Essay by Eric Worrall
According to Associate Professor Thomas Wood, the impact of climate education is so fragile, exposure to climate skeptic voices rapidly undoes progress in changing minds and attitudes.
Jun 20, 2022
Science coverage of climate change can change minds – briefly
Accurate beliefs fade quickly, especially if challenged
Jeff Grabmeier Ohio State News grabmeier.1@osu.edu
Science reporting on climate change does lead Americans to adopt more accurate beliefs and support government action on the issue – but these gains are fragile, a new study suggests.
Researchers found that these accurate beliefs fade quickly and can erode when people are exposed to coverage skeptical of climate change.
“It is not the case that the American public does not respond to scientifically informed reporting when they are exposed to it,” said Thomas Wood, associate professor of political science at The Ohio State University.
“But even factually accurate science reporting recedes from people’s frame of reference very quickly.”
The study will be published June 24, 2022, in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Wood conducted the study with Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College and Ethan Porter of George Washington University.
Results showed that accurate science reporting didn’t persuade only Democrats – Republicans and people who initially rejected human-caused climate change also had their opinions shifted by reading accurate articles.
…
Wood said it was significant that accurate reporting had positive effects on all groups, including Republicans and those who originally rejected climate change. But it was even more encouraging that it affected attitudes.
…
But the positive effects on people’s beliefs were short-lived, results showed. These effects largely disappeared in later waves of the study.
In addition, opinion stories that were skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change reversed the accuracy gains generated by science coverage.
…
Read more: https://news.osu.edu/science-coverage-of-climate-change-can-change-minds–briefly/
Poor climate scientists, if only all the climate skeptics were silenced, they could persuade all the Republicans to join their crusade to slay the carbon demon. Or something like that.
Is Nick Stokes a climate scientist?
Dunno, probably not, but if hearing a skeptical argument can Undo Klimate Science then there truly must be little to no truth in the science.
I have yet to hear ANY argument that could prove Flat Earth has any basis in facts or that could undermine Spherical Earth and a Heliocentric solar system
Nailed it Bryan…
Quote:”but if hearing a skeptical argument can Undo Klimate Science then there truly must be little to no truth in the science.
It’s called Intuition, maybe First Impressions or Sixth Sense
We all have it, girls more than boys but we instinctively ‘know’ when somebody is lying to, talking rubbish or expounding on someything the don’t themselves understand.
Repeat myself to power of n:”The human animal cannot lie, it always gives itself away
And so it is with Climate Science – even the folks at the cutting edge don’t understand it.
And how could they, the most basic explanation of the GHGE requires cold objects to heat already warm ones. Nonsense.
Climate Science is complete shyte and there is no hiding the fact and when they appear to go along with it, they are only being obedient, hospitable or nice
As soon as their professor, lecturer teacher or whateverer is out of sight they go back to being normal
As this guy says….. but he thinks the people are at fault and not the science = magical thinking at its finest.
Peta, the misnamed greenhouse effect does not require cold objects to heat warm ones. Subtract the TOA emission temperature from that of the surface and you have the greenhouse effect.
The surface temperature we measure is really the bottom of the troposphere. Given the temperature gradient in the troposphere the average should be around halfway between the bottom and the top. That temperature is similar to the TOA emission temperature.
It seems only way to increase global temperatures [which would be good idea if living in an Ice Age- like we are] is heat up our cold ocean [which has average temperature of about 3.5 C].
And though it would take a long time to heat our by 1 C that is the
only way to warm Earth,
Of course some warming of ocean occurs naturally during the La Nina phase we are currently in, and warming of ocean has cooling effect on the atmosphere. But I mean during it artificially and want the atmosphere colder, we warm the ocean faster [but it will still take centuries].
Ross, that is not even wrong. The TOA emission temperature is just that; not some average of the gradient “to get there.”
Dave, the point I was making is that our measuring thermometers are around 1.5 metres above the surface of the ground, ie. at the bottom of the troposphere. The temperature of minus 18C (equivalent of TOA emission temperature) is found where it is expected, about halfway between the top and bottom of the troposphere.
Thanks for the information, Ross.
Any chance you would kindly do the math part for us?
mkelly, you already know that approximate number.
You must be new around here … Welcome to planet Earth !
As some unknown wit put it so many years ago :
“The problem with political jokes is that they keep getting re-elected.”
Peta writes “the most basic explanation of the GHGE requires cold objects to heat already warm ones.”
The most basic explanation of the GHGE requires the object to cool more slowly thus leaving it warmer.
Scepticism can occur for the wrong reasons and hence appear to others that sceptics in general are mistaken. So I, for one, don’t appreciate left field “understanding” of climate science being put out there as sceptic beliefs.
Peta also wrote “It’s called Intuition, maybe First Impressions or Sixth Sense”
And for me the intuition is in the feedbacks. Climate Science says they’re increased above a factor of 1x (actually close to 3x) by increased water vapour and my intuition tells me they will be decreased below 1x by myriad other atmospheric and oceanic processes over time even if they’re above 1x right now. My intuition comes from an argument of entropy and understanding that greater than 1x means entropy is decreased which can’t be maintained by the passive effect of CO2.
Once again we have a political science guy determining truth in physical science. As if he is remotely qualified with the appropriate background.
Here we have Bryan A who is also equally wrong about everything.
Of course the Earth is flat. Consider when a soft drink or beer is fizzy, it has an abundance of CO2, we say the drink is carbonated. When the excess CO2 is eliminated, the beverage goes flat.
The oceans of Earth do not have excess carbonation. They have gone flat. To be maintained, the rest of the Earth must be flat as well. This is the Flat Earth as proved by the carbonation level.
Your heliocentric solar system is a bigoted and probably racist construct, nothing more. The Geocentric solar system is TRUTH. Check out any of the many astronomical tables used for orienting and pointing telescopes. Every single one of them references the nighttime sky against the surface of the Earth. Geocentric all the way. Geocentric, this is the true nature of things. Understandably, you might want to use a different reference system if you were in the surface of the moon or Mars.
You would not like to be on the surface of any other planet in the solar system.
Way too funny
Bobby told Lucy, “The world ain’t round…
Drops off sharp at the edge of town
Lucy, you know the world must be flat
‘Cause when people leave town, they never come back”
“Small Town Saturday Night” by Hal Ketchum
Flat Earth is too much, maybe Apollo faked (in area 51?)
There is a larger following for that one and it certainly didn’t start as a joke.
Some other people may be coining people, but I’m convinced Bill Kaysing was an authentic fool.
That is comparatively harder to debunk, as trivial geometric remarks aren’t enough to prove the Apollo mission real.
So I think it would make a good basis to test “debunking” and “prebunking” psychological theories.
Nick has published original research on CO2 sensitivity with Judith Curry, finding low values. So he is a leading lukewarmer.
I think you may be confusing him with Nicholas Lewis, who has co-published low sensitivity papers with Judith.
My mistake! Thanks Pat.
Stokes has at least one website
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/
He does running surface temperature math. There is a topic index to prior posts that includes many other topics.
Bob Ward is one of those, and a very persuading chap at that.
Only if he could do the policing for real!
These are my observations of Nick over years of following the climate change circus.
Nick Stokes is a scientist and an obviously intelligent guy. That said, he appears dedicated to promote man’s CO2 emissions as the cause of alleged man-made climate change. In that role, he will nip at the heals of those skeptics when he can find a vulnerability in their assertions and that is well and good. Unfortunately, he seems give the climate emergency crowd a free pass to produce trash science and make outrageous claims.
Climate science’s idea of “accurate beliefs” is: “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE. . . SOON!”
Skeptics sometimes aver, “Well, maybe not. The data are inconclusive, not all grim, and besides, it’s hard to predict the future.”
Is it any wonder those alleged beliefs occasionally waver?
Even before global warming the radical environmentalists saw humans as the ultimate evil in the biosphere. In the weekly reader of the 1960’s us kids were indoctrinated to think that the world would be unlivable because of the population “Bomb”.(Paul Erlich Standford University 1968). The radical stance has always been the enlightened activists were the saviors of the planet and it’s innocent life forms. Scientists of all sorts have made all sorts of predictions that would lead us to believe life as we know it was ending. Remember California sliding into the Pacific. Life as we know it is always changing and passing away. We are all going to die soon…. but probably not soon enough for our saviors.
Yup, jeff. “We’re going to have to k!ll everybody on Earth to save the Earth for our children.
–
–
Wait… something doesn’t quite add up. I think our saviors are missing something.
Hey H.R.
Many of our kids 15-30 are so confused and preoccupied alone with their phones they are not getting married or having kids. The birthrate keeps dropping in the US and precipitously so since 2008. Roe VS Wade was the eugenics solution for Mr. Erlich’s population bomb and the problem of children being born into the welfare system. Seems the radical environmentalists will eventually get what they want a depopulated, broken and socialistic America.
No, the rest of the US will slide into the Atlantic.
File this story under Good News. Facts and logic can still persuade a sizable number of people.
This rather reminds me of the stage play Peter Pan—keep clapping or Tinkerbell will die! If “knowledge” is that thin that it cannot withstand any contradiction, it is weak.
Certainly needs to be propped up by Hockey Sticks or it falls flat, as flat as Flat Earth Hypothesis
So howz come my billiard balls don’t all roll off the table, Bryan?
Proof, if you need it.
Time to face the Gravity of the situation…and the raised bumper surround
How can a political ‘scientist’ be certain he is on the right side of Truth?
He doesn’t canter to the left
A political scientist knows that whoever gets the most votes wins the election.
Of course, the typical political scientist has never heard of Alfred Wegener.
People are convinced – until they walk outside of the indoctrination building.
Progress is an [unqualified] monotonic process: one step forward, two steps backward.
To undo progress is: one step backward, two steps forward.
Agreed, n.n., except you misspelled progressivism.
Always wrong wild guesses of a coming climate crisis,
that never shows up, are unrelated to science.
These predictions began in late 1950s science papers.
Anyone NOT skeptical after 65 years of wrong climate predictions
is a fool. In addition to the wrong climate predictions,
every prediction of environmental doom since the 1960s
has been wrong. 100% wrong.
There are only two choices:
(1) Be skeptical of climate predictions, or
(2) Be a fool.
And here’s a superb record and tracker of those busted predictions:
Extinction Clock
And only last night on TVNZ, there was a “news” item saying that hundreds of wild animal species will soon die out if …….. And, of course, they showed lovely film of Mountain Gorillas hugging Attenborough! Deliberate scare tactics – no wonder so many schoolkids are feeling suicidal!
And in real life, Attenborough will die off long before the Mountain Gorillas and other wild animal species…
Always funny to read those, in a very sad way.
If any of these clowns ever go on fox. Newsmax or OANN, they should be confronted with their BS predictions and made to answer for them FIRST.
Also if any of them are called to congress to testify, (hint, hint Republicans) they should be made to answer for them BEFORE they are allowed to give their opening statements.
And therein lies the rub: Nome of the idiots have had their bullshit predictions thrown back at them.
How can they* expect people to remain convinced of severe CO2-caused climate change when every prediction they have made over the past 30 years has turned out to be wrong?
* “They” being climate scientists and activists who believe CO2 will cause destruction of the planet by making the temperature rise.
I used to live near there, in Columbus, Ohio. I looked up his address and viewed his house from street view and top view, NO SOLAR PANELS! the HYPOCRITE!
Jeff Grabmoney?
Where are these “…accurate articles…” that the transient climate change believers are reading? Not from Mikey Mann et al, where are they? I actually would like to read one. Can anyone help me?
A spectacularly Orwellian attitude. It is the tenuous beliefs that fade rapidly with minimal challenge, not the accurate ones. The position presented is that it is only ‘us anointed ones’ who can define accuracy, ‘why won’t they listen?’
What is true is that only a brief exposure to logic and factual observation can, and does, crumble the belief. The skeptic should never be embarrassed nor turned from what he sees.
What needs serious questioning is how those who would try to push society into such tenuous beliefs are getting into professorship positions.
You have it Len, in a nutshell. Kudos.
Truth fears no question.
The corollary, alas, is that deceit fears no answer.
/Truth fears no question./
You put it in its simplest form:
How to Spot an Ideologue
https://mercatornet.com/how-to-spot-an-ideologue/8464/
Think about the irony: you spend years indoctrinating students and then they run into a simple questioner like Socrates or Diogenes, who has no agenda to push but getting at the truth, and your whole indoctrination effort collapses. (facepalm)
re: “those who hold a principled position welcome arguments; they welcome having their position tested and possibly corrected.”
This description is the very antithesis of the behavior of so-called climate change “skeptics”, whose modus operandi so often appears to be little more than “Nuh Uh because I said so”.
Spotted this on LinkedIn. Had to post it.
That is hilarious
yep
No prize for guessing which group of motorists are most likely to be shouting about climate change but would be clueless if you asked them to explain the UHI effect.
Actually probably both since the urban core, and seeing that beautiful tree lined street, the wealthy suburban college educated elitists are of the same political persuasion, but the intermediate hard working wage earning what is left of the middle class, are mostly living where it is not as urban and not as gentrified.
This is what happens when you leave the same emissivity setting on your IR thermometer.
‘Accurate climate science reporting is “fragile”’. It should be:
’Accurate climate science reporting’ was just wrong. That is why it is fragile.
The esteemed professor of political science is analyzing effects of propaganda.
Sort of like how the German people might be “convinced” of Germany’s “victories” on the eastern front in WWII, until they were confronted with a look at a map showing the locations of these “victories” getting closer and closer to Germany…
Great list!
Almost all of the stuff on Rud’s list is either badly misleading or demonstrably wrong.
Thanks Rud for presenting an excellent real-time illustration of exactly what these researchers were talking about: totally flawed “skeptical” talking points that act to undermine accurate scientific reporting.
Are you the same MGC who used to post lies on Yahoo! ? The MGC who said that climate change would cause fresh water to become a scarce resource followed almost immediately by a post that claimed climate change would cause us to be inundated by rain? That idiot?
I know you’re the liar who posted that CO2 is growing exponentially.
I won’t ask you to explain why Rud’s list is misleading, you would just expose your ignorance, and I know you can’t prove the list to be demonstrably wrong – because that’s a flat lie.
Keep holding his feet to the fire. I notice he never responds to your questions.
meab sadly re-echoes the same tired old falsehoods over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Really meab? You’re genuinely unaware that fresh water is becoming a scarce resource in the U.S. Southwest, even while rainfall in most other parts of the U.S. has been increasing?
Really meab? You’re genuinely unaware that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are growing exponentially?
Typical “skeptical” ignorance.
MGC,
The IPCC found LOW CONFIDENCE in increasing drought averaged worldwide in AR6. You know that droughts come and go locally, any local drought is not evidence of climate change, so you’re lying.
AR6 finds a SLIGHT increase in rainfall worldwide, NO increase in flooding. Claim otherwise and you’ll be lying again.
meab,
Learn the obvious difference between “average drought worldwide” and “clear and obvious local/regional drought”.
Also learn the obvious difference between “slight increase in rainfall worldwide” and “significant increase in rainfall at the local/regional level”.
As usual, your every post demonstrates nothing but your woeful “skeptical” ignorance. So disgraceful.
Fool. Some droughts are getting worse and some are getting better. Same as always. No change. In fact, desert area worldwide is shrinking.
The area that you so ignorantly called out as evidence of climate change, the US southwest, has experienced drought very frequently, much of it is a desert. For example, just one of many, look up the Great Drought from 1276 to 1299 that caused the Anasazi to abandon the SW. That drought wasn’t caused by CO2, and neither is the current drought. How do we know? Some droughts are getting better – if CO2 caused existing droughts to worsen that wouldn’t be happening.
Listen up, fool, weather is highly variable and always has been. All climate changes have to be deduced as a change to the historical distributions for each climate measure, but with the huge natural weather variability any putative changes have been difficult to impossible to see (because any change, one way or the other, has been too small to stand out against the huge natural variability). The only changes that have been seen are in temperature – a small increase mostly in winter and overnight temps and a slight increase in rainfall. Accumulated Cyclone energy appears to be dropping (a good thing), as well as are intense thunderstorms -a few more years will tell the story.
Your claims of an anthropogenic climate catastrophe are completely and utterly false.
What’s happening now in the U.S. Southwest is exactly what was projected would happen because of increasing CO2 levels. These predictions were made decades ago. But so-called “skeptics” just want to pretend away such pesky and inconvenient facts; facts that undermine their pseudo-scientific “objections”.
“bu bu bu bu droughts have happened before due to natural events”
This is like claiming that people having died of natural causes in the past is “evidence” that no one is ever murdered now.
re: “any change, one way or the other, has been too small to stand out against the huge natural variability”
False. Current sea level rise rate has clearly stood out from the natural variability of the preceding 2000 years. So has ice melt. And of course, so has temperature increase.
There’s not historic data on some other indicators, but the fact that they are proceeding as was projected decades ago is itself good evidence that increased CO2 levels are the reason.
re: “intense thunderstorms … appear to be dropping”
Also false. See attached graph courtesy of:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/us/01-12/4
MGC,
You’re lying again. CO2 has been rising very nearly linearly. Note that CO2 has risen SLIGHTLY sublinearly for part of the last 25 years, and SLIGHTLY superlinearly for part of that time but, overall, a linear fit to the recent rise is extremely good with an R^2 above 0.99.
You’ve been schooled on this before, MGC. Why are you choosing to lie?
Thanks once again, meab, for so obviously demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about. None.
The “linear” best fit you post shows the data points clearly above the trend line at the beginning, clearly below the trendline in the middle, and clearly back above the trendline at the end. This is a classic sign that the trend is in fact not linear, but has a concave upward shape and is accelerating. This is taught in Elementary Statistics 101 for pete’s sake.
“You’ve been schooled on this before, meab. Why are you choosing to lie?”
Fool. Learn what an R^2 of .996 means. It means that any departure from linearity is very small. You should know that an exponential NEVER drops sublinear – it ALWAYS maintains upward curvature , that’s NOT what this chart shows. You’re just lying (fecklessly, too)
I have a BA degree in math with an emphasis in statistics. BS in physics, and a Master’s and a PhD in Nuclear Engineering (fusion emphasis) too. You obviously don’t.
Unbelievably willful foolishness, meab.
A “linear” trend would have a constant rate of increase. The current rate of CO2 increase is about double what it was 50 years ago. In fact, with the exception of the 1990s, the rate of CO2 increase has grown every single decade since the 1960s. The CO2 increase trend is most certainly not linear.
See attached graph, taken from:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html
re: “You should know that an exponential NEVER drops sublinear – it ALWAYS maintains upward curvature , that’s NOT what this chart shows.”
Wow. Total wow. Another woeful demonstration of a complete lack of understanding.
A linear best fit trend line drawn through an exponentially increasing dataset will always show the behavior just pointed out: data points above the linear trend line in the beginning, below that trend line in the middle, then back above the trend line again at the end.
re: “Learn what an R^2 of .996 means.”
The R-squared for an exponential best fit is even better: .998. Learn what that means.
Everything you’ve “concluded” here is just tragically wrong, meab. Everything. You should ask for your tuition money back for those degrees you claim.
“The R-squared for an exponential best fit is even better: .998. Learn what that means.”
True by inspection, as you noted. But Meab already had the data. He could have found what you found in another 5 minutes.
I’m getting lazy in my dotage. I was going to do this this AM, but between Masters swim practice, and a bike flat I shined on it. I also knew that you would be all over it…
Hey there Bob –
Always good to hear from you. Great to hear about the swimming and the biking. Good stuff! I just did an 8 mile mountain hike myself on Monday.
MGC your age is going exponentially. Every year you age by 10^0. Its a fancy word that means almost nothing in this. CO2 growth of about 2 ppm per year is pretty linear.
MGC says”Almost all of the stuff on Rud’s list is either badly misleading or demonstrably wrong.”
Would you please go through those item by item and tell us unwashed which are badly misleading and which are demonstrably wrong? Please include reason.
Here ya go mkelly:
1. The modeled tropical troposphere hotspot does not exist.
“badly misleading”. The tropical troposphere hotspot constitutes only 5% of the tropospheric volume. “Skeptics” try to pretend that a little 5% discrepancy like this somehow “invalidates” CO2 greenhouse warming, but of course it does no such thing.
2. Arctic summer sea ice didn’t disappear.
“badly misleading”. No one ever claimed Arctic sea ice was definitely going to disappear by now. Most estimates have arctic sea ice disappearance still a couple decades away.
3. Sea level rise did not accelerate.
“Demonstrably wrong.” Even an analysis in an article by Willis E. here on WUWT actually found acceleration (but tried to sweep this result under the rug).
4. Weather extremes did not increase.
“Demonstrably wrong.” U.S. data shows a clear trend toward more extreme precipitation events. Just as projected decades ago by climate models.
5. UK children still know snow.
“badly misleading”. A mere off-the-cuff comment by one person does not represent the scientific consensus.
6. The world is greening thanks to the benefits of more CO2.
“badly misleading”. Focuses on one benefit only while ignoring the negatives.
7. Renewables still need subsidies and intermittency backup.
“Demonstrably wrong.” Renewables typically not only no longer require subsidies to compete on electricity generation price, but on this metric are often lower cost than fossil fuel alternatives (though yes, intermittency back-up is of course a requirement).
8. Kyoto and Paris both failed to do anything about CO2.
“badly misleading”. CO2 might have risen even faster if not for Kyoto and Paris. We’ll never know.
9. Alarmists like Kerry, Biden, and AOC are provably daft, and their actions are very damaging.
“Demonstrably wrong.” In the minds of so-called “skeptics”, these folks have committed the unpardonable “error” of (heavens, no!) actually accepting scientific information agreed upon by every major scientific organization in the entire world.
10. ‘Climate science’ isn’t science in the Feynmann sense. It is 40 years of falsified alarming predictions, which means the underlying hypotheses are just wrong.
“Demonstrably wrong.” Climate change predictions have been quite accurate over the past 40 years. Pretending otherwise is just flat out lying.
Mr. C: Thanks for not mucking up your reply with cites and facts. Just saying “wrong” isn’t enough, but “demonstrably” is a real clincher. It saves you the trouble of demonstrating, you seem to think.
Thanks Paul, for yet another example of a so-called “skeptic” pretending that facts aren’t really facts. Like the fact that the tropospheric hot spot really is only 5% of the troposphere. Or that even Willis E’s analysis published here on WUWT found sea level rise acceleration.
Every point stated is easily verified as factually correct. The post was already long enough that including citations didn’t seem appropriate. However, every fact stated is easily backed with evidentiary citations.
Sorry that you are unable to accept reality.
Mr. C: Thank YOU for not troubling us with silly “demonstrations” of Mr. Istvan’s imagined errors. Not sorry to see you waste so much time posting here, as it’s likely the least harm you can do.
The harm being done here is not by me, Paul.
Sorry again to have troubled you with reality that “skeptical” ideology pretends does not exist.
Mr. C: I didn’t say you were doing harm here, did I? You waste your time here, which is less time for you to do harm elsewhere. You are entitled to your own reality, and when you express it here, you do no harm because we know what an insult troll looks like. Do you suppose you are winning an argument or something?
