Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[ferdgoodfellow]

Reasons that people in the United States are more skeptical, or unwilling to be convinced by the IPCC, other than historical lively debating? The popular notion is that the public is not well enough educated with the proper facts, which would explain the consensus messaging blitz for the past 10 years or so. Dan Kahan thinks it is a risk perception issue that prevents many from committing to the idea:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503

Kahan has a webpage:

culturalcognition.net/

where he explores this and other societal risk perception issues. He does not think that consensus messaging is working any longer, mostly due to polarization issues, but still believes the skeptics are misinformed or affected by cultural bias. Which is similar to saying the sun is hot or water is wet. I suppose that leaves which cultural bias is now acceptable for risk perception, but does not explain how I or others like me, with science and engineering backgrounds, wont commit to it either. A conundrum for some, a crusade for others, or just another day at the office.

Hi sps and tomarin,

That there is no great groundswell of support of climate change among the masses is a puzzle for the social science arm of the climate science establishment.

Offered explanations range from the crude Marxist (its all economics) to the more nuanced theories. Whether we are talking Kahan, or Haider, Krosnick, Lewandowsky, or whoever, they all take as a given the absolute truth of the Global Warming of Doom hypothesis.

But what they all miss is the honest skepticism that arises when someone actually looks at the behavior of the proponents of the GWD hypothesis. (“Gee, can folks who act so badly be trusted?”)

They also don’t seem to appreciate that their theories are a two-edged sword.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Thanks, sps, for posting the link to the Kahan paper.

Note that his starting question is why folks doubt something backed by the consensus of scientific experts.

I thinks the great unwashed masses are mistrustful of consensus science. They know that the consensus of experts has been wrong before. They also know that how a given discipline arrives at a consensus is a social phenomenon. Social, economic, and psychological factors influence the result.

They know that scientists, however brainy, are hooman beans just like the rest of us. They burp, they fart, and they pull their shorts on just like you and me. They can be influenced by the desire for success, fame, money, or (like James Hansen) the desire to get arrested for acts of civil disobedience with blond bimbos. Their values can influence their cultural cognition of risk. They can be tribal. They can engage in motivated reasoning…

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Now I admit that normally it is reasonable to trust the collective and cumulative of scientists. But it is not reasonable to trust the climate science establishment led by the IPCC. They have given us too many reasons not to trust them.

 

[Ender]

Now I admit that normally it is reasonable to trust the collective and cumulative of scientists. But it is not reasonable to trust the climate science establishment led by the IPCC. They have given us too many reasons not to trust them.

• unless we have evident indications of a person’s wickedness, we ought to deem him good, by interpreting for the best whatever is doubtful about him. *(Aquinas)
  Given that we have evident indications of the misbehavior of the IPCC and its minions there is no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt…and every reason not to.

Ender

 

[_thaddeus]

That’s nice.

Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of **pollution **as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday–these are deeply held beliefs. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Remarks to the Commonwealth Club

by Michael Crichton
San Francisco
September 15, 2003
cs.cmu.edu/~kw/crichton.html

"
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them. … … …
"

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

err, well said Michael.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

• unless we have evident indications of a person’s wickedness, we ought to deem him good, by interpreting for the best whatever is doubtful about him. *(Aquinas)
  Given that we have evident indications of the misbehavior of the IPCC and its minions there is no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt…and every reason not to.

Ender

Ender,

Let’s you and I collaborate on a book. Proposed title: “The Wickedness of the IPCC.” Or maybe: “The IPCC: A Study of Wickedness,” or “Wicked! A Story Climate Science Corruption.”

 

[sps49]

Thanks, sps, for posting the link to the Kahan paper.

Note that his starting question is why folks doubt something backed by the consensus of scientific experts.

I thinks the great unwashed masses are mistrustful of consensus science. They know that the consensus of experts has been wrong before. They also know that how a given discipline arrives at a consensus is a social phenomenon. Social, economic, and psychological factors influence the result.

They know that scientists, however brainy, are hooman beans just like the rest of us. They burp, they fart, and they pull their shorts on just like you and me. They can be influenced by the desire for success, fame, money, or (like James Hansen) the desire to get arrested for acts of civil disobedience with blond bimbos. Their values can influence their cultural cognition of risk. They can be tribal. They can engage in motivated reasoning…

One of the things which damages credibility is the use of pejorative terms to describe those who disagree with you. This is common for activists on both sides of the debate, but is less common in science and engineering reviews.

When I read a journal article of published paper about a research effort, I have the following choices:

-I may agree with the research
-I may agree with some of the research
-I may disagree with the research, and recommend that the team look at the concept/hypothesis again.

Notice that I did not say “debunked,” “discredited,” “not even wrong.” These terms are political, and add nothing to the process. Activists have a preconceived notion of what the outcome should be, so it is no surprise that dialog with activists will not further the understanding of a particular subject, although you may learn more about the activists. Climate change, be it catastrophic AGW, natural variation, or a combination of human and natural influence is not a zero-sum proposition, but many think it is because it fulfills the binary/two-dimensional narrative they believe in. You’ll know when you are in a dialog with another person who also wants to understand a subject when you don’t hear pejorative terms, and zero-sum, zero-threshold arguments.

 

[Ender]

Let’s you and I collaborate on a book. Proposed title: “The Wickedness of the IPCC.” Or maybe: “The IPCC: A Study of Wickedness,” or “Wicked! A Story Climate Science Corruption.”

A question I repeatedly ask, without ever receiving an answer, is this: if AGW is so demonstrably and undeniably true, why do its supporters find it necessary to resort to deception (and other misdeeds) to defend their position?

Ender

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

One of the things which damages credibility is the use of pejorative terms to describe those who disagree with you. This is common for activists on both sides of the debate, but is less common in science and engineering reviews.

…

And what also damages credibility is when the scientists themselves become activists, which is very common in climate science. The field of paleo is particular infested with post-normal activist types.

In this regard, the climate activist scientists should read a little more what their own guys in the social science arm of the movement are saying. If I remember right, Krosnick has noted that a scientist’s cred will decline the more he talks and acts like an activist with a policy agenda. IOW, stick to the science.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

A question I repeatedly ask, without ever receiving an answer, is this: if AGW is so demonstrably and undeniably true, why do its supporters find it necessary to resort to deception (and other misdeeds) to defend their position?

Ender

For some, noble cause corruption explains it.

Speaking of noble causes, I can’t help but quote Inigo Montoya (for no good reason other than it makes me chuckle):

Miracle Max: You got any money?
Inigo Montoya: Sixty-five.
Miracle Max: I’ve never worked for so little. Except once, and that was a very noble cause.
Inigo Montoya: This is noble, sir. His wife is… crippled. His children are on the brink of starvation.
Miracle Max: Are you a rotten liar!
Inigo Montoya: I need him to help avenge my father, murdered these twenty years.
Miracle Max: Your first story was better.

Miracle Max: He probably owes you money huh? I’ll ask him.
Inigo Montoya: He’s dead. He can’t talk.
Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there’s usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What’s that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

Inigo Montoya: But this is Buttercup’s true love - If you heal him, he will stop Humperdinck’s wedding.
Miracle Max: Wait. Wait. I make him better, Humperdinck suffers?
Inigo Montoya: Humiliations galore!
Miracle Max: That is a noble cause. Give me the sixty-five, I’m on the job.

 

[sps49]

A question I repeatedly ask, without ever receiving an answer, is this: if AGW is so demonstrably and undeniably true, why do its supporters find it necessary to resort to deception (and other misdeeds) to defend their position?

