The Battle Over Global Warming Is All in Your Head

Despite the fact that more people now acknowledge that climate change represents a significant threat to human well-being, this has yet to translate into any meaningful action. Psychologists may have an answer as to why this is

  • Share
  • Read Later
ANDREY SMIRNOV/AFP/Getty Images

Climate campaigns, like this one from Greenpeace in Moscow, have failed to galvanize public support for strong climate action

Today the scientific community is in almost total agreement that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of human activity, and that this represents a huge threat to the planet and to us. According to a Pew survey conducted in March, however, public opinion lags behind the scientific conclusion, with only 69% of those surveyed accepting the view that the earth is warming — and only 1 in 4 Americans see global warming as a major threat. Still, 69% is a solid majority, which begs the question, Why aren’t we doing anything about it?

This political inertia in the face of unprecedented threat is the most fundamental challenge to tackling climate change. Climate scientists and campaigners have long debated how to better communicate the message to nonexperts so that climate science can be translated into action. According to Christopher Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London, the usual tactic of climate experts to provide the public with information isn’t enough because “it does not address key underlying causes.” We are all bombarded with the evidence of climate change on an almost a daily basis, from new studies and data to direct experiences of freakish weather events like last year’s epic drought in the U.S. The information is almost unavoidable.

If it’s not a data deficit that’s preventing people from doing more on global warming, what is it? Blame our brains. Renee Lertzman, an applied researcher who focuses on the psychological dimensions of sustainability, explains that the kind of systemic threat that climate change poses to humans is “unique both psychologically and socially.” We face a minefield of mental barriers and issues that prevent us from confronting the threat.

(MORE: As Temperatures Rise, Empires Fall: Heat and Human Behavior)

For some, the answer lies in cognitive science. Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, has written about why our inability to deal with climate change is due in part to the way our mind is wired. Gilbert describes four key reasons ranging from the fact that global warming doesn’t take a human form — making it difficult for us to think of it as an enemy — to our brains’ failure to accurately perceive gradual change as opposed to rapid shifts. Climate change has occurred slowly enough for our minds to normalize it, which is precisely what makes it a deadly threat, as Gilbert writes, “because it fails to trip the brain’s alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.”

Robert Gifford, a professor of psychology and environmental studies at the University of Victoria in Canada, also picks up on the point about our brains’ difficulty in grasping climate change as a threat. Gifford refers to this and other psychological barriers to mitigating climate change as “dragons of inaction.” Since authoring a paper on the subject in 2011 in which he outlined seven main barriers, or dragons, he has found many more. “We’re up to around 30,” he notes. “Now it’s time to think about how we can slay these dragons.” Gifford lists factors such as limited cognition or ignorance of the problem, ideologies or worldviews that may prevent action, social comparisons with other people and perceived inequity (the “Why should we change if X corporation or Y country won’t?”) and the perceived risks of changing our behavior.

Gifford is reluctant to pick out one barrier as being more powerful or limiting than another. “If I had to name one, I would nominate the lack of perceived behavioral control; ‘I’m only one person, what can I do?’ is certainly a big one.” For many, the first challenge will be in recognizing which dragons they have to deal with before they can overcome them. “If you don’t know what your problem is, you don’t know what the solution is,” says Gifford.

Yet this approach can only work if people are prepared to acknowledge that they have a problem. But for those of us who understand that climate change is a problem yet make little effort to cut the number of overseas trips we make or the amount of meat we consume, neither apathy nor denial really explains the dissonance between our actions and beliefs. Lertzman has come to the conclusion that this is not because of apathy — a lack of feeling — but because of the simple fact that we care an overwhelming amount about both the planet and our way of life, and we find that conflict too painful to bear. Our apparent apathy is just a defense mechanism in the face of this psychic pain.

(MORE: The Evil Brain: What Lurks Inside a Killer’s Mind)

“We’re reluctant to come to terms with the fact that what we love and enjoy and what gives us a sense of who we are is also now bound up with the most unimaginable devastation,” says Lertzman. “When we don’t process the pain of that, that’s when we get stuck and can’t move forward.” Lertzman refers to this inability to mourn as “environmental melancholia,” and points to South Africa’s postapartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission as an example of how to effectively deal with this collective pain. “I’m not saying there should be one for climate or carbon, but there’s a lot to be said for providing a means for people to talk together about climate change, to make it socially acceptable to talk about it.”

Rosemary Randall, a trained psychotherapist, has organized something close to this. She runs the U.K.-based Carbon Conversations, a program that brings people together to talk in a group setting about ways of halving their personal carbon footprint. Writing in Aeon, an online magazine, Randall suggests that climate change is such a disturbing subject, that “like death, it can raise fears and anxieties that people feel have no place in polite conversation.” Randall acknowledges that while psychology and psychoanalysis aren’t the sole solutions to tackling climate change, “they do offer an important way of thinking about the problem.”

Lertzman says the mainstream climate-change community has been slow to register the value of psychology and social analysis in addressing global warming. “I think there’s a spark of some interest, but also a wariness of what this means, what it might look like,” she notes. Gifford says otherwise, however, explaining that he has never collaborated with other disciplines as much as he does now. “I may be a little biased because I’m invested in working in it, but in my view, climate change, and not mental health, is the biggest psychological problem we face today because it affects 100% of the global population.”

Despite the pain, shame, difficulty and minefield of other psychological barriers that we face in fully addressing climate change, both Lertzman and Gifford are still upbeat about our ability to face up to the challenge. “It’s patronizing to say that climate change is too big or abstract an issue for people to deal with,” says Lertzman. “There can’t be something about the human mind that stops us grappling with these issues given that so many people already are — maybe that’s what we should be focusing on instead.”

MORE: The Psychology of Environmentalism: How the Mind Can Save the Planet

384 comments
beancrisp
beancrisp

FACT: Human activity does not cause or affect climate change.

beancrisp
beancrisp

FACT: Human activity does not cause or affect climate change.

CptWayne
CptWayne

Human activity obviously has always contributed to some changes everywhere: forests, land, air, and sea.  We as a species have always lived with it. Now, the apocalyptic tunes are trumpeted loudly that man is solely responsible for an approaching climate change catastrophe based mainly on the increase in  atmospheric CO2 along with a few other trace gases. Yes, we are contributing some, but not enough for the blame line being preached. It was trumpeted that the Arctic would be ice free in the summer of 2013.  Instead, it has rebounded for the month of August this cool summer by 60%.  It is also trumped that CO2 raises temperatures thereby causing more airborne water vapour moisture to enter the atmosphere.  This in turn, it is trumpeted, creates a positive feedback for runaway global warming.  Yet, the facts are in that cities with higher humidity have lower air temperatures than the more arid cities.   More moisture actually cools the cities, not warm them. If CO2 puts more moisture into the air, as trumpeted, this has a cooling effect.  

ursula.stouffer
ursula.stouffer

Evidence shows that once upon a time, ALL of the earth was warm enough for palm trees (Palm trees were found beneath the ice in Antarctica http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/02/antarctica-once-covered-in-palm-trees-scientists-discover/  ). No polar ice, no glaciers at all. Then came a terrible catastrophe (world wide flood) and everything changed. There were ice ages, warmer times, colder again, and now MAYBE getting warmer again (even though there is evidence lacking for this).

The climate is always changing, and always has....... sun cycles have a lot to do with it, too. In reality, scientists are pretty clueless for the most part as to what causes climate change and why.

Except for the fact, that our politicians are playing god these days, and are messing with the established weather patterns through geo-engineering....... but it is backfiring, because they've managed to engineer droughts, floods, horrific storms, enormous hail stones etc. Now THAT is man-made climate change. The average person has nothing to do with it.



MaxMogren
MaxMogren

"Reason, observation, and experience; the holy trinity of science."

--Robert Green Ingersoll 

The mainstream media consistently creates false or at the very least woefully incomplete debates in politics, economics, etc. Could the climate debate be similarly incomplete? Could people concerned about the narrowly-focused (human-caused or not, focused on Carbon-based GHG only) climate debate be the "scientific" equivalent to partisan political pawns?   Why not address the multitude of other factors contributing to climate change including solar, astronomical, and intentional weather/climate manipulation.

Regurgitating half of the mainstream media's stance on climate change is not science.  Claiming that most "scientists" agree with you is not science.  Computer modelling is not science.  Observing the industrially manipulated sky over your own head, reasoning logically about it, and learning from the experience is actual science.

There are members of the "scientific" estanblishment and "independent" media who don't understand or accept basic science concepts either. Like, for example, the fact that there is 50x more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2, that H2O is by far the most influential greenhouse gas, that human activities like combustion and groundwater irrigation drastically increase H20 concentrations in the atmosphere, and that government weather/climate modification programs have been manipulating H20's state (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) and behavior in the atmosphere for the better part of a century.

ACTUAL SCIENCE: CO2-fixated fools regurgitating mainstream dogma who fail to observe the industrially manipulated skies over their own heads are doing it wrong.

Modern corporate "science" is just as corrupt as the political process. Anyone addressing climate change without mentioning geoengineering, weather warfare, solar storms other astronomical phenomenon is either ignorant to real science or intentionally misleading the people. Which are you doing, Time Magazine?

Geoengineering is weather warfare is genocide is a large contributor to climate change. When are you smug "environmentalist" schmucks going to address this aspect of reality? Need help? See Geoengineering Watch, Weather Wars, Global MARCH Against Chemtrails and Geoengeneering Geoengeneering, Aircrap.org, etc.

CandyDeBerry
CandyDeBerry

If you want great examples of climate change denial, you have to go no further than the comments below. 


whattodoaboutclimate
whattodoaboutclimate

It's time to wake up and start doing something! For simple suggestions on what we can all do to help fight climate change, check out this Facebook page: www.facebook.com/whattodoaboutclimatechange


Sol_
Sol_

If one Volcano can emit enough Sulfur Dioxide to change the Global Temperature by a  half of a degree whiten two years, then 1000's of cities slowly puffing out emissions 24/7 365 day affecting the atmosphere seems plausible to me. Heck, the atmosphere we enjoy today is a direct result of the interactions with the Biosphere.

However, I'm not a Climate Scientist and there are plenty of people who claim its a big lie. So I have to choose which Kool Aide to drink by looking at motives and credentials. On one hand you have the Researchers and Scientists who are out in the Field year in and year out collecting Data? Or an Arm chair Scientists,Talk Show host, Politician, Businessman or a Priest who disclaims pretty much all Science with a simple wave of the hand.

Well, I've met plenty of Scientists in my time and I've never met one who really cares about Politics, Money or Economics. That's why they choose Science as a profession, simply to Learn and Study the world around them. And the second group I mentioned has a lot to lose Politically and Financially if the Status Quo Changes.

So I'm choosing the Scientists, they generally don't have an agenda and have nothing to Gain by lying.

MickG
MickG

Typo: Only 30% of the time during the last 1 million years has the Earth been in an interglacial warming period environment.

MickG
MickG

Climate Science, so called, is Junk Science based on ignorance of the real causes of Global Warming, the actual physics controlling CO2,  and a lot of inaccurate computer models that claims to Mimic Climate Change. Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between at least 8 interacting variables. 1. 11 and 206 year cycles of sunspot activity. 2. 21,000 year cycle: Periodic changes in Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun (precession of  the equinoxes). 3. 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of +/- 1.5 degree wobble in Earth's tilted spin.  4. 100,000 year cycle: Periodic change in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit from very elliptical to less elliptical. 5. Atmospheric cooling  delay due to mostly water vapor (relative humidity) and water droplets (clouds) "Greenhouse effect".  6. Solar reflectivity: Due to white tops of Clouds, Volcanic dust, ice and snow. 7. Landmass distribution: causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. The geologic record indicates that whenever  there  is  large land mass at one or both Polar regions, there are Ice Ages. 8. Undersea thermal activity, causing variations in oceanic temperatures. Because these 8 variables overlap, sometimes canceling and sometimes compounding one another,  it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate or temperature pattern from just a few years or a few decades of data. The Earth has been warming since the beginning of the end of the last Ice Age about 18,000 years ago. Average atmospheric temp. at mean sea level has increased out 20degreesF since then and mean sea level fed by melting Ice Age glaciers has increased over 300 feet. In fact this 100,000 year Ice Age cycle followed by an interglacial warming period of between 15,000 & 20,000 years has occurred 7 times like geologic clock work during the last 1 million years of Earth's History. Which means that Earth has been locked in an Ice Age environment for about 70% of the time during the last 1 million years and only 30% of time during the last 1 million years.  CO2 is being used to play scientific illiterates for suckers and create Climate Change Hysteria.  CO2 is a trace gas and CO2 is plant food pure and simple. No CO2=No photosynthetic plants=No Animals including people and no O2 for animals to breath or Carbohydrates for animals to eat. 400ppm CO2=1 molecule of CO2 for every 2,500 molecules of atmosphere. Actually the Earth is CO2 deficient when compared to the last 400 million years of earths Geologic History.  Additionally, about 92% of IR radiation (heat) leaving earth passes right through the CO2 molecule and only about 8% is delayed by the CO2 molecule. Earth's atmosphere contains just under 800 gigatons of Carbon. Anthropogenic sources of Carbon=about 9 gigatons  annually.  Naturally occurring Carbon exchange between the Atmosphere, Soils, Plants and Ocean surfaces=about 300 gigatons of Carbon annually. Do the math, Dummies. Anthropogenic Carbon is an insignificant source of Atmospheric Carbon.

NileshModhwadia
NileshModhwadia

Global warming has two theoretical reasons. The Suns (hence Earth's too) distance from the galactic centre keeps changing which causes polar glacial meltdown every 26000 yrs. The other is human ignorance due to not understand simultaneous phase of cycle. Energy is the central support for all life and its extermination must release it as enthalpy (latent heat like ice) . Mans greed for food leads to the slaughter of at least a million tons of flesh daily. The heat released is the equivalent of a thousand nuclear explosions. Has man the intelligence to see his folly , especially when it would affect his huge stomach? So bleating inanities is for the birds! Stop it and stem that rot by re-educating your savage neighbor to look at food as a promoter of life, not only ones own but other lives too. You must not forget that those cheap lives came into being for a very good reason. Have you got the perspicacity to see its importance?

The Universal phenomena is a holographic presentation on a space medium that is oscillating at 296500000 cps (costant). The critical matter density factor of 3.63E minus 25 kgs/cum .Is it?

The precession of the equinox provides the correct algorithm to predict global weather trends.. The glacial melt about 10000 years ago is now driving the world towards a colder regime in another 3000 years or the mid cycle of 26000 years to another glacial melt or warming trend. There are no cyclic uncertainties in universal phenomena as it derived from a dynamic base that remains so perpetually. Visit www dot kapillavastu dot com slash index dot html to learn all details

ThomasWalker
ThomasWalker

Hello. 

Let me start by saying that anthropogenic climate change is real, it's happening now, and we still have time to mitigate its effects. 

I've read some of the comments below and I would suggest that everyone would benefit from going to a couple of websites: 

www.climaterealityproject.org (climate reality project) and www.realitydrop.org (reality drop). Don't worry they won't bite :)

Let me explain our situation this way. It's like the doctor just told us we have Type I diabetes. It sucks. We can't eat all the ice cream we want anymore. We need to exercise and eat healthy foods. 

That's where we are right now. If we don't listen to the doctor we will develop Type II diabetes. No one wants that. If we can't manage our Type II then it's all over. Say goodby.

Doctor = Climate Scientists                 Us = Planet Earth             Type I Diabetes = Current Climate at 400 PPM CO2

If you don't care about the earth maybe you care about your money.  

Read the 7/29/13 Forbes magazine article entitled 'Divesting from fossil fuels means a cleaner, safer and more resilient future'.  

Read the 8/20/13 article in 'The Street' entitled 'Why it makes more sence to dump your fossil fuels'.  

Climate change is real. You see it in the news. You know it in your gut. It's difficult to wrap your head around because we have never faced a problem like this in human history. We can beat it if we come together. 

Take care,

Tom Walker


JudyCross
JudyCross

Man-made climate change is the Biggest Big Lie the Banksters have ever attempted.  It is almost as good as creating money out of nothing and charging interest on the fiction.

Can anybody seriously believe that the 3% more humans add to the 400ppm of CO2, (4/100 of 1%) already there can change climate?  It just goes to illustrate the incredible dumbing of the population down that has taken place over the last 70 years.


jdk47
jdk47

People who believe man is causing climate change are the same type of people who believed witches caused the Little Ice Age in the 1600s. It's completely irrational to believe that somehow THIS climate change has a different cause than all the thousands that preceded it throughout the millenia of Earth's history...all that occurred without any help by man.

qslstan
qslstan

There is no change.   Sorry guys but stop making this stuff up.

glubber
glubber

"Today the scientific community is in almost total agreement that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of human activity"

The graph referenced by NASA does not prove that variation over 120 years from 1880 of approx 1 degr. C is man made. It shows fluctuations and flattens out in the last 10 years (not shown properly in the graph).  Almost total agreement about changes as a result of human activity is not correct. The no. of scientists that disagree is growing. New scientific findings are not recognised by the socalled consensus group. NASA referenced statements are outdated.  Real scientists does not postulate theories with high degree of security as those in cooperation with IPCC. The earht climate system is complex and among all influenced by the solar activities and distance to the sun which varies over time. I myself is awaiting the global warming when visiting nothern Norway for the last years.  It remains to be explained scientiffically.



MickG
MickG

For more than 40 years Piltdown Man was considered to be the missing link by the Scientific Community. Only 36% of Geoscientists and Engineers believe that humans are causing a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer reviewed  "Organization Studies".  By contrast, a strong majority of 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a serious problem. Two recent surveys of Meteorologists reveal similar skepticism or alarmist global warming claims.

macrhino
macrhino

@MickG It is not Mick's math, now is it? Mick copied this from other sites designed to deceive the less intelligent of us. Like @goodtallviking Ph.D. Riiiight! Of course, you speak for the assembled Ph.D.s of the world. Big question for the deniers here. Why is Climate Change/AGW only a political topic in the US, now the least scientific of the 1st world countries? The US now graduates less and less science Ph.D.s vis a vis other countries with better educational systems that surpass the US. 


I listen to the news daily in 4 languages. I speak another 3. Why is AGW not the "hot political target" anywhere else but the US? Is it that only the US is smart enough not to be fooled by the world community? HAHAHAHA, good luck getting anyone smarter than a Kardashian to believe that. The country that can't really do math is the one who is "not fooled by the scientists." And the people in that country that are "not fooled" are the really religious ones. Surely makes sense to me. 


NOT!

troyowen7688
troyowen7688

@MickG Poppycock! Your math is fuzzy at best!

NASA says you are wrong, so do 200 agencies all over the world.

17% od CO2 is natural about 40% is US.  At 30 BILLION TONS of CO2 every year, you can't say there is no effect!

Your deductions are PURE fiddle faddle.

climate.NASA.gov   Learn something.


goodtallviking
goodtallviking

@ThomasWalker Great example of religious dogma. First, state your beliefs; then, try to shore them up with mish mash. Rush uses the term "low information voter," for y'all. I wish it were only that !

troyowen7688
troyowen7688

@JudyCross  CO2 output has been increasing over the years it has little to do with 3% more of anybody.

We were pumping out about 26 BILLION TONS of it in 2003, now we are at 30 Billion Tons.

All of this has compounded over 150 years, the CO2 stays up there for 100+ years AFTER it gets up there. 

"Banksters" have little to do with it either.

Do some research.

douglas.hollis
douglas.hollis

@jdkelley47 "People who believe man is causing climate change are the same type of people who believed witches caused the Little Ice Age in the 1600s." 

And people who dismiss with but a wave of the hand the overwhelming scientific consensus re anthropogenic climate change are the same type of people that still believe the earth is flat and less than 10,000 years old.

"It's completely irrational to believe that somehow THIS climate change has a different cause than all the thousands that preceded it throughout the millenia of Earth's history...all that occurred without any help by man."

Well, funny you should say that, the 20th century climate has been remodeled, both with and without anthropogenic forcings (as induced by our historical GHG emissions).  Without it, there is no correlation whatsoever, even if you tweak all the natural forcings within its possible realms of uncertainty (eg using sunspot cycles as opposed to total solar irradiance, characterising El Nino by the Southern Oscillation Index as opposed to the Multivariate El Nino Index and characterising volcanic aerosols by Amman's index rather Sato et more widely accepted Aerosol Optical Index data).  None of the above changed the result in any significant way.  However, when you add the effect of mankind's known GHG forcings, the historical climate record is simulated in a remarkably accurate way.  You have to wonder why that is the case, given your predisposed, highly 'scientific' notion of modern climate theory amounting to belief in some medieval superstition.  

For the record, no one, literally no one, argues with the fact that climate change has occurred naturally in the past, completely devoid of human influence.  What you perhaps fail to appreciate is that this same historical record of natural climate change helps us to appreciate just how remarkably  sensitive our planet's climate is to the influence of forcings of any kind (ie whether natural or manmade), and how severe an impact this may very well have on natural ecosystems, biodiversity, previous cultures and empires, etc.  That is the true lesson for us all today.


troyowen7688
troyowen7688

@jdkelley47

How much CO2 is natural in the Atmosphere? 

How much do we add every year?

Why is every Glacier in the world melting at 3x the rate from 50 years ago?

How many satellites do we have examining the Earth and for how long?

How is data collected and compared for information on the climate?

Why don't we see warming in the upper atmosphere, as we do in the lower?

Can you answer all of these questions? 

I'll end with this:

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.

troyowen7688
troyowen7688

@glubber How is NASA outdated? They have most of the satellites up there! That's the stupidest thing you have said yet!

macrhino
macrhino

@MickG  Strangely enough I can find all of your responses cut and paste from right wing propaganda sites. You have really spent a lot of time "thinking" about this subject, haven't you?


Did it occur to you to data verify what you are cutting and pasting? I don't think you did. You might be a little embarrassed if you did. 

goodtallviking
goodtallviking

@troyowen7688 @MickG Troy,troy troy, stop drinking the Koolaid. Why do you suppose they changed the name from "?Global Warming" (which can be refuted) to "Climate Change" which is just one giant free parameter ? None of us Ph.D. practicing scientists believe the AGW nonsense. Why do you ?

macrhino
macrhino

@goodtallviking @ThomasWalker  Nice, You want to refute well explained opinion with "declaration." And then seal it with a reference to Rush. 


baaaaaad, bllaaaaaaack, baaaaad. 

jdk47
jdk47

@douglas.hollis@jdkelley47That must be why all the climate models predicted the leveling off of the warming effect over the last 15 years despite the continued rise of CO2...oh wait...yeah...the models didn't predict that.

You probably believe Galileo deserved to go to jail for denying the "scientific consensus" of his day too.

glubber
glubber

@troyowen7688 @glubber Read the consensus list and see statements from 2004, 2007, etc. This I call outdated.  You must learn to read before you participate in such dialogs as this.

douglas.hollis
douglas.hollis

@goodtallviking

Maybe you should consider who's drinking the Koolaid here.  Nobody changed the name from global warming to climate change.  Well, with the notable exception of a Republican political strategist, Frank Luntz, who during the Bush era felt that the term 'climate change' sounded 'less frightening' than the term 'global warming', and might therefore result in a diminished public response for the government to actually do something about it.  

FYI, the term 'global warming' is still very much in use today.  Although related, and used virtually interchangeably by the public, 'global warming' and 'climate change' really have two distinct meanings - global warming speaks of a rise in global termperatures, while 'climate change' speaks of changes to global climate.  Global warming, a term used in scientific studies for decades prior to Al Gore, has a direct bearing on global climate - it changes it.  So, the one is almost like a subset of the other, if you will.  

But thanks again for the red herring.

ps - 97% of the Ph.D practicing scientists actually do believe in AGW, for the reason that it is firmly rooted in science.  Then again, there are Ph.D scientists who also believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago.  In six 24 hr days.  I'm guessing the fringe must have a voice too.

macrhino
macrhino

@douglas.hollis @goodtallviking  Mr. Hollis are you ASSUMING that goodtalkviking is THINKING about this? Not a chance. Rush has already 'splained it to him. 'Splained it good! 


Please don't try to use that crap like "science" or "data" cause that just introduces the "big words" and then we go down hill from there. 

douglas.hollis
douglas.hollis

@goodtallviking "And yet the pesky global temperature goes down ?????"

I'm sorry, but perhaps you haven't seen the actual charts?  The pesky temperatures are still rising.  They're just not rising as fast as predicted.  Let's put it in perspective for you - aided by the most powerful El Nino of the 20th century, 1998 became by far the hottest year on record at the time.  Since then, and with nowhere near the same El Nino (incl even a few La Nina years), we're producing an unbroken string of years that are almost as hot, and even hotter still, than this monumental year.  Sounds like we're cooling down to you?  Perhaps you simply do not realise that 12 of the hottest 13 years on record all occurred post-2000.  

Even more compelling, Foster & Rahmstorf determined the influences of the most dominant natural cycles (viz ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols) over the past few decades, and produced a temperature curve that shows what we observe today MINUS these natural forcings.  The graph is showing an almost linear increase over time. (See http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f8_online.jpg, or for the complete study, see http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/)  In other words, these natural cycles are the only reason we have not seen the steady increase you're looking for.  But wait until they shift towards a positive phase.  The term 'sharp spike' comes to mind.  Then another 'hiatus'...followed by another sharp spike.  Rising inexorably higher.  Funnily enough, such spikes and hiatus periods are clearly visible on the 20th century temperature records.


douglas.hollis
douglas.hollis

@jdkelley47 

Funny thing is, nobody denies there have been thousand climate changes in the past.  Only problem is, this time it's happening 10x faster than anytime we know of.  We've also bucked a long-term natural cooling trend, with global temperatures making a strong upward turn that, curiously, coincides almost exactly with the Industrial era.  In the short space of a hundred years, we have seen the same global temperature gain as what it took the earth to cool down in the past 11,000 years.  Sounds normal to me.

jdk47
jdk47

@douglas.hollis @jdkelley47 "Unlike today..."? That's a laugh. "Scientific consensus" of today is driven by the same factor that drove it then...funding and patronization by whatever political faction has control and money to give. The only thing that's different is the group with the control and money. 

The Galileo's of today are those that defy the current fad of "scientific consensus" of the irrational, man-made global warming fanaticism; and the political faction that's driving it. And just as in the past, the fanatics are coming unhinged and persecuting those with real scientific facts (thousands of prior climate changes throughout history) behind them.

douglas.hollis
douglas.hollis

@jdkelley47

Oh...so because the models aren't 100% accurate just yet, and only maybe at 85%, we should throw out the mountains of science behind it and bank on the scientists being completely wrong about the potential fury we're about to unleash?  Sounds like a plan. 

And unlike today, the scientific consensus in Galileo's day was driven to an enormous degree by the religious consensus.  As if you didn't know that.

qslstan
qslstan

@troyowen7688@qslstan 

Ok, your read them "ALL" and get back to us.  Untill then

I will burn more fuel in the colder winters, and burn more fuel in the hotter summers...and continue to read how awfully rich our country is in Natural resources as we sell at $40.00 per barrel well not having enough to fill our pot holes.    The thing about climate change. it use to be Global Cooling, then it was Global warming and now the FIx Climate change,  all with the same satellites used for 20 year.s  How is the Ozone hole doing? .Dang can we predict 2 weeks ahead "yet" with all tho That really is not what the article is about, but don't bother reading or anything.

Interesting context 
 @troyowen7688

That really is not what the article is about, but don't bother reading or anything.

NASA says you are wrong.    YUM yep Language change.




 

troyowen7688
troyowen7688

@qslstan  That really is not what the article is about, but don't bother reading or anything.

NASA says you are wrong, so do every accredited climatologist in the world. 

200 world wide agencies also disagree as well.

If you look up http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/image_select.html

and SEE the melting of the sea ice year by year for some 20 years!

If you look at the satellite data it is incontrovertible.

qslstan
qslstan

@troyowen7688 @qslstan  

Type in Global cooling into Google

Type in Global warming into Googlle

Read and learn use _ and +  there is no difference

Like the titles says, It's all in your Head. 

troyowen7688
troyowen7688

@qslstan  I went there, there is NO information on the subject at hand. You are a simpleton.

troyowen7688
troyowen7688

@glubber  Then go to the site and look around, there are many pages with more current info.

But you don't want to do that do you?