Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Our old friend John Cook thinks climate skeptics have to be psychologically “inoculated”, to help reeducate us into accepting climate science, without triggering a reflexive “denial” response.
The science for climate change only feeds the denial: how do you beat that?
As the scientific consensus for climate change has strengthened over the past decade, the arguments against the science of climate change have been on the increase.
…
How to get the right message out
There’s a great deal of research into how to communicate science more effectively and science communication should be evidence-based. But scientists and science communicators cannot afford to ignore the potential of misinformation to undermine good science communication.
One way to reduce the influence of misinformation is inoculation: we can stop the spread of science denial by exposing people to a weak form of science denial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3YngyVdyrI
The findings of psychology underscore the importance of this new study into the production of misinformation by conservative think-tanks. To paraphrase the authors, the era of science denial is not over. Climate science communicators would be prudent not to start waving a “mission accomplished” banner just yet.
One question John – have you tried looking in the mirror?
Climate models have demonstrated no skill whatsoever at predicting the climate. There has been no improvement in the embarrassingly broad range of climate sensitivity predictions, which strongly suggests models are very incomplete, that scientists are having a hard time reconciling models with reality.
John, what is the source of your overwhelming confidence in your position? Why do you ignore the growing discrepancy between models and observations? Could it be, that you are the one who is clinging desperately to climate fallacies, in the face of a growing body of adverse evidence?
It’s like reading about how the Nazis worked to convince their populous that they were superior because of their environment and that the Jews were holding them back from greatness. Really sick stuff, here, John.
Two Labs:
Not only the Jews but also socialists and communists, and they rounded-up all of them and exterminated them. The American right still work to convince their populous that the “socialists” are holding them back from greatness; e.g. in this thread. As you say, really sick stuff.
Richard
The widest two way street in the world?
Menicholas:
it is not a “two way street”, but if it were then so what? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Richard
What make it all really funny is that socialism and communism have be tried repeated by now by many countries….
And it keeps holding them back from greatness. ^¿^
Richard the Nazis were socialist, more preciously they were progressives with a whole lot of nationalism thrown in, they did not call then the Nation Socialist for nothing, they was nothing right wing about the Nazis unless you are will to believe the lefts rewrite of history. Someone the right believes government is servant to the individual not that the individual is servant to the government as the left believes. If someone on the right think otherwise they are not on the right. God it is ubeleivable how the left has been able to hide it and lie about it and that from suppossable smart people beleive the BS about the Nazie were on the right all these years
schitzree and Mark luhman:
Your propaganda is too silly for it it fool anybody except other members of the far right.
I wrote
schitzree, you have replied
Ah, the old ‘guilt by claimed association’ ploy! Communism has always failed and probably always will fail, but there are many successful forms of socialism in Europe especially in Scandinavia.
But the American right constantly pretends its failures are because of socialism.
Mark luhman, you take pretending to a new level when you write
That is outrageous nonsense!
The Naz1s were fascists. That is as far to the right as it is possible to be!
As the Oxford English Dictionary defines fascism
and says
You can pretend the Naz1s were not right wing but don’t expect anybody other than neo-Naz1s to not shake their heads in disbelief at your nonsense.
Richard
Richard-
Here we go again. The topic in which you act JUST like the CAGW people-cemented into your belief that you are correct and utterly in contempt of all the evidence put before you over and over again that you are WRONG. Its a cognitive disorder Richard.
“As the Oxford English Dictionary defines fascism-
An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.”
“The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Naz1s in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.”
Richard, Mussolini’s “right wing” in Italy is the LEFT in America. Europe’s “right and left” has ALWAYS been the exact opposite in the United States!! Why is it that you simply cannot get the historical FACTS through your head? How is it that you do not know, that when the US was created and the country rebelled against the Motherland, they changed EVERYTHING here into the opposite of the oppressive governments from which they had fled? They formed a REPUBLIC, the most directly opposite form of government from a dictatorship/king there is. And our “left” was formed out of the rich, formally educated, and “higher class” people who wanted government to control everything (Democrats) and our “right” was formed out of commoners, hardworking, independent, free minded individualists who wanted the least amount of government possible (Republicans). Your own heritage/understanding seems to have brainwashed you into believing that the US maintained the exact same political party system/right-left wings that existed then, and still exist today, in Britain. You are completely and utterly and foolishly wrong about that Richard. Again.
In America the “right wing” has ALWAYS opposed both Communists and Socialists (a known FACT) and Mussolini was a Socialist before he became disillusioned with it and Marxism after that. He abandoned Marxism in favor of Nietzsche’s übermensch concept and became the father of Fascism. Hitler ALSO favored Nietzsche and used his writings to establish his own doctrine of superior/supermen/race. (Also known facts)
Now I personally don’t care at all what flavor of “socialism” it is that you embrace, or how different it is from any other form of socialism, or how justly and perfectly you think that socialism can transform a country. Good for you! Your beliefs are your own and you are entitled to them. But you are NOT entitled to your own US Historical Facts. You are not entitled to declare that you, as a NON US Citizen know more about US politics and platforms and “wings” than actual citizens do. It makes you as arrogant as you are incorrect on this issue. Your constant yammering that “right wing” Americans have changed the history because they are ashamed of their earlier non-existent socialist/communist leanings only makes you look like a deranged conspiracy theorist. Do you actually think if our left wing Democrats, the people that ABHOR almost every single thing about the conservative right-wing Republicans, would ALLOW the “right wing/Republicans” to foist some horrible, terrible, embarrassing right wing historical trait off on them? NO WAY.