Ender

Why do people do anything? They forgot what mom and dad taught them, live in a way where uncivil dialog is approved? Another factor that is different now more than ever is the availability of the forum/blogosphere to anyone with a “good idea.” 25 years ago, it took some effort, and a lot of contacts to be heard over a wide area.

In the end, it comes down to risk/reward. Activist scientists are rewarded for their behavior; that is the simple explanation. Since the discussion moved into the political sphere, “technical correctness,” representing claims responsibly, and holding back information that would be unfavorable to your position is the new narrative. It is a pseudo-legal adversarial method that is only good for cheer leading and showboating.

 

[lynnvinc]

Now I admit that normally it is reasonable to trust the collective and cumulative of scientists. But it is not reasonable to trust the climate science establishment led by the IPCC. They have given us too many reasons not to trust them.

You mean the oily well-funded CC denialist industry has concocted may bogus and deceitful reasons not to trust them.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

You mean the oily well-funded CC denialist industry has concocted may bogus and deceitful reasons not to trust them.

Please 'splain which of my reasons are bogus and deceitful. Just pick one and let’s examine it for bogosity (bogusity?) and deceitfulness.

 

[lynnvinc]

Please 'splain which of my reasons are bogus and deceitful. Just pick one and let’s examine it for bogosity (bogusity?) and deceitfulness.

You should know better than me. Just list all the websites from where you get your info an AGW, and I’ll let you know which ones are into deceitful lies & truth-twisting about AGW…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Remarks to the Commonwealth Club

by Michael Crichton
San Francisco
September 15, 2003
cs.cmu.edu/~kw/crichton.html

"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.
"

Thank you for providing the reference. I thought I had posted it within quotes. I stand corrected.

Dr. Crichton makes some very good points about the evils of environmentalism. He also states:

" Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. **They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. **In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas."

That pretty much sums up the AGW alarmists.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You mean the oily well-funded CC denialist industry has concocted may bogus and deceitful reasons not to trust them.

Ahhh…do I detect a bit of anti-industry, anti-business, anti-Capitalism attitude here…
of is it just anti-big oil?

 

[lynnvinc]

Another indication that Pope Francis is right on CC:

Nieves, et al. 2015. “Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating” Science Vol. 349 no. 6247 pp. 532-535, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4521

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: “Looking for the missing heat” – Global warming apparently slowed, or even stopped, during the first decade of the 21st century. This pause is commonly called the “hiatus.” We know, however, that Earth’s climate system is accumulating excess solar energy owing to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Where, then, has this energy gone if not into the air? Nieves et al. find that over this period, the surface Pacific Ocean has cooled but the upper Indian and Southern Oceans have warmed. Thus, the decade-long hiatus that began in 2003 would appear to be the result of a redistribution of heat within the ocean, rather than a change in the whole-Earth warming rate.

ABSTRACT: Recent modeling studies have proposed different scenarios to explain the slowdown in surface temperature warming in the most recent decade. Some of these studies seem to support the idea of internal variability and/or rearrangement of heat between the surface and the ocean interior. Others suggest that radiative forcing might also play a role. Our examination of observational data over the past two decades shows some significant differences when compared to model results from reanalyses and provides the most definitive explanation of how the heat was redistributed. We find that cooling in the top 100-meter layer of the Pacific Ocean was mainly compensated for by warming in the 100- to 300-meter layer of the Indian and Pacific Oceans in the past decade since 2003.

---

Exactly what Dr. James Hansen (retired NASA top climate scientist) projected back in 1981 could happen – not bad at all for a projection 34 years ago! And the Pope is no dumb bunny either!

See p. 960 of Hansen, et al, 1981 “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” at pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html It actually underestimated the warming with this mixed layer & thermocline re surface and deep ocean uptake of the warming.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2590&pictureid=17591

 

[lileli]

Of course he is…this isn’t his opinion. Its a fact.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Of course he is…this isn’t his opinion. Its a fact.

Hi Lileli,

Welcome.

Please 'splain yerself.

cordially,

ferd