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

You have to prove they have been.

Still waiting. Prove they were not.

Nothing you will do about the list you mean. Nothing will make you reduce the numbers. Nothing will make you stop spewing your lies.

This is because you are a true believer in the denial of AGW.

You’re like hitler in his bunker going “there’s nothing you can do about the final solution!!!”.

There’s nothing I can do about your list because you are immune to evidence since you have only a blind faith.

anonymous coward,

Yes there is nothing YOU can do about it because you have stated nothing but lies, misinformation or strawman arguments about it.

Actual corrections have been made to legitimate criticisms.

You unfortunately do not have the intellectual ability to make a valid criticism and thus fail.

Except to pad them up with new “papers”.

You refuse most of the criticisms because they aren’t published in a peer reviewed journal.

Yet now you accede they aren’t peer reviewed, but you still refuse to adjust for the rebuttals, even though they are just as published as any of your papers.

This is why it’s obvious that you are the one lying your arse off.

All you have is proclamations and refusals.

1) There is no alarmism in the IPCC reports
2) The paper you’ve pushed from RPJr doesn’t show any skepticism of the IPCC report because the report doesn’t say he should have detected hurricane effects increasing in the USA.

And not once have you requested rum et al to not refer to your list as proof AGW is wrong.

This is just like hiding behind a hitman: you’re guilty of not only the lies you support but with cowardice in that you insist other people do it, not you.

anonymous coward,

I have made numerous corrections to the list - many, many corrections. A recent one was due to the Google Scholar illiterate debate at skeptical science which went off topic but non the less a correction was made.

I reject any criticism of the list that is not valid. As for criticisms of the papers, I will remove any paper if the author concedes it is not valid and does not offer a correction or it is retracted by the journal. Otherwise they are not going anywhere and I have included the authors rebuttal to any peer-reviewed published criticisms.

The papers on the list were peer-reviewed, blogs and such are not.

1) Strawman, I made no claim of alarmism in the IPCC reports here.
2) Strawman, I’ve made no claim his paper did show skepticism of the IPCC report only that it supports skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm.

I have no control over what anyone else says. I can only defend what I have stated.

Prove that I have insisted anyone state a lie, misinformation or strawman arguement about my list.

If the IPCC propounded no alarm and you have no cite as to the alarmism RPJr’s paper was pointing to except your own post, then the only alarmism is in your mind.

Just like the peer review of your list.

Incorrect the paper just has to support a skeptic argument against AGW Alarm, it does not have to be in the IPCC report but could be anywhere online. I provided the link already.

Prove that any of the papers were not peer-reviewed.

How can they do that when AGW alarm doesn’t exist? Do you want to see the IPCC have a paper refuting the idea that Martians are shooting a Heat Ray at the earth to make it warmer?!?!

Since you haven’t been able to show that any of the papers (never mind all of them) were peer reviewed, the case remains unproven.

They aren’t peer reviewed.

when the cowards are called on it.

“I am not going to answer any science questions so don’t bother.”

Because poptart doesn’t know what science is if it walked up to him and ripped his ears off.

All poptart knows is that HE IS RIGHT. No need for evidence, especially evidence that doesn’t support his avowed rightness.

The attempts to change the subject because you cannot debate me are noted.

I have refuted every lie, misinformation and strawman argument made about the list and fully supported all of my positions.

You will not even post who you are, that is the true coward.

The papers are in one of four categories:

1) Wrong. This can happen to any paper. But when proven wrong, you don’t remove the paper.

2) Lied about. You do that a lot. Assert the paper says something it doesn’t.

3) Not science. E.g. Monckton’s open letter

4) Irrelevant. E.g. a paper on trees in the 1940’s.

anonymous coward,

1) No paper has been prove wrong, conceded by the author to be or retracted from the journal. Any criticism of a paper is rebutted by the author and the rebuttal follows the paper. A few papers had errors which were addressed in a correction.

2) No paper has been lied about as all I stated was a paper or results from a paper supports a skeptic argument against AGW Alarm.

3) No claim was made that all the papers are natural science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. There are various socio-economic and policy papers on the list just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report.

4) All papers support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm, thus they are relevant to specific skeptic arguments.

You have nothing.

1) lots of those papers have been proven wrong:

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/anti-agw-papers-debunked/

2) No paper has been lied about

You’ve lied time and time again. Most aren’t even science, let alone scientific papers.

3) No claim was made that all the papers are natural science papers

Then how can it show skepticism as opposed to denial? I guess you’re going to put your blog postings in as another 150 proofs of your faith?

4) All papers support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm

Which doesn’t exist.

There’s the scientific proofs and the consequences. No alarm.

1) The existence of a criticism does not mean a paper has been prove wrong,

Rebuttal to “Anti-AGW papers debunked”
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3760

2) I have not lied a single time here or anywhere in defense of the list.

