by frog
In Death Denial, George Monbiot notices that older people seem to deny anthropogenic global warming more readily than younger folk. He opens with a pessimistic view of the current state of the public discourse.
There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere which cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed. …
It certainly doesn’t reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don’t believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that’s raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.
Turning to well-known deniers and in particular, Clive James (yes, the other side has its celebs too), George further presses the case for the science.
Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies – climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other – he too might have realised that the science is in. In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for manmade global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer. I am constantly struck by the way in which people like James, who proclaim themselves sceptics, will believe any old claptrap that suits their views. …
And then gets to the point.
Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it’s caused by humans or that it’s a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?
George refers to a 1973 idea by cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker, that the fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with “vital lies” or “the armour of character”, leading us to defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects.
One of the most arresting findings is that immortality projects can bring death closer. In seeking to defend the symbolic, heroic self that we create to suppress thoughts of death, we might expose the physical self to greater danger.
He ends on an equally pessimistic note as that which he began.
And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the past two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?
Indeed, George. And it seems to me we’re also not short of challenges dealing with those young enough not to be so concerned with their mortality as well.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Sun, November 15th, 2009
Tags: AGW, climate change, George Monbiot
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
BJ
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
The country acted like a dotard.
Like or Dislike:
16 
3 (+13)
Like or Dislike:
9 
2 (+7)
Like or Dislike:
8 
0 (+8)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
8 
30 (-22)
And Rodney Hide saw through this.
A giant of a man.
Colossus.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
Like or Dislike:
7 
2 (+5)
Owen, your comment belongs here http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/12/how-the-ipcc-works/
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Rimu – that’s a very optimistic view you’ve taken there. I think denial is one of the ways that people attempt not to deal with it!
It comes down now, to getting organised to help those who are neither blissfully ignorant (is that possible?) nor in denial. Rally, troops and make preparation for choppy waters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Could it not be that those of us with several decades of life experience under our belts have better developed critical faculties based on our life experience. I grew up in a Communist household and was an early apologist for Stalin’s Soviet regime and then Mao’s China. Then I read Popper’s Poverty of Historicism and the shades fell from my eyes. Most of us have lived through many hysterias – from nuclear power to alar apples to the global cooling of the seventies. There was the population bomb and the club of Rome. Then there was Y2K and Swine flu and so on and so forth.
The young are prone to enthusiasms – and so they should be. It’s part of being young.
When I was young I believed in architectural determinism. Now I know better.
And remember the thousands of contaminateded house gardens in Auckland. Turns out there are six.
As for Manbiot – his own science is junk. The evidence linking global temperatures to CO2 levels is much weaker than evidence for evolution and that links smoking and lung cancer. Even the IPCC claims the link is the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are “very likely” the cause of global warming which is not even a statistical measure. Even our TV pollsters do better than that.
Revealed and secular religions alike look to the young for their useful idiots. As one Muslim mother sadly osbserved “Our children blow up so quickly don’t they.”
But such blatant ageism does not become a political party – after all the population is aging.
Like or Dislike:
11 
19 (-8)
Forest green
How old am I? At 69 I am somewhat younger than Freeman Dyson – another famous elderly sceptic.
And how childish are you?
Like or Dislike:
6 
12 (-6)
Curmudgeons aren’t necessarily elderly, but they often are.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
I’m 44 and not being childish, but directly exploring George Monbiot’s assertion that “such [denialist] beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age.”
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Speaking of hysteria, Owen, how did you manage to conclude that? Monbiot is clear that he’s speculating based on his own experiences. I thought it was interesting, but clearly pointed out that denial was a problem for all ages (based on my own experiences hanging out on this blog at least!).
Like or Dislike:
7 
3 (+4)
‘Denying Death’ seems an appropriate thread to post new developments in the Hone Harawira saga.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10609284&pnum=0
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Section 9.
I started out thinking I need to check this but I realized that you are pushing another barrow of irrelevance.
So I checked anyway-
“Coordinating Lead Authors:
Gabriele C. Hegerl (USA, Germany),
Francis W. Zwiers (Canada)
(2)
Lead Authors:
Pascale Braconnot (France),
Nathan P. Gillett (UK),
Yong Luo (China),
Jose A. Marengo Orsini (Brazil, Peru),
Neville Nicholls (Australia),
Joyce E. Penner (USA),
Peter A. Stott (UK)
(9)
Uh Oh… Chapter 9 has a lot more to go
Contributing Authors:
M. Allen (UK),
C. Ammann (USA),
N. Andronova (USA),
R.A. Betts (UK),
A. Clement (USA),
W.D. Collins (USA),
S. Crooks (UK),
T.L. Delworth (USA),
C. Forest (USA),
P. Forster (UK),
H. Goosse (Belgium),
J.M. Gregory (UK),
D. Harvey (Canada),
G.S. Jones (UK),
F. Joos (Switzerland),
J. Kenyon (USA),
J. Kettleborough (UK),
V. Kharin (Canada),
R. Knutti (Switzerland),
F.H. Lambert (UK),
M. Lavine (USA),
T.C.K. Lee (Canada),
D. Levinson (USA),
V. Masson-Delmotte (France),
T. Nozawa (Japan),
B. Otto-Bliesner (USA),
D. Pierce (USA),
S. Power (Australia),
D. Rind (USA),
L. Rotstayn (Australia),
B. D. Santer (USA),
C. Senior (UK),
D. Sexton (UK),
S. Stark (UK),
D.A. Stone (UK),
S. Tett (UK),
P. Thorne (UK),
R. van Dorland (The Netherlands),
M. Wang (USA),
B. Wielicki (USA),
T. Wong (USA),
L. Xu (USA, China),
X. Zhang (Canada),
E. Zorita (Germany, Spain)
“
(45) + (9)
Those are the authors of the subsections, of which there are quite a few in Chapter 9.
Oh dear. Someone on Kiwiblog is lying again. Claimed 9, actual 54, a 600% error, which is probably not bad for Kiwiblog but it doesn’t cut the mustard here.
Not to mention the difficulty that the lead scientists for each subsection are backed by a small army of researchers, assistants and engineers and every single bit of their work gets checked over by a lot of people you do NOT see on the front page. Maybe you should have another look at our How-the-IPCC works blog entry.
So the statement you just made is false… and not just a little bit either.
Moreover –
Extremely unlikely is a probability of less than 5%
Very unlikely is a probability of less than 10%… These are actually defined.
Which a person pushing this barrow needs to know and WOULD know if they were paying attention to something other than their own “It can’t be the CO2″ barrow.
The IPCC is VERY careful Owen. It doesn’t leave this stuff to random interpretations. Nor, if you actually read the attribution section (and I know you must have skimmed it to find the “very unlikely” line, will you find a blanket assertion that all the warming is attributable to us.
The key here is whether the CO2 is causing warming and the degree to which we can attribute the warming we see to CO2 and the confidence we have in it. Which that chapter explains about as well as it can be explained.
Trouble yourself to skim through all 84 pages, read through the details of the bits that bother you. Try to understand that the lead scientists responsible for each subsection of section 9 were actually backed up by a large number of additional people contributing to it..
The people who are lying to you aren’t the scientists.
The people who are lying are the people who already run the planet. The folks who give us the BIS and Goldman-Sachs and AIG and a global financial crisis that just happened to make everyone in the USA a serf owing everything to Wall-Street (Not as well cared for as actual slaves). People who make careers out of lying and of whom the father of Capitalism said:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” – Adam Smith
That isn’t just the principle editors of section 9. You pick any 10 climate scientists and they’re going to give you the same story… though they might use different words… and we know damned well that we caused the CO2.
So I would reject your assertions at the end. This is very close to the same level of understanding that we have of the theory of evolution. It is however, opposed by the folks with the money and power… not by religiously confused fools.
The failure is that we didn’t recognize the risk that the powers-that-be would organize to destroy the planet under them rather than relinquish enough power and money to save it. Pump trillions of dollars into their own Wall-Street pockets? No problem. A billion or two to avert climate change? Big problem.
You persist in looking in the wrong direction while the people who have organized the real conspiracy are pointing at the scientists and yelling about conspiracy and stabbing you in the back with their other hand.
I’m sort of disgusted at this point. Tired of explaining.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
22 
3 (+19)
Owen! And I nearly bought your ‘gaggle of 9 geese’ theory, you sounded so authoritative!
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Owen,
disappointed am I that you even so much as rank Clive for his logic let alone lurker value. A matter of opinion you understand. You might, however, enjoy knowing what had gotten him started over enough to take the FOC fee. Go on, learn about the Greenback – http://2farmertom.wordpress.com – dated circa 29/10/09
And puh-lease quite making a fool of your better 69 years old self.
As with bjChip, my regards
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Thanks BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
You need to read the actual analysis and I shall find one example so you can.
The key is the number of authors who actually signed of on the relevant section of Chapter 9 not the number of contributors. Vincent Grey made 1800 objections to the last report. NOne were accepted.
Then the analyst also discounted any sign off by someone who was reviewing their own work.
But I shall find the study and you can make up your own mind.
Some of this is subject to interpretation but it becomes clear immediately that the much touted figure of 3000 scientists all agreeing to AGW is a fiction. And these studies are only possible because the IPCC opened an office in the US and became subject to the US version of the Official Information Act. Until then the data could not be accessed and the IPCC refused to make it available which is what roused the suspicions.
Give me a day.
Like or Dislike:
4 
12 (-8)
Where did I comment on Clive James except in my own Digest where I referred only to his writing/speaking style?
Like or Dislike:
3 
11 (-8)
Owen, it would be helpful if you could reference some peer reviewed science that show humans are not the primary cause of the current warming (perhaps by showing that something else is the primary cause). Hopefully, such studies would have been confirmed by other research.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-uncertaintyguidancenote.pdf
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
sofistek
Other possible causes of current “global warming’?
Go here for starters: http://www.NIPCCreport.org
But all the following are part of the current debate:
Solar activity (radiation)
Solar activity (charged particles) and consequent cloud formation.
Cycles within the solar system.
El Nino and related decadal oscillations.
The urban heat island effect. A definite human cause of measured warming and significant.
Changes in technology of measurement. (The shift from mini-max to hourly reading thermometers)
Fraudulent corruption of data.
Changes in collection points for data. (eg the collapse of the Soviet Empire closed down hundreds of measuring stations in SIberia.
When it comes to the scenarios of the future warming and assumed consequences we have to add in:
the computer models
The maths behind the computer models. Climate is not just chaotic – it is ergotic.
The adequacy of the input data in scope. What about the effect of clouds?
The precision of the data (this is a chaotic system). The error term in the measurement of temperature over the last 100 years is greater than the amount of change “measured”. WE are only beginning to map the distribution or CO2 and the satellite maps of distribution of methane in the atmosphere suggest that one response should be to cut down the rain forests.
And so on.
