The psychology and sociology of the International Global Warming Debate

[Essay]

Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Synchronicity and sensitivity of alpine and continental glaciers to abrupt, global, climatic changes during the Younger Dryas, 2003, Geological Society of America.

 

He has clues about climate. He doesnt work for big oil. He has no motive one way or another. And he does not agree with the co2 theory of the current warming. Co2 is a minor greenhouse gas and is an insignificant portion of the atmospheric greenhouse gasses, with h2o being the dominant ghg factor.

 

38 parts in 100 k. Take a screen and count out 10K squares and fill in 4 (because 3.8 is too picky). Now add in the h20 squares, 200 for 2%, 400 for 4% (water content varies) knowing h20 covers 85% of the same heat spectrum co2 does.

...and how many squares would be filled when the relative effects were multiplied in?

 

It is a silly theory. Co2 is a minor factor in warming.

 

 

Something is certainly silly, Cedars. I'm sure you've seen the numbers on how much stronger CO2 is, when compared to water vapor; and how much longer lived it is, and how it affects the part of the spectrum specifically related to heat loss into space, affects different components of Earth's heat loss mechanism, etc.

 

So I'm sure you understand how CO2 is a "minor factor in warming;" and that it (compared with water vapor) can only "change temperature" by a few degrees.

 

But why tease us with these "clues about climate" that sound so intriguing. Couldn't you post an abstract, or at least one sentence (something more than a title)? ...Or start a thread based on this curious information....

===

 

Cedars, I've no doubt that the PDO radically affects climate, as do many ocean currents. What thermodynamics do you suppose tips ocean currents from one mode to another?

 

~ :shrug:

 

p.s. Does anybody else notice how it is usually geologists or meteorologists (the older the better) who seek to support denialist's claims?

 

Don Easterbrook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"He [is a professor emeritus and] has appeared on the Headline News program, Glenn Beck[5] and in the New York Times[3] as a global warming skeptic."

 

Glenn Beck? That's not even a news program, but is instead a part of Fox's Entertainment Programming, isn't it?

[Cedars]

Don Easterbrook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Does anybody else notice how it is usually geologists or meteorologists (the older the better) who seek to support denialist's claims?

 

Glenn Beck? That's not even a news program, but is instead a part of Fox's Entertainment Programming, isn't it?

Just how old do you think Easterbrook is? The older the better? You have a problem with people over 50, 60? Shut them up in the old peoples home? Send them off to play shuffleboard cuz they havent anything to contribute?

 

Emeritus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Wonderful. Character assassination is your retort (and a poor attempt at that). Trenberth has appeared on Fox news, will you slander him now? Please explain to me how an appearance on Glenn Beck reflects on Easterbrooks academics?

 

I enjoy how you skip over the relevant facts, such as in 2001 Easterbrook predicted cooling by 2007, without using a GHG climate model.

 

More for the amature Freuds to ponder.

[Essay]

Just how old do you think Easterbrook is?

 

Wonderful. Character assassination is your retort (and a poor attempt at that). Trenberth has appeared on Fox news, will you slander him now? Please explain to me how an appearance on Glenn Beck reflects on Easterbrooks academics?

 

Cedars, was Trenberth on one of Fox's News shows, or one of their more prevelant Entertainment shows, like Beck?

 

I assumed Easterbrook was a young guy until I saw the emeritus notation. But I'm not getting down on old people; some of the best explanations for AGW come from emeritus professors.

 

It's just a trend I've noticed; that denialists mostly find [peer-reviewed] support from meteorologists or geologists, and it is most commonly from older members of those professions.

 

I suspect it is because those older folks more often entered the profession as a result of military service (as weathermen) or as a result of being in the petroleum industry (for geologists) first; and not choosing to be a general scientist first, but only becoming degreed as a result of their already developing career. [or words to that effect]

...But that is just a suspicion on my part... with nothing but anecdotal evidence from my Dad, an old (Montana School of Mines - trained) military pilot.....

 

p.s. ...and because geologists think in too large a time scale, and weathermen think in too short a time scale; not in generational time scales.

~ :shrug:

 

But have you noticed that trend too?

[BrianG]

...It's just a trend I've noticed; that denialists mostly find [peer-reviewed] support from meteorologists or geologists, and it is most commonly from older members of those professions...

 

I attribute it to wisdom, older scientists aren't interested in maximizing research funds, they don't need tenure, they don't need to publish. Wisdom comes with age, they've seen more climate change and rising seas, they have perspective, they can afford to tell it like it is. I recommend Ian Pilmer:

 

YouTube- Environmentalism Is the New Religion - Ian Plimer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idYdVQ6nwfA

[Essay]

I attribute it to wisdom, older scientists aren't interested in maximizing research funds, they don't need tenure, they don't need to publish. Wisdom comes with age, they've seen more climate change and rising seas, they have perspective, they can afford to tell it like it is. I recommend Ian Pilmer:

 

Again, it's not about age, but about being a geologist or a meteorologist.

 

There are many more young and wise, old (and emeritus) professors from other climate related fields who support the theory that humans are influencing climate at an increasing rate. Well there are more who support the theory, in those two fields also, than not....

 

So....

I suppose it would be more accurate for me to say that, for these denialist's suggestions, there are fewer supporters coming from ranks of professors not degreed in geology or meteorolgy.

 

So which is Ian (or is he an exception to the trend....)?

 

~ :shrug:

[BrianG]

The trend is too accumulated knowledge, that's the lesson of age. Filter out the B.S., I don't care if a petroleum engineer tells me the truth, so long as it's the truth.

[Essay]

The trend is too accumulated knowledge, that's the lesson of age. Filter out the B.S., I don't care if a petroleum engineer tells me the truth, so long as it's the truth.

 

There are many more young and old, wise (and emeritus) professors from other climate related fields who support the theory that humans are influencing climate at an increasing rate. Well there are more who support the theory, in those two fields [meteorology & geology] also, than not....

 

But I guess if you know how to recognize what the truth is what to recognize as truth, then it doesn't matter who tells you; you'll recognize it when you hear it.

===

 

p.s. Oh, I suppose you think of a "petroleum engineer" (Ian Plimer?) as not being a "geologist," eh?

"Ian Rutherford Plimer (born February 12, 1946) is an Australian geologist, academic and businessman."

[Cedars]

It's just a trend I've noticed; that denialists mostly find [peer-reviewed] support from meteorologists or geologists, and it is most commonly from older members of those professions.

 

But have you noticed that trend too?

 

umm. No.

Kevin Trenberth Born 8 November 1944:

From New Zealand, he obtained his Sc. D. in meteorology in 1972 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 

CGD's Climate Analysis Section (CAS)

 

Michael Mann:

Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.

 

James Hansen Born March 29, 1941:

 

He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa.

 

Phil Jones:

He holds a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of Lancaster, and an MSc and PhD from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. They dont list what his grad/ph.d is in so I guess we can assume environmental sciences. My neighbor had one of those degrees and he studied penguins. Spent many winters in antarctica (well our winters, their summers).

 

I am unclear on what your point is, regarding geologists and meterologists.

[Essay]

umm. No.

 

I am unclear on what your point is, regarding geologists and meterologists.

 

 

Of all the many fields that contribute to climate science, it is usually a geologist or meteorologist that gets quoted as saying there is nothing to worry about - even though their respective societies have issued statements supporting the AGW theory. Proponents of the theory come from all fields, but rarely does a denialistic statement come from fields other than geology and meteorology, such as glaciolgy, oceanography, paleocliamtology, statistics, physics, biology, ecology, phenology, etc.

 

But thanks for offering lots more supporting evidence for my anecdotal observation.

 

~ :shrug:

[Cedars]

Of all the many fields that contribute to climate science, it is usually a geologist or meteorologist that gets quoted as saying there is nothing to worry about - even though their respective societies have issued statements supporting the AGW theory. Proponents of the theory come from all fields, but rarely does a denialistic statement come from fields other than geology and meteorology, such as glaciolgy, oceanography, paleocliamtology, statistics, physics, biology, ecology, phenology, etc.

 

But thanks for offering lots more supporting evidence for my anecdotal observation.

 

~ :shrug:

 

Wow. I thought you were a student and understood the degree process. For example, this university offers masters degrees with paleoclimatology. However, the degree is listed as a MS in Geology.

 

Geology Graduate Program Specialties

 

When I worked at the state, I licensed people with degrees for specialized work. We had to review transcripts to ensure that the university was an accredited (approved by the standards set) degree program or that applicant could not be licensed under our department. It did not matter what the degree was called, what mattered was where they were educated.

 

There were many people each year (especially from out of state universities) who thought they could become licensed in our state under the degree they held. There were also universities applying for accreditation each year and failing to meet the requirements.

 

Edit:

And this worked both ways, our licensee's had a time of it becoming licensed in California because their standards were even more restrictive.

End Edit

 

So my point being you cannot judge competence in an area simply by MS degree title. Your anecdotal observation may be self-reinforcing, but has little to do with that persons academic ability or qualification.

[Michaelangelica]

:shrug:

Please there are plenty of threads about, where you can argue the pros and cons of global warming.

Although it seems to me to be a pointless exercise.

Please do not be distracted by Brian's red herrings

The subject of this thread is

The psychology and sociology of the International Global Warming Debate

Do any of the argumentative off-topic posts teach us anything about these processes?

Maybe they do?

Does it go to who you trust?

What sources of information you are prepared to take on board?

 

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/01/ssw_20100102_1234.mp3

I am not sure I understand this can someone help?

Is the silence of the major religions (RC, Muslim) on GW a problem for getting consensus and action?

[Essay]

For example, this university offers masters degrees with paleoclimatology. However, the degree is listed as a MS in Geology.

 

Geology Graduate Program Specialties

 

So my point being you cannot judge competence in an area simply by MS degree title. Your anecdotal observation may be self-reinforcing, but has little to do with that persons academic ability or qualification.

 

 

It's not really about competence either (though sometimes that enters into it - as with weathermen who learned the craft long ago in the military), but it's more about that psychology of perspective (very long for geologists & very short for meteorologists).

 

But you are right about the post-graduate, more "specialized" degrees. Especially for the older folks, those degrees didn't even exist back then. Willi Dansgaard, the "father of paleoclimatology," probably won't have a degree in paleoclimatology. Now that they are creating those more specialized, interdisciplinary degrees, younger folks will start turning up with these.

 

I googled paleoclimatologist, and wiki says:

Jean Robert Petit studied chemistry and physics at the University of Grenoble and received a PhD in 1984 in paleoclimatology on the study of the aeolian dust record from Antarctic ice cores.

 

Lonnie Thompson (b. 1948), is a paleoclimatologist and Distinguished University Professor in the School of Earth Sciences at The Ohio State University. He obtained his undergraduate degree from Marshall University, where he majored in geology. He subsequently attended The Ohio State University where he received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in geology.

 

Yep, my bias. I'll have to start looking at what degrees the AGW proponents have.

I wonder what this guys degree is in....

William F. Ruddiman is a palaeoclimatologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia. He is known principally for his "early anthropocene" hypothesis, the idea that human-induced changes in greenhouse gases did not begin in the eighteenth century with advent of coal-burning factories and power plants of the industrial era but date back to 8,000 years ago, triggered by the intense farming activities of our early agrarian ancestors.

He has written a number of books including "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate".

===

 

IMHO: He's a prof. emeritus, so he must be a geologist too....

 

It sounds as if (at least) the youngest paleoclimatologist doesn't have any degree in geology.

 

~ :)

[Eclipse Now]

The customers might be unhappy if they drove down to the gas pumps, and couldn't tank up. People might get cold in the winter, without heating fuel. If you flipped a light switch and nothing happened, you might see a downside to moving away from fossil fuel. Try watching the traffic on your street and count the number of battery and hydrogen fuel cell cars and trucks. I'm willing to bet every vehicle you see uses fossil fuel. If we couldn't move our goods or go where we want, because we don't want to use coal, oil and gas, that would be a negative outcome.

 

Wow BrianG, you live in an even scarier world that us global warming greenies, because according to you we just can't run our economy without fossil fuels and oil is about to peak. This is an interesting psychological twist!

 

The ONLY reason we can have 6.7 billion people on the planet and a highly diversified society with medicine and sports and culture and lots and lots of various career lines is that fossil fuels let machines do the farming for us... so that only 5% of the first world population work the land, not 50%. So are you implying that everything will simply stop working, like the end of the reworked "Day the Earth Stood still?" They didn't show you the year after everything stopped. That's because 5 to 6 billion people starved to death in anarchy and riots!

 

So do you care to retract your implication that we can't "do" the modern world without fossil fuels, or are you basically stating you think modern civilisation is doomed to all the horrors that the dieoff.com crowd go on about because they see fossil fuels as unique stores of energy?

Abstract: Petroleum geologists have known for 50 years that global oil production would "peak" and begin its inevitable decline within a decade of the year 2000. Moreover, no renewable energy systems have the potential to generate more than a tiny fraction of the power now being generated by fossil fuels.

In short, the end of oil signals the end of civilization, as we know it.

http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm

 

[Turtle]

speaking of the psychology of internet debates on global warming, there is a wider net to cast.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20060428091222/http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

 

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

 

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

 

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

...

Some people — particularly those who have been online for years — are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants."

 

It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved. ...

 

so enough of the trolling here. report the troll posts & we can get back to talking about science that meets the Hypography standard. enough is enough. :eek_big:

[Donk]

Part of the problem is that scientists don't (quite) speak English. They use a subset of the language which has precise meanings, rather than everyday usage.

 

A good example came in THIS POST, where BrianG was trying to put forward the idea that the effect of CO2 is uncertain. Unfortunately for him, he came up against Modest, who was quite willing to play ping-pong with him rather than let him get away with the soundbite he was fishing for - Scientists are uncertain about the warming effect of CO2. Uncertainty means one thing to a scientist, but can play very differently to the crowd. Similarly with theory - a misunderstanding often used by creationists.

 

In this case, the word is Warming. As I explained in one of my early posts, I'm out of step with most of the human race in seeing warm as bad and cold as good. It's part of the language - warmhearted, a warm welcome, versus a cool reception, cold shoulder... when the crowd hear that the world is getting warm, their own understanding of their own language tells them that it's a good thing, not a bad one. Even the Aussies, currently blistering in a heatwave, would say "Yeah, mate! I could do with a bit of warm, instead of this f**** heat!"

 

It's the correct word, scientifically: "Warming - a slow increase in temperature." But right from the start the psychology was wrong, the crowd misunderstood, and scientists have been trying, and largely failing, to get the message over ever since.

[Michaelangelica]

Part of the problem is that scientists don't (quite) speak English. They use a subset of the language which has precise meanings, rather than everyday usage.

.

Yes I have been thinking about this.

When you train for a profession you basically learn a foreign language. All the jargon of your profession be it medicine, psychology or economics. You learn the meanings of a whole new set of words, or a new variant of them. When you get the first job you learn the social norms and protocols of that profession. Often this involves a period of 'apprenticeship.' You can communicate your meaning quickly to others in your profession as you use the same language; have the same set of assumptions and share values and norms of behavior and interaction. (A doctor for example will defer to a specialist even if he does not believe this is the right course of treatment for his patient.). The professional group you belong to can take away your livelihood so pleasing them becomes important

Then we have peer reviewed journals. Most 'peers' , unless the journal article is a particular interest of theirs, will not "review"

I find it sad that most professional journals on the WWW/net have restrictive covenants. Usually the professional association or institution to which you belong-- and the tax department-- pay for your subscriptions. Prices of individual subscriptions are outrageously high to restrict 'outsiders".

So what would happen if all journals where published freely on line? Would scientists have to speak in our common language? Would it cause more or less communication and progress?

[Eclipse Now]

Would it cause more or less communication and progress?

 

One example I can think of is "Hide the decline".