might lose their jobs. If they are convinced that’s what it’s going to necessarily involve, they are going to keep denying it. Maybe if they are reassured that the free-market may be able to address these issues, or that new and more jobs will be created, they will not deny the issues themselves so much anymore. Of course, then there is the fear of change that we will have to contend with.

But at least this may be a blueprint for how to debate these folks. Because it is clear than trying to convince them just based on evidence and rationality is a losing proposition. You will just go against a brick wall and come back with a concussion. Because it’s not about that.

I agree that the climate has been changing for centuries. Now what?

 

[Buzz]

The Study, looks Public to me.

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

The Title is
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface
Wild, 2005!

Well... it is behind a paywall for me no matter where I find a link to it. Did Lord give you his password and you get access because of a cookie in your browser?

The Study, is as the title suggests, about the dimming and brightening of the solar energy striking Earth's surface.
The Above quote was about a collaboration study called Earthshine. which Wild, et al says agrees with their findings.
While the actual cause of the 6 W/m2 is mostly from aerosol clearing, it is not necessary that all of it could be.
Consider that during the same time window, increases in Greenhouse gasses, could have increased the downward
LW radiation by 0.27 W/m2. In any case the massive increase in energy at Earth's Surface,
should change the way we model the effects of greenhouse gasses!

There is no massive increase in energy at the surface. I don't know where you getting that. But in my search for a free copy of Wild 2005, I did find Wild 2007. And, Oh my, is it interesting. The Abstract:

Speculations on the impact of variations in surface solar radiation on global warming range from concerns that solar dimming has largely masked the full magnitude of greenhouse warming, to claims that the recent reversal from solar dimming to brightening rather than the greenhouse effect was responsible for the observed warming. To disentangle surface solar and greenhouse influences on global warming, trends in diurnal temperature range are analyzed. They suggest that solar dimming was effective in masking greenhouse warming, but only up to the 1980s, when dimming gradually transformed into brightening. Since then, the uncovered greenhouse effect has revealed its full dimension, as manifested in a rapid temperature rise(+0.38°C/decade over land since mid-1980s). Recent solar brightening cannot supersede the greenhouse effect as main cause of global warming, since land temperatures increased by 0.8°C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh solar dimming within this period.

emphasis mine
https://iacweb.ethz.ch/doc/publications/2006GL028031.pdf

And there is more... after the next post.