Do you think denier misunderstanding of basic climate science concepts is intentional?
I often have a difficult time figuring out the reason AGW deniers have such a difficult time understanding simple concepts because they intentionally misunderstand them, or because they’re just not too bright. A good example is "hide the decline", which most deniers were convinced referred to a supposed decline in global temperatures, even though the email in question was written right after the hottest year on record.
When they finally figured out the ‘decline’ referred to certain tree ring data, they then shifted their (intentional?) misunderstanding to the paleoclimate data.
The newest (intentional?) misunderstanding is the ‘missing energy’. It seems like a pretty simple concept to me - satellites measure a certain energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, but over the past 5 years, we haven’t been able to account for where about half of that energy has ended up. So there are a few possibilities. Maybe the satellite data is wrong, maybe the data or analysis of ocean temperatures is wrong, or maybe the energy is going somewhere that we’re not measuring, like oceans below 2000 km, for example.
But of course all deniers get from this is "alarmunists are wrong" and are "laughably stupid".
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmN0nRHfABt_moF2SOSiZy_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100419114345AARuHFI&show=7#profile-info-t1zlbOURaa
Several denier answers start talking about climate models, even though these measurements have nothing to do with models. All immediately launch into attacks on ‘alarmunists’ without even bothering to try and understand the underlying discrepancy and its relation to AGW.
And it’s certainly not an isolated instance. Besides ‘hide the decline’ and ‘missing energy’ there’s also winter storms, hurricane frequency, the tropical troposphere ‘hot spot’, etc. Deniers consistently fail to understand basic climate science concepts.
The question is, do they fail to understand these concepts because they don’t want to understand them, or because they’re incapable of understanding them?
"I am convinced that you are not interested in the truth….[link to 'American Thinker' article]"
Yeah, I would call that intentional. Good example, jim.
pegminer - good example. I saw that Meadow question about 30% drop in ocean pH. That was a tough one for deniers, because they had to admit the ‘alarmist’ was right. Except bravo - the chemist who darn well should know the pH scale is logarithmic. Yet he just turned it into the usual ‘decreasing pH isn’t acidification’ semantics garbage. It was truly pathetic.
Both jimzulu brothers definitely fit the intentional category. They have the tools to understand these basic concepts, but are unwilling to bypass their political biases.
Tagged with: climate models • climate science • decline • denier • discrepancy • energy imbalance • global temperatures • hot spot • hurricane frequency • missing energy • misunderstanding • ocean temperatures • oceans • paleoclimate data • profile info • question index • satellite data • satellites • science concepts • winter storms
Filed under: Hurricane Questions
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I think that many deniers are willfully ignorant. jim z is a good example, he has repeated misstatements about hurricane dynamics on multiple occasions, and failed to acknowledge his mistakes when they were pointed out. His brother bravozulu is also a good example, intentionally misinterpreting a question about ocean acidity in order to support his political viewpoint, even though he supposedly has the scientific training (undergrad degree in chemistry) to understand what was being said. He had to adopt an indefensible position about acidity and pH to support his politics. Didier has made particularly egregious blunders about chemistry in his latest question about nitrous oxide, in this case I think he simply does not have the background and doesn’t care to look further into the matter. I think he has a very strong background in liberal arts and finance, but apparently practically none in physical science.
A lot of the others just don’t know a whit about science, don’t care to, and don’t really have the logical faculties to follow the scientific arguments. If they did they’d stop asking about SUVs on other planets, talking about how CO2 is heavy and lays at the bottom of the atmosphere, saying the volcanoes emit more CO2 than man, etc.
EDIT: I don’t recall exactly what I might have said to jimz about Obama’s economic program a year ago, but it was probably something along the lines that we were in an economic disaster dating back to the end of the Bush administration, and I hoped that Obama’s policies would work (jim z hoped that they wouldn’t). I think I also said that the economy had been left in such a mess that nobody was sure what to do, but everybody was sure something had to be done.
I think that there are many sub-groups:
some intentionally lie,
some are worried about taxes and living expenses,
some just think that government is out to get them and this is just more evidence of that,
some care only about themselves and their lifestyle today, and don’t care much about the world they leave behind,
some really just don’t understand.
With all of the money being spent to promote the idea that global warming is not happening, or not our fault, or will really improve the world, allowing us to grow more food, people have a tendency to listen to those that agree with them (how often do you watch foxnews) and give them a sense of being smart and right, global warming, and the actions that need to be taken are not something that is easy to sell.
If you were the coal industry, and interested in not going out of business, you’d do the same. Throw anything you can up against the wall, and different folks will gravitate to different parts of it. It makes no difference what part any specific individual chooses to believe, as long as in the end, the government does nothing to inhibit your ability to do business.
Standing on the other side of the fence is harder, unless you have enough education, and morals, to understand the problem, and the willingness to do something about it, even if it means that you have to pay more for some things, and won’t be able to do others.
You posted a very nice polling link that shows that a relatively high percentage of Americans do support action on global warming. The problem is that far too many of ‘em are quiet about it, whereas those that want nothing to happen are far more vocal. and militant.
The problem is that, "Be a nice person, and do the right thing for your children" doesn’t have the same gut reaction as, "The government is lying to you to raise your taxes and steal your money, and give it to scientists who also lie to you, and to lazy blue state people who refuse to work and want to live on welfare and teach their children to live on welfare forever." It’s just different.
Edit: Adrian B: <<I have offered on this site numerous times to supply papers to anyone interested, yet few skeptics have taken me up on the offer… surprising no doubt.>>
Actually, not. If you look at the deniers/skeptics, for most of ‘em, wading through an honest science paper, that’s worth it’s salt, is just beyond them. Not long ago, there was an interview with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in which she was asked how much reading she had to do? 1,500 pages a day. For most folks, that would be impossible. In the same vane, understanding the intricacies of climate is just too much.
It is also true that there are those that might be able to, but the only justification would be to find things like emails that they could complain about.
<<On the positive side, every day our case gets stronger, gets more evidence… every day their side gets weaker, whether they choose to accept it or not.>>
Here I think that it’s more questionable. True we do learn more. But that does not undermine, "They just want to raise your taxes and shut down businesses and send all the jobs over to China (btw, i need to remember to head over to walmart later to get ..) and just ruin our economy. USA — USA — USA (now what was it i needed to get?)"
Winning over folks that actively deny global warming is just about impossible. In fact, to me, it seems that the more i try to point out why they’re wrong, the more they dig their heels in and refuse to even listen. Honest skeptics are far more rare. Mostly school kids that get mixed messages. Sometimes we win, sometimes not.
<<Though i thought the same thing about evolutionary theory and i continue to be amazed …>>
yes, but, until they start teaching it in schools, it really doesn’t make a lot of difference. There are some otherwise perfectly fine folks who think that way. Sometimes I wonder, but as long as they don’t try to (A) teach it, or (B) pass it off as science, I leave them alone. Who am I to undermine a faith that they might really need to help them get along in life.
Global warming is different. Global warming is either ignorance, or greed. Neither should be acceptable. Given a reasonable opportunity to get past the ignorance, then it becomes a moral question, and there is no justification for their continued theft of the environmental inheritance that they’re squandering.
That’s a good question. Fear not, we’re about to find out who is smarter, a tulip and a dandelion or a GW denier.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116791&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click
I ask myself the same question Dana. I have no problem with people who genuinely don’t understand, or people who have been misinformed. This is not their fault. I do have a huge problem with people who are smart enough to understand, yet deliberately misinform others and spread half truths, uncertainties and often out right lies.
However, i can also put the blame at the feet of science and the popular press. As scientists, we really need to be more forthcoming with our conclusions and the data. I only say this as i know how difficult it can be to access the scientific literature if you are not in the field. I have offered on this site numerous times to supply papers to anyone interested, yet few skeptics have taken me up on the offer… surprising no doubt.
Im sure i dint need to go into why the popular press has a share of the blame in all this.
I think all we can do is continue to present the fact as the evidence shows. Some will never be convinced no matter what we show them, but we have to cross our fingers enough understand that we can start making some real changes. On the positive side, every day our case gets stronger, gets more evidence… every day their side gets weaker, whether they choose to accept it or not.
EDIT
@ linlyons
Yeah, i guess you are right. I have no doubt that no matter what, there are a certain group who are unreachable by our ever increasing understanding. I guess i remain an optimist, that sooner or later the truth is simply undeniable.
Though i thought the same thing about evolutionary theory and i continue to be amased by the lengths some will go to in order to keep an old belief.
Edit
@ Jim
I read your link (as painful as it was). If that’s where you get your information i am starting to understand your opinions at least. Maybe you should try working your way through the thousands of peer reviewed articles on climate science and then come back an informed opinion. You can even ignore the papers by scientists you suggest are corrupt. There are hundreds more out there who will make the same, equally valid and well supported claims.
EDIT
@ Linlyons (again)
They don’t teach evolutionary theory in your schools? Or are you referring to climate change. I dont mind people having there own beliefs either if they need them to get by, but on the other hand i dont like the supression of truth, which evolution is. I know its only the minority who try and do this, but its still one of the best examples of complete disregard for scientific truth, in my opinion.
Oh, and i couldn’t agree more with your last paragraph.
Not true. We know the basic climate science concepts is bunk.
This an interesting question. I don’t normally spend a lot of time on climate blogs, but I was arguing with a self-proclaimed skeptic recently on the topic of ‘missing heat’ at one of the low-quality but popular denier blogs. For some reason, this ’skeptic’ thought the missing heat had to do with "modeled sensitivities", and was practically insisting that this was the case. Eventually I was able to explain to him that models and sensitivities had little to do with the missing heat, then he went off on some tirade about how climate science is a "fuzzy science" and models are useless drivel, etc.. No hope with that one.
In that same thread, a denier claimed climate models ignore conduction and convection in the atmosphere, a claim that’s made here occasionally. Completely false, but common nonetheless. Others claimed that "heat *cannot* end up in the deeper oceans because warmer water is less dense, and Trenberth is scrambling", without understanding that heat?hot, and that normal ocean circulations mix warmer water in the deeper oceans all the time.
In some cases, it’s just ignorance or misinformation, as Adrian mentions. But for most deniers on here, it is intentional. Ottawa had a question on the tropospheric hotspot a few weeks ago, and when the issue was explained to him, he just ignored it and went on with his "making-data-fit-theory bad" line. Eric has done the same thing (though, recently he did ask for clarification in calculating the ocean heat content). Same with Peter J - his question makes it clear he doesn’t understand the issue, but it doesn’t matter; "Alarmunists are wrong".
You can’t win ‘em all.
———
No surprise at who Peter picked for BA.
The leaders are educated and understand, just like the tea party. They are the most afraid because they have the most to lose. Then there are the "conservatives" who are truly ignorant but proud of it.
I am convinced that you are not interested in the truth. If you were, you would read this link.
It referred to tree ring data alright. They flat out lied about it. Any objective reading of the emails would conclude that. Why do you insist on defending the undefendable?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
I want to point out that about a year ago Pegminer suggested to me in an email that Obama’s stimulus program would provide shovel ready jobs. That shows the extent of his knowledge on politics and his politics are why he believes in global warming.
It has to be, I mean no-one could be that stupid. They just muddy the waters so nothing is done to correct the problem so their controllers can destroy the planet. I always ask, Why do right wing assholes want to destroy the environment?
I’m just curious why you never write a question with an objective nature. You always pose questions that seem like you already know the correct answers and you just want someone to disagree with you. i mean all that stuff you wrote in your profile is great, but are we to just assume that what ever you say is right? I mean all the actual scientists in the world "think" that AGW is a real and solid fact. It is NOT a fact. The evedence may lean one way or the other but no one "knows" for sure. Nevertheless you continue to post questions that lead the casual observer to believe that you are with out a doubt correct.
I guess i’m just not seeing a scientific mind behind these questions.
I think people deny it because they are scared. They don’t want to have to face the truth because that would mean they would have to do something about it and that would mean they would have to change. People seem to be terrified of change.
I think people don’t realize that it’s not the end of the world. They don’t realize that the earth will continue to be here no matter what. But, we won’t. People are much more fragile. We evolved to live in our current environment, and at the rate we are changing our environment, it’s hard to know if we could evolve/adapt that quickly.
People also don’t realize that the environment can exist without an economy, but the economy cannot exist without a healthy environment. I think the invention of money was one the worst things to happen to the human species.
How can anyone say that those concerned about AGW are stupid ignorant "alarmunists" when told that those concerned include all the world’s leading scientific academies?
We have
professional deniers (probably not here; we’re not important enough),
people who really think that Beck Knows Best (the kind of people who think that their preacher knows more about biology than the world’s scientific academies)
people who have become so ego-involved with a point of view that they will go to any lengths to defend it
people who just hate the idea of government action (except when it’s subsidising, say, Arizona’s water, Iowa’s farmers, fossil fuel extraction, or second home ownership) and therefore reject any argument that shows such action to be necessary
people who fit into more than one of these categories
What they have in common is a double standard and willingness to be totally inconsistent in the use of different and mutually incompatible arguments. On the whole, I think they meet the standard of those who, intent on deceiving us, have the good manners to deceive themselves first.
It goes deeper than just the science. Take a look at this question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmtC6JDbxhzsZ4UjOJvyBkfsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100418232430AAluORt&show=7#profile-info-oxFuN5fPaa
A denier tries to claim a certain quote is from Feynman. When I point out that it is not a Feynman quote but is just some idiot blogger, one of the regular deniers tries to say, yeah but Feynman had a point. What??? It is not a Feynman quote!