Printable View
Show us the " documented true facts" on the 97% b-- lshyte. Or is it just the gullible ones trying to convince the factual logical ones to take the bait and follow the clueless ones , like the lost sheep they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
X2. But you know who will try to discredit it!! Can't be true if it doesn't come from the mouths of Suzuki and Gore and the likes. You know , the hypocritical ones that leave a bigger " carbon footprint " than us. The ones that are laughing all the way to the bank on the backs of gullible fools that blindly follow the self anointed prophets.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Coming soon: a climate change tax on beef and dairy products.
Also fruits and vegetables.Quote:
Originally Posted by awndray
Eeek.... start my lunch looking at old airplanes, wander into Burt Rutan.... been listening to it while at lunch and thought it might be interesting and I have to get back to work and will listen to the rest later..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPP7P43wulg
Aviation pioneer Burt Rutan presents the real data on climate change and global warming.
The effects of our CO2 on the planet are also investigated.
Why is it some still believe in MAN MADE global warming???????
Simply,it's because the academic/science community is making a very good living convincing arrogant,naive,silly people that humans can control the weather. What do you think would happen if all financial subsidies were cut off?Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
So . Back to the OP. Lol . Is anyone here arguing that because the earths median temperature has risen . 1/2 a degree over the last 30 years has caused the rise of ISIS.?
Carry on.
Thanks for that link, the study that the Forbes opinion piece references is pretty cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
The Forbes opinion piece REALLY takes the whole study out of context, and misrepresents the scope of the article and survey, but the actual article found here is a good, but long, read. It should be a free text available to everyone, but I can post a pdf if anyone wants it.
The actual survey was sent out to all members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA), now the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), in their organization periodical. 1,077 members sent back their responses.
The actual APEGGA report generated from the survey is here.
This is the research question for the study:This is the meat of the article analysis is below. The OpEd author provides some of this, but then lumps various frames to fit his narrative. In reality it is a bit more complex.Quote:
How do professional experts use frames to construct the reality of climate change, and themselves as experts, their credibility in making recommendations and decisions, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?
and from the discussion:Quote:
Framing the climate change debate and constructing expertiseIn our field of study, we note that there is a distinction between experts who express concern about the rapidly changing climate and those who deny that there is a problem related to climate change. The ensuing debate is often caricatured as a war between two sides – ‘you either believe in climate change or you don’t’ – especially in North America. We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action (as outlined in Figure 2). On this basis, we find five different frames, each of them summarized in Table 3. Eight percent of respondents did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized.
- Frame 1: Comply with Kyoto
The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol consider climate change to be a significant public risk and see an impact on their personal life. In their prognostic framing, they tend to fear that the risks are greater in extent (i.e., global and regional) and in magnitude (i.e., changes to both the average state and variability of the climate) than other groups; they believe to a lesser degree that climate change has long-term effects only and to a higher degree that it will result in warming as opposed to cooling and warming. They are the only group to see the scientific debate as mostly settled and the IPCC modeling to be accurate, e.g., ‘I believe that the consensus that climate change is occurring is settled. The role of humans in climate change is controversial more because of the political/economic implications and the creation of winners and losers than the science.’ They view the Kyoto Protocol and additional regulation as the solution: ‘Absolutely! 1000%. It is the only effective way to curb pollutions…We, as Engineers, are very much responsible.’ Advocates of this frame are less likely to use symbolism and metaphors; in speaking for themselves and legitimating their expertise, they do not deviate significantly from the average. Yet, more than others, they highlight fraternity and the need to act together, to realize one’s responsibility, and to find answers. They are significantly less likely to use de-legitimation strategies and are least likely to speak against others. However, they request industry and corporations to comply with the law and encourage the creation of regulation: ‘Industry should stop complaining and get on with it and provide leadership for us all.’ They also believe that APEGA should support climate change science: ‘Science is not a democracy, nor is it a popularity contest. APEGA must stand up for science.’
