Is there a reason why climate change skeptics and deniers avoid the facts?

I think we need to be a little more understanding of the motivation of the sceptics and deniers. In many cases they have spent a lifetime/career furthering the cause of consumerism. They have been taught and have grown to believe that economic growth is a good thing and have felt good about their success in developing the technologies and the habits that have led to phenomenal growth nationally and globally. They have taken pride in the achievements of the "developed" world and have lost appreciation for other values.

It is not easy for anybody to have to face the fact that the ideology upon which their lives and careers have been based is wrong. We need to understand the difficulties that such people face. We need to help them appreciate that technology and entrepreneurial drive are needed to solve the problems of climate change and resource depletion and that they can play a part in achieving a better world. We need to describe the better world in terms that are attractive rather than in terms that seem a throw back to the dark ages.

None of this can be achieved by attacks on sceptics and deniers. Even those that are cynically taking money to spread lies probably fail to appreciate that they are doing harm. They believe in consumerism so completely that they feel they are simply fighting fire with fire for the greater good of continued economic growth, low taxes, untrammelled freedom etc..

What we must do instead is, continue to present the evidence for climate change and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time we should point out the economic dangers in the depletion of fossil fuels and the entrepreneurial opportunities and interesting technological challenges in developing sustainable solutions. But hardest of all, we need to promote the idea of sustainable lifestyles in which products are chosen for their durability rather than for being in fashion. And in which more money is spent on enjoyment (art, theatre, music, dance) rather than on fashionable things. We need to promote the idea that technology can help make life more enjoyable rather than more full of stuff and that leisure should be enjoyed with family and friends rather than in the shopping mall. We may even regain that idea that hard work can yield more leisure time rather than more money to spend in damaging ways.

Best wishes for a more sustainable future.

It's actually a very simple answer - the facts are on their side, and alarmists are in denial.

It's the same reason it's so difficult to convince an alcoholic or drug addict he has a problem. Point out all the global warming, and they'll just say what's that got to do with being addicted? Usually it's not until a volcanic eruption happens that they admit they are the problem.

The problem with AGW is that the effects would be obvious if it was supported by science. Our main concerns are always several decades away from occurring, and never really becoming more apparent between now and then. Thus for example you get an completely normal increased prevalence in droughts, but deniers can't convince themselves it's abnormal, because the prevalence increases and decreases constantly.

The problem is that once the falsehood of AGW is obvious to everybody, it will be too late to do anything about it. This makes alarmism very hard, unless one ignores/rejects/denies the science. So that's why deniers don't avoid the facts - because it's too hard to do. And of course the motivation for the alarmists is purely political.

It's actually a very simple answer - the facts aren't on their side, and they're in denial.

It's the same reason it's so difficult to convince an alcoholic or drug addict he has a problem. Point out all the alcohol and drugs they consume, they'll just say they can stop any time and aren't addicted. Usually it's not until something disastrous happens that they admit they have a problem.

The problem with AGW is that the effects aren't obvious. Our main concerns are still several decades away from occurring, only slowly becoming more apparent between now and then. Thus for example you get an increased prevalence in droughts, but deniers can just tell themselves it's nothing abnormal, because the prevalence increases relatively slowly.

The problem is that once the effects of AGW are obvious to everybody, it will be too late to do anything about it. This makes denial very easy, as long as one ignores/rejects/denies the science. So that's why deniers do it - because it's easy to do. And of course the motivation for their denial is purely political.

It is a very simple and persuasive argumentative technique. You sew the seed of doubt on the validity of the other side. You don't prove your side, just say that the other side hasn't met its burden of proof.

It is often used in criminal trials. You just hack away at the creditability of the witness, or you raise the inherent contradictions in testimony -- and there are always contradictions.

Then again every time a proponent of AGW says that a study was funded by oil and gas, he or she is attacking the creditability based on a presumed bias; of course the skeptics do the same thing by alleging that academic supporters of AGW do so for funding reasons.

