Why Is Climate Change Theory So Hard to Understand?

This is all about the Benjamins, always has been. You don't want to deal with science, you just give more money to people who live on multi millions of dollars. They don't care about you. In fact, they wouldn't help you up off the street if you fell. But go ahead...be skeptical about man caused climate change. See how it helps you and the planet.

At the end of the day, there are basically just a couple of things that truly define what people can and will believe. The first is their religious beliefs - the sense that since God created the world, he's the one doing the ongoing upkeep, and therefore everything is and will always be good, since we are god's chosen species. Obviously this particular view is roughly christian, but extends to other religions - the idea that the higher power is the one in control, and that it is arrogant for us to assume that we are, no matter how the religion itself contradicts it - "God helps those who help themselves", god floods the earth because reasons.

The second is the power of story. Many of you here in this thread are guilty of this, and ATS is particularly susceptible to the power of a good story. If you tell a story well enough, if it hangs together in a way that makes sense to someone personally, based on their understanding of how stories works, then all the science in the world would not be enough to convince them of their personally held belief that that story is correct. It's legitimately hard to change your point of view on any subject, and it's particularly hard to do so when someone else is challenging you - rather than admitting that they're right, you double down on your own beliefs, because that's more important to your sense of self. The way that you get around that is by telling someone a better story. Scientists are legitimately bad at telling stories. Politicians, PR people for large firms, those people are good at telling stories, because that's their business. A scientist looks at the facts, explains the facts, expects that everyone else will see those same facts in the same way they do, and cannot understand when someone does not. Someone with a vested interest in disputing those facts (e.g. people who make money from oil and the current economic status quo) knows that if they tell a good enough story, it doesn't matter what the facts are, it only matters what people will believe, and they'll believe you if you tell a good enough story.

At the end of the day though, to me it's absolutely asinine to have the fight about what causes climate change. The simple fact of the matter is that it *is* changing. That change has consequences. We should be prepared for those consequences. The country that gets off their ass and adapts and plans for those changes in both the near and short term, that's the country that will be best placed in the next 100 years. If you accept climate change is happening, you can plan now how to do things like conserve water, to move crop lands if that's what's required to feed people, to come up with lower water and higher tech options for farming. To build a giant solar farm in arizona or nevada that could power the whole country. To put solar panels on every roof, and reduce the use of oil and coal for energy to as close to zero as possible. To plan for sea level rise and storms by building levees, alternate housing in safer locations, safer buildings that can withstand storm/tornado/hurricane, etc. You do these things, and they will both give you physical safety, and economic security. Imagine if all the things i just talked about were being done - think about the jobs that would create. Think about the investment in science that could pay off by selling technologies to other countries. Think about not having to care what the middle east is doing with their oil, because we don't need it anymore. Think about what water security means for an entire country. At the end of the day, who cares if humans are doing it or not? Think instead about what we could do that would have a positive impact on our environment? Universal solar power + electric vehicles? No emissions to dirty the air, so automatically we increase the health of people with asthma etc. What's the downside here? That rich as hell people don't get richer?

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.

Who said it was difficult to understand? Boo!

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.

Obviously man effects the climate greatly and also this planet goes through climate cycles. The hottest years on record were in that last decade. This past winter in Buffalo was harsh for even me and I feel bad for the people in Boston who are not used to what they got. I saw pictures of snow covered deserts in the middle east just 3 months ago. As I sit and type, it is only 5/8 and it is like an oven in here, with a fan going and windows open.

I think I know why. It is often conservatives that will believe what other conservatives say. Not that every conservative denies climate change by man..but this definitely a political thing...when it should be based on science. I see the same politicians rail against gay marriage, abortion, marijuana, etc., rail against climate change science. It is that they are deluded or just pandering for money and votes. The bad thing is that they influence how the average citizen who is conservative thinks and what they believe. That is my take on it.

