Guardian: More People Being “Converted” to Climate Belief

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

They actually used the word “converts” to describe people who changed their mind about climate change.

How to change the minds of climate deniers

Kate Yoder for Grist
Sun 3 Feb 2019 21.00 AEDT

For some people, the awakening comes in science class.

In the Reddit thread titled “Former climate change deniers, what changed your mind?” the most popular comment comes from chucklesthe2nd (probably not his real name). Chuck, as we’ll call him, essentially inherited his dad’s views on climate change.

I grew up actively and obnoxiously denying climate change because my dad told me it wasn’t real,” Chuck wrote last year. Then, during a high school science course, he learned about feedback loops: “It suddenly hit me. As the atmosphere heats up, more CO2 is released, which heats up the atmosphere, which releases more CO2, which heats up the atmosphere, which releases more CO2, which heats up the atmosphere, which releases more CO2……etc.”

It looks like Chuck is at the forefront of an encouraging trend. A recent Monmouth poll found that 78% of Americans believe climate change is real and leading to sea-level rise and more extreme weather. That’s up from 70% three years ago. The headline-grabbing takeaway: a majority of Republicans – 64% – are now believers, a 15-point jump from 2015.

To learn more about these converts, researchers at Yale and George Mason crunched the numbers from a blend of responses to surveys conducted between 2011 and 2015. They found that 8% of Americans said they had recently changed their opinion on the matter, according to a new analysis from Yale University and George Mason University. Nearly all of the recent converts said global warming had become a bigger concern for them.

Read more:

Why is it necessary to be “converted” to climate change belief?

Am I reading too much into use of this word? I suspect not. The climate converts appear to embrace a rigid, harshly intolerant belief system which drives them to try to punish public figures whose stated position deviates even slightly from their views of what is acceptable.

Consider Bjørn Lomborg and Roger Pielke Jr., who were recently accused of “fact mongering“.

If you’re not sure what “fact mongering” is, the author of the accusation against Lomborg and Pielke provides the following explanation;

Consider a couple of examples, both from the realm of climate science politics where questions of rhetoric, fact, and fear are most crucial. In July 2017, David Wallace-Wells published in New York Magazine an article titled “The Uninhabitable Earth,” arguing that we are not scared enough about climate change. It prompted some denunciations, but also soul-searching among the climate science community about its rhetoric. Perhaps in their desire not to be discounted as fear-mongers, scientists had become fact-mongers. They may have assumed that they don’t really have a “fact” until it is scrubbed clean of all emotion, especially fear. This is certainly not misconduct in a narrow sense, but it may well count as a form of irresponsible research. Has the climate science community hid behind neutral facts and insufficiently scared the public? If so, theirs would be a rhetorical, not a logical, failure. …

Read more:

Bjørn Lomborg and Roger Pielke Jr. are not climate skeptics. Both of them accept the IPCC position on climate sensitivity to CO2. Their transgression is they question some of the wilder predictions of climate activists, and don’t use emotive language when presenting their research.

Even the founders of the climate movement, people like James Hansen, are not immune to denunciation – Naomi Oreskes called James Hansen a “denier”, because he suggested that renewables alone might not be enough to decarbonise the global economy. James Hansen upset believers by suggesting we might also need nuclear power.

And of course we have children like Chuck, who have been “converted” into detesting the “obnoxious” climate views of their families, thanks to green indoctrination from activist teachers. Growing up is difficult enough, without our school systems deliberately driving a wedge between children and their parents.

206 thoughts on “Guardian: More People Being “Converted” to Climate Belief

  1. 78% believe in climate change? Is this a real number? Past articles in Watts Up indicated that climate change was dead last of issues that Americans worry about.

    • You are looking at two different numbers.
      the one (78%) indicated belief in (presumably man-caused) climate change the other (dead last of issues) indicates how serious people find the issue compared to other issues. You can both believe man-caused climate change to be real while also not thinking it’s as important an issue to tackle as having a job in order to feed your family, having health insurance, or any of dozens of other immediate concerns that people have on a day-to-day basis.

      • Or being able to afford to heat your home during a polar vortex.
        Or drive your AWD vehicle in the snow

      • Like all surveys, the outcome depends upon the actual question, how it is worded and how it is presented …. and which titbits the journos chose select to fit their reporting bais.

        Follow the link and look at the questions and results.

        The 78% comes in response this question:

        Do you think that the world’s climate is undergoing a change that is causing more extreme weather patterns and the rise of sea levels, or is this not happening?

        Duh, sea level is rising , who denies that? Dump that with “extreme weather” so you don’t get the choice : either you “deny” oceans are rising or you have to agree to “extreme climate”. No third way.

        Followd by :

        Is climate change caused more by human activity, more by natural changes in the environment, or by both equally?

        Human activity 29% (2018) 27% (2015)

        so only 1 in 3 people “believe” in human caused climate change. But the biased question and the biased reporter manages to make it look like 78% “believe in climate change” , with the unspoken assumption that this means AGW.

        Lies , damned lies and statistics …

        • As for Chuckles the clown, I’m sure that next week his kind benevolent teacher will be explaining how NEGATIVE feedbacks work and that clearly those are the ones which dominate , since the climate has been around for several BILLION years without turning into Venus.

          • And remember, the fact that the atmosphere on Venus is hotter clearly has nothing to do with the planet being significantly closer to the sun.

            (and for those playing yesterday in the Europeans caused the Little Ice Age thread earlier in the week, THIS is a correct example of Occam’s Razor. Closer to sun? Or a complex interaction of CO2 feedback causing runaway greenhouse effects?)

          • Craig, you are correct. Venus is about 30% closer to the sun than earth, so there is about twice as much solar flux incident on each square meter of Venus compared to Earth at the top of their atmospheres. HOWEVER, the complete sulfuric acid cloud cover of Venus is very reflective, with an albedo of about 75%, compared to Earth’s in the low 30’s. So only about 25% of the solar flux incident on Venus is available to heat the atmosphere. The Effective temperature of Venus is only about 240 Kelvin, which is actually less than Earth’s. The Surface temperature is over 600 Kelvin, attributed to the run-away greenhouse effect from the massive atmosphere of about 200,000 times more CO2 than there is in Earth’s atmosphere.
            I’m stuck in a life-time position as Mayor of a rather he11ish planet, but all the others besides Earth in the solar system are also he11ish in different ways.

          • There’s more to the story than CO2. Venus’s atmosphere at 96% CO2 is, as you point out, very hot at the surface (mean temp of 737 K IE approx 463C or 866 F). Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2 (very close to Venus’s 96%), and it’s damn cold at the surface (mean temp of 210 K IE approx -63 C or -81 F). The surface pressure of the two planets, however, is wildly different (Venus is 92 bar (9.2 MPa) at the surface while mars is 0.636 (0.4–0.87) kPa at the surface.

        • Does anybody actually believe this Chuckles character actually exists and isn’t simply a strawman (strawboy?) created to illustrate what everybody should believe?

          • Mayor of Venus, the temperature of Venusian’s atmosphere at 1 bar is similar to earth at 1 bar. The reason the surface temperature is so high is the 92 bars. The canard that it is all due to greenhouse gases is wrong.

          • Most likely it is fake. However, the account of teacher indoctrination is true. Teachers teach only climate horror and white guilt. You may wonder if the former is not just another manifestation of the latter.

      • It ranks below cleaning the lint filter on the dryer – a choice they forgot to include on the poll.

        • BTW … this is a chore whose neglect could start a fire eventually, and so might be blamed for actual deaths and damage. I’d put it on the list of 10,000 most deadly social ills.

          • William Baikie: I’ve seen this suggestion before….that it’s just the total amount of atmosphere responsible for the high surface temperature of Venus. Are you suggesting that it doesn’t matter what gases compose that atmosphere, and the optical properties of those gases? For example, argon is optically inactive; it has no spectral infrared or visible absorption features. Do you suggest Venus’ (or Earth’s) surface temperature would be unchanged if it’s massive atmosphere was pure argon instead of 96% CO2?

          • Venus is 96% CO2 Mars is 95% CO2. One is damn hot, the other is damn cold. If, as you insist, it’s the CO2 what done it on Venus, then please explain why it’s not doing it on Mars as the two planets have nearly the same makeup of CO2 in their atmosphere (only 1% difference between the two).

      • A recent Monmouth poll found that 78% of Americans believe climate change is real and leading to sea-level rise and more extreme weather. That’s up from 70% three years ago.

        BE AFRAID, ….. BE VERY AFRAID …….. because ……

        The Green New Deal proposal would lead to national net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, according to Ocasio-Cortez’s letter, “through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers,” while also generating millions of “good, high-wage jobs.

        approximately 70 Democratic lawmakers have so far tentatively endorsed a Green New Deal plan, including Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris.”

    • A better questions is, what exactly do they mean by 78% believe in climate change? I believe in climate change, it’s a well established fact. Climate is changing, it has always changed, it will always change. I even believe in anthropogenic climate change – we put a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, it causes warming, no question.

      But what I don’t believe is that human contributions are causing catastrophic global warming/climate change. I don’t believe the human effect is detectable from noise. I don’t believe that the current warming is anything out of the ordinary or that it’s harmful. Just because I believe in climate change/global warming doesn’t mean I worry about it.

      A lot of such surveys by the warmunists are designed to give you the wrong impression.

      • Agreed.

        A major tactic by the alarmist is to confuse people about what is being discussed/agreed.

        Climate change does not necessarily mean man made climate change and that does not necessarily mean man made CO2 caused climate change.

        Also climate change does not necessarily mean harmful, let along catastrophic climate change.

        Personally I grew up being told that the interglacial had peaked and that we were cooling into the next ice age. So when I was told that CO2 was going to cause warming instead, my reaction was “good.” I then studied greenhouse gas theory and realised that it indicated that minimum temperatures would rise a lot more than maximum, so I thought “even better, big reduction in the problems of extreme cold, not much increase in the problems of extreme heat and the smaller differential will mean less storms.” I have since been disappointed by the failure of CO2 to deliver the change promised, but nothing has happened to changed my opinion that the effects would be wonderful if they happened.

        • And that is the reality that most people who KNOW about climate believe to be true but the elite globalists need to mold it into a hobgoblin to cause the great unwashed to run screaming to the bureaucrats for protection. Nothing corrupts like more power.

        • Climate change does not even necessarily mean warming, more moisture, higher sea levels, more extremes, more drought. It could just as easily be the opposite in all cases. In other words just change. Of course, to many people, any change of any kind or magnitude is scary.

      • Art, here is what they were asked (Monmouth Poll)

        Do you think that the world’s climate is undergoing a change that is causing more extreme
        weather patterns and the rise of sea levels, or is this not happening?

        Note the shift away from temperatures warming to extreme weather and sea levels, both of which are in fact happening, and have long done so. And the claim this is happening now, rather than in the future. But are events more extreme or sea levels rising more? IPCC SRX says no, but they apparently are not the authorities on this.

        My synopsis of the Yale/George Mason poll is

        • The big lie is that there are more extreme weather events. People naturally believe their environmental government minister. Most people don’t have the time or inclination to check into this. People know it isn’t warming to any alarming degree so the politicians and climate scientists have to lie about extreme weather events. LET ME REPEAT. NO DATABASE IN THE WORLD SHOWS ANY MORE EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS THAN THERE EVER WERE. As to rising sea levels tide gauges prove that sea level is ,2mm /yr the same as last 8000 years. The other lie here is that satellite measureents which only started in 1993 show more but there was a WUWT article by Rud that showed NASA ‘a own error factor being larger than the measurement, so I will go with the tide gauges.

        • I notice that the idea of recurring cycles is not included in that question.

          I have a chart that shows that over the past 600,000 years, glacial periods were considerably longer than warming periods, and the warming period ALWAYS lags behind the glacial period. In addition, the shortest length of time prior to this warming period is just a couple thousand years longer than what we’re living in, which – in my view, and geologically speaking to it, too, means that we may definitely be coming to the END of this warm period.

          Unfortunately, it probably won’t happen in my lifetime, but I want to see how the Warmunistas deal with Ice Age III. 🙂 But that’s just me.

          I also cook

          • Sara: You have a good shot at seeing the next ice age. . I’m planning on being off-planet at the time, or seasteading to a pleasant latitude.

        • My first thought is that such a survey question is meant for propaganda rather than science, but it’s often helpful to think of possible charitable motivations rather than assuming bad motivations.

          Because of the phrasing, the survey will be almost useless for scientific purposes but it is perfectly plausible that the researchers simply have no knowledge of the mainstream skeptical positions. They’ll analyze their results and come to some conclusions that will advance their understanding not a whit.

        • That question is either phrased to deceive or the writer really does not know seas are rising in the interglacial period at linear rates unaltered by dogma, models, or scare factors. I would guess the former.

      • Any poll or survey can easily be worded to “lead” the participant into the “answer” the designers want to hear, usually through limited choices or tricks of semantics. I honestly think most of them are worthless at this point. Participants are also a self-selected crowd, either by choosing to answer online or by not banging down the phone when they call during dinner. Obviously, people who either don’t know, don’t care or don’t wish to go on the record aren’t going to answer, which pretty much leaves the worrywarts and “activists” left.

        • In a non climate related example there was a time in my little home town that not only did we have cheap and affordable electricity, but the local city council wanted to close our central square to east/west traffic.

          In order to prove public support for this stupid idea they put up survey booths in the local shopping centres and encouraged people to take part. First thing I noticed that at no point in any of the questions was there the option to say ‘No. I am against the idea. Don’t do it.’

          Hmmm… a good start.

          Then there was a question asking if people would be willing to upset an additional 3mins of travel time in their daily drive to work. Now out of context 3mins doesn’t sound like much. However reading between the lines you realised that they had already concluded that the act of closing about 150m of road would force you to take an extra 3mins because now you would be forced to treat the square like a giant round about. It was not 3mins overall in your daily travel time, it was 3mins JUST in that section.

          Like they say, never ask a question unless you already know the answer you want.

          On the other hand occasionally you can get revenge. Same council, several years later. I am in town doing a bit of shopping on a Friday night and get asked some survey questions from the council trying to gauge how much the community were away of the exciting new changes the council were planning for the city (aka – monuments to themselves… sigh…)

          “Changes to Grote Street?” I answered. “Sure! They are reducing from three lanes to two, adding bike lanes on the road, adding bike lanes on the footpath, wider central strip with trees, changing the side streets to one way, adding pavers, new traffic lights and public art!”

          “Gosh” said the lady, clearly excited that someone actually knew about the project she was trying to survey about. “And how did you find out about these proposed changes?”

          “I am the senior draftsman on the project. I’ve drawn most of the prelim design.”

          She wasn’t happy.

        • Right on Goldrider!

          Brother Dominic asked the Abbot if he could smoke during prayers and was told NO.
          Brother Guido asked the Abbot if it was ok to pray while he smoked and was told YES!
          Polling is about the question not the answer.

    • You’d have to be pretty daft, to deny that climate changes. British winters are certainly less cold & snowy than they were in the 1960s & 70s. Does this concern me? No.

      • Late 70s is when satellites began collecting the data so often claimed as evidence of unprecedented warming!!!! Whoaaaa the sky is falling!!

        So what happens when we return to that cold cycle? I guarantee the anomalies continue to depict warming. Guaranteed.
        You will see more and more adjustments to the point that eventually even the talented Mr. Stokes, et. al. will finally become skeptical of the narrative.