It is time consuming and difficult to deal with this type of argumentation. Even though the flaws in the other sides argument may seem readily apparent to you, they are not necessarily so to the average joe.

Trevor,

Seriously - disprove what exactly? An increase of globally averaged temps of less than one degree in a hundred years?

At least some of that increase is natural as even the IPCC admits. Could some of it be caused by man? Sure. Should we worry about catastrophe? I really can't see why.

But the idea that it will trigger feedbacks? Purely speculative.

As is the catastrophic side of it. All the evidence is that a warmer world will be a safer, more productive, and, well, warmer world - but the alarmists just can't handle that idea. They need panic. Catastrophe. Doom.

Why do the mistakes of scientists years ago matter? Because history is not bunk. It matters. We are being told that there is a 'consensus', 95% certainty, 99% certainty, 'all the evidence shows' etc, etc. Science is never wrong. Act now.

But science is frequently wrong. Mistakes are made. That's how science advances. There used to be a consensus that phlogiston was a universal element. That plate tectonics was nonsense. And then . . .

"But that was years ago, we know better now"

Are you sure? Bet your life?

--------------------------------------

George Kukla, Climate Scientist, interviewed in 2007 on global warming: [QUOTE]

""The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid . . . What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural.""

http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/an_unrepentan...

Debunk that.

Haha I saw your answer in the "why should a few years make any difference to the 4 billion years of this planet" question.. and I came out thinking the exact same thing ! It's ridiculous how little people actually think about what they're asking. Like, hmm, what is different from now and even 100 years ago, hmm .. technology. So it's obvious. And then they go and huff and puff, and don't even give into the facts and the reality of the situation we're in because they don't want change, and they don't want to work at this problem, they just want to ignore it, because it's easier that way.. and it's so frustrating !!! It is impossible to neglect the truths of global warming.. and I even hate when people who do believe in it, say such idiotic things like, "Bring on the global warming, I've always wanted palm trees in my front yard" .. what people don't understand is it's not just the earth getting a little bit warmer, it's storms, and catastrophes, and pandemic and such that we need to be worried about. But especially storms, and sea levels. Because just think about it, with rising sea levels there will be less space on earth, and the population of the world has been growing so rapidly, so more people .. less space, and then we have storms, alright, so now we have millions of homeless people, people suffering, becoming ill, water shortages.

It goes on and on .. and really frustrates me. I just had to vent a little bit there. But people need to read ! It's right here in front of us. The volcanoes in Iceland, Haiti, the growing amounts of hurricanes, everything..

I'm not a doomer, far from it, I'm just not ignorant, to those who are going to read this and moan and groan.

I am not convinced that diverting so much attention away from the complicated solutions to the problems of global warming onto the simple to understand minor phenomenon of industry generated carbon dioxide is very helpful.

Global temperature is a function of the amount of the sun’s heat energy reaching the land and the insulation and heat reflective properties of the atmosphere. Global temperature has fluctuated for millions of years (well before man or industrialisation happened) and in fact we are currently at quite a low level, so we should expect temperatures to rise.

Thermal insulation:

From what I have read, somewhere between 80% and 97% of the insulation properties of the atmosphere arise from the presence of water vapour in the air and somewhere between 2% and 20% of the insulation properties of the atmosphere arise from the presence of carbon dioxide in the air.

The sources of the carbon dioxide are said to be 38% from respiration & decay of animals (including us)

57% from the surface of the ocean

4% from burning fossil fuels and cement manufacture

It is not clear to me what the contribution of plants to the production of atmospheric carbon dioxide is, but as long ago as 28th November 2003: "Scientists" announced that the Amazon rain forest gives out more Carbon Dioxide than it absorbs.

So at best, present simplistic solutions are looking to control 4% of 20% of the factors contributing to the thermal insulation provided by the atmosphere (this means they are trying to tinker with 0.8% of the problem – and at worst 0.08% of the problem). This is truly tinkering, but it is easier to measure and understand and it makes it look as though we are doing something.

Additionally, because of the different weights of carbon dioxide and water vapour, the carbon dioxide forms a relatively thin layer at the bottom of the atmosphere (in lowlands, valleys and over the sea for instance), whereas the water vapour is a much more effective blanket reaching high up into the sky (see clouds). You can feel the effect of this water vapour insulation by comparing a clear Autumn (Fall) night with an overcast one. Also possibly temperate zone winters are colder than they need to be because the water vapour emitting leaves have fallen off the trees.

An additional paradox with acting as though tinkering with a very small (industrial production of carbon dioxide) element of the warming will do any good, is that if it were so, the Earth would have a natural feedback mechanism: CO2 in atmosphere would increase, temperature would increase, ice would melt, CO2 would dissolve, CO2 in atmosphere would be reduced.

Sun’s heat reaching the land.

The sun has been enjoying (2009) a prolonged and unexpected period of low sunspot activity which probably means it has been delivering more heat than usual to our planet.

Since the 1960’s the move to reduce industrial pollution has resulted in clearer air which means more of the sun’s heat reaches the ground to be trapped in the insulating blanket.

Trees had a natural feedback mechanism to control the heat, when it got too hot they would burn, filling the air with ash which acted as sunshade to reduce the amount of heat reaching the ground, but of course now we try to stop the trees burning, and we do it by pouring on huge amounts of water which becomes water vapour (which is 80% to 97% of the insulation effect).

As frozen areas get warmer the ice and snow (highly reflective) reduce and seas and land (more absorbent of heat) get larger.

Other contributions to global warming

Remembering that the Earth warms and cools over long periods of time, it is right to look at the mechanisms by which this happens. As well as the main factor which is the sun’s heat reaching the ground there are also other minor sources of heat – geothermal activity and living creatures being the main obvious ones. It is unlikely that any human activity can be shown to effect geothermal activity, though it is possible that oil and gas extraction from underground may increase the instability of the crust allowing heat to escape from the mantle. Living organisms produce heat and water vapour as well as carbon dioxide – just go outside on a cold day and breathe.

Where does the water vapour come from?

Various estimates say vegetation (especially trees) produces 50% of the atmospheric water vapour, with evaporation by the sun producing 30% and animal life (including humans) the remaining 20%.

What could we do?

Though not convinced that our puny efforts will have any real effect on the Earth’s cycles, the factors to be considered (in decreasing order of their contribution to the problems) are shown below. The percentages have been derived by deeming that the problems are 50% heat and 50% insulation, and then allocating, somewhat arbitrarily in some cases, a contribution to that 50% for each relevant factor.

C o n t r i b u t i o n t

If they had to rely on facts their arguments would vanish. So instead they spout the same tired lies hoping that eventually people won't know the difference and just agree with them to shut them up

You could just as well ask, "Why do blind believers in climate change avoid the facts? It appears to me that believers in climate change are prepared to go to considerable lengths to win support for their cause." ... etc.! "The truth is an exceedingly elusive quarry", said Louis Cyphre in "Falling angel" by William Hjortsberg. I think you should question whether you have any facts or not. Facts are not so easy to find as you evidently believe. Skeptics question everything, and there is much to question in this global warming-climate change scam. I am reminded of the two Genesis creation myths becoming creationism-creation science-intelligent design in succession. Willianm Shakespeare asked, "What is in a name? A rose by any other name would mell as sweet." The fact that "global warming" was changed to "climate change" by Al Gore, a notorious liar, makes me suspicious. How about you?

Can it be proven that the temperature data is actually correct and not been fudged by homogenization of said data ? Why after having over 5000 temp stations did they cut them to around 1200 ? Kind of funny isn't it. Why after all these years can they not do something so simple to move the temp stations so they don't need to adjust the data ? Do you actually think using common sense that it's not about money and taxes ? Just follow the money and we'll see what the real deal is.