What's With the Climate Change Deniers?
A recent post of mine (on the new American Psychological Association report on climate change behavior) got hijacked by climate change deniers -- who are unfortunately an aggressive and nasty-mouthed lot -- so as a psychotherapist and ecotherapist, I'm becoming curious about the psychology behind the virulence.
Why are these folks so desperate and frantic to dispute the current scientific consensus, which includes psychologists as well as climate change scientists? While I agree with them that a scientific consensus doesn't mean that all those scientists are right, surely it would be prudent to listen to what they have to say, based on their most current studies? And if you disagree, why the need to scream and foam at the mouth?
What the deniers don't seem to realize (or are paid not to realize) is that if they're right and they persuade us to do nothing about climate disruption, the consequences of this mistake would be truly horrendous for everyone, including themselves, their children and grandchildren. If they're wrong, however, and -- miracle of miracles -- we actually do something to mitigate climate disruption, we have a chance of becoming alternative energy leaders rather than the Neanderthal left-behinds... solar moguls rather than petroleum beggars.
Another benefit of getting off fossil fuels: we won't have to pay for expensive wars in fossil-fuel rich areas. Right now, the countries that still have fossil fuels, including Russia, are beginning to flex their muscles against the fossil-fuel-importing nations like the US. Doesn't it make sense to get off our "addiction to oil" (George W. Bush's term) even if a few of us aren't fully convinced that that will help mitigate climate disruption?
So psychologically I'm curious: why are the climate change deniers so upset, so shrill, so fearful, loud and angry at those who agree with the international scientific consensus? What's the psychology behind the screaming? What are the deniers afraid of?
Perhaps the fear is really political rather than scientific or even psychological. Some conservatives appear to believe that the concern about climate change is a liberal plot -- because that's what their political leaders have told them. And why are these political leaders putting out disinformation on climate change and health care reform right now? I'm afraid it comes down to politics and the corporations who pay the politicians' bills. The true fear may be that if reforms happen, the insurance and fossil fuel industries will lose money.
If the Republicans and other conservatives can't come up with some constructive issues that are worth fighting for (as opposed to just fighting against every scientific or progressive proposal), the party is well and truly bankrupt.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What the global warming alarmists don't understand is that man made global warming puts some upward pressure on global temperatures, but that doesn't mean temperatures will go up. This is because there are many other factors involved. There could be upward pressure on temperatures, but global temperatures could conceivably slip into another ice age at the same time. In that scenario, global warming would be a good thing, not a bad thing. But, of course, if global temperatures continue to rise because of all the many other factors, then man made global warming is bad because it makes the situation worse. Also, I find it funny that many global warming alarmists don't even realize that livestock are responsible for about 40% of the so called global warming. Are they going to try to force people to stop eating meat?
You're starting to get it right. CO2 in the atmosphere causes heat retention and a rise in temperatures. While most of the temperature increase goes into the oceans, some of the air temperature rise is sometimes masked and sometimes accentuated by natural factors like the solar cycle and El Nino Southern Oscillation phase. But despite the fact that the increase in temperatures is sometimes masked for a year or two, the heat is still being retained in the atmosphere with co2 rise and will eventually be felt. It is further evidence of the importance of addressing co2 emissions.
1)
"So psychologically I'm curious: why are the climate change deniers so upset, so shrill, so fearful, loud and angry at those who agree with the international scientific consensus? What's the psychology behind the screaming? What are the deniers afraid of?"
The denier argument is more of a psychological one, than a factual one. In fact, I think they know they are wrong because they constantly misstate information and cherrypick information. One can not do this selective process continuously without being aware of it. They really do not care what climate change will bring about because they very likely will not see it in their immediate lives, as it really affects developing countries with vulnerable populations most immediately. Selfishness is core to conservatism.
If climate scientists are right and, of course, they are because co2 is a proven greenhouse gas, then the whole philosophy of conservatism is questioned. Consumption may not be the highest good. Exercising our own liberties may impose on the liberties of others. We may be all in this as a collective. But needless to say the dust and soot from Chinese factories darkens the skies as far away as Seattle. So it is a given that we are in this all together. When it is demonstrated that a green economy can create good jobs and we can still prosper, then conservatives may quit dismissing the facts.
Your diatribe says more about your state of mind than anything else. Can you demonstrate this shrillness, fearfulness, loudness and anger that the "deniers" apparently show? I would argue, given what I've seen of your comments over the past few weeks on this subject, that most of the shrill, loud and angry behaviour comes from none other than yourself. What are you afraid of? Not being right all the time?
It is not me you are arguing but climate scientists around the world. Ask them why they are being "shrill, fearful, loud and angry." Let me know what they tell you! Now you can pretend that many climate scientists disagree with the consensus on warming because pretense is what deniers do so well! (Actually, I did not use any of those words you mentioned like "shrillness, fearfulness, loudness and anger", but deniers do not usually read for substance!)
(2)
We all do not all share this quality of easily dismissing facts and injecting our own opinions as a substitute for scientists, but conservatives are more casual with it than many. They can question Natural Selection theory based on biblical principles and then they can question whether the health reform bill will lead to pulling the plug on grandma. It is all the same. I feel that they just do not put the same value on information. Information to them just serves ideological purposes and does not have value in itself. Anyway, we can probably ignore climate change for a few more years and get used to the erratic weather patterns until it becomes commonplace. But our relationship to the truthfulness of information we present is important.
YOU might be able to get used to the erratic weather patterns. I live in Miami. Somehow, I think getting used to it, around here, might involve moving, to somewhere that's not around here...
Perhaps it is because those challenging environmentalist "Groupthink" - those you are labelling "evildo..." oops "deniers" have been proven correct so often in the past. Two instances are nicely outlined at the link below.
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/the_insights_of_paul_ehrlich.php
I'm not anti-AGW but the environmentalist position on this is just textbook "Groupthink".
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
I find if very hard to accept that every criticism, every dissenting voice contrary to the environmentalist position is inspired by corporate infamy or political jealousy. Science just doesn't work this way so all I can reasonably do is doubt the science.
lff
Your friends missed the explosion in commodity prices by 19 years. Copper costs tripled from 2007 to 2008, as energy costs sky-rocketed.
Overpopulation and starvation are still problems.
Not sure what point you are trying to make? It would be really nice if this were scare-tactics from some conspiracy. But no one stands to gain if AGW folks are right. And everyone loses.
Seems like the conspiracy folks would have to look to Big Oil and Dirty Coal to find anyone who benefits. and they would benefit from having a bunch of people try to discredit, or deny, global warming, while also saying it is impossible to replace the toxic fuels. But that would never happen. America is too smart for that.
Tom
Great reply, thoughtful. He repeats the same assertions, like all deniers!
I really don't believe this. From you of all people.
Haven't you been berating others here for "selection bias" in the data they use to support their arguments. I mean really! Copper and energy prices between 2007 and 2008! You conveniently cropped your data set to miss the over 50% plunge in the prices of both of these commodities to levels not seen since 2006.
In any case Simon repeatedly asked Ehrlich and Holdren to try again. They always refused - essentially they got it wrong twice.
I'm not worried about an environmentalist conspiracy. As I said I am worried about environmentalist "Groupthink". Your use of "selection bias" in "rationalizing" the environmentalist failure to accurately predict commodity prices are two important indicators of Groupthink.
You can complete a trio of symptoms by just "stereotyping" me as a "denier".
Alarmist claim: "HOTTEST Oceans in Recorded History"
The actual data:
http://i28.tinypic.com/wwho49.png
Judge for yourself.
Read Anticlast below - he or she is all eloquent and stuff, for being a scientist ;)
You don't get it. The accepted science is that AGW is real and now.
You, as a denier, need to provide some REAL science to counter it.
I predict
You must think you are on a denier site, where you can post some para-science and hy-uck it up with all your similarly "educated" buddies.
Not claiming Huffington post is peer reviewed, but the caliber of most commenters is typically enlightened by education and reason.
Tom
I don't know, man... the comments tend to add up to something like "peer review," by the end of the day. Lying or making stuff up or being insulting to no argumentative purpose, don't fly far, around here.
Here is a much more accurate graph of ocean temperatures that does not try to look like temperatures have fallen since the old temperature high of 1998. Your graph is an example of how deniers cherrypick and misrepresent information!
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
"Average temperatures of waters at the oceans’ surface in July were the highest ever recorded, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. The agency said the average sea surface temperature was 1.06 degrees higher than the 20th-century average of 61.5 degrees. Though July was unusually cool in some areas, like the eastern United States, analysts at the NOAA Climate Data Center said the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.03 degrees higher than the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees, the fifth warmest since worldwide record keeping began in 1880. The agency also said that, on average, Arctic sea ice covered 3.4 million square miles in July, 12.7 percent below the 1979-2000 average and the third lowest on record, after 2007 and 2006."
http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=513&Itemid=1
Wow. I find this reply fascinating. I'm a trained scientist, with many years of experience in fields abutting on climate science. But "fried fish" say science is a "great democratizer": anybody's casual opinion is just as good.
The origins of "fried fish's" attitude is in our culture. Schools and parents praise the child's meager effort, to save his self esteem. But true self esteem comes from gaining capability.
Reporters don't get science courses or any discipline besides how to write. They are trained to be 'fair' and 'balanced'; any oddball opinion of a well-spoken poseur is as good as the findings of a person who works every day doing science with real data and other scientists.
"The Ignorant can judge as well as the Experts" has gained ascendancy. Fed by 'think tanks' supporting the commercial goals of an industry, it's only a quick slide to "Lies are as good as Truth" in order to "present both sides".
Opinions in the absence of knowledge or data are taking over television "news". I personally know two talking heads, mis-presented as experts in their field. Both are well spoken, telegenic, and self-confident as they purvey b***t. Makes me suspicious of everyone I see on TV.
Science is NOT democratic. The purpose of research is to find ONE answer that best satisfies the data. Science IS Authority. And you, "fried fish", need to do a lot more work before you know enough to make a judgement. Get over it.
Huh. Comment by "Fried fish" disappeared. He thought his opinion as good as anybody who had studied the matter and said "Science is the great democratizer". A peculiar opinion
There is no 'international scientific consensus' on . That's a myth, and the alarmists aren't going to make it a reality no matter how loudly they proclaim it. The hysteria over CO2 is waning as more and more independent scientists dig into the data.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
Lindzen:
"The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale. "
The dominant force in control of the Earth's climate is the Sun.
Thoughtful Tom, are you a Goldman Sachs or some other financial institution employee (or their "community organizer") by any chance?
Those are the people who stand to gain the most from global warming hysteria. Their Cap and Trade schemes will dwarf anything big oil has ever earned.
Unless you denounce Cap and Trade you have no moral standing in accusing AGW skeptics of having an agenda.
"Unless you denounce cap and trade" Really?
What is your evidence for this? What new conspiracy theory combines Goldman Sachs, financial institutions and community organizers? The people who stand to benefit from the status quo are big oil and other polluters.
Not sure what all your other crazy talk is about.
I've got to ask though - are you a birther?
All that I denounce is proud ignorance. When I refute a denier claim, it shouldn't reappear two messages later. When facts are presented, they should be respected. When the future of the habitable planet is at stake, a little hysteria is an appropriate response. At this point in history, ignorance isn't cute, it is deadly to my children's future.
Tom
PS - there is a better solution than cap and trade. Check out www.capanddividend.org/?q=readfirst
Tom, I see you are still on the "birther" kick....what does that have to do with the current issue?
Taxing CO2 was a non starter in Congress. Instead they all agreed to Wall Street driven Cap and Trade scheme where carbon credits will be used as investment vehicles, with all of their normal financial products- futures, derivatives, fractional reserve principles, short selling, etc, etc... FTC will control this mess like they are controlling commodities now with each barrel of oil traded 27 times before being delivered and like they controlled CDS market (300 trillion dollars exposure for just the top 25 banks)
This will lead to pricing manipulations- just like 5 dollar gasoline last year just so they can take that 50 million dollar bonuses home.
Bankers will make more money from this than oil companies ever did.
This has a potential of becoming so big and profitable for bankers that they will use their influence in government to suppress green technologies just to keep the gravy train going. Banker's greed has no equal and knows no morals.
So, you are replacing one status quo with another- potentially more powerful and persistent.
No I'm not a birther- not that it has anything to do with subject at hand.
link not working chief
@CelticMajic
Read my comments below (different message). I explain exactly why the parallels between the deniers and the birthers are real, and they are frightening.
This is the world we live in. Rational conversation is not possible when your interlocutor is immune to facts.
It is sad. The best case is those with fact immunity get ignored. But media and social relativity say every voice must be heard (which is OK) and has EQUAL value. But a trained scientist (who has spent 10 years studying his or her specialty, plus a lifetime of PASSIONATE pursuit of their subject matter) trumps the layman every time. That is what gets lost, and all the sudden we have death panels and birthers and deniers and they are somehow credible.
It is not how democracy works. It may appear to be democracy, but it is the tyranny of the terminally ignorant. Policy based on this foundation has not choice but to be deeply flawed.
Tom
It's because the right wing is a cult. Much like how the people of North Korea are told to always obey Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, the right wing in this country is told to always obey George W. Bush and Rush Limbaugh. And if the gun-toting people attending the Obama rallies are any indication, these are a dangerous bunch.
LMPE you are a cult. That isn't how it is at all.
this is what's with the climate change deniers:
arrhenius was wrong!!
http://www.physorg.com/print168791411.html
"And even though the changes that occured 19,000 years ago were due to the increased solar radiation, that amount of heating can be translated into what is expected from the current increases in greenhouse gas levels".
A direct quote from your link.
For crying out loud fumes/richard2, do you really think that we don't read your links?
You just can't make this stuff up.
Richard2 usually re-interprets the article in an entirely different way from what it says!
"What's with the climate change deniers?" What's with the "you're either with us, or you're against us" mentality? Aren't we as thinking human beings allowed to use all the scientific literature and observational data to call into question some of the more hysterical global doom assertions being made? For example, there were so-called climate change experts claiming 5 years ago that Perth (a West Australian city) would become a ghost-metropolis by 2010. Has it happened? No.
Who is your source for the Perth claim?
To many people pull some crazy claim from the past and then say it was the environmentalist's fault.
But when you look at it, a crazy person made a claim. Then the people who want to deny reality say this was the mainstream argument.
Usually false.
Tom
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_10_worst_warming_predictions/
Tim Flannery made these claims (Australian of the Year 2007(?)):
"In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that “there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”"
And you're right, a crazy person did make this claim.
He's got 90 years to be proved uncrazy...
Tom
I think that it's the fear of change, which is basic to the conservitive mindset. Fear of having to change your way of thinking, fear of new challenges,fear of being part of society.
Basically the fear of the undiscovered country.
Sorry, just had to use a Star Trek reference.
FEAR OF CHANGE!
I agree
progressives want a future that never will be and conservitives want to return to the past that never was.
Wow, you said in much fewer words what I tried to say at the top of the page. Well put, MG! You are right, as usual!
Psychologically, why is the mention of the fact that the average global temperature has stabilized over the last decade and the suggestion that we should keep debating the science met with anger and statements like "The debate is over", by global warming proponents? I think more people might be catching on that this is all about the desire for more government control over businesses. What else can explain this kind of stubborness in the face of changing conditions.
Temps haven't stabilized over the last decade. Look at any temp chart and you'll see that the primary trend is still up. Regardless of what happened in 1998. Which has already been explained as the result of a particularly strong El Nino.
The claim that temps have stabilized is a lie. That's where the anger comes from.
When you post lies, whether through dishonesty, or ignorance, I get angry.
Do you really think an el nino can stabilize the average global temperature for years? So I guess it's "case closed". I rest my case.
do tell us hamma, who is originating this lie?
Actually temps since 1998 are strictly above the +2C trend line. Which means global warming never stopped, it didn't even slow down.
Those who claim otherwise, especially after having the truth pointed out to them, are deceivers. Which is evil
www.realclimate.org
Or look at any site which posts the actual average annual temperature. The data doesn't lie. Only the deniers do that.
Tom
Which temperature series are you using, TT? HADCrut? GISS? UAH? RSS? Just want to know so I can see the same graphs you are.
CRU
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php
And looking at it again I see that 1999 and 2000 were slightly below the +2C trend line. So let's just say not a single year this century is below the +2C trend line.
Tom
Just to continue this little study of Ecopsychology, here's a portrait of a skeptic - IPCC scientist speaks out against global warming hysteria:
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2894
He seems quite reasonable. Hardly a "shrill, loud, Neanderthal". But maybe Linda can offer him some free Ecotherapy just to be on the safe side.
Oh, in anticipation of some of the juvenile insults I see below, I'll just say by way of disclosure that I am an AGW skeptic, not a "birther", voted for Obama, not paid by Oil Companies ... have a nice day!
I'll take my chances with being wrong. So far, there is no scientific proof that climate change is man-made. Either way, I don't care about this issue as this global warming, eco friendly, going green fad is getting stale and tiresome.
Are you sure it isn't your life's ambition to go back in time and become a poof dandy in the French court?
"Oh this global wahming wigamawol. It is just so vewy tiahwing, don't you know? Weally, it is just so bahwing." (waves perfumed hanky in front of face and looks bored)
Gee. Sorry that facts seem to have you so bored. Time to switch the chanel.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Good Cahmedy is veva bahwing.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
