The how and why of climate denial
 

The documentary on climate change airing on the ABC is a study in the mindset of denial.

More...

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
--Andre Gide http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/tongue.png

Edit: I don't like this type of argument, I find it to be a weak one. Argument by slight of hand.

The documentary on climate change airing on the ABC
--------------------------------

Sorry no shamless advertising allowed.

You are banned for two weeks.

Debating those who reject the science of climate change is a risky business. Anna Rose wonders whether it was worth it.

More...

i started to watch this but could see exactly what anna had doubts about happening. science didn't get a go. this format is not the way to change peoples minds.

The minds of these people are immovable.. The only way we can hope to effect change in such people is through their children and even that is fraught with risk.

The show lacked the science.

I heard Anna say on TripleJ's hack program last night that its important people know that its the warmest the Earth has ever been.

I phoned in & told the shows programmer that I wanted to make a comment in relation to Anna's statement. She said "yes, what would you like to say?" I told her that Anna's statement was incorrect! I said the Earth for the last million years has had glacial cycles with a duration of 100,000 years & that past interglacials have been at least as warm as the present interglacial & some were up to 6C hotter than the present interglacial.

To this the programmer said "where did you get that information?" I said scientific papers using ice core & ocean sediment core data.

"I believe there's a consensus among scientists that reject that" said the programmer.

I said "what?"
I said "it is scientists that give this info in scientific papers & its not even controversial, & its well know."

"A consensus is what a committee decides on - an opinion. Science is not a committee; science is not about opinion, its about what the data tells us" I calmly told the programmer.


Anna also said what's important is people understand that co2 is a greenhouse gas & it trap heat. They need to know that.

I said to the programmer that this statement by Anna was misleading because it is well understood & agreed that a doubling of co2 on its own would theoretically lead to a warming of only 1C, & the IPCC's 3C for a doubling of co2 includes the hypothesis of strongly positive feedback, & that hypothesis is yet to be proven, & the data shows otherwise.

"Oh, that's getting too in-depth for this program" said the programmer.

"What, can't Anna respond to that ?" I asked.

"Doesn't Anna know about the basics of the subject she's being interviewed about?" I added.

"Don't want the truth spoken on the show in case people might hear it?" I told the programmer.


She didn't let me speak my opinion on the radio.

Pathetic!

I didn't see it, so shouldn't comment or at least, you should take my reports of views as second-hand.

These from Ben Eltham seem to represent views of people whose opinions I have come to trust on things I do know a bit about.

"Ben Eltham ‏ @beneltham
And the point: stop trying to change people's minds on climate. Let's build political coalitions to change law and policy instead
9m Ben Eltham Ben Eltham ‏ @beneltham
Good to see the criticism of I Can Change Your Mind emerging. It was a febrile attempt at non-engagement that only makes the problem worse"

She didn't let me speak my opinion on the radio.

Pathetic! It has happened to me as well.. though I can't blame the abc because they asked me what I wanted to say.. but in the waiting time(to swich off the radio when they told me to).. I was influenced by what was said upon it.

I agree with some of what you say TbZ but these:

But a consensus among scientists often tells us what is good science and what is bad science.


Does it? I was under the impression that positive feedback was a good part of the most accurate models we currently have.

It has happened to me as well.. though I can't blame the abc because they asked me what I wanted to say..


The programmer was biased; it was evident by her attitude & what she said to me. I don't care if she believes in human cause global warming, , but the ABC isn't supposed to be biased. She was & wouldn't let me speak because I would throw a spanner into her works

I couldn't possibly accept this to always be the case.



to a certain extent.. without positive feedback.. computer models are a fantastic nightmare.

The programmes are often meant to be biased.. The abc is not reprehensible in putting both sides of any story.

To be honest, she wouldn't let you speak because these types of arguments don't make good TV or radio. Which is why TV and radio debates are completely useless.

Hence the word "often". In a lot of cases the science is so complicated laypeople can't or don't have the time to understand it. If I didn't have the time or inclination to look into something, I'd go with scientific consensus over gut feel or a few minutes of internet research.

Well, I can think of at least one other reason.

>>The programmer was biased; it was evident by her attitude & what she said to me. I don't care if she believes in human cause global warming, , but the ABC isn't supposed to be biased. She was & wouldn't let me speak because I would throw a spanner into her works

But a consensus among scientists often tells us what is good science and what is bad science.


I'm not interested in the opinions of scientists. I'm only interested in what evidence the data brings

I was under the impression that positive feedback was a good part of the most accurate models we currently have.


The models predicted negative lapse rate feedback. This is the opposite of what has occurred.
The models predicted a hot spot in the mid troposphere. This has not occurred.
The models predicted an increase in mid tropospheric water vapour. This has not occurred.

We have reached the 3/4 mark for the equivalent of a doubling of co2 (the 160% increase in CH4 accounts for this) but we have only seen a 0.8C rise in temp. According to the strongly positive feedback scenario due predominantly water vapour feedback, we should has had a temp rise of around 1.8C.

The missing heat?

Oh and whoops, I changed usernames there, but I am the Chocolate Addict. Apologies.