From the "The Stupid, It Burns" Department: "Science denial not limited to political right"

Guest rant by David Middleton

Science denial not limited to political right

September 19, 2017

In the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, many claims have been made that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right.

[…]

UIC Today

That’s like saying in the wake of [insert random words], many claims have been made that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right.

The article actually gets worse as it goes along.  It’s based on a “publication” by a grad student and psych professor.  Unsurprisingly, the “paper” cites the following “references”…

Lewandowsky S.Oberauer K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217222Link

Lewandowsky S.Oberauer K.Gignac G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24, 622633Link

Mooney C. (20119 30). Newt Gingrich deceives on stem cell research, mocks evolution. Retrieved on March 15, 2015, from http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/30/332730/gingrich-deceives-stem-cell-research

Mooney C. (2012). The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science—And reality. Hoboken, NJJohn Wiley & SonsMooney C. (20149 11). Stop pretending that liberals are just as anti-science as conservatives. Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/left-science-gmo-vaccines

The “funny thing” about politically oriented skepticism, is that scientifically literate liberals are more likely to buy into the Gorebal Warming scam than scientifically literate conservatives:

SciLit
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/23/scientific-literacy-leads-to-more-politically-polarized-opinions-on-climate-change/

Of course, this divergence could simply be due to the nature of the scientific literacy.  Geoscientists are nearly three times more likely to think that climate change is natural than government employees are.

apega02_zps9btv4xa5
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/23/scientific-literacy-leads-to-more-politically-polarized-opinions-on-climate-change/

 

Featured Image

0ad
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/719509-reaction-images

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
458 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Griff
September 20, 2017 6:24 am

Climate skepticism IS almost entirely aligned with the political right – and the US political right at that.
(Australian and UK skepticism is almost entirely driven from US examplars: skepticism is scarce where there is no party or following sharing US Republican ideals)

hunter
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 7:15 am

And Griff shows up as if he was linked in to demonstrate politically motivated denial of science by a lefty.
Thanks, Griff!
You are the gift that keeps on giving.

Bryan A
Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 9:55 am

Griff,
I for one would like to thank you for using the correct term “Climate Skepticism” rather than “Climate Denialism”, it shows a slight increase in respect that you may be developing for the skeptic side of the debate

Neo
Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 10:49 am

Perhaps, we should talk about ‘undocumented climate change’

JohnKnight
Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 11:58 am

Bryan,
Are you skeptical of climate? If not, why are you thanking someone for accusing you of such a (to my mind, utterly ridiculous) position?
I am not at all skeptical of climate, myself (I’m thoroughly convinced it’s a real phenomenon on the planet Earth, I swear ; ) and consider it very unwise to “play along” with self-labeling that denotes one must be extremely ignorant or dense for the label to rightly apply . . Not a good start to any discussion about who has a good handle on a very complex matter . . I feel, anyway. Sort of like agreeing to debate with an *I’m stupid* note pinned to ones chest . . because that’s better than an *I’m insane* note . . ; )

Bryan A
Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 12:12 pm

John,
I prefer the “i’m with stupid” T-shirt with the arrow pointing up

JohnKnight
Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 12:58 pm

. . to one with the arrow pointing down? . . ; )
Seriously, I think it’s been an ongoing minor victory for the “climate alarmists” that the matching “climate alarm skeptics” was not insisted on by same, long ago . . or other variants that convey something about what the central/pivotal issue is . . Hmm
*It’s the alarm, stupid*
; )

Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 8:53 pm

Griff’s fellow Brit agrees with him!
Richard S Courtney September 20, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Only in the US is support and opposition of the scare aligned with left vs. right politics.

Ghalfrunt
Reply to  hunter
September 21, 2017 4:27 am

Bryan A September 20, 2017 at 9:55 am
Griff,
I for one would like to thank you for using the correct term “Climate Skepticism” rather than “Climate Denialism”, it shows a slight increase in respect that you may be developing for the skeptic side of the debat
————–
So Bryan – you think that there is a possibility that:
AGW is real
CO2 is possibly a cause of current warming
That there may be a significant and dangerous temperature rise
That weather events may be causing more deaths
That scientists may be correct in their predictions
That possibly the temperature is not being falsely adjusted
Etc.
And that as a true skeptical you chose to ignore all these possibilities.
And you chose to ignore these possibilities until the prediction becomes fact – by which time of course it will take decades to fix the problem.
Wow but that is so inhuman

Griff
Reply to  hunter
September 22, 2017 4:43 am

not a lefty, Hunter.
climate science is not a ‘leftist’ invention…
climate skepticism is though a position embraced almost entirely by the right.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 7:19 am

Citing Lewandowsky, et. al.
Griff is so predictable that I am beginning to think he is a bot, not a human.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 20, 2017 8:38 am

No, he’s a real guy, his name is Ed.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 20, 2017 10:22 am

As in: Ed the talking horse.

Latitude
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 20, 2017 10:58 am

I think Griff is great!….he’s never posted anything that didn’t make liberals look like idiots….or anything that wasn’t so easy to shoot down it make’s him look like an idiot

Latitude
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 20, 2017 11:01 am

….come to think of it….Griff might be a conservative plant to make liberals look bad

Joel Snider
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 20, 2017 12:08 pm

‘No, he’s a real guy, his name is Ed.’
Gee, not even honest about his name. Knock me over with a feather.

DonM
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 20, 2017 12:31 pm

His name is Ed in your version of reality. There are infinite realities; in his favorite version of reality his name is Griff (and he sees all and knows all).

Ray in SC
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 20, 2017 12:45 pm

Griff holds views that are contrary to ours but one thing is true, he has never uttered an ‘ad hominen’ against anyone on this site regardless of the abuse directed at him. That places him a cut above many.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 20, 2017 2:08 pm

Ray in SC – that is high praise indeed. Good for Griff (even if we disagree fundamentally with him)

Bob boder
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 21, 2017 4:02 am

Ray
Griff is a serial slander and has posted pure lies about multiple scientist that he has disagreed with multiple times and been caught and exposed every time, he is not a good guy he is slime.

Robert from oz
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 21, 2017 4:27 am

Griff has never offered an apology either , not too late I’m sure Susan would accept it if it was sincere .

Griff
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 22, 2017 4:44 am

John, Ed the talking horse was in fact a Zebra…
http://www.snopes.com/lost/mistered.asp
(everything on the internet is true!)

Griff
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 22, 2017 4:46 am

bob, I hold to the views expressed by other scientists about some scientists who are paid for their work and/or apparently not experts in the field on which they publish on the net.
I won’t apologise for that.

catweazle666
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 25, 2017 2:57 pm

“No, he’s a real guy, his name is Ed.”
Correct, Anthony.
You know, the Internet is a truly wonderful thing…

catweazle666
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 25, 2017 3:00 pm

“he has never uttered an ‘ad hominen’ against anyone on this site”
Not true.
He deliberately lied about Dr. Susan Crockford’s publication history with the intention of damaging her professional reputation.

Phoenix44
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 7:24 am

Skepticism in general correlates well with being right-wing – as it should.
As any economist or non-climate and non-campaigning scientist will confirm the Left believes all sorts of nonsense, from left-wing “economics” (despite decades of theoretical and real-life debunking) to the ludicrous blank slate through the awful devastation GMOs will bring and ending up with the idea that a few geniuses in government can run the lives of millions of people because they know the way everything should be done. And that’s before we start with the appalling and easily debunked claims made about inequality, carcinogens, pesticides, organic food, neocortinoids and the Ozone Layer.
When you have the Left swallowing all of that whole, of course the Right are sceptics.

Goldrider
Reply to  Phoenix44
September 20, 2017 7:52 am

New York Governor Cuomo yesterday, at a news conference on emergency preparedness:
“We never used to have hurricanes in New York. We never used to have tornadoes in New York.”
Guy on talk radio this morning reads a list of hurricanes impacting New York from the year 1480 to the present; dozens and dozens of them! I propose an interdisciplinary “basic knowledge” test to be passed by anyone seeking public office above the dogcatcher level. These people make themselves unintentionally hilarious objects of fun.

Bryan A
Reply to  Phoenix44
September 20, 2017 10:01 am

The political right are skeptics to add balance to the world 9So that it won’t tip over like Guam)

With Democrats like these, skepticism is a necessity

texasjimbrock
Reply to  Phoenix44
September 20, 2017 12:27 pm

Way back in about 1991 or so, as a resident of Westport CT, a hurricane crossed over Long Island and passed right over my house. The eye, that is. Forgot the exact year.

Count to 10
Reply to  Phoenix44
September 20, 2017 3:57 pm

The Guam thing was an attempt to reference a military in joke, but it fell flat.

Gamecock
Reply to  Phoenix44
September 20, 2017 4:57 pm

TJB, that would have been Hurricane Bob. Infamous here in the southeast as evangelicals made a big deal out of praying for it to miss the southeast coast . . . which it did. Then SLAMMED New England. Many New Englanders blamed the evangelicals for causing it to hit them. Rilly.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 7:41 am
Griff
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 22, 2017 4:52 am

Hmm… I like your summary of the ‘right’ view there… yes, that encapsulates the best of the things the right stands for and why I sometimes consider voting that way.
Not sure you have the left wing view accurately though.
all I am saying is that the ‘membership’, if we can put it that way, of the ‘skeptics club’ is almost all of those with righter wing political beliefs. And the idea of ‘less government and control’ may be a large driver in that.
But it is there, I’m sure.
On the other side the real left don’t care at all about climate change, let alone advancing it to support their ends. They have other issues they see as important.

3x2
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 7:51 am

(Australian and UK skepticism is almost entirely driven from US examplars: skepticism is scarce where there is no party or following sharing US Republican ideals)
You mean a situation where it is much easier to prevent sceptical voices ever being heard?

Griff
Reply to  3x2
September 22, 2017 4:53 am

I’m not aware that modern Germany, or Sweden are giving to suppressing viewpoints.
Germans are overwhelmingly accepting of climate science and renewables (and also anti nuclear to a degree not seen in the UK)

Goldrider
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 7:53 am

Climate skepticism is almost entirely aligned with those who’ve actually cracked a book, are capable of understanding it, and don’t just accept arguments from authority that align with their secular religious worldview. Griff, you act more and more like someone paid to come and troll here.

Reply to  Goldrider
September 20, 2017 1:00 pm

I think the essay at this link explains a lot in a way that means much:
Rishon Rishon: Mundia & Modia: The two worlds in which we live
http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/351860.html

Griff
Reply to  Goldrider
September 22, 2017 4:56 am

Not paid, not involved in politics or green groups.
Just interested in climate change.
I would submit that Anthony is an authority and many here would accept arguments advanced by the good Mr Watts?
🙂
climate scientists have assuredly cracked many books. In many cases they wrote them… an awful lot of the skeptic argument depends on freely available evidence climate scientists have assembled and put out there.

Griff
Reply to  Goldrider
September 22, 2017 5:00 am

Thomas.. what an interesting essay…
I’d say the truth is, is that Mundia is not immutable. Perhaps Modians know that and adapt when the seemingly immutable nature of the world changes, while Mundians double down on what they had before?

Ursus Augustus
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 7:59 am

Errr Griff, the people of the US, UK and Oz all speak English and there is this thing called the internet and another thing called TV and other things too that allow us to communicate with each other and share ideas and opinions etc. For example I don’t particularly think Donald Trump is the ideal person to be POTUS but I think he has a point about Kim Jong Un being a ‘Rocket Man’ kinda loon and a serious threat to world peace, you know letting off H Bombs and firing ballistic missiles over the Japanese for no good reason than to piss off the Japanese and their friends. Similarly I thought Barack Obama was a very presentable, literate and articulate POTUS and had some good ideas but was also a bit of a poseur and a complete dingbat when it came to the CAGW thing. I have voted L, R and Green over the years and am seriously, seriously skeptical about CAGW.

Alan D McIntire
Reply to  Ursus Augustus
September 20, 2017 11:28 am

As Greg Gutfeld pointed out, maybe “Rocket Man” was a poor choice. Kim Jong Un may consider that a COMPLIMENT!

texasjimbrock
Reply to  Ursus Augustus
September 20, 2017 12:30 pm

Cmon, Bear: I never voted Green, and never will, because they are a bunch of dingbat commies.

JohnWho
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 8:00 am

I have to agree partly with Griff’s first sentence. In the US, the political right is full of people who think for themselves and are often skeptical of what they are told while the political left is full of people who need someone to think for them and tell them what to do.

Reply to  JohnWho
September 20, 2017 11:46 am

The right are referred to the right because, well………we’re right.

Reply to  JohnWho
September 20, 2017 12:16 pm

That sums it up nicely.

