Climate change deniers are getting angrier, here’s why

Shuttershock

CleanTechnica

Shuttershock
Shuttershock

Climate change deniers are getting angrier and angrier because there is less and less ground that they can even moderately stand upon. They are being forced off of multiple positions and the world is ignoring their opinions en masse.

People used to be able to believe that warming wasn’t an occurring scenario without much cognitive dissonance.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

More and more, their position is being challenged in multiple ways, and they are being forced to greater and greater mental leaps in order to hold on to their position. But even when they move, it’s stressful and embarrassing, leading to more anger.

Cognitive dissonance makes people mad. Being forced to change makes people mad. Being forced to admit, even subconsciously, that they were wrong and were often wrong publicly and loudly, makes people mad.

I created this continuum of positions on climate change a while ago. It ranges from the extreme of not believing that any warming is occurring at all, to believing in impacts above the range of IPCC scenarios.

Screen-Shot-2016-04-23-at-10.25.16-AM-1-768x398

Some people, in the face of overwhelming evidence, continue to hold to that position. Most who held it have been forced off of it. They have been forced to change by the sheer weight of evidence which says that they are wrong. But usually they just move slightly to the left on the continuum.

A lot of people who firmly held the belief that CO2 emissions from humans were insignificant have been forced off of that position too. And every position to the left of the chart. Basically, the leftmost positions are intellectually and empirically untenable, so anyone with a fragment of intellectual self-respect who holds them is confronted daily with evidence that gives them cognitive dissonance, and if they move to a slightly more moderate position for relief, it doesn’t help much.

What evidence of the shift to the right exists? Well, an Australian organization has surveyed people about their positions since 2010 and finds regular movement, and an acceleration in it.

And in the USA, climate change is shaping up to be a game-changing election issue, with denialists increasingly unable to get elected, and once again with recent rapid strides.

The new survey found a growing number of registered voters understand global warming is happening: “Three in four (73%, up 7 points since Spring 2014) now think it is happening. Large majorities of Democrats — liberal (95%) and moderate/conservative (80%) — think it is happening, as do three in four Independents (74%, up 15 points since Spring 2014) and the majority of liberal/moderate Republicans (71%, up 10 points).”

A counter-example of someone who has made lemonade out of the lemons they keep getting handed is Bjorn Lomborg. He has made a good fiscal career out of asserting a succession of positions on climate change from the left-hand side of the graph up to his current position of stating that we should be doing geo-engineering and continuing to burn fossil fuels. At the beginning of 1998 he claimed, “The greenhouse effect is extremely doubtful.” Later that year, after much intellectual abuse, he admitted that CO2 was causing some tiny rises in temperature. In 2001, he slipped to some warming, but no need to do anything about it. By 2010, he’d shifted to continued use of fossil fuel and geo-engineering, with maybe some token efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

Why do I say he’s made lemonade?

Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC), though long associated with his native Denmark, actually registered as a US-based non-profit organization back in 2008. That’s how we know Lomborg walked away with a cool $775,000 in pay from the CCC in 2012.

As a note, he hasn’t made academic lemonade out of this. He has actually backslidacademically from an Associate Professor on tenure track, to an adjunct professor off the track, and recently a $4 million AUD governmental grant was refused by every university in Australia if it involved Lomborg setting up a ‘research’ facility among academics with actual intellectual integrity.

But most people aren’t as effective at happily getting their palms greased while being forced off of one intellectual position after another by cold, hard facts.

Patrick Moore is a fairly sad example of that. At one point he was president of Greenpeace Canada, although not a founder, as he continues to insist. He shifted to a potentially reasonable path of forming a consultancy to work with forestry industry firms to find more sustainable means of harvesting trees. However, over time he’s been fully co-opted by fairly egregious concerns, and has been denying climate change exists since at least 2006.

there is no scientific proof of causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend, a trend that has been evident for about 500 years, long before the human-induced increase in CO2 was evident.

More recently, his tone is increasingly angry.

“there will be a whole generation of people who are just blindly following this climate hysteria.”

And angrier.

What’s particularly absurd about this leftist conspiracy is that it is currently doing the exact opposite of the things left-wing people profess to care about: it is enriching crony capitalist fat cats at the expense of the world’s poor.

The rest of the world is strongly centered on the right side of the graph, within the IPCC range of scenarios. So much so that 195 countries agreed in Paris in December of 2015 to hold warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels with an aspirational target of 1.5 degrees.

Marc Morano is another strident climate change denialist. It’s hard to say if his nastiness is actually increasing though, as he was an early adopter of the vicious Swift Boat allegations against John Kerry. Like Moore, he showed up at the poorly attended denialist counter-conference in Paris in 2015, mostly to pretend that his faux documentary was premiering to capacity crowds. Certainly his publishing the addresses of climate change scientists on his site is a very hostile action with no discernible redeeming qualities, and the actions of an increasingly isolated and embittered person.

All of the 170 COP21-signatory world leaders are showing in the starkest terms that they fundamentally disagree with the person holding positions on the left side of the chart. That exacerbates the cognitive dissonance of course, because in general, most people think that leaders of countries are often respectable and well-advised people, so their opinions likely hold weight. But it also makes them mad because they see an overwhelming majority of the world doing something that they think is unnecessary because of their un-empirical position.

They are being forced into an ugly corner. And they are painting themselves into it daily and weekly and monthly. And it’s painful. So they lash out.

A very similar dynamic is playing out with anti-wind energy advocates. The positions that they hold on issues like impacts on human health, livestock, real estate values and the like are just not supported by any facts, and study after study proves that they are wrong, so they get increasingly angry and bitter and hostile. And they are smaller in numbers as the sensible ones migrate to healthier mental positions.

Basically, the further to the left on the chart you are, the more likely you are to be bitter and angry. But anyone to the left of the low-end IPCC projections is likely to be annoyed and dismayed and lash out occasionally.

As to why they are so common, that’s simple. A group of self-interested companies and individuals set out on a course of creating uncertainty about climate change far beyond any that existed a couple of decades ago. It worked. Sadly.

Source: CleanTechnica. Reproduced with permission.


Comments

55 responses to “Climate change deniers are getting angrier, here’s why”

  1. Peter Avatar
    Peter

    I’d be interested to know how many people who are climate change deniers know what cognitive dissonance is and how one can easily fall victim to it. You don’t really hear much about cognitive dissonance in public discourse but once you know about it you see how prevalent it is in many beliefs.

  2. des_reputable Avatar
    des_reputable

    Does any of this explain why the largest investors in the world are tending not to invest in climate change?
    “157 investors managing a total of $14.2 trillion were taking “first steps” towards addressing climate change, while 246 managing $14 trillion were doing nothing at all…”
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/world/a/31488811/half-of-leading-investors-ignoring-climate-change-study/

    1. lin Avatar
      lin

      If you look to banksters and their accountants for leadership, you will be sadly disappointed. Short term returns trump all else in the minds of those who do not understand that we cannot eat money.

    2. Steve159 Avatar
      Steve159

      @des_reputable:disqus
      “Does any of this explain why …”
      Yes, he explains last paragrph — self-interest, pure and simple. Self-interest at the expense of the planet, makes no difference to those so inclined.

      1. des_reputable Avatar
        des_reputable

        It sounds like you are saying most of the largest investors in the world “set out on a course of creating uncertainty about climate change”. Seems a little too simplistic?

        1. Steve159 Avatar
          Steve159

          Whether they actively created uncertainty or remained inactive, their policies and behaviours were simply geared first towards self-interest.

          In our banking sector it was (stil is probably) openly known as “profits before people”. No surprise that many corporates behave in such a manner (under pressure from shareholders to increase profits/dividends).

    3. Coley Avatar
      Coley

      Aye, all those investors queuing up wanting to pour money into the proposed Galilee mine and associated infrastructure-;)

    4. nakedChimp Avatar
      nakedChimp

      People on that career path are not in it to do good.. people who want to do good will not get into those positions. People who do good will not be trusted with trillions of dollars and to make more out of them.. people who want to do good wont have a good track record of making money.

      1. Sam0077 Avatar
        Sam0077

        TRue the Left tend to ‘do good thinking of Utopia and historically cant handle money run up huge debts whenever in governments. And of course our current collective debt they have managed over last 40+ years could well come back and scuttle what we know because world is overpopulated, cant feed the number of humans being produced mainly by countries that produce little else who let have fed so didn’t do enough if anything to help themselves. Some say hope for it not happening lies with NOT getting another Clinton. After all last one did America in well and truly with stupid usual lefties dream of all owning a house even if not having a job to pay for it.

        1. nakedChimp Avatar
          nakedChimp

          “cant feed the number of humans being produced mainly by countries that produce little else who let have fed so didn’t do enough if anything to help themselves.”
          Careful there.
          If you get overrun by technological superior powers, have your country robbed of it’s natural resources, being converted into a rag-tag-democracy/dictatorship (depending on luck mostly) and still have old or new cliques run it that keep transferring wealth into personal pockets (internal and foreign).. what do you expect?

          Ever heard the term ‘economic hitman’?
          Ever heard that the IMF/etc. suggests demands debt ridden countries to sell off their public works (that usually handle monopolies like water supply etc) into private hands to pay their debt off?

          This world, this human society is not black and white nor is there a simple problem that you can brush off with simple sentences. It’s complex and involves a lot of mischief on a lot of levels and sides..

          PS: I wasn’t talking about people on the ‘left’ side of the political spectrum up there. It was a description for humans that are good in their core and don’t want to base their own “success” on deceiving or enslaving other humans. People who are ‘rigged’ like that won’t be able to get to the top of a society where features like deceit and ruthlessness are more successful traits (at least short term – don’t think it’s sustainable for a society in the long run, but we’ll find that out I guess).
          The scientists already ‘play’ Tit-for-Tat with groups of algorithms that have all sorts of traits and stable groups only seem to form when the traits are mostly good.

          PPS: one also has to keep in mind that at the very basic level we’re still animals and are ruled by the laws that work there – a society is a construct on top of that.
          As we can see by looking at human history, this all is a story of finding and making new rules to manage and organize a large group of thinking, social, 2 legged animals as time goes on.
          There is no master goal that defines this must end in happiness for all really. If there is, no one told me 😉
          And yeah, personally I’d wish for a happy ‘being’ for all.

    5. ted markstein Avatar
      ted markstein

      The insurance industry has been factoring in climate change for years. As they are bookmakers to the world, perhaps they are acting from some basis of probability.

      1. ilma630 Avatar
        ilma630

        “Factoring in”? You mean “cashing in”, as none of the dire climate predictions made over the last few decades (since the ‘global cooling’ scare of the 70s) have materialised, enabling them to get in the premiums without paying out for claims. What a racket! They knew this, yet it’s Exxon who are being tortured!

        1. Realist489 Avatar
          Realist489

          “as none of the dire climate predictions made over the last few decades (since the ‘global cooling’ scare of the 70s) have materialised”

          I can’t believe people keep saying this. 15 of the 16 hottest years on record are since 2001. That sure sounds like the predictions being correct to me.

          1. ilma630 Avatar
            ilma630

            1) The 30s were hotter, 2) NASA/GISS have repeatedly adjusted the data to create/accentuate a warming trend, in places where there was none, 3) predictions such as the IPCC’s 50 million climate refugees, and Al Gore’s ‘ice-free’ Arctic & meters of sea level rise have clearly not materialised and virtually certainly won’t, 4) the NASA/GISS claimed temperature increment to create these so-called ‘records’ are much smaller than any possible measurement accuracy, so there’s no way to legitimately make the claim.

            These ‘hottest years’ claims are not supportable by the true (observed, unadjusted) data, but are repeated so often (a classic technique described/used by Goebbles) that they start to get believed.

  3. howardpatr Avatar
    howardpatr

    It seems that most in the Turnbull Coalition Government populate the last three or four categories on the chart.

    Vote for the Turnbull Coalition in July for little change from the policies and beliefs of Mad Monk Abbott.

  4. lin Avatar
    lin

    This explains the insanity currently infecting the “Liberal” National party perfectly. Sad that they fight so hard against necessary and positive change to protect a failed and anti-scientific ideological position.

    1. MaxG Avatar
      MaxG

      Why lunatics are lunatics!

  5. Sam0077 Avatar
    Sam0077

    Wow its finally getting through to lefties its not warming just doing its thing done for millions of years, seasons. And some patterns like El Nina etc which dictate weather.
    In last gasp when this sort of projection is being put out in desperation.

    1. lin Avatar
      lin

      Also Wow. Hilarious attempt at a troll, dude. You English much gooder!
      If your reading is as incoherent as your writing, it would go some way to explaining your difficulty accepting basic scientific observations. And the take-home message is “better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt”.

      1. Sam0077 Avatar
        Sam0077

        Thanks for confirming that lefties really lack original thought patterns and can only “quote” others.

        And of course leftism is established, you’re doing the usual, answer by hurling personal attacks.

        1. lin Avatar
          lin

          Not attacking, laughing!
          Acknowledging the thoughts and work of others is expected in the scientific and academic community. To not cite previous work you reference in your writing is called plagiarism. Referencing previous work also demonstrates that you can read. Give it a try some time.

        2. Peter Campbell Avatar
          Peter Campbell

          Here we see the topic of the article exemplified as incoherent rage. It must really give you a headache trying hard to believe that climate change is going away because ‘lefties’ are coming to realise that deniers are right.

          1. GreenHeretic Avatar

            Watch Climate Hustle and you will see that a lot of Lefties have joined the ranks of the Deniers.

          2. john Avatar
            john

            You do know that the said film is a rehash of the same cherry picked talking points and disinformation that has been used now for going on 20 years.
            Desperately trying to make out there is some substance to some dispute over aspects of what is happening only has one goal to cause doubt and to delay for ever preferably, the change that is patently in need of happening and is going to take place.

          3. GreenHeretic Avatar

            Copy/Paste. Is that all you have?

          4. john Avatar
            john

            Well i do not make stuff up and I am sure you do not either.
            However lets be honest this is a picture that was used to show that Vikings lived on Antarctica during the little ice age i know off topic however this is definitely the kind of made up stuff that is puerile, but trotted out on a well known site of mirth to most.

            The Vineyards of Vostok

            Photo of an Antarctic Vineyard, reconstructed from a French Vineyard proxy

            Vikings fighting on the Antarctic Peninsula. Note the lack of sea ice.

          5. david_fta Avatar
            david_fta

            So who gives a toss about such “Lefties”?

            I can only surmise that they are as pig ignorant as yourself about reality. MAterr of fact, here’s some realtiy for you; suck on this

            Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.

            Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.

            Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.

            Inference 1, drawn from observations 1, 2 and 3. Greenhouse gases thus regulate earth’s temperature. Altering atmospheric greenhouse gas content therefore alters earth’s temperature.

            Observation 4. Satellite observations show decreasing emission to space of this long-wave energy, at EXACTLY THE SAME WAVELENGTHS as CO2 absorbs long-wave energy. Of particular relevance is the absorption peak near 667 cm^-1 (15 microns wavelength).

            Observation 5. Arctic sea ice is melting, so that summertime sunlight is being absorped in exposed ocean rather than reflected off ice.

            Observation 6. Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting, increasing the rate of sea level rise. The rate of ice melt is accelerating as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase.

            Observation 7. In the Arctic, tipping points have been crossed. Permafrost is thawing, releasing stored methane and carbon dioxide, and warming Siberian continental shelf is causing release of methane from submarine methane clathrates.

            Inference 2, (drawn from inference 1 and observations 4, 5, 6 and 7). Ocean is thermally coupled with atmosphere, and transfers a lot of heat to both Arctic and Antarctic.

            Root cause analysis 1. Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm (as at 2007; 400 ppm in 2013), and continues to acidify oceans (decreased ocean pH).

            Observation 8: last time atmospheric CO2 was 400 ppm was the early Pliocene Epoch, ~4-5 million years ago. At that time, global average temperatures were ~2-3 deg C above pre-Industrial Holocene, and sea levels were ~25 m higher than present.

            Observation 9: as of 2015, Inference 1 has now been directly observed: **[First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth’s surface](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm)**.

          6. GreenHeretic Avatar

            Did you notice the post that I was responding to? No.
            Are you a retard? Yes.
            Your cut/paste understanding of the science is ninth grade level and is riven with errors.

          7. david_fta Avatar
            david_fta

            That’s no cut/paste understanding of the science, that’s the summary I prepared earlier for the non-cognoscenti who blurt their incoherent impotent Denialism all over the place.

            That said, if you have any problems with it, that’s just your pig ignorance – and kneejerk Denialism. Back when you decided AGW is just a Commie/Greenie/Druggi/Hippie/Poofter/Atheist plot, you were wrong.

          8. GreenHeretic Avatar

            LOL. Like you have a clue who I am. I have reviewed the literature and actually done some independent analysis of my own as a professional statistician. There has been NO statistically significant warming in any of the records that I have examined. There are no claims of statistically significant warming that are re-producible. If you disagree, show me. Otherwise, STFU.

          9. david_fta Avatar
            david_fta

            Professional statistician? Excellent.

            I’d appreciate your views on Shaun Lovejoy’s “Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming”, Clim Dyn (2014) 42:2339–2351 DOI 10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2, (available at http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Lovejoy.Clim.Dynamics.final.online.2014.pdf).

            From the abstract: “… By using CO2 radiative forcings as a linear surrogate for all anthropogenic effects we estimate the total anthropogenic warming and (effec- tive) climate sensitivity finding: DTanth = 0.87 ± 0.11 K, k2xCO2 ;eff  3:08  0:58 K. These are close the IPPC AR5 values DTanth = 0.85 ± 0.20 K and k2xCO2  1:54:5 K (equilibrium) climate sensitivity and are independent of GCM models, radiative transfer calculations and emission histories. …
            “We take into account two nonclassical statistical features—long range statistical dependencies and ‘‘fat tailed’’ probability distributions (both of which greatly amplify the probability of extremes). Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 %.”

            And there you are, struggling to even find any warming in the first place.

            Suggest you follow the reference, and learn the basic skills to do your job.

    2. david_fta Avatar
      david_fta

      Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.

      Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.

      Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.

      Inference 1, drawn from observations 1, 2 and 3. Greenhouse gases thus regulate earth’s temperature. Altering atmospheric greenhouse gas content therefore alters earth’s temperature.

      Observation 4. Satellite observations show decreasing emission to space of this long-wave energy, at EXACTLY THE SAME WAVELENGTHS as CO2 absorbs long-wave energy. Of particular relevance is the absorption peak near 667 cm^-1 (15 microns wavelength).

      Observation 5. Arctic sea ice is melting, so that summertime sunlight is being absorped in exposed ocean rather than reflected off ice.

      Observation 6. Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting, increasing the rate of sea level rise. The rate of ice melt is accelerating as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase.

      Observation 7. In the Arctic, tipping points have been crossed. Permafrost is thawing, releasing stored methane and carbon dioxide, and warming Siberian continental shelf is causing release of methane from submarine methane clathrates.

      Inference 2, (drawn from inference 1 and observations 4, 5, 6 and 7). Ocean is thermally coupled with atmosphere, and transfers a lot of heat to both Arctic and Antarctic.

