Ahead of a conference on the psychology of climate change denial, Brendan O’Neill says green authoritarians are treating debate as a disorder.
The idea that ‘climate change denial’ is a psychological disorder – the product of a spiteful, wilful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming – is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics. And nothing better sums up the elitism and authoritarianism of the environmentalist lobby than its psychologisation of dissent. The labelling of any criticism of the politics of global warming, first as ‘denial’, and now as evidence of mass psychological instability, is an attempt to write off all critics and sceptics as deranged, and to lay the ground for inevitable authoritarian solutions to the problem of climate change. Historically, only the most illiberal and misanthropic regimes have treated disagreement and debate as signs of mental ill-health.
This weekend, the University of West England is hosting a major conference on climate change denial. Strikingly, it’s being organised by the university’s Centre for Psycho-Social Studies. It will be a gathering of those from the top of society – ‘psychotherapists, social researchers, climate change activists, eco-psychologists’ – who will analyse those at the bottom of society, as if we were so many flitting, irrational amoeba under an eco-microscope. The organisers say the conference will explore how ‘denial’ is a product of both ‘addiction and consumption’ and is the ‘consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency and irresponsibility’ (1). It is a testament to the dumbed-down, debate-phobic nature of the modern academy that a conference is being held not to explore ideas – to interrogate, analyse and fight over them – but to tag them as perverse.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/6320/
Climates 11th Hour
......UNSW Climate Change Research Centre co-director Matthew England, one of the summit's key backers, says it is likely to find that the raw measures of climate change ”” global average air temperature, global sea-level rise and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations ”” are all happening at or above the worst-case IPCC scenario.
A glance through the world's major scientific journals gives an idea of what else might be included. The melting of major glaciers, including the enormous Greenland ice sheet, is now seen by many as irreversible, likely to lead to a sea-level rise of at least seven metres over the next two or three centuries. Already scientists are predicting a minimum sea-level rise of 88 centimetres this century ”” nearly 30 centimetres higher than the top-end projection in the last IPCC report.
Ocean acidification is happening faster than predicted, spelling disaster for coral reefs and resulting in the ocean diminishing as a carbon sink ”” it will absorb less carbon dioxide, leaving more in the atmosphere to trap heat.
Climate change is not deniable because it happens and has happened for thousands of years, perhaps billions.http://www.theage.com.au/national/climates-11th-hour-20090308-8sg9.html?page=-1
And yet, and yet....Around the world millions of people many of high intelligence and well placed in business and politics insist vehemently that the observations of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community are simply wrong and that these events will either not happen, be acceptably small in size or whatever.
The reality of climate change is terrifying. It always was. It is far more psychologically comforting to deny its possibility or reality. There is nothing surprising about that. But as King Canute aptly proved all the denial in the world cannot stop the tides.
Climate change is not deniable because it happens and has happened for thousands of years, perhaps billions.
But to deny debate on the topic and to insist that any scepticism of man made global warming is VALID without proper debate with SCIENTISTS, that denial of debate is pathetic.
There is no educated argument that ocean acidification is caused by anything other than humanity.
Ocean acidification is caused by increased levels of Carbon Dioxide being absorbed by the sea which is directly due to man's activity.
The oceans currently have a ph of just over 8, which is alkaline.
So you could just say they are possibly becoming less alkaline due to CO2 (only anthropogenic I presume), but that just isn't scary enough.
How long till the oceans actually become acidic?
Answering that question would mean modelling and we can't have any of that!
The real problem is that as the oceans become more acidic, the harder it is for sea creatures to form shells and corals. Obviously if the oceam became acidic it would be impossible. Limestone (Calcium carbonate) will dissolve in acidic conditions.
As the oceans absorb more and more CO2, they may become more acidic. Recent measurements suggest that this is somewhat the case and that grave consequences can be expected. But what is the story? Should we be alarmed? How much is known and how much is not? Is ocean acidification another hoax, a swindle, or do we need to pay serious attention?
What are the threats to the oceans? How does ocean acidification work? What is the carbon cycle? In this chapter we will try to foster an in-depth understanding of the CO2 processes in the ocean and where present science fails.
Scientists' overwhelming consensus about ocean acidification is deeply disturbing, as if there exists no doubt; as if there are no uncertainties; as if we know it all.
It is equally worrisome that this chapter is the ONLY place in the world where doubts and uncertainties are raised.
Our ignorance exceeds knowledge by a wide margin. It's never time not to be skeptical
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
Of course you can have models. You just need to understand their limits.
Do you have a souce for this (red)? What part of the world was this study done and at what depth?
Any thoughts on the article?THREE senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
It would appear that the IPCC models are leaning on the conservative side of the climate curve and things may be worse than most expected.Scientific Congress Delivers Preliminary Conclusions on the Latest Science of Climate Change Since IPCC’s Last Assessment Report
12 March 2009: The international scientific congress titled “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions” took place from 10-12 March 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark, and was organized by the International Alliance of Research Universities and attended by over 2,000 participants from around 80 countries. The main aim of the congress was to provide a summary of existing scientific knowledge two years after the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was released and in the run-up to the UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. The preliminary conclusions of the Congress contain six messages concerning: climatic trends, social disruption, long-term strategy, equity dimensions, consequences of inaction, and meeting the challenge.
In particular, the congress concluded that, according to recent observations and given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized. Temperature rises above two degrees Celsius will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.
Another message from the congress is that rapid, sustained and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid “dangerous climate change” regardless of how it is defined. Also, an effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.
The preliminary conclusions of the congress will be developed in a synthesis report to be published in June and forwarded to participants at the UN Climate Change Conference in December in Copenhagen.
It seems scientists keep coming out against the man made propaganda:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html
Any thoughts on the article?
...........
The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference was no IPCC. This was not a process initiated and conducted by the world’s governments, there was no systematic synthesis, assessment, and review of research findings as in the IPCC, and there was certainly no collective process for the 2,500 researchers gathered in Copenhagen to consider drafts of the six key messages nor to offer their own suggestions for what politicians may need to hear. The conference was in fact convened by no established academic or professional body. Unlike the American Geophysical Union, the World Meteorological Organisation or the UK’s Royal Society ”” who also hold large conferences and who from time-to-time issue carefully-worded statements representing the views of professional bodies ”” this conference was organized by the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU), a little-heard-of coalition launched in January 2006 consisting of ten of the world’s self-proclaimed elite universities, including of course the University of Copenhagen.
IARU is not accountable to anyone and has no professional membership. It is not accountable to governments, to professional scientific associations, nor to international scientific bodies operating under the umbrella of the UN. The conference statement therefore simply carries the weight of the Secretariat of this ad hoc conference, directed and steered by ten self-elected universities. The six key messages are not the collective voice of 2,500 researchers, nor are they the voice of established bodies such as the World Meteorological Organisation. Neither are they the messages arising from a collective endeavour of experts, for example through a considered process of screening, synthesizing, and reviewing of the knowledge presented in Copenhagen this week. They are instead a set of messages drafted largely before the conference started by the organizing committee, sifting through research that they see emerging around the world and interpreting it for a political audience.
............
Had Hulme used his noggin, he would have worked out that the 6 key messages were based on the respective conference themes.What Was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Really About?
Viewpoint / by Mike Hulme / March 13, 2009
It's problematic when largely unresolved debates among the world's climate change researchers get reduced to six key messages.
The preliminary conclusions of the congress will be developed in a synthesis report to be published in June and forwarded to participants at the UN Climate Change Conference in December in Copenhagen.
It would appear that the IPCC models are leaning on the conservative side of the climate curve and things may be worse than most expected.
While the skeptics conjure media attention by virtue of their skepticism alone, many climate scientists are getting on with the business of determining the actual extents and effects of an increasingly warmer atmosphere.
What Was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Really About?
Viewpoint / by Mike Hulme / March 13, 2009
It's problematic when largely unresolved debates among the world's climate change researchers get reduced to six key messages.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/art...hagen_climate_change_conference_really_about/
Had Hulme used his noggin, he would have worked out that the 6 key messages were based on the respective conference themes.
Alas, he's not too bright.
With around a thousand presentations to cover across a few hundred sessions it would be impractical to package a comprehensive conference summary immediately it ended.
That's why they said
A conference is just a vehicle for a lot of information.One of the main reasons that sceptics such as I are suspicious of the results of the innumerable conferences is the lack of clarity in the results of all this hot air.
gg
What do climate change deniers want to debate?But to deny debate on the topic and to insist that any scepticism of man made global warming is VALID without proper debate with SCIENTISTS, that denial of debate is pathetic.
It would appear that the IPCC models are leaning on the conservative side of the climate curve and things may be worse than most expected.
The six key messages are not the collective voice of 2,500 researchers, nor are they the voice of established bodies such as the World Meteorological Organisation. Neither are they the messages arising from a collective endeavour of experts, for example through a considered process of screening, synthesizing, and reviewing of the knowledge presented in Copenhagen this week.
GG it's not the results but the conclusion of the results that is the problem. Agenda gratifying interpretations. Perhaps 21 of them.One of the main reasons that sceptics such as I are suspicious of the results of the innumerable conferences is the lack of clarity in the results of all this hot air.
A few quotes.
Vague forms of speech have so long passed for mysteries of science; and hard words mistaken for deep learning, that it will not be easy to persuade either those who speak or those who hear them, that they are but a hindrance to true knowledge.
* John Locke, 1690
I have made this letter longer that usual because I lack the time to make it shorter.
* Blaise Pascal
If you cannot - in the long run - tell everyone what you have been doing, your doing has been worthless.
* Erwin Schrodinger (Nobel Prize winner in physics)
Whatever is worth saying can be stated in fifty words or less.
* Stan Ulam, world-famous mathematician
gg
Dr Maruyama said many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he said was leading society in the wrong direction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?