The psychology of climate change denial

[Integrityrespec]

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.

No psychology to it, just too many holes in the claims made by climate extremist.

Michael Shellenberger to climate activists: It's not the end of the world

The coauthor of "The Death of Environmentalism" talks about the Anthropocene, an era of big decisions, and why global warming isn't his greatest concern.

grist.org

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

www.forbes.com

 

[Buzz]

And I also found an even newer article from Wild published in 2012 with even more interesting information. Here is it's abstract:

A fundamental determinant of climate and life on our planet is the solar radiation (sunlight) incident at the Earth's surface. Any change in this precious energy source affects our habitats profoundly. Until recently, for simplicity and lack of better knowledge, the amount of solar radiation received at the Earth's surface was assumed to be stable over the years. However, there is increasing observational evidence that this quantity undergoes significant multidecadal variations, which need to be accounted for in discussions of climate change and mitigation strategies. Coherent periods and regions with prevailing declines (“dimming”) and inclines (“brightening”) in surface solar radiation have been detected in the worldwide observational networks, often in accord with anthropogenic air pollution patterns. The present synthesis provides in a nutshell the main characteristics of this phenomenon, a conceptual framework for its causes, and an overview of potential environmental implications. The latest developments and remaining gaps of knowledge in this rapidly growing field of research are further highlighted.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/93/1/27/59960/Enlightening-Global-Dimming-and-Brightening
And this study also had this to say:

R E C E N T D E V E L O P M E N T S A N D PERSPECTIVES. The latest updates on solar radiation changes observed since the new millennium show no globally coherent trends anymore (see above and Fig. 2). While brightening persists to some extent in Europe and the United States, there are indications for a renewed dimming in China associated with the tremendous emission increases there after 2000, as well as unabated dimming in India (Streets et al. 2009; Wild et al. 2009). We cannot exclude the possibility that we are currently again in a transition phase and may return to a renewed overall dimming for some years to come.

Hmmm... recent increased dimming from China and consistent dimming from India... just like I have pointed out to longview on several occasions.
It looks to me like longview's latest theory about brightening being the main cause of GW is just another dud.

 

[longview]

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?

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

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

If you understood how close the concept of catastrophic AGW was to being insignificant,
you would understand that removing almost any amount from the greenhouse gas attribution column,
would greatly weaken the voices calling for urgent action.
Let's look at your citation for a second, and consider it's implications towards AGW.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/93/1/27/59960/Enlightening-Global-Dimming-and-Brightening
" Literature estimates for the overall SSR decline during dimming range from 3 to 9 W m−2,
and from 1 to 4 W m−2 for the partial recovery during subsequent brightening "
Now the IPCC says that all of the radiative forcing between 1750 and 2011, was 2.29 W m-2.
The same graph,
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg
shows that TSI for the period at .05 W m-2.
Think about the impact, if the SSR actually increased by between 1 and 4 W m-2 between 1988 and 2018?
It could account for from nearly half, to all of the EEI.

 

[Integrityrespec]

:lamo

"did Nied the strong and unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet...."

First, Maurice Strong created the Global Warming agenda.

He did that when he organized the first "climate" conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

There, in the opening statement to the conference attendees he laid out the plan for economic control of the West, Agenda 21, and the realignment of power throughout the Earth.


Since then, when someone raises a hand to question the science has been conducted, or more critically, the prescribed mitigation, they are summarily attacked.

If you are a Climate Scientists, or affiliated organization, you can get on the gravy train, or, be cut off and starve, depending on what kind of results you bring to the table.

Climate Change has abandoned the Scientific Method. The whole agenda seeks to take control of the lives of all humans on Earth, demands the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, and encourages punitive responses directed at anyone who gets in the way of it's objectives.

Given these facts, is it really that difficult to understand why people question what is going on?

Here's what you need to know about Strong and the Club of Rome. Notice who belongs to COR. Power brokers, those who want to control the world. Don't fool yourself into believing they are doing it to help mankind. They are concerned with control and profit.

“IN Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming”

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit…

climatism.blog

 

[Bergslagstroll]

No psychology to it, just too many holes in the claims made by climate extremist.

Michael Shellenberger to climate activists: It's not the end of the world

The coauthor of "The Death of Environmentalism" talks about the Anthropocene, an era of big decisions, and why global warming isn't his greatest concern.

grist.org

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

www.forbes.com

Federal agencies have been under the control of a president that denies the urgent need for action. There you also have Republicans like Jamese Inhofe in Congress.

"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. According to Oil Change International, Inhofe has received over $2 million in political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo, and brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to ‘disprove’ global warming. Sen. Inhofe, author of the 2012 book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, once claimed on the Senate floor that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”"

There the result is that federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action because the evidences are so overwhelming.

Top 11 Climate Deniers: Key Players Revealed - Before The Flood

Unmask the top climate change deniers who are influencing public opinion and policy. This article sheds light on the individuals and organizations that have played significant roles in climate disinformation.

www.beforetheflood.com

 

[Jack Hays]

New book: Climate Change: The Facts 2020
The Institute of Public Affairs today announced the release of a significant new book of research Climate Change: The Facts 2020 published by the Institute of Public Affairs and Australian Scholarly Publishing. On 24 September 2019, the 17-year-old activist Greta Thunberg addressed the United Nations Climate Action Summit saying, “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems…

 

[longview]

New book: Climate Change: The Facts 2020
The Institute of Public Affairs today announced the release of a significant new book of research Climate Change: The Facts 2020 published by the Institute of Public Affairs and Australian Scholarly Publishing. On 24 September 2019, the 17-year-old activist Greta Thunberg addressed the United Nations Climate Action Summit saying, “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems…

I really like the quote,
" It is better to have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned.”

 

[vegas giants]

2020 is predicted to be the hottest year on record, according to NASA

Scientists at NOAA are already projecting that 2020 will end up being the hottest year ever recorded.

www.weforum.org

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I really like the quote,
" It is better to have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned.”

How can you claim that the evidences for urgent need for action on climate change haven't been questioned? Especially since you have had president for the last four years that denies the urgent need for action. That it shows how overwhelming the evidences are that federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

 

[Buzz]

If you understood how close the concept of catastrophic AGW was to being insignificant,
you would understand that removing almost any amount from the greenhouse gas attribution column,
would greatly weaken the voices calling for urgent action.

Who said anything about CAGW? Why do you think this term really proves anything in this discussion? Don't change the subject.

And just because something like aerosols can offset warming from GHG does not weaken the case for working to lessen the effects of AGW. It is just an offset to AGW and not a refutation of it.

Let's look at your citation for a second, and consider it's implications towards AGW.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/93/1/27/59960/Enlightening-Global-Dimming-and-Brightening
" Literature estimates for the overall SSR decline during dimming range from 3 to 9 W m−2,
and from 1 to 4 W m−2 for the partial recovery during subsequent brightening "
Now the IPCC says that all of the radiative forcing between 1750 and 2011, was 2.29 W m-2.
The same graph,
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg
shows that TSI for the period at .05 W m-2.
Think about the impact, if the SSR actually increased by between 1 and 4 W m-2 between 1988 and 2018?
It could account for from nearly half, to all of the EEI.

And there you go again comparing a surface measurement to a top of atmosphere(or troposphere) estimate of radiative forcing and a measurement of energy imbalance as if they are all the same and directly comparable when, in fact, they are not.

Your numbers and logic don't really prove what you want it to prove.

 

[longview]

How can you claim that the evidences for urgent need for action on climate change haven't been questioned? Especially since you have had president for the last four years that denies the urgent need for action. That it shows how overwhelming the evidences are that federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Um, Does anyone take what Trumps pontificates, seriously?
No, An example of answers that cannot be questioned in AGW, are things like doubling the the
CO2 level, will produce an ECS of 3C, simply because assumption based models produced that result on average.
If for example the net result of a fully equalized doubling of CO2 is as the historic data suggest, .81C,
then CO2 is really of no concern.

 

[vegas giants]

Um, Does anyone take what Trumps pontificates, seriously?
No, An example of answers that cannot be questioned in AGW, are things like doubling the the
CO2 level, will produce an ECS of 3C, simply because assumption based models produced that result on average.
If for example the net result of a fully equalized doubling of CO2 is as the historic data suggest, .81C,
then CO2 is really of no concern.

The scientific community disagrees

 

[longview]

Who said anything about CAGW? Why do you think this term really proves anything in this discussion? Don't change the subject.

And just because something like aerosols can offset warming from GHG does not weaken the case for working to lessen the effects of AGW. It is just an offset to AGW and not a refutation of it.

And there you go again comparing a surface measurement to a top of atmosphere(or troposphere) estimate of radiative forcing and a measurement of energy imbalance as if they are all the same and directly comparable when, in fact, they are not.

Your numbers and logic don't really prove what you want it to prove.

Simply because it disagrees with your dogma, does not make it wrong!
Also, the first law of thermodynamics, says that energy cannot be created or destroyed,
so any change at the surface, will be balanced at the top of the atmosphere.
It is rather hard coded into the concept of forcing.

 

[vegas giants]

Simply because it disagrees with your dogma, does not make it wrong!
Also, the first law of thermodynamics, says that energy cannot be created or destroyed,
so any change at the surface, will be balanced at the top of the atmosphere.
It is rather hard coded into the concept of forcing.

You are saying the first law of thermodynamics denies AGW??????


HAHAHAHAHA

 

[Jack Hays]

Do Your Own Research?
Both of these essays are valuable – and contain truths we need to be aware of and accept. But they also represent the problem we see all across human endeavors in today’s rather complicated world, and particularly in scientific fields: It ain’t that simple.
Continue reading →

 

[Buzz]

Simply because it disagrees with your dogma, does not make it wrong!

My dogma?

You're the one who brought up the denialist dogma of CAGW.

Also, the first law of thermodynamics, says that energy cannot be created or destroyed,
so any change at the surface, will be balanced at the top of the atmosphere.
It is rather hard coded into the concept of forcing.

Nobody is saying that energy is being created or destroyed. Besides... anyone who understands this subject knows that the atmosphere is not completely transparent and actually stores large amounts of energy. That is why energy budgets of the Earth all show much larger amounts of heat energy at the surface than at the top of the atmosphere. And don't forget that study you once cited where James Hansen specifically pointed out that directly comparing surface measurements of energy flux with TOA measurements was scientific malpractice.

 

[longview]

My dogma?

You're the one who brought up the denialist dogma of CAGW.

Nobody is saying that energy is being created or destroyed. Besides... anyone who understands this subject knows that the atmosphere is not completely transparent and actually stores large amounts of energy. That is why energy budgets of the Earth all show much larger amounts of heat energy at the surface than at the top of the atmosphere. And don't forget that study you once cited where James Hansen specifically pointed out that directly comparing surface measurements of energy flux with TOA measurements was scientific malpractice.

I contend, that alarmist claims of exaggerated warming, are dogma, as they are built, not on observations,
but model outputs, based on assumptions, that are increasingly being shown to be incorrect.

As to energy being created, let us consider the what almost everyone accepts.
Earth is 33C warmer, because of a Top of the atmosphere energy imbalance of 150 W m-2.
This is a ratio of .22C per W m-2 of imbalance.
The IPCC, in the Third assessment report, stated that, 4 W m-2 of imbalance would force warming of 1.2C,
a ratio of .3C per W m-2, and that feedbacks would amplify that warming to produce warming of between 1.5 and 4.5C.
( If we use an ECS of 3 C, implies a ratio .75 C per W m-2).
The idea that the ratio of warming to imbalance would increase, is a creation of energy!

 

[Jack Hays]

Penguins, Rowan Dean and Selling Books
October 13, 2020 By jennifer 2 Comments


Saturday night, I was eating chocolates at Catherine’s (remember my friend who tutors kids in maths), when Rowan phoned. Not any Rowan. The Rowan Dean from Sky Television. He was working late. We had just been talking about him at dinner, because … [Read more...]

 

[vegas giants]

'Glaciers have always grown and receded'--A few glaciers melting does not mean global warming

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: A few glaciers receding today is not proof of global warming. Glaciers have grown and receded differently in many times and places.

grist.org

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Propaganda from right wing media is a big reason for the delay in action on climate change and turning it into a partisan issue.

"A former Republican congressman has blamed Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets for fuelling “climate rejectionism” among conservatives, suggesting they could be part of the reason why the United States is failing to lead the world to tackle global heating.

Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina congressman who has renounced his previous climate denialism and now leads a group seeking to rally conservatives to act, questioned the role of News Corp and Fox Corporation during an event hosted by the Australia Institute.

Inglis told the progressive thinktank that Australia and the US shared a form of “climate rejectionism that comes in conservative clothing”.

He said both countries also shared “a particular news organisation that has a great deal to do with that” – and pointed the finger at Murdoch’s Fox News and the Wall Street Journal in particular.

