Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Recent Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Comments 351 to 400:

  1. CO2 lags temperature

    This has probably been said but the first graph looks cyclic to me. Also, the graphs have been correlated to two other scientific phenomena, oxygen isotope ratio variation and extinctions. The point is, climate change has happened before and likely will happen again. Check out the Mike Krichew theory of what causes ice ages on my facebook page. If my theory is correct and the IPCC has pretty much proved the first part of it, then unless you want to spend money on cooling the ocean and removing CO2 from the air then we are going to see what global warming is. I believe but could be wrong that the ocean is already warming and giving off more carbon dioxide than we do burning fossil fuels. Folks, the ship has sailed or the train has left the station. We are going to find out the results of what we started.

  2. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    Thanks Wol for the clarification. I changed "altitude" to "elevation". For those interested, here is a link explaining the different elevations used in aviation.

  3. David Kirtley at 11:17 AM on 4 May 2018
    The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

    That's very interesting, nigelj.

    I have a Putnam's Geology from my college days in the mid-80's. Published 1982, so it too should represent "1970s" science. It says a little bit about possible causes of past ice ages, and discusses other factors like CO2 and dust/aerosols impacting climate, but there's next to nothing about a "cooling consensus" or a future ice age.

  4. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    >>The altitude of an airplane landing on a runway is only useful if measured relative to the ground, and not to sea level.<<

    It behoves someone writing about the interpretation of words to get his own interpretations correct!

    "Altitude" in the context of that quote IS actually measured with respect to sea level - the distance between the aircraft and the runway is "height".

    (Tongue in nit-picking cheek.)

  5. The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

    When I was at university in the early 1980's I did a few papers in physical geography, among other subjects. I still have one of the introductory text books "Atmosphere, Weather and Climate, Barry and Chorley, 1971 edition, reprinted 1975, so written right at the time of the supposed global cooling consensus.

    There's absolutely nothing in this text about any cooling consensus, or anything similar. If there was such a thing, it would probably have got a mention. The authors talk about the post 1940s cooling period, and they say it remains to be seen if its temporary or continues, and they present no consensus or predictions either way.

    The climate denialists rush together distorted, cherrypicked studies hoping nobody will check. They aren't interested in facts and the complete picture, only in finding ammunition. They use the same tactics as lawyers, including long superficially intimidating lists, but all hollow inside.

  6. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    mbryson - love it! Maybe I will buy that beachside holiday house after all :-).

    That is an excellent analogy.

  7. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    So you're telling me that sea level at the end of the ice age only increased by a factor of about .00002 (relative to the centre of the earth)?  Why would anyone worry about that?

  8. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    “From ~1880 to 2013 temperature increased from ~288K to 288.8K (0.3%). If this is true, to me it means that the temperature has been amazingly stable.”

    No it hasn't, because that 0.3% change has happened in a very short part of human history so its not stable from humans point of view, and what we are adapted to.

    Gaiver must know this, so is being deliberately obtuse probably for political reasons. For proof he does work for the Heartland Institute, and talks in their language.

    The analogy is the article is very good.

  9. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    Every one of us does motivation reasoning. Also known as rationalization. Highly intelligent people are just especially good at devising very complex support for what they want to believe.

    Visiting a highly intelligent person in prison to try and help with his drug problem really brought this home to me. You had to work very hard to spot the loose links in his chains of logic - which naturally concluded that drugs werent an issue for him - just his choice same way other people drank coffee - and that it was everyone else at fault.

    Scientists are not immune so no matter how much you believe your conclusions are data-driven, you still need peer-review.

  10. SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference

    A friend on facebook forwarded Giaever's talk.  I told him it shouldn't take someone 5 minutes of their time to find such a massive mistake. I refer people to this graph of the last 400,000 years of global temperature, CO2, and sea level, point out that the depths of the last ice age was only 3.3 C (6F) cooler than present, and then ask them if having Chicago under a mile of ice was a significantly different climate than present and, if so, why wouldn't 3 C warmer than present also be a difficult adaptation to make?

  11. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    Knaugle, S Vedantum has indeeed written a book on the hidden brain, but he's a journalist and electronics engineer, not a psychologist, so I would be cautious about accepting absolutely everything he says. Its an interesting book worth a read, but thats as far as it goes.

