Where Did the Climate Change Debate Go Wrong?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/climateers-cant-handle-the-truth-1482882375
Congrats are due for the term “climate denialist,” which in 2016 migrated from Paul Krugman’s column to the news pages of the New York Times.

On Dec. 7, the term ascended to a place of ultimate honor when it figured in the headline, “Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.”

Unfortunately, never to be explained is precisely which climate propositions one must deny in order to qualify as a denialist. In zinging Mr. Pruitt, currently Oklahoma’s attorney general, the Times rests its unspoken case on a quote from an article this year in National Review, in which he and a coauthor wrote: “Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.”

But this statement is plainly true. No climate scientist would dispute it. Through all five “assessment reports” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—sharer of Al Gore’s Nobel prize—the central puzzle has been “climate sensitivity,” aka the “degree and extent” of human impact on climate.

Greenpeace adopts the same National Review article to attack Mr. Pruitt, lying that he and a coauthor “claimed the science of climate change is ‘far from settled.’”

The science is not settled (science never is), but this is not what Mr. Pruitt was referring to. His plain, unmistakable words refer to a “major policy debate” that is “far from settled”—a statement that indisputably applies even among ardent believers in climate doom. Witness the battle between wings of the environmental movement over the role of nuclear power. Witness veteran campaigner James Hansen’s dismissal of the Paris agreement, which other climate campaigners celebrate, as “worthless words.”

These lies about what Mr. Pruitt wrote in a widely available article aren’t the lies of authors carried away by enthusiasm for their cause. They are the lies of people who know their employers and audiences are beyond caring.

Which brings us a two-part article in the New York Review of Books by representatives of the Rockefeller family charity, desperately trying to make the world care about their fantasy that Exxon is somehow a decisive player in the policy debate—Exxon, not voters who oppose higher energy taxes; Exxon, not the governments that control 80% of the world’s fossil fuel reserves and show no tendency to forgo the money available from them.

The Rockefeller family’s charitable attachment to the climate cause is understandable, though. Their money might instead be used to bring clean water to poor villages, immunize kids against disease, or improve education. But such programs can be evaluated and found wanting due to fraud or incompetence, whereas climate change is a cause to which money can safely be devoted to no effect whatsoever without fear of criticism.

Twenty years before his successor became Mr. Trump’s nominee to be secretary of state, Exxon’s then-CEO Lee Raymond gave a much vilified speech in China—a much misrepresented speech, too.

He did not say humans were not influencing climate, but the degree was highly uncertain, and future warming was not a “rock-solid certainty,” he said.

He could not have known he was speaking near the peak of an observed warming trend, and that relatively little or no warming would be recorded over the next 20 years.

He said poor countries would and should choose economic growth over suppressing fossil fuel use. They did, and some one billion fewer people today are living in extreme poverty (as defined by the World Bank).

He said fossil energy would continue to fuel economic prosperity, though consumption growth would moderate with increased efficiency, and as poor countries devoted a share of their increasing wealth to environmental improvement. He was right.

He predicted that technology would open up new reserves to fuel the global economy, though he didn’t mention and perhaps didn’t know about fracking.

All in all, it was a performance, in many fewer words, far more cogent than the Rockefeller pieces, notable mainly for their childishness about both climate science and climate politics.

Donald Trump, our new president-elect, has been tagged for indiscriminately referring to climate change as a hoax. Here’s what he actually said at a campaign rally in South Carolina one year ago about climate advocacy: “It’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”

This statement, with its clearly framed qualifications, is true and accurate in every detail. It’s a statement of basic truth that can be embraced, and increasingly should be, by exactly those people most concerned about man-made climate change.

Yet it won’t be, for reasons demonstrated by the New York Times’ adoption of the term climate denialist, whose deliberately non-discriminating function we now take care to state precisely: It enables a kind of journalism that is unable—incapacitates itself—to stumble on truths that would be inconvenient to climate religion.
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#af8bdf4171b7

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. "In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Autistic
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Dumb
Reactions: bertram's, El Porko Fako, ICametoLurk and 4 others
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin and Daughter of Cernunnos
Jon-Kacho said:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#af8bdf4171b7

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. "In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Click to expand...

From a comment on the article

Wow, you did not actually read the article did you? Here’s a paragraph that should have given you a hint about the sample the authors used:

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.

This is pretty classic denialist cherry-picking. The authors surveyed a group a geoscientists in Alberta that were largely drawn from industry. This is nothing like the Oreskes surveys which evaluate the position of a cross-section of experts and consistently find that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept the consensus. This is like surveying the tobacco companies on whether or not they believe smoking causes cancer. You also failed to contact the author of the paper for comment (I did, and pointed her to this coverage).

For those interested in what the study actually says, I would suggest actually reading it, rather than accepting this summary at face value. I would describe the paper as demonstrating that within a population of geoscientists in Alberta, largely coming from the oil and gas industry, there are 5 general ways of viewing global warming, or “frames”. The most common of these frames is actually the one most consistent with the IPCC consensus at 36%, that green house gases are the driver of global warming and we need to do something about it. Another 5% believed that regulation for green house gases was necessary even if there still is uncertainty or nature as a dominant driver of climate change. Other frames included a one based on fear of economic regulation (10%) that is largely hostile to the IPCC consensus, and another that nature was the primary driver of global warming (24%), man is insignificant, and these respondents used emotionally-heated language and religious metaphor to attack believers in global warming. There were also frames that could be described as fatalist (17%), global warming is real, but we can’t really do anything about it etc.

Those most likely to believe the “nature” and “economic” frames were white, male, more likely to be in industry at the upper tiers of their corporations.

So, to summarize, this paper demonstrated that when surveying a population, largely consisting of geoscientists and engineers working for the the oil and gas industry, the most common view of global warming (between 36 and 41% if you add the two frames) is that it’s real and we need to do something about it. About 34% of respondents were hostile to the idea of green house gas-cause global warming and the consensus science, and these individuals were more likely to be in the upper tiers of these corporations. Finally, about 17% of respondents said we’re screwed either way (the rest couldn’t be grouped or denied adequate expertise to respond).

In other words, it kind of shows the exact opposite of what Taylor suggests, and could not possibly be generalized to scientists as whole.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
Reactions: El Porko Fako and eldomtom2
Jon-Kacho said:
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
Click to expand...

If it's occurring, it doesn't matter why it is occurring. An intelligent species would be taking steps to deal with the consequences of it. And I don't mean some stupid carbon tax...I mean developing drought-resistant crops with shorter growing cycles, building desalinization plants on the coastlines, and maybe coming up with a plan for low-lying coastal urban areas.

Let's assume just for one moment that it is man-made. What are you going to do? Shut all industry and transportion down and kill 11 out of every 12 people on the planet? Not acceptable.

No, the solution here is using our fucking heads and adapting to a changing environment, if that is what we're living in.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
  • Autistic
Reactions: ASoulMan, eldomtom2, IwegalBadnik and 4 others
It went wrong when conservatards started to deny anthropogenic climate change because it threatened the profit motive, preventing meaningful action on this issue before we're all underwater. It interests me how popular climate change denialism is among US conservatives while the liberals tend to fall for alternative medicine.

This blog does great work covering many forms of science denialism including regarding climate change:
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/12/27/an-open-letter-to-libertarian-climate-change-denialists/
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Steve Mayers, Shokew, Lugal and 2 others
kinda the same reason liberal arts and feminism studies are associated with liberalism. Real scientists avoid the research area because of the stupid politics getting in the way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Shokew and wifflypuff
It's a fight against human nature. We're not really going to do shit about it until it gets a whole lot worse, and then we'll pull something out of our ass to fix it in a frenzied, desperate panic.

In the meantime, it's a great way to scam democrats out of money.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Shokew
Climate change will happen because climate change has always happened. We've been living in a warm interglacial period for the last 10,000 years or so and may not return to another cold glacial period for another thousand (though it could take much longer). I think the debate went wrong when the selling line became "stop global warming." Sure we can lower carbon emissions but carbon emissions didn't kill the mammoths or cause the glaciers to retreat, these events occurred when humans were still rubbing sticks to make fire.

Being environmentally friendly is just a good idea. Don't shit where you eat. It doesn't need to be about saving the fucking planet. The best we can do in the event of global climate change is prepare to ride it out or get the fuck off of planet Earth.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
  • Dumb
Reactions: Donny Cheese, AveraDiane, harry and 4 others
Climate change is definitely real and one of the most serious problems of our time. The reasons US conservatives seem to be climate change denialists could be...

1. Evangelical Christianity is popular in some places in the states compared to most places in the West. The kind of doomsday mentality does not tend towards a sustainability mindset.

2. Poor quality of education and lack of scientific literacy and critical thinking skills within the general population.

3. The US political system incentivizing polarizing and divisive debates on issues due to its 2 party nature. Environmental preservation has been painted as a liberal issue in American politics when it needn't inherent be so.

4. Particular parts of conservatism as an ideology that make it prey to this particular brand of denialism. They don't like "big government" but we need governments to enforce better environmental policy. Of course conservatives are still for government functions that they deem necessary and if they had better scientific literacy they would understand why the enviroment needs to be preserved which includes good policy that is enforced properly but that comes back to point 2.
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: Shokew and ASoulMan
Daughter of Pomona said:
1. Evangelical Christianity is popular in some places in the states compared to most places in the West. The kind of doomsday mentality does not tend towards a sustainability mindset.
Click to expand...
tfw it's Christians who have a "doomsday mentality" and not the people saying Florida will be under water in 4 years ago if we don't stop driving cars

Daughter of Pomona said:
we need governments to enforce better environmental policy.
Click to expand...
Why is that? If the problem is the burning of fossil fuels, people aren't going to stop burning them just because of taxes and regulations which just make the government richer and help the big corporations by shutting down smaller businesses who can't afford to comply. The only way to stop people from burning fossil fuels (short of outright banning them and plunging the entire country into poverty) is to find a cleaner form of energy that's still affordable. If what happened with Solyndra is any indication, the government isn't very good at picking winners in this field.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Donny Cheese, eldomtom2, DuskEngine and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back