There are a number of psychological barriers preventing people from acting to prevent climate change. Robert Gifford at the University of Victoria calls these “dragons of inaction”. This article consists of edited excerpts from the Denial101x course I’m following – Making Sense of Climate Science Denial.
I have been commenting on Boomer Warrior’s site.
or preferably view my copy of it here in case poor old Boomer decides to delete a few things.
This site is of some interest in that it shows how a person can jump on to the AGW Band Wagon, repeat without showing sources of any kind, and assert that what he says is the truth.
He even has the temerity of brazenly asking for donations!
Wouldn’t be so bad if actually had some substance to pedal!
As you may have noticed, (if you used either of the links above), I left this comment on Boomer Warrior’s web site, but I fear that he wont be able to understand it too much.
My initial fear was that he would probably spam it. He state quite clearly that he welcomed dissenting views on his site, but after receiving a comment that was impossible to refute, he quickly changed that policy and spammed my last comment.
This comment is recorded below.
In essence Boomer Warrior’s website is simply AGW propaganda and garbage and by his own admission he never checks the sources.
Boomers words are in italics
Quote “You suggest that I take the time to verify my facts before publishing them. Well in theory that would be nice. But as the deniers say, I’m not a scientist. And my time is precious.”
This is my first comment.
It would be easier to not believe in conspiracy theories if the conspirators refrained from conspiracy type material. Actually the fact that they publish sometimes removes them from the conspiracy list, but when someone publishes BS and then either has no provenance or hides his data or reasoning, they jump right back on the list.
Eg Cook et al who you quote above with this 97% consensus theory. Did you actually read the paper and analyse his data yourself? I did and as a consequence I have to say the guy is either stupid or has an agenda ie he is a conspirator.
Did you ever even think about the basic AGS hypothesis. It fails on two counts which means that in normal times real scientists would throw it out!
I can only suggest you that you start researching the origins of your “facts” before you form any beliefs such as you are pushing on your site.
It is possible that you may have difficulty in publishing this comment. If so don’t worry, I may publish it for you on my site http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com.
Roger – Thank you for your comments. By the way, I have no problems approving comments which are contrary to my beliefs on my site. And feel free to publish my comments on your site. These are all part of the dialogue we must have on climate change. But beware that as we get deeper and deeper into catastrophic climate change, dialogue will become rather meaningless. Survival will become the essential driving force.
You suggest that I take the time to verify my facts before publishing them. Well in theory that would be nice. But as the deniers say, I’m not a scientist. And my time is precious. Hence I choose to believe what 97% of the world’s climate scientists have proven. The other 3% is likely financed by the fossil fuel lobby. Therefore I choose to ignore that faction.
My work is to raise awareness and disseminate scientific information to those who are open-minded and realistic. I’m fighting for social justice and climate justice.
I must admit that “Those who are open-minded and realistic.” considering the content of the website is a bit rich!
The use of the word “Proven” is a little risky as well, considering all the theoretical hypothesis of global warming have no basis empirically and are definitely not supported by current recorded temperatures.
“I have no problems approving comments which are contrary to my beliefs on my site.”
Well that is remarkable, but as we shall see, when confronted by facts that he could not disprove, poor old Boomer had a change of heart.
This is my reply. In my comment I quoted Boomer using italics.
“You suggest that I take the time to verify my facts before publishing them. Well in theory that would be nice. But as the deniers say, I’m not a scientist. And my time is precious.” “
Do I hear you correctly?
“My work is to raise awareness and disseminate scientific information to those who are open-minded and realistic…. I’m fighting for social justice and climate justice.”
And you do not have the time to take the trouble to verify whether what you say is factual?
Although I suspect you are not unusual in that regard, do you have a problem with your conscience? I find your activities quite horrifying and irresponsible.
For your information, I, myself would never dare to make a statement without first of all finding some factual support for my assertion.
How can you be fighting for anything at all, including social and climate justice if you are not absolutely sure of your facts?
I happen to know that much, if not most, of the “Scientific Information” does not add up.
If you are not prepared to research what they are saying, you end up simply being a puppet for people who have neither your good health or that of the world in mind
“Hence I choose to believe what 97% of the world’s climate scientists have proven.”
Mmm I did mention that I had studied Cook Et Al from hence that claim came from. I even got hold of his data, quite hard to get hold of initially but I believe he was finally compelled to make it available.
Here is what I found:
Cook, according to his data accessed 11944 technical papers which were presumably chosen because they were about Climate Change in some shape of form.
He then categorised them as follows:
8,Not climate related
I took his data and extracted the following numbers of papers for each category.
2, Impacts 4780 or 49.38% of the whole.
3,Mitigation 3386 or 28.35% of the whole.
4,Methods 1193 or 16.69% of the whole
5,Paleoclimate 785 or 6.57 of the whole
8,Not climate related 0 or 0% of the whole
9,Not Peer-Reviewed 0 or 0% of the whole
10,No Abstract 0 or 0% of the whole
So from that he appears to have at least 4780 + 3386 or 49.38% plus 28. 35% = 8166 or 77.73% of papers that are relevant for his study.
Cook then marked each paper as follows.
1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it
5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW
6,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify
7,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%
Here are the numbers of papers for each endorsement
1. 64 or 0.54%
2. 922 or 7.72%
3. 2910 or 24.36%
4. 7970 or 66.73%
5. 54 or 0.45%
6. 15 or 0.13%
Well I cannot see any 3% there can you? but then we are only looking at his data. We never heard his sermon right? The best I can do from that is 3896/(7970 + 54 + 15) = 48% supporting AGW which is further eroded by endorsements 2 and 3 do not quantify whether the authors actually think AGW is a problem. Very likely they believe, as I do, that a small amount of warming is cause by humans but it is of no consequence.
Did he just use the top 64 papers (endorsement 1) to come up with his 97%? Maybe but that figure would hardly prove very much in most rational peoples view.
Maybe you can help. Here are Cook Et Al’s data
Actually it is a case of cherry picking the data in my and most peoples view.
It is obvious that the whole study is actually meaningless.
“The other 3% is financed by the fossil fuel lobby. Therefore I choose to ignore that faction”
Well Boomer, it is interesting that I have done a little research into this “fuel lobby” thing.
Unfortunately for me, I have never received any offer from anyone let alone any fuel organisation, but then I am only a small fish it seems.
However I did find this out about one of the most dangerous lobbiests in the world who made his initial fortune by having an almost complete monopoly on fuel in the United States until his company was broken up by the introduction of the Sherman Act, which I know a little about because I studied it as an undergraduate.
I am of course talking about the Rockefeller family.
Here are some facts which I looked up just in fact. The Rockefellers are a bit sneaky and tend to show their allegiances with discretion and one has to chase them a bit. However this is what I found.
Simply a fraction of where they are involved I suspect.
The Rockefeller family are supporters of the following and I give the web address so you can look for yourself. However they tend to use slightly different names and often support organisations via another organisation. If you follow the financial trail, of which most “non profit” organisations are usually required to display by the law of their origin, very often the Rockefellers appear.
Here are some examples of what I have found.
4 Oceanwatch Sailing via http://www.conservation.org
Are Rockefellers involved with the WWF? A little tricky to trace but http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_international_corporate_partnerships_report_2014.pdf
Which mention 7 IMD as one of its major supporters. Lets check there.
IMD seems to be an arm of the WHO.
Who is a supporter of W.H.O. then? And why does the WHO support the WWF?
http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/en/ search for “rockefeller”
http://www.who.int/en/ search for “rockefeller”
Of course someone else has already catalogued this:
Oops, I almost forgot to include this beneficiary of the Rockerfellers.
Here is a little history.
It seems that no matter where you go in the “green” or “sustainability” world you trip over the Rockefellers . Exactly who has big oil on their side then?
And believe me, the Rockefellers are not the sort of people who give out money without thinking of whats in it for them!
Actually fossil fuel energy organisations love green, sustainability and AGW.
These “philosophies” ( If they are worthy of the name) will actually benefit oil companies and the like. I don’t mean the miner at the bottom of the heap but those who control it.
Here is why.
Greens bleat out “Don’t use oil it is about to run out and it is heating up the planet.
Oil companies interpret that as “Fossil fuel will always be needed but restrict the supply? Great, can do – We know that will make the price sky rocket, so we can produce less oil, get a huge price and still make as much or more money as before but with fewer expenses! A businessman’s dream!
“I’m fighting for social justice and climate justice.”
Read more about the Rockefellers here.
This blog is generally quite reliable as I have verified many of the things said here from other sources.
Boomer, I don’t like your friends very much. Never trust big oil you know!
Well Roger you have spent a lot of energy trying to discredit my work. Writing the following on your blog is truly uncalled for “In essence Boomer Warrior’s website is simply AGW propaganda and garbage”. I will let my readers be the judge of that. You’ve cherry picked a few phrases from the article to deliberately take shots at BoomerWarrior.Org. And I thought I could continue to dialogue with you. I’m afraid that will not be possible. I’ve lost respect for you and I will no longer approve your comments on my site.
I do not apologize for relying on the opinions of climate experts, climatologists and scientists who agree on the climate crisis we have created for ourselves and our grandchildren. As you know, I could have simply not approved your comment but I allow all “reasonable” opinions even if I totally disagree with them.You ask me if I have a problem with my conscience. No, I do not.
Today, Pope Francis has released his cyclical on climate change. He along with others, who are well supported and legitimized by the scientific community, are starting to finally move world leaders into taking action on climate. The G7 recently announced the end of fossil fuels by 2100, starting with massive emissions cuts between now and 2050. So you see Roger, I stand on the side of truth and compassion for humanity.
It is clear to me that you stand on the side of the Dragons of Inaction clinging to bits and pieces of information cherry-picked from references you conveniently use to validate your claims. That is one of the most popular tactics used by deniers. And you do it well and choose to call it research. A few misplaced links to dubious articles that are filled with misinformation does not constitute research. You are just propagating climate myths and doing a major disservice to us all.
Roger, my conscience is clear. What about yours?
Poor old Boomer has no answer for my comment above . Not surprising really as truth and facts are difficult to disprove.
All Boomer could do was blurt “ I’ve lost respect for you and I will no longer approve your comments on my site.”
“pieces of information cherry-picked from references you conveniently use to validate your claims.”
Which is interesting because all the sites I referred to were sites that Boomer would normally support, especially Cook Et Al because Boomer keeps mentioning the 97% and 3% thing.
“I stand on the side of truth and compassion for humanity.”
Boomer, if you had any inkling of economics you would know that cutting fossil fuel usage in its self, (and the UN wants us to further squander our wealth), will ruin western economies and believe me, if that happens men women and children will need more than just your compassion!
My reply which was spammed
It is to your credit that you have published my comment.
Of course what you need to do next is read all the links I supplied in support of my assertions and logic.
My conscience is very clear thank you very much. As an economist I can explain to you very clearly what will happen to the normal citizens of each country should all AGW objectives be met by their respective governments. MY conscience compels me to speak and warn on their behalf.
Misinformation is rife when it comes to AGW issues and the only way to disassociate ones self from it is to examine every assertion carefully including its sources to make sure it is genuine.
This process – by your own admission – is entirely missing from you and your website.
Yes I referred and examined above Cook Et Al which is where your “3%” comes from. Yes it is a dubious article, and I correctly condemn it – but you are the one who relies on it!
All the other sites are sites which I am sure you approve of, and they all lead a trail to Big Oil
“you have spent a lot of energy trying to discredit my work”
Boomer you don’t have any work – quoting without examining sources is not work – it is simply supporting your own prejudices.
As for my energy, I have spent more than 5 years looking at sources very closely and you are looking at the fruits of a small portion.
I understand how you feel when your beliefs are challenged like this, but we are talking about the welfare of us and our children here. We must put our dogmas behind us and examine verified facts.
If my careful research had supported AGW, I would be the first one to be in support, but in actual fact I have uncovered a long and grubby trail of deceit and power mongering.
I finish by suggesting a book, which incidentally quotes all it’s sources which you and your followers should read. It is called “Totalitaria” by Ian Wishart. http://www.amazon.com/Totalitaria-What-The-Enemy-State/dp/0987657356
Of course I will publish our comments at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com
So folks – what a terrifying example of a person who can best be described by the word “Cadre”, who , to use his own accusation against me, cherry picks his information according to his distorted/religious beliefs, and presents it as the unadulterated truth at the same time avoiding checking facts in case he may be wrong.