And here’s Paul now pretending that if someone calls out obvious falsehoods and simply states well verified facts, they are somehow an “insult troll”.
Sorry, but it is the constant pretending away of reality by so-called “skeptics” that constitutes the genuine insults here.
Mr. Istvan: All good points, and the assumption built-in “accurate” vs. skeptical “inaccurate” is sooo very subtle. Prof Wood and colleagues might produce the result they want if they tell the subjects about the “accuracy” part. On the other hand, if they were actually curious, Wood et al. might have had another group, “b”; and told group “b” the “skeptical” position first, then exposed “b” to the (what shall we call it, the “not skeptical” position?) other view. Wonder what they might find (no, I don’t wonder).
The article is encouraging news, I plan to keep sharing skeptical information as widely as I can.
Look at actual data and recognize the fact that the “climate crisis” is the biggest scam in human history!
Here are some true climate facts:
• There has been less than one degree of warming from 1850 to 2012 (WG1AR5_all_final.pdf, Pg. 209 )
• There is no evidence that hurricanes have increased (WG1AR5_all_final.pdf, pg 178 )
• There is no evidence that storms have increased (WG1AR5_all_final.pdf, pg 178)
• There is no evidence that sea level rise has increased (WG1AR5_all_final.pdf, Page 306)
• There is no evidence that floods have increased (WG1AR5_all_final.pdf, pg 230)
• There is no evidence that droughts have increased (WG1AR5_all_final.pdf, pg 178)
• Man emits 6% of CO2 emissions, nature 94% (NASA’s carbon cycle chart)
• CO2 causes ONLY about 1/3 of the warming. (BAMS, Vol. 78, No. 2, February 1997)
• It is not possible to predict future climate. (TAR-14.pdf, Page 771)
(Links to evidence are below)
Fact is that there is nothing unusual about today’s climate and thus nothing to explain with man’s CO2.
These well respected sources debunk several popular lies about climate:
Quotes & Facts from the IPCC (which is considered the bible of climate), NASA & the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
(You may have read other claims from the IPCC, usually from the Summary For Policy Makers without knowing that the summary is actually a political document written, word by word, by politicians from many countries including those looking for cash handouts. The below is from the science part of the report.)
1. Earth only warmed 0.78 degree C up to 2012.
“Using Had-CRUT4 and its uncertainty estimates, the warming from 1850–1900 to 1986–2005 (reference period for the modelling chapters and Annex I) is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] C (90% confidence interval), and the warming from 1850–1900 to 2003–2012 (the most recent decade) is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] C (Supplementary Material 2.SM.4.3.3).”
Pg. 209 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
2. Man emits about 6% of total emissions.
Add the numbers on this NASA diagram: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page1.php
3. CO2 causes only about 26-32% of the greenhouse effect. H2O causes 60-75%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Greenhouse_gases which is based on Table 3 of: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 78, No. 2, February 1997 –
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281997%29078%3C0197%3AEAGMEB%3E2.0.CO%3B2
4. We do not have enough data to say that hurricanes have increased.
“Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.”
pg 178 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
5. We do not have enough data to say that storms have increased.
“Confidence in large-scale trends in storminess or storminess proxies over the last century is low owing to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). {2.6.4}”
pg 178 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
6. No evidence that normal sea level increase has accelerated.
(Note that sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age – the issue is whether it is rising faster.)
“When a 60-year oscillation is modeled along with an acceleration term, the estimated acceleration in GMSL since 1900 ranges from: 0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr–2 in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, 0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr–2 in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record, and 0.012 [0.009 to 0.015] mm yr–2 in the Church and White (2011) record. Thus, while there is more disagreement on the value of a 20th century acceleration in GMSL when accounting for multi-decadal fluctuations, two out of three records still indicate a significant positive value. The trend in GMSL observed since 1993, however, is not significantly larger than the estimate of 18-year trends in previous decades (e.g., 1920–1950). “
Page 306 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
7. No evidence that floods have increased (per IPCC)
“AR4 WGI Chapter 3 (Trenberth et al., 2007) did not assess changes in floods but AR4 WGII concluded that there was not a general global trend in the incidence of floods (Kundzewicz et al., 2007). SREX went further to suggest that there was low agreement and thus low confidence at the global scale regarding changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods or even the sign of changes.”
pg 230 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
8. No evidence that droughts have increased
“Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and geographical inconsistencies in the trends.”
pg 178 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
9. Prediction of future climate is not possible.
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. “ https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm (IPCC third Assessment Report (2001) Section 14.2.2.2, page 774) and Page 771, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf
This shows that THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
If you think there is a climate emergency, please show us actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
Also see: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/arguements.html
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/alarmist_claim_rebuttals_updated/
More Information:
https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/25/in-a-few-days-clouds-affect-earths-radiation-budget-by-more-than-co2-does-in-270-years/
Define “Scientific consensus on climate change”.
Anyone?
In percentage, it is 97%. In absolute numbers, it is 85 out of 87.
I assume you are referring to the questionnaire emailed out by john cook to around 10,500 “scientists” (anyone he could find with letters after their names, including dentists, gynaecologists, sociologists etc) that asked just two questions: 1/ Do you think the world has warmed since 1850 and 2/ Do you think human activity had anything to do with it. Around 1/3 were returned and he couldn’t find sufficient numbers that answered yes to both, so he filtered out just those that were returned by “climate scientists” of which, IIRC, 75 of 77 said yes to both questions.
A bullshit meme concocted through bullshit “surveys”/analyses” that started with their conclusion of “overwhelming agreement” and worked their way backwards using every imaginable sleight of hand including meaningless questions, misclassification of answers or “papers,” discarding all the non-confirming responses or “papers,” and trumpeting the pseudo “results” to the world to encourage people to stop thinking.
Liars, damn liars, and climate scientists.
That might be more to the point.
Here is a larger list of scientific truths about climate science which confound the climate consensus.
• Arrhenius’s calculations were wrong and his conjecture about the greenhouse process is flawed: CO2 only plays a marginal role in the climate system, due to its IR absorbing saturation levels at low <300ppm CO2;
• Henry’s law, dictates CO2 follows temperature and not the other way round, effect cannot precede cause, therefore the AGW theory is based on an erroneous causation;
• Anthropic CO2 is a tiny 6% of the overall atmospheric CO2 concentration as most of the increase has come from natural processes, i.e., plants, volcanoes and the out-gassing of oceans due to increase of temperature; the residency time in the atmosphere of each CO2 molecule is less than six years;
• 99.96% of the CO2 ever present in the atmosphere has been removed by various natural processes (mainly weathering) over geological times, then sequestered in ocean carbonate sediments and organic fossil fuels;
• Anthropogenic global warming has been proved to be a minor effect, the longer-term climate risk is the lack of sufficient CO2 to support and enhance all life on Earth, therefore emissions growth is positive for humanity;
• Atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 is greatly exaggerated by IPCC and may be <1, the role of water vapor is underestimated and clouds have an overall negative feedback, so runaway global warming is impossible;
• The Greenhouse effect (absorption of IR radiations by some gases) is badly defined and intentionally kept confusing; however, a doubling of CO2 from 410ppmv should result in a temperature increase of only 0.35°C (after 100yr), because the warming capability of CO2 is now so close to saturation;
• In climate models, CO2 related GHG warming is enhanced by water vapor the main player, but water -resists modeling and entails that climate cannot yet be forecast beyond what meteorology achieves, i.e., 15 days;
• IPCC GCM’s are not validated and have no true predictive value because they do not hindcast well, they assume high ECS, ignore negative feedbacks such as clouds and dismiss natural climate variability;
• Many of the world’s surface temperature datasets are locally affected by the urban heat island effect or corrupted by inappropriate homogenisation techniques designed to show human related global warming;
• Rising CO2 is beneficial for plant and crop growth and human sustainability. Record harvests in Australia and worldwide plus forest growth testifies to improved photosynthesis and plant fertilisation;
• Progressive acidification of open oceans is a myth; they have always been alkaline;
• Sea Level changes measured since 1907 show no acceleration (1mm y-1) and are unrelated to CO2 levels;
• Solar and Earth orbital variations are among the main factors that drive long and short-term climate change, including the seasons, hydrological cycle, storms, oceanic oscillations and the Ice Ages;
• Solar flux changes during weak magnetic cycles cause stronger cosmic ray bombardment and ionized particles forming water droplets and cooling cloud development, thus negating AGW in the atmosphere;
• Plate tectonics and gravity changes impact climate through mountain building, continent and ocean realignment, changing wind and currents that redistribute heat and water vapour from the tropics towards the poles;
• Natural oceanic oscillations ENSO (El Niño – La Niña), AMO, NAO, PDO are much more relevant to modern climate than AGW. High-capacity ocean heat and CO2 sinks act to moderate atmospheric effects and climate;
•The globe’s hydrologic cycle is a key factor regulating daily weather and short-term climate; the stronger the hydrologic cycle, the more ocean heating, surface evaporation, cloud development and cooling occurs; • Major volcanic eruptions can be globally disruptive and cause local cooling by sulphureous emissions and ejecta, they also emit considerable CO2 but are largely dismissed in GCM’s;
• Increased atmospheric CO2 can be seen as a good thing from both environmental and ecological aspects, as life and civilization generally speaking flourishes in warmer, CO2 enriched and wetter conditions;
• There is no convincing relationship between modern warming and increases in extreme weather events;
• No empirical evidence exists to support the assertion that a planetary warming of 2°C would be net ecologically or economically damaging. In contrast, moderate warming is likely to be beneficial to humanity;
• Many diseases that thrive during cold conditions, e.g., influenza and other respiratory afflictions like Covid, will be reduced by a warmer environment;
• Forward projections of solar cyclicity and other climate variables imply the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO2 emissions and higher CO2 levels.
Alternate interpretation of this study: Many people are persuaded by climate change propaganda until it is pointed out to them that there is no solid scientific evidence that backs up the claims.
Skepticism is fundamental to the scientific method.
“Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum“-Rene Descartes
re: “Skepticism is fundamental to the scientific method.”
Pretending away well verified scientific facts, which is what so-called climate “skeptics” do, has no place in the scientific method.
Are you saying that it is a scientific fact that the Tropical Tropospheric Hot Spot exists?
Dave, the “Tropical Tropospheric Hot Spot” that so many “skeptics” blindly parrot about constitutes only 5% of the total volume of the troposphere.
I’m not a religious man, but Matthew Chapter 23 Verse 24 applies here.
Whether 5% or not, the enhanced greenhouse effect requires that happen. The latest (CMIP6) UN IPCC CliSciFi computer models require it throughout specified tropospheric levels of the entire atmosphere. Since none have been measured it is clear the operation of our climate is not accurately reflected in the models.
MGC, I don’t blindly search for quotes: If you want to quote something then quote it.
The only thing that the tropospheric hotspot issue demonstrates is that the models are not yet entirely adept in assessing how the accumulating greenhouse warming distributes itself within the climate system.
There are also other places where there has been more warming than models project. But the overall amount of warming on a global scale has been projected quite accurately, for several decades now, even by much much simpler models that do not allocate warming to local and regional levels at all.
This little 5% issue issue does not in any way invalidate the greenhouse warming process itself. But so-called “skeptics” want to falsely pretend otherwise.
No but it invalidates the models. I dont think you understand the significance of the hotspot as regards the feedbacks the models are projecting.
There are a lot of things fundamentally wrong with the models, this is just one of them.
And without the models, AGW has nothing on feedbacks and then nothing on how much warming to expect let alone how dangerous it might be.
Claiming its a “5% issue” is about as ignorant as someone claiming CO2 cant be an issue because its only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Tim blindly parrots the totally false “skeptical” echo chamber talking points about the tropospheric hot spot; talking points that wildly over-exaggerate the significance of the hot spot divergence.
“Skeptics” continue to pretend that unless the models are 100% perfect, then they are useless. But this notion is just as ridiculous as claiming that because daily weather forecasts are also far from perfect, then they must be useless as well.
“Skeptics” also blindly ignore the fact that on average the models been quite accurate for several decades now. Even very simple “global only” models that do not make any local/regional temperature projections at all have been quite accurate.
The tropospheric hotspot issue demonstrates that the models are not yet entirely adept in assessing how the accumulating greenhouse warming distributes itself within the climate system, not an issue with the greenhouse warming effect itself.
And really Dave? Couldn’t take the 20 seconds required to find that quote? Maybe because you wouldn’t like what you’d find.
Matthew Chapter 23 Verse 24 says: “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”
You shouldn’t diss Dave. Highlight, right click, “search for”. 10 seconds, not 20.
And Dave might even have been one of those kids who went to Bible Challenge contests growing up. As a hopeless Imbiblical, I always wondered how my country cousins could memorize so much, and then act so counter Christian as adults….
bigoilbrandon: Well, Mr. C had to divert attention from his “5%” tripe. So he tried to see if Mr. Fair would follow him down a rabbit hole. Mr. Fair wisely passed, or some fool might try to change the subject some more, going way out into, I don’t know, like how Christians act. Really off-topic and doltish. Who would be capable of that??!!
Any chance you will engage your fellow troll on why, at 5% or 50%, it shows none of the predicted heat?
Here’s paul once again pretending away reality; this time pretending that the easily verified 5% fact is “tripe”, and that anyone who would stoop so “low” as to actually accept scientific fact is a “troll”.
Not to mention his insolent response to bob, who is one of the few rational posters that can be found here.
And so-called “skeptics” like paul still wonder why they’re not taken seriously by the worldwide scientific community.
Mr. C: 5% is a volume of something? The subject is heat (the lack thereof, specifically), and you talk about volume of the troposphere. You’re so busy calling us names, you don’t see how badly you are swinging and missing.
As for your friend, bigoilbrandon sets himself on fire here, too, but you seem to insist on self-applied accelerants.
paul, if it has not been obvious from this particular thread that yes, the 5% is of course a volume, and if it has also not been obvious to you why this 5% is an important consideration, then there is no point in further discussing any of this with you. You’re clearly not looking to engage in any genuine scientific discussion. You’re here just to play juvenile games.
And speaking of “calling names” – thanks for a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Mr.C: So you are a kettle, then? You figured out there was no point in discussing it, say, ten comments too late. Ten comments ago, we could only guess at whether you have a clue. You cleared that up nicely!
speaking of playing juvenile games …
Have they ever considered this might be because it’s easy for skeptics to pull extremely large holes in their “accurate beliefs” because those beliefs are complete twaddle?
WT* are “Accurate beliefs” ?
Beliefs he believes in ?
How would a klueless klimate kook know what was “accurate” or not.
I am still thinking about what the Australian situation and plan appears to be.
They have now about 55GW of generation. Of this, about 19GW is going offline by 2030, and demand is increasing. So they have arrived at the following plan.
Install 122GW Wind and solar
Install 45GW new storage.
When pundits wonder why its so hard to persuade skeptics of the climate emergency and the renewables solution, just think about it for a moment. No rational person would think this plan is a reasonable solution to the energy situation. Why not just build some more coal plants, to replace the ones going off line, and add enough for increased demand?
Make them clean burning, of course. Super high temp ones.
You’d have to be more than irrational to think that even could this plan be made to work, it would have any effect on global emissions.
Well, all that concrete? It might even raise them.
Maybe I got the numbers wrong? Dunno. It seems, if they are right, like total insanity.
All over the western world, the “plan” is simply to have the general population cope with power shortages by buying their own household Tesla power walls. Therefore building out reliable coal and nuclear is not necessary.
Witchcraft
“Most societies have believed in, and feared, an ability by some individuals to cause supernatural harm and misfortune to others. This may come from mankind’s tendency “to want to assign occurrences of remarkable good or bad luck to agency, either human or superhuman”.
Welcome to climatecraft.
Most societies have believed in, and feared, an ability by humans to cause supernatural harm and misfortune to others. This may come from makind’s tenency “to want to assign ocurrances of remarkable good or bad weather, forest fires, earthquakes or even volcanoes to human or superhuman’s CO2 release into the atmosphere”.
People get wiser with age and become use to the increasingly failed alarmist sceanrios that have already should have happend by now.
Over 40 years gone with this Earth’s experiment and there are still no signs of dangerous climate change.
“…the impact of climate education is so fragile”
No, it’s dangerous propaganda…
“The climate crisis and the rise of eco-anxiety”
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/10/06/the-climate-crisis-and-the-rise-of-eco-anxiety/
Haven’t they done enough damage?
I love to hear that skeptics are having an influence in keeping the CAGW dogma in check. Good work team!
The term “accurate belief” appears to be a paradox, almost self-contradictory. It’s an interesting choice of words.
Climate science represents a set of ideas that feeds our belief system.
What we call truth in science depends on our state of knowledge.
The best available ideas at any given time tend to regarded as scientific truth.
But this is a separate matter from fact. History is full of examples of false truths.
There is no virtue in mistaking one’s belief for fact. The belief system is an ideology.
A useful definition for belief is ‘visionary speculation’.
Accuracy in the context of communication is often defined in terms of faithfulness and correctness. A faithful representation of the truth.
So in climate science reporting, we are left with faithful visionary speculation.
What is often mistaken with Earth system science, and climates, is to frame it as similar to other sciences.
For example to frame it like laboratory sciences, where trial and error, multiple subjects, and iteration leads to rapid advances in our state of knowledge. Engineering, computing, and medical science, for example. In pharmaceuticals, millions of subjects can be tested in a matter of months. Many rockets failed and blew up before a successful launch to space.
The thing about climates, and the Earth system, is that we only have one. We cannot run experiments thereupon. We are left with observation of a solitary subject. There is no trial and error. The rate of advancement is not comparable to other disciplines. There can be no expectation in terms of our mental framework of scientific advancement.
Our state of knowledge, our sense of scientific truth, is thus [most likely] in its infancy in all disciplines, not least climates. Any conclusions are merely speculative. Our belief is a matter of faith. This must never be forgotten.
For scientific advancement, visionaries must never be bound to faith.
“The term “accurate belief” appears to be a paradox, almost self-contradictory. It’s an interesting choice of words.”
It’s a statement of religious belief. A confession that AGW is a religious system actually.
Real science requires no “belief,” because it can be confirmed by observation or experiment. So they have aptly indicated that it is “belief” in propaganda that is so easily undermined, not any actual “science.”
“What is often mistaken with Earth system science, and climates, is to frame it as similar to other sciences.
For example to frame it like laboratory sciences, where trial and error, multiple subjects, and iteration leads to rapid advances in our state of knowledge.”
AND
“The thing about climates, and the Earth system, is that we only have one. We cannot run experiments thereupon.”
Heard this argument a million times before, whining.
Brings to mind physicist Stephen Hawking and A Brief History of Time. Astronomy and astrophysics have the same problem, no ability to conduct experiments. But there is an alternative. In the book, Hawking relates a story about the new theory of Black Holes. Obviously you cannot make one in the lab. The trick was to take the theory as it was and find a way to tease out a testable prediction. A single positive result would not “prove” the model. But a single false prediction would destroy it.
Back on Earth, we find the Climate System is constantly running all kinds of experiments all the time. The Earth is telling us exactly how it works. All we need to do is be smart enough to ask the right questions, then look in the right places for the data and the answers.
Sometimes we are smart enough, sometimes not so much.
Our very own “Citizen Scientist” Willis E seems to have an uncanny knack for asking the right questions. The results of his looking in the right places for answers were a truly remarkable group of posts here at WUWT.
“Our belief is a matter of faith. This must never be forgotten.”
OMG – Do you have any idea how absurd this sounds to a member of the “Show Me” crowd of the physical sciences??? It sounds positively…well… Liberal Arts.
GAAACK – I think I am getting Poisoned. EEEKK – Humanities!!!
It sounds like your personal belief system is well conditioned. Hawking’s epistemology is one method to frame the unknown. Most skip this step, or do not understand the implications. Indeed, theories of knowledge must be borrowed from philosophy. A physical scientist with an aversion to this is incomplete.
Here we go with Epistemology, that branch of philosophy about what we know what we know. Whether we can know anything at all, or not.
Liberal Arts and Humanities. It that poison.
Bottom line – This stuff has been caught attempting to redefine terms of science to define science right out of existence in any meaningful form. It has never helped advance science and has tried to destroy science.
Your emotional aversion is strong, because it challenges your faith. You have not yet considered the framework for your beliefs, similar to consensus climate science preachers.
Something that’s stuck with me since my first class in ChE Thermo:
Faith + Knowledge = Truth
“The trick was to take the theory as it was and find a way to tease out a testable prediction. A single positive result would not “prove” the model. But a single false prediction would destroy it.”
After 40+ years of failed predictions and co2-temps cause and effect being falsified six ways to sunday, they continue to deny and then move the goal posts.
But we live in time when right is wrong, wrong is right, boys are girls, girls are boys, and there is no evidence of election fraud.
Most people who use (abuse) science now only wish to confirm their own beliefs. Academia is now set up to support policy making. It is not a coincidence paradigm shifts in knowledge rarely occur anymore. This, unlike when people once understood science exists under the umbrella of the philosophies of knowledge.
Young Sheldon thought this stuff was balderdash. I agree.
If so, you shall be relegated to faith.
Whereas having a grip of one’s reasoning is the only way to advance. Most people appear to have this in reverse, where they view methods of knowledge as a threat to science. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the standard climate science we can clearly see they have not respect for their methods of reasoning. Some people point this out by calling it “moving the goal posts” or a failure to recognize the implications of failed predictions. Based on this philosophical notion, we can conclude that consensus climate science has stalled advancement.
Without a firm grip on reason there can be NO scientific advancement. There can be only be faith and uncompromising ideology. Most CAGW faithful can be categorized as such, as they follow a dogma. Clearly, anti science.
Conversely, many on this site can also be categorized as such, as firm believers. Ideologues who exist to oppose any notion of AGW. They rely on simple axioms which they have not yet given any thought.
In general, scientism and empiricism can only take you on a path to truth. But it is not itself truth. Many will not accept this. The only way to advance on the path is to have a framework for one’s reason.
Can Thomas Wood give a clear and accurate definition of “science,” “climate science” and of “climate” and tell us how these relate to our understanding of and the interactions between all 30 climate zones and sub-zones?
“accurate beliefs”
Does not Orwell have the copyright on this term?
Orthodoxy is ages old.
A related phrase I’ve heard before is “correct opinions”.
A space alien called Zabrak visits Earth, in an attempt to better understand its inhabitants. He can of course alter his appearance to look like a human, and he soon discovers an obsession with, and fear of something called “climate change”, which apparently threatens the entire planet. This is fascinating to him, and he has to write up a report of his findings so delves deeply into this subject. Since there are two deeply divided sides on the subject, he first tackles the “pro” side. Their arguments are highly emotional, attempting to sway using emotions rather than facts and logic, even though the word “science” is thrown about profusely. He also discovers the use of underhanded tactics, including lying. Why do they need to lie, he wondered? He then tackles the “con” side, which he notices the “pro” side calls “deniers”. “Another ad hominem” he mumbles to himself. He finds the “con” side to be rational for the most part, made tougher because they are in the minority. Zabrak does like an underdog though, so he presses on. The more he reads of the side he calls “the rationalists”, the more he realizes that they are correct, that the planet’s climate is fine, and not at all “under threat” via CO2, which he knows to be benign even at levels far above current levels. Nor does he see CO2 as being any sort of “control knob” of the climate. In his report he notes that the inhabitants of this planet are “fracked”, a term he has picked up on, unless the rationalists can get the upper hand.
Earth.Org. Facts of Climate Change
Some us like myself are too dumb to be indoctrinated by a bunch of brute facts. Their imprint is lost in a mess of confusing dumb questions and totally emotional responses. Shame on me!!! LOL
We Are Certain We Caused It. (Including me in your “we” is slander!)
Scientists agree (they always nail it right!… the needle of futility of 2021-2022)
The Last Decade Was the Hottest in 125,000 Years. (Need to go back much farther)
The Ocean Absorbs Most of the Heat We Produce. (Very convenient!)
CO2 Is At Its Highest in 2 Million Years. ( a tiny bit more of a tiny thing couldn’t be a bad thing?)
We Are Losing 1.2 trillion Tons of Ice Each Year. (How much are we gaining?)
Air pollution Is Both Good and Bad. (I am confused? Being fogged by DDT while riding might bike was good and bad…. at least it was fun but it was pollution just ask the raptors. If there is good pollution I’d love to witness it)
Attribution Is Now Possible (Extreme Weather) (who knewCo2 is the only variable in weather, I thought the oceans absorbed the heat?) Global Warming Is (Partially) Reversible (This is old fashion terminology but I wouldn’t mind it being a bit warmer.) We Lost 302.4 billion Work Hours to Excessive Heat In 2019 (prior to the pandemic we needed an excuse.) It Could Become Too Hot to Live in Many Places By the End of the Century (Hotter than Phoenix Arizona? Opportunity Knocks) The Cost of Inaction is Higher Than the Opposite (how much and how long….(I wonder how soon Europe , Texas and California will be reaping the benefits of their actions.)
Science reporting on climate change does lead Americans to adopt more accurate beliefs and support government action on the issue
OK, smart guy. Where’s your data supporting ‘more accurate beliefs’? Or is that just your code for ‘influenced by government propaganda’?
Some of those ‘skeptics’ do have supporting data. Clever tactic to ignore that, but it’s not what you’d call truth-seeking, either.
I highly doubt that Grabmeier’s beliefs are so inaccurate that he comes to believe is own BS.
Most people don’t do well in math & science which are quite theoretical & as such, spend the rest of
their lives avoiding them. They focus on real things like finding a job & hobbies they like as well as
spending time with friends & families. Their focus narrows to real things that directly affect them as
that’s all they have time for & can get emotionally attached to.
They’ll notice losing a job, prices rising & when items are out of stock. They’d only notice climate
change if temps rose/fell 5-10F- something they could actually sense vs some complicated
hypothetical concept they probably couldn’t understand if they wanted to. They’re too busy living
their own lives to really care about it but may parrot the dogma to “fit in”.
Funny how folks, upon hearing that this greenie talking to them wants to destroy their standard of living react badly.
“Results showed that
accurate science reportingreading the cult’s indoctrinating materials didn’t persuade only Democrats – Republicans and people who initially rejectedhuman-caused climate changethe cult’s belief system alsohad their opinions shiftedbecame true believers in the cult by readingaccurate articlesthe cult’s materials.”The people behind this paper really need a good proofreader to correct the errors before publishing.
Who decides what “accurate” science reporting and “accurate” articles are?
Facebook factcheckers.
Facebook “Factcheckers”
Such a great comment, you had to post it twice!!!
I couldn’t delete the first one.
Rational reality beats junk-science propaganda..
Who knew !
“junk-science propaganda” = so-called “skeptical” talking points.
In other words their case is so weak that it evaporates when challenged by knowledgeable skeptics like the early morning dew evaporates from the heat of the morning sun.
“Political scientist” is an oxymoron.
That is a scientific truth right there.
Also a moron
Exposure to climate skeptics voices rapidly undoes …. indoctrination and conditioning.
Of course it does. It has to do with intelligence And many more people than the learned professor thinks are not stupid.
Right now the daily jump in energy prices and associated inflation is undoing the climate indoctrination faster than any skeptical argument.
It’s easy to be ambivilent about AGW or pay lip service to it when it’s theoretical or affects someone else, but when it starts taking food out of your children and grand children’s mouths it’s not so easy.
Almost…….. they nearly got the solution but no
The idea that ordinary people can’t disagree with the drivers of climate change is like saying ordinary people can’t discuss price rises because they’re not economists, or they can’t debate religion because they’re not the pope!
It’s just a way to protect the emperor bereft of clothes.
The idea of “ordinary people disagreeing with the drivers of climate change” is like saying “ordinary people disagreeing with evolution” or “ordinary people disagreeing with the big bang theory”.
As to evolution, please point to what Darwin said MUST exist to verify his theory of human evolution, the MISSING LINK. BTW I noticed you didn’t call it a theory, so you think it is fact?
Also, how wrong has Hubbell shown many Big Bang theory predictions to be?
Yep, me, ordinary person, but not a liberal ordinary person.
Drake, thanks for demonstrating that you apparently don’t understand what the word “theory” means within the scientific lexicon. Comparing fact to theory is a logical category error.
And Hubble has found nothing, nothing whatever, that puts the big bang theory into question.
And really? That tired old, long refuted “missing link” so-called “objection”?
Yep, you, an ordinary person, demonstrating that really you don’t know what you are talking about, yet imagining otherwise.
One does not need to be a zoologist to tell the difference between an elephant and a groundhog. Climate science is about as scientific as political science. It’s a watermelon.
re: “One does not need to be a zoologist to tell the difference between an elephant and a groundhog.”
And yet so-called “skeptics” routinely demonstrate that they are profoundly unable to do so.
A political “scientist” who thinks his expertise extends to the actual physical sciences, who’d a thought. By what rational thought process does professor Wood recognize “accurate articles?” Is Professor Wood aware of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy? Are his “accurate articles” only accurate in the Texas Sharpshooter sense? Has he dared venture onto some of the skeptic sites to actually sample the skeptic arguments and put his towering intellect to the task of debating the skeptic?
“Researchers found that these
accuratebeliefs fade quickly and can erode when people are exposedto coverage skeptical of climate changefacts.Fixed it.
People come from all over the globe to attend a flat earth convention.Fancy that.
ray g: “People come from
all over the globethe 4 corners of the Earth to attend a flat earth convention.”[grin] jus’ messin’ wid ya, ray. Couldn’t pass it up.
I think they call those conventions “COP something-or-other,” don’t they?
Control the information available for people to reach a conclusion and you control the people.
Just as an example: https://www.foxnews.com/media/kamala-harris-white-house-task-force-online-gendered-disinformation-abuse
(I don’t mean to focus on that particular issue. But it an very recent example of what Big Government does and the need for the 1st Amendment, one of the limits on Government that is being ignored.)
He keeps using those words, “science reporting.” I don’t think they mean what he thinks they mean.
Funny, he talks about science reporting. Then he says, “but even factually accurate science reporting”, inadvertently admitting that much or most “science reporting” in NOT factually accurate.
I thought the climate fraudsters already told us it was too late to save the planet…..but that was before they moved the goal posts…
again. I am rooting for a little ice age so we can finally make these fraudsters go away. Impossible to reason with illogical people.
Associate Professor Thomas Wood- I REALLY need to see the actual data you are talking about. There is SO MUCH information in the information emobodied in the climate that I think it is impossible to make accurate predictions. Consider that the weather starts when one drop of rain hits a placid area in the waves. That drop can transfer enough energy and rotation to trigger a hurricane.
Facts such as that make if very hard to believe that many “truths” can be spoken about the climate. Almost all the research papers I’ve looked at contradict many other papers in various ways. Picking and choosing a few papers that coordinate with each other, lending some emphasis of the information is making truths by manipulation
yours truly:
Undo Progress? To what end, and by what means? “Progressives” seem to work on the assumption that whatever they are progressing to is better than where we are now, and that there is no alternative direction that we could “progress” in that might be better, and that progressing towards their goal is justified by ANY means. They charge forward, demolishing Chesterton’s Fences as they go with, optimistically, no knowledge or regard for the damage they are doing. The alternative is that they know full well the damage they are doing and do it anyway. This applies far more broadly than to just climate science, but it is indicative of the corruption of the field, actual science involves the pursuit of truth, not of “progress”. Progress, in whatever direction, is a political goal, not a scientific goal. Science could be used to inform this, but using science to pursue progress corrupts science. An activist cannot be a scientist, by being an activist they are unable to dispassionately evaluate the data.
In my view it’s climate scientists themselves that make us skeptical.
I agree Joe, the AGW version of climate science is so full of holes it is now leaking like a sieve, and forty years of failed catastrophic predictions is starting to sound like religion’s second coming.
Here is a list of scientific “facts” that confound the AGW hypothesis.
• Arrhenius’s calculations were wrong and his conjecture about the greenhouse process is flawed: CO2 only plays a marginal role in the climate system, due to its IR absorbing saturation levels at low <300ppm CO2;
• Henry’s law, dictates CO2 follows temperature and not the other way round, effect cannot precede cause, therefore the AGW theory is based on an erroneous causation;
• Anthropic CO2 is a tiny 6% of the overall atmospheric CO2 concentration as most of the increase has come from natural processes, i.e., plants, volcanoes and the out-gassing of oceans due to increase of temperature; the residency time in the atmosphere of each CO2 molecule is less than six years;
• 99.96% of the CO2 ever present in the atmosphere has been removed by various natural processes (mainly weathering) over geological times, then sequestered in ocean carbonate sediments and organic fossil fuels;
• Anthropogenic global warming has been proved to be a minor effect, the longer-term climate risk is the lack of sufficient CO2 to support and enhance all life on Earth, therefore emissions growth is positive for humanity;
• Atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 is greatly exaggerated by IPCC and may be <1, the role of water vapor is underestimated and clouds have an overall negative feedback, so runaway global warming is impossible;
• The Greenhouse effect (absorption of IR radiations by some gases) is badly defined and intentionally kept confusing; however, a doubling of CO2 from 410ppmv should result in a temperature increase of only 0.35°C (after 100yr), because the warming capability of CO2 is now so close to saturation;
• In climate models, CO2 related GHG warming is enhanced by water vapor the main player, but water -resists modeling and entails that climate cannot yet be forecast beyond what meteorology achieves, i.e., 15 days;
• IPCC GCM’s are not validated and have no true predictive value because they do not hindcast well, they assume high ECS, ignore negative feedbacks such as clouds and dismiss natural climate variability;
• Many of the world’s surface temperature datasets are locally affected by the urban heat island effect or corrupted by inappropriate homogenisation techniques designed to show human related global warming;
• Rising CO2 is beneficial for plant and crop growth and human sustainability. Record harvests in Australia and worldwide plus forest growth testifies to improved photosynthesis and plant fertilisation;
• Progressive acidification of open oceans is a myth; they have always been alkaline;
• Sea Level changes measured since 1907 show no acceleration (1mm y-1) and are unrelated to CO2 levels;
• Solar and Earth orbital variations are among the main factors that drive long and short-term climate change, including the seasons, hydrological cycle, storms, oceanic oscillations and the Ice Ages;
• Solar flux changes during weak magnetic cycles cause stronger cosmic ray bombardment and ionized particles forming water droplets and cooling cloud development, thus negating AGW in the atmosphere;
• Plate tectonics and gravity changes impact climate through mountain building, continent and ocean realignment, changing wind and currents that redistribute heat and water vapour from the tropics towards the poles;
• Natural oceanic oscillations ENSO (El Niño – La Niña), AMO, NAO, PDO are much more relevant to modern climate than AGW. High-capacity ocean heat and CO2 sinks act to moderate atmospheric effects and climate;
•The globe’s hydrologic cycle is a key factor regulating daily weather and short-term climate; the stronger the hydrologic cycle, the more ocean heating, surface evaporation, cloud development and cooling occurs; , • Major volcanic eruptions can be globally disruptive and cause local cooling by sulphureous emissions and ejecta, they also emit considerable CO2 but are largely dismissed in GCM’s;
• Increased atmospheric CO2 can be seen as a good thing from both environmental and ecological aspects, as life and civilization generally speaking flourishes in warmer, CO2 enriched and wetter conditions;
• There is no convincing relationship between modern warming and increases in extreme weather events;
• No empirical evidence exists to support the assertion that a planetary warming of 2°C would be net ecologically or economically damaging. In contrast, moderate warming is likely to be beneficial to humanity;
• Many diseases that thrive during cold conditions, e.g., influenza and other respiratory afflictions like Covid, will be reduced by a warmer environment;
• Forward projections of solar cyclicity and other climate variables such as AMO and PDO imply the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO2 emissions and higher CO2 levels.
And this despite their tremendous investment of taxpayer dollars in “Climate Communications”.
Quote “In addition, opinion stories that were skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change reversed the accuracy gains generated by science coverage”
Anyone who weaves, ‘scientific consensus’ into a sentence about science, does not understand basic scientific principles.
Who ever would have thought sceptical views can lead to people questioning the science?….
Your lasting should read “questioning the propaganda” – they have no science to back up their “crisis” claims.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Dwight Eisenhower
The man was a prophet, wasn’t he?!
I’d say the number one thing that makes people who would otherwise buy into the climate nonsense tend to dismiss it is the obvious fact that the most vocal proponents of reverting humanity back to the 18th century are often the most blatant and ostentatious offenders against the climate.
When your most visible spokespeople jet set around the world, party on megayachts, live in (several) huge mansions, park their electric vehicle in the same garage as their sports car collection and install 2500 gallon LP tanks for their mansions in anticipation of the inevitable “green” power outages to come – most “everyday joe” kind of people tend to get a little skeptical when you tell them that THEY have to give up their personal transportation, turn the A/C up to “uncomfortable”, stop traveling for vacation and grin and bear it when the lights go out in order to save the world.
In other news, celebrities sent a message by arranging their yachts to form the words “climate action now” for an aerial photo op.
This news should encourage authors here — you have a positive effect — now, apparently, scientifically proven.
Life must be tough in ‘the Ministry of Truth’ these days…poor academics, spreading propaganda and untruths is hard and thankless work these, in their quest to kill fossil fuels and save the world…sigh.
Seems to me that beliefs with solid factual grounding would not be so easy to change. What does that say about these so-called “accurate” beliefs?
Prof. wood seems to think that there is such a thing as accurate Propaganda; for that is what the Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming (theCAGW MEME) purports to be; when in fact it is nothing more than a cleverly devised political “Construct”, designed specifically to manipulate the mind of the general population for the advancement of the Marxist and Communist Agenda.
Reaction to the propaganda in the form of sceptical comments and the putting right of the hidden falsities engenders much confusion within the communities which is part of the strategy.
The naivety of Prof. Wood is extraordinarily; but perhaps not when you read some the utter nonsense which seems to get published these days from the Academic Institutions.
IMO Academia has sold its soul to its political masters over the last 20 years or so, and now has a very disreputable reputation for valid scientific research, with, of course, notable exceptions.
Science is inherently Skeptical. If it’s settled, and no longer subject to skeptical re-analysis, it is NOT science.
“Accurate reporting” obviously means politically correct reporting and has nothing to do with scientific validation.
What happened to “prebunking”?
https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/a-guide-to-prebunking-a-promising-way-to-inoculate-against-misinformation/
So, people believe bullshit up until the moment they are provided facts.
Not sure where the story is here
Sure, I believe it, especially skeptics that are scientists.