Psychology Today: "Break the Spiral of Silence on Climate Change"

Patricia Prijatel

Patricia Prijatel, E.T. Meredith Distinguished Professor Emerita at Drake University

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Psychology Today author Patricia Prijatel thinks the silence of Germans oppressed by the NAZIs is comparable to not talking about the alleged dangers of anthropogenic climate change.

Can We Break the Spiral of Silence on Climate Change?

There’s only one way to find out: Talk about it

Posted Mar 30, 2018

Patricia Prijatel

All Is Well

What can ordinary people do to combat the extraordinary problem of climate change? Talk, and keep on talking. Yet, that’s a step some of us are reluctant to take.

According to a report by the Yale Program on Climate Change(link is external), 69 percent of respondents in the United States believe global warming is happening, and 56 percent are worried about it. But (link is external)fewer than a third of those (link is external)ever talk about it to family or friends. Why not? Often because nobody else is talking about it.

The Spiral of Silence

Researchers call this the spiral of silence, a term coined by researcher Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann(link is external) to explain why Germans did not talk about the rise of Hitler and his related atrocities before and during World War II. They echoed the silence around them. Meanwhile, those in support of the Third Reich spoke loud and clear. In so doing, they controlled the discussion, no matter how many people might have disagreed with their opinions. Because the pro-Hitler voices were heard most, they were accepted as public opinion. Early in Hitler’s rise to power, when talking could have done the most to change history, those who broke the silence were faced with social isolation. Later, of course, breaking the silence could be deadly.

This has clear application in our current political climate, although fortunately the risks of speaking out don’t include concentration camps.  Those who talk loudest now deny climate change, or at least the human involvement in it, calling it a natural progression of eon’s old environmental change. This makes it appear that climate change denial is a more popular sentiment than climate change acceptance. It is not.  According to the Yale program, only 34 percent of those surveyed (link is external)in the U.S. deny the role of humans in global warming.  Yet, those who have both the science and public opinion on their side remain astonishingly quiet.

Read more: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-is-well/201803/can-we-break-the-spiral-silence-climate-change

What a bizarre conflation of ideas.

Scientists who criticise climate dogma sometimes face serious risks to their careers. For example, Peter Ridd is facing a lawsuit because he defied a gag order from James Cook University in Australia, after he criticised climate hype.

Outside academia, where there are real penalties for criticising the scientific claims of colleagues, I suspect the reason most people don’t discuss climate change is most people find it boring.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Chimp

Please tell Cook, who likes to dress up as a N@zi, to quit talking about CACA so much.

Chimp

Australian cartoonist, founder of “Skeptical Science” site, John Cook, in case the character needs to be IDed.

Chimp
Tom

Could not be photoshopped, no way.

Chimp

It’s not.

Chimp
Khwarizmi

Tom,
The lighting on the grey-scale image of the uniform comes from the right,
whereas the lighting on the full-color image of the face comes directly from the front, probably from a flash mounted on the camera.
From that fact alone it should be evident, to even the poorly-trained eye, that the image in question was, in fact, “photoshopped”.
Open your eyes! 🙂

Tom

My comment was lacking the /sarc that at least one person apparently needed. Sorry for the confusion.

KT66

We should not associate Cook with Albert Kesselring. Kesselring was a highly competent, and as far as I know honorable, professional military officer. There are plenty of incompetent and dishonorable Nazis to make the association. Kesselring was Luftwaffe not SS.

Non Nomen

“Smiling Albert” had just a medical issue of malfunctioning facial nerves. He was a competent and capable officer. Our dear friend, the 97% Cook, has a mental issue, Lord Monckton et al proved him being notorious for bending facts.

markopanama

A close look reveals that this is a photoshop job. OTOH, maybe it was done by Cook himself. Who else would have done it? If it as a “denier” he would have howled to the sky.
The evidence?
– The noise structure of the face and uniform are different
– The contrast range of the face and uniform are different.
– Where his hair meets the background, you can see that the color of the hair and background is different. The face is warmer (redder) than the background
– The line across the bill of the hat is unnaturally sharp. It should have noise.
– At the back upper right hand side of the white collar, you can see where an erasure mistake was made.

ResourceGuy

Yes, bizarre

Pop Piasa

A peek inside the little parallel universe that tenured academics often call normal thinking.
More of a vortex than a spiral I’d say after observing higher ed from the support side during my career.

K. Kilty

No analogy too inappropriate….

Christopher Simpson

There’s silence about climate change? THERE’S SILENCE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?!
Just tell me where. Please. Can I get tickets there?

PiperPaul

+97

Leo Smith

LOL!

R. Shearer

The propaganda is non-stop 24/7.

billw1984

And has been for 30 years. Apparently that’s not enough.

Pat Frank

Then there’s this, “Those who talk loudest now deny climate change …
On what planet is this woman living?
Certainly not Earth, where the climate alarmists, and only the climate alarmists, have been screeching to the sky for 30 years.

MarkW

She apparently believes that people are afraid, to the point of intimidation, to let it be known that they agree with the official government position.

I am actually laughing out loud at Prijatel’s stupidity; here at work.
Real reasons people do not talk about climate change:
– it’s incomprehensible.
– it’s Partizan. One person’s climate science is another’s flat earth dogma.
– uncertain knowledge. Climate is a complex, multi-faceted subject. Most of us non-‘climate scientists‘ don’t know enough to say anything for sure.
– it’s a minefield. Say the wrong thing and you could lose all your Democrat friends, have your Republican friends poke fun at you, and/or have any green friends in shout hate speech at you.
– talking about climate could lose you your job
– it’s boring because it’s oblique (e.g. proxies!), complex (e.g. statistical photon absorption behaviour of a trace atmospheric gas will bring catastrophe, or not), …
– most climate discussion is not about climate. It’s a proxy to discuss how humanity must be shackled because we are evil; at least that’s how most alarmists put it over.
– only Democrats, who’ve reduced complex climate issues to ‘Carbon Pollution’ want to talk about it but who would want to talk to them?

beng135

Is this psycho serious????

PiperPaul

It’s Super Cereal, man.

Alan Tomalty

i would love to talk about climate change. The problem is that the the other 68 % that believe in it like a religion were taught in school that it was true so they dont bother to talk about it. They refuse to debate it at any great length because they lose every argument. Then at the end they walk away saying Yah but Antarctica is melting . Well Antarctica isnt melting
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/ross-ice-shelf-bore-antarctica-freezing/?beta=true

Karlos51

They refuse to debate it at any great length because they lose every argument.
you have different experiences to me, I don’t find they argue so much as bellow chanting points and when you start using numbers their eyes glaze and they get a look which suggests their either going to cry, beat me upside the head or scream ‘I can count to potato! before they stomp off in a huff muttering moron under their breath at me.

M Courtney

This is yet another call for climate scientists to stage a public debate where they defend their ideas.
Let them talk!
Let them explain how they distinguish manmade warming from natural changes.
Speak loud. Say why the uncertainty in climate sensitivity hasn’t decreased in 30 years. Explain why the theory can’t be improved by faster computers, more monitoring buoys at sea and lots of new satellites. The public wants the omerta to be broken.
Shout it from the rooftops. The world warmed in the first half of the 20th century. The world warmed in the second half of the 20th century. And the warming rate was just the same despite the far greater CO2 emissions in the latter half. Talk about that!
Please, talk about that.

Gums

Thank you, Court.
We need to talk and read and examine and so forth.
Wish we could, but here in the U.S. folks that do not agree with the “settled science” are shouted down and villified.
Best bet is talk with your grandkids and assure them that the “science is not settled” Discuss the “scientific method” and quote Eintstein and others about just one bad experiment could trash the “settled science”.
Gums sends…

WXcycles

The enema within.

thomasjk

Perhaps some, or at least one of them, would explain why it is that on the spagetti plots of computer models versus the instrument impiracal temperatures there is just one computer model that comes even reasonably close to tracking the empiracal data that is read by balloon and satellite borne instruments.

It is very boring because there’s nothing happening.

Malcolm

Exactly. We’re at a point where most people have noticed that there’s nothing really to notice.

John Bell

In other words pay CC lip service and then you can go on using fossil fuels, hey at least you did the good work of talking about it and telling others to lead humble, low carbon life styles, so you get a free pass.

Sheri

Liberals are generally about talk—no action. Ask the DACA kids.

Dennis Sandberg

Liberals think nothing of adding $trillion of debt every year, but are horrified by adding 2 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. Let’s have a conversation about that..putting things in perspective. The debt bomb is much worse than any possible (unproven) problem from doubling CO2 in the next 100 years. Subsidizing oostly, ineffecient, intermittent and non-dispatchable wind and solar “energy” does nothing for global warming and adds substantially to the debt problem.

“Liberals think nothing of adding $trillion of debt every year”
..
Trump just signed a tax cut and a spending bill that will increase debt by well over $trillion per year. That makes him liberal right?

MarkW

The fact that Trump is not and never was a conservative has been obvious for decades.
He’s not a socialist, which for some is enough to declare him a extreme conservative.

Phil Rae

The problem is that’s it’s NOT a free pass! It’s a pass that’s costing society trillions of dollar$ wasted on ridiculous pseudo-science & bogus alternative energy projects!
And, of course, governments everywhere are complicit in this unbelievable scam since it allows them to impose all manner of taxes on a brainwashed population in the name of “Saving The Planet”
This CAGW nonsense is the greatest tax grab ever and most people have been conned into supporting it because it’s the politically- correct thing to do.

Jasg

I’d rather that academics worried more about the much more immediate effects of poorly designed climate policy.

Latitude

“69 percent of respondents in the United States believe global warming is happening”….
…and the rest told them to piss off and hung up…..operative word “respondents”

PiperPaul

Or just redefine ‘respondents’… certain poll replies may not meet the criteria or be beyond the scope of the survey, so may have to be discarded. But it can’t be 100% and 97% is now discredited, so let’s use, oh, say… 69%.

knr

And yet it was a none-issue in the presidential election, as it was in many other elections across the world.

Trebla

69 % of respondents believe in climate change. So what? A large percentage of people believe in the tenets of religions all the way from Buddhism to Pastafarianism that are mutually contradictory. If you asked the average climate believer to explain the basic scientific principles behind his belief, he wouldn’t be able to do so. Therefore, just like a religious belief, it is accepted as handed down without any questioning on the part of the believer. As a climate sceptic, I have thought about the belief long and hard, I understand the basic physics, my doubts are founded on the fact that AGW is an unfalsifiable conjecture and is therefore no better than a guess. The warming we have experienced is well within the range of natural variation. It can be explained statistically by a random walk approach. The mathematical models used to forecast future warming are running too hot by a factor of two or three. Wake me up when some real science happens.

mellyrn

Isn’t “unfalsifiable conjecture” pretty much the definition of “religion”?

Jeff Alberts

I don’t think anyone actually believes in Pastafarianism, it’s just a parody of actual religions.

Michael Kelly

Oh, I don’t know. It was the religion of that great Italian chef, Al Dente. Too bad he died recently. Just pasta way.

jorgekafkazar

And a full-body eye-roll for Mr. Kelly.

Steve Fraser

Tooth!

thomasjk

How well do you reckon this Patricia Prijatel could explain climate science? Or the mathematics of a statistical “random walk.”
Did anything else come out of the twentieth century that was nearly as strange as “climate change” dogma?

Steve Borodin

Well it is delightful of you to drop in Patricia. I would be delighted to talk. Let us talk about our beliefs shall we. Why, for example do you believe that climate change is dangerous? Let us talk evidence here. You must have evidence for your beliefs or else they are just prejudices. Backed up perhaps by that common fallacy, an appeal to authority. So, don’t be shy, tell me your evidence. Then we can discuss it.

The Reverend Badger.

Very unlikely she will agree to have a chat to us. It’s a hard choice, hypocrite or idiot. Even psychology pseudo-professors struggle with these real world dilemmas.

+97

jorgekafkazar

I’d like to send her a list of all the big-name panic-mongers who have backed out of a debate with a skeptic after agreeing to one.

Samuel C Cogar

Steve Borodin – March 30, 2018 at 2:43 pm

Well it is delightful of you to drop in Patricia. Let us talk about our beliefs shall we.

If the author of the above cited article, Patricia Prijatel, is in fact a Degreed Psychologist or Psychiatrist, then ya gotta remember that most everyone engaged in those professions are avid believers and practitioners of the claims and ideas of a late 19th Century heroin addicted author named Sigmund Freud, …….. and thus it isn’t surprising that she would also be an avid believer in the “junk science” of AGW.

Chimp

The N@zi-like behavior is by CACA-spewers who want to silence Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism skeptics.

Andrew Dickens

As I have stated on this site before, there is no public discussion of climate change in Britain, by order of the BBC. The only outlets available to climate sceptics are the internet and books. Meanwhile, the climateers still seem to be making a lot of noise over here.

Robertvd

There you have it.those who make noise must be nazi’s. 1010 no pressure.

crowcane

So let me get this straight the Nazis and their supporters were drowning out anyone disagreeing with them and therefore the lies which they were attempting to pass and were winning out. All that one needs to do today is see which group is the loudest and attempting to shut down opposing opinions in order to determine which group is attempting to emulate the Nazis. After doing that then one of the next questions will be to attempt to determine which of the Nazis’s tactics will be used to further their cause. By doing so perhaps it will be possible to take proactive steps to counter this group and shed some light on them.

Sheri

I will deny forever that I have a degree in psychology and in any way would associate with these fascists.
At one time, psychology actually resembled science. Now it’s just a club for the government to take away people’s rights.

ResourceGuy

I guess this is what they do in their off hours in between data mining to manipulate.

Pablo an ex Pat

The words “cognitive dissonance” spring to mind concerning how this lady got to her conclusion having considered the facts of the matter.
Hang on, to get to her conclusion must mean that she didn’t check the facts, she just accepted the dogma. Because if she’d even superficially checked the facts she couldn’t support her conclusion. We appear to be seeing the results of predetermination based on bias.
Predetermination of the end result, while it’s common in Climate Science, is not scientifically rigorous behavior Ms. Prijatel !

Pop Piasa

As circular reasoning gets more and more tuned to itself, it spirals inward and eventually collapses into fallacy under the pressure of outside influences.

Tom Halla

A psych professor engaging in projection.How perversely appropriate.

Tom in Florida

Wold that be astral projection?

PiperPaul

Maybe with a different spelling of the first word.comment image
“Looking for Trenberth’s missing heat.”
“Hey, it’s the same place they found all the catastrophic proctnostications!”
‘Climate Projection(s)’ can mean different things.

Steve Fraser

All wrapped up in himself, I see….

Bob Burban

The cold and snow this last winter in the northern US states, as well as much of Europe, must challenge some of the hardest global warmist … you’d think. If not, there’s next winter.

ResourceGuy
mikewaite

I apologise for derailing this politico-psychology thread by raising a more scientific point, but the chart above contains, to my untutored eye, an apparent absence . The El Ninos of the last 20 years . although a Pacific Ocean phenomenon have an effect stretching far and wide to judge from mean global temperatures.
But it does not seem to be very obvious in the chart of NAtlantic SSTs. Is this to be expected ?
BTW I said “mean global temperature” , should I have said : “global mean temperature”. I suspect that there would be a difference.

commieBob
jorgekafkazar

Some comparisons to Hitler are valid arguments, as the Wankerpedia states.

Terrence Camp

People are insignificant. ice sheets over a mile thick disappeared before industrial age. Polatitions & academics feel they don’t get paid enough(who does)And are very clever about diverting resources to DC to be redistributed. YOU CAN’T CONTROL THE WEATHER! Not even that good at predicting the weather.

John F. Hultquist

Patricia Prijatel should see a shrink; – – sorry a doctor.

J Mac

This is not psychology, Patricia Prijatel. It is politically bigoted hate speech that must be ‘called out’ as such.
You are advocating and applying the same propaganda techniques used so successfully by the Socialist Democrat party of 1930’s Germany.

commieBob

Psychological analysis has been applied to CAGW theory, to wit the life cycle of a psychological theory.
1 – The Flashy Finding
2 – The Fawning Replications
3 – A Consensus Forms
4 – The Rebuttal
5 – Proper Replications Pour in
6 – Zombie Theory Lives On
link
The confounding factor here is government funding and political pressure. If it weren’t for that, CAGW theory would now be well into the zombie phase.

co2islife

Climate Science 1984; When Science Becomes a Tool of Tyranny
Amazon Prime has Orwell’s 1984 available, and if you haven’t seen to, or better yet, read the book, it is well worth the effort. I’ve mentioned many times that many use Rand, Orwell, Huxley, and Vonnegut as warnings, others use them as instruction manuals. After refreshing my memory by watching the movie, I find it … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/30/climate-science-1984/

mrmethane

I don’t fear skeptics, I’m scared spitless of the antidemocratic, anti-free.speech, authoritarian, biased, power-grabbing elitists who want to take away my property rights, my human rights and my future.

u.k.(us)

Once you invoke Hitler into your …………..thesis, including the term “denial” just moves it out of science and right back into mob rule.
WWII was fought by gentleman, are there even any left ?

I think she may just possibly have things farce about ace. Easy enough to measure, count the number of mainstream media speaking on either point of view. Work out the percentages. Given that open debate requires both points of view to be presented in more-or-less equal proportions, If one or the other has a substantively smaller proportion, then that side (at least from the media point of view – which is where ‘noise is made and public opinion affected) is being subjected to her ‘spiral’.

brians356

Yes! By all means, keep harping (harpying?) on glob…, er, climate change. And force political candidates in the US to run on two planks – climate change and gun banning. You go, girl!

knr

calling it a natural progression of eon’s old environmental change. Because it is and they are right to do say. The denial hear seems to be theirs and in a ironically twist it’s climate denial.

The silence of Germans before and during WW2 is much easier to explain as a feeling of guilt about attacking small neighbouring nations just because they were militarily weak. Guilt makes one crouch down and hide if there is still some remnant of a conscience. I don’t deny that present-day Germans may still have a hard time living all that history down, but hey still understand science, and right now it’s not going their way. As for Patricia’s opinion on German guilt feelings, they didn’t seem to be too affected as long as they were winning.
I remember. I was there.

Gamecock

Hitler brought work and pride to a Germany humiliated by the resolution of WWI and devastated by the weak world economy. I knew one German who lived during the war, and she was damn proud to have been a Nazi.
Dr Prijatel thinks Germans had her attitude and beliefs of the Nazis. They didn’t. Projection, I reckon.
I would also say that when your city is rubble, talk of distant atrocities doesn’t register. Westerners have little comprehension of the Eastern War.

ShrNfr

“Break the Spiral of Silence on Leprechauns” too. They are just as likely to exist as meaningful man made climate change outside of urban heat islands.

So glad someone brought up my theory on the Fairy Folk’s influence on climate. It’s an old theory, but has as much observational data as AGW, from what I can tell. Quote from source article:
“And others again blamed the fairies; their notion was that the English fairies had invaded Ireland and that our indigenous Little People had to raise a ferocious wind to blow them out again.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-night-to-remember-1.121348

Gunga Din

If there is “silence” about “Climate Change” it’s because its promoters have plugged their ears with Green.
(Of course, there are some who aren’t in it for the money. They are in it for “The Cause”.)

RicDre

“Of course, there are some who aren’t in it for the money. They are in it for “The Cause”.”
Of course, that doesn’t mean they will refuse to take the money if it is offered to them.

This woman is totally out of touch. Totally.

I just wrote a very politely worded comment to her article over on Psychology Today on the irony of speaking about the “spiral of silence” regarding a topic we are daily berated on. It’ll be interesting to see what response, if any, that I get.

John Bell

Liberals say the darnedest things!

Tom

You people are supposed to be skeptics, but 97% of you will believe anything that fits with your predispositions. It’s very disappointing to us skeptics.

kate sisco

What happened to Windy.com selections? Carbon Monoxide elective is gone. I pulled it up often to see China smothered in red, with 1600 ppm. The area of Gabon, DRC, Angola were also blanketed with carbon monoxide. I kept checking to see this reduced, if it was just crop reside burning to prep the soil but I think there was another reason. Gas well flaring? Huge new gas, oil and hydrogen fields are now being developed in this area even tho the largest ever in the world peat bog with conserved CO2 is there also.
This is the type of real news that is being eliminated by the twitter and nonsense news of the Trump administration. Wholly engineered by the old goats in Congress expecting corporate vice presidential appointments when they retire. And it all began with the Bush administration’s new handouts of forever jobs with HomeLandSecurity. After co-opting FEMA funding, the octopus is now strangling the FBI and the CIA and busy creating new agencies right and left. Whose running the country?

Roger Knights

Certainly the MSM aren’t silent on the issue. And 97% of it is one-sided. (For evidence, check out and analyze the list of articles pro vs. con in any issue of the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature.) Compare the media situation in Germany back then.

Roger Knights

Also check out The Conversation to see who is being drowned out.

Lance Wallace

“…those in support of the Third Reich (Climate Dogma) spoke loud and clear. In so doing, they controlled the discussion, no matter how many people might have disagreed with their opinions. Because the pro-Hitler (Climate Mafia)voices were heard most, they were accepted as public opinion. Early in Hitler’s (AGW’s) rise to power, when talking could have done the most to change history, those who broke the silence were faced with social isolation.”
There; fixed it for you.

michael hart

A ” Spiral of Silence on Climate Change”?
Oh puleeeze. In my dreams. What merciful release that would be.

RicDre

+1000

PaulH

Broken spirals? Serve me up some with chicken and tomato sauce, please
http://kriskamarie.webs.com/Recipes/Chicken%20Fusilli.jpg
Better that than the interminable bellyaching from the green blob.

Edwin

Just bizarre! There are two relatively simple reasons people do not talk about AGW. First is that if they believe it is happening they do not believe anything can be done about. If they know anything about the Paris agreement they know it cannot work. They also know that Paris was going to cost the USA a whole lot of taxpayers dollars. Second reason people don’t talk about it is they just don’t by the hype any more and certainly not the AGW orthodoxy. If they know any history they know the world has been warmer and colder than today and no matter what humans do or don’t do it will be warmer and colder again. Some people I talk who understand of how expensive the proposed solution will be think like the Chinese. It is better to be rich and prepare for catastrophe than to be poor from spending trillions on totally unproven so called theories. Why the AGW priests, and most leftists, continue to go down the road of comparing anything they don’t like or that doesn’t go their way to Nazism is bizarre and demonstrates how little they know of history. They fail to understand or have any clue what National Socialism was all about. The Obama Administration was based on National Socialism concepts and eight more years would have taken the USA there.

Kristi Silber

Edwin,
“They also know that Paris was going to cost the USA a whole lot of taxpayers dollars. Second reason people don’t talk about it is they just don’t by the hype any more and certainly not the AGW orthodoxy.”
It would have cost less than $6/pp to stay in the Paris Accord. Swedes are spending overr $60/pp.
It’s so funny hearing all the moaning about trillions of dollars. We are already transitioning to renewables, and the economy is fine. It created jobs. PV panels are being made so cheaply that in some areas solar electricity is rivaling coal at auction, and it’s generally getting closing the gap on coal. FF and renewables should go hand-in-hand, I think, but we can still move toward renewables – of course, Trump has made solar more expensive in perhaps the most bizarre tariff ever unless you consider the fact that it helps the FF industry.
“Second reason people don’t talk about it is they just don’t by the hype any more and certainly not the AGW orthodoxy.”
No, they are simply so convinced that there is no reason to discuss it. They don’t need to struggle to find excuses for their beliefs because the evidence and the theory all fits, giving a nice, detailed, harmonious explanation for climate change. They simply can’t understand why deniers struggle against this…except for this fact: it has become clear from original documents that millions of dollars were spent in a propaganda campaign to manipulate conservative ideas of climate change. And that was brilliant: make it partisan. Divide and conquer. Shameless! Reprehensible! Destructive to society, because it is anti-science.
The evidence is there. Climatefiles.com. Somehow I suspect that few will explore them.
“Some people I talk who understand of how expensive the proposed solution will be think like the Chinese. It is better to be rich and prepare for catastrophe than to be poor from spending trillions on totally unproven so called theories.”
The Chinese lead the world in renewable energy. They allocated $320 b toward renewables by 2020. This is not an insignificant leadership role; the U.S. looks ridiculous in comparison, resting on our laurels and refusing responsibility.
“They fail to understand or have any clue what National Socialism was all about. The Obama Administration was based on National Socialism concepts and eight more years would have taken the USA there.” I see. That’s a sure demonstration of your knowledge of National Socialism. Spot on, really.

DC Cowboy

I’m curious about these cost claims. I’ve read the Paris Accord in it’s entirety and, as far as I can see, it contains no ‘commitment’ for either cost or CO2 reduction by any country. Can you enlighten me as to where these commitments are in the document?
Near as I can tell, the only obligation any signatory has is to submit a report every 5 years detailing their progress towards meeting their voluntary goals, which are not stated in the Accord.

Alan Tomalty

Kristi Silber said
“They don’t need to struggle to find excuses for their beliefs because the evidence and the theory all fits, giving a nice, detailed, harmonious explanation for climate change.”
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. Even the IPCC has stated only 0.75C in last 100 years and that is based on inflated ground temperatures. Satellite temps show less. Even if the whole Arctic ocean melted it wouldnt raise sea level because the ice is sitting on water. Greenland is melting from underground because of volcanic ridges that extend all the way to Iceland. So no global warming there. NOAA and Goddard Institute of NASA constantly talk about how the Antarctica peninsula is warming but neglect to mention the rest of the continent. The Antarctica peninsula is only 1% of Antarctica but it has 3 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica. If you examine the other 10 stations for the last 50 years you will see there is no warming . The Dutch meteorological Institute which is one of the most trustworthy Institutes in the world have stopped reporting on the other 10 stations since 2015. Those stations are operated by various countries, The probable reason that the Dutch have stopped reporting is the pressure they are getting from the alarmist community including NOAA and the Goddard Institute to suppress the information. See for yourself for the information. I couldn’t find it directly now on the DUTCH site. You will have to go to the site below. There are a few other sites that have copied the info.
http://members.westnet.com.au/brigun/antarctica-temps.html
Worldwide There are no increases in tornados , hurricanes, volcanos , floods nor any other extreme weather event. Mankind keeps very good records of these. Sea levels have been rising for the last 8000 years and there is no change there nor any acceleration. Global warming is not causing the corals to bleach. They have bleached off and on for millions of years. There is no tropical hotspot predicted by the models. Dr. Pat Frank has proved in a statistical paper which should soon be published that the cloud error is so huge that the models are worthless for any projection. He duplicated the models projections using a handheld calculator. Cloud equations are parameterized by models themselves because the cloud scientists do not have the money to send airplanes all over the world to get real cloud saturation data. Yes you read that right. The models themselves are producing raw data to fudge the equations. Even if they had the money to get real life raw cloud saturation data, they still cant model any cloud smaller than 100 meters and never will. Crucial to the AGW theory is water vapour (H2O) forcing which requires permament increases in H2O so that their theory will work. Jim Hansen when he was director of the Goddard Space Institute started a H2O measuring project in 1989. After 20 years of measuring they couldn’t find any increase so Hansen shut the project down under the guise of budget cuts. The climategate emails showed an extreme bias of all the scientists who work on climate even to the point of cherry picking data and questionable data adjustment. There has never been a debate on clmate science or global warming because the alarmists have always refused to debate. Any person who questions global warming is called a denier by the alarmists. Any scientist who dares to question global warming or ANY ASPECT OF IT is subject to censure firing or career stagnation including difficulty in getting grants. It is almost impossible to get anything published against global warming because all the alarmist scientists sit on the publishing and peer review committees. If you are going for your PhD in atmospheric physics or any faculty that has anything to do with environment or climate, you will not be granted your PhD unless you toe the global warming line. As soon as a climate scientist retires many of them become anti global warming because they have nothing to lose. There never hasbeen a 97% consensus on global warming. The media refuse to interview any skeptic. All skeptics are attacked verbally by the climate establishment instead of the science being debated..
Christopher Monckton has found a fatal flaw in the alarmist basic theory. You can find his discovery in another recent article on this site. Even if you accept the the theory of greenhouse gases which I dont by the way ( See the following site)
https://principia-scientific.org/industry-radiation-experts-greenhouse-gas-theory-debunked/
however after reading that if you still accept the theory then go to this site
The http://www.calqlata.com/ and click on Useful stuff and then click on earths atmosphere The web site has discovered 95 % of the reason why warming can never be more than the 1.5C which is the low end of the IPCC projections. I can supply the other 5% of their argument which their site didnt go far enough to explain.
The Paris climate agreement was a joke. There are no enforcement provisions with only promises Ex: the Chinese promised to try to limit their INCREASE in emissions by 2030. They already are at 30% of the CO2 emmissions.
The world needs more CO2 not less. Optimum plant growth is 1000- 1200 ppm. The danger level for humans is 8000ppm. The climate has always changed and mankind will never really have anything to do with it. The earth is just too big and complex.

Alan Tomalty

Kristi Silber said
“They don’t need to struggle to find excuses for their beliefs because the evidence and the theory all fits, giving a nice, detailed, harmonious explanation for climate change.”
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. Even the IPCC has stated only 0.75C in last 100 years and that is based on inflated ground temperatures. Satellite temps show less. Even if the whole Arctic ocean melted it wouldnt raise sea level because the ice is sitting on water. Greenland is melting from underground because of volcanic ridges that extend all the way to Iceland. So no global warming there. NOAA and Goddard Institute of NASA constantly talk about how the Antarctica peninsula is warming but neglect to mention the rest of the continent. The Antarctica peninsula is only 1% of Antarctica but it has 3 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica. If you examine the other 10 stations for the last 50 years you will see there is no warming . The Dutch meteorological Institute which is one of the most trustworthy Institutes in the world have stopped reporting on the other 10 stations since 2015. Those stations are operated by various countries, The probable reason that the Dutch have stopped reporting is the pressure they are getting from the alarmist community including NOAA and the Goddard Institute to suppress the information. See for yourself for the information. I couldn’t find it directly now on the DUTCH site. You will have to go to the site below. There are a few other sites that have copied the info.
http://members.westnet.com.au/brigun/antarctica-temps.html
Worldwide There are no increases in tornados , hurricanes, volcanos , floods nor any other extreme weather event. Mankind keeps very good records of these. Sea levels have been rising for the last 8000 years and there is no change there nor any acceleration. Global warming is not causing the corals to bleach. They have bleached off and on for millions of years. There is no tropical hotspot predicted by the models. Dr. Pat Frank has proved in a statistical paper which should soon be published that the cloud error is so huge that the models are worthless for any projection. He duplicated the models projections using a handheld calculator. Cloud equations are parameterized by models themselves because the cloud scientists do not have the money to send airplanes all over the world to get real cloud saturation data. Yes you read that right. The models themselves are producing raw data to fudge the equations. Even if they had the money to get real life raw cloud saturation data, they still cant model any cloud smaller than 100 meters and never will. Crucial to the AGW theory is water vapour (H2O) forcing which requires permament increases in H2O so that their theory will work. Jim Hansen when he was director of the Goddard Space Institute started a H2O measuring project in 1989. After 20 years of measuring they couldn’t find any increase so Hansen shut the project down under the guise of budget cuts. The climategate emails showed an extreme bias of all the scientists who work on climate even to the point of cherry picking data and questionable data adjustment. There has never been a debate on clmate science or global warming because the alarmists have always refused to debate. Any person who questions global warming is called a denier by the alarmists. Any scientist who dares to question global warming or ANY ASPECT OF IT is subject to censure firing or career stagnation including difficulty in getting grants. It is almost impossible to get anything published against global warming because all the alarmist scientists sit on the publishing and peer review committees. If you are going for your PhD in atmospheric physics or any faculty that has anything to do with environment or climate, you will not be granted your PhD unless you toe the global warming line. As soon as a climate scientist retires many of them become anti global warming because they have nothing to lose. There never hasbeen a 97% consensus on global warming. The media refuse to interview any skeptic. All skeptics are attacked verbally by the climate establishment instead of the science being debated..
Christopher Monckton has found a fatal flaw in the alarmist basic theory. You can find his discovery in another recent article on this site. Even if you accept the the theory of greenhouse gases which I dont by the way ( See the following site)
https://principia-scientific.org/industry-radiation-experts-greenhouse-gas-theory-debunked/
however after reading that if you still accept the theory then go to this site
The http://www.calqlata.com/ and click on Useful stuff and then click on earths atmosphere The web site has discovered 95 % of the reason why warming can never be more than the 1.5C which is the low end of the IPCC projections. I can supply the other 5% of their argument which their site didnt go far enough to explain.
The Paris climate agreement was a joke. There are no enforcement provisions with only promises Ex: the Chinese promised to try to limit their INCREASE in emissions by 2030. They already are at 30% of the CO2 emmissions.
The world needs more CO2 not less. Optimum plant growth is 1000- 1200 ppm. The danger level for humans is 8000ppm. The climate has always changed and mankind will never really have anything to do with it. The earth is just too big and complex.

Alan Tomalty

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. Even the IPCC has stated only 0.75C in last 100 years and that is based on inflated ground temperatures. Satellite temps show less. Even if the whole Arctic ocean melted it wouldnt raise sea level because the ice is sitting on water. Greenland is melting from underground because of volcanic ridges that extend all the way to Iceland. So no global warming there. NOAA and Goddard Institute of NASA constantly talk about how the Antarctica peninsula is warming but neglect to mention the rest of the continent. The Antarctica peninsula is only 1% of Antarctica but it has 3 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica. If you examine the other 10 stations for the last 50 years you will see there is no warming . The Dutch meteorological Institute which is one of the most trustworthy Institutes in the world have stopped reporting on the other 10 stations since 2015. Those stations are operated by various countries, The probable reason that the Dutch have stopped reporting is the pressure they are getting from the alarmist community including NOAA and the Goddard Institute to suppress the information. See for yourself for the information. I couldn’t find it directly now on the DUTCH site. You will have to go to the site below. There are a few other sites that have copied the info.
http://members.westnet.com.au/brigun/antarctica-temps.html

Alan Tomalty

Worldwide There are no increases in tornados , hurricanes, volcanos , floods nor any other extreme weather event. Mankind keeps very good records of these. Sea levels have been rising for the last 8000 years and there is no change there nor any acceleration. Global warming is not causing the corals to bleach. They have bleached off and on for millions of years. There is no tropical hotspot predicted by the models. Dr. Pat Frank has proved in a statistical paper which should soon be published that the cloud error is so huge that the models are worthless for any projection. He duplicated the models projections using a handheld calculator. Cloud equations are parameterized by models themselves because the cloud scientists do not have the money to send airplanes all over the world to get real cloud saturation data. Yes you read that right. The models themselves are producing raw data to fudge the equations. Even if they had the money to get real life raw cloud saturation data, they still cant model any cloud smaller than 100 meters and never will. Crucial to the AGW theory is water vapour (H2O) forcing which requires permament increases in H2O so that their theory will work. Jim Hansen when he was director of the Goddard Space Institute started a H2O measuring project in 1989. After 20 years of measuring they couldn’t find any increase so Hansen shut the project down under the guise of budget cuts. The climategate emails showed an extreme bias of all the scientists who work on climate even to the point of cherry picking data and questionable data adjustment. There has never been a debate on clmate science or global warming because the alarmists have always refused to debate. Any person who questions global warming is called a denier by the alarmists. Any scientist who dares to question global warming or ANY ASPECT OF IT is subject to censure firing or career stagnation including difficulty in getting grants. It is almost impossible to get anything published against global warming because all the alarmist scientists sit on the publishing and peer review committees. If you are going for your PhD in atmospheric physics or any faculty that has anything to do with environment or climate, you will not be granted your PhD unless you toe the global warming line. As soon as a climate scientist retires many of them become anti global warming because they have nothing to lose. There never hasbeen a 97% consensus on global warming. The media refuse to interview any skeptic. All skeptics are attacked verbally by the climate establishment instead of the science being debated..

Tom Halla

Ms Silber, you miss the point of Obama et al and the Paris Accord. While Paris has no actual requirements on the US, what Obama tried was a bit more subtle.
Paris was defacto a treaty, but Obama did not follow constitutional procedure and submit it to the Senate for the two-thirds majority required, as he knew quite well the votes were not there. So it remained an executive agreement.
The next step was to make the Clean Power Plan the US means of meeting the promises under the Paris Accords, which was another executive branch plan, not an actual law.
Then, the plan was to enforce the CPP by means of pet judges and lawsuits, because of the Paris Accords.
Thus, the Obama administration was bypassing Congress at several points to ensconce their “renewables” plan.
Given the current actual cost of such systems, and their reliability, the US would have South Australian prices and reliability.
Your citing of nameplate peak production costs on solar are precious. Just how many hours a day is that rated power actually produced again?

MarkW

We are not transitioning to renewables.
Government subsidies and mandates are forcing some to use them.
The minute the subsidies and mandates disappear, so will the renewables.

MarkW

Kristi, where is the evidence of which you are so confident.
The only thing you got is the fact that over the last 100 years, the temperatures have increased, and so has CO2. That’s not proof.
If you actually bother to chart the temperature over the last 100 years vs. CO2, you will see that there is no correlation.
Temperatures go up while CO2 stays flat.
While CO2 levels have risen, temperatures have gone up, gone down and stayed the same.
Over geological time, there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. In fact CO2 levels have been between 10 and 20 times current levels with no noticeable change in temperatures. Puts the big scare over a mere doubling in context.
Finally over the last 10,000 years, over 90% of the time temperatures have been warmer, to much warmer than they are presently.

Edwin

Do you live under a rock? Do you ever talk to real people? Do you understand that Sweden’s population is about 9 million, while the USA’s is over 300 million? No one would bat an eye or care if Sweden bailed because that was never the point of Paris. Do you understand what Paris does and how little it doesn’t do even if fully implemented? Yes, the climate is warming as it generally has since the last glaciation and the Little Ice Age. The question, which you don’t seem to be able to comprehend, is that the debate is over whether or not CO2 has accelerated such warming. You definitely do not understand the Chinese at all. The Chinese lead the world in building coal fired power plants. At the present GDP growth rate they will require all the energy they can muster. Their greenhouse gas production today greatly exceeds the USA and is still increasing dramatically and will for the foreseeable future. They make NO apologies for such increases. Why? because they know that they have lived through climate change in the past several thousand years. When they have been rich they adapted easily, when they have been poor things did not go well. If you have the ability to actually review the model outputs the USA could reduce its greenhouse gas output to zero and it would make no difference in the rate of warming. NONE! NADA! And your last paragraph CLEARLY indicates you are ignorant of history. Do you have a clue what National Socialism was/ is? Go read a little Goebbels. Take the time to actually educate yourself. Learn how to really critically think instead of allowing yourself to be indoctrinated. For analysis of what happened in the 20th try reading Robert Conquest.

TheLastDemocrat

I get to lecture elite groups regarding empiricism and scientific hypothesis testing. Climate is out of our domain of expertise. So, to use an outside illustration, I used the hypothesis that hurricanes are getting more frequent, and or more severe, across time, and showed how the data were posted in Wikipedia for all to see for the recent 60+ years, and ran some statistical analysis. All right in front of them.
I got the worst ratings evar.
I dropped this idea for the following year. Ratings back in place.

The reason nobody talks about it is because you can lose friends if you state that the whole thing is a sham, as I have believed/noticed since the beginning. I just look at the facts vs the models…

philincalifornia

I’ve lost a lot of “friends”, including one guy who is a physical chemist who introduced me to Popper’s work many years ago. When I brought up that subject, he seemed to have conveniently forgotten about it.
Don’t miss him and them at all. In fact, my life is now more enjoyable. I don’t have a problem making new friends.

Alan Tomalty

I don’t want any friends who cant think for themselves. Come to think of it I dont have too many friends.

Bruce Cobb

Not just friends. At family gatherings, unless all are singing from the Warmunist hymn book, and ready to recite chapter and verse about how we are “destroying the planet with our carbon pollution”, blah-blah-blah, then it’s not going to happen. The subject is taboo, because it is pure poison socially.

Kristi Silber

Eric:
“Psychology Today author Patricia Prijatel thinks the silence of Germans oppressed by the NAZIs is comparable to not talking about the alleged dangers of anthropogenic climate change.”
This is an irresponsible, intentional misinterpretation of her words. She is not saying they are comparable, she’s talking about a sociological mechanism. The term has a history and it illustrates the process.
I agree that it’s not justified; it is too suggestive. On the other hand, the whole game is dirty, and you are no better with your misinterpretations, ridicule and dismissal. If you weren’t so biased, and so ready to spread that bias and manipulate others, I might say you have reason to gripe.
Have a nice weekend.

Thomas Homer

Where does the Carbon in organic material come from?

MarkW

Who is it exactly who is pressuring you warmists to stay quiet?

observa

“According to a report by the Yale Program on Climate Change(link is external), 69 percent of respondents in the United States believe global warming is happening, and 56 percent are worried about it. But (link is external)fewer than a third of those (link is external)ever talk about it to family or friends. Why not?”
Because talk is cheap and nobody wants to put their money where their mouth is other than to stick the latter in the taxpayer trough.

Anna Keppa

Don’t you see? To mushy-skulled warmistas, her warmly smiling “tilt of concern” trumps everything!

Amber

The last resort of a losing argument . Nazi’s . Here’s a discussion . Climate changes , and thankfully it will continue to warm until the next ice age begins . Enjoy it . If it’s too warm for you move or shed a layer .
The earth has much bigger issues and humans might actually be able to do something about some of them .
The earth has a fever propaganda campaign is a distraction and a particularly stupid waste of limited resources . Spoken like a true deplorable eh ?

TA

The Alarmists think they are losing this argument, and they can’t figure out why. Thus, articles like this are written, looking for answers.