Read “The Poverty of Historicism” and extend Popper’s obvservation on Marx’s historicism to climate theory.
To give an idea of the data and input problem there is not even agreement on the residency time for CO2 in the atmosphere with time estimates ranging from 10 to 1,000 years.
There is no consensus on the relative sequestration power of forests and perennial pastures which is quite important in the NZ context.
And you may have noticed that while cattle burped methane is assumed to be warming the planet, no one ever mentions wetlands which are (probably) the major source of methane.
There are probably others but these immediately spring to mind.
Like or Dislike:
5 
11 (-6)
bjchip
If you read the context of Smith’s observation he is absolutely correct but is emphasising that the merchants are normally plotting with government against the public and to rise prices.
Just as right now the real estate promoters are conspiring with the planners in local government to raise housing prices by restraining supply.
And Wellington’s just released plan change 73 conspires with central city landowners to raise grocery and retail prices by protecting the Wellington CBD from competition from surburban retail centres.
And haven’t you noticed that Enron invented Carbon trading and Al Gore is the first Climate Change billionairre? The money traders cannot wait for a carbon market to help dig them out of the mire.
If only more people would read Adam Smith.
Like or Dislike:
3 
10 (-7)
I’m not buying that “its just the signatories” line. The people who write those subsections actually WRITE the subsections. So at a minimum you have to count all 54 of the scientists listed. I don’t know what sort of analyst was working on this, but I can assure you that the scientists working on the IPCC are not going to be blowing smoke up our collective bums. I can imagine someone from the Heritage Foundation being paid to find some way to discredit the process coming up with this… but that’s not exactly a reassurance that the analysis is worthwhile.
Who is Vincent Gray? I had to look him up. A Coal chemist born in 1922. Which (if he is still alive) makes him about 88 years old. Which rather directly plays to the original post. He is part of the NZ Climate Science Coalition. I can’t exactly regard him as an impartial reviewer as a result. Gareth Morgan would be an impartial reviewer… and probably as well or better informed on the topics of AGW.
You’re a respectable source on things that have to do with urban development and the like. I try to keep an open mind when you post.
Try to consider that the people who are gaming the system aren’t the scientists… who have stuff all to start with and don’t put money ahead of everything… the people who are gaming the system are the people who already HAVE the money and have always put money ahead of ethical behaviour.
THINK about that for a minute or two. OK?
BJ
Someplace along the line, most people stop wanting to learn new things. I know about the temptation, I’ve seen some of my friends go over the edge. I still love learning and changing. I hope to avoid the trap… some of my friends DO manage that.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1 (+10)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
13 (-10)
“Will Al Gore become the world’s first global warming billionaire? Climate Depot’s Marc Morano certainly thinks so.
Appearing on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” Morano said that Gore’s value went from $2 million when he ran for president to $100 million today”
Moreover, examining what he has been doing is instructive. He’s been investing in things that will become more valuable if he is right. Well, what is he SUPPOSED to do Owen? Invest in things he believes WON’T happen? Starting from a couple of million he’s done very well according to Morano, but one has to question whether Morano and Fox have anything but hatred of Al Gore on their minds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
10 
2 (+8)
sorry – meant to write Al Gore “is to be”. But how come only one side of the debate is unaffected by prospects of personal gain. However lets not get bored by Gore.
Vincent Gray is still alive and is one of our most honoured scientists. If first met him during the seventies when I was head of a research team in industrialised building and he was head of BRANZ.
If you think he is a senile old fool read his essay on evolutionary biology in New Zealand Science Review (p30) written in 2004. Go to:http://nzas.rsnz.org/publish/archive/NZSR_61_1.pdf
His other expertise is in interpretation of data and is the middle of a study on the collection of temperature data in New Zealand and changes in data points and techologies and attempted corrections.
Vincent Gray has a PhD in Chemistry from Cambridge University and has pursued a long scientific research career in the UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China, with many published papers. He has been an “Expert Reviewer” for the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) from the beginning and has published critiques on all the science reports. He just loves being a Nobel Prize winner for being one of the 38,000 scientists who contributed to the last IPCC report.
Like or Dislike:
2 
11 (-9)
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
‘In my experience’ deniers fall more into the ‘I’m all right Jack’ catagory. Ask yourself why it is that these people strongly tend to be what is often referred to as Right Wing. A correlation between wealth & denial may also show up I believe. Some of my richer ‘friends’also started out as Marxist Leninists & Mao sympathisers, but once the smell of money got to them they soon changed their minds. That smell got to me too but I like to think that the smell of roses got the better of it.
Reference has been made to Clive James & his rather weak pleading to scepticism. Let’s face it, he’s a professional sceptic, & has made a lot of money from it. After all his current attitude may well lead to a revival of his rather jaded career as a cheer leader for the dinosaurial deniers.
The fool Plimer even clings to the assertion that CO2 isn’t a pollutant so how can it be causing anything let alone climate disaster. This argument is so weak as to be laughable. Having listened to his reply to criticism by leading scientists, I laughed even louder. A third grader could have made a better effort. Let him & others dig their hole deeper, it’s irrelevant. The world is moving on & oldies or not in opposition, the climate will win.
As usual, following the money will lead one in the right direction. Irrespective of the science or the ultimate outcome of the climatic balance on this planet, the realisation that much cash lies in the direction of ‘new green technologies’, will lead toward a ‘new economy’. give it 20 years & then look. Industrialists will be falling over themselves in the rush, & at the same time denying that climate change science has anything to do with the accelerating trend.
Perhaps Gore will be among the first CC Billionaires, good on him, he’s only following the money like any good Capitalist, yet still faces criticism for doing it. As for his motives, only he can know.
Of course in twenty years resource drought & population flood will be well in play so, Ho Hum, the battle continues.
Having spent decades of discussion, reading, study, & reflection, I have yet to discover a better system than Capitalism, (in it’s many forms). Flawed as it is, who is to say, with ‘the powers that be’ still in charge, that any ‘new paradigm’ will be better or worse, & for whom !
Interesting though – my real regret is that my 70 years may not allow me to spectate.
As Clive used to say – may your god be with you – or was that the Irish guy ?
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Have a laugh at this – puts perspective back into the discussion somewhat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCKFCbyfsnI&feature=sdig&et=1258232499.04
And is funnier than Clive J. and even Plimer/McShane.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
From the Times, looks like that denialism is catching….
Crunch climate change talks may be doomed to failure in Copenhagen next month, with a legally binding deal on emissions now decreasingly likely, admitted leaders from across the Asia Pacific region.
In another setback the group of presidents and prime ministers representing nearly two-thirds of world economic output and meeting in Singapore this weekend significantly watered-down their public commitment on greenhouse gasses. That, said officials, reflected a view that the quest for a “perfect agreement” should be abandoned.
A meeting of 19 leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) forum, which included President Barack Obama, Chinese president Hu Jintao, and the Danish prime minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, agreed on Sunday that the forthcoming United Nations summit in Copenhagen should aim to make progress on cutting emissions. But attendees also said that the political divisions were visibly profound.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister, John Key, said after the meeting on Sunday that it had become apparent that it was “highly unlikely” the Copenhagen talks would reach a legally binding agreement on emissions next month.
Others expressed similar disappointment.
“I don’t think the negotiations have proceeded in such a way that many of the leaders thought it was likely that we were going to achieve a final agreement in Copenhagen,” said Michael Froman, a senior climate change negotiator for the United States.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Pass the Mogadon, John!
Like or Dislike:
9 
1 (+8)
Owen,
Where did I comment on Clive James—
The devil is in your details.. this time puh-leese do more than think about this..
Vincent Gray..huh? How is he these days.. Past Climate Science 101 yet..?
As often before and elsewhere one is impressed with the expertise you align to..
Which also happens to leave questions like does democratic ignorance of the pertinent science supercede said scientific specialists in your view..?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Think we should just drop Global Warming as a term, for now, and just use climate change. Most people cannot comprehend the oscillation that is our climate right now, even if it is tending, over a relatively short time to a warmer position than in the past. It is the same with Peak Oil, the price of Gas will start climbing rapidly again followed by another fall, but the trend will be upwards.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
This reminds me of discussions within my family when the changes to Superannuation entitlement were first mooted.
My mother (not then yet a pensioner) was livid that it might be taken away from her, or diminished in some way, because “she’d paid her taxes for decades to cover her super entitlement”.
My sister was writing code for one of the Govt Departments involved in the negotiations, and patiently tried to explain the maths to Mum, who took this to mean complete and total perfidy on the part of her previously preferred offspring.
Neither of them answered the underlying problem: that Mum was too emotionally vested in one particular outcome, for any facts to make a difference to her position.
AFAIK, she still holds the same position today, having waited until turning 65 to qualify for National Super.
Those who have spent their lives buying into the paradigms that support the current status quo, and are too close to the end-of-life to cope with change, will support climate denial literature.
As Monbiot said, they want to retire, and fly or cruise to their heart’s content – for otherwise, what have they deprived themselves for, for all the decades of their working lives?
The problem is demographics – there are more baby-boomers, denying climate change, than there are of the succeeding generations.
The most active people in the Climate Change Action groups are under 30. They’re the ones who’ll have to live through the next 40 years, whatever happens, whomever turns out to be right.
Some of the best activists I know have Environmental Science degrees, and want the world to continue so that they can experience parenthood and a career, just as their parents did. They are innovative, energetic, and hopeful, far more than I can be in my mid-life years.
I wish them luck, and admire their persistence, because if anyone will come up with something that ensures the survival of this species, it will be the scientists of the generation who are 20-30 years old now.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
I have thought for some time now that we are seeing the out-working of perhaps the greatest paradox of all – our very desire to avoid the constant threat of death by seeking our security, safety and ultimately our survival, may be the very thing which leads to the extinction of our species.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
Many deniers are also religious believers (whilst being basically rational persons in all other spheres), who surely substitute their fear of the unknown (death) for an irrational ‘belief’ in a diety & an afterlife.
Of course they will accuse us (the non-deniers) of a kind of religious belief in Climate Change. The accused accusing the accuser so as to shift responsibility for an outcome & and therefore be ‘saved’ at least psychologically.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
i sincerely hope that any of you greens pontificating on here about ‘denial’..
..are vegans..eh..?
otherwise..
y’know..!..eh..?..
and i found out something from this weeks listener that i didn’t know before..
..namely that rod donald died from complications from eating ‘dirty’/infected chicken..
i’ve been suffering irony-paroxysms ever since..
and y’know..!
are there lessons there for any of you..?
oh..!..btw..for all you chicken-eaters out there..
since/despite ‘cleaning up their act’..
..a full 13% of the chicken sold is ‘infected’..
food for thought..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
By the way, the NIPCC booklet is advertised as a detailed rebuttal of the IPCC report and yet you started out saying that the bulk of the IPCC report is not controversial.