Yes your perpetual strawman is noted. No claim is made that the list is only natural science papers but rather that they are all peer-reviewed.

Most are science papers but there are a couple hundred socio-economic and policy papers just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report.

3) The papers support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm not your strawman argument.

4) Yes AGW Alarm exists as defined,

AGW Alarm (defined), “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic”.

The axiomatic basis of the AGW cult as self-revealed:

CO2 makes “the rich get richer”

Boring!

There’s a LOT of money in oil.

Its obvious that the age cult has more in common with the rapture people than it has to do with real provable science. May 21 2011 passed the rapture people by with the same disdain that May 21 2111 will pass the cult of climate catastrophe by

The rapture people could learn a lot from the AGW cult. If they just made all of their predictions beyond the scale of a single human life span they needn’t be embarrassed by the lack of the predicted second coming or nature’s wrathful weather.

sublimely ridiculous post by Sir Gareth.

Key Points:

•Changes in the rotational state of the planet are suggested to occur after 1992

GRACE-inferred values of the Stokes coefficients can be re-examined

•The changes might be linked to the impact of global warming on ice masses

Source: “GRACE era secular trends in Earth rotation parameters: A global scale impact of the global warming process?”, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L10306, 5 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011GL047282

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047282.shtml

Also, many of your “papers” are false

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/anti-agw-papers-debunked/

But, to poptart as to any denialist, once a paper says “IPCC got it wrong”, it exists in pristine Holy Writ, NEVER to be changed.

The Church of Denial has unalterable texts that cannot be rebutted.

Whereas the Climate Science has papers that update, change and expound new theories.

One is science. One is cult.

Denial is a cult.

As you may already know, Poptech had his clock cleaned in the comment thread to the article, “Meet The Denominator” posted on Skeptical Science. http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html

I refuted every single comment but many of my comments were censored and I have been banned from there so I cannot defend myself but Skeptical Science has been embarrassed beyond belief,

Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html

Please provide the 1001 search result for any of Rob’s Google Scholar search queries.

You REFUSE every comment, but that’s not refuted.

Unless you’re in a Monty Python sketch, which would explain your insanity.

You refuse because you’re in denial.

Your list is fake. It says nothing about the science. Just like you.

No I said refuted big boy and there is nothing you can do about it.

The list is very real and no matter how much you pout it will exist and continue to get more and more and more hits fueling scientific skepticism.

It has to suck to know that you are so helpless.

Here;s a list:

Things that could kill you:
1) The Easter Bunny
2) Daffy Duck
3) The Force
4) Killer Tomatoes

That list exists.

Of course, it’s all made up.

Just like your list.

It does suck that you are so deep in denial you can’t even point to AGW alarmism except to say “this refutes AGW alarmism”.

You’d make a good copper: “I’m arresting you”. Citizen: “What for?” You: “Resisting arrest”. Citizen: “What arrest”. You: “The arrest I’m arresting you for”.

anonymouse coward,

You are but a child in a Man’s game,

Rebuttal to “Anti-AGW papers debunked” http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3760

“No published criticism exists.

Blog posts [Brisbane Waters, part 1, part 2, part 3] are not published and do not warrant a reply.”

Yet it IS published. You can go and read it. If it’s read, it’s published.

“Beck (2007) – Rabett Run, RealClimate.

The only published comment has been rebutted,”

you’ve argued it. But the argument fails, just like your earlier one does.

“Blog posts [Rabett Run, RealClimate] are not published and do not warrant a reply.”

But YOU are a blog post. Therefore your list is not worthy of response and has nothing to say.

“Chilingar et al. (2008) – The Science of Doom.

No published criticism exists.”

It’s published. It exists.

And so on with boring regularity.

You just state “I’ve answered this” but you haven’t. State “It’s not published” when you want to ignore it but “It’s published” when you want to include it off a blog in your list.

anonymous coward,

Not published in the peer-reviewed literature. If the criticisms were valid they would be published. I will update this for idiots like yourself.

My list is a resource of papers, it is not a paper therefore your argument is irrelevant.

And the editorial of Nature isn’t peer reviewed, yet E&E commentaries, editorials and open letters are accepted AS LONG AS they prove your belief that AGW is wrong.

You refuse any response by just changing what you demand as proof.

At the moment you’re requiring Lionel give you proof. When he does, you’ll just proclaim “That’s on a blog, so I don’t have to read it”.

Your 900+ papers don’t exist: they’re either wrong, rebutted, replaced, mis-labelled or not even reviewed, peer or otherwise.

And the overwhelming number of papers that ARE peer reviewed support the climate science that leads to AGW as a consequence of human actions.

You have failed to prove that a single paper on the list is not peer-reviewed.

I have not changed my demands. The Lioness has failed to provide any proof to support his lies, misinformation or strawman arguments.

Nature Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles are Peer-Reviewed. Other contributed articles and all forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.

None of the papers are wrong, rebutted, replaced, mislabelled or not peer-reviewed.

You have failed to provide evidence of an overwhelming number of papers that explicitly endorse AGW. http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/peer_review.html

YOU are the one asserting that even the Open Letter from Monckton is peer reviewed. An extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof.

You have admitted there are opinion and editorial pieces which are not peer reviewed, but insist they count. Prove it.

You only have a list of 900 things you can misrepresent that are wrong, invalid, not reviewed or just plain hatstand.

All to prove something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist. Idiotic!

Prove it was not peer-reviewed. Still waiting failure boy.

I have not admitted that there are non-peer-reviewed papers included in the peer-reviewed paper count.

I have a list of OVER 900 peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments.

None of the papers are wrong, invalid, not peer-reviewed ect…

Deal with it.

Just from the IPCC fourth report:

http://www.zvon.org/eco/ipcc/ar4/index.html

100 in a-hi in WG1, Chapter 1 (out of 3 WGs and 11 chapters in WG1).

Then count up for the others.

I showed you how to do it.

What did you fail are using Google big boy?

Not every paper in the IPCC report deals with AGW.

There’s a section, for example, on how a magnesium mine works.

This too isn’t AGW alarmism.

If that’s all you can post to about AGW alarmism, you’ve nothing.

They now say “not peer-reviewed”, for idiots like the anonymous coward.

So you could include Daily Mail letters in your list.

That would CERTAINLY pump the numbers up!

Your list is all about denial.

You loathe the science and are paranoid and raving about the consequences. The alarmism only exists in your mind because you’re a nutcase.

The paper you’ve put says that there is no evidence that hurricane numbers have gone up in the USA. But that doesn’t mean, no matter how hard you try to spin the lies, that hurricanes are not affected.

Neither have either of you shown that the IPCC reports make the claim in an “alarming” way, nor that it should definitely be obvious by the time RPJr did the test.

Neither of you.

This is one reason why RPJr wants his name off the list, since he knows and will admit it doesn’t show any skepticism of the IPCC reports. No matter how hard you want to believe.

There needs, too, to be an update: Does the data show it now?

Of course, you don’t want to add that in, do you. It would devastate you.

The Daily Mail is not peer-reviewed so it could not be on the list.

The word denial does not appear on the list.

I have no problem with science, I have a problem with alarmists who state lies such as yourself.

The paper supports skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm relating to hurricanes.

Again with your strawman argument about the IPCC.

The nonsense about Pielke Jr. is addressed here,

Rebuttal to “Better Recheck That List” http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4019

But you included that.

It would allow you to plump up that list to at least visible magnitude.

“I have a problem with alarmists who state lies such as yourself.”

What lies like “You haven’t shown any AGW alarmism”? You mean lies that actually state the true facts?

And in what way is that alarmism?

Maybe saying something is “alarmism” because to tarty here it alarms him. Poor mite.

“The paper supports skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm relating to hurricanes.”

But where is there AGW alarmism relating to hurricanes?

If it doesn’t exist, then it can’t support a skeptical argument against it any more than someone can make a skeptical argument against the flurblebats frombling our foodlies.

Where is this AGW alarm relating to hurricanes?

While not acknowledging any relationship with fact and peer reviewed papers I note the following:

Mann’s peer reviewed hockey stick nonsense was fully peer reviewed and published with no one asking for the data or the software from which its glaring errors in its amateurish statistical methods could have easily been derived. This was the paper that launched 100,000 buruecrats at costs of untold billions.

Nobody checked the work- why would they if it suited their agenda and had no knowledge required to deconstruct its nonsense.

Speaking of deconstructing, have any of you read a famous peer reviewed study published in the peer reviewed journals called “deconstructing access points”?

This paper was famously reviwed and published by Bentham Science,
“A major STM journal publisher of 106 online and print journals, 200 plus open access journals, and related print/online book series, Bentham Science answers the informational needs of the pharmaceutical, biomedical and medical research community.”

Here is the story:

“Sheer nonsense

So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham’s editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

The paper, entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” (pdf) made no sense whatsoever, as this sample reveals:

In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].

Acronym clue

Davis and Anderson, writing under the noms de plume David Phillips and Andrew Kent, also dropped a hefty hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.

Yet four months after the article was submitted, “David Phillips” received an email from Sana Mokarram, Bentham’s assistant manager of publication:

This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication.

The publication fee was $800, to be sent to a PO Box in the United Arab Emirates. Having made his point, Davis withdrew the paper.

This is how the process of writing “peer reviewed” science holds to the highest standards of “science”

While not acknowledging any relationship with fact and peer reviewed papers I note the following:

Mann’s peer reviewed hockey stick nonsense was fully peer reviewed and published with no one asking for the data or the software from which its glaring errors in its amateurish statistical methods could have easily been derived. This was the paper that launched 100,000 buruecrats at costs of untold billions.

Nobody checked the work- why would they if it suited their agenda and had no knowledge required to deconstruct its nonsense.

Speaking of deconstructing, have any of you read a famous peer reviewed study published in the peer reviewed journals called “deconstructing access points”?

This paper was famously reviwed and published by Bentham Science,
“A major STM journal publisher of 106 online and print journals, 200 plus open access journals, and related print/online book series, Bentham Science answers the informational needs of the pharmaceutical, biomedical and medical research community.”

Here is the story:

“Sheer nonsense

So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham’s editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

The paper, entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” (pdf) made no sense whatsoever, as this sample reveals:

In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].

Acronym clue

Davis and Anderson, writing under the noms de plume David Phillips and Andrew Kent, also dropped a hefty hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.

Yet four months after the article was submitted, “David Phillips” received an email from Sana Mokarram, Bentham’s assistant manager of publication:

This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication.

The publication fee was $800, to be sent to a PO Box in the United Arab Emirates. Having made his point, Davis withdrew the paper.

This is how the process of writing “peer reviewed” science holds to the highest standards of “science”

WRT this little example of p’ing into wind:

‘Lioness,

Distort context much? It was not a physical threat Lioness.’

I’ll remind you as to what you wrote Poptech:

‘What a joke, I refuted all the nonsense at the Guardian and and there is not a single factual criticism at Deltoid. Name ANY and I will destroy them.’

‘…Name ANY and I will destroy them.’, looks pretty threatening to me.

So am I to think that it was vapour and puffery, like everything else you write.

What a juvenile you are.

Now as for Benny, if you don’t know to whom I am referring then you really are an ignoramus. As is your avoidance of answering anything science related.

HTF can you judge the value of the findings of climate papers if you know nothing about the science? Believing crap put about by Plimer, Monkton, Morano, Milloy, old uncle Tom Cobley and all etc without understanding any of the science is an act of faith. That is all you have.

You are the joke Poptech/Poptart.

Lioness, ROFLMAO!

Yes name any “CRITICISM”, I made no mention of any person.

I have no idea who Benny is.

I never claimed I know nothing of science as I was educated as a computer scientist. I simply mentioned I am not going to answer your off topic questions which are designed to distract from your failure to provide a valid criticism of the list.

And if anyone DID produce a criticism, you’d reply “It’s not published, so it’s not valid”.

Which is the MO of the denialist.

Demand proof, then refuse it.

anonymous coward,

I made no claim that no criticism of the list exists only that they are all based on lies, misinformation and strawman arguments of which I have completely refuted.

And by “refuted” you mean “I’ve said they’re lies, misinformation and strawman arguments”.

?

That one paper you have put on here from RPJr doesn’t show skepticism of AGW alarmism because AGW isn’t being alarmist.

That your list still includes it and you have no defence of that shows your list still fails to be properly vetted.

‘I never claimed I know nothing of science as I was educated as a computer scientist. I simply mentioned I am not going to answer your off topic questions which are designed to distract from your failure to provide a valid criticism of the list.’

So WTF makes you think that you are qualified to judge anything on this issue?

Nice demonstration of scientific ignorance.

‘I have no idea who Benny is.’

Nice demonstration of ignorance of the history of denial.

To remind you:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php

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

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/06/kilimanjaro_and_global_warming.php

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/02/the_importance_of_actually_rea.php

post by Hank Roberts at the last above:

<—quote—>

Glutton for punishment, I guess, I read the rest of the returns, and we have a winner. I think it’s the same newsbuster guy who posts as ‘poptech’ – who pasted a huge long text dump and several repeated comments into a Stanford page, including the Hays et al. cite, at about the same time.
Poptech on 11/17/07 at 12pm
Nobody else was hyping it. Betcha that’s Wills’s staffer’s source. Here’s the cached copy of that, for the record.
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:o6unO4ZKX-4J:daily.stanford.edu/comments/2007/11/15/speakerSlamsGlobalWarming+%22Variations+in+the+Earth%27s+Orbit:+Pacemaker+of+the+Ice+Ages%22+by+J.D.+Hays,+John+Imbrie,+and+N.J.+Shackleton

So he’s someone else who didn’t read what he cites. Tsk.

Posted by: Hank Roberts | February 26, 2009 1:50 AM

<—endquote—>

You didn’t answer that last one above. I wonder why?

And I agree with Hank, who’s little finger nail knows more about this topic than you, about you being a glutton for punishment too.

Goodbye Denier Daniel.

Pages