NZ Academic: “Climate … denial involves glimpsing the horrible reality”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to New Zealand Academic David Hall, climate deniers actually accept the climate crisis on some level, but can’t face reality.

Climate explained: why some people still think climate change isn’t real

David HallSenior Researcher in Politics, Auckland University of Technology
October 9, 2019 5.56am AEDT

Why do people still think climate change isn’t real?
At its heart, climate change denial is a conflict between facts and values. People deny the climate crisis because, to them, it just feels wrong.

Negating reality
Sigmund Freud and his daughter Anna were the great chroniclers of denial. Sigmund described this negation of reality as an active mental process, as “a way of taking cognisance of what is repressed”. This fleeting comprehension is what distinguishes denial from ignorance, misunderstanding or sheer disbelief. Climate change denial involves glimpsing the horrible reality, but defending oneself against it.

Contemporary social psychologists tend to talk about this in terms of “motivated reasoning”. Because the facts of climate science are in conflict with people’s existing beliefs and values, they reason around the facts.

When this happens – as social psychologist Jonathan Haidt memorably put it – they aren’t reasoning in the careful manner of a judge who impartially weighs up all the evidence. Instead, they’re reasoning in the manner of a defence lawyer who clutches for post hoc rationalisations to defend an initial gut instinct. This is why brow-beating deniers with further climate science is unlikely to succeed: their faculty of reason is motivated to defend itself from revising its beliefs.

Undoing denial

In sum, denial is repressed knowledge. For climate change, this repression occurs at both the psychological level and social level, with the latter providing fodder for the former. This is a dismal scenario, but it shines some light on the way forward.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-some-people-still-think-climate-change-isnt-real-124763

What is this awful reality we are supposed to be trying to escape?

If CO2 was a genuine issue, all we would need to do to dramatically cut CO2 emissions is copy the 1970s French nuclear programme. France generates over 70% of their electricity from nuclear. Sweden generates 35-40%. Sweden and France are living proof that going nuclear is affordable, safe and effective; the rest of the world could easily do the same.

Why is the prospect of going nuclear supposed to be so traumatic? I’m a fan of nuclear power. If I thought there was the slightest chance CO2 was a problem, I would be campaigning hard for more nuclear power.

Suggestions that climate skeptics can’t cope with the societal adjustments which would be required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions are lazy intellectual absurdities.

Advertisements

188 thoughts on “NZ Academic: “Climate … denial involves glimpsing the horrible reality”

  1. New Zealand academic, David Hall – who hides there because he can’t face reality – tries to force reality through the prism of predetermined progressive talking points.

    ‘Senior researcher in politics’. Nuff said.

    • New Zealand academic, David Hall, a senior researcher in politics, evidences that deep down CAGWarmists know it is all crap but just can’t face the reality. This would explain the increasing hysteria of the St Greta, Extinction Rebellion and similar movements.

          • He has a Doctorate in Philosophy (so apparently he does some thinking every now & then), AND an arts degree (BA) in Geography?????? Since when was Geography a study of the arts, I always thought it was a science? Well, at least it was a science back in the old days, but this Globul Warming buisiness seems to be affecting everything that used to be a science & turning it into art forms previously unknown to mankind!!!!!! I fear that these inhabitants of Disneyland will invent all sorts of creating shinanigans just to make a name for themselves for 15 minutes (that sounds familiar?)! Be afraid, be very afraid, Orwell was bang-on in his book, “1984”! 😉 AtB

          • I studied physical geography in college in the 1980s, including a bunch of classes in meteorology and climatology, and was considering a degree in that area, possibly hydrology.
            Up until sometime in the mid 1990s, geography was taught in the humanities department of most if not all universities in the US.
            Made not a lot of sense.
            For one thing, the general distribution requirements for any humanities degree are completely different than for a degree in any natural science. Hardly any math required, hardly any sampling of natural science classes, etc.
            And you had to take a lot of other classes in the humanities having nothing to do with geography or any natural science. Just like a chemistry degree required lots of classes in other areas within the College of Natural Science.
            As for a BA, most schools BA degrees in sciences or math.
            It simply means that the classes required are more broadly based outside of hard sciences and include more liberal arts credits. Somewhat less narrowly focused. And you might be allowed to take somewhat less rigorous classes outside your major.
            For example, a BS in chemistry requires that the physics classes you need to take are the ones taken by physics majors, but a BA in chemistry allows one to take non-majors level physics classes to meet that requirement.

          • To N. McG:
            Many scientists think of geography as only being the study of Earth’s landforms and other surface features, including the atmosphere, and their interactions. But that study is the core of geomorphology taught in geology), and makes up only a part of geography. Geography used to include much study of human and societal interactions with the Earth, with agriculture, and with other cultures relative to local environment. That was the relationship of geography to humanities.
            Relative to chemistry, majors in chemistry, physics, chemical engineer, and pre-Med take the same chemistry courses (in most schools), but many others, including agriculture, home economics, general BA studies, etc. often take separate, less vigorous courses.

          • Political geography and physical geography are very distinct.
            I only took classes in physical geography, and there was nothing at all that was not related to the physical aspects of the Earth involved in the course material.
            Physical geography includes meteorology, climatology, hydrology, etc.
            So, yes, it makes sense that political geography is a humanities field, but no sense that physical is.
            I imagine at some point someone had to make a decision, and it was originally decided one way.
            But this changed in the 1990s.
            My guess is that it was recognized that this previous arrangement made no sense.

          • For Alan the Brit (not sure if this post will appear above or below)…
            Geography courses/majors, in Canadian universities (and as far as I know Australian and New Zealand) fall into the Faculty of Arts, broadly speaking, or with the social “sciences”. It has been this way for a long time, I took my physical geography course in the early 1980s at a Canadian university (‘arts’ requirement). The physical geography course was like a geology-lite course. The human geography course equivalent was more of a sociology exercise.

            It may interest many to know that “climate courses” at many Canadian universities are taught under the umbrella of the Department of Geography. I have a niece with a degree in geography from UBC and considers her major to have been ‘climate science’. Somehow she managed to take precisely zero courses that fall under the umbrella of “hard sciences” notably no math, chemistry, physics, statistics or even biology. I do enjoy the fact she remained unemployable until she went and took a GIS mapping course at BCIT. That aside, that’s why much of climate science is flawed IMO in that those with those degrees are often really just geographers coming out of the faculty of Arts with at best a social science degree.

            As for 1984 you couldn’t be more bang on. I recently re-read it and in particular the “youth leagues” outting their parents seemed to ring a strangely familiar bell of late. It’s almost like 1984 is being used as a guide book. Oddly my daughter read this in high school so it is still required reading but I don’t think the kids are taught to think deeply or much at all about the metaphors that are relevant today.

          • Here is a link to University of South Florida website, and I am gonna quote the descriptions of majors in a BA in Chemistry vs a BS in Chemistry.
            BA Chemistry:
            “The Chemistry B.A. gives students exposure to analytical, inorganic, organic and physical chemistry while providing the flexibility to take additional elective courses. Students interested in professional, law, or graduate school or those who anticipate working in careers related to secondary education or business will find this degree attractive. The B.A. student whose goals include graduate study should supplement this curriculum by addition and/or substitution of a selection of advanced courses from the B.S. program. The Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry provides opportunities for curricula individually tailored to meet many career objectives.”

            BS Chemistry:
            “The Bachelor of Science in Chemistry is designed for students wishing to continue with graduate training in chemistry and closely allied disciplines and the degree is certified by the American Chemical Society.The Bachelor of Science in Chemistry provides a firm foundation in all five disciplines of chemistry: organic, physical chemistry, inorganic, analytical and biochemistry. Students interested in research, the pursuit of an advanced degree, employment in the chemical industry, or who want to teach at the secondary education level may find this degree attractive. The curriculum for the B.S. degree in Chemistry meets the requirements for degree certification by the American Chemical Society.”

            The same rationale applies to BA vs BS degrees in other fields.
            In either case, a student takes a lot of chemistry and these are largely the same classes for each degree.
            Another reason for pursuing a BA instead of a BS is for students who decide to major in chemistry after having taken several semesters with another major in mind, as there is more flexibility in terms of integrating credits in other disciplines without having the spend extra years before moving on the grad school.
            http://ugs.usf.edu/catalog/?catyr=1819&category=majors&display=detail&maj=CHS&deg=BS

          • Alan le Brit said: “He has a Doctorate in Philosophy (so apparently he does some thinking every now & then)”

            As a philosopher one would expect him to question the basic assumptions on which the claim of a climate crisis or emergency is based, not swallow them sequaciously. Maybe he’s in denial.

        • New Zealand academic is an oxymoron. But the one looks like a real moron.

          The real freudian denial going on is that fact that the models on which the whole scam is based are warming far faster than any real change in observations and the upper tropo hotspot which is the key fingerprint of GHG diven warming is bearly even detectable in observational data.

          They are in denial about the fact that what this movement is really about is destruction of western capitalist society ( the one which funded their comfortable, secure liberal world ).

          They parrot on about “the science” but would not know the first scientific fact about climate if challenged.

          They should dig a little deeper in their copy of “Freud for Dummies” and refer the chapter on projection.

        • Hey that’s not fair. There is some excellent scientists here doing amazing work. Don’t disparage them because of this ignorant person.

          • Where someone is from has little to do with any of this.
            People are about the same everywhere, and are also different in the same ways, everywhere.
            The crap spewing from this guy is no different than what is spewing from the same sort of person all over the world these days.

          • Jesse: You are, of course correct, but I would venture there are very few of them under the heading of ‘political science’ – not under THIS topic.

      • The awful reality of CAGW being a load of crap is that the international credit of western liberal democracy will be savagely wounded and the likes of Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Jong Un et al will have good cause to simply laugh it off as a passing fad that has had its day like the hoola hoop and that they represent reality. Even if there is some AGW and we over react with renewables and wreck/degrade our economines much the same will result.

        Trump, Brexit and the rise of ‘right wing’ parties in Europe are signs of exactly that. Thanks for nothing you incompetent leftards. Its not about the ‘right’ being the solution, its about you leftards being a bigger problem.

    • Why is it that a person whose expertise is politics passes himself off as an expert on fraudian, I mean Freudian, psychology?
      Besides for that, I find it fascinating how people like this write and publish entire elaborate exercises in mental gymnastics to conceal their own cognitive dissonance from themselves.
      I should probably keep it specific to the person doing it, so…to himself, I should say.

      Here is what this would say if it was written by a rational and objective person. Instead of:
      “Why do people still think climate change isn’t real?
      At its heart, climate change denial is a conflict between facts and values. People deny the climate crisis because, to them, it just feels wrong.”

      It would say:
      Why do people still think CO2-induced catastrophic climate change is real?
      At its heart, climate change crisis belief is a conflict between facts and values. People hallucinate a climate crisis because, to them, it just feels good to virtue signal to their in-crowd.
      Additionally, it would be an ego shattering mental crisis if the brain allowed such self-centered narcissists to directly confront the fact of their own incredibly deep rooted ignorance and miseducation.

      • This is a very revealing story but not for the reasons that the author thinks. We know that if he had sought out, read and understood the evidence that is contrary to his preconceptions then if he was a rational human being he could not be so confident in the myth. This points to several possibilities including: he is lazy, he is lying for ulterior reasons, he is incapable of understanding scientific publications, he has a serious brain malfunction, all or any of the above. Whatever the case, it reinforces all of one’s darkest thoughts about academics. One of the first rules of academics has to be “study the viewpoints that are contrary to your own more than you study the ones that support it”. Are you listening CBC journalists (l fear that seeking out opposing views is a concept that has become completely alien to journalists)?

        • More simply: Groupthink is easy to go along with. Once accepted, all reality is interpreted through the groupthink model.

          The climate alarmists are actually alarmed, just like the denizens of Orwell’s 1984 actually hated all those targets of the 30 minutes of hate that they participated in. A kind of group psychosis—-but emotionally satisfying to the groupthinkers who get a sense of communion with their fellows and a sense of moral superiority over those targets of hate.

          This NewZealander has drunk the Koolaid of “climate truth”, the groupthink of the woke left.

      • Why do people still think climate change isn’t real?
        At its heart, climate change denial is a conflict between facts and values. People deny the climate crisis because, to them, it just feels wrong.

        Because he is an expert in politics he feels he can conflate ‘climate change’ with ‘climate crisis’ then expect everyone to bow to his view of how the world should operate.

        People deny the climate crisis because, to them, it just feels wrong.

        He also seems to think there is only one reason for us ‘deniers’ being deniers and that is due to our ‘feelings’ that something is wrong. He obviously has not asked us for our actual reasons (poor data, mal-treated data, missing data, cherry-picked data, follow the money, etc). He just ‘knows’ why we don’t follow the herd.

        The fool that calls him a drongo is no idiot.

        • Denial is the repression of indoctrination. we do not deny the climate changes as it has been changing long before man’s discovery of fossil fuel.

          To your point John, we deny the political propaganda that demands giving over all individual freedom and power to the central totalitarian authority of the Wizard in order for him/them to control our lives.

          How is the climate in OZ john? I’m guessing the Wizard has the Munchkins groveling for favors and handouts. I am sure that courage, and knowledge are in short supply but that emotions are running amok.

      • “Additionally, it would be an ego shattering mental crisis if the brain allowed such self-centered narcissists to directly confront the fact of their own incredibly deep rooted ignorance and miseducation.”

        Additionally, to directly confront their own ignorance would require confronting the fact that governmental authorities are not so authoritative and they might have to think for themselves.

        But ultimately, it is fear that causes denial. Alarmists claim that the horrifying reality of the climate emergency is so terrifying that we sceptics can’t face it. I claim that the horrifying reality that so many so-called experts could be wrong is too terrifying face.

      • That is the whole problem with arguments in catastrophic climate change – it starts with the assumption that the acts of man are destroying the planet and then work backward from there until they find a plausible (to them) mechanism that they can sell to the non-science educated public. Then once they have latched on to that mechanism (CO2 as a proxy for industrialization) they make programs that will generate the effect and display those as representing reality even though they are based on the assumption their hypothesis is true.

    • “David Hall Senior Researcher in Politics, Auckland University of Technology”

      I like it. Politics? Does he manufacture his facts by vote or by underhand whispers or by marvelous oratory?

      David – You are in the wrong game to be regarded as an expert in this field!

      Try reading and understanding this!

      https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/

      David!
      Politics especially extreme politics rarely help people.

      Lets name some wonderful modern politicians shall we?

      How about Karl Marx. Stalin, using Marx as an excuse, kills millions of people for his quest to stay and expand his power. Try reading what happened to the Kulaks in the 1930’s.

      Mao Tze Tung starves whole provinces between 1959 and 63. Between 1949 and 58 things were looking up and then his politics kills possibly as many of 36 million people.

      Hitler was a marvelous politician – How many did he kill?

      What is happening in Venezuela right now?

      One can go on!

      In other words – Exactly who do you think you are?

    • Climate denial is the realization that a huge agglomeration of scientists, bureaucrats, and politicians are united in forcing the world to accept a junk science crisis in order to take over the world. Yeah, that is indeed a horrible reality.

      It’s real that there are evil forces out there that clearly do not have the welfare of mankind or the planet in consideration.

    • I’ve thought it was pretty funny that they think they know what is happening in our heads. At the same time rather scary since they want to do something to “fix’ it. They don’t seem to realize it is their thought processes that are denying that in reality, there isn’t really a problem.

      I also think it is a power grab, using fear to get us to give up what we have. It used to be tongue in cheek that we’d say they want us back to the stone age, but now they are clearly trying to do just that. The green nude eel as proposed by the U.S. politicians would make the U.S. just as dark as North Korea. And they don’t seem to care that it would make 300 million people as miserable as the North Koreans.

  2. A “senior researcher in politics” knows best as always. What exactly he knows best remains a mystery.

    • He knows how to studiously avoid discussion of anything like evidence or proper scientific methodology.
      A look at his other recent writings is instructive.
      This gem is typical:
      “Why our response to climate change needs to be a just and careful revolution that limits pushback”
      -David Hall, Auckland University of Technology
      “Climate change is a super-wicked problem. With a growing sense of urgency to act on climate change, it is vital we strike a balance between encouraging action and limiting pushback.”

      Got that?
      Climate change is a “super-wicked” problem.
      I feel that I am on solid ground disregarding anything that purports to be scholarly from someone who uses the phrase “super-wicked” in the intro.

        • I am only interested in disparaging super-wicked problems.
          Or more precisely the ranting of people that use the phrase.

          Besides, that is rather vague for my liking.
          Check Judith Curry on wicked problems?
          Huh?
          If you think you know of something I need to learn, you could always just say what it is.
          No need to be cryptic.
          What, I am needing to get busy now, enough said?

          • Judith Curry coined the term” Wicked Problem”. she however was referring to parts of climate science where even the best scientists simply haven’t got a clue how to even begin to formulate an answer. because it is too complex. a wicked problem indeed,

          • Note that Hall calls the problem super wicked, but then asserts that there is urgency to act.
            IOW…no need to get things sorted out first.
            But the real insight into the mentality is the last part:
            “… it is vital we strike a balance between encouraging action and limiting pushback.”
            So, it is “vital” to limit pushback?
            This sounds like the idea is that no dissent can be tolerated.
            How exactly does one person “limit pushback” from other people who have a different view on some issue?
            Obviously such opposition must be controlled somehow, either by some sort of bullying, marginalization, flat out ignoring them, declaring the matter settled, demonization, etc.
            IOW, everything we are seeing.
            It is all part of the plan, enunciated in advance.
            The “wicked problem” that Hall is speaking of is how to make sure than he and his like minded ilk retain full control of the entire issue. And since this is a planetary emergency, that means full control of everything, period. Including anyone not on the team being controlled by making sure they have no ability to interfere with the plan.

  3. “igmund Freud and his daughter Anna were the great chroniclers of denial. Sigmund described this negation of reality as an active mental process, as “a way of taking cognisance of what is repressed”. This fleeting comprehension is what distinguishes denial from ignorance”

    Yet there is a third possibility… the initial theory was wrong from the start. Maybe the warmists are in that denial.

    Maybe there is a cross section of warmists and deniers that recognize what this scare campaign is all about – destruction of capitalism and wealth redistribution.

    • Maybe they are in denial and using projection as a coping mechanism. Deep down, they realise that they are wrong, but can’t let go of their belief in CAGW. To cope with this, they project their insecurities onto those who hold an opposing view on the matter.

      • I think projection is the inability to understand that someone else has a different perspective on a subject.

        They simply believe that everyone believes as they do; and if anyone does say something differently then they are knowingly lying.

        It’s simply beyond them to grasp the concept of a different point of view.

        • That pay be one component of the pathology of some people who employ projection is a defense mechanism.
          But it is not what “projection is”.
          What it is, is clear enough.
          In plain language, It describes what is occurring when an individual ascribes to other individuals some mentality or thought process or trait that the first individual is themselves suffering from or in the thrall of.
          It is generally regarded as a defense mechanism employed by those who have a fragile state of mind coupled with an inflated ego or sense of self worth.
          In other words, and in a case such as this, it is when weak minded fools who are sick in the head talk about other people to deflect attention away from themselves, whether said attention be their own self-reflection or the attention of other people.
          People who do it the most and the loudest, will be found to have some seriously messed up crap they are covering up inside their own minds and lives.
          I have named one particularly severe branch or manifestation of this phenomenon the “Jimmy Swaggert Syndrome”, after the disgraced televangelist who captured so much attention when his story came to light.

    • Denial is an autonomic process in which the protective part of the brain intercepts unpleasant or dangerous input and diverts it from the conscious mind. Note that the optic and auditory nerves do not go to the frontal cortex, but through the limbic system and associated protective regions.

      • Knowing what to make of this is facilitated by knowing that the limbic system is the part of the brain that processes and integrates emotions.
        Although it is also very important in the formation and recall of memory.
        As an aside, this is why particular odors can often elicit intense emotional reactions and recall of long ago memories.

        • Thanks, I always wondered why the smell of a field of cattle instantly reminds climate alarmism.

          Now I know it’s the limbic system. Cool.

    • Occam’s Razorburn

      The cognitive dissonance experienced when the simplest explanation is ideologically unacceptable. To deflect the burn for as long as possible, any other avenue of explanation, no matter how convoluted or insulting to the intelligence, is enthusiastically pursued.

  4. Couldn’t agree more with your comments. If the existence of mankind depended on reducing CO2 the only real solution is to go 100 % nuclear. The risk of deaths from nuclear is minuscule compared to the end of human existence. This failure to embrace nuclear is the absolute proof that the warmist agenda is not about reducing CO2 but about transfer of power and wealth under the guise of a climate emergency.

    • The Left’s opposition to nuclear seems to be an extremely pertinent example of what Hall is talking about. That is far more so than anything most people in the climate skeptic community are doing.

      • Exactly.
        They actively oppose the only real “solutions” to what they view as a world ending crisis.
        Which all by itself is highly instructive as to their actual goals and intent, far more so than what they say.

      • Nuclear power solves the problem – assuming there really is one – and allows economies to keep functioning. That is why the socialists hate it.

  5. CAGW climate change should be categorized as a mental disorder. It has certainly manifested itself that way with many of the protesters these days, although that can easily be summed up by the fact that they are using climate fear as an advocate to promote hard core socialism and wealth distribution schemes across the planet. Of course some people and even countries are going to believe in all this clap trap, if they are in on getting a lot of free money and/or power and sticking it to the rich colonizing powers. Follow the money and power traps, and it is easy to see that this is all a ruse to bring down the have nations, who also happen to be mostly Caucasian. This is payback for the last 200 years and sadly, a lot of our own useful and useless idiots have fallen for the trap.

  6. Yet another clear case of psychological projection from an alarmist. It’s clearly the alarmists who can’t accept the scientific reality that the ‘warming’ from CO2 is far less than claimed and in fact, so small as to be unimportant. The reason they have trouble accepting the scientific truth is that it’s in conflict with their political identity which requires them to accept the global warming meme without questioning it. This is faith based pseudo-science not unlike the pseudo science used to try and claim that the Universe is only a few thousand years old in order to be consistent with the Bible.

    When will the denier attribute be applied to those who are actually denying something? In order to accept the claims of the IPCC, you must implicitly deny the data, the SB Law, Conservation of Energy and the obvious linearity between forcing and emissions, as both expressed in the same units of W/m^2 and no Joule is any different than any other when it comes to the work of warming the surface.

    • Not to mention ignoring all of earth history and everything known from human historical records and contemporary first hand accounts and those documented by journalists at the time.
      Simply put, you have to have the worst case of selective attention possible in order to be a warmista.
      Mass psychosis is what is occurring, in real time and before our very eyes.
      It is truly astounding to be living through it and see what such a thing, which is literally impossible to reconcile with the view that people are mostly rational.

    • ”Science Denier” has been used to describe the Alarmists, for some time now. At least, it’s more accurate than claiming someone denies that the climate changes.

      • Among those who’ve done the proper due diligence, yes, but the media has yet to recognize which side is actually denying science and unless that happens, most people will remain ignorant enabling fear to replace common sense.

  7. Funny. That means that initially I accepted reality when I was functional and normal (because I used to believe in impending climate catastrophe) but then I discovered the truth and my brain must have shrunk and withdrawn under the sheets into a state of terror.

  8. Climate Change Deniers are the equivalent of “Doubting Thomas” – we will believe it when we see it.
    (Actual nobody denies that climate changes – it always has. What we deny is that climate change would stop at
    an ideal point if we stopped emitting CO2. In fact Climate Alarmists are the actual Climate Change Deniers).

  9. This is exactly the political abuse of psychiatry that happened in the Soviet Union. link Anybody who does that kind of thing should have their license yanked … if they have one.

    • I think that, in the long run, moving away from fossile sources of energy probably makes sense. Of course, current nuclear technologies are quite a good option if everything is considered.

      But I think nuclear fusion will be even better, and if new reactors will be built on a large scale, this should rather be done with nuclear fusion.

      In case nuclear fusion does not work out in the next decades, Thorium-based reactors probably also offer significant advantages – and they are already on the way in India and China.

      If one took the currently fashionable extreme climate alarmism, which is not supported by the data (about 0.15°C per decade, even if it is due to CO2 is certainly not an emergency), the rational consequence would be that options are more restricted and the construction of a large number of nuclear reactors would have to be built immediately instead of better technologies.

      It seems that most of the climate alarmists want to use slightly modernized variants of pre-industrial technologies like windmills – with intermittent supply, much lower energy density and more need for space and materials per amount of energy (which is also an ecological problem). I don’t exclude that it might eventually work to use these pre-industrial methods in an improved way as the sole source of energy, but it would certainly be much more costly, time-consuming, and complicated (among other things because of the need for large-scale energy storage). That is not what an otherwise rational person who really believes that we are currently in a climate emergency would suggest.

      I think the climate demonstrators who claim that “we don’t have time” would have to acknowledge that the practical consequences of their claims would be an expansion of current nuclear technologies and that what they are mainly protesting against is taking enough time for nuclear fusion or improved fission technologies.

