Blind belief of inconsistent denial

By Pat Hackett.

Blind belief is about believing in an argument without thinking through the reasoning for yourself. These accusations are often made by those debating climate science, particularly in social media groups. I think it is interesting to look at the extent and the reasons for this. If you have experienced these debates you will have little doubt about how polarized these can be.

There is good reason why many have belief, however it is blind belief in inconsistent denial that it is the most destructive and can dominate many of these “debates”.

Belief, of course, involves acceptance and there can be good reason for many to accept, and likewise there is good reason for skepticism. I will discuss these initially before I look at some examples of inconsistency and half truths that will help you identify cases whether or not the person is engaging in denial.

When it comes to scientific matters it is probably better to think in terms of trusting the scientific system rather than belief. No one can be expected to be fully aware in all the related climate science involved. If there was a blatant error in the reasoning behind say the greenhouse effect then of the thousands of scientists who work in related fields some would have discovered this by now and come up with a better explanation to replace the greenhouse effect. This hasn’t happened over the years.

AGW

Humans affecting climate change via global warming is normally referred to as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Very briefly the case for this is that humans are causing the emission of so called greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions to increase with the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use. These GHG are building up in the atmosphere and cause the Earth to warm more than it otherwise would. This is called the greenhouse effect (GHE). The increased heat can have effects on other factors such as water vapour and ice (among a host of other possible changes normally referred to as feedbacks) which in turn can affect the heating of the planet. Some of these feedbacks can stabilize the atmosphere while some of these feedbacks can amplify the warming.

Skepticism

Scientists hypothesize, for example, on a range of values for climate sensitivity and science in general looks at these openly and skeptically in a balanced way:-

The basic physics of the greenhouse effect is almost universally agreed by scientists, however the extent of the feedbacks are under debate,  and hence there is great uncertainty of the resulting climate sensitivity which addresses how much the Earth will actually warm due to the GHG. There is also great uncertainty in how the earth will warm up as we see in the variations in our local weather. When reports come out on extreme weather it cannot be ascertained that any particular extreme can be put down to global warming. Also it cannot be expected that the Earth will warm uniformly across all regions and distribute this heat into the atmosphere, oceans and ice layers also in a uniform way.

Back in early 2014 there were extreme floods in the south of the UK and much of the media, some politicians and a few scientists said this was a direct result of global warming. Skeptical scientists did not draw these conclusions. Scientists are rightly skeptical in nature and before they broadly accept proposals they will require a greater understanding. In this case they would more likely ask the question is this evidence consistent with GW, and if so can it be statistically verified? The statistical verification of a single event in this case is naturally not likely.

The Non-scientist

How can the non-scientist, or indeed the non specialists, cope with different reports and claims?

This is a difficult but important issue to deal with. It cannot be expected for the majority of the population to understand and have knowledge of the relevant science and mathematics involved. However there are straightforward strategies that can be used to avoid making mistakes.

It is sensible to listen to the experts, to those scientists, who specialize in studying climate changes past and present. However, if you are getting the information from blogs or through social media, you may have doubt as to who the experts are, and so you will need other strategies. Don’t just accept the middle ground as a play safe strategy in replace of using reason. The average of a truth and a deliberate lie will more than likely always resemble a lie.

Look for consistency, or easier look for blatant inconsistent claims.

Beware of half truths.

I will look at each of these two pointers to look out for, with some examples that I have observed on internet sites. In addition I would beware of claims that are precise without uncertainty. Astrologers and other fortune tellers have no reluctance in making bold claims and it is inevitable that some of these will be right some of the time.

Climate Debates

If you have at any time looked at social media sites on climate change you will normally find the opinions very polarized with little room for debate. . The reasons for denial I will leave for the moment; however that is a fascinating topic. If you are interested in following this line you could follow this link here to a MOOC course with the following aims:-

• How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
• How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
• How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
• How to effectively debunk climate misinformation

However in this blog I will focus on spotting those in denial, by identifying their inconsistency or their use of half truths.

Inconsistency

A good cherry-picker will make their own boundaries, time scales, which laws to apply and when, when they want their data adjusted and when they dont. Having this total freedom they can then get any data to show their pre-conceived conclusions.

If you are scientifically skeptical and looking for honest objective viewpoints on the areas of climate science that are less than certain the first thing you will come across is inconsistency that may well surprise you. Often this is ....Blind belief of inconsistent denial practiced by those who call themselves skeptics. It is though they have grasped the worst of all ....blind acceptance, inconsistency, denial of science
  Here I will look at common examples. These are extremely common examples put forward by the same “skeptics” as they discuss different issues perhaps on different days or perhaps within minutes of each other turning back round on the inconsistent claims. It would appear that each of these inconsistent claims can be combined in any combination producing a seemingly endless variety of confusion. These discussions involve sharing and or “liking” blogs and other internet articles.

Example1. (The most common and simplistic.) CO2 is not rising. CO2 is rising very fast but temperatures are not.

Now you wouldn’t think that it would be common for “skeptics” to select share and like articles supporting both these points but indeed they do. (The more “sophisticated” will use multiple accounts to hide this, and often start with...”nobody claims  such and such    but oh yes they do)

In one post it is argued that we cannot possibly know the concentration of CO2 reliably enough to say that it is increasing and in any case the observation site (although there are many) is situated on top of a volcano. Another post on another occasion the same people argue ( sharing articles) that show graphs with “suitable” scales to claim CO2 is rising very fast but global average temperatures are not rising as fast. So, it is argued, the claims of CO2 causing temperatures to rise are proven wrong.

Now both of these claims are not accurate (but I will leave these discussions aside), but the point I make here is that the “skeptics” blindly believe both to be true, or at least support these inconsistent arguments.

Example 2. Data is too unreliable to make any conclusions about global temperatures and CO2 concentrations. Detailed claims are made about climates and correlations in the distant past.

The “skeptics” will vehemently argue both of these false statements in separate posts, again, without requiring the need for consistency. In fact as they go further back in time when there are more and more considerations to be taken into account that would affect temperature other than CO2, they become more and more precise about their knowledge of CO2 and temperature ignoring both the other factors and the uncertainties involved. Again not the reasoning of real scientific skepticism.

Example 3. The oceans are absorbing most of the CO2. The oceans cannot be absorbing CO2.

Now you may think ..surely not...people wouldn’t argue both of these...but yes they do.  In the first case they are arguing that CO2 (now admitting it is going up) won’t stay in the atmosphere long and hence the concentrations we see will soon drop (short half life argument). In the second argument they are arguing that pH of the oceans (ocean acidification) can’t be dropping ....because CO2 is not going into the oceans ......because they are warming. (They seem to forget they have been arguing that the oceans have not been warming).

The reality is of course that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing. Some of it is going into the oceans but as the oceans warm it is getting harder for the CO2 to be absorbed.

Example 4 CO2 cant absorb infra-red radiation....we can measure the CO2 from satellites and China are emitting more than us. (us usually being the US)

There are countless arguments saying that CO2 cant absorb infra red radiation. However it is the absorption spectrum that allows us to detect CO2 by non chemical means. Spectroscopy allows us to state the composition not only of gases on earth but across the universe. Blind belief of inconsistent denial will allow the “skeptic” to use data from spectroscopy any deny its absorption properties of electromagnetic radiation simultaneously.

Example 5 The effect is logarithmic. CO2 is only a trace gas.        

The first argument here is that CO2 has its greatest effect (per unit of concentration....this bit not usually included and hence not applied properly) at small concentrations and a later argument that CO2 cannot possibly have any effect because its concentration is too low and again the inconsistency doesn’t seem to cause any cognitive conflict

Further examples include believing in articles supporting any combinations of the above, and in some cases all of the above including..... It is impossible to have any idea of future temperature changes...  We are heading for global cooling, or... The climate sensitivity cannot be known with any certainty ....it is extremely low with precise values stated.

There are also facebook groups dedicated to collecting these inconsistencies and the half truths that I discuss next. (There are also writers who write for this audience knowing full well their lack of skills and having no need for consistency)

Half truths

Half truths are implications hoping the reader to infer a false conclusion.

Volcanoes emit CO2.

(True, but surely not hoping me to infer that they have suddenly started emitting more in phase with human emissions since the industrial revolution.)

Climate changed in the past.

(Implication that because climate changed in the past this excludes humans changing it today.).) In fact without considering GHG as one of the factors that affect climate and temperatures, it is not possible to explain these changes.

Nature emits more CO2 than humans.

(True, but forgets to include nature also absorbs more CO2 while emissions from fossil fuels are only in one direction.)

Warming oceans release CO2.

(True, and this could be bad for the atmosphere, but the oceans are presently absorbing more because the pressure from more CO2 in the atmosphere outweighs this effect. In other words only true if it were only the temperature that was changing but it isn’t.)

Clouds reflect heat.

(A true statement that is usually used to argue that WV is not a +ve feedback. However clouds are not WV. Further higher temperature may result in less or more clouds formation... this is not well known)

It is the sun that is the source of heat, not CO2.

(True. it is not your jacket that is the source of heat. I wouldn’t go out on a cold night without one though.....an analogy.)

Further examples of inconsistency or half-truths will be added to comments below

If only there were more skepticism and less blind belief. What we see is here are examples of gullible blind belief of anything as long as it is not the one thing I don’t want to accept. That is a clear case of denial