Good grief. Telling an actual climate scientist to defer to a "real climate scientist" with a degree in quantity surveying? You couldn't make it up. None of this nonsense is about the science, any more than creationism is about the science. Science is the excuse.
It’s entirely about ideology – even creationism is about that!
There’s a really fascinating book by Notre Dame historian Mark Noll called the scandal of the evangelical mind that tracks antiscience rhetoric and its deliberate conflation with religion in America since the 1700s. Fascinating.
I read that years ago (Amazon is telling me I bought it in 2002) and it was really interesting - that's when I was mostly dealing with creationism. So many parallels to climate change denial.
I have to wonder, do these people sincerely think that digging up & burning trillions of tons of carbon just does *nothing*? Does cause & effect not apply here?
I have a global weirding episode about this common myth, but the email clearly illustrates how the real problem is not the science: it is solution aversion. He doesn’t want to fix it, so any excuse will do to reject the need for action.
You talked about methane/CO2 from volcanic activity as a factor, but didn't speak about variations in heat coming from the earth's core. Is it true that the ocean depths are heating faster than the surface?
I would argue that it's not solution aversion, but mistrust of scientists. In contrast, they trust the folks who, collectively, deny climate change. Their mistrust is (partly) based on the notion of a hidden agenda which is being foisted on Americans.
You can argue what you want, Andre, but the solution aversion is right there in the 2nd paragraph. Moreover, lack of trust is driven by solution aversion.
If you’re interested in a deeper dive into the research, I highly suggest reading my book.
It is probably both. His email shows solution aversion, but I wouldn't be surprised if he has fallen prey to the attacks on science, scientists, etc., and the conspiracy theories you mention.
I think it's more personal than that. Men (particularly) who are not in control of something, seek to find a way to *feel* in control. His reaction is fear-based, living in a state of denial (personal and social) is more comfortable for him. And he doesn't have to do anything, except proclaim!
It could be part of it - almost certainly is part of the explanation. I've been following a few MAGA connections on X and I'm astounded at the completely different reality under which they operate, as though white is black, and black is white. I've encountered that before with climate deniers, this
entirely different set of assumptions and reality that they operate under. These were not dumb people: one was a PhD chemist, the other was a PhD chemical engineer. I worked with them and respected them professionally, but we had no common point of departure about climate. Ultimately, I found that
they mistrusted the information I used and dismissed it off-hand. More data made no difference: they always had a counter-argument. Eventually, one changed his mind, but only by experiencing an extreme weather event - the PNW atmospheric river of 2021.
Sounds exactly like guy who 'lectured' me using same examples. Claimed Antarctica was ice free in 15th century bc there are "lots of maps showing that". Antarctica not discovered until about 300 years later, I pointed out. Silence! Didn't know difference between sea ice & ice cap either.
Nobody is lost. These folks will bend to reality eventually. But reliably they’ll blame their own prior errors on folks like Prof Hayhoe who didn’t do something or other correctly.
At least that person wasn't out and out abusive like many deniers. It made me laugh though that they think Shawn Hacket is a "real climate scientist" and they think somehow climate science doesn't already account for natural factors.....
These people are part of our reality. They always were: stubborn, ill-informed, illogical -> Arguments are useless when there is zero personally felt disadvantage (and frequently even so).
Yet science has won over mythocracy. There are lessons hidden in the long history of elightenment.
Everyone is out of line and simultaneously in accord with oil and gas scientists over the past 50 years. They have, at different times, taken every imaginable position on the impact of human emissions.
Comments
There’s a really fascinating book by Notre Dame historian Mark Noll called the scandal of the evangelical mind that tracks antiscience rhetoric and its deliberate conflation with religion in America since the 1700s. Fascinating.
If you’re interested in a deeper dive into the research, I highly suggest reading my book.
This still feels the same nowadays.
https://www.bendbulletin.com/lifestyle/dropping-in-we-did-it-fellas-oregon-is-the-mansplaining-capital-of-u-s/article_63bf6d9e-cc7c-11ef-8272-ef61935efd84.html
An addict's excuse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
'respectfully'
🤔
My goodness, the mansplaining is strong in this one...
(As is the denial.)
"real climate scientists"
🤐🤦🏻
If only you knew any actual climate scientists to talk to, eh?
Yet science has won over mythocracy. There are lessons hidden in the long history of elightenment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_by_major_scientific_organizations_about_climate_change
understand" 🙄