Chris
Reply to  JohnWho
September 21, 2017 9:12 am

No, the political right is full of dittoheads that follow folks like Trump. Thinking for yourself gets you a President that promises to help the little guy, then populates his cabinet with billionaires. Tax cuts primarily for the wealthy. Gutting of a health care law that gave 15M people health insurance. No wall. , No real pressure brought to bear on corporate America to bring jobs back.

2hotel9
Reply to  Chris
September 21, 2017 6:24 pm

“populates his cabinet with billionaires” As Barrack Hussein Obama did? As William Jefferson Clinton did? As James Earl Carter did? As Lyndon Baines Johnson did? As Franklin Delano Roosevelt did?

Griff
Reply to  JohnWho
September 22, 2017 5:01 am

Yet in my country, the UK, it has as often been the left which has challenged the established order and produced something better.
In modern terms, are not the fathers of the American revolution ‘leftists’?

Joe Civis
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 8:47 am

hmmm so the Griffster admits that the right is on the side of science since science by its very definition is to be skeptical! Wow I don’t think he meant to make that argument!!
Cheers!
Joe

Andy pattullo
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 8:58 am

If that were true, it would be an indictment of the judgment of liberals, but I suspect it is far more complex. We perhaps need to remind some that in science skepticism is a virtue, not a flaw.

leopoldo Perdomo
Reply to  Andy pattullo
September 20, 2017 11:09 am

I am sort of liberal, but I like to have my mind free, and not following some collective thinking. Most times collective thinking is trashy, even if it is lefty. That is why I am skeptical, even in matters that are not connected with politics. Politics often influence scientists to speak out theories for ineffable purposes.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 9:35 am

Griff:
“…skepticism is scarce where there is no party or following sharing US Republican ideals”
OMG. Where to begin. First, nearly no one outside the Western liberal democracies holds to anything except what you term ‘skepticism’. This is in part because most of the rest of the world has a better science education than people in the USA (accounting for the coastal bubble believers), and in part because they are more likely to be skeptical of anything said by an official, because of their long experience with baseless propaganda.
Many governments are profoundly corrupt, but in some countries the population still believes they are not, thinking that mostly they act in the public, not personal or party-interest. If you want to divide the world into believers in CAGW and those skeptical of its catastrophic claims, look at the general level of credulity, not party affiliation in a sagging two-party state. Where a government has a decades-long history of lying to the public about nearly everything and the public knows they are being lied to the public also reject the catastrophism of the alarmists in, for example, most of Asia. Where people still believe that the government would not lie to them so consistently and pervasively because they are ‘the representatives of the people’ there is more credulity and consequently more acceptance on good faith – UK, Germany, Sweden and so on.
The inveterate enemies of Western democracies are relying on the credulity of a scientifically semi-literate public to drink the AGW Kool-Aid and dismantle their superior energy generating systems while their rivals continue to expand and consolidate their own. When it eventually fails, they will do something else. That is what being an ‘inveterate enemy’ is all about.
I haven’t any idea what ‘US Republican ideals’ are. They seem to be as corrupt as the Democrat Party to outsiders. The odd thing is that there is presently a president in power who is not steeped in either of their traditions. It is making a very large number of well-connected people uncomfortable. Profiteers, fixers, bagmen and scandal-mongers are very concerned. The comparisons with Rome in decline are unavoidable.

Mike
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
September 20, 2017 10:12 am

Well said Crispin!
Couldn’t have said it better myself!
Mike

Rhoda R
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
September 20, 2017 10:19 am

Crispin, you are absolutely correct that the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans is microscopic. We call them the Uniparty as both seem to have been taken over by globalists and crony not (not necessarily different). The Republican side does have members that are a bit more independent and these are the ones that our party leaders, Ryan and McConnell, are currently at war with. The Democrat left is also having problems with identity. Don’t be overly surprised if both the DNC (Democrats) and the GOP (Republicans) end up reformulating into three or four different parties for a short period of time.

Latitude
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
September 20, 2017 10:23 am

same dog…different collar

leopoldo Perdomo
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
September 20, 2017 11:19 am

I agree with your post, Crispin.

Griff
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
September 22, 2017 5:04 am

Well, the Chinese and Indians and the EU are dismantling their fossil fuel systems for renewables, so who exactly is in the ‘beat the democracies by conning them in to doing away with their coal plant’ club?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 9:50 am

Griff,
I consider myself a climate skeptic, and I am most assuredly not a Republican. So, I have shown a data point disproving your hypothesis, so it fails.

Editor
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 20, 2017 9:57 am

Same here,I am NOT a Republican either.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 20, 2017 10:40 am
MarkW
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 20, 2017 11:56 am

I’m more of a Libertarian, with Republican as a fall back position.

Chris
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 21, 2017 9:15 am

Wrong, Retired Engineer Jim. He said almost all, not all.

Griff
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 22, 2017 5:04 am

Exception which proves the rule -just as I am definitely not a leftist!

Barbara
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 22, 2017 12:59 pm

Glad you spoke up Jim. I’m quite socially liberal, and have voted democratic most of my life; but, I’m also a physicist, and highly skeptical of the claims made by the climate alarmists, which appear to me to have very little to do with actual science and a whole lot to do with speculation in the form of intricate models tuned to the past to project a future that is built into the models. We know too little about natural climate variability to make the wild claims that have been made about CO2 and our imminent future.

Latitude
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 9:59 am

“Climate skepticism IS almost entirely aligned with the political right –”
Griff, you have that backwards….it’s the left that wants a government sugar tit…so they believe anything that will get them there
The right wants to be independent…opposite of dependent….and they can smell a rat a mile away.
Political right thinking IS almost entirely aligned with climate skepticism………

Chris
Reply to  Latitude
September 21, 2017 9:16 am

Yeah, the right that has lobbied for handouts to corporations.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 10:38 am

Depressingly incorrect and turning things on their head – if anything climate hysteria of your monotypical viewpoint Griff is linked to lack of being well read and being wealthy with lots of money to invest in name any climate subsidies scam you choose.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 10:50 am

Rather than break skepticism into liberal/conservative or democrat/republican why doesn’t Griff tell us the breakdown between STEM vs non-STEM college graduates? In other words, the folks with a scientific education and the math tools to understand some of the foofoorah being foisted upon the world.

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 20, 2017 11:01 am

Jim, that would fall under the “Inconvenient Truth” category. They don’t even want to contemplate those numbers.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 21, 2017 1:34 pm

Rather than break skepticism into liberal/conservative or democrat/republican why doesn’t Griff tell us the breakdown between STEM vs non-STEM college graduates? In other words, the folks with a scientific education and the math tools to understand some of the foofoorah being foisted upon the world.

Pshaw! Nonsense Jim. With all due respect what an example of the typical arrogance of the “STEM community”. An arrogance that is freely distributed and visible from the other side, btw.
I have a undergrad degree in the Liberal Arts, working toward a Master’s in Theology (which, from past experience, a good number of you STEM holders would likely “poo-poo”) and I can destroy the “foofoorah being foisted upon the world” with the IPCC’s own documentation:
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”
http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
No one needs a STEM degree to understand the above invalidates the presuppositions of AGW. I don’t need to do any lab experiments. I don’t need to “understand” complex mathematics, physics, climate science, etc.
All I need to do is look at the religious literature AGW proponents have freely offered for review, which contradicts everything they propose to be true.

Griff
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 22, 2017 5:06 am

Well, that would be an interesting stat…
my family are very largely STEM graduates/scientists/engineers – using them as a sample AGW is the preferred explanation.

Sixto
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 11:07 am

A great many of the most prominent scientists among CACA skeptics are liberals and/or Democrats, if American, and even Socialists.
For instance, prominent skeptical theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, heir to Einstein at Princeton, opposed the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq. He supported Barack Obama in 2008. The New York Times described him as a “political liberal”. He was among 29 leading US scientists who wrote a strongly supportive letter to Obama regarding his administration’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

Reply to  Sixto
September 20, 2017 8:28 pm

For instance, prominent skeptical theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, heir to Einstein at Princeton Institute for Advanced Study,

mikewaite
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 11:38 am

So where does that put Graham Stringer MP , condemned by the media for being sceptical of aspects of CAGW and the Climate Change Act. He is a Labour MP for Blackley in North Manchester, which is.,for those ignorant of it , a poor , still largely indigenous -British, suburb where the lives of the young people are dominated by crime and drug taking and dealing.
His efforts to change that have won the admiration even of his political opponents .
Would I be contradicting myself , or telling the truth ,if I said that stereotyping is the problem of the political left.

Griff
Reply to  mikewaite
September 22, 2017 5:07 am

A good question.
I admit I can’t fit him into my picture.
And aren’t you stereotyping the left?

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 11:52 am

It’s more accurate to say that climate alarmism is almost entirely aligned with the political left. Not because of the science, but because it’s yet another excuse to raise taxes and increase the power of government.
As that guy from the UN said, It doesn’t matter whether global warming is real or not, since it lets us do what we’ve need to do anyway.

Griff
Reply to  MarkW
September 22, 2017 5:08 am

climate science is not an excuse to raise taxes.
kick starting renewables has cost money which had to come from somewhere. We’re at the end of that phase.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 12:13 pm

‘Climate skepticism IS almost entirely aligned with the political right’
That’s only to those that live in propaganda and stereotypes – Skeptics are CHARACTERIZED as ‘conservatives’ – (which in this context is meant as a smear) but they actually come from all stripes – usually independent-minded folks of open minds, with enough scientific acumen to notice the flaws and contradictions of AGW.
HOWEVER – warmists are almost exclusively mentally rigid, Progressive ideologues.
With a few exploitive bean-counters, of course.

DonM
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 12:26 pm

IF we accept your premise as correct, then for that reason alone, the Republican party is a fantastic institution and despite its failings it is needed for world leadership.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 1:31 pm

Griff – September 20, 2017 at 6:24 am

skepticism is scarce where there is no party or following sharing US Republican ideals

You are absolutely correct, …… Griff, …….. not only climate skepticism, but also common sense thinking, logical reasoning and intelligent deduction ……. is scarce as hen’s teeth in the US Public School System and on most every US College and University campus simply because their administration and curriculum is now being dictated by highly partisan “lefty” liberal Democrats, wackos, weirdos and anarchists that do not agree with, respect, recognize or share any part of US Republican ideals, the Rule of Law or the COTUS.
Democrat actions and thought was responsible for The Dark Ages ……. whereas Republican actions and thought was responsible for The Age of Enlightenment.
And the history of The Dark Ages ……. is currently “on track” to repeat itself.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 1:38 pm

Griff, climate change denier extraordinaire.
….. just too dumb to realise it.

Curious George
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 1:54 pm

Absolutely true. It may have something to do with IQ.

Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 3:22 pm

“Griff September 20, 2017 at 6:24 am”

Yup! There’s proof it’s burning; and none too brightly.

gwan
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 3:34 pm

Griff of great wisdom who knows all answer this Question .How do methane emissions . from livestock ever warm the planet and I want real proof .Now get to it and don’t come back till you have proof that will stand up to scientific review and statistical analysis .Any one else may help him .

Griff
Reply to  gwan
September 22, 2017 5:10 am

If methane is a greenhouse gas, then their methane emission would contribute to a warming atmosphere.
the scale of contribution by livestock is a matter for debate and research

leon0112
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 4:14 pm

Griff, I am really curious about your beliefs. So I have some questions.
1) How old do you believe the Earth is?
2) When do you believe the climate of the Earth started changing? Before or after the discovery of oil by humans?
3) Do you believe there has been one or more Ice Ages in the history of the Earth?
4) Do you believe there were dinosaurs at one point on the Earth?
5) If so, what caused their extinction?
6) Do you believe that plants grow through a process called photosynthesis?
7) Do you believe that plants require water, CO2 and sunlight to grow?
8) Do you believe that there is a level of CO2 concentration below which plants can not grow?
9) Do you believe there was a Medieval Warming Period?
10) Do you believe that plants will grow more vigorously at 400 ppm of CO2 or 1000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Griff
Reply to  leon0112
September 22, 2017 5:13 am

I accept geological history, including ice ages.
and of course the climate changes thru that history.
But climate change always has a driver and after examining the evidence I conclude the prime driver now is AGW and the direction of travel is warmer.
Plant growth is influenced by CO2 – but increased CO2 and a warming planet are not universally good for plants.
The dinosaurs are clearly faked…
(no, not really!)

Streetcred
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 11:38 pm

I knew there was a reason this cartoon was placed above. Well done, griffie !comment image

Chris
Reply to  Streetcred
September 21, 2017 9:18 am

The humor of a 3rd grader, it’s a sad thing when someone has such low aims in life.

2hotel9
Reply to  David Middleton
September 21, 2017 6:27 pm

It appears to have turned Chris into an expended charcoal briquet.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Griff
September 20, 2017 11:51 pm

if you could put two and two together griff, without having to take your socks off, it might occur to you that if that is true, its strongly suggest that climate change is an invention of the political left.

Chris
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 21, 2017 9:19 am

Is English your second language?

Griff
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 22, 2017 5:13 am

oh no it isn’t!

Michael 2
Reply to  Griff
September 21, 2017 10:13 am

Quite right it is. The left is about followers; sheep, bees, herd, hive. If these concepts are not foremost in your motivating factors, there’s the right. The right is not a particular thing of its own; it is simply a name for everything not left, which *is* a thing. If you are naturally skeptical and demand proof of things, particularly grand claims, you cannot very well be in the hive or herd unless of course you imagine yourself to be the leader of such a thing.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  chaamjamal
September 20, 2017 10:01 am

chaamjamal
It is also demonstrable that large powerful hurricanes form over water that is below average temperature, as well as above. They also form in the Arctic.
Apart from trying to find some connection between CO2 concentration and SST’s, there is the additional problem of trying to identify a viable mechanism for IR “back-radiation” to heat an ocean. The temperature of the Atlantic is not driven by the temperature of the air above it. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Last night I watched the 2015 documentary on Scientology on Netflix. It demonstrates the way confirmation bias is used to reinforce the value of ‘teachings’ and ‘science’.
CAGW teaches that a hurricane is positive proof that AGW exists, is going to be catastrophic, and is ‘baked-in’ because of previous emissionary sins. Confirmation bias sells the importance of the emissionary position. Those who do not adopt it are labeled heretics/suppressive persons.
There is no easy cure for someone lost in confirmation bias. Just be careful not to give them the keys to the car.

Reply to  chaamjamal
September 20, 2017 3:26 pm

Great comment chaamjamal!

Bruce Cobb
September 20, 2017 6:34 am

A libtard is more apt to simply believe government-approved “concensus” science. They lack both the motivation and the intelligence to investigate on their own. Sad.

lerianis
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 20, 2017 8:14 am

Get off the ‘libtard’ nonsense. I am an extreme liberal on the vast majority of subjects save the Second Amendment, abortion and climate change due to man.
I am conservative on those subjects and on the last one do not buy into the whole “Climate change is being caused by man!” lie.

DBG8489
Reply to  lerianis
September 20, 2017 9:51 am

Then by definition, you are not a “libtard” – you’re a liberal – probably more of a classical liberal in the Jefferson mold.
There’s a difference.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 20, 2017 9:43 am

Unfortunately there exists a good portion of the populace who have no other recourse than to trust the arguments from “more knowledgeable sources”. possess neither the acumen nor wherewithal to make any determination on the validity of any of this. While some of us do have the ability to ascertain the validity or at least plausibility of such claims when presented with the data and studies, many do not. Furthermore many of us “ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) deniers” also rely on claims from trusted sources as well.

Reply to  rocketscientist
September 20, 2017 12:27 pm

+10

Doug
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 20, 2017 9:56 am

Enough of the “libtard” crap. I’m a scientist, passed all my Mensa tests, understand climate science very well, and vote a straight liberal ticket. Some of us do. I vote that way because I see the flawed political policies of the right to be more dangerous than the flawed climate policies of the left. I don’t come here to debate those political policies, and find one of the greatest impediments to getting the good science presented here out to a wider audience is the fact that they have to wade through so much right wing vitriol along the way. Put your political bashing aside, and focus on the science.

MarkW
Reply to  Doug
September 20, 2017 11:59 am

The flawed economic policies of the left have killed way more people than the flawed economic policies of the right.

DonM
Reply to  Doug
September 20, 2017 12:55 pm

The “climate change” issue is a political issue first and foremost. If you were lucky enough to have the “straight liberal ticket” win then there would be no reason at all for discussion … your opinion would be ignored by policy/lawmakers. Your scientific discussion would do nothing. It wouldn’t matter. At all.
Some are baffled as to why others don’t understand this (it baffles me as well). Your lack of understanding then leads to the insulting label, “libtard”.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Doug
September 20, 2017 2:19 pm

So braggith: Doug – September 20, 2017 at 9:56 am

Enough of the “libtard” crap. I’m a scientist, passed all my Mensa tests, understand climate science very well, and vote a straight liberal ticket.

Oh my, does one have to be capable of passing “Mensa tests” in order to have a really good understanding of “climate science”?
Must be that most individuals claiming to be Climate Scientists …… are all incapable of “passing Mensa tests” ……. simply because none of them have proven that they “understand climate science very well”.
And don’t be “funnin” me, ….. anyone that possesses a “strong liberal bias” ….. is incapable of making a non-partisan action or comment.
Your conscious mind cannot override or disagree with what your subconscious mind was nurtured with and is in total control of access and recall of.

Doug
Reply to  Doug
September 20, 2017 5:53 pm

Well, the replies demonstrate my point well. As long as MarkW insists on debating politics rather than discussing science, Forest and Samuel resort to ad hominem attacks, this fine forum will simply be preaching to a small choir. It is a shame, because there is a lot of stuff here the liberals ought to read, but they will be run off by the crew that habitually insert some left bashing into the scientific discourse.

Reply to  Doug
September 20, 2017 6:33 pm

Doug:
With all due respect, this particular article seems to focus on the politics of AGW rather than the science.
On another note, I senseth that you haveth openeth yourself upeth to furthereth commentary frometh the rusty old codger, Mr. Cogar…who, somehow, in some strangely metaphysical fashion I cannot exactly pinpoint, is particularly harmless, and furthermore, with whom is a bottle of scotch and a fishin’ pole a day well spent.

Streetcred
Reply to  Doug
September 20, 2017 11:41 pm

Allow me to introduce you to … VENEZUELA !

Bob boder
Reply to  Doug
September 21, 2017 4:23 am

Doug
Your comments are welcome to me at least, though politically I probably wouldn’t agree with you on anything. That being said I am a liberaterian at heart and spent pretty much my whole life having to defend my views in schools and public forum against groups of liberals who attack as a group, demean as a group and try to emotionally embarrass people as a group. People on the right may vehemently disagree with me and get angry with me but when the arguements over it’s over, it’s the difference between 2 grown men fighting, they settle fair and square and then shake hands and move on vs being attacked by a gang of thugs who beat you just because you are not part of the group. The reaction you are receiving is from people like me who have hand enough of being told that just because we disagree we are evil and we are going to kill everyone on the planet.
Try this experiment, go to a university and talk to a group of kids about climate change not being real and see what happens, discuss wage inequality for women and point out that men take all the dangerous job and have 90%+ of the work related deaths in this country.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Doug
September 21, 2017 4:49 am

Doug – September 20, 2017 at 5:53 pm

Well, the replies demonstrate my point well. As long as ………. Forest and Samuel resort to ad hominem attacks, this fine forum will simply be preaching to a small choir.

Doug, your mimicry of BS phrases (“ad hominem attacks”) was little more than an habitual rebuttal act by those persons like yourself who constantly have to respond with a CYA excuse whenever their silly, asinine and oftentimes idiotic comments are questioned by mature, non-partisan, experienced, well-educated individuals …… who truly believe that adolescent minded adults need to be told “where the bear defecates in the buckwheat”.
Here ya go, Doug, educate yourself, to wit:

Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Now Doug, you can either “GETTA CLUE” or post another CYA simply because my above posting was in fact an act of …… “attacking the substance of the argument itself”, ….. because, ….. silly boy, …… your claimed “credentials” was the subject/substance of the argument, …… to wit:
So braggith Doug about himself on September 20, 2017 at 9:56 am

I’m a scientist, passed all my Mensa tests, understand climate science very well, and vote a straight liberal ticket.

Doug, this forum is not a “school atmosphere”, ……. thus no one really gives a damn about your “hurt feelings”.

Michael 2
Reply to  Doug
September 21, 2017 10:29 am

Doug writes: “passed all my Mensa tests”
Would that be the puzzles posted in Scientific American? At any rate, it signifies that you are good at passing Mensa tests. It is remotely possible that qualifies you to comment on climate in a more believable way.
“vote a straight liberal ticket.”
Naturally. You do not deviate in the hive or herd. It makes life easy when someone else made the ticket.
“Some of us do.”
Us? How many of you are in there?
“I vote that way because I see the flawed political policies of the right to be more dangerous than the flawed climate policies of the left.”
I would prefer the right not to have climate policies. A similar theme is exploring the right’s national health care program — there isn’t one, because national health care is a socialist theme and simply doesn’t exist on the right. It requires me to pay for you and I cannot find a natural phenomenon to justify that belief. I might *choose* to do that, but it is my choice to make.
“I don’t come here to debate those political policies”
Naturally not, and we are not having a debate. The left does not debate. It preaches and expects obedience; seems poorly equipped to argue its beliefs.
“Put your political bashing aside, and focus on the science.”
Sounds rather a lot like what comes from the mouth of a preacher who just happens to have “the science” that you are supposed to believe.

Barbara
Reply to  Doug
September 22, 2017 1:30 pm

Thank you, Doug. I feel the same way. I’m a physicist and a liberal. I think the climate always changes, and I also think humanity has a tendency (born out through human history) to over-estimate their role and contribution to the universe. It’s very discouraging to see the amount of liberal-bashing here. I’d rather see the focus trained on what’s wrong with the current state of climate science.

Vicus
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 20, 2017 11:19 am

The term is Leftist. Using libtard just looks bad.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 20, 2017 12:38 pm

proglodyte is a less offensive, more accurate term IMO. Progressives are not liberals in the classical sense by any means.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
September 20, 2017 2:01 pm

I like climastrologists

Tom Halla
September 20, 2017 6:39 am

Rejecting science? Perhaps the European and US non-conservative views on GMO’s should be used as a counterexample. One can make an argument that the opponents are motivated by protectionism on the part of the EU, and the “organic” merchandisers in the US. Most of the claims against GMO’s are demonstrably overblown when not completely false.
The political left has superstitions about nuclear power, too, with equally heavy breathing commentaries on the health risks.
Neither has much to do with respecting “science”.

Sheri
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 20, 2017 6:49 am

I often see abortion used as a counter argument—science indicates life begins at conception, abortion says it magically happens at some point either before or just after birth, depending on the convenience of the timing. Also, the idea of gender is nonsensical—science says there are boys and girls with a few outliars now and then, not retroactive sex assignment via hormones and surgery. Both of these fantasies are considered darlings of the left and both clearly deny science or try an end run around it.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 7:31 am

Not a really good argument, as both the sperm and egg were “alive” prior to the moment of conception. What you mean is “ensoulment”, which is theology.
Sexual identity is rather political, and the idea of using surgery to “treat” a psychological condition gives horrid reminders of psychosurgery, lobotomy and the like. Actual intersex persons, like that South African runner, are rare.

lerianis
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 8:21 am

Sheri, life does begin at birth. However in the real world women should be able to decide (without having to ‘keep their legs shut’) “I am not ready to be a mother! Time to abort this child!” within a reasonable period.
I am willing to give them up to the end of the first trimester to do that in normal circumstances.
In extreme circumstances like a severely underage female (under 13) getting pregnant, pregnancy due to a rape reported to the police (last four words are key there) and/or forcible imprisonment so you could not get an abortion when you wanted one in the first trimester?
You should be allowed to get an abortion up until the third trimester. Past six months of gestation the baby (it meets the qualifications for everyone sane at that point) is too developed to abort without it being infanticide (it would survive if we simply induced labor) and the female in question should be given the option of going through natural birth induced by chemicals or having a C-Section.
Whichever the female in question chooses. NOT the doctor or some religious moral guardian.
I am an extreme liberal on sexual morality. I do not think that females should be kept from having sexual relationships if they wish to and I do not think that birth control should not be covered by insurance that should be secular in the real world.
I.E. even if you are working for the church in some fashion? If you want birth control you should be able to get it even if the church is paying for your birth control just like any other medication or something like Viagra/Cialis.

Sheri
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 11:26 am

lerianis: You are arguing then that passing through the birth canal or being surgically removed from a woman’s body magically turns a lump of cells that look human into an actual human. That does not seem scientific to me. By what process does this happen?

MarkW
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 12:01 pm

Why stop at birth? Why not declare that nobody is legally alive until they are 18 and graduated from high school? Makes as much sense.

Sheri
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 5:02 pm

Tom: Thank you for clarifying what I meant—except that is NOT what I meant. Let me put this in a light where theology can’t be used as the excuse for dismissing a comment.
You have a fertilized chicken egg. Inside that egg, there are a bunch of cells growing into a lump of stuff that looks like a chick. Of course, it’s not a chick until it hatches. But how does a lump of stuff that is not a chick peck its way out of the shell? Again, I’m left with the question of “when does the magic occur?”

Tom Halla
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 5:40 pm

I was making the point that that formulation was not what was really meant, that not all fertilized eggs become persons in an ordinary use of the term. Where to draw the line is arbitrary, and should be recognized as such.

Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 6:08 pm

Again, I’m left with the question of “when does the magic occur?”

Indeed, Sheri.
And the arbitrary lines get drawn in ridiculous fashion don’t they?
“Such and so is not a human until 13 (or whatever) weeks!”
Okay, so then at the 11th hour, 59th second of the 12th week of pregnancy, we have nothing but a clump of cells. Just as the clock strikes at the 1st hour of the 13th (or whatever) week, suddenly we have a human?
Bah.
Try this “oh it’s not really an [x]” nonsense with a breeder. Say you want to buy some horses (could be cows or dogs or whatever floats your boat, doesn’t matter).
Assume you’re looking to buy a nice looking mare but that mare is pregnant. Try to convince the owner you don’t owe a premium for that little unborn foal (regardless of where the mare is in the pregnancy) in that mare’s belly on the basis that “it isn’t really a horse until it’s born”.
Yeah…you’ll be laughed off the property at best, escorted at gunpoint on the basis that you’re bat-sh*t crazy at worst.
Yet a human isn’t a human until it’s born??

Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 8:11 pm

Sheri September 20, 2017 at 6:49 am
I often see abortion used as a counter argument—science indicates life begins at conception, abortion says it magically happens at some point either before or just after birth, depending on the convenience of the timing.

‘Independent’ life does not begin at conception, about 15% of confirmed pregnancies spontaneously abort before 20 wks, i.e. the fetus was incapable of life.
Also, the idea of gender is nonsensical—science says there are boys and girls with a few outliars now and then, not retroactive sex assignment via hormones and surgery. Both of these fantasies are considered darlings of the left and both clearly deny science or try an end run around it.
Science isn’t as clearcut regarding gender as you appear to think. For example, about 1 in ~20,000 of 43 XY births suffer from Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, i.e. phenotypically female, karyotypically male. Klinefelter’s syndrome (47, XXY) occurs in around 1 in 1000 live male births, overall about 1 or 2 in 1000 live births present with ambiguous genitalia requiring some form of surgery.

gnomish
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 8:54 pm

you’re a bunch of amateurs and will not be able to resolve this until you are able to define ‘rights’ objectively.
doesn’t the clumsiness bother you? it’s like watching jerry lewis stagger down a hallway full of mop buckets to me.
once you can define ‘rights’ then it will be clear that a rock can’t own any, a protozoan (even tho it might evolve into H. sapiens in a million years) can not possess rights.
and you will be able to say, objectively, who can possess rights and how the individual lays claim to them.
until you pay your dues by actual reasoning from first principles you are babbling nonsense.

Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 9:06 pm

” … babbling nonsense.”
Indeed…

Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 9:55 pm

Phil:
“‘Independent’ life does not begin at conception, about 15% of confirmed pregnancies spontaneously abort before 20 wks, i.e. the fetus was incapable of life.”
Could you elaborate further?
E.g., how does the dependency status of the life at conception make a difference to its existential state as alive? And further what is that existential difference between life that is “independent” versus life that is “dependent”?

gnomish
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 10:05 pm

Tonsils Rights!
somebody start the meetings so we can keep minutes, incorporate and seek funding!
think of the human cells!
and tumors are natural! don’t discriminate! they may self identify as evangelical liberals!
look out for the mop…lol

Butch2
Reply to  Sheri
September 21, 2017 7:31 am

Sheri, the simplest way to look at is once the sperm enters the egg and the DNA is cast, that new life form is absolutely unique and will never happen again…

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 20, 2017 7:21 am

The leftist view on vaccination is another horrible example of leftist science denial.

Phoenix44
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 20, 2017 7:26 am

I was going to use that example, but whilst I know of a few prominent “Liberals” whoa re anti-vaccine, I wasn’t sure if it was a Liberal belief per se?

Phoenix44
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 20, 2017 7:28 am

And pesticides, particularly neocortinoids, and the Blank Slate in psychology/sociology, and the “research” done on inequality and of course the whole fantasy that is Left-wing economics.

jclarke341
September 20, 2017 6:47 am

I recently began watching the HBO series ‘Westworld’, Based on the Michael Crichton novel of the same name. It’s about a future with an ‘Old West’ theme park populated by very life-like androids, programed to play their limited roles over and over again in a never ending loop. In one episode, an android finds a photo (dropped by a guest) of a woman standing in Times Square. All he can do is stare at it, perplexed and agitated. He shows it to another android who looks and says “I don’t see anything!”
At the same time, I was having a lengthy debate on Facebook about climate change with a stranger named Timothy. Timothy believed that the theory of a man-made global warming crisis was already proven, because all the climate models unanimously say so, and that he was much smarter than I was, because he had actually taught climate change to sixth graders. He literally could not respond to my arguments or evidence directly, but could only call me stupid, appeal to the mythical consensus and become more agitated.
I could not help but notice the striking similarity between Timothy and a Westworld android: pre-programed, scripted responses and an inability to see or comprehend anything outside of their very narrow minded world view.
The way the show is going, it looks like the androids are starting to wake up to reality. I do not have the same hope for the Timothy’s of this world.

Sheri
Reply to  jclarke341
September 20, 2017 6:55 am

Agreed. The Timothy’s of this world are nothing more than programmed creatures not capable of independent thought. They comprise the majority of the troll population on the net, whose only technique for “proving the science” is to call names, insult, claim the commenters are lying (it’s surprising how many of the trolls are mind readers), etc. The more they are challenged, the more the bullying, name calling, denial of the truth of the other person’s credentials, etc increases. Some of these trolls have PhDs (as verified by their web pages on the net…..). To be honest, based on climate change “science”, I’d be very hesitant to hire anyone with an advanced degree. It’s terrifying how totally uneducated and clueless these people are. The more the schooling, the stronger the belief in their own authority and omniscience.

Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 7:16 am

I agree with most of your statement… However, I would change the last sentence from:
>The more the schooling, the stronger the belief in their own authority and omniscience.
To:
“The more schooling, the stronger the belief in pre-determined Authorities and Omniscience.”
It’s trust in the institutional authority that is the problem. Perhaps many people who have spent so long seeking the approval of institutional authority lack the ability to question it.

RLu
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 7:36 am

If you look at it as Theology, it all makes sense. The AGW crowd are ‘Creationists’. They ‘believe’ that Mankind has the power to ‘create’ the climate. And their ‘belief’ is so strong, that no logic shall tempt them to waiver from their ‘faith’.
We might be able to, in the next century. But it will take orbital mirrors or geological scale civil works, to stop the decline into the next Glacial. (fill in the Islandic Gap, widen the Suez Canal, build a massive Nicaragua Canal at sea level)
When you ask Catholic priests if they ‘believe’ in the Bible version of Jesus, 97% will say ‘Yes’. Of course… their job depends on it.
P.S.
Russian hackers caused Harvey and Irma. Thanks to Global Warming the US had 12 years without major storms. But the Russian Hackers broke the weather control machines. Now the weather is back to normal.

commieBob
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 7:51 am

Sheri September 20, 2017 at 6:55 am
… It’s terrifying how totally uneducated and clueless these people are. The more the schooling, the stronger the belief in their own authority and omniscience.

Everyone, especially experts, should have to understand the work of Philip Tetlock. As the result of decades of study, he showed convincingly that experts are unable to predict the outcome of complex systems, (ie. anything that has anything to do with human beings, but not limited to that). link
If you’re going to prescribe things like government policy, you have to be confident that your prescription will work. The problem with that is obvious.
The Democrat party has embraced the experts of the liberal elite (and thrown the deplorables under the bus). They should become familiar with Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank. Their arrogance cost them the election. If President Trump’s policies make things better in the rust belt, the arrogant elitist liberal expert class could be consigned to the political backwaters for a very long time.

Goldrider
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 7:59 am

One thing most of the highly “educated” have in common is urban/suburban upbringing, with minimal time ever spent outside, let alone exposure to trades like mining, farming, fishing, ranching, etc. They easily accept arguments from even dubious “authorities” (such as activist dot-orgs) because they have no personal observations or experience which counter such. All most of them know about “weather” is that a rainy day means they need an umbrella to run from the lobby to the subway; they’ve never raised an animal, sprouted a seed, or eaten a meal that didn’t arrive magically on their expensive plate garnished with a sprig of parsley.

Andy pattullo
Reply to  Sheri
September 20, 2017 9:07 am

In reality we all carry around “beliefs” that we have not gone to much trouble to prove to ourselves scientifically. As an example I believe my wife respects me and my kids think I’m smart but for some reason I never thought it worth while checking if that is true. I don’t think this is a special defect of alarmists. I think what is often missing is the insight to recognize when we simply believe something without proof, and the wisdom to look into that belief more rigorously when there is substantial risk if it is wrong. That is what sicence is for. If I believed in astrology it might not matter if I don’t make life decisions based on it. If on the other hand I believe I can change the weather by completely transforming industrial society, then I should have the wisdom to set a very high scientific standard of proof before I sell everything I own that runs on or is made from fossil fuels.

2hotel9
September 20, 2017 6:49 am

Yes, the belief that humans are causing climate to change is denial of science, which side of a political line they are on is not relevant to, well, anything.

M Courtney
Reply to  2hotel9
September 20, 2017 10:00 am

Rather, “the belief that humans are proven to be causing climate to significantly change is denial of science”.
In my opinion.

MarkW
Reply to  M Courtney
September 20, 2017 12:04 pm

I would add “global” in there somewhere. Humans can and do change local climates all the time.

M Courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
September 21, 2017 12:47 pm

Agreed. My mistake.

Sara
September 20, 2017 6:55 am

I’m not sure I understand what is meant by ‘denying science’. I use current astronomical references, the most recent biological and biosystems info I can find, and recent discoveries in genetic anomalies in creating science fiction. That includes current pro- and con-warming/chilling views on planetary systems.
So how can anyone expect me to accept being told I’m denying science just because I disagree on which way the climate is moving? These people are extraordinarily evangelical in their approach to trying to convince everyone that they’re right, and that Doomsday is at hand.
Doomsday has been ‘at hand’ since an asteroid fell out of the sky and smashed Gormorra to smithereens, maybe longer. Someone please let me know when Doomsday is over and done with? I have a lot of things to do.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Sara
September 20, 2017 7:14 am

Sara: “I’m not sure I understand what is meant by ‘denying science’.”
Same here. Do ‘they’ understand that’s it perfectly acceptable to employ/apply/produce science when defending science? If there is no science, what is being denied?

hunter
Reply to  Sara
September 20, 2017 7:19 am

Sara,
Thanks.
I would live to read some of your SF writing.
I have lost much of my interest in the genre since the PC crowd took over and relentlessly push reactionary lefty stereotypes.

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 7:41 am

Hunter,
They had a whole “movement” just for people like you (and me). Google “Sad Puppies” and give Larry Correia a try.
rip

Sara
Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 8:06 am

Thank you, Hunter. Until I finish what I’m working on, I can suggest Robert Heinlein’s novels, starting with Red Planet (takes place on Mars) or Glory Road (pure adventure) and maybe the Moon is a Harsh Mistress or even my childhood favorite, Have Spacesuit – Will Travel (yes, the kids save the planet just like Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney saved the town).
But there is a wealth of good stuff like Frank Herbert’s ‘Dune’ or Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series. Harlan Ellison, Joan Vinge, Vernor Vinge, Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged), Ben Bova, Anne McCaffrey, Marion Zimmer Bradley – these are all good authors, as are H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, Samuel Delaney, etc. There’s a wealth of good reading.
You might also find Katherine Kerr’s Westlands novels (Daggerspell, etc.) entertaining, as she mixes basic science with Celtic theology… or it might not be your cup of tea. She also writes science fiction along with her fantasy fiction.
I know about the SJW howler monkeys and their odd ideas about what we’re supposed to be like. The denial of reality is painfully obvious. I will not knuckle under to it and they will hate me for it, but there’s that whole thing about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, right? They are in for a rude awakening.

gnomish
Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 9:49 am

pretty nice reading list, imo.
i’ll see your Atlas Shrugged, and raise you one Illuminatus Trilogy!

notfubar
Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 11:57 am

and lets not forget Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle (sadly, just recently deceased) – excellent for the science & freedom loving crowd.

notfubar
Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 12:00 pm

Oh, can’t forget Michael Crichton, his book “State of Fear” is definitely on topic for this post, and kryptonite to the Gorebalists

TA
Reply to  hunter
September 20, 2017 4:44 pm

“Have Spacesuit – Will Travel (yes, the kids save the planet just like Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney saved the town)”
I loved that story! One of the first science fiction stories I read, way back when..

