The psychology of climate change denial

[polgara]

Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

This article was one of the best I've ever read! :thumbs: While it took a lot of time to read, due to article length plus the excellent "question/answer" format that was used, I am a speed-reader by training, so it was worth it. Kudos to Svensmark!

For what it's worth, are we going to have another Little Ice Age on this planet in the near future? Has the sun decided it's time to take a long rest instead of working hard all the time? Lots of questions that will be answered in due time I guess, but in the meantime, I will continue to follow Svensmark, and Shaviv, in their pursuit of answers!

 

[Jack Hays]

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

This article was one of the best I've ever read! :thumbs: While it took a lot of time to read, due to article length plus the excellent "question/answer" format that was used, I am a speed-reader by training, so it was worth it. Kudos to Svensmark!

For what it's worth, are we going to have another Little Ice Age on this planet in the near future? Has the sun decided it's time to take a long rest instead of working hard all the time? Lots of questions that will be answered in due time I guess, but in the meantime, I will continue to follow Svensmark, and Shaviv, in their pursuit of answers!

Greetings Polgara.:2wave:

I only wish some of our AGW advocates were as studious as you.:mrgreen:

 

[RealityNow]

We need not waste time trying to convince the denier's of anything.... we should continue to move forward and do the works that are necessary to address climate change.

One thing is true... Willful Ignorance will continue to produce Imbeciles, and imbeciles will generate fools.... We need not engage their foolishness.... when everything in nature is telling us that we must address climate change, as well as we must continue to deal with "conservation" in every area that we have ignored over many many many decades.

 

[iguanaman]

: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?

So you agree fully that the reasons for your denial is exactly as the OP stated. It's all about money.

 

[ataraxia]

Your argument is with 3G. He said there are no such things as the textbooks you referred to. Leave me out of that argument.

So what’s wrong with the textbook references in your view?

 

[bubbabgone]

Your assertion, though supported by the link, is false based on the data provided by the link itself. The "level of endorsement" of AGW is based on 3 levels:

1. Explicit endorsement with quantification (humans are causing anywhere from 1-100% of the warming)

2. Explicit endorsement without quantification (human cause percentage not specified)

3. Implicit endorsement (human cause percentage not specified)


They include those 3 as counting towards the 97%. There is no overall percentage given as to how much man is responsible for the warming. Where in the paper is this information?

Anyone who is still repeating that 97% thing is an Anthropogenic Giant Whore.

 

[Jack Hays]

We need not waste time trying to convince the denier's of anything.... we should continue to move forward and do the works that are necessary to address climate change.

One thing is true... Willful Ignorance will continue to produce Imbeciles, and imbeciles will generate fools.... We need not engage their foolishness.... when everything in nature is telling us that we must address climate change, as well as we must continue to deal with "conservation" in every area that we have ignored over many many many decades.

[FONT=&quot]

​

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]​

 

[ataraxia]

We need not waste time trying to convince the denier's of anything.... we should continue to move forward and do the works that are necessary to address climate change.

One thing is true... Willful Ignorance will continue to produce Imbeciles, and imbeciles will generate fools.... We need not engage their foolishness.... when everything in nature is telling us that we must address climate change, as well as we must continue to deal with "conservation" in every area that we have ignored over many many many decades.

But there’s so many of them. It’s a destructive mob at this point and hard to ignore..

 

[ataraxia]

Anyone who is still repeating that 97% thing is an Anthropogenic Giant Whore.

Anyone who thinks there is no overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is willfully blind.

 

[Jack Hays]

Anyone who thinks there is no overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is willfully blind.

"If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." --Michael Crichton

 

[bubbabgone]

So what’s wrong with the textbook references in your view?

You mean the two references you listed? Nothing at all.
Provided they don't already assume human CO2 is the cause of climate change, knock yourself out. Do they assume that?
They wouldn't be very balanced if they did that, would they?
I read books about climate change and the IPCC approach all the time.
It's 3G who has said reading books are terrible way to learn about the subject.
He really did say that.
Now he says there are no such things as textbooks about climate change so I figured you'd want to take that up with him.

 

[RealityNow]

But there’s so many of them. It’s a destructive mob at this point and hard to ignore..

Still we can't let them bring us down !!! California and Other States have created their own means to move forward with addressing Climate Change... (I remember when Los Angeles had this "brown haze (smog)".. but they made the changes and cleared the air...) They continue being forward thinking in environmental protections.
Yes, the Aerospace left California, because they did not want to modernize to address regulatory controls and went to State's that did not have focus on "environmental regulations"... and now some of those same states now have no choice but to address it. So, some of the Aerospace have gone to exporting the industry and outsourcing production in countries that let them get away with the toxicity they generate.