    The point is really not that we are all perfectly rational, because we aren't. The point is we clearly differ in how rational we are.

    Understand that the article I originally quoted is saying low intelligence assocates with conspiracy thinking, but that high intelligence people can sometimes be accepting of conspiracy theories also, because some high intelligence people are poor rational thinkers.

    "Some of the most "stupid" people I know are far smarter than I am." You prove my point exactly. Scott Pruitt is intelligent enough but says and does stupid irrational things and believes agw is all a hoax for example.

    Its clear many climate denialists are conspiracy thinkers. Of course many are also influenced by politics, it's not an either / or thing.

    The research I quoted showing as association between conspiracy theorists and low intelligence and / or poor rational thinking skills has been replicated many times, heres another relevant article on the research.
    .

  12. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    One doubts that the average TV meterologist will actually be equiped or have the time to put weather events in the context of climate.  At best they may be able to make a statement such as this storm is within the top quartile with respect to the amount of rain dumped in a given period or something similar.  Besides, only when they collect a bunch of events and compare them with the historical record will their comments gain a modicum of scientific respectability.  Hopefully they will have a climatologist on tap to make relevant statments for the TV presenters to use.

  13. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4lXjcnEOnB0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

  14. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Under the Trump administration, the EPA has moved closer than at any point in its history to serving the needs of the entities it regulates rather than the agency's mission to serve the public, a new report in the American Journal of Public Health says.

    => Pruitt's EPA Is on the Verge of 'Regulatory Capture', Study Says

  15. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters, a former "Hurricane Hunter" crew member, co-founded The Weather Underground, Inc. in 1995 while working on his Ph.D.  In the meteorology community, he was an early supporter the findings of climate science that indicated that AGW/CC (Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate
    Change) was a looming disaster for human civilization.from   Jeff was among the minority of meteorologists for many years

    One of the subset of blogs at Weather Underground for several years was that of University of Michigan climate scientist and mitigation planner Dr. Ricky Rood.  I participated at the Rood blog for several years, discussing science and doing battle with hard-core AGW/CC denialists, even as I continued to study climate science.  I even took an online course (MOOC) in basic climate science from Canada's University of British Columbia.  

    Unfortunately, the Rood climate blog was discontinued a couple of years ago when IBM purchased Weather Underground for its weather analysis products.  Fortunately, even though it does not produce a "revenue stream"  Jeff Masters and his climate communication associate Bob Henson, continue to blog there - and they frequently discuss climate and AGW/CC. 

    During my years of participation at Dr. Rood's blog, I became acutely aware that, based on surveys, a majority of broadcast meteorologists were firmly in the "AGW/CC denialist" camp.  Along with the engineering community, these were two major groups of science-based professionals that we should be able to convince with science and logic.  But logic be damned, these professionals stubbornly resisted science and fact-based reality for many years.  (Unfortunately, broadcast meteorologists - if they want to keep their jobs - are bound by the direcives of their employers to toe the corporate line and ignore AGW/CC - or treat it as a false alarm.)  

    It is great to see this significant change in the participation of broadcast meteorologists in the AGW/CC discussion.  They probably reach and influence more laypersons than any other group, and are critical to informing the public of the reality of the dangers of anthropogenic global warming and climate change. 

    Engineers are another issue.  Although they do not communicate daily with the public like broadcast meteorologists, many are still vocal in their denialism.  Plus, it is an unfortunate reality that many engineers think that they and their technoogies can fix almost any problem - including AGW/CC.  Engineering and technology solutions can generate massive revenue for corporations, so their proponents tend to ignore or overlook societal impacts and other externalities.  Again, basic human nature makes us want to ignore or deny anything that would have a negative impact on our lives and economic well-being.  Therefore many people will eagerly jump on the promises of technological solutions, adding yet more resistance to the unequivical necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emission.  

    But that is a "whole 'nuther problem" - and I am very happy to see the positive changes in the broadcast meteorology community. 

  16. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    18 states are now suing the EPA over the arbitrary changes made under the Trump appointed Scott Pruitt.

    California, 17 other states sue Trump administration to defend Obama-era climate rules for vehicles

  17. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    If you've read this far down into the Comments section, chances are you will be interested in the following post about Paul Douglas, one of the most respected weather forecasters who spoke out on Climate Change.

  18. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    I watch the Weather Channel quite a bit and have yet to see anything other than a passing comment concerning climate and that is quite rare.  As for IQ being a reason for denial I don't encounter that.  What I see in discussions from deniers is 100% politics.  I can't enter a discussion, not even mentioning a person or anything political, and immediately get called a liberal.

  19. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    #1

    I would be very hesitant to say that those who believe climate change is a hoax have a lower IQ.  As for motivation to be rational?  There is a radio personality on USA Public Radio, Shankar Vedantum, whose book "The Hidden Brain"  points to much evidence that most of us are far less rational than we think.  Most of us have deeply held beliefs we have clung do for decades.  Something as feeble as "facts" is not about to change that! 

    Only when you come to accept that that is the case can one move beyond one's personal biases.  It has very little to do with relative intelligence.  Some of the most "stupid" people I know are far smarter than I am.  This is something to bear in mind  when talking with a "true believer".

  20. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    Dr Ivar Giaever is a Nobel laureate who believes that global warming is a religion of sorts. So when an uninformed person is getting information from a person like Dr. Giaever, it can be confusing to determine what is the truth.

    Meteorologists are important scientific ambassadors in this respect, but they also risk losing their jobs if they speak up too much on what is still a very controversial subject. We need to respect and support the effort and risk they are making by speaking up.

  21. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    Scaddenp @28

    I think it would be shades of grey on these moral foundation attributes in general. My personal observation is liberals do respect authority, loyalty and purity, but perhaps not as much as conservatives, and liberals are prepared to challenge authority and the accepted wisdom more than conservatives, and while conservatives do have more respect for authority in a general sense, this is not always the case - for example Obama was not too popular with conservatives, and neither are scientists, and they are a type of authority. Clearly then moral foundations can supersede each other, or can be somewhat ad hoc. However the basic moral foundation theory sounds very compelling to me.

    However conservatives do seem to loathe protesters especially when it leads ro tresspass or property damage, and the scruffy dress maybe offends the purity value. Liberals accept pushing the boundaries of the law, but not to the extent of deliberate property destruction, only to the extent of obtaining information or making a point, which often seems reasonable to me. It's good to see a theory behind this sort of thing.

    A lot of this is surely also about exactly how things are defined, and defining freedom is a case in point. Conservatives do seem to conflate freedom and selfishness, although ultimately I suppose it could be argued they are the same things in the sense complete freedom is the right to do absolutely anything. Yet clearly conservatives do not actually believe in that, as they are strong advocates for property law for example which limit freedom. It almost seems that conservatives are defining freedom as whatever their own form of preferred set of laws law says at some point in time, as opposed to some wider philosophical interpretation.

    And people apply double standards to freedom, for example they want to be free do do what they like in the name of "freedom" but they certainly do not apply the same standard to other people, who they say should face restrictions, and this can apply to the exact same activity, or different activities. An example of the later is conservatives to do not believe, in the main that people should be free to take drugs, yet they do sometimes believe business should be free to sell products that demonstrably cause toxic environmental effects. Double standards and irrationality abound.

    Of course some of this double standard applies to liberals at times, because although they don't promote freedom as strongly as a core value in moral foundation theory, they certainly have many views that involve questions of having freedom, for example they promote use and availability of medicinal cannabis, to name a recent example, while wanting various other activities restricted. However perhaps its not a double standard, as  it seems to me Liberals do apply certain tests related to freedom, and question whether an activity is having a tangible and harmful effect on other people. Conservatives seem to have other criteria harder to comprehend.

    Clearly your gun ownership dilemma is a good example of how trade offs are made on these moral foundation principles, and for conservatives it seems complicated, where for liberals the idea of fairness is clearly at the top of the hierarchy of values so is a clear lens for everything. So for liberals its fair people own guns for sensible purposes , but not fair on society as a whole that just anyone can buy any sort of gun. Or perhaps liberals would say "not rational". However I'm speculating.

    Regarding freedom, there's an article on wikipedia titled "reactance (psychology)" and there's empirical evidence for it. Imho it seems like it might be a dominant conservative trait and explains distaste for certain things.

    "Reactance is a motivational reaction to offers, persons, rules, or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. Reactance occurs when a person feels that someone or something is taking away their choices or limiting the range of alternatives."

    "Reactances can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion. People using reverse psychology are playing on reactance, attempting to influence someone to choose the opposite of what they request."

  22. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????

    The Camp 2007 link is dead and should be fixed. Here's a working archived copy.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Hyperlinked links breaking page formatting and updated link.  Thanks!

  23. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    Moral foundation theory would say that liberals only pay attention to Care and Fair dimensions whereas Conservative also play with Authority, Loyality and Purity. Conservatives do respect care and fair, but balance those against the other dimensions as well. Freedom is also postulated as a moral foundation which would figure more heavily in conservative evaluation, though I find its actual practise in a moral argument hard to distinguish from a rationalisation for selfishness. Depends a bit I guess on whether someone is prepared to value others freedom of action as highly as their own; and how they would value freedom against possible harm to others (violation of care). Gun control debate in USA possibly says something about that.

  24. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    Scaddenp @25, it's hard to argue with what you are saying on morality. An inconvenient truth would have been better filmed by someone more neutral like national geographic, but too late now. History is a messy, untidy process.

    However it all goes both ways. Conservatives also need to respect liberal morality a bit more as well.

  25. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    The rats are leaving the sinking ship, it could be a very different political picture for the Trump WH next year.

    Republicans who won't be coming back to Congress after 2018 midterm elections

    It's entirely possible there will be a number of Trump officials who will find themselves in prison over their actions of the last couple of years including Scott Pruitt. And possibly Trump himself.

    At which point the process of rebuilding the EPA and US government itself can begin.

  26. TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science

    I find it astounding in the video that some people are still stupid enough to genuinely believe "climate change is a hoax", however this research gives some understanding of why. It finds conspiracy believers either have lower IQ, or lack a strong motivation to be rational. 

    And its great meteorologists are spreading awareness, and they are in a perfect position to bust open denialist myths that conflate weather and climate.

  27. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    Regarding conspiracy thinking and related claims climate change is a hoax. Came across this interesting research. 

    “We show that reasonable skepticism about various conspiracy theories and paranormal phenomena does not only require a relatively high cognitive ability, but also strong motivation to be rational,” Ståhl, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, explained in a statement."

    So belief in conspiracies and possibly hoaxes is essentially lazy thinking! Who would have thought.

    Profile of climate denialist: Politically motivated, vested interests, conspiracy theorest and irrational lazy thinker.

  28. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Recommended supplemental reading:

    Industry Sway Over EPA Is Stronger Now Than Under Reagan, Study Says by Neela Banerjee, InsideClimate News, May 1, 2018

  29. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Pristine air, as provided by wind turbines and solar panels, creates far more wealth than the continuing use of fossil fuel.  The problem from the point of view of the congress-critters (love that definition) is that the wealth is spread around through the population and doesn't go into the hands of the vested interersts that finance them.  There is one and only one solution to this and a mirad of other problems.  http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2018/01/wasted-effort.html

  30. CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    I want to point out one obvious thing.  No 3rd world govts or organizations, have joined this discussion at all, saying "please don't do anything about global warming because it would kill our people". 

    Only entities other than those representing the worlds poor, have definitely become aware of this discussion and have commented.  I could only speculate why. 

  31. It's too hard

    What do you think of Drawdown.org.  They have listed the "top 100 solutions to global warming".  This raises many interesting questions which have been mentioned on the thread.  I did a search of the website name on your site and it seems there has not been a discussion of it, so I have brought it up. 

    Interesting among the top 100 solutions to global warming are some observations here: 

    - the top 1 is to improve management of refrigerants, 2nd is to build more on shore large turbine windmills

    - nuclear power is on the list, it is higher than halfway up the list

    - many of the top 10 items refer to agriculture and food, and imply less meat eating.  Many other items refer to clever uses of grazing animals. 

    - many curious, fascinating items are on the list which I had not heard of

    It seems to me that in the future, the global warming debate will be more about politicking over which solution deserves the funding.  Those who would in the future argue that clean coal and nukes should get all the funding, should be denied credibility in those future debates, if their position at this time is denial*.  (*Regardless if they deny they are denying it while they deny it.)

  32. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Bozza @4

    "Dana, don't blame democracy: blame the consuming pig who demands a Hollywood lifestyle."

    Consumers are partly to blame, but the blame is at least partly with agencies that set weak environmental laws (eg Scott Pruitt). Without good environmental laws, do you seriously think human behaviour would change sufficiently? History shows it doesn't.

    Environmental law is ultimately an extension of property law to the planet as a whole, ie everyones property,  and is therefore totally legitimate.

    "The basic folly with democracy is that it assumes a leader can be chosen!!"

    Yes the trouble is heads of government agencies are often appointed by politicians, not the people. However there has been a tradition on both sides of politics of appointing reasonable people to head agencies. Trump has totally trashed this.

    "Do you honestly think Democrats are clean-skins?"

    Weak argument. Their behaviour in no way excuses White House and Republican failures, and the democrats certainly look cleaner anyway over the last decade. I'm an outsider in another country and political moderate looking in.

  33. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Dana, don't blame democracy: blame the consuming pig who demands a Hollywood lifestyle.

    The basic folly with democracy is that it assumes a leader can be chosen!!

    System corrupts man. 

    Do you honestly think Democrats are clean-skins?

  34. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    You know you're doing a bad job on protecting the environment and dealing with climate change when Bush era officials are critical of you.

    NASA Reaches for Muzzle as Renowned Climate Scientist Speaks Out

    "Dr. James E. Hansen, the top climate scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), believes that the world has little time to waste in reversing its current trend toward global warming. In late 2005, however, Dr. Hansen's ability to voice his concerns about global warming was severely compromised by NASA public affairs officials. After he called on the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a December 2005 lecture, Dr. Hansen found that NASA officials began reviewing and filtering public statements and press interviews in an effort to limit his ability (as well as that of other government scientists) to publicly express scientific opinions that clashed with the Bush administration’s views on global warming."

    Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

    "A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

    In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports."

    I guess the difference now is instead of just muzzling scientists and rewriting reports, the EPA under Trump is being destroyed from within. The Trump administration is trying to eliminate the ability to even regulate carbon dioxide emissions by gutting the agency responsible.

    This is also happening in other areas, Trump is often not even permanently staffing hundreds of key positions in government. In a sense he and his administration can be considered an anti-government.

    Trump Administration Has More Than 250 Unfilled Jobs

    "Hundreds of jobs remain unfilled in the Trump administration, and many are being held by temporary appointees. But a federal law limits how long those temps can serve, and many are bumping up against the end of their terms."

  35. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    I think on climate, the damage has already been done - debate polarised on political lines from which retreat is difficult. Science is only part of the language. Who promotes it is important (Al Gore for example) because most people do not have expertise to evaluate science argument so who you trust is more important. Activism for your cause which breaches law and/or societial norms puts you offside with conservative morality immediately. Worse still are those who see climate action as a chance to push transparently anti-capitalism or similar agendas with a scant regard to the science.

  36. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17

    william - more complicated than that. See here.

  37. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Scott Pruitt has other devious and insidious proposals as follows. Briefly, much of the original research on the effects of fossil fuels on human health used confidential health records of thousands of people, for obvious and legitimate reasons, and Pruitt is trying to attack the science on the basis that the science was 'hidden' because the records are 'confidential', which is of course absurd, but shows the astonishing extent he is prepared to go. It's just not normal human behaviour.

    Most of us understand wealth creation and air quality are indeed not mutually exclusive, and have to exist in some sort of equal balance. In fact, purifying exhaust emisssions and the like is about creating the sorts of technologies that filter air or make engines more efficient and this product development in turn creates jobs and shareholder value, and this is in fact wealth creation. It just gives us clean air,  as well as other goals like cars that go fast. Most normal people want both.

    All the wealth in the world can't fix lung diseases. There's still no real cure for many of these. 

    Every conservative and Republican in America shares some responsibility for this current mess.

  38. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17

    If Amoc is slowing shouldn't this result in something of a recovery in the amount of ice created in the Arctic each winter...... which in turn should result in more deep ocean water produced from the brine.....which should result in the re-strenthening of Amoc.  How much of the deep ocean water is created by the sinking of the cooling Gulf Stream and how much by sea water freezing - creating brine.  Shouldn't we see the ice extent flick flacking back and forth for a while until we are re-established in a new climate regime.

  39. The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect

    We are dealing with worldview bias rather than debating in a scientific framework, for the most part we are talking to global warming deniers, who deny they are deniers for the most part. Really I am surprised if any single global warming denier ever changes their mind.

    They have been denying they are deniers, what do you think of the idea of using that against them. When you ask "is global warming real", they have sometimes shifted from answering "no", to answer "yes but".

    Am I right in thinking that when someone agrees with you in an argument, you should rub it in? For example I know that when they say "yes but", that what is to follow is an explanation, "yes but it isn't caused by man, might be beneficial, is the same thing as the medieval period, etc". But for all that talk, as frustrating as it is, when they say "yes but", haven't they essentially said "you are right, but ..."? So that, I could rub that in.

    For example, a politician from a particular political party which admits global warming is real like the rest of the world, could ask a politician from another political party which bitterly opposes any recognition of the reality of global warming, over and over: "I understand that you have admitted global warming is real, I really admire that". In response, "yes but (with long explanation)".

    Because, I think the tactic of saying I admit global warming is real but here is my long explanation in which I try to have everything both ways and merely sow doubt and stall. It seems like a clever tactic and it is infuriating, but maybe it can be another liability for them.

  40. Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth

    Nuccitelli brings up this important point: Pruitt is being enabled by fossil-fueled GOP congresscritters, and wouldn't last a day without their support. Also, I was stunned by Milloy's statement: "Wealth is what makes people happy, not pristine air."  My surprise was because I'd just read "The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels" on Skeptical Science last week, which included this:  "The EPA estimates that the U.S. Clean Air Amendments cost $65bn to implement, but will have yielded a benefit of almost $2tn by 2020 in avoided health costs."  As sanity might have suggested to anyone but Milloy, the pursuit of pristine air is quite compatible with wealth creation.

  41. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #17

    Related article from Scientific American on gulf stream (amoc) slowing : Slow-Motion Ocean: Atlantic’s Circulation Is Weakest in 1,600 Years

    And a climate scientist estimates gulf stream could slow enough by 2300 to cause north atlantic winter  temperatures to drop 7 degrees. This is huge.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] More articles also listed in the 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #17

  42. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    Scaddenp, I came across this research:  Framing discourse around conservative values shifts climate change attitudes

    I would have thought science is a good universal language, but it is under attack from the conservative elite and White House. This makes things very difficult.

  43. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    You cant change the genetics but you can change the messaging. Too many environmental groups (yes, Greenpeace, I talking to you), take no account of that and do messaging that is feel-good for liberals and an anathema to conservative morality. Once you have polarized an issue on party-lines, then it is extremely difficult to get change, but it would be a good idea if issues that are really fact-based (eg climate change) rather than value-based, are communicated in ways that dont offend the morality of either. Conservatives play with larger deck in this respect so proceed carefully. The climate debate should have been about best means to solution not about denier memes.

  44. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    Yes there's considerable of truth in chapeaureds / Roy's commentary.  However I did make reference to politics being one of the main influences in climate denial, and the article was fairly specific about conservatives being a factor in denial. I was treading carefully around the issue, because I don't want to create even more division.

    It's important to realise we won't convince the ultra conservative climate denialists, and its people towards the centre of the bell curve that will be receptive, and it's important not to alienate them by labelling them and suggesting they are inherently inferior in some way.

    Imho if we look at classic liberal and conservative traits, and characteristics there's mostly value in both, and its when they become extreme in expression that the trouble seems to start.

    People have genetically inherent leanings towards liberalism or conservatism,  but they are not rigidly fixed either if you read the research. 

    Even the Economist.com, a centre right publication favouring moderately small government, has just done a huge article promoting universal health care (april 28th edition). Robotics and other factors are likely to lead inexorably towards a 'UBI' (universal basic income). Business has to be regulated or the system spins out of control. The ultra conservatives might hate all this, but its coming anyway because it makes sense and is inevitable.

  45. Philippe Chantreau at 03:08 AM on 30 April 2018
    Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to Roy's post. I remember one poster, issued from communist dominated Estern Europe, who immediately jumped to the conclusion that a coral study was fraudulent when there was one element he did not understand on the first read. He was guided back to correct understanding of said study by other SkS contributors but never fully owned up the altered judgment caused by his emotional attachment to a certain ideology.

    I am especially concerned about how extremist the free market ideology has become. T. Boone Pickens' ideas were by any means radical, extreme and destructive, yet any cursory reading of the Wall Street Journal will reveal that they have become mainstream in the business community, just like there is no doubt in any of these people's minds that "greed is good." Now we have an entire class of very powerful people who have developed a strong emotional atachment to that ideology, of which any studying shows that it is very destructive.

    This, however, is going to hit the big singularity looming on the horizon: the pursuit of profit by any and all means now implies widespread automation; the automation capabilities that already exist have the potential to put out of work the majority of the world's population. The barriers to their implementation are not really technological. I am more familiar with the aviation world, from the point of view of the pilot; in aviation, a major factor is the long life and high cost of airplanes. All the planes produced now that are designed for a 2 person crew have the potential to be flying safely and efficiently for the next 3-4 decades. The most recent ones will be realtively easy to convert to full automation but the previous generation will take more effort, so they are more likely to be exploited "as is" until they are decomissioned. These specific hurdles are absent from many other industries. There is no doubt in the military world that even fighter pilots will eventually be a thing of the past, the technology is already here.

    The automation capabilities including A.I. that will exist by mid-century could completely remove the human from even a huge part of software coding works. By 2050 to 2075 there will be some very radical rethinking to do about what economic activity should be like and the place of humans in it. The engine of the consumption society is consumption, which implies that people must have some sort of income with which they buy stuff; a central tenet of the conservative ideologies is that people should not get money for doing nothing, unless perhaps they are physically unable. A serious problem arises when there is hardly anything left for immense numbers of people to do and earn money. As we stand now, a sizeable portion of the population already has abilities that fall short for the complexity of our current world. Interesting times we are witnessing, for sure.

  46. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    I think the article and the comments on the article all miss the basic cause of the problem. And the basic cause is one that almost no one knows about because almost no one wants to talk about it.
    Nearly all strong deniers are strong conservatives and they are genetically predisposed to be conservatives. They are genetically predisposed to be xenophobic, more religious, more repressive of women’s rights, much less concerned with fairness/equity and they hold a darker view of human nature than their counterparts. Conservatives are much less open to new experiences of any type. Conservatives are much more prone to authoritarianism (the opposite of scientific thought) and to group think. Liberals have the opposite traits to all of the conservative traits. Individuals are genetically predisposed to be conservative or liberal. Genetics is responsible for about half, or just a bit more that half, of our political orientations.
    Conservatives believe in the prevailing conservative ideologies of the societies they live in in the same way that religious people believe in the teachings of their religious group. One of the most amaziong findings is that strong conservatives are the least capable of thinking logically/critically/rationally about anything that comes into conflict with their conservative ideological beliefs.
    Conservatives perceive correctly that if man-caused global warming is true, then government needs to play a key or lead role in dealing with the problem. Much worse, horror of horrors, the major governments of the world all have to collaborate together to solve the problem. That is totally anathema to the prevailing free market belief system. So therefore, man-caused global warming cannot be true. Therefore, it is not true. It is a hoax.
    It is the best educated conservatives that are the least capable of thinking critically about global warming. Being better educated they have a much greater pool of concepts and facts to draw upon to rationalize their beliefs. And there is no equivalence on the liberal side. It is the best educated liberals who are the most capable of thinking critically about global warming.
    I am a very strong liberal. In August 1995, I joined an Internet discussion group of American foresters that for some reason unknown to me, was dominated by very strong conservatives (Austrian Hayek school of economics, Libertarians and the like). They all believed that global warming was a hoax. They believe that we have no significant environmental problems of any type. I had never encountered people like this before. I didn’t know much about global warming at the time, so for about four years, I would check out their sources – and I found them all to be bogus or questionable. Then for another 10 years or more, I argued directly with them. The stronger the scientific evidence I presented them with, the more it reinforced their beliefs. I tried a bit of everything. I came to believe that they were sincere in their beliefs. I finally came to the conclusion that there was no reasoning with them. I gave up.
    Then, about two years later, I read “The Republican Brain” by investigative journalist Chris Mooney and he described almost exactly what I had experience. He summarized peer reviewed social sciences research that shows the problem is genetic. Since then, I also read “Our Political Nature” by evolutionary anthropologist Avi Tuschman. Nearly all of what I have written above is a summary of their findings in the two books. Tuschman also goes into what scientists believe to have been the evolutionary selective forces that left us with such genetically defective brains – and the selective forces for the set of characteristics grouped under the heading of “tribalism” are really mind bending.
    Most of this seems overall, very discouraging. I’m still trying to digest what it all means. I see two areas for potential optimism:
    1. Our genetically driven political orientations all lie on a bell curve. Most of us are somewhere in the middle – moderately conservative or moderately liberal. I assume that the closer to the center conservatives are, the more open they are to the environmental influences – the more open they are to evidence and logic and reasoned argument.
    2. Conservatives are much more subject to group think and to belief in the prevailing conservative ideologies of the societies they live in. But those prevailing ideologies do seem to evolve substantially over time. The conservative ideologies of the 1950s in the US probably lie to the left of the Democratic platform of today. The extremist Free Market ideologies now predominate. They can certainly evolve – they can moderate or they can become even more extreme.
    Cheers,
    Roy Hagen

  47. The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels

    Despite decades of research linking fossil fuel particulates and gases as dangerous to human health, Scott Pruitt (no surpise) is trying as hard as possible to undermine this science.

    Much of the research used confidential medical records understandably, and Pruitt is challenging the research on the basis that this use of confidential records in 'suspect' because "the science is hidden" . Sigh, I try not to hate people, but.....

  48. Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality

    @nijelj If someone invents a new and innovative kind of wind turbine, they don't need government permission to build it. That's a fundamental difference between nuclear and renewables, and as I watch technical presentations on MSRs, government regulations and permission comes up again and again; it's no exaggeration to say that finding a way through the regulation minefield is what drives the design of nuclear reactors. For that reason, I disagree that "it's in the hands of the nuclear industry to provide cost effective power built within stated time frames". It's hardly in the hands of the industry at all; their success depends entirely on the political will to accept nuclear energy for climate change solutions. In turn this depends on public support. The U.S. market seems particularly difficult, as the regulations are designed for solid-fueled, water-cooled reactors, so would-be MSR builders have to pay out-of-pocket for the government (NRC) to write new regulations for them. That's tough for startups - it's not the old guard nuclear players doing this.

    Anyway I can hopefully publish an article series on MSRs here soon.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] MSR = Molten Salt Reactor?

  49. Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing

    Peter Sinclair released a new video about the

    Dark Snow Project Field Season 2018

  50. One Planet Only Forever at 12:17 PM on 28 April 2018
    The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels

    Minor revision of my comment @7,

    "That is how free-markets are supposed to work. The responsible people decide if they want to act to reduce their costs of clean-up or pay a higher cost for the clean-up."

    Back to my comment @1. The undeserving among the wealthy today would prefer to have future people pay for the clean up. They will also try to argue that the math makes sense as long as the costs others have to pay, as today's undeserving wealthy people figure it, is less than the lost opportunity for personal benefit the undeserving among the current wealthy would suffer, as they figure it, if they were forced to reduce their Private Interest creation of future costs.

    It is undeniably unacceptable/unethical/immoral for any current day pursuit of Private Interest to create negative consequences for anyone else, no matter how the Private Interested people want to try to justify it. And people desiring to benefit from unsustainable and harmful Private Interests have proven they will try to get away with being as unethical as possible in pursuit of maximizing their 'competitive advantage' in their negative-sum pursuit of appearing to be a bigger winner.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us