        I’m making that assertion. This is what it will take to get the more intelligent folks who still believe. It will become so glaringly obvious they will no longer be able to justify the adjustments. The question is whether the legacy media will shift the goal post successfully towards global cooling from co2, something like this:

        “Oh no! We were wrong about how co2 works because it set off unprecedented ocean cooling!!! Because… North Pole!
        It’s causing the new ice age, but this is bigger and worser than we thought because in the 70’s! But we still can’t use oil and gas because of particulate pollution that will create even colder temperatures! Blanket of pollution nuclear winter”

        You watch.

        • Quit frankly I think we are cooling off now, days of 90 and a 100 degrees across the US are dropping, what I think they see as a world warming in the land base measurements is UHI, plus a good job of adjustments, since the satellite record is not agreeing with land base adjusted measurements they have adjusted the satellite measurements up, even with that all measurements not tracking to what their models say it should.

    • The survey may be worthless !

      For similar reasons that surveys
      said Donald Trump would lose.

      It is unpopular to say anything negative
      about the climate change “religion”,
      so people are reluctant to tell anyone
      they have doubts, or reject the claim
      that climate change is dangerous.

      Almost everyone has “beliefs”
      based on faith, with no proof.

      I try to avoid that kind of thinking,
      and have since I was a child.

      As a result I have never “believed”
      in God, heaven, hell, … or CAGW,
      not to mention Santa Clause
      and the Tooth Fairy,
      because the evidence,
      or lack of evidence,
      tells me what a
      logical conclusion is.

      Would I reveal
      all of that
      to anyone
      taking a survey?

      Probably not.

      I’d probably say “maybe”
      to every popular belief,
      rather than no.

      The demonic leftists attack
      anyone who doesn’t believe
      in their climate change religion,
      as “science deniers”, so there
      is great pressure to agree with them,
      or just keep quiet
      … and has to affect survey results.

      My climate science blog:

      • Indeed. In todays political climate where expressing the “wrong” opinion in your personal life/time can get you fired from your job (even though the opinion expressed has nothing to do with the job you do), it’s a perfectly reasonable reaction for those who pay attention to what’s going on around them – don’t rock the boat by publicly speaking “wrong think” as it’s not worth their livelihood to do otherwise.

        • As someone who’s been let go for bucking the climatariat I can assure you that it does happen.
          My job function was to test software for a satellite. I can’t tell you what the satellite was for, but the only time we worried about climate was when the thing was being launched.

      • The NEW silent majority are those of us who cannot RISK exposing our true beliefs without imminent danger of losing our jobs. We quietly nod our heads, and pull the lever for a BOMB THROWING … TRULY transformational … Donald J. Trump.

        We no longer live in a FREE nation. Conservatives have lost the RIGHT to speak FREELY. So we bide our time, hold our opinions, and unleash our COLD ANGER on a deluded leftist government/media cabal

        • Well, this conservative is basically taking his hockey net and going home.*

          I’ve told numerous charities and community groups that if my politics aren’t welcome, than I’m not welcome.
          And if I’m not welcome, neither is my money or time.

          Funny how Occasional-Cortex quoted “Watchmen”, but missed the best part:

          “…all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll whisper “no.””

          * this is from Canada (mostly) where we play road hockey. The kid with a hockey net was pretty popular, even if he (or she) couldn’t play very well. You kinda needed a net, or at least one was nice to have.

          Eventually, though, you got tired of not getting the ball or puck passed to you…so you took it home.

          Could have used “baseball bat”, as well, but keeping it Canadian…

          • That was one reason that I also invested in a goalie stick as well as my regular stick. Nobody ever says no to a kid who also has a goalie stick! But I never saw anyone carry a net further than the street in front of their house.

      • Richard:
        “I try to avoid that kind of thinking,
        and have since I was a child.

        As a result I have never “believed”
        in God, heaven, hell, … or CAGW,
        not to mention Santa Clause
        and the Tooth Fairy,
        because the evidence,
        or lack of evidence,
        tells me what a
        logical conclusion is.”

        Ditto. Can’t understand unthinking faith. Well…I believed in Santa Clause when I was very young and can remember the moment I realised it was all untrue. It was an important moment.

    • Paul S:

      Just because people say they believe that something is happening, it does not necessarily means it ranks high on their list of priorities. Believing that something is happening is one thing, but where it ranks on your list of priorities is something else. Do not get the two confused.

      There have been surveys that show climate change ranks quite low on people’s list of priorities regardless of what they believe about it. As is usually the case, The Guardian is engaging in bias by omission here by leaving out the part about priority lists.

    • I would say 95% of people believe climate changes, but only a few percent are willing to reduce their own consumption according to that. For example, they are paying lip service to CAGW but being against nuclear, hydro and fracking.

      • Leftists seem to believe that their moral obligation ends with the pointing out of problems.
        Actually doing something about the problem is someone else’s job.

        • Actually, for Leftists doing something always boils down to one answer.. implement socialism

          How to fix the problems of socialism.. now that’s a problem that Leftists believe doesn’t exist

    • Paul S.
      Prior climate change surveys were severely biased / fake.

      No logical reason to believe this one.

      I am one of the strongest “deniers”
      you will ever hear from — I refuse
      to even confirm that CO2 causes any warming
      in the real world, in the absence of
      scientific proof , and I don’t consider
      simple lab experiments to be sufficient proof.

      Of course I recognize constant climate change
      is a characteristic of our planet.

      And I suspect humans have some effect,
      on the climate, amount unknown,
      maybe nothing more than just making
      faulty/biased temperature measurements
      that give an illusion of warming !

      In some prior surveys
      I would somehow
      become part of the “97%”,
      because that’s how
      they worded their questions
      (to get the highest percentage possible).

      The most important question about climate
      change is whether it is bad news, or good news.

      That question rarely gets asked, even here.

      I submit that the warming in the
      past 20,000 years, starting with
      thick glaciers on my (current)
      property in Michigan, has been
      100% good news.

      And the mild warming since
      1850 has been good news too.

      That past climate change
      brought us to the wonderful
      climate we have now
      (compared with the prior
      Little Ice Age.)

      So, with that positive view
      of climate history, why is it
      that all FUTURE predictions
      of climate change are bad news?

      Past climate change reality has been good news.

      But the imaginary future climate change is always bad news ?

      I’d say it’s just as likely that the
      future climate will be even better than today,
      with warmer winter nights (my dream,
      here in Michigan).

      What’s not likely, based on decades of experience,
      is anyone predicting the future climate correctly,
      with or without, those pesky, always wrong,
      computer games !

      My climate science blog:

    • Surveys showing 78% ‘belief’ sounds as valid as the ‘97% consensus’ surveys.
      In other words, not credible.

      • Where is the comparative survey detailing those [now sceptics] who have since changed their mind from an earlier naïve belief in the propaganda hustle? Those who have taken the time to do their own research; have evolved and moved in the other direction?

        I know of many – and that includes myself – a once rabid CO2 misinformed greenie who now wears big-boy trousers.

    • Yeah, I believe there is climate change (duh!). And I believe that humans have some impact — kinda like a butterfly flapping its wings impacting a typhoon halfway around the world, etc. Do I believe in the catastrophic Mann-made hockey stick thing? Nope. But under this rule, I’d be a “believer.”

    • “Believe in climate change” is a meaningless term. And what I mean by that is the term has no meaning because it is undefined.

      I doubt very much that 22% of people believe that the climate is unchanging, so exactly what position is supposed to be represented?

    • here we go again! I get so tired of this insult to intelligence. Who exactly does not accept that the earth’s climate does not change? The low intellect on display among the “believers” would be an insult to cretins. Their’s is a religion with one or two easy mantras for their enthusiastic but thick as a whale omlet followers to shout. Pathetic!

  2. Well duh. The marxists have almost complete control of the media and academia. The world is becoming a global cult with Mother Gaia/marxism as the Gods and the governments/bureaucrats/academics/media as the priests.

    • Many of these converts are no doubt some of my fellow Canadians who drank the Prime Minister Zoolander Kool-Aid.

      Many of them will re-convert when the carbon tax money starts actually costing them.

      As they say, a liberal is just a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet. Time will tell…

    • Yeah Chuckles when from blindly believing what his father told him to blindly believing what his teachers told him. That’s not conversion, that’s brainwashing.

      • By Chuckles own logic, since we’ve already added a bunch of CO2 to the air, we’ve already kicked off the feedback cycle that haunts his nightmares. As a result, at this point, there’s nothing we can do to save the earth.

    • Too bad Chuckles did’t think one step further and realize that if the Earth’s climate rested on such a fine knife-edge of runaway CO2, even small imbalances in the distant past would have doomed the planet. And yet here we are.

      • “As the atmosphere heats up, more CO2 is released, which heats up the atmosphere, which releases more CO2,…”

        Yes, what Chucklehead describes is a strong positive feedback loop. If that was the situation, then the so-called Gore Tipping Point would have occurred long ago and we wouldn’t be here. In all probability, the effect of feedback loops is a net negative effect to stabilize the climate after being perturbed by exogenous inputs or inherent instabilities in the system. The observations about IR absorptivity by early researchers were essentially looking at the problem out of context. You can’t put a climate system into a ‘test tube’ and expect it to mimic the real world. That is why climatologists have resorted to computer simulations, albeit with little skill.

        • Clyde

          I don’t think there is any evidence of CO2 causing warming that releases more CO2 that causes more warming. It is a theory that sounds plausible, but it is not practical and not proven.

          Consider the parallel of having a valve on a water tank that is operated by an empty bucket. The valve is opened a little and as the bucket fills, the weight of water opens the valve a little more. That is a positive feedback.

          The tank might run out of water.
          Once fully open the valve cannot open “more”.
          The bucket has a limited capacity.

          Feedbacks are not open-ended just because they are imaginable. The “newly convinced” guy is accepting as likely something that may only exist in his mental model. Making a computer simulation of a mental model is no more real than the purely mental version.

          The catastrophic narrative is model-based, and is not confirmed by reality. Reality is less malleable.

      • By the “logic” that was presented, ANY quantity of ANY GHG would inevitably lead to a runaway reaction that would put all available GHG into the atmosphere.

        Now tell the truth Chuck, it was some chick who fervently believes in CAGW that got you to claim that “now I’m a believer”.

        • Nah. First off Chuck probably does not even exist, he was invented by the article writer. However, if (on the miniscule chance) that the chuck described in the article does exist, it’s likely listening to the indoctrinating propaganda he’s fed at school that turned him into a “believer” as it’s clear that this chuck bloke believes what he’s told without any critical thinking (first he uncritically believed what his father told him, then he uncritically believed what his teachers told him). If some (presumably hot) chick also professes a believe in CAGW, that would merely be a bonus for old chuck.

  3. At the end of the day people (kids, adults, geriatrics etc.. you get the point) have to make up their mind. To do this they can do one of the following:
    (1) Believe what their peers think
    (2) Believe what their parents think
    (3) Believe what the Media tells them
    (4) Explore all points of view from all sources and then make up your own minds

    What I think is unacceptable is that the odds are stacked in favour of those who cannot think for themselves. It would take an almighty change in media policy to allow an unbiased point of view. Or we can wait for the next ice age 🙂

  4. Well, if these climate alarmists want to convince me of man made global warming, they need to present me with hard scientific facts that humans are responsible for the warming world.

    • Bingo. That’s the only way to convert skeptics. Indeed, when one looks into the hard scientific facts, one usually moves from the CAGW believer to the CAGW skeptic camps. rarely the other way around.

      • John Endicott – “when one looks into the hard scientific facts” [of CAGW] …

        One who believes there is science to apply under the theory of CAGW is someone who has never attempted to apply the science under the theory of CAGW.

        • Thomas don’t add words to what I said.
          it’s “when one looks into the hard scientific facts” you can put a full stop there if it helps you understand what I was saying. “[of CAGW]” does not apply, so don’t add it. thank you.

          • John Endicott –

            Apologies … when I saw your response to the verbiage: “hard scientific facts that humans are responsible for the warming world” I must’ve assumed that you were referring to: “”hard scientific facts that humans are responsible for the warming world” when you said “the hard scientific facts”.

          • If you’d only read the rest of the sentence (IE “, one usually moves from the CAGW believer to the CAGW skeptic camps”) you’d have realizes otherwise.

          • John Endicott – I had thought I was extending your initial sentiment, and was surprised by your response. I didn’t mean to imply that you are the ‘One’ that believes there is science to apply under the theory of CAGW.

            MarkW – Thanks, indeed, friendly fire is not constructive.

  5. From the article: “he headline-grabbing takeaway: a majority of Republicans – 64% – are now believers, a 15-point jump from 2015.”

    I’m skeptical of this poll, as I am of all polls. The answer one gets to a poll question depends on how the question is presented. Then you have people who misinterpret the polls, made easier by leading questions, and that’s how they get numbers like this.

    Republicans are not signing on to Climate Change. Wishful thinking.

    • “I’m skeptical of this poll, as I am of all polls. The answer one gets to a poll question depends on how the question is presented. Then you have people who misinterpret the polls, made easier by leading questions, and that’s how they get numbers like this.”

      Skeptical Science ran an article on a similar poll –
      One of the questions
      “Are you in favor of banning the pollution that causes global warming?”

      I pointed out the results of the poll were quite dubious, especially since the question was a leading question and a well known No-No is polling science.

      I was lambasted the highly intellectual minds at skeptical science because there was nothing in the question that was leading to a specific answer.

      • joe- the non climate scientist

        Pollution synonyms: contamination, contaminating, adulteration, adulterating, tainting, impurity, fouling, befouling, foulness, dirtiness, dirtying, soiling, filthiness, infection.

        How could the use of the term pollution possible influence the response of those being polled? /sarc

        They might as well have asked the question “Are you in favor of banning pollution?” That is right up there with asking how one stands on “Motherhood, the flag, and apple pie.”

        • my main point was that the highly intellectual folks were unable to comprehend that the question was a leading question that basically invalidated the poll

          • Joe, Skepticak Science: “Are you in favor of banning the pollution that causes global warming?”
            Answer: Yes/No
            Much like having the same choice of answers to “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

  6. The religion of Gaia… can we use the doctrine of separation of church and state, and get them out of the federal gov’t? 😉

  7. Sounds a bit Orwellian. But be patient. In my childhood, adherence to religion was practically mandatory. Non-believers were outcasts and labelled infidels. The consensus was that God was real and oversaw our every thought and action. To defy him was a terrifying thought. Fast forward to today, and the churches are empty save for a few elderly parishoners. Parishes are being merged to save on expenses. Churches are being torn down or converted into casinos or nightclubs. Fear of being called an infidel? NOT SO MUCH! People have children, wait a few years and then get married. Consensus is a fragile support to hang your beliefs on.

  8. The obvious reply to the statement about positive feedback loops is to ask why the temperature isn’t spiralling out of control the way that it obviously would be if it were true. If CO2 causes runaway global warming then why doesn’t it?

  9. This has everything to do with the increased level of propaganda and indoctrination in just about every sector of life. It’s a cult on overdrive. The pressure to conform is on and they are so intolerant they can’t even allow for any discussion of natural variation. I just don’t know how Pielke and Lomborg can even subscribe to the false idea that CO2 has anything to do with climate change other than as resulting from it.

    Ocean warming drives CO2, not the other way.

    • All of us Luke-Warmists (the real 97%) agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it is increasing from fossil fuel burning causing a SLIGHT increase of the atmospheric opacity resulting in a SMALL increase of the average land and ocean surface temperature. But it’s nothing to get concerned about, and is likely net beneficial for the rest of this century. We’re a really long way from Venus’ run-away greenhouse conditions as Venus has 200,000 times more CO2 in its atmosphere than earth’s.