The NIPCC booklet uses phrases like “there is no evidence that …”, which immediately makes it suspect since that implies that many/most climate scientists are crooks who are lying to us about evidence. If the booklet had simply said, “the evidence is not conclusive that …”, then it might have garnered a closer look but I guess that might be tantamount to its admitting that it might be wrong.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
bigblukiwi wrote:
“Of course they will accuse us (the non-deniers) of a kind of religious belief in Climate Change. The accused accusing the accuser so as to shift responsibility for an outcome & and therefore be ’saved’ at least psychologically.”
and libertarians who can’t accept evidence of cliamte change because it would upset their ideology then allege that scientists collecting evidence of climate change are ideologically-motivated. I guess it’s all part of the samne phenomenon as Big Bro accusing other people of lying.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Owen, I can’t give you a source, but someone waved a set of graphs at me, within the last three months, which said that world output before the financial crisis was still pretty close to the Club of Rome’s business-as-usual track.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
ew..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Any generalisation will run head-on into exceptions – large and small.
To assert this or that as a rule is to invite a long-winded, pointless debate / argument.
I have a lot of respect for the word “tendency”. It may well be that statistically people in the 60s / 70as and beyond age groups TEND to be hostile to the idea of climate change caused by human activity. That tendency will not preclude huge numbers of people in those age bands from looking at the evidence, seeing what it means…and accepting the idea we are causing the climate of our planet to change.
As for denial…..it’s common to all ages and we apply it most enthusiastically to anything that prevents us from doing as we please, when we please wherever we please.
The vast majority of us are lazy, self-serving, effectively (if not actually) stupid monkeys…..history makes that abundantly clear.
I’m taking the view that we are returning to the atmosphere all the trillions of tonnes of CO2 that plant life has sequestered over the past several hundred million years. There will be changes…..but we may find ourselves on a water-world of sorts with tropical / temperate climates even at the poles.
The idea that we will heed the evidence and act rationally is still romantic nonsense, really.
A few of us can do that…..but most don’t want to even if they are perfectly capable of doing it.
Pessimistic? I prefer realistic.
People like Owen McShane are concrete proof I’m probably right. Obviously intelligent….but for some reason ultimately incapable of seeing the staringly obvious.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
forrestgreen: Is older people’s environmental activism a different kind of immortality project? If so, can we get traction by *providing* immortality projects?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whilst I suspect that most of you on this blog would describe me as a denier – and an old one at that – I prefer to see myself as a climate realist. I have spent all of my life until about 12 months ago being a strong environmentalist and in most respects I still am. I contend that the politicisation of the ‘global warming’ (changing the name to ‘climate change’ only admits to the current problem being faced by the alarmists…) debate has the potential to destroy the basic ethos of the environment movement. This blog site is startlingly in contrast to the best of the ‘denier’ sites (and I would have hoped that this would have been one of the best of the pro AGW sites) in that we do not see anything in the way of discussion about data.
This is likely to be a fairly long statement and so I will number my points so that they can be picked over in a rational way:
1 A previous comment said – ‘… it would be helpful if you could reference some peer reviewed science that show humans are not the primary cause of the current warming… ‘We realists are not the ones proposing to spend billions of dollars of other peoples’ money on a contentious scientific theory. I would like someone to prove that we ARE responsible for this – via our CO2 output – the IPCC certainly doesn’t – and, in spite of extensive abusive ad hominem attacks a significant body of scientists don’t either. A careful review of the data persuaded me that my previous convictions on the subject – I was an ardent global warmist 18 months ago – were completely wrong.
2 The pro AGW crowd are increasingly concerned that the public do not seem to agree with them – in spite of the most extensive PR campaign ever conducted in the mainstream media. I find it curious that the solutions always seems to be that ‘…we need to educate them more about the dangers…’ This is patronising in the extreme. It is the politicisation of the debate that has turned us against the AGW proposition coupled with a lack of real evidence that the proposition is true. Quoting URLs and ‘peer reviewed papers’ is not enough. The extreme alarmism of many commentators on the subject, when the facts are clearly grossly distorted makes the public very sceptical of the whole issue. I know of many people in the last year or so who have completely changed their minds in favour of realism but can find no one going in the other direction.
Can I raise a few issues that, if we realists could see some real data to change our minds, might make a difference?:
3 How is the current and unusual solar minimum is likely to affect our climate? Can we expect another Dalton or Maunder minimum? And if so should we be preparing for global cooling rather than warming?
4 The GCMs – which the IPCC has used for its ‘projections’ – did not forecast the declining temperatures of the last decade. Should this make us ask some questions about them?
5 Australia and NZ contribute around 2 – 2.5% max to the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere and the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 is about 7% of the total 385 ppm. This is such a vanishingly small amount that we should ask ourselves if we should be devoting eye-wateringly large amounts of money to reducing this tiny quantity by, say, 25% rather than doing much better things for the environment (fisheries, biodiversity, sustainable energy, etc., etc…)
6 It is all very well to accuse people on this site of lying – Owen McShane was accused of this over a very debatable point – but what about the AGW side? Gore is still in denial about the UK court finding the untruths in his book and movie and then there is the Hockey Stick and ‘1 tree Biffa’ to discuss. It is one thing to ‘lie’ on a blog site, quite another to get a Nobel prize on the basis of one.
7 Finally if the globe were to warm is this such a very bad thing? It has been warmer in the past and high levels of CO2 are good for plant growth – neither of these points is contentious in any way and we need to discuss them – not be in denial about them!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
jc2, is this what you were looking for:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5330?
Not that it is relevant to this thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s not contentious in climate science circles. Just what would satisfy you that human behaviour is the prime cause of the current warming that is causing rapid climate change? Should we wait until the evidence is accepted in a referendum? What would be the impact, do you think, if it (AGW) turned out to be true but we did nothing until it was too late?
How is it patronising? Surely you don’t think that the science of climate change can be determined by what the populace thinks of the subject? It’s not determined by democratic vote.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
stuhugfj,
This article may be of interest:
The Lure of Solar Forcing
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
http://ringoffireradio.com/blogengine/post/Casting-Doubt-on-Climate-Change.aspx
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The benefits of action are clearly there if only we would look.
a. much is spoken of the billions that we may spend on a fools errand which will be wasted they say. How wasted ? Much new knowledge on climate science will be one inevitable result, giving us more understanding of how the climate works, & for those whose minds work this way, a possibility of control of some aspects of climate – drought amelioration, increased crop yields etc.etc. One could come up with many possible examples of similar benefits which may flow from action – a la Gore, millions added to GDP by restructuring energy supply chains & so on. It will be argued that this (tax) money could be spent better on ‘other things’, but what other things. We’re continually told that Govts. cannot chose winners, & to let the market decide, so why not. There is already a trend toward a Greener economy, mostly market driven because ‘the market’ can see that that is the way to increase profits. I predict this trend will accelerate over time. A possible objection from the Greener lobby may be, it’s the market that got us into this mess so why should we rely on it to save the day? One overarching reason is that we have little choice. The market seems placed to do what it will anyway.
b. From a risk assessment point of view it makes no sense to do anything else but take firm and unswerving action. The risks of taking no action far outweigh those of taking action. We do this all the time when faced with short term climate events. When a hurricane threatens the coast of Florida people are evacuated at a high cost, but at less cost than allowing them to stay, in lives at least. Some will argue that these events are predictable to a large extent, & storm paths can be plotted fairly accurately, whereas longer term climate events cannot, but the risk assessment principle still applies, the only difference is the assessibility of the risk. Those who say no action is the way to go, refuse to even believe in any possibility that extreme climate events are on their way. It’s therefore the denial of risk that is the problem, rather than the denial of change, human induced or ‘natural’.
c. Some point to Y2K panic as a reason we should this time recognise that CC is similar or even the same. Bad logic & bad reasoning! Y2K was an event that had a definite end date & relative certainty re the ‘fix’. The result of action was also to rapidly advance our IT knowledge, training, and awareness of IT matters in general. Some say that the vast amounts of cash were ‘wasted’. How so ? Please tell me how the money could have been spent in a ‘better’ way & what would have been the advantage over ‘spending ‘it in the way it was. It is my contention that the money was only re-directed, not wasted, & it is impossible to say if & where it could have been spent better.
In the end it seems to me that this is largely an argument about dogma. Tax bad, Govt. spending bad, ‘regulation’ bad, etc. market good, capitalism good, wealth (inequality) good, etc. It is about other things too of course, mostly attached to human failings like over-inflated egos, acquisition of wealth, fear of the unknown and so on.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
I love these ‘I used to be an ardent (insert political party, religious organization etc here) but now that I’ve (insert, ‘grown up’ , seen the light’ ‘found new information’ etc here), I believe the opposite ‘.
It’s a phenomenon that occurs at a point in every discussion on the ‘big’ topics and often points to the arrival of a paid flunkey or semi-professional dogmatist and has the odour of untruth about it.
Beware the ‘born-agains’. They swing in when public opinion needs just a bit more of a push toward the cause these people espouse.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Where did you get that 7% value for mankind’s contribution to the 385ppm CO2? The CO2 levels have increased nearly 100ppm since WWII, which is way more than 7%.
Every small country and every state of larger countries also contributes only a small percentage to this. If no one acts because their contribution is small, then no one will act at all. We can’t expect others to act without acting ourselves.
Also, we are wanting to spent those large sums of money on sustainable energy projects and the like, rather than spending them trying to extract the last drops of oil and gas out of the ground.
Increasing CO2 emissions are leading to ocean acidification (harming those fisheries you are worried about), irrespective of whether or not you believe in AGW, and those increases are caused by burning fossil fuels and clearing forests (which harbour much of that biodiversity you are worried about).
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
stuhugfj – your point 4:
There was a single year with an abnormally high temperature peak in 1998. Temperatures have not declined since, as they are based on averaging over longer periods.
Computer models did not forcast reduced temperatures because they did not forecast abnormally low solar flux. If the actual solar figures are entered into the computer programs, then they give good agreement with measurements. Just think what temperatures will be like when the solar flux peaks again.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/09/18/climate-change-answers-to-every-question-you-ever-had/
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/9/131657/6469
Notice how most of the people who argue that a small temperature rise would be a good thing live in temperate areas rather than tropic areas.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
The Global Warming Debate, as seen here on Frogblog, is an enormous soak to the time and energy of green posters. It’s like protecting a forest from millers – once it’s saved, you have to re-save it with every incoming wave of would be millers who, like rust and climate change deniers, never sleep. Ho hum.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Number 1: You “Realists” are instead the ones conducting an unapproved, uncontrolled and unplanned, experiment with the atmospheric chemistry of the only planet we have. YOU are the ones putting us ALL at risk from catastrophic changes. YOU are the ones pumping CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere without any notion of the consequences. All WE want is for you to stop changing things.
You ought to understand mate. It is our atmosphere too, and YOU are the ones who are fncking it up. If we each owned a piece of it the lawsuits for what you’re doing to our property would bankrupt you in a heartbeat. We on the other hand are doing NOTHING to yours.
Number 2: Actually the propaganda campaign and its funding fathers, are well known to us but they aren’t related to US…
http://ringoffireradio.com/blogengine/post/Casting-Doubt-on-Climate-Change.aspx
The basic problem is that WE aren’t nearly as organized as the folks who already have money and power and are intent on keeping it. Compared to them the scientists and we ourselves, are rank amateurs. Which means that we’re losing. Because the average American communicates at a 6th grade level. Which is another reason why we’re losing. Not hard to fool them, which is why the USA is doomed, but that’s another topic.
Number 3: It appears we’ve already seen the minimum. It does affect the climate somewhat. Solar forcing’s contributions are well understood (even though the causes of solar changes are still quite unknown). Right now we have an ENSO. That masks anything else. We also have sunspots for cycle 24 which indicates that this cycle has started. Predicting them is pretty difficult, however, despite the lack of solar activity the temperature appears to be holding up.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
So the general observation by Hansen, that the AGW will overcome the effects of solar over time, appears to be holding up.
Number 4: The temperatures didn’t “decline” over the past decade and the models don’t model decadal variation. Which means that the entire idea is meaningless as well as inaccurate.
Number 5: Possibly the most significant point of your set. The Greens have a couple of real commitments here. One is that we are part of the global community. NZ has contributed to the problem and continues to do so. Despite our higher than usual proportion of renewable energy resources our per-capita emissions are quite high compared to the rest of the world. In other words, we have profited from the use of the climate commons for decades. We have a RESPONSIBILITY. Which is something we’ve noticed National avoiding on all issues at all costs. The responsibility we have is to do as much as we can to shift the world down to a maximum of 350 ppm of CO2. That includes doing our part in reducing OUR emissions and it also includes being seen to be doing our part. If climate change can be averted in spite of your emphasis on number 1, it can only happen through concerted effort on the part of many nations. Encouraging that is important.
Greens DO recognize that the effort may fail. That agreements may not be reached or may be abrogated unilaterally by others, or others may “cheat”. There is no precedent for the effort we must make, no map that tells us that this is even possible for humans to organize. Many of us are dubious of the chances of success, but we are adamant about the requirement to make the attempt. We also make every effort to watch for the signs of failure.
eye-wateringly large amounts of money to reducing this tiny quantity by, say, 25% rather than doing much better things for the environment (fisheries, biodiversity, sustainable energy, etc., etc…)
A false dichotomy in this context. Sustainable energy is the same solution whether it is done for AGW or Peak-Oil purposes. What part of not overfishing costs money? Preservation of biodiversity is only expensive in terms of (for instance) not mining our national parks. I do see your point but it is a false one, echoing Lomborg’s false issue of spending money to save people from AIDS. This money would not be spent on people with AIDS… it would line the pockets of the wealthy and powerful, which is why they are organizing the opposition to action on AGW.
I note that many Greens are as individuals, in favor of preparing for the catastrophe we expect even as we attempt to avert it.
Number 6: I’ve a long history with Owen and a certain amount of respect for him. I think he has been misled by others, not that he is intentionally lying. I didn’t call him a liar either… read carefully. I have no real knowledge of what happens on Kiwiblog but that in checking on his post a prior instance of the same information appeared on Kiwiblog before he brought it here. I did not go to Kiwiblog to ascertain who posted what there. As for Briffa, the Yamal controversy was answered quite comprehensively, which you may not have noticed, and I am letting him speak for himself –
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
McIntyre notably did NOT claim to have a better analysis than Briffa. Smart man. McKittrick is regrettably not as restrained.
…and as for Gore… the Judge in the case said it quite clearly.
The judge, Justice Burton found that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate”.
Someone is misrepresenting the results of that case to you. You might want to look that person up and give them a wedgie.
Number 7: Plant fertilization via CO2 runs into limits to growth based on water and nitrate and phosphate availability. In other words, it isn’t open-ended. It IS however, included in many of the models. So there’s no denial about the CO2 effect, just more accurate knowledge of its limits… and insofar as a “warmer world” being better, I suggest a quick perusal of the book “6 degrees” by Lynas. I don’t recommend buying it… but he does manage to collect the likely impact of different levels of warming. Here’s a synopsis, not from the book. I take in a lot of sources:
a. Two degrees. Not bad. Rainfall patterns change a bit, weather becomes more variable and rainfall patterns change but this is overall survivable. Note that this level of climate change is GUARANTEED to happen no matter what we do. If we shut down every fossil plant tomorrow and quit emitting completely, the CO2 already in the atmosphere would bring us up at least two degrees before the natural uptake in the plants and ocean brought levels down again.
b. Three degrees. This global temperature is last thought to have existed some 3 million years ago. Stunted trees grew in Antarctica, the ocean was at least 20 meters deeper…
http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/data/sea_level/ofr96000.html
http://www.iop.org/EJ/ref/-prog=article/-target=inspec/1748-9326/2/2/024002/51
Note that this is steady-state. We just went in and turned the stove on. The heat is going in but the pot isn’t boiling YET… so if we turn it off it will only get a little warmer…. 2 degrees. If we get 3 (which is what our current CO2 levels indicate) the ocean will swallow our most developed regions, and the Bull and the Bear will sleep with the Fishes.
Note as well, that the odds of striking a tipping point and releasing even more CO2 and in particular, CH4, rise from about 25% at 2 degrees, to 75% or more as we cross 3 degrees… once one of those goes over we’re no longer in control, as the climate will provide its own supply of gasses for amplification and the temperature will NOT stop at 3 degrees.
d. Four degees: Now we definitely have 36 meters of sea level rise and we also have substantial climate damage to any remaining cropland. We are also into the realm where the rest of the Antarctic is vulnerable. That’s another 50 meters of effective sea-level rise. It would take thousands of years, but WE HAVE NO WAY TO CHANGE IT BACK.
I don’t think I have any need to go further. The rebound of the crust after removal of the mass of the Ice probably creates additional vulcanism and earthquakes… If there are survivors, they will curse us until they too go down the track towards complete primitivism.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
All because you, looking at Number 1 from the viewpoint of “Business as usual is right” fail to notice that Business as usual is an uncontrolled experiment. In science this is a “Very.Bad.Thing” and it affects the ENTIRE planet (that’s all of us) which we collectively own. Which means that MY property is being damaged by YOUR business… but because the ownership hasn’t been noted in law, I can’t sue for damages.
This is property theft on a grand scale.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
8 
2 (+6)
I missed that bit about the 7% of the total. Interesting notion. False but interesting. Please refer me to the source so I may properly respond to this?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Phil, Leave Rod out of it. Those who knew him are still feeling the loss 4 years on.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
BJ CATS is our only option for long term survival. Climate change can’t be fixed and we will probably be looking at a CH4 feedback loop. This is especially true now that Obama is setting up an extreme swing back to the right by 2012.
What this means for Climate Change is the world will need to go it alone with out the US. What ever happens in Coppenhagen will never be ratified by the US Senate. Which countries are going to go it alone without the US.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I am glad to have at least one person here agreeing with me.
I am not sure what will happen with the USA.
To be sure, I understand how Obama is disappointing everyone, but he is not the reason things are stuffed. He’s just a Janitor who can’t possibly clean up after the party, so he decided to swill the kool-aid instead. He is, at this point, irrelevant to anything outside the prosecution of the “War on Terror”.
From my perspective, the Copenhagen conference won’t lead directly to a treaty. It may bear fruit, but apparently over a longer period. Could take another 2 years. Which means 2 years more research and 2 years more data.. and the House of Representatives changes and some of the Senate as well. No telling how the political landscape will look at that point. He’d have a year to get a ratified treaty.
The danger is that only about 1 person in 10 in the USA seems to actually understand what is happening, and only about half of the voters in the US believe it is happening… and the folks who have the money and power right now are fighting like hell to keep everyone confused… and the average American understands things at about a 6th grade level… and you have to get a 2/3 majority to ratify a treaty.
The US may also contribute to the solution in an unanticipated way… by self-destructing economically sometime before 2030. It is on the edge now… and whether economic self-destruction causes a final breakup of different sections of the country (similar to the Russian Republic) I can’t guess.
For the rest of us, the stakes are not changed. China is the 800 pound Gorilla (Why doesn’t it sound right if you say 400 Kilogram Gorilla?) and its actions will determine the outcome.. and China has its own weakness. Without the US as a customer, it has no market and a HUGE overcapacity. The entire planet is economically unbalanced and unstable.
…and we have peak oil.
Not easy to be optimistic about the outcome.
Stockpile canned goods and ammunition. How does that translate into a policy for a government?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Well I am 69 and accept that there is a danger from AGW. Also I am old enough to know more material goodies, a larger car, and many overseas trips are not the keys to happiness. All we have to do is get back to 1980 levels of emissions, but this will ruin the growth obsessed capitalist system. Because of this I am pessimistic, but hopeful something happens to change the future.
However as BJ says,” “Realists” are instead the ones conducting an unapproved, uncontrolled and unplanned, experiment with the atmospheric chemistry of the only planet we have. YOU are the ones putting us ALL at risk from catastrophic changes. YOU are the ones pumping CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere without any notion of the consequences. All WE want is for you to stop changing things. ”
So are our profligate lifestyles worth the risk? I don’t think so.
By the way two deniers I know would not accept my $100nz wager that by 2020 it will be obvious there are serious results from GW whether or not it is caused by humans. Any takers?
E
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
E-prophet, I’m not denying AGW or accepting your bet, but I wonder how you and someone who denied it would settle the bet. I’ve come out of a seminar which I read as saying that if atmospheric CO2 hasn’t stabilised by 2015, then we can forget about 450ppm, but also that many of the consequences will be far away and specific to the environments in which they occur, so we could easily still have a wood-for-the-trees problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
jc2
You’re right that the question of which consequences would have to be defined somehow for the wager to be valid. I think it’ll be obvious, but opinions don’t settle wagers.
ciao
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So Jc2 – you are willing to take the risk because as you say, we can’t see the wood for the trees ? Apparently many are – so be it. Blind fools.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bigblukiwi, by ‘problem’, I mean ‘sufficiently specific requirement for a solution’. Does that help you to decide whether you are including me in your category ‘blind fools’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well of course there would have to be an agreed increase in global temperatures and agreement as to the data used. However the two deniers will not even discuss the wager because one is so sure he is right he says, “I don’t want to take your money.” and the other says he doesn’t gamble. I am not 100% sure there will be enough GW by 2020 to win my bet, but I do think it is a better bet than putting money on a horse. My idea of the bet was to pin down the deniers and so eliminate their using of arguments based on cherry picking things, like parts of Antarctica getting colder.
E
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)