Climate Change and Well-Informed Denial

Tue, 2011-05-03 08:52Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

Climate Change and Well-Informed Denial

On climate change, we’re politically polarized—which would be bad enough, but that’s not all. The hole we’ve dug is even deeper—as new research clearly suggests.

There’s yet another study out on Democrats, Republicans, and climate change, this time from Lawrence Hamilton of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. Over the last two years, in a series of regional surveys, Hamilton asked nearly 9,500 people questions about climate change—from Appalachia to the Gulf Coast, and from New Hampshire to Alaska. 

Across all these regions, he consistently found the following phenomenon: Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know less about the climate issue were more like one another in terms of whether they accepted the science. Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know a lot about the issue, by contrast, were vastly polarized—with knowledgeable Democrats overwhelmingly accepting the science, and knowledgeable Republicans overwhelmingly denying it.

Political polarization is greatest among the Republicans and Democrats who are most confident that they understand this issue,” writes Hamilton. “Republicans and Democrats less sure about their understanding also tend to be less far apart in their beliefs.”

This core finding itself is not new—a 2008 Pew survey also found that Republicans with a college level of education were less likely to accept the science of climate than Republicans who lack such education. Other studies have also underscored this fundamental point. But for precisely that reason, Hamilton’s research kind of puts it in the realm of indisputable political fact. Not only are we polarized over climate change, but our knowledge and sophistication, when combined with our politics, make matters worse.

How could this be? For Hamilton, the explanation lies in the interaction between how we get information (from trusted news and Internet sources, we think, but we’re actually being selective) and our own biases in evaluating it (objectively, we think, but again, we’re actually being selective). “People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views,” Hamilton writes. “Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs.” In other words, we’re twice biased—based on our views and information sources—and moreover, twice biased in different directions.

Thus it really makes a lot of sense that those who are paying less attention to the climate issue, whether nominally Democrat or Republican, are less polarized and less sure of themselves. They’re not working nearly as hard at reaffirming their convictions, and refuting the convictions of the other side. (Hamilton’s study implies, though, that that they may have a different problem—they know so little that they may be more likely to be buffeted by the weather in terms of how they think about climate. If it’s hot out, maybe they’ll worry. If it’s cold, they’ll scoff.)

Overall, the big picture is that our society is not making up its mind in anything like a rational or scientific manner about climate change. That’s unfortunate–but it would be a form of denial itself at this point to reject the finding. 

 

Comments

“In my case this lack of trusted process is probably the greatest cause of my questioning. Does this make any sense to you? And BTW I’m not a denier or a conservative.”

Titus, you already said you now tend to vote conservative & not a denier? I think anonymous has don’t a great job cataloging your denialism.

Here is another definition to add to his :
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/component/content/article/112-blogs/681-be-sceptical-of-climate-sceptics

Excerpt:

There is a difference between a sceptic and a denier:

Scepticism is part of the scientific process of observation and experimentation; good scientists are sceptics. Good sceptics are willing to be lead by the facts, wherever they lead in the spirit of open inquiry. Good sceptics are motivated by the desire to advance our knowledge in a particular field and are open to changing their minds in light of compelling evidence.

Denialism is driven by ideology where the need to maintain the belief takes precedence over the evidence. A denier has decided their position in advance and looks through the data with the aim of confirming their pre-existing beliefs, ignoring the rest of evidence. A denier is not motivated by the desire to improve our understanding; many appear motivated by the desire to promote confusion and doubt about climate change. They are often linked in this case to the fossil fuel lobby or vested interests.

Some classic tactics used by climate science deniers:

Conspiracy—deniers’ claims go against well-established science, and they often claim scientists are practicing deception and all the scientists are collaborating to promote a falsehood, or that they are all fools using the same poor information.

Cherry-picking data—deniers tend to persistently cite single papers that support their idea or dig up flawed papers in order to support their claims, or make it seem that the science is based on weak research.

Fake experts—fake experts are often employed for their credentials over any valid experience or publication in the field in question. Many ‘experts’ have academic credentials but not in climate science. Some deniers do not even have scientific work published in reputable peer-reviewed journals—a basic requirement of any working scientist.

Impossible expectations—‘the temperature record is unreliable,’ ‘models are unreliable so we don’t have enough temperature records to make an educated statement on if the climate is really changing as the record only goes back about 150 years,’ are classic examples. This is the denier’s tendency to refuse to accept when his/her challenge to the science has been addressed. Instead, they come up with new challenges for you to prove, and repeat their challenges over and over again. There isn’t enough data in the history of the planet to make a prudent judgment about or convince them of climate change.

Logical fallacies—Al Gore flies around the world all the time! The IPCC is corrupt! These are often emotionally appealing arguments that serve to distract and have no impact on the validity of science.

I think this statement sums up Titus, Go Figure & Gareth precisely.

” A denier has decided their position in advance and looks through the data with the aim of confirming their pre-existing beliefs, ignoring the rest of evidence.”

The impossible expectations is Go Figure all over:

“Will somebody please just show me some evidence!!”

As Lindzen of MIT puts it: In order to be a skeptic the issue in question has to be plausible. In the case if AGW it isn’t.

Go on, why isn’t it plausible?

What evidence do you have that for over 150 years that scientists have got it completely wrong.

Other than your belief that it must be so, that is.

You just don’t get it do you.

Lindzen is one of those no longer trustworthy and is in the same bed as Singer and the others you mentioned way back.

Lindzen’s comment WRT the Revell-Singer-Lancaster brouhaha.

<—quote—>

If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it.

Richard Lindzen is looking to up the ante. In an interview with the Canadian National Post, our Dick said
Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore’s scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?
A Well, he’s dead.
Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.
A It’s a horrible story. Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, ‘We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.’ And Gore’s staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It’s funny how little coverage that got.
This is one of those strange little stories that you find Richard Lindzen crawling about at the bottom of the toilet in. The popular paper is an article in the magazine of the Cosmos Club (a club for movers and shakers in DC) written by Fred Singer and Chauncey Starr that had Roger Revelle’s name on it. How Revelle’s name got there beyond the fact that Fred Singer put it there is a matter of interest that is explained by Justin Lancaster, Revelle’s student and last assistant.

According to Revelle’s widow, Revelle and Singer met at a 1990 AAAS meeting and Singer asked Revelle to co-author a paper with him. In 1990, when Revelle was gravely ill, just before his death, Singer kept sending him drafts of an article, which Revelle kept shoving to the bottom of the pile on his desk so he would not have to look at them. We know that because we have the sworn testimony of Revelle’s secretary, Christa Beran. Singer also sent drafts to Richard Lindzen and Lindzen communicated with Singer about them according to Singer’s sworn testimony as evidently did Balling and Ellsasser. On Feb 16 1991, Singer showed up at Revelle’s office, invited himself in and spent ~ four hours going over galley proofs he had brought with him. Revelle at the time was very ill, and 20 min of work tired him out. Singer stayed for four hours. Again, you don’t have to depend on Lancaster for this, but you can look at the secretary’s testimony, and information from others.

The moral of the story is when a Richard Lindzen or S. Fred show up, throw them out the door. They are only their own friends. They are users.

<—endquote—>
The full article is here:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-richard-lindzen-shows-up-at-your.html

the trail leads to this if you want to check:
<—quote—>
The Cosmos Myth
Did S. Fred Singer trick Revelle into an association to achieve an agenda? When the sequence of events is examined, the intentions seem to implicate his agenda. “The energy companies reportedly began taking steps to prevent the public from believing that humans are warming the planet” … “as early as the 1980’s”. It looks like even then, Singer was working with Michaels, Balling, Ellsaesser and Lindzen.

<—endquote—>

Full article plus links to documents here:

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/revelle-gore-singer-lindzen

These are the sort of people that you are championing GoFigure which puts you in the same class, i.e. despicable.

That is not a name calling ad hominum as it happens to be true, champ all you like.

Your only, poor by now, excuse is willful ignorance because you won’t think outside of your own small minded prejudice.

As Carl Sagan once remarked, ‘science is self correcting’ but Lindzen and all the others with their ‘low climate sensitivity’ smokescreen of nonsense has forgotten that.

And you may care to look up Lindzen’s support for big tobacco. He still smokes too, which is a poor decision for a ahem! ‘scientist’, maybe he gets free smokes for life (or death depending on POV).

“I have heard science is the new religion” Believed without question.

“He was the best that science had at his time but he was totally incorrect.

This is a naturally recurring theme in great science and long may it be allowed to run uniteruppted and hopefully always be. AGW is no different.”

AGW proponents creating a Tower of Babel?”

“You say: “And when your theory turns out to be a good description of what is happening, surely that is “fact”.”

Totally disagree. ”

“Now put all this together in a chaotic, infinite probability system, we call climate, which we do not ‘understand’ and here is the difference.”

“Gravity is a name we give to something we observe. Therefore it exits.” (Yet in response to AGW is a name we give to something we observe:”’AGW’ is just one of the ‘theories of climate change’ in our atempt to understand how it works”. Oddly enough, so is gravity. yet he refuses to believe it is false and unproven that he will die if he jumps off a 100ft building)

“The earth is a poorly understood chaotic system. AGW is a computer model prediction and therefore is a theory.”

“I do denie evolution as fact”

AGW is a theory based on computer models that is struggeling to find any results that support its predictions.” (yet theory and computer models would have a 0.9C equilibrium temperature rise and we’ve seen more than 0.8C, see how he denies. If he isn’t denying the evidence then he doesn’t know what he says is true: a lie)

“We observe warming. I agree and this is what we see in climate change along with all the other varibles.

The rest is speculation of the effects of collected data of which we appear to have only a little knowledge of there combined effects and very little understanding of the whole system.”

“All that said; why are more than half Joe public either not believing it or say it’s of no concern?” (note: 73% support more action to combat AGW)

“Our problem is that science is being dragged in to justify “fact” and “truth” in our attempts to convince and control.”

titas is in denial about his denial.

Very few on this site have ever heard of the scientific method. You mouth some of the right phrases, but don’t understand that the “victims” you speak of are …… you ! Another variation of the “we have found the enemy and it is us”….

When you get back on track and begin questioning the science, send me a note.

when you stop regurtitating the pseudo-science poppycock generated by the climate Scince Denial Machine.

YOU haven’t heard the scientific method otherwise you’d know what it means.

All you know is that you’ve been given another avoidance technique to parrot out with no comprehension.

Try understanding something without putting your desired conclusion first, then tailoring everything to fit that demand. THEN you may be able to consider something akin to the scientific method.

We have causation: CO2 is opaque to IR
We have correlation: temperature trend is 78% explained by the log of CO2 concentrations trend.

Speaking of definitions, “Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” issued by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine in early 2008, defined scientific theory and scientific fact as follows:

“Theory: A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.”

“Fact: In science, a ‘fact’ typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term ‘fact’ to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Definitions.html

Dr David Evans’ address to the Anti-Carbon-Tax rally, Perth Australia, 23 March 2011.

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid 1990s.

At this point official “climate science” stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade – yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected”. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.

One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%! The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site, sciencespeak.com. Look at the photos, and you’ll never trust a government climate scientist again.

They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results “global” warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.
Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off.
So it’s a question of trust.

If it really is warming up as the government climate scientists say, why do they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results? And why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources? This is so obviously a scam now.

So what is really going on with the climate?
The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 – 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture.
Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

A carbon tax?
Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the stone age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold – in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!
Sorry, but you’ve been had.

Finally, to those of you who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes carbon dioxide a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.
————————————————————————————
Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

“the Anti-Carbon-Tax rally”.

So do you think they’re going to be asking questions about whether a carbon tax is going to be useful or necessary?

Or do you think that they have already made up their minds and want people who have also made up their minds to tell them that their decision is fine?

And this, to you, is science?

Of course it is because you don’t know squat about the science, all you know is that you “know” AGW is false and are in deep denial.

Evans is lapping up the gravy: there wasn’t any when he worked for the government, but plenty given out by the secretive Heartland Institute.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/100-percent-renewable-by-2050.html

—-
Energy consulting firm Ecofys produced a report detailing how we can meet nearly 100% of global energy needs with renewable sources by 2050. Approximately half of the goal is met through increased energy efficiency to first reduce energy demands, and the other half is achieved by switching to renewable energy sources for electricity production (Figure 1).

To achieve the goal of 100% renewable energy production, Ecofys forsees that global energy demand in 2050 will be 15% lower than in 2005, despite a growing population and continued economic development in countries like India and China. In their scenario:

“Industry uses more recycled and energy-efficient materials, buildings are constructed or upgraded to need minimal energy for heating and cooling, and there is a shift to more efficient forms of transport.

As far as possible, we use electrical energy rather than solid and liquid fuels. Wind, solar, biomass and hydropower are the main sources of electricity, with solar and geothermal sources, as well as heat pumps providing a large share of heat for buildings and industry. Because supplies of wind and solar power vary, “smart” electricity grids have been developed to store and deliver energy more efficiently. Bioenergy (liquid biofuels and solid biomass) is used as a last resort where other renewable energy sources are not viable.”

To achieve the necessary renewable energy production, Ecofys envisions that solar energy supplies about half of our electricity, half of our building heating, and 15% of our industrial heat and fuel by 2050. This requires an average annual solar energy growth rate much lower than we’re currently achieving – an encouraging finding.

The report notes that wind could meet one-quarter of the world’s electricity needs by 2050 if current growth rates continue, and sets that as its goal. Ecofys also envisions more than one-third of building heat coming from geothermal sources by 2050. If we double current geothermal electricity production growth rates, it can provide 4% of our total electricity needs by that date. Ocean power, through both waves and tides, accounts for about 1% of global electricity needs in 2050. Hydropower, which currently supplies 15% of global electricity, ultimately supplies 12% in the Ecofys scenario. As you can see in Figure 2, global renewable energy use ramps up gradually between now and 2050.

Burning biomass (such as plant and animal waste) will supply 60% of industrial fuels and heat, 13% of building heat, and 13% of electricity needs. Much of the proposed biomass use comes from plant residues from agriculture and food processing, sawdust and residues from forestry and wood processing, manure, and municipal waste. All of these renewable energy technologies currently exist, and it’s just a matter of implementing them on a sufficiently large scale.

Ecofys also envisions using currently existing technology and expertise to “create buildings that require almost no conventional energy for heating or cooling, through airtight construction, heat pumps and sunlight. The Ecofys scenario foresees all new buildings achieving these standards by 2030.” 2–3% of existing buildings will also need to be retrofitted per year to improve energy efficiency. Ecofys notes that Germany is already retrofitting buildings at this rate. Transportation must become more efficient, using more fuel efficient vehicles like electric cars, and increasing use of mass public transportation.

Accomplishing all of this will require a major effort, but Ecofys has a number of suggestions how we can start:

*
Introduce minimum efficiency standards worldwide for all products that consume energy, including buildings
*
Build energy conservation into every stage of product design
*
Introduce strict energy efficiency criteria for all new buildings
*
Introduce an energy tax, or perhaps a carbon emissions price
*
Help developing countries pursue alternatives to inefficient biomass burning, such as such as improved biomass cooking stoves, solar cookers and small-scale biogas digesters
*
Substantial investment in public transportation
*
Make individuals, businesses, and communities more aware of their energy consumption, and encourage increased efficiency

Undoubtedly you’re wondering how much this will all cost. Ecofys finds that we will need to divert up to 3% of global gross domestic product (GDP) to investments in materials and energy efficiency, renewable energy, and necessary infrastructure. However, we also save money in terms of reduced fossil fuel use.

The report finds that we can save nearly 4 trillion Euros ($5.7 trillion) per year by 2050 based on energy efficiency savings and reduced fuel costs, as compared to business-as-usual. The up-front investments are expensive, but savings will begin to exceed those costs by 2040, and even sooner if oil prices rise faster than expected, or if we factor in the costs of climate change and the impact of burning fossil fuels on public health. The plan will reduce energy-related greenhouse-gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, which will give us a fighting chance to avoid the 2°C global warming “danger limit”. —-

“They place their thermometers in warm localities”

False. Even Anthony Watts has shown that the climate data is robust to the UHI:

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/r-3671.pdf

But a denialist will never acknowledge anything that gainsays their preconceptions.

Amazing.

Watts’ website is where the volunteers were gathered to investigate and document, including photographs of land surface temperature recording stations. He states clearly that almost all do not satisfy even the government’s basic requirements for so far as siting.

Any reference to Wikipedia related to anything about climate is bogus. The prime editor of that area was an avid believer (such as you) and “edited” accordingly. You have the audacity to call Evans a liar and then follow up with references to completely bogus websites?

Every reference you have provided is to some member of the CHurch of AGW (which appears to be standard for this blog).

But the free ride you’ve been getting on the PDO is about at an end. We’ll very likely be entering a decade of cooling which will cause even more panic amongst your believers. Their estimates of temp rates keep going down, and at the same time their panic level keeps going up (not because of temperature, because their false beliefs are threatened.)

Daisym: If you’re interested in logic scientific assessments, try Joanne Nova’s website, or Anthony Watts, for example.

No that’s where they tried to find an excuse as to why AGW is false and the data is incorrect.

To do this they had to

a) Ignore the fact that the USA is less than 2% of the planet
b) Ignore the fact that the siting effects and their changes over time are already accounted for
c) Ignore that sites that were poorly sited could just as easily give a cooling bias

Their “investigation” also consisted of little more than taking photos and going “SEE! ALL the data is rubbish!!!”.

and, now that the data is in, Watts is ignoring the results because they don’t say what he wanted them to say.

and you are wrong when you said:

“They place their thermometers in warm localities”

and that this invalidated AGW and the readings proving it.

Funny how, unlike the IPCC, you can’t say “I was wrong.”

“But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain?
Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew.”

Lies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Plass,_Gilbert_N. (1959 model)

“They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade”

Lies. Never said in the IPCC reports. The 1988 paper published by Hansen gave a rise of 0.18C.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=380

But when you’re talking to a credulous audience who dearly want to believe, you don’t have to worry about skeptical fact checking.

And you, GF, *trust* this liar? Why?

And if your energy is renewable, No carbon tax. Seems like the faithful fear government and taxes so much (but love the gravy train of it) that they can’t seem to recognise that if they’re paying a carbon tax, it’s because they’re too lazy to change.

Anoymous:

Do you suppose that GoFigure is using this comment thread to audition for a climate denial blogger’s position with the Heartland Institute?

PS – You are an expert at thoroughly debunking climate denial poppycock. Keep up the good work!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to-protect-internet-from-astroturfing

—-

As the Daily Kos has reported, the emails show that:

• Companies now use “persona management software”, which multiplies the efforts of each astroturfer, creating the impression that there’s major support for what a corporation or government is trying to do.

• This software creates all the online furniture a real person would possess: a name, email accounts, web pages and social media. In other words, it automatically generates what look like authentic profiles, making it hard to tell the difference between a virtual robot and a real commentator.

• Fake accounts can be kept updated by automatically reposting or linking to content generated elsewhere, reinforcing the impression that the account holders are real and active.

• Human astroturfers can then be assigned these “pre-aged” accounts to create a back story, suggesting that they’ve been busy linking and retweeting for months. No one would suspect that they came onto the scene for the first time a moment ago, for the sole purpose of attacking an article on climate science or arguing against new controls on salt in junk food.

• With some clever use of social media, astroturfers can, in the security firm’s words, “make it appear as if a persona was actually at a conference and introduce himself/herself to key individuals as part of the exercise … There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to fictitious personas.”

—-

And the fossil fuel industry has much more to spend than any government (where they have to pay in addition obvious and visible things like “roads”, “police”, “Justice system”, “Social Security” and “Armed Forces” with demands for spending available to taxpayers where a company can just file it as “CiC”.

I read that Google (or someone) managed to supress “climatgate” as a search word pop up after millions of hits.

Come on guys. This is fair game these days. Deal with it…….

So long as it is proof AGW is a scam.

A Truest Believer.

RE: Anonymous:

Interesting comment, for sure!

But this gives rise to the question: Are you a REAL Anonymous, or a pseudo Anonymous created by persona management software?

By definition I’m anonymous. Duh.

quoting Anthony Watts?

Whatever.

‘Watts’ website is where the volunteers were gathered to investigate and document, including photographs of land surface temperature recording stations. He states clearly that almost all do not satisfy even the government’s basic requirements for so far as siting.’

You are not exactly up to speed are you GF.

Anthony Watt’s now contradicts himself.

Too painfull for you eh!

<—quote—>

Anthony Watts contradicted by Watts et al

Category: Global Warming
Posted on: May 13, 2011 3:43 PM, by Tim Lambert

Last year Anthony Watts said that it was a certainty that siting differences caused a warm bias:

“I can say with certainty that our findings show that there are differences in siting that cause a difference in temperatures, not only from a high and low type measurement but also from a trend measurement and a trend calculation.”

“The early arguments against this project said that all of these different biases are going to cancel themselves out and there would be cool biases as well as warm biases, but we discovered that that wasn’t the case. The vast majority of them are warm biases, and even such things as people thinking a tree might in fact keep the temperature cooler doesn’t really end up that way.”

Now that Watts et al has been accepted for publication we find that his paper says the opposite and gets the same result as Menne at al:

Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications.

<—endquote—>

Full article at:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/05/anthony_watts_contradicted_by.php

But then I did cite that a few, of my posts up. You are none to bright it would seem GF.

And calling Evans a liar, once again who?

Come on be specific as to whom you are addressing comments.

Whatever, let the facts lie where the evidence points. If Evans does not get the ‘hot spot’ point then too bad. He slipped up not anybody else around here.

As for Jo Nova, I made the mistake of listening to her speaking somewhere in Oz’ by c’ of YT, I should have known better. She seems to be Australia’s answer to Ann Coulter. As for trying Nova’s and Anthony’s websites to find truth, you may as well put your head down the toilet.

And before you flushit!

David Evans and the ‘hot spot’.

<—quote—>

Dr David Evans: born-again ‘alarmist’?
Posted on 10 August 2008 by Barry Brook

A few weeks ago, self-proclaimed “rocket scientist”, Dr David Evans, wrote an Opinion Editorial in The Australian, which was widely circulated across various email distribution lists (I got send the link a couple of times, asking whether what he was saying was valid. I passed them on to these two pieces from Deltoid). But it spawned a life of its own in the non-greenhouse theorist blogosphere, and also drummed up strong support among other Op Ed writers, which have also been thoroughly dissected.

In particular, Dr Evans made some very strong statements about the robustness of climate science, including the claim that there was a missing hotspot in the tropical atmosphere, which therefore invalidated the greenhouse theory (and therefore presumably required the development of a new branch of physics). For instance, Dr Evans said:

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

However, Dr Evans must have been unaware that: (1) the hotspot was not a signature of the greenhouse effect – it is a signature of warming from any source, and (2) that the hotspot is not actually missing…

<—endquote—>

Full article at:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

because it includes diagrams impossible to reproduce here. So no darned excuses about not my own words or from some Church of AGW website.

That’s the trouble with facts, damned inconvenient for you eh!

Seriously the irony of you accusing us of faith on this issue is rich beyond compare.

Following my comment yesterday about IPCC see link.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110516/full/473261a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110519

Looks like a step in the right direction.

Pachuri was put there by G W Bush who wanted someone who had ties to fossil fuels to reduce the drive to display the evidence for AGW.

When he didn’t play ball with the fossil fuel industry, they then character assasinate him.

Now, titas, when are Wegman and Pat Michaels going to get the boot along with McIntyre et al?

They’ve made far more and far more serious mistakes.

But it seems like the only vindictive people are the denialists, and they NEVER attack one of their own.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CO2 Science.org)

The Idso clan is the von Trapp family of climate change denial. In 1980, paterfamilias Sherwood Idso, a self-described “bio-climatologist,” published a paper in Science concluding that doubling the world’s carbon dioxide concentration wouldn’t change the planet’s temperature all that much. In years that followed, Idso and his colleagues at Arizona State University’s Office of Climatology received more than $1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and utility interests. In 1990, he coauthored a paper funded by a coal mining company, titled “Greenhouse Cooling.”

In 1998, Idso’s son Craig founded the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and began publishing CO2 Science, an online digest of climate change skepticism. He subsequently earned his PhD in geography from ASU under the tutelage of climate skeptic Robert Balling, then the director of its climatology program. In the early 2000s, Idso was director of environmental science at Peabody Energy, the world’s largest privately owned coal company. After Peabody laid him off, he began aggressively fundraising for the center, whose budget increased from just north of $30,000 in 2004 to more than $1 million last year. Since 2006, the center has mounted a spirited defense of carbon dioxide using everything from ancient tree-ring data to elementary-school science experiments. “[S]cience tells us that putting more CO2 in the air would actually be good for the planet,” its website says. “Therefore, in invoking the precautionary principle one last time, our advice to policy makers who may be tempted to embrace Kyoto-type programs is simply this: Don’t mess with success!”

Source: the Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial – No. 8: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (A.K.A. The Idso Family), Mother Jones, Dec. 4, 2009 http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial-11-idso-family%20%20

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CO2 Science.org)

The Idso clan is the von Trapp family of climate change denial. In 1980, paterfamilias Sherwood Idso, a self-described “bio-climatologist,” published a paper in Science concluding that doubling the world’s carbon dioxide concentration wouldn’t change the planet’s temperature all that much. In years that followed, Idso and his colleagues at Arizona State University’s Office of Climatology received more than $1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and utility interests. In 1990, he coauthored a paper funded by a coal mining company, titled “Greenhouse Cooling.”

In 1998, Idso’s son Craig founded the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and began publishing CO2 Science, an online digest of climate change skepticism. He subsequently earned his PhD in geography from ASU under the tutelage of climate skeptic Robert Balling, then the director of its climatology program. In the early 2000s, Idso was director of environmental science at Peabody Energy, the world’s largest privately owned coal company. After Peabody laid him off, he began aggressively fundraising for the center, whose budget increased from just north of $30,000 in 2004 to more than $1 million last year. Since 2006, the center has mounted a spirited defense of carbon dioxide using everything from ancient tree-ring data to elementary-school science experiments. “[S]cience tells us that putting more CO2 in the air would actually be good for the planet,” its website says. “Therefore, in invoking the precautionary principle one last time, our advice to policy makers who may be tempted to embrace Kyoto-type programs is simply this: Don’t mess with success!”

Source: the Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial – No. 8: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (A.K.A. The Idso Family), Mother Jones, Dec. 4, 2009 http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial-11-idso-family%20%20

Belief in AGW could be totally well founded. However, I’m coming to more and more a conclusion that you believers are digging yourself into an ever bigger hole.

1/. For you on this blog in particular, your skills at engaging questioning public support are less than zero. You have to find a way of leveling and understanding instead of tirades and abuse. You are extremely bad communicators in this respect.

2/. You compare the forces that we name like light, gravity etc. with AGW which your audience does not experience. No matter how much they are given in tirades of science speak we do not see it or experience it and your comparisons fall totally flat. You need to understand that. I have seen the question so many times over the past few weeks of folks asking “where’s the evidence”? “what are we seeing that’s different”? etc. We don’t see it.

Add to this my previous thoughts on the need for robust open processes about your methods so we can do our individual risk assessments and there you have it.

You need to go beat up your handlers and purveyors and treat Joe public with respect and understanding. I’m trying to help you if you could but see.

The skeptics are not true believers. Many of the them will say (ok, maybe that butterfly in South America is causing havoc with our climate, but besides being merely amused, I’d be interested in some evidence. Whatsmore, if the government is intent on making big policy revisions based on that butterfly theory, I’m going to demand they first provide evidence.) I’ve looked hard and there is no evidence. In fact, the only evidence currently available contradicts their position, and this is compounded by the eggregious activities by those (UN and two CRUs)promoting the bogus AGW theory. They have no credibility.

The true believers cannot recognize this distinction, and they devote their effort, instead of looking at the science, to attempting to analyze those who disagree with them (a truly liberal sickness). These poor souls are in denial and have no intention of ever giving up their belief - whether that is because of some other hidden agenda, stupidity, or just a need for a quasi-religious belief matters not.

Don’t drink their kool-aid!

GF you state: “a truly liberal sickness”.

ALthough I agree with your conclusion I would not associate just to “liberals”. I have friends and associates of all types, including myself, who would slide into this pit from time to time. Just have to hope we have friends to help pull us out:)

You agree with the conclusion because you deny all evidence that doesn’t conclude AGW is false, but accept uncritically all statements that concludes AGW is false. You’re even in denial about your denial.

And all this “they’re out to get the gravy train” against the IPCC is the rightwing sickness of “attempting to analyze those who disagree with them”.

Oh, sorry, I forgot: denialists don’t disagree with other denialists, since their ethos is entirely negative: AGW is false. Whatever positive they attempt to come up with, widely variant though they are and mutually incompatible they may be, they do not disagree with because that might weaken the negative that they really push.

And a denier believes with an unholy passion that, no matter what, AGW doesn’t exist.

Any evidence that it does is either irrelevant or fraudulent, no explanation or evidence needed to the denialist True Believer, since it is Self Evident Fact to them (since otherwise AGW would be real and they “know” with a fervour that would warm the cockles of the heart of the most rabid fundamentalist that this is not so).

“I’d be interested in some evidence.”

You’ve never been before, but here you go:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

I guess you’re going to insist you’d be interested in some evidence. Seems the only evidence you’ll accept is the one of Evans even when he’s been shown to be wrong.

UN and two CRUs”

There are two CRUs? You’re cock-eyed.

“In fact, the only evidence currently available contradicts their position”

Odd how one piece of “evidence” (temperature readings from warm places and the UHI effect) have been shown to be false and you’ve even accepted that: “Watts’ website is where the volunteers were gathered to investigate and document, including photographs of land surface temperature recording stations.” And the report from the data so shown proves that there is no contamination and no difference between those sites “well situated” according to Watts and yourself and those “poorly sited”.

But that “evidence” even when proven false is still, to you, evidence that AGW is false.

YOU are the believer. It’s patently obvious.

“The true believers cannot recognize this distinction, and they devote their effort, instead of looking at the science” … to insinuation, conspiracy theories and complete denial

(finished that correctly for you)

Just as you’ve both asserted that there’s no such thing as global temperature but ALSO that it’s cooler now.

Every single time you’ve had the science shown to you, you’ve denied that it exists.

‘The skeptics are not true believers. Many of the them will say (ok, maybe that butterfly in South America is causing havoc with our climate, but besides being merely amused, I’d be interested in some evidence. What’s more, if the government is intent on making big policy revisions based on that butterfly theory, I’m going to demand they first provide evidence.) I’ve looked hard and there is no evidence.’

WTF are you on about now? The so called butterfly effect isn’t even mentioned within the climate context. Certainly not in the context of the chaos theory espoused by Edward Lorenz.

You are lying about having looked for evidence for you have not, at the very least you not acknolewdged having studied the sources for evidence.

What makes things get hot?

What is dark light?

What do atomic dipoles have to do with whether or not a molecule absorbs and emits (Kirchoff) certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Why are

John Tyndall’s, ‘On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction’ (1861) Philosophical Magazine Series 4, Vol. 22: 169-94, 273-85.

Svante Arrhenius’s, ‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon Temperature of the Ground’ (April 1896) The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, 41 (251), 39 pages.

Gibert Plass’s, ‘The Influences of the 15µ Carbon-dioxide Band on the Atmosphere Infra-red Cooling Rate’ Man’ 12 October 1955 rev’ 23 March 1956. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-324

applicable here as evidence?

You can find these in ‘The Warming Papers’.

GoFigure you have to do better than this. Willful ignorance no longer cuts so stop behaving like a small child, or a simpleton, who holds hands over ears and screams, ‘not listening, not listening.’

So quit with the rhetoric about ‘true believers’ and ‘kool-aid’ so characteristic of the ideologically corrupt.

Comparing Scientific papers (our ultimate sources) with WUWT and Joanne Nova (Codling) is farcical, its like comparing science text books and Marvel Comics, one provides evidence based fact and the other fantasy. Who are the faithheads becomes clear now.

Please do not bother to list all the standard stuff of temperatures, sea levels, glaciers etc. I’ve seen the lists ad nauseum and they now just about elicit a yawn reaction.

Most importantly do not disrespect your audience by adding the obligatory cuddly polar bears etc. This type of communication has back fired big time. I’m sure the polar bears would also prefer to see themselves in a better light tearing apart a sea lion and it’s baby cub. Would make a colorful site on ice flow.

So you deny all evidence. And you still say “I’m not a denier”?!?!?

Don’t disrespect your audience by pretending to be even-handed when you’re bigotry is so obviously on display.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/global-warming-reducing-polar-bear-population/391177.html

More evidence you WILL NOT CONDONE because the conclusion of that evidence is one you are deathly afraid of admitting to.

Your “good cop, bad cop” schtick is wearing thin.

The mass extinction of marine life in our oceans during prehistoric times is a warning that the same could happen again due to high levels of greenhouse gases, according to new research.

Professor Martin Kennedy from the University of Adelaide (School of Earth & Environmental Sciences) and Professor Thomas Wagner from Newcastle University, UK, (Civil Engineering and Geosciences) have been studying ‘greenhouse oceans’ – those that have been depleted of oxygen, suffering increases in carbon dioxide and temperature.

Using core samples drilled from the ocean bed off the coast of western Africa, the geologists studied layers of sediment from the Late Cretaceous Period (85 million years ago) across a 400,000-year timespan. They found a significant amount of organic material – marine life – buried within deoxygenated layers of the sediment.

Professor Wagner says the results of their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), has relevance for our modern world: “We know that ‘dead zones’ are rapidly growing in size and number in seas and oceans across the globe,” he said. “These are areas of water that are lacking in oxygen and are suffering from increases of CO2, rising temperatures, nutrient run-off from agriculture and other factors.”

Source: “Mass Extinction of Marine Life in Oceans during Prehistoric Times Offers Warning for Future”, Science Daily, May 17, 2011 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110517105812.htm

The first tolls of the death knoll of the Eco-Fascists and their corporate backers sounded yesterday as the EPA had its incisors pulled out by a fearful Barrack Hussein Obama.

It appears that most Americans are on to the con-job and would rather have real jobs instead of more taxes, mandates. Apparently the only “consensus” that politicians (the people who fund this junk science for their own benefit) are paying attention to is poll numbers sinking faster than the US economy

Lest get those coal boiled fired up “spewing” out the stuff of life, the source of all life on earth. Lovey beautiful carbon.

Ah, so the government who is pushing AGW to control the world is stopping AGW.

Rather blows a hole in your argument that it’s all the politicians pushing it, doesn’t it.

Except you’ll deny any such thing. Hey ho.

“It appears that most Americans are on to the con-job”

With as much evidence as you’ve displayed, the findings that 78% of the world want more done to combat AGW will have passed you by.

The only death throes are the hammed-up screeches from the denial industry and the members of the Church Of Ayn Rand who bitterly resent that the universe doesn’t care what they believe.

Fear drives them. Which is why they sound so shrill.

I was looking forward to shorting the stocks of companies who sell AGW scientism to willing buyers; I cant find any. Can you give some help here?

Go ahead. Then when you’ve lost your shirt, you’ll whinge to the government to help you out, like all good Randian capitalists do.

PS everyone: notice how this denialist has nothing to say and has moved off into woo-land to find something to pollute the internet with.

‘900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm’ announces the headline on the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s website.

The article references a blog linking to more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”

However, a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-linked contributors.

The top ten contributors are alone responsible for 186 of the papers cited by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The data also shows that there are many other familiar climate sceptic names among the major contributors to the list.

Dr Sherwood B Idso is the most cited academic on the list, having authored or co-authored 67 of the 938 papers we analysed, which is seven percent of the total.

Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a thinktank which has been funded by ExxonMobil. Idso has also been linked to Information Council on the Environment ( ICE ), an energy industry PR campaign accused of “astroturfing”.

Source: “Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil”, The Carbon Brief, April 15, 2011 http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links

In an article titled, “Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil” from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace “researcher” Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as “linked to” [funded by] ExxonMobil.

To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Their responses follow, http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html

You wrote:

‘Their responses follow,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html’

I had already seen that.

Your nonsense has already been well slaughtered over at Deltoid Poptart, do you want me to start referring over there do you.

Oh! Sod it! Here is just one article exposing your stuff for what it is - crap!

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php

and follow down through the comments.

For those that don’t know Popular Technology is Poptech’s own little toilet on the WWW.

“Slaughtered”? I just spit my drink on my keyboard. Not a single comment their criticizing the list is factual. I would reply but I have been banned from Deltoid to prevent me from debunking all the lies posted their.

Name any criticism and I will destroy it for the lie, misinformation or strawman argument that it is.

The list includes many papers from authors who state categorically that their conclusions are misrepresented and ought to be taken off the list.

But denial comes to the fore and the collation of the list CANNOT have a reduction in numbers, else people might think that AGW was real (shock horror!), so the papers stay on the list and the complaints dismissed arbitrarily.

After all, who would know better than a denialist what a paper says? The author! Pah!

Try reading,

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. The reason for this is a small minority of authors on the list would not wish to be labeled skeptical (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr.) yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic’s arguments against AGW alarm. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4034

The list has an additional 30 or so papers on it so take them off, it makes no difference.

Pages