Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 Next
Comments 15801 to 15850:
-
nigelj at 05:09 AM on 9 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
Metabunk sounds excellent.
Scientific American also has a really nice magazine size publication "The Science Behind the Debates" Collectors edition, Volume 26, no 5, Winter 2015 / 2018. It might be on their website, but I'm older generation and buy the paper copy,
It deals with the philosophical issues, post truth, climate change, vaccines, the gun debate in America, food and diets, ge food, evolution and creationism. And it does it really well.
One of the problems with conspiracy theories and 'alternative' science theories is theres sometimes a "grain of truth" in some of them. It takes a lot of mental and emotional discipline to work out which conspiracy theories are nonsense, which might make sense, and what might be really going on.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:55 AM on 9 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj@20,
I would caution against dismissing Unite the Right as 'outer fringe'.
The greedy deniers of climate science, the ones trying to get away with maximizing their personal benefit from the burning of fossil fuels, are almost certain to be major players in the promotion and funding of Unite the Right movements.
Those greedy people (deniers of climate science and fighters for freedom from restrictions on their ability to behave understandably unacceptably in their pursuit of personally Winning More) can be seen to be uniting with other people who also have Private Interests that are contrary to changes that would advance humanity to a sustainable better future for everyone (like the fundamentalist tribal religious people claiming to be Christian, Muslim, Hindi, or Jewish as they fight to harm 'All Others' in defence of 'Their US', or the more extreme tibalists who try to claim the right to make their nation a nation controlled by 'males of their skin colour' for the benefit of people of 'their skin colour').
In Canada, that collective of United people claiming to be Right recently won the national leadership for a decade by getting the legal right to call their party Conservative. And they did massive damage to Canada's actions to reduce GHG production, because their funding came largely from the exporters of fossil fuel). Until they won that Naming right, they were indeed a national minority interest. However, even without that name they had the ability to drum up anger that motivated their kind of people to vote.
In Alberta, the United Right has just been formed and will likely win the next Provincial Election, calling themselves the United Conservative Party (being the only Party with the term Conservative in their name is a key). And their main platform points are eliminating the carbon tax that has been implemented in Alberta, along with secretive or carefully phrased indications that they are the party that religious fundamentalists should vote for (they fight against changes that would make LBGTQ people a more accepted and protected part of society - but are careful because they know some Conservative thinking people support LBGTQ changes and they want as many of those votes as possible - getting people angry about GHG restrictions can be interfered with if the pursuits of votes for people who dislike the idea of LBGTQ acceptance become too apparent. Like Trump claiming to be the least racist person on the planet, the United Conservative Party claims to like Gay people while its policy actions contradict that claim).
Even when they are a less significant aspect of a society, Unite the Right can be seen to be a major cause of damage to attempts to advance humanity to a better future. A Unite the Right type of groups produced the narrow 'Brexit Win'. And they are the group in the USA that produced President Trump and all the actions to undo the Good GHG actions that had developed in the USA, including a having a President that claims the science is far from settled and therefore should not be acted upon to the detriment of clearly incorrectly over-developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity. And their 'Tea Party', particularly the 'House Freedom Caucus' part of it, are small but very influential parts of the USA government that vote united against the other Conservatives to get the other Conservatives to shift their actions towards the Unite the Right desires if they want to get a passing vote on any actions (significant power even when Obama was the President).
So, Beware the ones claiming to be 'Uniting the Right'. They are not to be dismissed as a marginally popular 'fringe'. They can and do Win to the detriment of the future of humanity.
It really upsets me to hear people claim that leadership like the current leadership of the USA will not cause 'that much harm'. The starting point of such a statement is the admitted understanding that the leadership is harmful. That should be the end of any attempt to 'excuse it or accept it because it Won', not be the basis for claiming the future of humanity just has to put up with it.
The attitude that 'the future of humanity is not a concern or that harm to the future generations can justified because of benefits obtained by portions of a current generation' is the problem that needs to be corrected. The future generations have no legal power, no vote, no marketing ability. Hind-sight clearly shows how damaging the current developed socio-economic systems are.
Fore-sight, the consideration of what the hind-sight in the future will be, needs to become the rule and the measure of acceptability of the actions of all of the Winners/Leaders (Engineering or application of science is designing with that type of fore-sight in mind). The attitudes and actions of Winners Leaders regarding climate science can be a major part of evaluating the acceptability of Winners/Leaders.
For the past several decades there has been no good reason for any of the wealthiest or most powerful to 'misunderstand the significance and robustness of climate science' (ever since the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" made it clear that being able to get away with being dismissive of the future generations was a major problem to be corrected).
-
Tadaaa at 03:42 AM on 9 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
the other notable one is Bob Inglis a republican politician who features in the film Merchants of Doubt
He was swayed when he went to Antartica and looked at the Ice Cores
where Shermer also talks about his initial doubts - and metions the tribal nature of climate denia - in that you buy into a "package of beliefs"
This a subject that fascinates me - and one one science blog i visit (www.metabunk.org - dedicated to debunking Chemtrail nonsense amongts other things), there is a thread called "A view from the rabbit hole" which documents peoples conversions from all sorts of conspiracy theories - and it is fantastic, and in some instances quite moving how they find a way out.
it also has good threads on the backfire effect - and science communcation in general
-
michael sweet at 22:11 PM on 8 February 2018Humans need to become smarter thinkers to beat climate denial
Recently someone suggested that the cold in the USA from about December 24 to January 7 was record cold. Climate Central has analized the cold outbreak in the USA at that time.
They find that the cold outbreak was the coldest in that area since 1994, but outbreaks that cold (or colder) were not innfrequent from 1960-1994. It is just that people have forgotten that it used to be colder.
You can see from the above graph that while it was cold this year, it was not record cold. They used the area of this years cold to measure all the cold outbreaks. That makes it appear that it was colder this year than it really was since past cold outbreaks were not necessarily in the same area.
Cold outbreaks are getting warmer faster than average global warming. They calculate that it is 15 times less likely for this cold outbreak to occur.
I thought their article was an interesting read.
-
Bob Loblaw at 13:25 PM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @ 13.
If you discuss "the reality of the present political environment" [of the U.S.] too strongly, it makes it look like you agree with the widespread, uninformed, unscientific positions that prevail there.
Likewise, use of strawmen positions such as "scary scenarios" and "take into account all possible costs of fossil fuels" [my emphasis] do not lead to fruitful discussions. With respect to the latter phrase, our past discussions often focused on what we felt were reasonable costs to include (and we differed in opinion), I may be misrepresenting your position, but my impression was that you only wanted to include very well-defined costs, and I wanted to include likely costs (less well-defined), but I never argued for "all costs" because that is too poorly defined. Restricting a carbon tax to only well-defined costs will most certainly underestimate the true costs.
Failing to identify a large portion of those costs and failing to include them in a carbon tax does not mean we will avoid those costs. We'll just pay for them differently (different taxes, more expensive maintenance on damaged property, lost incomes, lost property, lost lives, etc.). And the people that will pay them will often not be the people that benefit from consumption of fossil fuels (wealth transfer).
Do you want to be part of the group that pays for the damage costs of someone else's fossil fuel use, part of the group that is happy to let someone else pay for damage caused by your use of fossil fuels while you get the benefits, or some other group? Remember: part of your tax dollars went to disaster relief after the catastrophic flooding in southern Alberta a few summers ago (assuming you pay at least some taxes in Alberta or Canada).
-
scaddenp at 12:11 PM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
What is meant by pace needs some quantification. Here is the rate of increase in FF consumption over past 50 years.
Is it too fast or too slow to reduce FF consumption by the same rate?
-
michael sweet at 09:54 AM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @13,
So I take it that you have no problem increasing fossil fuel usage as rapidly as possible but you have strong objections to limiting fossil fuel usage? Do you see any contradiction in this position?
Why is it OK to very rapidly increase fossil fuel usage but we have to slowly wean ourselves off said fuels?
-
NorrisM at 09:19 AM on 8 February 2018There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
MA Rodger @ 179
Thanks, I see the difference between the comparison of maximum annual values and average values. I learn by asking questions but, as per strop's comment above, I do not appreciate being insulted. Take the edge off.
-
nigelj at 08:07 AM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
OPOF @18 yes fair comment. The thrust of everything has to be in that direction.
I'm interested in the liberal conservative issue partly as I did some psychology at university. However we should not let it totally frame the debate, and what individuals do is the more significant issue.
Unite the right is outer fringe, insane and cruel stuff. Sensible conservatives don't subscribe to unite the right, just as sensible Moslems don't support ISIS.
-
NorrisM at 07:52 AM on 8 February 2018In-depth: Scientists discuss how to improve climate models
I highly commend skepticalscience.com for posting this information. This kind of honesty in these comments tells me that climate scientists are not "pushing an agenda". Science is focussing on what you think you know and what you know you do not know.
Reasonable people can disagree on what level of confidence on the climate science we require to make major changes in our society. It seems to me that there is no question about AGW and the only questions that remain are how much warming and how soon and what should we do about it.
Moderator Response:[JH] Be sure to check out the entire series of articles about climate models that are posted on the Carbon Brief website.
-
nigelj at 07:46 AM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Norris M @13,
Karl Poppers writings are valuable. I haven't read his books, but have read various articles and summaries of his views, and he is very good in issues of deductive and inductive reasoning, and their ultimate limitations.
I do wonder about his incrementalism. Or put it this way, I think its a good approach as a very generalised rule, angels rush in where wise men fear to tread and all that, however it's very hard to totally avoid making quite abrupt and large changes at times, because of the nature of things. Not everthing can be changed in little steps. What does incremental even mean, and how is it quantitatively defined?
You need to appreciate Popper was involved in a personal tragedy that made him very sceptical of huge sweeping reforms like communism, so theres some personal bias there.
So how do we deal with this? Well we can certainly recognise huge economic and social reforms always carry risk, so its unwise to rush in. We could all agree on that. Ideally its much better to do little local experiments to see if a policy works, before inflicting such things on a country as a whole. But this is not always possible, due to the nature of certain issues.
Rational analysis can go a long way. Communism never made much rational sense, and was bad economic science from the start. But the failure of communism should not make us totally afraid of all change, or making large changes when theres no alternative and the need is pressing and obvious. I'm thinking some of Margaret Thatchers reforms which had to be pretty huge and abrupt to work (although I disagree with some of her harder right ideas, and some of her reforms could have been more incremntally introduced)
The trouble with climate change is this. It looks like a very substantial problem, and it's not going away. Climate modelling is ultimately reliant on inductive and deductive reasoning, but we would be foolish to ignore this simply because such reasoning doesn't come with a 100% proven guarantee, or has its limitations. It's still powerful reasoning, and the alternative is making decisions on the basis of studying the entrails of a goat. And I'm not joking, in the sense its either science, or guesswork and gut feel and I would prefer we face problems on the basis of the former obviously.
We also can't do a nice experiment and put the entire planet in a laboratory. We have no choice but to rely on modelling.
In addition, the climate problem requires a very definite need to keep temperatures under 2 degrees, which demands a concerted and large effort within a certain time frame.
Having said that, some things are actually consistent with Poppers incrementalism. Renewable energy has developed incrementally, and has effectively been trialed in a number of countries. I suggest we now therefore know enough, and the costs are low enough, to risk it on larger scale.
And the nature of the beast means you will get your incrementalism anyway. A moderate price on carbon is still going to be somewhat incremental. Nobody is going to suggest some outrageously high price, abruptly introduced overnight. The trouble is the current pricing strategies are so incremental and weak, they are all but invisible!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:37 AM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj,
Thank you for the reply. I have found these comments to be very helpful as I try to increase my awareness and understanding of what is going on, particularly the ethics issues that have been unintentionally exposed by climate science.
My concern with competition is 'allowing unsustainable harmful behaviour to occur in the competition'. Every game has developed rules for exactly that reason (and most of them constantly add and edit rules as new unacceptable behaviour gets identified. The more reward that is at stake in the game, the stricter the monitoring and enforcement becomes - except in the games of economics and politics (Olympic Soccer/Hockey has drug testing and very experienced Referees, pick-up games of soccer/hockey rely on the good nature of all the participants with some participants penalized or banned from playing for good reason).
The global economy is the biggest game on the planet and should have the strictest monitoring and enforcement to ensure that only sustainable helpful activities get to compete; the more wealth at stake, or the more potential for harm, the more vigorous the monitoring and enforcement needs to be.
And I find terms like conservative and liberal to be gross generalizations that distract from the important focus on whether a person is being helpful or harmful. The objective has to be improving the future for all of humanity. Conservative people can be helpful by restricting freedom of people to do whatever they may want to try to get away with, and Liberal people can be harmful by demanding freedom to believe and do whatever they want.
What I currently see as a very serious developing problem is the Unite the Right movements that clearly strive to build a United base of support by tempting people to be greedier and less tolerant. Those groups claim to be Conservative because they know some people are almost sure to continue to vote for what they think is Conservative, not considering if they are being helpful or harmful, just doing it because that is what they learned to do and they are not interested in trying to learn any more.
Conservative/Liberal is also fairly ineffective because the key is limiting of the behaviour of the individual. Libertarians are bit of a combination of both and often claim that competition will 'bring out the best in them'. Without a shared understanding of what is helpful, and therefore allowed in the competition, what they consider to be 'Their Best' is exemplified by the likes of Trump, a Winner they are proud to support.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:09 AM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #4
Art Vandela@5,
While total population is a concern, the real concern is the highest consuming and impacting portion of the total population.
I share the concern about developing nations following the damaging and unsustainable development part of the supposedly most advanced nations, because many of those supposedly more advanced have developed to massive unsustainable over-consumption and negative impacts.
But I identify the real problem as the individuals whose way of living and earning a living make them the largest consumers and highest impacting people. They can be found in every nation (higher percentages of them in the populations of the supposedly more developed/advanced nations).
It is members of that group that clearly will need to be forced to behave better; the ones who choose not to sacrifice a potential for personal benefit to help advance all humanity to a sustainable better future, leading by example by being the lowest negative impacting people on the planet (being the lowest impacting because they can afford that way of living while working to charitably improve the cost-effectiveness of everyone living that more responsible way is developed, especially acting to charitably help developing nations go directly to more responsible ways of living).
-
nigelj at 06:55 AM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
OPOF
By balanced I probably used the wrong words. I'm trying to say competition is a natural healthy part of business, and so is cooperation. They co-exist obviously, but there can be excessive competition, that becomes destructive and this can happen between firms, and also within firms.
This is best managed by 1) rules and 2) having people united in some greater project that is beneficial to society. I think that was what you were also implying with the sustainable development goals thing.
Regarding women in leadership roles. I agree certain male leaders have no fear of women, eg Trump. He is an unusual character and not really a conservative. He simply manipulates blue collar workers when it suits, and they tend to be more insecure about the roles of women so he plays to their biases and fears, but Trump is happy to support some woman if it suits.
But then other more conservative leaning leaders are genuinely fearful and resentful of women in leadership roles. Theres no denying this.
I sense you are trying to steer clear of using conservative / liberal labels and identities, to avoid infaming debate, and part of me is sympathetic to your constructive approach. But sometimes its hard to avoid discussing such groupings, because its a reality. However I personally try to at least avoid the fingerpointing blame game, in regard to different groups.
-
Wol at 06:49 AM on 8 February 2018In-depth: Scientists discuss how to improve climate models
Oh boy! The likes of Booker, Moncton et al will love this!
"Climate "scientists" have little idea of the climate modellings' results or how they work'.
I can just see their take on these reports.
-
nigelj at 06:40 AM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Knaugle says "Throughout the conservative culture and heirarchy in the USA, the social norm is that men are in charge, and women participate."
This is true to a significant extent, but it's liberalised since the 1950's. Attitudes do eventually change. I have my optimist hat on.
Dwelling on the intransigence of such people gets depressing, because theres no obvious thing that will change their mind, other than to encourage them to understand they are worrying about nothing. Its far more beneficial to have the best talent for the job, and not worry about gender, race etc.
-
nigelj at 05:55 AM on 8 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
Michael Shermer is a psychologist, and author of Skeptic and The Moral Arc, both interesting books. From his book he was apparently a climate sceptic and general environmental sceptic, because of the overly negative failed predictions of the book Limits to Growth. But this was an early book based on a lot of huge approximations of resources.
However Shermer changed his mind, and accepted agw climate change and other environmental problems were real, after reading various popular books by Tim Flannery, Jared Diamond, and seeing Al Gores presentation on agw science. He cited Gore as a significant influence.
So Al Gore converted at least one sceptic! And Shermer was converted by old fashioned factual information, and making the effort to read a few books, and there are great books out there.
John Key, the moderately conservative leader of one of our political parties, became a convert to AGW after seeing a graph of the last 70 years plotting solar irradiance against temperatures, and it was clear to him that solar irradiance was mostly flat in recent decades, so is obviously not a driving factor. He is a currency trader, and so possibly very data orientated.
This was something that also convinced me agw was real, because the sun is obviously such a powerful possible alternative theory. However not everyone relates to graphical information, and data on watts / sq m and things like this.
So some sceptics do change their minds simply through looking at the facts. They seem to be less strongly influenced by motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.
And there seem to be many different paths to how they decide agw is real because different people seem to connect with different aspects. For this reason as a general rule presentations on climate change might be best to include a mixture of human interest, natural world material, and more abstract material on ocean processes and graphical trends.
I do however agree with Knaugle that a certain group of deniers are very intransigent. They might never be convinced, even if sea levels rose 20 metres, or perhaps only then. I think the reason is that there are an overwhelming number of political, ideological and psychological issues combining together with this group. It's an additive thing. It's not just one thing.
No doubt the denialists look at both sides of the debate, but see only what they want to see. They get very invested in a position, or strongly tied to the influence of a peer group, and then its hard for them to back down, and pride wont let them admit they were wrong.
We all know that shifting political beliefs can be difficult. However most people also have some desire to know the truth, and understand that science is about getting at the truth.
-
MA Rodger at 05:52 AM on 8 February 2018There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
NorrisM @178.
You are famously confused, so you better concentrate.
The recent BEST & GISS global temperature anomalies are in close agreement, their maximum annual values (2016) within 0.02ºC of each other. So the bulk of the 0.2ºC discrapency will likely be due to the other end of the record.
There are a couple of other factors which cancel each other out. Here in this thread you will note I was using 'period-maximums' (which thus includes 2016) but the 'Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming' comment was using BEST 'period-average' values (1850-1935) to align the BEST data with the Loehle & McCulloch data (covering 11,700BC-1935AD with their zero equal to their full 'period-average'). Not using 'period-maximums' increases the measure of rise-in-temperature-since-pre-industrial by about 0.1ºC, but this is canceled out by the re-basing to the Holocene 'period-average' which is warmer than pre-industrial by a similar amount.
At the early end of the two temperature records, there is more of a discrepancy between BEST & GISS (with BEST -0.17ºC cooler than its GISS equivalent) which, coupled with BEST extending back to 1850 with even lower temperatures, this providing adjustments that tot-up to the bulk of the extra +0.2ºC above the zero to yield +1.2ºC on the Loehle & McCulloch graph.
-
NorrisM at 04:47 AM on 8 February 2018There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
MA Rodger @ 177
I am somewhat confused by the discussion between MA Rodger and strop regarding what the temperature rise has been since the 1880's. My understanding is that MA Rodger suggests that it has increased from .8C to 1C as of now.
But on Feb 4, MA Rodger on the "There is no empirical evidence" blog, he stated the following for 2016:
"Using a modern global surface record to fill in recent decades (BEST was to hand) and aligning it with the tag end of the Loehle and McCulloch data (1850-1935), the temperature for 2016 would be plotted at +1.2ºC which is plainly off the graph."
If the yearly temperature can jump up and down by .2C per year then do we not really have to use a minimum 10 year period in anything we talk about? I appreciate that El Nino's and La Nina's, as well as volcanoes, complicates looking at what temperature rise we have had over this period. But is even an average over a 10 year period relevant? Look at the famous "hiatus".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:39 AM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM@13,
The understanding of the need to gradually terminate the burning of fossil fuels and limit human pursuits of benefit to sustainnable energy consumption was established in the 1960s.
The reality of obstruction of that responsible issue is now, 50 years later, clearly continuing. The reality of the near criminality of continued efforts to 'slow down the termination of the damaging and ultimately unsustainable way the Winners enjoy their life' will clearly need to lead to investigation into the actions of 'all of the biggest winners' with penalties assessed based on their Won wealth/power and the severity of their obstructive actions attempting to delay the change of undertsanding and action that is requied.
-
NorrisM at 03:50 AM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Correction. IEA statistics for 2014 not 2015.
-
NorrisM at 03:48 AM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Bob Loblaw @ 5
A very legitimate comment that I have deflected my own views towards the reality of the present political environment. What I find more relevant to policy discussions is what can be done today given the political realities rather than my personal opinions.
Having said that, I will explain my view now that you have put me in a corner.
Karl Popper, a scientist, wrote one book on political theory entitled "The Open Society and Its Enemies", which has been described by the Economist as "the best intellectual defense of liberal democracy" ever written. A key part of his political theory as espoused in this book is that man has throughout his time on this planet taken many "bold" steps and many times regretted them because of the "unintended consequences". His view is that we should respect "incrementalism" in everything we do to avoid this folly.
Many will say that "Oh, yes I agree with Popper's theory" except for "this case" because it is the exception because drastic action has to be taken because of its seriousness. This is the answer provided by the proponents of any proposed action, not just climate change.
If we had a meteor hurtling towards earth which was clearly going to impact us, then, yes, that would be an exception. But we have many years before the effects will be felt in any significant way and even the worst case scenarios do not result in the end of our civilization. Furthermore, these scary scenarios are largely based on economic models which do not have the computing power to even properly input the effects of clouds on the climate let alone all of the other "non-linear" physical processes which together constitute our climate. It is for that reason that I have begun to limit my research to sea level rises and land temperature rises which I can understand somewhat.
So let us gradually move from fossil fuels to alternative sources of energy and not choke our civilization as a result of some massive denial of the source of energy which has brought us to this great flowering of our world over the last 200 years. Man's "leverage of energy" is what has brought us here. But to deny the world of cheap energy at this time would take us back to the dark ages. As of 2015, based upon IEA statistics, 81% of world energy was supplied by fossil fuels and of the remaining 19%, 92% was supplied by nuclear, hydro and biomass (largely dung burning) leaving 1.5% to wind and solar in 2015.
That is why I am in favour of a carbon tax which levies a charge on fossil fuels that represents the pollution costs and encourages alternative fuels but does not throw the baby out with the bath water.
It is a tough read (Plato does not come off well) but it is one of the best books I have ever read. I highly recommend it.
I trust this comment will escape the Moderator's clippings given that you asked me for my opinion on why I do not think a carbon tax should take into account all possible costs of fossil fuels (without taking into account the present benefits to the world).
-
knaugle at 02:21 AM on 8 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
#10 One Planet Only Forever
I would disagree in the sense that Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham would be a good refutation were I talking about Rachael Maddow, but not for women in true positions of leadership. Regardless there is a clear double standard that applies to women who are running the show. Throughout the conservative culture and heirarchy in the USA, the social norm is that men are in charge, and women participate.
-
knaugle at 02:13 AM on 8 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
I don't have a lot of hope most deniers will ever change their minds. Many of them know the science as well as I do, quite a few better in fact. Yet they cling to their current world view. This effect is well documented in Shankar Vedantum's book "The Hidden Brain"
You see the same effect with respect to vaccines, where people will acknowledge what the science says, but still insist vaccines are dangerous. Deniers are clinging to the hope we will soon see a significant cooling trend, when, like the proverbial hypochondriac, they can respond with "See I told you I was right!"
-
do u know da wae at 00:29 AM on 8 February 2018Climate's changed before
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
-
MA Rodger at 22:47 PM on 7 February 2018There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
strop @176.
You fail to describe this "theory" you mention @176. As it appears as a fundamental consideration of what you describe as "point was..." it does appear to be an important part of your comment. Can you describe what you mean by the "theory"?
You did indeed set out @174 a 0.4 deg warming in the period 1880s-1940s, this 50% relative to the warming in the period 1880s-2010. And if your argument is made for you, the topic under discussion is the correlation between CO2 and global temperature (specifically here the Gistemp LOTI) and thus the comparison you suggest is not in principle unmerited. My apologies. I was paying little attention to your comment as it is somewhat banal.
You still fail to explain properly your derivation of the numbers you set out and how you obtain the 50% result so I will do this analysis for you. To achieve a more fruitful outcome, I will not expend apples and oranges within this analysis. Rather than mix period-averages with cherry-picked period-maximims, I will use period-maximums throughout.
If we consider the maximum annual LOTI temperature within the start period (1880-1900, sometimes considered a measure of pre-industrial temperature) and the intermediate period (1940s) and the end periods (1) 1970s-2010 and (2) 1970s-2017:
This yields a result of (1) 38% and (2) 28% of the warming occuring by the 1940s (specifically in 1944), a time when the industrial-period CO2 forcing had reached (1) 34% and (2) 30% relative to the end periods. Thus the level of warming is reasonably reflective of the CO2 forcing (and indeed also if all positive forcings are included in the analysis). It should be noted that the 38% value relies solely on the 1944 annual anomaly. If multi-year averages are substituted for annual temperatures, something that should be done given the nature of the data, the percentage drops markedly.
-
citizenschallenge at 13:24 PM on 7 February 2018Humans need to become smarter thinkers to beat climate denial
Nice write up!
nigelj, seems to me we haven't done very well with the math these past decades either. Case in point: "Sustainability 101: Exponential Growth - Arithmetic, Population and Energy (Dr. Albert Bartlett discusses the implications of unending growth on economies, population, and resources.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0ghHia-M54
“The answer does not care if you like it. It just is.” Should be carved in stone. ;- )
(SkS, have reposted this at https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/02/beating-climatedenial-with-better.html )
-
Dcrickett at 12:52 PM on 7 February 2018Humans need to become smarter thinkers to beat climate denial
A few decades ago, back when I was still a member of the working class, I was at a conference on Reliability & Maintainability (R&M) of large and complex manufacturing machines. I went out for dinner and beer with two young German engineers who worked for a competitor to my employer. They were both worried about their employer moving manufacturing to Brazil. Knowing that I am fluent in Spanish, it didn’t take much beer for them to believe that I’m fluent in “Brazilian” also.
I never was able to convince them that the main language of Brazil is Portuguese. (Something to do with the beer, most likely.) But they kept pestering me with “How hard is it to learn Brazilian?” I gave up and told them, “It’s much easier to learn Brazilian than to learn how to live on a Brazilian engineer’s income.”
One of them scowled and said, “That’s not the answer I wanted.” The other said, “The answer does not care if you like it. It just is.” Then he swigged some more beer.
These two young engineers were wiser than climate change deniers: at least they recognized the risk of their jobs being offshored… which did happen, several years later; Dunno know what happened to these two engineers. But at least they did not deny the oncoming peril. That memorable line from “The Boxer” by Simon and Garfunkel, “…still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” did not apply to at least one of the engineers.
Tuning out what they don’t want to hear is not peculiar to climate change deniers and squiffed German engineers only.
-
John McKeon at 10:00 AM on 7 February 2018Humans need to become smarter thinkers to beat climate denial
I just loved the humour in the first video. John, Peter, and David .... you can keep your day jobs. But if you do have trouble in the future, you've got a future. :-)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:52 AM on 7 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj@7,
It is not helpful to think of the issue as a need for 'balance' between competition and cooperation.
Sustainably Justified and meaningfully enforced limits on what is allowed in 'the competition for popularity and profitability' is what is required.
Imagine a system with no rules and many situations where there are limited opportunities to benefit, with everyone 'competing to personally perceive themselves to be better-off than others, thinking they are the Winner'. What is expected to develop in such a system? How does activity beneficial to the future of the collective develop in the system? The people willing to do less acceptable things will Win to the detriment of the collective as long as they can get away with behaving less acceptably. And even if the collective decide to act in 'their best interest' the future generations will likely be the ones to suffer. This is what is happening regarding correction of economic activity in response to the increased awareness and understanding of climate science.
The Sustainable Development Goals are all about the future. Achieving them requires charitable sacrifice of potential personal benefit. And that requires the charitable sacrifice to be shared fairly by all, not requiring that the portion of the population that is willing to make such a sacrifice try to over-come the accumulating damage done by those who care less.
What is required is global awareness and understanding that popularity and profitability competition does not properly distinguish 'what deserves to be encouraged and rewarded' from 'what deserves to be discouraged and penalized'. The economy clearly requires diligent and effective responsible refereeing, contrary to the beliefs of many people including many 'economists'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:26 AM on 7 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
knaugle@8,
It is important to note that climate science deniers are dismissive of women who present climate science or the required changes of human activity, the corrections of developed economic activity, that are exposed by climate science. And the way they attack the women is different than the ways that they attack the men because their target audience includes the portion of the population who will be easily impressed by the way they attack the women.
Note that these disreputable people are not 'threatened by women'. They do not treat women like Ann Coulter the way they treat the likes of Katharine Hayhoe. They are threatened by the reality of the changes of human pursuit of pleasure and profit that are exposed by climate science, regardless of the gender of the person who is helping others be more aware of and better understand climate science. But, admittedly, they hope that some people can be easily appealed to that way because they have other reasons to want to be disrespectful of women.
-
nigelj at 07:33 AM on 7 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Knaugle @8, I pretty much agree. Facts and reasoning do eventually win at least some people over, but it can take time. For example NZ recently passed a gay marriage bill, when just a decade ago majority opinion was firmly against this sort of thing. I have the numbers here for America, but NZ was much the same.
www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
I'm not gay or particularly promoting gay marriage. Its just a good example of how reasoned debate eventually changed attitudes enough for politicians to pass the legislation. There was a lot of debate and information pointing out that gay marriage had no real, tangible implications for anyone apart from the two people involved.
Although in NZ the majority was something like 60 / 40 in parliament, so not a massive majority. Of course religious conviction comes into the issue hugely, but even many christians accepted change.
Of course some people will probably never accept gay marriage just as some people will never consider women as equals. Social conventions and hierarchies go deep, and don't change overnight. It needs a lot of thought and discussion, but attitudes do appear to reach tipping points of change.
-
strop at 07:09 AM on 7 February 2018There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
MA Rodger @175.
I didn't suggest there was a 0.6 increase 1880 to 1940's. My figure was 0.4 (Based on Global).
Your "three quarters would perhaps have been closer to the mark" is not representative of the timeframes the NASA statement refers to. I'll assume you've added the 0.2 you referred to.
Point was, NASA was talking about a portion of a total increase in a shorter timeframe than that overall gain was actually made, when looking at the total period. They have done this to create a narrative and the OP has seized on that to further that narrative.
There's no point selecting a short period to further a theory when the previous short period contradicts that theory. Being selective with data to illustrate a point doesn't work and raises the question of objective credibility.
There may have been some relevance to a rate of gain if a trend was always gaining.
-
knaugle at 07:03 AM on 7 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Why climate deniers target women? Why do they target Nancy Pelosi? Or Hillary Clinton? Or Kirsten Gillibrand? Or Tammy Duckworth? Or a host of other women leaders? I think plain and simply, they are threatened by them. Absolutely it is about the social heirarchy. Until recently, I'd attended a very conservative church where women in leadership simply was not allowed. I'm very familiar with this kind of thinking. You don't win over people of this ilk with facts or reasoning. That just makes them mad and more entrenched in their thinking. Yet you have to try.
-
nigelj at 06:24 AM on 7 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
"The key problem is a lack of a clear and consistent understanding of the justified governing global moral/ethical purpose for members of humanity. Without that clear common understanding the competing instinctive human characteristics of altruism and selfishness are more freely influenced by the social and economic environment a person experiences/learns in, generally to the detriment of altruism. "
Different personality types and different political groups in the USA were united to some extent in the past by huge issues confronting society, including dealing with the great depression of the 1930s, WW2, the cold war, the mission to land a man on the moon, and the widely shared prosperity of the 1950's consumer revolution, and the decades following that. This was until economic changes of ideology in the 1980's that weakened unions and embraced free trade etc.
Things seem different now. We have emptiness, nihilism, high inequality, the benenfits of growth captured by a small minority of people, ideological conflict, and no glue holding society together. Its a very confused, unsettled sort of situation.
"Sustainable development goals" and environmental awareness could be a new project for the 21st century, that unites people, and forces a disciplined balance between competition and cooperation. But its going to be hard persuading the Republican Leadership. Yet an environmentally more sustainable economy will still be a prosperous economy, as new things are developed, and new jobs replace old.
-
nigelj at 05:36 AM on 7 February 2018Humans need to become smarter thinkers to beat climate denial
This sort of critical thinking, logical reasoning,and identification of fallacies should be compulsory at school. It's as important as basic arithmetic, because it applies to so many areas of life including science, politics, business etcetera.
Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of fallacies as below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
It also needs to be pointed out that a science theory requires both causation and a statistically significant correlation, and that denialist myths all lack either one or both of these things. This can help cut through to the core of denialist myths.
-
MA Rodger at 22:40 PM on 6 February 2018There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
strop @174,
The quote you cite from the OP is a little out-of-date today and even back when it was written by NASA, it perhaps was niggardly with its "two-thirds ... since 1975." Three-quarters would perhaps have been closer to the mark.
Today the GISS global temperature record is risen another 0.2 deg warmer. Note that the rise 1880s-to-the-1940s was never 0.6 deg (unless you are not talking global). Even cherry-picking a single year the rise to 1944 was 0.47 deg. But a better measure would be 0.3 deg which is just 0.1 deg above a temperature by 1975. (For the record, the cherry-picked 1944 anomaly was bested in 1981.) So today you can say that more than 70% of the warming since the 1880s has occurred since 1980 and less than 30% before 1940 with a dip of 0.1 deg (10%) between 1940 and 1975.
-
Art Vandelay at 16:24 PM on 6 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #4
Trump will have one and maybe two terms in office if he's lucky, so I can't see his impact on US emissions being in any way significant in the long term. Actually, if there is real economic merit in advnacing renewable energy solutions then Trump will be on board anyway, so ironically his legacy might actually turn out to be positive for climate change mitigation in the USA. Personally, I'm more concerned about emissions growth in the developing world, and along with that other extreme emvironmental impacts stemming mostly from unsustainable population. Net CO2 emissions from OECD countries have peaked and are now tracking slowly downwards, whereas non-OECD emissions are rising stratospherically.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:13 PM on 6 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
The issue is more complex than it is presented. But it can also be understood to be a sub-set of a higher level or more general understanding of what is going on that is not as complex.
The key problem is a lack of a clear and consistent understanding of the justified governing global moral/ethical purpose for members of humanity. Without that clear common understanding the competing instinctive human characteristics of altruism and selfishness are more freely influenced by the social and economic environment a person experiences/learns in, generally to the detriment of altruism. In competitive systems rewarding winners the harmful things a selfish person would be willing to try to get away with can be seen to give them a competitive advantage 'as long and as much as they can get away with it'.
My own view is that the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals are a highly dependable (unlikely to change significantly due to new learning) and comprehensive presentation of the objectives that constitute the Best Governing Global Purpose for Humanity - in my words “developing truly sustainable ways of living and working to constantly improve things by developing even better truly sustainable ways of living with all humans fitting into the robust diversity of life on this planet.”
That perspective leads to a higher level explanation that encompasses what is presented in the article. The following quotes from the article and the related comments are examples of the better higher level explanation:
- “... many men oppose rules and regulations that would change a system that largely benefits them.” This statement makes more sense when generalized to: anyone perceiving a personal benefit from a developed system would oppose rules and regulations (changes) that would reduce their ability to continue to benefit that way.
- “As cognitive linguist George Lakoff writes, hierachs believe that, “in a well-ordered world, there should be (and traditionally has been) a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate.”” In this case there is a more justified moral hierarchy based on the understanding that only truly sustainable activity is allowed to be benefit from by anyone. Those more helpful regarding achieving the Sustainable Development Goals deserve more recognition and reward. Those more harm deserve less respect and more penalty. That change of understanding is a pretty powerful motivation for the many less deserving current Winners to be as mean as they can get away with to try to keep that required change of understanding from occurring.
- “When experts urge governments to regulate industry in order to protect nature, they are subverting the natural order — all the more so when those experts are female. Tree huggers and uppity women both threaten the existing male-dominated hierarchy.” Anyone who is perceived to be threatening the ability of undeserving winners to keep on winning will be attacked any way that can be gotten away with. The current developed society includes many people who are easily impressed by statements that disrespect Women. Sadly, there are many locations where there enough of those easily impressed people in an electoral district to swing the balance of a vote if they all get motivated to vote based on their understandably unacceptable beliefs. That is the basis for regional success of Unite the Right movements around the planet, movements that get away with claiming to be Conservative because many people who consider themselves conservative will excuse nastier aspects of the group they support, like denigration and disrespect of Women, if they see their personal interest being achieved through the collective voting of the United group (and sadly some people vote Conservative just because that is what they learned to do, and they are very unlikely to change their mind).
-
strop at 13:23 PM on 6 February 2018There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
with refernce to there being a 0.8 deg increase in average global temp since 1880, NASA states, "Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade".
It's true that the temp has increased by approx 0.53 deg since 1975, which is two thirds of 0.8. However, the temperature had been higher in the 1940's than in 1975, so the reality is just over half the gain has been since the 1940's, not since 1975. Meaning we've had approx 2 x 60 year periods of 0.4 gains.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:39 PM on 6 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @3:
Although you won't find me disagreeing with the idea that many Americans (especially the current "leadership" in Washington) have a rather low opinion of "collective good" (especially outside their own country), I would characterize our past discussions a little differently from you.
I have tried to focus on what your own beliefs are, to better understand the positions you have taken on the climate science. You seemed unwilling to separate the question of "What do the Americans think...?" from "What does Norris M think...?" [...is the correct way to assess costs].
My impression (right or wrong) is that you have tended to to use the American public perception/attitude as a mechanism to deflect from arguing your own position. You have levelled many criticisms at the science, only to switch to the sociology/politics of others when you haven't been able or willing to continue to argue your criticisms.
Although I have opinions on the sociology and politics, I am first and foremost a climate scientist. I wish that you had continued that science engagement and learned more about it through further engagement on those issues here at SkS.
-
Doug Cannon at 08:15 AM on 6 February 2018New study ‘reduces uncertainty’ for climate sensitivity
I've always thought of climate sensitvity being in 2 parts ala the Charney report. 1C being the direct effect and a multiplier of 3 (+or- 1.5) as the secondary effect from "positive feedbacks" such as water vapor, clouds, albedo, etc.
Assuming that Charney was right (and most studies since then aren't too far off), how does the Transient Climate Response relate to that? I'm assuming it's the 1C direct effect plus some of the faster response multiplier effects. And therefore the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity would be the TCR plus the other, longer response, multiplier effects whichever ones they are.
Am I off base here? (Not so interested in the numbers, I'm really just interested in the concept.) I think I've seen a graphical time plot of these factors in the last IPCC report but I can't find it.
-
nigelj at 05:30 AM on 6 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @3
I agree entirely on the question of individual and collective rights, and your comments on the current Republican Party. Imo the Republicans have recently swung too far on the side of individual rights, at least in the business world and on environmental matters. When it comes to sexual issues and immigrants they still have a different view to some extent, and are happy for the power of the state to severely regulate such things.
We know that for society and the economy to function optimally, we need a balance between individual liberty and community rules, there's no escaping this. It goes right back to people like Aristotle, so theres nothing new in this. Of course its possible to swing too far the other way into over regulating economies and individual behaviour as well. It's always going to be an intelligent, informed balancing act, and will never be perfect.
JS Mill had the correct test when evaluating a problem and how to respond and whether a law is justified. We have to consider the effects of peoples actions on other individuals and also the public good, and whether they cause others significant harm, and/ or erode the liberties of others. It then becomes a question of how we do this, and inevitably one has to consider 1) evidence and 2) science, and 3) simple logic, and this scares some conservatives, because it ultimately leads to things they may not be comfortable with, and a world that constantly changes, and has few absolute certainties apart from scientific laws. The Republicans see a world changing and it scares them.
So In America the Republicans have fallen back to promoting an extreme form of individual liberty, and opposing even obviously sensible environmental rules, and attempts to provide at least some basic universal healthcare.
So yes the Trump administration and current RC is very hostile to considering the costs of climate change beyond Americas shores. This has been reinforced by Trumps dislike of international multi party agreements, and his slight isolationist tendencies. As a proponent of sensible globalism this frutrates me, and America will find it cannot entirely isolate itself from the international effects of climate change, and potential refugee crises, no matter how many walls it builds.
Some form of global cooperation makes more sense, however I do agree with Trump to the extent that countries have to obey international rules, and all pull their weight and not dump their products on other peoples markets etcetera. But Trump and the RC is stupid to want to tear down a global international rules based order, international multi party agreements, or free trade in principle, or expect everyone to renegotiate the Paris accord endlessly just to suit Trump's planet sized ego, and bully boy attitude. It can't be allowed to happen this way.
-
william5331 at 05:11 AM on 6 February 2018Natural gas killed coal – now renewables and batteries are taking over
If I heard the announcement correctly, in Australia, the government is going to give solar panels and batteries to 50,000 homes to mitigate the effects of turning on air conditioners during heat waves. Essentially they are building a new diffuse power station. Their heat waves are getting ever more severe and cause brown outs as people try to keep cool enough to survive.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2017/02/australian-air-conditioning.html
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
NorrisM at 01:38 AM on 6 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj @ 1
I think another factor confusing the the liberal/conservative dichotomy is the continuum between the rights of the individual versus the collective good. My concern is that in the US most Republicans are far on the side of individual liberties and do not care much about the public good (look at their views on medical care). There is no question in my mind that this affects the Republican view about climate change. If Americans are not even concerned about their fellow citizens, it is hard to believe that they will be concerned about the citizens of some small island in the South Pacific or Bangladesh! It is this cynical view of their attitudes that prompted me into a debate (with I believe Bob Loblaw) on how realistic it is to ask Americans to calculate costs of climate change beyond their own shores.
I am awaiting a book by Andrew Sullivan on Conservatism which I expect will be a good read in that Sullivan clearly is someone who believes in Mills' utilitarianism.
-
Swayseeker at 23:26 PM on 5 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Re more drought: When land and air heats more than the sea evaporation from the sea is reduced according to a number of equations. This could be creating more drought conditions. See https://airartist.blogspot.co.za/2018/01/if-coastal-cities-need-more-rain-they.html for graphs, etc
-
KatyD at 19:27 PM on 5 February 2018Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
As the result of a twitter conversation about this H&M graph I did some analysis which you might find interesting - feedback welcome.
https://climatechatter.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/comparing-data
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
nigelj at 05:35 AM on 5 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
This vile nonsense coming from Breitbart about women and other groups is unacceptable, and is a primitive defensive emotive reaction, not a fairly based rational evaluation. However not all people leaning to the right have these views in my experience, and Brietbart are at the outer extreme of the bell curve.
Just simplifying down the qualities discussed in the article. Conservative's have sometimes been categorised in simple dictionary definitions as resistant to social change, and hierarchical and dominant in outlook, while liberals are defined as more accepting of change, egalitarian and accepting of differences, and inclinded to follow where the science leads.
Scientific research shows liberalism and conservatism likely have genetic origins as below.
phys.org/news/2015-08-genes-liberal.html
So these political leanings go deep. and and are not simply learned attitudes and behaviours. Whats more, there are also differences between the sexes with more women leaning conservative, apparently (this may be counter intuitive).
For the record it appears to me both conservative and liberal attitudes, so embracing change and being sceptical of change, have survival value and general moral value, just as society needs some form of hierarchy, but not perhaps an overly rigid one. But for some peculiar evolutionary reason it has lead to two separate political groups of liberals and conservatives. They usually find common ground, but are now at war in America. The conservative attitude of some people towards science and the regulatory role of the state is starting to become very frustrating.
The dominant, hierarchical authoritarian personality type is very concerned with winning and immediate rewards, and does not like anything that gets in the way. Yet while winning and competition has a healthy side, our society can only function, and the environment can only be healthy with some level of rules, and consequences for destructive behaviour that causes people harm, or damages the environment. Dominant personalities tend to be strong on the criminal law, but unwilling to embrace other forms of law.
However I have seen conservatives eventually embrace change, and become strong defenders of the "new normal", and liberals sometimes become more conservative in outlook, so these qualities may not be rigid. This is just purely as a personal observation, but its a frequent one.
So this vile nonsense about women and other groups coming form Briettbart and the alternative right is hopefully coming from an extreme minority. Or at least there are many shades of grey. They are clearly not very self critical, and are unwilling or incapable of change.
-
funkymystic at 04:40 AM on 5 February 2018There's no empirical evidence
Thanks so much MA Rodger and Eclectic!! Very helpful. Also, I think Braden should be added to the list of “Climate Misinformers” on this site. I hate to say it, but several people in my extended network of artists and musicians listen to him and think he’s telling the truth :/
-
Eclectic at 00:35 AM on 5 February 2018There's no empirical evidence
Funkymystic @355 , alas nobody can help you make sense of Gregg Braden's explanation of the graph he shows in his video.
That's because Gregg Braden's ideas are way beyond California Crackpot.
The average climate-denialist grudgingly admits [well, most days of the week] that at least some of the modern rapid global warming is caused by higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere. But Braden is on another planet — he (in his video) claims that as CO2 goes up, it causes temperature to go down. That the CO2 causes cooling !! Marvellous how he can suggest that concept, while keeping a straight face.
Braden's past history also includes other beyond-crazy ideas. Which he tries to flesh out by displaying actual genuine scientific graphs . . . which he fails to interpret in a sane scientific way.
For instance, the ice-core temperature/CO2 charts he displays, are stated by him to apply to the whole Earth's climate, rather than just the local regions from which the cores were taken. Hence his nonsense about the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) being hotter than today's worldwide climate. And he is obsessed by "natural cycles" (which cannot explain the recent rocketing planetary temperature). He gazes at cycles (whether regular or irregular, whether Milankovitch-related or not) and he seems oblivious to the basic physical fact that changes in planetary climate must be caused by actual physical effects — they don't just happen because "it's time for them to happen".
Funkymystic, please have good read through Climate Myth Number 12 "CO2 Lags Temperature" [which you will find via the Home Page here, top left portion]. That will explain the complex feedback link between global atmospheric CO2 and the advance & recession of "ice ages" & interglacials. You will soon see how Braden has made a colossal error in understanding things. Doubtless Mr Braden has had these things pointed out to him on various occasions — but it seems he is not interested in scientific truth.
Prev 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 Next
