Social science provides a lot of useful insight as to why logic and data rarely convince warmists.
Guest essay by Matt Manos
Many of the posters and readers at WUWT have expressed frustration at convincing warmists. Using facts and logic seem to fall on deaf ears. There are some interesting social sciences theories on why warmist are unresponsive. I know the social sciences aren’t a favored science with this group but if you’ll bear with me, you’ll hopefully see how social science can be useful in describing why warmists are unreachable. And possibly, what to do about it.
In their latest speeches on global warming, Obama and the Pope weren’t trying to convince skeptics that CAGW is real. Instead, they were sending signals to their supporters on what “all right thinking people” should be saying. This is classic in-group/out-group communication. Obama and the Pope were setting up the talking points for their in-group members to use to determine who can be considered part of the tribe and who should be rejected for being outside of it. This is a process called Othering. Othering turns political foes into non-beings. Others have no value. Others can be discounted and ignored. Others can be mocked.
Obama and the Pope are examples of bellwethers; the sheep with the bell that the other sheep follow. Bellwether is not a derogatory term, it’s a descriptive term. The job of a political bellwether is to indicate the position that their followers should take in their everyday conversations. Obama and the Pope’s latest speeches function as position papers for the delegates of all right thinking people. You meet these people at work, church, school, at the coffee house, etc. The delegates will mirror the words that the President or the Pope used to identify other in-group members, normalize beliefs and mock out-group members. One of the main themes of both speeches was shame. Shame on those who aren’t right thinking people. Shame that they aren’t as intelligent and capable as “us.”
That type of smugness is almost impossible to penetrate. When a skeptic questions a warmist’s view on global warming/climate change, the warmist hears something vastly different than what the skeptic is saying. A skeptic might say, “The models don’t match the actual measured results.” What the warmist hears is how stupid deniers are because that’s what John Stewart told him he should think. If the warmist doesn’t prove that he thinks skeptics are stupid then he might be confused for a denier! And no one wants to be identified with being a denier because they’re mocked, don’t get tenure and don’t get invited to the right parties. No amount of science can penetrate the ROI the warmist has internalized in believing in CAGW.
Many of the warmist are running on pure rational ignorance. Rational ignorance is a belief that the cost/benefit to researching every issue is so low as to be a net negative in time utilization. Thus the ignorance is rational and everyone utilizes this mental process on certain topics. People who are rationally ignorant about global warming look to bellwethers that support their gut stance. Rationally ignorant warmists would look to world leaders, mockutainers and warmist scientists for guidance on how to communicate their position on global warming.
Penetrating rational ignorance is tough because the position warmists have taken isn’t based on logic. Their position is actually based on an appeal to authority. To question the rationally ignorant warmist is to question the field of science as a whole (to be a science denier) or to question the leadership of their favorite bellwether personalities. This will cause the rationally ignorant warmist to become defensive and try to stand up for their favorite bellwether. The rationally ignorant will also point to their favorite bellwethers and say, “Who am I to doubt all these intelligent people?” It’s intellectually offshoring. It’s lazy. It’s human nature.
The scientific method rejects outright in-group/out groups, Othering, bellwethers and rational ignorance. A scientist is supposed to follow the results on an experiment even if the results don’t support his hypothesis. The scientist is clearly not supposed to rig the data to ensure he gets invited to a party with the right people or continued funding. But science has a poor track record on controversial topics. It often takes decades to accept new theories that are clear winners (e.g., continental drift).
Scientists are still social animals. Social animals follow hierarchy and incentives. If you really want to win the debate on global warming, change the opinions of the bellwethers. Change the economic incentives for the global warming scientific paper mill. Otherwise you’re stuck debating only the people who are unable to change their minds because it would cost them personally to do so. Rare is the person intellectually honest enough to bite the hand that feeds or is willing to violate social norms to speak the truth.
“It often takes decades to accept new theories that are clear winners (e.g., continental drift).”
True that. And once climate change was a new theory. It took decades to accept the evidence for glacials and interglacials. It proved a winner. And once human-induced climate change was a new theory. And again it took decades and decades. Read all about it here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
AGW has not been shown to be a clear winner.
400/280=10/7 or 3/7 increase of CO2 of anthropogenic origin in the atmosphere. Climate response until now about 0.8°C. Taking into account the logarithmic relation, adding another 3/7 from present day levels, or 400*10/7= about 571.5, or about a doubling of CO2 compared to preindustrial levels, would add another 0.8°C. That makes about 1.6°C of TCR.
About the simplest calculation I can come up with (too simple to be true therefore). Clear winner in any case.
“400/280=10/7 or 3/7 increase of CO2 of anthropogenic origin in the atmosphere. Climate response until now about 0.8°C.”
But half the “response” occurred before before the forcing was strong enough to have had an effect.
@ur momisugly Wagen
It would only be that simple if you could show that if CO2 had stayed at 280 ppm the temperature would not have gone up or down, which of course you can’t. Temperature on earth has always changed due to a variety of reasons and will continue to do so regardless of what man does or does not do. All of the IPCC modules have failed to accurately predict future temperature increases based on the premise that CO2 is the driver of increasing temperature change. The only thing clear here is that the science is far from settled.
Roger,
Would you like me to repeat the calculation starting somewhere in the 70s?
Wagen; the quantifiable expression of the theory of CO2AGW are the Climate Models. They have failed. Therefore the theory in its still promulgated form is already falsified.
When the climate scientists come up with a revised theory, and express it in different models, it would be wise to test the models for 3 decades, and only if they show predictive skill after that, start to throw billions of Dollars away.
CO2AGW in its current form is the most expensive blunder of Western science ever, and threatens to sink the reputation of science as a whole. Non-warmunist scientists might consider expressing their dismay about their charlatan colleagues.
@Wagen
Your assertion would be correct if you could prove that if CO2 stayed at 280 ppm the temperature would not have increased, which you can’t. Since we know that the earth temperature has been warmer and cooler than today long before the industrial revolution what was the driver for the temperature changing before the industrial revolution compared to now? Remember correlation does not equal causation.
Dirk,
I have just shown with the simplest possible calculation I can come up with that the quantifications of the warming response are in the right ball park.
Then you come along and say they are ‘falsified’. What’s your definition of falsification?
@Vanguard,
I gave this link in my first comment here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
And I explained that glacial/interglacial changes happened and needed to be explained. So what is your point telling me climate changed naturally before? However, humans influence climate now.
‘that if CO2 stayed at 280 ppm the temperature would not have increased’
They would have decreased.
The point I was trying to make is that first (long ago) the idea that climate does not change had to be disproved by evidence. This took decades. Then there was the idea that humans change climate as well by burning fossil fuels on a large scale. Also this needed to be shown by evidence and it took decades before the science mainstream was convinced by it (see the link).
@dean,
Please, see my answer to Vanguard. In addition
‘All of the IPCC modules have failed to accurately predict future temperature increases based on the premise that CO2 is the driver of increasing temperature change.’
As I have demonstrated they are in the right ball park. The models (I assume modules is an autocorrect malfunction) are not only dependent on CO2.
@ur momisugly Wagen
Well I am glad you agree climate changed before man started burning fossil fuel. May I ask what you believe was the natural cause of this warming and cooling?
I have not seen any conclusive evidence that man made CO2 has caused the temperature to increase as you imply in your calculations. Again just because CO2 went from 280 to 400 ppm and the temperature during that time increased 0.8 C as you assert, it does not mean that the CO2 was the reason. Correlation does not equal causation.
@Vanguard
‘Well I am glad you agree climate changed before man started burning fossil fuel.’
Well I said so in my first comment that got this thread started…
‘ May I ask what you believe was the natural cause of this warming and cooling?’
Milankovitch cycles? There are surely a few uncertainties here and there.
‘I have not seen any conclusive evidence that man made CO2 has caused the temperature to increase as you imply in your calculations.’
Well, my calculations did no such thing. They only showed the models are doing quite well. For evidence of atmospheric CO2, man-caused or not, influencing climate, I refer you to high school physics text books. (Am I now a sheeple who refers to the pope and Obama?)
‘ Again just because CO2 went from 280 to 400 ppm and the temperature during that time increased 0.8 C as you assert, it does not mean that the CO2 was the reason. Correlation does not equal causation.’
Nobody said it did. But there is physics. We know the link between one and the other.
@Wagan
Sorry, but you’ll have to do FAR better than that to even come close. Temperature has varied far more than 0.8C in similar time periods many many times historically long before man was ever emitting CO2 or greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel burning.
