The psychology of climate change denial

[ataraxia]

science doesn't claim anything it is a pursuit. A way of thinking with minimal bias.

No it claims some stuff, like that water is H2O or the Earth goes around the sun.


none of what's truths?

Who are the "they" you are talking about?

I am using the word “they” to refer to scientific truth claims, scientific “facts”.

so experts in fields are your gods? I reject that religious belief.

Well, not quite. The difference between them and the gods is that the don’t claim infallibility or omniscience. They are always updating their observations and adding to them, and always open to better models to try to make sense of them.

That’s why there is only one edition of holy books, but science books keep coming up with newer and updated editions every few years.

 

[CLAX1911]

Sure. But what we observe and calculate is always contingent on our latest and best observations. And that’s always changing. There are always new observations or perspectives that can throw what we thought we were seeing into question (eg, the Earth doesn’t look flat anymore when viewed from a higher altitude). None of it is a claim of ultimate truth. It’s just our best observations, and the best thinking to date that’s been brought to bear on those observations to make sense of them. But I don’t think any scientist would claim the status of Ultimate Truth for any of their claims, no matter how many mountains of observations and data they have for them.





Yeah, as weird as it sounds, based on the above argument, I would have to go with the latter: a scientific fact is one which is agreed upon by the experts in that field. The only way the first could be true is if we could adapt a God’s-eye perspective on the universe, to know the mind of God and everything there was to know and see, and do it from the final real perspective. No scientist is going to claim that for science. It’s all just the best the experts in that field have been able to do so far- a very humble and fallible claim for us very fallible mortals. Science is a very human endeavor, and so always subject to our limitations. But despite that, it’s been the most useful thing we have so far.



Yeah but Galileo was able to convince his scientific colleagues very quickly. It took the rest of culture a few more centuries to really accept what he was saying. But that’s why I talk about the consensus of experts in that field. It’s not a democracy where everyone gets to vote.



Actually they kinda were. Someone forgot to put the lid on one of their bacterial culture plates, and by the next morning mold had grown in one corner of it, and there was a clear zone around the mold where the bacteria had not grown. Some further chemical analysis revealed that what was doing the trick was a chemical being created by the mold that was bactericidal. The name of the mold was penicillium.



No, but they were able to convince them in fairly short order.

I don't think you know anything about science I think you just saying what you want to try and make sure that what you want to believe continues being truth. So I don't see much value in continuing this.

 

[ataraxia]

I don't think you know anything about science I think you just saying what you want to try and make sure that what you want to believe continues being truth. So I don't see much value in continuing this.

OK. But what we are talking about here is the philosophy of science- a fascinating field really looking at what is the nature of science and scientific claims. I found this audio course excellent and would recommend it to you. I am sure you would enjoy it as much as I did:

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-o...eway&sprefix=great+courses+philosophy+&sr=8-1

 

[CLAX1911]

OK. But what we are talking about here is the philosophy of science- a fascinating field really looking at what is the nature of science and scientific claims. I found this audio course excellent and would recommend it to you. I am sure you would enjoy it as much as I did:

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-o...eway&sprefix=great+courses+philosophy+&sr=8-1

The philosophy of science? I'll give it a look.

 

[ataraxia]

Also another good course:

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Wars...MA0CRB1CJEF&psc=1&refRID=HJ2HCMD18MA0CRB1CJEF

 

[flogger]

Hey, where's flogger's "Kobayashi" graph? He would normally post it like he has for the last 5 years. Maybe too soon? :3oops:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...rd-shattering-heatwave-37.html#post1070432885



He's wrong in his claim that "the Earth has been significantly warmer than the present in recent millennia during both the Roman and Minoan warming periods". But he has provided a lot of evidence in his posts that his science denial is not motivated by science like this below:

View attachment 67261570

"Over the Common Era (the past 2,000 yr), palaeoclimate proxy-based observations of temperature and climate forcings are available at up to sub-annual resolution and cover much of the globe. Reconstructed GMST over the full Common Era provides context for recent warming"

Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era | Nature Geoscience


View attachment 67261571

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era | Nature

"we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years"

Are you therefore in complete denial that warmer periods periods have existed in the post glacial era ? So explain those inconvenient tree stumps recently revealed underneath receding glaciers that indicate that between 4000 and 7000 years ago the climate must have been significantly warmer for those to have grown there. In Greenland it was discovered that the warmer climate as recently as 1000 years ago allowed the Vikings to cultivate barley there. Interesting too that the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods have mysteriously vanished from the climate record since the invention of AGW.

Are you seriously suggesting that given conditions today it would be better for humanity to go back to living in the climate of the Little Ice Age one of the coldest dips on the 10,000yr post glacial record ? If so then why ?

 

[flogger]

After posting on this and other forums for years, I've realized that climate truthers don't feel embarrassment after being caught out doing really really stupid things or telling outright lies. They just pretend it didn't happen.

I wonder how long it will be before he forgets and uses that graphic/paper again?

Probably not long given it was taken from a published Peer reviewed study.

Like I said before if you have issues with its conclusions/methodologies take it up with the author and those that reviewed it.

So I spelled his name wrong and alarmist trolls have made it into a feeding frenzy my bad . Big Deal.

Any chance you'll answer any question I've put to you in multiple posts since then or is flaming those who disagree with you all you've got ?

 

[Quaestio]

Are you therefore in complete denial that warmer periods periods have existed in the post glacial era ? So explain those inconvenient tree stumps recently revealed underneath receding glaciers that indicate that between 4000 and 7000 years ago the climate must have been significantly warmer for those to have grown there. In Greenland it was discovered that the warmer climate as recently as 1000 years ago allowed the Vikings to cultivate barley there. Interesting too that the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods have mysteriously vanished from the climate record since the invention of AGW.

Are you seriously suggesting that given conditions today it would be better for humanity to go back to living in the climate of the Little Ice Age one of the coldest dips on the 10,000yr post glacial record ? If so then why ?

So now you're deflecting with the lame strawman approach? zzzzzz not interested in playing your dishonest games.

 

[flogger]

So now you're deflecting with the lame strawman approach? zzzzzz not interested in playing your dishonest games.

You seem so agitated on this issue and with anyone disagreeing with you it is legitimate to ask what you want to achieve here. Why is that a deflection or dishonest ?

 

[Quaestio]

Probably not long given it was taken from a published Peer reviewed study.

Like I said before if you have issues with its conclusions/methodologies take it up with the author and those that reviewed it.

So I spelled his name wrong and alarmist trolls have made it into a feeding frenzy my bad . Big Deal.

Any chance you'll answer any question I've put to you in multiple posts since then or is flaming those who disagree with you all you've got ?

I had no issue with the paper or the methods or conclusions. They explained them quite well. Especially the parts where they mixed proxy records and instrumental records on the same graphs.

Apparently you are the one who has a huge problem with that method, but you didn't even know that's what they did. After 5 years of flogging it and misrepresenting it. LOL!

Read my posts again instead of misrepresenting what I wrote.

I understand- You're trying to minimize your stupidity by just pretending it was because you just "spelled the name wrong".

Mate you got your arse handed to you. Pull your bigboy britches back up and try to do better. Maybe read a textbook instead of skimming pseudoscience blogs for graphs from papers you've never read and don't understand, then misrepresenting them.... for 5 years.

 

[Quaestio]

You seem so agitated on this issue and with anyone disagreeing with you it is legitimate to ask what you want to achieve here. Why is that a deflection or dishonest ?

Mate, it's you who is agitated and continually deflecting. Nothing to do with anyone "disagreeing with me". Your dishonest attempts to gaslight, project, create strawmen, lie and misrepresent, are very transparent and don't work on me. Just own it and move on.

 

[flogger]

I had no issue with the paper or the methods or conclusions. They explained them quite well. Especially the parts where they mixed proxy records and instrumental records on the same graphs.
Apparently you are the one who has a problem with that, but you didn't even know that's what they did. After 5 years of flogging it and misrepresenting it. LOL! Read my posts again.

I understand- You're trying to minimize your stupidity by just pretending it was because you just "spelled the name wrong".

