Poirot,

The following study sheds some light on why some people are having difficulty;

http://sharifflab.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/MarkowitzShariff2012.pdf

Whilst the authors identify 6 psychological components, they also identify strategies to confront those challenges - good luck with that :)

I think Bill McKibben wrote an article on it recently, and may have tried to explain it in simpler terms – you may want to follow it through.

Which raises another point: as soon as one tries to simplify the nuances and technicalities (of any science, for example) then one is open to distortion and misrepresentation (deliberately or unintentionally) by those who just don't know, or have an ideological agenda.

We see it on blog sites all the time … ‘wannabes’ and political ideologues pontificating they know more about ‘climate science’ than the vast number of real atmospheric physicists, or actual oceanographers, or genuine meteorologists, or you get the drift.

It’s as if the ‘nay-sayers’ are clasping their hands against their ears, shutting their eyes tight, and shouting at the top of their voice … “I can’t hear you, I don’t believe you, I’m right, you're wrong!”

I do wish they kept with the 'Global Warming' branding, I liked that idea. Not a fan of winter. The soviets could start to grow crops when our country is all desert.

Things change man. They chaaaaange! There's always some good in change.

I think also you have to read some stuff on the accuracy of crowds. Large numbers of people's intuition put together is surprisingly accurate. Ask a bookmaker too, money focuses the mind.

All these solutions. I reckon bet fair would solve the issue once and for all.

Scientists, forests, trees. Your too close to this case Crocket! It's too personal.

Bet on the lay man! The BS meter. Oh those scientists just don't know. I can sense it.

They will work it out one day I'm sure, and I can wait for them to sort themselves out fully. I cant understand all this agonizing. It's like parents that worry their child isn't walking yet. How many 7 year olds really haven't learnt that one yet.

In the meantime it's abundantly transparent that a Tax will always fix anything. We need more churn in the economy, and more office administrators, more legislation, more politicians. There, it's settled. The rich can pay.

Actually I have a spare $100 to burn, I'll literally burn it to help the situation. Other countries will follow suit.

pst, we're too rich, we feel guilty, so this sacrifice for the shifty chinese... ;-) Who wants to work in a factory anyway man.

I think you're onto something Houllie :)

About that $100… I think I'm safe to state categorically that no scientist would accept that burning it would help the situation.

However,

If you send it to me, I promise not to burn it. Most rational people would accept that would result in both of us assisting in not making the situation worse. And we would both feel better for that.

Glad I could help. Sincerely yours in anticipation,

cohenite et al,

I queried what was the difference between 'climate science' and 'medical science'......I should have asked "what is the difference between 'climate scientists' and 'medical scientists'".
Why do you respect some scientists and demonise others. Is not integrity amongst the scientific community, in the main, universal? Why should scientists from one field of related disciplines be considered corrupt?

Mollydukes,

Thanks for the boost : )
Will further check out your link.

bonmot,

Interesting look at the psychological parameters influencing acceptance and rejection of AGW - certainly worth a spending some time on : )

Bonmot links to another study questioning the morality and indeed sanity of "Denialism"

Being truly moral means treating others with respect for their rights and for their equality; alarmists do not do this.

The alarmists are elitists who disdain any who do not accept their world view; part of that disdain is designating what is a correct perception of not only what is moral but what is real.

Lewandowsky is a typical elitist of AGW; his most recent thesis is that sceptics are conspiracists [how original, and ironic given the persistent claims of right wing conspiracies!]; Lewandowsky asserts that the act of denying the moon landing is a good predictor for AGW denialism:

http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/29/australian-psychologists-claim-climate-science-skeptics-are-the-moon-landing-conspiracy-theorists/

Unfortunately for Lewandowsky, all the surviving astronauts who went to the moon are sceptical of AGW.

Lewandowsky is a typical AGW believer, condescending, arrogant and as it turns out ignorant.

Poirot asks:

"Why do you respect some scientists and demonise others. Is not integrity amongst the scientific community, in the main, universal? Why should scientists from one field of related disciplines be considered corrupt?"

For me the emails were a game-changer; people are frank in private and in the comfort zone of people who share and endorse their view. The emails showed what the climate scientists really thought about their science and those who oppose them. I saw no honour or integrity there.


And I'm sorry to say this but AGW science is bad science manifesting every defect of science from cherry-picking to confirmation bias to out and out fraud. The simple lack of transparency with AGW should put every reasonable person on notice.

The New Zealand law case where the defects of the New Zealand temperature record were litigated is one template as to how the social, economic and political infiltration of AGW will have to be dealt with.

To that extent I agree with bonmot; blog discussions are probably useless in providing a resolution to the threat to science which climate science poses.