We wear blinders so we will not shy from the "truth" of our beliefs.
"…We find that people who are doubtful that man‐made climate change is occurring, and unenthusiastic about an international agreement, show a form of asymmetrical updating: They change their beliefs far more in response to unexpected good news, suggesting that average temperature rises likely to be (even) smaller than previously thought, than in response to unexpected badness, suggesting that average temperature rises likely to be larger than previously thought. In fact, we do not find a statistically significant change in their views in response to bad news at all.
“By contrast, people who strongly believe that man-‐made climate change is occurring, and who strongly favor an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, show the opposite asymmetry: They change their beliefs far more in response to unexpected bad news, suggesting that average temperature rises likely to be even greater than previously thought, than in response to unexpected good news, suggesting that average temperature rises likely to be smaller than previously thought. People with moderate beliefs about climate change show no asymmetry."
My beliefs on climate are pretty simple, humans are acting in ways which cause the earth to warm. The amount of warming is measurable/calcualatable, although fairly minor. This is caused by a number of things, including, for example, the release of carbon, and other greenhouse gasses, and the construction of cities and other large structures which absorb heat unnaturally, and then release it over a long period of time, causing the local environment to be warmer than natural.
The climate models used by some climate scientists are not "science." They are only "sciency," meaning that neither models, nor predictions are science, and cannot be science. They are the attempt to predict a future event.
We do not understand the earth's climate regulating mechanisms. We do understand some of them, but we are constantly finding new intriguing mechanisms.
We do not understand the solar component sufficiently to understand the earth/sun climate involvement.
How ‘consensus science’ blew the Solar Cycle 24 prediction, which turned out to be the lowest in 100 years
We do not understand forcing, or mitigating elements in climate sufficiently to make reasonably accurate short range, let alone, long range predictions on climate.
Good article on forcing/feedback here:
How Climate Feedback is Fubar
Another is here:
Feet of clay: The official errors that exaggerated global warming – part 3
The climate alarmist continually limit their arguments to a period of approximately 166 years, 1850 to present. This is insufficient to scientifically analyze climate, and makes models incompetent. Far more data would be necessary, as would a much more detailed understanding of the earth's climate components, mechanisms, forcing, and feedbacks.
Extraordinary conclusions must be supported by extraordinary data, and analysis.
The data, and analysis supporting must be fully in the public record, available for review, interpretation, analysis, and evaluation by all.
The positions held by the climate alarmist fail to meet any of these criteria. Instead, they attempt to persuade with tiny data sets, Hobbesian analysis, and appeals to emotion, and fear. Nor do they act as if their findings are real or supported by science. Instead they fly from one International Soirée to another by private jet, they own multiple mansions, burn energy like mad, and act as they please.
The science, and the actions comport with belief, not science. This is a mass movement, not a scientific endeavor.
So, does this make your humble correspondent a denier, or a moderate? The comments await your opinion. Read the article below before you vote.
Look! Global Warming, see? See?
Select reading, all available at Amazon:
The True Believer, Eric Hoffer
The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn, Lomborg
Cool It, Bjorn Lomborg