Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

"Everyone?" On which "side of the political spectrum?" You really believe that all those who happen to agree with a conclusion as open-ended and vague as the science being "unsettled" also share the same political affiliation?

Who said anything about the scientists (and others who understand the science) being "better" than those on the other side of the issue? And which "population at large" are you referring to? The 50% or so in the U.S. and (average percentage) worldwide who are roughly split on the issue? Or the somewhat higher majorities in Canada and some parts of the developing world who supposedly favor the AGW position? And which of the many and varied AGW positions would that be? As has already been shown, the polling is entirely dependent on how the questions are asked. Were you not here for this particular round of charts & graphs?

The "scientists themselves?" Which ones? Have you not heard by now that many of the supposed "minority" who favor the anti-AGW side are both numerous and highly-credentialed? The vast majority of this minority accept the existence of MMGW, btw, but reject to varying degrees its impacts as opposed to natural forces. But we've covered that one too . . . multiple times. In any event, you do understand that scientific theory does not become "settled" by way of a popularity contest, right? I mean a popular guy like The Donald would never be able to settle the scientific debate, no matter how many votes he got.

Lots of backtracking, and dubious assumptions being made, at a rather late point in a thread with over 2600 posts.

Science confirms it: Denial of climate change is all about the politics | Washington Post

Dozens of surveys and studies have attempted to figure out which factors most heavily influence individuals’ beliefs about climate change and their support for climate-friendly policies. But because there have been so many published recently, scientists argue that it’s been difficult to keep up with the overall trends these studies have been revealing.

Now, some clarity is being offered in the form of a new analysis published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, which reviews all the existing literature on climate change beliefs and pulls out the broad conclusions that can be drawn from all the combined research. The findings highlight two major ideas about the public’s feelings on climate change. First, the analysis suggests that out of all the personal characteristics examined by scientists so far, political affiliations, worldviews and values were the most significant predictors of a person’s beliefs about climate change. Second — and perhaps somewhat disheartening — a person’s belief in climate change doesn’t necessarily translate into big support for climate-friendly action. [...]

The findings may challenge certain stereotypes often accepted by the general public about who does and does not believe in anthropogenic climate change, said Hornsey — two major ones in particular. First, he said, there’s a widely held belief that climate doubters are less educated. But while there’s a small tendency for skeptics to have lower levels of education or less climate-specific knowledge, he said that the relationship isn’t particularly strong.

“Another idea about skeptics is that they’re all older white men,” Hornsey said. “Again, there’s a small kernel of truth here – people higher in skepticism are more likely to be old, white and male – but the effects are so tiny you have to squint to see them. What really popped was people’s ideologies, political values, worldviews.”

Indeed, political affiliation was the demographic variable most strongly correlated with people’s beliefs about climate change, with people who vote for more liberal political parties being more inclined to believe in climate change. Notably, political ideology — that is, a person’s overall general set of political beliefs along a continuous scale (a related, but different measure than the party a person intends to vote for) — was less of a predictor, although still a significant factor. “This suggests that acceptance of climate change is more aligned to specific identification with political parties than to underlying political ideologies,” the authors wrote in the paper.[...]

The most significant psychological variable — and indeed, the strongest predictor out of all the variables together — was a construct known as the New Ecological Paradigm, or NEP. This is a scale used to essentially measure people’s levels of environmental concern. It does not deal specifically with climate change, as the authors point out — but it is a strong predictor of people’s belief in global warming.[...]

Belief in the trustworthiness of scientists and the idea that there’s a scientific consensus surrounding climate change were also strong predictors of a person’s belief in climate change. Other somewhat less significant predictors included characteristics such as a person’s scientific knowledge, their level of individualism versus communitarianism, and demographic variables such as age, race or sex.[...]

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Science confirms it: Denial of climate change is all about the politics | Washington Post

That's a classic! So much wrong with it:

1. "Denial of climate change" - says it all about the articles biases, doesn't it.

Once more. Who denies climate change? I suppose it is a useful pejorative when you have no other argument.

2. "which reviews all the existing literature on climate change beliefs" -

That's not science! Science is not about beliefs in any way. shape or form.

A review of literature on any beliefs is not science i.e.
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

3. "First, the analysis suggests that out of all the personal characteristics examined by scientists so far, political affiliations, worldviews and values were the most significant predictors of a person’s beliefs about climate change."

So it's not just "all about politics". Apart from anything else, it is about worldviews and values and that is the "most significant", not the only.

And it bears repeating: Correlation does not imply causation. Maybe the sceptics world view and values cause them to being critical of the hype and bad science behind alarmism, not the other way round. And maybe that correlates with their political beliefs.

4. "Notably, political ideology — that is, a person’s overall general set of political beliefs along a continuous scale (a related, but different measure than the party a person intends to vote for) — was less of a predictor, although still a significant factor. “This suggests that acceptance of climate change is more aligned to specific identification with political parties than to underlying political ideologies,” the authors wrote in the paper."

But what of the 43% of the US population that doesn't specifically identify with a political party? And the even higher proportion in many other countries? Don't they count in the literature?

5. "The most significant psychological variable — and indeed, the strongest predictor out of all the variables together — was a construct known as the New Ecological Paradigm, or NEP. This is a scale used to essentially measure people’s levels of environmental concern."

So once again, it's NOT "all about the politics". And I think you will find that the vast majority of sceptics have high levels of environmental concern. I know that those posting in this thread do. And I know many "political conservatives" who also do regardless of their beliefs in CAGW.

6. "Belief in the trustworthiness of scientists and the idea that there’s a scientific consensus surrounding climate change were also strong predictors of a person’s belief in climate change. Other somewhat less significant predictors included characteristics such as a person’s scientific knowledge, their level of individualism versus communitarianism, and demographic variables such as age, race or sex."

Yep, so once again, it's not "all about the politics".

And the more scientifically literate members of the population are the ones with the least belief in the trustworthiness of [climate] scientists and the idea that there is a scientific consensus.

In other words, it's not even mostly about the politics, it's about beliefs - and the alarmists blind acceptance of what they are being told.

7. "For instance, he said, suggesting that environmentalism is patriotic or important for national security may help the idea resonate with some audiences."

Yet another unwarranted confounding of environmentalism with belief in CAGW

8. "“I think the solution is to elect more candidates, or more politicians, who recognize that climate change is important and action needs to be taken,” he said."

Which really drives home the bias implicit in the article.

I think the solution is to elect more candidates, or more politicians who have a better scientific background.

So bottom line - a critical reading of the article tells us that an accurate headline would have been:

"Science tells us nothing about the reasons people are sceptical about CAGW. Politics is just one of many factors which correlate to some extent with opinions about the causes of climate change."

Maybe LE should take note.

[Exile]

In other words, there are any number of various & sundry "explanations" for why so many are skeptical, except for the actual science which challenges the credibility of the mainstream position. Do some of you respond after simply skipping over posts & links from people you disagree with?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

In other words, there are any number of various & sundry "explanations" for why so many are skeptical, except for the actual science which challenges the credibility of the mainstream position. Do some of you respond after simply skipping over posts & links from people you disagree with?

Yep, using facts to try to debate with "true believers" is often a futile effort.

But I will continue to do so in the (forlorn?) hope that some of it may eventually sink in to the minds of a few of the less fervent among them.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

Yep, using facts to try to debate with "true believers" is often a futile effort.

But I will continue to do so in the (forlorn?) hope that some of it may eventually sink in to the minds of a few of the less fervent among them.

Just to be clear, is nothing happening then, we can keep releasing co2 into the atmosphere and it doesn't do anything?

[boatman61]

Your ALL Bludi WRONG....

