tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post2251552057230123670..comments2023-10-19T05:09:40.165-07:00Comments on Backseat driving: Evolutionary psychology wars aren't helpful to climate denialistsBrianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-49231470724433469152011-03-05T10:37:05.594-08:002011-03-05T10:37:05.594-08:00Yes Glen I did "read" it, and you may be...Yes Glen I did "read" it, and you may be surprised to learn I kind of agree with you. It should have said "human activity is the the predominant factor in changing mean global temperature in the last 50 years." <br /><br />Still, out of about 70 practicing climatologists, two disagreed with the statement, and I think it's pretty safe to assume the two are Lindzen and Spencer. I think they read the question as to whether you accept the general IPCC consensus. They represent the denialist/skeptic side, or the people who mostly reject the IPCC conclusions, and that's who I'm discussing.<br /><br />As for disagreeing with the high end of IPCC projections, I don't think many skeptics/denialists accept the median 3C for climate sensitivity. If they did, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to stop efforts to reduce emissions.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6803306.post-29906578392348216552011-03-04T00:02:58.236-08:002011-03-04T00:02:58.236-08:00Did you *read* the question that had 97% agreement...Did you *read* the question that had 97% agreement? The question was: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Do you seriously think you can find a lot of people - skeptics or not - who disagree with that? All the "lukewarmers" can agree without question; even nearly all the people you'd call "denialists" can agree with at most a small reservation as to what should be considered "significant" or what sort of "human activity" is being talked about. There do exist areas of furious disagreement, but they have absolutely nothing to do with that question.<br /><br />If anything, what might need an evpsych explanation is that sort of leaping to conclusions about people who disagree with you - thinking that if somebody disagrees with the high end of IPCC projections it must be because they object to every single bit of the underlying science. Where does *that* come from? What irrational thought pattern makes one leap from "he reaches different conclusions than me" to "he disagrees with 97% of the relevant scientists"? Or more generally conflates "what I believe in" with "what all right-thinking people believe in"?Glenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661650090485723755noreply@blogger.com