Six Aspects of Climate Belief

Six Aspects of Climate Belief  (in response to Six Aspects of Denial on “whatchingthedeniers”)

1.  Never question the science.  Just state you and everyone who is not a climate science cannot understand.  This then becomes “taking it on faith” or believing in something you cannot prove or do not understand because certain people deemed smarter than you said it’s true.  Stick with the “consensus” line and hope the listener will be bullied into going along.  Intimidation is what science is about.

2.  Maintain blind faith in the motives and integrity of climate scientists.  This appears to be a somewhat naive view.  Do we have evidence being a scientist makes you moral or holy, above the temptations of the world?  These are humans beings, but treat them as gods and maybe others will go along with the idea.

3.  Ignore any scientist who speaks out against climate change.  Denounce him as “not qualified”, even if he has credentials identical to your climate scientist.  Few people will check.

4.  Ignore the cost of “remediation” for climate change.  Accept that the only solution for climate change is stopping industrialization.  Repeat often that humans can NOT adapt.

5.  Appeal to “the greater good”.  Emphasize sacrificing comfort, the economy and anything else required for the cause.  Emphasize “do as we say, not do as we do” should any deniers mention the globetrotting nature of climate change conferences.  Remind individuals we all sacrifice at different levels.

6.  Acceptance reinforces the believers key philosophy.  Climate change is to socialists as cat nip is to cats–they get high on it.  It elevates scientists to the omniscient level of gods, allowing no dissent in one’s move to save the world and make it a socialist utopia.  Wealth and industry threaten this dream and must be stopped at all costs.  Most importantly, people need to be told what is good for them and what they need to do.  The are not smart enough to be trusted with saving the world on their own.


31 comments on “Six Aspects of Climate Belief

  1. Lazarus says:

    Bruce, I’m not sure if this link is above but it clearly demonstrated the fallacy of the It ‘It hasn’t warmer in X years meme’;

    As for your ‘Headlines this week announced that global warming is “at a standstill”’ comment you seem not to have processed the ideas that it is ‘Headlines’. That means that sensational media selling a product have told you something you are choosing to believe without any critical thinking. I suspect that it because it is telling you what you want to hear.

    As for the Met Office revising temperature forecasts down It should be noted that this new forecast is for the short term only. Scientists know the importance of natural variability in the short term, where it can completely obscure the global warming signal. The MO admits that this is experimental work to account for short term natural variability and the longer forecast remains unchanged. Four years ago Doug Smith from the MO said research “suggests that surface air temperatures will remain steady for the next six years or so, as cooler sea surface temperatures keep the lower atmosphere cool despite ever higher greenhouse gas levels”.

    • Bruce says:

      Lazarus – I also provided a link to the BBC article which had Met Office’s own graph of expected temperatures out to 2017. At the end of 2017 their expectation is a temperature about what we’re at now. That is the data. I didn’t make this up.

      You can see for yourself. Here are the satellite temperatures for the last 16 years. Flat as a pancake.

      And if you look at this long term graph of HadCRUT you can see why. Draw a regression line up the side of a sinusoidal curve and you’ll get a rising trend, which is what Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 do. Draw a line across the top of the sine wave and you’ll get a flat trend. We are at that top, and the Met Office has taken note of this, since they have added the PDO and AMO to their model. Which is why they see the hiatus continuing.

      I will apologise for not watching the Youtube at your link. I can’t stand videos because of the waffle. Text is clearer and easier to address in detail. If you have a blog post or paper you can link to I’d be happy to scientifically pull it apart for you. 🙂

      • Lazarus says:

        You are avoiding the point.and acting as if the Met Office update is significant – it isn’t. The Met Office have not changed their long term warming predictions. The link shows that the hiatus in warming is exactly what the met office models predicted as published Doug Smith 4 years ago.
        Try this link;

        Richard Betts from the MO also recently said on the Bishop Hill Blog:-

        The decadal forecast is updated every December, and goes on our science pages as it’s ongoing research and not intended to be a forecast for public use (it’s not yet been shown to be useful to anyone, although we hope it will be when we’ve developed the technique further). It’s not particularly relevant to global warming as it’s about near-term natural variability rather than the long-term trend.

        And the video I posted above clearly shows how warming has not stopped at all, it is just being offset by other climate factors – all as expected. There was also little warming in the 70s for similar reasons but this is just part in an overall warming trend.

      • Bruce says:

        Lazarus – I agree with most of that. A 2XCO2 of 0.7 C/doubling, which is my estimate of sensitivity, is continuing global warming.

        But its logarithmic. Which at that level is too low to cause more than a degree or at most 1.5 degrees of warming before we completely run out of fossil fuels on Earth. No need to do anything or tax anyone. There is no problem.

        That it the point of the Met Office projection. Now they are including the ocean cycles their projected temperature falls and the fit of the models is better. And by difference the CO2 sensitivity is lower. Which they don’t mention for some amazingly inexplicable reason. Could it be they fear a reduction in their budget?

    • Bruce says:

      I should also say that I can’t read the NS article you linked because of their paywall. I subscribed for a couple decades but not any more unfortunately.

      • Bruce says:
        “But its logarithmic. Which at that level is too low to cause more than a degree or at most 1.5 degrees of warming before we completely run out of fossil fuels on Earth. No need to do anything or tax anyone. There is no problem.”

        I don’t know what evidence you have for that, but I suspect it hasn’t been published in a credible journal. I would like to review it if you can provide a link.

        However even if the temperature stopped at 1.5 degrees, are you saying that is not significant? Do you know the temperature difference between the medieval warming period, when they could grow grapes and produce wine in Britain, (as the now do as temps are about that or slightly higher), and the Little Ice age when the Thames froze over and they could have fairs on it? It was somewhat less than 1 degree.

  2. john byatt says:

    Bruce ” which is one reason why the UK Met Office now thinks that temperatures won’t rise for at least another 4 years.”

    where do you get this stuff?

    Model updates rc
    Given current near ENSO-neutral conditions, 2013 will almost certainly be a warmer year than 2012, so again another top 10 year. It is conceivable that it could be a record breaker (the Met Office has forecast that this is likely, as has John Nielsen-Gammon), but I am more wary, and predict that it is only likely to be a top 5 year (i.e. > 50% probability). I think a new record will have to wait for a true El Niño year – but note this is forecasting by eye, rather than statistics. Gavin Schmidt

    UK met is projecting a record breaker and you claim they are predicting no warming for four years?

    • john byatt says:

      Current warmest year for world met office is 2010 at 0.54DegC

      UK met office release

      Met Office 2013 annual global temperature forecast
      20 December 2012 – 2013 is expected to be between 0.43 °C and 0.71 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a best estimate of around 0.57 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.

    • Bruce says:

      John – I gave you a link. Here is what the 1st sentences say:

      The UK’s Met Office has downgraded its forecast for warming at the Earth’s surface over the next five years. Headlines this week announced that global warming is “at a standstill”.

      Here’s a BBC report with a graph of their data. At the end of 2017 their median predicted temperature is back near where its been for the last 16 years.

      I think they are still over-estimating the forecast temperature, as I suspect they are not using NASA’s recent data on solar forcing. But at least they’re now factoring in the PDO/AMO cycles.

      Maybe we will get a hot one, maybe not. Dr Hansen (who Dr Schmidt works for) was predicting a large el Nino for 2012-13. What we have so far is a weak el Nino followed by a weak la Nina. If this la Nina strengthens, as the SST’s in the Pacific seem to be showing over the last week or two, then we certainly won’t be getting a record hot year this year.

      • john byatt says:

        What sort of scientist are you? you link to a magazine article and a bbc story,

        why not just link to UKmet ?

        now you talk about NASA solar forcing and link to a blog post wuwt

        You go from claiming met predicts no warming for four years to claiming that their hottest year 2013 prediction will be wrong .

        sorry fella you do not come across as having any idea what you are talking about.

        you are wasting my time,

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        I linked the WUWT report because that was easiest to find. Here’s the corresponding NASA webpage.

        I linked the NS article because it addresses the reason why the Met Office has changed their prediction, ie due to incorporation of the effects of the PDO and AMO. Which it turns out are quite large. I added the BBC report because it includes the graph of Met Office’s predictions. The link you give has neither.

        If you have a Met Office link which covers both those aspects I’d be fine to discuss it. I linked to NS and BBC because these organisations rarely publish anything which might be regarded as “sceptical”. Or do you not accept the veracity of BBC and New Scientist magazine?

        Likewise I’d be delighted if you link a journal article that we can discuss. So far you’ve waved airily in the direction of Google results without being specific.

  3. john byatt says:

    It is all a bit like evolution versus creation science, what to believe, who to believe?

  4. john byatt says:

    Great start, so much better than denial depot and the climate scum

    keep up the great work

  5. Martin Lack says:

    With my thanks to Robert Henson (Rough Guide to Climate Change [2007], p 257), I should like to rebut your nonsense with what I like to call “The Six Pillars of Climate Change Denial”:
    1. Global warming is not happening.
    2. Global warming is not man-made.
    3. Global warming is not significant.
    4. Global warming is not necessarily bad.
    5. Global warming is not a problem.
    6. Global warming is not worth fixing.

    Science, history, and observation are well on the way to demolishing all of the above. I would therefore recommend abandoning your “skepticism” before you become an anachronism…

    • Scientific data and evidence, please. I am unable to abandon my skepticism without adequate scientific data that my position is wrong. All you have done is list the tenants of what skeptics may believe, not why it is wrong.

      • Martin Lack says:

        It’s wrong because statistical analysis of the last 5 decades of actual weather data indicate that:
        1. Extreme weather events of all kinds are getting more frequent.
        2. The range of extremes is getting wider; and
        3. On average things are getting warmer (as stated by you).

      • Martin Lack says:

        With apologies – please disregard the “as stated by you” bit!

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        Martin – Why do you think no increase in average global temperature in the last 16 years should cause an increase in extremes due to CO2?

        In fact there is a good reason why this should be due to solar activity. Prof Lockwood (an IPCC contributer who is not a climate sceptic) of Reading University showed that jet stream blocking occurs more often when the Sun is in a low activity state. Which it has been since the end of the last completed solar cycle.

        Jet stream blocking was the cause of the Moscow heat wave and accompanying Pakistan floods. It was also the cause of the extremely cold UK winter of that year. Here in Australia it was almost certainly the cause of the recent period of high temperatures. (For further information read up on Rossby waves.)

        In science when you have one hypothesis which does not explain the data and another which does, you would normally go with the latter.

        I might also add that long term data shows no particular change in the frequency of extreme events, the emphasis being ‘long term’ since climate oscillations such as the 60 year cycle and the solar cycle do have measurable effect. But there is no measurable fingerprint in extremes that cannot be explained by another well understood variation.

      • Bruce says:

        Not sure what you’re getting at John. Are you referring to Dr Tremberth’s article (first hit)? I can demolish his argument with Gleckler et al 2012 as a starter, then point out that even New Scientist regards jet stream blocking as the cause of the Russian heat wave of 2010. NS is not known for its climate scepticism.

        He seems to be pointing out that swaps between el Nino and la Nina conditions are related to CO2. But there are good statistics which show that when the 60 year cycle is in cool mode you get more la Nina’s, and in warm mode you get more el Nino’s (see table on p4 at the link). We have just swapped from warm mode to cool mode, which is one reason why the UK Met Office now thinks that temperatures won’t rise for at least another 4 years. The paragraph to read at the link is the one about the PDO and AMO, which cycle with a 60-ish year periodicity. Indeed if you smooth the ENSO index data yourself you’ll see the same periodicity.

      • john byatt says:

        Glecker et al 2012,

        did you even read it?

        Large-scale increases in upper-ocean temperatures are evident in observational records1. Several studies have used well-established detection and attribution methods to demonstrate that the observed basin-scale temperature changes are consistent with model responses to anthropogenic forcing and inconsistent with model-based estimates of natural variability2, 3, 4, 5. These studies relied on a single observational data set and employed results from only one or two models. Recent identification of systematic instrumental biases6 in expendable bathythermograph data has led to improved estimates of ocean temperature variability and trends7, 8, 9 and provide motivation to revisit earlier detection and attribution studies. We examine the causes of ocean warming using these improved observational estimates, together with results from a large multimodel archive of externally forced and unforced simulations. The time evolution of upper ocean temperature changes in the newer observational estimates is similar to that of the multimodel average of simulations that include the effects of volcanic eruptions. Our detection and attribution analysis systematically examines the sensitivity of results to a variety of model and data-processing choices. When global mean changes are included, we consistently obtain a positive identification (at the 1% significance level) of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed upper-ocean temperature changes, thereby substantially strengthening existing detection and attribution evidence.

        what are you on about?

        many of the papers i linked are about the increasing extreme events,

        will not bother with you, till you work out what you wish to say

      • Bruce says:

        John – Gleckler et al 2012 demonstrated that SST rise in the last 50 years was 0.125 C (within error bars). They ascribe that to human activity (last para in the abstract you quote).

        Dr Trenberth said it was 0.5 C in the first link at your link. 0.5 C is not 0.125 C. Since you weren’t specific about what you meant, I looked at his paper first.

        What Dr Gleckler, Dr Santer and their coauthors did not mention is that a SST rise of 0.125 C is below the low bound of Lindzen & Choi’s value for sensitivity, if you do the arithmetic, which is quite easy (0.125 C over that period corresponds to a 2XCO2 of 0.4 C, vs 0.5-1.3C for LC2011).

        And no I couldn’t read all of Gleckler et al 2012 because its paywalled. But Pielke Snr posted the data on his site, which is what I linked to so you could see it (since you can’t in the SciDirect abstract). I read the abstract, I read the data available and the write ups from a number of sources at the time. I was interested to do so because John Church is an Australian working for CSIRO. I do work with and for CSIRO from time to time.

        I already showed that natural variation neatly explains an increase in incidence of extremes of temperature and other climate events. Mike Lockwood is the IPCC go to expert for solar phenomena, as I recall it.

        I am a scientist by profession. When somebody gives me a paper I read it (when I can) and I look at their data. I look to see whether their data supports their conclusions, and whether there are alternative explanations which are better. In Gleckler’s paper I agree with their conclusion reasonably well, since my own calculation of 2XCO2 of 0.7 C fits their finding of a human caused warming signal in SST data, given some lag in SST response to CO2 forcing. But a 2XCO2 of only 0.7 C is harmless since response is logarithmic.

        The same goes for Dr Trenberth and the other papers on extreme events. Such can only occur due to GHG’s if additional heat is being stored in the climatic system. There’s got to be a net forcing for there to be a response. If it was being stored in Earth’s climate system you would see an increase in temperature. There hasn’t been one for about 16 years, on average.

        But the data shows that extremes are occurring due to solar inactivity induced jet stream behaviour, which is not related to CO2 or temperature rise. That is Lockwood’s finding. Which is generally accepted, since the BBC, NS, blogs and other outlets reported it without any caveats. Don’t you think that fits the data better, since temperature is not rising but extremes are?

        Remember this?:

        When a pamphlet was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein retorted “If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

        If the hypothesis does not fit the data, you have to adjust the hypothesis. Einstein was not wrong, the 100 other scientists were.

      • Martin Lack says:

        Hi Bruce. I think John Byatt has responded to most of your misconceptions but the best rebuttals I have seen of the “global warming has sopped” are these:

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        Martin – Global warming has not stopped. As I said empirical net 2XCO2 in my estimation is about 0.7 C/doubling. This is global warming by GHG’s.

        The first Carbon Brief article isn’t bad where it quotes Met Office. So for example CB says:

        Data from Hadcrut4 shows that during the period that Rose uses in his argument, 1997 to 2012, atmospheric warming was about 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade, which is considerably slower than in previous decades. We’ll come on to the possible reasons for this haitus later, but the important point is that scientists don’t draw general conclusions about global temperature trends based on such small amounts of data.

        That’s fine. I use 250 years of data myself.

        Alongside human impacts, the world’s temperature varies in response to natural cycles, in particular the El Nino/La Nina cycle and the 11-year solar cycle, as well as occasional one-off events like volcanic eruptions. As the Met Office explained to Rose, the most likely reason that we haven’t seen an upward trend over the last decade is that such natural variability has played a more prominent role in the climate, masking the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperature.

        Likewise fine.

        The oceanic heat content graph pretty much tracks HadCRUT so I can’t see anything in it which is unexpected, and the curve is flat for a decade in that data series.

        I don’t see anywhere where CB is explaining the ‘hiatus’. On the other hand the shape of HadCRUT is quite consistent with this curve fit, plus the effect of the Sun as per this paper. Which I have graphed here.

        There you have it, the ‘hiatus’ is neatly explained by a combination of the ocean cycles now declining and the solar dynamo weakening. With CO2 contributing some warming, but not enough to overcome the natural forcings…as the Met Office says.

        So basically I agree with most of what is said. But the point is that a low climate sensitivity for CO2 of about 0.7 C means catastrophic warming can’t occur. Do the arithmetic! And without net heat addition in the last decade of the ocean heat content dataset, how can extremes be more common if greenhouse warming is supposed to be the cause? Whereas according to Lockwood solar influence is known to cause exactly that when activity is low, which it certainly is at the moment.

        Apologies I won’t go through all the blog posts CB gives in the second article. I could if need be, but the findings wouldn’t differ. I doubt they give a verifiable explanation for the ‘hiatus’ either, since you can’t without accepting empirical net sensitivity is low.

      • Martin Lack says:

        You are clearly far more intelligent than the majority of the World’s climate scientists, Bruce. Either that, or you believe them to be stupid, illogical, or mendacious. Feel free to let me know which it is. However, so as not to cause offence, I will keep my opinions to myself.

      • Bruce says:

        Martin – It is very hard for a scientist to break from a hypothesis that you have invested a large amount of effort on. I am just as guilty of this as anyone (my field is chemistry, I’ve been doing R&D for thirty years).

        When Marshall, Wegener, Galileo, Kepler and Einstein published their hypotheses one and all of them were flamed as mercilessly as Lindzen does. But all those scientists were right. Barry Marshall had to infect himself and then cure himself just to be believed! But now if you get an ulcer you go to the doctor and get two pills. And that’s that in most cases.

        I read a lot of climate papers even though its not my field. The number of papers in high quality journals which show for example that cloud feedback is much higher than the IPCC expects and that sensitivity is lower, with solar influences being the main reason, is amazing. But you don’t see these reported on the BBC or in the newspapers.

        This is a maturing scientific field. The climate data is not supportive of the current consensus amongst climate scientists (who must fear for their jobs, since they are paid by governments). Eventually reality will assert itself, which is the way its clearly going. Science just does not support a faulty hypothesis forever. All those pharmaceutical companies who sold us anti ulcer nostrums moved onto different things. Many climate scientists will too, but for now they have mortgages to pay and promotions to get. Hard things to put aside.

      • Martin Lack says:

        With the greatest of respect, Bruce, I think you project your problems onto me (if not the vast majority of climate scientists). The trouble is, therefore, that no matter how many times these scientists produce research suggesting that Richard Lindzen is dangerously in error (i.e. climate sensitivity is not less than 1 Celsius) – you will dismiss them as acting in their own self interest. However, what would you say in response to evidence that Lindzen is a complete hypocrite and deliberately misleading others in the way he claims the majority of climate scientists are doing…?

        I therefore think there is nothing more I can say to you than that the vast majority of research undertaken indicates that climate change is happening; it is man-made (this time); it is significant; it is bad; it is a problem; and it is worth trying to minimise… Why? Because the Earth is replete with the archaeological remains of past civilisations that failed to recognise and/or respond to their environmental problems.

        Furthermore, we can now be very confident that this is not just another false alarm or end-times prophecy because, what was predicted is happening (in many cases faster than was predicted). Furthermore, the hiatus in significant warming of GSTs is entirely explicable with reference to all non-human climate forcings; whereas the long-term trend in all other streams of evidence (apart from GSTs) is only explicable with reference to non-natural (non-cyclical) climate forcings: We are not just coming out of the LIA (this is another dangerous delusion).

        Climate change denial is founded upon either conspiracy theory or the fallacy of the marketplace of ideas but, as I have now said many times before:
        (1) There is simply no evidence for a left-wing conspiracy to over-tax and over-regulate people (so as to make everyone poorer). Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a right-wing campaign to under-tax and under-regulate industry (so as to make a few people richer)… and…
        (2) There is simply no credible evidence for a scientific conspiracy to perpetuate research funding (as the IPCC was set up by sceptical world leaders nearly 30 years ago and has consistently under-estimated the scale and urgency of the problem we face). Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a fossil fuel industry-led campaign to discredit climate science and scientists that challenge the viability and morality of its business (just as did the tobacco industry before it – and Lindzen was wrong about that as well).

  6. Lazarus says:

    What you demonstrate here is your complete ignorance of the Scientific method. And the fact that you make “climate scientists” a special group when those who study climate and its effects are in fact just qualified in science disciplines like Biogeochemistry, Paleoclimatology, Marine Geology, Advanced graduate mathematics and statistics, Satellite remote sensing, Computing, Stable isotope geochemistry, Atmospheric chemistry, Cloud physics, Tropical meteorology, Numerical weather prediction etc.
    Is this really an irony blog actually making those with genuine scepticism look silly?

    • I made climate scientists a special group because this is a list of the aspects of anthropomorphic climate change beliefs. My use of the term “climate scientist” is used in the same way believer’s blogs use the term: people who publish in peer-reviewed journals. References to the 97% agreement, etc are based on the scientists who publish.

      There is no lack of understanding of the Scientific method here. This post is addressing the “rational” presented on the Watching the Deniers blog and their “Six Aspects of Denial”. It is not irony, though it could qualify as satire if the subject were not so serious.

  7. Bruce: I changed the statement to “climate scientists” rather than just scientists. It is more accurate since this group seems to demand such behaviour. Thank you for asking me to clarify.

  8. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Hello Sheri – No. 2 could be improved as it sounds like all scientists should be distrusted (I am a scientist who firmly fits in #3).

    In science this situation very commonly occurs, where the existing consensus is overturned as a result of new data. Examples: Barry Marshall, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Alfred Wegener to name a few. It is never easy, always there are hold outs who have profited by the old hypothesis and lose out with the new. CAGW is worse because of the massive funding which comes to those who adhere to it (ie per your #6).

    And as for #6 I certainly agree. I like to cite Naomi Klein, who is a progressive writer. She said this in one of her articles:

    “Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.” Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong.”

    As you say pure catnip. And unfortunately as I know myself, scientists have ‘save the world’ complex the worst way. So the science fraternity likewise could be easily sucked in by the offer of rivers of money and the chance to save the world, even if it didn’t need saving.

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s