Boatie's Theory on Climate Change...
After a very long time of ferment and chaos the earth finally cooled enough for life to kick off with the help off the formation of H2O settling and pooling on the surface.. now somehow unknown to me but easily explained by scientists.. from this 1st microscopic little wriggler were developed Plants, Fish, Mammals and Birds.. and over the millennia the crust thickened with the deposits of the many corpse's of all varieties until man discovered OIL...
So now you have to switch your mind to thinking of oil filled radiators and the earths core being the boiler...
So... we start sucking out the oil and replacing it with water.. Silly
Everyone knows oil is a more stable and longer lasting retainer of heat.. run an oil filled rad and a water filled one for the same length of time.. switch both off and see for yourself which goes cold quickest..
So.. for around 150 years give or take we have been sucking the oil out of our radiator and replacing it with water and then go.. "Oh my..!! the Sahara is expanding southwards... Duhh..!! I wonder why.?"
Take a look around the world where oil is pumped out.. once fertile or semi-fertile.. now desert.. plant life is forced to retreat as the soil becomes to variable in temperature to support life of any thing but the most resilient.. and even they eventually wither away..
Its funny really when one looks at it.. all through mans recent history (6000yrs) he's taken AS MUCH AS HE CAN AND GIVEN LITTLE OR NOTHING OF VALUE BACK.
Everyone it seems forgets a basic tenant of Physic's.. for every action there IS an equal and opposite reaction..
But then I view the Earth as a living thing that needs nurturing.. not created by some invisible supposed super hero..
Grew out off the Cave Man thinking by the time I was 7..

Oh.. why 6000yrs... well that's simple.. that's when the religion that is the root cause of today was invented.. or.. the earth was created.. all depending on how simple minded you are..

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Just to be clear, is nothing happening then, we can keep releasing co2 into the atmosphere and it doesn't do anything?

Have you been following this thread? I have to wonder with a comment like that.

[conachair]

On and off. So what's your view? What *is* happening then?

Sent from my SM-G357FZ using Tapatalk

[StuM]

So much bad science in one post

>now somehow unknown to me but easily explained by scientists

"http://www.livescience.com/1804-greatest-mysteries-life-arise-earth.html
" But despite knowing approximately when life first appeared on Earth, scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.
"Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists," said Diana Northup, a cave biologist at the University of New Mexico.
The answer to this question would not only fill one of the largest gaps in scientists' understanding of nature, but also would have important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe."

Everyone knows oil is a more stable and longer lasting retainer of heat
http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/some-liquids-heat-faster-than-others/
"the heat capacity of oil is lower than the heat capacity of water. Water requires more energy per gram of liquid to change its temperature"

> Oh my..!! the Sahara is expanding southwards.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196305000522
"For the last four decades there has been sustained scientific interest in contemporary environmental change in the Sahel (the southern fringe of the Sahara). It suffered several devastating droughts and famines between the late 1960s and early 1990s. Speculation about the climatology of these droughts is unresolved, as is speculation about the effects of land clearance on rainfall and about land degradation in this zone. However, recent findings suggest a consistent trend of increasing vegetation greenness in much of the region."

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

On and off. So what's your view? What *is* happening then?

Sent from my SM-G357FZ using Tapatalk

A slight benign warming in accordance with basic physics.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by StuM

So much bad science in one post

>now somehow unknown to me but easily explained by scientists

"http://www.livescience.com/1804-greatest-mysteries-life-arise-earth.html
" But despite knowing approximately when life first appeared on Earth, scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.
"Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists," said Diana Northup, a cave biologist at the University of New Mexico.
The answer to this question would not only fill one of the largest gaps in scientists' understanding of nature, but also would have important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe."

