It's a bit warm/ wet/ cold outside

[shaolin_monkey]

That's a great find - thanks Frank. I had a quick scan through the doc just now, but I'll take some time with it this evening.

Unfortunately I'm up against some tight essay deadlines with my current course, but on reviewing some of the material I was reminded of this excellent lecture on the ideology driving man-made climate change denial. It is pertinent to our conversations also about trying to separate the scientific from the political, as Sharkey has described above.

A link to the 7 minute lecture for most folk, and a transcript for Sharkey below:




https://youtu.be/qLF6S7vlZDA

Oreskes: Climate change denial in the United States is almost entirely motivated by politics. A lot of scientists have thought that it was a problem of science illiteracy, that it was a problem of public understanding, that if we just explained the science better that then we would solve this problem. And that doesn't work because the problem is not being driven by lack of access to information, although that may play a role in some cases, the problem is being driven by people not wanting to believe the science because they don't like its implications.

Lewandowsky: When it comes to the drivers of belief or acceptance of scientific findings, in particular climate change, then what we find is that one of the most important factors is a person's worldview or you can call it a political ideology, their belief in things such as the free market. It turns out, that in particular in the case of climate change, that people who are very enthusiastic about free markets and who think that government should not interfere with free markets, that they tend to reject the findings from climate change, climate science based on that ideology. It's a very strong effect. It's a huge effect.

Oreskes: If you take climate science seriously, it means we need to do something, we need to do something that changes the way we operate. And that something could be very personal.
It could be changing the way you live. It could be becoming a vegetarian, not traveling or building a zero energy home, but it also could be something that the government does.
And a lot of the early attention about climate change particularly focused on governance.
It focused on either the idea of international governance in the form of, say, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or it focused on national governance in the form of a carbon tax or an emission trading system. So these are government interventions in the marketplace.

Scott: In the case of climate change where it's more of a political ideology and/or an economic ideology, the concerns are more along the lines of, "Well, if climate change is true, that means that we're going to have to strengthen central government because we're going to have to have to take steps to curb the carbon production so that we can reduce the amount of CO2 in the air. That means a bigger central government. As political conservatives, we don't want a big central government. It means we're going to have to put some constraints on capitalism. That's socialism." There's a lot of things that political conservatives are going to lose also if climate change is right.

Oreskes: If you don't like the idea of a government intervention in the marketplace because you believe in free market economics or you just worry about government encroachment—you worry about expanding the government—then the kinds of solutions that are being put forward for climate change are things you don't like. That's a major, probably the single major reason why the Americans who reject climate science do it, because if you look at the data on it, what you see is that the strongest correlation between climate-change denial is with a certain kind of conservative politics that emphasises the free market.
It's not correlated with race. It's not correlated with age or gender or even religious belief, with one exception that's tied to conservative politics, which is a certain sector of the evangelical community, but it's tied to a set of conservative beliefs about governance.

Hayhoe: The main reason why people don't think climate change is real is not because of lack of facts. Most of the people that I meet from day to day—the lady in the grocery store, or the man across the street—they have arguments at the tip of their fingers as to why they don't think climate change is real. They will cite the stolen e-mails.
They will say, "Global warming stopped 17 years ago." They have arguments, factual or semi-factual based arguments about why it's not true. Why is everybody so convinced?
It's because we are all cognitive misers. We don't have the brain power to understand every single issue in the world. I don't know if we ever did, but, especially now, I mean, I don't understand the fundamentals of stem cell research. I don't really understand the pluses and negatives of nuclear power, to be perfectly honest. I certainly don't understand the economic benefits and trade-offs of all the various climate policies that are being considered. You can understand how the average person doesn't understand the climate science, so what do we do? We go to people we trust. In the United States, when we look at people we trust, if you look at the conservative half of the country, with one voice, conservative media, conservative thought leaders, and conservative politicians are telling us that this isn't a real problem.

Hamilton: In the literature, there are some accounts that I consider to be top down in explaining opposition to things like clean air and clean water—that is, there are political elites. There are ideological think tanks. There are large donors. There are media networks that are arguing from the top and telling people that these are the arguments; these are the positions; here are some scientific-sounding rationales or an economic-sounding rationale—that all being top down. Bottom up—I think there are people who are more or less inclined to listen to those arguments and to credit them or to discredit the alternatives. Some of that may be psychological. Some of it may have to do with your social position. We see all kinds of differences in terms of gender and education and age but dominated by differences in ideology, worldview, or political party.

Alley: It's frustrating right because there shouldn't be a serious role for politics in climate science, in my opinion. The science is science. And it was. The first time I ever testified to a subcommittee of the US Senate was 12 years ago. And it was chaired by a Republican who was about to introduce a bill that was going to put a price on changing the climate through carbon emissions and I personally think that he was just a little
bit unhappy with me because I was not scarier about the threats. I was being very careful and measured, and this is [snap] that long ago. The idea that somehow your politics that you're on this side or that side means that you or don't believe that believe that C02 is a greenhouse gas. There is a little bit of that now, but it's a very very recent thing.
And it's the thing that I think that I hope can disappear again.

Lewandowsky: You have to explain to the majority of people why there is a small but vocal minority that is denying the science. I think it's very important for the public to understand that those people are motivated by factors such as personal ideology.

Oreskes: If I have one message that's what my message has been all along and it still is: this is not a scientific debate; it's a political debate. But it's a political debate being made to look like a scientific debate.

[JayzusB.Christ]

My last post was a bit harsh. Sorry. Woke up feelin grumpy having to work on a Saturday. Also it's a bit wet / cold etc outside.

[The Legendary Shark]

Oreskes: If I have one message that's what my message has been all along and it still is: this is not a scientific debate; it's a political debate. But it's a political debate being made to look like a scientific debate.

Yes. Thanks, SM, that's a big part of what I've been trying to say, in my own ham-fisted and verbose way.

The political position does not disqualify the scientific position any more than the scientific position proves the political position. They are different animals. The scientific position is strengthened by counter-arguments, additional or re interpreted data, and questions, whereas the political position is weakened by them.

[shaolin_monkey]

The fact is the science is done, it's settled, and has been for decades. Man-made greenhouse gasses CO2, methane,  and nitrous oxide, with CO2 being by far the largest contributor, are causing the distinct and very unusual increase in the average global temperature.

Certain interests would have you believe this is still in dispute. They create doubt, and use this to continue with their agendas.  These interests are usually economical or driven by right wing ideology.  This is because to accept these facts would damage or destroy their income stream, or the ideologies upon which they have come to depend, such as limiting state involvement in a free market economy.

So what Oreskes is saying is that what is being disputed is no longer the science. It is the politics. However, it is being made to look like the science is still being debated, when in fact the science is settled - it is an ideological and political debate that is occurring.


Hence why it is no longer useful or interesting to debate this.  So we should really now be posting about solutions to the problem, sidestepping the narrative those vested interests would have you engage in.

[The Legendary Shark]

The science is settled?

Okay then. This is about where I came in, and that statement marks the point where I have to bow out.

[IndigoPrime]

Thanks, shaolin. This is the thing that baffles me with detractors. This isn't new or controversial science. It's no less agreed on than vaccination effectiveness and necessity. Yet we're still wondering if people are fucking things up or if it's all a stunning coincidence that just happens to map directly to our pollution.

[Tjm86]

I have to admit to being a little baffled by the number of people that are surprised at the sudden acceleration in the increase in mean global temperature.  Any halfway competent mathematician (hell, any incompetent mathematician) will be able to tell you that any higher order function can look like a linear function if you only examine a small range.  So the idea that temperature growth is going to continue to be linear smacks of naïveté.

Perhaps Sorkin had it right in the Newsroom.  It's like we are in the car in the garage with the engine running and have slipped into unconsciousness ...

[shaolin_monkey]

Christ, I've spent all day finishing that climate change course, locked away in one room.

The good news is, even though I'm still waiting for an essay to be marked I'm already over the course pass mark - so I have passed !!

Hurrah!

Anyway, I'd thoroughly recommend the course.


https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-science-denial-2

[shaolin_monkey]

The bushfires in Australia exacerbated by man-made climate change have made koala's functionally extinct.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/11/23/koalas-functionally-extinct-after-australia-bushfires-destroy-80-of-their-habitat/#70ee17f97bad

Response from leading climatologist:

"Make no mistake. This would be a climate change-caused extinction."

[TordelBack]

You know what phrase I never expected to hear in my lifetime?  "Koalas are extinct". 

I understand the difference between 'functionally' and 'gone for good', but keriste that is grim news.  You can certainly imagine the loss of multiple species of samey-looking bird species, unappealing insects, almost-invisible amphibians and other less photogenic or recognisable creatures, but when this mass extinction reaches out and grabs one of the cast of My First Book of Animals you know things are sliding faster and faster into the pit.  My sister-in-law worked with a koala sanctuary, and I've a picture right here of my niece holding one.  Almost unbelievable.

[The Legendary Shark]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2203655-no-koalas-are-not-functionally-extinct-but-they-are-in-trouble/

[Frank]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2203655-no-koalas-are-not-functionally-extinct-but-they-are-in-trouble/

https://www.newscientist.com/search/?q=man+made+climate&search=&sort=relevance

[Jim_Campbell]

That New Scientist article predates the recent announcement on koalas. They were in trouble before, but 80% of their habitat is now gone, thanks to climate exacerbated brush fires.

You really need to stop googling for something to support your knee jerk contrarianism and then posting the first link that looks like it might back up your point, Shark.

[shaolin_monkey]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2203655-no-koalas-are-not-functionally-extinct-but-they-are-in-trouble/

That's from May Sharkey, prior to the bushfires that have killed thousands of them, and destroyed approx 80% of their habitat.

Eucalyptus trees take a significant amount of time to grow back, and Koalas, who need to eat several pounds a day, don't recognise the leaves if they are put in a bowl in front of them. So the ones who are left are really going to struggle, even with a concerted effort from us.

That article eludes to some groups thinking they were functionally extinct prior to May.  Since the bushfires it is nigh on impossible to now refute.

[The Legendary Shark]

Link to the "functionally extinct" article from SM's post: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/48284392

Note the date.