Griff
Reply to  hunter
September 22, 2017 5:24 am

notfubar
yes, I’m sure many here would like Pournelle’s ‘co dominion’ series, which also formed the backdrop for his collaboration with Larry Niven in ‘a mote in gods eye’
‘King David’s spaceship’ is a good one…
I would also recommend Jack McDevitt – a new novel by him after a long pause out soon.
There are plenty of good old space operas out there…
Leviathan Wakes by James S A Corey would be a good start… nothing to offend whatever your politics!
If you want fantasy ‘The name of the wind’ is the best thing out for ages… just be aware we’ve been waiting for the third volume for a few years now.

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  Sara
September 20, 2017 7:27 am

Wait, are you saying you write science fiction, or you use discoveries from science fiction? I’m confused. And unclear how this demonstrates that you’re not a science denier. (Note, I share your opinion, just am unclear regarding your post.)
rip

Sara
Reply to  ripshin
September 20, 2017 8:41 am

Oh, okay, sorry I wasn’t clear. The term ‘science denier’ itself doesn’t make any sense to me. Everything in my house is the result of successful scientific experiment discoveries, from cold storage for food to this computer of mine and toaster on my kitchen countertop. I don’t take any of these things for granted. I may not know much about the physics of my toaster, but I can and do appreciate it.
Using the term ‘science denier’ for someone with an opposing and skeptical opinion about the direction the climate is taking ignores reality. It smacks of the closed mind when used by these people like those who slavishly follow Gore and Mann and the others in that parade.
Someone who is a ‘science denier’ is someone whose entire view of the world includes the Flat Earth View and the Earth-centered Universe. The Sun orbits the Earth. Diseases are caused by bad humors in the blood, not by micro-organisms that you can’t see without a microscope. Mental illness is not the result of brain chemistry gone wrong or some physical thing like a tumor. It’s caused by evil spirits. Rocking chairs that start moving by themselves, and furniture that rattles and shakes for no reason, are possessed by evil spirits, instead of simply responding to a microquake on an unrecorded fault.
I write science fiction and fantasy fiction, but I incorporate as much real science into both as I can, based on current discoveries in science, e.g., astronomy and the recent detection of gravity waves as predicted by Einstein. This includes a nod to planetary weather systems and climate – the user-friendly planets in the Goldilocks zone. I do a lot of speculation at the same time, just because I can.
So my question: what is meant by ‘denying science’, when I’m surrounded by it and use it, is aimed at people who use that term but don’t seem to understand what it really means. It’s becoming more and more commonly used, which is disturbing. If these loons used the term “climate change skeptic”, it would be less disturbing. They seem to want to turn their nonsense in to a religious order of some kind. This is an indication of mental illness, in my view.

Sheri
Reply to  ripshin
September 20, 2017 10:41 am

Sara and others: It bothers me that people may consider what alarmists and others do a “mental illness”. It’s not a mental illness. It falls under what is called “Locus of Control” and probably other terms.
People are internally or externally oriented. Internal oriented believe in themselves and that they have control over their lives and many outcomes. External oriented believe they have little to no control and their life is the way it is due to external forces. Most people are a combination of the two sides. I agree that while some people may reach a pathological level of internal or external beliefs, what most people do is well within what would be considered normal ranges. People want to be liked—I have been told that it is more important to be liked than to be right. It’s actually more common that most people realize. (No, I don’t believe it.) It’s the easier “sell” of the two extremes.
Labelling people mentally ill is not desirable, and the pop psychology I see day after day on the internet is disturbing and counter-productive. Believers in global warming are very often the believers in an external locus of control and they need to be liked and have the approval of others. That can be changed to some degree, but my experience is these two characteristics often seem innate. One has to work within the framework to change a person’s opinion, as in showing them that many others believe global warming is not true and that this view is not a threat to the person.

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  ripshin
September 20, 2017 2:55 pm

Sara,
Got it. And agree! It’s a silly label meant to score a cheap political point. Ironically, it’s usually those who are truly scientifically ignorant that are the ones claiming “denier”. I find that those who are more scientific in nature are much more likely to accept skepticism as what it truly is.
rip

Sara
Reply to  ripshin
September 20, 2017 6:09 pm

Sheri, I understand your viewpoint, but I see behavior that indicates a rapidly-growing denial of reality in many of the people who label a skeptic like me as a ‘science denier’. Their behavior manifests itself as a type of devotion to some sort of cause that has been repeatedly shown to be not just flawed, but deeply flawed. They refuse to consider any other viewpoint, using childish responses when they are confronted with facts that have support and can be doublechecked for accuracy. This is indicative of a personality disorder similar to addiction. One does not have to use drugs to be addicted to something. In some of these people, there is a ecstatic mental state similar to a rhapsody or an epiphany.
A psychologist studying ISIS converts found the same kind of response and addictive personality disorder in people who had converted to Islam, also accompanied by an ecstatic state and/or an epiphany-like reaction and a refusal to see the deeply-flawed side of that religion.
Refusal to recognize the “dark” side of something, or refusal to accept the opinions of other people about it, is massive denial of reality, and that is the first stage of mental illness.
If this is not a form of mental illness, then what is it? They may not be climbing the walls or screaming and drooling, but the responses they manifest are very disturbing.

Sixto
Reply to  ripshin
September 20, 2017 6:42 pm

Sara,
I’m not sure about the not climbing walls, screaming and drooling part. How can we know what Mann, et al, do in the privacy of their lairs?

Phoenix44
Reply to  Sara
September 20, 2017 7:30 am

I don’t deny science, except in the sentence “I deny that science has reached a point where we know very much about anything.”
Science offers us the best way to approach much of the world, but that doesn’t mean I think that in say 100 years, much of what we have in textbooks won’t be replaced by better science.

jclarke341
Reply to  David Middleton
September 20, 2017 8:11 am

Nigel’s last response is the usual final play of the climate crisis defenders: ‘When all else fails, invoke the Precautionary Principle!’ It has been used to justify all kinds of evil decision-making by the hands of bureaucrats. Of course, it is neither precautionary or even a principle, as it is self-contradicting. Using the Precautionary Principle to supposedly avoid causing harm, usually causes more harm than it prevents! It is an extremely linear concept, that assumes we can accurately determine all future events by simply extending current trends into the future indefinitely. It does not allow for creativity, adaptation and/or non-linearity, so it has no value in reality. The Precautionary Principle is a childish thought.
(That is my rant on the Precautionary Principle!)
A proper risk assessment would not only consider the negative impacts of CO2 induced warming (risk), but all of the positive impacts as well (rewards). It would take into account the very high cost of trying to mitigate CO2 emissions (trillions), with the very low rewards of doing so (small fractions of a degree). It would acknowledge the great likelihood that science and technology will improve over the next 100 years, taking care of the problems that look insurmountable today, with far more easy and efficient solutions than we can conceive of now.
So, do I have any certainty that man-made global warming will be less than 1.35C? No. All I have is the science, which indicates that it will. And I am humble enough to admit that my ability to solve future problems is extremely small, compared to the ability of the people of the future. If they are not mucj more capable than I am, then something horrible must have happened, and global warming will be the least of their problems.

Sara
Reply to  David Middleton
September 20, 2017 8:52 am

That’s exactly what I meant – how can they say such things? And then when they are losing, well, you’re a traitor to someone, some undefined person, or your family, or the entire human species and butterflies and small green lizards.
This is where it becomes disturbingly like a neo-religious order in the making. And that is scary.

M Courtney
Reply to  David Middleton
September 20, 2017 10:08 am

The purpose of the Precautionary Principle is to say that ignorance (which we all have) is no obstacle to practical faith. Uncertainty should not prevent action.
It is not basic science. It is basic theology. Pascal’s Wager was the first expression of the idea. Cardinal Newman expanded on it. It is sound with the right caveats.
The main caveat is that the cost of the practical faith has to be practical.

Bryan A
Reply to  David Middleton
September 20, 2017 10:13 am

But David,
Doesn’t it create a form of confirmation to Nigel that it is the proper arguement to put forward if it is the arguement that you go quiet on?

Alan D McIntire
Reply to  David Middleton
September 20, 2017 11:38 am

One example of the “Precautionary Principle” is “Pascal’s Wager”. Pascal’s argument could also apply to a belief in Odin, or Ahura Mazda.
One response could be, “Are you willing to bet your future, your children’s’ future, and your grandchildren’s future, on your speculation that going pure green energy is beneficial ? It could lead to a collapse of civilization. You have absolutely no certainty about that. Do a proper risk analysis.”

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
September 20, 2017 12:09 pm

To those who go the “are you willing to bet your children’s future” path, I like to point out that in the history of life on Earth, the vast majority of the time, CO2 levels have been above 2000 ppm going as high as 5000 to 7000 ppm at times. Not only did life not end, it flourished during those times.
This fact alone is sufficient to tell me that we have nothing to worry about when CO2 levels go from a mere 250ppm to a meager 500ppm.

Leo Smith
Reply to  David Middleton
September 21, 2017 12:04 am

I love the precautionary principle. When in doubt, do nothing.
When doing something is as likely to be as good as doing nothing?
Oddly enough civilization flourished on the general principle that doing what your ancestors did is not a bad place to begin.
Its called conservatism.

M Courtney
Reply to  David Middleton
September 21, 2017 12:57 pm

Leo Smith,
Progress is neither linear nor regular. If conservatism was the way to make things better then that would not be the case.
The best that can be said for conservatism is that it does not make things worse. Which is a good argument (I must admit) – if progress is slowed then so is regress and the ratchet effect of people avoiding mistakes will therefore also avoid disaster.
But that is also cowardice. A weak, immoral society.
My empirical evidence for this moral judgement is that Confucianism describes the Golden Rule in its negative form; “Do not do unto others as you would not have done to yourself”.
History shows that China has steadily grown in size and power, often exceeding the West, but it has not had the great breakthroughs of those progressives who were willing to nail their principles to the door,

2hotel9
Reply to  M Courtney
September 21, 2017 6:36 pm

“Progress is neither linear nor regular” Oop, there it is! A point far too many people are FAR too ignorant of. Until very recently, historically, “progress” moved in exceedingly unpredictable fits and starts. The last 300 or so years are the exception, and even then it has not been a smooth and steady progression.

Sixto
Reply to  David Middleton
September 21, 2017 1:04 pm

M Courtney September 21, 2017 at 12:57 pm
China has suffered horribly under progressive regimes, most recently when the Communist Party practiced socialism rather than capitalism, 1949-76. In its long history, China has endured other episodes of statism and socialism, but has always been forced by reality to snap out of them, after huge cost in lives and treasure.
Its latest progressive catastrophe did however borrow so-called “scientific socialism” from its anti-human originators in Europe.

Reply to  David Middleton
September 21, 2017 2:21 pm

M Courtney:
“The best that can be said for conservatism is that it does not make things worse. Which is a good argument (I must admit) – if progress is slowed then so is regress and the ratchet effect of people avoiding mistakes will therefore also avoid disaster.”
You seem to presuppose that conservatism impedes progress in some way. Why is this true? How is progress impeded if certain ideas/methods/assumptions which have been tested over time and shown to be true are retained without impeding the free flow of ideas in other areas? E.g., there would be no need to return to the practice of bloodletting for those ailments that are unaffected by the method. Neither would conservatism necessarily prevent ex ante new ideas from being empirically tested.
“History shows that China has steadily grown in size and power, often exceeding the West, but it has not had the great breakthroughs of those progressives who were willing to nail their principles to the door,”
If your premise is that “progress” is defined as growing “in size and power”, perhaps your definition of “progress” should be revised. It would seem you’ve implicitly argued such a definition to be false.

Barbara
Reply to  David Middleton
September 22, 2017 1:47 pm

Yeah, I hate when they get to the save “your children’s future” argument. It’s basically an appeal to extreme recourse at any cost just in case a hypothetical catastrophe occurs. Frankly, a proper risk analysis at this point in time would support the case for doing nothing.

Goldrider
Reply to  Sara
September 20, 2017 8:02 am

Anybody arguing that “transgenderism” is a thing hasn’t even one leg to stand on regarding “science.”