      • The immediate problem being that there is currently no such thing as a fusion reactor, no one has any idea how to build one, and there has been no progress on this despite many decades and enormous expenditures.
        In fact, none of the current research is geared towards building anything like an operational power source, but merely to try to make baby steps at some momentary condition in which for a brief instant more energy is being liberated than input. Not counting the energy expended prior to and after that brief instant of course and unfortunately.

        In fact it may well be the case that no such power plant will ever be possible, and so even considering it as a realistic possibility is not even wishful thinking, but simply, at present, a fantasy.
        No need to take my word for it though.
        People who spent their entire lives on the effort say so.

        • Insofar as a fusion reaction can be controlled, it cannot produce an energy profit. Insofar as a fusion reaction produces an energy profit, it cannot be controlled.

          This is the design catch-22 that one must break to build a practical fusion plant. So far none have succeeded.

  10. Looks like a case of projection if you ask me. ACC proponents are so up tight about the perceived Boogyman CO2 that they want to see others as BAD and Climate as something that should have a stasis point that never changes (A Utopic Stability). They refuse to comprehend that the climate Always Changes and has never been a Utopic Nirvana.
    Temperatures fluctuate (It’s been warmer (Holocene Optimum) and colder (Glaciation) than it is today)
    Hurricanes happen (1780 Caribbean Sea saw the worst ever with 24,000 deaths and multiple islands scrubbed clean)
    Flooding happens (1861 California Sacramento Valley under FEET of water)
    Drought happens (1930’s Dustbowl, 200 Year Megadroughts)
    Sea Level fluctuates around 400′ (Doggerland flooded under 150′ of sea level rise thousands of years ago)
    We are the idiots that build our “Permanent Structures” in Flood Planes along rivers and at the Shoreline then claim we can stop both the flooding and the prior natural climate change states from occurring in the future through the manipulation of a single magic molecule

  11. The fact that he is a senior researcher in politics tells me everything I need to know about his grasp of the issue on a scientific level.

  12. Since the advent of this catastrophic global warming, can someone tell me what if any Climate Zones have been moved or adjusted in recent years, decades? None? oh…ok, thanks. So this begs the question….what is everyone squawking about?

    • The cure for that is to read more about what he thinks about you and me and anyone else who does not hold to his views.

  13. An interesting but light-weight essay from one of our lighter weight educational institutions.
    “If CO2 was a genuine issue, all we would need to do to dramatically cut CO2 emissions is copy the 1970s French nuclear programme.”
    Given NZ power production in round figures is more than 80% hydro and geothermal and when the Aluminium smelter at Bluff which uses the production of the Deep Cove Hydropower station is decommissioned in the medium term NZ will have a 15% surplus of renewable hydropower. Why would we need nuclear? According to Roger Pielke the world needs to open a nuclear plant every day until 2050, fat chance of even one opening in NZ we are proudly, but mistakenly, nuclear-free, with a scientifically and financially illiterate Leftist Green Government.

    • I’ve seen the geothermal plant at Lake Taupo. Ruined a beautiful geyser, sucked the heat out of it for the sake of a little green virtue signaling.

      Like wrecking Yellowstone park for the sake of a few megawatts of “clean” energy.

      • The Wairakei geothermal plant was built (and still going but additional bores drilled) in the 1960s long before green virtue signalling. The country has 80% renewable energy , mainly from Hydro built in the 60s to 80s. Makes a great stability mechanism to the wind farms now used as well for parts that have regular wind.

        • Hydro is not really renewable energy.
          Hydro dams have limited lives because of the build up of silt in the hydro lake.
          I believe that the expected life of a hydro plant is about 50 years.
          Don’t see any replacements yet for our aging system.
          Better order another million windmills! 🙂

          • 50 years?
            Hoover dam, built in the 1936.
            Glen Canyon Dam, 1966s.
            Grand Coulee, 1942

            I could go on and on.
            There are over 2,4000 hydropower dams in the US, and I think nearly every single one is over 50 years old (Tellico completed in 1979) , and some going on 100 years if not more.
            None that I have ever heard of ever silted up.
            But you know, they got this thing called dredging…
            Hey, maybe they could just dredge the lake if one ever did silt up. Nah…ridiculous…just shut it down and dynamite the thing.
            Cheap power with zero emissions, flood prevention, irrigation, water storage…those are just fads!
            Did you know, BTW, that there are over 80,000 dams in the US that do not generate any hydro power, and if they were tapped for that purpose, they could generate over 12,000 megawatts without building a single new dam? Golly! 45 terawatt hours per year going to waste!
            The largest producer is the Grand Coulee in Washington state, but one was proposed and never built in Alaska, one dam mind you, on the Yukon river, that could be producing over 5,000 megawatts?
            More than Hoover and the Niagara power stations put together.
            Damn!
            But you know, saving the planet is a minor concern stacked up against the horror of a lake silting up in a few hundred years, and then needing to get dredged.
            And what would they do with all that silt?
            Use it for topsoil or fill or something dumb like that?
            How about some facts?
            The average dam in the US gather silt at a rate of about 0.2% per year, but some are as low as half of that and some as much as 0.5 % per year.
            Building the Glen Canyon dam gathered most of the silt that might have eventually filled up Lake Mead. The dams on the Columbia river silt up particularly slowly, especially the ones at the lower reaches of the river.
            One thing is for sure, when large reservoirs fill with sediment, solutions will be implemented, considering that people have come to depend on the water, the power, and the lake itself for recreation.
            Maybe not in poor countries, but here in the US, ingenuity will prevail…of that I am certain.
            Sand and gravel can be simply pumped. Silt and other cohesive sediment must be dredged, or as an alternative, the lake can be drained and the material just scooped up and driven away.

          • Nothing in the world is renewable if you define that to mean maintenance free.

            When was the Hoover dam built?

          • The Porjus in northern Sweden was built 1910 to 1915.
            “The construction of the Porjus power station out in the wilderness is considered a pioneering achievement. The material for the founding work had to be carried in backpacks over a 44 km (3000 feet) trail in uninhabited land before any infrastructure was built.”
            The dam is still there.

          • Hydro relies on falling water to create power.
            A dam silting up doesn’t reduce the height of the dam, all that is reduced is the storage capacity of the dam.

          • The silt will eventually block the intake of the power plants.
            On bad designs, the intakes are very low on the structure.

  14. Why are global warmers so obsessed with those who disagree? We aren’t trying to force anyone to do anything or believe anything; we simply object to their efforts of forcing change on us. They want to reduce the use of fossil fuels? They are more than welcome to stop using them. If enough people believe as they do and followed their lead, power plants will cut back, less petrol will be sold, less jet fuel used, etc., and the issue is moot.

    If they are correct in their analysis, the proper course of action is to present the evidence and convince a majority on the need for action. Insulting and threatening those who disagree only suggests they have neither sufficient evidence nor support.

    Do they not see that going down this road – with disruptive protests, promoting temper-tantrum children with mental impairments, threatening ‘non-believers – result in LESS public support? If they don’t understand that, it’s hard to imagine they would understand the complexities of climate.

    I imagine there are a lot more people today than yesterday who would rather burn on Earth than to give these whiney, self-absorbed egoists control of anything.

    • A ‘senior researcher in politics’ claims to know what’s going on between my ears — a marvelous perspicacity for someone I’ve never conversed with. What’s up with such proud ‘academics’ these days inverting everything about the motives and knowledge base of everyone else in their driving will to erase them? Most of what comes out of their mouths (propelled by 40,000 ppm exhaled CO2 no less) is a fine self-description of their own hatred driven motives, twisted knowledge base, and power hungry manipulative political methods. In all due intellectual humility how much have they figured they don’t know that makes inquiry a continuing delight to the mind? Sure makes me want to puke all over the alma mater of my own advanced degree.

  15. Serially-absurd Sou tried this explanation on a few years ago, heroically venturing far above her pay-grade into the world of barstool neuropsychology, where she came to the Nobel-worthy-if-true conclusion that we skeptics were *more* afraid of climate change than alarmists—hence both sides’ behaving, speaking and lobbying as if the exact opposite were true. That’s the day I became (apparently the first commenter to be) exiled from the paradise that is Sou’s blog, just after proving her wrong about everything. (Of course, correlation is not causation and I’m sure she had some other, non-cowardly reason.)

    https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/02/downside-of-conservative-brain.html?showComment=1361079538537#c541374164549021902

  16. It is not that we don’t think it is real. It is that it is not anywhere as extreme as they claim and, more importantly, man’s contribution is non-measurable.

