22 August 2009
Psycho Analysis of A Climate Skeptic
Posted by Dan Satterfield
FAQ on climate change based on real science. These are the questions meteorologists get most often. Click to get the entire FAQ pdf
I think a lot of the deniers of climate change can be explained by two thought processes that are both incorrect.
Ask yourself this question- Does the most selfish person on the planet, consider themselves selfish. The answer is very likely no.
Now let’s look at someone who has been convinced that doing something about climate change means a significant change in their lifestyle, wealth, or ability to drive their favorite vehicle. Understand here, that there is overwhelming evidence that this is not likely the case, but let’s assume our “someone” believes it wholeheartedly.
So, what’s most likely to happen when someone who believes this, encounters someone who says climate science is all wrong? They can choose to believe them, and not have to battle with their conscience about being selfish, or they can believe the nearly unanimous opinion of climate scientists that we are heading for a catastrophe.
If they believe the first piece of misinformation, you can almost be certain that they will believe anyone who says climate change is not a problem. They will be chanting drill baby drill in no time. It’s the only way to go, otherwise they would have to think of themselves as selfish, and no one goes down that thought process!
Upton Sinclair, in his famous book about the Chicago meat packing industry, said it best. “It’s almost impossible to convince someone of anything, if their paycheck depends on it not being true”. You can see this affect in almost every environmental issue on the planet. Scientists are not immune. Those scientists working for big tobacco in the 1960-1980’s are a good example.
It’s truly amazing how far people will go to continue to believe that climate science is all wrong. I regularly hear from people who have convinced themselves that a giant conspiracy exists to prevent anyone who disagrees with the mainstream opinion, from being published in the front line science journals. They will readily believe two or three outlier science papers over the hundreds that clearly show the opposite is true. They will ignore the fact that nearly every major scientific body on the planet has endorsed the IPCC reports. (NASA, NOAA, The Royal Society, The Nat. Academies of Science in America, the AAAS, AGU, AMS, GSA, and dozens of others)
Instead they will choose to believe one or two cherry picked papers in a journal, or avidly follow web sites of those who peddle nothing but political propaganda and junk science like, Watts or Morano. Neither of whom have even a modest background in climate physics.
Acceptance of AGW Theory. There is a wide disconnect between the public and climate scientists
Their legions of followers are easy to spot. The email will have a link to something by Singer, or Monckton, or even more often mention Al Gore in the first paragraph. I rarely waste my time with these because nothing I can possibly say/show will change their minds. It’s much more productive to spend my time explaining it to those who truly have good questions, and are genuinely confused.
That is why I write this journal. If I can introduce a reader to real science before they fall into the junk science cult, they will see very quickly how silly the material is on these sites. Perhaps the only way to convince the cult of deniers, is to convince them that their initial assumtion that doing something about climate change will require a dramatic change in lifestyle is wrong!
They are correct in one aspect. This planet does not have the resources to support the citizens of China, and India having an American lifestyle. Not the way we currently make and use our energy. It most likely CAN support a first world India and China, if we do it smarter and use renewable energy in a vastly more efficient way. It all boils down to that.
However, the real science is getting clearer everyday. We are rapidly running out of time to make the change.
Later,
Dan
NOTE: MY EARLIER STATEMENT THAT IMPLIED THAT S. FRED SINGER WORKED DIRECTLY FOR A TOBACCO COMPANY WAS BADLY PHRASED AND INCORRECT. MY APOLOGIES TO DR. SINGER. DeSmog blog has investigated Mr. Singer’s involvement (if any) with Tobacco, and you can read the post here: http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer
Also: I require a real full name and valid email address on all comments. I do not publish links in comments to non published research. This journal is intended to to show real science, and it’s not a platform for junk science. That said your opinions are welcome. I have my regular forecast duties, and an Environmental Science class to teach, so I do not have time to email reminders of this policy.
Dan Satterfield has worked as an on air meteorologist for 32 years in Oklahoma, Florida and Alabama. Forecasting weather is Dan's job, but all of Earth Science is his passion. This journal is where Dan writes about things he has too little time for on air. Dan blogs about peer-reviewed Earth science for Junior High level audiences and up.
Dear Dan Aug 23,2009
You imply rather strongly that I work(ed) for ‘Big Tobacco.’ You even cite dates.
From where do you get such information — and how do you know it’s true?
Just curious. Fred
**********************************************
Dr. Singer,
I phrased it quite badly and have made a correction on the post.
DS
“It’s almost impossible to convince someone of anything, if their paycheck depends on it not being true”. You can see this affect in almost every environmental issue on the planet. Scientists are not immune to this affect! Those working for big tobacco in the 1960-1980’s are a good example.
Have to agree with ya……
“The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.”
“Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.”
“Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.”
Later
Rick
It is interesting that, while you note the significant incentive to believe what is financially beneficial to oneself, you do not apply that understanding to the climatology community in general or the government-funded research community specifically.
A young friend of mine is just completing his master’s degree, and found the team had to tie their micro-powered tracking instrument, suitable for migratory bird tracking, to “climate change” in order to get funded. I suggest your unspoken assumption of purity on the government-subsidized side of the street is culpably naive at best. Government is the elephant in the room, and a “climate crisis” is made-to-order food for the natural growth tendency of government. From that comes the perfect storm of researchers hungry for continued funding, and bureaucrats sensing control of all energy consumption, and thus the economies of the industrialized world. You think they are angels, untempted and untainted? Perhaps you’d be interested in a nice, historic New York City bridge I’m offering for sale.
You mean that the Sun, the galactic cosmic rays, solar magnetic and Earth magnetic fields, volcanic eruption, the Ocean and other natural causes have zero or little contribution to the earth’s climate?
We can feel the Sun’s impact on our daily and hourly weather. It’s warm on daytime, cold at nighttime because sunlight is absent in the latter. That’s how significant the Sun’s light on us here on the planet. So I think it is wrong not to recognize the role of the Sun on the globe’s climate.
The arrogance in this piece is unbelievable! One simply cannot be sure that the other side of the debate is right or wrong…. time (scientific progress) will tell… do you have any explanation for the fact that earlier doomsayers have always been wrong: Malthus, Ehrlich, Club of Rome, Acid Rain etc etc.. WHY fundamentally would it not be possible for 9 billion people on this planet to have a double affluent lifestyle as Americans have it today? We will figure out how to get there… only the affluence saveguards the envoironment… it is all Kuznets curve! Poverty destroys health and environment, affluence cures. Again your reasoning is a circle and your arrogance is appaling…. Yours sincery, Hajo Smit, MSc Climate Science.
Dan,
You say you started writing this journal because of “the incredible amount of misinformation… about science”. But then you forget to mention any science. You give no facts whatsoever to support your assertion that the globe is warming and that mankind is responsible for it. It’s strange.
Instead, you do nothing but psycho-analyse the “unbelievers”, as though that might change their minds. You say: “nothing I can possibly say will change their minds”. But you try anyway. That’s strange, too.
Dan, I’d like to tell you that I believe in looking after the Earth. We should not despoil it. But I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory, or any of the other straw men arguments you raise; I believe in observations. One of the most compelling is the global surface temperature graph from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
It shows no warming since about 2002 and only mild warming before that, back to 1979. That’s 30 years of satellite temperature records, Dan, that fail to alarm me. That’s not strange.
No conspiracy needs to be invoked, only a confidence in science, as you encourage. A confidence that continues to discover facts that throw strong doubt on the theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming. It’s not strange, nor a conspiracy.
You can join in. Just search sincerely.
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.
Have not seen the graph you linked to in a published paper. As far as the satellite temp. record, I refer you to this post:
http://wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/2009/06/another-climate-myth-long-dead-is-finally-buried/
That pretty much explains that the Satellite and Surface temp. records match. You also forgot to include the RSS data. Also notice the lead authors.
The Maunder minimum was a long period of little or no sunspots. Coincidentally that coincided with low temperatures across Europe.
How do sunspots affect teperature on earth.
It looks as if the the 22 year solar cycle affects global temp by about 0.3C. About 20% of the warming in the last century can be attributed to solar output changes. The sun has had little affect on the temps. over the last 40 years.
You can find much greater detail on the AMS Env. Seminar series website. Look for the talk by Dr. Judith Lean of the U.S. Naval Observatory. http://www.esss.ametsoc.net/embeddedvideo/SolarRadiation.html
Dan,
With so many broadcast meteorologists promoting anti-science or ignoring the issue entirely, it’s refreshing to see you stand up for the science. If you’re interested in the psychology, you might want to check out the extensive report just issued by the American Psychological Association.
****
Actually Steve, I did indeed read it. It convinced me once again, that my 9 college credits of Psychology was all I wanted to ever take! Reading it actually is what made me think about writing this post.
The RSS data refers to the Remote Sensing Group. They have also measured satellite temps.
Your claim that the satellite data does not show warming is not born out by the science. The report I linked to previously concluded that the satellite data and the surface data ARE in agreement.
(I deleted the link because there was no cite to a published article- if it was published, send me the cite and I will put the link on.)
Dan,
You say:
“Have not seen the graph you linked to in a published paper.”
I notice that the link I gave has been removed, so I think you’re talking about the UAH graph I linked to at Junk Science, though you are unclear on this, as your comment does not immediately follow mine.
“You also forgot to include the RSS data. Also notice the lead authors.”
I don’t know what you mean by these comments.
My comments take issue with the fact that your post focuses on the imagined psychology of “non-believers”, rather than accepting that there exist real-world observations which fail to support the AGW hypothesis. Your further comments are of concern (if they are directed to my comments) because they fail to address what I said.
The fact of the matter is that no unprecedented warming is evident in a reliable dataset over 30 years. In addition, the important matter of causation lies in disarray, supported only by computer models and unjustified assumptions. The AGW hypothesis in unsatisfactory. A small negative cloud feedback of about 3% would be sufficient to undo it.
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold.
Regarding your correction about Dr Singer’s alleged involvement to big tobacco, you only undermine your position further by citing that DeSmogBlog page about Dr Singer. If you take the time to log in to the tobaccodocuments.org site, his paper that’s supposed be a smoking gun indictment of his position on 2nd hand smoke reads as follows, “The health risk from smoking is not the focus of this paper. Instead, this paper explores the EPA’s analysis of ETS or second hand smoke….In brief, EPA makes certain assumptions about ETS which are then used to buttress EPA’s scientific and economic conclusions. Moreover, the science as presented is insufficient…. In the process, it has engaged in both scientific overreach and regulatory overreach…”
So, the allegations about his claims of non-harmful 2nd hand smoke go up in their own cloud of smoke. Combine that with absolutely no evidence whatsoever of tell-tale evidence of big industry-inspired errors in his or any of the other skeptic scientists peer reviewed science journal published papers, and what are you left with? You and your fellow global warming believers’ only fallback position is to declare his NIPCC 2009 Report legitimate science and then you must summarily disprove it on its science merits.
A far more convincing tactic would have been to debunk the skeptics’ criticisms and theories FIRST, and then score death blows by irrefutably showing how big industry influence contaminated their reports. The failure to do that on both counts undermines your cause to the point of certain collapse.
“Perhaps the only way to convince the cult of deniers, is to convince them that their initial assumption that doing something about climate change will require a dramatic change in lifestyle is wrong!” This is a truly confusing statement. When a guy like me already lives a minimalist lifestyle (32mpg+ in my little car, bicycling instead of driving whenever possible, A/C set to turn on above 86 degrees, a recycler for decades, grower of 6 tree saplings, $35 per month utility bills), why is an assumption about an imagined fear of a lifestyle change for me your primary motivator?
My question is, are you and other human-caused global warming believers so pathologically enslaved to this idea that you are unable to comprehend how much of a house of cards your cause appears to be when you can’t substantiate accusations about skeptic scientists or disprove their criticisms? Do you not see how you can BURY the skeptics and their so-called “junk science” by showing us precisely how big industry influenced-errors in their science reports wipe out their credibility? If you can’t prove guilt-by-association, and your assumption about fears of lifestyle change don’t work, what do you have left to prove to me the skeptics are wrong?
Answer this: if such allegedly corrupt skeptics and an arch conservative government were about to enact wrongheaded legislation to prevent global cooling, would you NOT demand them to prove you wrong instead of calling you “deniers”?
*************************************************************************
Science NEVER proves anything. A theory only holds until it is shown incorrect by experimentation based on scientific method.
So far the evidence continues to mount at an ever increasing rate, despite the claims on these silly political sites. The quickest way to get famous in Science is to disprove a widely accepted theory. The science community is not obligated to explain, over and over again, why the claims on these silly junk science sites is wrong. It’s the responsibility of those who disagree to show why it’s wrong using scientific method in the appropriate forum.
So far those that disagree have only convinced about 5% of the publishing climate researchers. Not much considering 6% of the population believe the moon landings were a hoax.
Dan,
Didn’t the Soviet Union use psychiatric hospitals in an attempt to “fix” people who were deemed to have “psychological disorders” because they didn’t quite see the Communist Party’s vision of Utopia in the same way the Politboro saw it?
Couold you explain what the differeence between the Soviet approach to perceived disorders and your own version?
Dan, I have some show-stopping news for you: That “man-made climate change” nonsense is JUNK SCIENCE, and it makes Lysenkoism look good in comparison.
It is not just “plain-vanilla” junk science like say, N-rays or Cold Fusion.
It is MALICIOUS junk, as was Eugenics.
Isn’t that a nylon suit you’re wearing Dan?
Isn’t nylon made from petroleum (cyclohexane to e-caprolactam + n-hexyl amine)?
Why aren’t you wearing a bear skin or something?
********************************************************************************
Yup it’s a commie plot- I admit it.
DS
Dan,
First, your penchant for embedding your comments in other people’s without marking them out disregards usual practise and could be construed as discourteous. One moment the person named is commenting and then suddenly you comment without announcement.
This is important, for I realised your mistake only because while reviewing my own comments as posted I found statements I had not made! Unfortunately, others cannot know that you speak in my name. Please let your readers know who is speaking.
Second, it is strange that you refuse to consider web-based material, since times are changing and increasing amounts of data and papers are now exclusively on the web and the journals are bypassed. The NOAA makes their CCSP reports available on the web and sea level information is almost exclusively on the web. Even the IPCC refers to web content. You adopt blinkers over this that I decline to wear.
Still, because I get the impression that you are capable of proper reasoning, I have taken the trouble to find a reference to the UAH data, so that you might hear what I have to say. One paper that uses them is “Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations” by Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, and Justin Hnilo, published 9 August, 2007, in GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698, 2007.
Perhaps now you might feel free to respond to the substance of my comments?
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.
****************************************************
Comment by Dan:
Comment Edited (You made several claims that have no basis in fact. The comments section is not a forum to spread disinformation. If you have a claim, back it up.) As for the cite- did you bother to read the follow ups to that paper? Or are you just cherry picking the rare article that seems to disagree with AGW theory. Funny how they always have Lindzen or Spencer at the top. Tell you anything?
Gavin Schmidt at NASA has a decent summary here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/comment-page-4/
Art,
I have published your email but deleted the talking points. (See the policy on email). I also do not publish stolen private emails.
ds
Art Horn, Meteorologist
185 Pine Street #308
Manchester, CT 06040
860-643-6550
860-268-9139
he inconvenient science: Twenty talking points about global warming
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
References:
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies
(Energy and Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
Craig Loehle.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007) David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer.
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13 July 2004) David Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred singer.
Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate? (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp. 328-339, January 2007) Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouel, Frederic Fluteau, Agnes Genevey.
Climate Change Re-examined (Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 723-749, 2007) Joel M. Kauffma
Climate outlook to 2030 (Energy and Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619, September 2007) David Archibald.
Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979 (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 183-186, January 2001) John R. Christy, D.E. Parker, S. J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W.B. Norris.
Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (Climate research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149-164, October 1999) Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie H. Soon, Sallie Baliunas.
How dry is the tropical free atmosphere? Implications for global warming theory (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 78, Issue 6, pp. 1097-1106, June 1997) Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell.
Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of earth (Energy and Environment, Volume 20, numbers1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009) David H. Douglass, John H. Christy.
Nature of observed temperature changes across the United States during the 20th century (Climate Research, volume 17, number 1, pp. 45-53, July 2001) Paul Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Robert E. Davis)
On the determination of climate Feedbacks from ERBE data (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, issue 16, August 2009) Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi.
Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (Climate Research, volume 23, number 2, pp. 89-110, January 2003) Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas.
Trends in middle and upper level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data (Theoretical and Applied Climatology, volume 98, numbers 3-4, pp. 351-359, February 2009) Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking, Michael Pook.
Does the earth have an adaptive infrared iris? (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, volume 82, issue 3, pp. 417-432, March 2001) Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, Arthur Y. Hou.
Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance (Geophysical Research Letters, volume 32, issue 3, February 2005) Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick.
Global warming and sea level rise (Energy and Environment, volume 20, number 7, pp. 1067-1074, 2009) Madhav L. Khandekar.
Variations of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage. A missing link in solar-climate relationships (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, volume 59, number 11, pp. 1225-1232, July 1997) Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen.
Art,
I do not publish “denier talking points” unless you can show specifically in peer review where the claim is from. (See the mail policy). A list of references at the end of them does not count. If you have a specific point you wish to make and have a reference, that is fine.
AL Gore is off limits as well. He does not publish climate science. What he does or does not believe has nothing to do with the science.
Have you noticed that the same names keep popping up in all of those references. SINGER/LINDZEN/SOON/CHRISTY/ SPENCER
Add in Pielke Jr. and Lomborg and a few others and you pretty much have covered the 3-6% of publishing climate scientists who disagree with the AGW theory.
Most are rather obscure journals as well. What about the papers published in response to those you cited. Have you read those?
Is Lindzen’s comment on CO2 based on science or a political view point? I think most people will say political.
Science is the totality of the evidence, not a cherry picked bit here and there to support a preconceived opinion. That is why the IPCC reports have been so valuable.
I will take a look at the points in detail when I get a chance and will publish here any that you can specifically show has been made in a paper.
ds
When Wegener published his theory on continental drift, the geological society tried to kill it. They resisted it mightily for decades, proposing absurd land bridges to account for species distributions. Same with the Heliobactor Pylori theory of ulcers. It isn’t a conspiracy–it is conformity and group-think.
There are hundreds of papers by “non-skeptics” in which particular facts about the global warming scare are refuted, but they do not get attention because they are about obscure things. For example, data showing walrus colonies in West Antarctica (where there are none now) during the Holocene Optimum 8000 yrs ago shows that it was warmer then. A paper showing that East Antarctica during the last interglacial was 6 deg C warmer than today (and didn’t melt). A paper tracking arctic temperatures over the holocene, one about the precipitation outputs of climate models having unrealistic spatial and temporal distributions. I have a whole file cabinet full of these items that contradict alarmist assumptions, but the papers themselves don’t necessarily draw attention to themselves (since the scientists don’t want to fired).
By the way, the Climategate emails show that there WAS a concerted effort to prevent skeptics from getting published.