Agnostic.com

8 2

Just wondering if someone can answer me this?

When climate-change deniers claim that climate change is all a hoax, what exactly is the point of the hoax? Why do they believe that virtually all the scientists in the world are trying to fool us? Do the deniers really think the scientists of the world are in an unethical evil global conspiracy with the politicians of the world to take over the world through...a carbon tax?

Heraclitus 8 Dec 4
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

“There are five attributes of ideologues:

  1. Absence of doubt
  2. Intolerance of debate
  3. Appeal to authority
  4. A desire to convince others of the ideological “truth”
  5. A willingness to punish those that don’t concur
    In the climate communication world, it has become very trendy to wear your political ideology on your sleeve. How many ‘climate science communicators’ can you name that have at least 4 of the above attributes of ideologues with regards to climate change?“
    Judith Curry
1

I’ve seen a nice little meme about this which basically says:

Climate change a hoax:

World cleaned up = cleaner more healthy and sustainable environment
World not cleaned up = Nothing much changes

Climate change real:

World cleaned up = continued existence
World not cleaned up = a lot of animals die

I’m guessing a lot of the educated, (for want of a better word), hoax claimers have family money that will keep their progeny alive regardless.

So, climate deniers are essentially wealthy elitists who think they can buy their way out of the coming disaster? Could be, but if so, it seems that their arrogance and selfishness would be exceeded only by their foolishness.

@Heraclitus it’s just a theory, I’m hoping time won’t tell and we’ll pull through together somehow. Of course being middle aged I may not live to see that! 🙂

1

Because they’d rather it wasn’t true so that they don’t have to change the way they live to a less consumeristic one. They prefer to believe that it’s a massive conspiracy even if the evidence shows that it is otherwise. It is too uncomfortable for them to believe the truth and they prefer to cling to the belief that the denier lobby, largely funded by multinational energy corporations, is right and not the scientific community. There is absolutely no logic to thinking that it’s all a gigantic conspiracy perpetrated globally on us by scientists and politicians, but logic is not high on the list of attributes of bible believers which most of these deniers are.

Good point. Greed, selfishness, and laziness trumps logic, reason, and intelligence.

0

“Virtually” means truly, and it is NOT true that all scientists believe that drastic measures are called for in connection with global warming.

[journals.ametsoc.org]

Large numbers of climate scientists are not alarmed, giving the following reasons:

The rate of warming is very slow, only 0.13C/decade. That rate of warming is hard to detect amongst the wild daily and seasonal changes and regional variations. The current warming trend could easily reverse to a cooling trend at any time.

Climate models are not accurate. The average of all climate models predicted twice the warming that has actually occurred.

It is not known what percentage of the warming is caused by human produced CO2. There are natural forces at play, such as solar cycles, all of which are not well understood.

Not all “deniers” claim there is a conspiracy. It is more like mob action actually, caused by irrational fear and unthinking herd instinct, rushing to judgment with a religious-like zeal.

First of all, "verily" means truly. "Virtually" means almost or nearly. Secondly, the referenced article is about meteorologists' views, or the views of weather forecasters, not about climatologists. There is a significant difference. Thirdly, this very article says " 97% of climate experts who publish primarily on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature indicated they were convinced" and THAT is the significant percentage, not how many weathermen were convinced. Fourthly, the 2009 study that is referred to is 10 years old and a huge amount of additional convincing data have been collected in the last 10 years that makes any 2009 study obsolete. Even back then, 97% of professional climate experts were convinced and the remaining 3% were not climate deniers, they just were withholding their opinions until further evidence was found and I find that understandable. In the succeeding 10 years that 97% has become virtually (nearly) 100%.

That said, thanks for the reference, I will study it further.

@Heraclitus OK, I was wrong on the meaning of “virtually”, but now you are talking about nearly 100%. Science is not done by consensus, but there are plenty of knowledgeable climate scientists who are not alarmed:

[newsmax.com]

Here’s a recent book, The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change”” that might interest those with open minds:

[link.springer.com]

@WilliamFleming
First, I certainly agree that mob hysteria is not the answer. Keep in mind that is the main thrust of the letter referenced, not that climate change is not real.

Secondly, I agree that science is not done by consensus. The consensus comes, or may not come, after the science is done. But, if you are not persuaded by the nearly unanimous consensus of the climate science experts, then what will convince you? Anything... before it is too late?

Thirdly, when the names of this global group were revealed it became highly controversial because it revealed that few professional climate experts were involved and the scientists in "related fields" often had very little if any recognized expertise in climate change. Many were political activists who also had science degrees. Simply having a science degree, in a different field is irrelevant. If you are not convinced by climate experts why would you be convinced by a scientists in a "related" field. Nevertheless, keep in mind they were not denying climate change, just challenging "mob hysteria" and "climate alarmism."

Fourthly, the claim by NewsMax that the eight points made are "eight straightforward and readily verifiable facts" is simply false. They are often neither straightforward nor verifiable facts, and I will address each one in turn:

  1. Maybe. It depends on what you consider to be an emergency. I would concede that indeed there is no emergency...yet. Many think I am too being too conservative.
  2. Yes, of course, but this ignores the fact that natural climate variations are being considered in the models. In fact, the natural climate cycle we are in is a cooling cycle. Otherwise, global warming would be worse than it already is.
  3. According to what prediction? There have been some overly alarmist predictions in the past, such as that by the politician Al Gore. However, the vast majority of climate change experts have made moderate predictions that have proven to be too conservative according to more recent data that shows that positive feedback loops are accelerating warming. And that is where the alarmism is coming from.
  4. This is a statement about political policy not about the science. And guess what? In some states, such as North Carolina, they ARE using an inadequate climate model. They are using outdated and more conservative climate models and have out-lawed using the more recent research that shows that climate change is happening faster than anticipated, the opposite of what is implied. Also, the statement that they "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial" is false to the point of being silly. No scientist or model ignores that CO2 is beneficial to plants. It is just that excessive CO2 in the atmosphere is not beneficial to our species.
    By the way, I would accept that climate scientists are using incomplete models, but not inadequate models.
  5. Of course, CO2 is plant food. So what? This has nothing to do with the concerns about climate change. This too, is a silly claim in the argument.
  6. Not true that there is "no statistical evidence", just that there is no conclusive statistical proof. Climate scientists have made it clear time and again you cannot simply point to a weather event and directly relate it to climate change. This represents a misunderstanding of the difference between weather and climate. There is no conclusive statistical proof that smoking will give you lung cancer either, but there is certainly plenty of statistical evidence. Speaking of the misuse of so-called statistics, the argument that we shouldn't use wind turbines because they kill birds and bats is silly. The number of birds killed by wind turbines is absolutely minuscule compared to the millions of birds killed by cats. Should we get rid of all the cats in the world? It also ignores the fact that as wind turbines are being outlawed from known bird migratory paths, and that birds themselves seem to be learning to avoid wind turbines, the numbers are decreasing considerably. Besides, not to be unconcerned, but a few dead birds and bats are the least of our worries.
  7. Yes, policies must respect scientific and economic realities. Net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050 may indeed be unrealistic by 2050, though I would use the word "improbable". But, this is no cause for giving in and giving up. We already have existing nascent technologies that could turn things around if we only got serious and truly invested in them as a society. And what is the alternative?
  8. Of course, an honest climate science debate is warranted, and there has been too little of it, including this NewsMax article.

Oh, and thanks for the book reference. I'll read it though I may not be able to get to it right away. May I suggest a book to you? The 2016 book, Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know by Joseph Romm.

And may I add that though we may not see things exactly the same way I appreciate the honest debate from you. Too little of it.

@Heraclitus My mind is not totally made up. I’ll put your recommended book on my list. I’m sure it is readily available, unlike Rex Fleming’s book which appears to have been suppressed. I will not argue any of those eight points pro or con. My point is that there are numerous highly qualified climate scientists who urge restraint. There are ideologues on both sides of the debate, but alarmists appears to be winning in the political arena.

One reason I am not very worried is that a radical new method of generating power is upon us, and will be announced soon. Mark my words.

@WilliamFleming I am not against a certain amount of restraint, just self-destructive delay, denial, and dishonesty. Thanks again for the debate and the references.

@Heraclitus

[judithcurry.com]

@WilliamFleming Ah, yes, the Lukewarmers! Actually, they had a fairly strong case until a few years ago and were right to question some of the modeling inadequacies, especially that of the troposphere. Keep in mind this is just a subset of climate change modeling. But, unfortunately, several things are left out of the analysis:

  1. The Great Satellite Debate. Deniers often jumped on the fact that earlier satellite data as it did not show much warming in the troposphere in particular. In fact, it had appeared to plateau. Then it was discovered that the degradation of satellite orbits had not been taken into account. Once this correction was made the temperatures were revised upwards. Of course, by then, the Deniers had already been crying "Hoax!"
  2. Initially, the satellite data analysis did not (adequately) take into account climate forcings such as La Nina, volcanic activity, cycles of intensity variation of the sun's radiation and changes in the earth's orbit and angling. It turned out that once these short-term cooling effects were accounted for the plateauing disappeared and expected warming was displayed. Of course, by then, the Deniers had already been crying "Hoax!"
  3. Earlier models WERE inadequate in that CC experts did not realize how much of global warming was being absorbed by the deep ocean as this is very tough to measure. This meant that the troposphere modeling predictions were too high, but this simply meant that much of the heat was going elsewhere. This was when much of the focus of CC turned to future sea-level rise. Of course, by then, the Deniers had already been crying "Hoax!"
  4. CC feedback mechanisms had been generally assumed to have little effect on global warming and was largely dismissed as insignificant. Unfortunately, there is a second and more serious reason why CC feedback mechanisms have been largely ignored. Their long-term effects are not well-understood, as we have very little experience with them, and consequently, they are quite difficult to model. However, the latest data show that CC feedback mechanisms are having MORE impact on global warming, not less, and consequently the overall CC models needed to be revised with upwards predictions. It is these recent revisions that have lead to a resurgence of the CC Alarmist movement that you now see on almost a global basis.

As I said earlier, climate change modeling is incomplete. Climate change modeling is evolving and there is no question that today's modeling is better than yesterday's, and tomorrow's will be better than today's. But, as of today, the best data shows that most prior, especially recent modeling which had pretty much eliminated the more extreme scenario predictions, was inadequate in the sense that they led to an UNDERESTIMATION of the rate of climate change. I remember a presentation on TV 10-12 years ago that predicted that the beginning public observation of climate change effects that we are seeing now would not occur until about 2030. Frankly, I hope that today's' CC feedback mechanism modeling is exaggerated and that the LukeWarmers turn out to be right after all. But based on everything I have heard and read in the last year...I don't think so.

@Heraclitus Satellite measurements show the worldwide average temperature to be drifting upward at a slow rate, but this chart shows the continental US to be cooling since 2016:

[ncdc.noaa.gov]

@WilliamFleming That's right. In spite of the fact that the continental US has been cooling the global rate is rising, which means that the rest of the earth is experiencing greater warming than the average would indicate. So, why is the continental US cooling? There is an increasingly unstable polar vortex due to artic amplification. The west to east jet stream is weakening due to the decreasing temperate differential. When this happens the north to south pressures predominate more. Since there is no such thing as north of the north pole, this means that there is increasing southern pressure on the jet stream. This leads to meandering waves of cold air known as Rossby waves. But worse, due to the weakening of the jet stream pressures, which would normally serve as a corrective, the Rossby waves tend to stall out or get stuck for extended periods. This results in cold wave after cold wave. What have we been experiencing in the US lately? That's right, cold wave after cold wave. This is exactly what climate science predicts. Nevertheless, US Deniers use this very phenomenon to claim that climate change is a hoax.

1

It is the rabbit caught in the headlights of an on coming car reaction, to simply freeze.
It is complex but it is the natural reaction of some people when faced with immediate and inevitable danger to simply deny it.
They know it is illogical to deny the inevitable but out of sheer desperation do so.
It is akin to your mother telling you that if you ignore the bully he or she will go away.
When asked what reason "THE GOVERNMENT" could have for such a conspiracy, they will ignore that too, "who knows why they do what they do? They are the government"
Why would most of the scientific establishment be involved?
"Oh well scientists you know what they are like"

Years ago when there was a flood it was "God is angry", then it was "Witchcraft", then it was "Scientists pressing buttons, making explosions and giving us rotten weather in the summertime" and today it is "The government is not protecting us properly and blaming climate change trying to shift the blame on to us!"

Freeze, ignore it, blame someone else, deny it!
Then go back to pumping tons of shit in to the air so you can drive a big car, fill your home with fossil fuel guzzling unnecessary energy consuming devices to dry your hair, polish your toe nails and perm your cat.

This reminds me of the Kübler-Ross model of the 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. The deniers are still stuck in denial. Most of us, especially the youth, are in the anger stage. The bargaining stage will start when we actually begin to get serious and have to bargain about which sacrifices we are willing to make to address the crisis. The depression stage will set in when it becomes obvious that we have done too little too late. The acceptance stage will be for the survivors who eventually come to terms with the fate and foolishness of the human race.

@Heraclitus I had not thought of it like that, but yes you are absolutely right

1

Most of them were educated by religion. Which has an opposite approach to truth as it is normally framed. Saying that truth is that which confirms what you want to believe, as opposed to the normal and scientific approach, which are the normal that, truth is truth regardless of what you want to believe, and the scientific view that the most valuable truth is that which, goes against what you want to believe.

When once you are in that mindset, then anything is possible.

Good point that the deniers are often religious in motivation. Some bible-thumpers say that climate change cannot occur because of Joshua 10:14 which says the sun stood still. Though this appears to have nothing to do with climate change, they claim it means that God controls the climate and that humans cannot change it no matter what they do.

0

I always hear people say something like, "If global warming is real, then why is it snowing?" They just assume it must be fake because they can't personally see the effects of it and/or know too little about it. That can be said about most things that people don't understand, though.

Yes, but first of all, that is generic global warming, not the extreme weather effects predicted by climate change. Though I suppose the answer to that is that they are ignorant of the difference. But, more importantly, how is snow a hoax? Let alone a Chinese snow hoax? And what is the purpose of this snow hoax?

1

They think its a Chinese plot to take over the world. No kidding.

Yes, but the Chinese are doing more to combat climate change than we are. So, does that mean that the Chinese have been fooled by their own hoax?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:434410
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.