Long overdue to learn that Correlation is not Causation. CO2 levels don’t even correlate well with temperature changes, and to the extent it does, it follows temperature, not drives it. But regardless, a major tenet of science that any decent professor pounds into their students is: Correlation is NOT Causation. If it were, then all we have to do to reduce suicides is make people drink at least two cups of coffee a day (half the suicide rate), and we’d all know that darkness causes crime, as does wearing sneakers/tennis shoes (and prolly the same for hoodies). And pirates – well actually a LACK of pirates, is clearly responsible for global warming. This has been conclusively proven by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: Open Letter To Kansas School Board. Oh, and the outcome of the Washington Redskin’s games determines the outcome of presidential elections http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/regression-abuse.html . All sorts of other examples can be found showing just how silly it is to try to rely on a correlation assuming that it somehow proves causation.
[Blockquote]400/280=10/7 or 3/7 increase of CO2 of anthropogenic origin in the atmosphere. Climate response until now about 0.8°C. Taking into account the logarithmic relation, adding another 3/7 from present day levels, or 400*10/7= about 571.5, or about a doubling of CO2 compared to preindustrial levels, would add another 0.8°C. That makes about 1.6°C of TCR.[/Blockquote]
@ur momisugly Wagen
I read the above mean you are implying that based on the temperature rising 0.8 C with an increase of CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm that adding an additional 171.5 ppm of CO2 for a total of 571.5 ppm would thus increase the temperature to 1.6 C.
You’re directly implying correlation between CO2 levels to temperature increase and yet there has been no observed increase in global temperature for the last 18 years while CO2 levels have increased so that would mean your formula / model is not correct and thus why all of the IPCC climate models have all projected higher temperatures than what we are experiencing. The science is not clear and the conclusions not validated.
@Wagen
A chess player can be in the same ballpark as the world’s best home run hitter – that doesn’t make the chess player a good baseball player, let alone a world class home run hitter.
@Wagen
“Milankovitch cycles? There are surely a few uncertainties here and there.”
Sorry, but Milankovitch cycles cannot explain the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, Roman Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Minoan Warm Period, Dark Ages, etc.
And the “few uncertainties here and there” are so massive that they very easily encompass the relatively mild and essentially linear warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age – about half of which was every bit as rapid and large BEFORE man was producing any significant CO2 as after.
Nor does your claim that “climate models” have performed fairly well come even close to holding up – in fact they’ve performed abysmally. Your simplistic calculation isn’t a “climate model” – it’s a sad attempt to claim that a poor correlation is magically causation when it is nothing of the sort.
STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means
Climate Scientist: 73 UN Climate Models Wrong, No Global Warming in 17 Years
New AWI Research Confirms: Climate Models Cannot Reproduce Temperatures Of The Last 6000 Years
Climate models outperformed by random walks
Climate models aren’t good enough to hindcast, says new study
New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are
Graph: Climate models vs. actual ocean temperatures
Nature [journal] on the failure of climate models
Separating signal and noise in climate warming In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists
Day of reckoning draws nearer for IPCC According to Dr. Clive Best, A key prediction from the 2007 IPCC WG1 report fails statistical tests
Current empirical temperatures almost falling outside the 95% certainty level at this point:
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/841/9401/original.jpg
IPCC’s Global Warming Hypothesis Fails Ultimate Test – No Tropical ‘Hotspot’ After 17 Years of Immense CO2 Emissions
@rational db8
“Temperature has varied far more than 0.8C in similar time periods many many times historically long before man was ever emitting CO2 or greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel burning.”
Please inform me of similar occurances in human history, and what it meant for the societies at that time. I’m eager to learn.
“Correlation is NOT Causation”
I’ll repeat (sigh…):
‘Nobody said it did. But there is physics. We know the link between one and the other.’
(What I answered Vanguard above)
@Vanguard
“would thus increase the temperature to 1.6 C.”
As the Transient Climate Response yes. Not the ECS. I also said my calculation was too simple to be true.
However, the estimate is based on present estimates of warming including the what you call ‘there has been no observed increase in global temperature for the last 18 years’. I assume you refer to surface temperatures. However land ice decreased and ocean heat content increased in said period.
Internal climate variability does exist. My calculated estimate may be the lower boundary because of this variability.
@Rational dB8
“Sorry, but Milankovitch cycles cannot explain the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, Roman Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Minoan Warm Period, Dark Ages, etc.”
And I was referring to glacials-interglacials, see my first post here.
@Wagen
Try a little research on the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Optimum, Minoan Warm Period, and Holocene Optimum. You’ll find that historically pretty much every time the Earth has been as warm or warmer than present day conditions, mankind absolutely flourishes – just as we are now. Then try looking up the cold periods such as the Little Ice Age, Dark Ages, etc. You’ll pretty much find that every time there’s significant cooling, we wind up with mass famines, starvation, mass migrations, war, and plagues. The genetic evidence also strongly suggests that the last glacial period nearly drove man into extinction – we were apparently down to all of roughly 2,000 to 10,000 people total, worldwide.
@Wagen
Sorry, I’d meant to address this in my last post also – “But there is physics” and “we know the link between one and the other” doesn’t even begin to cut it. Tell us what all the physics interactions are between cosmic rays and our atmosphere, and what effect that has on temperature. Same for the physics involved in clouds, high clouds, low clouds, what causes one type to be more prevalent over time than the other or shift the mixture and it’s effects on the Earth’s temperature. Same for soot. Changes in phytoplankton blooms in the ocean or total biosphere greening. Naturally emitted aerosols that change based on temperature. El Nino’s and La Nina’s. The PDO and AMO and other multidecadal or longer ocean cycles. What are all the physics interactions for all of those things (and the reams of other factors I haven’t even mentioned), and how exactly does each affect the global temperature? Knowing how greenhouses gasses act in the lab is moot when the issue is how much affect they have on the entire Earth when mixed in with all these other confounding factors.
@Wagen
No, Wagen, actually you were referring to the current relatively mild warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age also. And my point is that while you’re trying to pass off previous changes as due to things like Milankovitch cycles, clearly there are many other factors involved that have resulted in temperature changes as large or larger than the amount supposedly caused by AGW here recently. In other words, natural variation is a far better explanation for ALL of these temperature changes than AGW, and you trying to pass off past changes as somehow being “different” doesn’t cut the mustard.
As already commented, there is no evidence of man-made climate change on a global scale. Locally, yes, it’s evident. But science cannot presently determine the extent, if any of man-made “climate change”, or even its sign, ie whether net cooling or warming. But in any case, the global effect is at best negligible in reality.
“For the record:
I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earths atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate.”
Blog owner just said this
Sorry, but there are also reams of examples of hypothesis that people hung onto for a very long time that never were able to be shown to be as good as other existing hypothesis. Thus far, AGW cannot even come close to natural variability for explaining all the known historical data related to Earth’s temperature. What’s more, key “fingerprints” of the AGW hypothesis have never occurred. In other words, it can’t even tie natural variability, let alone be shown to be the “winner.”
There is one thing that convinced scientists from ‘climate does not change’ to ‘climate does change’ (acceptance of glacials and interglacials) and the same thing that convinced them from ‘humanity does not change climate’ to ‘humanity does change climate’. This thing is called “evidence”.
@Wagen
There is no evidence that man’s CO2 emissions have done diddly to the global temperature. None. There are far too many possible confounding factors to be able to tease out how much effect our CO2 additions actually have versus the many somewhat understood other factors and the many not at all well understood factors (not to mention a number I’m sure we’re not even aware of yet). These are the same confounding factors that have caused temperature changes throughout history starting eons before man ever began burning fossil fuels.
Ugghh… I wish people wouldn’t use continental drift as an example of a “better theory” that took time to be accepted. Continental drift was thought up by the very people who opposed it. They thought it up and found it to be lacking. When they died off, it became the defacto theory because none of the other theories could explain the mechanism by which it works. Continental drift cannot explain its mechanism either. It fails to pass simple geometric rules. But this is handwaved away. The story isn’t over on continental drift.
You are suggesting the discoveries by the US Navy, after the theory posed by an amateur geologist, are all wrong? Interesting handwaving there!
The True Origin of Continental Drift
and
Challenge To Earth Scientists
The answer is deliberate, and precise, re-formation of the Earth’s landmasses. In fact, the entire solar system was re-formed in the great design event:
Challenge To Science III: The “gods”, the Design, and Man
Fuc&k me (Taking on my Gordon Ramsay persona). Creationists?
I never said or implied anything you’re suggesting.
Say what?
“Continental drift was thought up by the very people who opposed it.”
False.
“When they died off, it became the defacto theory because none of the other theories could explain the mechanism by which it works.”
Huh?
Incoherent and false.
Difficult to be both at once, but this sentence is.
“Continental drift cannot explain its mechanism either.”
False.
Plus makes no logical sense.
“It fails to pass simple geometric rules.”
Geometric rules?
Which geometry is that?
Silly.
“But this is handwaved away.”
Seems like it was handwaved into existence…by you…just now.
“The story isn’t over on continental drift.”
Finally, something which is actually true.
No “story” is ever over in science.
Leave for another time the lack of using currently accepted terminology, i.e. “plate tectonics”, in your post.
Continental drift (which is the term the op used) WAS though up by the very people who opposed it. Look it up. Blindingly sticking your head in the ground won’t get you very far. Everything I said is true.
Forgot the details but the paradigm is under significant challenge.
========
A precis, please. ‘Geometric rules’ tolled a faint bell, but apparently not for me. There are unexplained mysteries in the proposed mechanisms, I got that far when last I listened.
==========
There is being skeptical then there is being contrarian. Being skeptical is requiring adequate evidence before believing something is true. Being contrarian is claiming something isn’t true even though there is overwhelming proof that it is true. I am quite dismayed that some people here appear to be contrarian and not just merely skeptical. There are many aspects of global warming that one can and should be skeptical of, but not every aspect. However, while not every detail of plate tectonics is understood the evidence for it as a whole is overwhelming. I also put the vast majority of evolution in the same category, although not everything about evolution is understood, the evidence for it as a whole is overwhelming. There no convincing evidence to support any of the famous conspiracy theories . Yet some people insist on believing them despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People who believe things in spite of the evidence are not the friends of skeptics, and skeptics would do well to reject them. I don’t want to create a conversation about conspiracy theories, but rather about the thinking that is required for people to believe them.
You’re taking things too far and jumping to conclusions. You need to take a breath or two and relax.
The essence of it is that it a belief based in emotion and, as any decent salesman will tell you, facts will never overcome emotion.
When my 3 children were small I taught them to question authority by every so often saying something so ridiculous, they questioned it. They are adults now and they will question superiors in their workplace and are probably the least sycophantic people I know. When I hear stories now of vulnerable children and adults bring abused by their “betters” any doubts that i had at the time of their upbringing have now gone.
“Experts” in my experience are far from being expert in anything. Our last but one (UK) government, decided that diesel cars were better for the environment than petrol, because they produced less CO2, so they encouraged motorists to buy diesel cars by having sky-high road tax on cars that produced more CO2. Of course the Law of Unintended Consequences kicked in because people were buying cars which were not appropriate for their personal use (diesel is only a good fuel if a vehicle is driven more than 15,000 miles a year with regular long journeys to allow the particulate filter to regenerate), if this does not happen the vehicle produces particles of carbon coated in oil from the exhaust, these particles are highly carcinogenic and cause breathing difficulties). The PF is expensive to replace, so not many people bother, the result is an estimated 7000 extra deaths pa from breathing disorders.
Another motoring related LUC was the study that found children in cities had lower IQ’s than those in small towns, they also had higher concentrations of lead in their bodies. Living in cities with more cars with lead on the petrol MUST be causing this. laws were passed to phase out lead in petrol. Cars became less economical and unleaded fuel contains a great deal more benzene than leaded, it is a 1000 times more toxic and is a carcinogen, but a price worth paying to have healthy children? Concentrations of lead in children were unchanged, why? Because the lead from burnt petrol was heavy and did not stay in the air for long enough to be inhaled. The lead actually came from water pipes, which were used in our cities but not in rural areas.
I personally feel that if CO2 emissions are limited by international law the LUC will go into overdrive in ways that we cannot comprehend. Our civilisation exists because of cheap, reliable energy,”renewable” energy is neither cheap nor reliable and in my view does not curtail CO2 emissions anywhere near as much as its proponents claim. The “sheeple” will bring down civilisation as we know it unless we can change their way of thinking.
Hey, andrewharding, maybe a CME will do it first, or an Ice Age…….:-)
It is not simply the bellwether gene that important but also (as this opinion piece points out), it is the time-cost-benefit of having to do your own research. Most don’t bother, because they don’t have the interest or the time, and so they have to depend on the bellwether whether (sic) they like it or not.
It like Christians. They believe because the bellwether says so. But if you ask how many have read the entire Bible from cover to cover, how many have? One in ten thousand, perhaps? From my experience, even most priests have not bothered to read every book and chapter, let alone every verse.
So whether you are a blind follower or not, you are often thrown onto the only option available – following the bellwether.
.
However, most leaders also follow the trends. A leader without followers is no longer a leader, and so when they see their flock marching off in a different direction they have to make it look as though they really did want to go in that direction after all – honest ! Its like prime minister Ca-Moron jumping on the ‘energy is too expensive’ bandwagon. That is not where he wanted to go, but that is where the electorate were heading and so he joined them.
R
excellent point – we must keep speaking out so that political “leaders” will slowly move their direction – I personally don’t think they believe is much of anything except themselves as leader
Thank you for a very helpful article. Now I understand why it is useless to try to convince CAGW believers of the truth, as supported by facts.
This thing of sheep following the bellwether led to the slaughter of millions in Europe in the 1930s and 40s.
‘If you really want to win the debate on global warming, change the opinions of the bellwethers.’
No one knows if Obama, Merkel really believe in CAGW; or even really care about. But in their respective ruinous political careers, resumees it’s the only field left to find widest, unquestioned, uncritizising support.
Regards – Hans
‘If you really want to win the debate on global warming, change the opinions of the bellwethers.’
semper et ubique:
No one knows if Obama, Merkel really believe in CAGW. Or even care about.
But it’s the only field left in their respective ruinous careers and resumees where they still find widest, uncritical support.
Don’t argue. Wait and see.
Regards – Hans
Sometimes you can change people’s minds but rarely can you change people’s hearts. This issue is religious virtue based not science based. The science is on our side and enough important people already know that. This too should come to pass with time. I just wish it wouldn’t take soo long.
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Tolstoy
‘What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.’
Bertrand Russell
“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.”
Festinger
“Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.”
Luke 18:17
What “latest speech” by the pope on global warming would that be?
This helps explain why some, such as myself were able to resist the Warmist siren song. Being part of the “In-Group” wasn’t a factor for me. Though I never got around to seeing AIT, I admired Gore, had read his book “Earth In the Balance”, and voted for him in the 2000 election. If anyone was primed for Warmism, I was. I come from a family of Democrats and I am still registered as one (simply because I haven’t bothered changing to Independent). I have always been wary of mob mentality, since it is based more on emotion, and is thus irrational. I chose an unusual line of work (or it chose me), and wound up starting my own business. So, independence and rationality are huge motivators for me.
When I first began researching manmade warming, I thought it would be a slam-dunk. The thought that the idea might be completely wrong never occurred to me. But, I needed to know what “the other side” was saying in order to be able to rationally refute it. It didn’t take long for me to realize that the wool had been pulled over my eyes, and that shocked and angered me.
I picked up Gore’s book shortly after it was first published and was in very prominent positions in all the book stores…. randomly flipped to a page, and started reading. He was carrying on and whining about being miles from the shore out in the ocean, seeing a single dead fish floating on the surface, and how man’s pollution was therefor obviously killing the entire ocean [as if fish never die of natural causes, predation, illness, etc., etc.!!!].
I put the book down, convinced that Gore was a scientific illiterate who didn’t have a lick of common sense either. He’s never managed to prove me wrong or even come close to bringing those conclusions into question.
You seem to be saying CAGU belief is a socio-political movement with a lot of momentum, I agree.
I like the word “othering”, this is a new word for me, it is quite similar to “confirmation bias ” which a measurable phenomenon. We all do it because we are social animals that pick up and empathise with what our peers think.
How do we change it? The answer is very slowly, without tantrums and with pockets of conversions. It is gradually becoming cool to be a sceptic of the CAGU meme. This is the slow process in action. As a science you have an advantage; science has rules that eventually are enforced, even on the up-hill slope against prevailing socio political beliefs.
Language is important. Invent the language that the debate is framed in and you are halfway to owning the battle ground. Attack others who use the D word because it is an anti-science word, introduce neutral words that others can adopt into their own mind scape, provide concepts with punch lines. The “18 year hiatus” has certainly harmed “the consensus” a word that is beginning to become frayed at the edges. We need to use our knowledge of these social forces to seed the debate with our language.
I should also have added visual language is very powerful. The lady with her fingers is very powerful, she should have a bubble saying “I believe in AGW, I believe in AGW, I believe in AGW”.
So is the image of a poor polar bear sitting on a floating piece of ice.
With a penguin!?
Most people are unaware that polar bears are perhaps the champion swimmers of all non-aquatic mammals, being able to swim for days on end across vast stretches of open and freezing ocean.
The entire IPCC , UNFCCC – AGW circus depends on the outputs of the GCMs
For a complete discussion of the uselessness of the IPCC’s modeling approach to forecasting climate see Section 1 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Here are the conclusions
“In summary the temperature projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted.”
If you stand back and view the climate data and possible driver data with the right time scale perspective and have a wide knowledge of the relevant data time series so that you can judge its reliability, periodicities in the temperature and orbital and solar driver data are clearly obvious These periodicities and their amplitude ranges can be reasonably estimated and projected forward and the relationships between the driver and temperature data may be reasonably well inferred without being necessarily precisely calculated..
The biggest mistake of the establishment was to ignore the longer term cycles and to project forward several decades of data linearly when we are obviously approaching, at or just past a peak in a millennial cycle. This is more than scientific inadequacy – it is a lack of basic common sense. It is like taking the temperature trend from say Jan – June and projecting it forward linearly for ten years or so.The modelers approach is analogous to looking at a pointillist painting from 6 inches – they simply can’t see the wood for the trees or the pattern for the dots. ( In a recent paper Mann has finally after much manipulation managed to discover the 60 +/- year cycle which any schoolboy can see by looking at Fig 15 at the linked post above).
The same post also provides estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling based on the 60 and especially the millennial quasi- periodicity so obvious in the temperature data and using the neutron count and 10 Be data as the most useful proxy for solar “activity”.
One of the problems in convincing warmists that their views are wrong is that most skeptics generally frame the discussion using the same reductionist – modeling approach as the warmists but with different assumtions, parameters and algorithms. We would make more progress if we based skeptical arguments on the quite different natural cycle approach outlined in the link above.
Dr. Page,
I can tell you that my initial skepticism of the CAGW meme was based on by knowledge and understanding of past cycles and natural variations. As was my skepticism of individual points within the meme, like increased droughts, storms, etc.
They make broad conclusions based on short term trends and what I saw right off as a near complete lack of historical perspective.
Has the pope to believe in god –
as long as he holds on to the bible and gathers the ecclesie.
Nowadays people ”don’t need the church I’m with Jesus.”
the new pagan – when it’s the ecclesie jesus taught.
Hans
I am a warmist because I am a physicist who understands enough detail of atmospheric physics and climate change to know that CO2 emissions cause an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere which must at some time be corrected by surface warming, whether now or later. And all the signs are that warming is resuming in 2015 because of the current El Niño.
It is noteworthy that those questioning climate change are almost always conservatives in English-speaking nations. And almost all are not trained and published climate science experts. That says to me that the doubt on AGW is primarily political and not scientific, especially since more than 3% of mainstream climate scientists are conservatives. Further the more a non-climate scientist gets to know about climate science the more they will tell you climate change is real and caused by humans. This isexemplified by the shift in attitude among meteorologists, 90% of whom now believe the earth is warming and we are responsible
So the reason why it is difficult to convince warmists is that they know that very few who are real published experts in the subject doubt climate change is real, including climateexperts who are conservatives, and they can readily see the cluster of doubt affects only one half of the political landscape of non-experts.
Well you don’t know about, adiabatic uplift and descent, hydrostatic balance within an atmosphere, past natural climate change, the effect of mass density involving conduction and convection on the rate of photon release, or the reason for the existence of a lapse rate even for an atmosphere with no GHGs.
Effectively, they show that radiative capability within an atmosphere does not require a change in surface temperature, merely a convective adjustment.
I suggest you do some studying.
Sorry Steve but all these things were covered in the atmospheric physics course I attended last term as an extra-curricular activity to my PhD
Last term. Now I get it! Ciao Pete!
Your course will have been based on the incorrect AGW assumption that the Earth’s surface radiates photons to space commensurate with a temperature of 288K whereas in fact it radiates at 255K with the other 33K engaged in collisional activity supporting the pressure gradient slope within the atmosphere.
Nor will it have explained to you how convective overturning changes speed to negate the thermal effect of GHGs blocking certain emission wavelengths to space.
Essentially, the blocked wavelengths become potential energy in uplift but are returned to the surface as kinetic energy in descent whereupon they revert to the full range of wavelengths and escape to space. Convection speeds up exactly as much as required to negate the thermal effect of GHGs.
Pete you should’ve said upfront that you are a phd student, you gave the initial impression that you were well studied in the field. So you are merely mimicking what your climate science profs are telling you. This makes sense now.
Convection from the surface stops at the tropopause. The reduced long wave emissions causing the greenhouse effect on average come from higher than this. So you are wrong.
Pete,
The stratosphere also has convection in the form of the Brewer Dobson Circulation and it is likely that the Mesosphere has something similar too.
There is a chain of system responses to any attempt at disruption by radiative gases.
Note that the concept of back radiation is flawed in any event because the declining rate of photon emission with depth means that every time a longwave photon is reabsorbed lower down the chances of re-emission decline so in fact DWIR from GHGs gets absorbed into collisional activity before it gets to the surface.
When DWIR is absorbed into collisional activity it distorts the lapse rate slope to the warm side in ascent but to an equal and opposite extent to the cool side in descent for a zero net thermal effect at the surface.
Interesting idea.
Please provide sources for your social statistics above. It sounds like a good thing to explore:
– is the anglophone world really more sceptical?
– 3%?
– 90%?
3% is just the reverse of 97% of climate scientists confirming Climate change. Feel free to put up a case that 97% of climate scientists would vote liberal if you think you stand a cat in hell’s chance of being believed.
The focus on the conservative Anglophile world is purely because that is where the right wing think tanks concentrate their efforts. What do you think would happen if they had a go in Germany? Laws. On disclosure of funding would hit the statute book before you could blink.
Ok, so these are your personal ideas/conclusions. There are No studies. One can imagine someone comparing blogs in several countries to see whether anglophone are more sceptical than French, German, Japanese, Chinese, etc. It would be interesting to see such a social science study.
However, your reversal of the 97% might be an error. I remember seeing a blog comment (on WUWT?) ~1 year ago which challenged the 97%. He noted that the 97% figure appears Only in the Executive Summary of the IPCC report, written by the Political masters of the IPCC report’s scientist authors.
The commenter had studied the report and advised that the IPCC scientists had readily acknowledged challenges in/to their research. As well, WUWT has that long list of scientists who have stated that they are Sceptical of AGW.
I presume your 90% was also a guesstimate from your perspective.
-/-
You do have a point about behind-the-scenes funding by vested interests. Canadians have long suspected that the Keystone XL pipeline hasn’t been approved because Pres. Obama is favouring one of his largest financial donors who just happens to own the BNSF railway that transports the oil at ~twice the cost (and risk). As well, it’s in the interest of USA oil companies to keep Alberta oil & gas landlocked – why not fund Canadian protestors to new prevent pipelines?
Oh my. What a complete waste of money and time your education was. You appear to have gained little knowledge after all those years. I can presume your science is of similar calibre. Maybe if you ask nicely, you can get your money back.
Hmmm Mr. Coppin, your comment sounds as if you have already Decided and are perhaps a Denier rather than a Sceptic.
Isn’t WUWT a Sceptic site dedicated to being Open to all possible causes of how climate changes? What if ClimatePete, a student of physics, has actually found Social Science research to document his declarations? Why would we not want to explore that?
Climate Pete
May 24, 2015 at 6:37 am
“What do you think would happen if they had a go in Germany? Laws. On disclosure of funding would hit the statute book before you could blink.”
Hey Climate Pete I’m German and I have no idea what you’re talking about. Guess you’re a believer in Naomi Oreske’s Big Oil / Koch Brothers slur.
That’s why I love to mock warmunists: They’re such gullible idiots.#
Now explain to us the fabled H2O feedback.