In the US today, the Left has become so brazen and proud of it’s socialist/communist roots (that it had to hide for decades after World War 1) that there is even a Democratic candidate that openly declares his SOCIALISM-Bernie Sanders-running for President!
Having sat in on many conversations between many intelligent people regarding whether the Nazis were Leftist or on the Right, the only thing that was ever settled, or that could be generally agreed, is that everyone with a strong opinion on this topic had the opinion that the Nazis were on the other side of the political spectrum from themselves. To a man (and women).
Before anyone jumps down my throat…I do not really care myself, so you might save your breath.
Just sayin’.
menicholas-
It doesn’t really matter to me either. But Richard is completely and historically wrong about the political parties in the US being the same as those in Europe. He refuses to believe that the right wing in the US is in line with the left wing in Europe, and that the left wing in the US is in line with the right wing in Europe, which has been demonstrated to him over and over and over again. Thus, because “Hitler” and the Nazi’s AND the Marxists and the Communists were all “right wing” organizations in Europe, he thinks all right wing Americans are in denial or lying when we state with factual evidence to back it up, that those things are LEFT here in the States.
Hitler was an abomination to everyone, I hope. No matter what party HE claimed to belong to, there is no party that should have wanted him then, and no party that wants to claim him today. And rightly so. BUT his socialist/communist/marxist theories-and those of Mussolini and Alinsky and Lenin and Marx and Bernays -even the ones people swear are good and wonderful ideas-have always been embraced by the left here in the US. NEVER the right. The right wing is not in denial about that, Richard is.
Mussolini was a socialist.
The idea that the states must control the corporations is an idea of the left, period.
“He refuses to believe that the right wing in the US is in line with the left wing in Europe, and that the left wing in the US is in line with the right wing in Europe, which has been demonstrated to him over and over and over again.”
Absolute BS
Aphan:
It is NOT “cognitive disorder” to state the true meaning of a word and to cite the OED as evidence of the true meaning.
Naz1s were and are fascists which is as far to the right as it is possible to be.
Only neo-Naz1s try to pretend Naz1s were socialists and everybody else gasps in awe at such nonsense.
Richard
“It is NOT “cognitive disorder” to state the true meaning of a word and to cite the OED as evidence of the true meaning.”
“Only neo-Naz1s try to pretend Naz1s were socialists and everybody else gasps in awe at such nonsense.”
Richard, what was the official and SELF CHOSEN name of the Nazi Party? Come on Richard, say it with me-
The National SOCIALIST German Workers Party
What exactly do YOU call it Richard when someone is presented with an undeniable FACT, one that is universally accepted and well known (such as the official and self designated name of the Nazi party) and yet DENIES that fact repeatedly and energetically? Sane? Reasonable? Informed? Do socialists define those three words differently than everyone else? Because if they don’t, then even a socialist would have to admit that someone DENYING that Nazi’s called themselves socialists might be indicative of a mental cognitive disorder!!!
That you keep attempting to do so, makes “everybody else gasps in awe at such nonsense.”
But let’s talk about fascism for a moment, because I believe that fascism is ALSO a mental disorder that can afflict EITHER side of the political aisle. Merriam-Webster defines it as- ” a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”.
Now, if we want to be logical, we could examine ALL of the positions listed in the definition of “fascism” and see that some of the characteristics listed could be applied to people in every position across the political spectrum, but no one position in any “free” society today embraces ALL of them. America was established as a country that not only loathed and refused an autocratic government, but was designed to be the antithesis of one as much as possible. America, in it’s purest form, welcomes all races, and exalts FREEDOM rather than nation. It abhors dictators, and demands as much freedom as possible in both it’s economy and it’s society. It fights against suppression in all of it’s forms, and even welcomes people who oppose it’s standards and might at some point try to forcibly suppress IT.
And that is why the vast majority of Americans today STILL resist ANY form of “ist” from taking control of this country. Socialist, communist, nationalist, collectivist-ALL of them. The “great experiment” that is America has taught the world that there is simply no rational, reasonable way to get ALL people on every side to willingly agree to support any program that would result in a LOSS of freedoms or rights they believe they are entitled to. And as much as capitalism gets blamed for so many things, it is also the reason that “America” has accomplished so many things that other countries have not, of all ways in which a government can “oppress” its people, it is the form that allows the most freedom with the least amount of forced suppression.
Now, I really don’t care what you or anyone says or believes about someone else. You are entitled to think and believe anything you wish to. But I do find it to be beyond logical/reasonable and almost descending into madness to PRESUME to know what anyone else things or believes based simply upon some arbitrary LABEL or title like “socialist” or “conservative” or “liberal”. It is the height of bigotry to even pretend that it is POSSIBLE for any individual to be utterly and completely defined by one WORD or TERM or TITLE, let alone a whole “group” of people.
Richard, if your understanding of people and who and what they think and are is so limited and so narrow that you actually believe that one word labels, or short phrases can accurately, or even reasonably, tell you enough about them to form wholesale judgements about them, then I pity you for THAT more than anything else that might afflict you.
Aphan:
Promote neo-naz1 propaganda if you want but it doesn’t fool rational people.
Naz1s and other fascists were and are right wing; extremely right wing, And only the far-right try to pretend otherwise.
Richard
So, you DENY that the Nazi’s were called The National Socialist German Workers Party?
richardscourtney,
I don’t grasp the idea that Nazi Germany was not socialist because they oppressed others calling themselves socialists . . It’s like you’re thinking that if one gang fights another, then one or the other must not be a gang of criminals . . Not logically sound reasoning to me.
TMK-
Now let me ask Aphan what was the official and SELF CHOSEN name of North Korea?( Hint: The Peoples DEMOCRATIC Republic of Korea)
Yes. I know. THEY can call themselves whatever they wish to cant they? Of course they can. But here’s the rub-on their website they say this-
“The DPRK is the Juche-oriented socialist state which embodies the idea and leadership of Comrade Kim II Sung, the founder of the Republic and the father of socialist Korea.”
So again, we’re dealing with people who identify themselves as SOCIALISTS. So in order to be consistent there, Richard needs to insist over and over and over again to everyone here that North Korea’s political position would be considered to be “right wing in the US to anyone who is sane or intelligent” while continuing to ignore the historical FACT (as demonstrated to him repeatedly) that in America, socialism originated on the LEFT side of the political spectrum and has STAYED on the LEFT side of the political spectrum.
Richard, who is NOT an American citizen, likes to pretend that there has been some kind of vast conspiracy perpetrated by the “right wing” in the US to deflect the designations of “socialist” and “communist” to the LEFT. Richard, DENIES the fact that the European Right and Left are the OPPOSITE here in the states, and no matter how many official US documents I link him to, he stomps his feet and pretends that HE knows American history better than all the freaking Americans do!
Now I really don’t care what Richard thinks. Or what he believes. He has ZERO empirical evidence to back up his claims, and I have provided pages of links of empirical evidence that proves he’s wrong. No matter which side of the political spectrum one is on, everyone agrees that flawed logic, name calling and projections of conspiratorial notions indicate that one is mentally challenged on some level.
JohnKnight:
The naz1s were fascists. They were not socialists. They tried to exterminate socialists.
Fascism is at the extreme right and socialism is on the left of the political spectrum.
These facts are reality whatever you “don’t grasp”.
Richard
“Fascism is at the extreme right and socialism is on the left of the political spectrum.”
THANK YOU…now we’re getting somewhere. You finally admit that socialism is on the left of the political spectrum! Now, since socialism has always been on the left of the political spectrum in the US, why on earth would the “extreme right” have ANY NEED to “conspire” to put H1tler, who was a self proclaimed socialist, on the left when socialists have ALWAYS been on the left??????
“Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational. A number of historians regard fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine that mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both those things. Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who drew upon left-wing and right-wing political views.” wiki under Fascism
“The naz1s were fascists. They were not socialists.”
Why were they not both, to your mind? As in, a form of socialism that was fascistic? Perhaps you could tell us what to you constitutes socialism, so that we could figure out what about fascism renders it not a form of socialism?
(First let me guess; It’s when the Government does only things you want them to do, to whomever you want them to do it? ; )
JohnKnight:
You ask me:
My “mind” is not relevant. They cannot be “both” because they are different and incompatible. Similarly, a frog cannot be an elephant.
And you also ask me:
By socialism I mean the political philosophy which Karl Marx summarised as being, “From each according to ability and to each according to need”.
I explained that on WUWT here.
I repeat that none of this has anything to do with the above essay which neo-naz1s are using as an excuse to pretend that their vile right-wing beliefs are really socialism.
Richard
Aphan:
Your gibberish has been refuted by others in the thread. Please stop directing it at me.
Richard
Richard,
You wrote these words;
““… but there are many successful forms of socialism in Europe especially in Scandinavia.”
None of the Scandinavian countries fit the definition in the Webster’s dictionary. This presents a rather obvious problem I feel, in believing you even know what socialism means . . assuming for the moment you are not essentially what gnomish is warning about tin this thread . .
JohnKnight:
I took the trouble to provide you with this link which explains the origens, history and practices of socialism and includes examples of the socialist UK Labour Party of which I am a Member.
Clearly, you have not read it and you write this offensive bollocks
OK. That demonstrates you are merely another offensive troll like gnomish and Aphan whose clear and only purpose is to pretend the ludicrous falsehood that naz1s were not right-wing and fascist but were left-wing and socialist.
I will ignore any more of your neo-naz1 propaganda, falsehoods and abuse.
Richard
Richard,
I read your link to the discussion you had here on WUWT in 2013. I also read your link to the Tolpuddle Martyrs. I understand YOUR beliefs now, much more than I did prior to reading both. But just like you stubbornly ignored ALL of the wise and logical points of view brought up to you then by others here, you are still stubbornly resisting them today. We are JUST as entitled to our understanding and viewpoints as YOU are. And I expect someone like you, who claims to wish for a society in which all are equally considered and equally respected, to actually TREAT other people in that manner!
Bold below mine-
http://www.tolpuddlemartyrs.org.uk/
“In 1834, farm workers in west Dorset formed a trade union. Unions were lawful and growing fast but six leaders of the union were arrested and sentenced to seven years’ transportation for taking an oath of secrecy. A massive protest swept across the country. Thousands of people marched through London and many more organised petitions and protest meetings to demand their freedom.”
They formed a trade union, Richard. NOT a government. Not a political party. There was already a government in England at the time. They formed a trade union.
“The protest campaign proved successful and the Tolpuddle Martyrs returned home in triumph.The Tolpuddle story is about how ordinary working people combined together to defend their families. The idea of solidarity as a basic human right is now an international demand.”
Co-operative living Richard. Communal living. Trade unions. All well and good.
wiki-socialism
“The modern definition and usage of “socialism” settled by the 1860s, becoming the predominant term among the group of words “co-operative”, “mutualist” and “associationist”, which had previously been used as synonyms. The term “communism” also fell out of use during this period, despite earlier distinctions between socialism and communism from the 1840s.[46] An early distinction between “socialism” and “communism” was that the former aimed to only socialise production while the latter aimed to socialise both production and consumption (in the form of free access to final goods).[47] However, by 1888 Marxists employed the term “socialism” in place of “communism”, which had come to be considered an old-fashion synonym for “socialism”. It wasn’t until 1917 after the Bolshevik revolution that “socialism” came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticisms that Russia’s productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution.[48] A distinction between “communist” and “socialist” as descriptors of political ideologies arose in 1918 after the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, where “Communist” came to specifically mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Leninism, Bolshevism and later Marxism-Leninism;[49] although Communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism.[50]”
H1tler took control of the unions. He molded and pushed them into exactly what HE wanted them to be in his new government. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/trade-unions-and-nazi-germany/
He called them the “Labour Party”, and promised them all of their former benefits but only through his new government. Unions, labor party, etc, ALL came to be associated with the Naz1s Richard, and he even named his new political party after them!! How could they refuse? And THAT is how at least 3 generations of Americans now, became familiar with the term “socialism”.
Again, by 1888, Marxists were employing the term “socialism” in place of the word “communism”. And the distinction BETWEEN communist and socialist as descriptors arose in 1918 (in Europe Richard, not in the US). By that point, co-operative, mutualist, and “associationist” (along with “Friendly Society” and “Benefit Society”) were NO LONGER associated with the word socialism. AT ALL.
And after the rise of Naz1 Germany, citizens in the US automatically began to associate “unions, labor parties, AND socialism with the Naz1 Party. How could they NOT? It certainly wasn’t because of any US propaganda-the damage had already been done by Lenin, Marx and then H1tler himself! (You should really be very forgiving because we took THEIR WORD for what they actually believed and wanted-you weren’t around to defy them or make them “take it back!”)
Now, you can cling to the “old definition” or terminology of “socialism” as you define it, if you want to. And good for you! You can claim that God Himself organized socialism and demanded that it was the most wonderful, Utopian, amazing form of living on the planet. But, YOU do not get to define TODAY’s socialism, or the way other people view that word AT ALL. You can kick and scream and call people like me trolls and all kinds of childish and ugly names, but I’m trying to tell you, just like endless numbers of people here have for at least 3 years, that the word “socialism” has not been synonymous with ANYTHING even remotely close to what the Tolpuddle Martyrs lived for more than 100 years! People here in the United States haven’t even HEARD of the Tolpuddle Martys Richard. They aren’t in OUR history books. They have nothing to do with US History. And how THEY and YOU and anyone else defines socialism, is NOT how WE in the US define it. And I’m truly sorry about that, because it seems to render you completely bug nuts.
But it’s irrational and bug nuts to blame the United States for coming to a conclusion based upon our experience with large, killing, violent groups of people who CO OPTED the word socialism before you and I were even born! In fact, you might want to adopt a LESS political term to describe the type of person you are, or the philosophy you espouse.Like “communal living person”, or “cooperative society man”. Because right here and now, in the United States, just like things have been for at least 100 years unionists are on the LEFT. Unions are groomed by the left and embraced by the left and tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat in the US, the left.
Oh, and it’s also completely irrational and mentally unstable to declare that I “must be” on the extreme right fringe myself simply because I try to point out the FACTS to you. I might be mentally unstable for continuing to TRY, for hoping that by some miraculous reason that you might just for a moment be able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and realize that how YOU think things are, just might not BE the way they actually are for or to anyone else. And that you would finally stop making disgusting, stupid, and completely illogical determinations about people you do not even know-just because it’s completely out of line with the way you DESCRIBE your chosen philosophy and makes you a hypocrite-and not because it makes everyone here think you’re completely insane on this topic. sigh. I won’t hold my breath.
black hoodie (red hoodie)
red hoodie (black hoodie)
They said, “We want your money- everybody down!”
richardcourtney,
(“I took the trouble to provide you with this link which explains the origins, history and practices of socialism …”
I asked about the lack of Scandinavian countries that (as far as I can tell) match the Webster’s definition, and am (naturally it seems to me) not all that grateful for your failure to address what I asked about, sir. . . I realize you might think I should be grateful that you gave me what you decided I need, instead of what I wanted, but this is not a particularly generous thing to my way of thinking . . it’s actually kinda scary, when I contemplate a Government full of people demanding (under threat of imprisonment or worse) that I treat them as little gods, who get to define terms however they feel like, as you seem to me to he demanding I do with you . . )
“My “mind” is not relevant. They cannot be “both” because they are different and incompatible.”
Sir, there is obviously a dispute here, about what ‘socialism’ means, so I cannot just accept whatever one person says it means (you), and ignore all others, including the dictionary and myself, and treat that as the ultimate truth of the matter. Please be reasonable . .
“By socialism I mean the political philosophy which Karl Marx summarised as being, “From each according to ability and to each according to need”.”
So, if the Nazi’s felt that the best way to achieve the goal of “From each according to ability and to each according to need”, was fascism, why would that not be a form of socialism according to your “definition”?
And if a Pharaoh, or American slave plantation owner took up that approach, which seems reasonable to me to think they actually did take in essence; “From each according to ability and to each according to need”, then that would also be socialism, by virtue of the goal you are calling definitive of socialism, would it not?.
Your “definition” lacks any constraints on whomever is in power simply imposing their own sense of how best to archive the goal. You’ve got *according to ability*, and *according to need*, but you don’t seem to realize there is an *according to someone with the power to make it stick* aspect that must come into play, in any real world attempt to attain the goal . .
RIchard,
According to the Webster;
~ Full Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done ~
~ If that is what you mean; No private property, Government owned means of production? What countries were you referring to here; “but there are many successful forms of socialism in Europe especially in Scandinavia.”
~ If that is not what you mean, what do you mean by socialism?
see my answer to you a few posts above here.
he wants you to accept that his need is a blank check on your stuff
then it won’t come to the part where the goons with guns come because you disagree
it’s the mechanics of socialism he wants to remain hidden
gnomish:
Please stop spouting neo-naz1 propaganda and return to your cell where the padding on the walls will prevent you hurting yourself.
Richard
gulags – socialist economics final act after their incompetence and avarice have just not yielded to seizure of more power and theft of more property and negation of all rights – even to your body and your thoughts.
for the fatherland.. er.. the motherland.. er.. for the unborn.. whatever- just give up whatever you got.
open your heart to the joys of the giver or i’ll have to put you in chains, you selfish blighter.
Perhaps John Cook could make a contribution to this blog and clearly set out for all us skeptics exactly what the scientific consensus really is – shouldn’t take him more than a page to lay it out.
The reality is that the AGW conjecture is full of holes. Models have been produced that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans.. Despite all the cliams, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmopshere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majoriety of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science
“If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.”
Is it “decrease”? My understanding of AGW CO2 GHG theory is that is predicts to warm the LTL faster than the surface as pCO2 increases. Which of course is not observed in any measurement data set.
Is that wrong?
The lapse rate traces the insulating characteristics of the atmosphere. The greater the lapse rate, the more insulation takes place. So if adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in the insulating effects then the lapse rate should increase but the opposite is true. Because of CO2’s effect on the heat capacity of the atmosphere, adding more of it to the atmosphere can only decrease the lapse rate which causes more heat energy to move upward in the atmosphere.
If you think that climate science is unsettled, you haven’t looked at psychology yet.
I thought climate science was a branch of psychology 🙂
This Pope added it to dept. of Theology, or maybe Metaphysics.
I’ve analyzed NCDC’s surface data myself, there is no evidence of a loss of nightly cooling since 1940.
So now he’s suggesting they put a few clothes on the emperor, and then perhaps a few more, and before you know it, the emperor will be fully clothed, and anyone suggesting the emperor ever had no clothes will have been wrong all along.
It looks like they are seeing some writing on their wall at last, and as long as they can climb down without allowing any debate they will still claim a win.
We’ve certainly been innoculated. We have been innoculated by CAGW rubbish. We can see the real science and like the look of it. Honest science supports rejection of the Alarmist position of CAGW Climatism.
from the heavily censored comments following the article in TheCon…
=============
John Cook
Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland
“There’s a great deal of psychological research indicating that
communicating the 97% consensus
is one of the most effective ways of communicating the realities of climate change
because people use expert opinion as a heuristic or mental shortcut to guide their opinion about complicated scientific issues (plus it’s very simple and easy to communicate).”
=============
Does any other branch of science employ psychological operations to change public opinion?
Khwarizmi,
A more pertinent 1st question:
Does any other branch of science have a political stake in reorganizing and redistributing so much economic wealth?
“Does any other branch of science have a political stake in reorganizing and redistributing so much economic wealth?”
Pharmaceutical science, perhaps? Dedicated to redistributing wealth to the companies, and also full of very dubious studies?
BINGO! That’s the first thing that occurred to me as I read this.
Khwarizmi-“from the heavily censored comments following the article in TheCon…
“There’s a great deal of psychological research indicating that communicating the 97% consensus
is one of the most effective ways of communicating the realities of climate change because people use expert opinion as a heuristic or mental shortcut to guide their opinion about complicated scientific issues (plus it’s very simple and easy to communicate).”
*”Does any other branch of science employ psychological operations to change public opinion?”
And right there folks, we can SEE, plainly, just how warped,biased, and irrational John Cook’s thinking is. (A condition that affects MANY social scientists and thus fosters nothing but scorn for the field and IN the field, which John and Co are oblivious to)
People DO use expert opinion as a heuristic or mental shortcut to guide their opinions about complicated issues John, but the problem here is that NO ONE views you, or any of the Cook et al gang as EXPERTS in ANYTHING. Not climate. Not communications. Not determining whether or not a “consensus” even exists. Not cartooning. Not creating widgets or slogans or sticky things. You and your pals are AMATEURS on your very best days!
Why do we view you so poorly? Because your work is FILLED with evidence that suggests that you and the “et als” suffer from impaired cognition! And not just a little, a LOT.
“Projection bias -The tendency to unconsciously assume that others (or one’s future selves) share one’s current emotional states, thoughts and values” [hint-John,…was that “research indicating that communicating the 97% consensus is one of the most effective ways of communicating the realities of climate change” done by researchers engaging in the projection bias, as well as others listed below? If so…what does it indicate ABOUT that research?]
“Group attribution error- The biased belief that the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of the group as a whole or the tendency to assume that group decision outcomes reflect the preferences of group members, even when information is available that clearly suggests otherwise.”
“Stereotyping- Expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.”
But John Cook (and other ironically so called “climate communication experts”) demonstrates so many obvious even to idiots cognitive biases in all of his work, that it’s really, psychologically stunning:
Bias blind spot -The tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself
“Empathy gap– The tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others.” [hint-calling people horrible names tends to offend not only those people, but OTHER people who might have previously viewed you as a credible “expert”. ]
“Irrational escalation-The phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. Also known as the sunk cost fallacy.” [hint-prior investments like declaring a 97% Consensus to exist when it does not, making up Hiroshima Bomb widgets, hosting online classes in which one portrays oneself as an “expert in denial”, and going from washed up cartoonist to publishing “scientist” make it really hard to NOT irrationally escalate things when more and more evidence suggesting that you were probably wrong keeps surfacing]
“Observer-expectancy effect– When a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it” [hint-everything John Cook et al has ever published ]
“False consensus effect– The tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them” [hint-overestimating that degree to almost 100% (97%) puts Cook and Friends in a category all their own]
“Illusion of asymmetric insight-People perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers’ knowledge of them” [hint-if you have secret online plotting discussions about the conclusions you KNOW your future (but yet unconducted) research will arrive at, AND leave those discussions unsecured, then your peers find out a WHOLE LOT more about you, than you know about your peers]
“Naïve realism– The belief that we see reality as it really is – objectively and without bias; that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don’t are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.” [hint-print, post on bathroom mirror, read aloud often, daily, until one of two things happens-1) you die or 2) you achieve a moment of absolute clarity and horrific realization that you, and your other climate communication buddies, have spent their entire careers proving to the world how cognitively impaired YOU are. After that, maybe you can reflect on how effectively and efficiently your professional contributions undermined the very theory you thought you were helping to advance. But we all know that is an irrational expectation as this point]
Oh, and I is just one of them uneducated, simple folks. I done learned all this stuff in less than 6 years and without spending a dime on tuition. I just relied on the expert opinions of people who study cognitive impairments to help guide my opinion on this really-not-all-that-difficult scientific issue.
This is why Cruz should introduce a bill to fund an honest survey, which would reveal an 80% or so consensus, as did von Storch’s and George Mason’s. Or why someone else should fund such a survey. It would likely need the cooperation of relevant scientific societies.
Just remember:
The winner gets to (re)write the history books. The CAGW believers are aiming to control history to control the future.
George Orwell said something like that in his 1984 novel.
The future is known, its the past which keeps changing 🙂
That’s golden! Wish I’d have coined it, but cheers to you and the lovely beverage of your choice!
joelbryan,
Yes, except the winners don’t stay permanently as winners; history shows that and it is expressed in this poem:
John
When some warmunist on a “science” blog brings up the 97% consensus or uses Skepticalscience as a rebuttal source, I have bookmarked links ready to post as necessary. In the case of the consensus, I point out that it is based on a survey with rigged questions like telephone surveys used to pre-skew results, and documented here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#5494013f5909
Next I point out that, as stated in the first link, the fraud Mr. Cook runs a web site called “Skepticalscience” which is anything but. He also appears to be a neo-Nazi:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
And then- Although Mr. Cook seems to have stopped wearing uniforms (or at least being photographed in them) there is a fairly extensive record of his “career” located here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=john+cook
And that’s all it usually takes. People seem to have an aversion to finding themselves in agreement with Nazis, and really, I never realized how much fun schadenfreude could be. If anyone has more useful and informative links please post.