  17. Trump approval still at 2019 highs. That must be killing the impeachment bound Dems. We know he behaved inappropriately but don’t care. Crazy is better that dangerously stupid.

  18. I automatically ignore anyone who quotes Freud. Freud has been thoroughly discredited by actual neuropsychological science. He was wrong about everything, as near as I remember.

    He’s still popular with Language Arts academics and other non-scientists who still titter when they hear the word penis.

    These people aren’t serious.

  19. This yet again is showing how worried the establishment are,there simply not getting the surport they think they should get, saying there is no climate crisis does not mean I dont acknowledge a climate nor that it changes,I disagree the climate is in crisis ,perhaps this professor can demonstrate a climate crisis, perhaps he could come on here and debate with one of the knowledgeable ones on here. What does the professor could explain why there is no debate in any public forum (ie climate scientists on both sides of the debate with a mediator) what is the professors view on a complete blanking by the MSM on a opposing view,would he think that’s a form of denial by the media in both senses of the word.time the professor confessed that hes talking nonsense, he and his paymasters are the ones in denial.

  20. We accept the reality of being surrounded by zombified intolerant climate extremists because we are polite and for the moment favor intelligent approaches to their rude invasive behavior.

    The question is for how long ? Anyone with a serviceable common sens feels the pressure rising.

  21. this is the evil of unbridled stalinism, it will be much worse when implemented on a global scale, this is why they are so desperate to bring down President Trump and the USA

  22. OT, but The Andrew Neil show on BBC tonight (Wednesday) featured an interview with an XR rep.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00095pr/the-andrew-neil-show-series-1-09102019

    The interview starts at 20mins 30sec in and is the first one I’ve seen where the interviewer did more than pay fawning lip service to XR. How refreshing. I was almost embarrassed for the interviewee. I hope a well-followed Youtuber will pick this up and give it the circulation it deserves.

    • Ian, thanks for that, shame the clip finished before she did ; I enjoyed seeing her squirm; she has no idea how life works & just quotes fron the play-list, poor stupid sod.

  23. “This is why brow-beating deniers with further climate science is unlikely to succeed: their faculty of reason is motivated to defend itself from revising its beliefs.”

    Right back at you.

  24. We want to be at 800 to 1200 ppm CO2 and at least 4deg warmer before this inter-glacial inevitably ends. Increasing temperature and CO2 should be a penultimate goal of modern civilization. The list should be: 1) Not have a destructive nuclear war, 2) Interplanetary colonization, 3) Cure cancer and several genetic diseases, 4) Support 10B people with a high protein diet, cheap energy, and the opportunity for a comfortable lifestyle, and 5) prepare to prosper when this cradle of humanity, this inter-glacial ends.

    We should not even be conceding the point of argument that CO2 is bad. I’m afraid our knowledge of how our climate works is insufficient and effort wasted on CO2 is disturbing.

    • If we want to push back on the underlying presumption of all of it, we need to be clear that warming is not bad, it is good.

  25. No one I know denies climate change, the problem is climate change does not equate to CAGW, on the other hand that is easy to deny

  26. When it all boiled down, those frightened by models of future climate are no more than victims of powerful advertising campaigns sponsored by money grabbing greedy people. They are mostly ignorant of the poor science. Many are in the category Peter Murphy of Quadrant Online describes in his 8th October article “The Revolt of the Nobodies”. (One of the most delicious essays of recent times).

  27. My experience is orthogonal to this: Climate alarmists accept, in reality, there’s no serious greenhouse gas threat. I know this for 2 sure reasons.
    1. Their behaviour as people shows they don’t worry about “carbon emissions”
    2. Their understanding of climate science shows they’re not alarmed because of any evidence they’re certain about. But only alarmed by narratives (like the one David Hall tells above)

    I believe Sigmund Freud would probably explain climate alarmism as a manifestation of the death wish he hypothesized about.

  28. Can’t face reality?
    Really??
    I know rhe estimation variance of their computerized GCM, which is what alarmist “climate scientists” base their fearmongering on, is so big that no real statician takes them seriously!

    Who has the pea brain now?

  29. HE’S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT…
    about our modern response to the imminent threat of asteroid or comet impact.

  30. Years ago there was a “study” published in Mother Jones, of all places, in which the author purported to have discovered a way to identify the way liberals and conservatives think by their eye movement. His method consisted of placing easels with many pictures of every day scenes in front of his victims, then tracking their eye movements withnsome sort of laser gadget.

    Some of the pictures were “happy”: puppies, kittens, little girls in tutus, etc. Others were “unhappy”: homeless people, garbage in the street, doggie doo, etc.

    The liberals only looked at the happy pictures.

    Conservatives spent as much time looking at the unhappy pictures as happy.

    His conclusion: liberals are happy people because they only looked at the happy pictures, while conservatives are unhappy people because they looked at the unhappy pictures. (You can’t make this stuff up.)

    Could it be that liberals just can’t face reality?

    • Interesting study.

      Also ‘interesting’ conclusions. Conclusions that fly in the face of all other observations, but hey, it was a published study.

      The standard observation is that Lefts are angry people who struggle to get on with those outside of their immediate circle and who deal in absolutes, while Conservatives are happy, mentally flexible, pragmatic and easy to get on with.

      I would put forward that this study confirms this observation. Conservatives accept their world is a big place with differing views. They are aware of ‘unhappy’ things, but also understand at some level that they can’t save everybody everytime everywhere and instead tend to focus on their loved ones. Lefts by comparison deal in absolutes. They are absolutely correct about everything and if you disagree with them it is some sort of person attack.

      You can track a Left by how much they double down on a point of dispute. Challenge a Conservative on a ‘fact’ and if they are not in a position to defend it they will back off and concede that firstly they may need to research the topic more, and more importantly that their life is too short to lose sleep over it.

      A Left will instead go to ever increasing logic leaps to deflect, because admitting they were wrong calls their entire personal mind set into question.

  31. Used to contribute posts and comment here often.
    Then realized was all political, so satire was in order. Not as good at it as Brad Keyes, so cede the field to him.
    But, there are other venues and means to continue this basic fight. You can often find me there.

    • Rud, I’ve never heard of allies ceding the field to each other. Not sure I agree 100% with your military science, dude.

      I always thought you were every bit as good at satire as me (and my taste is pretty much law, because I’m the best), and wondered why you weren’t doing more of it. Now that I know I’m to blame, I think I’ll have to take up drinking again. Just kidding—nobody who tells a lot of jokes could possibly wrestle nightly with the demons of substance abuse, dysthymia and self-loathing.

  32. What is the latest Climate Apostles’ Creed? Minus tipping point and catastrophism, I believe. So what climate denomination does that make me a member of?

  33. It is tragic that during my single lifetime I have observed the slow collapse of western civilisation which brought previously untold wealth, security and extended life expectancies to minority ethnic communities worldwide as well as the culturally dominant white Christian culture.
    In the 1950s there was so much optimism about science, democracy and global progress after the horrors of a World War and the apparent defeat of authoritarianism. That declining confidence was reinforced for a short while after the collapse of the Soviet Union but it has all turned to dust since then because the ‘winners’ then completely lost their confidence. The rot started in the 1960s and has been spreading ever since. The final peak of western cultural achievement was the moon landing but after that it all fell apart. The weak minded, spoilt 1960s educated ‘elite’ now permeate our societies at the highest level and have complete control of the political, media and artistic spheres. That is where the establishment kickback against the UK voters’ rejection of EU empire building is coming from.
    Human differences are primarily a matter of culture and not ethnicity but the destroyers of all that has brought such benefits to everyone worldwide seek to divide us by raising ethnicity above culture and class above nationality in their efforts to destroy the achievements of millennia.
    I hope to live long enough to see the vicious, ignorant and nihilistic deniers of reality defeated but I judge that to be unlikely.
    Where does this ‘evil’ come from?
    It makes me think that there is some truth in that fable of the Garden of Eden and the Serpent.
    Maybe those old biblical texts contain some essential truth about the weaknesses of humanity.
    So sad.
    It could all have been so much better.

