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

“Nonsense, the evidence is now extremely strong”. (worthless, I can point to various credible scientists who disagree, so what does that determine?)

Specifics please, I’d like to be convinced (and please, no more blog references, or appeals to authority, or meaningless cut and paste actions).

Neither am I expecting absolute proof. In the case of the MWP, there are not only numerous studies indicating global warming, but new confirming investigations every month. And there is anecdotal evidence, including the Vikings mapping the entire Greenland coast (not possible unless basically ice free, which is not yet the case even today, graves found beneath the perma frost, antique vineyards found further north than grapes can be grown today, the Thames frozen over to a much greater extent than since, etc. Still not positive proof I would agree, but dam close.

As Joanne Nova nicely puts it: “The only rational response to climate change is to use empirical, observable evidence. Rational people can point to results from 28 million radiosondes, 6000 boreholes, 30 years of satellites, 3000 ARGO ocean diving thermometers, raw data from thousands of surface thermometers, as well as 963 peer reviewed references (all documented at www.co2science.org) which include studies of corals, caves, pollen grains, ocean floor sediments, ice cores, and diatoms.”

But you cannot point to ANY specific evidence, only to opinionated blogs. Do you still not recognize that it is the problem of warmists to provide evidence to back up their claims?

The computer model output is not evidence. In fact, even the CRU folks will admit that their models provide “projections”, as distinct from even “predictions”. The hot spot, (a supposedly necessary condition as evidence of AGW) does not exist. The increase in the planet’s temperature has stalled since about 1998 (satellite readings). In terms of surface temperature readings, there may be a very slight gain, but it’s so small (and is not based on raw data, but on “revised” data) that it is eclipsed by the inherent errors in estimating a global temperature.

If you think there is evidence, tell me about it in your own words. If you can’t, you are merely a believer, not even qualified to discuss the issue.

so again you lie when you say “I’d like to be convinced”.

“(worthless, I can point to various credible scientists who disagree, so what does that determine?)”

Worthless? When 100x as many scientists can be pointed to who agree that the IPCC is broadly correct, YOU insist on giving equal weight to the lunatic fringe 1%.

“Neither am I expecting absolute proof”

Which is why you keep insisting: Re “Prove it!” repeated ad nauseum from you above.

Lies and more lies.

“The computer model output is not evidence”

And only deniers trying a strawman insist it is.

“The only rational response to climate change is to use empirical, observable evidence.”

Then why do Jo and the other obstructionists basking in the limelight and the riches and attention given them by the compliant media and lobby groups ignore all the evidence?

“But you cannot point to ANY specific evidence”

It’s been pointed to you before:

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

but you deny them, ignore them because you DO NOT WANT to be convinced. You want to remain in your comfortable faith that AGW is nonexistent.

“as well as 963 peer reviewed references ”

Peer review isn’t “My mate Monckton looked it over”. He’s not even a peer. They are 953 outdated erroneous PR puff pieces repeatedly inferred but never defended against skepticism.

http://www.ipcc.ch

has the science. The WG 1 report has the references to over 5000 papers used in that one report alone, blowing your piddly 953 PR pieces out of the water and, unlike co2science, actually skeptically peer reviewed by real scientists who are looking for the best evidence.

“The hot spot, (a supposedly necessary condition as evidence of AGW)”

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

The hot spot IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN evidence of AGW.

Despite which, it has been seen.

“The increase in the planet’s temperature has stalled since about 1998 ”
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

You cannot determine whether the temperature has stalled since about 1998 because there isn’t enough data.

Or do you ask your mum when you want to know how many people eat refried beans?

“there may be a very slight gain, but it’s so small that it is eclipsed by the inherent errors in estimating a global temperature

So what you do is:

TAKE MORE SAMPLES.

Then if you look at, say, 30 years data, you get a positive trend.

Why?

BECAUSE YOU NEED 30 years data to determine a climate temperature trend.

“you insist on referring to other opinionated blogs”

funny guy!

You keep posting links to a blog whose remit is to debunk AGW no matter what, from someone who has no domain experience and YOU complain about “opinionated blogs”!!!!

And when a science resource is handed to you, you complain that it’s just a political UN conspiracy (see how the insanity surfaces with just a tiny prodding).

This is why you’re a denier: any site that says AGW might be real is, in your cranium, twisted into a opinionated blog and any site that says AGW is false is the One True Source Of Truth.

Pathetic paranoia.

(see subject)

Your response(s) are pathetic. You cannot offer even one iota of evidence. You appeal to authority or name call (or chant).

You TRULY BELIEVE that AGW cannot be real.

You can’t even make a null hypothesis up so do a terrible job because you want the null hypothesis to be what you believe in.

Is there anyone at this site who can explain, without referring to blogs, what evidence the proponents of AGW (alias “warmists”, alias “alarmists”) claim they have?

No ranting, chanting, name-calling, etc., solicited or accepted.

1) Temperatures are increasing
2) Temperatures are increasing more at the poles than at the equator
3) Temperatures are increasing more at night than daytime
4) Stratosphere is cooling
5) There is more energy coming in than is leaving
6) CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it traps IR and is transparent in the visible
7) The sun is at a blackbody temperature of 6000K which has a peak intensity in the visible, the earth is at a blackbody temperature of about 290K which has a peak intensity in the IR

‘Is there anyone at this site who can explain, without referring to blogs, what evidence the proponents of AGW (alias “warmists”, alias “alarmists”) claim they have?

No ranting, chanting, name-calling, etc., solicited or accepted.’

I have on a number of occasions and only pointed you at other sites for evidence. But you cannot handle that and still call for evidence. How else can I show you. That is why the WW Award suits you to a T.

As for any supposed name calling I don’t but then I do point out errant behaviour.

If you don’t like the fire then don’t set yourself up as a guy. Simple.

“Is there anyone at this site who can explain, without referring to blogs, what evidence the proponents of AGW
I’m looking for a forest. Can anyone point me to one? There are all these trees in the way.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has published its “Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2010.”

The year 2010 was especially notable in that global surface temperatures reached record values at the same level as in 1998 and 2005, consistent with the acceleration of the warming experienced over the last 50 years. The year also signaled the closure of the warmest decade on record. Over this decade, warming was markedly more pronounced in some regions, notably so in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, South Asia, and the Arctic.

Large and extended climate extremes were recorded in several parts of the world, causing significant socio-economic impacts. In particular the flooding in Pakistan and Australia as well as the summer heatwave in the Russian Federation were among the most remarkable climate extremes of the year.

To access the entire WMO report, go to: http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/showcase/documents/1074_en.pdf

I hope that you would agree that in order to quantify anything it must have some unit of measurement or has AGW scientism dispensed with this annoyance?

So if 2010 had increased “extremeness” consistent with its postulations how much did extremeness increase? quantity and units please?

How is all this scaled?

Lets see droughts and floods could be ranked in plus or minus acre-inch-days of surplus or deficit precipitation.

….But wait would a drought cancel out a flood if the figures were equal or would we just take the absolute value of each and add em all up for the whole globe or is there some threshold value that each must pass and would either days or inches be weighted more.

OK on to tornadoes hurricanes how many add up to a drought?

If a hurricane or tornado kills more humans would they be more extreme than one that hit the skeleton coast of Aftrica and didnt kill anyone

Oh and are the deleterious effects on humans more important than the effects on say for instance the speckle-eared titmouse when considering the “extremenessity” of an event?

Oh and then forest fires…are they extremes all by themselves and does it matter how they got set or do they get rolled up into the droughts only just a bit extremer? How ‘bout mudslides?

What do AGW scientismists have to say about all this when citing increased extremeness?

“More extremeness” is something you made up. Nonscientific, but we can’t expect any more from you can we.

Rather we use temperature changes over time.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

“How is all this scaled?”

By the Celsius or Farenheit as any temperature graph is.

“But wait would a drought cancel out a flood”

No. why would it? An extreme is an extreme. A flood doesn’t cancel out a drought and make the weather fine. It makes it unsuitable for farming.

“What do AGW scientismists have to say about all this when citing increased extremeness?”

They say “what the hell are you wibbling on about you insane nutter?”

Your posts are becoming increasingly inane and boring!

because the answers bore you when they’re given to you.

So why did you ask?

Are you completely nuts or are you just paid to be one?

Oopsie.

Yeah, my comment was directed at SirGareth.

Evidence that man is causing AGW please?

Mankind is creating 30billion tons a year of CO2 through burning fossil fuels and so on.

The approximate figures can be attested by asking BP, Texaco and so on how much oil they sell. It isn’t being drunk, you know.

No question but what we’re creating CO2.

Evidence, please, that CO2 is causing the planet to warm.

therefore it insulates the earth from energy losses into space. And, like any insulator, when you insulate a body with energy coming in at the same rate as before (we have a sun), the insulated object warms.

Junior-school-level physics.

Since it was already answered with “CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is opaque to IR and transparent to visible”.

“Evidence that man is causing AGW please?”
Evidence you will accept evidence please.

A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.

The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years.

The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.

“Global Climate Change Indicators”, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Or, more likely, answers he doesn’t want to acknowledge bores him.

Or, more likely yet, answers he doesn’t want to acknowledge scares him.

a little while back ‘Smokey Joe’ Barton wanted something to counter AGW with in congress awhile back and so he commissioned one Edward Wegman to do a report and Wegman chose, ahem, the hockey stick irrespective of the fact that the hockey stick shape for the warming trend over the last millennium with its sharp late 20th century uptick was backed by umpteen different studies. Hint—that is why there is a grey fuzz around the main trend curve.

Those of us who have been following this issue for more than a dog-watch, that is from before WUWT or Nova had an inkling of what was going on, were waiting for the wheels to come off Wegman’s bus.

Well it now look like the turkey, which had been exposed awhile back but it has taken GMU (Wegman’s seat of sinking professor-ship) some time to respond to complaints about plagiarism amongst other things.

Now that dark brown smelly stuff is starting to hit the fan, and much more has been discovered along the way. DeepClimate and John Mashey have been the champions in exposing this brouhaha and stuff can be found here:

Retraction of Said, Wegman et al 2008, part 1

http://deepclimate.org/2011/05/15/retraction-of-said-wegman-et-al-2008-part-1/

you should track back through that site to find the trail, that is if you are interested in the truth. Some IF I know!

Joe Romm also chimes in:

Wegman scandal rocks cornerstone of climate denial

http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/16/wegman-scandal-rocks-cornerstone-of-climate-denial/

and Deltoid also raises awareness:

Wegman scandal: the first retraction

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

Now I have landed you on the Home page at Deltoid because I want you to take note of another wheel less bus, viz those temperature records that old Watt’s has been huffing and puffing about for the last couple of years. We have been waiting eagerly for his (peer reviewed goddammit) paper about all that and after some delay (about a year it would seem) it finally appeared, and guess what – there is no problem of the type he was huffing and puffing about. Well I never! This is explained if you click through:

Anthony Watts contradicted by Watts et al

Oh! Dear! Oh! Dear!

But I guess the denialosphere will paint this as a similar victory as Munchkin did over that failed attempt to get ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ countered by ‘The Global Warming Swindle’ in schools court case. You know the one, the one that, but for a minor point or two, exonerated Gores film (a coach and four being able to drive through the hackumentary that was Durkin’s effort)
The presiding judge Mr Justice Burton said (from Climate Cover-Up page 147), “There is nothing to prevent (to take an extreme case) there being a strong preference for a theory—if it were a political one—that the moon is not made of green cheese, and hence a minimal, but dispassionate, reference to the alternative theory. The balanced approach does not involve equality.”

Just so, but this is how the media portray the AGW debate when 97+% of scientists involved in studies which impinge on climate can understand that AGW is real and why it is happening.

Furthermore the MM trumpeted the denier speil that Gore’s Film had been debunked when in fact a few small errors had been criticised but the main thrust of the documentary had been completely vindicated. Now you have the nerve to complain about the media distorting the AGW message. Well yes they do, but not in the way you think.

That claim is not even backed anymore by the UN. Wake up!

They’ve spun themselves into a frightened tizzy with mantras like:

“Untrustworthy: Its a UN political propaganda site run my the worlds despots, the same ones who want the US to transfer more cash to these self-same despots. The UN ignores genocide in Rwanda, did secret oil deals with Iraq’s tyrant Saddam, condones rape by its soldiers. And most importantly twists all legitimate science for its benefit in order to promote its political aims.”

Of course, missing out that the USA has veto powers in the UN and has been caught trafficking in young boys to have sex with arab “friendlies”.

An amusing projection of his own idiocies onto others by… well, go figure it out yourself.

Can’t you provide just one teensy weensy bit of evidence.

(Incidently the hockey stick graph (generated by Mann with the help of a computer “model”) also generates hockey stick graphs when random numbers are used for input. That graph is not evidence of anything apart from demonstrating really questionable research capability by its author.

I’m still waiting for you to provide any evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere is having an effect on temperature. There’s lots of evidence that it doesn’t.) Do you understand the meaning of “evidence”? (hint: “Joe Blow says it’s causing warming is most definitely NOT evidence.)

Yes, plenty of evidence that you throw away because you say you want no reference to blogs.

“Incidently the hockey stick graph (generated by Mann with the help of a computer “model”)”

FALSE LIES LIES FALSE.

It wasn’t generated by Mann with the help of a computer model.

“I’m still waiting for you to provide any evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere is having an effect on temperature.”

CO2 absorbs IR and doesn’t absorb Visible.

There’s your evidence.

Here’s a quote (in email, and verified) by your hero, Jones of CRU infamy.

“The scientific community would come downon me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” - Phil Jones 07/05/05 http://bit.ly/6qYf9a

(The website reference goes directly to that email.)

Apparently even Jones looks at satellite data.

What did they say about the number of angles that could dance on the head of a pin. Deniers hold the position that whatever the number is it isn’t changing. What do the AGW scientismists have to say

Since you and the other denialists have managed to lie about what others have said if it progresses their campaign of terror, lies and greed:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2011/02/petition_to_protect_canadian_m.php

(paraphrased)
Mojab: In any 10 year period you can see a lower temperature trend if you pick your period carefully
Denialist DJ: An IPCC scientist today said that it was cooling and would be for another 10 years
Denialist DJ flunky: At least!
Denialist DJ: Yeah, 30 years

PS

Look how the denialists treat “one of their own” when that person DARES to suggest that a physical effect really exists: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

‘Here’s a quote (in email, and verified) by your hero, Jones of CRU infamy.

“The scientific community would come downon me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” - Phil Jones 07/05/05 http://bit.ly/6qYf9a’

Oh! Well done. But then I do happen to follow links of others but in this case this was only to remind myself of this particular email’s contents.

Now look at the date of that e-mail and consider that if 1998 was used as a starting point then of course in 2006 the average temperatures were lower than that anomalous high of 1998, however the 30 year trend was still up. You see that is why Jones says ‘.but it is only 7 years of data…’.

Now do you understand what Jones is referring to with, ‘…it isn’t statistically significant..’?

‘Apparently even Jones looks at satellite data.’

Of course he does. You did note to whom that e-mail was addressed, didn’t you?

But it isn’t satellite data alone that Jones relies on to provide ‘statistical significance’, as you should well know.

Question. What is the main difference between the methodology of HadCRUT and GISTEMP WRT temperature collecting?

With the above in mind it should be remembered that it has been only since 2005 that the confusion of tropospheric and stratospheric satellite temperature measurement, a confusion created by Spencer & Christy, has been sorted. The satellite data now supports the idea that GHGs are causing warming in the atmospheric layers close to the Earth and cooling in the stratosphere.

We are now in 2011 and the temperature trend is still firmly up and nothing Spencer, Lindzen and Monckton can do to spin the ‘low sensitivity’ record can counter that. It is notable that the only way they can ‘hide the incline’ is by rotating the x-axis of the time v temp graph downwards as time extends. This ‘trick’ has been picked up on several times and being used by various members of the contra-brigade.

I was going to get to this business after dealing with your use of Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Robert M. Carter, Svensmark, Ball, Mcintyre and the rest of the Motl collection of Orwellspeak scientists as sages.

To get the idea:

<—quote—>

And so it is with one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. When this myth was exposed as bad data analysis by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, it morphed into a narrower claim about supposed discrepancies between the modeled and observed rate of warming in the tropical troposphere — a claim which itself was quickly debunked (see “Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?“). But since that debunking did not come in a peer-reviewed publication, the myth lived on for hard-core deniers.

The fatal blow has come in the form of a new paper, “Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere,” (subs. req’d, RealClimate post here, and a fact sheet with everything you could possibly want to know about the study in laymen’s language here). The International Journal of Climatology article has 17 authors, including some of the top climate scientists in the country. Its bottom line:
Using state-of-the-art observational datasets and results from a large archive of computer model simulations, a consortium of scientists from 12 different institutions has resolved a long-standing conundrum in climate science — the apparent discrepancy between simulated and observed temperature trends in the tropics. Research published by this group indicates that there is no fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical temperature trends when one accounts for: 1) the (currently large) uncertainties in observations; 2) the statistical uncertainties in estimating trends from observations. These results refute a recent claim that model and observed tropical temperature trends “disagree to a statistically significant extent”. This claim was based on the application of a flawed statistical test and the use of older observational datasets.
I would say “Ouch” or “D’oh” but since the “et al” in the original flawed Douglass et al paper included the likes of John Christy and S. Fred Singer, the more appropriate one word response is probably “Duh.”

<—endquote—>

found at:

Yet another denier talking point melts down

http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/14/yet-another-denier-talking-point-melts-down/

As I have explained previously, this blog is not conducive to full explanations of the science which underpins our current knowledge of climate change. In the absence of being able to provide equations and diagrams it would take far too many words to even get across the basic principles. Even then with equations and diagrams the posts would be far too long for such a medium. Why should we be expected to do this when the real and reliable science can be found elsewhere?

Engaging with you is wasting my time as I delve deeper into the topic myself.

I find books on Oceanography helpful for a broad picture of Earth’s systems and a newly published book:

Principles of Planetary Climate [Hardcover]
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Planetary-Climate-Raymond-Pierrehumbert/dp/0521865565/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305629827&sr=1-2

covers the science as applied to planets in general. Rohrabacher with his ‘Mars’ quotes should study that. I have only just started digging in to this.

Another excellent recent publication contains papers from Fourier to recent times, including one on Greenland ice melt:

The Warming Papers
David Archer (Editor), Ray Pierrehumbert (editor)

http://www.amazon.com/Warming-Papers-David-Archer/dp/1405196165/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305629827&sr=1-1

Now if your physics is a bit rusty then another recent and re-published this time is:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, boxed set: The New Millennium Edition

http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-boxed-set/dp/0465023827/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305629868&sr=1-1

which provides a cornucopia of topics including a really informative section on the mechanism of vision including those biological.

I guess that your biggest problem is that your predictions are not happening (ie. no catastrophic temp increases, no change in sea level increase etc.). All is quite normal in this respect.

We did not get to this point by saying:

‘Oh, it’s getting warmer that must be AGW’.

“I guess that your biggest problem is that your predictions are not happening (ie. no catastrophic temp increases, no change in sea level increase etc.). All is quite normal in this respect.”

Please provide the link from AGW scientists that say we will experience catastrophic temp increases.

Please also provide evidence that there is no change in sea level rise. Or do you mean from yesterday?

Can Titus, Go Figure & Gareth explain to me why conservatives in Australia, Canada & the USA are nearly exclusively against AGW? Whereas their conservative friends from other countries are embracing it & have implemented a carbon tax of some sort? In fact some are going nuts for conserving & maintaining the status quo. What would you guys say is the difference?….hint FF.

RE: “Can Titus, Go Figure & Gareth explain to me why conservatives in Australia, Canada & the USA are nearly exclusively against AGW?

Didn’t you know that people who appose statism are always “anti- scientism” We are very pro-science as practiced privately but we’ve never been quick to embrace “state-scientism” or “state-religion” as it is otherwise known.

So let me reverse the question somewhat and ask you what sort of signal could the climate give us that would indicate to you that it’s time to declare peace with “climate change” and stand down the armies of bureaucrats waging war against it?

“Didn’t you know that people who appose statism are always “anti- scientism” We are very pro-science as practiced privately but we’ve never been quick to embrace “state-scientism” or “state-religion” as it is otherwise known.”

Nice attempt at diversion Gareth. If you didn’t know already, I suspect you realize now that you have not arrived at your opposition to AGW through independent thinking at all. You are a rusted on political animal stuck in it’s ways & will be dictated to whatever ideology your political party presents to you. America, Canada & Australia are almost the only countries where conservatives are exclusively opposed to AGW. This is due to the funding FF companies provide conservatives & the misinformation they are allowed to peddle in these countries due to their vast FF interests in these countries. You just tow the party line.

Amazing how the conservative UK government are cutting carbon pollution by half by 2025.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/17/britain-pledges-to-cut-carbon-pollution-in-half-by-2025/
The conservative governments of Germany & France are arguably the leaders inthe world at either low CO2 (France) emissions or leader in renewable energies (Germany.)
New Zealands conservative government went to the polls & won with an ETS. Many conservative european countries already have a carbon tax.
Strange how conservative politicians not dependent on hand outs from FF companies switch from being anti AGW to become pro AGW & believe in conserving our planet, maintaining the status quo of the life we have now, not screwing it up by ruining the climate & supporting business….not just one type of business.

It’s sad but you are conned by the interests of FF companies & your political parties re-election plans to save their salaries & funding.

“So let me reverse the question somewhat and ask you what sort of signal could the climate give us that would indicate to you that it’s time to declare peace with “climate change” and stand down the armies of bureaucrats waging war against it?”

Ohhh the bureaucrats!! Another dog whistle for conservatives. Oh the regulations, the big government, the taxes, our rights, the immigrants…the bureaucrats!….but they are ok if conservatives are in gov eh?

Like I have said before, my mind will change when the majority of scientists & major scientific institutes say they were wrong & AGW does not exist, ok?

“what sort of signal could the climate give us that would indicate to you that it’s time to declare peace with “climate change””

A statistically significant difference between the temperature of the earth and the temperature expected under the currently understood theory of climate.

Now, since this hasn’t happened, will you stand down the armies of mindless drones and ultra-rich misanthropes that intend to see humanity suffer than see one iota of responsibility for their personal actions rebound onto them?

Only alarmist denialists predicted catastrophic temperature changes.

CO2 has increased 35%. A 3C doubling will, after equilibrium is reached (and, since there is less heat going out than coming in, we are NOT at equilibrium), the temperatures should have increased by ln(1.35)*3C = 0.9C We’ve seen a little over 0.8C warming.

Far more accurate than anything the deniers have managed.

We got there by “the climate changed in the past, what caused it”.

And that results in CO2 being a big factor in explaining the climate of the past. And since we’re producing lots of extra CO2 that wasn’t there before and isn’t all being taken up, we are now causing climate change.

However, you, like all other denialists get to your point by starting with “Capitalism and Greed are the BEST THINGS EVAH and can never make a mistake” plus the corollary that “The government is ALWAYS BAD and can’t do anything right”.

Then work from that to “The UN is trying to take away our money”, “The IPCC is trying to take away our money”, “The scientists are trying to take away our money” and “The government want to take away our money”.

Then from those first principles of Ayn Randianism, “AGW is false” is the conclusion.

“There is growing evidence from the real world that climate changes are accelerating faster than we originally feared and that impacts – already appearing – will be more widespread and severe than expected. This makes the arguments against taking actions against climate change not just wrong, but dangerous. We cannot expect climate deniers to change their tune: they’ve made up their minds, despite all new evidence. As Epictetus said, ‘It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.’ ”

Peter Glieck, Co-founder/President, Pacific Institute http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/the-

Funny, you cannot yourself provide anything even faintly resembling evidence. On the other hand, you believe you can recognize it, and point to various bogus websites. You are offering anything constructive to the conversation. All you’re doing is making general (unproven) statements. C

Climate changes are “accelerating faster than we originally feared….”. Hm…. not tornados, not hurricanes, not sea level, temperature has been flat for the past couple of decades. What exactly is your perception of climate change? (Keep in mid, that this term is, itself, no more than a political construct to replace the term “global warming”. That one wasn’t working out very well for the Church members.)

Many times the evidence has been handed to you.

All you’ve done is repeat “you cannot provide any evidence”.

Also odd is that you’ve NEVER ONCE provided any evidence of your claims.

All you’re left with is pounding on the table. With your head.

The 2009 State of the Climate report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in July of last year draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable.

More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,”

Source: “NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries – Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years,” NOAA News Release, July 28, 2010. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

Please keep in mind that the total warming for the planet for the past several decades is a fraction of a degree, so consider how small the variations have been over just the past 10 or 20 years – namely a fraction of that fraction of a degree. Hansen himself admits that the recent variation between “hottest” and “2nd hottest” is so small as to be meaningless. (And, in that regard, the 1930s are still competitive.) Satellite temperatures show basically no warming since 1998. Are you gonna believe those quotes you’ve provided or your own eyes? There are graphs showing the satellite measurements. But you choose to deny them because the site is obviously not in good standing as a member of your Church of AGW. (Of course not, if that site were, then there’d be no recognition by it of those graphs!)

Yes, it HAS been warming since the low point in the little ice age (in the 1600s), but …. so what? Just before that 500 years of cooling, and just before that 400 to 500 years of the MWP. Climate indeed changes. Always has.

But, again, so what? Why is this current warming period any different than the earlier warming periods? To claim otherwise it is necessary to provide EVIDENCE that man is causing this warming and there is no evidence. (once again, computer models which project warming are NOT evidence.)

You obviously can’t find any evidence that man is causing this warming, or you’d be front and center with it. The so-called scientists claiming AGW obviously would not be bashful if they had any hard facts.

The onus is on the warmist/alarmists to show some evidence that man is at fault for our current temperatures. There’s none. And changing the operational phrase to “climate change” or “climate disruption” won’t get you off the hook.

Incidentally, sea temperature measurements using the newest equipment are now evidently showing a cooling ocean.

It still warming, it’s still outside the bounds of natural variability. It’s still a trend.

Do you think that the story about the man falling off a skyscraper, passing the second floor saying “So far, so good” is real?

“Yes, it HAS been warming since the low point in the little ice age”

And why has it been warming? The weather isn’t like a waterbed that rebounds when you get your fat ass off it.

tip: AGW is the reason why it’s warming. “the end of the ice age” isn’t a reason to warm.

“The onus is on the warmist/alarmists to show some evidence that man is at fault for our current temperatures.”

The IPCC has done so, I’ve done so here too.

Prove your point that it isn’t CO2 from man’s actions. The onus is on you to refute the evidence supplied with evidence of your own.

“so consider how small the variations have been over just the past 10 or 20 years”

However, unlike a varation, a trend is accumulative. A variation is subtractive.

Hence the trend of 30 years shows that the variation is nil, the trend positive.

Or does this complete farcical lunatic think that just because the difference between day and night temperatures can be 20C that there’s no such thing as summer?

‘Please keep in mind that the total warming for the planet for the past several decades is a fraction of a degree,’

Have you not seen the charts of recent temperature anomalies and noted the huge increase in the Arctic?

If you have not, that is only because by not being able to include diagrams here we have to cite other sources for such evidence. Then you moan about lack of evidence because you cannot, or will not bother to visit those sources. This is where you equate exactly to Wendy Wright in that Dawkins video.

‘Satellite temperatures show basically no warming since 1998. Are you gonna believe those quotes you’ve provided or your own eyes? There are graphs showing the satellite measurements.’

Untrue as shown in my previous.

‘Why is this current warming period any different than the earlier warming periods? To claim otherwise it is necessary to provide EVIDENCE that man is causing this warming and there is no evidence.’

Because different factors were causing earlier periods of warming. Once again you have been shown where to find the evidence but which your obstinate pursuit of deliberate ignorance eschews so you can keep repeating ‘Show me the evidence’. Wendy Wright rides again!

“More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report”

Joe public is: So IMPRESSIVE…..

“which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record”

Joe public says: As it’s been warming steadily for the last 200 years I guess you would expect this. I kind of like it.

“and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years”

Joe public says: Well, yes, kind of follows doesn’t it?

“Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources”

Joe public says: Hmmm. I guess I’ll have to believe that….

“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,”

Joe public is: OVERWHELMINGLY IMPRESSED…..

Joe public says: Your 2009 indictors have been updated by real world events. Do I need to go through your list as they are so obviously out of whack and I do not want to embarrass you unnecessarily? Joe public is not seeing them.

Is this really the best you can provide? If it is you got more problems with this AGW than I thought you had…..

BTW: How are my blogging skills coming along? Tried some of your formating ideas out on this one.

Something that seems to have passed titas by, the industrial revolution.

“Your 2009 indictors have been updated by real world events.”

I note that your joe public (e.g. just a handful who are trying desperately to make themselves a group rather than a fringe) can’t say what that is.

I also note that your joe public doesn’t agree with your assertion that it’s been cooling since 1995 since that figure has been updated by real world events.

Joe public isn’t listening to you, titas.

Pages