Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 53 of total 53 in this topic |
ryankelly
Trad climber
Bhumi
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Feb 8, 2015 - 08:22am PT
|
I am looking to interview a self identified "climate change skeptic" for a graduate school assignment. The idea is to learn about another perspective by discussing these types of questions:
Sample Questions:
1. How would you describe your perspective on climate change?
2. Why do you feel this way?
3. Are there any specific people who have influenced your opinion on this topic?
4. Are there any specific informational sources (news, websites) that have influenced your opinion on this topic?
5. Are there any specific statements about climate change that you find hard to believe? If so, why?
6. Is there anything else you would like to share about this topic?
If anyone is game to help out reply here or send me a message.
Thank you,
Ryan
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
Bhumi
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2015 - 08:55am PT
|
Thanks for the suggestion.
I'm really looking to talk with anyone who is skeptical about climate change in general or as it is related to human activities.
Anyone else out there want to be interviewed?
|
|
Reeotch
climber
4 Corners Area
|
|
You should try to contact this Eric Karlstrom. He's retired now. I've heard some interviews with him. He seems to be a reasonable person, and an expert in the field.
http://www.naturalclimatechange.us/
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
Try getting ahold of Howard Shectar sp? He seems to be a bit of a sceptic and would be interesting to hear what he has to say.
http://www.mammothweather.com
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
Bhumi
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2015 - 10:46am PT
|
Thanks for the suggestions.
It does not need to be an expert by any means. I am almost more interested in hearing from "non-experts."
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Just copy and past the whole "Climate Change skeptics?" thread into your school paper and yer done ....
:-)
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
Maybe it should all be called Earth Change. People should start wrapping their heads around what 7 billion people and more on the way really means, because it's not pretty.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
|
|
Just copy and past the whole "Climate Change skeptics?" thread into your school paper and yer done ....
That would be plagiarism since DMT has copyrighted it.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Try to interview Ron...and wear a kevlar vest...
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Why not get on the climate change thread and PM the ones that might be of interest to your project???...
he's looking for skeptics not deniers
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Wow... as a grad student in geology working in Quat Strat Easterbrook was often referenced by me. he was/is also good friends of my grad advisors. Sounds like a kook now.
Easterbrook's abuse of his credentials has and continues to do harm on public policy matters. I very much appreciate the willingness of the WWU Geology Department to take this matter on in a head on manner. It could not possibly be easy to essentially disown a fellow colleague. As a Western Geology alum count me as joining the Department's view.
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
Bhumi
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2015 - 12:05pm PT
|
DMT
The assignment is to interact and gather information from a climate change skeptic to better understand another point of view. The sample questions at the top of the thread are basically what the interview would look like.
Anyone should feel free to respond any of the questions. Just typing your thoughts would be useful. Thanks yo.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
|
|
DMT is quite adept with camera and video, you might want to enlist his aid in documenting the earth is flat folks.
Skeptical?
If humans are in fact having an effect on the climate of Earth, then so too shouldn't they also be having a small, but measurable effect on the climate of other planetrs in the solar system?
Since no effect has been measured elsewhere, then we must all remain skeptical. Throw this graph into your paper just to confuse the prof (they usually are easlily befuddled by numbers and computation).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The world used to be round and whole.
The modern mundane men who rule world today have made it flat.
If one thinks too much they will kick you off it's edge .....
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
Bhumi
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2015 - 03:52pm PT
|
Aspen, Thank you for the. Are you willing to be interviewed or at least write your responses the the questions I posted above?
I'm more interested in the response from regular folks than experts.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
You won't get anything intelligible from a regular person. People are a bit twisted by the 'debate'. You want truth? I'll give you the truth!
The line actually goes 'you can't handle the truth' of course. Absolutely nothing can come of your project......that can serve the subject the justice it deserves.
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
Bhumi
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2015 - 04:45pm PT
|
Its a one page interview about someone's perspective. Its not a thesis project. It will be interesting to compare my interview with what others bring in from their interviews.
|
|
Peter Haan
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
From the look at Brownie's image just above, I bet Werner is rushing down to Merced to find matching flatware.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Among some social scientists there are claims that public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change have become ideological or cultural markers to such an extent that asking on a survey are you liberal/conservative, or Democrat/Republican, or accept/reject anthropogenic climate change -- behave as if they are 3 different indicators for the same thing.
