Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese


Forum Home Forum Home > General Discussion > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why some people think climate change is not real
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Online Discussion: Tracking new emerging diseases and the next pandemic

Why some people think climate change is not real

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why some people think climate change is not real
    Posted: October 09 2019 at 2:22am
news.com.au


Technology
Environment
Why some people still think climate change isn’t real
OCTOBER 9, 2019 1:17PM
Dozens of climate change activists have been dragged away by police, blocking roads and defying officers as part of their national protest.

David Hall, The Conversationnews.com.au
At its heart, climate change denial is a conflict between facts and values. People deny the climate crisis because, to them, it just feels wrong.
Acknowledging climate change involves accepting certain facts. But being concerned about climate change involves connecting these facts to values. It involves building bridges between the science of climate change and people’s various causes, commitments and convictions.

Denial happens when climate science rubs us up the wrong way. Instead of making us want to arrest the climate crisis, it makes us resist the very thought of it, because the facts of man-made global heating clash with our personal projects.


It could be that the idea of climate change is a threat to our world view. Or it could be that we fear society’s response to climate change, the disruption created by the transition to a low-emissions economy. Either way, climate change becomes such an “inconvenient truth” that, instead of living with and acting upon our worries, we suppress the truth instead.

NEGATING REALITY

Sigmund Freud and his daughter Anna were the great chroniclers of denial. Sigmund described this negation of reality as an active mental process, as “a way of taking cognisance of what is repressed”. This fleeting comprehension is what distinguishes denial from ignorance, misunderstanding or sheer disbelief. Climate change denial involves glimpsing the horrible reality, but defending oneself against it.

Contemporary social psychologists tend to talk about this in terms of “motivated reasoning”. Because the facts of climate science are in conflict with people’s existing beliefs and values, they reason around the facts.

When this happens — as social psychologist Jonathan Haidt memorably put it — they aren’t reasoning in the careful manner of a judge who impartially weighs up all the evidence. Instead, they’re reasoning in the manner of a defence lawyer who clutches for post hoc rationalisations to defend an initial gut instinct. This is why browbeating deniers with further climate science is unlikely to succeed: their faculty of reason is motivated to defend itself from revising its beliefs.

undefined
People who deny climate change share certain traits. Source: istock
A large and growing empirical literature is exploring what drives denial. Personality is a factor: people are more likely to deny climate change if they’re inclined toward hierarchy and against changes to the status quo. Demographic factors also show an effect. Internationally, people who are less educated, older and more religious tend to discount climate change, with sex and income having a smaller effect.


But the strongest predictor is one’s politics. An international synthesis of existing studies found that values, ideologies and political allegiances overshadowed other factors. In Western societies, political affiliation is the key factor, with conservative voters more likely to discount climate change. Globally, a person’s commitment to democratic values — or not in the case of deniers — is more significant.

This sheds light on another side of the story. Psychology can contribute to explaining a person’s politics, but politics cannot be entirely explained by psychology. So too for denial.

THE POLITICS OF DENIAL

As the sociologist Stanley Cohen noted in his classic study of denial, there is an important distinction between denial that is personal and psychological, and denial that is institutional and organised. The former involves people who deny the facts to themselves, but the latter involves the denial of facts to others, even when these “merchants of doubt” know the truth very well.

It is well established that fossil fuel companies have long known about climate change, yet sought to frustrate wider public understanding. A comprehensive analysis of documentations from ExxonMobil found that, since 1977, the company has internally acknowledged climate change through the publications of its scientists, even while it publicly promoted doubt through paid advertorials. The fossil fuel industry has also invested heavily in conservative foundations and think tanks that promote contrarian scientists and improbable spins on the science.

All this is rich manure for personal denial. When a person’s motivated reasoning is on the hunt for excuses, there is an industry ready to supply them. Social media offers further opportunities for spreading disinformation. For example, a recent analysis of anonymised YouTube searches found that videos supporting the scientific consensus on climate change were outnumbered by those that didn’t.

This article contains content that is only available in the web version

Open the web version

UNDOING DENIAL

In sum, denial is repressed knowledge. For climate change, this repression occurs at both the psychological level and social level, with the latter providing fodder for the former. This is a dismal scenario, but it shines some light on the way forward.

On the one hand, it reminds us that deniers are capable of acknowledging the science — at some level, they already do — even though they struggle to embrace the practical and ethical implications. Consequently, climate communications may do well to appeal to more diverse values, particularly those values held by the deniers themselves.

Experiments have shown that, if the risks and realities of climate change are reframed as opportunities for community relationship building and societal development, then deniers can shift their views. Similarly, in the US context, appealing to conservative values such as patriotism, obeying authority and defending the purity of nature can encourage conservatives to support pro-environmental actions.

On the other hand, not all deniers will be convinced. Some downplay and discount climate change precisely because they recognise that the low-emissions transition will adversely impact their interests. A bombardment of further facts and framings is unlikely to move them.

What will make a difference is the power of the people — through regulation, divestment, consumer choice and public protest. Public surveys emphasise that, throughout the world, deniers are in the minority. The worried majority doesn’t need to win over everyone in order to win on climate change.

This article contains content that is only available in the web version

Open the web version

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission

12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 09 2019 at 8:47am
FYI I don't deny climate change.   We defiantly had warming through the 30's.   Then once again from the 70s till the 90's.    The planet hit probably hit a double peak once in 98 and once in early 2000's.   Honesty I see very little evidence of warming since.

I personally think it is the height of arrogance think we can understand and actually change patterns that have been going on. So far they have only said we have had about 1-1.5c of warming (ironically this number coincides very well with the little ice age).   While are scientific instruments are probably accurate enough to detect 1.5c over a century, are gauges are not accurate enough to see that data on a year by year granular basis.

Considering the heat island effect, and the corruption and politicization of science... I am sorry am just skeptical.

You call me a denier...   please don't mind if I then call you hysterical.   Shouldn't we have acurate terms for both positions?

Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 09 2019 at 8:59am
If you want a scientific reason... When these models where done I believe they greatly underestimated the effect of solar forcing.   So any warming that happened had to be related the atmosphere changing and not the Sun.

I think they are wrong and I think the new science clearly shows this.   I can lookup a video on this topic if you are interested.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 09 2019 at 4:16pm
You can't be doing much research if You don't think climate change is real,

You seem to fit into many of the above criteria for a Non believer in the Human role in climate change.

Sadley you are very wrong,

I have been watching this for the last 40 odd years,i believe in the science,

Most people like to cherry pick the science that they believe in
Manly because they are not very well educated.....all of this is covered in my original post

You sound very young DT, you remind me of someone else that used to be on here (MED????)

I don't know if you have traveled much, I guess like Most Americans your knowledge of the world is not that vast, excuse me if I'm wrong on that,but you do seem to be immature...
12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 09 2019 at 6:54pm
Yes total solar irradiance varies little.   So the early scientists just assumed that the Sun had very little effect on the climate.    Even though the total output of the Sun varies little, the type of radiation we receive changes constantly. Different types of radiation have different impacts on our climate.

We used to think that ground level temperature was a simple equation of total infrared energy in vs infrared gong out.   However evidence now suggests that ground temperature is a function of air pressure.

There is evidence that high and low pressure systems are a result of fluctuations in the elctro-magnetic radiation we receive from the Sun.

Evidence also suggests that cloud cover is greatly impacted by cosmic rays.   More clouds... less sun... cooler planet.

If you want to hear from someone that can explain this better please check out this short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tul07hx8V8w

or the longer much more detailed video with references:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA

Despite how I come across I am actually very open minded.   If you have time try to check out at least one of those videos and tell me how it is wrong.

I don't minimize science... quite the contrary, I believe that the physics that drives our weather and climate is MUCH MUCH more complicated than scientists have so far acknowledged.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 2:00am
We will just have to agree to disagree,

I really do hope my way of thinking is wrong,

For my Grandchildrens sake....

12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 56090
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 2:12am
I find the argument interesting and believe that our warming comes from more than one source simultaneously - sadly, mostly us.

So I only have one or two points to add (same point extended?): For a while fairly recently (years not decades) Mars was warming. That had to be caused by the cycles of the sun - unless you believe in Martians driving fossil fuel powered UFOs.

It has been cooling for a few years now; Earth has not. (I suppose the Martians could be using solar power now - JOKE!)

The hypothesis* that magnetic changes in the sun affect our climate via our magnetic field is pseudoscience. It is impossible to prove, as reliable records go back less than 40 years. Our climate has been warming ever since we discovered fire. Warming accelerated from then onwards - in line with population growth and technological advances. We do have long records for that - not all written.

When I say that the vast majority of scientific opinion agrees with human-generated climate-change, I'm not exaggerating. It works out at around 98%! The few who dissagree mostly work for fossil fuel companies. I suppose there could also be the odd nutcase as well.

Occasionally the nutcase is right (Just look at Tessla!) but usually not. I can't see any reason this should be one of the exceptions. Generally, when a fringe scientists is the one with the key to unlock things, the science is new (climatology is not) and, once a couple more join in, the mainstream, being well informed, quickly sees the light (it has not) and the hypothesis makes sense in line with known science (guess what? It does not).




*This is an hypothesis, not a theory!
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 56090
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 3:28am
Ps.

I have watched about a quarter of the second video. By this point he had made 3 scientific mistakes. His data is good, well sourced and intelligent. The mistakes themselves: two were minor................

I will watch the rest - eventually. He may have a soupcon of a point, I don't think so, but I am not CERTAIN.

Having good data is only part of the recipe. You need to both understand it and be able to extrapolate. Usually, if the understanding is flawed - even a tiny bit, extrapolation is wildly inaccurate. About one time in a billion the flawed understanding is cancelled out by a second, opposite misunderstanding or a missing piece of data. However this is not exactly common.

If, as I suspect, he has the beginnings of a theory, It is disproven (as the controlling factor) by current figures. He may have stumbled on another small part of the overall equation though.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 7:47am
Here is the basic principle of the longer video. Warmists argue "how can hundreds or thousands of scientists be wrong."

90% of studies have been based on the same model.   This video argues that new evidence suggests the original model is wrong.    

Please Carbon I would love you to see that video and give it a good critique.   I don't feel that you even understand that point that I am arguing.

We have seen all time low volcanic forcing, while at the same time we have seen the hottest sun we have seen in 10,000 years.... AND we have 1 degree of warming.

Real climate change throws us from the weather we have today all the way to the depth of Ice age within the course of one human life.   It can bring us out just as quick.    Modern warming pales in comparison.

MTA:When ever we hear about hottest or coldest ever they are only using records that go back 150 years.   However we have climate, atmosphere, and sun data going back MUCH farther.   Global Warming alarmists never use these larger data sets.    These data sets profoundly change the context on the modern numbers.
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Chief Moderator
Chief Moderator
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 43036
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 9:18am
I always find it interesting that people still believe that us little itty-bitty humans could never change this big huge planet. The reality is that we live in a very thin envelope of gas, and it's composition determines how much solar radiation - it's principal source of energy - is absorbed. Change that and you change the temperature and the climate. We're currently pumping 32.5 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year - how could that not be changing it's composition in a meaningful way, and consequently the amount of solar radiation it now hangs on to? It's just basic science. Cause and effect.

Here's the thing. Nobody denies that the climate is constantly in flux. That's easily verifiable and pretty much universally accepted. It's the rate of change that is unprecedented, and it's outstripping the ability of many species to adapt in time to avoid extinction. The question is now whether it's man made or not, and I think we're being shown clear indications that our CO2 emissions initially drove it. I say initially (even though it's still a factor) because atmospheric methane and water vapor are quite possibly the things we should be more worried about now. Both are more potent greenhouse gases (thirty times greater in the case of methane compared to CO2) and increasing as the climate warms. I think we're possibly entering a positive feedback loop where rising temperatures increase concentrations of both, and that leads to more warming. At that point, we're screwed.



This represents the total amount of air (in pink) and liquid water (in green) on planet Earth, just for perspective.




"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 56090
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 10:59am
The biggest change in our planet's heat and atmosphere it has ever suffered, when the atmosphere became poisonus and there was massive cooling, was caused by a bacteria (The inventor of photosynthesis). Since then life has had to evolve to cope with this poisonus atmosphere (O2). Now larger life depends upon it, but once uopn a time.....................................

You don't have to be special, clever, ensouled, or even big enough to be visible; you just have to be populous and doing something new - like us.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 4:01pm
We are a reactive,

not proactive spieces.....

But in reality it's

Too Late Baby it's to Late......
12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 56090
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 4:13pm
Probably!

When photosynthetic bacteria appeared, almost everything else dissappeared. It was the biggest ELE of all time.

The thin ray of hope is that some life survived. That life is our most distant ancestors, not ancestor, ancestorS: Two utterly different types of bacteria 'got jiggy'. That is why we have mitochondria in our cells helping us turn oxygen into fast-energy-release gas.

We are the descendants of the most adaptive species to date and very good at sleeping with the enemy.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 4:43pm
E.L.E.

DEEP IMPACT, one of my favourite movies
12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
WillobyBrat View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: January 21 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 1700
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WillobyBrat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 4:43pm
We, the human race, have probably been here for about a million years or a little less (They keep putting our time on the planet up each time a new discovery is made; officially it is about 900K yars at the moment.).

However, by way of messing up everyone's heads, I would just like to point out that, since long before the dinosaurs existed, the Earth was very hot and very wet. It then became snowball Earth (very cold, very icy). Then global warming occurred and it became warm again. By the time the poor old dinosaurs got wiped out (about 65-66 million years ago) it was slowly cooling. Then it warmed up again.

Then something happened about 6 million years ago and we went through a series of ice ages. Which, each time they had formed two really nice polar caps, those giant dammed terror birds ran around everywhere in their SUVs pecked all the trees down and the whole damn place froze up again and (ignoring my facetious remarks) I assure you that we have had ice ages and global warming one after another for at least the last 6 million years.

We are warming up at the moment and once again the ice is melting. It started melting about 13 thousand years ago, flooding North America, filling the North sea with water (before that it was a large grassy plain), after that it was a few islands (the remnants of mountain,s like the UK). Incidentally, it also flooded the land "beyond the pillars of Herculese" and the Mediterranean too.

So, you can speculate that it is all caused by modern man, or solar fluctuation, or electromagnetic fields, etc., etc., The truth is the climate scientists, the anti-extinctionists etc., etc., don't speak to the paleontologists, astrophysicists, geologists, and silviculturists. Until they learn to, we still won't know bu$$er all about the causes of global warming, what percentage is caused by us and what is not. To put it bluntly, we are all screwed!

Ps. Half of what you think modern man invented was previously invented by the neanderthalers and homo-errectus.

Incidentally, Carbon, Ask the Aboriginies why they moved to Australia 60 thousand years ago. They know a damn sight more than they are given credit for.
I like Ike
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 10:02pm
12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Quick Reply
Name:

Message:
   NoFollow is applied to all links from this forum
 Enable BBcodes

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down