Climate Skepticism

[Nederland]

Since being banned from the EE forum for expressing a view that is essentially "yes, climate change is happening but it's not as bad as we thought", I have spent a great deal of time considering the tendency of people engaged in the political process to simplify issues into having only two sides. As a result, I found this article to be a welcome sign that people are starting to understand that there are nuances to the climate debate that have not been expressed properly:

http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Extract-from-Chapter-50-Climategate.pdf

<snip>

Understanding skepticism

One of the interesting responses from the academic community since Climategate has been a new
interest in studying and understanding the various manifestations of climate change skepticism .
One obvious reason for this interest is the evidence that voices skeptical of the standard climate
change ‘plan’ (cf. Sarewitz, 2011) multiplied in the months following Climategate. This has been
shown in the work of Painter and Ashe (2012) and Grundmann and Scott (2013) who followed media
reporting of climate change around the world in the months following Climategate. Taking climate
change skepticism as an object of study has engaged new scholarly communities – such as social
psychologists, rhetoricians and anthropologists – and a wider range of academics than the select few
sociologists who had been working in this field before. By paying attention to the political and
cultural values which shape the production, circulation and reception of climate change knowledge a
much richer and more helpful picture emerges. The populist notion that all climate skeptics are
either in the pay of oil barons or are right-wing ideologues, as is suggested for example by
studies such as Oreskes and Conway (2011), cannot be sustained.

There are many different reasons why citizens may be skeptical of aspects of climate science,
certainly why they may be skeptical of knowledge claims which get exaggerated by media and
lobbyists (see Chapter 38). This may be because of innate suspicion of ‘big science’ (which climate
science has become, with powerful patrons in government and UN and international institutions) or
because of a commitment to forms of data and knowledge libertarianism, as in the Wiki-leaks
movement. Some of the individuals who pursued CRU scientists for access to data in the months
leading up to Climategate may be seen in this light; they had no connections with the oil industry or
conservative think-tanks. Other expressions of skepticism may result from issue fatigue, cynicism
about a media who seek to sensationalize (as quoted above in the 2011 UK opinion survey quoted
above) or the experience of cognitive dissonance. This latter idea captures the feeling of discomfort
when someone holds two or more conflicting beliefs and Kari Marie Norgaard explores this in her
ethnography of climate skepticism in a small town in Norway (Norgaard, 2011). Norgaard exposes
the psychologies of climate change belief, doubt and unbelief embedded in local histories, cultures
and community social practice.

But beyond these reasons for climate change skepticism, in the years following Climategate it has
become more important to distinguish between at least four different aspects of the conventional
climate change narrative where skepticism may emerge. Trend skepticism would be disbelieving
of evidence that suggested a change in climate was occurring, whereas attribution skepticism
would be doubtful that such trends were predominantly caused by human agency. Impact
skepticism would question whether the melodrama of the discourse of future climate catastrophe
is credible and policy skepticism would query dominant climate change policy frameworks and
instruments. When this more nuanced analysis of climate change skepticism is combined with a
valorisation of the scientific norm of skepticism and the democratic virtue of scrutinizing and interrogating
vested interests, there becomes room for more respectful arguments about what climate change signifies
and what responses may be appropriate. My contention is that the events surrounding Climategate in
late 2009 have opened up new spaces for such agnostic democratic virtues to be exercised.

<snip>

Using the categories described above, I would describe myself as an 'Impact Skeptic'.

[SheilaT]

1. I keep on reading stuff which says

climate change is happening even faster and is going to be even worse than we'd ever suspected.

Not sure where there's room for the skepticism there.

I just finished the book A Great Aridness by William deBuys. It points out that the southwest portion of this country, extending into Northern Mexico, may well be entering a period of drought matched only by very long and terrible droughts in centuries past, which caused depopulation and the probably complete disappearance of some early groups.

I live in New Mexico. Until a week or so the entire state, every single square inch of it, was in drought conditions. Recent summer rains have brought one tiny corner of one county out of drought. Most of the state is in severe, extreme, or extraordinary drought. Not looking good.

The most important thing that deBuys addresses, but I see almost nowhere else in any discussions of climate change, is that the vastly larger population of the entire world is crucial. So many more people mean there's a lot less flexibility for things like population movement.

Another book to read is Cadillac Desert, by Marc Reisner, which originally came out in 1986. We were living in Phoenix, then, which was when I read it. Excellent read, and even though it was written before the idea that climate change or global warming was upon us, it directly addresses the problem of too many people moving into areas not suited for sustaining large populations.

It's been my belief for a very long time -- long time as in at least thirty years now -- that there are far too many people on this planet. There will eventually have to be a population decline. If we can't collectively reduce our numbers in a peaceful sort of way, it will happen violently. By war, famine, or disease. But eventually it will happen.

[Nederland]

3. Look at the facts

The facts of climate change are completely mixed. Note that I am not saying that climate scientists have always been wrong, merely that evidence suggests we do not really understand climate well enough at this point to be confident in 100 year predictions. When you look at how various predictions have compared to reality, it becomes obvious that we have a great deal to learn. For example, climate models predicted that temperatures would increase on average 0.03 C a year--but they have been flat for nearly 15 years. On the flip side, climate models predicted that Arctic sea ice would remain intact through 2050, but current trends indicate we may see ice free Arctic before 2020. We hear a lot in the news about how climate change is suppose to cause more extreme weather events (hurricanes and tornadoes), but the actual data shows no trend for either. Predictions about how much sea levels will rise vary wildly, ranging from 18cm to 6m.

When you look at the facts, its is clear that the science is anything but 'settled'. If we are honest, we have to admit that we do not understand the planet's climate nearly as well as many have claimed. In the mean time, many other problems that are well understood and have known, proven solutions (e.g. clean water and sanitation) suffer from lack of attention.

[SheilaT]

6. The science of climate change and global warming

is actually settled. Details, such as exactly how far the sea levels will rise and how quickly, are as yet unknown.

2012 was the warmest year on record in the U.S. since we've been keeping good records in 1895. Guess that doesn't count for much. Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise. Oh, well, no matter.

Yes, it's true that the climate is more or less constantly changing. Heck, there was a time when this planet was totally encased in thick ice and it's surprising that it ever warmed up and got rid of the ice. It has been warmer than this in the past. As well as colder.

The real issue in my opinion is that as a global community, we have very little flexibility to respond to change because there are so very many of us already occupying almost all inhabitable areas. As some places become too dry to support very many people, as other place flood permanently, and so on, not very many large groups can actually pack up and go somewhere else. And if a lot of people who really ought to know better keep on saying, Oh wait, this thing isn't settled, then we're really screwed.

[Nederland]

7. The details matter

What you dismiss as 'details' matter a great deal. Yes, the world is getting warmer, but how much warmer it will get is not merely some unimportant detail. If temperatures will increase by 0-2 degrees the impacts are easily dealt with given the time frames involved. If temperatures will increase by 2-5 degrees we should really look into cutting CO2 emissions now. If temperatures will increase by more than 5 degrees cutting CO2 emissions is pointless because the increase in CO2 we have already caused has already screwed us.

This is why the details matter, and why the things that we do not fully understand are important. Yes, it is settled science that CO2 is increasing and that in isolation, rising CO2 causes higher temperatures. However, CO2 is not rising in isolation, it is rising in the context of the entire planet with a whole host of other climate forcings that are also changing over time. The precise nature of how rising CO2 feeds back into other climate forcings (climate sensitivity) is immensely important and still unknown. Also, the fact that we do not fully understand the underlying natural cycles of climate makes it impossible to determine how much of the change we are seeing is the result of anthropogenic effects and how much is natural.

Knowing how much warmer the world will get is the driving force behind creating computer models. However, it is important to understand their limitations. Regarding computer models, John von Neumann once said "with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." In other words, once you start dealing with 4+ parameters the number of possible solutions that will fit the data becomes astronomical and you have no way to verify which solution is the 'correct' one. When you consider that mathematical reality with the fact that IPCC Climate models use of 8-15 different forcing parameters to determine what climate will look like, you realize why considering the output of computer models as 'truth' is pure folly. The IPCC report section on computer models explicitly state that computer models are not useful as predictions tools, and yet people routinely say 'temperatures will rise by X degrees over the next century' as if it is a scientifically proven fact. It is not.

[DetlefK]

2. Climate-Change won't destroy mankind. Just our civilization.

But that seems bad enough to me.

[Nederland]

4. How will that happen?

I often hear people say that climate change will 'destroy civilization', but they are a bit vague on how exactly that will happen. They are even more vague when asked to produce peer reviewed papers that say the same thing.

[DetlefK]

5. Oh, that's easy.

Let's begin with storms: ruined harvests, increased costs for insurances, flooding, general destruction and a huge part of the yearly budget has to be set aside for repairs.
-> people get hungry and poor

Droughts: wildfires, wells drying up, ruined harvests.
-> people get hungry, thirsty and poor

People have less money -> trade stagnates -> people get poor
Nations compete about edible ressources like farm-land and groundwater -> violence -> people get angry
Nations invest more in military to secure their national interests -> less money for social/educational programs -> people get poor, dumb and violent

Combine that with the increasing gap between rich and poor in the US, with military tensions between India, China and Japan, with the onset of chinese imperialism in Africa, with oil-companies stealing and contaminating ground-water for fracking...

Summary: Climate change will cause rises in famine, drought, poverty, under-education and acceptance of violence.

What happens when nations fail? Other international superpowers will step in: Mega-corporations, too big to jail, too big to regulate, too big to control.

In the end, climate-change would endanger the social contract democracy builds on and might end in a corporate neo-feudalism.
And the Middle-Ages are an example, what happens when those in power are left unchecked.

[Nederland]

8. Easy if you start with a false premise

I think your understanding of how global warming will effect the frequency of extreme weather events is out of date. This is what the IPCC is now saying regarding extreme weather events:

There continues to be insufficient evidence and thus low confidence for consistent trends in the magnitude or frequency of floods on a global scale.

New results indicate that the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in hydrological droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported. Not enough evidence exists at present to suggest anything else than low confidence in observed large-scale trends in dryness (lack of rainfall), due to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends.

Recent re-assessments of tropical cyclone data do not support the AR4 conclusions of an increase in the most intense tropical cyclones or an upward trend in the potential destructiveness of all storms since the 1970s. There is low confidence that any reported long-term changes are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. However over the satellite era, increases in the intensity of the strongest storms in the Atlantic appear robust.

There is still insufficient evidence to determine whether robust global trends exist in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or tornadoes.

http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch2_Obs-atmosur_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch02_All_Final.pdf

[DetlefK]

9. "Confidence" means how much a scientist trusts his theory vs. other theories.

"Low confidence" only means that the scientist sees less probability for his theory to be true. There could be other explanations what caused exactly the same data, e.g. random events. It doesn't mean that a theory has been discarded or disproven.

[Nederland]

10. No it does not

First of all, the IPCC is not 'a scientist', it is a group of scientists assigned to review the current body of scientific literature and draw conclusions concerning what the current consensus is on the various aspects of climate change. The IPCC has defined its terminology and outlined when specific terms like 'low confidence' should be used and what they mean. The definitions are here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

<snip>

8) Use the following dimensions to evaluate the validity of a finding: the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (summary terms: “limited,” “medium,” or “robust”), and the degree of agreement (summary terms: “low,” “medium,” or “high”). Generally, evidence is most robust when there are multiple, consistent independent lines of high-quality evidence. Provide a traceable account describing your evaluation of evidence and agreement in the text of your chapter.
• For findings with high agreement and robust evidence, present a level of confidence or a quantified measure of uncertainty.
• For findings with high agreement or robust evidence, but not both, assign confidence or quantify uncertainty when possible. Otherwise, assign the appropriate combination of summary terms for your evaluation of evidence and agreement (e.g., robust evidence, medium agreement).
• For findings with low agreement and limited evidence, assign summary terms for your evaluation of evidence and agreement.
• In any of these cases, the degree of certainty in findings that are conditional on other findings should be evaluated and reported separately.

9) A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: “very low,” “low,” “medium,” “high,” and “very high.” It synthesizes the author teams’ judgments about the validity of findings as determined through evaluation of evidence and agreement. Figure 1 depicts summary statements for evidence and agreement and their relationship to confidence. There is flexibility in this relationship; for a given evidence and agreement statement, different confidence levels could be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing confidence. Confidence cannot necessarily be assigned for all combinations of evidence and agreement in Figure 1 (see Paragraph 8). Presentation of findings with “low” and “very low” confidence should be reserved for areas of major concern, and the reasons for their presentation should be carefully explained. Confidence should not be interpreted probabilistically, and it is distinct from “statistical confidence.” Additionally, a finding that includes a probabilistic measure of uncertainty does not require explicit mention of the level of confidence associated with that finding if the level of confidence is “high” or “very high.”

</snip>


The very fact that in making this statement the working group is reversing its previous findings is telling. Generally it takes a great deal of evidence for people to admit what they said before was wrong, and in this case the evidence was overwhelming. As many people who specialize in this field pointed out, the previous IPCC reports that claimed that global warming would result in more extreme weather events were made by people that had little expertise in the field and did not fully understand what the consensus actually was.

[CreekDog]

14. You're the skeptic thinking that humanity can and will not be significantly harmed by these changes

uh huh.

[Nederland]

19. Yes

I see little empirical evidence to support that position. Every single claim made by catastrophic climate change believers depends on predictions made by computer models. If the fact that none of those models predicted the statistically flat temperatures of the last 15 years doesn't make you question their accuracy, nothing will. Honest scientists are looking at those models to understand why they are wrong, but the people who act like the last 15 years of data doesn't matter are, well--deniers.

[NickB79]

11. Man, you're gonna hate the latest IPCC report coming out

The leaks seen so far suggest the skeptics are about to get their asses handed to them.

Good.

[Nederland]

13. Why would you say that?

Confidence in human attribution of climate change is increased, but other than that I know of nothing in AR5 that describes things as 'worse' what was depicted in AR4. In fact, the leaked drafts I've read lower climate sensitivity estimates and dramatically tone down predictions of increased extreme weather events.

[IgnostU]

12. attribution skepticism

As Ignostic I am doubtfull as well that such trends were predominantly caused by human influence alone .When reviewing cyclical information stored worldwide in rock and ice man may just be a partial catalyst at best .
Climatechange-studies need motivated tireless scientists who can adequately determine the finer details in the rock and ice to determine and explain how climatechange cycles work . Previous climate cycles have allways started without man's influence (...)
Therefore future climate catastrophe is credible and is to be expected. Who wants to be caught arguing about the possibility or who is to blame if the same climatechangescenario has played out many times over ? With proper research on the climateissue more people would be prone to prep (like me) for just such an occasion and gather knowledge and skills as well as supplies to weather the challenge that is surely and inevitably to come.

[GliderGuider]

15. Odd sort of vanity post.

Who cares what you believe, any more than they care what I believe? You know what opinions are like, right? You got one, I got one. So what? Will it change the course of events if you convince someone you're "right" -whatever that means? No more than it will if I do the same thing.

I've decided that too much outrage is bad for my adrenal glands. Good luck with your opinion.

[Nederland]

16. Obviously the moderators in EE care

If they don't care what my opinion is, why did they ban me?

[GliderGuider]

17. I have an opinion about that

but it's worth just as much as my other opinions. In most groups of any sort though, ostracism has less to do with the individual's beliefs than with their effect on the social fabric. No idea if that's the case here, but I've noticed that you can get pugnacious from time to time.

I've noticed that when things like that happen to me I tend to blame opposition to my beliefs rather than my behavior, even when that amounted to blame-shifting. For me the reason was that if I blamed opposition to my beliefs it made me right in my own mind, while blaming my behavior made me wrong. It's a natural human tendency to want to be right rather than wrong.

Or the mods could just be closed-minded a-holes bent on creating an echo chamber. I've seen enough ongoing conflict over there to think that's not necessarily the case, though.

[Nederland]

18. Not what I was told

I was told by XemaSab in a mail message: "You were banned for posting denier talking points."

Now, I certainly can be pugnacious from time to time, perhaps even most of the time. However, common sense should have told you that if being pugnacious was grounds for banning, there would be far fewer people in EE than there are today. It's not exactly as if I had a monopoly on that attribute...

Perhaps an argument could be made that it was the combination of my attitude and my beliefs that got me banned, but I doubt it. I still skim EE from time to time and see no one left that holds the lukewarmer position. Is global warming happening and is it caused in part by humans? Of course it is. However, after 15 years of statistically flat temperatures, how anyone can still believe global warming will be 'worse than predicted' is bewildering. There is simply no objective, empirical evidence for the position.

[scott4402]

20. Aquatic warming might be just as big a contributing factor, at the atmospheric CO2's.

So much attention has been given to the atmospheric carbon levels, that very few scientists have given considered the fact that there is another substantial human contribution that might actually have just as much, if not more, to do with global warming and climate change. It's humanities massive direct aquatic thermal contribution, being contributed into a water environment that has a predominant in wards direction of conduction. Temperature increases being seen around the globe down to depths of 300 meters, with some unusual thermal indicators being seen down to 1,200 meters. A condition that could not have been created by the increased atmospheric carbon levels.

The problem with the presence of the thermal accumulation, isn't temperature, as much as it has to do with the neutralization of the normal downward conduction values within the planets colder region, where the surface water temperatures are closest to that of the oceans DOW. Which is naturally due to the reduced level of sun light.

When scientists openly admitted that the planetary ice was melting over ten times faster than their CO2 related predictions, and acted unsure as to why that was happening. I decided to do an experiment surrounding my suspicions regarding mankind's aquatic thermal contribution, which I'd suspected could have been altering the fragile conduction values within the planets colder regions, where its the weakest and most vulnerable.

I decided to do an experiment to simulate the neutralization of the normal down wards direction of conduction, like that found in the oceans colder regions. To simulate the conduction value, I took a five gallon bucket, filled it with 34 degree water, and then set it into a shorter and wider container that I'd put a couple inches of ice and water in, and had also sprinkled with salt to increase the rate of ice melt to drive the temperature in that shorter container down further. This created a downward direction of conduction within the large container. I then placed a measured ice cube on the surface of the water and timed how long it took for that ice cube to melt. It took 90 minutes. I then removed the bucket from the smaller container to neutralize the downward direction of conduction, waited 15 minutes and then set a another measured ice cube on the surface and timed how long it took for it to completely melt away. This time it only took the ice cube 7.5 minutes to melt away. Twelve times faster. The same rapid rate witnessed by the scientists who were confused by this phenomena in the arctic.

In my opinion, it is a huge mistake to ignore this massive thermal contribution, since it has also resulted in an accumulation. And warmer ocean waters mean larger storms.

The recent indication of the antarctic potentially cooling and the arctic still warming, is simply a short term phenomena, created by the massive volumes of deep water ice that has melted away, thus creating a tempory cooling within the oceans. But once that cooling has been neutralized or absorbed, there will be substancial spiking up in the ocean temperatures once again. This time there will not be any deep water ice left to help offset the suns solar contribution. Think about it. The increased levels of thin surface ice could never compare to the cooling potential created by the massive volumes of deep water ice that has been lost.

[Nederland]

21. Humanities direct aquatic thermal contribution?

What does this refer to? Water being used to cool things like power plants?