    • “Were does this evil come from” that’s the million dollar question ,my view is arrogance and hate, they the evil ones are losing power to a technology based human race who dont need the evil ones for direction and control,hence the excuse of c02 and a mantra of driving us back into the stone age,the biggie of course is freedom and choice of movement =banning of petrol diesel cars (UK 2040) a power generation system that is arguably never going to supply the needs of electric vehicles that are supposed to take there place, Depopulation the next on the agenda the un agenda 21 now I’m told agenda 30. We read every day in thinly disguised articles of a need to repopulate, forums are rather more crude and upfront in there quest for genocide.
      Satellites, no thinly veiled threats here,they openly brag these next generation sats will spy on us the people,in the name of the environment of course, it’s no coincidence that as the GSM takes hold it creates the ideal conditions to launch satellites.for the last 20 years we have been seeing a huge increase in surveillance technology take over every street corner evry public buliding justified by fear.every time you use a computer your use is being logged for so called security and blatant targetted advertising,politicians afraid of being questioned so they hide behind more draconian laws to surpress their behaviour being questioned,I could go on but you get my point,c02 driven climate is a nonsense and cover for total control.

      • Look up “Frankfurter Schule”. Yes you need these double apostrophes to avoid confusion with processed meat products.
        When you have read the top sources then search for “Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan”. That will make you understand why there are strong forces pushing for a malutto population all througout the European continent. Of course without a trace of original European peoples in there. Easy to control ..
        These forces are creating the insane influx of large washes of criminals into Europe. Completely deranged Liberals welcome these timebombs and currently control the narrative on this one.
        Oh dear Lord please give us hurting Europeans a 2nd amendment…

  34. The reality is that the Earth’s climate has been changing for eons yet the change is so small that it takes networks of very sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. One must not mix up true global climate change with weather cycles that are part of the current climate. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science.

    AGW is not a proven theory but rather a conjecture. AGW sounds plausible at first but upon a more detailed examination one finds that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example there is the idea that CO2 acts as a thermostat and the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming because CO2 has LWIR absorption bands that cause CO2 to trap heat. CO2 based warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming because H2O also has LWIR absorption bands and hence causes H2O to trap even more heat. So according the ths AGW conjecture H2O acts to amplify any warming that CO2 might cause. Al Gore in his movie, “The Inconvenient Truth” presents a chart showing CO2 and temperature for the past 650.000 years. There is an obvious correlation between CO2 and temperature which Al Gore claims shows that CO2 works as a thermostat and that more CO2 in our atmosphere causes warming. But a closer look at the data shows that CO2 follows instead of leeds temperature. It is higher temperatures that cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water does not hold as much CO2 as does cooler water. Contrary to what AL Gore claims, there is no evidence that the additional CO2 causes warming. On the plot, Al gore included where CO2 is today. CO2 is much higher than one would expect form the warming of the oceans and the proximate cause of the increase in CO2 is mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. According to the chart, if CO2 were the thermostat of global warming then it should be a heck of a lot warmer that it actually is but it is not. If anything, Al Gore’s chart shows that CO2 does not cause global warming as Al Gore claims.

    H2O is actually a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis. According to he AGW conjecture, the idea is that CO2 warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming which causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere and so forth. This positive feedback effect does not really require CO2 based warming but will operate on H2O based warming alone. This positive feedback effect, if true, would make Earth’s climate very unstable with H2O based warming causing more H2O to enter the atmosphere causing even more warming causing even more H2O to enter the atmosphere until all the bodies of water on Earth boiled away. Such an event would cause the barometric pressure and temperature of the Earth’s surface to be much higher than it is on Venus but such has never happened. What the AGW conjecture ignore’s is that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form and where heat energy is more readily radiated to space. The over all cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. So instead of providing a positive feedback amplifying any warming that CO2 might provide, H2O provides negative feedback and retards any warming the CO2 might provide, Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for over the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve because we are here.

    The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping gases but rather stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is entirely a convectime greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. No radiant greenhouse effect has been observed, So too on Earth where gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere acts to limit cooling by convection. Derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect causes the surface of the Earth to be roughly 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. Any additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed. The radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere no on any planet in solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as well, This is all a matter of science.

    Then there is the “scientific” consensus argument. But there is no real consensus. It is all is all just speculation. Scientists never registered and then voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But even if they had it would be meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. The AGW conjecture must really be on shaky ground if “consensus” is one of the reasons for us to believe in it.

    But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue unabated because they are part of the current climate. We do not even know what the optimum global climate is let alone how to achieve it. The previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet no tipping points ever happened. In the past, the Earth’s CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today and no tipping points ever happened. There is no real evidence that a climate emergency exists. It is all a matter of science.

    • This positive feedback effect does not really require CO2 based warming but will operate on H2O based warming alone.

      Precisely

  35. “The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years……
    When the climate STOPS changing, then I’ll start worrying !”

  36. ‘Why do people still think climate change isn’t real?’

    Because it isn’t defined. It means just what you choose it to mean — neither more nor less.

  37. “they’re reasoning in the manner of a defence lawyer who clutches for post hoc rationalisations to defend an initial gut instinct.”

    I think he is confused, he is describing climate alarmists.

  38. “At its heart, climate change denial is a conflict between facts and values. People deny the climate crisis because, to them, it just feels wrong.”
    This is a completely false assumption. It makes his argument worthless.
    Most people I know, who deny the climate crisis, do so because the facts they see don’t support the emotional climate change alarmism. Indeed it is their hard analysis of the science and assumptions behind GCMs that is pitted against the ‘feelings’ of people like Thunberg. He’s got feelings and facts reversed.

  39. “According to New Zealand Academic David Hall, climate deniers actually accept the climate crisis on some level, but can’t face reality”

    Yes sir. That does make sense because denial of the unacceptable is a human trait. It’s called being “in denial”. As in the inability of climate science to deal with with errors in statistics because correcting them may leave them without the climate science they want or need.

    Statistics issue: Detrended correlation analysis:

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/14/climateaction/

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/20/csiroslr/

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/28/sea-ice-extent-area-1979-2018/

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/09/18/climate-change-hurricanes/

    More …
    https://tambonthongchai.com/

  40. The paradox the Gretas of this world are not able to observe is that it is this sort of ‘study’ that helps reinforce what the rational people of the world already think – Global Warming(tm) is rubbish.

    On one side of the argument you have hard science arguments willing to embrace and examine the ‘problem’ from every angle. These are the people trying to make sense of the observations in order to increase the overall understanding of our planet.

    On the other side we get people like David, a politics expert, who are not willing to discuss the science, but instead put forward condescending statements claiming that anyone who disagrees with Global Warming(tm) is mentally and morally sub human.

    Basically it has boiled down to “Let’s Discuss the Topic because it seems clear we Don’t Understand Everything” vs “Denial Man Bad”

    • It has become increasingly clear to me that the warmista/skeptic divide is actually a divide between informed/misinformed, educated/miseducated, canny/gullible, and very often simply a reasonably smart/not real smart sorting of people.
      Exceptions exist, such as those that are simply liars, or those that are liars for reasons other than mere dishonesty, such as for money or power or acclaim, etc.
      And some may merely be lazy, whether intellectually lazy or more of the physical kind of sloth.

      • I think it goes a bit deeper than just intelligence or education.

        Some people are leaders, some people are followers and some people are independent, not caring one way or another.

        The leaders may be cheats and liars, but they inspire leadership. The followers follow anyone who is willing to stand out and lead (even evil people).

        Then there are the independents who don’t know or don’t care. They’re the ones who do investigate the situation and evaluate both sides of the argument.

        I put this to you; people like Brian Cox and Neil De Grassy are not stupid, but they may be lazy. They know and accept the scientific method. But they refuse to investigate the objections of the argument, preferring to appeal to authority. They could if they wanted to, evaluate the science themselves. To my knowledge, they never have done so. Cox in particular is a nasty piece of work when debating a skeptic (youtube vids).

        • I agree, it goes many levels deeper.
          But on a superficial level, I see the evidence of it everywhere.

      • On the other hand, it may take more intelligence (and obviously a lot of dishonesty) to make an at least somewhat convincing argument for something that is clearly wrong. Without naming names, I see some regulars here who appear to fall in that category.

      • I think when one side embraces a sixteen year-old person with a mental condition as a leader to present their side of a complex, scientific question, it’s pretty self-apparent which side is lacking mental acuity.

  41. The true question is “why do people still believe in the climate boogeyman?” Perhaps their mothers didn’t love them enough, or drank before they were born. Perhaps it is even genetic. This could be a fascinating field of study. What went wrong, when, and why? A question for the ages.

  42. “Why do people still think climate change isn’t real?”

    The question really is why some people think that there is something wrong with those who disagree with them! The implication is that they can’t accept the possibility that they are wrong and they have to rationalize the disagreement by claiming that those who don’t accept their view must have mental problems.

  43. In what universe would this not be expected?

    It’s extremely well known that the field of psychology has a stratospheric liberal bias/views. Psychologists know and acknowledge this too.

    http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf

    At the 2nd link, scroll down to: 2) A statistically impossible lack of diversity
    https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-bright-future-of-post-partisan-social-psychology

    “I submit to you that the underrepresentation of conservatives in social psychology, by a factor of several hundred, is evidence that we are a tribal moral community that actively discourages conservatives from entering.”

  44. I am curious: When you use that x-ray image of Mikey Mann’s noggin at the top of the article, do you need to pay any sort of royalty or fee?

  45. Both the phrase, “climate denier”, and the phrase, “climate skeptic”, are made of straw, because there exists neither a “climate denier” nor a “climate skeptic”.

    This is misuse of language to propagate a personal feeling, left in the obscurity of the descriptive phrases, yet seething, undefined in a clear way, within individuals using these fake, meaningless, composition-deficient words.

    Who … “denies” … climate?
    Who is … “skeptical” … that climate exists?

    A climate denier would be somebody who denied the existence of climate.
    A climate skeptic would be somebody who doubted the existence of climate.

    Why are such stupid phrases that clearly foul up language allowed to go unchecked?

    • “Climate Deniers” are the 97% (sic) believers who think that not only is the climate completely static but that we have the power to control and maintain it thus.

      Now that really is delusional.

  46. From the article: “Why do people still think climate change isn’t real?
    At its heart, climate change denial is a conflict between facts and values. People deny the climate crisis because, to them, it just feels wrong.”

    First of all there is climate change and then there is human-caused climate change. The Earth’s climate constantly changes. It has done so since the beginning of time. Anyone who denies that is seriously misinformed.

    But there is no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change, thus skeptics deny the human-caused climate crisis because there is no evidence for it. It’s as simple as that.

    The author claims there is evidence of human-caused climate change, and no doubt probably thinks there is evidence, but if he were tasked with supplying evidence that humans are causing the climate to change he couldn’t find any.

    That’s why skeptics are skeptical about human-caused climate change.

    It has nothing to do with psychology or ideology. It has everything to do with common sense and facts. Just the facts please. Keep the speculation to yourself.

    Skeptics know the difference between facts and speculation. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people, like this author, who can’t tell the difference.

    • There is also zero reason to think that humans are in any capacity able to change to climate to order, which is the other part of when the line of reasoning espoused by these jackasses would logically entail.
      On top of that, there is no evidence that anything is or will change for the worse, and ample evidence that the mantra they endlessly recite of “solving the climate” by “tackling climate change” and returning the weather and climate regimes of the planet to those that prevailed several hundred years ago, would be not just catastrophic but positively nightmarish, when one considers economic conditions and energy supplies and growing condition that are in no way able to support the continued existence of the most of the billions of people currently inhabiting the Earth.

      I am getting really sick of idiots who think they are smart.
      Not to mention sociopathic lunatics who imagine themselves good or moral human beings.

  47. The author claims that those who aren’t totally invested in alarmism are also in denial of democracy – of course without providing any evidence, however the reality is that it is the alarmists that are calling for the suspension of democracy because of their perception that governments are failing them or that the people aren’t embracing their lunacy.

  48. Eric, you seem to be missing the text book example of psychological projection going on here, when you say:
    “What is this awful reality we are supposed to be trying to escape?
    If CO2 was a genuine issue, all we would need to do to dramatically cut CO2 emissions is copy the 1970s French nuclear programme. France generates over 70% of their electricity from nuclear. Sweden generates 35-40%. Sweden and France are living proof that going nuclear is affordable, safe and effective; the rest of the world could easily do the same.
    Why is the prospect of going nuclear supposed to be so traumatic? I’m a fan of nuclear power. If I thought there was the slightest chance CO2 was a problem, I would be campaigning hard for more nuclear power.
    Suggestions that climate skeptics can’t cope with the societal adjustments which would be required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions are lazy intellectual absurdities.”

    When I was reading through the comment from Hall, I also immediately thought of the case of nuclear energy and the inexplicable intransigence of warmistas to embrace or advocate for increased usage of nuclear power.
    But I was thinking of it terms of the, to me, glaringly obvious psychological projection by Hall.
    It is especially fascinating to me when someone like Hall (and Lewandowsky before him) pulls out the ole’ street corner psychology texts to perform psychoanalysis on those with whom he differs.
    I see no trace of any reason to suspect he has any greater knowledge or insight into matters of scientific philosophy, let alone any specific field relating to an understanding of the earth or atmosphere, than he does regarding any topic in brain science or psychology.
    We have all been over this ground too many times for it to need to be elaborated on in detail, except to point out the obvious: Everything he says is 100% true of the alarmists and warmistas, and not true whatsoever of people trained in or doing actual science, or even of anyone with their head merely screwed on right.
    Figures it is from “The Conversation”, that bastion of free speech that has an enunciated policy of disallowing any actual conversation.
    We have reached positively stupefying levels of sophistry from these clowns.
    I find myself wavering occasionally into something resembling pity at times.
    But then they open their lying and hateful yaps again and reveal what it is they hope to achieve, and how they would deal with any who oppose them, and my resolve is once more called to mind.

    • Nicholas, we can try to guess what is happening inside their heads, obviously I have my own ideas, but we don’t actually know what is happening in their minds.

      So I’m usually content with pointing out the logical absurdity of their public statements, to limit the harm they might cause by defusing their credibility.

      • Yes, and I was not meaning to criticize or contradict your view on his commentary.
        Certainly we have similar opinions of the credibility of such people.
        For some reason I find it galling on a more pervasive and insidious level.

        In any case, thank you for posting this.
        I always enjoy your posts.

  49. He lost me at psychodynamic theory and repressed memories.

    If you want a statistic, 97% of psychologists think that Freud was full of crap and should not be taken seriously.

  50. Can they point to anyone who thinks climate change isn’t real?

    They always frame it this way, “climate change deniers”, which is a complete strawman. I deny that there is any evidence of catastrophic global climate change caused by humans. They don’t get to frame what I think.

    • The only person I’ve ever known is Michael Mann; the man who’s Hocky-Stick graph is flat for all of history until the industrial revolution happened. This man denies that the temperatures ever changed throughout history.

  51. There is a segment of society (I was talking with such for two hours earlier today) who don’t understand my skepticism.
    “You deny Climate Change?”
    “No, the climate always changes.”
    “Then you deny that humanity has caused warming?”
    “No, mankind has created air conditioners and automobiles which both convert energy to heat among many others.”
    “Well, then, what do you deny?”
    “The idea that there is a global catastrophe requiring a globally administered solution. We humans are quite creative without government control. If CO2 is proven to be a cause of global warming, nuclear power generates none and being safe these days is environmentally responsible. If, instead it is proven CO2 lags climate rather than leading it and we have no control whatever, then nuclear power would provide the power for all the needed air conditioners. If on the other hand the global cooling advocates who see an ice age approaching, nuclear power would provide all the power needed for electric heat.”
    “But nuclear power kills.”
    … it was 2 hours like this.
    “But what if you’re wrong? Humanity becomes extinct.”

    • I would steer the conversation to the truths such a person doesn’t want to accept – the biggest one being the “cures” they support for the imaginary “crisis” of CO2 driven “climate change” will be worse by far than the imaginary “climate change” they fear.

      Or you can just start asking that person “inconvenient” questions – What are you wearing? What is it made of? How were those materials produced/grown/harvested/transported/manufactured? What did you eat today? Where did that food come from? How was it produced, grown, harvested, transported, butchered, kept cool enough to avoid spoilage? Where do you live? How was your dwelling constructed? Out of what materials? How were those materials mined, excavated, grown, harvested, transported, poured, cut,? How was the building site excavated and the dwelling erected? How do you heat your dwelling? Where does the fuel to accomplish that come from? How do you keep the lights on, you appliances and computers and TVs operating? Where does the electricity come from? How was the electricity generated, and what fuels were used for that?

      Or the big “summary” question – How long would you live without food, clothing, housing, transport, heat, etc.?

    • What if you fail to sacrifice a human every day? The Sun would refuse to rise.
      Humanity becomes extinct.
      (Aztec religion)

  52. There is nothing more attractive and persuasive than an arrogant jackass. What a great sales pitch!

    I think I’ll drop all my most deeply held beliefs and regard for the truth, and try to give in to liars and tyrants that only want to create a beautiful Utopia For Us All.

    I must bow down in my innocent ignorance and fear of the awful truth to this wisdom…for questioning the Climate Crisis only because 1.) there is no increase in extreme weather. 2.) the only 2 falsifiable predictions (temperature forecasts and tropical hot spot) are falsified. 3.) None of the proposed remedies come within 90% of fixing the problem as described. 4.) Emissions are certain to increase substantially bc/o Asia’s growth. 4.) All the Alarmist’s remedies require the demise of Free Enterprise and US Sovereignty without reducing CO2. 5.) Replacing Fossil fuels will require around 25,000 nuclear plants…or the equivalent and NOBODY is discussing mobilization at anywhere near this scale. 6.) None of the scores of scary predictions, whose expiration dates have come and gone already, were within a light year of being accurate.

    Nothing about this fraud-scam story fits together…EXCEPT that it is a bold broadly financed political strategy, where the truth doesn’t matter, to advance Authoritarian International Socialism (aka Globalism).

  53. Why are global warmers so obsessed with those who disagree? We aren’t trying to force anyone to do anything or believe anything; we simply object to their efforts of forcing change on us. They want to reduce the use of fossil fuels? They are more than welcome to stop using them. If enough people believe as they do and followed their lead, power plants will cut back, less petrol will be sold, less jet fuel used, etc., and the issue is moot.

    Warmers want to exercise power. They legitimize their power grab first with existential threat. They ask you to pay more taxes, stop using plastics, … Initially small things but their demands expand when they can force you and others to do what they want. This is a slippery road to totalitarianism, oligarchy.

  54. Always makes me laugh when I see New Zealand and academic in the same sentence. Reminds me of a student studying “political science” (WTF?) somewhere in Wellington who complained the seats at The Beehive (Parliament building) were too small for her ample frame. She lobbied the house to have extra sized seats installed. Not sure how far that went. Clearly she seemed to be one of the “entitled” generation.

  55. Well – I will within the next year or two I will have the opportunity to present my view on climate change in a very official manner – over and over.

    My local District Council (Waikato) is updating its District Plan: the rules by which subdivisions and new builds are consented. This next version will have a new chapter on “hazards”. This has been driven by the common perception of climate change and its impact (“all bad”).

    I trained in Earth Science with a focus on sedimentary geology at Masters level. Seeing more potential in geotechnical I brushed up on this and have practiced as a private consulting Engineering Geologist over the last 18 years, conducting geotechnical investigations which are a requirement for consents.

    The new chapter in the rules concentrates primarily on building floor height in relation to their expected increase in high rainfall events and sea level rise. But get this: the geotechnical professional has to calculate this with a projection out to 2120. Yikes!

    They don’t tell us what the increases will be and (supposedly) leave it to us. OKaaay – you’ll get mine chaps. My expectation will be sea level rise will tick along at the conservative rate of 3 mm/yr., giving us a full century to adapt to 300 mm. New Zealand houses have a design life of 50 years, though last much longer.

    Now – how will they respond to my reports? These people are usually planners trained in the social science departments of universities. You get no medals in guessing where their environmental leanings bend. Bring it on guys and girls. You are going to have to give me real numbers and real statistics. I will respond in kind. NZ’s tide gauge record is tatty to say the least. We are a tectonic country, so readings range from – 3 mm/yr to + 10 mm/yr. GPS datum points have only just been included.

    Rainfall records are better. I put together a chart representing 110 years of data from 4 stations in our district recently. No trend up or down in annual rainfall. I haven’t done extreme rain yet but I bet my boots that the most extreme will be somewhere back in the history – not over the last 15 years. Besides, extreme cloudbursts are very localised and usually miss a rain gauge. I was born in the district and have farmed here for 50 yrs.

    There are public consultations within the plan change process. I am going to attend one to say “give us some real data”. “Put a tide gauge and GPS station in Raglan Harbour”. There is no such devise on any of the District’s coastline.

    Geotechnical Engineering is not a black and white discipline. There are many uncertainties, as there are in climate. The flagship engineering registry in NZ – with whom I am a member – states quite clearly that informed opinion based on training and experience plays a very important part in engineering decision-making and must be respected. That’s the first quote I will present to these bureaucrats if they resist my work. Then I will be asking for the data on which they make their projections. Could be fun.

    M

  56. Surely one can also be ‘in denial about the denial’ and ‘in denial about the ‘in denial about the denial” and so on. Denial all the way down.

  57. David Hall: Senior Researcher in Politics, Auckland University of Technology.
    Right there is the clue to why the Climate Alarmists are in trouble. A none scientist, is rolled out to suggest those who do not worship at the alter of the imaginary man made climate religion are ignoring science?
    I have yet to met anyone, who denies climate change. I have met fewer and fewer people who think there is a climate emergency of any kind. I have noticed the media and the world NGOs are working flat out to project a climate scare story, for what reason only they can answer.
    Meanwhile here in the world of climate realists, we all enjoy a quiet confidence born out of scientific awareness. That calm awareness allows us to sleep soundly at night. I would recommend all climate anxious people listen to real scientists, not some Political philosopher based in NZ.
    NB I have great regard for NZ scientists. I would remind everyone Rutherford was a New Zealander.

  58. David Hall wrote

    Denial happens when climate science rubs us up the wrong way. Instead of making us want to arrest the climate crisis, it makes us resist the very thought of it, because the facts of anthropogenic global heating clash with our personal projects.

    I wonder how many “denialists” he spoke with to come to this conclusion. Maybe a guy down the pub who had a thing or two to say.

  59. Classic projection. It is the “climate crisis” believers that are in denial, refusing to accept that their pet “crisis” is pure propaganda and that they were gullible enough to be duped by it, despite the “facts” being in contradiction to all the dire predictions about the consequences of not reducing harmless (and in fact, beneficial) CO2 emissions. Now where is my honorary “psych” degree?

  60. The good Doctor has surely been seeing a shrink, you know, on the Freudian couch.
    Result is the lead cat-scan .

    Look Mum, I shrunk the Denier!

    • Me neither. A “climate crisis” would, in the first place, involve global COOLING, not global warming. It also wouldn’t be anything driven by human activities, but by natural, unstoppable forces.

      Not only isn’t “global warming” (aka “climate change (TM)”) a “crisis,” it’s actually good news. The alternative, declining temperatures heading toward re-glaciation, is infinitely scarier, and legitimately so. The dupes forget that we are in a mere “inter-glacial” period within what is otherwise an ice age, after all.

  61. David Hall has no sense of self awareness. His OWN “motivated reasoning” leads him to believe that because HE believes in a global warming catastrophe, deep in their guts everyone ELSE believes in a pending global warming catastrophe.

    I guess some of us skeptics can ALSO incorrectly use “motivated reasoning”. Since I know that “catastrophic anthropogenicc global warming” is a scam, deep in my guts I feel that all alarmists not merely ignorant, but are deliberately “runnning a scam”.

  62. Yet more obvious projection from psychiatrists who have no more credibility in judging climate science than a janitor.
    The USSR used faux scientific words to declare those opposed to “scientific socialism” as mentally ill.
    And in Australia “psychiatrists” claim ten year old children have the maturity to undergo “gender reassignment”.
    There is something horribly disgusting in OZ.

    • In Aus too, on ABC (Who knew?) there is a British TV program called “No more Boy and Girls” all about identifying and removing gender differences in school kids of around 10 or so. It has been aired several times now. It’s pretty disgusting but not unusual for the ABC.

      Australia’s Brainwashing Company!

  63. The data says nothing much is happening so we should panic and run around in circles hysterically!

    Snow cover extent anomaly trend is unchanged this century. The snowline on average ain’t moving so where is all the terrifying climate change?

  64. The world is flat.
    I know that because I saw the Disney Documentary years ago. (Pirates of something or other that look really cool!)
    All those who don’t believe the world is flat but a rather a globe instead only believe that because they are afraid of getting crabs. (really big ones!)

  65. What does one call the psychological phenomenon where one sees a chicken running about shrieking “the sky is falling”, then accepts that claim unflinchingly and subsequently joins the chicken in its Armageddon jig while calling out all the unbelievers as deniers.

  66. Raw data massaged to fit theory, so blatantly that it would be fraud if the work of an investment bank. Started by the man responsible for the modern modelling of catastrophic warming too boot. Why wouldn’t you have doubts that they did a proper job of the theory?

Comments are closed.