Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"  (Read 220480 times)

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1191
    • View Profile
    • Nexpaq Modular ARA iOS Software Mobile Computing Phones Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multipelsklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgie
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #750 on: January 02, 2016, 11:19:24 AM »
I believe the resistance we see is actually systemic. While individuals play a role, it is within the context of the larger system.

To get a better understanding of systems behavior, read "Thinking in Systems" by Donella H. Meadows. She is a brilliant woman, came out of MIT where systems thinking grew up in the 1960's and presents a fairly dark picture of systems behavior as it relates to human civilization. She authored "Limits to Growth".

The underlying message From Donella Meadows?????

Growth systems (capitalism) constrained by a finite resource (mother earth) have only two possible outcomes. They either arrive at a dynamic equilibrium or they crash. The logic of any system and the only real goal is to perpetuate itself. As rational actors within the system we serve to perpetuate it as well. If we do not transform the system from within, we will crash.

Furthermore, growth systems, constrained by a finite resource, which have significant time lags in feedback loops (AGW) are almost certain to collapse. The "system" is crashing. We will see an ever increasing quantity of "rational" decisions (by rational I mean consistent within the logic of the system of capitalism) that deliver increasingly irrational results. Fracking is an example. In a desperate effort to prop up our fossil fuel fed system, we will destroy our potable water.

Numerous examples exist in nature which demonstrate what a crash looks like. It will be hell on earth. There are examples of the impact on human civilization in nature as well. Think Easter Island. What were the inhabitants thinking as they cut down the last tree?

very nice read because it get's that close to the root of things that are related to "thinking" and "instincts" or in other words, all that happens and why it happens that is not pure physics but willful action is involved.

after all this knowledge will change nothing but to be prepared for the inevitable outcome in one or another form will keep "the few" in decent ability to keep things going ( could say survive but i don't like doomsday terms )

my compliments however, i'm happy for each single individual who somewhat is able to narrow things down to the roots by analyzing and "accepting facts" which for good reason is in the top element of that pyramid.
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2522
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #751 on: January 07, 2016, 02:44:21 PM »
Greenpeace 'peer review' climate sting's first scalp?
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2986791/greenpeace_peer_review_climate_stings_first_scalp.html

A leading member of the climate change-skeptic Global Warming Policy Foundation has resigned from his post in the wake of a Greenpeace investigation that exposed its phoney 'peer review' process. But he insists: 'nothing going on here!'

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #752 on: January 31, 2016, 02:56:52 PM »
I'm pleased to see there have been fewer posts in this thread recently....   ;D


Why deny?  Because you are in a room full of the energy industry's chief lobbyists!  These folks are being paid very, very well.

Energy Lobbyists Gather, Blame Obama and the Pope
The remarks of these lobbyists suggested that many of them live on a different planet, where climate change is not an urgent challenge but rather is the obsession of ideological malcontents.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/energy-lobbyists-gather-b_b_9081268.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Anne

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 518
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #753 on: February 13, 2016, 05:56:43 PM »
Climate Confusion Among US Teachers
A major new survey* of U.S. middle school and high school science teachers has found that across the country, a majority are teaching about climate change in their classrooms — but a significant percentage are also including incorrect ideas, such as the notion that today’s warming of the globe is a “natural” process.

One of the most striking findings: 30 percent of teachers said in the survey that they tell students that the current warming “is likely due to natural causes” — contradicting major scientific assessments of the matter. Thirty-one percent of teachers also said that they include both the scientific consensus position — that global warming is human-caused — but then also a “natural causes” position that contradicts it, thus presenting “both sides,” in the study’s words.
The study also found that most teachers are unaware of the strength of the scientific consensus about the human causes of climate change. The survey asked them “what proportion of climate scientists think that global warming is caused mostly by human activities?” For middle school teachers, 30 percent chose the option “81 to 100%,” which the researchers identified as the correct answer. High school teachers were only a little better, at 45 percent.

In addition, many teachers seemed misinformed about the subject matter. When asked what they would include in their courses on climate change, almost half selected off-topic items like “pesticides, ozone layer, or impacts of rocket launches.”

Teachers themselves showed much skepticism in their personal beliefs, too — while just 2 percent were in total denial of climate change, around 30 percent either said they believed it came from natural causes or that natural and man-made causes were equal contributors.
Washington Post

*Link to the survey
Climate confusion among U.S. teachers

Summary

Although more than 95% of active climate scientists attribute recent global warming to human causes (1, 2) and most of the general public accepts that climate change is occurring, only about half of U.S. adults believe that human activity is the predominant cause (3), which is the lowest among 20 nations polled in 2014 (4). We examine how this societal debate affects science classrooms and find that, whereas most U.S. science teachers include climate science in their courses, their insufficient grasp of the science may hinder effective teaching. Mirroring some actors in the societal debate over climate change, many teachers repeat scientifically unsupported claims in class. Greater attention to teachers' knowledge, but also values, is critical.

Eric Plutzer1, Mark McCaffrey2, A. Lee Hannah3, Joshua Rosenau2, Minda Berbeco2, Ann H. Reid2
*Corresponding author. E-mail: plutzer@psu.edu
Science  12 Feb 2016:
Vol. 351, Issue 6274, pp. 664-665
DOI: 10.1126/science.aab3907

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/664

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #754 on: March 10, 2016, 02:33:49 PM »
Sou examines the methods used by a skeptic or two to promote Velikovsky's crank ideas as science.  They even take Einstein's polite 'you are a nutter' letters as proof of legitimacy.

Crank magnet WUWT defends pseudo-science and promotes Velikovskyism "in the context of learning"
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/03/crank-magnet-wuwt-defends-pseudo.html

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12392
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #755 on: March 19, 2016, 01:46:34 PM »
The USA denialists have been so effective that now we are suppose to be grateful that the USA public appreciation of climate change risk is approximately back where it was in 1989.  At this rate of progress we will be at AR10 before we muster sufficient public support to get USA policy makers to take effective (carbon pricing combined with regulations) action:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-caused-by-humans-poll_us_56ec27f9e4b09bf44a9d164c
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Xulonn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #756 on: March 19, 2016, 03:04:50 PM »
The USA denialists have been so effective that now we are suppose to be grateful that the USA public appreciation of climate change risk is approximately back where it was in 1989.  At this rate of progress we will be at AR10 before we muster sufficient public support to get USA policy makers to take effective (carbon pricing combined with regulations) action:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-caused-by-humans-poll_us_56ec27f9e4b09bf44a9d164c


Interesting that the graph seems to indicate that heat and weather disruptions of El Niño are apparently triggering public concern about AGW/CC again now as it did after the 1997-98 El Niño.  The current steep rise in concern might continue for a bit, but if things calm down somewhat after this El Niño, could opinions shift to less concern again? 

Of course, the next major hurricane-related storm surge affecting Miami or any other low-lying Eastern U.S. region will probably also trigger a rise in public concern. 

I don't a lot of detail about the dynamics of the Miami area salt water/fresh water boundaries, but is is possible that rising sea levels could reduce that ability of "natural processes" to flush the salt water out of fresh water systems after a major hurricane storm surge?
 

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2522
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #757 on: March 20, 2016, 04:53:22 PM »
Welsh village to sue government over 'alarmist' rising sea level claim
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12152240/Welsh-village-to-sue-government-over-alarmist-rising-sea-level-claim.html
Residents of Fairbourne, in Gwynedd, say predictions of that the sea level will rise by a metre a year have hit house prices and investment

House prices in Fairbourne have plummeted Photo: Alamy

By Agency

2:20PM GMT 11 Feb 2016

CommentsComment

A Welsh village is to sue the government after a climate change report suggested their community would soon be washed away by rising sea levels.

The document says Fairbourne will soon be lost to the sea, and recommends that it is "decommissioned".

Angry villagers say predictions of that the sea level will rise by a metre a year are alarmist, and have hit house prices and investment in the village.

"We have been hurt by the actions of the agencies who adopted these plans without thinking of the ramifications."
Pete Cole

At a local meeting they voted overwhelmingly in favour of pursuing legal action over the controversial Shoreline Management Plan 2 (SMP2), saying it had "blighted" their community.

The plan for Fairbourne, in Gwynedd, surrounded by the Snowdonia National Park, was commissioned by Pembrokeshire and Gwynedd local authorities and signed off by the Welsh Government. It is not yet clear who would foot the bill should the legal campaign be successful.

Businesses are struggling for long-term investment

Currently, Fairbourne is included in the West of Wales (SMP2) which recommends that, while the village will be protected against flooding over the next few years, in the longer term, as sea levels rise, it will undergo "managed realignment" and Farbourne will eventually be "decommissioned".

As a result, house prices in Fairbourne have plummeted and businesses have struggled for long-term investment.

• BP: it's up to politicians to tackle climate change

The SMP2 plan states that Fairbourne will see sea levels rise by one metre in the next century, but Fairbourne Facing Change (FFC), a community action group looking to sustain the coastal village for as long as possible, has always dismissed this data as misleading.

The chairman of FFC, Pete Cole, said: "There are four Shoreline Management Plans for Wales, two of which, including the one covering Fairbourne, used the more aggressive sea level rise predictions of one metre in 100 years.

"The other two used more optimistic forecasts. If these had been used in Fairbourne the timeline would have been extended by many years.

The SMP2 plan states that Fairbourne will see sea levels rise by one metre in the next century

"It's ridiculous that had Fairbourne been separated by two different SMPs, one side of the village would be a metre under water 30 to 40 years before the other half - it's nonsensical.

"The 2016 sea level rise forecast produced by the esteemed National Tidal and Sea Level Facility concluded that sea levels could be exp¬ected to rise 50cm rather than one metre in the next 100 years and with only a modest 20 to 30cm rise in the next 50 years.

"FFC has never accepted the predictions used for our SMP2. Latest scientific evidence proves that we were right."

Seeking 'legal redress', FFC and Fairbourne are hoping to claim back the original value of all the properties and businesses in Fairbourne following the "enormously damaging" claims put forward by the SMP.

"We have been hurt by the actions of the agencies who adopted these plans without thinking of the ramifications," added Mr Cole.

"Serious questions should be asked about the 'due diligence' of these bodies which are overseeing a system which is not consistent across the whole of the country.

"A barrister from Gray's Inn Square Chambers in London, specialising in the fields of planning and local government law, has reviewed our situation and concludes that there could be a potential claim.

"We could be looking at a substantial return, tens of millions, but perhaps even £100 million.

• Climate change debate is 'more like religion than science', says Australian science agency head

"The barrister has offered to undertake the legal work on a fixed-fee basis of around £20,000.

"Public meetings held on Friday, 5 February, agreed overwhelmingly to personally commit to contribute to the funding covering legal costs and that FFC would ask the barrister to proceed with the initial review and application of those facts to the law.

"We have already raised a four-figure sum towards the legal fees, almost a 10th of the amount required."

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #758 on: April 05, 2016, 04:20:51 PM »
The Wall Street Journal is quite irate that I rank them with industry front groups and cranks denying climate change. But they have a record whenever industrial pollutants are involved. Look at the Journal‘s commentary on acid rain, on the ozone layer, and on climate change. There is a pattern: Deny the science, question the motives, exaggerate the costs, help the polluters. When they are wrong this often, but keep at it, you have to wonder whether they care about whether they’re right or wrong, or whether they are performing some other service....

U.S. Sen Shelton Whitehouse, Huffington Post, April 3, 2016

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-sheldon-whitehouse/the-wsjs-long-record-of-p_b_9605538.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #759 on: April 09, 2016, 08:56:39 PM »
Scott Denning: Next time somebody claims that volcanos emit vast amounts of greenhouse gases, point them to this article!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/04/the-volcano-gambit/

https://twitter.com/airscottdenning/status/718834467855466496
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2522
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #760 on: April 14, 2016, 02:58:35 PM »
New Documents Show Oil Industry Even More Evil Than We Thought
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-cover-up-climate_us_570e98bbe4b0ffa5937df6ce?ir=Green&section=us_green&utm_hp_ref=green

In 1968, a pair of scientists from Stanford Research Institute wrote a report for the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association for America’s oil and natural gas industry. They warned that “man is now engaged in a vast geophysical experiment with his environment, the earth” — one that “may be the cause of serious world-wide environmental changes.”

The scientists went on: “If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans and an increase in photosynthesis.”

That 48-year-old report, which accurately foreshadowed what’s now happening, is among a trove of public documents uncovered and released Wednesday by the Washington-based Center for International Environmental Law. Taken together, documents that the organization has assembled show that oil executives were well aware of the serious climate risks associated with carbon dioxide emissions decades earlier than previously documented — and they covered it up.

Carroll Muffett, the center’s president, told The Huffington Post the documents not only reveal that the industry, including Humble Oil (now Exxon Mobil), was “clearly on notice” about the potential role of fossil fuels in CO2 emissions no later than 1957, but was “shaping science to shape public opinion” even earlier, in the 1940s.

“This story is older and it is bigger than I think has been appreciated before,” Muffett said.
ROGER HARRIS via Getty Images

The Center for International Environmental Law, or CIEL, a nonprofit legal organization, said it traced the industry’s coordinated, decades-long cover-up back to a 1946 meeting in Los Angeles by combing through scientific articles, industry histories and other documents.

It was during that meeting that the oil executives decided to form a group — the Smoke and Fumes Committee — to “fund scientific research into smog and other air pollution issues and, significantly, use that research to inform and shape public opinion about environmental issues,” CIEL says on a new website devoted to the documents.

That research, CIEL says, was used to “promote public skepticism of environmental science and environmental regulations the industry considered hasty, costly, and potentially unnecessary.”

Muffett said in a statement that the documents “add to the growing body of evidence that the oil industry worked to actively undermine public confidence in climate science and in the need for climate action even as its own knowledge of climate risks was growing.”

Last year, InsideClimate News revealed that top executives at Exxon knew about the role of fossil fuels in global warming as early as 1977, then lobbied against efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In January, the New York attorney general announced an investigation into ExxonMobil over allegations that it lied to the public and its investors about climate change.

A report that surfaced in February revealed the American Petroleum Institute knew about climate change in the early 1980s.

The industry group did not respond to HuffPost’s requests for comment Wednesday.

CIEL’s new documents, however, show that the cover-up has endured for a generation or more. 

Story continues below...

Muffett said any document, viewed in isolation, has an element of plausible deniability. “But when you put all of the pieces to the story out there and see how they link, the zone of plausible deniability shrinks, and it shrinks substantially,” he said.

The new trove adds to a “robust body of evidence” available to the public showing what the industry knew, when, and what it did with that information, Muffett said.

“Once the companies learned this information, once they were aware of it, they can’t unlearn it,” he said. “This becomes the baseline.”

Muffett said the evidence warrants further investigation. CIEL plans to release additional documents in the near future.

“Oil companies had an early opportunity to acknowledge climate science and climate risks, and to enable consumers to make informed choices,” Muffett said in a statement. “They chose a different path. The public deserves to know why.”

Attorney Sharon Y. Eubanks, former lead counsel for the Justice Department in federal tobacco litigation, was among those who applauded CIEL for making the documents public.

“Just as was the case with the release through litigation of tobacco industry documents, these documents will shed light on the actions and inactions of a powerful and influential industry,” Eubanks said in a statement.
Chris D’Angelo
Associate Editor, HuffPost Hawaii


Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #761 on: April 17, 2016, 12:37:04 AM »
Media silence on the Great Barrier Reef
While the world is shocked by images of telltale coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef, in Queensland’s largest newspaper the story is inexplicably absent.
There have been some efforts to inform people about the devastation under way on the reef in the media. News Corp’s The Cairns Post – with a local readership whose livelihoods are directly threatened – has reported the issue, as has Fairfax’s Brisbane Times. But in Queensland’s only statewide newspaper you wouldn’t have read about Hughes’s findings or their ramifications. Since his surveys began, The Courier-Mail hasn’t interviewed him, nor sent one of its journalists into the field to verify either his or his colleagues’ observations.

“It basically shows they’re either in denial about the science,” says Ian Lowe, emeritus professor in the School of Science at Griffith University, “or they’re colluding in obscuring the science so the community don’t understand the threats being posed to the reef, both by climate change and by the associated acidification of the oceans, both of which put real pressure on corals.”
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/environment/2016/04/16/media-silence-the-barrier-reef/14607288003133
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

BornFromTheVoid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 958
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #762 on: April 17, 2016, 03:16:29 PM »
Over on /r/science on reddit, we're currently hosting an AMA (Q&A) with the authors of the recent paper of climate change consensus. Here's the link https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4f6f6g/science_ama_series_we_just_published_a_study/

Science AMA Series: We just published a study showing that ~97% of climate experts really do agree humans causing global warming. Ask Us Anything!

Hello there, /r/Science!
We* are a group of researchers who just published a meta-analysis of expert agreement on humans causing global warming.
The lead author John Cook has a video backgrounder on the paper here, and articles in The Conversation and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists](http://thebulletin.org/yes-there-really-scientific-consensus-climate-change9332). Coauthor Dana Nuccitelli also did a background post on his blog at the Guardian here.
You may have heard the statistic “97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.” You may also have wondered where that number comes from, or even have heard that it was “debunked”. This metanalysis looks at a wealth of surveys (of scientists as well as the scientific literature) about scientific agreement on human-caused global warming, and finds that among climate experts, the ~97% level among climate experts is pretty robust .
The upshot of our paper is that the level of agreement with the consensus view increases with expertise .
When people claim the number is lower, they usually do so by cherry-picking the responses of groups of non-experts, such as petroleum geologists or weathercasters.
Why does any of this matter? Well, there is a growing body of scientific literature that shows the public’s perception of scientific agreement is a “gateway belief” for their attitudes on environmental questions (e.g. Ding et al., 2011, van der Linden et al., 2015, and more). In other words, if the public thinks scientists are divided on an issue, that causes the public to be less likely to agree that a problem exists and makes them less willing to do anything about it. Making sure the public understands the high level of expert agreement on this topic allows the public dialog to advance to more interesting and pressing questions, like what as a society we decided to do about the issue.
We're here to answer your questions about this paper and more general, related topics. We ill be back later to answer your questions, Ask us anything!
*Joining you today will be:
John Cook aka /u/SkepticScience
Stuart Carlton
Sarah Green
Peter Jacobs aka /u/past_is_future
Stephan Lewandowsky aka /u/StephanLewandowsky
Dana Nuccitelli aka @dana1981
Andy Skuce aka /u/AndySkuce
Bart Verheggen aka @BVerheggen
and perhaps some others if they have time
Mod Note: Due to the geographical spread of our guests there will be a lag in some answers, please be patient!

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #763 on: April 17, 2016, 03:39:33 PM »
Thought I would post a link that clearly speaks to why some deny and/or fail to act on the approaching disaster that is climate change. It also directly relates to a claim I made very early in this thread. The deniers are made up almost exclusively of proponents for continued growth and the political divisions in U.S. politics reflect this.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/

The challenge facing humanity...we need to move from a concept of growth to a concept of the equitable distribution of wealth and resources. Wealthy nations must recognize the need and moral imperative for sharing the wealth while simultaneously recognizing the need for embracing a life style that is more focused on a happiness that is decoupled from the consumption of more and more things.

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1191
    • View Profile
    • Nexpaq Modular ARA iOS Software Mobile Computing Phones Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multipelsklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgie
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #764 on: April 17, 2016, 07:58:46 PM »
+1 except one word, replace moral through ethical and we're at 100%

well said indeed but those two words are, when narrowed down to what's behind, almost contradictory.

ethics are genuine and timeless while morals are hypocritical at least by those who define what's moral at a given moment in time.
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #765 on: April 20, 2016, 01:16:06 PM »
The AGU denies that Exxon denies climate science -- so the group can keep taking Exxon's money.

American Geophysical Union Sells Its Scientific Integrity For $35,000 In ExxonMobil Money
By Joe Romm
On Thursday, the AGU board announced that — after reviewing the detailed report on ExxonMobil along with the peer-reviewed literature and other publicly available information — it wasn’t going to cut ties with Exxon. Here’s what the letter from AGU President Margaret Leinen says (emphasis in original):

In the end, by a majority vote, the board passed a motion that approved ‘continuing our current engagement between ExxonMobil and AGU including acceptance of funding from ExxonMobil.’ (In 2015 that support consisted of a $35,000 sponsorship of the Student Breakfast at the Fall Meeting; based on current information, if we are offered support for 2016, we can accept it).

Everyone certainly deserves a free breakfast, especially students. And what a great way to introduce them to one of the central facts of the adult world — “money talks, values walk.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/19/3770435/american-geophysical-union-exxon-mobil/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #766 on: April 24, 2016, 04:36:06 AM »
Unfriendly Climate

Texas Tech’s Katharine Hayhoe is one of the most respected experts on global warming in the country. She’s also an evangelical Christian who is trying to connect with the very people who most doubt her research. Too bad the temperature keeps rising.
Hayhoe has found that some people don’t reject the reality of climate change because they disagree with the science but because they fear that the solutions will upend their lives. This seems to be the case for U.S. senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, who once told journalist Rachel Maddow, “I thought it must be true until I found out what it would cost.” That day at Tech, Hayhoe recounted an anecdote about an experience she’d had speaking to a group of water managers for the Brazos River a few months back. At the end of that talk, an older man stood up and said, “Everything you said makes sense, but I don’t want the government telling me where to set my thermostat.”

...“If I’m talking to farmers or ranchers or water managers, I start off by talking about what we all care about, which is making sure we have water. And that, for many Texans, is almost as strong of a value as whatever it says in the Bible.”

http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/katharine-hayhoe-lubbock-climate-change-evangelist/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Buddy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1920
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #767 on: April 24, 2016, 10:38:23 PM »
It's important to know that not EVERYONE will come around to seeing AND speaking the truth about global warming (anthropogenic climate change as opposed to natural climate change).

Some...like Joe Bastardi and many others, and PAID to deliver a certain message for the fossil fuel industry.

When I correct Joe....or point out some of his lies....or point out where he uses photoshopped images, I'm not trying to convince Joe.  Joe gets PAID to say what he says....he will never change.  The people I am trying to communicate with are the people who are on the website READING what Joe has said.

Here's an important article that discusses what I am TRYING to say above:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/04/16/doubting-climate-change-not-enough/3aBHd9Weo9AxSmzI99LSZJ/story.html#comments

"What’s critical to addressing climate change right now is not dislodging the obstinate minority, who will likely never come around. Progress will only be made when the broad segment of the population that gets it makes its voice heard."

So when you are communication with Joe Bastardi, Anthony Watts, Steven Goddard......remember who your real audience is.  The last thing that Watts/Bastardi/Goddard et want is for people to know the truth.  And that is why they cut folks off who are trying to tell that truth.

 
FOX (TASS) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

timallard

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
  • designer
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #768 on: May 28, 2016, 02:04:19 AM »
It's important to know that not EVERYONE will come around to seeing AND speaking the truth about global warming (anthropogenic climate change as opposed to natural climate change).

Some...like Joe Bastardi and many others, and PAID to deliver a certain message for the fossil fuel industry.

When I correct Joe....or point out some of his lies....or point out where he uses photoshopped images, I'm not trying to convince Joe.  Joe gets PAID to say what he says....he will never change.  The people I am trying to communicate with are the people who are on the website READING what Joe has said.

Here's an important article that discusses what I am TRYING to say above:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/04/16/doubting-climate-change-not-enough/3aBHd9Weo9AxSmzI99LSZJ/story.html#comments

"What’s critical to addressing climate change right now is not dislodging the obstinate minority, who will likely never come around. Progress will only be made when the broad segment of the population that gets it makes its voice heard."

So when you are communication with Joe Bastardi, Anthony Watts, Steven Goddard......remember who your real audience is.  The last thing that Watts/Bastardi/Goddard et want is for people to know the truth.  And that is why they cut folks off who are trying to tell that truth.

Kudos to post the truth against the lie online, it's needed, there are denialista trolls on all social media.

We hit 3-ppm gained last year, the Pleistocene average 1-ppm/1000-years, big jump up at the end of the last ice-age 1-ppm/180-years, this forcing is so strong the oceans are acidifying 10-times faster than the PETM, that a mass-extinction the only geologic analog.

A recent finding that Antarctica really starts to melt fast at 600-ppm, it all melts at 800-ppm we'll be there within 130-years and the bonus is that all meaningful coral reefs are dead at 750-ppm.

At 405-ppm we are legally married to 25m/82ft of sea-level, the bride is got fatter to over 70m/230ft for all of Antarctica no sane scientist expects to stop at 600-ppm that's the latest fantasy hope.

Hope that helps frame the geologic context of why do something.

Relating to that, my project & purpose here is to restore sea-ice in the eastern basin at first thinking Bering Straits for a dam it evolved to farther south using St. Lawrence Island having less flow velocity there and enclosing an important area away from the Pacific to hold ice longer in spite of the CO2 emissions.

Analyzing why to do it, Prof. Wadhams uses it, (albedo-loss) = (20yrs CO2 radiative forcing gain).

What this says is if we stop emissions today albedo-loss supplies that same energy, 0.21-watts/m^2 over the whole planet after we stop.

So to cool the planet as planned takes removing the extra albedo and methane increases from thawing permafrost & clathrates. That implies Paris goals are 1/2 to 1/3 what they need to be of what's stated, this never came up as a public issue afaik.

The economic screaming just got louder, emission goals need to be 2-3 times higher reductions to make stated goals of "2C", what a joke expect 3-5C with or without the CO2-Removal Saint to come along and save us.

Wall Street is a racket, if it was worried about the global economy it would not allow this situation, it's not, it sees blood money more important for the world-domination game trying to prevent an economic collapse before the elections.

I started a thread on building the dam, as a coastal geotechnical viewpoint of construction methods, concerns on marine life, nutrient transport and be there for over a century: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1545.0.html





-tom

Buddy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1920
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #769 on: May 28, 2016, 04:22:57 AM »
Here's a page I have started on Joe Bastardi.  If you wish to inform other folks about Bastardi's lies and horrible "forecasts".....pass the link along to others.  There will be more coming...

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2014/05/judith-curry-and-joe-bastardi-2015.html
FOX (TASS) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #770 on: May 28, 2016, 10:24:40 AM »
Eliminated because it would negatively impact tourism.

Australia Pressed UN To Ignore Great Barrier Reef In Key Climate Report
Australia’s National Coral Bleaching Task Force reported in April that 93 percent of the site’s coral showed signs of bleaching.

A key paper about the threats of climate change to World Heritage sites intentionally left off any mention of the Great Barrier Reef after the Australian government raised an objection, according to a report from the Guardian.

The reef, which is experiencing the worst coral bleaching event on record, was removed after officials from the Australian Environment Department said inclusion would have had a negative impact on tourism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/great-barrier-reef-climate-change_us_57481798e4b055bb1171d2cd
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12392
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #771 on: June 25, 2016, 10:49:11 PM »
The linked Nature article discusses how policy makers continue to deny the reality of climate change in order to avoid being held responsible for their collective lack of action to effectively deal with both the causes and impacts of climate change, such as the extinction of Australia's Bramble Cay melomys (Melomys rubicola).

James Watson (23 June 2016), "Bring climate change back from the future", Nature, Volume: 534, Pages: 437, doi:10.1038/534437a

http://www.nature.com/news/bring-climate-change-back-from-the-future-1.20126?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

Extract: "The ‘shock’ over an Australian extinction shows that we still don’t accept that global warming is a problem for now."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12392
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #772 on: June 25, 2016, 11:01:00 PM »
The linked article discusses why the House Republicans are playing politics by trying to stop the Pentagon's climate plan:

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/republicans-trying-to-stop-pentagon-climate-plan-000149

Extract: "As far as back as the George W. Bush administration, the Defense Department was warning that global warming posed a threat to U.S. national security, and that the military needed to be preparing accordingly.
This year it went further, laying out a new game plan that assigns specific top officials the jobs of figuring out how climate change should shape everything from weapons acquisition to personnel training.
Last week, however, House Republicans voted to block it. By a 216-205 vote Thursday, the House passed an amendment prohibiting the department from spending money to put its new plan into effect. Not a single Democrat voted for the amendment, which was attached to the defense spending bill. It’s the second time in just a few weeks that the House GOP has tried to halt the Pentagon’s climate policies; a similar measure attached to the House’s defense authorization bill, which also received no Democratic votes, passed in May.
Supporters of the amendment say it’s necessary to ensure the Department of Defense doesn’t lose focus on the biggest threat facing the U.S. today—the Islamic State. But critics say the provisions, if they became law, would dangerously tie the hands of the Defense Department as it prepares for future threats. (The Senate’s version of the bill doesn’t block the plan; whether the amendment will survive conference is unclear.)




The Senate’s defense spending bill, which passed the Senate Appropriations Committee in late May but has not yet received a vote on the floor, leaves the climate change directive intact. Whether the House amendment will make it into the final bill is “above my grade” Buck said.
But experts worry that if it does find its way into law, the risks are high; such preparations are necessary now, they warn, before it’s too late. “It's like people who drive down the road and all they can do is look 10 feet in front of them on the bumper and they're all going about 75 mph,” said Titley. “That's great until three cars up there are stopped. You don't see it until you're all of a sudden slamming on the brakes.”"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #773 on: June 30, 2016, 08:37:05 PM »
The Wall Street Journal is still firmly in the denialsphere.

WSJ Defends Itself by Demonstrating the Denial, Deception of Which it's Accused
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/30/1543929/-WSJ-Defends-Itself-by-Demonstrating-the-Denial-Deception-of-Which-it-s-Accused
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12392
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #774 on: July 08, 2016, 05:12:12 PM »
Rep. Lamar Smith is engaging in modern day McCarthyism against state AGs that are investigating ExxonMobil's culpability regarding it inappropriate contribution to climate change:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07072016/lamar-smith-house-science-committee-subpoena-ags-ucs-exxon-investigation-eric-schneiderman-new-york

Extract: "In an increasingly tense standoff, the chairman of the House Science Committee said he might seek a subpoena to force state attorneys general and nongovernmental advocacy groups to hand over documents concerning their discussions of ExxonMobil, climate change, and the ongoing investigations of the oil giant.
Rep. Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the science committee, sent a letter Wednesday to two attorneys general and six non-governmental groups. In it, he reiterated his assertion of the committee's investigative authority and claimed it could compel compliance with its far-reaching demands.
"If you continue to refuse to provide information responsive to the Committee's requests on a voluntary basis, I will be left with no alternative but to utilize the tools delegated to the Committee by the Rules of the House of Representatives," Smith wrote.
"Specially, the Committee will consider use of compulsory process to obtain responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of your office."
Smith, who was the sole signer of the letter, set July 13 as the deadline for the organizations to comply."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #775 on: July 10, 2016, 12:55:43 PM »
Mark Boslough: "Interested in betting on climate change? We are convening a session to discuss at AGU."

Betting on Climate Change: Prediction Markets, Risk Assessment, Insurance, Scientific Consensus, and Policy Decisions
Session Description:
The climate is changing. Human activities are the primary cause, but many individuals reject expert scientific knowledge for political or ideological reasons. Opponents of science-informed policy cite uncertainty as a reason to delay action. Mainstream science acknowledges and objectively quantifies uncertainty, whereas opponents often use the language of certainty. Because communication is typically more persuasive when a message is conveyed with certitude, contrary voices may appear stronger than scientific voices to the public. To redress this imbalance, we must find a way to determine whether expressed opinions represent true opinions. One longstanding method is through wagering, and this session will examine the role of bets in exposing actual beliefs related to climate change and associated risk. “Betting” can take on many forms, including prediction market contracts, risk management policies, economic decisions, and insurance costs versus expected benefits. We seek abstracts that explore all these forms of betting on climate change
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm16/preliminaryview.cgi/Session12548
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #776 on: July 16, 2016, 12:42:19 PM »
@ClimateNexus:  Fox News banned this ad. What will it take for them to admit humans cause climate change?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CIOuOAetZq4
https://twitter.com/climatenexus/status/753997051604692992

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12392
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #777 on: July 23, 2016, 05:10:18 AM »
The linked article indicates that the oil-lobby is taking advantage of difficult economic times for the media in order to advance their denialist messages (needless to say the moral hazard of this reality makes my blood boil):

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/oil-lobby-paid-washington-post-and-atlantic-to-host-climate-change-deniers-at-rnc/

Extract: "Evidence of human-made climate change is so conclusive that it’s wrong for journalists to treat its denial like a reasonable point of view. But it is a new low for major media groups to sell their brand to lobbyists and let climate truthers go unchallenged.

And The Atlantic was hardly alone. At the Republican National Convention, the American Petroleum Institute also paid the Washington Post and Politico to host panel conversations where API literature was distributed, API representatives gave opening remarks, and not one speaker was an environmentalist, climate expert, scientists, or Democrat."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12392
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #778 on: July 23, 2016, 06:03:50 AM »
The public may think that only half of scientists agree with anthropogenic climate change; and polls may indicate that about 97% of scientist agree with anthropogenic climate change; but as the linked Wunderground article indicates: ""Science is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. It is evidence that does the dictating." ... Oreskes found that out of the 928 papers, none rejected the position that humans have caused most of global warming over the last 50 years."  This indicates to me that 100% of science supports the position of anthropogenic climate change:

https://www.wunderground.com/news/closing-consensus-gap

Extract: "A concise summary of the strategy against the consensus is articulated in the infamous 2002 memo to Republicans by political strategist Frank Luntz:
 
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming in the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate..."

...

However, it is worth pointing out that science is not decided by majority vote. As John Reisman said, "Science is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. It is evidence that does the dictating."

Scientists must back up their opinions with evidence-based analysis that survives the scrutiny of experts in the field. This means the peer-reviewed literature is a robust indicator of the state of the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes conducted a study of peer-reviewed climate research from 1993 to 2003 that included the phrase “global climate change” in their abstracts. Oreskes found that out of the 928 papers, none rejected the position that humans have caused most of global warming over the last 50 years."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #779 on: July 24, 2016, 02:08:18 PM »
Huge blind spot in front of them.  How to make their way around it?

U.S. Republican party platform makes no mention of global warming.  But it urges the private sector to invest in carbon capture and sequestration.
How can a party platform omit any characterization of global warming and CO2 as a problem while urging businesses to develop a technology with no purpose other than sopping up the main greenhouse gas emission raising the planetary thermostat?

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/as-g-o-p-leaders-deny-warming-risks-platform-urges-private-sector-to-capture-co2/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #780 on: July 27, 2016, 02:36:32 AM »
New U.S. survey.  The linked article details what groups of people hold which beliefs.

Global Warming, God and the “End Times”
For a significant number of Americans, the reality, causes and meaning of global warming are seen through the lens of their religious beliefs. Some reject the evidence that humans are causing global warming because they believe God controls the climate. Others believe that global warming is evidence that the world will be ending soon, and that we don’t need to worry about global warming in light of the approaching apocalypse. To assess the level of acceptance of these beliefs among Americans, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,204 American adults in March, 2016.

- 15% of Americans think it is definitely (7%) or probably (9%) true that “God controls the climate, therefore people can’t be causing global warming.”

- Global warming is interpreted as a sign of the end times by 14% of Americans, with 4 percent saying this is definitely so, and another 10 percent that it is probably so.

- 11% think the end times are coming, therefore we don’t need to worry about global warming.

- 9% of Americans think the apocalypse will happen within their lifetime.

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warming-god-end-times/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #781 on: July 27, 2016, 04:06:15 AM »
Not even one fifth of the Americans gave the correct answers in that survey above:
Does not apply to my beliefs.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #782 on: July 27, 2016, 04:54:25 PM »
John Cook of Skeptical Science:

How to respond to science-denial trolls
http://thebulletin.org/how-respond-science-denial-trolls9678
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #783 on: July 28, 2016, 07:44:24 PM »
The need to deal with climate change will alter many cultural habits.   :D

The Public Shaming of England’s First Umbrella User
This pioneer of weather management was pelted with insults and trash.
In the early 1750s, an Englishman by the name of Jonas Hanway, lately returned from a trip to France, began carrying an umbrella around the rainy streets of London.

People were outraged. Some bystanders hooted and jeered at Hanway as he passed; others simply stared in shock. Who was this strange man who seemed not to care that he was committing a social sin?

Hanway was the first man to parade an umbrella unashamed in 18th-century England, a time and place in which umbrellas were strictly taboo. In the minds of many Brits, umbrella usage was symptomatic of a weakness of character, particularly among men. Few people ever dared to be seen with such a detestable, effeminate contraption. To carry an umbrella when it rained was to incur public ridicule.

The British also regarded umbrellas as too French—inspired by the parasol, a Far Eastern contraption that for centuries kept nobles protected from the sun, the umbrella had begun to flourish in France in the early 18th century when Paris merchant Jean Marius invented a lightweight, folding version that, with added waterproofing materials, could protect users from rain and snow. In 1712, the French Princess Palatine purchased one of Marius’s umbrellas; soon after, it became a must-have accessory for noblewomen across the country. Later British umbrella users reported being called "mincing Frenchm[e]n" for carrying them in public.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-public-shaming-of-englands-first-umbrella-user
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #784 on: August 05, 2016, 08:00:30 PM »
Climate Denier conference scheduled for September in London.

If you are looking for something to bore you senseless for two days, you can trot along to Conway Hall in London to what is being marketed as "New Dawn of Truth" (see Christopher Monckton's WUWT article archived here). The title alone should be enough to put any sane person off. ...
...
The program for the denier festival (if you could call it that) is a list of mostly little-known pseudo-scientists who are probably feeling left out now that nature has been giving us a taste of what's to come with global warming. By my count there are 39 authors of articles in the "New Dawn of Truth Conference Volume". There is no consistent theme, though "it's the sun" and "it's not CO2" are the most common forms of science denial. ...

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/08/a-red-sky-in-morningis-deniers-warning.html

My favorite comment under the article:
Dan Andrews.  August 5, 2016 at 8:24 AM
"I didn't see any commenters mentioning the contradictions. Global warming is a hoax, but it is the sun making things warmer except of course there is an ice age coming, but warming is all natural (or cooling is all natural) except warming isn't making the oceans rise."
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #785 on: August 20, 2016, 01:37:04 PM »
Also Ted Cruz, in a Climate Crocks video on "no warming in X years."

Denier Destroyed on Aussie TV. Crowd Goes Wild
Twitter has been lit up this week following the exchange on the Australian television show “Q and A”, between Professor Bryan Cox and a right wing legislator Malcolm Roberts.

Climate denier Roberts attempted to refute NASA data by appealing to the non-scientist blogger who calls himself Steven Goddard, leaving the audience notably unimpressed.
https://climatecrocks.com/2016/08/19/denier-dissected-destroyed-on-aussie-tv/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #786 on: September 25, 2016, 03:38:33 AM »
Why deny?  Because money.

Bjørn Lomborg centre got $640,000 for report saying limiting warming rise to 2C not worth it
Australia’s education department paid Bjørn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre $640,000 to help produce a report that claimed limiting world temperature increases to 2C was a “poor” use of money.
...
The project concluded that for every dollar spent on keeping global temperatures to the 2C target, less than $1 of social, economic or environmental benefit resulted, which it described as a “poor” result.

Other spending with “poor” returns included cutting outdoor air pollution, increasing protected biodiversity areas, better disaster resilience for the poor and reducing child marriages.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/24/bjrn-lomborg-centre-got-640000-for-report-saying-limiting-warming-rise-to-2c-not-worth-it
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12392
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #787 on: September 25, 2016, 04:29:48 PM »
Houston we have a problem:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/four.fifths.of.evangelical.christians.do.not.believe.humans.cause.climate.change/96157.htm

Extract: "Four Fifths Of Evangelical Christians Do Not Believe Humans Cause Climate Change"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #788 on: September 25, 2016, 06:50:11 PM »
Houston we have a problem:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/four.fifths.of.evangelical.christians.do.not.believe.humans.cause.climate.change/96157.htm

Extract: "Four Fifths Of Evangelical Christians Do Not Believe Humans Cause Climate Change"



As Katharine Hayhoe has noted, it matters less what a person thinks about the causes, or even reality, of climate change, as much as that they agree on common solutions to common problems.

But beyond just speaking to Christian groups, Hayhoe prides herself on being able to talk to anyone with an open mind about the reality of climate change. She bemoans the fact that global warming has come to be viewed as a niche environmental issue. “To care about climate change, all you have to be, pretty much, is a human living on planet Earth. You can be exactly who you are with exactly the values you have, and I can show you how those values connect to climate change,” Hayhoe told me.

Hayhoe’s first step is always to “genuinely bond over a shared value,” with an emphasis on that shared value’s being genuine. “The key is not to pretend; we can all smell someone who is not genuine a mile away,” she said. “If I’m talking to farmers or ranchers or water managers, I start off by talking about what we all care about, which is making sure we have water. And that, for many Texans, is almost as strong of a value as whatever it says in the Bible.” Her next step is to connect that issue to climate change. So when talking about water, she describes how climate change is changing rainfall patterns. “We’re getting these heavy downpours, and then we’re getting longer dry periods in between, and our droughts are getting stronger because the warmer it is, the more water evaporates out of our lakes and rivers and our soil,” she said. She tries to end her talks with solutions that inspire people, ranging from the personal (measuring your carbon footprint and installing energy-efficient light bulbs) to the large-scale (putting a tax on carbon). Hayhoe herself is most excited by the efforts of Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Motors and founder of SpaceX. “If I had to pick one person to save the world—and I don’t think any one person will but if I had to pick one—it would be him.” She is excited about the battery packs that Tesla is developing, declaring energy storage the “single technology that will make the most difference.”

Ultimately, she does not care whether people agree with the science, so long as they take action. She compares this to a battle waged in the mid-1800’s, before the germ theory of disease gained widespread acceptance, when a Hungarian physician urged other doctors to wash their hands and instruments before delivering babies. As doctors changed their habits, fewer and fewer women died from “childbed fever.” “I don’t care if they thought germs are imaginary, so long as they washed their hands,” she said. The same is true for climate change, in Hayhoe’s mind. If people start using more-efficient light bulbs or driving more-fuel-friendly cars, it doesn’t matter what they think about the science.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/katharine-hayhoe-lubbock-climate-change-evangelist/?src=longreads
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #789 on: October 07, 2016, 05:13:48 PM »
Psychology study from Uppsala, don't worry, it's in English, the Donald managed to get a quote into this one. Hmm, wonder why? ;)

http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A945529&dswid=-6258
Ideological roots of climate change denial: Resistance to change, acceptance of inequality, or both?
Climate change denial has been found to correlate with sociopolitical ideology. The general aim of the present thesis was to investigate this relation, and more specifically to 1) test the unique effects of intercorrelated ideological variables on denial, and 2) investigate the psychological underpinnings of the ideology-denial relation. This approach helps estimating what component of right-wing ideology better explains climate change denial; resistance to change (indexed by left-right/liberal-conservative political orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and system justification), or acceptance of inequality (indexed by social dominance orientation [SDO]). In Paper I, SDO outperformed the effects of right-wing authoritarianism and political left-right orientation on denial (Study 1 and 2). Further, the SDO-denial relation was stable when denial scores were experimentally lowered by a newscast that communicated supportive evidence for climate change (Study 2). Thus, the following studies focused specifically on the SDO-denial relation by testing path models that also included other ideological variables (political conservatism, system justification, and endorsement of nature dominance), as well as personality variables (dominance, empathy, openness to experience, and anxiety avoidance) and/or gender. In Paper II, SDO and endorsement of nature dominance explained unique parts of climate change denial, and both of these variables mediated the effects of system justification and (low) empathy on denial. SDO mediated also the effect of dominance. In Paper III, focusing specifically on denial of human-induced climate change, SDO either partially or fully mediated the effects of political conservatism and gender across two cultural contexts (Brazil and Sweden). Additional analyses extended these results, by building on the model presented in Paper II. These analyses showed that SDO (and in some cases also political conservatism and endorsement of nature dominance) fully mediated the effects of gender and personality variables on denial, with one exception: Predisposition to avoid experiencing anxiety predicted denial directly, as well as through a link via general conservative ideology (system justification or political conservatism). In sum, the results indicate that denial is more strongly and consistently predicted by SDO than by the other included variables. Thus, endorsement of group-based inequality/hierarchies offers an important explanation for climate change denial.

Adding Fig1.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12392
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #790 on: October 24, 2016, 11:24:06 PM »
No wonder that so little progress is being made against denialist, as the following reference indicates that the human brain rapidly adapts to dishonesty:

Neil Garrett, Stephanie C Lazzaro, Dan Ariely & Tali Sharot (2016), "The brain adapts to dishonesty", Nature Neuroscience, doi:10.1038/nn.4426

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.4426.html#affil-auth

Abstract: "Dishonesty is an integral part of our social world, influencing domains ranging from finance and politics to personal relationships. Anecdotally, digressions from a moral code are often described as a series of small breaches that grow over time. Here we provide empirical evidence for a gradual escalation of self-serving dishonesty and reveal a neural mechanism supporting it. Behaviorally, we show that the extent to which participants engage in self-serving dishonesty increases with repetition. Using functional MRI, we show that signal reduction in the amygdala is sensitive to the history of dishonest behavior, consistent with adaptation. Critically, the extent of reduced amygdala sensitivity to dishonesty on a present decision relative to the previous one predicts the magnitude of escalation of self-serving dishonesty on the next decision. The findings uncover a biological mechanism that supports a 'slippery slope': what begins as small acts of dishonesty can escalate into larger transgressions."

See also:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/24/499179383/how-small-fibs-lead-to-big-lies
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12392
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #791 on: October 25, 2016, 08:14:53 PM »
While it is easy to identify the short-comings of decision makers with regards to climate change inaction; the following articles indicate that smaller groups and individuals share responsibility for our collective inaction:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/pope-franciss-edict-on-climate-change-has-fallen-on-deaf-ears-study-finds

Extract: "A study by researchers in the US has found that right-leaning Catholics who had heard of the pope’s message were less concerned about climate change and its effects on the poor than those who had not, and had a dimmer view of the pope’s credibility.

“The pope and his papal letter failed to rally any broad support on climate change among the US Catholics and non-Catholics,” said Nan Li, first author of the research from Texas Tech University."

&

http://www.hcn.org/articles/a-proposed-carbon-tax-in-washington-faces-surprising-opposition

Extract: "A tax on carbon pollution faces surprising opposition.

Some environmental groups and social justice advocates are fighting a proposed emissions tax in Washington."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

timallard

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
  • designer
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #792 on: October 27, 2016, 08:07:03 PM »
While it is easy to identify the short-comings of decision makers with regards to climate change inaction; the following articles indicate that smaller groups and individuals share responsibility for our collective inaction:
<snip some>
Extract: "A tax on carbon pollution faces surprising opposition.

Some environmental groups and social justice advocates are fighting a proposed emissions tax in Washington."

Consider that the ability for mass-murdoc-media to lie on science and turn it into a "madhouse" was intentional and doesn't happen in Canada, they have a law putting CEO's in jail for that, their Team Oligarch players have tried several times to remove or degrade the law and so far have failed.

Seeing them ready to put in a LNG port in pristine salmon-wildlife habitat, having not given First Nations their voices for a dam and port they having no permits continue "preparation work" similar to the North Dakota pipeline scene only there directly violating these laws on ancient remains being disturbed:

1906, Antiquities Act: It protects all historic and prehistoric sites on Federal lands and prohibits excavation or destruction of such antiquities unless a permit (Antiquities Permit) is obtained from the Secretary of the department which has the jurisdiction over those lands.

1966, National Historic Preservation Act: This act supplements the provisions of the Antiquities Act of 1906. The law makes it illegal to destroy, excavate or remove information from Federal or Indian lands any archeological resources without a permit from the land manager.

1990, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA): This act assigns ownership and control of Native American cultural items, human remains, and associated funerary objects to Native Americans. It also establishes requirements for the treatment of Native American human remains and sacred or cultural objects found on Federal land.

Then, consider that "carbon budget" is a sales slogan like "manifest destiny" in view of rate-of-change having put up 100-ppm C in 100-years, a carbon bomb that put the planet on the edge of a "carbon excursion" that a term from paleontology.

This video defining why 25% of emissions stay in the atmosphere over 10,000-years with us returning to 400-ppm in about 200,000-years: Emiliani Lecture: AGU 2012 Fall Mtg; "No Future Without a Past 'or' History will Teach us Nothing"; Dr. Richard Zeebe, Univ.of Hawaii; 52:57; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6pyb9_PHv4
-tom

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #793 on: February 01, 2017, 07:34:09 PM »
Active climate change denial is being reduced to those who can make lots of money at it:  fossil fuel companies and politicians.

The UK's main climate sceptic club's membership is dwindling
The official accounts for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which were quietly released last week by Companies House, reveal that its membership fees in the year ending 30 September 2016 generated just £5,409. This was the lowest annual total in the foundation’s seven-year history.

The organisation has always asked each member to pay at least £100 per year. If every member is complying with this request, the latest sums suggest that it now has fewer than 60 members.

In comparison, previous accounts show that in the year ending 31 July 2011, the income from membership fees was £14,330, showing that the total has fallen by two-thirds over the past five years.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/climate-denial-scepticism-global-warming-policy-foundation-trump-a7552026.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #794 on: July 31, 2017, 03:51:29 PM »
"Vacation was more important to us than your future, sorry"
With our lifestyle, we are irreversibly damaging the planet. Everyone knows, no one really does anything about it. An anticipatory apology letter to our children. ...
http://sz-magazin.sueddeutsche.de/texte/anzeigen/46223

Google web-translate works well to translate the German:  http://itools.com/tool/google-translate-web-page-translator

Eric Holthaus has an inspiring and challenging twitter thread on it:
"This short letter to our children, from a German magazine, is painful to read.
Read it anyway.
(posted on vacation)
sz-magazin.sueddeutsche.de/texte/anzeigen…"
https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/891860539483209728

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #795 on: August 11, 2017, 02:03:11 AM »
Katharine Hayhoe:  Can we change people's minds on climate? A new study shows that yes - it is possible. The last 10 years of my life have not been a waste!
https://twitter.com/khayhoe/status/895673453029711900

Small population, but fascinating results: climate talk by evangelical scientist shifted evangelical students' views.  This study focuses on the work of K. Hayhoe.


Assessing the Influence of an Educational Presentation on Climate Change Beliefs at an Evangelical Christian College
ABSTRACT
Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, a significant proportion of the American public continues to reject anthropogenic climate change. This disparity is particularly evident among evangelical Christians, for whom theological conservatism, general scientific skepticism, political affiliations, and sociocultural influences may impede their acceptance of human-caused climate change. Climate advocates have attempted to engage the evangelical community through various educational initiatives; lacking empirical measurement, however, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the efficacy of such programs. Here, we present the results of a study that addresses this lack by adapting questions from the Six Americas of Global Warming survey to measure the climate change beliefs of undergraduate students at an evangelical Christian college before and after attending a lecture by a Christian climate scientist. The 88 participants who successfully completed a pre- and posttreatment survey were divided into three groups: the first attended a live lecture, the second attended a recorded lecture, and the third attended a similar version of the same recorded lecture in which the presenter removed material addressing common misconceptions about climate change. The results demonstrate a significant increase in the proclimate beliefs for students in all three groups. There was no significant difference between the impacts of the live and recorded lectures or between the recorded lectures with and without misconceptions. These findings affirm the value of climate education among evangelicals; highlight the potential utility of such presentations, both recorded and live; and point to opportunities for research in the area of faith-based climate communication.
http://nagt-jge.org/doi/abs/10.5408/16-220.1?code=gete-site
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12392
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #796 on: August 15, 2017, 12:56:22 AM »
At some point the Arctic will be degrading so fast it will not be possible to deny climate change:

Title: "Science Says: Fast-melting Arctic sign of bad global warming"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/science-says-fast-melting-arctic-sign-of-bad-global-warming/2017/08/14/20b031d0-80aa-11e7-9e7a-20fa8d7a0db6_story.html?utm_term=.681aab5e5cc7

Extract: "It’s not just sea ice on the decline. Glaciers in the Arctic are shrinking. And the massive Greenland ice sheet is slowly but steadily melting and that can add a big dose to sea level rise. Since 2002, it has lost 4,400 billion tons (4,000 billion metric tons) of ice.

Then there’s the Arctic carbon bomb. Carbon dioxide and methane — which traps even more heat — are stuck in the permafrost in places like Alaska and Siberia.

“Roast the Arctic and you create a mess everywhere on Earth,” said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1955
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #797 on: August 15, 2017, 01:37:15 AM »
There is no one, or even several, event(s) that will cause all people to give up their denialism. It was really never about evidence of any sort, so just more and stronger evidence by itself is never going to do it for all too many.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

rboyd

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #798 on: August 16, 2017, 04:39:15 AM »
The possibility of geo-engineering is a major problem, as it provides a false sense of security that "no matter how bad it gets we can geo-engineer things" for those that would otherwise be forced to act. The facilitation of soft denial.

I see a very major problem for the UN IPCC process leading up to AR6, as actual events and new science will be at such a level of disagreement to the usual platitudes. If Trump, or another outright denier, is still in office though it won't really matter. We will still be in the "its all natural variations and has happened before" type discourse.

Will be interesting to see if by that stage we start to have some serious differences between countries about the urgency if required actions. That could lead to significant levels of friction at the international level. Also, perhaps among the US elites.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8320
    • View Profile
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #799 on: August 16, 2017, 10:51:30 PM »
This article's suggestions in how to improve evacuation rates for hurricanes might also apply for climate change action.

'Evacuate!' isn't enough: 5 ways to improve hurricane messaging
3. Keep it local

During the focus groups, Hogan Carr said they learned that regional information did not resonate. She recalled one woman's Sandy story.

“She didn’t believe that Sandy was a risk to her until she saw the name of her small town on the Jersey Shore on the national news … until her community was named – it hadn’t hit home,” Hogan Carr said.
https://www.app.com/story/weather/hurricanes/2017/08/16/hurricane-evacuation-sandy-risk-communication/571820001/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.