The psychology and sociology of the International Global Warming Debate

[Michaelangelica]

There is a psychological basis for belief in catastrophic climate change (CG Jung Page - Archetype of the Apocalypse ). People have an urge to feel important, that they are at the center of the world ( Psychology in Perspective ) and that might be a psychological basis for some of the belief that man dominates climate change.

 

Please allow me a disclaimer, I make no claim anyone here holds these beliefs. I make no claim that the science is based on psychology. This post on the psychology and sociology of the debate is more pertinent to popular belief and media story templates.

Thanks BrianG an on topic post for a change, which you then sadly undercut in your second paragraph.

 

From my perspective there does seem to be an Apocalypse mentality, especially in the USA. Some religious fundamentalists look forward to it. Some religions are almost defined by it (Jehovah's Witnesses).

Almost monthly Hollywood seems to put out another blockbuster End of the World film.

I think this is certainly a part of the psychology of the Global Warming debate.

 

How it actually demonstrates itself, i don't know. Perhaps in a calm acceptance that we are powerless against the" Will of God". Perhaps in the "Isn't it awful" game that many like to play to exercise their tongues.

 

The ego centric argument, i am less sure of. I thought we got over this when the Church accepted Copernicus' view of the world.

[REASON]

Invasion and occupation did a great job ending Nazi and Japanese terror in WWII.

 

Sure, but it didn't work so well in Vietnam and hasn't worked in the Middle East. These wars are nothing like WWII.

 

 

BTW, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with global terrorism.

 

Really? That's not what we were told by the "aggressor executive." You know, the right source "for truth for the cause of war," as you previously stated.

 

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting....

 

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

 

Bush, in a February 2003 radio address, said: "Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."

 

Or maybe by "aggressor executive" you were actually referring to Dick.

 

Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

 

Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)

 

(By the way, Brian, I agree with you that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with global terrorism.)

 

 

Sorry for getting off topic, Mike.

[Donk]

Let's see if we can get back ontopic:

 

My FIRST POST in this thread said that I’d noticed how the “denialist” side tells a whole lot of lies. No matter how often they’re debunked, the same talking points still keep popping up. If you’re in the right, why lie? More than anything else, that tells me that they’re in the wrong and they know it.

 

My ANALYSIS of Brian has been up for two days. He’s been active on the forum, and on this thread, but made no effort to refute it, so I guess it stands. I’ll leave the question open as to whether he’s a liar or a fool. Sorry to be so strong about it, Brian, but I really don’t see any other reasons for your behaviour.

 

Denialists seem to come in four different versions:

 

1) Paid Liars – oil/coal company employees, politicians, lobbyists, columnists, TV talking heads and so on. Included under this heading are the so-called “scientists” of the Heartland Institute and other such organisations. They produce the seed-corn for the entire denialist industry. (Seed-corn? Or chaff?)

 

This is a small category, mainly because they’re expensive people. You don’t get that many politicians for a billion dollars. Though few in number, they’ve been carefully chosen for their enormous influence on public opinion.

 

2) Unpaid Liars. They know they’re lying, but they do it because they like stirring people up. I once infiltrated an internet trolling gang (purely for research purposes!). This particular gang worked by members suggesting online groups, chatrooms and forums where some fun could be had. Others would take a look and report back. Then they’d pick a target and start stirring. The object of the “game” was to see how much fury they could stir up before getting banned. Most internet groups cut newcomers a fair bit of slack, especially if they appear to be either foreign or mentally-deficient. Other troll gangs may use a different modus operandi, and solo trolls clearly make up their own rules as they go along.

 

BrianG looked like one of this species initially, especially with his opening comments about pop bubbles and baby’s breath, but I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s probably genuine. Most trolls see how far they can push the envelope. They go on getting sillier and sillier. Brian started out silly and then started to (occasionally) talk sense. It’s possible that he’s playing a long game, but I don’t think so.

 

3) Selfish Bastards. “I like my life the way it is. Sure, those Brazilians should be stopped from cutting down the rainforest, but that doesn’t mean that I should be stopped from doing just exactly what I like.”

 

4) Useful Idiots. Described previously.

 

Personally, I think the immediate fight is lost. Goebbels was a master of propaganda. Stalin had his moments as well. But this eruption of anti-scientific venom has, I would suggest, been the most successful propaganda battle in history. Eventually the facts will overtake the debate, but the damage will echo on for much longer. The human race has been taught to mistrust experts. Soon they'll learn not to trust anybody. Yet society is largely built on trust.

 

Failure of Trust could be the most important legacy of this episode.

[Michaelangelica]

Let's see if we can get back ontopic:

 

2) Unpaid Liars. They know they’re lying, but they do it because they like stirring people up. I once infiltrated an internet trolling gang (purely for research purposes!). This particular gang worked by members suggesting online groups, chatrooms and forums where some fun could be had. Others would take a look and report back. Then they’d pick a target and start stirring. The object of the “game” was to see how much fury they could stir up before getting banned. Most internet groups cut newcomers a fair bit of slack, especially if they appear to be either foreign or mentally-deficient. Other troll gangs may use a different modus operandi, and solo trolls clearly make up their own rules as they go along.

I think on both sides there are some group-dynamics/socilogy going on here.

Ther is a need to belong to a group "the believers " and the "non-believers".

Then you can indulge in all sort of in-group and out-group behaviour to further cement the bonds. For example, here, all of a sudden, GW has become a right or left wing political issue. With our equivalent of the Republicans moving suddenly to the extreme right. Maybe this is just political opportunism as they see people becoming increasingly confused and frightened by the issue. Remember we(Hypography) have been talking about it her in depth for over three years. For many people GW has just hit there consciousness.

 

Most trolls see how far they can push the envelope. They go on getting sillier and sillier.

or change the subject/object or wriggle off in another direction.

 

3) Selfish Bastards. “I like my life the way it is. Sure, those Brazilians should be stopped from cutting down the rainforest, but that doesn’t mean that I should be stopped from doing just exactly what I like.”

I find it surprising that so few people still have no ecological knowledge or consciousness-fifty years after Rachel Carson's Silent Spring". Greenies and "tree huggers" are pilloried here. In working class suburbs council planted trees are ripped up. At the same time there is a strong sustainable discussion among the middle class-especially women. I like to believe humans do what is best for the species.

 

4) Useful Idiots. Described previously.

 

Personally, I think the immediate fight is lost. Goebbels was a master of propaganda. Stalin had his moments as well

.

Yes i have recently come to that conclusion too. Hence my thread "the denialists are winning". I feel like I am on the Titanic with everyone dancing, playing the music and saying "What iceberg?" as it slowly guts the ship.

 

Failure of Trust could be the most important legacy of this episode.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince is my guide here.

 

Authoritarian thinking Denialists will only change when they are told to do so by a high status member of their group. That's just the way it works. Scientists are not "high status", or deserving of trust & respect in their view.

[BrianG]

Climate change mitigation isn't a new idea, Weather god - Wikipedia .

 

Using science to mitigate climate change is a more recent development. Svante Arrhenius - Wikipedia

[Donk]

Climate change mitigation isn't a new idea, Weather god - Wikipedia .

 

Using science to mitigate climate change is a more recent development. Svante Arrhenius - Wikipedia

Rubbish. The use of science - or at least technology - to mitigate climate change goes all the way back to the first use of fire and/or clothing.

 

And offtopic rubbish, at that :phones:

 

Though you're demonstrating quite a lot about the psychology of the debate :cheer:

[BrianG]

The use of science - or at least technology - to mitigate climate change goes all the way back to the first use of fire and/or clothing...

 

I see how fire and clothing help us adapt to climate change, would you please explain how they help us mitigate climate change?

[Donk]

I will, in the appropriate thread - after you explain why you're cluttering up a psychology/sociology thread with the same talking point you're spraying all over this site.

[Eclipse Now]

My water pipes froze yesterday and my car wouldn't start today, because of the cold. Running the tap and a space heater thawed the frozen pipes, popping the clutch in second gear while my brother-in-law gave me a tow started my car. There are empirical methods to solve some of life problems, I don't know what we'll do about climate change.

 

Umm, the empirically demonstrated technologies that have lower Co2 footprints? :phones: Which we've discussed a number of times? :cheer: And yet you keep asserting there's no empirical method to solve climate change? Which mean you don't really understand that Co2 causes it, and if we lower Co2, then we'll help reverse it? :hihi:

 

Why is this so hard?

[BrianG]

...Which mean you don't really understand that Co2 causes it, and if we lower Co2, then we'll help reverse it? :confused:

 

Why is this so hard?

 

So, the science of climate change mitigation boils down to, "Stop, go back!" You can clearly see the climate cliff we approach?

 

Rather than seeing man made [ce]CO_2[/ce] as pushing us off a cliff, I see it as trying to push a boulder up an ever increasing slope, each molecule of carbon dioxide we emit has less of a greenhouse effect on temperature than the previous molecule (Arrhenius).

[Eclipse Now]

I don't dispute that fact but it is so gradual and so slow as to be only really noticable at such high Co2 concentrations as to have made this into a different planet!

 

The effect you mention is NOT strong enough to reduce the "Climate Emergency" or 350ppm message of the likes of James Hansen, Bill McKibben, and others... and we're at 385ppm.

 

So let's do some math... we're at 385 parts per million, now how many extra billion tons of Co2 do we get to add to get that number down to 350 parts per million? :phones:

[BrianG]

...The effect you mention is NOT strong enough to reduce the "Climate Emergency" or 350ppm message of the likes of James Hansen, Bill McKibben, and others... and we're at 385ppm...

 

So, James Hansen, Bill McKibben, and others are the experts who interpret the climate signs and tell us where we stand. Kind of like climate popes.

[Donk]

So, James Hansen, Bill McKibben, and others are the experts who interpret the climate signs and tell us where we stand. Kind of like climate popes.

A whole lot of weasel words there. They don't "interpret the climate signs" in the sense that you imply, that they use arcane and inexplicable senses before pronouncing the oracle. They don't claim to be "popes"; neither they nor anyone else claims that they're infallible. They look at the data and say what it means. So could anyone who learned the science. You should try it.

 

Why do you keep throwing up smokescreens like this one? THAT is what this thread is about - why people would rather sneer than face up to the evidence. As you do.

[Eclipse Now]

A whole lot of weasel words there. They don't "interpret the climate signs" in the sense that you imply, that they use arcane and inexplicable senses before pronouncing the oracle. They don't claim to be "popes"; neither they nor anyone else claims that they're infallible. They look at the data and say what it means. So could anyone who learned the science. You should try it.

 

Why do you keep throwing up smokescreens like this one? THAT is what this thread is about - why people would rather sneer than face up to the evidence. As you do. :)

 

Exactly!

 

BrianG, ;):naughty: !

 

See, BrainG, you're happy to quote the decreasing effects of extra Co2 at us, just not so happy to quote the other science around Co2 that explain this effect only really kicks in way ahead of where we are already at. That's inconsistent.

 

So do you accept all the science around Co2, or only the bits of it that maintain your own psychological state and political world-view? :)

 

This is exactly what this thread is about, and thank you for demonstrating the phenomena for us.

[maikeru]

So, James Hansen, Bill McKibben, and others are the experts who interpret the climate signs and tell us where we stand. Kind of like climate popes.

 

Evil, atheistic, scientific popery of the most sinister kind, surely.

[Cedars]

Let's see if we can get back ontopic:

 

Failure of Trust could be the most important legacy of this episode.

 

Which is why the skeptics are correct in their position of doubt.

 

Al Gore has monetary motivation for pushing the position.

R.K. Pachauri has monetary motivation for pushing the position.

Hadley, East Angela, and a host of other climate researchers have monetary motivation for pushing the position.

 

James Hansens job depends on apocalyptic climate predictions.

Government is ALWAYS looking for ways to increase revenue.

 

There is no place for anyone to download RAW temperature data. All temp data released by the caretakers temps is run through normalizing procedures before the unwashed public gets a chance to see it.

 

The caretakers of the holy temp record has deemed you, me, and every other human being outside of their circle-jerk as being unfit to properly assess the RAW temps. Just like the monks guarded the holy bible from the unwashed masses until the printing press removed that power from them.

 

I have read some of the climategate emails and I absolutely cannot understand why the believers in the holy temperature record gatekeepers have not become more skeptical of the absolutes declared by the men behind the curtains.

 

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

 

The above is probably the most alarming of the exchanges from the samples I have read.

 

What is the psychology of people who think the following thoughts:

"Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation."

Oh no, we must not admit Natural Events have a role in climate!

 

"At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf NOTE:May have meant PDO for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.

 

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade."

 

How can you not wonder about the data manipulation charges? Here they are talking about removing natural events to produce warming!!

 

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. "

 

I can understand why K. Trentberth thinks this is a travesty. He's staked his reputation on AGW. But this isnt about Trentberth, this is supposed to be about 6 billion people. How can the lack of warming be bad?

 

Oh wait, we find out in another part of this multiquoted email:

 

The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

They wont know if their attempts to play climate god will work.

 

Seems to be plenty of messy psychology for amature Freuds to ponder.

 

Now I must leave and shovel more global warming off my driveway. That is if my truck will start after -13 this morn. BTW, a drive past Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge Jan 1st allowed me to observe the muskrat dens. Geezus Krist, they were almost 4 foot tall. Sign of a bad winter that never fails. Predicted by small furry animals and given to anyone who takes the time to look, free of charge.

 

Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[freeztar]

"At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf NOTE:May have meant PDO for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.

 

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade."

 

How can you not wonder about the data manipulation charges? Here they are talking about removing natural events to produce warming!!

 

On topic with this thread, I find it interesting that one psychological effect always seems to be at work for people on both sides of the debate. We see what we want to see, or in this case, interpret. I'm not immune to it and I would venture to say that nobody is immune to it, to varying degrees.

 

Cedars' interpretation of the email she quoted is that the author is manipulating data by removing natural events to produce warming.

 

My interpretation is different. I see it as saying that we see nothing unusual when natural variability is accounted for, but when we remove natural variability, we see warming. This, to me, means that anthropogenic warming mechanisms are showing an increase. This is an analysis, and not a deliberate attempt to skew the data to show warming.

 

Cedars also takes issue with this quote from Kevin Trenberth, who is the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

 

"Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation."

 

To which Cedars responded:

 

Oh no, we must not admit Natural Events have a role in climate!

 

Actually, the full quote is as follows:

 

Mike

Here are some of the issues as I see them:

Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes?

Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a

discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system

sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major

changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on

land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall

(changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes

into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and

should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into

atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES

data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean

data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and

burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it

comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.

Kevin

 

It appears that Kevin is simply raising some valid questions regarding the science behind energy budget. It is not surprising that this email would be taken out of context by others though. The language used, and the doubt shown, lends itself well to abuse by those with ulterior motives. But, if there are any doubts about Kevin Trenberth's doubts, then we might as well go to the horses mouth:

 

Trenberth says his quote "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment." was taken out of context: "We've always had some problems with the observing system," he said. "It's obviously not as good as we would like, and that's true of the temperature record, as well. What this is saying is we need better observations. What it's not saying is that global warming is not here." [5]

Kevin E. Trenberth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia