Australian Politics Forum - How do people reject climate science?

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

How do people reject climate science?
Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:27pm

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065

In a previous article on The Conversation, Stephan Lewandowsky asked, why do people reject science? I’m going to take a slightly different angle and consider how people are able to reject climate science in the face of strong evidence.

A growing body of research has found that when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner. One issue where this influence is strongest is climate change.

For supporters of an unregulated free market, regulating polluting industries to reduce global warming is so unpalatable that they are far more likely to reject that climate change is happening.

The mechanism by which ideology such as this influences our scientific views is confirmation bias. We place greater weight on evidence that confirms our beliefs, while ignoring or resisting conflicting evidence. This can be a challenge when confronted with a convergence of evidence and a scientific consensus, but confirmation bias is up to the task. Let’s look at some examples.

The most common manifestation of confirmation bias is cherry picking, where one carefully selects a small piece of data that paints a friendly picture and overlooks any inconvenient evidence.

How do we spot cherry picking? It’s important to remember that there is no “their evidence” versus “our evidence”. There is only the full body of evidence.

If someone arrives at a conclusion from carefully selected evidence that contradicts the conclusion drawn from the full body of evidence, that’s cherry picking.

Cherry pickers ignore the fact that our planet is currently building up heat at the stunning rate of around 3 Hiroshima bombs per second. Instead, they focus on short periods of the surface temperature record. This record bounces up and down from year to year as the ocean exchanges heat with the atmosphere, meaning that it’s possible to find any short period during a long-term warming trend where temperatures fall briefly. Meanwhile the planet continues to build up heat – around 250 Hiroshima bombs worth since you started reading this article.

Confirmation bias also influences which sources of information we put our trust in. People tend to attribute greater expertise to people who share their values and beliefs. We’re drawn to those who tell us what we want to hear.

So what happens when 97 out of 100 of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming?

Those who reject the scientific consensus lavish their attention on the 3% minority, magnifying their significance and turning a blind eye to the 97% of scientific experts.

If one’s world view is strongly free-market, the notion that our lifestyle might be damaging the planet is unpalatable. AAP/Tony McDonough
So how can ignoring the 97% be justified? Two words: conspiracy theory. There are a range of conspiracy theories out there, from sinister attempts to control the planet with a one world government to claims that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is falsifying their data for financial reasons, a form of global groupthink.

Roy Spencer, one of the minority of dissenters remaining in the climate science community, said:

If scientists are promised a career of financial support to find evidence of manmade climate change, they will do their best to find it.
Let’s look at Spencer’s claim in greater detail, keeping in mind the key characteristic of a conspiracy theorist: exaggerated claims about the omnipotence of the conspirators.

For human-caused global warming to be falsely manufactured, scientists would have to falsify the satellite data finding less heat escaping to space and fudge the measurements of downward infrared radiation that confirm an increased greenhouse effect.

Both the satellite and weather balloon records that find a cooling upper atmosphere along with a warming lower atmosphere (a signature of greenhouse warming) would have to be doctored. The fact that winters warm faster than summers and nights warm faster than days, both fingerprints of greenhouse warming, would have to be fabricated in a number of different temperature records.

What drives Roy Spencer to espouse the implausible theory that thousands of scientists spanning dozens of countries are engaged in a global fabrication of data?

His job at the University of Alabama in Huntsville is to analyse satellite measurements of the atmosphere, but he sees himself a little differently, describing his role as:

… a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.
Spencer personifies the principle that ideology biases the way we process evidence.

One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.

Why do these public figures favour a non-peer reviewed non-expert who has a long history of self-contradiction? The psychological research on which experts we prefer tells us why. Confirmation bias sways us towards those voices that tell us what we want to hear.

Another method of avoiding the consensus of evidence is through the use of logical fallacies. The straw man fallacy is confirmation bias applied through logical argument, misrepresenting an opponent’s position by focusing on their weaker arguments while ignoring their stronger points.

Arctic sea ice reached record lows in 2011. Arguing that this is meaningless because sea ice has been low before is an example of non sequitur – it does not follow. NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre
An example is the accusation that climate scientists in the 1970s predicted global cooling. When you look at the actual peer-reviewed research in the 1970s, the papers predicting global warming from greenhouse gases far outweighed papers predicting cooling. Somehow, the warming papers escape the attention of those who reject climate science.

A common logical fallacy employed by climate contrarians is the “non sequitur”, Latin for “it does not follow”. This applies to arguments where the stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.

The most cited example is “climate has changed naturally in the past therefore current warming must be natural”.

A recent variant argues, in response to this year’s record low in Arctic sea ice, that ice has been low in the past. This is logically equivalent to investigating a corpse with a gunshot wound and ruling out murder because people have died from natural causes before.

To reduce the influence of those who reject the science, confirmation bias and misleading rhetorical arguments need to be exposed. Now is as good a time as any to start practising so I recommend beginning with the inevitable deluge of comments to this article. Look for cherry picking, conspiracy theories, comments magnifying the significance of dissenters (or non-experts) and logical fallacies such as non sequiturs.

You might think those who reject climate science would refrain from employing these methods in such an obvious fashion. But consider the Arctic sea ice example. On one contrarian climate blog, a commenter predicted five ways that people would avoid the inevitable implications of the precipitous drop in Arctic sea ice. Climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts fulfilled all five predictions.

Such reactions go to show that science rejection is an instinctive, emotional and ideological response to evidence that appears to threaten certain deeply-entrenched worldviews.

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #1 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:33pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065

In a previous article on The Conversation, Stephan Lewandowsky asked, why do people reject science? I’m going to take a slightly different angle and consider how people are able to reject climate science in the face of strong evidence.

A growing body of research has found that when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner. One issue where this influence is strongest is climate change.

For supporters of an unregulated free market, regulating polluting industries to reduce global warming is so unpalatable that they are far more likely to reject that climate change is happening.

The mechanism by which ideology such as this influences our scientific views is confirmation bias. We place greater weight on evidence that confirms our beliefs, while ignoring or resisting conflicting evidence. This can be a challenge when confronted with a convergence of evidence and a scientific consensus, but confirmation bias is up to the task. Let’s look at some examples.

The most common manifestation of confirmation bias is cherry picking, where one carefully selects a small piece of data that paints a friendly picture and overlooks any inconvenient evidence.

How do we spot cherry picking? It’s important to remember that there is no “their evidence” versus “our evidence”. There is only the full body of evidence.

If someone arrives at a conclusion from carefully selected evidence that contradicts the conclusion drawn from the full body of evidence, that’s cherry picking.

Cherry pickers ignore the fact that our planet is currently building up heat at the stunning rate of around 3 Hiroshima bombs per second. Instead, they focus on short periods of the surface temperature record. This record bounces up and down from year to year as the ocean exchanges heat with the atmosphere, meaning that it’s possible to find any short period during a long-term warming trend where temperatures fall briefly. Meanwhile the planet continues to build up heat – around 250 Hiroshima bombs worth since you started reading this article.

Confirmation bias also influences which sources of information we put our trust in. People tend to attribute greater expertise to people who share their values and beliefs. We’re drawn to those who tell us what we want to hear.

So what happens when 97 out of 100 of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming?

Those who reject the scientific consensus lavish their attention on the 3% minority, magnifying their significance and turning a blind eye to the 97% of scientific experts.

If one’s world view is strongly free-market, the notion that our lifestyle might be damaging the planet is unpalatable. AAP/Tony McDonough
So how can ignoring the 97% be justified? Two words: conspiracy theory. There are a range of conspiracy theories out there, from sinister attempts to control the planet with a one world government to claims that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is falsifying their data for financial reasons, a form of global groupthink.

Roy Spencer, one of the minority of dissenters remaining in the climate science community, said:

If scientists are promised a career of financial support to find evidence of manmade climate change, they will do their best to find it.
Let’s look at Spencer’s claim in greater detail, keeping in mind the key characteristic of a conspiracy theorist: exaggerated claims about the omnipotence of the conspirators.

For human-caused global warming to be falsely manufactured, scientists would have to falsify the satellite data finding less heat escaping to space and fudge the measurements of downward infrared radiation that confirm an increased greenhouse effect.

Both the satellite and weather balloon records that find a cooling upper atmosphere along with a warming lower atmosphere (a signature of greenhouse warming) would have to be doctored. The fact that winters warm faster than summers and nights warm faster than days, both fingerprints of greenhouse warming, would have to be fabricated in a number of different temperature records.

What drives Roy Spencer to espouse the implausible theory that thousands of scientists spanning dozens of countries are engaged in a global fabrication of data?

His job at the University of Alabama in Huntsville is to analyse satellite measurements of the atmosphere, but he sees himself a little differently, describing his role as:

… a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.
Spencer personifies the principle that ideology biases the way we process evidence.

One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.

Why do these public figures favour a non-peer reviewed non-expert who has a long history of self-contradiction? The psychological research on which experts we prefer tells us why. Confirmation bias sways us towards those voices that tell us what we want to hear.

Another method of avoiding the consensus of evidence is through the use of logical fallacies. The straw man fallacy is confirmation bias applied through logical argument, misrepresenting an opponent’s position by focusing on their weaker arguments while ignoring their stronger points.

Arctic sea ice reached record lows in 2011. Arguing that this is meaningless because sea ice has been low before is an example of non sequitur – it does not follow. NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre
An example is the accusation that climate scientists in the 1970s predicted global cooling. When you look at the actual peer-reviewed research in the 1970s, the papers predicting global warming from greenhouse gases far outweighed papers predicting cooling. Somehow, the warming papers escape the attention of those who reject climate science.

A common logical fallacy employed by climate contrarians is the “non sequitur”, Latin for “it does not follow”. This applies to arguments where the stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.

The most cited example is “climate has changed naturally in the past therefore current warming must be natural”.

A recent variant argues, in response to this year’s record low in Arctic sea ice, that ice has been low in the past. This is logically equivalent to investigating a corpse with a gunshot wound and ruling out murder because people have died from natural causes before.

To reduce the influence of those who reject the science, confirmation bias and misleading rhetorical arguments need to be exposed. Now is as good a time as any to start practising so I recommend beginning with the inevitable deluge of comments to this article. Look for cherry picking, conspiracy theories, comments magnifying the significance of dissenters (or non-experts) and logical fallacies such as non sequiturs.

You might think those who reject climate science would refrain from employing these methods in such an obvious fashion. But consider the Arctic sea ice example. On one contrarian climate blog, a commenter predicted five ways that people would avoid the inevitable implications of the precipitous drop in Arctic sea ice. Climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts fulfilled all five predictions.

Such reactions go to show that science rejection is an instinctive, emotional and ideological response to evidence that appears to threaten certain deeply-entrenched worldviews.

THat is correct.

People were dying thousands of years before they invented busses. So being run over by a bus cannot possibly hurt you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #2 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:45pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

Cherry pickers ignore the fact that our planet is currently building up heat at the stunning rate of around 3 Hiroshima bombs per second.

I, for one, am hugely skeptical of tendentious, gimmicky bollocks like this.

People who come out with this sort of sh!te obviously feel very threatened, threatened to the core of their belief system, by skepticism. Bollocks merchants like this feel compelled to dream up hyperbolic bvllshit like this to shelter their worldview from critical examination.

Back to top

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #3 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:50pm

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:45pm:

I, for one, am hugely skeptical of tendentious, gimmicky bollocks like this.

People who come out with this sort of sh!te obviously feel very threatened, threatened to the core of their belief system, by skepticism. Bollocks merchants like this feel compelled to dream up hyperbolic bvllshit like this to shelter their worldview from critical examination.

LOL @ the Angry Man being Angry Grin

So, tell me, what is it you dispute exactly? The claim itself and the numbers involved, or the use of a comparison to help the reader to visualise the scope of the numbers involved?

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: How do people reject climate science? Reply #4 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:51pm How do people reject climate science? they close their eyes and shove their heads in the sand as far as it will go .....
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

aquascoot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 38110
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #5 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:52pm

i dont reject the science.
i reject that humans can come together as a global species to solve it.
as economies get stressed by the limits of growth in a finite planet, nation states will just become more introspective and the chance of global solution becomes even more remote.
UN couldnt design a good christmas card (or is that ramadan card)

namaste

Back to top

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #6 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:54pm

Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth's energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing. The aerosol forcing, inferred as a residual in the atmospheric energy balance, is estimated as −0.8 ± 0.4 W m−2 for the 1980s and early 1990s
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048794.shtml

Quote:

A new measure of energy use

To put these numbers into a more human context we need a a new measure for our energy use. The “Hiro” is one. It is the equivalent to the energy released by detonating one Hiroshima “Little Boy” bomb every second. One Hiro equals 60 trillion watts.

In these terms, our human energy system operates at a rate of 0.25 Hiros, or one Hiroshima bomb every four seconds. That is the equivalent of more than eight million Hiroshima bombs going off each year.

And we are on a trajectory towards the one Hiro mark by 2100, equivalent to the energy release of one bomb each year for every five-square kilometre patch of land on the planet.

The ocean heating is at 5 Hiros over the last few decades – the energy equivalent of detonating more than a 150 million Hiroshima bombs in our oceans each year.

And the radiative forcing of the CO2 we have already put in the atmosphere in the last century is a staggering 13 Hiros. The equivalent in energy terms to almost half a billion Hiroshima bombs each year.

The world’s human population has grown so much and so fast – trebling in one century and still rising by more than 70 million a year – that it’s perhaps not surprising that the vast scale of our geological impact is yet to sink in.

But it should not be a surprise because the realisation is not new.

http://theconversation.edu.au/our-effect-on-the-earth-is-real-how-were-geo-engin...

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

rules_of_the_game

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #7 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:55pm

It is the very essence of SCIENCE to demand answers to questions and to explain the process behind it.

It is the very essence of fanaticism to demand that we trust the word of scientists without question.

The position of the thinking cycnic is far more righteous than the evangelist for climate change or the redneck denialist.

The great majority are simply saying 'prove it' and to date, science has failed pretty miserably to prove any of the doomsday predictions. Not a single solitary event has occured outside the normal range of climatic variation.

And the fact that a large number of scientists think that ACC is bogus has to suggest that the science is far from settled.

IN SUMMARY: All we are asking for is something akin to actual verifiable, repeatable, unequivocal proof - not hypotheses and predictions. Is that too much to ask for? And is any LESS that that nothing more than scaremongering?

Back to top

IP Logged

rules_of_the_game

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #8 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

Back to top

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #9 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:06pm

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline.

The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be.

As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident?

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #10 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:18pm

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:55pm:

The great majority are simply saying 'prove it' and to date, science has failed pretty miserably to prove any of the doomsday predictions. Not a single solitary event has occured outside the normal range of climatic variation.

Climate science doesn't predict single events, it predicts long term trends. And, by just about any metric you care to mention, the rate of observed changes are outpacing modelled projections. A perfect case in point, in light of the dramatic and record breaking lows the Arctic sea ice extent has reached this year:

Quote:

IN SUMMARY: All we are asking for is something akin to actual verifiable, repeatable, unequivocal proof - not hypotheses and predictions. Is that too much to ask for? And is any LESS that that nothing more than scaremongering?

You're clearly not looking hard enough. Care to offer an alternative theory that explains all of these observed phenomena? http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.phpg=32

Quote:

And the fact that a large number of scientists think that ACC is bogus has to suggest that the science is far from settled.

That's not a 'fact', it's an unsupported assertion based on easily refuted internet-based denier memes:

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

rules_of_the_game

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #11 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:19pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline.

The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be.

As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident?

You define 'fact' far too loosely. Plimer is not some crackpot. You may not agree with him and some have criticised his work, but the mere fact that credentialed experts like Plimer (and dont degrade yourself by rejecting his credentials in such a cavalier manner) find fault with the concensus position should beg some thought.

Logically speaking, is it really credible that the only real climate scientists and the only ones we can trust are those that support the orthodoxy? Is it anything more than medieval catholic rejection of science to dismiss scientists and their views soley on the basis of the side of a global debat on which the align themselves? There are a LOT of scientists who question the orthodoxy including several astronauts (real scientists) and many in the various fields within climate science.

Why dont you ask the question of why, if the science is settled and the outcomes so undeniable that real scientist question them and in some cases, reject it entirely?

And the polarisation of the debat by the climate evangelists is a disgrace. Any scientist that questions one fact, one word in the IPCC is pillored - just as you have done - even if they support tha basic tnor of the hypothesis. This kind of merciless persecution of some is idiotic and the blind acceptance of any study that supprts the orthodoxy is likewise a disgrace to science. The perfect example of this is the hockey-stick graph. One MIT professor commented that if M Mann had brought this to him as part of his PhD work he would have failed him. It is a statistical embarrassment of high order and the underlying science of temperatur by proxy so unreliable and grossly discredited that it was terrible work. But it is now part of the gold-standard in climate change gospel. Thats what happens when you laud those who agree with you and punish those who dont with little reflection on their actual work.

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21097 Perth Gender:	Re: How do people reject climate science? Reply #12 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:19pm http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Back to top	If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992) IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #13 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:25pm

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

I assume you are referring to Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery?

To my knowledge - Garnaut has not published any work relating to the science. He is not a scientist. He is however perfectly qualified to speak in his area of expertise which is the economic impact of climate change and the development of policies to improve our future prospects.

And yes - Flannery is a paleontologist. Why don't you look that word up and have a think about how that may relate to the study of the impact of changing climate on ecosystems. Like geology - it is a relevant and related field of study.

Though, you mention Plimer. Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like:

"I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget.

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2010/s2878843.htm

WTF is that all about!?!?! If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right.

In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/06/28/3255476.htm

Back to top

IP Logged

rules_of_the_game New Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 24 Gender:	Re: How do people reject climate science? Reply #14 - Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:27pm That highlighted text greatly demeans you and reduces the credibility of your position. Everyone who disagrees with ACC is a hack, right? Been a couple Noble prize winners and a number of very well respected scientists who say ACC is flat-out wrong or grossly overstated. Hacks, right?
Back to top	IP Logged