“If you look at Fox viewers in America – that’s where you find the climate disputation,” Inglis said."

Former Republican congressman says Murdoch's media outlets fuelling 'climate rejectionism'

Bob Inglis tells Australian thinktank that Fox News and Wall Street Journal are holding back progress on climate

www.theguardian.com

 

[Jack Hays]

Propaganda from right wing media is a big reason for the delay in action on climate change and turning it into a partisan issue.

"A former Republican congressman has blamed Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets for fuelling “climate rejectionism” among conservatives, suggesting they could be part of the reason why the United States is failing to lead the world to tackle global heating.

Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina congressman who has renounced his previous climate denialism and now leads a group seeking to rally conservatives to act, questioned the role of News Corp and Fox Corporation during an event hosted by the Australia Institute.

Inglis told the progressive thinktank that Australia and the US shared a form of “climate rejectionism that comes in conservative clothing”.

He said both countries also shared “a particular news organisation that has a great deal to do with that” – and pointed the finger at Murdoch’s Fox News and the Wall Street Journal in particular.

“If you look at Fox viewers in America – that’s where you find the climate disputation,” Inglis said."

Former Republican congressman says Murdoch's media outlets fuelling 'climate rejectionism'

Bob Inglis tells Australian thinktank that Fox News and Wall Street Journal are holding back progress on climate

www.theguardian.com

Henrik Svensmark is a Dane and Nir Shaviv is Israeli. To the extent their political preferences are known, both seem to be euro-style social democrats.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Henrik Svensmark is a Dane and Nir Shaviv is Israeli. To the extent their political preferences are known, both seem to be euro-style social democrats.

Still it's mostly right wing media and propaganda that promotes their false theories.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

ExxonMobil have a hard time denying the fact that they misled the public because the evidence are so overwhelming.

"First, ExxonMobil has not challenged any of our findings about the 187 documents analyzed in our original study. They do not deny that Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil all had early knowledge that their products have the potential to cause dangerous global warming. Nor do they deny that Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil all promoted doubt about climate science and its implications in order to delay action.

Second, ExxonMobil accused us of analyzing “less than 3%” of their advertorials. This is misleading: less than 4% of their advertorials concerned climate change; most were irrelevant. Nevertheless, we have expanded our research program to include advertorials of which we were originally unaware, and found that – spoiler alert – “the results strengthen our original finding.”

Third, ExxonMobil claims that our original publication “obscur[ed] the separateness” of Exxon and Mobil prior to their 1999 merger. This is incorrect and misleading: when Exxon and Mobil merged, ExxonMobil inherited legal and moral responsibility for both. Moreover, as we summarize in today’s rebuttal, additional work we have done in response to ExxonMobil’s complaints “further demonstrates that both Exxon and Mobil separately misled the public, and continued to do so once they merged to become ExxonMobil Corp.”"

ExxonMobil misled the public about the climate crisis. Now they're trying to silence critics | Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes

Newly leaked documents reported by Bloomberg News show that ExxonMobil’s climate dishonesty is even worse than we thought

www.theguardian.com

The original study about how ExxonMobil mislead the public.

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

 

[Tim the plumber]

Do Your Own Research?
Both of these essays are valuable – and contain truths we need to be aware of and accept. But they also represent the problem we see all across human endeavors in today’s rather complicated world, and particularly in scientific fields: It ain’t that simple.
Continue reading →

There are lots, most, people who are simply not and never will be at all capable of thinking in a scientific way.

Obviously there are many of these types here.

They are people who have never had an origional thought ever. They thus think that neither has anybody else.

It is reasonable from an evolutionary persepective that such people exist. When intelligence happened it was not necessary for all members of the species to be that. If they could just copy the new idea then they couild get along.

And indeed the dilligent careful repeater of stuff that works is a very viable niche. Such people are often very useful in many ways. A friend of my wife is an accountant, she sometimes stays with us for a weekend. She has conversations with me that she starts which she knows will boow her mind. One of the things she said was there is no such thing as an origional thought. I expect that she is a very good accountant.

But when it comes to explaining to such people we, who do the independant thinking, will I think, never manage to do it as the basic premis of thinking is mismatched between us.

 

[Jack Hays]

Still it's mostly right wing media and propaganda that promotes their false theories.

And you have evidence to support that claim?