• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The psychology of climate change denial

ataraxia said:
That’s all in the textbooks.

Any standard textbook on the subject can help answer your questions. Have you read them?

Do you believe in any other science? Or is it just this particular topic? Why?
Click to expand...

“For reasons that are both obvious and highly functional, science textbooks (and too many of the older histories of science) refer only to that part of the work of past scientists that can easily be viewed as contributions to the statement and solution of the texts' paradigm problems. Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of early ages are implicitly represented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method has made seem scientific.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
 
ataraxia said:
The models all vary in their risk assessment, but all agree that it’s high enough that it needs to be taken very seriously. It’s a little bit like how it’s difficult to predict how much smoking will increase a particular individuals risk for cancer or emphysema . But it is high enough that most authorities would strongly recommend they stop.

It does not mean that risk assessment is not scientific or incorrect.
Click to expand...
No they don't, the models are all over the place, based on what assumptions are used for inputs.
The actual model range is far larger than the stated ECS range, with some coming out with an ECS of .8 C and other with an ECS over 10 C.
Attempts to reduce the uncertainty, seem to mostly look at limiting the low end, while the high end is actually easier to limit.
We have a know input warming of .28 C before 1950, so all those feedbacks would have to act on that input.
This means that the upper end of the 1.5 to 4.5 C range is not possible, based on the observed data.
We need to find a replacement for fuel from oil, but not because of CO2 emissions!
 
WCH said:
I think it is being dealt with by the free market but, I doubt your side will be satisfied without big government using it as a reason. to tax the crap out of us. After all your side has hysterically put a time limit on our very existence.
Click to expand...

Regulations would only materially impact industries that actually contribute to climate change. It would not be used as a blanket reason to "tax the crap out of us".

Sorry, but that's just a scare tactic used to frighten people into compliance.
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, it's a scientific argument, not politics, and you're just parading your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Then publish your scientific findings, collect your Nobel prize, including fame and fortune while sticking it to all those "liberals" posing as scientists. What's stopping you? It seems to be so simple to turn an entire branch of science on its head even a random guy on the internet can do it!

Perhaps start small, publish a paper about how humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could never have an effect. Should be easy.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Then publish your scientific findings, collect your Nobel prize, including fame and fortune while sticking it to all those "liberals" posing as scientists. What's stopping you? It seems to be so simple to turn an entire branch of science on its head even a random guy on the internet can do it!

Perhaps start small, publish a paper about how humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could never have an effect. Should be easy.
Click to expand...

The work has already been done.

Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)
 
ataraxia said:
I have been very puzzled at the rhetoric and arguments of climate deniers. It has seemed really odd how readily, for example, they deny the strong and unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet, but jump all over a Manhattan real estate guy’s Declaration that it’s all just a Chinese hoax. No amount of evidence seems to be enough. They either deny it, or twist it, or just grasp at any crazy website or charlatan they can find who may have an opposing opinion. It just seems so disconnected from reality and reason.

It did not make sense, until I saw this article about why otherwise rational people can become climate change deniers, young earth creationists, believe in ESP and UFO abduction stories, deny modern medicine and think they can treat their rececently diagnosed cancer with all-natural herbal teas and yoga, become an anti-vaxxer, etc...

It’s a psychological optical illusion: when scientific facts are so unfamiliar, so uncomfortable, so against one’s view of what the world is like or should be, that it becomes preposterous to accept it. So they start to see their skepticism as being smart. The science, so readily accepted in other areas, becomes a conspiracy to destroy capitalism or give their kids autism or something. It’s not A matter of presenting even more evidence, or being more logical or rational. This is not about facts or logic.

Great article on the psychology of such science-denial:

Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost Life

I think the way to try to convince these folks is not to keep presenting more evidence for climate change. It’s not about the evidence. Clearly no amount of evidence is going to change their mind. The thing that bothers them is probably that if true, it is going to involve government intervention and spending. Or that they might lose their jobs. If they are convinced that’s what it’s going to necessarily involve, they are going to keep denying it. Maybe if they are reassured that the free-market may be able to address these issues, or that new and more jobs will be created, they will not deny the issues themselves so much anymore. Of course, then there is the fear of change that we will have to contend with.

But at least this may be a blueprint for how to debate these folks. Because it is clear than trying to convince them just based on evidence and rationality is a losing proposition. You will just go against a brick wall and come back with a concussion. Because it’s not about that.
Click to expand...

I'd accept Climate Science:

If climate science wasn't pushed as an absolute in schools.
If the predictions from climate science seemed to be true.
If climate science didn't confuse accuracy and precision.
If climate scientists didn't rig the peer review process.
If climate scientists didn’t sabotage scientific careers.
If climate scientists didn't appear to cherry pick data.
If IPCC reports weren't re-written after final approval.
If climate scientists didn't try to sue the opposition.
If climate scientists didn't appear to fudge the data.
If climate scientists didn't resort to name-calling.
If climate scientists complied with FOI requests.
If climate scientists agreed to debate the issue.
If climate scientists didn’t exaggerate findings.
If climate scientists didn’t rig grant programs.


Canards BS & lies from climate science:

Warm sea water is melting Antarctica from below.
Thermal expansion affects world-wide sea level.
Methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2.
Water vapor rains out after a few days.
People depend on glaciers for water.
Burning biomass is carbon neutral.
Methane from Cattle is a problem.
Sea level rise is accelerating.
Polar bears are going extinct.
CFCs caused the Ozone Hole.
The deep ocean is warming.
Average world temperature.
97% of scientists agree.
Coral reefs are dying.
Drought is increasing.
Antarctica is melting.
Greenland is melting.
Ocean acidification.
 
Jack Hays said:
“For reasons that are both obvious and highly functional, science textbooks (and too many of the older histories of science) refer only to that part of the work of past scientists that can easily be viewed as contributions to the statement and solution of the texts' paradigm problems. Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of early ages are implicitly represented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method has made seem scientific.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Click to expand...

And yet somehow what the most current science says on an issue is still important to us. Why?

And why should this particular topic be any different? Why do you feel that your personal judgment can somehow override the overwhelming consensus of all scientists are this topic, but it’s OK to trust them on others?

Could it be because there are other factors, psychological or otherwise, that could be influencing your judgment on this question?
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
The work has already been done.

Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)
Click to expand...

That’s not work. I can show you work disproving evolutionary biology i’m proving the existence of the Yeti too. I am sure you agree that that would not necessarily disprove evolutionary biology or prove the existence of the Yeti.

Why is it different for this topic? Could it be that there are other issues at play here in your judgment other than just scientific facts?
 
ataraxia said:
And yet somehow what the most current sign says on an issue is still important to us. Why?

And why should this particular topic be any different? Why do you feel that your personal judgment can somehow override the overwhelming consensus of all scientists are this topic, but it’s OK to trust them on others?

Could it be because there are other factors, psychological or otherwise, that could be influencing your judgment on this question?
Click to expand...

As you know, Jack references the same cherry picked nutters in every thread he walks into while ignoring all the ones he disagrees with because they're part of the conspiracy.

Jack Hays said:
The work has already been done.

Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)
Click to expand...

No it hasn't. You cherry pick a handful of fringe dissenters because they allegedly support your pre-determined conclusion. That's not how science works.

You choose to believe in this vast conspiracy because reality conflicts with your personal political beliefs.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
As you know, Jack references the same cherry picked nutters in every thread he walks into while ignoring all the ones he disagrees with because they're part of the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Yes I know. He says that consensus of scientists is not a good way to determine what is established Science. I!ask what he thinks then is good way to determine what is good science, and he says it’s his personal judgment as a layperson. It’s very odd, and one of the reasons I am starting to suspect climate deniers’ position on this is not about science or facts. I have no choice but to conclude that there are deep Psychological/sociological issues at play here. Hence the OP article I referenced.
 
ataraxia said:
And yet somehow what the most current science says on an issue is still important to us. Why?

And why should this particular topic be any different? Why do you feel that your personal judgment can somehow override the overwhelming consensus of all scientists are this topic, but it’s OK to trust them on others?

Could it be because there are other factors, psychological or otherwise, that could be influencing your judgment on this question?
Click to expand...

Because the data and arguments advanced by Shaviv and Svensmark are more persuasive.
 
ataraxia said:
That’s not work. I can show you work disproving evolutionary biology i’m proving the existence of the Yeti too. I am sure you agree that that would not necessarily disprove evolutionary biology or prove the existence of the Yeti.

Why is it different for this topic? Could it be that there are other issues at play here in your judgment other than just scientific facts?
Click to expand...

I don't see how anyone could read the linked presentation and not take it quite seriously.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
As you know, Jack references the same cherry picked nutters in every thread he walks into while ignoring all the ones he disagrees with because they're part of the conspiracy.



No it hasn't. You cherry pick a handful of fringe dissenters because they allegedly support your pre-determined conclusion. That's not how science works.

You choose to believe in this vast conspiracy because reality conflicts with your personal political beliefs.
Click to expand...

There is no conspiracy, only a failing paradigm, ripe for scientific revolution.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes I know. He says that consensus of scientists is not a good way to determine what is established Science. I!ask what he thinks then is good way to determine what is good science, and he says it’s his personal judgment as a layperson. It’s very odd, and one of the reasons I am starting to suspect climate deniers’ position on this is not about science or facts. I have no choice but to conclude that there are deep Psychological/sociological issues at play here. Hence the OP article I referenced.
Click to expand...

A more pompous and arrogant presentation would be hard to imagine.
 
ataraxia said:
So just for the sake of argument: let’s assume there is a way that we can guarantee doing this without taxing the crap out of you or using any big government. Would climate change science seem more scientific to you then?

I am pretty sure you guys are denying the science because you’re just afraid of what it might mean, not because it is not good science. To make any sound decisions, we have to agree on basic facts. You can’t deny the facts just because of you are afraid of what it might mean.

If you are that afraid of big government or taxes, I would be open to discussions, negotiations, and compromises on other ways to approach this. What we are doing right now is not working. But it’s hard to argue with someone who questions overwhelming facts just because they’re afraid of what it might mean. they are denying reality altogether, and I think you can see how it becomes very difficult to have any meaningful conversation at that point.
Click to expand...

I haven't denied except the truthfulness of the Left, firstly.

People are smart enough to not do business with polluters and those who would otherwise damage the environment. Eventually those entities will change their behavior or go out of business.

Grouping everyone under two separate and opposite tents does no good.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Global Warming Zealotry: A case study in groupthink[/h][FONT=&quot]NEW STUDY: CLIMATE GROUPTHINK LEADS TO A DEAD END London, 21 February: A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) shows that both the science and policy of the climate debate are shaped and driven by an almost flawless example of classical Groupthink. Written by one of Britain’s leading newspaper columnists Christopher…
[/FONT]
February 20, 2018 in Climate News.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
How can something that doesn't exist be dealt with by the free market? What mechanisms in the free market are fighting climate change? Be specific.

What drives someone to believe that humans can't effect the environment and that changing the chemical content of the atmosphere has no effect at all?
Click to expand...

The climate changes constantly. Who can believe it is always static? Who is using that hysteria to affect the free market?
 
ataraxia said:
I have been very puzzled at the rhetoric and arguments of climate deniers. It has seemed really odd how readily, for example, they deny the strong and unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet, but jump all over a Manhattan real estate guy’s Declaration that it’s all just a Chinese hoax. No amount of evidence seems to be enough. They either deny it, or twist it, or just grasp at any crazy website or charlatan they can find who may have an opposing opinion. It just seems so disconnected from reality and reason.

It did not make sense, until I saw this article about why otherwise rational people can become climate change deniers, young earth creationists, believe in ESP and UFO abduction stories, deny modern medicine and think they can treat their rececently diagnosed cancer with all-natural herbal teas and yoga, become an anti-vaxxer, etc...

It’s a psychological optical illusion: when scientific facts are so unfamiliar, so uncomfortable, so against one’s view of what the world is like or should be, that it becomes preposterous to accept it. So they start to see their skepticism as being smart. The science, so readily accepted in other areas, becomes a conspiracy to destroy capitalism or give their kids autism or something. It’s not A matter of presenting even more evidence, or being more logical or rational. This is not about facts or logic.

Great article on the psychology of such science-denial:

Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost Life

I think the way to try to convince these folks is not to keep presenting more evidence for climate change. It’s not about the evidence. Clearly no amount of evidence is going to change their mind. The thing that bothers them is probably that if true, it is going to involve government intervention and spending. Or that they might lose their jobs. If they are convinced that’s what it’s going to necessarily involve, they are going to keep denying it. Maybe if they are reassured that the free-market may be able to address these issues, or that new and more jobs will be created, they will not deny the issues themselves so much anymore. Of course, then there is the fear of change that we will have to contend with.

But at least this may be a blueprint for how to debate these folks. Because it is clear than trying to convince them just based on evidence and rationality is a losing proposition. You will just go against a brick wall and come back with a concussion. Because it’s not about that.
Click to expand...

The day you are able to point out where anybody here who is not mad, i.e. the usual Skeptic crowd, denies climate change you may have some point.

Until then I will, along with the rest of the world, await any post where you are able to even discuss the science of the situation.
 
beancounter said:
Regulations would only materially impact industries that actually contribute to climate change. It would not be used as a blanket reason to "tax the crap out of us".

Sorry, but that's just a scare tactic used to frighten people into compliance.
Click to expand...

I was talking about what the average consumer can do.
 
WCH said:
The climate changes constantly. Who can believe it is always static? Who is using that hysteria to affect the free market?
Click to expand...

Climate does change, but it's changing at a rate never seen before and it's exacerbated by human activity. Changing the CO2 content of the atmosphere has serious effects. These are facts. You can separate the proposed solution from the science.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Climate does change, but it's changing at a rate never seen before and it's exacerbated by human activity. Changing the CO2 content of the atmosphere has serious effects. These are facts. You can separate the proposed solution from the science.
Click to expand...
I am not at all confident that we can say the rate of change has never been seen before!
The proxy records have much lower time resolutions than the warming we have seen.
(PDF) A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
This is Marcott et al 2013
The 73 globally distributed temperature re-
cords used in our analysis are based on a variety
of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling
resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a
median resolution of 120 years (5).
Click to expand...
It is questionable if the warming in the last 40 years would show up as a major change with that low resolution.
As for the changes in CO2 level, the effect it has is limited to the accepted forcing,
that being that doubling the CO2 level would force warming of about 1.1C.
Beyond that, the effects from added CO2 become very subjective, as there is no measured data to
show what CO2 has done, and no lab experiment that say what will happen.
We do know how the climate has responded to past temperature perturbations, but once you
eliminate the accepted variables, there is not much room left for the predicted amplified feedbacks!
You are correct that the proposed solution is not linked to the science!
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Climate does change, but it's changing at a rate never seen before and it's exacerbated by human activity. Changing the CO2 content of the atmosphere has serious effects. These are facts. You can separate the proposed solution from the science.
Click to expand...

. . . Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals. . . .

[FONT=&quot]Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776

[/FONT][h=2]My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion[/h]
 
I think its the negative of freedom of speech, not that I would change it. But it allows people to spread harmful lies. Also, Fox news has created a generation of people that think facts are up for opinion or belief, and that they can just search for things they want to hear and ignore all the rest. And republican politicians enable this behavior because they use it to get elected. They play up the same BS that Fox news sells to enrich themselves.

And the internet just allow anybody to spread garbage and propaganda all over the place. Already having a population of people not exposed to opinions, religions and lifestyles other than their own, living in little bubbles, that garbage can easily be reinforced while people blow smoke up each other's asses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom