Comments for Climate Denial http://climatedenial.org Charting the disconnect between climate science and action Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:06:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 Comment on REASONS WHY CLIMATE DISASTERS MIGHT NOT INCREASE CONCERN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE by Francois T http://climatedenial.org/2012/11/06/reasons-why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-429886 Francois T Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:06:03 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/?p=702#comment-429886 Mr Marshall, I've read your post with a mixture of increasing fascination and despair. If serial disasters won't change minds, are we just doomed? Or must we wait for a government to invoke War Powers to force collective action? Then I realized that the counter-driver to inertia and social narratives that nourish it must be...another social force of equivalent power. There are not many of these that would allow mankind to act speedily enough to avoid anticipated catastrophes. I can think of only two: Economic incentives or religious admonitions. [George says: I don't think we are doomed because of this - disasters do have the potential to mobilise concern- and certainly they can reinforce and greatly strengthen existing concern...but I did want to challenge the assumption that they will do this, and to suggest that human attitudes and beliefs are more complex than this would suggest- that people's perception of cause and risk are strongly mediated by worldview and the social norms...] Mr Marshall,

I’ve read your post with a mixture of increasing fascination and despair. If serial disasters won’t change minds, are we just doomed? Or must we wait for a government to invoke War Powers to force collective action?

Then I realized that the counter-driver to inertia and social narratives that nourish it must be…another social force of equivalent power.

There are not many of these that would allow mankind to act speedily enough to avoid anticipated catastrophes. I can think of only two: Economic incentives or religious admonitions.

[George says: I don't think we are doomed because of this - disasters do have the potential to mobilise concern- and certainly they can reinforce and greatly strengthen existing concern...but I did want to challenge the assumption that they will do this, and to suggest that human attitudes and beliefs are more complex than this would suggest- that people's perception of cause and risk are strongly mediated by worldview and the social norms...]

]]> Comment on REASONS WHY CLIMATE DISASTERS MIGHT NOT INCREASE CONCERN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE by Francois T http://climatedenial.org/2012/11/06/reasons-why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-429881 Francois T Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:59:47 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/?p=702#comment-429881 "you chose to characterize Romney’s remarks as “ludicrous”." How are they supposed to be characterized? You wanna some "fair balanced and objective" "He Said She Said" politically reassuring lock box? No such luck! Rmoney's comments were not ludicrous; simply totally irresponsible and proof-positive that someone incapable of grasping the first thing about something so serious as climate change should not run the country. “you chose to characterize Romney’s remarks as “ludicrous”.”

How are they supposed to be characterized? You wanna some “fair balanced and objective” “He Said She Said” politically reassuring lock box?

No such luck!

Rmoney’s comments were not ludicrous; simply totally irresponsible and proof-positive that someone incapable of grasping the first thing about something so serious as climate change should not run the country.

]]> Comment on REASONS WHY CLIMATE DISASTERS MIGHT NOT INCREASE CONCERN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE by RobertInAz http://climatedenial.org/2012/11/06/reasons-why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-426976 RobertInAz Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:33:52 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/?p=702#comment-426976 I found this article over at Judith Curry's site. My up front concern is that the terminology is imprecise. There have been and will be no starkly identifiable climate disasters. There have (always) been weather disasters that may have been exacerbated by climate change. It will only be in retrospect where a climate event such as the little ice age might be characterized as a "climate" disaster. IMHO, the lack of concern is because the weather disasters have not exceeded the range of natural variability and people understand this. I found this article over at Judith Curry’s site. My up front concern is that the terminology is imprecise. There have been and will be no starkly identifiable climate disasters. There have (always) been weather disasters that may have been exacerbated by climate change. It will only be in retrospect where a climate event such as the little ice age might be characterized as a “climate” disaster.

IMHO, the lack of concern is because the weather disasters have not exceeded the range of natural variability and people understand this.

]]> Comment on REASONS WHY CLIMATE DISASTERS MIGHT NOT INCREASE CONCERN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE by Arno Arrak http://climatedenial.org/2012/11/06/reasons-why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-426509 Arno Arrak Sun, 25 Nov 2012 05:01:28 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/?p=702#comment-426509 Apparently the only climate science in this article is a quote from Romney: "...President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans (13 second pause)..." That, of course, was a ludicrous and unscientific promise from Obama, and Romney was quite right to mock it. I hope I am not boring you with scientific details, but the oceans have been rising at the rate of 2.46 millimeters per year for the last eighty years. This is according to Chao, Yu and Li who reported this in Science in 2008. Satellites today report approximately a three millimeter rise per year, within the uncertainty limits of the eighty year trend. For a century it works out 24.6 centimeters, just under ten inches, and nowhere near the 20 feet that Al Gore told us about in his Nobel Prize-winning movie. Apparently Obama fell for this pseudo-science when he uttered that remark. Next, your concerns about peoples reactions to extreme events. Your observations of the Bastrop community in Texas are interesting and similar stories of communities coming together after hurricane Sandy can be told. Apparently they have enough common sense not to equate drought with global warming.The resilience of the people of Bastrop and others in the path of Sandy is very likely instinctual behavior, a product of social evolution of Homo sapiens. Evolutionary theory tells us that cooperative behavior, which Hamilton's theory of inclusive fitness makes unlikely, has been a major reason for our success as a species. From there you jump on to hypothesizing why these people still don't want to accept anthropogenic climate change: "...Accepting anthropogenic climate change requires a high degree of self-criticism and even self-doubt. It requires a preparedness to accept personal responsibility for collective errors and for entire societies to accept the need for major collective change...." And since these people haven't got what it takes according to your opinion you go on looking for solutions in Germany: "We could say, for historical comparison, that the transition of Germany from a dictatorship to a successful social democracy required the self doubt and introspection that came with defeat." Nothing could be further from the truth. You forget that they had a democracy until Hitler took advantage of it, got elected, and suppressed it for the next twelve years. It was the genius of Konrad Adenauer aided by the Marshall Plan and not navel gazing that re-established German democracy. You apparently are just unhappy, and I am glad, that your propaganda is not working. Whether you like it or not, the greenhouse theory of global warming that is supposed to warm up the world is dead. Since you act as though this is news to you, let me give you the full story. First, Ferenc Miskolczi proved this experimentally by using NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948. Specifically, he showed that the IR transparency of the atmosphere remained unchanged for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. Addition of this substantial amount of CO2 had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical observation and it overrules any theoretical calculations that do not agree with it. To you, that means output of climate models that predict dangerous warming ahead. Second, you should also know that IPCC, the mother church of AGW, predicted from greenhouse theory that global warming in the twenty-first century shall proceed at the rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. We are now in the second decade of the twenty-first century and there is no sign whatsoever of this predicted warming. In science, if a theory makes a wrong prediction that theory itself is considered wrong and must be abandoned. The greenhouse theory has made such a wrong prediction and therefore must be abandoned, the exact same conclusion required by Miskolczi. It follows from this that all previous predictions of the greenhouse theory must also be considered false. Since they have been used to justify emission control laws these laws have been passed under false premises. Now they must all be voided. Apparently the only climate science in this article is a quote from Romney: “…President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans (13 second pause)…” That, of course, was a ludicrous and unscientific promise from Obama, and Romney was quite right to mock it. I hope I am not boring you with scientific details, but the oceans have been rising at the rate of 2.46 millimeters per year for the last eighty years. This is according to Chao, Yu and Li who reported this in Science in 2008. Satellites today report approximately a three millimeter rise per year, within the uncertainty limits of the eighty year trend. For a century it works out 24.6 centimeters, just under ten inches, and nowhere near the 20 feet that Al Gore told us about in his Nobel Prize-winning movie. Apparently Obama fell for this pseudo-science when he uttered that remark. Next, your concerns about peoples reactions to extreme events. Your observations of the Bastrop community in Texas are interesting and similar stories of communities coming together after hurricane Sandy can be told. Apparently they have enough common sense not to equate drought with global warming.The resilience of the people of Bastrop and others in the path of Sandy is very likely instinctual behavior, a product of social evolution of Homo sapiens. Evolutionary theory tells us that cooperative behavior, which Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness makes unlikely, has been a major reason for our success as a species. From there you jump on to hypothesizing why these people still don’t want to accept anthropogenic climate change: “…Accepting anthropogenic climate change requires a high degree of self-criticism and even self-doubt. It requires a preparedness to accept personal responsibility for collective errors and for entire societies to accept the need for major collective change….” And since these people haven’t got what it takes according to your opinion you go on looking for solutions in Germany: “We could say, for historical comparison, that the transition of Germany from a dictatorship to a successful social democracy required the self doubt and introspection that came with defeat.” Nothing could be further from the truth. You forget that they had a democracy until Hitler took advantage of it, got elected, and suppressed it for the next twelve years. It was the genius of Konrad Adenauer aided by the Marshall Plan and not navel gazing that re-established German democracy. You apparently are just unhappy, and I am glad, that your propaganda is not working. Whether you like it or not, the greenhouse theory of global warming that is supposed to warm up the world is dead. Since you act as though this is news to you, let me give you the full story. First, Ferenc Miskolczi proved this experimentally by using NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948. Specifically, he showed that the IR transparency of the atmosphere remained unchanged for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. Addition of this substantial amount of CO2 had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical observation and it overrules any theoretical calculations that do not agree with it. To you, that means output of climate models that predict dangerous warming ahead. Second, you should also know that IPCC, the mother church of AGW, predicted from greenhouse theory that global warming in the twenty-first century shall proceed at the rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. We are now in the second decade of the twenty-first century and there is no sign whatsoever of this predicted warming. In science, if a theory makes a wrong prediction that theory itself is considered wrong and must be abandoned. The greenhouse theory has made such a wrong prediction and therefore must be abandoned, the exact same conclusion required by Miskolczi. It follows from this that all previous predictions of the greenhouse theory must also be considered false. Since they have been used to justify emission control laws these laws have been passed under false premises. Now they must all be voided.

]]> Comment on REASONS WHY CLIMATE DISASTERS MIGHT NOT INCREASE CONCERN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE by miker613 http://climatedenial.org/2012/11/06/reasons-why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-425141 miker613 Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:52:48 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/?p=702#comment-425141 Judith Curry points out that "The scientific support for linking Sandy to AGW is weak to missing, at best". http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/23/why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/ Other climate scientists have pointed this out as well - extreme weather is one of the weakest predictions of AGW, and thus far entirely unconfirmed by real-world data. So this article seems to me to be built upside down: The question should rather be, Why do so many believers in AGW jump to positive conclusions about weather disasters, when the science doesn't back them up yet? Agnosticism on this subject should be the default. Judith Curry points out that “The scientific support for linking Sandy to AGW is weak to missing, at best”.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/23/why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/
Other climate scientists have pointed this out as well – extreme weather is one of the weakest predictions of AGW, and thus far entirely unconfirmed by real-world data. So this article seems to me to be built upside down: The question should rather be, Why do so many believers in AGW jump to positive conclusions about weather disasters, when the science doesn’t back them up yet? Agnosticism on this subject should be the default.

]]> Comment on REASONS WHY CLIMATE DISASTERS MIGHT NOT INCREASE CONCERN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE by Stephen G. O'Kane http://climatedenial.org/2012/11/06/reasons-why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-421525 Stephen G. O'Kane Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:27:39 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/?p=702#comment-421525 Remember that length of time and repetition is of massive importance in these cases. If the events at Bostrop happen several times and/or over a long period of time the reaction would be very different. History tells us to be patient and wait for repeated droughts, floods, etc and in many communites so no one is chosen specially by God. Remember that length of time and repetition is of massive importance in these cases. If the events at Bostrop happen several times and/or over a long period of time the reaction would be very different. History tells us to be patient and wait for repeated droughts, floods, etc and in many communites so no one is chosen specially by God.

]]> Comment on HOW TO TALK TO A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER (DISSENTER) by Aristotle http://climatedenial.org/2012/03/29/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-change-denier-dissenter/comment-page-1/#comment-417568 Aristotle Mon, 12 Nov 2012 02:01:40 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/?p=584#comment-417568 Well,well, So much for data and science facts, that leaves a purely emotional argument, belief vs. belief. Well,well, So much for data and science facts, that leaves a purely emotional argument, belief vs. belief.

]]> Comment on REASONS WHY CLIMATE DISASTERS MIGHT NOT INCREASE CONCERN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE by Jane English http://climatedenial.org/2012/11/06/reasons-why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-417375 Jane English Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:18:26 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/?p=702#comment-417375 about the need for self-doubt -- I remember my friend, the Greenlandic elder Angaangaq, saying that when we have come home to ourselves, then we can be at home anywhere, in any circumstances. This is the opposite of self-doubt. When we are at home in ourselves the external changes brought about by climate change, and those needed to adapt to climate change no longer threaten our sense of self. Thus the changes are easier to live with and to make. about the need for self-doubt — I remember my friend, the Greenlandic elder Angaangaq, saying that when we have come home to ourselves, then we can be at home anywhere, in any circumstances. This is the opposite of self-doubt. When we are at home in ourselves the external changes brought about by climate change, and those needed to adapt to climate change no longer threaten our sense of self. Thus the changes are easier to live with and to make.

]]> Comment on REASONS WHY CLIMATE DISASTERS MIGHT NOT INCREASE CONCERN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE by Mark Ritzenhein http://climatedenial.org/2012/11/06/reasons-why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-417015 Mark Ritzenhein Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:33:25 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/?p=702#comment-417015 1. EG, If Americans really wanted to do something about the multi-trillion dollar national debt, they (we, I) likely would have to adopt something more akin to a subsistence lifestyle--permanently. No one wants to do that, really. So, this example also fits with was is proposed in the essay above, that no one really wants to accept that the latest monster storm is re-validation that climate change is already upon us. However--I did hear such admission from officials and direct victims, and expect to hear more from now on. I expect that minds have been changed this time, and there will be political change from it as well--across the spectrum--in the northeast US, Governor Christie and Mayor Bloomberg being prime examples. As for Bastrop, There is no Ogalala or Edwards Aquifers to suck dry this time, so when the place blows to dust again everyone will have no choice but to leave. No amount of community spirit will overcome that fact. 1. EG, If Americans really wanted to do something about the multi-trillion dollar national debt, they (we, I) likely would have to adopt something more akin to a subsistence lifestyle–permanently. No one wants to do that, really. So, this example also fits with was is proposed in the essay above, that no one really wants to accept that the latest monster storm is re-validation that climate change is already upon us. However–I did hear such admission from officials and direct victims, and expect to hear more from now on. I expect that minds have been changed this time, and there will be political change from it as well–across the spectrum–in the northeast US, Governor Christie and Mayor Bloomberg being prime examples.
As for Bastrop, There is no Ogalala or Edwards Aquifers to suck dry this time, so when the place blows to dust again everyone will have no choice but to leave. No amount of community spirit will overcome that fact.

]]> Comment on REASONS WHY CLIMATE DISASTERS MIGHT NOT INCREASE CONCERN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE by Martin Parkinson http://climatedenial.org/2012/11/06/reasons-why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-416698 Martin Parkinson Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:39:48 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/?p=702#comment-416698 I am really sorry to have derailed this and to have accidentally given the impression of being a concern troll - but I just have to expand on my previous comment. To allay any uncertainty<a href="http://psychobikeology.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/a-quick-word-about-carbon/" rel="nofollow">this</a> is where I'm coming from. The reason I read this blog is because <a href="http://www.martinparkinson.net/greenpsy.html"I am interested in communication of environmental issues</a>. I have a great deal of respect for George Marshall, who talks very acutely about the psychology of belief and behaviour. I attempted to make the tone of my question friendly and hesitant - normally, I only comment on blogs where I already know someone or there is a reasonable chance I might meet them - that keeps it grounded and relatively polite. I do have a reasonable chance of meeting George because our green circles do intersect somewhat. I have a particular interest in how we cope with up the hugeness of the task before us when what we can individually do is so insignificant - "But what can I do?" is the big question for individuals. Of course *one person* fussing about their carbon emissions makes no difference whatsoever. However, if that person has a public profile, then their behaviour can have a very powerful *rhetorical* effect - it looks like you really believe what you say. For this reason there are a number of people who actually do make a point of "not flying". They get some grief for it too. There is even a small number of people who make a sort of *theatrical* point by making long distance journey overland (such as the woman from CAT who went to her firends wedding in Australia), yes it's a gesture, but symbolic actions are an important form of communication. So Charles sneering at me: "of course he flew" is a cheap shot - for all I knew he might have been in US for six months and taken a boat, it was a real question. When I said "I'm not preaching" I really am not preaching. George, thanks for replying - you do understand why I wanted to know, and of course you answer is exactly what I expected from someone who has written so well about these matters, and I hope we do get to meet in person some time! I am really sorry to have derailed this and to have accidentally given the impression of being a concern troll – but I just have to expand on my previous comment. To allay any uncertaintythis is where I’m coming from. The reason I read this blog is because <a href="http://www.martinparkinson.net/greenpsy.html"I am interested in communication of environmental issues. I have a great deal of respect for George Marshall, who talks very acutely about the psychology of belief and behaviour. I attempted to make the tone of my question friendly and hesitant – normally, I only comment on blogs where I already know someone or there is a reasonable chance I might meet them – that keeps it grounded and relatively polite. I do have a reasonable chance of meeting George because our green circles do intersect somewhat.

I have a particular interest in how we cope with up the hugeness of the task before us when what we can individually do is so insignificant – “But what can I do?” is the big question for individuals. Of course *one person* fussing about their carbon emissions makes no difference whatsoever. However, if that person has a public profile, then their behaviour can have a very powerful *rhetorical* effect – it looks like you really believe what you say. For this reason there are a number of people who actually do make a point of “not flying”. They get some grief for it too. There is even a small number of people who make a sort of *theatrical* point by making long distance journey overland (such as the woman from CAT who went to her firends wedding in Australia), yes it’s a gesture, but symbolic actions are an important form of communication. So Charles sneering at me: “of course he flew” is a cheap shot – for all I knew he might have been in US for six months and taken a boat, it was a real question. When I said “I’m not preaching” I really am not preaching.

George, thanks for replying – you do understand why I wanted to know, and of course you answer is exactly what I expected from someone who has written so well about these matters, and I hope we do get to meet in person some time!

]]>