Bingo. That and money flowing unabated into the pockets of politicians to keep them in power - money from industries that don't want to change, that fight every single piece of legislation that might take pennies from their grubby, greedy, oil soaked hands. They have turned it into a R vs D issue, so that all the massive amount of emotion - the lack of trust, the polarity, the absolute vitriol the political parties are experiencing - all go into KEEPING THE STATUS QUO AT ALL COSTS...literally! It reminds me of the tobacco companies denial efforts. Remember that? From the days of Ads with doctors saying which brand was 'healthiest' to now with the Ads of ruined lives, people speaking through holes in their necks... Why would ANYONE trust business to do the right thing in this regard?

So, the money flows into the Oil industry's hands, and into the hands of politicians, and media, and...

Some bleak tomorrow the sun will rise on a world devoid of life as we know it now. How much will that money be worth then?? Or will they all be laughing from the shelter of their new space station as they jet off to new worlds to destroy?

Sorry - this whole topic is so frustrating...

- AB

a reply to: Inannamute

Brilliantly said.

A country getting their act together would also require dramatic change, which is where we go full circle back to the beginning of people not wanting to do that, or, barring good options, fail to do that as they have their plates full with scraping by and raising kids,etc.

But the ones who are farsighted enough to yank themselves into a sustainable way of living will most likely fare far far better than places that rely on that one Super Wal-Mart and perhaps one other gas station for all their needs...

Change will come, wether we are ready for it or not.

peace,
AB

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: infolurker

Why can only one side to this argument be only fueled by making more money for people?

Is oil/gasoline not one of the most profitable business around right now?

Of the top 10 fortune 500 companies, four of them are oil/gas...
Two are car manufactures. So eight of the top ten are highly invested in the way things work right now.

Ya, it is only about the money for one side alright.

Yes, it is,

Trillions, yes with T of dollars for paper traders. Who pays for it, the people.

To hell with the Carbon Credit Scam.

originally posted by: Herolotus
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Good response!

There are so many variables and so much difficulty.

Yet still the sticking point seems to be that people don't 'believe' it is true, and this was a serious problem even before the manipulated data was exposed. The exposed manipulation simply confirmed for many what they already 'believed'.

The point shouldn't rest on belief! It should rest on data and now, no one trusts the data? So that's it then, we just think the entire study of this topic as it points toward man-made climate change is a giant corrupt conspiracy?

I give pause when I think that if we deny climate change, then it's business as usual and no one has to change or be responsible, we can just keep shuffling chairs until the house burns down.

Something from my personal experience - most oil field (my experince is with american-based oil companies) execs absolutely believe in man-made climate change. I don't want to name names, because professional trouble, but seriously - the back room conversations out here are very disturbing.

One of the serious problems with people admitting to believing that humankind can change the climate is that for many people the concept was introduced in tandem with a solution set that suspiciously allows for global governance and increased central control of people's lives by international entities.

What if the conservative elements of the government unloaded legit data supporting the idea that CO2 emissions would "save the planet" (LoL, why do people use that phrase? Its absurd) and the only way to prevent total collapse was to give multinational corporations the power to increase prices on everyone in the world in addition to granting them authority to dictate what laws foreign governments enforce.

Most people can grasp such a concept, but will refuse to admit it as the effects would lead to a situation which more immediately threatens the livelihood of the individual.

Also, at my university the climatology students trend towards the bottom of the curve in all calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations courses. Can't say much in regards to the statistics as most people who pass the above mentioned ace stats. Physics then complicates everything when trying to average such large swathes of surface area. Often cylinders or layers are alternated in the equations used for atmospheric studies and the ones showing greater warming or forcing have so many variables that identifying sources of error becomes tedious (if you know what I mean).

-FBB

Man, this sums it up for me pretty nicely..

www.venganza.org...

I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

What if the conservative elements of the government unloaded legit data supporting the idea that CO2 emissions would "save the planet" (LoL, why do people use that phrase? Its absurd) and the only way to prevent total collapse was to give multinational corporations the power to increase prices on everyone in the world in addition to granting them authority to dictate what laws foreign governments enforce.

I would reject the notion that there wasn't another solution, not deny that there was a problem.

a reply to: Herolotus

Because there are a huge number of variables.

Data needs to be correlated, A sample from the antarctic needs a similar sample and it's not a matter of drilling into any old block of ice and expecting the same results, There will be difference in sea level, ice cover, volcanic activity...

It's a tangled web.

a reply to: Greathouse

No one 'changed' the name.

The fundamental mechanism is the 'greenhouse effect'.

The greenhouse effect causes more ENERGY to be 'trapped' in the atmosphere (some of which is transfered to the ocean) instead of being radiated out into space.

In exactly the same way that when you add energy (heat) to a pan of water on the stove it gets warmer, so too does the additional energy added to the Earth cause it to get warmer on a global scale - thus GLOBAL WARMING. In particular, we are usually discussing MAN-CAUSED (anthropormorphic) global warming as opposed to natural global warming.

The CONSEQUENCE of the global warming is a change to the climate - thus CLIMATE CHANGE. In particular, we are usually discussing climate change as a result of man-caused global warming.

When you add energy (heat) to a pan of water, eventually it boils. Sometimes say 'heat up a pan of water' and sometimes we say 'boil a pan of water'. We aren't 'changing the name' of what we are doing, we are just describing the action or the result, depending on our audience. In this analogy, turning on the stove is the equivalent of the greenhouse effect, adding heat is the equivalent of global warming, boiling water is the equivalent of climate change.

No one 'changed' the name - it is interrelated topics with a different focus. Some people prefer to discuss global warming and some people prefer to discuss the consequent climate change. Some audiences get it when you discuss the science behind global warming, other audiences need to have the consequences explained to them in order to understand why it is important.

Come now, is that REALLY all that hard to understand?

a reply to: HerolotusThe word theory bothers me. Every climate change scientist has a theory. But no hard facts. What they use has been rigged to meet their "theory". So I would call them dishonest. Once a scientist has been labeled dishonest I doubt any work they produce. Oh I know the climate has changed. It is obvious to anyone that has been around a long time. But I believe that most of the changes are natural, as well as what we puny humans could do, to make a difference globally. Scientist that cry wolf to many times are just not believable.

a reply to: schuyler

That's EXACTLY the issue. It is not "just a matter of physics."

As a matter of fact it is indeed "just a matter of physics" (and chemistry).

If that were true we ought to be able to predict the weather at 100% accuracy.

You clearly know nothing about physics, chemistry, the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's oceans, the Earth's geology, the way the Sun works, probability, complex systems, chaos theory. To quote a currently popular catch phrase 'You know nothing Jon Snow' (schuyler).

Newton knew all about gravity and could work out its effects between two bodies. But he could not calculate the interactions between three bodies at a time - even though he invented calculus. LaPlace solved the three body problem, but that is still a long way away from computing the positions, velocity, and reactions of every atom in the atmosphere and the ocean to every photon of energy - which is what we would need to do to 'predict the weather at 100% accuracy'. The very idea is ludicrous - to a scientist.

The best we can do is approximate the average of large masses of the atoms to a number of possible energy inputs and transfers. This is done in computer programs called 'climate models' and 'weather models'. The two kinds of models are for different purposes, have different inputs, and have different outputs. Climate models don't tell us if it is going to rain tomorrow, and weather models don't tell us anything about whether or not droughts are more or less likely to occur in the next few decades.

Neither kind of model is 100% accurate even though we know just about everything we need to know about the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere (I said just about everything - there is always something new to learn).

a reply to: rnaa

Thank you for your in-depth explanation of the greenhouse effect. I first learned about the greenhouse effect in probably sixth grade so that would be about 40 years ago. I understood it then I understand it now as a matter of fact I understood the greenhouse effect was at every point in my life between then and now.

But I understand how when people learn something new they like to try to explain it to others. Your explanation amused me thanks.

This is worth posting again.

Back in 2003, the Bush administration decided to go with the phrase climate change instead of global warming. This article sheds some light on WTF their reasoning was for the name change:

Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
...

I am still amazed how so many cling to the emotional argument that attempting to do anything about the damage we humans are causing as a scam to raise taxes and/or something that would destroy the economy.

When we look at these discussions, look at who brings good information to the table and look who engages in name calling(i.e. chicken little, alarmists, religion of science, Al Gore, ect.)

I know I have used the term denialst, but I really do not know of a more pleasant way to describe those who disregards the information available yet cling to a good sounding story, especially if told over and over again.

Someone earlier pointed that scientist are bad at telling stories, they gather information and present it in a way they hope others to understand it like they do, and this is often dry and boring. While those who write speeches for politicians and articles for say oil companies are excellent at telling a good story. These stories often play on a persons emotions.

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

What if the conservative elements of the government unloaded legit data supporting the idea that CO2 emissions would "save the planet" (LoL, why do people use that phrase? Its absurd) and the only way to prevent total collapse was to give multinational corporations the power to increase prices on everyone in the world in addition to granting them authority to dictate what laws foreign governments enforce.

I would reject the notion that there wasn't another solution, not deny that there was a problem.

That is all fine and well, but my point was that the first solution presented was CO2 taxation and massive reduction in consumption to be regulated via global governance.

First impressions so toxic that people turned away from the entire topic completely.

-FBB

a reply to: Greathouse

I understood it then I understand it now as a matter of fact I understood the greenhouse effect was at every point in my life between then and now.

Apparently however, you didn't understand that my reply didn't explain the greenhouse effect, but the relationship between the concepts of 'global warming' and 'climate change'. Your question asked why the name was changed. That you would ask this question indicates clearly that you do not understand that climate change is a result of global warming.

It is a pity that you were blinded by introductory remarks designed to ensure all readers are on the same page and couldn't see the actual substantive answer to your question - and even more of a pity that you would ask a question and not be open to understanding the answer. I would point out that 'some people' are confused the jargon used in scientific discussion - your post gave no hint of where your understanding began or ended.

But I understand how when people learn something new they like to try to explain it to others. Your explanation amused me thanks.

But I understand how when people think they are being clever making "concern troll" postings, they are really just being d1¢kheads. Your comeback disappointed me thanks.

a reply to: rnaa

No honestly I've been over that definition repeatedly and it's baloney. The reason the term was changed from global warming to climate change. Is that the events wern't conforming with the original predictions. So people like you had to find another way to keep your White elephant alive.

Climate change actually means just what it says climate change. It has happened throughout the history of the earth and will continue to happen. It is a well-established fact that the climate on earth changes. What is really irritating is when holding on to lost causes try to rewrite a definition.

a reply to: Greathouse

Did you skip over the article I just posted? It explains with pretty good detail why in the early 2000's we started hearing the phrase 'climate change' instead of global warming.

www.theguardian.com...

You are not using valid logic when you state climate has changed before, therefore not an issue today. That in no way counters the observations of the changing planet we are currently experiencing. The planet is changing, we are responsible for a great deal of those changes, shall we continue causing the problem or decide to change our actions in hope of keeping this planet inhabitable for our species?

Can you be specific with a gripe you have with Human Induced Climate Change? What observations can you bring to the discussion that suggest that man is NOT changing the planet significantly?

Let's start with the spike of CO2, we are observing it rise at about 1% per year. In terms of the age of the planet, that means in a century we will have doubled the CO2 levels. If it continues it will spell major problems, and the observations confirm the excess CO2 is indeed coming from human burning of fossil fuels.

a reply to: jrod

Of course I skipped over it. Let me explain something to you. The term climate change was around for a very long time before the term was altered as it currently is now.