How the GW myth is perpetuated

Danbones

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,197
113
Canada spent 6.8 BILLION on long range forecasts and they (like CC) were all wrong.
( I hope you got some of that dough Avro...robots are coming..you will need the income)

The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science Paperback – Dec 11 2013
by Tim Ball (Author)
https://www.amazon.ca/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740

Dr Tim Ball - the CANADIAN climate PHd who beat Micheal Mann (THE LOSER!!!) in the global warming trial of the century.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,303
11,388
113
Low Earth Orbit
Danbones said:
Canada spent 6.8 BILLION on long range forecasts and they (like CC) were all wrong.
( I hope you got some of that dough Avro...robots are coming..you will need the income)

The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science Paperback – Dec 11 2013
by Tim Ball (Author)
https://www.amazon.ca/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740

Dr Tim Ball - the CANADIAN climate PHd who beat Micheal Mann (THE LOSER!!!) in the global warming trial of the century.
Click to expand...

Mann slaughter.
 
captain morgan

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Dr Tim Ball - the CANADIAN climate PHd who beat Micheal Mann (THE LOSER!!!) in the global warming trial of the century.

The ole global changey thingy is a sinking ship.

Mikey Mann will be the scape goat and none of his former friends, colleagues or supporters will be there to throw a bucket on his life that is burning to the ground.No big surprise really, as a group, they are about as flaky as you can get
 
C

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Y'all need to lighten up...

 
Yo0

Yo0

Time Out
May 14, 2018
211
0
16
South City
Walter said:
Why let facts get in the way?

By FRED WARD

Monday, Jul. 16, 2007
IN JUNE THE New Hampshire Union Leader published a story "At mount (Cannon), talk is about global warming." This article quoted some participants making statements like "winters with less snow and more rain," without specific dates and data. It's difficult to check fuzzy comments like that.
However, there was one data set quoted, "the average winter temperatures in the Northeast have increased 4.4 degrees since 1970," which was a checkable piece of information. These same erroneous data were quoted in the Keene Sentinel last August, but in the context of a 4.4 degree increase in winter temperatures in New England. The Sentinel published my response stating that the actual change in winter temperature in New England, based on all 11 first-order National Weather Service stations in New England, from the early 1970s to the early 2000s, was a whopping two tenths of one degree!
Now we have the very same erroneous number quoted for the Northeast, and it's just as wrong this year as it was last year.
Looking at the same years as previously for New England, but adding three randomly selected stations outside New England but in the Northeast -- Cleveland, Buffalo and Philadelphia -- for the same years (1971-1975 and 2001-2005), the data show that the average winter temperature at Cleveland had actually fallen from 30.2 in the early 1970s to 29.6 in the early 2000s, Buffalo had fallen from 27.2 to 26.9 and Philadelphia from 35.8 to 35.1.
It's unlikely that the weather data from other stations in the northeastern United States would give much different results.
So why do the global warming zealots continue to quote 4.4 degrees?
One has to wonder if any one of "the panel of experts" at the conference knew better. Did he or she speak up to correct such a glaring misstatement of fact?
If the last 30 years show little change, what about climate change over centuries or millennia? Good, worldwide temperature data are available for less than a century, but that hasn't stopped the alarmists from quoting what are called "temperature" data extending back to the Romans. Such data are not temperatures, but proxies which are claimed to measure temperature.
Such proxies include tree rings, ice cores and the like, but they all suffer from one serious limitation. The proxies can be calculated from the weather, but the weather cannot be calculated from the proxies. The brief reason is that many different weather elements work in complex ways to produce the proxy.
Tree rings are a simple case, made thicker or thinner by a combination of autumn and spring rains, sun and temperature. All kinds of combinations of these weather elements can produce a thick ring or a thin ring. But which combination? Was it a lot of sun, or maybe gentle rains, or what? All proxies have similar, but different problems.
A more interesting argument heard in New Hampshire is that the ski areas and the maple syrup industries are hurting because of global warming. Using skis and syrup to make the case that the temperature in New Hampshire has warmed substantially is disingenuous because the actual temperature data for New Hampshire are available. Why would you use ski and syrup data to measure temperature when the temperature data are easy to find?
You could suspect that anyone using the ski and syrup data, rather than the temperature data, has already looked at the actual temperature data and found what I found, little or no warming, so they turned to skis and syrup. Interesting!
Finally, for those of you old enough to read in the 1970s, there was a lot of hysteria back then about the global temperature. The same "if we don't act promptly, in 10 years it will be too late" statements were published, on the covers of reputable papers and magazines, by many of the same "scientists," and for many of the same base motives. The only difference between the 1970s and now was that the disaster that was just around the corner was global cooling!
How times change, while people don't.
Is it global warming, political warming or globaloney?
Fred Ward of Stoddard has a Ph.D. in meteorology from MIT
Click to expand...

A possible also with Gary Johnson starts career 2021!
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36

Why Do People Want to Refute Climate Change?
New research sheds light on how threat to the status quo shapes beliefs.

According to NASA, the evidence is incontrovertible that climate change is real and represents a serious threat. Based on studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they report that at least 97% of working climate scientists agree that "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities". The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts" reports unequivocally that climate change has multiple negative impacts on the environment and is extremely likely to be caused by human-made greenhouse gases (go here for the Synthesis Report, IPCC, 2014).y

NASA succinctly presents the evidence for and impact of climate change: sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme [weather] events, ocean acidification, and decreased snow cover. The psychological effects of climate change have been an area of increasing concern for behavioral health researchers, and the American Psychological Association in collaboration with ecoAmerica report that in addition to negative effects on the environment and physical health, climate change is taking a toll on mental health, "due to trauma and distress due to personal injuries, loss of a loved one, damage to or loss of personal property or even the loss of livelihood," citing higher rates of PTSD, mood and anxiety disorders following natural disasters (Clayton et al., 2017).

Furthermore, many believe we are facing what is referred to as the Sixth Mass Extinction, following Elizabeth Kolbert's 2015 Pulitzer Prize book The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, and work by Ceballos et al. (2015) and other research groups, that species are disappearing at a massively accelerated rate, 100 times higher than the baseline extinction rate in the last century, thought to be related to human activity.

How then is it possible that so many people deny the reality of climate change, and the negative impact it is having on the environment, and on our health - as well as the looming, potentially extinction-level threat we face together?

Researchers have been studying how people come to deny climate change. A recent study by Clarke, Ling, Kothe and Richardson (2017), Perceived Mitigation Threat Mediates Effects of Right-Wing Ideology on Climate Change Beliefs, available in pre-print from the Open Science Framework, reviews the existing literature on how political ideology influences attitudes about climate change, and reports new finding based on their survey of 334 US participants, 59.9% of whom identified as liberal, 21.6% as conservative, and the rest in the middle politically.

Clarke and colleagues sought to clarify the relationship among various dimensions of political belief and motivations for denying climate change, noting that prior research has demonstrated a significant correlation between right-wing ideology and climate change denial. In addition to hypothesizing that various components of political belief would be correlated with climate change denial, they predicted that "climate change mitigation threat" (anxiety that efforts to address climate change will negatively impact the socioeconomic status quo) would be a significant additional factor in climate change denial. In other words, researchers expect that people who deny climate change would at least be partially motivated to do so to avoid negative effects on social and economic factors, in spite of being presented with the clear and present danger posed by climate change.

To test their hypotheses, they recruited subjects to participate in a survey of political belief-related factors and climate change denial related factors. They administered the following scales:

1. The Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale, measuring a) authoritarian aggression, b) authoritarian submission, and c) conventionalism;

2. The Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale, measuring the "tendency to prefer group-based hierarchy and inequality";

3. The Ideological orientation measure, asking individuals where they fall politically, ranging from "extremely liberal" to "extremely conservative";

4. The Climate Change Mitigation Threat (CCMT) scale, measuring anxiety-related the possible effects on socioeconomic stability due to proposed changes such as higher costs for higher carbon emission, caps on emissions, and the impact on conventional fuel industries from alternative energy sources;
5. The Climate Change Denial scale, measuring four types of climate change denial including a) denial of existence of climate change, b) denial of human cause, c) impact denial and d) climate science denial.

Their findings, representing correlations and requiring follow-up research to clarify causal relationships, are nevertheless fascinating.

First of all, they confirmed that ideological orientation, RWA and SDO were associated with higher levels of climate change denial. The found that CCDT was correlated with all ideological variables as well as with all climate change denial variables. This supports the basic idea that not only is right-wing ideology connected with climate change denial, but it is also connected with reporting greater concern that addressing climate change will upset the socioeconomic status quo.
Furthermore, they found that while SDO and Conventionalism predicted all of the climate change denial factors, the Agression and Submission subscales were not statistically significant on a more complex level of analysis.

Because the threat to the socioeconomic status quo was a partial determinant of climate change denial, this research strongly suggests that political orientation leads to climate change denial for additional reasons such as identification, where conservatives might adopt the prevailing views of the group, including attitudes about climate change. It is interesting, though of unclear significance, that on closer analysis Aggression and Submission were not correlated with climate change denial, especially in the context of measuring contributors to Authoritarianism, highlighting the role of Conservativism over the potentially effects of retaliatory or defensive reactions.

The finding that socioeconomic threat is associated with avoidant coping (denial) is telling because it is another disturbing example of how people can sacrifice long-term health and safety in order to prevent short-term losses. Avoidant coping is generally considered to be maladaptive, for example, and acceptance and reappraisal, forms of active coping, are generally more effective.
Research like this from Clarke et al. is crucial because we need to understand how and why people deny climate change in order to effect positive changes. By understand how various facets of conservative ideology drive climate change denial, we may be able to develop communication and intervention strategies to combat climate change denial, and precipitate greater efforts to embrace comprehensive change across political divides.

Rather than succumbing to partisan conflict (because it generally seems absurd to liberal-leaning people not to address climate change, leading to a conversation non-starter), it may be possible to conduct research and present information which allows for reappraisal of the socioeconomic impact of changing policies related to fossil fuel use and carbon emissions, particularly if persuasive arguments can be made that it will be socioeconomically beneficial in the long run. This approach could foster more adaptive responses based on acceptance and reappraisal, rather than on threat-based assessments and membership-based adherence to group norms. Such arguments have been effective in changing insurance company policies when advocacy groups have demonstrated that spending money up front will save money later, for example showing that treating mental health and addictions leads to significant financial savings in the future by preventing serious physical health consequences.

Research like this may also help liberal-leaning individuals to have greater empathy for their conservative counterparts - which could allow for more constructive dialogue, making bipartisan efforts more likely to succeed. Confrontational or derisive approaches, on the other hand, tend to lead to greater polarization. Finally, given that conservative identification may lead people to adopt group values supporting climate change denial, persuading those conservative leaders who accept climate change as a serious problem to speak out may be an effective strategy to change attitudes over time.

Psychology Today © 2018 Sussex Publishers, LLC

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom