Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of

By Adam Frank, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Rochester:

This is a year of politics. That means everyone has opinions about where the world should be headed and how we should get there.

No matter how weird this political season has been, however, there remains a key difference between opinions and facts. That difference comes into the starkest relief when people must face their own inconsistencies in reconciling the two domains.

And nowhere is the gap between opinions and facts more apparent than the subject of climate change. As a recent action by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) demonstrates, for climate deniers there is a chasm between what is said and what is done.

The basic dilemma of climate denial is that, for decades, science has pointed to two very clear conclusions. First is the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming. Second is the overwhelming evidence that the warming is due to human activity (mostly in the form of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use).

The truth of these claims is getting bolded and underlined as 2016 is on track to be the hottest recorded year ever for the planet. The last hottest year on record was 2015 (you know you're in trouble if the hottest year ever is always this one now). In addition to the temperature records, every climate observatory in the world is now recording CO2 greenhouse gas levels higher than any time in the last 4 million years.

In the face of these facts, climate denialists claim that the science is somehow mistaken or it's a deliberate hoax. So where exactly is their inconsistency? To understand the break between actions and words, consider a June 28 letter to Congress sent by the AAAS and 30 of the nation's scientific organizations urging action on climate change:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

So which of the nation's scientific organizations are we talking about here? Some were big and others were small, but let's begin with the AAAS. These are the folks who help maintain the U.S.'s preeminent effort in science and technology. If you are using something scientific or technological, they're the ones pushing for the research efforts supporting it.

Beyond the AAAS, here is a partial list of the other organizations on the letter:
â—¾American Meteorological Society
â—¾Crop Science Society of America
â—¾American Geophysical Union
â—¾American Institute of Biological Sciences
â—¾American Public Health Association
â—¾Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
â—¾Soil Science Society of America

Just these seven names are enough to expose the problem for climate denialists. If climate science is hoax and the Crop Science Society of America signed the letter, then doesn't that make crop science suspect, too? And, of course, you can't have modern, advanced agriculture without understanding soil. That's the domain of the Soil Science Society of America. They've signed on to the AAAS letter, too. But that must mean we shouldn't trust any of their claims about how to grow food. Then there's the American Meteorological Society. If they are urging Congress to take action on climate change, it must mean they and their science is corrupted as well. If that were the case, then we would do well to ignore things like their hurricane warnings.

Of course, ignoring warnings of an impending hurricane — the result of meteorological science — would be stupid. No one in their right mind would do it. But that is the point, isn't it? Those who espouse climate denial say one thing and then act in an entirely different way if someone tells them a hurricane is coming. Why? Because it would be crazy to do otherwise.

Climate denialists, like everyone else, enjoy the fruits of science. But it's only when those fruits run up against pre-conceived political antagonisms that the cognitive dissonance begins.

When climate denialists get sick, they go to the doctor. They use the results of medical science. But to do so, they must ignore this from the AMA:

"The American Medical Association is working to ensure that physicians and others in health care understand the rise in climate-related illnesses and injuries so they can prepare and respond to them."

When climate denialists need to stay cool in the summer, they use the fruits of chemistry as it manifests in new kinds of refrigerants/coolants. But that means they must also ignore those same chemists who have this to say about climate science,

"...comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities."

I could go on — but you get the picture.

This is the great dilemma and the great contradiction. People who benefit from science everyday somehow manage to find a place in their heads to simultaneously reject it. Whether its climate or vaccines, the same contradiction between words and action arises.

But here is the really difficult thing about this kind of contradiction for all of us: It always gets resolved in the end. That's because when it comes to science denial, it's reality that always has the last word.


Adam Frank is a co-founder of the 13.7 blog, an astrophysics professor at the University of Rochester, a book author and a self-described "evangelist of science."

Acceptance or denial of Climate Change is like a political preference: Once people have formulated a clear preference it becomes difficult to change. People don't want to admit that their previous preference wasn't the 'correct' preference. They have a natural tendency to pay attention to those things that support their preferred views while ignoring those things that go against them.

In other words, many people are not rational in such things. Evidence that runs contrary to one's views tends to not be taken seriously. It's enough to make one wonder about so called 'intelligent life' on our home world – at least in the context that 'humans' represent the most intelligent life-form on Earth. I think we often confuse 'intelligent' with 'technological'. I often see non-human animal behaviors that appear to be more intelligent than the behaviors I see in some humans.

Astronomy: Last night I sketched M7 using Buttercup at 28x. The sketch was completed three minutes before Astronomical Twilight. Soon thereafter clouds rolled in. M7 never gets very high in my sky. It can come close to (but never exceed) a 10 degree altitude. Nevertheless, the cluster was quite nice in the eyepiece of the 60mm refractor.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:43:50 PM UTC-6, Razzmatazz wrote:
By Adam Frank, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Rochester:

This is a year of politics. That means everyone has opinions about where the world should be headed and how we should get there.

No matter how weird this political season has been, however, there remains a key difference between opinions and facts. That difference comes into the starkest relief when people must face their own inconsistencies in reconciling the two domains.

And nowhere is the gap between opinions and facts more apparent than the subject of climate change. As a recent action by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) demonstrates, for climate deniers there is a chasm between what is said and what is done.

The basic dilemma of climate denial is that, for decades, science has pointed to two very clear conclusions. First is the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming. Second is the overwhelming evidence that the warming is due to human activity (mostly in the form of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use).

The truth of these claims is getting bolded and underlined as 2016 is on track to be the hottest recorded year ever for the planet. The last hottest year on record was 2015 (you know you're in trouble if the hottest year ever is always this one now). In addition to the temperature records, every climate observatory in the world is now recording CO2 greenhouse gas levels higher than any time in the last 4 million years.

In the face of these facts, climate denialists claim that the science is somehow mistaken or it's a deliberate hoax. So where exactly is their inconsistency? To understand the break between actions and words, consider a June 28 letter to Congress sent by the AAAS and 30 of the nation's scientific organizations urging action on climate change:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

So which of the nation's scientific organizations are we talking about here? Some were big and others were small, but let's begin with the AAAS. These are the folks who help maintain the U.S.'s preeminent effort in science and technology. If you are using something scientific or technological, they're the ones pushing for the research efforts supporting it.

Beyond the AAAS, here is a partial list of the other organizations on the letter:
â—¾American Meteorological Society
â—¾Crop Science Society of America
â—¾American Geophysical Union
â—¾American Institute of Biological Sciences
â—¾American Public Health Association
â—¾Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
â—¾Soil Science Society of America

Just these seven names are enough to expose the problem for climate denialists. If climate science is hoax and the Crop Science Society of America signed the letter, then doesn't that make crop science suspect, too? And, of course, you can't have modern, advanced agriculture without understanding soil. That's the domain of the Soil Science Society of America. They've signed on to the AAAS letter, too. But that must mean we shouldn't trust any of their claims about how to grow food. Then there's the American Meteorological Society. If they are urging Congress to take action on climate change, it must mean they and their science is corrupted as well. If that were the case, then we would do well to ignore things like their hurricane warnings..

Of course, ignoring warnings of an impending hurricane — the result of meteorological science — would be stupid. No one in their right mind would do it. But that is the point, isn't it? Those who espouse climate denial say one thing and then act in an entirely different way if someone tells them a hurricane is coming. Why? Because it would be crazy to do otherwise.

Climate denialists, like everyone else, enjoy the fruits of science. But it's only when those fruits run up against pre-conceived political antagonisms that the cognitive dissonance begins.

When climate denialists get sick, they go to the doctor. They use the results of medical science. But to do so, they must ignore this from the AMA:

"The American Medical Association is working to ensure that physicians and others in health care understand the rise in climate-related illnesses and injuries so they can prepare and respond to them."

When climate denialists need to stay cool in the summer, they use the fruits of chemistry as it manifests in new kinds of refrigerants/coolants. But that means they must also ignore those same chemists who have this to say about climate science,

"...comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities."

I could go on — but you get the picture.

This is the great dilemma and the great contradiction. People who benefit from science everyday somehow manage to find a place in their heads to simultaneously reject it. Whether its climate or vaccines, the same contradiction between words and action arises.

But here is the really difficult thing about this kind of contradiction for all of us: It always gets resolved in the end. That's because when it comes to science denial, it's reality that always has the last word.


Adam Frank is a co-founder of the 13.7 blog, an astrophysics professor at the University of Rochester, a book author and a self-described "evangelist of science."

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 10:50:13 PM UTC-6, Sketcher wrote:
Acceptance or denial of Climate Change is like a political preference: Once
people have formulated a clear preference it becomes difficult to change.
People don't want to admit that their previous preference wasn't the 'correct'
preference. They have a natural tendency to pay attention to those things that
support their preferred views while ignoring those things that go against them.

That is true.

Despite that fact, though, it should be possible for people to sort out which
side is the most likely to be right.

And, on top of that, the real problem can be addressed. Even if climate change
is real, the economic consequences of drastically reducing energy usage would
indeed be catastrophic.

But that does not imply that climate change _isn't_ real. The Universe doesn't
run by wishful thinking.

As it happens, fortunately, we just happen to be lucky that we know how to make
electricity through uranium fission... and we can even obtain adequate supplies
of nuclear fuels for some time to come from breeder reactors.

I think we often confuse 'intelligent' with 'technological'.

Technology takes intelligence: scientists and engineers do have higher than average IQs, and their professions require well-developed reasoning abilities.

So I disagree with your statement *as worded*.

But the sentiment is valid.

There are other words which convey the distinction between two aspects of
intelligence.

Mankind has named its species _Homo sapiens_ - the wise man.

That is what may be in error. We have indeed proven ourselves to be _clever_,
but we seem to be anything but wise.

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:43:50 AM UTC+1, Razzmatazz wrote:

As representative of many here, you are convinced that there are more rotations than 24 hour days across an annual cycle even though the temperature signatures at your location demand attention, not just the temperatures themselves but the fact that it gets warmer after noon when your location is midway between the circle of illumination in its daily trek on the fully illuminated side but also when your location has the stars in view at the center of the dark side -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com...0variation.jpg

The orbital surface rotation likewise where it gets warmer over the following months for the respective hemispheres after the Solstice after midsummer when either poles are midway between the circle of illumination on the fully illuminated side as we are experiencing in the Northern hemisphere presently.

Two distinct rotations with two distinct temperature signatures and you jokers can't even manage to handle the rotation behind the daily cycle across 24 hours.

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 5:50:13 AM UTC+1, Sketcher wrote:


Astronomy: Last night I sketched M7 using Buttercup at 28x. The sketch was completed three minutes before Astronomical Twilight. Soon thereafter clouds rolled in. M7 never gets very high in my sky. It can come close to (but never exceed) a 10 degree altitude. Nevertheless, the cluster was quite nice in the eyepiece of the 60mm refractor.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.


Twilight and dawn are perhaps the most productive parts of the astronomer's day as a location transitions from events generated by the central stationary star and the appearance of all the other stars and their incremental change to the stationary Sun as the Earth moves through space.

The problem with celestial sphere observations which assigns significance to the local horizon and dawn/twilight events is that it loses the dynamics which distinguish the daily cycle from the polar day/night cycle.

https://www.weather.gov/images/fsd/astro/twilight.png

For you the Sun and stars travel in a circumpolar circle but how to account for the seasonal variations in arc which surface as daylight/darkness asymmetries across hemispheres plus the latitudinal variations thereby making the whole issue of temperature variations and planetary climate unworkable.

Climate has its roots in astronomy and the reason why it is in such a desperate state is that non-astronomers have defined it as long term weather patterns and have no notion that all planets possess a climate through certain characteristics which have nothing to do with distance from the Sun or orbital period.

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 11:17:04 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 10:50:13 PM UTC-6, Sketcher wrote:

Acceptance or denial of Climate Change is like a political preference:
Once people have formulated a clear preference it becomes difficult to
change. People don't want to admit that their previous preference wasn't
the 'correct' preference. They have a natural tendency to pay attention
to those things that support their preferred views while ignoring those
things that go against them.

That is true.

Agreed, and it's true of ALL humans, scientists included.

Despite that fact, though, it should be possible for people to sort out which
side is the most likely to be right.

There are pertinent cost/benefit and time frame analyses, which are also
biased by the preferred view.

And, on top of that, the real problem can be addressed. Even if climate
change is real, the economic consequences of drastically reducing energy
usage would indeed be catastrophic.

Carleton Coon, an anthropologist, pointed out that the rise of civilization
is closely tied to available energy, and that energy mostly goes into
social structure. Reducing energy usage would indeed be catastrophic.

But that does not imply that climate change _isn't_ real. The Universe
doesn't run by wishful thinking.

Indeed.

As it happens, fortunately, we just happen to be lucky that we know how
to make electricity through uranium fission... and we can even obtain
adequate supplies of nuclear fuels for some time to come from breeder
reactors.

I was an advocate for nuclear energy and made up some buttons that said,
"More Nukes, Fewer Kooks" :-) and I have several belt buckles from
various nuclear power plants. The last one, Diablo Canyon, is slated to
be shut down. Even though a dozen or so new plants are licensed or under
review, nuclear power is waning.

I think we often confuse 'intelligent' with 'technological'.

Technology takes intelligence: scientists and engineers do have higher
than average IQs, and their professions require well-developed reasoning
abilities.

As a scientist and engineer, I would like to agree with you, but I have
experienced situations where that was not the case. Or rather, the higher
intelligence was used to "cook the books." I hasten to add that I've also
experienced good science and technology. Interestingly, the bad were
involved with government funding and the good with private funding.

So I disagree with your statement *as worded*.

But the sentiment is valid.

There are other words which convey the distinction between two aspects of
intelligence.

Mankind has named its species _Homo sapiens_ - the wise man.

That is what may be in error. We have indeed proven ourselves to be _clever_,
but we seem to be anything but wise.

John Savard

An apt description, that:

"Clever may seem like a compliment, but this adjective boasts a rather
broad range of meanings—from 'intelligent' and 'imaginative' to
'calculating' or 'contrived.'"

Gary

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 21:50:07 -0700 (PDT), Sketcher
wrote:

In other words, many people are not rational in such things.

Many people are not rational, period.

All humans are capable of rational thinking, but it's a learned skill.
And in some cases (consider religious upbringing) it is actively
discouraged, or not taught.

So what does a rational person look like? That's just someone who is
aware of their own biases and is able to apply critical thinking to
most things (nobody gets it 100%)- particularly more abstract things
like scientific knowledge (as opposed to personal problems, say).

Scientists are perhaps the best example of people actively trained to
think rationally, which is why we don't typically see them in the
class of people who deny truths about nature due to political biases.

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 4:25:39 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 21:50:07 -0700 (PDT), Sketcher
wrote:

In other words, many people are not rational in such things.

Many people are not rational, period.


This is not rational yet it is central to the 'thinking' of RA/Dec academics -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...al_Time_en.PNG


" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in a year" NASA/ Harvard

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1904PA.....12..649B

It is fine strutting around imitating others of the same creed but ultimately you are all faced with a simple temperature graph where the Sun is in view at the peak and the stars are in view at the trough -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com...0variation.jpg

Rational !, when I see it in respect to planetary temperatures and the dynamics behind the daily and annual variations I will celebrate that day. Despite exceptionally poor proofreading on my part, the nuts and bolts of timekeeping and planetary dynamics has been causing havoc since it was concluded that one rotation equates to one celestial sphere rotation and on to the miserable 'solar vs sidereal' thinking.

In article ,
Razzmatazz wrote:

By Adam Frank, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Rochester:

for climate deniers there is

The basic dilemma of climate denial is that,

In the face of these facts, climate denialists claim that the science is

Just these seven names are enough to expose the problem for climate
denialists.

it. But that is the point, isn't it? Those who espouse climate denial say one

Climate denialists, like everyone else, enjoy the fruits of science. But it's

When climate denialists get sick,

When climate denialists need to stay cool in the summer, they use the fruits

This from a professor of astrophysics? Show me one person, anywhere, who
denies climate.

climate |?kl?mit|
noun
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long
period : our cold, wet climate | agricultural development is constrained
by climate.

Nobody denies that. That doesn't even make any sense.


In case you're about to say what he meant, (but did a poor job of
saying) was climate CHANGE deniers, then once again I have to say that
there is nobody I have ever heard deny that climates change. After all,
where I live was once under a mile of ice. Thankfully it warmed up a
bit. I hope it continues to warm up even more, it's cheaper to run AC
than to heat my house in the winter. A longer growing season might be
nice too, not to mention the lack of major storms, tornados and
hurricanes.

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 4:53:50 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
ultimately you are all faced with a simple temperature graph where the Sun is in view at the peak and the stars are in view at the trough

If you pick any particular star, let's say Sirius, this is not true. But you don't want to think about why.