      • Venus – a runaway ‘greenhouse’ effect? Think not. Were it true the temp at the surface would be so high it would be molten. Also the weight of the atmosphere is around 90 times Earth’s atmosphere. Therein lies the answer – pressure. Real scientists using real science worked out the temp and pressure at the surface enabling a probe to land and send back information. Composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant.

      • Because it is closer to the sun, Venus never cooled off enough after it’s formation for water to start condensing out of the atmosphere.

      • if CO2 (at 96% of Venus’s atmosphere) is the cause of a “runaway greenhouse effect” then where is the “runaway greenhouse effect” on Mars (where CO2 is 95% of the atmosphere)? or is the last 1% from 95 to 96 where the greenhouse decides to run away?

  10. Excerpt from the article:
    “I grew up actively and obnoxiously denying climate change because my dad told me it wasn’t real,” Chuck wrote last year. Then, during a high school science course, he learned about feedback loops: “It suddenly hit me. As the atmosphere heats up, more CO2 is released, which heats up the atmosphere, which releases more CO2, which heats up the atmosphere, which releases more CO2, which heats up the atmosphere, which releases more CO2……etc.”

    Hit yourself again Chuck, harder this time:
    There have been many warming periods in Earth’s history, and catastrophic runaway warming has NEVER HAPPENED. IF IT HAD, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE.

    And CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at ALL measured time scales – and Chuck, “the future does not cause the past”, not even on Star Trek.

    • re Star Trek:
      Except where they created a time rift that went backwards and grew larger in the past, and Picard had to contend with Q yet again.

    • and Chuck, “the future does not cause the past”, not even on Star Trek.

      Technically it does in the “bootstrap paradox” (named after the Robert A. Heinlein’s time travel story “By His Bootstraps”) which has been the subject of several TV shows and movies over the years (Doctor Who’s Day of the Daleks gives the example of a future of Dalek Occupation that occurred because rebels traveled back in time to the present day and blew up a peace conference the act of which was the key moment leading to the future they came from. The Doctor manages to change that future by preventing the bombing of the conference).

      Star Trek suggests such paradoxes in Star Trek IV:
      1) when Captain Kirk sells the glasses that McCoy bought him and Kirk jokingly makes a comment that implies McCoy would be buying those exact glasses in the future to give to him so he could sell them in the past. (obviously more joke then an actual paradox, unless it coincidentally did turn out that the glasses where the same ones McCoy would later purchase)
      2) Transparent Aluminum. A substance from the Future, that Scotty “invents” in the present day time of the movie based on knowledge he has from the future that only exists because it was invented (by his future self) in the past (the movie’s present day).

      • The glasses Kirk sold were broken, the glasses he was given weren’t.
        In the book, the Transparent Aluminum paradox is made more clear. After leaving the lab, Scotty mentions that the name of the person credited with inventing transparent aluminum had the same dame as the researcher they were negotiating with.

        • The glasses paradox is even weirder. Starting at the time of ST IV moving forward, there are two copies of those glasses in existence. One broken, one not.

        • Presumably the glasses were repaired/restored in the years between Kirk selling them and McCoy buying them (at the very least McCoy would have had the lens replaced with ones for Kirk’s prescription) – assuming they were the same pair. More likely Kirk was speculating with “insufficient evidence” as Mr. Spock would say, which brings us to you second point about the glasses:

          The glasses paradox is even weirder. Starting at the time of ST IV moving forward, there are two copies of those glasses in existence. One broken, one not.

          Indeed, assuming Kirk’s speculation was “wrong” and McCoy didn’t buy glasses that Kirk sold, then there are two pairs on Earth from ST IV “present day” until the point in the future that Kirk and crew head back in time to save the whales. The originally manufactured pair that McCoy would eventually buy and the “broken” pair that Kirk sells.

          It sort of like the multiple DeLoreans in 1955 in the Back to the Future Movies. You have (1) the DeLorean from 1985 that Marty arrives in, (2) The DeLorean from 2015 that old Biff Arrives in, (3) the DeLorean from alt-1985 that Doc and Marty arrive in, and (4) the DeLorean from the old west hidden in a cave waiting for Doc and Marty to repair it all existing at the same time for a short period of time in 1955.

    • OMG!!! I should have known better than to mention Star Trek. Mea Culpa! Mea Maxima Culpa! 🙂

      Edit of the above:
      “And CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at ALL measured time scales – and Chuck, “the future does not cause the past” in our current space-time dimension.

      For you scholars out there, a translation:

      Confíteor Deo omnipoténti
      et vobis, fratres,
      quia peccávi nimis
      cogitatióne, verbo,
      ópere et omissióne:
      mea culpa, mea culpa,
      mea máxima culpa.
      Ideo precor beátam Maríam semper vírginem,
      omnes angelos et sanctos,
      et vos, fratres,
      oráre pro me ad Dóminum Deum nostrum.

      I confess to almighty God
      and to you, my brothers and sisters,
      that I have greatly sinned,
      in my thoughts and in my words,
      in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
      through my fault, through my fault,
      through my most grievous fault;
      therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
      all the Angels and Saints,
      and you, my brothers and sisters,
      to pray for me to the Lord our God.

      • Deus, Pater misericordiárum, qui per mortem et resurrectiónem Fílii sui mundum sibi reconciliávit et Spíritum Sanctum effúdit in remissiónem peccatórum, per ministérium Ecclésiæ indulgéntiam tibi tríbuat et pacem. Et ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii,+ et Spiritus Sancti.

        Go forth an sin no more my son.

  11. This is one of the worst aspects of the left wing; namely the politicisation of education.
    Education should be to teach our youth to think responsibly through logical processes. It should not be used as a brain washing tool.
    Sadly now many teachers have been already brainwashed.

    • I first observed this in 1976 when I observed to my brother (high school teacher) that a reading comprehension test he had administered to his students had questions (and approved answers) on subjects that were not covered in the text. The students had to know the school-approved dogma in order to pass his reading comprehension test, not merely comprehend the actual text.

      His reasoned response? Angry name calling. He had already been brainwashed during his own education.


    • State mandated compulsory “schooling”.
      Paid for by theft. It’s purpose is not to educate but rather to legitimize the state.

      The state steals your money via property tax (meaning you never actually own your property. You lease it from the local county mafia. Don’t believe me? Don’t pay. See how long it takes before you aren’t living in “your property”.)

      They are actively destroying the family, and compulsory state education was a cornerstone, as well as two working parents. Rockefellers funded both the Prussian education system and the womens’ “liberation.” They are also behind the pill, Margaret Sanger, Row v. Wade (who lied about being raped BTW!)

      Just a quick snippet, but don’t believe me. Snopes probably debunked it. 🤗

  12. This data was from 2011 to 2015. 4 to 8 years ago. I wonder what a more recent poll would reveal (assuming polls reveal anything)…..

  13. The ‘feedback loop’ this Chuck mentions does not exist.

    I bet he is a hormonically challenged 15 year old who has become a bit rebellious against his dad.

    • I wonder what his father does for a career regarding his scientific credibility and ability to make rational arguments. If his father is merely repeating anti-AGW rhetoric without understanding or explanation why should we expect his son or anyone else to follow his advice?
      My family does not follow much if anything on ‘faith’ alone except when relying upon each other. And, even then ‘faith’ is based upon well established behavioral actions.

    • He doesn’t even need to be rebellious against his dad, merely someone who has been indoctrinated by his teachers. He clearly doesn’t think beyond what he’s been told (first by his dad, later by his teachers).

    • …as in too much soy in his diet. Will never have much of a beard, already poses fatty estrogen dominant breasts and low sperm count? lol

  14. This is more of a top-down conversion to force through spending, new revenue sources, and side payments. Conversion at the street level gets you yellow vests and does not work so well because of collective scrutiny, especially when they find out they all have targets on their backs and all their institutions let them down in the process.

  15. “..The climate converts appear to embrace a rigid, harshly intolerant belief system which drives them to try to punish public figures whose stated position deviates even slightly from their views of what is acceptable…”

    That is the way doctrines are viewed by the believers. A doctrine is infallible in the eyes of the believers, and there is no room for questioning it. The CAGW theory stopped being about the science of the Earth’s climate when it morphed into a doctrine. Ignorance of how scientific discourse works (and the difference between science and religious/ideological doctrine) leads to this kind of thing happening, especially when there are propagandists (high priests) behind it helping the process along.

    You either believe in CAGW or you are a heretic and Orwellian thought criminal. In the Middle Ages, you might possibly be tortured on the rack or burned at the stake if you were branded this way. It demonstrates how we humans still have a ways to go before we completely evolve out of a Middle Ages psychological mindset.

    How long did it take before they stopped burning witches at the stake in medieval Europe?

    • Actually they only started burning witches as the Middle Ages ended. The medieval Catholic Church did not believe in witchcraft. They burned heretics during the Middle ages, yes, witches, no. That only started at the end of the 15th century, and it was always a predominantly protestant phenomenon.

      Incidentally the Salem Witch Trials were just about the last anywhere. In a christian country, that is, for fear of witchcraft is very much alive in parts of Africa today. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

      • Catholic thought on witchcraft started to change in the High Middle Ages, ie 13th century. By the early 15th century, the Church recognized witchcraft as inherently hereticcal. The Valais witch trials began in 1428. Joan of Arc was sentenced to burn as a heretic, but the English in France, under Henry V’s brother John of Bedford, considered her a witch.

        Bedford’s own wife, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, future mother of Yorkist King Edward IV’s queen, Elizabeth Woodville, was accused of witchcraft. So was Bedford’s sister-in-law, Eleanor Cobham, wife of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, youngest of Henry V’s brothers. She was found guilty of practising witchcraft against her nephew, King Henry VI, in an attempt to retain power for her husband. She was condemned to public penance followed by exile and life imprisonment, so escaped the scaffold or stake.

        I don’t know whether Catholics or Protestants drowned, burned or hanged more witches, but the craze for hunting them appears to have been driven by competition between the competing religions during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.

        And of course the three main flavors of Protestantism also competed fiercely, ie Lutheranism, Calvinism or Reformism (Puritanism in England and Presbyterianism in Scotland) and Anglicanism (which kept apostolic succession, ie bishops, as also did some Lutherans). Not to mention radical outgrowth sects of Calvinism.

        • Impressing list, John T.

          would add that it was less the religions that led to these riots.

          But actually existing influential persons of medivial history – and their personal motives.

          • The argument of the historians cited in the article is that competition for religious adherents during the wars of religion of the 16th and 17th centuries promoted witch hunts.

            Obviously, there was no shortage of wars when Europe was predominantly Catholic, both against pagans and non-Catholic Christian heretics, and among Catholics. IMO it can be argued persuasively that without the change in Catholic doctrine, followed by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, witch hunts wouldn’t have happened, or would have been much less widespread.

            The disastrous Thirty Years’ War, 1618-48, began as a religious war, but morphed into an economic and dynastic struggle during its three main phases. The Catholic Holy Roman Emperor won the first round, but then the Protestant Swedes intervened for both religious and trade reasons, turning the tide. After Catholic France joined the war against the Imperial Hapsburgs on the Protestant side, it clearly was no longer strictly a religious war.

          • Here’s artwork showing Henry V saving his youngest and least warlike brother at Agincourt.


            Humphrey was more a scholar than a warrior. I learned about him through Duke Humfrey’s Library, the oldest reading room of Oxford’s Bodleian.


            He was unlucky in love, but at least outlived his more aggressive three older brothers. Of the four, only Henry V left a legitimate heir, the pitiful Henry VI, and he deeply defective, having inherited lunacy from his grandfather, the French king who often thought himself made of glass.

        • Correlation of course doesn’t imply causation, but I note with interest that witch hunting correlates with climatic deterioration from the balmy Medieval Warm Period peak in the mid-13th century, descending into its worst phases during the depths of the following Little Ice Age Cold Period. It then ends during the relatively clement 18th century, between the long, frigid Maunder and less horrific Dalton Minima.

          • This connection has been made before. And it is true that witch trials were most common in colder areas. There were almost none in Italy and Spain for example.

          • The article I cited however attributes that geographic pattern to lack of Protestant-Catholic combat in those sunny climes.

        • ” the craze for hunting them appears to have been driven by competition between the competing religions during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.”

          Very doubtful. It is easy to find counterexamples. For example there were quite a few witch trials in Iceland, Sweden, Finland and Estonia, which were 100% orthodox Lutheran with no religious opposition/competition at all, but almost none in Ireland which then as now was riven by intense religious conflicts.

          Incidentally almost all that were burned for witchcraft in Iceland were men, not women. The reason is simple: Icelanders believed in warlocks, but not in witches. The proportion of men was high in Estonia as well, for the same reason.

          Witch hunts were often initiated “from below” and driven more by frightened commoners than by religious or secular rulers.

          • It actually took a long time for Lutheran German overlords in Estonia to root out Catholicism among the peasants there.

            Yet Germany remained the witch-hunting hotbed, fueled by a book which those below couldn’t read.


            Kepler’s persecuted mom is a prime example.

            The Prince-Bishopric of Wuerzburg was the epicenter:


            Recall also that James I of England and VI of Scotland was almost as down on witches as he was on smoking. I guess burning women was OK, but tobacco, not so much.

          • Tty,

            However it’s surely possible that in the relatively recently Christianized fringes of Europe, pagan traditions still held sway among the rural populace. Our word “pagan” comes from the Latin for country folk, as opposed to more Christianized city dwellers of the Late Roman Empire and Dark Ages.

            In terms of sheer numbers however, the fought-over swaths of Europe suffered by far the most witch hunts and judicial murders. Of course those areas were more populous to start.

  16. People may believe in a lot of things until they’re asked to support it with their money or a change in lifestyle. We should ask people to tithe in favor of AGW and use that money to support it. It would disappear in a heartbeat. As long as corporations are the only ones paying (false belief) no one cares. A significant increase in gasoline cost and they riot. I wonder how many millennials would give up their phones to save the earth?

    • Not so sure about the gasoline prices. In France, yes; but in Sweden prices are skyrocketing and the city-slickers are all for it and voted the green party to dominate. In the countryside it is a bit different, where people are more skeptic, hate the stupid high prices, eat meat and do not want wind turbines in their backyard. Sadly most people live in cities in Sweden now, and I guess it is the same scenario in the US.

    • “A significant increase in gasoline cost and they riot.”

      They don’t riot but go empty handed on the streets.

      Riots stem from Macron and his ilk.

  17. There is nothing particularly interesting about people believing in climate change or that it causes sense to rise (or fall). These are ever present natural phenomena and don’t indicate anything about causation, direction of change or severity/benefit of the change. The idea that climate change will lead to more extreme weather is not strictly untrue in that there will always be more (as in additional) extreme weather but that doesn’t imply an upward trend. It seem if you ask questions in the most general way possible you can get whatever result you want and then pretend you asked something else. This is the behaviour of people who have no evidence on their side fo the debate.

  18. Such feedbacks systems are pretty obvious in the climate, after all at the end of the ice-age the initial warming led to runaway warming and the world fried.

    Hang on!

    Doesn’t the fact that we’re all here, prove that such feedbacks are a total load of bullshit?

  19. I am developing a philosophical theory, part of which states that only beliefs that cause suicide or death prior to procreation can be eliminated by Darwinian means.

    That leaves a huge scope for believing in total nonsense.

    Frankly I don’t care what people believe in, but I am worried by windmills and solar panels that don’t work

  20. The looming threat of climate change is continually hammered into the public’s consciousness by media like Pravda.. err The Guardian. It rests on the sound principles of climate “science”, hard research which is verified by observed changes on almost each passing day:

  21. You have to love the dishonesty of the question.
    “Believe in Climate Change”.
    Well duh,nearly everyone agrees.
    Climate, as normally understood in a dictionary,has changed and will continue to do so.
    So what was the question?

    This careful obscuring of the Meaning of Climate Change,with respect to the poll is deliberate.
    Now belief in “Climate Change” while implying Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is the way our Media parasites lie on behalf of the political thieves.

    I conclude that our bureaus have become infested with fools and bandits,who have gotten away with so much theft that their arrogance has swelled beyond reason.
    The mass lie of CAGW/CC is an open declaration of war.The parasites have delusions of adequacy.

  22. I wonder how many people will cling to their beliefs when the lights go out. The proposed solutions peddled by the climate change fanatics will make modern life impossible. Try sustaining that when millions decide they want to keep warm but can’t.

    • It is idiots squared.

      The lights may not go out, but we are sure are losing more and more jobs to Asia because of CAGW the idea.

      It is sort of CAGW light. We do things which will make almost no difference to CO2 emissions and certainly will have no affect on climate ‘change’, to feel politically correct.

      Canada for example.

      Canada largest balance of trade issue is tourism. Canadians who can afford it take a expensive winter holiday in warm places. Less people visit Canada which explains the tourism deficit.

      Now Canadian action on CO2 emissions is primarily stopping the building of pipelines which are required to enable the Canadian third largest oil reservoir in the world to be sold to Asia and to be sold to Canadian on the east coast who are currently importing foreign oil.

      The no brainer Canadian job creation and deficit elimination program would be to build new pipelines to the west and east coast.

  23. If you convince me we’re good. If you insist I accept your position on trust or faith it isn’t going to go well for you. The less that’s been proven in the debate the louder one side screeches. What are you supposed to do in these circumstance. This side hasn’t been shoveling BS and calling it science, comparing critics to holocaust deniers, or making bank off the backs of uninformed citizens. That’s you boss and we are not going to say otherwise.

  24. Trebla says it all. In the West the belief that Gods only son had to die a cruel death to save the Jews who were sinning has ceased to be believable.

    But something in most of us humans has a built in desire to believe in something. Before Emporer Constantine for simply political reasons decided to have just the one belief system in the hope of unifying his Empire, the belief in what had originally been a off shoot of the Hebrew faith was just a minor thing, but it caught on in the wider community. As ” a Roman Senator said at the time ” Its a faith fit for slaves.

    Today in the Western world we seem to need something to believe in and “Gaia”” seems a good and in many ways a far more believable thing to follow. The Marx Engle belief system of Communism, now called Socialism loves it, so many very Useful idiots” “as Stalin once said.

    Sadly we may just have to wait until the lights start to go out. I just hope that we don’t end up as a part of the Chinese Empire.


    • That Trebla hates what he doesn’t understand is quite evident.
      There’s something really pathetic regarding a person who has to lie about what others believe in order to justify his hatred of them.

  25. It’s worse than that when even the fact checkers with actual global satellite data get a bullet through their office window. Did that make the national news? I thought not.

  26. [Chuck] learned about feedback loops [in his science class]: “It suddenly hit me. As the atmosphere heats up, more CO2 is released, … etc.

    That’s not science. It’s narrative thinking. The climate includes negative feedbacks as well, which apparently were not covered in Chuck’s not-science class.

    Most especially, the water cycle controls atmospheric temperature. It can speed up or slow down, depending on thermal energy flux, all keeping the troposphere near a stable temperature. Call it a far-from-equilibrium dissipative system, kept in a quasi-stable state by the nearly constant flux of energy through it.

    Chuck isn’t a convert. Chuck is a deceivant.

    There’s a useful neologism, meaning one who has been deceived. The class of AGW believers is dominated by the deceivant population.

    Chuck’s high-school teacher is likely one of them, spreading the intellectual disease to which s/he has fallen prey.

  27. This is too funny for words. Quoting Reddit which banned climate change denial some time back. If you read the actual blog from which Chuckles is quoted it also looks like Reddit has banned anyone over 12 years old from posting.

    And then Grist goes on to quote a poll of Americans on their beliefs about climate change. This is the same Grist that dismissed the Oregon Petition with 31,000 signatures.

    • I think I understand the words, Petit_Barde, but I still don’t get the joke.

      “It’s no use boss, it doesn’t want to heat.” (Backslider at the stake)

      What does it mean?

      • This cartoon represents Judith Curry when she was traited as a “climate heretic” by the Climate Cargo Cult believers (see article in American Scientific
        It was in november 2010 and global temperatures were in a cooling trend for a decade or so at that time, hence the joke (a sentence with two meanings : “it – the stake – does not want to burn” and “it -the climate – does not want to warm”).

        Hope this helps 🙂

    • SadButMadLad

      I suspect it is more sinister than VS. People like to be right. To be on the winning side. It is called getting on the Band Wagon. If the MSM can convince the public that only ‘losers’ question CAGW, then people (read: sheep) will clamor to be acknowledged for their wisdom and foresight.

  28. Steamboat Jack’s Dictionary: Convert

    (1) One who has changed it’s belief system to align with an apocalyptic suicidal cult. E.g. Islam, Socialism, and Apocalyptic Anthropogenic Climate Disruption.
    (Since the gender is not identified as one of the 32 determined to exist by the New York City Council, “it” has been used.)
    (2) A male or female who has, in the vernacular, taken the “red pill” and rejected suicide for life.

  29. Time to do another survey of all those qualified to participate, and to do it properly this time with clear questions.

    If they want to ‘convert’ anyone, they’d better start to address the science instead of using all of the ad hominem attacks– a sign of a losing position. The snag is, as soon as they address the science properly, they are the ones who have to recant.

  30. Literally no one says the climate does not change. To say that now 78% believe in climate change, is to say that 22% say the climate does not change. I challenge the 22% number. It is closer to 0%. The whole article is intentionally inarticulate. What they mean to say is that 78% believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change, but they know that is not the case. I would say fewer today are converts to the CACC religion than in the past. By being intentionally inarticulate on the topic they can produce some meaningless statistic and make it seem meaningful. Don’t let them control the language we use. Force them to be specific.

    • I suspect most of the 22% were wise to the true purpose of the question/survey and responded in accordance rather than to the literal wording of the question

  31. The tagline on this so-called story should be-Our BS campaign is working.

    That’s all it’s worth. People with an IQ higher than a Lord Deben beef patty live on the edge. They think for themselves.

  32. Textbook CO2: CO2 is .0004 ppmv of the atmosphere and can only absorb 8% of the outgoing IR spectrum radiation -so .0032% of outgoing IR. That does even consider its low Greybody emmisivity. CO2 provides plant food which in turn provides O2 for us to breath. I just do not see the problem.

  33. The Guardian is also worried about diversity and too many “white girls next door”, and, get this, identifying with children as a means to criticize selective/recycled-child policy.

  34. Someone tell this boy that if it was a positive feedback into the system that heated up the atmosphere until all life on earth died. It would already have happened as CO2 in the atmosphere was higher in the past and life prospered to an extent not seen since.
    The MSM is pushing a death cult. More CO2 means more life on earth and less CO2 means LESS life on earth.
    The young and impressionable are being misled by people who do not think.

  35. The educational system and the news media are trashing good minds by appealing to emotional vulnerability of particular types of people.

    Vulnerable people are being parasitized by these powerful institutions.

  36. Any poll or survey can easily be worded to “lead” the participant into the “answer” the designers want to hear, usually through limited choices or tricks of semantics. I honestly think most of them are worthless at this point. Participants are also a self-selected crowd, either by choosing to answer online or by not banging down the phone when they call during dinner. Obviously, people who either don’t know, don’t care or don’t wish to go on the record aren’t going to answer, which pretty much leaves the worrywarts and “activists” left.

