Ignorant People Are More Than Willing to Promote Wild Misconceptions About Climate Science
Frank P. Devine writes about the meme to the left: “Ex vice president Gore and his cronies made billions from this.”
Frank: You may want to consider reading a bit on this before making ridiculous and hateful claims. You could start here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global…. Volcanoes emit about 0.2% of the CO2 that humans do each year.
An interesting advertisement. It seems to start off effectively enough. A big cloud over a volcano slightly reminiscent of a mushroom cloud from an atomic bomb. And then everything goes wrong.
The caps are wrong as everything becomes too crammed in to read easily. The caps make it more crowded and suggest someone is screaming at us. So already I think that they are lying. And then there is the extremely awkward wording “you your minuscule” that shouldn’t pass a freshman composition class.
It is clearly directed to one rather insular person paying the bills rather than any general population. As such it suggests that they are being treated like a fool. Whoever pays for this stuff is being cheated.
So I am left not knowing how I am more offended, in a literary sense, in a philosophical sense or from the point of view of truth.
One wonders how he got his numbers.
Of course volcanoes emit CO2; no one denies that. However, before we started adding additional CO2, for thousands of years the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. Under those conditions, if we added perhaps 10% to the rate at which volcanoes emit CO2, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere would continually increase. That should easily be understood.
Craig,
(Sigh) this is another our of context misquote from the much abused and frequently misquoted Professor Ian Plimer.
I was present when Professor Plimer originally used this used this term to describe the dangers of considering only one form of carbon dioxide emissions.
Professor Plimer also referred to the far more prevalent, but at that time unassessed oceanic volcanic emissions. His lecture called for more study into this phenomenon. Research is still only relatively incomplete.
Professor Plimer’s observation is correct when considered in the context in which it was intended, that being a massive volcanic eruption can dwarf any man made capacity for CO2 emissions, fortunately such catastrophic event are relatively rare.
Naturally, Bill McKibben and George Monbiot both expressed righteous outrage at the elderly and somewhat eccentric Professor whom they have selected to be the effigy of climate denial.
Bill McKibbon supported his Australian colleague, Tim Flanery, in seizing upon material from the Guardian journalist George Mombiot, (not Professor Plimer’s actual paper) to justify the dismissal of Professor Plimy’s contributions. Bill Mckibbon went further, he dismissed the call for greater study into oceanic volcanic emissions as the work of climate deniers and “scientifically unnecessary”.
Well, George Monbiot, Bill McKibben, and Tim Fannery must be correct since they have earned the right from many years of academic study and out standing scientific qualifications in the relevant disciplines….
Er,..No..! George Monbiot, Bill McKibben, have no relevant scientific credentials, while Tim Fannery holds a Phd in paleontology !
On the other hand. Professor Geoffrey Plimer collects academic qualifications as some men collect golf trophies ! His academic credentials include Geo-physics, Chemistry ( specializing in atmospheric chemistry), Geology, Applied Physics, Engineering, Mining and Metallurgy, etc.
That doesn’t mean Ian Plimer is always right and quite rightly, many of his conclusions are disputed.
One source of ‘debunking’ of Plimer is the often quoted Tis the US EPA which stated Plimer’s concerns about submarine volcanic emissions “have no factual basis”. A 2011 survey published by the AGU in Eos, concluded ” anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 135 times larger than those from all volcanoes on Earth”.
This position has been repeated and repeated until its reached the level of unassailable truth.
But how accurate is this “truth” ?
Well if Bill McKibbon and other advocates had bothered to read the AGU “study” carefully, they would have discovered a few disclaimers in the fine print !
Both the AGU and EPA concede there is very little reliable material available on submarine volcanic activity, and since it’s a policy of the AGU to not include the “tainted” scientific studies by scientists associated with Oil Companies (eliminating about 80% of material), both organizations concede the “Study” relied upon extrapolation (speculation) and other reports lacking a comprehensive quality.
All not very scientific !
“Climate scientist” Ian McHugh has been much praised by climate change advocates for presenting a peer reveiw “fact check” disparaging Prof Plimer. So at last we a real scientist and fellow academic has reveiwed Prof. Plimer.
Well not really, Ian McHugh is certainly another gifted writer, and advocate, but his academic credentials are limited to a Bsc in the new discipline of “Earth Climate Science”.
Professor Plimer might be right, wrong, or somewhere in between, but the controversy he provokes highlights how lacking in objective scientific analysis climate change advocates and supporters have become. Ideology, politics and fanaticism have relaced and distorted scientific discussion.
I know that’s your perspective.
I still tend to go with the numerous people I happen to know personally in climate science, who have me (and would have anyone listening) convinced that the theory of AGW is valid.
Also, as I wrote here http://www.2greenenergy.com/2016/02/11/to-the-sponsor-of-an-outrageous-presenter-on-climate-change-denial/, I get a bit peeved at people who, with no evidence to support this, impugn the integrity of each of the many thousands of the world’s most accomplished professionals who have spent their entire careers studying this quite complex phenomenon.
Craig,
I’m not sure I agree with your assumption that because you know someone personally, it makes their views any more valid.
I guess the crux of the debate is what do the real scientists agree about the theory of global warming. There are so many definitions, and variations among the actual scientists. Tragically the science is often distorted and transformed through the prism of political and ideological advocates with agendas very different from science.
I agree, people should dismiss any theory or challenge to orthodoxy without some rational basis, and carefully analysis.
However, by the same token, you shouldn’t let your personal friendships stop you assessing and objectively analyzing contrary opinion.
Interesting point. I think it’s a natural human response to trust the ideas of people one knows personally, but you have a point nontheless.
Climate deniers are becoming scarcer by the day, btw. I know they exist, but they’re increasingly rare.
Craig, I sometimes have to remind myself that the coasts and those who attend environmental events are not representative of the entire country.
One interesting comment I heard a while back was from a person who couldn’t wait to get their hands on an electric car, “Not because I because I believe in any of that environmental BS but cause of its acceleration….” For most of his life he was a managing engineer for a company that oversaw the operation of several coal fired power plants in the area.
Marcopolo,
Thanks for the post. Obviously you have spent considerable time gathering information.
One problem, of which you are obviously aware, is that it is too easy to reach conclusions based on the frequency with which something has been repeated even when repetitions are based on the same original article with is incorrect. A good example is the widespread belief that Marie Antoinette said, “Let them eat cake.”. It appears that most modern historians do not believe that she actually ever said that. It would have been completely against her nature to make such a statement since evidence indicates that she was very concerned about the plight of the poor. It looks as though one writer wrote that presumed quotation and other writers copied it making it appear true. The moral is that we should not believe something simply because it has often been repeated.
Hi Frank,
A very astute observation. When I young it was a widely held belief that before Columbus people, especially the Catholic Authorities believed the world was flat. In fact that is simply nonsense.
The most famous portrait of Pope Gregory XIII ( 1502 – 1585)show him seated beside a globe which had been commissioned by the Vatican in 1397. There would be little point in Dante’s Poems and play’s written in the 14th century which are all based on the world being round.
Henry 11 ((1133 – 1189 )of England owned a globe which still exists and can be seen in the British Museum.
Marcopolo,
I also remember being taught in school that before Columbus, it was generally believed that the world was flat and there was fear of falling off of the edge if a boat sailed that far. I do not understand how such nonsense could be taught, but it was.
While I was in high school, the Piltdown man fraud was exposed. Our history book presented the Piltdown man as fact even though many scientists had suspected that it was a fraud. The book should have stated that that the Piltdown man was not accepted by all scientists.
Whether the teaching of science has improved I don’t know.
“Academic Credentials” are a funny sort of thing. For most of history “Academic” and “College” implied taking the time to read the wisdom of writers from forgone ages. In the UK I have occasionally heard references to “reading for [some subject.] In doing so the reader would acquire not only the knowledge but the reasoning capacity to follow the arguments.
Because of some associations, I have seen thesis papers of Doctoral Candidates who have difficulty understanding the material in their subject areas, presenting the material in a logical and concise manner and who’s writing demonstrates a serious lack of composition skills.
And so we have, in many areas and at times, substituted real academic qualifications for “accreditation” by an institution where a sufficiently large donation (or in other cases an athletic ability) guarantees a degree.
This makes our life “simple” as we no longer have to think if someone knows what they are talking about. It is now possible to simply say someone has a “doctorate,” and our critical thinking is supposed to be immediately suspended. It is a strange and sad world we live in.
Breath,
That is exactly why I am at least as interested in how conclusions are reached as I am with the conclusions. Unfortunately, there are things that many of us will never understand completely. For example, I do not completely underhand how it has been determined that most of us caucasians have a few Neanderthal genes. Sometimes we have little choice but to hope that the experts are right.
Hi Frank,
I think Breath on the Wind raises an excellent point when he alludes to the danger of gaining information from just a small band of ‘faithful’, or those with vested interests in a particular agenda.
Advocates for any particular cause sometimes mistake a lack of increasingly vocal opposition for acceptance. In most instances it just because Joe Public has lost interest, feeling the battle has nothing to do with his life. Joe Public has just got sick of being preached at, lectured to and has just switched off from the over kill of extremist propaganda.
How many times have you read well-meaning, even well informed climate change advocates announcing the imminent dangers of the destruction of the coastline, yet each year coastal properties increase in value and demand. These individuals may be tired of the endless barrage from extremist advocates, but they vote with their wallets.
This disconnect was best felt in the recent Brexit Vote in the UK.
Now I’m a Party member and centre Conservative Voter, a supporter of David Cameron and an admirer of Boris Johnson. I’m not a supporter of extremists, or individuals like Nicholas Farage. On the complex issue of Brexit I was very undecided, but felt that the UK and the EU were growing increasingly incompatible and without a major reform in objectives, Brexit was inevitable.
Like many, (including Boris Johnson)we all felt it was a mistake for David Cameron to fight so honourably for a lost cause which would exhaust his capacity to continue as PM.
Without the personal following of David Cameron, the Leave vote would have been much higher. None the less, many of the more rabid and radical of the Remain campaign, displayed the arrogance of such advocates, many of whom are very active in the climate change campaign.
(I agree it’s an exaggerated example, intended to illustrate my point about self-delusion.
Guardian columnist (GC) What are your voting intentions in the Brexit plebiscite ?
MarcoPolo (MP) ..Well, I’m not sure. Brexit has many complex issues to be considered, but I’m leaning toward Leave.
(GC) Do you hate immigrant’s ? Have you always been a racist ?
(MP) (astonished) What? Of course I’m not a racist, there are far more complex issues…
(GC) (interrupting) Oh c’mon, it’s obvious you are one of those upper-class Tory white supremacist racists !
(MP) That’s simply not true, I..
(GC) (loudly) Racist, racist racist, old Tory racist,..
(MP) I,..
(GC) ( gathering like minded supporters, continues chanting loudly,” Racist, racist racist, old Tory racist,.. etc”)
(MP) (just walks away, leaving the braying GC supporters believing the hearts and minds of the undecided spectators have been won over, since they are now silent and moved away).
It’s always a mistake to believe ennui is support.