dv said:

Well it wasn’t me.

Denialism does not make you a better person.

Climate change denialism appears to be linked more broadly to a personal belief that one’s own feelings and subjective analysis can overcome objective reality.

Previously, we’ve discussed this phenomenon in relation to Lord Monckton. He has repeatedly stated that he was a member of the House of Lords, on the basis that his father had been. The reality is that his father’s hereditary seat was abolished before he died. Monckton has been warned by the Clerk of the Parliaments, who has stated, “You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office).” The House of Lords website features the information that he has never been a member of the House of Lords.

The same pattern can be seen in the behaviour of Malcolm Roberts. His willful refusal to face basic facts of climatology mirrors his refusal to accept and acknowledge his British citizenship, requiring a kind of doublethink that permits flimsy evidence to be embraced and solid evidence denied. The High Court’s ruling puts it well:

It is significant that Senator Roberts did not suggest, either in his affidavit, or in his emails, or in the course of his cross-examination, that he believed that in some way, expressly or impliedly, he renounced his British citizenship when he obtained Australian citizenship by naturalisation. The absence of any such suggestion highlights that there was no rational basis for the belief that he was always and only an Australian citizen. The absence of any rational basis in fact for that belief meant that Senator Roberts was driven to support his position by reliance on his highly subjective appreciation of the importance of commonplace incidents of his familial experience.

…

Mr Lloyd SC cross-examined Senator Roberts extensively on his affidavit. Nothing in Senator Roberts’ demeanour during the course of his cross-examination led me to doubt the sincerity with which Senator Roberts sought to defend his position. On the other hand, he had an obvious, and strong, interest in defending the position to which he had committed himself, right or wrong, when he signed his nomination form on 3 June 2016. Importantly, Senator Roberts’ “position” was not supported in any significant particular by any documentation contemporaneous with critical events, and his attempts to reconcile statements made by him in documents that he either wrote or signed with his own evidence to contrary effect were speculative or unrealistic. I am not prepared to accept Senator Roberts’ subjective appreciation of the effect of his own documents where that appreciation is contrary to an objective understanding of the words used. Similarly, I am not prepared to act upon the subjective appreciation of events in his life by which he seeks to challenge an objective view of the significance of those events.

…

Senator Roberts equates feelings of Australian self-identification with citizenship, and so confuses notions of how a person sees oneself with an understanding of how one’s national community sees an individual who claims to be legally entitled to be accepted as a member of that community. The extent to which Senator Roberts’ subjective beliefs and objective reality diverge became apparent when Senator Roberts, pressed by Mr Lloyd SC as to whether “believing that you are an Australian citizen by reason of what is said amongst family members is actually the test for Australian citizenship”, answered: “Knowing my father I certainly do.”

…

Fourthly, in the course of his cross-examination – and for the first time in his correspondence or evidence – he sought to assert that before he became an Australian citizen by naturalisation in May 1974, he believed that he was “stateless” having been told this by his sister, Barbara. Senator Roberts’ sister had no qualifications which might have allowed her to offer authoritative guidance on such a question, and it is of a piece with Senator Roberts’ highly subjective view of things that he would offer his sister’s untutored observation as a reliable guide to the resolution of this question. Later in the course of his evidence, he made it clear that his sister had said this to him only after he had been elected to the Senate, and so, on any view, it could not have been a basis for the belief as to his citizenship as at the date of his nomination for the Senate.

Is it possible, then, that climate change denialism is not so much a legitimate philosophical or political position, but more a symptom of a psychological disorder or brain chemistry imbalance?

dv said:

Is it possible, then, that climate change denialism is not so much a legitimate philosophical or political position, but more a symptom of a psychological disorder or brain chemistry imbalance?

Yes.

These people are frequently given proof that they’re wrong, but it has no effect on them, so we’re certainly not dealing with functioning intellects. Some kind of brain damage seems likely.

dv said:

Climate change denialism appears to be linked more broadly to a personal belief that one’s own feelings and subjective analysis can overcome objective reality.

Previously, we’ve discussed this phenomenon in relation to Lord Monckton. He has repeatedly stated that he was a member of the House of Lords, on the basis that his father had been. The reality is that his father’s hereditary seat was abolished before he died. Monckton has been warned by the Clerk of the Parliaments, who has stated, “You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office).” The House of Lords website features the information that he has never been a member of the House of Lords.

The same pattern can be seen in the behaviour of Malcolm Roberts. His willful refusal to face basic facts of climatology mirrors his refusal to accept and acknowledge his British citizenship, requiring a kind of doublethink that permits flimsy evidence to be embraced and solid evidence denied. The High Court’s ruling puts it well:

It is significant that Senator Roberts did not suggest, either in his affidavit, or in his emails, or in the course of his cross-examination, that he believed that in some way, expressly or impliedly, he renounced his British citizenship when he obtained Australian citizenship by naturalisation. The absence of any such suggestion highlights that there was no rational basis for the belief that he was always and only an Australian citizen. The absence of any rational basis in fact for that belief meant that Senator Roberts was driven to support his position by reliance on his highly subjective appreciation of the importance of commonplace incidents of his familial experience.

…

Mr Lloyd SC cross-examined Senator Roberts extensively on his affidavit. Nothing in Senator Roberts’ demeanour during the course of his cross-examination led me to doubt the sincerity with which Senator Roberts sought to defend his position. On the other hand, he had an obvious, and strong, interest in defending the position to which he had committed himself, right or wrong, when he signed his nomination form on 3 June 2016. Importantly, Senator Roberts’ “position” was not supported in any significant particular by any documentation contemporaneous with critical events, and his attempts to reconcile statements made by him in documents that he either wrote or signed with his own evidence to contrary effect were speculative or unrealistic. I am not prepared to accept Senator Roberts’ subjective appreciation of the effect of his own documents where that appreciation is contrary to an objective understanding of the words used. Similarly, I am not prepared to act upon the subjective appreciation of events in his life by which he seeks to challenge an objective view of the significance of those events.

…

Senator Roberts equates feelings of Australian self-identification with citizenship, and so confuses notions of how a person sees oneself with an understanding of how one’s national community sees an individual who claims to be legally entitled to be accepted as a member of that community. The extent to which Senator Roberts’ subjective beliefs and objective reality diverge became apparent when Senator Roberts, pressed by Mr Lloyd SC as to whether “believing that you are an Australian citizen by reason of what is said amongst family members is actually the test for Australian citizenship”, answered: “Knowing my father I certainly do.”

…

Fourthly, in the course of his cross-examination – and for the first time in his correspondence or evidence – he sought to assert that before he became an Australian citizen by naturalisation in May 1974, he believed that he was “stateless” having been told this by his sister, Barbara. Senator Roberts’ sister had no qualifications which might have allowed her to offer authoritative guidance on such a question, and it is of a piece with Senator Roberts’ highly subjective view of things that he would offer his sister’s untutored observation as a reliable guide to the resolution of this question. Later in the course of his evidence, he made it clear that his sister had said this to him only after he had been elected to the Senate, and so, on any view, it could not have been a basis for the belief as to his citizenship as at the date of his nomination for the Senate.

Is it possible, then, that climate change denialism is not so much a legitimate philosophical or political position, but more a symptom of a psychological disorder or brain chemistry imbalance?

Malcolm Roberts clearly has a chemistry imbalance.

>Climate change denialism appears to be linked more broadly to a personal belief that one’s own feelings and subjective analysis can overcome objective reality.

it’s related, quite understandably, to the idea that nature is that which individuals and people don’t have any (or much influence of control) over.

the interesting philosophical aspect is in the question of there existing anything that is not the work of minds, otherwise there’s no rest from the bullshit.

as things went, – are going, – planet earth’s been overpopulated by humans since the seventies, and the species breeds like threatened with extinction, as the instincts adapted for the ancestral environments incline.

humans are organic, why would a human rationalize to the extent it rendered organic reality unbearably uncomfortable.

they don’t, mostly, anyway it’s a type of insanity to maximize rationality, the idea’s a useful tool though for ideological influence, internalized.

it’s an interesting thing to consider when, what of the circumstance of there being no nature left, which is related to seeing (glorifying) humans as a force of nature.

all sorts of interesting things in that

Being a psychopath would encompass such individuals, as they lack the ability to empathise and therefore cannot see things from anothers point of view, although other factors are probably also involved. As psychopaths make up at least 1% of the population, with many being not unintelligent and personable, plus stopping at nothing to achieve their goals. It is not surprising that many seek positions of power and influence, including government and top management, which might help explain the attitude of many on the far right.

>Being a psychopath would encompass such individuals, as they lack the ability to empathise and therefore cannot see things from anothers point of view

most of us don’t maximize empathy, it’d be fucken insane to do that

transition said:

>Being a psychopath would encompass such individuals, as they lack the ability to empathise and therefore cannot see things from anothers point of view

most of us don’t maximize empathy, it’d be fucken insane to do that

Being able to do so when needed, is considerably more than not being able to do so at all.

> Climate change denialism

Cripes. Talk about rampant extremism becoming even more extreme. Go back to the middle path. Neither of the following opinions is “denialism”.

Malcolm Roberts is a Welsh pixie.

mollwollfumble said:

> Climate change denialism

Cripes. Talk about rampant extremism becoming even more extreme. Go back to the middle path. Neither of the following opinions is “denialism”.

I’m not sure how you see a discussion on denialism as being extreme, but limiting myself to comment on your last point, you could certainly argue that neither of the opinions represented in the cartoon are denialism, but neither are they representative of the positions of the great majority of those active in the climate change debate. Almost everything said by the pseudo-sceptical climate-change doubter alarmists (as I prefer to call them) is denialist in nature. That is they automatically reject any evidence that suggests that climate change is likely to be harmful or is related to GHG emissions, and they automatically accept any evidence to the contrary.

They are the very opposite of sceptics, and denailists seems like a reasonable description.

Denialists are a bulwark against outrageous non denialists claims.
It’s how nature works, it balances things.

Peak Warming Man said:

Denialists are a bulwark against outrageous non denialists claims.
It’s how nature works, it balances things.

No, they are a reaction to all non-denialist claims, outrageous or not. Claims should be assessed by:
1) Assess the possibility that they might be true.
2) Assess the consequences if they are true.
3) Assess the feasibility of taking action to prevent or reduce any possible adverse consequences.
4) If the claims are possibly true, and they have significant adverse consequences if they are true, and there are reasonably practicable actions that might be taken to prevent or reduce those consequences, then carry out those actions.

That’s not just what I think. It’s an obligation written in the law of the land.

party_pants said:

Denialism does not make you a better person.

I agree.

The problem is that it is easy to see denialism in other’s behaviour, but much more difficult in our own.

We should all try though.

I’m tempted to quote Paul Simon here.

Climate Change rose out of the ashes and detritus from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many left wing sympathises in academia were devastated, their ideology had lost, lost not through the weight of arms but through the weight of argument.
But how could they continue their fight against the evil corporate capitalists.
They needed something else to throw their hat on, to nail their colours to, something that would at least have some basis in fact, something that would also appeal to those with a religious bent, but what?
Then slowly a new movement started to emerge from the leafy sandstone cloisters, Gaia was giving birth to Big Climate.

Peak Warming Man said:

Climate Change rose out of the ashes and detritus from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many left wing sympathises in academia were devastated, their ideology had lost, lost not through the weight of arms but through the weight of argument.
But how could they continue their fight against the evil corporate capitalists.
They needed something else to throw their hat on, to nail their colours to, something that would at least have some basis in fact, something that would also appeal to those with a religious bent, but what?
Then slowly a new movement started to emerge from the leafy sandstone cloisters, Gaia was giving birth to Big Climate.

Very droll, but you should really try and exercise your sense of the ridiculous to parody the other side as well.

Peak Warming Man said:

Climate Change rose out of the ashes and detritus from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many left wing sympathises in academia were devastated, their ideology had lost, lost not through the weight of arms but through the weight of argument.
But how could they continue their fight against the evil corporate capitalists.
They needed something else to throw their hat on, to nail their colours to, something that would at least have some basis in fact, something that would also appeal to those with a religious bent, but what?
Then slowly a new movement started to emerge from the leafy sandstone cloisters, Gaia was giving birth to Big Climate.

ahhhhh the ‘‘shill” argument.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Climate Change rose out of the ashes and detritus from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many left wing sympathises in academia were devastated, their ideology had lost, lost not through the weight of arms but through the weight of argument.
But how could they continue their fight against the evil corporate capitalists.
They needed something else to throw their hat on, to nail their colours to, something that would at least have some basis in fact, something that would also appeal to those with a religious bent, but what?
Then slowly a new movement started to emerge from the leafy sandstone cloisters, Gaia was giving birth to Big Climate.

Very droll, but you should really try and exercise your sense of the ridiculous to parody the other side as well.

Bugger that, the queue on that side is a mile long and they’re all scruffy, badly dressed and smell of cabbage.

Peak Warming Man said:

Climate Change rose out of the ashes and detritus from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many left wing sympathises in academia were devastated, their ideology had lost, lost not through the weight of arms but through the weight of argument.
But how could they continue their fight against the evil corporate capitalists.
They needed something else to throw their hat on, to nail their colours to, something that would at least have some basis in fact, something that would also appeal to those with a religious bent, but what?
Then slowly a new movement started to emerge from the leafy sandstone cloisters, Gaia was giving birth to Big Climate.

The first world leader to urge action in climate change was Maggie Thatcher.

party_pants said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Climate Change rose out of the ashes and detritus from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many left wing sympathises in academia were devastated, their ideology had lost, lost not through the weight of arms but through the weight of argument.
But how could they continue their fight against the evil corporate capitalists.
They needed something else to throw their hat on, to nail their colours to, something that would at least have some basis in fact, something that would also appeal to those with a religious bent, but what?
Then slowly a new movement started to emerge from the leafy sandstone cloisters, Gaia was giving birth to Big Climate.

The first world leader to urge action in climate change was Maggie Thatcher.

I agree with the underlying point, but is that actually true?

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Climate Change rose out of the ashes and detritus from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many left wing sympathises in academia were devastated, their ideology had lost, lost not through the weight of arms but through the weight of argument.
But how could they continue their fight against the evil corporate capitalists.
They needed something else to throw their hat on, to nail their colours to, something that would at least have some basis in fact, something that would also appeal to those with a religious bent, but what?
Then slowly a new movement started to emerge from the leafy sandstone cloisters, Gaia was giving birth to Big Climate.

Very droll, but you should really try and exercise your sense of the ridiculous to parody the other side as well.

Bugger that, the queue on that side is a mile long and they’re all scruffy, badly dressed and smell of cabbage.

OK, denialist or not, that raised a smile.

Hi, I’m The_observer, & I’m an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Enhancement Realist.

Based of facts.

Not ideology.

Are humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Yes.

Can that increase in atmospheric CO2 cause an increase in global average temperature? Yes.

But by how much?

The direct result of doubling CO2, from any atmospheric level, is 0.4C to 1C.

The IPCC gives an equilibrium figure, via climate models, of 1.5C to 4.5C.
The IPCC’s figure includes hypothesised net positive feedback. That’s why their figures are higher.

Of course if net feedback was actually negative, not positive, then the resulting warming would be less than CO2’s direct effect of 0.4C to 1C.

As thae IPCC has stated, hypothesised positive water vapour feedback, to increasing atmospheric CO2, is the strongest positive feedback by far, &, depending on what model you look at, accounts for a doubling to a tripling of the direct effect of CO2.

But weather balloon data, & satellite data have both showed that water vapour feedback, to increasing atmospheric CO2 is not positive, but negative.

This is why all climate models have shown too much warming.

Now from Roy Spencer, PhD climate scientist

Yesterday brought widespread news coverage of a new “study” published in Nature Geoscience which concludes that global warming has not been progressing as fast as expected, and that climate models might be a “little bit” wrong.

(That the “little bit” is a factor of 2 or 3 is a fine point upon which we won’t quibble here.)

I’m still trying to process my feelings about how the two authors, Myles Allen and Michael Grubb, might have been allowed to wander so far off the Empire’s (UN IPCC’s) reservation.

My initial reaction to the news was captured by my wife:
I’ve been thinking about what led to this turn of events. I’ve decided it was not some random realization by rogue elements of the Empire. It was not a tactical anomaly, but instead a strategic trial balloon of sorts.

Had John Christy or I tried to publish such a paper, Storm Troopers led by Darth Trenberth would have been quickly dispatched to put down the rebellion.

The realization by the authors that the climate models have produced too much warming since about 2000 has been out there for at least 5 years. It has been no secret, and Christy and I have been lambasted as “deniers” for repeatedly pointing it out.

The timing of the authors’ realization of the same seems not very believable. Quoting from the Independent article,

According to The Times, another of the papers authors, Michael Grubb, a professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admitted his earlier forecasting models had overplayed how temperatures would rise. At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” But speaking to The Times he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.”

Now, I must ask, what did Grubb know, and when did he know it? What exactly has changed in the model forecasts since the Paris summit in December 2015?

Exactly nothing.

Allen and Grubb knew the models had a problem well before that.

I suspect there have been years of discussions in e-cigarette vapor-filled back rooms where Empire leaders have been discussing how the increasing disparity between models and observations should be handled. The resulting new paper is part of a grand scheme that Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich perfected decades ago. I believe the new narrative taking shape is this: “yes, we were wrong, but only in the timing of the coming global warming disaster. It is still going to happen… but now we have time to fix it, before it really, really is too late.”

I wonder if Allen and Grubb will also be called “deniers” for pointing out that the emperor’s models have no clothes?

Only time will tell. For now, all I can say is, welcome to the dark side.

Since it is card-carrying members of the climate establishment saying the models are wrong, though, they will probably be hailed as visionaries.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>Being a psychopath would encompass such individuals, as they lack the ability to empathise and therefore cannot see things from anothers point of view

most of us don’t maximize empathy, it’d be fucken insane to do that

Being able to do so when needed, is considerably more than not being able to do so at all.

all you did was shift whatever into when needed, so ten points to your press agent, and, further, shifted it into not being able to do so at all of the other, yet more mundane indifferences feature in all sorts of the every-day.

dna and that unfolding in the womb throw a mixed bag, the good and bad, if you want to see it that way.

that things stabilized at such a low level of pathology is impressive (not to be confused with overzealous pathologizing), given every dna recombination and incubation is an extended experimental fuck, so to speak.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Climate Change rose out of the ashes and detritus from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many left wing sympathises in academia were devastated, their ideology had lost, lost not through the weight of arms but through the weight of argument.
But how could they continue their fight against the evil corporate capitalists.
They needed something else to throw their hat on, to nail their colours to, something that would at least have some basis in fact, something that would also appeal to those with a religious bent, but what?
Then slowly a new movement started to emerge from the leafy sandstone cloisters, Gaia was giving birth to Big Climate.

The first world leader to urge action in climate change was Maggie Thatcher.

I agree with the underlying point, but is that actually true?

Strictly speaking I don’t know if she could be called a world leader, and if she was whether she was actually the first, but in her time as prime minister she did advocate for global action on climate change. In her latter years she renounced her views as denialism became part of the conservative creed. Whether she truly believed the science or not is open to question since one of the major political opponents in her time as PM were the coal unions, it may have been just a convenient political weapon to use against them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Climate Change rose out of the ashes and detritus from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many left wing sympathises in academia were devastated, their ideology had lost, lost not through the weight of arms but through the weight of argument.
But how could they continue their fight against the evil corporate capitalists.
They needed something else to throw their hat on, to nail their colours to, something that would at least have some basis in fact, something that would also appeal to those with a religious bent, but what?
Then slowly a new movement started to emerge from the leafy sandstone cloisters, Gaia was giving birth to Big Climate.

The first world leader to urge action in climate change was Maggie Thatcher.

I agree with the underlying point, but is that actually true?

Strictly speaking I don’t know if she could be called a world leader, and if she was whether she was actually the first, but in her time as prime minister she did advocate for global action on climate change. In her latter years she renounced her views as denialism became part of the conservative creed. Whether she truly believed the science or not is open to question since one of the major political opponents in her time as PM were the coal unions, it may have been just a convenient political weapon to use against them.

The_observer said:

Hi, I’m The_observer, & I’m an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Enhancement Realist.

Based of facts.

Not ideology.

Are humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Yes.

Can that increase in atmospheric CO2 cause an increase in global average temperature? Yes.

But by how much?

The direct result of doubling CO2, from any atmospheric level, is 0.4C to 1C.

The IPCC gives an equilibrium figure, via climate models, of 1.5C to 4.5C.
The IPCC’s figure includes hypothesised net positive feedback. That’s why their figures are higher.

Of course if net feedback was actually negative, not positive, then the resulting warming would be less than CO2’s direct effect of 0.4C to 1C.

As thae IPCC has stated, hypothesised positive water vapour feedback, to increasing atmospheric CO2, is the strongest positive feedback by far, &, depending on what model you look at, accounts for a doubling to a tripling of the direct effect of CO2.

But weather balloon data, & satellite data have both showed that water vapour feedback, to increasing atmospheric CO2 is not positive, but negative.

This is why all climate models have shown too much warming.

Now from Roy Spencer, PhD climate scientist

Yesterday brought widespread news coverage of a new “study” published in Nature Geoscience which concludes that global warming has not been progressing as fast as expected, and that climate models might be a “little bit” wrong.

(That the “little bit” is a factor of 2 or 3 is a fine point upon which we won’t quibble here.)

I’m still trying to process my feelings about how the two authors, Myles Allen and Michael Grubb, might have been allowed to wander so far off the Empire’s (UN IPCC’s) reservation.

My initial reaction to the news was captured by my wife:
I’ve been thinking about what led to this turn of events. I’ve decided it was not some random realization by rogue elements of the Empire. It was not a tactical anomaly, but instead a strategic trial balloon of sorts.

Had John Christy or I tried to publish such a paper, Storm Troopers led by Darth Trenberth would have been quickly dispatched to put down the rebellion.

The realization by the authors that the climate models have produced too much warming since about 2000 has been out there for at least 5 years. It has been no secret, and Christy and I have been lambasted as “deniers” for repeatedly pointing it out.

The timing of the authors’ realization of the same seems not very believable. Quoting from the Independent article,

According to The Times, another of the papers authors, Michael Grubb, a professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admitted his earlier forecasting models had overplayed how temperatures would rise. At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” But speaking to The Times he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.”

Now, I must ask, what did Grubb know, and when did he know it? What exactly has changed in the model forecasts since the Paris summit in December 2015?

Exactly nothing.

Allen and Grubb knew the models had a problem well before that.

I suspect there have been years of discussions in e-cigarette vapor-filled back rooms where Empire leaders have been discussing how the increasing disparity between models and observations should be handled. The resulting new paper is part of a grand scheme that Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich perfected decades ago. I believe the new narrative taking shape is this: “yes, we were wrong, but only in the timing of the coming global warming disaster. It is still going to happen… but now we have time to fix it, before it really, really is too late.”

I wonder if Allen and Grubb will also be called “deniers” for pointing out that the emperor’s models have no clothes?

Only time will tell. For now, all I can say is, welcome to the dark side.

Since it is card-carrying members of the climate establishment saying the models are wrong, though, they will probably be hailed as visionaries.

and you actually have no idea.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Hi, I’m The_observer, & I’m an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Enhancement Realist.

Based of facts.

Not ideology.

Are humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Yes.

Can that increase in atmospheric CO2 cause an increase in global average temperature? Yes.

But by how much?

The direct result of doubling CO2, from any atmospheric level, is 0.4C to 1C.

The IPCC gives an equilibrium figure, via climate models, of 1.5C to 4.5C.
The IPCC’s figure includes hypothesised net positive feedback. That’s why their figures are higher.

Of course if net feedback was actually negative, not positive, then the resulting warming would be less than CO2’s direct effect of 0.4C to 1C.

As thae IPCC has stated, hypothesised positive water vapour feedback, to increasing atmospheric CO2, is the strongest positive feedback by far, &, depending on what model you look at, accounts for a doubling to a tripling of the direct effect of CO2.

But weather balloon data, & satellite data have both showed that water vapour feedback, to increasing atmospheric CO2 is not positive, but negative.

This is why all climate models have shown too much warming.

Now from Roy Spencer, PhD climate scientist

Yesterday brought widespread news coverage of a new “study” published in Nature Geoscience which concludes that global warming has not been progressing as fast as expected, and that climate models might be a “little bit” wrong.

(That the “little bit” is a factor of 2 or 3 is a fine point upon which we won’t quibble here.)

I’m still trying to process my feelings about how the two authors, Myles Allen and Michael Grubb, might have been allowed to wander so far off the Empire’s (UN IPCC’s) reservation.

My initial reaction to the news was captured by my wife:
I’ve been thinking about what led to this turn of events. I’ve decided it was not some random realization by rogue elements of the Empire. It was not a tactical anomaly, but instead a strategic trial balloon of sorts.

Had John Christy or I tried to publish such a paper, Storm Troopers led by Darth Trenberth would have been quickly dispatched to put down the rebellion.

The realization by the authors that the climate models have produced too much warming since about 2000 has been out there for at least 5 years. It has been no secret, and Christy and I have been lambasted as “deniers” for repeatedly pointing it out.

The timing of the authors’ realization of the same seems not very believable. Quoting from the Independent article,

According to The Times, another of the papers authors, Michael Grubb, a professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admitted his earlier forecasting models had overplayed how temperatures would rise. At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” But speaking to The Times he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.”

Now, I must ask, what did Grubb know, and when did he know it? What exactly has changed in the model forecasts since the Paris summit in December 2015?

Exactly nothing.

Allen and Grubb knew the models had a problem well before that.

I suspect there have been years of discussions in e-cigarette vapor-filled back rooms where Empire leaders have been discussing how the increasing disparity between models and observations should be handled. The resulting new paper is part of a grand scheme that Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich perfected decades ago. I believe the new narrative taking shape is this: “yes, we were wrong, but only in the timing of the coming global warming disaster. It is still going to happen… but now we have time to fix it, before it really, really is too late.”

I wonder if Allen and Grubb will also be called “deniers” for pointing out that the emperor’s models have no clothes?

Only time will tell. For now, all I can say is, welcome to the dark side.

Since it is card-carrying members of the climate establishment saying the models are wrong, though, they will probably be hailed as visionaries.

and you actually have no idea.

You’re stupid.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Climate Change rose out of the ashes and detritus from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many left wing sympathises in academia were devastated, their ideology had lost, lost not through the weight of arms but through the weight of argument.
But how could they continue their fight against the evil corporate capitalists.
They needed something else to throw their hat on, to nail their colours to, something that would at least have some basis in fact, something that would also appeal to those with a religious bent, but what?
Then slowly a new movement started to emerge from the leafy sandstone cloisters, Gaia was giving birth to Big Climate.

The first world leader to urge action in climate change was Maggie Thatcher.

I agree with the underlying point, but is that actually true?

She was among the first. She was instrumental to the establishment of the IPCC in 1988, and was advocating a carbon tax as early as 1990. She was the first head of government of a major country to do so.

This may be a reflection of her education: she had a BSc in Chemistry.

Strong evidenc-based action on climate change is entirely in line with mainstream conservative principles and the British conservative party has continued to show strong leadership in this area. Denialism is not part of mainstream Conservative party thought in the UK.

dv said:

She was among the first. She was instrumental to the establishment of the IPCC in 1988, and was advocating a carbon tax as early as 1990. She was the first head of government of a major country to do so.

I didn’t know that.

dv said:

This may be a reflection of her education: she had a BSc in Chemistry.

Strong evidenc-based action on climate change is entirely in line with mainstream conservative principles and the British conservative party has continued to show strong leadership in this area. Denialism is not part of mainstream Conservative party thought in the UK.

And of course even here it used to be that our conservative party was in favour of strong market based action to reduce GHG emissions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

She was among the first. She was instrumental to the establishment of the IPCC in 1988, and was advocating a carbon tax as early as 1990. She was the first head of government of a major country to do so.

I didn’t know that.

dv said:

This may be a reflection of her education: she had a BSc in Chemistry.

Strong evidenc-based action on climate change is entirely in line with mainstream conservative principles and the British conservative party has continued to show strong leadership in this area. Denialism is not part of mainstream Conservative party thought in the UK.

And of course even here it used to be that our conservative party was in favour of strong market based action to reduce GHG emissions.

I remember there was a pretty good emissions trading scheme designed and proposed by a Coalition minister… Mal Tumblr or something.

Call him Petit Mal to distinguish him from Grand Mal Fraser.

> They are the very opposite of sceptics, and denailists seems like a reasonable description.

My BS detector is registering.

The opposite of climate change skeptic is climate change fanatic. Or perhaps climate change fundamentalist is a more apt description.

So are you really mad enough to claim that “denialist” is a reasonable description of those who are non-skeptical about climate change?

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>Being a psychopath would encompass such individuals, as they lack the ability to empathise and therefore cannot see things from anothers point of view

most of us don’t maximize empathy, it’d be fucken insane to do that

Being able to do so when needed, is considerably more than not being able to do so at all.

all you did was shift whatever into when needed, so ten points to your press agent, and, further, shifted it into not being able to do so at all of the other, yet more mundane indifferences feature in all sorts of the every-day.

dna and that unfolding in the womb throw a mixed bag, the good and bad, if you want to see it that way.

that things stabilized at such a low level of pathology is impressive (not to be confused with overzealous pathologizing), given every dna recombination and incubation is an extended experimental fuck, so to speak.

All you did, was show you did not understand.

mollwollfumble said:

> They are the very opposite of sceptics, and denailists seems like a reasonable description.

My BS detector is registering.

The opposite of climate change skeptic is climate change fanatic. Or perhaps climate change fundamentalist is a more apt description.

So are you really mad enough to claim that “denialist” is a reasonable description of those who are non-skeptical about climate change?

I’m using the scientific usage of the word “sceptic”, not the popular media usage of the word.

The people who call themselves sceptics are totally un-sceptical about any evidence that suits their pre-conceptions, so yes they are both non-sceptical and denialists.

True sceptics would be sceptical about all the evidence, not just the evidence that doesn’t suit their contrarianism.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> They are the very opposite of sceptics, and denailists seems like a reasonable description.

My BS detector is registering.

The opposite of climate change skeptic is climate change fanatic. Or perhaps climate change fundamentalist is a more apt description.

So are you really mad enough to claim that “denialist” is a reasonable description of those who are non-skeptical about climate change?

I’m using the scientific usage of the word “sceptic”, not the popular media usage of the word.

The people who call themselves sceptics are totally un-sceptical about any evidence that suits their pre-conceptions, so yes they are both non-sceptical and denialists.

True sceptics would be sceptical about all the evidence, not just the evidence that doesn’t suit their contrarianism.

Any comments on my post rev.
Like to point out exactly what your version of a sceptic is?
Whats your personal expected result for 2 x CO2?

Listened to The Health Report in the car today. Specifically on “Bias, hype, poor peer review practice – how prevalent is spin in science?”

I’d suspect it’s not only in health science. The figures were pretty damning.

http://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgdGYNEAo6

And journals with high ratings were no better than the others. In a generalization.

>All you did, was show you did not understand.

Probably not, i’m not a keen pathologizer looking for some moral territory to inhabit. Nor do I expect much from conceptualizing things as opposites, grasping-like.

Not invested that way, no.

Ignore

Deny

Shoot

Repeat

in a way homeostasis/maintenance of organic structures is a type of denial, avoidance of discomfort, slowing of fitness decline, suspension of decay. There’s certainly overlap.

much as human consciousness projects a feel of ideals, my guess is there are things that are in territory that quite practically defy any ideal, no matter how rational. The chaps that wrote the bible texts had some insight into this.

our troglodyte ancestors probably didn’t know, but then they didn’t have designs on the entire planet.

wild bonobos probably don’t know. Maybe they do but concluded world domination wasn’t worth the trouble.

where is a species at, that has designs of expansion over the entire planet, world domination?

doesn’t sound quite as flattering as a force of nature (of human culture/civilization).