34 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

The whole discussion about climate change science is a bit circular and pointless at this stage. I am more interested in what motivates people to hold onto beliefs which run so counter to the evidential basis.

I understand a lot of the motives, but am particularly interested in the whole conspiracy basis for climate change denial - and what is the psychological driver of it.

All thoughts and justifications are appreciated.

Br Cornelius

[notoverrated]

idk i just dont think we are all going to fry in 5 years. i also think we give are self to much credit for being able to bring down a WHOLE planet on are own that has survive giant freak-in meteors but i do think we might need to be alot nicer to the planet i mean wat if we do fry O.O

[Br Cornelius]

notoverrated, on 11 August 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

idk i just dont think we are all going to fry in 5 years. i also think we give are self to much credit for being able to bring down a WHOLE planet on are own that has survive giant freak-in meteors but i do think we might need to be alot nicer to the planet i mean wat if we do fry O.O

Climate change will unfold over centuries so its hardly going to be a quick frying. In order to understand the ability of small things to destroy large things consider the two analogies;
- a termites nest can destroy a whole house - difference in scale millions to one
- a single bacteria can multiply over a few days to the point where it can kill a human - difference in scale billions to one
Fundamentally man and the planet are no different.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

Heres a niced summery of the various conspiracy theorys;

http://rationalwiki....nspiracy_theory

Br Cornelius

[and then]

Speaking as the "average man" with no special knowledge of the science involved, I tend to be unconvinced simply because there are periods of time past when warming nd cooling cycles have happened so why shouldn't one wonder if they are simply being repeated?  Added to this is the tendency these days to think in terms of conspiracy and my radr especially goes up when someone tells me they want to dig into my pocket for my own good, or to "save the world".  But, having said that, I also believe there is NO dispute the earth is warming and negative consequences are flowing from that trend.  If there were less an agenda being driven by the left to tax people into submission on the issue, or to give government more power over our lives due to this issue then I would be more accepting that it is valid on the science alone.  In the meantime, I'll do what most human beings do... wait and hope for the best until tragedy collapses everything around me.

[notoverrated]

arnt we technically still in a ice age?

[Br Cornelius]

and then, on 11 August 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Speaking as the "average man" with no special knowledge of the science involved, I tend to be unconvinced simply because there are periods of time past when warming nd cooling cycles have happened so why shouldn't one wonder if they are simply being repeated?  Added to this is the tendency these days to think in terms of conspiracy and my radr especially goes up when someone tells me they want to dig into my pocket for my own good, or to "save the world".  But, having said that, I also believe there is NO dispute the earth is warming and negative consequences are flowing from that trend.  If there were less an agenda being driven by the left to tax people into submission on the issue, or to give government more power over our lives due to this issue then I would be more accepting that it is valid on the science alone.  In the meantime, I'll do what most human beings do... wait and hope for the best until tragedy collapses everything around me.

You have just enunciated the classic right wing semi conspiracy theory in almost perfect detail. Youve stated that you don't understand the science (or care to) and your opinion is based upon the political response to the science rather than the science itself. The whole position is based primarily on a distrust of Government.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

notoverrated, on 11 August 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

arnt we technically still in a ice age?

Not really. We  have actually been in  slow temperature decline from a post glacial rebound. That decline stopped and reversed with the onset of the industrial revolution.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 11 August 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

The whole discussion about climate change science is a bit circular and pointless at this stage. I am more interested in what motivates people to hold onto beliefs which run so counter to the evidential basis.

I have not seen the "evidential basis" for alarmist point of view. opinions and computer models are not evidence. I've looked at a lot of the studies in detail on both sides and can say the alarmist position is exaggerated, what we hear in the media and from the green cults is not representative of what the science says. its mainly fear, and fear is used to sell something, just ask a salesman.

its warming? so what.
0.7 Celcius since the little ice age, after burning half the world's hydrocarbons, again, so what, I would rather have today's conditions than the little ice age which brought disease, famine and hardship to all the animal kingdom.

Quote

I understand a lot of the motives, but am particularly interested in the whole conspiracy basis for climate change denial - and what is the psychological driver of it.

I think you are interested in defining disagreement to your point of view as some sort of irrational kooky paranoid oily right wing type deal, creating a demon to throw stones at.

[Babe Ruth]

An excellent observation!  Yes, humans are funny that way.  Even though all the evidence surrounds us and is so apparent, some people prefer to disregard the evidence or deny that it exists or its relevance.

Perhaps part of it is that some are uncomfortable with thinking that the climate might be changing to conditions that are inhospitable to our species?  Are our days numbered, in terms of our ability to live in heat and drought and extremes?

It rather reminds me of the old picture of the 3 monkeys, eyes covered, ears covered, and mouth covered.

Really, it's just part of the human condition.  The big question is why are some more afflicted than others?  Why are some able to open their eyes and ears and talk about it in a rational manner, while others are not?

Good thread.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 11 August 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

I have not seen the "evidential basis" for alarmist point of view. opinions and computer models are not evidence. I've looked at a lot of the studies in detail on both sides and can say the alarmist position is exaggerated, what we hear in the media and from the green cults is not representative of what the science says. its mainly fear, and fear is used to sell something, just ask a salesman.

its warming? so what.
0.7 Celcius since the little ice age, after burning half the world's hydrocarbons, again, so what, I would rather have today's conditions than the little ice age which brought disease, famine and hardship to all the animal kingdom.

I think you are interested in defining disagreement to your point of view as some sort of irrational kooky paranoid oily right wing type deal, creating a demon to throw stones at.

Little Fish you have shown over the last five years that your grasp on the actually science is tenuous at best, and that you are more than willing to accept any dubious source of information if it confirms your bias. Your have also shown that your underlying motive is driven by a belief in a grand conspiracy. Your a perfect case really.

I am interested in the exact details of people biases.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 August 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

It seems that the overriding driver of public opinion in America is your political offiliation and the signals your chosen party send out. these effects dwarf attempts at public information and are proof that the science is not been listened to;

Quote

The study’s key findings include:

• The most significant driver of public opinion on climate change was the battle between partisan elites over the issue. “The two strongest effects on public concern are Democratic Congressional action statements and Republican roll-call votes, which increase and diminish public concern, respectively. This finding points to the effect of [a] polarized political elite that is emitting contrary cues, with resulting (seemingly) contrary levels of public concern.”
  
• The decline in public worry about global warming coincided with political trends: “Beginning in 2008, the level of Republican anti-environmental voting increased progressively, reaching the highest level ever recorded in 2010. Whatever remained of the cooperation between Republicans and Democrats on environmental issues, and the subsequent elite cues provided by the Republican voting record, drove down climate change concern…. Additionally, unemployment increased, and GDP declined, following the 2008 financial collapse.”
  
• Efforts to improve mass communications and to promote reliable information “have a minor influence, and are dwarfed by the effect of the divide on environmental issues in the political elite.” In addition, “the effects of communication on public opinion regarding climate change are short lived. A high level of public concern over climate change was seen only during a period of both high levels of media coverage and active statements about the issue’s seriousness from political elites. It rapidly declined when these two factors declined.”
  
• The higher the level of media coverage on climate change, the greater public concern is. But the effect of larger volumes of coverage diminishes rapidly, and much coverage is “largely a function” of messages from politicians and economic factors.
  
• Weather events did not have a significant effect on public concerns about global warming. However, “that is not to say that individuals who experience disruptive weather events do not change their opinions regarding the threat posed by climate change.”

http://journalistsre...ng-concern-u-s/

This manifests itself as anti-intellectualism among right wing people;

Quote

Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.

To see what Mr. Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the G.O.P. nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.
Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got people's attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”
The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.
In fact, if you follow climate science at all you know that the main development over the past few years has been growing concern that projections of future climate are underestimating the likely amount of warming. Warnings that we may face civilization-threatening temperature change by the end of the century, once considered outlandish, are now coming out of mainstream research groups.

http://www.nytimes.c...st-science.html


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 August 2012 - 02:13 PM.

[Bavarian Raven]

I have studied this topic for over three years at university (Environmental Science major).
Firstly, the climate is changing (and always has been). That has never been in question. It's a simple fact of our planet. Ice ages come and go, etc, etc...

What is in question is whether the climate is changing abnormally due to anthropogenic affects due to the burning of fossil fuels and the such. This is the billion dollar question (money, being one of the factors causing some doubts to many people).

In my opinion, yes we are having a negative affect on the climate. Yes we are pumping CO₂ and other nasties into the atm. at an alarming rate. And yes this is in all likely hood causing the climate to change quicker then it normally would. This being said, the facts about climate change are being chewed up and thrown around by the media and the big corporations to cause panic - and to make a sh!t load of money off the people. This in itself will cause many people to doubt everything behind it (and i can see their point of view. It is a conspiracy to make money - a conspiracy based on the truth, ironically enough).

All this being said, will the affects of global climate change be bad? Most likely yes. Will it affects humans? Again, most likely yes. But, is it the earth ending disaster the politicians keep spewing on and on about? Most likely no imho. We will survive it and adapt, just like we have done to other challenges before (but this does not mean it wont be a bumpy road).

And imho, pollution is the thing we should be worried about. This will do us far more harm then abnormal climate change in the near future...but I digress.

~

As to the person who mentioned clouds and their affects on the overall temperature balance of the planet. Their affect is still up in the air (it can be both positive and negative), and their overall affect is debated depending on who's research you read.

Edited by Bavarian Raven, 11 August 2012 - 04:50 PM.

[Doug1o29]

notoverrated, on 11 August 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

idk i just dont think we are all going to fry in 5 years. i also think we give are self to much credit for being able to bring down a WHOLE planet on are own that has survive giant freak-in meteors but i do think we might need to be alot nicer to the planet i mean wat if we do fry O.O

The only mechanism I can think of by which warming could "fry" the planet is the "methane gun."  If the oceans get warm enough to start releasing large amounts of methane from the sea floor, we create a feedback loop:  the more methane released, the warmer the ocean, the more methane released and so on....  At the moment there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to do this.  Even if the "gun" fired right now, we would survive it.  But in a few more decades of business-as-usual there will be enough that a runaway methane release could raise the average global temperature to near the boiling point.

This might not happen, but I, for one, do not want to run the slightest risk of wiping out most species on this planet, including our own.  It's a risk we don't have to take, so why take it?  Are profits worth extinction?  What's the rate of return on that?  If this happens, we are probably talking centuries, maybe 300 to 500 years.  It won't happen right away.

But there are serious consequences short of that disaster, ecosystem collapse being the big one.  Have you ever been to the Four Corners area?  South of Durango on the Ute Reservation there used to be several hundred thousand acres of pinyon forest.  Nothing left of that now, except dead trees - those that haven't rotted out and fallen over yet.  I used to work on a blackstain project to protect those pinyons back in 1978-1987.  The immediate cause of the 2003 collapse is drought conditions combined with the warmest temperatures the area has ever seen.  This induced drought stress on the dryer sites, allowing Ips beetles to build up to epidemic levels and spread to other, less stressed stands.

Mountain pine beetles are epidemic in Colorado, the Northern Rockies and British Columbia right now.  In Colorado, it's mostly a renewal of a long-standing attack on lodgepole pines.  But back in 1978, they were attacking ponderosa pines.  That's how I got my job in Durango - the guy I replaced on the pinyon project moved to the Front Range to fight MPB.  He later moved on to the Black Hills to do the same thing.

That's how warming does its damage:  unusual weather conditions produced by warmer climate, allow previously-benign species to build up to epidemic levels and devastate whole ecosystems.  The denialist then argues that it wasn't warming - it was beetles - without understanding the mechanisms involved.

Forests in the American Southwest live on the edge of drought all the time, so even small reductions in rainfall, or slightly warmer conditions have dire consequences.
Doug

[Br Cornelius]

Quote

In a survey of more than 1,000 readers of websites related to climate change, people who agreed with free market economic principles and endorsed conspiracy theories were more likely to dispute that human-caused climate change was a reality.

...........

The findings provide yet more evidence that a rejection of climate science has more to with ideological views than scientific literacy, bolstering the well-supported finding that climate change scepticism is more likely to be found on the right, than on the left of politics. But they go a step further, adding an important layer of detail to the crude characterisation of climate change scepticism as a "conservative" issue.
The link between endorsing conspiracy theories and rejecting climate science facts suggests that it is the libertarian instinct to stick two fingers up at the mainstream – whatever the issue – that is important. Because a radical libertarian streak is the hallmark of free-market economics, and because free market views are popular on the political right, this is where climate change scepticism is most likely to be found.

http://www.guardian....iracy-theorists

And the paper on which the story is based;

http://websites.psyc...eConspiracy.pdf

The Abstract;

Quote

Abstract
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the
world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence.
Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a
prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N
> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection
of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire
conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r
.80 between
latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other
established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking
causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy
theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon
landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific
findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides
empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to
the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with
the perception of a consensus among scientists

Can we accept the judgement of people so driven by ideological bias towards a deregulated world ?

Br Cornelius