There's also new research about "solution aversion" as one main dynamic behind this: people reject scientific warnings if they think the policy implications are ideologically unacceptable.
But if you interview people about *why* they believe what they do, you may just hear sciencey-sounding rationalizations. There's a whole blog industry out there to provide them.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
I'll answer your questions when I get home to a computer with a keyboard and you can use me for the interview
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
Bhumi
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2015 - 05:34pm PT
|
Thanks Limping Crab, much appreciated.
Chiloe...interesting thoughts. Can you point me to one or two of those articles you mentioned?
I've also seen data that shows education about climate change and climate science does little to alter someone's perspective about climate change.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Chiloe - that makes perfect sense in the US. But what about the rest of the world? How does the general opinion on climate change reflect political affiliation? Given the lack of Faux "News" brainwashing I suspect the rest of the planet might not line up in the same way.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
If its about the former, then Roland would be a great guy to interview
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/home/alumni/2007.pdf
In reading Roland Stull's page there it appears that he thinks overpopulation is the problem - that if there weren't so many people, the CO2 they produce would not be such a problem! Anybody want to do the math on how many people we can get rid of and then carry on as usual?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Who knows..but we will find out eventually.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
1. How would you describe your perspective on climate change? I believe the climate is changing and I believe humans are messing up the planet. I'm not certain how related those two things are. Maybe humans are effecting it, maybe they're not. I'm skeptical of people who are certain that they are.
2. Why do you feel this way? I feel this way because I have done a lot of research on the topic and there are many instances in science where someone was certain and later proved wrong. It's happened to me and it happened to the people who thought the climate was cooling and the people who thought the hole in the ozone layer was going to rapidly grow.
3. Are there any specific people who have influenced your opinion on this topic? My professors, specifically the class I took on climate change during my masters in ecology.
4. Are there any specific informational sources (news, websites) that have influenced your opinion on this topic? The discrepancies I see between information provided by science and environmental organizations and news agencies. I've received fundraising papers from the Sierra Club asking for money to prevent logging of Giant Sequoias. Nobody was trying to log Sequoias, there was the possibility of logging in Giant Sequoia National Monument but the majority of people who received that were deceived. Propaganda vs science, no matter what side it's one, drives me nuts and is a problem in the climate change arena as well.
5. Are there any specific statements about climate change that you find hard to believe? If so, why? The statement that it is scientific fact and a consensus. Anyone who has studied atmospheric chemistry knows how intensely complicated it is and to assume anyone can be certain about models is absurd. Is it likely that our contribution to greenhouse gasses directly effects the climate? Absolutely. Is it certain that this will happen and the planet does not have mechanisms to mitigate the change? Absolutely not, so people shouldn't attack those who are not completely convinced.
6. Is there anything else you would like to share about this topic? Science is not unbiased. For example, none of the three research grants I wrote in the past three years were related to climate change but I was advised (told) to include something about climate change in two of my proposals if I wanted funding. I did. It worked. Scientific research is HEAVILY influenced by money, whether from big oil companies or government grants for clean energy.
Let me know if you need any other info for your assignment, good luck!
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Chiloe...interesting thoughts. Can you point me to one or two of those articles you mentioned?
The "cultural" perspective has been developed most actively by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale, headed by Dan Kahan. Here's one of his most recent papers:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057
I think Kahan's right that there is a cultural element to public beliefs about climate science. Also, the patterns of response on surveys do indeed make it look as though climate beliefs, ideology and political party are all measuring one underlying dimension. On one recent survey, climate beliefs turned out to be the second most polarizing question, after approval of Obama.
On the other hand I think Kahan overemphasizes peer pressure and social interactions as the main source for these cultural beliefs. There's plenty of evidence for economic effects and top-down information/misinformation campaigns being important as well. One concept here is called "elite cues," where people form/strengthen their beliefs by listening to their political or media leaders. Also, "biased assimilation" whereby people seek out or retain information that supports their prejudices (very active on the "climate skeptics" thread here, where a number of posters get most of their talking points from politicized bloggers).
