Monday, December 26, 2016

Why are there so many Believers in Human Induced Climate Change?

Up until recently I have been puzzled by why so many people believe that humans are causing catastrophic changes to climate even though there is ample evidence that the main proponents use outright falsehoods and twisting of the truth allied with denouncing those who have a difference of opinion by calling them names rather than disproving their facts. I think I have a handle now on why this is so as a result of several items I have come across on the internet and through personal experience.

The first example, and one that took me completely by surprise at the time is a brief interview of Christopher Hitchens on the subject of climate change. Many may know of him as he has been a vociferous opponent of religion such as his book "God is not Great". Here is a link to his Wikipedia biography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens . Simply put, and he does present very convincing arguments, religion requires one to have blind faith. Take for example confessing one's sins to ensure you will go to heaven otherwise you will go to hell. That assumes a) that there is an afterlife and b) that no matter how bad a person you are, as long as you "confess your sins" you will be "saved" and will go to heaven. It is this type of thought that Hitchens railed against.

But in one interview he was asked what he thought about "climate change" and here is the transcript of his reply:

"The argument about global warming is not whether there is any warming but whether or not and to what extent human activity is responsible for it. My line on that is that we should act as if it is, for this reason, which I borrowed from Jonathan Schell's book on the nuclear question, The Fate of the Earth: We don't have another planet on which to run the experiment. Just as we don't have a right to run an experiment to run an experiment in nuclear exchange on this planet, we have no right to run an experiment in warming it either. So if it turned out to be that there was no severe global warming threat or that it wasn't man-made, then all we would have done would be make a mistake in analysis - which we could correct from. But if it turned out that there was and we didn't do anything about it, then it would be too late to do anything at all. And that would lead to disaster."

"[W]e should act as if it is"? When the subject is religion he takes the opposite view, which he frequently described eloquently, that one should NOT assume the worst, just in case! That is exactly why confessing one's sins, just in case there is an afterlife is so wrong! So this begs the question how could a learned man such as Hitchens come up with such an idea that is antecedent to his usual line of thought?

This is where a blog entry by Scott Adams' of the cartoon strip "Dilbert" fame recently wrote dealing with what he calls "cognitive blindness": the inability to see the strong form of the other side of a debate (see http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154679929646/watching-the-climate-science-bubbles-from-the). In this post he goes on to say:

" I noticed this phenomenon [cognitive blindness] when I started blogging about climate change. The citizens who side with the majority of scientists in saying climate change is influenced by humans and the prediction models about doom are accurate have – as far as I can tell – never seen the strong versions of the argument on the other side. (I know because I ask about it.) They have only seen the weak versions presented by their own side. And the weak version of the argument goes like this: “The other side are science deniers and quacks.”".

Up to that point I totally agreed with him but then he adds this comment:

"My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate".

What rings so false about this last statement is that everything I have read and heard is that there are no "rock-solid" arguments by the proponents of Climate Change and that rather than defending any criticism  with supportable facts they always fall back on calling those opposed names, such as "deniers" and "quacks".  All people who have had at least a high school education have the means to ask critical questions based on whether or not the information they have been presented coincides with what they have previously been taught. If no inconsistencies can be found then it is reasonable to at the very least assume that the idea presented is plausible. And there lies the problem of why so many accept what others cannot; they do not ask the critical question "does this mesh with what I know to be true"?

This same point I saw presented in another blog called "Manhattan Contrarian" and I found his description more eloquent that mine:

"If you are a reasonably intelligent person, and you are willing to spend a few hours on an issue, there is a very workable method to discern which side of a debate is not playing straight with you.  This method is the same method generally used by judges and juries in deciding which side is going to win a trial.  The method is this:  look to which side has and provides the best answers to the hard questions posed by the other side.  If one side refuses to answer hard questions, or is evasive, or refuses to provide the underlying methodology by which it came up with its answers, then that side has a problem.  And rightfully so.

Anyone who has read my previous posts that deal with the subject of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" know that the reason I do not accept the premise is that there are too many disconnects with what I know is reality, in part due to my advanced training but primarily because of the basic learning we have all been subjected to. This includes what is "climate", "photosynthesis", "average" and of course "accuracy and precision". On top of that, as I have worked with computer models for a long time now, I know that it is very difficult to represent complex phenomena with mathematical equations. The more complex the system the less likely they can be modeled with any sort of accuracy. And "climate" is one of the most complex systems we have to deal with on a daily basis and the reason why even forecasting days ahead is typically fraught with error!


In closing I didn't really get on this train of thought until I was talking with a friend and the subject of "climate change" came up. Even though I had explained many times before the weaknesses and errors of the proponents he is still a firm believer. If today is hotter that he remembers for this time of year and the news accentuates that by repeating the same fact less statement and saying we are to blame he remains convinced it must be true thus showing his cognitive blindness.  This I find ironic because like so many others like himself he enjoys summer more than winter, revels in spring coming earlier than usual or fall arriving later. Basks in the sunshine and thanks god for such a blessing but then takes on his shoulder what he believes is his share of the blame for any weather phenomenon that he considers bad; while only god can create good it is man that creates all that is bad and we must own up to that "fact". Such self righteous self conceit I have nick named the "god complex" in that too many people think we have the power of god. While we do have a knack for self destruction we really are at the mercy of nature and to think we can control nature is deplorable!

No comments:

Post a Comment

I don't want to live in a bubble so if you have a different take or can suggest a different source of information go for it!