No chance, Paul. How do you think these universities can afford to send Mike Mann to all of these international junkets and pay him a kings ransom to teach one class a year?
ROFLMAO! Pete, Pete, Pete. If you’d bothered to take two seconds to evaluate the “97%” claim you’d know it’s blatantly false. So you’ve flipped a grossly false and unscientific claim on it’s head to assume that 3% of climate scientists are therefore conservatives? My my. Time for you to look up the logical fallacy of begging the question – along with confirmation bias. You falsely assume that conservatives are wrong on this issue, therefore the 97% must be accurate and must be liberals, and all the other 3% must be your ideological opponents, conservatives. You use the same utter lack of logic to try to claim that most of the skepticism is in the “anglophile world.”
Time for you to take a logic class, and learn a bit about the basic tenets of the scientific method too while you’re at it. I’d also strongly suggest you find a copy of a great old book called “How We Know What Isn’t So” and start learning about the logical errors that humans are innately prone to make. Some efforts along those lines might help you learn to not fall for such self serving assumptions.
@ur momisugly Lorne White
With regard to your reply to Paul Coppin – sorry, but Paul is dead on the money. “Climate Pete’s” replies have shown such a gross failure of logic and lack of the most basic understanding of scientific inquiry that Coppin’s statements were well warranted. That has NOTHING to do with the issue of being a skeptic or a warmist, and everything to do with “Climate Pete’s” failure to rely on actual research, survey results conducted in a reasonably scientific method, and his use of blatant logical fallacies, assumption, confirmation bias, etc. Frankly I find it very hard to believe he’s even an undergrad in science let alone a PhD student in physics based on his failure to use rational critical thinking skills in his assumptions and conclusions presented here.
one could say the vast majority of climate alarmists are liberals listening to a small minority of liberal elites in first world western nations. I don’t believe for a second the third world as a whole buys this hypothesis regardless of political grouping unless they are government elite.
In countries like UK where I am and where climate change is not much politicised the conservatives have appointed a well respected conservative Amber Rudd who is determined to negotiate for a world agreement on CO2 emissions reductions in Paris in November. There is cross party support for this with only a few right-wing dissenters. USA is very different which is why climate change policy is science-driven in the UK And Europe and politics driven in the USA.
…so Climate Pete is a believer in the EU Kommissars Technocracy… Well no surprise there, Climate Pete.
People like you give me hope: The collapsing standards in the EU constantly increase the demand for the last remaining rational thinkers.
In my experience you have the same amount of skeptics in northern Europe as in the US. The only difference is that there are less in the government because Northern Europe does not have much balance in political leadership as of current. It would be political suicide for any northern European leader to proclaim a skeptical stance. The general public in all these countries is pretty split on this issue. The more research the regular citizen does the more skeptical they become in my experience.
Are you on “Not the Nine O’clock news”? Seems you are bit of an idiot…no, sorry, comedian! I get them mixed up sometimes.
Climate Pete
You say
Say what!?
‘Climate change’ is completely politicised in the UK. The global warming issue was converted from being a dubious century-old scientific hypothesis into a world-wide political scare by Margaret Thatcher. Read this and learn.
In the UK man-made global warming aka ‘climate change’ always has been a purely political issue. Indeed, the pertinent science has always been subordinate to politics; e.g. the Hadley Center was established to support the politics.
Richard
Sigh. And it never even occurs to you that the exact opposite may be what’s actually occurring – that you’re being fed the politicized view, and that the USA is more open to the actual science, and that’s why the USA is more skeptical. How very sad.
Charlie: ““In countries like UK where I am and where climate change is not much politicised the conservatives have appointed a well respected conservative Amber Rudd…”
Absolute, 24 carat arrant nonsense!
Stop making stuff up!
I didn’t write that though cat. Climate Pete did
In France there is no real right/conservative parties (Sarkozy was ~ Labour), but the most popular journal is the Conservative/center-right “Le Figaro” and it used to be slightly sceptical (but I think now it is becoming almost a center-left-green magazine).
The right press is more sceptical.
So yes, there is left/right “climate” gradient in some countries in Europe.
Charlie: “I didn’t write that though cat. Climate Pete did”
Sorry Charlie!
I know a lot of meteorologists and they all see the data that we are warming slowly in this interglacial and 0% “believe” we are responsible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/04/14/study-broadcast-meteorologists-increasingly-convinced-manmade-climate-change-is-happening/
90% of meteorologists believe the world is warming and 74% will attribute at least half of this to humans.
WaPo = garbage!
Here we have “Climate Pete” using the consensus fallacy.
Ha ha ha
I see you fell for the revisionist interpretation of the data. Says a lot about our critical thinking skills. The survey showed 52% believed man was the *primary* cause of global warming. This means the other half thinks nature is responsible of about half the warming. If our remissions only caused half the warming this completely supports the skeptical viewpoint that there is no future problem.
@Climate Pete
First, so what if they believe the world is warming? The vast majority of skeptics and “deniers” also believe the world is warming. Has been ever since the end of the Little Ice Age, which occurred some 70 years BEFORE man was ever producing a significant amount of CO2, e.g., before AGW even supposedly started.
Next, that source is supposedly about broadcast meteorologists – a large number of which aren’t scientists at all – not scientists as you’d claimed. What’s more, when you actually go to the source, you find it’s not even about broadcast meteorologists, but about broadcast “weathercasters.” http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/report/national-survey-broadcast-meteorologists-about-climate-change
Next, the authors themselves note: “Changes in survey wording, however, make it impossible to say how significant the changes in views are. “We don’t know if the community has changed, or if we are now merely asking better questions,” Maibach said.” What’s more, if you look at the responses, a large majority of those who do think man has an impact say they expect MARGINAL changes in temperature, heat waves, cold waves, etc., over the next 50 years – not any significant changes.
In short, you know just enough about “the science” of global warming, as well as the issues surrounding it to remain an ignoramus without appearing to be one to those who already Believe.
So what precisely is your qualification in atmospheric physics and climate change.
Climate Pete, explain to us how the crappy Climate Models are expected to ever achieve any predictive skill, if you’re such a luminary.
Another one who falls back on the 97% fallacy. Plus a call to authority. Tsk tsk.
Climate Pete, please note that the warmists’ claim is for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And yet we have 18+ years of no global warming, much less catastrophic warming. Climate changes; it has always changed. Temperatures have been much warmer without resulting in runaway warming. Atmospheric CO₂ levels have been much higher during an ice age. The burden of proof is on the warmists; you have to show that any warming is real, unnatural—and catastrophic. Because, sorry, models don’t count.
Climate Pete, somewhere in your course notes there should be a reference to some body of climate physics topical source material which covers the subject of the earth’s natural operating temperature range at the earth’s natural CO2 concentration level, expressed as a range of expected Global Mean Temperatures at an assumed earth mean natural concentration of 280 ppm CO2,
Could you please take some time to look through your course notes and to inform us as to the range of expected Global Mean Temperatures which climate physics experts say the earth should be experiencing in the absence of elevated levels of CO2? (Thanks in advance.)
Your first paragraph is fascinating. You begin by throwing your superior understanding at us. And, frankly, for all I know, your understanding about such things is superior. But then, you throw it all away on what seems to me to be a completely illogical statement: “And all the signs are that warming is resuming in 2015 because of the current El Niño.”
That statement is illogical in two respects.
First, warming stopped with the Great El Niño, in 1998. That warming would resume with the next big El Niño, therefore, does not follow. Moreover, there have been two smaller El Niños since then, haven’t there? In 2005 and 2009-2010. Each had a warming effect that was short-lived. You can see that in this graph.
It seems to me that the case can be made that the Earth would be cooling distinctly were it not for the recent El Niños.
Second, an El Niño is a completely NATURAL force. You are, therefore, counting on a completely natural force to validate your belief in a MAN-MADE result. I don’t really have the vocabulary with which to describe how nonsensical that seems to me.
Let’s take it out of the issue at hand. Let’s say that some people claim that “Z” is the result of human activity “A”. But there is also a natural occurrence, “N”, that others claim is the real cause of Z. If the people backing A started pointing to N as evidence that their idea is right, what would you think of how they think?
You left out one variable: Assume as well that some portion of N and Z is attributable to “Y”.
The answer then becomes…
Where in the world are you getting your stats from? Let’s see actual references, especially for the claim that 90% of meteorologists believe man is causing significant AGW and since you’ve specified non-climate SCIENTISTS, be sure you keep it to degreed meteorologists. And the bit about how supposedly the more non-climate scientists learn about AGW the more they’re believers. Most skeptical scientists I know came to it after initially believing AGW was likely occurring because they gave climate scientists the benefit of the doubt, and were then horrified when they started actually looking into the actual science themselves. I’m a prime example of that – as are many others here on WUWT and elsewhere. Let’s see you prove the bit about 3% too, even though that’s a smaller issue than the other two.
“And all the signs are that warming is resuming in 2015 because of the current El Niño”
Excuse me, but AGW doesn’t posit warming caused by naturally occurring El Nino’s.
“So the reason why it is difficult to convince warmists is that they know that very few who are real published experts in the subject doubt climate change is real, including climateexperts who are conservatives, and they can readily see the cluster of doubt affects only one half of the political landscape of non-experts.”
Nice job of wrapping a bunch of false assumptions into a false conclusion that supports your confirmation bias while allowing you to vilify/diminish/other those who disagree with your opinion.
You’re arguing against yourself. If the warming resumes because of El Nino that means that CO2 has nothing to do with it. Logic much? The fact that you bring this up points to your confirmation bias.
Climate Pete says:
I am a warmist because I am a physicist who understands enough detail of atmospheric physics and climate change to know that CO2 emissions cause an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere which must at some time be corrected by surface warming…
Well, after 18 years, are you ready to at least reconsider?
No:
…whether now or later.
Ah. “Now or later”. So you’ve got all the bases covered. No warming for 18+ years, but it might happen in another 18 years? Or more? It doesn’t matter, your mind is made up. The science is settled.
Then Climate Pete preposterously says:
And all the signs are that warming is resuming in 2015 because of the current El Niño.
Pete, you’ve just described natural variability.
Pete’s argument is the argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacy:
The fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. Pete is arguing that man-made global warming (MMGW) is occurring, because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. After many decades of searching, there are still no measurements of MMGW. But no matter, no one has proven it doesn’t exist.
That is a logical fallacy. Failing to prove that the global warming conjecture is false is not the same as proving it is true.
Alarmists like ‘Climate Pete’ try to put skeptics into the position of having to prove a negative: that something is not occurring. But skeptics have nothing to prove.
The onus is entirely on those putting forth a conjecture or hypothesis, to show conclusively that it is happening. This is normally done by basing predictions on the conjecture. If repeated, accurate predictions are made, that is strong evidence for the conjecture/hypothesis. But no one has made any accurate predictions based on the MMGW conjecture: no one predicted the 18 year stasis in global T, as CO2 rose steadily.
The job of skeptics is to tear down all conjectures and hypotheses, if possible. In that way science progresses. Without skeptics we’re back in witch doctor territory, where the village witch doctor declares what’s juju and what isn’t. And no one dares to question him.
Climate Pete is clearly wrong. His ‘dangerous MMGW’ conjecture has been falsified: despite a steady rise of CO2 there has been no rise in global temperature, which was the alarmist crowd’s central prediction. They were wrong.
Based on that failure, I’ve repeatedly asked this question of Climate Pete:
What would it take for you to admit that your CO2=CAGW conjecture is wrong?
I’ve never gotten an answer.
Oooh, can “I ask a physicist”?
I have 1 litre of 20C water and 1 litre of 30 C water. I combine them and get 2 litres of 25C water; easy. #1. How do I do that with water and air, or air and earth? #2. If the near surface glob.av. air temperature is 15C, what’s the glob. av. ground temperature?
Great. A trained warmer.
Tell me how a 3% increase of CO2 entering the atmosphere is going to do all this harm?
I really want to know.
I like this article – its a game changer, turning the tables on alarmists after 20 years of non-evidence obscuration and fantasy research. Are you a climate alarmist??!! No one belives in that anymore – whats you’re excuse!!! As stupid as this approach is these people fully deserve it.
Somebody summed up the psychology of all this in one sentence: “It is easier to fool a person than it is to convince one that they have been fooled.”
Unless you yourself have good knowledge in the subject (in this case formal training in atmospheric physics and climate science), how can you tell whether you are the one being fooled or not.
Ah, the good ol’ Appeal to Authority. That always works.
so how can you? have you been trained?
Yes
I am not a evolutionary biologist, but it was not difficult to read abstracts or summaries and summaries of the evidence that led me to believe evolutionary theory. Since Newtons and Einsteins laws are used to send probes to other planets that did not take much convincing.
When one watches a soccer match, they do not need to be a professional player, coach, or soccer strategist in order to recognize one team is better than another team, one player better than another.
In other words, unless you are a complete dolt or lazy every one has the capability to make a reasoned, rational determination of climate science outside of the appeal to authority argument.
Climate Pete – “trained”, perhaps, but did you actually learn anything? Perhaps not. Your responses suggest that you are still in the “Piled Higher and Deeper” phase of your education.
After 11 years of university study, I came away with three most significant revelations: one, acquired in the first few weeks, was that there were an awful lot of people here that sure seemed smarter than me, and two more when I left. Of these, I learned that I could never really be certain of anything, but I could be ok with that, and the other was that you could consume ungodly amounts of alcohol and field grade pharmaceuticals and still survive. Embrace your education – it just hasn’t happened yet.
Alx.
If everyone has this capability then why do virtually all the published climate experts agree that AGW is real whereas a lot of proclaimed non-experts here reach another conclusion?
And why do people tend to move to believing AGW is real when they learn more of the formal climate science e.g. Weather forecasters?
Climate change is an inherently tricky subject purely because random weather noise short and medium term obscures the smaller long-term AGW climate signal. So unless you have either a good grounding in the physical principles or a good understanding of signal processing techniques you have to resort to no better than a guess based on what sources you prefer.
The way to determine who is being fooled is to consider the basics of science. The climate models don’t match reality (check on regional predictions and not merely the global ones, where there is even more of a disparity). Real scientists grasp that when theories don’t match reality, any predictions they make aren’t “scientific”, they are leaps of faith unrelated to science. Those that bother to look into the topic at all grasp that there are myriad climate feedback loops (e.g. the albedo which impacts on that radiation balance changes based on clouds and other factors which change based on climate). There is no way to even attempt to make any prediction about the future without a model which embodies a theory which is validated against reality. Attempts to try to pretend otherwise are attempts to try to avoid science. e.g. claims about “climate sensitivity” as if we don’t need models to predict the future are making the unjustified leap of faith that there is a linear correspondence between CO2 and temperature that will hold over the long term, rather than at best a temporary vague linear correlation which long term records show won’t hold up since CO2 isn’t always correlated with temperature, there are many other factors involved. There are long term factors that have lead to changes in the data over the long term that we don’t understand and may have an impact (despite the leap of faith of warmists to assume they can rule out such things merely because they wish to believe that). I’d suggest that at the moment we can’t even rule out the possibility that human emissions are preventing a more damaging ice age from kicking in (even if thats unlikely), which calls into question the argument of reducing emissions “just in case”… rather than just letting things evolve without government intervention since we can’t know one way or the other if emissions are helping or hurting or neutral.
Even if humans can be shown to be causing warming, that wouldn’t necessarily mean action is warranted since there is no reason to apriori assume that today’s climate (or that from a few decades ago) is the “best” or “right”. Granted some folks wish to preserve the status quo, but such conservative approaches based on fear of change and a leap of faith that anything different is apriori worse aren’t scientifically justified but are leaps of faith. The assumption that prevention of change is less costly than adaptation is a leap of faith given the early stages of work on the topic and the inherent uncertainties involved in predicting future economic changes and rates of change of technologies.
Climate Pete
May 24, 2015 at 7:29 am
“If everyone has this capability then why do virtually all the published climate experts agree that AGW is real whereas a lot of proclaimed non-experts here reach another conclusion?”
Because that’s where the funding is, Grasshopper.
You must be pretty unexperienced. Never worked a job yet, right?
re: “why do virtually all the published climate experts agree that AGW is real ”
That claim is partly a myth, which those who have the slightest bit of scientific curiosity about the topic can easily find debunked around the net. However even if it matched reality it wouldn’t be a useful bit of info since science doesn’t depend on popularity polls and “argument by authority” of the masses, but instead on theories matching reality. Not long ago most medical professionals thought stomach ulcers were due predominantly to stress and/or diet, and now they view it as being mostly caused by a bacterial infection since the data for that matches reality well.
I’m sure all published homeopathic “experts” agree that homeopathy is real.. even if the rest of the medical and scientific world consider it utter nonsense contrary to many well demonstrated scientific ideas and published in “journals” with poor standards that don’t spot the flaws in their claims. Of course those journals won’t publish anyone who bothers to try to question homeopathy, the journals make their money by providing a market for homeopaths to pretend to be legitimate.
Science is a human process and as such can become dysfunctional at times in certain fields. Nobel laureate Richard Feynman gave a talk (online around the net) on “cargo cult science”, fields which mimic the trappings of real science but lack a crucial ability to be skeptical enough of their own results and therefore don’t have a healthy self-correcting process which is crucial to the improvement of theories over time. The theory of paradigm shifts arose because in hindsight people spotted the fact that fields became stuck on dead end paths despite mounting contrary evidence until the insiders left the field. Or sometimes it is skeptics in related fields that need to step in and critique the field (subject to resistance by insiders who try to pretend that only an insider can dare comment, in order to prevent heretics from daring to question their belief system).
There is an evolutionary process that goes on in many fields where their focus shifts depending on who gets the funding. If two projects try to get funding (and there is only enough for 1 of them) and one says “the sky is falling, you should fund this just in case I’m right” and another says “nothing is wrong, this is just a cool thing to research”, then the project likely to be funded is the one that says “the sky is falling”. Then “group think” also sets in where new grad students who seem skeptical are less likely to be brought into the fold rather than steered to other niches. After a few decades of this it isn’t surprising if the researchers in a field take doom&gloom predictions for granted, those that are skeptical are pressured to keep quiet since they threaten their funding and status (even if they don’t consciously think through that aspect rather than merely having developed a group think culture that attacks heretics, rather than valuing scientific skepticism). Studies show in many fields there are a high percentage of results that are eventually overturned, or never replicated and ignored, partly science science is a work in progress. It has gone on dead end paths before.
Climate Pete, if you started with geology, a science that already had investigated past climates a long time ago, then atmospheric physicists wouldn’t have wasted 30 years to learn what was already known, that there is nothing particularly dangerous about today’s climate. The guru of the mess that is physicist-made climate science was an astronomer with no clue about geological knowledge on the subject and much of the thirty years has been spent learning by doing and having sceptics point out this stuff to them. Like you seem to have, they had too much hubris, to get outside the sterile box of physics that has much less to inform us about climate than you can possibly fathom. Sure, it is all physics, but a simplistic understanding has led us on a path that I hope we can correct before it destroys us. The BS about string theory and dark matter as patches to vulcanize holes in cherished theories is entertaining and harmless. Climate politics is not in the least.
Easy.
BTW, why do you suppose it is, that when it was proven that ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection, the very last group to accept this were the doctors who should have known the truth all along, or at least been the first to understand when they were shown the truth?
A 5th grader can look at a temperature chart and see that there’s been no significant warming for a very long time. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from/plot/rss
Climate Pete
May 24, 2015 at 6:39 am
“Unless you yourself have good knowledge in the subject (in this case formal training in atmospheric physics and climate science), how can you tell whether you are the one being fooled or not.”
Because I’m a computer scientist and I know enough about modeling, numerics, and chaos mathematics to know when somebody takes me for a ride.
A non-expert can judge accurately if one side behaves disreputably. The warmists have exhibited lots of that behavior. Climategate. The Climategate coverups. The hockey stick. Temperature-record manipulation. Isotactic adjustment. Avoidance of debate. Pal review. Goalpost moving. IPCC corruption (see Donna Laframboise). Dishonest debating tactics. I could go on and on and on.
You’re really this dumb “Climate Pete”?
I have seen the few short term IPCC temperature projections be utter failures, when looking up the temperature data. It is really easy to do Pete, which does not require 4 years of University education to do.
Do I need a huge college degree to be able make simple checks on the veracity of projections/prediction made by a large organization (IPCC), that is accepted by plebes like you so uncritically, to do the obvious in checking the official temperature data?
The IPCC climate models has ALWAYS run way high on their projections from the very first report in 1990, with a revealingly large temperature range (Red flag) of over 3C. That stayed unchanged up to the last report, which tells me they have not improved their understanding of climate science as much as they think they do.
People like you are damaging science when you post crap like this,be snobbish to people who can read and think for themselves. People like me who can see through the warmist babble easily since so much of is STUPID!
If you are so smart about climate science,why don’t YOU write up a guest essay here,promoting the idea that the entire AGW claim is a valid hypothesis, explain when the long awaited and much talked about POSITIVE feedback loop will show up to augment the feeble warm forcing of CO2?
You stated in a reply to Alx, this baloney babble, “If everyone has this capability then why do virtually all the published climate experts agree that AGW is real whereas a lot of proclaimed non-experts here reach another conclusion?”
First of all you used the Authority fallacy, then you insinuate that non scientists or skeptics don’t accept the small warm forcing effect of CO2, when actually most DO! It is the Positive Feedback Loop (the other half of the AGW conjecture) that fails dismally to show up,thus no catastrophic warming is possible. The main reason why so many here think anyone still pushing the Catastrophic warming argument are loopy in the head,since there are ZERO evidence for it. There is ZERO warming so far this century, whereas the IPCC stated it was supposed to warm at least .20C and as much as .30C per first two decades. Despite the continuing addition of more CO2 into the atmpshere.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.4/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.4/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.4/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.4/trend
Then you seem unaware that there are many scientistswho have published science papers: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
” Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)].
Alarmism: (defined), “concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
You don’t impress me.
How do you know your training is correct? You do realize that much of science education eventually ends up to be wrong? Right? No? …. There’s a reason the article mentioned the problems geology had with plate tectonics. From what I can tell your views are 100% religious based on what you were told by your appointed priests.
Climate Pete says:
how can you tell whether you are the one being fooled or not.
It’s hard, Pete. Your lack of success is a case in point. Prof Richard Feynman famously said: “You are the easiest person to fool.”
Pete’s mind is made up and closed tight. Nothing can change it now. He’s decided the way things are. He thinks he understands. But he’s only rationalizing.
A false conclusion once arrived at and widely accepted is not easily dislodged and the less it is understood the more tenaciously it is held.
.~ Georg Cantor
That’s a very good reply Sunsettommy – you articulate ideas well.
Climate Pete please submit an article to WUWT so that you can convince us. Be aware you are dealing with some very well informed and well trained people so you will have to provide substantive evidence. To my mind evidence (or a glaring lack therof) is the key reason as to why an increasingly large number of well educated and well informed people no longer support the runaway CAGW theory. If you have substantive evidence to the contrary that will challenge us or help change our minds please write an article and submit it.
@ur momisugly Climate Pete: I’ve never set foot in a university, and you make me sad.
You say “Climate change is an inherently tricky subject purely because random weather noise short and medium term obscures the smaller long-term AGW climate signal.”
Now then, the average englishman has slightly less than two legs. That’s not a statement about any particular englishman, nor does it say anything about all englishmen: It is statistical in nature
and derived from observation of legs. Legs are real: I have two. Statistics are not real. A change in that leg statistic cannot in any way affect my legs.
Weather is real: sunshine, clouds, wind, rain, T air and T ground – all these things are real.
Weather is not random. Weather is not “noise”.
Climate is the long term aggregate of weather: its apparent reality – rainforests and deserts – arises entirely out of real, non-random weather.
Climate is not real, it is derived from real weather. Climate cannot change unless aggregated weather has changed. Climate cannot affect weather.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120221/republicans-santorum-romney-gingrich-climate-scientists-scientific-consensus-skeptics-kerry-emanuel
Utter politically-motivated garbage, and a red herring to boot. Your troll horns are showing.
read that – don’t confuse special interests with sciences.
So, Climatepete, there is ONE republican climate scientist who is also a warmunist, and he is called Kerry Emanuel, according to your article? That’s AMAZING.
The same Kerry Emanuel, who went wild over the busy 2005 Hurricane season, THAT Kerry Emanuel?
The one who made all kinds of statements that this was the indication of things to come into the future. But alas Nature doesn’t agree.
Carry on Pete…….
Climate Pete
Whenever I see the words ‘AGW is real’ I know that the person using them is just a parrot repeating propaganda. You paid too much for your so-called education.
Remember how earth was once believed to be at the center of the universe? That was based on political claptrap, so was that article.
That was Mark Twain, IIRC.
rogerknights That was Mark Twain, IIRC.
I’ve already mis-attributed so many quotes I should have banned from the Internet long ago. I’m turning over a new leaf and now let other people decide who it was.
And “If I can get you to accept one false premise, I can prove anything – even a contradiction.” (Bertrand Russel, I think.)
I’m just completely delighted to have discovered that “the planet” is in no danger whatsoever, having done my own research as a lifetime “non-sheep.” In doing so, I found many other reasons to distrust the New Left as well. Now instead of getting depressed over the Imminent Demise of Nature and Civilization, I’m focusing on splitting wood for next year’s solar-minimum big winter.
The unenlightened can go on bleating as they please . . . not my circus, not my monkeys.
You seem to be saying that the debate doesn’t concern you. But unless you live in a cave somewhere, cut off from civilization, it most certainly does.
sometimes it seems that way, that the battle is really over, but it is not so.
while the left may like control, and attempt to gain control by appeals to authority etc, the reality is that they are not in the majority. they just like you to think they are. eg from the reporting you see on the tv of political views, you would think that there are no supporters of conservative thinking anywhere, but when you see the polls (especially first preference/primary votes), there are more supporters of conservatives than left.
it is no different here with this subject. the most important thing to the warmists is the 97% thing. nothing else. the rest, including the science, does not matter. just the impression that people will get. and just like the political scene, the sceptics are not 3%.
the problem here is that they have managed to play on the political leaders need to tax more and the many failures, obvious lies and deceit of some climate scientists/activists just go unanswered. the conservative governments now support spending stupid amounts of tax payer dollars on pointless hairbrained schemes. the majority do not support it. eventually the majority will get their way.
“I’m just completely delighted to have discovered that “the planet” is in no danger whatsoever”
Unlike every single warmista, who invariably become angry whenever confronted with evidence that their worst fears were unfounded.
I don’t debate the hardcore believers on Twitter to change their minds. I do it to stop them from infecting the onlookers, aka “lurkers ” , who outnumber the true believers about thirty to one.
has Nixon’s silent majority awakened?
It could be that the majority of people on both sides behave the same way with their tribal, entrenched views.
Anytime I see a piece related to weather or some other gw trigger on Huffington Post, I go down to the comments because I already know what the comments are going to say. Somebody will post “Queue the deniers in 3, 2, 1 …” or something like that to troll up an argument. A skeptic will take the bait, and almost immediately someone will post “97% of scientists agree that global warming is real and man is the cause” or something very similar to that. It doesn’t matter if the 97% meme is real or not: That is the talking point and it will be rolled out in response to any skeptic post.
It’s really weird to watch these discussions on internet forums because they’re not discussions at all: They more closely resemble dueling robots that are just going through their programmed scripts, rolling out the talking points cut-and-paste style one after the other. They don’t read what each other has written. They just scan each others posts to determine what side that person is on, and then they paste in the appropriate response: Either “97% of scientists agree … blah, blah” or something about the Koch brothers funding deniers or whatever. Those examples are warmist-type posts, but I think both sides do it. Posts are either made to pat like-minded people on the back and say “I’m with you brother! I’m in your tribe!” or to marginalize those are are in the other tribe.
It’s totally weird to watch such scripted internet battles play out, but it’s also strangely fascinating and I find myself peeking at them the way one peeks at car crashes while driving past.
No, not really. The two sides are not comparable. Generally, skeptics tend to have a much better handle on both the factual and political side of things. Also, perhaps you’ve noticed, the tide has turned decidedly against the Believers in these internet skirmishes. The CAGW troops are running scared. And well they should be.
Also there are very few Believers left on those pages. I’m often at the Guardian (being a lefty) and it’s the same three or four people making 97% of the comments.
Most people don’t care – which is strange as it’s meant to be the end of the world.
The exception are the sites that screen out all skeptical posts.
Sites like SciAm.
It is truly shameful, and transparent. Except to the credulous and conformist sheeple, and to the low information types, who are thus insulated from any real look at another point of view.
“Most people don’t care – which is strange as it’s meant to be the end of the world.”
I think that on most issues, even when one side is mostly obvious, the other sides debate team jumps in to confound and confuse the outcome (re Skeptical Science blog); then for many people it just becomes too much trouble to think it through. Which reminds me that I’m overdue at Star Bucks 🙂
You can say the two sides are not comparable, but nevertheless I see dueling robots in the comments of news posts. People, on both sides, just post their cut-and-paste blurb without evening reading or trying to address the posts they are responding to.
I’m not talking about forums like at WUWT. I’m talking about Huffington Post, Fox, Guardian, etc.
I’ve argued against warmistas online many times, and this article underestimates the problem. The problem is that warmistas can link to numerous “peer reviewed” articles and to websites run by NASA and NOAA. They can easily win the battle of links. We’re stuck arguing with logic. We have to convince them why the mainstream science is wrong…and that’s hard! We have to show them how people like NASA and NOAA are biased…and that ain’t easy! This has nothing to do with Jon Stewart.
But the best authorities are HadCrut and GISS for temperature – and they show the Pause is real.
And then there’s the IPCC. AR5 Box 9.2 shows that the models are duffers. That bats down every link they have, except that the Arctic sea ice has declined.
Which it has so concede that and ask them to show why it wasn’t recovery from the LIA.
Then push them, are they sure that the world is coming to the end?
Nothing makes extremists look so silly as forcing them to admit they are insane.
You’re only trying to persuade the lurkers anyway. The Believers are not rational in the first place.
Re sea ice…point to the cyclical nature of Arctic ice in the recent past, the recovery in the past few years, the Antarctic ice growth, or the silliness of the claim that a frozen wasteland becoming slightly less frozen and not quite as severe of a wasted land is a world ending calamity.
“In their latest speeches on global warming, Obama and the Pope …”
Could you please give a link to this speech by the Pope as I would like to read for myself what the Pope actually said rather than read third hand what somebody said somebody said he said.
My argument against Pete and others who appeal to the “authority” of published and pal reviewed literature would be…oh, I don’t know…..the long and growing longer list of published studies that have been proven, what’s the word again….oh yeah, FRAUDULENT. I believe Science magazine is currently dealing with yet another ooops, our bad.
Try this little excerpt from an op-ed in todays NYT:
Not surprisingly, the problem appears to get worse as the stakes get higher. The now-discredited paper on gay marriage — by Michael J. LaCour, a graduate student at U.C.L.A., and Donald P. Green, a political scientist at Columbia, who requested a retraction after his co-author failed to produce the raw data — had all the elements: headline-grabbing research, in a top journal, on a hot topic.
But dishonest scholars aren’t the only guilty ones. Science fetishizes the published paper as the ultimate marker of individual productivity. And it doubles down on that bias with a concept called “impact factor” — how likely the studies in a given journal are to be referenced by subsequent articles. The more “downstream” citations, the theory goes, the more impactful the original article.
Except for this: Journals with higher impact factors retract papers more often than those with lower impact factors. It’s not clear why. It could be that these prominent periodicals have more, and more careful, readers, who notice mistakes. But there’s another explanation: Scientists view high-profile journals as the pinnacle of success — and they’ll cut corners, or worse, for a shot at glory.
End of excerpt. Find the whole thing at the following link. I’mI’m on my tablet, so it’s a mobile link, sorry if you have problems with it.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/opinion/whats-behind-big-science-frauds.html?referrer=
Different idea: THe more prominent journals are keener on sensational findings. So they fall prey to conmen more often.
I just tell my customers, “Its the same bullshit half-cocked international luddite agenda as the glaciation scare in the 70s and the original ‘we’ll all be dead by 1993’ story that those people re-cooked from the 1800s when an idiot with too much education invented peak-oil AND greenhouse effect and predicted that both would destroy the world within 20 years before 1900. Politics is filled with people controlled by money and the old ‘The United Nations is gonna take over the world.’ thing is real this time.”
Usually lasts about 8 minutes beyond that, a few come up with the “but if it makes the world a better place” argument whom I point at the cost or maintaining a replacement part stream for the renewables EXCEEDS their value by several fold.
Seriously, if we’d spent all this money on research into Thorium (uranium) liquid salt reactors and the cannae drive systems back in 1996 we’d be ON Mars right now.
No, you would be on Mars now.
Stuck there, after the most difficult to achieve and expensive suicide in history.
I would still be here, on Earth, swimming in my ool, eating fruit off of my fruitfully bounteous fruit trees, and enjoying yet another gorgeous day under the hot sun and blue skies.
BTW, that was not a typo…my swimming ool has no p in it, another reason for my bliss.
:))