Everyone knows oil is a more stable and longer lasting retainer of heat
http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/some-liquids-heat-faster-than-others/
"the heat capacity of oil is lower than the heat capacity of water. Water requires more energy per gram of liquid to change its temperature"

> Oh my..!! the Sahara is expanding southwards.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196305000522
"For the last four decades there has been sustained scientific interest in contemporary environmental change in the Sahel (the southern fringe of the Sahara). It suffered several devastating droughts and famines between the late 1960s and early 1990s. Speculation about the climatology of these droughts is unresolved, as is speculation about the effects of land clearance on rainfall and about land degradation in this zone. However, recent findings suggest a consistent trend of increasing vegetation greenness in much of the region."

Interesting... I remember Timbuktu and the surrounds being 'a green and pleasant land in the 50's.. now its just an oasis in the desert.. not much greening going on..
As for scientists... they'll say whatever their sponsor tells them... except the rare occasions they can self finance..
Anyway.. look on the bright side.. you get to expound some more.. Copy & Paste.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

A slight benign warming in accordance with basic physics.

Again, just to be clear. Benign is subjective, presumably you mean good for human society as it exists at the moment? The rest of life doesn't know or care.

And basic physics, that must mean caused by a change in energy transfer rates through the atmosphere? Which is well understood, predicted and experimentally measured .

Ta

[Warby12]

Originally Posted by StuM

A slight benign warming in accordance with basic physics.

Hi Stu, (pls forgive me, I haven't been following this thread but it is veeeery long )


So you are saying there is no causation link with co2 emissions and this warming?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by StuM

So much bad science in one post

>now somehow unknown to me but easily explained by scientists

"http://www.livescience.com/1804-greatest-mysteries-life-arise-earth.html
" But despite knowing approximately when life first appeared on Earth, scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.
"Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists," said Diana Northup, a cave biologist at the University of New Mexico.
The answer to this question would not only fill one of the largest gaps in scientists' understanding of nature, but also would have important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe."

Everyone knows oil is a more stable and longer lasting retainer of heat
http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/some-liquids-heat-faster-than-others/
"the heat capacity of oil is lower than the heat capacity of water. Water requires more energy per gram of liquid to change its temperature"
[/I]

Kinda backs up my 'Bad Science' if you think first before the next cut and paste...
Water takes more energy to heat up.. it also cools a lot faster.. hence the scorching days and bitter cold nights in the desert.. no stability.
Oil requires less energy and retains heat much longer.. therefore.. if you think about it a minute.. it takes less energy and time to return to optimal IF there is significant heat loss for some reason.. plants thrive in greenhouse's where temps are stable
But.. I never studied science as a speciality and left school at 15.. so just put me with the uneducated masses who talk outa their arses..
I bow to the 'Knowledge' of the Western science.. whats another 'Opps.. we got that wrong' between friends..

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Again, just to be clear. Benign is subjective, presumably you mean good for human society as it exists at the moment? The rest of life doesn't know or care.

Benign as in not harmful.

And basic physics, that must mean caused by a change in energy transfer rates through the atmosphere? Which is well understood, predicted and experimentally measured .

Ta

Not really.

The basic radiative forcing effects of CO2 are well understood, predicted and experimentally measured. CO2 molecules absorb some upwelling radiation and re-emit it in all directions including downwards. Just as water, methane and other GHGs do.

That's the crux of the Greenhouse Theory.

Beyond that it's all models and assumptions. The biggest assumption which is dependent on a lot of others being the final "climate sensitivity" i.e. the amount of warming which will result from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is far from understood. If you look back in this thread you will see a graph of the varying (and declining) estimates of this sensitivity deduced by various studies over many years.

There are a huge range of feedbacks involved including:
long term effects of increased surface warming on atmospheric water content and clouds (water is by far the biggest greenhouse gas) and the consequent feedbacks including increased albedo resulting in less incoming radiation,
the existence of emergent phenomena such as thunderstorms (which transfer huge amounts of heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere in short periods of time and are poorly modelled - if they are modelled at all)
and numerous other poorly understood potential feedbacks, positive and negative

IOW, No overall changes in energy transfer rates through the atmosphere are poorly understood and measured. But they sure are predicted by the alarmists.