Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"

[jbg]

But the question of what to do about climate change is different.  People can legitimately disagree about how to balance mitigation vs adaptation, or what targets are reasonable for emissions reductions, or whatever.  Those questions should definitely be informed by science, but ultimately they're about values which are fundamentally subjective.

Fundamentally we're in agreement.

[Ned W]

Jbg:

You and I may or may not be "in agreement" about the need for openness to different opinions about how to respond to climate change. 

But from what I've seen in your recent comments here, you're grossly misinformed about the science of climate change.  Up-thread you say flat out "I don't believe in AGW". That's like saying "I don't believe in plate tectonics" or "I don't believe in evolution". In other words, you're proudly announcing your own ignorance.

I would strongly suggest getting hold of a copy of Bill Ruddiman's textbook Earth's Climate: Past and Future.  Your local library should be able to obtain it via inter library loan.  Reading it will put you in a much better position to participate in the discussion here.

[jbg]

I would strongly suggest getting hold of a copy of Bill Ruddiman's textbook Earth's Climate: Past and Future.  Your local library should be able to obtain it via inter library loan.  Reading it will put you in a much better position to participate in the discussion here.

Have you read Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist"? Hint, Gore backed out of a debate with him.

[Anne]

Bjorn Lomborg, the economist who has since called for $100 billion annually to fight climate change?

Lomborg denies he has performed a volte face, pointing out that even in his first book he accepted the existence of man-made global warming. "The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," he told the Guardian. "That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."

But he said the crucial turning point in his argument was the Copenhagen Consensus project, in which a group of economists were asked to consider how best to spend $50bn. The first results, in 2004, put global warming near the bottom of the list, arguing instead for policies such as fighting malaria and HIV/Aids. But a repeat analysis in 2008 included new ideas for reducing the temperature rise, some of which emerged about halfway up the ranking. Lomborg said he then decided to consider a much wider variety of policies to reduce global warming, "so it wouldn't end up at the bottom".

[domen_]

Lomborg, Gore or any other non-expert is not really relevant for questions about science of global warming. They are not climate scientists, they shouldn't pretend that they are and people should be aware that they aren't.

Lomborg, Gore or any other non-expert can (of course) participate in public discussion about solutions for global warming, but they shouldn't make up their own claims and they should know and understand what does science say.

That being said, it is worth to mention that Lomborg acknowledges man made global warming and Gore does present science broadly accurate.

On the other hand, deniers don't. Deniers don't like solutions, and then they deny the whole existence of a problem, which is failed logic with, unfortunately, grievous consequences.

[Ned W]

jbg:

Lomborg's field is political science.  His views may or may not be relevant to the "policy" issues in response to climate change, but he's completely irrelevant to the basic science.

That is why I recommended a science textbook (and Ruddiman's is one of the best IMHO).

You said "I don't believe in AGW".  That makes it crystal clear that you're basically ignorant of a century or so of work in the geosciences.  Until you remedy that, people here are unlikely to take you seriously.

It might be helpful for you to think a bit more logically about the statement "I don't believe in AGW".  Among scientists, what you call "AGW" is simply the net result of the following chain of concepts:

• Humans burn fossil fuels.
• Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 [currently ~9.5 Pg C per year].
• About half of that CO2 remains in the atmosphere [the "airborne fraction"].
• Adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises its concentration in the atmosphere [currently ~400 ppmv].
• CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs longwave infrared radiation.
• The earth's energy budget is determined by the balance between absorbed shortwave solar radiation minus emitted longwave infrared radiation.
• In the absence of positive or negative feedbacks, increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces outgoing longwave radiation and raises the temperature by 1C per doubling.
• This pre-feedback climate sensitivity will be reduced by negative feedbacks and increased by positive feedbacks.  It can only be reduced to ~0 if the net effect of all feedbacks is sufficiently negative to stabilize climate in the face of forcings.
• The record of past climate changes (e.g., glacial/interglacial cycles) shows that net feedbacks within the earth system are not sufficiently negative to prevent large swings in climate.

Every one of these is well established, from chemistry or physics in the case of steps 2 through 8, or from the geosciences in steps 1 and 9.  Add them all up and you have "AGW".

So ... which specific part of the process do you "disbelieve"?

• Do you not believe that humans are burning fossil fuels?
• Do you not believe that burning fossil fuels produces CO2?
• Do you not believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its concentration in the atmosphere?
• ...
• Do you not believe in the existence of glacial/interglacial climate variability?

Saying "I don't believe in AGW" may be comforting, but it marks you as scientifically illiterate.

[Jim Pettit]

I would strongly suggest getting hold of a copy of Bill Ruddiman's textbook Earth's Climate: Past and Future.  Your local library should be able to obtain it via inter library loan.  Reading it will put you in a much better position to participate in the discussion here.

Have you read Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist"? Hint, Gore backed out of a debate with him.

No, I haven't. There are so many hours in the day to read, so I spend them reading scientific literature, not overheated denialist fantasies penned by debunked and discredited pro-pollution types.  As others have suggested, you should, too; it'll help you contribute meaningful content to science-based forums such as this, rather than continue to post nonsensical denialist BS that are deservedly ignored.

[jbg]

You said "I don't believe in AGW".  That makes it crystal clear that you're basically ignorant of a century or so of work in the geosciences.  Until you remedy that, people here are unlikely to take you seriously.

It might be helpful for you to think a bit more logically about the statement "I don't believe in AGW".  Among scientists, what you call "AGW" is simply the net result of the following chain of concepts:*****************
Saying "I don't believe in AGW" may be comforting, but it marks you as scientifically illiterate.

I agree.

• There has never been an urban heat wave in the Northeast until this summer;
• New York City has never gone over 90 until this summer;
• The New York area has never been hit with a hurricane before (Agnes, Gloria, the 1821 storm, the two in 1955 don't count);
• New York City has never had a drought.

You get the picture.

[Neven]

jbg, I'd still love to hear what you think about that Andrew Dessler video posted higher up the thread. A serious answer to Ned W's thoughtful question would also be nice.

If all of that is too much trouble, I would kindly ask you to leave this cozy echo chamber of ours and return to your own. 

[deep octopus]

jbg, a modest proposal so you may clearly see the forest for the trees. Please review the graphic shown and explain how this came about.


Or this... the global average sea level.


Or this... the ocean heat content.


Or this... the Arctic sea ice volume.


Address the physics (as Ned W outlined) and address the evidence.

[TerryM]

jbg
Once you've said you don't believe in AGW it makes it very difficult to communicate since I have no idea what other science you reject. Don't take this as a snarky comment but rather as an attempt at determining what points we can agree on so that the conversation can proceed from there.
Do you agree with radiocarbon dating? If so this method of dating shows that the northern shore of Ellesmere Island was protected from open waters by a gigantic ice shelf for ~5,000 years which effectively melted away by ~2002.
Do you believe the recorded attempts of various expeditions attempting to sail the NWP? Last year an American sailed through single handed is a used fiberglass sailboat. How is this possible when previously the greatest sailing nations on the planet had failed with very well funded attempts?
Do you believe that the Arctic Nations are engaged in a conspiracy and that they lie when they record ice coverage dropping decade after decade? Canada, Denmark and Russia have been very involved in measuring ice extent for extended periods of time & all are in agreement that they've never recorded ice levels as low as the last decade.
All the above are references to Arctic conditions, but similar facts are available from all over the world.
If this is not evidence of AGW, what other explanation could account for these findings?
I personally find the Ellesmere driftwood dating to be the most powerful evidence for the unique conditions we're experiencing in the Arctic. If you don't believe in radiocarbon dating these arguments will fall on deaf ears.
Terry

[Ned W]

jbg writes:  You get the picture.

No, actually, I don't.  Your answer was totally non-responsive.  You see, the case for AGW does not rest on the idea that there have never been heat waves in the past. 

I actually did try to explain the chain of reasoning underlying AGW to you.  Which of the links in that chain of reasoning do you "disbelieve"?  They are numbered 1-9 in my post above, if that helps.

[Sigmetnow]

Excellent article in Time magazine describing the problems with how the human brain is wired as a reason for why we can’t seem to accept the reality of the climate crisis and act on it.

http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-about-the-climate-the-psychological-battle-over-global-warming/

[ccgwebmaster]

If you don't believe in radiocarbon dating these arguments will fall on deaf ears.

Easiest just not to believe in reality. It might all be a persistent illusion, right? We might all be hooked up matrix style? We may just be constructs in a highly sophisticated computer model?

People denying climate change - and the current escalation of it - are pretty much on the edge of falling into that category. Philosophically speaking, one can't disprove such statements?

[TerryM]

If you don't believe in radiocarbon dating these arguments will fall on deaf ears.

Easiest just not to believe in reality. It might all be a persistent illusion, right? We might all be hooked up matrix style? We may just be constructs in a highly sophisticated computer model?

People denying climate change - and the current escalation of it - are pretty much on the edge of falling into that category. Philosophically speaking, one can't disprove such statements?

Possibly why we rely so heavily on science as opposed to philosophy?
Terry

[ivica]

If you don't believe in radiocarbon dating these arguments will fall on deaf ears.

Easiest just not to believe in reality. It might all be a persistent illusion, right? We might all be hooked up matrix style? We may just be constructs in a highly sophisticated computer model?

People denying climate change - and the current escalation of it - are pretty much on the edge of falling into that category. Philosophically speaking, one can't disprove such statements?

Possibly why we rely so heavily on science as opposed to philosophy?
Terry

Oh, we rely so heavily on science as opposed to philosophy, 
unless science is in a conflict with interest of oligarchy

[Tor Bejnar]

If philosophy is so (relatively) unhelpful, why does a well educated scientist have a Doctor of Philosophy degree?  Any discipline can be misused for self-serving ends.  I'm sure all are! 

Relevant to the thread title:  it is easy for me to analyze my life and demonstrate that I am “failing to act” (not withstanding my compost pile, 2002 Prius, environmental job and prison volunteering - bicycle? extensive garden? more social action?) and therefore exhibit degrees of denial.