- Frame 2: Nature is overwhelming
The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth. Their focus is on the past: ‘If you think about it, global warming is what brought us out of the Ice Age.’ Humans are too insignificant to have an impact on nature: ‘It is a mistake to think that human activity can change this… It would be like an ant in a bowling ball who thinks it can have a significant influence the roll of the ball.’ More than others, they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives. In their prognostic framing, they do not see any risks. If anything, climate change detracts from more important issues: ‘Why don’t we focus on more urgent issues… 25,000 people die each day due to hunger, malaria …’ They are most likely to speak against climate science as being science fiction, ‘manipulated and fraudulent’. They are least likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled, that IPCC modeling is accurate, and oppose all regulation ‘based on the incorrect assumption that greenhouse gases cause climate change’. They recognize that we should reduce pollution regardless: ‘We need to adapt to climate change, which has been going on for 4 billion years. We need to reduce polluting our planet.’ In their identity and boundary work, they are least likely to list others as allies or prescribe any actions for themselves or others. Significantly, they are more likely to criticize others as unknowledgeable and to describe climate scientists and environmentalists as hysterical: ‘This present hysteria on “global warming” is purely political and has little to do with real science.’ APEGA ‘should educate the public and the government … to counteract media hype and pressure from the green extremists.’
- Frame 3: Economic responsibility
Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy. For them, any solution must protect the economy. More than others, they invoke the public interest and the need to promote an informed debate and to educate others, and recommend enhancing efficiency and competitiveness: ‘Alberta must pursue to reduce truly toxic emissions, diversify our economy, and to meet the growing energy demands.’ They are significantly more likely to position themselves as experts as a function of their own education and knowledge sources. They are most likely to speak against others and de-legitimate others as non-experts, as impractical: ‘Conservation is always a good idea, but spending money without any real understanding of what the value you will be getting is always a bad idea.’ More than any other group, they speak against the Kyoto Protocol and its supporters: ‘third world countries (China, Egypt, etc.) [who are] free to burn garbage and pollute with no repercussions’, and politicians who ‘do nothing well except waste money that isn’t theirs’. For them, ‘Kyoto is simply designed to transfer large sums of money from the wallets of citizens of mostly Caucasian countries to the Swiss bank accounts of third world dictators.’ They express much stronger and more negative emotions than any other group, especially that climate science is a fraud and hoax and that regulation is futile, useless, and impossible. They are more sceptical and cynical: ‘Don’t we pay enough taxes as it is? Do we need to send our money overseas?’ Lastly, they use symbolism and metaphors much more than any other framing (see next section):This is obviously a left wing/liberal survey… You folks were probably calling out the sky is falling when Ozone was the latest left wing craze… The earth ‘weather’ has always been changing. Now you want to blame me and my gas furnace, big house, two cars, etc. Well get over it.'
- Frame 4: Fatalists
‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited – if anyone thinks they have all the answers, they have failed to ask all of the questions.’ ‘Fatalists’ consider the Kyoto Protocol as ‘too late’ and irrelevant. They are much less likely to support regulation generally, but do also not care about the economy, and are much less likely to express emotions (except for denying responsibility), or use symbolism and metaphors. Fatalists are not convinced that involvement will make a difference and, thus, following Gamson (1992), they do not develop the sense of agency. To the contrary, they seem generally apathetic – ‘How can anyone take action if research is biased?’ They are least likely to speak for themselves, define themselves as experts or admit any professional and ethical responsibilities. Likewise they are least likely to refer to others in a positive or negative way.
