Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder

[frihetsivrare]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4953981/Climate-denial-is-know-a-mental-disorder.html

Christopher Booker is bemused by the wild rhetoric of the climate change lobby.

[7,052,770]

Calling global warming denial is "mental disorder" is probably a bit much, but it is pretty bizarre that some people would rather listen to a small minority of Republican leaders than the overwhelming scientific evidence.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The rhetoric coming from both sides is way way over the top.  The arrogance of the left and the smugness of the right and the continued preconceived notions and biases have degraded the quality of the research immensely.

The number of weather stations have dropped more than 50%, most of them in rural areas and so we are left "guessing" temperatures in the vast areas of the world that used to be measured directly... and of course these areas are "warming the fastest".

The discrepancy between satellite readings and surface stations grows wider and wider as the satellite readings show almost no warming over the period of record with a cooling trend in the past 7 years while the surface stations, ever in declining numbers, and ever more concentrated in heavily developed urban areas keep warming.

When NOAA updated their temperature measures a few years ago, they completely removed the urban heat island effect from the equation and then bellowed on and on about how much faster the planet was warming than we had previously thought... of course this is when the satellite measures really started to differ.

I won't call it a conspiracy.. but I think both sides already have their outcome firmly entrenched and they're just looking for the science to prove it.

[Four49]

The rhetoric coming from both sides is way way over the top.  The arrogance of the left and the smugness of the right and the continued preconceived notions and biases have degraded the quality of the research immensely.

The number of weather stations have dropped more than 50%, most of them in rural areas and so we are left "guessing" temperatures in the vast areas of the world that used to be measured directly... and of course these areas are "warming the fastest".

The discrepancy between satellite readings and surface stations grows wider and wider as the satellite readings show almost no warming over the period of record with a cooling trend in the past 7 years while the surface stations, ever in declining numbers, and ever more concentrated in heavily developed urban areas keep warming.

When NOAA updated their temperature measures a few years ago, they completely removed the urban heat island effect from the equation and then bellowed on and on about how much faster the planet was warming than we had previously thought... of course this is when the satellite measures really started to differ.

I won't call it a conspiracy.. but I think both sides already have their outcome firmly entrenched and they're just looking for the science to prove it.

Yeah, it's starting to sound a lot like the creationism vs evolution debate.  Both sides use fairly biased 'proof' and cherry pick facts to support their argument.

[Lunar]

Calling global warming denial is "mental disorder" is probably a bit much, but it is pretty bizarre that some people would rather listen to a small minority of Republican leaders than the overwhelming scientific evidence.

If you deny it exists then you can justify avoiding making hard choices.

[Sbane]

The rhetoric coming from both sides is way way over the top.  The arrogance of the left and the smugness of the right and the continued preconceived notions and biases have degraded the quality of the research immensely.

The number of weather stations have dropped more than 50%, most of them in rural areas and so we are left "guessing" temperatures in the vast areas of the world that used to be measured directly... and of course these areas are "warming the fastest".

The discrepancy between satellite readings and surface stations grows wider and wider as the satellite readings show almost no warming over the period of record with a cooling trend in the past 7 years while the surface stations, ever in declining numbers, and ever more concentrated in heavily developed urban areas keep warming.

When NOAA updated their temperature measures a few years ago, they completely removed the urban heat island effect from the equation and then bellowed on and on about how much faster the planet was warming than we had previously thought... of course this is when the satellite measures really started to differ.

I won't call it a conspiracy.. but I think both sides already have their outcome firmly entrenched and they're just looking for the science to prove it.

Yeah, it's starting to sound a lot like the creationism vs evolution debate.  Both sides use fairly biased 'proof' and cherry pick facts to support their argument.

I'm sorry but this is nothing like the creationism vs evolution debate. Evolution has been proven beyond a doubt while global warming doesn't have quite the same amount of proof. In any case its not whether the earth is warming, but if humans are causing it. And that is much harder to prove than whether the earth is warming.

[SPC]

Calling global warming belief a "mental disorder" is probably a bit much, but it is pretty bizarre that some people would rather listen to a small minority of Democratic leaders than the overwhelming scientific evidence.

Fixed.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Calling global warming denial is "mental disorder" is probably a bit much, but it is pretty bizarre that some people would rather listen to a small minority of Republican leaders than the overwhelming scientific evidence.

If you deny it exists then you can justify avoiding making hard choices.

Lets face it, the global warming crowd is merely the pretext to support their desire for bad choices.

They want more, and more government regulations, and less and less freedom.

Not suprised Lunar is part of that crowd.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They want less and less freedom.

Damn it, you figured us out.

[opebo]

They want more, and more government regulations, and less and less freedom.

Dude, the fact that you think there is currently any 'freedom' is the mental disorder.

I will say it is a shame that there are less weather stations than in the past, if it is the case as snowguy suggets.  One can only presume this is because of bad choices regarding spending priorities.  We should triple the budget for studying this issue - it is good stimulus as well as being interesting.

[Coburn In 2012]

There is no unbiased scientific evidence for climate change or that climate change is man caused.  All the AlGore evidence is trumped up, liberal crap designed to sell books and scare people into buying tickets to AlGores movies.

Tell AlGore...how earth-friendly is that 8thousand square foot mansion you live in with the heated pool and such?  What an F**king hypocrite he is.  Like most libs.

[Ban my account ffs!]

There is no unbiased scientific evidence for climate change or that climate change is man caused.  All the AlGore evidence is trumped up, liberal crap designed to sell books and scare people into buying tickets to AlGores movies.

Tell AlGore...how earth-friendly is that 8thousand square foot mansion you live in with the heated pool and such?  What an F**king hypocrite he is.  Like most libs.

You are a living, breathing cliche.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

When I saw the words "Christopher Booker" I didn't know whether to laugh at the sheer stupidity of it or cry at your own ignorance.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

There is very little actual evidence supporting climate change. The little that there is can easily be attributed to normal climate fluctuation.

[Ban my account ffs!]

There is very little actual evidence supporting climate change. The little that there is can easily be attributed to normal climate fluctuation.

There is no "normal climate fluctuation".

Is normal the time since humans emerged?
Since the last ice age ended?
Since we started measuring temperature a century or two ago?

What is true is that the planet has warmed pretty quickly and it is having negative repercussions on ecosystems regardless of whether it is human caused or not.

The two largest climate variables, the sun and the Pacific ocean, point towards a cooling earth as far as we can see.  This will be the test... we know the natural variables are calling for cooling... but if the planet continues to warm, we'll know the greenhouse effect is strong.

The problem with the foundation of AGW science is that they rely on tree rings to fill in temperature data for large swaths of the earth where ice cores or sediment readings are not possible.  The problem with tree rings is that we can't really accurately date the fossilized trees, there aren't that many, and tree rings are a very poor indicator of temperature, but really just an indicator of precipitation.

The IPCC, which is the main identifying body with climate change predictions, places a lot of stock on a few papers that rely heavily on these tree rings.  The scientists also find a lot of reasons to "adjust" the temperatures which almost always means lowering the temperatures further back and raising them more recently which results in a much stronger warming trend for reasons they often cannot explain (like the Urban Heat Island effect is actually cooling the cities down).. or they grossly undervalue changes in environment around weather stations.. like a parking lot going in right next to it that shows a large jump in temperature the year that the lot went in... but they only adjust it negligibly and then argue that the climate just warmed by 3˚F on average in one year.

It all just stinks to high heaven.

And I'm not going to use weather events to disprove climate change... but we haven't had a single month of above normal temperatures since November of 2007, one of the longest such stretches on record and we just finished our coldest winter (Dec-Feb) in 30 years while 2008 was the 3rd coldest year on record for us.

Personally I think we observed another climate shift early in 2007 much like the shift that occurred in 1976.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Snowguy,

One factor you left out is the impact of vulcanism on the climate.

It is theorized that a super volcano caused a massive ice age in pre historic times.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snowguy,

One factor you left out is the impact of vulcanism on the climate.

It is theorized that a super volcano caused a massive ice age in pre historic times.

Yes, but vulcanism is having almost no effect on the climate at present.  Ash levels in the atmosphere are almost non-existent. 

Of course you do realize that if you can accept that vulcanism affects our climate, you must also accept the possibility that human carbon emissions are also affecting climate...

The question is how much?  I believe that carbon dioxide follows more of a logarithmic scale as to its effect on global temperature.  The first 280ppm which is the pre-industrial level in our atmosphere have been estimated to warm the planet about 7˚C... with water vapor the main greenhouse gas that warms the planet about 55˚C and distributes the heat more evenly... but because it is logarithmic, the more you raise that CO2 level, the temperature rises at an ever slower rate.

If we double Co2 to 560ppm over the next 50 years, I believe the effect will be much lower than 7˚C.. more on the lines of less than 1˚C... but that the increased water vapor caused by this warming will further warm the planet.  So we're talking about a couple manageable degrees if we don't blow ourselves up first.

Current climate theory assumes that CO2 forcing (how much it warms the climate) is on a linear scale.. that for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, its effect on climate represented by degrees celsius doubles....

Hence the doom and gloom from James Hansen about the planet warming 12˚F over the next 100 years and all of us having to move to Antarctica because it will be the only habitable place on earth (again... James Hansen... this guy should not be in any position of power.. he's a nutcase)

[CultureKing]

I can't believe there are still climate change deniers out there. When we are screwed in the coming century I am going to blame them... It's amazing that there is a problem large enough that it threatens world order but has an identifiable solution and yet we have done so very little. Then again the environment is my #1 issue (may have figured into why I am going for an environmental science major.)

[Lunar]

Snowguy:

[Meeker]

I can't believe it's 2009 and we're still having this argument.

[Platypus]

there is no question the climate is changing, it IS an absolute, unrefuteable, natural and unbiased fact. The debate is about whether it is caused by humanity's actions, and if it is, how we can limit our affect, if we even should.

[Ban my account ffs!]

there is no question the climate is changing, it IS an absolute, unrefuteable, natural and unbiased fact. The debate is about whether it is caused by humanity's actions, and if it is, how we can limit our affect, if we even should.

Well said.

I think we should take at least minimal precautionary measures such cap and trade with workable goals of reduction that challenge businesses without cutting into their bottom line... until we can figure out for sure what our impact on the climate is.

If we find out that CO2 is in fact a very potent greenhouse gas we will need to act and reduce emissions drastically and find ways to sequester it out of the atmosphere to reduce its effects.  That's where government backed research is important.

But I think our environmental focus should be on more pressing concerns:  Loss of biodiversity caused by overpopulation and inefficient and unsustainable land use as well as making resource use more sustainable.

There are a lot more solid reasons to reduce our footprints on the planet than climate change.  And remember.. I said "solid" reasons, as in well researched and well understood.

[Coburn In 2012]

There is very little actual evidence supporting climate change. The little that there is can easily be attributed to normal climate fluctuation.

Right but the tree huggers and save the snail darter kooks need to sell books and gin up enthusiasm for their various causes.  We MUST have a nanny state or we will all die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lunar]

speaking of gin