We gather in Neven's corner for our survival, and deniers gather in their corner for their survival (albeit "survival" has multiple meanings in this sentence).  Not many of us change the world (for survival - for our survival) the way M.K. Gandhi or Genghis Khan did (that is, dynamically).  I frequent Neven's websites because I want to join and support a successful healthy life-affirming movement, and don't have the leadership skills/abilities to do much more.

[ivica]

Tor, it is not that philosophy is unhelpful, it is that philosophy can be more easily misused.
For example, Fracker says "prove that what I do is harmfull".
Those do not say "let me prove you that what I do is harmless".

[Tor Bejnar]

For example, Fracker says "prove that what I do is harmfull".

ivica,
Philosophy may be more easily misused (certainly in a superficial way - e.g., "proof" is mathematical in nature, "harmful" is relative [do I harm the broccoli I eat?]), but science is regularly and seriously misused.  I'm thinking of all the fossil fuel companies out there using hard, solid, peer-reviewed (even if not published - kept as corporate secrets) science to exploit the Earth.  I think they use (I say abuse) science the way they do because they have an, in my opinion, rotten (if sophisticated) philosophy.

[ivica]

Tor, "...but science is regularly and seriously misused.".
Oh, yes it is. Let me give you an elementary example from my locality i.e. social 'relativity' in action in Croatia, probably in Balkan and Mediterranean too, I wonder about such 'relativity' effects in other parts of Europe: 

1 + 1 = WHAT ?
1 + 1 = 2, by science
1 + 1 > 2, 1 + 1 < 2, 1 + 1 < 0, by social hierarchy.

It's all how close to 'rulers' one is.
Think about debt, so, debt can even change sign, generally: closer to oligarchy - the better.
FOF with science

[JackTaylor]

Excellent article in Time magazine describing the problems with how the human brain is wired as a reason for why we can’t seem to accept the reality of the climate crisis and act on it.

http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-about-the-climate-the-psychological-battle-over-global-warming/

Sigmetnow, thanks for this reminder.

As ivica says "Let me give you an elementary example from my locality"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Sophomore Psychology or was it Sophomore Sociology of >50 years ago.

Emotion versus Logic:  A rather simplistic example; Not that dramatic.
Disclaimer: I have no proof this experiment was ever conducted.

In the time before television, "parlor games" were entertainment for people in group situations.  Also, before "hazing" became unacceptable there were some "initiation rites" derived from parlor games or children's games.

One was "Walk the Plank - Blindfolded" where a piece of wood (a plank),  typically a 2x4 or 2x6, eight feet long or more, was placed on the floor or ground.  Large spring-loaded "mouse traps" were placed in at least six locations on the "plank."  A person was "blindfolded" with shoes removed to be barefoot or in socks-stocking and required to walk through the hazards on the "plank."

Most people would accept the challenge, walk slowly with a foot sliding on the "plank" to dislodge-remove the trap without activating it.  Some people, a low percentage, would refuse to try it.??.  One person in the group would use some sort of tool to "spring the mouse traps"  one at a time just before a foot or toe could get to it.  Usually easy and a lot of fun.

Now modify the "game" to where the plank, twice as wide, is placed between two objects at least 30 feet (10 meters) high and challenge people, without blindfold, to walk it.

Most people will refuse the challenge, including the ones who walked the narrower plank while blindfolded. A small percentage will accept the challenge such as skyscraper construction "steel-walkers" - circus performers,,, etc...

Logically knowing they could successfully do it why would most refuse to attempt it?
Emotionally they could visualize themselves losing their balance, falling through the air and going splat on the ground below.

Also, a more eloquent version by Willie Gayle in his book "Power Selling"
http://www.amazon.com/Willie-Gayles-Power-Selling-Gayle/dp/1258124203

How do you recall - refute all the human emotional energy expended on the world is going end in fire by super-natural causes and not man made (anthropogenic ) causes?

Brain-Storming for a solution as could be said we're doing here.
Or, modify it to "barn-staining" - keep picking up piles of that stuff, fling it against the wall, and sooner or later something will stick. Does this lead to a lot of vociferous  posts or risk becoming overly verbose as this comment is becoming.

 

[jbg]

jbg, I'd still love to hear what you think about that Andrew Dessler video posted higher up the thread. A serious answer to Ned W's thoughtful question would also be nice.

If all of that is too much trouble, I would kindly ask you to leave this cozy echo chamber of ours and return to your own. 

I did post something; it was deleted.  What is link to that post and I'll try to recreate the wheel.

[ccgwebmaster]

1 + 1 = WHAT ?
1 + 1 = 2, by science
1 + 1 > 2, 1 + 1 < 2, 1 + 1 < 0, by social hierarchy.

Or, if you're concatenating strings:
1 + 1 = 11

Sorry, couldn't resist. It's also a pitfall in loosely typed programming languages.

[Neven]

Here's the video again:



And my question: "I'm really curious to know what you think of that short Andrew Dessler video. Does what he says, make sense to you?"

PS I don't delete anything without notice, unless it's spam.

[TerryM]

Neven
Short answer - Yes, it makes sense to listen to 97% of scientists.
Longer answer - Almost all of the 3% seem to be motivated by something other than researching climate and disseminating their findings. They are either financially or ideologically driven to espouse views that they know to be wrong.
The researchers that have dug up the histories of the 3% find that almost all are employed by Big Oil, are Tobacco Stained from another skirmish with the mainstream, are True Believers in a Created Reality or are Right Wing Ideologues.
These simply are not the kind of unbiased witnesses that a jury would be subjected to nor do they present the kind of information that Homeland Security would take seriously when accessing the risk of terrorism.
I think that Dessler gives too much weight to the opinions of too few. His conclusion is correct but he gives too much credibility to those he labels as the 3%. They don't do research, they do speaking tours.
Terry

[Vergent]

Terry,

You are a scientist that are part of the 97%. You are in a position to see the flaws in the 3%'s arguments. The decision makers are not scientists, by in large, and a logical argument like this is helpful. It avoids the name calling and technical bickering. It gets to the point that inaction is in itself a decision with irreversible consequences(on human timescales) without feeding the trolls.

Vergent

[jbg]

Here's the video again:



And my question: "I'm really curious to know what you think of that short Andrew Dessler video. Does what he says, make sense to you?"

PS I don't delete anything without notice, unless it's spam.

I am hopefully rising to your challenge and answering, point by point, as best I can.  I am not persuaded or moved by the video, or for that matter Gore's film.

1) 97% of people once believed in white supremacy and racial segregation.  The holdouts were the heroes.  I don't believe in "majority rules" on these issues, particularly where funding is driven by finding a "problem" to be researched and solved. Invariably those solutions are statist and almost dictatorial.

2) As for the jury trial analogy I am a lawyer and the analogy is frankly terrible.  I have talked to some jurors who advise me that often the jurors are not convinced that the accused committed a particular crime; only that his a criminal. The chances that a wrongfully acquitted criminal will long be free is small since most criminals are habitual.

3) The terror and faulty airplane analogies is likewise flawed. The result of being wrong in either case is certain, immediate death for many people.  Even if the climate is changing it cuts in beneficent as well as malignant ways.  Also, long before the Industrial Revolution climate changed, often rapidly, as in the start of the Younger Dryas period.

As for climate change, the better approach is risk management, i.e. mitigation.  I believe strongly in cleaner air, but we should focus on poisons. As far as running out of fossil fuels, the fracking revolution begs otherwise.

As far as sea levels, they have risen and fallen in the past.  The real problem that we have is that climate change was more manageable without cities the size of New York City or Toronto. If we had another Ice Age, moving the Northeast megalopolis might be problematic. Ditto with the coastal portions of these areas. 

The economic costs of a King Canute, finger in the dike, approach will fall most heavily on our poorest people.  The video does not persuade me. As I said, though, I am in favor of pollution control, but one that aims at poisons more than GHG's.

[wili]

GW has other delights than just sea level rise in store for us:

James Hansen, the former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world’s leading climatologists ... predicts that without full de-carbonization by 2030, global CO2 emissions will be 16 times higher than in 1950, guaranteeing catastrophic climate change. In an essay published in April of this year, Hansen states:

“If we should ‘succeed’ in digging up and burning all fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some times during the year having wet bulb temperatures exceeding 35°C. At such temperatures, for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive… it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at rest. Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive.”

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/near-term-extinctionists-believe-the-world-is-going-to-end-very-soon

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100504HuberLimits.html

And as anyone who has even glancing acquaintance with the most basic aspects of ecology know, in most cases the portion makes the poison. Tiny amounts of almost anything are generally not life threatening. But increasing the portion makes them poison. We have now increased the portion of the atmosphere that is CO2 to the point that it is a poison to the entire system to add more.

(EDT: Ah, I see you are a denialist troll. Never mind. 

[ccgwebmaster]

Here's the video again:

I find this question a bit flawed - asking if we should to the 97% or the 3%. If climate change was an emerging new science and the 3% were arguing it was happening - then yes - the minor portion might be the correct portion (or ultimately incorrect). Continental plate drift was once a new contentious piece of science widely resisted by the established scientific community. As it was proven correct, it moved from almost nobody believing it correct to being generally accepted. Typically established and mature science is refined, rather than replaced, though continental plate drift would perhaps be a bad example on that score.

Climate change is an increasingly mature science and it has already gone through those stages of scientific discovery. Therefore it has already advanced past the point where the 3% were the correct people and a minority, and the probability of it being reversed the other way is virtually nil - certainly far below 3%.

I feel it ought to also be noted that the proportion of scientists convinced not only that climate change is happening and caused by humans - but also that it is a very serious problem - is arguably growing. Furthermore most of the new discoveries and research are taking us in a direction where findings are typically that climate change may be worse and faster than previously expected. The majority of the risks and uncertainty seem very much to the downside.

At this stage in the development of climate science, with decades of knowledge and research having been accumulated, any argument that it could be fundamentally and totally wrong is just hot air without some new theory to replace the existing order.

The fact that people are still prepared to sit around talking about scope for mitigation, possible benefits from climate change, climate change being normal etc is at best testament to the general ignorance that permeates the population and at worst the domain of hardcore deniers who are either paid to spread misinformation or who feel a need to satisfy their ego by taking a contrary viewpoint. Given the hands off approach to moderation and the large and growing number of forum members, it's remarkable there isn't more contamination from these types - although I suspect their role is a lot easier to play when they have an ignorant and uninformed audience to play to.

[wili]

Good points, ccg. And furthermore, as you move up the scale to the highest level scientists in the field, you find the people who are most alarmed. The other point is that there are no established bodies of scientists that have concluded anything other than that anthropogenic global warming is very real and very dangerous.

[domen_]

GW has other delights than just sea level rise in store for us:

James Hansen, the former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world’s leading climatologists ... predicts that without full de-carbonization by 2030, global CO2 emissions will be 16 times higher than in 1950, guaranteeing catastrophic climate change. In an essay published in April of this year, Hansen states:

“If we should ‘succeed’ in digging up and burning all fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some times during the year having wet bulb temperatures exceeding 35°C. At such temperatures, for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive… it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at rest. Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive.”

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/near-term-extinctionists-believe-the-world-is-going-to-end-very-soon

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100504HuberLimits.html

And as anyone who has even glancing acquaintance with the most basic aspects of ecology know, in most cases the portion makes the poison. Tiny amounts of almost anything are generally not life threatening. But increasing the portion makes them poison. We have now increased the portion of the atmosphere that is CO2 to the point that it is a poison to the entire system to add more.

(EDT: Ah, I see you are a denialist troll. Never mind. 

Despite I do believe that global warming will have severe consequences (almost certainly collapse of globalized world), I find it hard to believe that near term extinction is on our way (as indicated on the first link). There are many states that won't be hit that hard (Canada, northern Europe) and I don't think they will collapse.

Guy McPherson seems to predict extinction of humans beginning at around 2030 (or so). Maybe I missed it, but is there any basis for such radical claims? What do you think about these near term extinction predictions?

[domen_]

1) 97% of people once believed in white supremacy and racial segregation.

This doesn't apply to science. Science makes measurements and experiments. There were no measurements in racial segregation, it was purely ideological. Climate change is direct opposite: it is based on mountains of evidence, and because of mountains of evidence 97% of scientists think it is real.

(and do not confuse scientific evidence with lawyer evidence)

[Laurent]

Comparing 97% to 3% is not even social science if you do not say when exactly it refers to, because 7 years ago it wasn't 97%/3% but more like 3%/97% !!!
This is flawed and misleading in itself there is absolutely not doubt about AGW the question is how fast would it happen !!! (And when do we really start to act...damned)

[TerryM]

domen
I don't have much hope for TWAWKI but humans, rats and cockroaches are hard to get rid of IMO.
Terry

[ivica]

Terry, don't forget mosquitoes

[jbg]

1) 97% of people once believed in white supremacy and racial segregation.

This doesn't apply to science. Science makes measurements and experiments. There were no measurements in racial segregation, it was purely ideological.

That isn't what you would have heard back in the day at all.  There were all kinds of "science allegations."  Some were called "social Darwinism." Others used science to establish racial and even religious superiority.  Just because now the climate change alarmists have thrown a scientific mantle over their ideology doesn't make it different.  Blizzards, droughts, cold waves, heat waves, summer cool spells, hurricanes and absence of hurricanes (the latter due to supposed AGW-induced El Ninos) have all been said to result from man-made climate change.  If it's not falsifiable it's not science.

(and do not confuse scientific evidence with lawyer evidence)

This is religion, not science, at this stage.

[domen_]

That isn't what you would have heard back in the day at all.  There were all kinds of "science allegations."  Some were called "social Darwinism." Others used science to establish racial and even religious superiority.  Just because now the climate change alarmists have thrown a scientific mantle over their ideology doesn't make it different.

This is false comparison: there was no evidence and no consensus for social darwinism, but there are mountains of evidence for climate change. And also: climate change is based on physics, which is a natural science, while social darwinism is (at best) part of social sciences, which are less accurate than natural sciences.

I can clearly see that you have no training and no understanding of natural sciences and that's why you have no idea what you're talking about. Climate change is a physical fact just as Earth revolving around the Sun is a physical fact. No amount of denial will change physical processes.

Do yourself a favour and educate yourself about fundamental physical facts about climate change.

[deep octopus]

1) 97% of people once believed in white supremacy and racial segregation.

This doesn't apply to science. Science makes measurements and experiments. There were no measurements in racial segregation, it was purely ideological.

Just because now the climate change alarmists have thrown a scientific mantle over their ideology doesn't make it different.  Blizzards, droughts, cold waves, heat waves, summer cool spells, hurricanes and absence of hurricanes (the latter due to supposed AGW-induced El Ninos) have all been said to result from man-made climate change.  If it's not falsifiable it's not science.

This is religion, not science, at this stage.

Ah so when it came to plate tectonic theory, evolutionary theory, heliocentric theory, atomic theory, black hole theory, scientists were practicing real, falsifiable science. And suddenly came climate change theory, which started with Fourier and improved with the works of physicists like Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar, Plass, Bjerknes, Schneider, and Trenberth, and suddenly, scientists simply got it all hopelessly, egregiously wrong. Practicing "ideology" and "religion" for 150 years. That's amazing that such a conspiracy could have held for so long.

Climatology is rooted in physics, principally as it relates to atmospheric and meteorological physics, astronomy, and oceanography. An understanding of chemistry and geology are key to understanding the mechanisms of this field, and biology assists with an understanding of consequences. Over decades, scientists devoted their lives to climate research--some literally so--making observations and accruing evidence without preconceived notions, developing theories which were upheld by evidence, citing well-established principles of physics (none of which you've bothered to answer) to explain why this was so, and producing literature that is deeply scrutinized and improved by other scientists. You reject this as "ideology", but make no citations supporting this, just straw man assertions that scientists must be attributing every weather extreme to climate change.

I must say, the Dunning-Kruger effect is very strong with you. This is just shameful.

[Chuck Yokota]

Please don't feed the trolls.  jbg is pretty obviously giving no serious thought to anything we say.

[Shared Humanity]

Despite I do believe that global warming will have severe consequences (almost certainly collapse of globalized world), I find it hard to believe that near term extinction is on our way (as indicated on the first link). There are many states that won't be hit that hard (Canada, northern Europe) and I don't think they will collapse.
[/quote]

You seem to be using extinction and collapse interchangeably here. With regards to near term extinction, I'm still trying to understand wet bulb temperature but will allow that the scientists understand this well. I do agree that planet wide, near term extinction due to exceeding the wet bulb temperature is unlikely.

However, this does not mean that North America and Northern Europe will not collapse if, by collapse, you mean the destruction of our current way of life. The collapse will be rapid and total. You cannot treat any single region of the global system as independent of any other region. This is especially true of highly connected western nations who are dependent on a fully functioning system of capitalism. These highly connected western nations are actually more, not less, susceptible to societal collapse by virtue of  their interconnectedness.

[ccgwebmaster]

Please don't feed the trolls.  jbg is pretty obviously giving no serious thought to anything we say.

Seconded.

[jbg]

Please don't feed the trolls.  jbg is pretty obviously giving no serious thought to anything we say.

If you read my postings on other boards, I am hardly a troll. I am a quite serious poster.

I may not agree with you but that does not make me a troll.

The "mountains of evidence" are mostly speculation. If you read the reports carefully the word "may" and "it is possible" are all over the place. 

[domen_]

Despite I do believe that global warming will have severe consequences (almost certainly collapse of globalized world), I find it hard to believe that near term extinction is on our way (as indicated on the first link). There are many states that won't be hit that hard (Canada, northern Europe) and I don't think they will collapse.

You seem to be using extinction and collapse interchangeably here. With regards to near term extinction, I'm still trying to understand wet bulb temperature but will allow that the scientists understand this well. I do agree that planet wide, near term extinction due to exceeding the wet bulb temperature is unlikely.

However, this does not mean that North America and Northern Europe will not collapse if, by collapse, you mean the destruction of our current way of life. The collapse will be rapid and total. You cannot treat any single region of the global system as independent of any other region. This is especially true of highly connected western nations who are dependent on a fully functioning system of capitalism. These highly connected western nations are actually more, not less, susceptible to societal collapse by virtue of  their interconnectedness.

With extinction I meant that there will be no more humans on this planet. With collapse I meant societal collapse: population and complexity of social structure dramatically reduced, as well as fall of industrial economy.

I don't think that extinction of humans will happen, and I'm a bit doubtful that societal collapse will happen everywhere. It's hard to imagine that Norway, which gets 99% of electricity from hydro power, would suffer any serious energy crisis. Or Germany or Denmark which will almost certainly achieve 100% energy from renewables by 2040-2050. No major concerns there. They are also almost 100% food self sufficient, which is also a good starting point in future climate chaos.
It is hard for me to imagine that these countries would suffer from major societal collapse.

[ccgwebmaster]

I don't think that extinction of humans will happen, and I'm a bit doubtful that societal collapse will happen everywhere. It's hard to imagine that Norway, which gets 99% of electricity from hydro power, would suffer any serious energy crisis. Or Germany or Denmark which will almost certainly achieve 100% energy from renewables by 2040-2050. No major concerns there. They are also almost 100% food self sufficient, which is also a good starting point in future climate chaos.
It is hard for me to imagine that these countries would suffer from major societal collapse.

I think one must also consider external vulnerabilities. Germany and Denmark both have extensive land borders that would prove hard to secure against a large influx of migrants. Norway, being a little further north might be a bit better placed there - but still is accessible for migration. I think you'll find Norway is nowhere near food self sufficient though - importing a significant portion of it's food.

[EDIT] I put quite a lot into various comments I made on the "When and how bad" thread, rather than re-type arguments: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,192.msg2992.html#msg2992

[Tor Bejnar]

Can an advanced society (say, Canada or Northern Europe) maintain itself very long without international trade?  I don't think so.

From http://www.newamericaenergycorp.com/strategic-mineral (a random website pointing out a problem I'm aware of):

Strategic minerals (i.e. Lithium, Vanadium, Rare Earth elements, Potash, Uranium, Tungsten etc...) play a critical role in the global economy with applications ranging from alloy elements to permanent magnets to laptops to, electric vehicles, cell phones to hi-tech military equipment and everything in between. The U.S Government is taking this supply issue seriously and Washington lawmakers are now starting to look at ways for America to identify its own domestic sources of strategic minerals. ... The United States’ reliance on foreign minerals has significantly increased over the last 25 years and today we [US] are 100% reliant on foreign sources of rare earth minerals.  This dependence is sending American jobs overseas, harming our economy and jeopardizing our national security.

When food scarcity or extreme weather causes a corner (then another, then another) of the world to erupt into chaos or to be abandoned, dependable importation of strategic material from that locality may no longer be feasible.  So much for replacing that lithium battery when I “need” it.  Progress, we've seen, happens when folks promote technological ways around a technological problem, but will there be time to find them or the societal will to want to find them?  It seems most national arena politicians would rather ignore the problems associated with AGW (or only play lip service to it) (and, if they actually know what is happening, hope that a heart attack or stroke does 'em in before their kids realize what they're getting).

[Shared Humanity]

Despite I do believe that global warming will have severe consequences (almost certainly collapse of globalized world), I find it hard to believe that near term extinction is on our way (as indicated on the first link). There are many states that won't be hit that hard (Canada, northern Europe) and I don't think they will collapse.

You seem to be using extinction and collapse interchangeably here. With regards to near term extinction, I'm still trying to understand wet bulb temperature but will allow that the scientists understand this well. I do agree that planet wide, near term extinction due to exceeding the wet bulb temperature is unlikely.

However, this does not mean that North America and Northern Europe will not collapse if, by collapse, you mean the destruction of our current way of life. The collapse will be rapid and total. You cannot treat any single region of the global system as independent of any other region. This is especially true of highly connected western nations who are dependent on a fully functioning system of capitalism. These highly connected western nations are actually more, not less, susceptible to societal collapse by virtue of  their interconnectedness.

With extinction I meant that there will be no more humans on this planet. With collapse I meant societal collapse: population and complexity of social structure dramatically reduced, as well as fall of industrial economy.

I don't think that extinction of humans will happen, and I'm a bit doubtful that societal collapse will happen everywhere. It's hard to imagine that Norway, which gets 99% of electricity from hydro power, would suffer any serious energy crisis. Or Germany or Denmark which will almost certainly achieve 100% energy from renewables by 2040-2050. No major concerns there. They are also almost 100% food self sufficient, which is also a good starting point in future climate chaos.
It is hard for me to imagine that these countries would suffer from major societal collapse.

Your comments about food and energy self sufficiency is a compelling argument against extinction for northern Europe. It is hardly an argument against societal collapse.

Question: How much of Germany's total economy is dependent on economic relationships with the rest of the world? What would Germany look like if all or most of these relationships were essentially non existent in a very short time frame (decades)? I would argue that Germany would not look at all like Germany today. Germany is the third largest exporter and importer in the world, accounting for nearly half of Europe's international trade. All of Germany's industry that is dependent on those exports and imports are at risk if we reach a 4C world. All of the jobs associated with those industries will disappear as well. All of the jobs dependent on the spending power that these industries provide will disappear as well. What critical products would no longer be available when this trade is permanently disrupted? This Germany will not resemble the Germany of today.

[Shared Humanity]

One consistent theme running through many of these threads is the belief that western developed countries will be less affected by the catastrophe of a 4C degree hotter world. The exact opposite is the case. This hotter world will completely disrupt the economic relationships that form the very basis of the system of capitalism. Capitalism will cease to exist in its present form and, if international trade continues to exist, it will be in the form of bilateral agreements for critical items (foodstuffs, energy etc.)

In capitalism (this is true of any system) the countries that are most thoroughly integrated (the developed world) benefit the most by the growth and spread of the system. The most highly integrated of these (U.S., Germany, Japan) are the top beneficiaries of a healthy system of capitalism. When capitalism declines and it most certainly will in a 4C warmer world, the nations that will suffer the most are these very same nations.

An example:

Separating out the direct climate effects of AGW, which nation will be most impacted by the virtual collapse of capitalism? Would it be the U.S., which leads the world in international trade or might it be landlocked Bolivia which imports $8 billion dollars worth of product, only 7% of which is foodstuffs. Less integrated in the world economy, Bolivia will easily adjust to a world without capitalism. The U.S. will not fare so well.

[TerryM]

I'd posed a question re.Canada's survivability some months ago as I was preparing a Powerpoint for local consumption. The answer most favored was that Canada could feed itself and maintain power with it's vast hydro resources. Unfortunately there is a huge, indefensible border to the south.
I think the last countries standing will be pillaging whatever they can from wherever they can in a vain attempt to preserve their way of life. Bad news for the haves that aren't armed to the teeth.
Terry

[JimD]

While my posts clearly indicate that I think civilizational collapse is in the cards for almost all countries/locations starting no later than mid-century (much sooner for the periphery) I do think that it will take some time to back down the technology curve.  Part of why I think human interactions will be so violent is that many countries will fight very hard to maintain various technologies seeing them as essential (until they realize they can or have to do without).  One can stockpile, trade food for, or just steal strategic minerals.  As long as we are not talking vast quantities.  One thing that a rapidly reducing population will do is cut demand for the strategic minerals.  I expect enclaves in various locations to maintain very high levels of technology for some time after general collapse has kicked in.  This will not apply to the vast majority,but rather to those who inherit the final power blocks.  I think those locations which manage to hold on through all the troubles and survive will be the building blocks for our next attempt at civilization.  Hopefully they will be much smarter at it next time. 

I just do not see extinction in the data which has been published to date.  Guy McPherson predicates his entire argument on a giant methane explosion killing everyone via a monstrous jump in temperatures in just a few years.  I have read on his site that he thinks we are all going to be dead in the 2030's.  There is just no science to come to this conclusion (though jbg could use his lawyer logic and get us there perhaps).  I do not think even worst case scenarios indicate there is even a medium probability of extinction.  I also do not think that all the survivors will be living at subsistence level 300 years from now.  Though most might be.

We humans have learned a lot about how the universe works.  Our knowledge of physics, chemistry and biology is pretty vast.  At the getting things done level (i.e. the engineers and such) we have proven pretty ingenious.  I don't think there is any chance that that knowledge will just disappear. The leading edge computer technology and equivalents in other fields may fall by the wayside due to our being unable to maintain the incredibly complex industrial enterprises need to make them happen.  But we are not heading back to the technology that existed before the industrial revolution.  We should be able to continue with basic computer technology almost indefinitely.  Most critical forms of medicine are not particularly high tech.  We are not going to forget how to make steel, cement, how to generate electricity, or even make plastic (though maybe we should forget that).  Nor gunpowder or explosives of course.  People will never lose the ability to make relatively modern weapons (you are not going to have to learn how to use a sword again..not that it is a bad idea to know how to use one).  The high quality small arms in giant supply worldwide currently are incredible pieces of engineering.  If taken care of and not fired excessively they will last for at least 200-300 years (as this might surprise many readers here I note that I own a 1890 Winchester that I still fire on occasion and a 1917 Springfield that is still perfectly serviceable.  Neither of those weapons is any where near the quality of top end modern hunting or military grade weapons).

Re the wet-bulb temperature. There is nothing mysterious about this.  If the humidity is 100% then you are at wet-bulb temperature.  When the weather man says the current dew point is 45 F for example it just means that if you cooled the air from its current temperature and humidity to that dew point number you would then be at your wet-bulb temperature.   The reason 35 C for a wet-bulb temperature is important is that 35C is equal to 95 F.  The human body runs at 98.6 F.  It you have to keep cool solely by evaporation of sweat and it is 95 or above with 100% humidity you cannot evaporate sweat and your core temperature will start rising.  Eventually you would then die.  Remember though that wet-bulb temperatures above 30C are currently very rare.  Also it can be much hotter than 35 C and you can survive as long as the humidity is below 100%.  I have experienced (and survived ...I think) a temperature of 120 F (49 C) and a humidity of 90%+ in Africa.  I have spent hours outside in temperatures up to 131 F (55 C) in the Sahara and know people who have lived through temperatures of up to 140F in the Sahara.  You drink a lot and move very slowly.  We just won't live places that get like that in the future or we take the AC with us.

[JimD]

One consistent theme running through many of these threads is the belief that western developed countries will be less affected by the catastrophe of a 4C degree hotter world. The exact opposite is the case. This hotter world will completely disrupt the economic relationships that form the very basis of the system of capitalism. Capitalism will cease to exist in its present form and, if international trade continues to exist, it will be in the form of bilateral agreements for critical items (foodstuffs etc.)

In capitalism (this is true of any system) the countries that are most thoroughly integrated (the developed world) benefit the most by the growth and spread of the system. The most highly integrated of these (U.S., Germany, Japan) are the top beneficiaries of a healthy system of capitalism. When capitalism declines and it most certainly will in a 4C warmer world, the nations that will suffer the most are these very same nations.

An example:

Separating out the direct climate effects of AGW, which nation will be most impacted by the virtual collapse of capitalism? Would it be the U.S., which leads the world in international trade or might it be landlocked Bolivia which imports $8 billion dollars worth of product, only 7% of which is foodstuffs. Less integrated in the world economy, Bolivia will easily adjust to a world without capitalism. The U.S. will not fare so well.

SH

I agree with much of what you posted above.  But I have a different twist on part of it.  I agree that places like Bolivia will downscale fairly successfully (albeit with a big population decline thrown in) as long as they are fairly food sufficient, located in a good place geographically, and also have some form of resources they can barter for goodies like food or medicine.

But I do not think that the US and some of the other rich/powerful countries will suffer the most.  Places like Bangladesh, India and lots of places in Africa dshoul suffer the worst.  The US will just have to give up on capitalism sometime in the future.  The structure capitalism needs to really function (if what it does is counted as functioning) will disappear to a great extent as you describe.  However, we will still be a country rich in agriculture, resources, power (in military terms), power (in energy terms), ideally located, and, at least by world standards, not to badly  overpopulated.   Aren't we likely to just continue to transition to an even more autocratic form of government and slowly convert our economic system to a pre-capitalist structure?  Say some form of feudalism?  If we are not in a growth type of economy and instead a steady state or declining economy we just switch to an economic structure used in the past when we had similar conditions.

I do agree that some rich countries currently have a much harder road than the US does (as the US goes so goes Canada).  Germany is a good example of a place that will have extra problems.  France is likely better off somewhat.  Great Britain seems to be worse off than Germany to me.  Japan, South Korea?