- Frame 5: Regulation activists
The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life. Advocates do not significantly vary from the mean in how they consider the magnitude, extent, or time scale of climate change. They are also sceptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate: ‘the largest challenge is to find out what the real truth is… I don’t know what the impact really is. I suspect it is not good.’ Despite their seemingly ambivalent stance, they are most likely to believe that nature is our responsibility: ‘It is only reasonable to assume that we are changing our environment and climate, all you have to do is look out your window to see it.’ They believe that the Kyoto Protocol is doomed to failure (‘can’t do it, even though we should’), yet they motivate others most of all to create regulation: ‘Canada should implement aggressive policies to reduce GHG emissions in the spirit of the Kyoto Accord.’ They also recommend that we define and enact sustainability/stewardship, reduce GHGs, and create incentives: ‘No one technique will work. It will require a combination of all available options.’ The emotions they invoke are to realize responsibility and find answers, prevent failure, and emphasize consensus and fraternity. They use nature, ecosystem and health metaphors more than other group: ‘Educating the general public that the planet is a closed system.’ Further, they envision an expanded role for professionals: ‘APEGGA and the members should…have the guts to speak up and be heard when pending decisions become motivated by politics and short-term shareholder gratification.’ ‘Regulation activists’ speak for themselves and legitimate their own expertise second most. However, they also do the second greatest de-legitimation of others’ expertise, mostly on the basis of others’ lack of knowledge: ‘Kyoto targets were negotiated without sufficient scientific basis or economic forecasting.’ They criticize politics (‘The AB govt lives in the dark ages on environmental matters’) and industry, especially the entanglement between the two: ‘Regulations are no good if they are not enforced, or if written by industry based on profitability.’ Yet, perhaps paradoxically, this group mobilizes more action than ‘comply with Kyoto’: ‘Alberta should be developing a good overall environmental policy that will leave our grandchildren proud to live in Alberta, a slower pace to development of resources [that] may result in short-term pain for long-term gain.’
Framing experts’ identities
All frames draw on the same ‘ingredients’ of expertise claims – discernment of true and false knowledge (superiority of knowledge) and biased research (independent decisions). Respondents believe themselves able to base professional work on solid scientific principles (highest mean: ‘nature is overwhelming’, lowest mean: ‘fatalists’) and, to a slightly lesser degree, to have sufficient scientific information to make informed professional decisions (highest mean: ‘economic responsibility’, lowest mean: ‘fatalists’).
Concerning unbiasedness, they are convinced to have sufficient professional independence to properly consider climate change science (highest mean: ‘economic responsibility’, lowest mean: ‘comply with Kyoto’). Also, adherents of all frames do not feel pressured to base professional work on factors other than science principles. Only a very small minority (4%) are uncertain regarding their expertise, admitting in their open-ended responses that they feel unqualified to make recommendations.Despite these similarities, there are interesting differences. As suggested by identification theory’s in-grouping/out-grouping, individuals’ responses vary as a function of (a) the extent that they identify with and try to mobilize allies and (b) the extent they feel their identity is threatened and under attack, leading to defensiveness against enemies. This is illustrated in Figure 3.
The activation of both – identification and defensiveness – results in more extensive and intensive accounts offered, identity and boundary work, and effort in mobilizing action.Thus, the two frames that identify/mobilize most (‘economic responsibility’ and ‘regulation activists’) are most active in their identity and boundary work. They use the most rationalization, authorization, and moral-evaluative legitimation to establish their own and others’ expertise.
However, they also de-legitimate others the most. Mobilization is the call to arms that provides appropriate vocabularies of motive (Benford & Snow, 2000). Indeed, these two frames also use the most mythopoiesis legitimation – symbolism, metaphors, and emotion – that offer these vocabularies. ‘Economic responsibility’ uses vocabularies of the market and war such as ‘killing the market’ and ‘economic suicide’ or ‘fighting the lefties’. To describe the position of environmentalists, they use religious and faith-based metaphors and political metaphors in line with their pecuniary rationale. They warn not to ‘sacrifice jobs at Gore’s altar’, or ‘that very little actual benefit can be provided by sacrificing our standard of living to appease the false god of ‘environmentalism’, while ‘carbon credits are the modern-day equivalent of indulgences. Pay and your “sin” of CO2 is forgiven for no real benefit’.
The ‘regulation activists’ frame uses vocabularies of responsibility and stewardship of building consensus, realizing responsibility, and finding solutions to protect the environment. They enlist the most allies: Canada, Alberta, industry, APEGA, and other professionals. For them, they prescribe the second most amount of action – enacting stewardship, creating incentives, developing regulation, and reducing GHG. They urge APEGA to ‘stop dithering and actively encourage its members to push for improved efficiency and emissions reduction. One of our laws requires us to protect the environment – this is not happening now’ and to provide ‘leadership in searching for real answers … based on the common good’. The government ‘must mandate policies. Hopefully informed (from APEGA members) policies’.
The most defensive frames are ‘economic responsibility’ and ‘nature is overwhelming’ – both deny that climate change is a relevant problem and feel challenged by the IPCC positioning, which, as a counter-frame, puts these adherents in the defensive. As opponents to regulation, they have to stand against the inherently moral ‘comply with Kyoto’ frame, which they fear has become mainstream. Their opposition is reflected in their own framing activities: more affirmation of their own positioning as reflected in increased legitimation of their problem diagnosis and own expertise, more boundary work (per Gieryn, 1995; Branscombe et al., 1999; Hunt et al., 1994) and more adversarial framing (Gamson, 1999) as reflected in the de-legitimation and undermining of others’ expertise.
Both frames buttress their position by normalizing climate change and rationalizing nature as uncontrollable, thus any action would be ineffective. While ‘economic responsibility’ adherents prescribe economic fixes, ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents only support reducing pollution in general terms. Both liaise with ‘true scientists’ and de-legitimate the rationality of their opponents more than other frames: politicians (‘too dumb to realize that it will take many decades to put in place an infrastructure to improve energy efficiency’), media (‘media hype’ and ‘lack of unbiased information’), and – most of all – IPCC, and its supporters’ scientific grounding – ‘The holes left in the report by the IPCC leads me to form certain questions regarding the validity of claims made by the panel, the media and other alarmists.’
Relative positioning within the field
To determine the potential influence of these frames on policy responses, we compare the positions of the sponsors of these frames within their organization and the field (seeTable 4).
Adherents of frames that support regulation (‘comply with Kyoto’, ‘regulation activists’) are – in our study – significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government. Indeed, in our study, only seven respondents using these frames are at the highest level in government.
Conversely, adherents of those frames that are more defensive and oppose regulation (‘nature is overwhelming’, ‘economic responsibility’) are significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry.
Adherents of these two frames comprise 33.7% of our respondents overall, but 63.3% of top managers in the oil and gas industry as opposed to 19.1% supporting regulation.
The majority of command posts within organizations, especially in the industry, seem to be manned with opponents to the IPCC and anthropogenic climate science. While it may not be overly surprising that industry executives support the industry’s interests, taking into consideration that we have analyzed experts’ frames that are founded on a claim of being independent and non-partisan, it is also important to note that the two frames that especially dwell on the point of ‘real science’ versus ‘hoax’ at the same time represent core economic interests.
Quote:
While ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents share the storyline privileged by the IPCC and regard scientific knowledge to be conclusive enough to support mandatory action, not even the second pro-regulation group (‘regulation activists’) joins their support for the international Protocol. In addition, ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents do not engage in mobilization and boundary work and do little to legitimate their position. This may seem surprising, but becomes more comprehensible when taking into consideration their strong belief that the fundamental debate on whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is settled and that the ‘consensus among scientists’ has informed enforceable regulation. From such a perspective, it seems reasonable to avoid re-heating old conflict lines and being as inclusive as possible – our findings show that they emphasize fraternity and collaboration, and keep emotionality low. What they seem to have underestimated is that, even if the contestation may have been over on scientific terms, it was certainly not over on political grounds – as indicated by Canada’s recent decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol.
On the other hand, regulation contrarians form a discourse coalition despite different rationales underlying their scepticism. Anthropogenic climate change sceptics (‘nature is overwhelming’) link up with promoters of ‘economic responsibility’ who – irrespective of what actually causes climate change – oppose the high economic cost of interventions that, according to them, will negatively affect competitiveness and jeopardize progress in the Western world. Both downplay the environmental risks associated with climate change and, hence, deny the appropriateness of regulation and global agreements (Kahan et al., 2010). In addition, we found quite a large group of ‘fatalists’. Although they do not share the contrarians’ diagnosis or prognosis – for them, the issue is too complex and all knowledge we have is biased – they also do not believe in the efficacy of taking action. In this sense, through their fatalism and inaction, they benefit the non-regulationists and contribute to defense.
If the role of humans on climate change is negligible, regulation will have no more impact than non-regulation. Hence, while it is clear that their frame includes no pro-regulation action motivation, from the rationale provided, ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents could be indifferent in this respect. However, in framing contests between different expert groups, it is not only the ‘truth’ that is at stake, but also one’s status as expert. It would threaten the expert identity and undermine the positioning of this group in the future if regulators ‘listened’ to professional experts whose truth claims contradict their own. Thus, by opposing regulation, they are defending their expert status. Nonetheless, similar to ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents, this group’s legitimation activity, boundary work, and action mobilization is low. The interpretation scheme inherent in their frame and the position of the adherents in the socio-economic field of our study offer several potential answers. They make a strong claim that climate science is fraudulent and believe that the debate is not settled and ‘good science’ will eventually overcome science fiction. Since all regulation is ineffective anyway, there is also no urgency. In addition, Table 4 shows that this group is clearly overrepresented in top management positions, especially in the oil and gas industry. Thus, they may see little need to legitimate their own framing and mobilize because they are in the command posts of their organizations anyway. Moreover, to downplay the impact of humankind on the environment in general is a quite ‘handy’ framing for top management of oil and gas corporations.
While ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents only see regulation to be useless, ‘economic responsibility’ proponents actively oppose regulation and mobilize against it. This is consistent with the prognosis and action rationale inherent in their frame. For them, the ‘cure is much worse than the disease’. Thus, not only is their position as expert threatened; what is in danger and in need of protection is not so much the environment as the economic development and interests that are put at stake by badly counseled politicians. This may explain why ‘economic responsibility’ adherents de-legitimate ‘them’, undermine their standing, and are much more emotional than other groups.
Framed that way, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
But Prince Charles' statementhas a bit more validity to it.Quote:
"Some of us were saying 20 something years ago that if we didn't tackle these issues, you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought, and the accumulating effect of climate change which means that people have to move," .
Regardless of what your beliefs are regarding the cause of climate changes, the effects have been showing up. Increased and more prolonged droughts or flood seasons mean that the economic and agricultural viability of an area decreases.
Many of those areas are depressed to begin with, and have inept, corruptly self-serving, or unstable governments that keep them from improving their situation. That also means that rural areas have little to no access to electricity or other vital infrastructure supports, and healthcare is lower quality or absent outside of urban centres. Maternal health problems, high childhood mortality, an low education rates (especially women) keep the families big but destitute.
So, you have areas that are poor, and prone to large families (hedging their bets that they will have a son to take over their farm, bring in some cash, and hopefully care for them in their 'old age'). Economic pressure from the increased droughts or floods means less money and food to go around; the whole family may have to move, or at least the 'adult' children have to leave. If you can marry off a daughter when she's young, then that's one less mouth to feed. Money goes to education and food, or maybe just one or the other; some areas both are prioritized for the boys since they have more economic potential even then, not all of their sons. So, the cycle repeats.
Not everyone gets their own land to work, or can find jobs in the urban areas, so you end up with hoards of people with nothing and no prospects in their country. They can migrate to other countries, but they may not be welcome, or the country may have similar problems of their own. So, thousands of destitute, displaced individuals that are not welcome at home or abroad - many of them young men.
I don't know too many happy endings with beginnings like that.
Go back a couple of decades; all of these issues were already there and studied. There were resolutions from the G8 to act and reverse this perpetual mess, but governments will do as they always do - promise and forget.
On the other hand, if some organization is willing to provide food, a place to sleep, camaraderie and a bit of respect? All you have to do is follow orders and memorize a few rituals?
Could it be enough of a draw for them? Is it too far fetched? Have I had too much coffee? :moose:
Not actually true. It is not 97% of the world's scientists. It is 97% of actively publishing (read as "funded") climate scientists. If you want to speak about "world's scientists" the number is closer to 80% depending on which poll you consult.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
80% is still a large majority to be sure, but is not as impressive a number as 97.