  37. Why do people believe?
    CO2 feedback is a simple theory, relatively easy to understand and accept.
    People who are overwhelmed with multiple complicated theories retreat, back to one simple theory.

    Best path forward
    Instead of talking about theories, provide simplest possible evidence of actual trends.
    Use pictures, simple graphs, avoid lots of words.
    Don’t let the discussion be confined to the last 250 years.

    (Posted this in wrong spot, don’t know how to delete, so reposting here.)

  38. I bet most people who disbelieve climate hype probably do so on the basis of common sense and ‘street’ smarts (skepticism to you): when you need to hype a product so much that reality flies out the door, then it’s almost certainly junk.

  39. The solution coud be in the hands of as few as 200’000 persons worldwide.

    Assume all commercial “drivers” deeply embrace the CO2 beliefs and go, all without exception, on a “Save The Climate” strike at the very same moment, planetwide.

    A huge amount, though I can’t tell the numbers, of kerosene will remain unburned saving colossal amounts of CO2 emissions. An absolute shutdown of all commercial air transport operations.

    What the green want BTW.

    How many weeks would it take before a complete global economy collapse wipes all traces of green beliefs ?

    Yes, i know, too many “if’s” and this is just one more bunch of them.

  40. This is very like Hilbert’s Sixth Problem.
    Can the discipline of Physics be paced on an Axiomatic basic as say geometry or simple logic?
    Hilbert concluded no at the time, since General Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics had not been unified – they still have not.

    However, Climate Scientists put Climate Science on an axiomatic basic.

    The basic axiom is that CO2 acts as a control knob on temperature.

    AGW follows directly from this axiom.

    If you look at the debate between Michael Mann and Judith Curry, Michael Mann’s opening remarks start by assuming that this is true. (He thus by passes the two basic questions of Freeman Dyson).

  41. You don’t convert on matters of scientific principle, you convince. Convert is reserved for religious inquiry—which is exactly why I firmly believe the climate change fools are all about joining a new religion now that traditional religion is being undermined and abandoned.

  42. This movement — claiming more and more people ‘believe’ the IPCC consensus — is an intentional, active campaign to gain support for the IPCC Climate Solution based on the social science behind societal brainwashing (brainwashing an entire population).

    The principle it is based on is the tribal instinct — by telling a population that their opinion — a strong opinion — minority is losing ground, that “everyone else” is on the other side of the issue, erodes the certainty of “non-believers” — when it is a “obvious” (but not necessarily true) that one’s tribe is losing the battle, the weak switch sides so as to be winning again.

    Expect to see more and more of these polls asking weak, inane questions about weather and climate and then being turned to the purpose of convincing the populous that climate skepticism is the losing side.

    The Monmouth Poll cited found that ONLY 29% believe “climate change caused more by human activity” — less than one third of those polled.

    So, to be clear, the actual results are that less than one in three Americans believe that climate change is happening and is being caused by human activity.

      • Thanks Walt!

        That’s “sort of” it. There are a lot of more recent social science hypotheses that rest on group identity and people’s desires to be on ‘the winning team’ even in the area of ideas. People go along to get along….Me Too!….

        The propaganda technique has been around forever, used by governments to bend the minds to the people to their policies.

        “All the people agree that…”

        The first (and ongoing) propaganda effort was the “97% of Scientists Agree” campaign — and now they warp and twist the public polls to make them appear to say “and all right-thinking people agree…”.

        The Monmouth Poll is a great example. “A recent Monmouth poll found that 78% of Americans believe climate change is real and leading to sea-level rise and more extreme weather. ” and “a majority of Republicans – 64% – are now believers”

        Yet the ACTUAL results of the survey show only 29% believe the changes in the climate are due mostly to human activities.

        They haven’t exactly lied but they have distorted the findings and hidden the attribution results. Typical propaganda techniques.

  43. “Why is it necessary to be “converted” to climate change belief?” IT’S A RELIGION.

    Parents who send their kids to public indoctrination centers deserve to have the kid messed up and turned into a cult member. You KNOW what will happen, yet you send the kid to be messed up. I have to believe you AGREE with the teachings or don’t care about the kid.

  44. Except those purported Feedback loops are just not there….. There is no “Hotspot” in the Tropical Troposphere as per the Climate models. It was supposed to be the “Fingerprint” of AGW. But there was no fingerprint found.

  45. The “greenhouse” effect explained: People know that CO2 is causing warming, but where is the greenhouse they speak of? Everyone knows what a greenhouse is, we’ve all seen one; may even have one in the back yard. Why use that particular term? It is common knowledge the military is unable to account for twenty-one trillion dollars which just happens to be more than enough to construct a geodesic sphere to enclose the entire Earth. Major Geoengineering feat, top secret. You say you’ve never seen it? Of course not, it is high enough up the structural members are invisible. Need more proof? NASA talks repeatedly about the “window” they need to hit with each rocket launch. That window is one or the other of the few paneless openings in the sphere. And it explains how they can be so certain the climate is going to over-heat: law of uninteded consequences. Posting for a friend.

  46. You would knock me over with a feather if I found out that the message from George Mason University came from their Climate Change Communications Department, which of course assumes as a premise that harmful Global Warming is occuring.

  47. Ask me again in 200 years if humans are having any influence on climate. By then the data might be more robust.

  48. “a simple explanation is powerful. So, anybody who has a simple explanation usually is the winner of the persuasion contest. So, if you’re certain and you’re simple and you can communicate it easily, and especially if there’s a visual element to it — that always helps — that’s going to be your most persuasive package.”

    Scott Adams speaking
    Cernovich, Mike. Hoaxed: Everything They Told You is a Lie (Kindle Locations 622-625). Cerno Films, LLC. Kindle Edition.

  49. A more interesting question would be to ask if people would still read the Guardian if they went behind a paywall.

  50. This is funny because I was a Global Warming Believer until about 10 years ago when I had to help my daughter with a science project on the subject. After doing some research I came to the conclusion that Global Warming was a giant PR activist campaign based on crap “science.” So I guess the “conversions” go both ways?

  51. The crazed behavior which brought on the the salem witches are believed to have been caused by the grain crop developing a fungus (or some other mold or disease) the created a chemical similar to LSD .

  52. You people are far too complacent. School will endoctrinate your children.

    You have to come up with better propaganda : a good video documentary of an hour or so. Understandable by laymen but scientifically sound.

  53. “Keep it simple stupid”. Of course the Climate changes, it would be a funny Earth if every day was the same as any other day. So are we to understand that the warmers lobby are against “Climate Change. ?

    So who decides what day or part of a day it all stops at. For example do we have daylight in every part of the Earth. Or do we have winter all of the time. Or summer 24/7.

    The more one thinks about it, the sillier it gets.


  54. Why do I accept the science of climate change? (I don’t use the word ‘believe’, because I apply that in my religion, not in relation to science).

    the evidence…

    while this US focused site is trying to pretend the polar vortex isn’t about climate change (of course it is!) the evidence stacks up in the rest of the world. Australia, for example, IS seeing record temperatures. There is a truly exceptional monsoon rain event in Queensland… and then there is this:

  55. Anyone who’s studied feedback loops, for example in electronics, knows that you cannot produce controlled gain where the internal (open loop) amplification is greater than unity, and the input and output are the same quantity. All you have in that case is an oscillator or latch, depending on the coupling.

    Where the amplification is ever-so-slightly less than unity you can produce significant gain, but that situation calls for very careful adjustment of parameters. It is highly unlikely to come about by chance.

    • It’s actually worse than that you have a delay on the positive feedback, you can’t get instant on something as big as Earth. Now use your Op amp analogy what happens with a slightly less than unity with a +feedback delay?

Comments are closed.