Florida, had an issue with "drain off from the sugar cane fields"... and EPA warned them, yet they continued and then resulted to have a massive Algae problem, when the problem grew so massive, then they wanted the EPA to come in and help them clean ups... what the EPA had tried to warn them and help them avoid the problem. It resulted into a very costly problem... derived from their Greed and Ignorance....

This nation will have massive "ground water contamination in areas where "Fracking" is taking place and it will expand because the chemicals being injected into the ground. Big Industry have convinced the willfully ignorant that there is no problem and dished out a few dollars in royalty check, and the people turn a blind eye... because such ignorance can be bought cheaply to support the continuing damages to the water table.... There's been whole sections of trees that have simply turn brown and rotted away, in areas near the Fracking... and they buy the lie, that its some airborne disease that suddenly caused this massive swatches of dead trees.

 

[longview]

We need not waste time trying to convince the denier's of anything.... we should continue to move forward and do the works that are necessary to address climate change.

One thing is true... Willful Ignorance will continue to produce Imbeciles, and imbeciles will generate fools.... We need not engage their foolishness.... when everything in nature is telling us that we must address climate change, as well as we must continue to deal with "conservation" in every area that we have ignored over many many many decades.

The problem is that CO2 levels are not the real problem, Energy is!
Addressing the wrong problem, greatly reduces the probability of a favorable outcome!
If we solve Humanities energy problem, any issues related to CO2 will be solved as a side effect.
Let me give you an example,
Solar power has a very real problem, it generates massive surpluses during some parts of the year when there is minimum demand.
If we could store these surpluses for later use, it would radically improve the benefit from solar power.
One path is to make carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels with the surplus, for use in the transport market.
Cutting new emissions from transport would lower global emissions by about 30%.
But this is something we need to do, even if CO2 was not an issue.
Making our own fuels, is a sustainable path forward.

 

[bubbabgone]

Anyone who thinks there is no overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is willfully blind.

Anyone who doesn't wonder how that "consensus" is defined is a fool. If they repeat it anyway then they're something worse.

 

[ataraxia]

"If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." --Michael Crichton

So what current science do you know that’s not consensus?

 

[Jack Hays]

So what current science do you know that’s not consensus?

Consensus is not science.

 

[ataraxia]

Anyone who doesn't wonder how that "consensus" is defined is a fool. If they repeat it anyway then they're something worse.

I would define it is what gets into an introductory textbook.

 

[ataraxia]

Consensus is not science.

So then you should have no problem coming up with an example of science that is not consensus.

 

[Jack Hays]

So then you should have no problem coming up with an example of science that is not consensus.

All of it.

 

[bubbabgone]

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

This article was one of the best I've ever read! :thumbs: While it took a lot of time to read, due to article length plus the excellent "question/answer" format that was used, I am a speed-reader by training, so it was worth it. Kudos to Svensmark!

For what it's worth, are we going to have another Little Ice Age on this planet in the near future? Has the sun decided it's time to take a long rest instead of working hard all the time? Lots of questions that will be answered in due time I guess, but in the meantime, I will continue to follow Svensmark, and Shaviv, in their pursuit of answers!

Hey Pol.
I don't know how you speed read some of the climate stuff but since you can, pick up "The Neglected Sun". It's great. Svensmark and Shaviv are in there along with others. It's over 400 pages.
Have your report ready by tonight. heh heh

 

[bubbabgone]

I would define it is what gets into an introductory textbook.

Oh my, you're not doing yourself any favors with talk like that. Especially regarding this subject.

 

[ataraxia]

All of it.

So there’s no consensus currently on the atomic theory of matter?

 

[polgara]

Hey Pol.
I don't know how you speed read some of the climate stuff but since you can, pick up "The Neglected Sun". It's great. Svensmark and Shaviv are in there along with others. It's over 400 pages.
Have your report ready by tonight. heh heh

Greetings, bubbabgone. :2wave:

:blah: :lamo: I have been keeping written records for over 25 years and have watched my climate slowly change from NE Ohio to Vermont-like - and I haven't moved!

My report will no doubt be on your desk first thing in the morning...........................

 

[ataraxia]

Oh my, you're not doing yourself any favors with talk like that. Especially regarding this subject.

Why not? Why is this subject so different than any other?

I say it’s just because you don’t like this particular science, not because there is anything wrong with the science or the level of evidence.

 

[Jack Hays]

So there’s no consensus currently on the atomic theory of matter?

Aliens Cause Global Warming

". . . Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . . "