Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

Last Build Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:05:52 +0000


Comment on IPCC Communication handbook by CCHolley

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:05:52 +0000

Climate State @88
Consider that up to 90 percent of climate denial on the Internet is manufactured.
Is there anyway to confirm this? No doubt much of it is, but I would like to know the actual evidence. It would be quite helpful to know.

Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by nigelj

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 18:53:51 +0000

Vendicar Decarian @199, On second thoughts, the main reason for political tribalism in america is probably social values. In NZ the reason for political tribalism seems more to be economic ideology by my general personal observation.

Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by scott nudds

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 18:12:51 +0000

What I took away from the interview was basically a well stated encapsulation of what I have come to understand after a long... long... long period of disbelief. First, denialists, who are principally conservative are tribal rather than rational. They reason with ideas that are chosen to best advance their tribe and their tribe's ideology. This not only explains denialism itself, but also explains the constant shifting of denialist arguments defending that denial. But it extends beyond denial, to all other forms of conservative reasoning. Trump is excused for all manner of behavior that they would bludgeon the opposition for doing. He is a womanizer, and so was Clinton. Clinton is the devil. Trump doesn't have to be perfect to do God's work. Trump publicly admits to committing acts of sexual assault. Oh that was just locker room talk. He pays off the women who accuse him and they just ignore it, but again Clinton has an out of court settlement and he is the devil incarnate. And on and on it goes, with pizzagate and bengahzi, the emails, and all the other nonsense. Their reasoning is to advance their tribe, and if that means inventing conspiracy or believing in conspiracy then that is logical to them, because supporting their tribe is their logic. The response of the behavioral scientist is also quite instructive. He comes from academia, surrounded by reasonable people and rejects this concept of argument based on tribal advancement. He believes that - like the university types around him - that people are fundamentally rational, logical thinkers. His stated belief - his inoculation theory - is that if you just provide people with the evidence in the right way they will begin to believe the science. In his view it is just a matter of putting the words together in the right order and magically the masses will be convinced. This isn't working, and hasn't worked for the last 40 years. For the last 20 years they have been actively and openly looking for ways to package their message to convince the disbelievers, under the failed assumption that their target audience is fundamentally rational, when this is not the case. The guy being interviewed goes on to explain why attempts to convince are counter productive and a waste of time. The idea has been that a consensus among the public should be reached and then action taken. His point is that the opposite should occur - and I agree totally. The opposition should be driven to the polar opposite, and then crushed by the revelation that they were wrong. They should be pummeled with this failure at every opportunity and driven into the wilderness or crushed entirely if possible. Politically since science will eventually win, there should be no shrinking away from support from the science. Those opposing it should be vilified, labeled, marginalized, humiliated, and driven out of the political arena. This is how you achieve lasting victory. When you are on the winning side, there is no reason to be limp wristed and accommodating to the enemy. That is why the Democrats have largely failed. There are other points made as well. People substitute tribal support largely because of time constraints. Tribal policy is used in place of reasoning. This also explains why Republican talking points are so effective. Their party members just regurgitate them in place of thinking because that is how they think. There are other points to be found in the interview as well. What was quite interesting to me occurs after the interview. The scientist immediately reverts to defending and promoting his "inoculation" paradigm, showing that he has heard but he has not understood what he has been told. He can't conceive that people would think in the manner just described to him, even though it is plainly obvious that this must be the case. His lab research says otherwise, no doubt based on the responses of semi-rational undergrad students. LOL The real world operates dif[...]

Comment on IPCC Communication handbook by Adam Lea

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 18:11:21 +0000

76: I certainly acknowledge the problem, and I recognise that where I live in the UK we will probably get off relatively lightly, at least initially, as far as consequences of climate change are concerned. It is those who live in parts of the world which have currently have climates marginal for human habitation which will suffer first, i.e. the hot countries and countries where human habitation is strongly dependant on seasonal rainfall, where perturbations to the climate may/will cause crop failure and famine. I am skeptical that citizens in the wealthy countries will collectively take enough action in time to make a significant difference. Governments in democratic countries will do little other than lip service until their voting population demands it, and that voting population will vote them out if they don't take meaningful action. I see precious little evidence that this is happening in my home country. Here in the UK it is pretty much a two party democracy, and each party is pretty much a different flavour of neo-liberal capitalism. The Green party are the only party that have a decent environmental agenda yet they have less than 5% of the vote. I doubt it is any different in other wealthy western countries. The renewable energy solution is not as easy as you think to tackle. It looks easy from an engineering point of view, yes the technology is there, there is space to deploy it, and it could be done at feasible monetary cost, but again, you have the problem of public opposition. As an example, people in the UK hate wind farms due to the visual intrusion on the landscape, yet the UK is ideally suited for wind energy being the windiest country in Europe. The logical place to put windfarms is on the western hills and mountains, but if you installed enough wind farms to make a difference across Dartmor, the Pennines, the Lake District, the Scottish highlands and offshore there would be uproar. People here just don't get it, and have been fed BS by trashy right wing tabloids like the Daily Mail which have framed renewable energy as an expensive non-solution which will cost people money. I don't know how we can get around this. I suspect the situation in the US is worse. What I would like to see is not enghineering solutions for transitioning ton renewable energy, I would like to see input from the social scientists as to how to frame the transition in a way that the population will embrace it, not oppose it. Only then will I have confidence that we can turn the ship away from the iceberg and towards the tranquil waters of a sustainable future.

Comment on Rideau Canal Skateway by dhogaza

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:43:13 +0000

mr. kia said: 'On another note, NOAA has been caught again. Here’s a quote from a comment: “Sooner or later the chickens are going to come home to roost for the liars at NOAA.” ' On reading his link, I come across this comment attached to a chart that shows a clear long-term declining trend in arctic sea ice: "As we know from DMI, sea ice extent has stabilised in summer, and has slightly increased since 2007." It's the classic technique of cherry picking a start-point that's below the end point then claiming "increase!" While ignoring the long-term trend ... mr. kia, people here see through that kind of stuff immediately.

Comment on IPCC Communication handbook by Climate State

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 16:11:31 +0000

Consider that up to 90 percent of climate denial on the Internet is manufactured. Thus, moderation is key when preventing this kind of fake news interfering. At YouTube you can effectively set video comments to only be published after being approved, same for every other comment system.

Comment on IPCC Communication handbook by Climate State

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 16:09:22 +0000

The teaser footage of this video is from Everybody should consider to contribute content to this site, since it would help video producers to more effectively communicate climate science, when sharing extreme weather footage, or other related media to the site under public domain principles.

Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by Climate State

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 15:59:30 +0000

Does someone here know if there exists a recording of Hansen's 2005 AGU Keeling Lecture? AGU does not seem to have the recording (or is withholding it). Context

Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by Killian

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 15:40:05 +0000

Again.... here's the link... egads...

Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by Killian

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 15:39:35 +0000

Great, now the oceans can burp CO2, too. Great, just great...