Essay by Eric Worrall
According to Nature “Human behaviour is a neglected factor in climate science”.
Climate change and human behaviour
Nature Human Behaviour (2022)
Climate change is an immense challenge. Human behaviour is crucial in climate change mitigation, and in tackling the arising consequences. In this joint Focus issue between Nature Climate Change and Nature Human Behaviour, we take a closer look at the role of human behaviour in the climate crisis.
…
Human behaviour is a neglected factor in climate science
In the light of the empirical evidence for the role of human behaviour in climatic changes, it is curious that the ‘human factor’ has not always received much attention in key research areas, such as climate modelling. For a long time, climate models to predict global warming and emissions did not account for it. This oversight meant that predictions made by these models have differed greatly in their projected rise in temperatures8,9.
Human behaviour is complex and multidimensional, making it difficult — but crucial — to account for it in climate models. In a Review, Brian Beckage and colleagues thus look at existing social climate models and make recommendations for how these models can better embed human behaviour in their forecasting.
…
The psychology of climate change
The complexity of humans is also reflected in their psychology. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, research suggests that many people underestimate the effects of it, are sceptical of it or deny its existence altogether. In a Review, Matthew Hornsey and Stephan Lewandowsky look at the psychological origins of such beliefs, as well as the roles of think tanks and political affiliation.
…
To limit global warming to a minimum, system-level and individual-level behaviour change is necessary. Several pieces in this Focus discuss how such change can be facilitated.
…
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01490-9
There is a delightful 90s sitcom Frasier. The main character, Frasier Crane, has a radio talkback show, in which he tries to help people with psychological issues. A consistent theme of the sitcom is the contrast between the theoretical psychology knowledge of the neurotic lead character, and the down to earth practical skills of the people around him, such as his ex-police officer father, and his amoral showbiz agent, who always manages to ruthlessly manipulate Frasier and everyone around him into doing exactly what she wants.
I would love for psychologists to become more involved in climate modelling, particularly the kind of psychologists who think the research efforts of our old friend Stephan Lewandowsky add value to the process. In my opinion the resulting real life sitcom would ensure plenty of entertaining new material for WUWT to write about.
What an oversight, don’t tell me no astrologists were consulted either
the horor scope .
Astrologists would do a better job of modelling Climate.
Yes, it’s not like rolling the dice, not purely random, but rather defining a perimeter, the lay of the leaves as it were.
Reading tea leaves or palms.
Oh come on, climate models are much more precise than that, Tarot comes to mind.
How about reading palm leaves?
On a very crude level, you’ve got to hand it to old mate Lewandowsky – he’s the grifters’ grifter the way he managed to slither his way into the climate gravytrain.
I stopped reading when I saw under the heading The psychology of climate change the adjoining words ‘scientific consensus’.
Indeed. There is no such thing as a “scientific consensus” and anybody who uses the term is ignorant of science.
There is often a consensus of scientists. Progress in science is usually by a person, or small team, that proves the consensus wrong.
no no. A consensus can be scientifically done even if it’s a bunch of fools agreeing on the impossible.
Scientific consensus is a social construct a la cargo cult with political and economic implications.
Ran into that same brick wall myself. The mistake ol’ Naomi “merchant of smear” Oreskes made back in 2004 with her Science journal paper was to claim there was a 100% consensus, when she should have said there was a 110% consensus.
Speaking of all the theoretical boofheads tosspots and sundry stinkers in residence floating about the ether this bloke shrinks it all down superbly for me-
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
https://climate-science.press/2022/11/16/renewable-south-australia-islanded-flying-by-the-seat-of-their-pants-afraid-of-a-solar-surge-on-a-sunny-day/
This is a pretty ignorant paper. GCMs solve the physics of what happens when GHGs are placed in the air. Science can do that. It can’t predict what people will decide to do – at least, hard science can’t do that. Human behaviour is accounted for in the scenarios that are analysed. So GCMs can solve for the consequences of behaviour.
The models are junk
Models are propaganda tools used to scare people and they work well for their intended purpose. You thought models were intended to make accurate predictions? ha ha, you must be kidding !
You thought models were intended to make accurate predictions?
I can’t say that I have.
Nick failed to reply, I wonder why that might be?
Perhaps he’s finally learned how to quit when he’s behind?
Makes no sense to beat up on Nick for saying the right thing.
Well you have to consider their audience particularly in Gaia Utopia-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/black-market-fears-are-hampering-cannabis-waste-recycling-efforts-in-california/ar-AA14bLqg
Dontcha love the ‘boomers and doomers’ bit? LOL.
Models COULD be junk.
Nick,
I think physics tells us what happens when GHGs are placed in the air, up to a point. Much uncertainty remains e.g. the effects of water vapour, clouds and aerosols in conjunction with greenhouse gases as the IPCC acknowledges in AR6.
As Andy May points out in “The Great Climate Change Debate”- “Defining the Greenhouse Effect “-
“All the debate participants agree that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuels.Where they differ is the impact.
Happer believes the impact on our climate will be minimal.
Karoly, Tambling and the IPCC believe the the additional CO2 will lead to dangerous changes to the climate.
Unfortunately we have no observations to guide us.
If rising atmospheric CO2 is warming the planet it has stayed below natural variability and has yet to be observed.
Kevin Trembath is among those who have written about the problem ( Trenbath 1991):
Natural variations, such as those associated with El Niño make it difficult to detect anticipated [human caused] climate change.
In addition, detection in the observational record of the expected global warming is confounded by flawed and patchy observations and because observed climate change is not geographically uniform…
the observed patterns of climate change over the globe are not yet well accounted for by climate models.” (Trenbath 1991).
You may want to argue the models are now more reliable since 1991 but almost no topic is more debated than that.
As to people, they understand that their standard of living depends on continued use of fossil fuels.
Their self interest will continue to predominate.
As Australian PM Paul Keating famously said , “In the horse race of life, always back the horse called self interest. At least you know it’s trying.”
Unfortunately we have no observations to guide us.
WRONG
We have a +50% increase of the CO2 level since 1850 and a +1.1 degree C. average temperature ruse. Although thse are rough estimates, they are useful.
About +0.4 degrees C. of the +1.1 degrees C. temperature rise before 1975 is mainly from natural causes. That leaves +0.7 degrees C, that COULD BE mainly from CO2 (a worst case estimate)
So we have a rough estimate that a +50% increase of CO2 could have caused a +0.7 degree C. warming if CO2 was responsible for all of the warming (a worst case estimate)
We do have observations to guide us, and those observations tell us exactly what almost 8 billion people already knew — living with global warming since 1975 has been harmless — actually beneficial for people in colder climates … and extra CO2 is always beneficial for plants.
How many observations do we have of CAGW?
NONE
Except it was warmer in the 30s than the 70s with less CO2 in the 30s. The variation of the temperature in the twentieth century is too often overlooked
It was warmer during the Holocene Optimum, Minoan/Egyptian/Roman/Medieval Warm Periods as well.
Local climate reconstructions are not accurate enough to be sure all those warm periods were global except the Climate Optimum. They probably were warmer, but we can’t prove it.
Used to be even warmer in the 1930s before “revisions”.
used to be even colder in the 1970s before “revisions”.
Historial temperature numbers get a lot of revisin’
You got that right.
Actually Nick, science cant do that, which shows how little you understand science.
Your touching faith in the efficacy of GCMs is naive in the extreme.
Global Climate Models depend on being accurate models, having the right input data, and having precision enough mathematically to not deviate due to rounding errors
The current models fail on all three counts.
You fall into the typical ArtStudent™ trap of thinking that because science gets some stuff right, calling something “science” makes it accurate. In the same way that our vvered PM Tony B Liar noting that graduates got better jobs, threw money at third rate technical colleges, and made everyone a graduate.
This is the true need for psychology in climate change, to determine why so many people think ‘magically’ and associate consensus and so called science with truth…
GCMs solve the physics of what happens when GHGs are placed in the air.
Not the correct physics of climate change on this planet, obviously, since the predictions are 100% wrong.
If GCM’s are so wonderful, why do we need so many? Surely one one would suffice?
Why is there such a huge divergence between their outputs?
“Why is there such a huge divergence between their outputs?”
It gives the proponents a larger envelope with which to make their various claims.
The low-end estimates are useful for claiming that model outputs are closer to reality while the high-end estimates are the ones used to justify the scare stories.
One Russian INM model would be enough. All the other computer games are just to obscure the Russian model.
Nick,
If you have to parameterize a number of variables because they are yet to be understood, then physics is NOT part of the process.
If you want to have people begin to believe the models then you also need to show how the predictions have faired against reality. We have going on 30 years worth of GCM predictions.
That is enough to make graphs of the residuals between the GCM and actuality. What do you think it would show? I’ll bet the residuals have increased meaning the “physics” is modeled worse as time goes on.
“If you have to parameterize a number of variables because they are yet to be understood, then physics is NOT part of the process.”
Well put.
right- physicists don’t parameterize- they measure precisely, such as the mass of an electron: 9.1093837 × 10-31 kilograms
“This is a pretty ignorant paper. GCMs solve the physics of what happens when GHGs are placed in the air.”
A ridiculous claim. Nothing has been “solved” by GCMs.
Nick says:”GCMs solve the physics…”. If the physics is “solved” why is there a need for more than one GCM?
Really?
So, judging by your approach ‘the science’ is settled and no longer a falsifiable theory.
Which, inconveniently, divorces it from science.
“Science can do that.”
Why, then, it does not do that? It tries – but models are woefully wrong.
There is very little actual physics in the GCMs. The vast majority is assumptions and parameterizations.
The downvotes and comments seem rather unwarranted here.
Stating that the GCMs are intended to address the physical response to changes to GHG levels shouldn’t be controversial.
Neither should stating that the different scenarios cover a range of possibilities which might result from human and non-human actions.
Game theory was developed in the Economics area to address adaptive responses (both strategic and tactical) to changes in conditions. The scenarios covered by the GCMs are an attempt to cover the envelope of possibilities.
We can argue until the cows come home about how well the models work, and the optimal tactics and strategies (and we do), but there is a clear delineation between what happens in a particular scenario and what actual GHG emission changes occur as a result of human adaptive responses.
You mentioned game theory. Game theory analyzes games based upon a given set of rules, not randomly changing unknown rules during the game.
GCM’s don’t even know the rules of the game when it starts. Is it any wonder the outputs fail to achieve known outcomes?
How would you like to play a game of chess without knowing what side you are on nor how the pieces move? Then have new rules suddenly appear without even knowing what they are
The point I was (inadequately) trying to make is:
Game theory covers the responses to the GCM outputs for the various emissions scenarios, and the apparent “rules” are that
Different rules will lead to different adaptive strategies..
The GCMs, as far as I can tell, use iterative numerical methods to solve ill-conditioned problems.
I use “solve” here in the mathematical sense. There isn’t necessarily a single solution.
GCMs are a load of total BOLLOCKS.
Like firing spaghetti from a elephant gun !!
They are meaningless, un-validated suppository loaded crap !.
And you know it !
“GCMs solve the physics of what happens when GHGs are placed in the air.”
No, they don’t.
Well I consulted a psychologist: John Petrocelli – “The Life-Changing Science of Detecting BULLSHIT”
The psychology of complete bolleaux
Isn’t it just
Human behaviour is complex and multidimensional …
… unlike the climate.
If you believe the “models.” LOL
Question — What would happen if all – 100% of climate modelling ceased, for 2 years? Let’s immediately cease, using, creating, interpreting, and stop the modelling right now, around the world.
All climate models, every one of them, all simulations, all iterations of models, in all applications, in all situations and contexts. ——- What would happen? – What would be the outcome?
A lot of people would lose a lot of money, Steve me old china.
Without the models is CAGW —- dead?
No change
Climate alarmism started before GCMs and would continue without new GCMs, The old climate model data and articles would still exist even if they were not updated for a few years. When models are revised, they tend to get worse (higher ECS estimates) so maybe ECS would stay where it was for a few years. ECS stayed at+3.0 degrees C. from 1979 until just a few years ago. With e wild guess BS number, you’ve got to keep repeating it year after year.
A council would cannonize the truly inspired model runs.
Wow! Start off with a false premise and then wrap it up in the idea that I’m smarter than you so you should listen to me. Maybe someone is prescribing themselves psychotropic meds?
No, psychotropic meds dont do that to you,. Peruvian Marching Powder, on the other hand…
The quacks have got a firm foothold on it…
“The mass of microbes released is vast even with moderate warming.” “We don’t have enough data to understand the value and the threat of these organisms.
Vast’ mass of microbes being released by melting glaciers – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/17/microbes-melting-glaciers-bacteria-ecosystems
With a psychological make-up like that climate anxiety seems almost rational.
Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change,…
There’s no scientific consensus. Scientists have silently abandoned the climate catastrophist cabal over the years; the rate of scientists jumping ship was directly proportional to the increasing level of extremism and manufactured scientism. Having lost the backing of many scientists, and the polar bear, the cabal created a climate goddess named Greta Thunberg, completing the transformation of climate science into religion.
Almost 100% agree with AGW
About 59% agree with CAGW
I think that 59 percent believed in CAGW. They agreed that CO2 would cause some harm to humans.
Of course, there is no evidence that CO2 will do any harm, but that’s not how modern-day climate science works. They don’t need evidence. Speculation and assumptions will suffice for them. Their “facts” and “physics” is just pure speculation.
The Science is not settled. Not even close.
59% is a disturbing number
CAGW is a prediction with no observations.
Celebrate it.
It’s a reduction from 97% and used well can be presented as a huge success for the climate sceptical.
If the right wing of the world had an ounce of sense they would be headlining this on every climate website and social media outlet until the number fell to 3%, then we would have the claim of 97% consensus.
You guys are all great at science, just lousy at developing a narrative.
97% never meant CAGW
It meant AGW. but was spun to trick people into thinking it meant CAGW. If you believe in any AGW manmade climate change, even just UHI, then you’re in the 97%.
It doesn’t matter what it ‘meant’ the left seizes on it for everything.
You can’t persuade people using your belligerent bullying persona.
Almost 100 agree with AGW
About 59 agree with CAGW
There. Fixed it for ya..
100% of what?
59% believe CO2 would cause some harm is a far cry from saying 59% believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Some warming or some cooling will certainly cause some harm to somebody somewhere on planet earth. That statement is a tautology. It cannot be logically denied, but it says nothing of significance.
“increasing level of extremism and manufactured scientism.”
And here’s the latest example which, frankly, is beyond parody.
“Majority of Britons say UK should pay for climate action in poor countries”
By their esteemed climate-lunatic, Damian Carrington. (Nice working class lad… /sarc)
“The poll told those questioned that the UK’s total emissions over time are among the highest in the world, while poorer countries have produced very few emissions.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/17/uk-pay-climate-action-poor-countries-cop27-poll
So, the poll told them lies and got the desired answer. That’s where we are.
“The poll told those questioned that the UK’s total emissions over time are among the highest in the world, while poorer countries have produced very few emissions.”
Did the poll mention that maybe, just maybe, poor countries low emissions due to lack of cheap energy could have something to do with why those nations are poor?
Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change,
There IS an overwhelming consensus — probably 99.9% — that manmade CO2 is one of many factors involved in climate change. But there are only wild guesses as to how important CO2 is as a climate change variable.
The psychology / political problem is why people who believe AGW exists, based on science, must be forced to believe CAGW exists, based on fantasy predictions that have been wrong since the 1979 Charney Report.
“The psychology / political problem is why people who believe AGW exists, based on science, must be forced to believe CAGW exists, based on fantasy predictions that have been wrong since the 1979 Charney Report.”
Perhaps the reason is because catastrophic weather events have occurred throughout history, and governments have access to the historical records of such events in their locations. If these extreme weather events are publicised as being mostly natural, then the public would likely accuse their governments of incompetence for allowing the construction of homes in areas that have flooded in the past before CO2 levels began rising.
Blaming such catastrophes on AGW, lets the politicians and their administrators ‘off the hook’.
Following exhaustive scientific endeavour, John Tyndall described CO2’s effects on temperatures as ‘negligible”.
So, no. There are not just wild guesses.
CO2’s exact effect including feedbacks is a wild guess.
negligible is not a number and is not precise.
negligible
adjective
”So small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.”Just how ”precise” do you want it to be, and part of insignificant are you having trouble with?
My last two comments were marked “Awaiting for approval Spam.” I’m happy the first comment eventually showed up, much later in the day, but your spam detector is BS – fix it
Maybe the spam detector consists partly of people who from time to time have other things to do. You might even volunteer to do a stint yourself.
Just be content that both your comments are now here.
Richard, sorry for the delay, but we have to keep the filters cranked up pretty tight. Sometimes they trip on innocent comments.
My second long comment that went to spam has not showed up yet. It included no links, no bad words and no character attacks. So I can’t figure out why the comment would go to spam. My only clue is that long comment initially got posted, but when I went back to edit a few typing errors, it went to spam when posted the edited version. That has happened twice today. Maybe the solution is no editing and reposting comments
Or you could spellcheck and correct your piece before pressing the “Post Comment” button, Like I just did.
“, Like I just did.”
A “typing error”, or just your special way of punctuating?
Obviously a pubic school edumacation, like me.
“My only clue is that long comment initially got posted, but when I went back to edit a few typing errors, it went to spam when posted the edited version. That has happened twice today.”
That also happened to me once this week. It’s probably a software glitch.
I blame the Russians
Or climate change
At your command das Führer!
Wrong thread.
“The (Climate) Science” can be summarised as :
1) anthropogenic GHG emissions result (after 4-6 months of being “well mixed”) in
2) higher atmospheric concentrations, which in turn gives (effectively instantaneously)
3) more Radiative Forcing, which leads (eventually) to
4) higher GMST … reaching “equilibrium” after several centuries for high ECS values …
“The most important” GHG is CO2.
The CMIP5 round of climate modelling had CO2 emissions ranging from 3.5 GtC (per year) for the RCP 2.6 “pathway” to 20.6 GtC for RCP 8.5 in 2050 (see AR5, WG-I, Appendix II, Table AII.2.1c).
CMIP6 increased that range from 0.56 GtC for SSP1-1.9 to 22.72 GtC for SSP5-8.5 in 2050 (see the IIASA website).
Please explain how “the human factor” — excluding extreme cases like “accidentally triggering World War III” — could result in CO2 emissions outside of either of those ranges over the next 28 years.
“The most important” GHG is certainly H2O, not CO2, by orders of magnitude! The GCMs focus on CO2 only because it can be used to control social behavior.
Water vapor is important for the climate but not important for climate change. Water vapor is a dependent variable regulated by the temperature of the troposphere. So changes of H2O are a RESULT of climate change rather than a CAUSE of climate change.
Which climate are you talking about specifically?
Earth
There are lots of climates on earth.
Not sure I agree with this. Look at how much incoming near IR from the sun that H2O absorbs. That means it is not dependent on temperature alone.
The quantity of water vapor in the troposphere is dependent on the temperature of the troposphere.
I’m sorry, the AMOUNT of water a given volume CAN hold is dependent on temperature, but the actual amount of water IN the Thermosphere is dependent on other variables other than just temperature. Relative humidities vary even though temperatures are the same!
Absolute humidity (water vapor) is a greenhouse gas and a climate variable (a feedback). Relative humidity is not.
I’ll ask again, does H2O absorb near IR from the sun, and a lot of it? If so, then some substantial portion of water vapor acts as nothing more than the surface, i.e., NOT a feedback!
“The GCMs” = “millions of lines of FORTRAN code running on supercomputers”.
I suspect that when you typed “the GCMs” you actually meant a subset of human beings, but I have no idea which specific ones you had in mind.
– – – – –
There is a large gap from the WG-I IPCC reports, “The Physical Science Basis”, and the WG-II (Adaptation) and WG-III (Mitigation) outputs.
The poster “Richard Green” notes below : “Water vapor is a dependent variable regulated by the temperature of the troposphere.”
In the WG-I contribution to “the AR6 document cycle” this point is touched upon as follows (in section 7.3.1, “Methodologies and representation in models; overview of adjustments”, on page 942) :
You will not find similar “thoughtful and honest debate” in either of the WG-II or WG-III contributions to AR6 on such esoteric scientific details.
Their attitude on the utility of “The Science” and “Expert Scientists” can be found in two of the three “broad themes” summarised in section 1.1.4 of the WG-II report (on page 1-14 of the “Final Draft” version released in February) :
That’s quite the new take on excusing the failures of alarmist climate modeling.
-It’s not the models. No, really. It’s our inability to properly adjust for all the vagaries of human nature that’s the problem. 🤣🤣🤣
They are trying to fugure out how to fine-tune the Human-caused Climate Change propaganda. Past efforts are not fooling enough people apparently.
Really, it’s just that the psychologists want in on all the CAGW money!
Yep.
That’s all Lewandowsky has been angling for since he slithered up to John Cook.
On the one hand, the shrinks have a point that humans are adaptable to our circumstances, such that straight line extrapolation usually fails (tell that to the modelers). But on the other hand these folks are also using this to somehow exonerate the modeler’s poor performance.
Humans are and have been among the most adaptable species on the planet, but we are far from the only ones who so adapt to changing conditions. When it gets hotter, we shed clothing, invent and turn on air conditioners, stay in the shade, and drink more rum punch … and if an ocean storm wipes out our 10 million or 20 million dollar beach house, we can probably afford, after collecting an insurance settlement, to build another on the exact same spot. Just as coral reefs build up or down depending upon sea level, as do mangrove forests, as do the fish who depend upon those reefs and mangroves.
Considering the hellish changes in surface conditions that have repeatedly taken place on our planet over the billions of years, millions of years, and even thousands of years in the past – yet our “perfect” world is still here, and just as perfect as ever (all warmunists assume it’s perfect now, such that any change whatsoever is a threat) – adapting to the threatened 1.5 deg C warming over the next 80 years is literally a piece of cake for humans and our environment.
Yes, the Earth is very resilient. As a forester for 50 years, I’ve seen some horrific logging jobs that looked like a war zone. Go back 20 years later, and you see a nice, young forest. Most of the mess rots away, most of the ruts are gone, and there is often more biodiversity before that nasty logging job.
Yes to all that. Additionally, we are only seeing a small change in the average temperature. Yet we all exist in a temperature range from cold to hot that swings daily, weekly, and seasonally in a range that has not changed. The extremes we all endure are not becoming more extreme.
From the article: “The complexity of humans is also reflected in their psychology. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, research suggests that many people underestimate the effects of it, are sceptical of it or deny its existence altogether.”
These people ought to examine the psychology in believing there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change,
There is no overwhelming consensus, yet these people believe there is. So what we have here are delusional people advising us on our psychology.
What’s the psychology of assuming too much? It’s delusional thinking, I would say. We have delusional people instructing us.
Don’t listen to delusional people. They will lead you astray.
Confirmation bias and non-blinded evaluations are rife in “Climate science”.
Psychology is not a a science yet, and claims otherwise are pure arrogance, but what is fairly reliable, such as expectations affecting outcomes of studies is a fairly reliable outcome.
”Adjustments” that somehow always fit the hypothesis the researcher is trying to confirm are a cliche.
If you think trying to model weather or climate is hard, just try to model human behavior! You might find more order in chaos.
“….many people underestimate the effects of it, are sceptical of it or deny its existence altogether….”
I’ll have to fix that: Many people underestimate the effects of net zero policies.
Instead of foolishly trying to include unknown human behavior in spaghetti junk models, Lewandowsky should SHOW US the DATA supporting AGW.
He probably think climate data means: a poll of sociologists and psychologist regarding the interpretation of a poll of climatists.
They lack a certain je ne sais quoi, an em-pathetic appeal, and green currency.
Oh, I don’t know . . .
And as with Lucy, the football, and our chain, are yanked again, and again, and again. Take a knee, beg, Jane less roe, Jane, too.
One would have thought that
LucyLewendowsly would have stowed the football after the absurd “study” he and then cartoonist John Cook conducted to verify the contrived Doran and Zimmerman 97% results.Instead Cook ended up with a PhD and employment as an official “Climate Scientist” and Lew gets to continue to publish in Climate journals.
When something doesnt make sense follow the money. Imagine what it must be like trying to get funding for psycholgy research. Now imagine the ease of getting grants for research that reinforces the the CAGW narrative.
“The complexity of humans is also reflected in their psychology. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, research suggests that many people underestimate the effects of it, are sceptical of it or deny its existence altogether.”
Here’s a thought.
Maybe if what models have projected actually happened, people would be more likely to trust them?
Maybe if they didn’t “adjust” actual observations, past and present to fit the model, people would be more likely to trust them?
Maybe if they relied on reason rather than fear, people would be more likely to trust them?
(OK. That was three thoughts.)
And here is me thinking that ‘Climate Change’ was invented by psychologists. There is a strong consensus value of 1 here; so I know I’m right. (/s
WTF are those?
Feelings affect climate.
Who knew
Political “poles”?
The good folks over at The Daily Sceptic web site had a recent posting:
Climate Models Can Never Work, Says Computer Modeller
Edward Lorenz, the discoverer of chaos theory, wrote this in the 1960’s. It’s called the butterfly effect. Nothing has changed. Models cannot predict chaos.
The “models” are inaccurate because neither a high school physics nor a high school statistics book were referenced in their creation.
They don’t even meet the minimum standards for modele, they’re simply bat-shit fantasies.
There IS a role for a good psychiatrist in the production of every climate model. His/her role sould be to point out the psychiatric problems of the modeler that are being incorporated into the model so those errors can be backed out.
That’s right out of Atlas Shrugged! The social considerations.
So these psychologists see it as their job to ‘persuade’ the public into believing the drivel which they believe. From the paper:
“Most actors in the human system do not experience climate change as average changes in global temperature but rather experience and respond to local weather conditions, which are composed of both anthropogenic forcing and natural variability in climate.”
Anthropogenic forcing potentially effects the mean, not the variability.