Or, rather, how do you believe?
Though I’ve always thought this was fairly obvious, a recent story from Christopher Joyce at NPR has addressed how a person’s stance on global warming and climate change (or any issue really) tends to rely far more on one’s “World View” rather than on science or facts. This is based on research done by the The Cultural Cognition Project – a group of scholars who study how cultural values shape public perceptions and policy beliefs.
Regardless of the information provided, a person is more likely to credit whatever information best supports their mindset, and simply reject that which doesn’t.
It doesn’t matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information, says Don Braman, a faculty member at George Washington University and part of the Cultural Cognition Project.
It seems the pre established perspective an individual has when confronting facts and information has a far greater effect on how the person will react than the information itself. Having had many fruitless “conversations” with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers I don’t find this very shocking at all. And that’s not to say that AGW deniers are the only ones who do it – everyone does it to at least some extent. The question people should always ask themselves is “Am I at least attempting to be objective in my understanding and comprehension of this information?”
Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values, says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The Cultural Cognition Project.
This is why it is not shocking to me at all that anti-evolutionists are not also frequently AGW deniers, but that they are now trying to further their anti-science crusades by linking the two, and allowing anti-evolution messaging to piggy back off of anti-global warming messaging.
There is a lesson here for all of us however, while this further illuminates the true reasons behind AGW denialism, those who are fighting the propaganda and misinformation must relentlessly ensure that our information is factual, correct, and not tarnished by our own personal feelings or motives. This is probably impossible to do completely, but mindfulness alone should help a great deal.
###
By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
I am a scientist (PhD in Nuclear/Health Physics) so I am well versed in the scientific method (as well as epidemiology, where you look at multiple factors causing a condition).
By looking at raw evidence, (satellite data, CO2 absorption spectra, historical CO2 and temperature data, solar cycles, sunspot activity, etc.) and applying basic analysis techniques (particularly Argument from First Principles), I do not see any real evidence that CO2 (particularly Human produced CO2) is causing any significant climate change.
My main objections to the CO2 will cause catastrophic Climate Change are as follows:
1. CO2 lags rather than leads global temperatures over the long term.
2. In the near term, CO2 levels to not correlate at all with temperatures, (but temperatures correlate very strongly with sunspot activity, particularly in the last century)
3. CO2 absorbs a very narrow window of the solar spectrum, which is only capable of raising the equilibrium global temperature a few degrees.
No one has ever been able to address any of these concerns.
I have yet to see any cogent evidence that human produced CO2 is altering the climate in any way. All that I have seen are ad hominem attacks (sceptical scientists are paid off by oil companies) arguments from authority (all those “peer reviewed” papers can’t be wrong) or computer models. No physical/testable/falsifiable evidence has ever been produced that I have seen.
Also I have yet to see any evidence that the current climate is in any way outside of natural variability. Much less that there is any evidence of any crisis. More reporting of bad events but no statistical evidence that they are increasing.
There are so many factors that influence climate, but the sole focus seems to be on CO2. All proposed “Solutions” to the so called climate “crisis” involve unprecedented consolidation of government power, surveillance, and monitoring of more and more of our lives. All in the name of reducing one’s “carbon footprint”.
It doesn’t look to be anything at all about the environment. It’s looks to me to be all about control.
Sorry I’m not buying.
[...] Block bulwark Ryan Rittenhouse spent last weekend in Matagorda County to meet with representatives of the No Coal Coalition in Bay [...]
Meresa:
Thank you for your heartfelt post and from refraining from any belligerent or insulting remarks. I appreciate that you are a PhD in Nuclear and Health Physics, but I must point out that you are not a climatologist. Neither of your fields, in fact, have anything to do with climatology or even geology. That is fine, and I do not mean to accuse you of proclaiming yourself a climatologist in any way – you have not. I simply wish to express the fact that you are no more an expert on these issues than any other well-researched individual (which I am).
I am not a climatologist either, but I have spent years following and researching this subject. I have also spent many long hours debating “denialists” who refuse to acknowledge the science and only rely upon propaganda from talk radio and Fox News. You do not seem to be this typical ilk of denialist, but you are resorting to many of their claims and are reiterating much of the misinformation spread around by that crowd.
For instance, you list a number of commonly dispelled denier myths and then claim: “No one has ever been able to address any of these concerns.” I will now address them one by one.
“1. CO2 lags rather than leads global temperatures over the long term.”
This is partially true and has never been disputed by any climatologists (that I know of). The statement, however, is fundamentally flawed in the understanding of global climate and leads to a false conclusion. No scientists make the argument that CO2 is the ONLY factor contributing to global warming/climate change. No scientist (again, that I’ve seen) would ever even suggest that co2 is, solely, the most powerful factor in guiding the earth’s climate. The sun is, most likely, the most powerful factor of climate change in general – historically speaking. However, as with CO2, the sun is not the ONLY factor contributing to climate change. There are other factors as well, and they all interrelate and affect one another, providing feedback mechanisms and other effects. Just because CO2 has rarely been the leading factor of climate change does not mean that it is not a contributing factor. This is a common misconception that needs to be clarified time and time again it seems.
“2. In the near term, CO2 levels to not correlate at all with temperatures, (but temperatures correlate very strongly with sunspot activity, particularly in the last century)”
Again, solar cycles are admittedly as powerful (if not more so) in terms of climate change. However, sun activity has been decreasing steadily since the 1970′s and still the global temperature is increasing – this is as expected in regards to man-made global warming gas emissions.
“3. CO2 absorbs a very narrow window of the solar spectrum, which is only capable of raising the equilibrium global temperature a few degrees.”
This is not entirely true. CO2 actually absorbs a much wider window of the solar spectrum than say, water vapor (which you may have heard a lot about in regards to global warming), and the potential for increasing the earth’s temperature is quite considerable. The greenhouse properties of CO2 have long been known and studied, and it’s affects on the earth’s temperature are quite profound. If concentrations of CO2 pass 450ppm in the atmosphere we are in serious danger (we are quickly approaching 400).
For more on all three of these points please see these YouTube channels – both these video makers have produced many videos particularly well suited to disproving many of these denier myths.
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610
This one specifically talks about your last comment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/18/PoSVoxwYrKI
As you can see, all of these concerns have been addressed repeatedly.
The fact of the matter is that there is overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and trying to discredit the plethora of peer-reviewed research on the subject simply by adopting an anti-majority attitude is irresponsible. I am not against skepticism, I encourage it. Health science depends on it, and AGW has received plenty of proper skepticism. The fact remains that most of the very few “experts” (not all touted “experts” who disagree with AGW are actually qualified) who dispute AGW ARE on the payroll of big energy, and are not disproving AGW through science or contrary experiments. They aren’t publishing contrasting evidence. They are simply spreading propaganda in front of a camera. If they disagree, fine. Let them publish. Otherwise it’s just more inane propaganda. It doesn’t matter how qualified the mouth is that’s spouting it.
The recent warming trend, which can only be explained through AGW, is quite fast and quite startling. See this article for more on how mankind is fueling the greatest mass-extinction event since the dinosaurs:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/08
You are right in being concerned with “government’s” response to AGW and the supposed “solutions.” But not agreeing or approving of what a government may or may not do in relation to AGW has no bearing on whether the science is sound or not. I don’t like cap and trade. I don’t want to see companies profiting off of carbon trading. Something far more meaningful needs to be done, and hopefully it will. But the fact remains that most industry in this country, particularly the most pollutive ones, are not regulated properly and are causing massive harm and death. This has always been true in regards to all emissions, but the potential for harm has never been greater than that of global warming gasses.
Please let me know of any further concerns or questions you might have that I might be able to address. Thanks again for your post.
“No scientists make the argument that CO2 is the ONLY factor contributing to global warming/climate change.”
Then *why* does every single “solution” to the so called “climate crisis” focus solely on CO2? Why the hysteria over “carbon footprint”? All these carbon tax/carbon rationing schemes involve government surveillance/monitoring/control of our personal lives on an unprecedented scale. Is that what you want? I most certainly do not.
I already live in a smaller home, drive a small fuel efficient car, carpool/walk/bike etc., and use less energy in three years than AlGore uses in a month. I do these by choice because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t need a government looking over my shoulder with its gun pointed at my head to get me to do so
“However, sun activity has been decreasing steadily since the 1970’s and still the global temperature is increasing ”
Sun SPOT activity. NOT solar output/activity in general. And no it has NOT been decreasing. It goes up and down via mechanisms we are just beginning to understand. We are currently experiencing a dearth of sunspot activity, and global temperatures are flat and/or falling. In the prior solar cycle, activity was uncharacteristically high and temperatures increased rapidly, which is what started the current Global Warming hysteria in the first place. And don’t forget the Maunder Minimum and the associated Little Ice Age.
“The greenhouse properties of CO2 have long been known and studied, and it’s affects on the earth’s temperature are quite profound. If concentrations of CO2 pass 450ppm in the atmosphere we are in serious danger (we are quickly approaching 400)”
Ah, yes, the so called “tipping points”. I have heard these arguments too. The trouble is, that if our climate were that unstable it would not have persisted for millions of years in its current form, since CO2 levels have been higher in the past (Just like temperatures).
“The fact of the matter is that there is overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and trying to discredit the plethora of peer-reviewed research on the subject simply by adopting an anti-majority attitude is irresponsible.”
You still haven’t given any real *evidence* for the “CO2 will cause certain catastrophe” hypothesis, only Appeals to Authority/Ad Hominem and more computer models.
Nobody denies that the climate changes, nobody denies that human activity can have a detrimental effect on the environment, and even on climate. It’s the *degree* to which it is claimed, and how that part is used to justify draconian government taxes, surveillance and downright control.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/six-myths-about-deniers
I may not be a “climate scientist”, but then you don’t have to be a clothing expert to see that the King is severely under-dressed, if not outright naked.
CO2 concentrations are not the only factor in general – from a historical perspective. However, it is, by far, the biggest factor contributing to the CURRENT warming trend.
Though you may not, there are many “denialists” who do believe all the things you list as them not believing – such as the fantasy that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas (I know, I’ve talked with them). That you do not subscribe to such nonsense is wonderful, but there are those who do.
You cannot dump hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and expect there to be no, or even “little,” effect. We have greatly increased the concentration of carbon dioxide. That is undeniable – it is measurable. If you want to deny that such an increase is significant to global climate then you may – but it flies in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus.
If you want to try and convince me otherwise then go for it – but please cite research, not online blogs or journalistic publications. Where is the evidence? All the contrary theories from people such as Lindzen have been well examined and found lacking to account for current warming. They also (unless there is a study I have not seen) only suggest other leading factors (such as water vapor and cloud cover), and in no way disprove the evidence that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas.
To address some of your points: sun spots are sun activity – they are part of what is studied and examined along with sun cycles, etc. Overall this activity has been decreasing and thus cannot account for current warming trends. If you have contrary evidence please provide it, I am eager to examine it.
Global temperature is NOT decreasing. This is a very commonly repeated myth. The last decade has been the warmest on record and there is nothing suggesting that global temperatures will start decreasing in the future. 2009 was one of the hottest years on record. Remember, it is not year by year comparisons that are important but the overall trend over decades that matters.
I’m not sure what you mean by our climate being “that unstable” or that it has “persisted for millions of years in its current form.” I don’t know why anyone would think that doubling the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere would be a small or common occurrence. Nor do I know why you think that our climate has been “stable” for millions of years. At times when CO2 was much higher than now the earth was either much warmer or there were other factors working to offset those effects (such as lower sun activity, etc.). The very same scientists who are proponents of AGW know far more about all these historical periods than either you or I, I am sure. That includes the Marauder Minimum and the Little Ice Age – as well as all the other climate periods of our past.
I’m not sure what your last statement is supposed to mean or suggest. You appear to be attempting to trivialize and dumb down this discussion to the level of a children’s fable and I would hope for more respect than that. If you listen to talk radio or watch Fox News then I highly suggest you look elsewhere for your information and your opinion-forming material. They may seem reliable and may appear to be “pushing the envelope” on this issue, but all they are really doing is clouding the issue and promoting misinformation.
Thank you for your interest and your posts. If there was something specific you wanted me to respond to and I failed to do so sufficiently please let me know and I will respond in more detail.
> You cannot dump hundreds of millions of tons of
> CO2 into the atmosphere and expect there to be no,
> or even “little,” effect. We have greatly increased the
> concentration of carbon dioxide. That is undeniable
> – it is measurable. If you want to deny that such an
> increase is significant to global climate then you may
> – but it flies in the face of
> overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus.
That is a matter of perspective.
Consider that the atmosphere has trillions of tonnes of gas so that is actually not that significant a fraction.
“ppm” is parts per *million*. Increasing CO2 from 250 to 380 ppm is an increase of 130 ppm, or 1.3 percent of 1 percent (0.00013). That hardly qualifies as “greatly”. CO2 is still a *trace* gas.
Again, there is *no* experimental evidence for the hypothesis that this insignificant addition of a trace gas will cause catastrophic or even mild climate change. Even the so-called “consensus” you claim is a sham. Many bona fide climate scientists who disagree with this hypothesis have been slandered, attacked and even blacklisted. That is not how science is done. (or not how it is supposed to be done anyway).
> I’m not sure what you mean by our climate being “that
> unstable” or that it has “persisted for millions of years in
> its current form.”
I am referring to the dire warnings put forth by alarmists that if CO2 reaches a certain level we will reach a “tipping point” where temperatures will run away and the earth will become uninhabitable (similar to Venus). This is patently ridiculous since CO2 levels have been much higher in the past than they are today, and the global temperatures did not irreversibly “run away” to inhospitable levels.
By stable (not the best word I admit but the best one I could find) I do not mean static. The climate varies significantly over long time scales, but is stable over that range.
> The very same scientists who are proponents of AGW
> know far more about all these historical periods than
> either you or I, I am sure.
> If you listen to talk radio or watch Fox News then I highly
> suggest you look elsewhere for your information and
> your opinion-forming material.
Again you are resorting to Arguments from Authority and Ad Hominem attacks. If I had tried to pull that kind of tactic on my doctoral defence, I would have been laughed out of the room, and wouldn’t have earned my degree.
I do not base my opinion on “talk radio”, I look at evidence. And I have yet to see *any* experimental evidence that CO2 will cause catastrophic Climate Change. Especially not the small amount of CO2 that we humans are capable of producing at maximum.
Show me the *evidence*. All you have produced so far is Ad Hominem attacks, Arguments from Authority, and Computer models that don’t even conform to experiment.
If that is all that you have, then you have nothing.
Trying to suggest that CO2 is a “trace gas” and that it’s impact is not significant means that you think that the greenhouse properties of CO2 must not be contributing to the greenhouse effect we currently see on the planet.
This flies in the face of decades if not centuries of scientific research and consensus opinion. Just because a chemical or element is present in very small concentrations does not mean it cannot have an enormous effect. Consider blood alcohol levels, or arsenic, or dioxins. Trying to dismiss CO2 by saying it is, overall, a very small percentage of the gas mix in our atmosphere expresses a profound and fundamental flaw in your understanding of how such things work.
As I’ve already stated, and you conveniently ignored, if CO2 levels were higher in the past this effect was offset by some other factor (like lower sun activity, etc.) or else the earth was warmer.
Your comment about stability is a good one, because it is very pertinent to current global warming. You are right, though temperatures have been higher, and much lower, in the past, the climate and the world’s ecosystems have been much more “stable.” This is largely because those changes took place over thousands if not millions of years. The current rate of change is dramatically fast and startlingly abrupt (geologically speaking). That is one of the main reasons why this increase of CO2 and the resulting warming trend is of such concern. Thanks for bringing that up.
I made no ad hominem attacks. It is you who are doing so by suggesting my character is such. Most of the deniers I have talked to get most of their talking points, etc. from either talk radio or Fox News. That is not conjecture, that is fact. Because many of your talking points are quite similar I am wondering if they are sourced from the same place – I simply suggested that IF you used them as a reference you might want to reconsider the source. You claim they are not, but you have yet to provide any source or any basis whatsoever for your claims other than your own, personal opinion, so where are you getting your information if not these sources? You are not a climatologists. You have not conducted any research on this matter, and you’ve yet to submit any references to any studies I might reference to support your claims and accusations.
Your failure to do proper research is not my fault. A Google Scholar search (I trust you know how to do this) will yield you thousands of peer-reviewed articles relating to anthropogenic CO2 releases and any other related topic you might want to read up on. I suggest you start there. If you can find me one such article that supports what you are saying (namely that existing concentrations of CO2 do not contribute to the greenhouse effect, and therefore the increasing of this concentration will not affect it either) then please post a link to it so I can be “enlightened.” So far the only articles I have ever read on the subject (over the course of years) have supported anthropogenic global warming.
And stop crying about “Many bona fide climate scientists who disagree with this hypothesis have been slandered, attacked and even blacklisted.” This is completely untrue unless you have evidence to back up this ridiculous claim. I have seen the clips from propaganda pieces like “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and similar nonsense. Yet again your posts and messaging seems to be sourced in these types of references, not valid, referenced material.
To start you out with something to refute – Wikipedia references this publication:
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf
when it ranks the contributing gases that create the greenhouse effect, putting CO2 at number 2 behind water vapor. Water vapor contributing between 36–72%, CO2 contributing between 9–26%, then methane at between 4–9% (though much more potent than CO2 it exists at far less concentrations… does that mean, since it is such a small percentage of our atmosphere, that you deny that methane contributes to the greenhouse effect as well?).
Kiehl and Trenberth do point out that they believe that “In discussing increases in greenhouse gases and their impact on climate change, the dominant contribution of water vapor to the current greenhouse effect is often overlooked.” However, nowhere in this article do they suggest that CO2 is not one of the major factors in the greenhouse effect, and in fact their study relies upon that well established and understood fact. Nor do they suggest that, like CO2, the effects of water vapor have been either increasing or decreasing – which is logical as we have not been adding or removing water vapor from global cycles (as we have been doing with CO2, Methane, etc.).
Remember, without ANY GHG’s the earth would be a lifeless rock with temperatures varying dramatically between sunlight and darkness. The changes we are talking about in relation to CO2 increases are, compared to overall GHG concentrations, quite small – but in terms of what the implications are to our climate and our way of life they are very large.
I look forward to your response.