R.S.Brown
Reply to  Sara
September 20, 2017 10:31 am

Sara,
Don’t forget Poul Anderson, Roger Zelazny, and Fred Saberhagen (especially
his Beserker series) as enjoyable mindfillers.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Sara
September 20, 2017 10:45 am

Legend: Divine judgment by God . . . Sodom and Gomorrah and two neighboring cities were consumed by fire and brimstone. Neighboring Zoar (Bela) was spared.
Sara says “asteroid.” But, then, what spared Zoar?
Isaac Asimov, in his Guide to the Bible, argued that ancient meanings of such things meant one tribe’s folks destroyed another tribe’s villages. I do not recall his examples, but here is one:
They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.” [Numbers 31:7-18 NLT]
Asteroid or angry men — take your pick, Regardless, the village is toast.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
September 20, 2017 10:48 am

REF: Sara September 20, 2017 at 6:55 am

Sara
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
September 20, 2017 6:28 pm

In regard to an asteroid plonking Gomorra, there is an engraving on a bronze disc of an astronomical object moving rapidly across the sky in the general area of Gomorra. The site of what is believed to be Gomorra is being excavated. It shows a series of occupied layers, and then a gap of an extended time period of 700++ years of zero occupation, and subsequently, short periods of occupation. Some disaster took place there. I will find the link and post it, but if you read the description of Lot being warned to leave quickly and don’t look back, in the primitive mind a mile-long boat-shaped object impacting on that site would be the Hand of God smacking Gomorra for its sins.
Likewise, read the legend that Lot’s wife stopped and looked back and was turned to ash. If the refugees were still close enough to be hit by the shock wave, it’s very possible that the heat could have hit her hard enough to drive every molecule of water out of her body in the blink of an eye, and Lot witnessed it from the safety of a cave or sheltering rocks. We do that with microwaves all the time: water is driven out of something when exposed to the microwave. If I cook bacon in the microwave, I get about two tablespoons of water out of the cooking rack from it.
Sometimes, you have to consider a myth or ancient story from the viewpoint of an uneducated observer and his primitive mindset. This impact appears to have happened around 3700 BC, based on what the article said.
I’ll see if I can find the link to that archaeological report. It’s somewhere on the net.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
September 20, 2017 10:30 pm

Sara at 6:28
People make up stories, for example, go to the following site and scroll down to a photo of a sign of the “Ant & Yellowjacket.” The stone arch beyond the sign was reason enough to create a legend.
Among the Nez Perce
RE: Lot’s wife – – – a rock pillar (salt?) begat a story. Geologists might claim a different means of creation.
As for destruction by fire and brimstone, consider a vent eruption.
Example: Holuhraun
And again, what spared Zoar from an asteroid that took out nearby places?

Sara
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
September 21, 2017 5:07 am

I found the link to a Daily Mail article from 2015, regarding the excavation of a site that the Mail refers to as Sodom, but in the original article (which I may find, also) the site is referred to as Gomorrah.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3270999/Has-Biblical-city-Sodom-Monstrous-site-Jordan-matches-descriptions-area-destroyed-God.html
The excavation site is in Jordan and is called Tall el Hammam. The disc (I said it was bronze – my bad, it is clay) is an astronomical record of a mile-wide “stone bowl” moving across the night sky. There are the usual arguments against the site being the location of Sodom or Gomorrah, but the timing is correct and the city was abandoned and unoccupied for over 700 years. If you’re interested, there’s a link to the project’s website here: http://www.tallelhammam.com/
Of course, the only way to find out for sure is to build a time machine and go back to that period.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Sara
September 20, 2017 11:34 am

Sara,
In my opinion, for whatever it is worth, the supporters of CAGW don’t really “mean” anything by the meme “denier.” I think that it was chosen purposely as a pejorative term associated with racists who deny the holocaust. The intent is to defame anyone that disagrees with them, using what is essentially an ad hominem attack. Some in the comments section of The Conversation have called me both a denier and a fanatic. They apparently don’t realize that it makes them look bad when their best come back is to call me names.

Sara
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 20, 2017 6:31 pm

Oh, I agree. It’s use as a trigger word (one of their complaints) is obvious, but using it makes them look extremely foolish. Foolish and not very bright. 🙂

Roger Knights
September 20, 2017 7:08 am

“UIC” = University of Illinois at Chicago.
(This should have been spelled out in the head post.)

michael hart
Reply to  Roger Knights
September 20, 2017 8:16 pm

Thanks, Roger.

September 20, 2017 7:13 am

There appears to be a typographical error or two:
Scientific method denial is not limited to the political left

SMC
September 20, 2017 7:14 am

Not much of a rant. 😴

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  David Middleton
September 20, 2017 7:27 am

Hahahaha…
Short and sweet! Nice.
rip

jclarke341
Reply to  SMC
September 20, 2017 7:37 am

Agreed. I have seen David rant better. Perhaps for lack of time or lack of more coffee, the real juicey ranting never made it from the brain to the keyboard.

jclarke341
Reply to  jclarke341
September 20, 2017 7:42 am

Ah! I see he has already explained.

Reply to  jclarke341
September 20, 2017 8:16 am

David – don’t go look for images then, so that we may get the full benefit of your 1000 words 😉 Love the phrase “guest rant.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  jclarke341
September 20, 2017 11:42 am

Michael Palmer,
Is a “guest rant” anything like a “dude rant?”

Gary Pearse
September 20, 2017 7:31 am

The manipulators like to simply conflate d*nial with right wing politics without any attempt at further disaggregation. In the actual ‘debate’, there are scientific illiterates who do break down along political lines as described. There is nothing mysterious about this.
The right is for greatest freedoms, smallest government and a more self reliant existence (we know best what to do with our money – individualism ). The left is for big governments, heavy intervention in markets, big “taking care” of people budgets, and lately global governance because people don’t know best how to manage their own affairs and how they affect the “greater good”. The latter leads to collectivity, political correctness, questioning democracy and free enterprise (individualism ) and (don’t you know) consensus thinking!
Regarding science, the neoleft’s (elitist) world view (and plans for us all), needs the rigors of science to support their enterprise. This has given rise to selection of a hypothetical world catastrophe that logically points to the need for their plan to succeed.
It is a cynical employment of science and the world leaders of the neoleft unabashedly (UN’s Figures for example) stating the end justifies the means. Most scientists inveigled into this are largely ignorant of what their real employment is. A generation of them have been ‘educated’ away from the rigorous norms of science as Feynman saw them and it would appear from the quality of their work that the best were not attracted into the consensus science.

Goldrider
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 20, 2017 8:05 am

The Left operates on the principle that if you scream something loud enough, often enough, consistently enough, it becomes “truthiness.” Or, enough Useful Idiots will believe it to shift the political landscape. So if you CONSTANTLY pair “climate skeptic” with “big oil” or “right wing,” that becomes a knee-jerk assumption.
Truth has no currency here.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Goldrider
September 21, 2017 12:16 am

Goldrider: online you will find, in Kipling’s ‘Jungle Book’ in the chapter entitled ‘The Hunting of Kaa’ a description of the Bandar Log – the Monkey People.
A more accurate description of the educated liberal left has never been penned.

….. They were always just going to have a leader, and laws and customs of their own, but they never did, because their memories would not hold over from day to day, and so they compromised things by making up a saying, “What the Bandar-log think now the jungle will think later,” and that comforted them a great deal.
….
…This time, they said, they were really going to have a leader and become the wisest people in the jungle –so wise that everyone else would notice and envy them….
….Mowgli could not help laughing when the Bandar-log began, twenty at a time, to tell him how great and wise and strong and gentle they were, and how foolish he was to wish to leave them. “We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true,” they shouted….

We all say so , so it must be true….

2hotel9
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 21, 2017 3:52 am

Kipling, the man was a genius who has never truly been acknowledged. He so often saw through to the real heart of matters that most people simply step over or around without ever even perceiving they exist.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 20, 2017 11:46 am

Gary,
As usual, your wisdom and comprehension of the situation has revealed your many years of experience.

2hotel9
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 21, 2017 4:15 am

You sum the situation up quite clearly, going to pass this along.

Tom in Denver
September 20, 2017 7:32 am

Although there a few people, as Lenin called them ‘Useful Idiots’, that truly believe that there is catastrophic human caused global warming. But most of smart ones truly know that AGW would not be catastrophic, but they see this as an opportunity to use AGW as an excuse to move toward globalism. To that end they are happy to lie, mislead, and exaggerate. The Science Denier meme is simply a Saul Alinsky type tool to minimize opponents.
The interesting element about dealing with people the believe that the ‘Ends Justify the Means’, is not only that they are comfortable with lying and deception, but they also assume that you are also.

Goldrider
Reply to  Tom in Denver
September 20, 2017 8:07 am

This is very true; it’s noticeable lately that the Left projects their own worst attributes onto the Right.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Goldrider
September 21, 2017 12:17 am

The Left become the people they warned you about.
see ‘Animal farm’

banjo
September 20, 2017 7:50 am

Lazy work.Just compiling a basket of things you don`t like and call them `Right wing`.

Mike
September 20, 2017 8:10 am

Once upon a time there was natural science, or pure science. Once a proces was understood and quantified the outcome was predictable and repeatable. Like where will a cannon ball land given its initial velocity and angle of launch. Then along came a whole bunch of folk wanting their fields of study to be granted the prestigeous label of science. They studied things that were hard to quantify, and whose outcomes were unpredictable and therefore unrepeatable. They didn’t want their fields of study to be called impure or unnaturaral science; they should have been called scientology but that label had already been taken. So we got the Social Sciences; Political Science, Environmental Science etc. all of which rely on probability to forecast the likelihood of an outcome…!
The distinction will disappear when Faith and Reason converge!

David Barnett, Ph.D.
Reply to  Mike
September 24, 2017 10:54 am

What distinguishes science from dogma is that science does not seek what is exactly true. Rather it seeks to exclude what is exactly false. The “truth” must lie in what is left behind.
But even when we think we have excluded something as false, we may have to revisit. For example, Young’s double-slit experiment of 1802 seemed to exclude Newton’s particle theory of light in favour of Huygens’ wave theory. Maxwell’s synthesis of electromagnetism was great confirmation. Then, in 1905, Einstein wrote a paper on the photo-electric effect, and we had to consider the quantum nature of light.

Dr. Deanster
September 20, 2017 8:10 am

It all comes down to considering a subject intellectually, using logic and reason [the political right], …. or considering a subject emotionally, using feelings, compassion, abstract “ifs”, etc. [political left]
This is why “data”, reality, science, etc has no impact on leftists. NOW .. if you could drive home the message that the proposed measures to combat global warming would increase inequality, impact starving children, would negatively impact any group other than white males, lead to increased death and destruction, impact a woman’s right to an abortion, hurt minorities, etc …. you might would gain a little traction.

lerianis
September 20, 2017 8:12 am

Big assumption with emphasis on the first three letters of that A-word that anyone who challenges climate change DUE TO MAN (key terms in uppercase) is a ‘science denier’. I have great respect for science and technology which is why I went out of my way to get educated on the issue of Anthropomorphic/Man-Made Climate Change.
After reading all the evidence for and against I had to say that although there was more QUANTITY of evidence on the side of Anthropomorphic Climate Change most of that quantity was researchers agreeing with each other while giving little evidence of man causing undue warming effects other than “We have seen a small temperature increase since the 1900’s to today! PANIC!”
The QUALITY was on the side of the people who were speaking out against Anthropomorphic Climate Change who pointed out as this website does that “Wait a damned minute! Past a certain level CO2 stops acting as a greenhouse gas according to various laboratory tests and the warming curve of that gas levels off to near a flatline! Stop with the hyperbole! Man is NOT causing the little bit of climate change today! It is natural warming when coming out of a period when the planet was cooler than it should have been called “The Little Ice Age!”

Pete
Reply to  lerianis
September 20, 2017 9:52 am

Perfectly said. May I add another blessed fact to tour comment.
CO2 is a global plant fertilise. At a tiny 0.04 ppm spread out in our atmosphere CO2 is gobbled up by vegetation increasing the mass of the biosphere even in the face of the massive deforestation in some abusive countries while feeding the 7 billion people inhabiting this planet at this moment in the geological timescale. (The famines and hunger in some countries are due to corruption and utter abandonment by the UN)
A century ago CO2 level at 270 ppm was critically low for the planet’s vegetation which was suffering from CO2 starvation. At 200ppm, vegetation starts to die. I wonder where humanity would be today if CO2 levels had fallen instead of risen.

David Barnett, Ph.D.
Reply to  Pete
September 24, 2017 11:03 am

Pete said, “CO2 is a global plant fertilise.” Right. Carbon is a scarce resource. That makes “mitigation” technologies that “scrub” and “bury” not only a waste of energy, but a criminal waste of an essential resource.

Sara
September 20, 2017 8:56 am

I’m just waiting for someone in that bunch of ignorant loons to raise the ghost of Trofim Lysenko, so that we can abandon agriculture that keeps people fed and let millions – maybe even billions! – starve to death again.

2hotel9
Reply to  Sara
September 20, 2017 9:14 am

There is a very special place in hell for Lysenko and his ilk.

Donna K. Becker
Reply to  David Middleton
September 20, 2017 10:30 am

If only everyone would watch this film!

frederik wisse
September 20, 2017 9:00 am

It is really a pity that you Americans daily have to cope with a fully brainwashed Alinsky-scholar .
This was , is and will be Russian meddling at its best .

frederik wisse
September 20, 2017 9:00 am

It is really a pity that you Americans daily have to cope with a fully brainwashed Alinsky-scholar .
This was , is and will be Russian meddling at its best .

The Reverend Badger
September 20, 2017 9:11 am

It would be helpful to go back to first principles and ask questions like these:
Is it possible to measure an average annual temperature of the earth?
What meaning does average temperature of a large planet have in relation to energy transfers which have a daily cycle with inherent chaotic variability?
Is it correct to consider a body which radiates e.m. in the i.r. which is immersed in a conductive fluid and therefore also loses energy via conduction and convection as simply a black body radiator?
Can one add radiative flux intensities mathematically and use the result to derive temperature?
Can heat energy be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter one?
What experiments have been conducted to confirm the basic assumptions relating to the physical processes assumed to operate in the atmosphere in connection with AGW?
What relationship does the atmospheric temperature around 1 – 2 m above the surface have to the actual surface temperature?
What experiments have been done to confirm or refute the existence of so called “back radiation” as an actual physical process which can transfer heat energy?
I am sure we can think of lots more like these. I suggest that as some of the early and basic foundations for AGW are either nonsensical or have no supporting experimental evidence or testing that the rest of the more complicated stuff built upon it will be absolute BS. (as we know). Therefore the focus of our arguments / attacks should be on the very fundamental bits , the faulty foundation.
I favour concentrating on the erroneous concept of “back radiation” and the transfer of heat energy from cold thing to hot thing as 2 of the most fundamental errors here.

Alan D McIntire
Reply to  The Reverend Badger
September 20, 2017 11:48 am

“What experiments have been done to confirm or refute the existence of so called “back radiation” as an actual physical process which can transfer heat energy?”
Roy Spencer describes an acutal experiment here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
“Can heat energy be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter one?”
Again skeptic Roy Spencer addressed that question here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  Alan D McIntire
September 20, 2017 2:48 pm

The experimental work of Dr.Spencer deserves very careful study. The two examples cited are excellent for considering the various issues involved. Good arguments and counter arguments on his related blog too which should get your mind working when searching for the particular scientific truth here.
Here are a few hints for those interested in going the distance:
1. What is the spectrum of the e.m. radiation entering the IR thermometer when it is pointed at a)A whitehot piece of steel b)The brick wall of your house c)The sky?
2. How is the IR thermometer calibrated in order to show K or C temperature?
3. Does proving the existence of I.R. radiation prove that heat energy can be/is transferred?
4. Where does the word “net” come from in connection with hot/cold objects?
5. What is the actual physical mechanism which causes heat energy to be transferred between objects and how does that mechanism change with time, as one heats up and the other cools, as equilibrium is reached?
6. When designing an experiment to test an assumption what principles should be employed to avoid fooling oneself?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  The Reverend Badger
September 20, 2017 11:55 am

Badger,
Related to your question, “Is it possible to measure an average annual temperature of the earth?”, there is the question “What does the supposed average annual temperature actually mean?” It has a standard deviation of some tens of degrees, varies from year to year, and is different for land, air, and water. It is an abstraction that is probably best cited to the nearest order of magnitude, rather than to a thousandth of a degree. Accurate long-term values are of most importance only around the freezing point of water.

Jeff L
September 20, 2017 9:12 am

Over the last couple years, I am amazed how many conversations I have heard where people blindly accept commentary as true because a “scientist” said it. In the case of climate ( and other interpretive science), there are many abusing the public trust. Pretty much anyone who would label someone a “science denier” is abusing the public trust by implying there is no room for discussion of the subject. That is never true in science, only true for politics and religion. As such, they are turning science into politics &/or religion & the public doesn’t even understand that they are mascarading politics / religion as science. As such, since the public doesn’t realize this, they are abusing the public trust of science.
As such, I would suggest that all of these folks henceforth be labeled as “science abusers”.

Keith J
September 20, 2017 9:19 am

Denial of science? How about the failures of socialism?
Now there’s no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law. And the trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe and saw.

September 20, 2017 9:35 am

Clearly, qualified Geoscientists are science deniers.
/sarc
If you’re a Climate Scientist and discover that Geoscientists disagree with your climate change hypothesis, there should be cause for concern. Largely because your fields are so closely interconnected that you probably shared 85% of your college classes with them.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steele
September 20, 2017 11:59 am

Steele,
Yes, one really has to wonder about Lewandosky!

Pete
September 20, 2017 9:42 am

What do the climate catastrophists have to say about the 10-year hurricane hiatus? Was that due to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change too?

Alan D McIntire
Reply to  Pete
September 20, 2017 12:08 pm

MY view is that a warmer climate would result in a smaller equator- pole temperature gradient, leading to a DROP in hurricanes. Conversely, a cooling world would result in a steeper pole- temperature gradient, leading to MORE hurricanes. One might argue that the 10 year hiatus in hurricanes hitting the U.S. was due to a slight warming, and the recent flux of hurricanes is due to global COOLING! This paper supports my hypothesis:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=E6856142F91047B940E743AA3BD95576?doi=10.1.1.724.7759&rep=rep1&type=pdf
“. . Interestingly, the partial correlation between PDI and GT controlling
for both year and SST is –0.24, consistent with
the hypothesis that additional tropospheric warming
decreases hurricane intensity (Shen et al. 2000). “

subtle2
September 20, 2017 9:48 am

David
Your mention of a “picture is worth 1,000 words”, reminds of an old one.
Helen of Troy was so beautiful, that her’s was “The face that launched a thousand ships”.
From which we can derive the unit of female beauty. The “Milli-Helen”.
Which is beauty sufficient to launch one ship.

mikewaite
Reply to  subtle2
September 20, 2017 11:49 am

After 60 years service our present Queen (God bless her ) must have launched more ships than Helen!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  subtle2
September 20, 2017 12:03 pm

Are you suggesting the movie with Bo Derek should have been called “1,000” instead of “10?”

petermue
September 20, 2017 9:51 am

… that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right…
Enlighten me, as I can’t see a problem in there.
Scepticism is a problem? Not for me.

TA
Reply to  petermue
September 20, 2017 5:21 pm

Skeptics don’t have a problem, it’s the alarmists who have the problem: They can’t sell their phony CAGW narrative anymore. Their numbers don’t add up and that is not the fault of skeptics.

Leo Smith
Reply to  petermue
September 21, 2017 12:24 am

the denialist sare the people who use that term to describe sceptics
Denialists are the people they warned you about.

Mike Maguire
September 20, 2017 10:12 am

When you increase the temperature more at the high latitudes, you decrease the meridional temperature gradient. This is what global warming has featured.
Meteorology 101 tells us that the atmosphere does not need to work as hard to balance the disparity between excessive heat accumulating in the lower latitudes from a high angled powerful sun and less heat coming in from a low angled to no sun at the highest latitudes.
This decreases the energy and many types of extreme weather.
Imagine if our planet had a uniform temperature…….same temperature everywhere?
Helps you to imagine what path the atmosphere is taking right now with modest warming, more so at the higher latitudes(especially the coldest places in the coldest times of year).
Global cooling(in the highest latitudes) is what increases extreme weather the most.
There are exceptions based on the region or type of weather(pattern) but this idea that warming the planet increases the energy for weather systems is exactly wrong.

September 20, 2017 10:17 am

Speaking of social commentary on things so stupid they hurt:
http://www.thestupidithurts.org
(Mod: this is a shameless plug of a personal W.I.P. and adds absolutely nothing to the current conversation.)

nn
September 20, 2017 10:25 am

So, conflation of logical domains, extrapolations from isolated observations to global proportions, and assertions about process and character outside the solar system, to the edge of the universe, and beyond are a common fault?
And babies are not delivered by stork at the time of viability?

nn
September 20, 2017 10:29 am

Oh, and a model is a hypothesis, and its skill is only as good as its underlying characterization and ability to manage the data at the requisite resolution?
Perhaps we can also acknowledge that the [soft] boundary of the scientific logical domain is defined by the self-evident conclusion that accuracy is inversely proportional to time and space offsets from an established frame of reference.

Mike
September 20, 2017 10:35 am

Another way to distinguish between “believers” and “deniers/skeptics” is education…. Those who were taught WHAT to think versus those who were taught HOW to think. Sadly it seems modern education is heavily tilted in favour of the former.

jim hogg
September 20, 2017 10:49 am

Strange that so many of you “sceptics” are totally convinced that you’re right . . . My scepticism is a much simpler thing altogether. It cuts both ways. I’m not a CAGW believer because the logic and evidence don’t convince me – primarily because it seems to me that the problem is too hard for us to solve with our current tools and wit. But I have to admit that they could be right, by chance or because they might actually be right to place so much emphasis on the power of a single element. All the same, climate history and the simple fact that we don’t know what the climate would have done through this period without the addition of some extra Co2 and all the other factors in the equation we’ve amended by tilling the soil and chopping down trees etc., lead me to suspect that we really don’t know nearly enough to reach firm conclusions . . .
As for political position and scepticism, real sceptics won’t be firmly or blindly committed to any of the common political or even religious beliefs for obvious reasons. As someone else on here once said, humans are belief machines and want to believe what they hear and read, but experience in some cases helps immunise us against unjustified beliefs.
I’m kinda libertarian left but pro market economics to a degree, because the market mostly works, and because I care that not all people are born with the same abilities or chances and think that the state should do something about evening out the playing field – without killing some to carry others, though those who are strong and are possessed of compassion will surely be glad to help those who are weak and/or disadvantaged and don’t seek to exploit them, and those same strong people surely don’t want to exploit anyone, weak or strong.
Some politicians lie, exploit, and seek to serve themselves, and some CEOs do the same. Dishonesty, the urge to exploit, the tendency to be corrupt, and narcissism and psychopathy are not exclusive to politicians (of whatever stamp). They are just as common in other walks of life away from the corridors of government. Humans are the problem. Some of us are good and some of us are not so good. Some are vulnerable to ideologies and false beliefs and some are impervious to them and some are in between.
Too often though, we see what we want to see, and that usually boils down to believing that people like us and who have similar beliefs to us are good, and that those with different beliefs or who oppose us are evil, unworthy, dangerous or liars or scum, or mainly stupid . . . Human nature. . . . it’s all in there. We really try harder to work together as none of us knows all the answers . . .

The Reverend Badeger
Reply to  jim hogg
September 20, 2017 11:24 am

This is very interesting but to a large degree irrelevant to those who are interested in understanding how things really work. And if you are of a true scientific bent I suggest that understanding the workings, i.e. deriving the physical “truth” of interesting things like the atmosphere and the climate will be high in your sights. For those like me who seek such “scientific truth” it matters not how many friends, enemies or politicians of whatever persuasion “believe” in X , y or z. what we are interested in is the scientific evidence, the experimental evidence and the pros and cons of the various theories. We want to weigh things up objectively and scientifically. We want to see if we can come to a conclusion or whether we need to design some new experiments, test some theory or make some special observations to help us decide.
Lets us therefore focus our attention away from others point of view, away from the left-right politics and instead concentrate on what we need to test. What are the experiments we need to do to get a better understanding of how the sun warms the earth? What are the experiments we need to do to test the actual physical function of 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere?

Reply to  jim hogg
September 20, 2017 12:35 pm

Strange that so many of you “sceptics” are totally convinced that you’re right . . . My scepticism is a much simpler thing altogether.

Don’t you contradict yourself, Jim?
I would argue my skepticism of AGW to be much simpler than yours. You seem to unnecessarily complicate the matter.
For example you argue:
“It cuts both ways. I’m not a CAGW believer because the logic and evidence don’t convince me – primarily because it seems to me that the problem is too hard for us to solve with our current tools and wit.”
Here you’ve correctly identified the problem with AGW and the reason to reject its claims. This is where my brand of skepticism stops because there’s no logical requirement to go further.
You, however, unnecessarily complicate the matter with a second premise that, while not explicitlycontradicting the first, certainly brings it into question as well as introduces a useless truth value (NULL) to the real world in your belief system:
“But I have to admit that they could be right, by chance or because they might actually be right to place so much emphasis on the power of a single element.”
Adding such a possibility to your first premise in effect negates the first premise and therefore causes you to appear to contradict yourself at worst, and at best seem “squishy” in your thinking.
“I don’t believe in AGW because the evidence doesn’t support it. But it might be true.”
These two premises contradict themselves and therefore so does your argument. Either you believe in AGW (T) or you’re not sure (NULL), but not both.
” … real sceptics won’t be firmly or blindly committed to any of the common political or even religious beliefs for obvious reasons.”
Does this also apply to Skepticism itself? If not, why not?
In other words, shouldn’t you also be philosophically skeptical of the Philosophy of Skepticism? If so, don’t you contradict yourself?
I’m always curious about how the Agnostic gets on in life. It would seem impossible that he/she could actually apply their philosophical beliefs to the real world. The logical paradoxes would drive me crazy.

NorwegianSkeptic
Reply to  sy computing
September 21, 2017 3:25 am

Douglas Adams (of The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy fame) called himself ‘Radical Atheist’ for fear of being mistaken for an agnostic….

Bob boder
Reply to  sy computing
September 21, 2017 4:42 am

Agnostics are Null, there is no evidence one way or the other so move on, what will happen will happen, belief is irrelevant and has no effect on the outcome. Don’t see the paradox and don’t have to waste time arguing with either side, just say you might be right who the hell am I to tell you that you are wrong.
CAGW there is evidence and it all points to no C after that the AGW part is irrelevant what will happen will happen so move on. Since the actual arguement is about imposing socialism and statism on everyone there is a reason to be engaged.

Reply to  jim hogg
September 20, 2017 12:56 pm

Jim states “Strange that so many of you “sceptics” are totally convinced that you’re right…”. You are wrong with your assumption. Most of those who are sceptical of the AGW story have valid scientific reasons for not accepting the premise that CO2 is a major driver of the climate of this planet. Also, note that a percentage of sceptics agree that there could be some small effect on the total climate system from increased levels of CO2, but that it is only a very small effect.

TA
Reply to  jim hogg
September 20, 2017 5:35 pm

“Strange that so many of you “sceptics” are totally convinced that you’re right”
What skeptics are right about is they say there is no evidence that humans and CO2 are causing the Earth’s climate to change in any way. You could prove us skeptics wrong by providing concrete evidence that humans are causing the climate to do things it would not otherwise do.
All the alarmists are doing is speculating, speculating, speculatng. Speculation is not evidence of anything.

Leo Smith
Reply to  jim hogg
September 21, 2017 12:35 am

jim: here’s a picture for you.
There is a lot of uncertainty in climate science, but not in the claims of climate scientists pushing the alarmist agenda. They have been quite specific and so are the models they used.
And those claims and those models have been shown to be wrong to a 97% certainty that their models have no use as a scientific hypothesis.
That is, whilst anthropogenic climate change is a maybe, the actual claims and models of the climate scientists have been utterly refuted.
What laws govern climate are yet to be established, but it is clear that they are not as climate scientists portray them.
The map is not the territory. Maps partially describe the territory. In the case of climate science they are not even close.
Climate scientists claimed science. Science has refuted them. This is because in the end natural philosophy, or science, is about predicting what the natural world will do, and the climate scientists have completely failed to predict what the natural word has in fact done.
They haven’t failed by sceptics definitions, they have failed by the terms of the science they invoked to make their argument.
Tough titties.

LdB
September 20, 2017 11:33 am

Just when you think the left couldn’t get anymore stupid
https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/910101399052210176
Yes climate change now causes Earthquakes. Griff believes any random article on the internet so long as it links climate change to bad things, so he will be on this one next.

Sheri
Reply to  LdB
September 20, 2017 4:39 pm

No scientific data has disappeared unless the agencies lost it themselves.

Editor
Reply to  LdB
September 21, 2017 7:51 pm

Amy,is the latest warmist moron to make a false claim that skeptics don’t believe climate can change.

knr
September 20, 2017 11:38 am

Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K., Gignac G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing— and irony was the percentage of people who though the moon landing was faked was higher for AGW proponents than AGW skeptics . Lou’s ‘paper ‘ proved supporters of his own outlook are more likely to see ‘conspiracy’ behind ever door than others , which given the constant claims of ‘evil fossil fuel conspiracy ‘ and skeptics ‘being the pay of big oil ‘ is no surprise at all.

Taphonomic
September 20, 2017 11:38 am

Another fine study from the University of Illinois at Chicago (used to be the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle; the only university in the USA named after a traffic interchange).
This is the same school that gave us the original 97% study based on a survey by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser Peter T. Doran.

steve mcdonald
September 20, 2017 11:43 am

The alarmists admit they were wrong.
The warming is natural after coming out of a little ice age ending just 175 years ago.
There has been much warmer periods in relatively very recent history.
But it’s not too late to save the planet.
All the poor has to do is go without affordable electricity so we can be granted the billions of dollars to save it for their grandchildren.

Bruce Cobb
September 20, 2017 11:47 am

Yes. It’s what I keep saying about space aliens. People are so “sure” they don’t exist and aren’t planning to take over our planet. I myself don’t believe it, but what if they are? We just don’t know enough about space aliens yet to know.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 20, 2017 12:08 pm

Bruce,
If you want to learn more about space aliens, just ask someone who has been abducted. If you gain their trust, they are probably willing to tell you more than you even want to know!

Robert of Texas
September 20, 2017 12:32 pm

Over the many years of trying to understand people’s points of view, I have become aware that there are (at least) two very distinct styles of “thinking” – and this leads to much of the liberal versus conservative points of view on climate change. Now I am simply reflecting on observations, but it is helpful once you are aware of the differences.
Liberals (not all but most) tend to approach problems on the basis of how they feel about the issue. If the issue seems to be aligned with their preexisting beliefs, they begin to filter out any data or discussion that causes cognitive discourse. This is not a conscious decision, but a human trait. It doesn’t seem to matter how much evidence is presented, they will not change their “feelings” easily. Liberals are more likely to adopt popular beliefs, and tend to attack anyone outside of their belief system (again, because it is emotional to them). This makes their actions seem like that of a priesthood reacting to heresy rather than a scientific disagreement.
This is especially true of the mentality of the herd – which I mean the tendency to surround oneself with people who agree, and to put distance between those that disagree. Herds are much more likely to act aggressively and extreme egged on bu its members.
Skeptics more often tend to be so-called conservatives, which can mean almost anything depending on the context. Weeding out the nut cases (and there are always some of those in any group of humans), skeptics tend to rely on a data-driven belief system. They will tend to change points of view only as long as the data supporting that new belief is available and reliable (again, in their own minds). Skeptics don’t care how people “feel” about the issue, they only care on getting at a the underlying truth based on the data. Skeptics are much more likely to rebuff herd mentality, don’t care if their beliefs makes them less popular, and have a difficult time understanding why others cannot see the same conclusions (because it isn’t an emotional issue to them).
People don’t actually come in black&white – they are shades of gray when considering these thinking styles. Young people are much more likely to think emotionally than older people, so there is some plasticity to this thinking style. I also think that universities are acting as “enablers” in teaching young people its good to think with your emotions rather than using logic and discipline.
Assuming my conclusions are correct, the war over AGW will not end suddenly, but instead slowly wither out as the herd moves on to a new emotional objective. As the herd stops talking about AGW, their membership will slowly become uninterested. Skeptics will not have won anything except for perhaps some well deserved peace of mind. Science will have taken a beating, but given the state of how many published papers seem to fail attempts at reproducing the results, maybe this too is a good thing.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Robert of Texas
September 20, 2017 1:28 pm

Or, as Pirsig’s Phaedrus would say, it has to do with the Classic/Romantic division. People tend tend to fall in one camp or the other in terms of thought process, but as you say, it isn’t all black and white. We Skeptics tend to be much more of the Classic style, thus think more logically and less emotionally than the Believers. Most of us, in fact, originally believed to some extent, but only because it was all we heard. Once presented with the facts, it isn’t that difficult to determine who is being truthful and who is telling porkies to beat the band.

Caligula Jones
September 20, 2017 1:02 pm

Sorry, stopped reading at “psych professor”. Has about as much expertise in the topic of climate change as, say, an actor. Probably less, when I think about how many people I know in the psychiatric professions, and how many of THEM should avail themselves more of their own treatment.

Richard S Courtney
September 20, 2017 2:02 pm

David Middleton:
The BBC has recently been forced to withdraw the campaign mounted by one of its journalists against Graham Stringer MP because Stringer – like me – opposes the global warming scare; see https://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-reprimands-science-presenter-for-campaign-against-labour-mp-graham-stringer/
Graham Stringer and I are Members of the same socialist political party.
Only in the US is support and opposition of the scare aligned with left vs. right politics.
Richard

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
September 20, 2017 4:28 pm

Richard,
You said all that needs to be said. Who wouldn’t want to be on the “right” side? 🙂

Reply to  Richard S Courtney
September 21, 2017 1:06 am

Hello Richard,
I tried to email you recently and the email bounced – I was concerned about your health.
I am glad to see you are well enough to participate in this discussion – you have always been one of the most intelligent and informed contributors to this site.
Best personal regards, Allan

richardscourtney
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
September 22, 2017 2:46 am

Dear Allan:
Please be assured that I have not avoided you.
My health is not good.
I seem to have turned into a Weable; I did not choose to be a toy that comes back up when knocked down but it seems The Boss may have wanted one (joke).
It all stated three years ago when I suffered multiple organ failure (heart, lungs and liver). I was not expected to last until the following Christmas but I am still here! My heart diagnosis and my heart treatment were then changed and I made such good recovery that I thought I would make a near complete recovery. The emphysema would still get me eventually but not for many years.
Then in August last year I had a stroke that paralysed my right arm. I told The Boss I thought that was not fare but, of course, I was wrong about that because, “Why not me?”, and He ignored my hubris. I again made good recovery: my arm now works again although it does do things on its own and I cannot write my signature (which is surprisingly inconvenient).
Then, three months ago I was diagnosed with malignant prostate cancer at State 3++ which means it is too far gone to be operable. I had coped with all the other stuff so I thought I would cope with that until I was told three weeks later that the cancer has gone to my bones and there is no way back from that.
However, three years ago I was told that by now I would have been gone long ago so I live in hope that the present prognosis has similar accuracy.
I am receiving chemotherapy and hormone treatment which seems to be intended to turn me into a woman. My testosterone production is being suppressed and my oestrogen production enhanced with a result that I get hot flushes and am warned I may grow breasts. The main problem is that the pain relief inhibits my ability to think, but I soldier on as best I can. And I try yo point out reality when confronted with stupidity which attempts to portray the global warming scare as being a political left vs, right issue.
WE CANNOT DEFEAT THE GLOBAL WARMING SCARE BY ALLOWING POLITICAL ACTIVISTS OF LEFT OR RIGHT TO USE THE SCARE AS AN EXCUSE TO ATTACK THEIR OPPONENTS. ALLOWING THAT ASSISTS THE SCARE CONTINUING.
Richard

Bob boder
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
September 21, 2017 5:43 am

Richard;
In the US it is a right left issue on many fronts, but that is not because of the right. The left in the US is using AGW as a scare tactic to balkanize this country as they are with race relations, health care, feminism and abortion. It is no longer a question of civil discourse it is now either you agree or you are evil and should be silenced or worse. I am neither right or left, but i can tell you which side is out to force me to do conform and in this country it is the left much more so than the right.
I too am happy to see you posting again by the way, I have always considered what you have to say, whether I disagree with you or not, respect to you sir and be healthy!

September 20, 2017 2:47 pm

Reporting by cliches is catching on. They no more define what “climate change” is, than they define what “political right” is.

Germinio
September 20, 2017 3:16 pm

I really don’t see what David is complaining about here? The linked article states that in general people disagree with established scientific beliefs when the said beliefs disagree with their own personal beliefs and political opinions. The article makes the point that this is true for both people with both left wing and right wing beliefs. Different people appear to choose which bits of science to believe in based on their political opinions something which is abundantly clear from many studies.

Germinio
Reply to  David Middleton
September 20, 2017 4:00 pm

Again what is your point? The subtitle of the article is “Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Deny Attitude-Inconsistent Science”. It is pointing out that science denial is a problem across the entire political spectrum, the only difference is that liberals and conservatives choose different bits of established science to disbelieve.