Update: I’m making this a top “sticky post” for a couple of days, new stories will appear below this one.
UPDATE: 2/27 3PM PST Dr. Moore leaves a comment, see below.
Our friend Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate yesterday to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change. It is well worth your time to read. WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia.
Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight
February 25, 2014
“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”
Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.
In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.
After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.
Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.
Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.
The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?
It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.
I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.
If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.
Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.
=================================================================
For that chapter, please see the PDF of his testimony, here: 22514HearingWitnessTestimonyMoore
=================================================================
UPDATE: 2/27 3PM PST Dr. Moore adds this comment:
Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow)
Submitted on 2014/02/27 at 2:53 pm
Nice to see so many positive and informative comments. It does pain me to see my Wikipedia entry cited. It was largely written by my enemies and it is very difficult to change as the editors don’t like people to write their own biographies. I trust Wiki only for non-political entries, Boron, for example.
For a factual account of the founding of Greenpeace see: http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/who-are-the-founders-of-greenpeace-2/
I have placed my testimony and the three supporting graphs/tables in Dropbox. They can be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s65ljwrbuetrrny/PadEn_XjT7
OK Climate Warriors, I’t’s time for serious discussion to separate Fact from Opinion, Fact from Inference, and Fact from Prediction. One would hope the average Grade 9 mind could make the distinctions.
If you wish to read my full text on climate it is the last chapter of my book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” available on amazon.com as ebook or print here: http://goo.gl/E4M5op
Dr. Strangelove, how do you explain that 450 million years ago during an ice age co2 was 10 times as high as now? This shows that high co2 will not stop an ice age from taking hold. So what is the mechanism that can cause that?
“Walter K. says:
February 28, 2014 at 7:11 pm”
You were the one claiming to “know” and have “seen” data/information etc, so show it. 2012 and 2013 were not unusual for Australia. Remind us all again how the BoM measures temperatures over the entire continent od Australia (With ~180 sites/stations)? And tell us again why the BoM changed the way they “measure temps over the entire continent” in 2013? The most reliable temperature records won’t be found at the BoM, sadly! I could tell you, but I am so over it… BYE!
dbstealey, wanted to let you know I have no idea what you’re talking about at all now. Letting it go may be the easier solution.
My CV? An “appeal to authority” is your preference I see. You would only find another BOX to stick me in I suspect, given your track record thus far.
Just assume I am in the top 6 to 2 percentile in all intelligence modes. My most challenging and complex business experience was General manager running an $80 million per year (2013 values) turnover, 24/7 with a staff of over 900 including 130 management personnel. Later National Marketing Manager and PR for major corporation with 10,000 staff nationwide. Shit easy. Real world experience and responsibilities equiv to MBA with Distinction today.
A Google Master, SEO expert, multi-Webmaster, Internet Marketing and Internet Security software expert & sales into the mid-2000s. Part-time Historian on my days off. Philosopher and all round nice guy with a great sense of humor and my two feet on the ground who won’t take shit from anyone and who calls a spade a spade.
I suggest you simply address the ‘content’, cross check it with published papers and sound reasoning, logic, cognitive thinking skills, and common sense. A little courtesy never hurts either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
Dyslexia? “2012 and 2013 were not unusual for Australia.” Self-deluded BS
“so show it.” Go fly a Kite! You do not deserve to know.
Walter K. said…. “So to those who believe that there is no AGW, or no climate change, or that if there is then it is no big deal, then you better hope you are right. But all you have on your side at present is “hope”. That’s it.”
If that is not a statement of fear of the future then what is? My saying you were expressing that we were all going to fry in the future was perhaps an exaggeration but your above statement puts you in the AGW camp at least and maybe into the CAGW camp, but then you also said that Dr. Moore might be right. You are waffling to my eyes, but that’s okay, its a complex field as you noted.
“Walter K. says:
February 28, 2014 at 7:55 pm”
Remind us all again how the BoM can reliably measure temps across the entire continent of Australia now and how temps were measured when records began? Yes, I do suffer from dyslexia, but it does not make me arrogant.
The pompous windbag is giving dbstealey advice on winning friends?
Another keyboard commando desperate for visits.
Russ,
could you not see the difference between an “emotive fear” being vented and expressing an opinion about the lack of reason, the lack of substantive facts or evidence to support a logical argument that X is true.
It is one thing to pick away at the arguments and flaws and gaps in the evidence of a group of scientists who ‘conclude’ based on their assumptions, research evidence, and judgments that Y be true…. but another thing altogether for a “group/s” to assert either
1) there is no AGW, or
2) there is no man-made climate change it is all >95% natural, or
3) or if there is climate change then it isn’t dangerous it is good for us & civilization, or
4) that if there is AGW with CC then it is no big deal anyway
…… only to then likewise fail to meet the very same standards that are being set for and expected of the pro-climate change group and subsequently fail “prove that beyond reasonable doubt” that any item related to Y is true.
Can you not see this is in fact an accurate state of affairs? Pronouncements that X is untrue even with some evidence that raises “doubts” will never prove that Y is therefore true.
That is a false dichotomy. Everyone on all sides keeps insisting that their “logical fallacy” is better than the others. This approach is fundamentally flawed, logically and cognitively. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, or pot kettle black applies.
Science is (or used to be) not about “opinion” or “personal values”. It is about establishing the actual facts based upon researched evidence according to the ‘scientific method’. This goes all the way back to the Ancient Greeks starting with Pythagoras, and of course others in the region before him. Nothing has changed in this system, except that it has been overlaid with modern media propaganda and advanced marketing techniques mis-using what’s been learnt about human psychology in the 20th century.
Everyone is guilty here, no one is innocent. All are to blame if that’s important to some people.
At the moment the disparate partisans for 1 thru 4 are all ganging up on the pro-AGW science 5th group. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This will not last, it never does. History proves this repeatedly.
Fact is, and the evidence is there to see for those who are awake, is that this primary target, the 5th group is itself fracturing apart right now, and moving in different directions over the issue of AGW and potential threats/danger of present and future climate change implications.
There are professional jealousies, political values, personal ethics, beliefs, and differing thinking process ambitions involved here. But falling apart it is, and fast behind the scenes and away from the public’s eye. Subtle nuances can be noticed publicly if one was aware of it, and think to look for it. Not many are, so involved in their own “thing” are they.
The way I look at this now, there are two fleets terrorizing the citizenry of the world with RHETORIC trying to win the hearts and minds of the populace. This childish “war” needs to stop, because it is serving no one anywhere.
If by way of example only, the likes of Roy Spencer ‘climatologist’ is unable to convince his own peers as to the rightness of his arguments on the strength of his scientific evidence then this is HIS own personal failing, and he better own that.
On the other hand if the likes of Gavin Schmidt ‘climatologist’ (who btw refuses to even talk to or listen to Roy) is incapable of convincing his own peers as to the rightness of his arguments on the strength of his scientific evidence then this is HIS own personal failing, and he better own that too!.
Now, I have very serious reservations about publicly and privately funded research universities and institutes, of Government Bodies like NASA GISS, EPA, IPCC et al, and their employed academics and climate scientists (and others or teaching professors) and department heads (some of whom are officially public servants) and yet who REFUSE OUTRIGHT to actively engage in mature dialogue with all others in their field, especially those with a different view, and who also might REFUSE OUTRIGHT to make a constructive effort to inform the citizenry of the world of the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as it is presently known – instead of lurking in the shadows playing mind games through the “media”.
There is something seriously wrong when a leading climatologist who presents himself PUBLICLY as a “communicator and educator” of that science and yet is either too afraid, too incompetent, or simply feels it is beneath his high almighty status, to sit in a TV interview etc. with another genuine climatologist but who disagrees with him and argue his scientific case IN PUBLIC venues and stand up for what he ‘claims’ he believes in and knows is TRUE.
It’s pathetic imho.
Does this clarify my actual personal opinions better Russ? I hope it does. Best I can do.
And no, I do not expect any one here to care what I think either. It is what it is. Take it or leave it, I have nothing to prove. Others do.
Walter
warning, I think i got my X and Ys mixed up in the narrative, sorry. You’ll work it out.
I also assert that there is absolutely no room in this “scientific debate disagreement” or “war” for the many people sticking their noses into it such as like Al Gore or Monckton. The sooner they piss off the better for all.
Let them stick to the ‘politics’ of what to do once the UN of nations have got their shit together enough to agree on what the REAL evidence based supported science actually is telling us .. and sign off it.
Time for the scientists themselves to get their shit together FIRST, and cut the endless crap and their nonstop ego head trips and GROW UP.
Until then, everything else is a total waste of pixel dust on a billion computer monitors. That’s what mean by “totally I am over it”.
This is my personal SHOT ACROSS THE BOWS ….
Robert in Calgary,
Imagine you’ve walked into a saloon bar for drink. There’s two guys sitting on their bar stools about 10 feet apart having a bit of terse conversation. Go go stand between the two of them. You turn to one and say: “The pompous windbag is giving advice on winning friends? Another saloon bar commando desperate for attention.”
What happens next Robert?
Maybe you have heard of a ‘flame war’. This isn’t one yet, but if you wish to start one the best thing to do is throw are tin of gasoline on the embers and stick your nose into things that do not concern you.
Everything you need to learn about this was being taught in kindergarten. For those who missed the lessons there is the saloon bar. For those who missed the lessons in the saloon bar there is always the Internet.
One of my other hats I wear is a teacher.
Have a great day there in Calgary. Always wanted to go there and see the stampede etc. Knew a hot singer from there in the 80s. Used to have a nice ex-Hutterite as an online buddy many years ago now. Nice people. Please don’t spoil the images I have kept. 🙂
Gold star for anyone who can pick up the implanted chiastic aphorism.
Poor Walter.
http://christinegeraci.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/blowhard.jpg
Robert in Calgary, blow me! Ya can lead a horse to water ……….
[Note: More comments like this and your posts will be deleted. ~mod.]
Nice – I guess that is the summation of your posts.
Walter , just so that you can rest easy , the view that is shared by the majority on this site is set out below. It’s not clear whether you agree with it or not. But your last couple of posts suggest that you may not have picked up on this :-
“Unless our understanding of radiative physics is wrong then increased
greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the air must induce some additional warming , all things being equal.
But the climate system is constantly changing : “all things being equal” never happens.
We do NOT KNOW to what degree human activities have altered GHG ratios in the atmosphere .
We do NOT KNOW to what degree altered GHG ratios in the atmosphere have contributed to the present natural global warming (which is the recovery from the Little Ice Age).
Claims that humans have or have not added to the observed global warming are equally false because nobody can know the truth of the matter in the absence of any evidence.
What CAN be said is that, to date, there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities , and so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”
Walter K. says:
February 28, 2014 at 11:25 am
NRG22 says: February 28, 2014 at 10:59 am
WTF does what M Mann do somewhere else I have never been to, have to do with ME, besides nothing?
I don’t have twitter (never will), nor Facebook, (never will), I don’t follow him (or anyone) like a junkie all over the internet.
NRG22 asks: – “You mean self-promotion like that?”
……… well what do you think?
Take a stab at it, toss a coin or make your best GUESS.
As if you actually give a toss what I think. Stand up and speak for yourself. Don’t lean all over me like a drunk at 3am in a nightclub crying for a lift home from someone you don’t know. What crap.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
My post was in response to you saying, “Moore’s own self-promotion in direct marketing his book sales here is another telling ethical issue worthy of wise consideration, no matter how much he believes in his own omniscience of the very complex subject matter.”
If you’re as intelligent as you say you are (when you sang your own praises further up the thread) you should realize that your statement is a weak argument and pedantic.
The guru of the hockey stick, the hero of AGW, whose examples of self-promotion I supplied for you is never in question by the AGW crowd, but Moore plugs ONE book and he’s somehow unethical. That’s typical in your crowd, they try to claim the skeptics are in it for the money. The facts I presented don’t align with that thinking.
You seem like an intelligent guy, but you also seem to be a bore. I’d rather listen to a room full of less intelligent people that are nice, than one intelligent person who is nasty. I don’t want to turn this into a pissing contest, particularly because I’m a woman, so I’ve had my say and you can have yours if you like, but I’m done speaking to you. Have a nice day.
Russ, I already answered that in my previous post. Ice ages are caused by Milankovitch cycles. Not everything that happen in the climate are caused by greenhouse gases. If you want to disprove GHE theory, don’t cite ice ages. Cite the fact that ice core data reveal that CO2 rise lags temperature rise by 800 years. That reverses the causality. Warm climate increases atmospheric CO2 due to outgassing of CO2 in the ocean. But that doesn’t prove causality flows only in one direction.
Double posting, I apologize. My above post reminded me of something I want to comment on even though this may not be the best place to do it in.
I’ve been skeptical of “man made global warming” since the beginning, but I was open to the data proving the case one way or the other. I do believe there is climate change, it’s pretty obvious, but I’m not convinced mankind is the cause. Yet. If the data is conclusive, versus consensus, I can accept it.
Now and then I’ve had my doubts about being a skeptic. What if I’m wrong? What if I just refuse to see the truth? What if they’re right? I buy into the bully pulpit and doubt.
But then I inevitably remember how all the conversations I’ve read by skeptical scientists and skeptical non-scientists are conducted in a respectful, calm, factual manner. And I remember how the CAGW conversations are almost always ad hominem attacks, elitist attitudes, emotional arguments, and I come back to reality. If the facts are on THEIR side, why the hostility? Why the bullying? It does not compute.
So, I’m still firmly in the skeptical camp, go Team Skeptics, and I will be until the CAGW crowd can calmly, rationally, emotionlessly prove their case.
“NRG22 says:
March 1, 2014 at 12:56 am”
Well said. Genuine scientists will, almost always, state that “they don’t know”. This is a fact! It seems only *climate* “scientists”, the IPCC, economists, propagandists (Cook et al) and politicians who clearly state they are 97% CERTAIN of anything. And then we have the “pissing” contests and contestants…*sigh*…
Walter K. says:
February 28, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Robert in Calgary, blow me! Ya can lead a horse to water ……….
…..but you can’t make it think.
NRG22 again goes off half cocked. saying : “If you’re as intelligent as you say you are (when you sang your own praises further up the thread) you should realize that your statement is a weak argument and pedantic.”
ACtually I wasn’t making any kind of argument. THe coment I made there was irrelvant to anything else. It was in fact a personal opinion that I was expressing. I said what I felt and thought about it. I said in a “smart assed way” that even iof he was 100% perfect in in his own estimations that this still did not chnage my opinion about the books sales thing. It was already mentioned by Mr Watts at the top of the thread anyway … my feelings are that peole can work out for themselves he write a book and buy it anytime wihtout being told ona “discussion” forum about a shoirt speech he gave to Congress .. either do this as public service or don’t. Buy all means write a book and sell , seel a milion but don’t mix the two.
Now you ahve a problme with that me saying that? I should have also had mentioend Mann and everyone esle in the world who does this? No, .. and I repeat, I had serious reservations about the LOGIC, the facts in his presentation to congress .. I have not judged the man personally.
IF you ahve an issue with Mann .. which has nothing to do with me at all .. you should go tell him .. he has an email address via Penn state .. use it!
Just leave me out of it … this is simply silly. and yeah I am intelligent. You want me to apologise for that too? IF you were intelligent (or not so emotionally bent out of shape) you’d realise already I was NOT making an argument regarding the book promo, weak or otherwise.
farmerbraun, thx for the information. appreciated.
I accept there are many variations in peoples views, which is fine. I try avoid any broad brushed conclusions, but have been know to put my views on specifics …. eg unusual climate/weather in australia as being a hard fact, not an opinion. the evidence is there IF one wishes to look at it with a clear head and no ideology or strong beliefs behind it.
I’ll say something about the following though
“What CAN be said is that, to date, there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities , and so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”
The conclusion at the end may be right (or wrong) the logic is flawed, it simply does not follow rationally. so someone should look at that and revise it imho. You can’t prove a negative such as “no evidence”; for an absence of evidence does not and cannot mean evidence of absence. Therefore one has to be able to prove scientifically that any evidence provided FOR human influence is flawed .. AND convince the scientists who say it isn’t.
That requires published science papers, peer reviewed, and strongly promoted and then supported and referenced by others over time. That isn’t happening. so just saying “there is no evidence for discernible AGW” is really meaningless – why? Because it changes nothing anywhere. Even if it is true, it is still meaningless .. see?
and this line “so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”’ is very irrational, and needs re-thinking. IF it exists then it needs to be measured and quantified scientifically, AFTER than is when one can judge how significant or trivial it is. This is only common sense.
The general public and interested parties are irrelevant here, such as “the CAGW crowd” etc – to the extent of a group who support one side or the other they (we) don’t amount to a hill of beans. The real power resides in the Institutions of the world, be it NAS, Universities, government bodies, UN nation states etc.
Most people forget or overlook that the IPCC is in fact a body that is controlled by national Governments, including the reports they publish. Yes the scientists and volunteers work hard over years to pull the reports together choosing which papers are “ok” to use and so on, to arrive at their “expert judgment” as to what the “scientific consensus” according the IPCC system …. but at the end of the day representatives of each national government turns up .. it is THEY who have the final say of what gets printed and released, and not the IPCC people.
Much is arranged and decided behind closed doors before they turn up. It is a “geo-political forum” to get those reports out, not much different than the UNFCCC COP meetings iow,
Public opinion is an interesting beast. It is not grass roots bottom up kind of animal at all. It is always orchestrated by those who reside in and have a degree of “institutional power” .. every one in the public are merely cannon fodder … being played like a violin. Every now and then the audience quits and walks out …. usually onto the streets.
The climate is what it is …. whatever it is humanity has to live within its bounds or suffer the consequences. No scientific evidence nor peer-reviewed papers required to prove that one. Is there? Who then has the resources and skills to determine what is going on in the climate and how it operates? The scientists as a body of individuals. If the people can do one thing it is only to keep pressure on the political system to ensure there is NO interference in the genuine work of scientists and that they are supported in that. It’s a very imperfect system. Think rationally. Don’t buy any wooden nickles. use one’s common sense as much as possible. People do lie. A lot.
NRG22, well said. Team Skeptics, neat.
I have a lecture vid on my site “Critical Thinking: Separating Skepticism from Denial”
It suggests, among other things that: “You don’t need a PhD in climate science to be able to tell who is telling the truth and who is talking nonsense. You simply need a bit of science, a bit of critical thinking and objectivity.”
“But you need to see distinctions. Between the basic science and the advanced science. Between real skepticism and denial which often calls itself skepticism. Between good science and bad science. And between science and politics. If you understand these four distinctions a lot becomes clearer.”
http://whatsupwithrealclimate.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/critical-thinking-top-10-dos.html
or go direct to youtube:
“To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.” Albert Einstein 1879-1955
Every where we go, whatever we do, good science has been consistently telling us all, and for a very very long time, that we are not as ‘smart’ as we believe we are.
We are consistently Biased towards ourselves, our beliefs, our own opinions and values.
University of California Television (UCTV) Nov 2005
Professor George Lakoff: Moral Politics
Framing, Metaphorical Thought, Rationality, Morality Metaphors, Thought.
UC Berkeley professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics George Lakoff explores how successful political debates are framed by using language targeted to people’s Values instead of their support for specific government programs.
New America Foundation 2008
UC Berkeley professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics George Lakoff is a New York Times bestselling author of “The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st Century American Politics with an 18th Century Mind”
The way we perceive ourselves and others can influence how we respond to contested issues, including climate change. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.269/pdf
However, these perceptions are subject to cognitive biases or distortions as we attempt to make sense of the world around us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Research shows these Biases extend far beyond our political opinions, scientific knowledge, or climate change issues. Most of us tend to think we are always better than others. As if it was ‘hard-wired’ into us and out of our control. The “better than average effect” describes our predisposition to think of ourselves as exceptional, especially among our peers.
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/38/2/209.short
The effect reflects our tendency to think of ourselves as more virtuous and moral, more compassionate and understanding, and ironically even less Biased than other people!
In a famous example, when people were asked to assess their own driving ability relative to peers, more than three-quarters of people considered themselves to be safer than the average driver.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001691881900056
Exploring the Psychology of Wealth: The ‘Pernicious’ Effects of Income Inequality
“Higher social class predicts increased unethical behaviour”
PNAS approved January 26, 2012 Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109
with Video – In a series of startling studies, psychologists at the University of California at Berkeley have found that “upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals.” Ongoing research is trying to find out what it is about wealth — or lack of it — that makes people behave they way they do. http://video.pbs.org/video/2365029352/
Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?
It seems not. A short video about basic mathematics and common sense being used to understand “exponential growth” as a fundamental driver of global warming, environmental destruction, peak oil and natural gas, water and arable land shortages, social decay, loss of ocean fish stocks, population growth, mass refugees, asylum seekers, resource wars, climate wars, etc. etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM1x4RljmnE
Enjoy a weekend in out of the cold. 🙂
I didn’t realize the video links would display above, sorry if that’s a problem, won’t do it again. also skip to 4mins in the first video which touches on the best points there (if you are interested or skip all of them)
Walter K. says:
March 1, 2014 at 5:03 am
…
I’ll say something about the following though
“What CAN be said is that, to date, there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities , and so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”
The conclusion at the end may be right (or wrong) the logic is flawed, it simply does not follow rationally. so someone should look at that and revise it imho. You can’t prove a negative such as “no evidence”; for an absence of evidence does not and cannot mean evidence of absence. Therefore one has to be able to prove scientifically that any evidence provided FOR human influence is flawed .. AND convince the scientists who say it isn’t.
That requires published science papers, peer reviewed, and strongly promoted and then supported and referenced by others over time. That isn’t happening. so just saying “there is no evidence for discernible AGW” is really meaningless – why? Because it changes nothing anywhere. Even if it is true, it is still meaningless .. see?
and this line “so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”’ is very irrational, and needs re-thinking. IF it exists then it needs to be measured and quantified scientifically, AFTER than is when one can judge how significant or trivial it is. This is only common sense.
Bold is mine.
Note the first says “discernable”. That is the key. Since it isn’t discernable, calling it “trivial if it exists” is more than reasonable.
The 3rd bold line is a big “IF”: I believe we are all still waiting for it to be measured and quantified scientifically. I propose that it can be neither until it can be observed. Until that time, the following remains appropriate:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (Thanks to Petition Project)
The big picture, if average global temperatures went well above the 25 Celsius area then we should be worried, but at the current level of about 14 having just come off of the floor of 12, how does this justify ringing the alarm bells? And yes the earth still managed to go into an ice age with co2 in the 4000 to 7000 ppm range, a hell of lot higher than the current 400 ppm.
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif