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.
[…]
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, 217–222. Link
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, 622–633. Link
Mooney C. (2011, 9 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, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Mooney C. (2014, 9 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:
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.
Featured Image
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
… 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.
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.
the denialist sare the people who use that term to describe sceptics
Denialists are the people they warned you about.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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 . . .
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?
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.
Douglas Adams (of The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy fame) called himself ‘Radical Atheist’ for fear of being mistaken for an agnostic….
He did have a way with words… The Vogon constructor ship “hung in the air exactly like a brick doesn’t.”
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
No scientific data has disappeared unless the agencies lost it themselves.
Amy,is the latest warmist moron to make a false claim that skeptics don’t believe climate can change.
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.
Funny thing… This guy landed on the Moon, arguably the last man to set foot on the Moon, is a geologist, has a PhD…. And is an AGW skeptic…
I wonder how the psychtard squares this with is moronic hypothesis.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
Richard,
You said all that needs to be said. Who wouldn’t want to be on the “right” side? 🙂
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
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
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!
Reporting by cliches is catching on. They no more define what “climate change” is, than they define what “political right” is.
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.
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.
Germinio,
You said, “… the only difference is that liberals and conservatives choose different bits of established science to disbelieve.” Were that the case, there would be no hope for humanity. I, personally, work very hard at being objective and I demand higher levels of assurance than most CAGW supporters I debate with require. So, while the Left attempts to hold the moral high ground by characterizing conservatives as irrational ‘Dnyers,’ and painting themselves as the opposite, it is my opinion that it is all sophistry intended to make liberals feel good about themselves.
Hi Clyde,
Unfortunately then it would appear that there is no hope for humanity. All studies show that most people choose which bits of science to believe in depending on their beliefs. We all have inbuilt cognative biases that causes us to believe/doubt different bits of scientific evidence. And it is a failing of both left and right but on different issues.
And if you don’t believe me look at the comments under the recent post “Are the glaciers in Glacier National Park growing?”. If the same level of evidence (i.e. none just a couple of pictures) had been used to “prove” that the glaciers where melting the article would have been ripped to shreds and rightly so. But here since the claims of the article agree with the beliefs of the audience it gets a free ride.
Germinio,
You said, “And if you don’t believe me look at the comments under the recent post “Are the glaciers in Glacier National Park growing?”. If the same level of evidence (i.e. none just a couple of pictures) had been used to “prove” that the glaciers where melting the article would have been ripped to shreds and rightly so.”
I hope you aren’t including Esterbrook’s or my comments along with the pictures. Perhaps you would care to critique my comments since Griff and others have not responded. If you have some substantive criticism of my comments, I’d like to hear them.
Clyde,
As far as I can tell you made two comments about glaciers neither of which directly address the quality of the “science” that the post was about. I am not qualified to address your comments but I will add that glaciers exist within microclimates and any statements are average temperatures will not apply to any particular glacier. In NZ for example some glaciers are growing while the majority are retreating.
My point is that a statement about one single glacier made by someone who appears to be a con-man on the basis of a couple of un-verified pictures is accepted without question by the vast majority of readers on this blog. If I founded a university and was the only faculty member and took a couple of pictures of glaciers and used this as evidence that glaciers were retreating I would be shot down in flames and called a crank and rightly so.
Germinio. The concept of scientific beliefs has become outdated since the 17th century through the development of modern scientific methods. Based on your contributions so far you can disagree with it if you like.
However, Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K., Gignac G. E. and Mooney C. don’t have an excuse. If they are trying to sell their papers as science, they have to respect the modern scientific method. But using science for defaming political adversaries violates UN declaration of human rights. To give an idea the first paragraphs of the preamble:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common
people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, ….
Germinio,
You said, “…any statements are average temperatures will not apply to any particular glacier.” That is reasonable; however, those who are frantic about the apparent worldwide retreat of glaciers, invariably appeal to the rise in the average global temperature to explain it. They then attribute the increase in average temperature to an increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels and advocate abandoning a ‘carbon-based’ energy system. Personally, I tend to view things as being more complex than the official liberal meme.
You also said, “If I … took a couple of pictures of glaciers and used this as evidence that glaciers were retreating I would be shot down in flames and called a crank and rightly so.” I should note that the US Geological Survey has had a program of documenting the retreat of glaciers for a number of years. Granted that the author does not present a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the situation; however, photographic documentation has its place to measure rates and changes. If I show you a picture of a Tasmanian Tiger in an apparently natural habitat, it doesn’t provide conclusive proof that they still exist, but it does provide anecdotal evidence that probably warrants a more thorough investigation. I think that these “couple of pictures” are in the same category — not conclusive, but interesting nevertheless.
Inasmuch as no formal survey has been conducted of the readers of the article, it would seem that you are projecting your beliefs that the claims made in the article are generally accepted by the readership. You suggest that the article should have been “ripped to shreds.” Lack of evidence for or against something is not evidence for it.
[ https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument_from_Ignorance ]
I’m a climate change denier
I believet for 4.5 billion years that that the climate has never changed isn’t changing or ever will change.
But I’m a climate denier believing that there is no such thing as a climate so the first paragraph is null and void.
Im a lifelong left Democrat.I stay in the closet as much as possible because all of my friends are believers.
The left believes whatever the NYT and PBS relay from the liar activist scientists.The left is brainwashed unwittingly.
When I do have a confrontation about climate with a leftist believer ,Im astounded that they know next to zero information about climate science.Other than poles melting.polar bears extinct.sea rising.
One friend thought Monoxide was what the issue was about.Another actually put his hands over his ears rather than learn climate facts.
Believers need deprogramming.
As much as I despise the orange IL Douche,I hoped he would enlighten the climate issue.Instead he made his entire reality a lie ,so no leftest would believe anything he espoused.
Mojomojo,
Is it true that liberals have secret catechism classes where they read from the NYT and the Atlantic?
Has anyone ever observed Griff do anything other than make an asinine comment and then disappear into the sunset while a flurry of activity attempts to desperately rebut whatever inanity has been spouted? Is it really worth the energy? Is anything from that source ever an actual attempt to engage in conversation or debate?
Griff’s a good guy… And my favorite batting practice pitcher… 😉
” Is it really worth the energy?”
In my view, it’s worth just as much energy as it is to answer you.
All truth is valuable truth. As a layman, I wish more Griffs and Nick Stokes’ would come here so I could learn more about why I don’t believe their side from their own arguments/evidence.
I beat up on Griff at another blog,which gets boring after a while when he never improves.
Hey Griff and Nick Stokes and any one else who believes that carbon dioxide controls the climate .I am putting this challenge to you to just prove one little bit of your beliefs about global warming .Prove to me that the methane emissions from livestock can warm the planet more than .ooo5 degrees C in say the next ten years . When you have come up with some proof I will debate it with you .Rice paddies produce large amounts of methane but that is called natural and ignored Methane emissions from livestock was snuk into the Kyoto accord by activists and the scientific community has ignored this instead of throwing it out and concentrating on fossil fuel emissions which are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.The warmists are counting on positive feed backs to enhance warming to fulfill their agenda but this is an unproven theory.
The essence of science is the ability to predict, and the IPCC and its minions have a perfectly negative predictive track record – NONE of their scary predictions have materialized. That means that the IPCC has NEGATIVE scientific credibility, and nobody should believe anything the IPCC or its minions say.
I have two engineering degrees in earth sciences and have studied this subject since 1985, and I have found NO evidence of dangerous humanmade global warming, and ample evidence that it does NOT exist.
The debate on global warming alarmism concerns one parameter – the climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 (“ECS”). Global warming alarmists falsely suggest that ECS is high, yet their estimates of ECS have been declining for the past decade and are still far too high to be credible. There is ample evidence that ECS is low, probably <=1C/(2*CO2) and possibly much less than 1C.
Here is just one of many lines of evidence that ECS is low:
The ~35-year global cooling period that commenced in ~1940, even as fossil fuel consumption sharply increased, adequately falsifies the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant driver of global warming. The CAGW hypo is further falsified by the current ~20-year “Pause” in global temperatures, as atmospheric CO2 continued to increase.
That is why the global warming alarmists have more recently been falsifying the temperature data records to minimize the ~35-year cooling period and increase their alleged warming during the Pause.
There was a ~22 year period of global warming starting about 1975, but much of that warming period was a natural recovery from two major volcanos, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991. Real global warming probably did occur after the Great Pacific Climate Shift, circa 1977.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/15/report-ocean-cycles-not-humans-may-be-behind-most-observed-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2613373
Conclusion:
Since 1940 there has been ~22 years of positive correlation of temperature with CO2, and ~55 years of negative or ~zero correlation. The global warming hypo is contradicted by a full-Earth-scale test since 1940. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.
Regards, Allan
It IS frustrating to see politicians make really foolish decisions about energy. Most politicians are far too uneducated to even opine on the subject, let alone formulate energy policy. For example, it was obvious from the start that hydrogen-as-fuel was a dead end, because of very low energy density. Corn ethanol is also a poor and destructive idea, as are most food-to-fuel schemes, which have contributed to excessive drawdown of the Ogalalla Aquifer in the USA and widespread rainforest clearcutting in the tropics. . It was also obvious that grid-connected wind and solar power schemes were costly and ineffective, primarily due to intermittency.
In general, green energy policies have been a costly disaster for society, causing great environmental damage, increasing energy cost and reducing grid reliability. This damage has been high in the developed world but even higher in the developing world, where green energy nonsense has denied struggling populations access to cheap, abundant, reliable energy systems.
Fossil fuels comprise about 85% of global primary energy, whereas green energy provides less than 2%, despite trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies. Imagine how much better the world’s poor would be if these vast sums had been spent intelligently on clean water, sanitation and efficient energy systems.
Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple. When politicians fool with energy policy, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of global warming alarmism.
Best regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
Your thesis rests on the assumption that CO2 pollution has no harmful effect on future generations— an assumption contradicted by the research of every scientific institution in the world.
CO2 is plant food, not pollution.
Nonsense Sam Best.
!. Your “appeal to authority” has no validity in science.
2. Your appeal to proven corrupted authority has negative credibility – for example, see the Climategate emails, Mann’s hokey stick, data tampering, etc., etc.
3. Your appeal to the authority of groups that have a proven negative predictive track record, and thus proven negative scientific credibility, is further evidence of your error.
Regards, Allan
Sam B,
You should be careful in your use of superlative or all encompassing claims, such as “every scientific institution in the world.” Your statement can be disproven if even one institution can be found to disagree. Such sloppy assertions suggests to me that you were not trained as a scientist and therefore you are relying on what you read in the MSM for your world view. All too often, those who don’t have the education, skills, or experience to understand the complexities of climatology resort to authority or supposed consensus as their justification for alarm. If you want to convince others that you have good reasons for your belief, present the evidence, not some easily dismissed claim of universal consensus.
..O.M.G……The stupid, it burns !!! D’OH !!
Sam,
That was the best you can come up with?
You posted the following:
Scientific error
Fallacy
No counterpoint
Got anything better?
Thank you David Middleton for publishing this. Social psychology professor Linda Skitka at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Brian Flood also from UIC are worthy naming here now.
The validity of Linda’s psychological study conclusions are resting solely on the assumption she knows the truth in scientific disciplines beyond her competency. For this reason the title “science denial not limited to political right” sounded initially like a concession, but then they decided to quote Linda at the end as follows:
“Before assuming that one group of people or another are anti-science because they disagree with one scientific conclusion, we should make an effort to consider different motivations that are likely at play, which might have nothing to do with science per se,” she said.”
Presumably these psychology experts can interpret my glance at them, resembling the following.
In fairness to the authots, the “stupid it burns” bit was directed at the UIC article about the paper…
Conflating Harvey and Irma with climate change is so stupid, it burns.
That said, the survey of APEGA, the organization responsible for certifying and licensing professional geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, kind of shoots a big hole in the political attribution for skepticism.
It appears that competence is most likely to drive skepticism.
Climate change is overwhelmingly natural:
Geoscientists 40%
Oil & Gas Industry 30%
Government 16%
Hear, hear.
I suspect that 5 years later, now, we’d see an even greater contrast. Unless, that is, UofA has been
turning out snowflakes in that faculty. I was amazed at the change from my 1968 to ’88 classes on
many topics… And then there’s your new government…
[snip . . . try writing it again but this time leave out calling everyone who disagrees with your views a denier. . . mod]
This one is way too easy… Anyone else want to take the shot?
I guess I should have taken the shot…😉
Adjust left, 150 meters, drop 50 meters, fire for effect.