Ever had a climate denier assure you that, although it is impossible to know whether the Earth is warming, or cooling – we know as a matter of absolute fact that Mars, Jupiter, and/or Neptunes moons are definitely warming up….?
Stephen Lewandowsky in Open Democracy:
“CO2 keeps our planet warm . . . .” — Ian Plimer, Australian climate “skeptic”, Heaven & Earth, p. 411
“Temperature and CO2 are not connected.” — Ian Plimer, Australian climate “skeptic”, Heaven & Earth, p. 278
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” – The White Queen, in Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There
–
When a person’s worldview and identity are threatened by climate change, or other environmental risks, they frequently engage in what is called “identity-protective cognition”. Identity-protective cognition can manifest itself in a variety of ways. Perhaps the most frequent manifestation is that it moderates people’s risk perceptions. However, in the case of climate change, the overwhelming scientific consensus—and the impetus for mitigative policies it entails—poses a particular dilemma for people whose identity is threatened by any potential interference with the free market. A mere moderation of risk perception may be insufficient to justify active rejection of the science and of relevant policy options. What are the cognitive and argumentative options available to them in light of the inconvenient consensus?
One option is to deny the existence of the consensus. Another option is to accept the consensus (at least tacitly), but to glorify the few contrarian scientists as heroes, often by appealing to Galileo, who oppose the “corrupt” mainstream scientific “establishment.”
A final, conceptually related option is to seek an alternative explanation for the existence of a scientific consensus. Specifically, instead of accepting the consensus as the result of researchers independently converging on the same evidence-based view, it can be explained via the idea of a complex and secretive conspiracy among researchers. Accordingly, many climate contrarian books are suffused with conspiratorial themes, and when asked to indicate their affective responses to climate change, people frequently cite terms such as “hoax”. This finding is unsurprising in light of long-standing knowledge that such thinking is also involved in the rejection of other well-established scientific propositions, such as the link between the HIV virus and AIDS; and denial of the benefits of vaccinations.
Similar to the propositions that Princess Diana was murdered but faked her own death, the quotations of Australian climate ‘skeptic’ Ian Plimer at the outset of this article are incoherent and cannot both be true. It cannot simultaneously be true that “CO2 keeps our planet warm…” and that “Temperature and CO2 are not connected.” Such incoherence suffuses the public posture of climate denial, suggesting that it cannot lay a strong claim to scientific or intellectual credibility.
Climate sensitivity is low but it is high. One of the most important, but uncertain, variables that determines the extent of future warming is climate sensitivity, defined as the warming that is ultimately expected in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from preindustrial times. If sensitivity is high, then continued emissions will increase global temperatures more than when it is low. Low estimates of sensitivity (e.g., ≈ 1.5◦C) are therefore favored by contrarians, with the higher range of consensual IPCC estimates being ignored or labeled “alarmist.”
Another popular contrarian argument is that the “climate has changed before”, which entails a commitment to high climate sensitivity: if climate sensitivity were as low as contrarians like to claim (≈ 1.5◦C), then the minute past variation in intensity of the sun, which drove past climate changes in the absence of CO2, could not have caused the observed warming episodes.
Either the climate changed in the past because it is highly sensitive to external forces, in which case we are facing considerable future warming indeed, or its sensitivity to the forces triggered by increasing CO2 concentrations is low, in which case the climate should not have changed in the past. Except that it did.
Global temperature cannot be measured accurately but it stopped warming in 1998. A long-standing contrarian argument has been that the global temperature record is inaccurate and that therefore global warming cannot be measured with any confidence. This argument often cites the fact that thermometers may be located near airports or air conditioner exhausts, thereby distorting and artificially amplifying the temperature trend..
Another long-standing contrarian claim has been that global warming “stopped” in 1998. Although this claim is based on a questionable interpretation of statistical data, it has been a focal point of media debate for the last decade or more.
Either the temperature record is sufficiently accurate to examine its evolution, including the possibility that warming may have “paused”, or the record is so unreliable that no determination about global temperatures can be made.
There is no scientific consensus but contrarians are dissenting heroes. The pervasive scientific consensus on climate change is of considerable psychological and political importance. The public’s perception of the consensus has been identified as a “gateway belief” that is crucial in determining people’s acceptance of policy measures. When people are informed about the broad nature of the consensus, this often alters their attitudes towards climate change. Contrarian efforts to undermine the perception of the consensus have therefore been considerable. For example, the top argument leveled against climate change by syndicated conservative columnists in the US between 2007 and 2010 was the claim that there is no scientific consensus.
A parallel stream of contrarian discourse highlights the heroism of the lone contrarian scientist who dissents from the “establishment” and fearlessly opposes “political persecution and fraud”.
Either there is a pervasive scientific consensus, in which case contrarians are indeed dissenters, or there is no consensus, in which case contrarian opinions should have broad support within the scientific community and no fearless opposition to an establishment is necessary.
A brief list of other incoherent arguments. Several hundred incoherent pairs of arguments can be found in contrarian discourse. For illustration I mention a few of the remaining ones here:
• Extreme events cannot be attributed to global warming but snowfall disproves global warming.
• Greenland was green but Greenland ice sheets cannot collapse.
• The climate cannot be predicted but we are heading into an ice age.
• Greenhouse effect has been falsified but water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas.
• Global warming theory is not falsifiable but it has been falsified.
• My country should not cut emissions first but global warming is natural.
• China needs to cut emissions but global warming is unstoppable.
• Paleo-temperature proxies are unreliable but the middle ages were warmer.
• It is a socialist plot but Nazis invented global warming.
An excellent summary of the cacophony going on in the cognitively dissonant contrarian mind.
They are going to need a lifetime of therapy when they are finally swatted into oblivion.
Lew is a great resource for skepticism. As long as he gets the airtime and the papers, it is blindingly obvious there’s no great concern for climate change, since much better thinkers aren’t available to talk about it.
Keep posting about him.
Another blindingly obtuse comment from the village idiot. The only appropriate response is——WHAT?
Is it possible to clear a misclick???
My eyes aren’t so good anymore, I missed the left button…
and can’t tell my left from my right…
Oh, for an edit button.
If you’re talking about giving the Omnomoron a thumbs “up” by mistake, you are able to change it by clicking on the “down”.
Except for that lying denier POS scumbag Russell Cook, who admits he hacks WordPress to give himself extra “ups”, the rest of us control only our own single vote, and you CAN go back and change it later.
I just tried it and it takes a while to “take hold”, but just keep clicking on the “down” and it will change, thereby erasing your “up” and giving Omno the recognition he deserves.
Tyvm. I will go click now.
All this time wasted for nothing substantive. Imagine that…SIX PEOPLE have clicked the downvote button. Wow. What an achievement. The world is saved!!
You guys are a great resource for skepticism too, just not as great as Lew.
BTW has anybody ever met online or in person anyone who doubts the Moon Landing and is a climate change skeptic? I know creationists are skeptic (but they are not conspiracy theorists). I also found CO2 skeptics among chemtrailers – and they are conspiracy theorists.
However chemtrailers are not climate change skeptics in the strictest sense, since they believe the climate is being changed via chemtrails, not CO2.
Unfortunately Lew’s work on this topic is of no value whatsoever.
Yes, SIX PEOPLE have indeed clicked the downvote button on this apparently “low hits” thread (probably from the only three that have commented and three others that couldn”t be bothered to waste the time on you). Unfortunately, that is not likely to deter you from spouting gibberish, so the world is not “saved” yet.
Your comments, as usual, are of no value whatsoever. YOU are the one who wastes our time by saying nothing substantive. Go away.
I forgot. Birthism is of course a malady of several climate change skeptics, and so is the concept of worldwide Islamization.
For some reason, GMO/Monsanto conspiracy theorism affects many greenies instead, but no climate change skeptic.
Even the idea that climate change is a massive international multidecadal fraud is a conspiracy theory that does not affect most of the climate change skeptics I know. But for some reason, we only get the weakest ones among the psychologists, trying to analyze the phenomenon.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzz………!!!!!!!!
That sounds very fascinating. Do you have a website that links to the source of your wisdom?
Most importantly, how does the Bermuda Triangle square with your theories?
Now you’ve done it! Asking the Omnomoron to square a triangle with his “theories” is likely to overtax his feeble brain’s reasoning skills. Rather than attempt to deal with angles, he is likely to just come full circle and expose us to more of his stupidities.
(Apologies to Euclid’s ghost)
I couldn’t help myself. It’s how I respond to the nuttier theories I run into, and well…
I love it most when I get to use that on the 9/11 conspiracy nutters.
Suffice it is to say I do not believe in any conspiracy theory. This alone sets me aside from all you bunch, believers in the Great Exxon Koch Brothers GOP paid trolls Evil Climate Spectre or the likes.
Another interesting point if any serious psychologist wanted to study this field. Some skeptics are into conspiracy theorism, but all alarmists are.
Why would the numbers of up and down votes change my mind, oh mighty Dumbold? What secrets of your psychology are you revealing with such a remark?
Maybe you’re writing as a skeptic on wuwt so you can feed your consensus hunger there too /sarc
I’m sorry, you’re typing letters that do actually make words. But there’s not much to them. Your attempt at sarcasm is really lame too.
It’s ok, I’m used here to canned responses that only mean you cannot get your mind around to talk about what you think is a big problem.
Maybe commenters should be marked so one can tell in advance if they’re here because they need a support group.
Really? Are all conspiracies focused on people doing ‘evil’ things? I would have thought there were at least one or two that were done/believed in/concocted for ‘neutral’ or even ‘good’ things.
The Moon Landing Hoax, for example, doesn’t really strike me as particularly nefarious. It’s rather benign and harmless (wait, I should be clear. I’ve only skimmed it, maybe I missed the sinister nature. or I just can’t think how faking that would be called sinister.) in my opinion anyhow. Even if you believe that NASA faked them, how did/does that harm anyone? A vague threat of a lost opportunity cost, perhaps???
I like the idea that I might, just might, if I work at the subject that I’ve gotten interested in, be able to contribute something. Asking a question that might get someone else to figure out how to make the uber-cool widget/connection. (whatever said widget may be)
It is not harmless – it harms truth and integrity, and tries to undermine public confidence in science.
A society needs confidence in science to be able to take threats seriously and marginalize primitive ideologies.
However harmless you may think so, denial of anything is dangerous because it contributes to delays in potentially life-saving actions.
Oh, I’m not claiming they’re harmless. I was questioning the idea that all conspiracy theories have to be sinister in nature.
Someone who believes in that rubbish isn’t going to be convinced by any science. A great example of that are the nutters who follow the various 9/11 conspiracy theories. (those ones are harmful, and bigoted. but that’s a topic for a different blog)
I missed the sinister nature of the moon landing hoax. What evil plot was linked to that again?
IIRC there is an evil plot linked to the fluoride in the drinking water CT, and (at least) one linked with the Kennedy assassination CT. Of course, then there are the racist/anti-religious CTs which are, as expected, evil.
“However harmless you may think so, denial of anything is dangerous because it contributes to delays in potentially life-saving actions.”
Woah. That’s a wee bit of an overstatement. Do you really mean ‘anything’, or are you really talking about the denial of reality being so dangerous.