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

May 12, 2011

ACTION NEEDED TO MANAGE CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS; U.S. RESPONSE SHOULD BE DURABLE, BUT FLEXIBLE

WASHINGTON — Warning that the risk of dangerous climate change impacts is growing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, a National Research Council committee today reiterated the pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare to adapt to its impacts. The nation's options for responding to the risks posed by climate change are analyzed in a new report and the final volume in America's Climate Choices, a series of studies requested by Congress. The committee that authored the report included not only renowned scientists and engineers but also economists, business leaders, an ex-governor, a former congressman, and other policy experts.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12781

Hey, Phil M et al:

Sorry for forgetting to sign my latest Comment. Thank all of you for taking the time to read it. Everyone made their viewpoints known (to the extent they wished), and that what this is all about.

Nobody got what I’m saying. Please continue reading and I’ll try to express myself better:

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT HARMFUL MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURING! Government says it’s true, and by fiat, it is so!

While we pointlessly argue the merits of AGW science, government is taking action in the name of stopping this threat to humanity. Unfortunately for us, NOTHING the government is doing or plans to do will achieve anywhere near the CO2 emissions reduction needed for our salvation.

IF YOU BELIEVE AGW IS HARMFUL, why don’t you clamor for a call to action that will actually “save” us? Similarly, why don’t the pro-AGW scientists do this as well? Isn’t this supposed to be the end game for spending $100 billion for decades of AGW research? If manmade CO2 is a threat to humanity, why does nobody demand that government find a full time energy source that can replace carbon fuels? Government can either do the required R&D itself (through contractors, as it has done with AGW research) or offer a huge “X-Prize” to get the private sector involved. Our government isn’t doing any of this. Why? Doesn’t anybody care? Why do you argue the merits of AGW science when government agrees with you, but does nothing useful to find a replacement for carbon fuels, and can’t even formulate a coherent national energy policy? Are you OK with that?

IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT AGW IS HARMFUL, you should feel mad as hell that government is throwing our national wealth down a rat hole. You WILL be mad as hell if the EPA passes expensive regulations that make you and American business “go green”, as government chooses to define “green” at any given moment. You should condemn government’s actions to tax the use of carbon fuels (if we don’t switch to carbonless energy) when no viable alternative 24/7 energy sources exist. You should be foaming at the mouth over the United Nation’s attempts to create a New World Order (“global governance”), all in the name of saving planet Earth from mankind’s use of carbon fuels, while denying us a successor to carbon fuels.

AGW science is what it is. But real or not, the AGW issue has to be argued in a political context. If AGW is real, government’s actions are pathetically inadequate, and we won’t be saved. If AGW is not real, it will be a huge waste of money, a huge expansion of government, and an unprecedented intrusion into the lives and personal freedoms of the people. What good does it do to argue AGW science?

Real or not, government’s AGW remediation actions cannot save us from the CO2 devil any more than government’s decision to slash $50billion from the federal budget can eliminate a $1.5 trillion deficit. Doesn’t anybody really care? If you do, then argue the merits of government AGW actions… not AGW science.

--Daisym

"Sorry for forgetting to sign my latest Comment."

Why don't you just edit the "your name" field so it says "Daisym"? That way, we know who we are talking to each time instead of worrying about a signature?

"Government says it’s true, and by fiat, it is so!"
Depends on which government you are talking about. If it's Canada, the Conservatives won there & they don't believe it is so & are not implementing any policy. The Democrats in the USA don't have the numbers now to push anything through & it's quite likely they will lose the 2012 election which means it will be killed off & government there will essentially say it isn't true if the republicans win & what has fiat got to do with it?

"Unfortunately for us, NOTHING the government is doing or plans to do will achieve anywhere near the CO2 emissions reduction needed for our salvation."

Agreed.

"IF YOU BELIEVE AGW IS HARMFUL, why don’t you clamor for a call to action that will actually “save” us?"

We have, but in a democratic society, 40%-50% don't get to tell the other half what they should do. A landslide majority can do that, but not a minority.

"Similarly, why don’t the pro-AGW scientists do this as well?"
They have, hence why you are here no arguing against their advice.

"Isn’t this supposed to be the end game for spending $100 billion for decades of AGW research?"
Should we strive to understand our planet, yes or no? Please come up with a free solution. Scientists have been studying our planet & climate for years now. It wasn't until governments decided to create legislation that would affect fossil fuel industries & mining that large swathes of the public decided to turn against them ( scientists).

"If manmade CO2 is a threat to humanity, why does nobody demand that government find a full time energy source that can replace carbon fuels?"
Because republicans will say that is socialism & opposing free market ideals. If we removed all subsidies for fossil fuels or alternatively subsidized the renewable or nuclear sector with subsidies equal to fossil fuels, then you would see a solution quick smart.

"Why do you argue the merits of AGW science when government agrees with you, but does nothing useful to find a replacement for carbon fuels, and can’t even formulate a coherent national energy policy? Are you OK with that?"

No I'm not ok with that, but votes have the ability to defeat science however correct it is & that is where we are at now.

"You should condemn government’s actions to tax the use of carbon fuels (if we don’t switch to carbonless energy) when no viable alternative 24/7 energy sources exist."

There is alternatives , but without an equal economic footing, there can be no change.

"You should be foaming at the mouth over the United Nation’s attempts to create a New World Order (“global governance”), all in the name of saving planet Earth from mankind’s use of carbon fuels, while denying us a successor to carbon fuels."

Ok, now it's clear you watch too much Alex Jones.

"AGW science is what it is. But real or not, the AGW issue has to be argued in a political context. If AGW is real, government’s actions are pathetically inadequate, and we won’t be saved."

Again, 50% of politicians believe it is real the rest don't.

"If AGW is not real, it will be a huge waste of money, a huge expansion of government, and an unprecedented intrusion into the lives and personal freedoms of the people."

The precautionary principle suggests in the absence of another planet to run tests on & a time machine to see the results, we should do as scientists suggest. Sounds like you are arguing libertarian or right wing ideals. If you are worried about big government, then why suggest government do something about it?

"If you do, then argue the merits of government AGW actions… not AGW science."
It's a bit hard when people like you, Titus & Go Figure are actively trying to convince voters they should do nothing. It doesn't matter what government suggests unless the majority of voters give it the nod.

Phil: Kudos on your detailed response to Daisym.

Over the course of the past twelve days, he/she, Titus, and Go Figure have littered this comment thread with pseudo-science poppycock churned out by the Climate Denial Spin Machine. I many instances, their posts are merely cut & paste from a sheet of talking points. (I have posted on enough comment threads over the past few years to recognize stock statements when I read them.)

While it is relatively easy for someone like you to debunk the stale, worn-out, anti-AGW arguments made by Dayism, Titus, and Go Figure, it does require and expenditure of your time and energy. For that, I salute you and the other commentators who have taken them to the woodshed.

"I many instances, their posts are merely cut & paste from a sheet of talking points."

Agreed. You see a new one come onto the boards every day. They have just decided to get involved & they are here to tell us their discovery about the LIA, MWP, hockey stick, the sun, water vapour,volcanoes, why is it cold in places? On & on it goes. Their reading takes them about as far as WUWT & thats it. No cross checking, no delving deeper. Just blind acceptance on face value of whatever is said at WTFUWT.

RE: "Depends on which government you are talking about. If it's Canada, the Conservatives won there & they don't believe it is so & are not implementing any policy."

Its a strange science that requires proper political orientation and more importantly "belief" in order to see benefit in it.

This is not traditional science; tradition science could care less whether people "believed" in it or "denied" it. Do you think Issac Newton sought to fine people for not honoring his 'laws' of motion?

What we have here is a nexus of religion, science, and government. Ie essentially a recreation of the theocratic state which was perhaps dismantled too early by the age of enlightenment.

I have coined my own term for AGW belief and have termed it "Scientism" as distinct from traditional science where proof rather than consensus and authority dominates the discussion.

People who practice traditional science are indeed scientists but this term is truly inadequate for Scientism as a faith based science.

I have used the term Scientismist to describe one who ascribes to or practices faith based Scientism. Faith is maintained only when those who would "deny" the faith are not admitted to enter the practice. Deniers are, after all, contrary forces to the aims and outcomes desired by the faithful adherents to Scientism.

Traditional science recognizes no authority and no decrees; while Scientism cast off the shackles of proof in favor of a hierarchy of authority. When a non-authority finds flaws in the catechism of Scientism he can simply be dismissed by the proper authorities.

Councils of belief have always been important in maintaining a coherent catechism; indeed the Catholic Church holds Vatican II and AGW Scientism holds its IPCC 4 so the value of keeping the catechism somewhat coherent has already been recognized by hierarchy of AGW Scientism

Traditional scientists try to recognize passion for an outcome compliant to one's belief as a bias towards error. This can all be discarded by Scientismists; they can be full of passion and fury and ignore contrary evidence and cook the books because it is the outcome that is all important. When their own data does not support the belied it can be called "a travesty" or sacrilege as the case my be.

Wendy Wright Award for services to vacant heads.

Those of a rational disposition should not be holding a shotgun whilst watching this otherwise you will likely obliterate your screen by emptying both barrels into it at some point:

Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

Scientism FFS!

Blasting words and the screens they appear on away with shotguns would be highly consistent with the temperament required of a successful Scientismist. Good point

for not including you in my laundry list of climate deniers posting on this comment thread.

The above post is a classic example of one of the most widely used tactics of the Climate Denial Spin Machine -- obfuscation.

Apologies accepted,

I possess a strong Doubting Thomas gene. Like Doubting Thomas, I wanted to see Jesus walk upon the waters too. I know that I should accept the data as recorded by the disciples who saw what I cannot.

I've had trouble joining any flock or fold for this reason. When people say "I see dead people" or "I see the globe warming" I really do want to see it too but since I can't I am ever and always a stray from the flock of the faithful.

I do not mean to impugn or deny you your cheerful membership to the fold

How you KNOW that the null hypothesis remains, how you KNOW that AGW is false. No doubting there, is there!

You have joined a flock whose mating call is "I'm not a flock! I'm just skeptical!".

And, like all mating calls, it's false.

"Do you think Issac Newton sought to fine people for not honoring his 'laws' of motion?"

Not heading his advice wouldn't affect many at all. Not heading climate scientists advice has the potential to cause wide ranging economic effects ( insurance costs rising, gov's paying out for more disaster relief, flood damage, drought damage, cyclone/hurricane damage,water supply issues) , military issues, food supply issues. The recommendations are on the table but people like yourself & saying no! I don't believe, fossil fuel companies & my party tell me otherwise, so that's where I'm hedging my bets.

"have coined my own term for AGW belief and have termed it "Scientism" as distinct from traditional science where proof"

Proof is the realm of maths, get with the program.

"People who practice traditional science are indeed scientists but this term is truly inadequate for Scientism as a faith based science."
You can't provide a single peer reviewed paper to prove that gravity exists, yet I have faith, that you will die if you jump off a multi storey building.

"Deniers are, after all, contrary forces"
No, you are people that despite volumes of evidence, choose to ignore the facts because of your political beliefs. That is denialism.

"Traditional science recognizes no authority and no decrees;"
No? So an armchair expert that has published no material at all, should be able to trump a 30 year veteran of climate science with dozens of peer reviewed material? So in your eyes, does an armchair expert that sits at home & reads cop mags & watches cop shows have more authority to arrest someone than a policeman? This is the simplistic line of your arguments.

RE: "Not heading his [Newtons laws of motion and gravitational attraction] advice wouldn't affect many at all."

Never been under artillery fire huh - Newton tells us only where they land, useful and predictable.

RE: "Not heading climate scientists advice has the potential to cause wide ranging economic effects...]

Wait a minute don't they all have to have PhDs in economics to tell us about all those "economic effects"....Or are these guys sort of god like in everything they utter?

RE " Proof is the realm of maths, get with the program."

Oh goody I'm really quite good at "maths" So here a problem that "maths" should solve.

What is the probability of pulling two red marbles in a row out of a bag with an equal number of red and green marbles (except for all the extra green marbles that they never saw in the bag)????

RE: "No, you are people that despite volumes of evidence..."

Evidence and proofs are quite difference things---

The evidence: The girl is pregnant, the DNA matches yours, she says YOU raped her.

So it should be off to the guillotine for you and all you forgot to do was send her flowers and chocolates for being so nice to you.

Lots of evidence; no proof.

And ....moreover I see no evidence....the natural world seems much the same to me as it did 67 years ago. Some winters colder than others; some summers hotter than others.... 1951 was really hot. No one clamoring to save us from some mythical new threats in exchange for more taxpayer cash.

Re: "So an armchair expert that has published no material at all, should be able to trump a 30 year veteran of climate science with dozens of peer reviewed material? "

Yep happens all the time: that's how Galileo trumped all the peer reviewed science of the day that was sure the sun orbited the earth; peer reviewed mind you - its how 2 bicycle shop owners trumped all the aviation experts - heavier than air machines cant fly:

I give you Wilbur and Orville Wright two country bumpkins from Dayton Ohio, 1903; not even a high school diploma between the two of them

Name one single idea that peer review advanced that has sny meaning for the 21st century?

The atom bomb wasn't peer reviewed; Hungarian Leo Szizard dreamed it up in London in 1933. We built it first and it worked.

The laser wasn't peer reviewed either a graduate physics student just dreamed it up and it lased.

The lightbulb, telephone, radio, recorder, telephone, transistor, TV, integrated circuit etc etc etc - none of it peer reviewed, just experimentation and finally production proved their worth. No one needed to agree that it worked - it just did - mushroom clouds etc.

Climate science has got the observered & empricial evidence PLUS the peer reviewed evidence & still that is not good enough for you. Confirmation bias & your ideology dictates that you will never concede there is enough evidence or "proof" until such a time as your political party accepts it. Then miraculously, you will too. So our arguments are circular. You will not concede until your party does & I will not concede until scientists & the majority of the worlds scientific institutes do.

Like I have said before. Climate science & our understanding of CO2 & the greenhouse effect have been know for years now. If fact as early as the late 1800's. It's just that legislation that could hurt funding to your political party is in jeopardy & has mobilized you into action.

Otherwise you would have no cause to doubt the science that was never peer reviewed but agreed on, or the peer reviewed science that has now made the case harder than concrete.

RE: Climate science has got the observered & empricial evidence"

As a mere dilettante in the all things "scientific" myself, would you please take the time to explain to me in your own words the differences between "observed & empirical evidence" - I need to learn this from you.

And no Bernie Madeoff's investment schemes were all peer reviewed by the SEC; no problem. I'm more skeptical and haven't been con'ed yet by peer reviewed scams.

RE: "Confirmation bias & your ideology dictates that you will never concede there is enough evidence or "proof" until such a time as your political party accepts it."

Sorry I'm not a party animal; I think for myself - you join the fold its your right to do so.

RE: "Like I have said before. Climate science & our understanding of CO2 & the greenhouse effect have been know for years now."

"Your understanding?" both "empirical & observed" I presume?

RE: ...."harder than concrete"

Wow, tell it to the folks at pfizer - even viagra can't top that.

Science is never hard....its always yielding, it a process not a fact. Literally everything we know to be "scientifically true" will be held in the same derision as 15th century science is today.

"As a mere dilettante in the all things "scientific" myself, would you please take the time to explain to me in your own words the differences between "observed & empirical evidence" - I need to learn this from you."

It was meant to read observed or empirical evidence. You don't know what that is & google isn't working for you?

"And no Bernie Madeoff's investment schemes were all peer reviewed by the SEC; no problem. I'm more skeptical and haven't been con'ed yet by peer reviewed scams."

Your earlier examples were the exception to the rule. I'd still like to see you pull over a car & declare you have as much authority as a policeman because you watch cop shows. You are just being mindlessly evasive. These exceptions to the rule or denier scientists you are hoping have the answers have had the past 100 or so years to prove otherwise.....but haven't, backyarders armchair experts or otherwise.

"Sorry I'm not a party animal; I think for myself"
Yet you already declared in one of your first posts that you are a conservative. I don't think I would be alone in thinking you are more of a right winger. Not a party animal my arse. Why the sudden interest in climate science then? If you are as old as you allude, then where was your outrage in the 50's? Or even when these type of blogs started appearing in the early 2000's? You follow the lead of your party, who follows the lead of the money that funds their party & you find yourself naturally gravitating to right wing sites like WUWT for comfort.

Its funny you know, the amount of deniers I've run into over the years that have either said they are a swinging voter or think for themselves is nothing short of miraculous. I just happen to run into all of them. Yet 60-70% of American conservatives are shown to deny AGW & I run into the ones that.......think for themselves....right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_change
The less educated you are the more likely you are to deny it seems.

"As for real science; we import it from Asia with millions of H-1B visa's; American kids are too dumbed down in real science to do any meaningful work"
Hence why Americans have the highest rate of denialism.

"They can attend meetings and write regulations"
Oh yes, those pesky regulations......that saved banks here in Australia but destroyed many of America's biggest because they decided to remove regulations.

"lets see how well it puts food on the table."
That's the point you don't get Gareth. While the scientists are surely smart people, they chose a profession that isn't exactly going to get them their own leer jet. Instead of focusing entirely on themselves, they make it their job to help mankind. They are working to save the food that goes on others tables the fools eh!? Why not let everyone live in an Ayn Randian libertarian fantasy ....until...like Rand, they call on the public health system? Whoopee, what fun.

"RE...... Climate science & our understanding of CO2 & the greenhouse effect have been know for years now." ."Your understanding?" both "empirical & observed" I presume?"

No, like the scientific timeline that has got us to this pont of understanding.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

"Science is never hard....its always yielding, it a process not a fact."
Yet one of the great denialist talking points is the earth's climate systems are chaotic & we don't understand them enough yet. They could have used your advice decades ago that it's never hard & they could have just worked everything out in 5 mins, your a genius! The guys working on the genome project could have used your help too!

"Literally everything we know to be "scientifically true" will be held in the same derision as 15th century science is today."
I mostly agree with you there Gareth, amazing.

Wow. Been busy here the last few days.

You AGW's just don't get it or do not want to get it. SirGareth speaks for (IMO) the majority of folks in the real world. You would do well to dwell on his insights and learn and accept how others think. It might help you evangelize your own belief into more mainstream acceptance.

Your biggest problem is that you are using science as a belief system when it’s an analytical tool for research. It is totally the wrong tool for 'understanding', a word you do not appear to understand. We have so little understanding yet profess so much. We name things like the dimensions of time, space, mass etc. and can make them useful. However, we have absolutely no clue as to 'understanding' them. How many dimensions have we missed? Are dimensions the right approach? We are not even on the bottom rung.

And then you talk about stuff like evolution which is falling apart by the seams and there is little if anything said that 'hey, maybe we haven’t got this right". I'm not a creationist or an evolutionist it's just that our current understanding is so miniscule that anything is on the table and if we don’t accept that we will blind ourselves to ever finding it.

Great to have found this site where we are allowed to have this debate. I'm new to blogging and it’s been very educational. Thanks to everyone..........

He speaks for nobody else but himself.

He has no insights, a fact even you cannot avoid as evidenced by your lack of listing his "insights".

And your biggest problem is projection: EVERYTHING to you is a belief. Therefore your own mind insists that this is what everyone else does. This is called "projection". YOU are the faith-based rhetoric. SG's rhetoric is also faith based as is GF. This fact is devastating to your case, but you are poisoning the well with your insanities.

Why are we going on about dimensions now? Still unable to admit plainly that AGW is as much a theory as gravity and that just because we don't know either to perfection doesn't mean that we're going to fall off into space or shouldn't stop polluting the atmosphere.

Yet your faith requires that you insist that AGW should be ignored.

YOU again are projecting. YOU are the one talking about stuff like evolution which isn't falling apart by the seams (again, your faith DEMANDS that evolution is wrong, ergo it IS wrong). You are a creationist because you're insisting that everything is as valid an explanation of evidence as anything else, therefore your god did it is just as valid as evolution (NOTE: you aren't saying anything about how ID is falling apart at the seams, which illustrates your bias for creationism screed).

AGW is a fact just like gravity is a fact and evolution is a fact.

But your bible insists that God did everything and that he gave you the world to do with as you wish. Therefore evolution is wrong (because God didn't say he did it that way, he said he created it as-is) and AGW is wrong (because God wouldn't let that happen and anyway it's your planet)

I thought we put this one to bed.

Scientific research tells us that CO2 has a warming influence which we can measure. Just like the warming influence from the sun. This is knowledge that we can make use of.

This is then added to the chaotic mix of continual advancing knowledge of other influences and interactions (and of course hitherto unknown) called climate.

This is theory. Looks like the old adage 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing'. You still have not grasped what 'understanding' means. You are driven by belief in data and a collection of current knowledge.

And just because birds can fly doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist.

But your level of denial would require it.

"You AGW's just don't get it or do not want to get it. SirGareth speaks for (IMO) the majority of folks in the real world. "

Titus, your not even in the ball game mate. You deny that there is any lobbying or efforts by fossil fuel companies to sway public & political opinion. So there is little point in continuing your pointless lines of argument.

"Newton tells us only where they land, useful and predictable."

False. For modern artillery you also need to include the coriolis force and the motion of the earth underneath the trajectory.

"What is the probability of pulling two red marbles in a row out of a bag with an equal number of red and green marbles????"

50:50.

"And ....moreover I see no evidence."

Yes, because you deny the evidence.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

This is about the eighth time you've been shown this, but you still say "I see no evidence". This is why you're a denier, not a skeptic.

"the natural world seems much the same to me as it did 67 years ago. "

So why are the temperatures 60 years ago over the 40's 0.6C cooler than it it was during the last decade?

BECAUSE IT'S WARMING. Which is evidence you deny.

"Galileo trumped all the peer reviewed science of the day"

a) You're not Gallileo
b) That was religious dogma it overcame. A problem science has showing the evidence in the face of your religious dogma.

You're not the Gallileo, you're the established, rich, powerful and connected church who tried to silence him for speaking the truth.

Re-read SirGarth's post.

You misssed reading the most important part.

"(except for all the extra green marbles that they never saw in the bag)????"

This is the essecence of much that is being discussed.

That you can't point to any actual content shows you too know it's empty of anything other than personal fervour and faith.

What extra green marbles? There aren't any. SG is insisting there is because his argument demands it.

This is called "begging the question".

In the example they did exist and you failed to notice.

This makes the point very well.

Had you had the wisdom to understand this you would have been better prepared.

As I said; It's a very good analogy of the flaw in your arguments.

Then why haven't denier scientists come up with a plausible & testable answer? They do no research themselves & are funded by oil speaking tours, but come up with no answers themselves. Just criticism of others work. We are waiting with bated breath for the denier scientists to discover the extra green marbles no one saw in the bag. So far, 100 years & waiting.

I was reading this little book over the weekend. Seems a plausible theory. I'm sure you will demolish it in inimitable fashion.

http://www.globalweathercycles.com/GWGCNCF/chapter9.htm

As with everything there are many green marbles to come. They don't stop. You just aren’t getting it are you? You need to apply wisdom to play this game.
Current data and knowledge is just; well, yesterday!!.

The blog report (unscientific in toto) is merely curve fitting.

"This research uses the discovery of the Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM)"

What is the PFM then?

"the primary fundamental link between the cycles of specific lunar syzygy declinations"

Syzygy (pronounced /ˈsɪ.zɨ.dʒi/) may refer to:

* Syzygy (astronomy), a straight line configuration of three celestial bodies
* Syzygy (Gnosticism), male-female pairings of the emanations known as aeons
* Syzygy (mathematics), a relation between the generators of a module
* Syzygy (poetry), the combination of two metrical feet into a single unit
* Syzygy (The X-Files), an episode of the X-Files
* Syzygy Darklock, a fictional character in the comic book series Dreadstar
* Syzygys, a Japanese band
* A concept in the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov
* A term used by Carl Jung to mean a union of opposites
* Epirrhematic syzygy: a system of symmetrically corresponding verse forms in Greek Old Comedy, see Aristophanes#Parabasis
* Syzygy, an alternative electronica music duo featuring Dominic Glynn
* The first company founded by Nolan Bushnell
* An anatomical feature of crinoids

So this would be "tidal energy"?

But the moon's distance is EXTREMELY accurately measured and the moon has been moving away from us for many millions of years.

So, no, that can't be it.

This puff piece also doesn't explain why CO2 doesn't have any effect at all and why this effect both hides CO2's sufficient explanation and also apes the growth of CO2's effect.

Fail. Utter fail.

"People who practice traditional science are indeed scientists but this term is truly inadequate for Scientism as a faith based science."

Yet, you have no proof that if you had cancer, that chemotherapy will fix it. You have "faith" that it's probably a better approach than doing nothing at all. Where is the 100% proof? What doctor will give you that gaurantee? So why do people take their advice?

You only found doubt about the work that climate scientists have been dong the past 100 years when proposed legislation in the past few years affected the funding of your political party. Now suddenly you "know" science is wrong & anyone who believes the scientists & the worlds scientific institutions are part of a conspiracy & are part of a faith based religion.

RE: "Yet, you have no proof that if you had cancer, that chemotherapy will fix it."

But I can actually look at cure rates for various procedures and assess for myself whether it is appropriate for me to undergo chemotherapy; if you are passive in medical decisions that effect only you, then you are hopelessly gullible; prime fodder for AGW scientismist's scams.

RE: "You have "faith" that it's probably a better approach than doing nothing at all. Where is the 100% proof?

I agree that 100% is difficult to achieve; I have even mad a few mistakes myself.

RE: "What doctor will give you that gaurantee? So why do people take their advice?"

That's a deeply personnel question; some take advice and are better for it, some take advice and are worse for it. How would you react if you were forced to undergo a procedure you didn't agree with?

RE: "You only found doubt about the work that climate scientists have been dong the past 100 years when proposed legislation in the past few years affected the funding of your political party."

What in the world are you talking about? AGW Scientismists aren't funding my party ? Which party are they funding? what party do I adhere to? You really do go off half cocked don't you?

“Good science education and communication can effectively counter the arguments of legitimate climate change “skeptics” who are actually interested in education and discussion. See, for an outstanding example, the Skeptical Science website. In particular, see the site’s “Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says” for rebuttals to 136 skeptic talking points. This is a valuable resource for the great and essential task of public education that lies ahead.

“But what we face today also includes members of Congress and other politicians, plus an army of lobbyists and political and propaganda operatives, who are essentially acting as agents for corporate interests and right-wing anti-regulatory radicalism. And the blogosphere is awash in science-ignorant attack dogs who appear to take lessons from thugs like Limbaugh and Morano.

“They’ll hide behind climate science denialism, but most of them really have no interest in science or in learning anything much about it. They are more cynical than that, and pose a problem that is essentially political (and economic, and cultural, and normative), and beyond the reach of science education per se. Climate scientists have diagnosed and continue to characterize a problem that must be addressed in an arena very different from their own — one in which great power is in the hands of people whose agendas are indifferent to science.”

Source: “Today’s war on climate scientists is worse than under the Bush Administration” by Rick Piltz, Climate Science Watch, Dec 27, 2010

RE: "“Good science education and communication can effectively counter the arguments of legitimate climate change “skeptics” who are actually interested in education and discussion."

We have been inculcating this propaganda in our government schools for over a decade and no-one gives a rats behind about AGW except the terminally stupid "useful idiots" and those who bilk the public for their own interests using government force to bilk them - and they dont really believe their crap or they would live the lives of those whom they tell to tighten their belts.

As for real science; we import it from Asia with millions of H-1B visa's; American kids are too dumbed down in real science to do any meaningful work; they are excellent at "studying" things that don't result in anything happening however. AGW scientism is perfect for them. They can attend meetings and write regulations - the new economy; lets see how well it puts food on the table.

go from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Your shrill denials along with the increasingly strident calls from the reducing pool of the useful idiots is indication that the evidence is still winning and that your denial is lost.

I will accept the AGW scientism is of course, "ridiculous" and that my arguments revealing it as such are "sublime" (your words not mine) but I had rather hoped that you would be a true defender of your faith by picking up your rhetorical ax to slay a kaffer such as myself as the Muslims would put it.

But no, all you can do is mutter ad hominems and tell my your guy is more holy than mine. Its really quite pitiful.

Try girding your loins for battle using your own mind, disabled as it may be, and you are sure to gain some admirers even in defeat; it happens all the time in the movies.

AGW is a scientific theory that has withstood the tests of critical skepticism. All that's left is the denial industry trying like hell to confuse and slow the issue.

Does your ego know no bounds?

I didn't call my arguments sublime - you did!

1) The MWP was real, global, as warm or warmer than now, and longer in duration. (It is contradictory for warmists to appeal to authority on the one hand and at the same time ignore 963+ peer reviewed studies by scientists.)
2. The existence of the MWP obviously does not disprove that something else might be causing the warming this time.
3. But, in the absence of any hard evidence for CAGW the null hypothesis must hold. The MWP was natural climate variation and thus the current, (supposedly unexplainable climate according to warmists) is merely natural variation unless/until PROVEN otherwise.
4. There is no indication (none, nada, zip) that CO2 is having a measurable impact on the planet's temperature.
5. It is also clear that land use (particularly shown by the UHI) affects temperature, but even the CRU folks recognized that this impact is strictly local. The rural areas surrounding urban areas show no UHI influence. Also, as populous as we are, our urban areas represent a very small percentage of the planet's surface. (71% is water, then there are deserts, jungles, mountainous regions, the Arctic, the Antarctic, plus many other uninhabited areas.)
6. Because the policies related to fighting CAGW (even tho it likely does not exist) are extremely costly for all the inhabitants of the planet, and that drastic policy, even if implemented, would in any event have no effect (because the 3rd world, plus China and India particularly will not cooperate), the prudent approach for the rest of the world is to do nothing (i.e., constrain your politicians!). Of course, there is no reason not to continue keeping a watchful eye. And, in any case, there is no harm (as well as other good reasons) to convert to other energy sources where/when feasible.

You may now all rest easy.

/signed/ Quincy Edward Davis (or "QED" for short)

1) the MWP was regional not global and there are people who disagree with current measures of temperature who nevertheless insist that the MWP is global.

3) The null hypothesis is falsified by the temperature trend voer 30 years being significantly positive. When the null hypothesis (CO2 is not the cause of the warming) is proven false, then the positive hypothesis (CO2 IS the cause of the warming) must hold. laymen like yourself use "the null hypothesis" without knowing what it is, as is in clear evidence by the fact that you haven't stated what the null hypothesis is or how it is tested.

The current warming is NOT natural. It is impossible for this to be true to well beyond the three sigma limit.

4) False. You deny any evidence because you otherwise couldn't assert #3

5) The UHI doesn't affect the poles which are rural yet warming far faster than the equator, doesn't affect the oceans, yet satellite data shows warming there too. And surfacestations.org has collected data from sites that they assert are not affected by the UHI effect or land use changes yet if only these stations are used, the warming trend is higher. This is because the land use changes are corrected for. If you'd bothered to look, you'd know this but you base your assertions on faith alone. Investigation, to you, is unnecessary.

6) Prove they are costly. Stern report showed that the cost for hard line mitigation of AGW was minimal.

I guess your ejumacation in "real life" means not only can you gainsay climatologists you can also ignore and replace economists.

You are a moron.

That's so out of date! Those 963 studies cover the world, and about a year ago it was 900 studies. New ones confirming global are flooding in.

How in the world can you claim that 30 years of "postive" temperature contradict the null hypothesis? (The null hypothesis is about naturally caused periods with rising temperature... talk about morons......)

You claim there is evidence of anthropogenic influence. Yet you cannot share with me any details on that. Not one.

Also, you are obviously still in denial about satellite readings. The temperature has been flat for a couple of decades now. (And, incidentally, we could have more warming and it would still likely be natural variation. Blaming major things like climate (without evidence)on man is not unlike the "flat earthers" belief. (oops, Gore already used that )

In my capacity as "moron" I have been, for years now, (written editorials as proof) been in favor of increasing the cost of gasoline. There are good political and economic reasons as well as environmental reasons for doing that. But my suggestions were based on simplicity (politicians never think of those) such as legislating an annual (say) 25 cent per gallon tax, so that companies and individuals can slowly (but steadily) respond. Few applecarts upset in the short term. But because of no action in that direction - for years now - (liberals worry about the poor and conservatives refuse to enact any new tax) we now instead live with high increases in gasoline prices, no revenue to our government, lots of revenue to countries who hate us, and high unemployment. And now the liberals are talking about "cap and trade". Another economic disaster piled on top of the housing disaster (also due to government - read liberal -policy).

or just a pack of hopeful lies.

None of them withstand skeptical scrutiny.

NONE OF THEM.

"How in the world can you claim that 30 years of "postive" temperature contradict the null hypothesis?"

Because the null hypothesis requires that there be no trend.

That hypothesis is proven wrong.

It's called "statistics". Try learning some. I have given you introductory links.

"Because the null hypothesis requires that there be no trend."

Sorry. You don't understand. The null hypothesis merely states that we have seen such variations in the past, sufficiently distant past that man (which is the issue) could not have had any measurable impact.

Your subsequent comments seem to indicate that I am having a discussion with a potted plant going by the name of "anonymous".

"The null hypothesis merely states that we have seen such variations in the past"

That is not a null hypothesis.

That is a positive hypothesis.

And the PETM had catastrophic climate change occur as a result of massive amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

We're currently releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Which is why your null hypothesis is not a null.

The null hypothesis is that there is no trend.

If there is a trend, then you need to explain what is causing the trend.

Just because YOU don't know anything about science or setting up a scientific test doesn't mean your insane dribblings are correct.

Wendy Wright award for services to vacant heads by keep calling for evidence that AGW is a reality when he has been pointed to reams of it. GoF you are verily in the same league as Wendy Wright and you have put yourself there with your own words.

Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

We offer GF words of explanation and he ignores it.

We cite through links and GF complains about being sent all over the internet - as if that is an alien experience for him.

We then quote extracts from citations and he moans about cut & paste.

In short, GF sounds more and more like Morano and deserves the same final epithet as found at the end of this:

BBC - Andrew Watson vs. Marc Morano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0553XonBN4w

Morano and GF - two of a kind.

For he fails to actually go and figure anything and repeats denialist terms which clearly reveal his focus.

He repeats ad nausium:

'1) The MWP was real, global, as warm or warmer than now, and longer in duration. (It is contradictory for warmists to appeal to authority on the one hand and at the same time ignore 963+ peer reviewed studies by scientists.)'

How many times do you have to spam that in here? Can you not read? Or can you not understand?

The so called MWP, more correctly the Medieval Climate Optimum was not a global phenomenon and thus cannot be compared to the present warming trend (and you have your head in the sand on that point also), but restricted to the northern hemisphere and was geographically local phenomenon that moved around that hemisphere over the course of a few hundred years.

I have pointed you at a comment at the foot of this:

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

this

Medieval project gone wrong

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval_project.html

and there is also this

Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Medieval-Warm-Period-rhetoric-vs-science.html

CO2 Science is not about the science but the political ideology to delay any action that could impinge on the profits of those funding this web site and the no-longer respected scientists involved for the have demonstrated that they have sold their consciences to the likes of the Kochs.

Koch-heads anyone?

Your descendants will probably grow to despise you GF, but by then you will probably not be around to care. Is it coincidence that many deniers and their pervering scientist heroes are rather elderly?

I have pointed out specifics to you earlier. Stop referring me to other blogs. Speak DETAILS yourself, if you can.

I keep repeating it because you insist on referring to other opinionated blogs whereas I point to well documented studies, no opinions, just studies providing data, each showing obvious conclusions which cannot be denied.

You say, in return "Scientists say.... ", or "here's another blog..."

Nonstarters. The studies are real. Denying those studies in favor of some "scientist" or newspaper's pontifications is ludicrous.

I've also stated before, that www.co2science.org is merely one place which conveniently includes all such studies. GO TO ANY SPECIFIC STUDY. There's enough information to get you there, and that will direct you away from the co2science site. You can be sure the SkepticalScience site isn't acknowledging any of those studies, even though they involve hundreds of different organizations, over forty countries involved. A truly GLOBAL event.

you say "there is no evidence" yet evidence is passed to you on a platter.

Ignored and you deny that there has even been the attempt.

"I've also stated before, that www.co2science.org is merely one place which conveniently includes all such studies"

No, they have editorials, assumptions, character assasinations and lobbying prose.

They haven't shown the science.

Even you admit their bias, since even you attest they only include texts that deny AGW as an effect.

"GO TO ANY SPECIFIC STUDY"

Give one to us. Show us the study. Show why you believe it to be right when 100x as many studies say their result is wrong.

Whay do you chose to shill for the fossil fuel industry?

"The only way to prove with 100% certainty that humans are responsible for global warming would be to run an experiment with two identical Earths – one with human influence and one without. That obviously isn't possible, and so most scientists are careful not to state human influence as an absolute certainty. Nonetheless, the evidence is now extremely strong."

Source: "Are humans definitely causing global warming?", Guardian, Dec 30, 2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/30/humans-causing-global-warming/print

Pages