Mate you got your arse handed to you.

So how did this paper pass Peer review unless you are claiming to be more qualified than the author and the reviewers ?

All climate change papers have of necessity caveats and provisos given the lack of definitive empirical evidence for most of the important variables involved, yet they too pass Peer review.

As I mentioned earlier there is hard physical evidence emerging of recent warmer periods that contradict the current narrative. It suggests we do not know nearly enough yet to be making predictions of anything

What is it you want to happen ?

 

[Quaestio]

So how did this paper pass Peer review unless you are claiming to be more qualified than the author and the reviewers ?

All climate change papers have of necessity caveats and provisos given the lack of definitive empirical evidence for most of the important variables involved, yet they too pass Peer review.

As I mentioned earlier there is hard physical evidence emerging of recent warmer periods that contradict the current narrative. It suggests we do not know nearly enough yet to be making predictions of anything

What is it you want to happen ?

LOL. There you go again- lying and misrepresenting what I wrote. I said I had no problem with the paper. Why wouldn't it pass peer review? They were transparent about their methods, limitations and caveats.

You're the one who misrepresented the paper and one of its graphs, not the authors. It's obvious you never actually read the full paper. You are just mindlessly repeating blog nonsense claims now. It's you who doesn't 'know nearly enough' because you don't want to know anything that upsets your ideological beliefs.

Mate, you're so agitated by this. Accept you made some really stupid mistakes ... for 5 years. Own it, do better and move on.

 

[flogger]

LOL. There you go again- lying and misrepresenting what I wrote. I said I had no problem with the paper. Why wouldn't it pass peer review? They were transparent about their methods, limitations and caveats.

You're the one who misrepresented the paper and one of its graphs, not the authors. It's obvious you never actually read the full paper.

Mate, you're so agitated by this. Accept you made some really stupid mistakes ... for 5 years. Own it, do better and move on.

So to quote the author ....again.

The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century‐long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum.

The 4000 year graph from Fig 1 of the study clearly shows this to be the case so how was it misrepresented ?

Error - Cookies Turned Off

 

[Tim the plumber]

That goes against the assessments of the overwhelming consensus of scientists, governments, and militaries all around the world, based on mountains of data.

There are detailed and highly quantitative assessments of the economic and public health damages and threats, based on mountains of scientific evidence. I am not sure how much more you would need to see to have it count.

That's why I am fairly convinced this problem is not one of needing more science or evidence. There are psychological fears, anxieties and other issues which may underlie this denialism.

There are long winded verbose generalizations of drivel pumped out that find very big numbers.

That there is nowhere on earth where you can point to to show any significant trouble says it all.

 

[longview]

Just over 4% of the world's population lives in the United States. 60% of the world's population lives on the Asian continent.

A lot of countries in Asia are developing meaning they are focusing on their economy countries like China India tile and so forth.

Their governments make policy to promote their economy not to protect the environment.

What do you think anything we are going to do will amount to?

If you want to consider the globe as the environment then everything you do is undone 20 fold by the Asian countries.

I'm optimistic too. But not really in what we do here too change how we produce energy because that doesn't matter. I'm optimistic about exporting the idea of conservation to the Asian continent.

the only reason I think we don't talk about this is because it is difficult it might even be impossible. But another thing is it can't be fixed with a stroke of a pen by government official. And that's how in our culture we want to solve problems.

It is not what we are going to do, but what the world markets will do.
Here is an example, when oil get to say $90 a barrel, that places an overhead cost of $2.71 on each and every gallon of gasoline sold,
the raw material cost. By the time the oil has been refined to a finished fuel product, the cost of goods sold
at the refinery exit is about $3.50 per gallon. If the refinery can purchase wholesale electricity for $.05 per KWh,
the Navy's 60% efficiency process, could produce a finished fuel product at $2.71 per gallon.
The refinery will choose the path with the greatest profit,(lowest cost of goods sold).
The man made fuels can replace the one of the choices at the pump, for less than the regular price (perhaps).
(One of the limitations of man made fuels, is so far the processes can only make high octane fuels.)
If the man made fuel is the least expensive one sold at the pump, people will buy it.

 

[longview]

Poor attempt at deflecting away from the fact that you pompously cited a "paper" by 2 cranks who are greenhouse effect deniers and spelled their names backwards. :lamo

You just keep missing the point about the fact that without CO2, the greenhouse effect would collapse. This is textbook stuff. The more you keep trying the more foolish and ignorant you look. It's like saying that removing the brain from a human would still leave 98% of their bodies organs and missing the point that the person would be dead.

No attempt at deflection, both papers were peer reviewed publications, and said the same thing.
The greenhouse effect, the 33°C is from all the factors in the atmosphere combined.

 

[longview]

Bwahahahah! James Hansen is not a greenhouse effect denier like those two cranks. That greenhouse denying "paper" mirrors nothing ever written by Hansen.

You clearly didn't bother to even read the "paper" or didn't have a clue what it was about.

They didn't pass 'peer review'. It was a low quality Open Source non-subject specific "Journal". It would have been laughed at by the editors of any reputable Journal. The fact that you don't even have a problem with them using their names spelled backwards tells me a lot about your lack of integrity as well as theirs, and your desperation for anything that you believe supports your ideological position, no matter how ridiculous.

As per the OP, your science denial is clearly not motivated by science or facts.

And yet both Hansen's paper and the earlier citation, said the same basic thing.
The 33°C warmer, is from all of the atmosphere combined!

 

[longview]

Thanks for more of the same meaningless tossed number salad from you that you've posting for years. The same sort of nonsense from you has been corrected numerous times in the past, so I won't bother again here.

It's a shame you couldn't be bothered spending as much time actually attempting to learn and comprehend the science involved as you do posting total pseudoscience rubbish like this delusionally believing that you understand the science better than all the experts.

Once again, a good demonstration that your science denial is not motivated by science or facts.

You should also try some comprehension, and the numbers are accurate!

 

[flogger]

No attempt at deflection, both papers were peer reviewed publications, and said the same thing.
The greenhouse effect, the 33°C is from all the factors in the atmosphere combined.

Don't worry he went into meltdown about my Peer reviewed paper too. It seems to be a pattern :wink:

 

[ataraxia]

There are long winded verbose generalizations of drivel pumped out that find very big numbers.

That there is nowhere on earth where you can point to to show any significant trouble says it all.

Already glaciers are melting, coral reefs are dying out, and species are going extinct. We may be the next species.

You are wanting to see the disaster happen before you believe it. That’s like a cancer patient who wants to wait until they die before they believe they have cancer. Odd.

 

[Jack Hays]

Already glaciers are melting, coral reefs are dying out, and species are going extinct. We may be the next species.

You are wanting to see the disaster happen before you believe it. That’s like a cancer patient who wants to wait until they die before they believe they have cancer. Odd.

Coral reefs are doing just fine, and extinctions are declining.

 

[Threegoofs]

Are you therefore in complete denial that warmer periods periods have existed in the post glacial era ? So explain those inconvenient tree stumps recently revealed underneath receding glaciers that indicate that between 4000 and 7000 years ago the climate must have been significantly warmer for those to have grown there. In Greenland it was discovered that the warmer climate as recently as 1000 years ago allowed the Vikings to cultivate barley there. Interesting too that the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods have mysteriously vanished from the climate record since the invention of AGW.

Are you seriously suggesting that given conditions today it would be better for humanity to go back to living in the climate of the Little Ice Age one of the coldest dips on the 10,000yr post glacial record ? If so then why ?

LOL.

Flogger talking about someone else’s complete denial.

Complete denial is not just science denial, it’s denial that you just got eviscerated, so you pretend it never happened.

 

[Jack Hays]

As has been customary, the skeptics present data and the AGW advocates respond with insults.

 

[ataraxia]

Coral reefs are doing just fine, and extinctions are declining.

You live in such an alternative reality that it’s hard to discuss things.

Great Barrier Reef dying: Climate change has caused 89% decrease in new coral in Great Barrier Reef and threatens recovery, study says - CBS News