We all have access to this information (clearly showing the number of independent shops across the UK that have closed as the supermarkets move in) and it’s indisputable. But, people still shop at supermarkets. Some people, our good selves included I’m sure, see this same information and change our behaviour by eschewing corporate establishments, supporting the locals, walking to the shops and so on. Different responses to the the same (indisputable) information.

The thing about CC is that a proper and appropriate response would require massive changes in the way we live and what the government would have to enact on our behalf. And … the worst thing of all is that it probably means that we may have to have less of, or none of, some things – cheap food, cheap flights, cheap clothes, cheap energy. Some of our current careers may no longer be viable. So, in the face of all that, far better to ignore the whole thing and convince yourself that it’s very likely that it’s not happening and even if it does it’s someone else’s problem just as we do with the consequences of our current way of life.

As Paul Mobbs said “Less is a four letter word”. It is the ultimate blasphemy in a growth obsessed society.

I’ve written a little piece on how lack of scientific knowledge appears more prominent in deniers – there’s actually no reason why the same lack of scientific understanding might not exist elsewhere, it’s just that we ignore it because it fits with the scientific consensus.

http://www.coveredinbees.org/node/267

Don’t panic. Remember, quantity is not quality. Pin him down on one claim — let him/her choose, but the more specific the better — and then do your research.

I can guarantee you will “win”. At least in your own mind, even if your friend will not grant it. And you will have learned something of value.

Good luck!

Steve says that climate change is “an extremely important issue because of what the government would like to do in the name of climate change. I’m sorry to say but that scares me very much”.

I think FEAR is the underlying reason that Steve is prepared to dismiss the consensus among the scientists of all major scientific institutions on climate change.

Observing the emotional undercurrents within oneself is generally hard; however, the language people use is often revealing.

FEAR is the underlying driver for the highly-charged nature of the whole debate. Some fear the harsh deterioration in quality of life that will come as a result of temperature rises; others fear a world in which the privileges of the modern world may be snatched away, leaving us impoverished. Everyone who takes part in the debate is suffering, at some level, from fear.

However, fear is a waste of everyone’s energy. Fear also paralyses our ability to think rationally.

It is clear that our world is going to change very substantially in the next few decades, whether because of climate change directly, or because of the action that will be taken to prevent it.

On this basis, it is a pointless waste of energy to indulge in fear – yet the automatic reaction to fear is to fight (a commonly chosen behaviour of those who will not accept the reality of climate change).

However, instead of indulging in fear and visceral emotional reactions to this debate, we need to think, with clear heads, about what reputable scientists from major scientific institutions are telling us.

Then, on the basis that all this change categorically WILL occur, whatever the driver, we must individually and collectively get on with the work of making sure the changes in our world are effected in as painless a way as possible, not only for the sake of each other, but also for our personal wellbeing.

I have recently started blogging myself and although I never intended for this to happen, I find myself increasingly drawn to the problem of deniers. See my recent post regarding the blog-attack of a high school teacher. http://goodoldneon.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/big-hollwood-bad-hollywood-bad-blog/

I also find a lot of credence to the idea that people believe what they want to believe. A person becomes invested in their world view and instead of seeking the truth to the complex issues all around us, they simply ignore or avoid anything that contradicts their position. see http://goodoldneon.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/the-truth-doesnt-matter/

It has nothing to do with emotion or mindset. I’m a physicist. C02 is clearly a greenhouse gas, and most sceptics understand this. But at 380ppm, they realize it hasn’t the heat capacity to drive a catastrophic change, and indeed, the IPCCs favored climate models realize this also, looking instead to water vapor for the feedback that would cause a meaningful temperature change.

I think most sceptics see a model of combined factors of varying period as the cause of warming and cooling. e.g., the moon orbits the earth, and pulls ocean water as it moves, causing the tides. Since the oceans are a vast repository of heat, moving that water around distributes that heat in varying manner, particularly when one realizes the moons path relative to earth varies like everything else in nature.

Our own government monitors polar ice extent with satellites, and when I see that Antarctica has been accumulating ice according to their calculations, and again, according to their calculations, at a much greater rate than losses in the arctic, one has to wonder where the water will come from to cause catastrophic rise in ocean levels. Here in recent weeks, the arctic has ice within one standard deviation of the 1979-2000 mean. Yes, of course I expect this new ice will most likely decline below the mean this summer. But since I’m expecting a cyclical behavior, my suspicion is we’re on a cooling trend that will last for another 20 years or more. When this ice information comes direct from the NSIDC, I find it very credible. Short of sending up my own satellite, I’m not sure how I would validate their findings. But I do believe oil companies have no hand in this information.

Similarly, I’ve seen a number of historical articles and more pesky federal data showing the arctic has been warmer many decades ago. (30s and 40s) If I see an article from a naval captain noting the northwest passage was open for 3 months, and that captain speculating it will be open as much as 6 months within a few years, (and it was written in the 40s or 50s) it’s hard to refute a record such as this, or blame it on big oil or republican leanings. The concern over C02 had yet to be postulated.

These are but tiny bits of vast amounts of information that indicate the threat of AGW is spectacularly overstated.

So my contribution to your question of what makes a sceptic is: It’s the data. The failure of ice to melt (consistently), the failure of temperature to rise (without falling back periodically) If the current period of cooling, which, by the way, was NOT predicted by the GCMs, continues in tandem with weakened solar cycles (expected for SC24 and SC25), one can only conclude that if Solar variability (however yet misunderstood) or any other forcings, can drive global average temperatures lower, we must also accept they can drive those temperatures higher, and we just need to understand the mechanism by which they do this. It was wholly appropriate to question if man’s massive contribution to C02 could have a harmful effect. We have learned that C02 is a factor, and I’m grateful for the warmth it provides, but it doesn’t validate as the primary factor, or as yet, as a validated risk to mankind.

about our research on the power of different envronmental ideas. Overall, it supports much of what you are saying George.