The Pattern of Climate Change Skepticism Runs Amok, and Is Self Reinforcing on Popular Blogs and Ideological News Related Sites

The comment below is a summary late in a long series, in response to this posted thread by Judith Curry. Curry is a climate change "skeptic" who is well known because she is one of the very few with some semi related academic credentials, and whose blog is wildly popular.

Climate change advocates seem to rarely go to Curry's site (and even less to site's that are far more contemptuous) and bother to comment there, because of a belief that it does no good. But this only helps such popular but heavily skewed sites such as Curry's become even more self reinforcing echo chambers, and doesn't help introduce other fellow people to more information.

Most skeptics won't change their mind, but some people do and can learn. And given an out can start to see things differently over time, particularly when given an out, and not simply castigated for being a skeptic and called a "liar" or "greedy bastard" or not entitled to their view, however erroneous they might be. (Or one might think them to be.)

But many also don't go because it is extremely unpleasant.  On a site like Watt's Up With That, for instance, almost any one making valid points that go against the in "knowledge" that climate change is all but a hoax, will almost always get all sorts of nasty comments in response, nearly everything written picked apart and then often wildly misrepresented out of context later (often over and over), and be subjected to a great number of insults.

It is also easier for that to happen since almost no one goes to these sites except those that self select to have their views reinforced. Therein forgetting that it's an echo chamber. Or from the perspective of many visitors, perhaps not caring since it's among the few places that don't represent the "ignorant misled hordes being duped by the money grubbing climate scientists and people that want to make money off of climate change." (As opposed to fossil fuels or excessive reliance upon them, and notwithstanding the idea that if the call is for investment in and change - another thing many climate change skeptics seem to greatly fear - over to better practices, technologies and uses, it will involve an investment and expenditure and return just like any other part of GDP.)

_____

Here is where this particular section of the thread starts, with this comment.

It's in response to, and quotes from, a comment suggesting that because there are carbon sinks (forests, oceans, etc) and because enormous amounts of carbon are emitted naturally (ignoring the relevant fact that carbon is an enormous cycle and what matters is the balance of that cycle and sudden additions to that balance).....

.....our observed changes in atmospheric carbon aren't so much due to the fact that man has suddenly taken tens of millions of years worth of carbon that was slowly sequestered from the air through decaying plant matter carbon that didn't emit back into the atmosphere and slowly built up over time (forming fossil fuels) and is releasing them back into the atmosphere in what is essentially a geologic instant (nor lessening sinks by chopping down forests, starting w the middle ages).....

..... - but because, well, carbon has just sort of naturally gone way up, beyond the levels of the past millions of years; and suddenly skyrocketed upward beyond the known boundaries of nearly the past million years, somewhat on its own.

But in fairness it should be noted that the idea of space aliens coming down between 2 and 5 a.m. PST every evening and adding a little extra carbon to the atmosphere, is left out as another plausible explanation.

It's not so much that we shouldn't always be open to other explanations for everything and anything: It's that the basic logic - that natural emissions are enormous so the "smaller" additions of mankind don't matter - mischaracterizes the basic relevance of sudden exogenous additions to an otherwise essentially closed system; and the more basic fact that what matters is that it's a biological cycle, not a big pit (or hole in the sky ) that we and or mother nature toss things into, and that nothing comes out of.

So ultimately, after many comments (again, you can see this part of the thread, and read up to it, or the original post by Curry and the entire thread), this: (Also directly linked to here.)

Remember, it's a comment, not a scholarly article, or even a post. This format had no edit function, and no delete, so as with most comments, it's a draft, written in casual format, and w/o much opportunity for review.

@dalyplanet
Once again the same pattern.   You tried to point out one error, which turned out to be a (big) error by you, as well as quite a manipulation of readers here, and what the article said. Then you repeated it later and ignored all points in response.

So now you go to dismissing with the phrase "based on incorrect understanding." As opposed to your understanding, which is clearly better than the world's leading climate scientists who study this issue. 

Who by the way don't have much issue with my article's relevant points or conclusions.
Although if after 15 responses that have done nothing but perpetuate your entrenched zealotry on this issue as well as manipulate readers, you actually have a valid point that shows a fundamental mistake - and does not wildly mislead readers (again) - please share.

I have no hesitation correcting things, updating, and integrating more information when relevant.

But I don't think you can. What I think, and what I expect, is just as I have said before, is more of the exact same pattern.

It's what you need to do to perpetuate your illusion, reinforced by incredibly insular self reinforcing and highly selective echo chambers such as this site and a few others, that a geologically radical change (defined as on the order of millions of years now) to the long term heat "capturing" property of the atmosphere, won't significantly impact the climate of the planet on which that atmosphere sits.

Which is essentially all my article helps to illustrate, and which you are unwilling to even consider, because like most skeptics you have already reached a "conclusion" and everything is now done, and everything "interpreted"  (or dismissed) to reinforce that conclusion.

So you dismiss it, and ludicrously dismiss as "made up physics" that climate would be significantly impacted by a huge increase in the earth's net energy retention. (Which net energy increase has to happen, and is demonstrably happening - and so far as we know would only be offset by less water vapor, which, along with changing precipitation patterns and a bigger capacity for a warmer atmosphere to hold what water vapor there is in it for  longer periods of time,  would be a bad thing since it would heavily amplify drought - already one of the biggest potential problem areas of this.) 

This pattern of practicing the opposite of science, and using select science, under the guise of "science" to simply support a predetermined conclusion, desire or belief (usually led by non science related ideology, such as excessive macroeconomic or government response fears, or a bias against basic ideas of environmental externalities, fealty to fossil fuels, etc) is what the WUWT site is to a tee. (As well as every single one of your comments.)

And fits in as almost a caricature, with commenters almost frothing at their disdain for climate scientists and all of us "fools" without the "in the know insider" more brilliant science knowledge and understanding that they posses - almost none of it publishable in major vetted science publications, nevertheless, because it is arrived at by wildly cherry picking,  misrepresenting,  misinterpreting, miscontructing, and confusing every little angle of science itself and unknown, with climate change refutation.