After posting I waited to confirm there had been no problem- things were moving very slowly with posts appearing hours after the times listed for them. While I waited I read some of the other entries on Mr Cook including the comments about the uniform pic here http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/john-cook/ I will adjust my comments on other threads accordingly.
Cook was probably tempted into playing dress-up by 1) the initials of his site and 2) a desire to communicate a visual pun: that he is a storm trooper for climatism. Certain insignia on the uniform seemed to me to be sending greenie messages.
Jeff Hayes: ‘In the case of the consensus, I point out that it is based on a survey with rigged questions like telephone surveys used to pre-skew results…’
A scientific consensus is a general agreement about a field of study and is based on several elements: the convergence of the scientific evidence, agreed standards of evidence, and a diversity of researchers.
Surveys, literature searches and the like are ways of measuring the state of a consensus, but they are not how a consensus is formed. A scientific consensus is formed as a collective judgement over time as a range of evidence begins to support a particular position.
Consensus plays an important part in science by providing a paradigm or framework in which to interpret the results of research. Consensus also shows not just where the evidence is strong, but also where it is weak or uncertain. This enables research to be directed at those areas.
This is one reason why science is considered to be ‘self-correcting’. Investigating areas of uncertainty may lead to new ways of looking at a problem and even, in time, a new paradigm.
“Inoculating minds”, Cook’s sinister phrase sounds like he’s getting into Ron L Hubbard-style territory — or worse.
He’s as mad as his mentor.
I don’t know if Americans are familiar with the word ‘turd’?
Somehow it keeps popping into my mind every time I see a reference to John Cook.
I’ve been suffering from that a lot lately. The term “climate scientist” and “consensus” triggers that a lot. Must be all that stuff they keep going on about. A load of something definitely rural. I guess that’s a form of inoculation. I can smell it a mile away now.
We could give him the nickname “Mr. Floatie”.
To get the right message out it’s usually a good idea to:
1. Present the data sources about the issue in question.
2. Explain what theory suggests should happen if certain premises are true.
3. Either eliminate certain theories due to data not being consistent with them or assert that the data does not allow conclusions to be drawn about this theory on this occasion.
4. Discuss whether improvements in experimental design, instrumentation etc would be able to allow the theory to be refuted in future.
5. State that, if that were not possible, then the theory is meaningless in scientific terms currently unless alternative experiments allowing it to be refuted are carried out.
The problem with that of course is that it requires people to grapple with primary data, scientific facts and the scientific method.
How many humans want brutal honesty all the time?
Even that isn’t enough.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
rtj1211 January 26, 2016 at 11:56 pm
+1
Recently I had a discussion with two friends. As they are mainly informed by the popular press, the discussion inevitably did turn into a confrontation, even while I was trying to be as open and careful as I could manage. We agreed to stop the discussion before it would start poisoning the friendship.
For now my feelings tell me they are convinced I am brainwashed and tricked into being skeptical and I guess form my part I feel they are pretty brainwashed themselves.
If any discussion in the future would start again though, my approach would be different. No head-on talk about climate itself any more, but first and foremost “going back to basics” with questions like:
“How can you test if information on websites can be trusted?”
“What different kind of info is out there and what different kind of testing would you need for them?”
“How does science work, what different approaches are there in science, and for predictive science what testing needs to be done?”
The big challenge for scientist would be to engage on this area with non-scientists. Not to try to educate them in science, but to give tools for clear thinking also in other areas. The big caveat would be to think you just have to approach with logic and you can brush aside political and religious thinking. This is what a lot of the original skeptical and fact-checking sites erroneously did do, only to expose their own hidden beliefs and political bias. My approach would be to get these different ways of thinking and reasoning out in the open and differentiate between them and draw the boundaries between them. Not because political or religious thinking would be something bad, but to safeguard purity in the scientific approach and prevent spilling over from other areas.
For now I won’t start the subject with them again soon. I handed them some material to think over already and will wait if something will come out of that. How far they will go on this is up to them, because in the end only their own effort will bear some fruit, not me trying to convince them.
Indeed, it may very well be, they are not after good and trustworthy info – maybe they just want to be entertained by the main stream media. Because “brutal honesty” is not easy.
Just give them links to the best threads on Climate Etc. and here–maybe that would work. Or ask them to read the free samples of skeptical e-books like The D*niers, The Delinquent Teenager, etc.
Why don’t they try the homeopathic approach?
As someone said to Joe McCarthy(who was actually correct) “Have you no shame?”.
“One way to reduce the influence of misinformation is inoculation: we can stop the spread of science denial by exposing people to a weak form of science denial.”
The Homeopathy of climate “science” , Says it all really, another pseudoscience,
I wish I’d thought of that when I wrote the title of this post 🙂
What does “exposing people to a weak form of science denial” actually mean? I’m sorry to say that it sounds a lot like “lie” to me. When you inoculate people to protect against a disease, you give them something that has been killed or weakened so that it LOOKS like the real thing but can’t actually give them the disease. I watched as much of the video as I could stand (why is this guy so creepy?) and it really does sound as though he does really mean giving people faked or crippled or misrepresented scepticism that won’t persuade them, so that when they meet the real thing they’ll believe they already know it’s wrong and turn away. And if that’s not lying, what is?
That is an interesting thought. Recently, I have found myself correcting comments made by a supposed sceptical person that were well off base from reality. Some of those comments are likely made by those with almost no comprehension or little comprehension of the subject of climate influences, but some of them made me wonder if there was an ulterior motive such as what this post pertains to. I say that as they seemed to be a bit too far out there to be real. I will pay closer attention to that thought.
It is called ‘brain washing’.
It’s homeopathy over psychobabble over sociobabble over failed models based on invalid reductionism: pseudo-science over pseudo-science over pseudo-science over pseudo-science.
It’s the pseudo-science lasagna.
Hard to swallow. Mega-junk food.
If ‘Big Oil’ is paying the ‘denialists, it would be interesting to know who is paying John Cook.
The problem for people like John Cook is that they are clueless – not just about the climate but also as to why those from outside academia are far more capable of understanding both science of climate and the stupidity of those involved pushing the global warming religion.
Anyone can think like an academic like John Cook – you just have build a wall around your subject – keeping out all comment sense and experience and wider knowledge.
oops – where’s the edit?
“Anyone can think like an academic like John Cook”
No. A PhD candidate (NOT at his supposed Climate Research Institute) cannot afford world-wide travel to promote a political agenda. He is funded by someone or some organisation. Discover who, and you have the answer.
“Follow the money”
I’ve never found a single person pushing the global warming religion who isn’t in some way a parasite on the public purse. There’s also a strong correlation between belief and democratic viewpoints, which strongly suggests that the whole damn stupid fad is a facet of their personal beliefs and not anything at all to do with evidence.
There’s also a Lewandowsky study (of all people) showing that alarmists are less influenced by data than what they are told the data shows. Whereas sceptics stubbornly stick to the same interpretation with the same data irrespective of what idiots like John Cook tell us it should mean.
So, even if I knew nothing else about climate, based on that evidence alone, I would be pretty certain sceptics are right and those like John Cook are wrong. But when you add in the climate data it is almost certain (or as certain as we sceptics get) that we are right.
You are mostly right Scottish Sceptic, but most sceptics are still “Lukes” who still believe in the concept that back radiation from the cold atmosphere raises the surface temperature at least to some extent each morning. It doesn’t and I say that based on correct thermodynamics which I have been first in the world to explain and support with empirical evidence. Whether or not readers choose to learn from my writings, they should know that I have carried out extensive study and research (easily equivalent to a PhD in physics with thermodynamics as my specialty) and perhaps they may compare such with their own knowledge of entropy maximization and thermodynamics.
Blind faith can be practiced by anyone including atheists. Blind faith occurs when someone puts their faith into something without any evidence. This is religion to the alarmist.
“I’ve never found a single person pushing the global warming religion who isn’t in some way a parasite on the public purse.”
Bingo!
“Based on the evidence?” Whatever ELSE should we be basing reality on? Anybody who paid attention in second grade knows that climate changes, that glaciations come and go with everything in between. But the logic level of that same second-grader can EASILY show that the evidence thus far for CAGW is nil. I don’t give a rat’s what their computer-games purport to show.
So I’m to be taken to a ‘re-education’ camp? Are there going to be ‘confessional sessions’ as well?
Whenever I put up Dr. Spencer’s graph showing how badly the models have failed the warmists always start ranting about how he’s dishonestly fiddled the graph, etc. As a result I’ve taken up pairing his graph with this one from the IPCC’s AR5:
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/bloguploads/AR5_11_25.png
Source: IPCC AR5 report, chapter 11, ‘Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability’, page 1011, figure 11.25.
They continue ranting of course, in fact they seem to have a tendency to start frothing when shown the IPCC graph supporting Dr. Spencer’s fine work. 🙂
Hold on to you hat, they have a new chart to put up:
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2016-panela.png
Fresh out of the oven yesterday I am told.
What’s come out of the oven is “fudge” from the “Karlized” NOAA data set.
“As the scientific consensus for climate change has strengthened over the past decade” <- every time he tell fibs like that one another flower dies….
This sounds like an old KGB tactic. In the old USSR, dissident’s, who for somehow unable to see the benefits of the Marxist Utopia, were classified as being mentally ill and were placed in psychiatric wards where they were forcibly drugged.
Can someone explain to me how if infra red radiation does not warm the oceans during the day, how it is able to warm the oceans at night?
The Conversation only allows comments from people who support whatever the article says. No contrary views are allowed because they say it isn’t ‘helpful’. I have tried to post very polite criticisms of articles there on several occasions but have always found them to be quickly deleted by a moderator.
I no longer read anything there and never will again as it just makes me angry.
I agree. I won’t give them my time nor add to their number count.
Ditto Re: conversation. On holiday in gold coast and the site was recommended as being top notch academic sourced. Liitle did I know it was simply an appeal from authority. I never even got to the point of making a comment. Just reading Cooks article was sufficient to turn me off. So glad to read a direct rebuff here.