      Root cause analysis 1. Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm (as at 2007; 400 ppm in 2013), and continues to acidify oceans (decreased ocean pH).

      Observation 8: last time atmospheric CO2 was 400 ppm was the early Pliocene Epoch, ~4-5 million years ago. At that time, global average temperatures were ~2-3 deg C above pre-Industrial Holocene, and sea levels were ~25 m higher than present.

      Observation 9: as of 2015, Inference 1 has now been directly observed: “First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth’s surface”, (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm)**.

      Have a nice day, and don’t forget to tell your grandchildren you love them.

      1. Sam0077 Avatar
        Sam0077

        Good then explain why Antarctic ice is now in a different place – yes where it was, it has thinned consideraly but compensated by moving and thickening in a different area – just as thick as ever was. Now explain that. Meantime research Magnet Poles shifting 40K pa and maybe something will drop ass this has to have effect on weather patterns overhead as earth must be shifting on its axis by tiny amounts also. – I have read and noted data going back to 2003 when it first became evident the UN were using a scam on AGW to rip money out of ‘wealthy western nations’ for those who started off in year dot same as these but still remain dictatorships or poor etc so need help and who incidentally produce many more mouths they can feed but not much else.

        52 original scientists who started off the IPCC AGW modelling majority signed a petition saying didn’t sign off on it at all. And seeing as it was designed to rip money off the west via power – on top of higher CO2 prior yo man arriving reported and without it earth would be barren. Then its a topic that would hold more weight if greed and aim for OWG wasn’t involved and on the agenda of the Left. Agenda 21 and now again more of the same with latest Agenda. No wonder so many people are skeptical when only proof is from people coerced to speak for it or lose their salaried positions etc and be on the outer carer wise.

        I’m in process of having a system put on my roof with batteries to go off grid but will stick with it anyway – costing a heap but purely to save paying over 75% extra and tipped to rise due to having to send this money and pay so called polluters money.

        Our so called wealth was build on hard work and cheap coal generated power driving the industrial advances – likewise the rise of China who still use coal bought from Australia and South America.
        Nah something stinks – the very fact they used it to rip money off to re-distribute the wealth!

        Makes nonsense of the whole thing. Plus Magnetic Poles shifting well explains the weather patterns changes we are all experiencing and dont for get East Anglia and those lies and cove ups when modelling failed plus NASA apologizing for leaving out in particular those very cold areas in their modelling too. Like Siberia and Russian steppes which happen to be very very cold and make a lot of difference. Yeah right. Pull the other one.

        1. david_fta Avatar
          david_fta

          Crikey, Sam it looks like you’re an example o what the article is talking about. My country’s not too flash on gun control, so I hope you live somewhere else :).

          Now, I’m not going to bother with most of your wingnut list, but if Antarctic icepack has moved, at least some of it might be downhill migration (flow) as bits of it destabilise. I’d also expect increased snowfall in at least some parts of Antarctica as Southern Ocean surface waters warm, leading to greater evaporation and hence Antarctic snowfall.

          As for magnetic poles moving, you might ask someone who know about earth’s outer core (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_core), since that’s where earth’s magnetic field is thought to be generated. ie most likely nothing to do with AGW.

          Turning to scientists and IPCC; again, that’s nothing to do with me and nothing to do with the information I present to you mate; look through it all, and you’ll find no mention of IPCC. Matter of fact, those observations 1, 2 and 3 that I give you, and that Inference 1? They are from the work of John Tyndall that was published in 1859 – about 85-90 years before there was even a UN, let alone on IPCC.

          That our wealth was build on hard work and cheap coal generated power driving the industrial advances is irrelevant to the fact that we now need to stop all fossil fuel use, including coal, and base our future prosperity on power that is not derived from fossil fuels – it’s just something we need to do, no point whingeing about it.

        2. john Avatar
          john

          I would read this if I were you
          http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
          The last time this happened on earth
          https://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp?MR=1
          To give an explanation of where your ideas come from
          https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/#.VZyQl2cw_9I
          To get a graphic example play the video
          http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

      2. brantc Avatar
        brantc

        Unfortunately you left out a huge part of the system so your model is invalid…..

        1. david_fta Avatar
          david_fta

          I’ve summarised atmosphere, hydrosphere and crysophere to the extent necessary to demonstrate that sam077’s Denialism is a pathetic cry in the wilderness.

          If you have anything to add, by all means do so … I’m expecting you’ve got nothing other than anger.

          The people who convinced you that global warming is a Commie/Druggie/Greenie/Hippie/Poofter/Atheist plot? they lied to you.

          Get over it.

          1. brantc Avatar
            brantc

            In the earth system, where does cold come from??
            “The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F; 184.0 K), which was at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica, on July 21, 1983.”

      3. GreenHeretic Avatar

        Your ‘observations’ are rubbish.

        1. david_fta Avatar
          david_fta

          Far from “rubbbish”, they’re all well verified.

          Start your journey of learning at https://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

  6. Chris Harries Avatar
    Chris Harries

    Good article, but we should brush over the concept of cognitive dissonance too lightly. Every person on Earth exhibits it at some levels – we don’t act out what we really believe. If we really believed what we say about the climate emergency we would stop flying in planes.

    Much of this problem is in us because we are sort of trapped. Nearly every facet of our upbringing and education has told us that the society we live in is ‘normal’. Normal behaviour is what we do to fit that code. It’s actually very hard to escape from it, because nearly all the infrastructure we depend on matches that meme too.

    If anything its the cognitive dissonance of the masses that’s more important than that of a few remnant, angry renegades who want to fight it all the way, because their psychology won’t allow them to face up to the hard prognosis that confronts us.

    1. john Avatar
      john

      Yes the arguments put up were along the lines they should be paid because they have increased the fertilizing of food stuff production which was laughed out of court and dismissed.

  7. Alen T Avatar
    Alen T

    I suggest reading about the “smart idiot effect”. Essentially it states that higher educated conservatives tend not to rely on facts to support their beliefs, but rather their own ‘logic’ / reasoning (derived from various sources including right-wing media). E.g Abbott, high education level and yet still often so uninformed.

    1. john Avatar
      john

      Classic cherry pick.
      This link may be of interest.
      https://koshland-science-museum.org/explore-the-science/earth-lab/causes

      1. GreenHeretic Avatar

        B-S. That chart is solid science.

        1. john Avatar
          john

          You mention 18 years 9 months and claim is not a cherry pick I suppose the next story is no change from 2016 for x number of years is this transparent?

          1. GreenHeretic Avatar

            Are you aware that the 18 years 9 months is just a rolling figure? Of course you aren’t. Are you aware that the increase in temps has not been statistically significant regardless of the time length analyzed? Of course you aren’t. LOL.

          2. john Avatar
            john

            Why look at 18 years and 9 months please inform me

          3. GreenHeretic Avatar

            Last month, it was 18 years, 8 months. The month before that it was … SEE???

    2. david_fta Avatar
      david_fta

      The RSS (satellite) data you show is wrong. Even Roy Spencer now admits it.

      Since you were there last, they’ve corrected it.

  8. brantc Avatar
    brantc

    If earth is a greenhouse, where does the cold come from??

    If you have a greenhouse and you open the doors, that lowers the temperature by virtue of allowing circulation of cooler air.

    Earths air conditioning comes from the polar regions. Cold ions and neutrals are dragged down from space by the Pedersen Currents to form the polar vortex…

    The earth is an open system. Models dont account for this.. Neither do the 97%….

    Falsification is one of the hallmarks of science…

    Not to mention the the energy flows around the earths system far outweigh the effects of man CO2 signal. The fluctuations in the flows are larger than mans CO2 signal. And as any scientist knows that hardest part about measurements is the signal to noise ratio…
    You cant pick mans signal out of the noise of the earth system…

  9. James Carson Avatar

    screw your idiotic pop psychology.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.