There also is psychological and even physiological evidence that some people are more disposed to see the world in black/white, us/them, good/evil categories, whereas others are more comfortable with complexity, uncertainty, shades of gray. Scientists are more often the latter; and some ideologues much more the former. Yet another strand of research, somewhat overlapping with both above, has looked at the role of "conspiracist ideation" (tendency to believe in conspiracies).
I've also seen data that shows education about climate change and climate science does little to alter someone's perspective about climate change.
There is active research on just how that works, or put more constructively, what works best. One issue has to do with "consensus communication," which means communicating just how strong (high 80s to high 90s) the consensus is among scientists that humans are now changing Earth's climate. Evidence has been advanced to support claims that consensus communication does, or does not, work. My own view is that nothing works for everybody, the question should be what works for whom.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Chiloe - that makes perfect sense in the US. But what about the rest of the world? How does the general opinion on climate change reflect political affiliation? Given the lack of Faux "News" brainwashing I suspect the rest of the planet might not line up in the same way.
Good question, one that international surveys are starting to answer. From the most recent I gather that rejection of climate science is occurring on ideological lines in other countries too, though often not so vociferously as in the US. Maybe some have caught up, as there are strong media interests pushing in that direction.
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
Limping...... you pass.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
Given the lack of Faux "News" brainwashing I suspect the rest of the planet might not line up in the same way.
Doug, you're assuming the media has a different role in any other country in the world?
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Doug, you're assuming the media has a different role in any other country in the world?
I don't consider Faux "media". It's a propaganda machine second to none.
What do you have in Canada that rivals it? Canada wouldn't let Faux in because of the blantant lies.
Just how familiar are you with Faux and their programs? Much less the fact there are people in this great nation that have that crap turned on 24/7/365. And I'm not kidding. My mother goes to sleep with it on. We can't even have a real conversation.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
I'm thinking maybe that people are interested in what class the assignment is for. Earth science? Psychology? Information science? Sociology? You're not looking for well informed perspectives (experts) - you're looking for poorly informed perspectives? Sorry - might be tough to find those in a public Internet forum :-)
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
Bhumi
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2015 - 12:22pm PT
|
This turned out nicely. Thanks LimpingCrab and AspenDougy for the responses.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Limpingcrab nailed it....
Waaay too much money involved to ignore that bias in "research" on the actual cause(s). On the other hand, can't ignore big pieces of white stuff dissappearing from my favorite rockpiles...
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Ok I think I fit the demographic of responders that you're screening for. I'll answer your questions even if you prefer not to answer mine :-) I'll do so in a public Internet forum for others approval/disapproval/amusement as well as to help you in your class. Here goes:
How would you describe your perspective on climate change? I think that it's probably changing due to man made activities. I'm uncertain of the extent and effects.
Why do you feel this way Are you looking for feelings or for thoughts? Maybe I'm doing this wrong.
Partly graduate education in biology and information science has taught me to by and large trust the scientific process while being skeptical that the information is interpreted and presented and regurgitated in an accurate way. It's complicated. I don't have the resources to conduct all of the research myself, so I need to rely on others to do so, and I've found that other people sometimes make mistakes. They're subject to misinformation and wacky human belief processes and their own agendas. But what are you going to do, it's advantageous to believe something.
Are there any specific people who have influenced your opinion on this topic? Surprisingly (just because I don't completely understand) Jesus has taught me that I need to think for myself and rely on my own beliefs.
are there any specific informational sources that have influenced your opinion on this subject?
Yes. Facebook is a big one. Even the well reputed intelligent scientists that I know still seem to fall prey to our wacky us/them thinking patterns where what we think makes more sense than what they think, while maintaining an unshakeable believe in the objectivity of their own information processing capabilities and results.
are there any specific statements about climate change that you find hard to believe? Yea. I don't think that Al Gore really started it all, even if he was a big part of promoting the idea.
is there anything else that you would like to share about this subject Sure thanks. I think that science is only as good as we are. If I understood every single bit of information that we know about climate change, how much would that be? Would that information lead me to a correct (true) belief about climate change, or a well reasoned well informed incorrect belief? The best we have is the best we have. That includes some wacky sh#t an overwhelming need for self confirmation bias just so we can get ourselves out of bed in the morning and out the door. We process information based on assumptions (am I telling the truth?) and then when we reach our conclusion we forget that we made an assumption. All in all given the resources that I'm willing to devote to climate change, yes I believe it's happening, and I'm skeptical that I honestly understand whether that's true.
Hey thanks best of luck to all of us.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
For the most part, the "skeptics" here are willfully ignorant cranks.
Good luck.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
I'm not sure what you mean by a climate change "skeptic," since skepticism forms the foundation of science. "Contrarian" or "denier" would be better choices, I think.
John is right, the term "skeptic" gets abused much in this context, as self-labeling by many people who are anything but skeptical -- inclined to believe whatever fits their ideology, and disbelieve whatever doesn't.
Whereas scientists in contrast (at their best anyway) often are truly skeptical, testing new and old ideas for themselves.
When the IPCC First Assessment Report came out in 1990, many (perhaps most) scientists were quite skeptical about this hypothesis that greenhouse gas buildup was changing the climate. Since then there has been a huge amount of research by tens of thousands of scientists in many different fields. That process and its findings persuaded most of the true skeptics, giving rise to the strong consensus among active scientists today that human activities are changing the climate -- agreement on this point ranges from the high 80s to the high 90s depending on who and what you survey.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Yah Dingus, you're one I would cite as honestly skeptical here.
|
|
CAC
Gym climber
Clairemont
|
|
Are there any specific people who have influenced your opinion on this topic?
Surprisingly (just because I don't completely understand) Jesus has taught me that I need to think for myself and rely on my own beliefs.
are there any specific informational sources that have influenced your opinion on this subject?
Yes. Facebook is a big one.
Great stuff! I'd love to hear more...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
And the typical "Do you believe in the IPCC" litmus test offered by the true believers in this thread is super annoying.
Um, I believe that would be me where I've been saying "Do you believe the findings of the IPCC..." I do this to be specific about a group of international scientists, and specific about their publication(s). Sorry to annoy you bro. From here on I'll just say "the global community of climate scientists."
I see that Chiloe just says "active scientists," as in the following:
... the strong consensus among active scientists today that human activities are changing the climate -- agreement on this point ranges from the high 80s to the high 90s depending on who and what you survey.
And it's a funny thing, but I find the word "annoying" to be really annoying.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Lol CAC!
We're humans. We have human belief systems. Sure, there are rocket scientists amongst us, but they're few and far between. I know rocket scientists. Rocket scientists are friends of mine. Sir, I'm no rocket scientist. Seriously, check Facebook and see what you see. Praise Jesus!
I'm being completely sincere. Take it or leave this information according to what conforms to your pre-existing beliefs. Why not, it's what the rest of us do.
Man if I'm not a skeptic I'd hate to see the even more dysfunctional person who is! De nada :-)
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
The statement that it is scientific fact and a consensus. Anyone who has studied atmospheric chemistry knows how intensely complicated it is and to assume anyone can be certain about models is absurd. Is it likely that our contribution to greenhouse gasses directly effects the climate? Absolutely. Is it certain that this will happen and the planet does not have mechanisms to mitigate the change? Absolutely not, so people shouldn't attack those who are not completely convinced.
Perhaps the strongest statement so far in defining how one can be skeptical of the claims that we need to do something about AGW now.
In response, I would argue that we might have very much to loose by not taking an aggressive approach to the AGW problem. On the flip side, we have very much to gain in beginning a shift away from our strong dependance on fossil fuels.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Come on people! Don't be skeptical of his intentions! I mean do be skeptical. He wants people with poorly informed opinions about climate change so he can parse our words for science. Kind of like we do. Can't you help a brother out? If I can do it you can.
I had an interaction a little while back with a phd nutritionist which amused my contrarian nature to no end. He sent an email out to my sons sports team advocating that the kids get out and exercise, a virtual unsolicited tome of useful scientific information on nutrition etc. At the start he talked about a recent research project on the effects of sitting, and he said that the recent research showed "quite logically" that sitting was bad for your health. That quite logically intrigued me especially from a person of his distinguished scientific background and training, so I asked him what was so logical about it. Was it logical that the research confirmed his existing belief, and it wouldn't have been quite so logical if the recent research had refuted his existing belief? I'm sorry to say that it didn't surprise me that even with his expertise in science and the scientific process, he still seemed to misunderstand the idea of a hypothesis and the basis of science and logic. Kind of like Praise Jesus! But from a phd in science perspective. I think that it's just a human thing. I'm human. Maybe you are too. Yes it's a crazy idea :-)
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2015 - 08:17am PT
|
Light alkane hydrocarbons are present in major quantities in the
near-surface atmosphere of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas during
both autumn and spring seasons. In spring 2002, maximum mixing
ratios of ethane [34 parts per 109 by volume (ppbv)], propane (20
ppbv), and n-butane (13 ppbv) were observed in north-central
Texas. The elevated alkane mixing ratios are attributed to emissions
from the oil and natural gas industry. Measured alkyl nitrate
mixing ratios were comparable to urban smog values, indicating
active photochemistry in the presence of nitrogen oxides, and
therefore with abundant formation of tropospheric ozone. We
estimate that 4–6 teragrams of methane are released annually
within the region and represents a significant fraction of the
estimated total U.S. emissions. This result suggests that total U.S.
natural gas emissions may have been underestimated. Annual ethane
emissions from the study region are estimated to be 0.3–0.5
teragrams
Conclusion
By comparison to the calculated 4–6 Tg of CH4 released
annually from the study area, global natural gas drilling has been
estimated to release 45 Tg of CH4 per year (16), of which the U.S.
natural gas industry alone has been credited with 6 2 Tg of
CH4 per year (4). These results show that the southwestern states
account for a significant portion of U.S. CH4 release from
natural gas sources. Because only 37% of the U.S. natural gas
industry is located in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, with
another 25% offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, our results suggest
that the actual CH4 emissions from the fossil fuel industries may
be larger than currently estimated. Using similar conditions to
the CH4 calculations, an emission rate of 0.3–0.5 Tg per year is
calculated for ethane. By comparison, global natural gas emissions
are believed to release 6 Tg of ethane yr1 out of a global
ethane budget of 13–15.5 Tg per year (17, 18).
In this study, the elevated light alkane levels were measured
within a region that encompasses the Anadarko Basin, which
contains one of the largest natural gas and oil reserves in the
continental U.S. Whereas individual sources of alkane emissions
from this region (e.g., natural gas andor oil production, natural
gas storage, and perhaps natural gas seepage from the ground)
are poorly quantified, sampling this region in a grid configuration
was very effective in identifying locations with elevated
alkane mixing ratios. Similar studies of natural gas and oil
regions in other countries would help to constrain global emission
estimates for methane and other light alkanes.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2015 - 08:39am PT
|
Do scientists look for security and money to supplement their lives and can science be politicized?
Some really informative and civil posts here that is appreciated by this non-scientist.
The climate is doing what nature does...going through cycles, long and short, on multiple layers.
How much of climate change is caused by man?
I don't have a clue.
What I think I know (at least I'm pretty sure) is that my car exhaust is not vitamins for the atmosphere.
Yeah CO2 and botany come into it, so maybe some hotsauce on my foot please.
Ultimately it will come down to what Dingus wrote:
"We aren't going to do the Big Bite changes until momma nature forces our hands."
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2015 - 11:58am PT
|
How does DMT's statement above differ from what I said on the other thread"do you believe that something bad(or really unexpected) will happen?
Curious is all.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2015 - 08:14pm PT
|
Chief how many times would it bear repeating? Given the three studies, would 3 times be a good number? If three of us each get 3 friends to repeat it three times to three different people, would that be about right? If only it had been 4 studies I would have been convinced.
Kman please forgive me I'm with you, but I've also heard that there's a very big downside to not believing in Jesus (eternal damnation) and a very big upside to believing in Jesus (salvation). What's a human to do?
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
Bhumi
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 10, 2015 - 09:15pm PT
|
well. thats about it for this thread. Unless you want to answer the questions keep the back and forth to the other climate thread if you don't mind...
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2015 - 04:47am PT
|
Ryan Kelly - Are you still looking for more skeptic input? If so, when is your deadline?
|
|
elAndy
Trad climber
El Portal, CA
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2015 - 05:41am PT
|
Nice going buddy.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 53 of total 53 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!