SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SAYS THAT THE PLIGHT OF SEABIRDS TELLS US THAT THE OCEAN IS IN TROUBLE: LINK: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/struggling-seabirds-are-red-flag-for-ocean-health/

PART-1: WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS

Seabirds are “sentinels” of ocean health. If marine ecosystems are suffering, the birds will be among the first to show it. Now a major study finds that seabirds in the Northern Hemisphere are already struggling. And without extra precautions, those in the Southern Hemisphere might be next. The findings point to broader patterns of environmental change across the world’s oceans. Climate change, combined with pollution, overfishing and other human activities, is steadily altering marine food webs. Food sources are shifting. Some fish populations are dwindling or migrating to new areas. As a result, seafaring birds perched at the top of the food chain are struggling to breed and raise their young. They’re canaries in the coal mine, clear indicators that something is wrong with the entire ecosystem. Seabirds travel long distances—some going from hemisphere to hemisphere chasing their food in the ocean. This makes them very sensitive to changes in things like ocean productivity, often over a large area.

An assessment if based on a study of 50 years of data on 66 seabird species worldwide finds that many species aren’t breeding as successfully as they did in the past—particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. They’re producing and raising fewer chicks. The researchers looked at a variety of birds, including species that mainly feed on plankton, species that prefer fish and species that eat both. Birds that eat fish were found to be most vulnerable. In addition, birds that mainly feed at the surface of the ocean were more susceptible to breeding failures than deep-diving birds. These issues are more severe in the Northern Hemisphere with greater human influences, like shipping and fishing. Certain fish populations are declining or moving to different parts of the ocean. Even plankton populations are shifting over time. Seabirds often return to the same coastal sites year after year to breed and raise their chicks. During the breeding season, they make trips back and forth between the ocean and the land, foraging for food and returning to feed their babies. If their food sources decline or move around, it can make it harder for them to both feed themselves and successfully raise their young. The fact that fish-eating, surface-foraging birds are most vulnerable indicates that the upper part of the ocean is changing most dramatically and that that part of the ocean’s productivity is declining. The study doesn’t parse out exactly which human influences are most at fault. The researchers did conduct some additional analyses, which found that rising ocean temperatures are closely linked to the seabirds’ breeding success. A combination of climate change and other human influences has taken a toll on birds. That means interventions may be in order.

INTERVENTIONS LISTED: Cut down on fishing where sea birds breed, establish larger marine protected areas to stabilize fish populations, slash greenhouse gas emissions to curb climate change,

THIS IS BECAUSE SEABIRDS ARE SENDING US A WARNING SIGN THAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO THIS.

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

(1): WITH REGARD TO SLASHING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TO CURB CLIMATE CHANGE AND HELP THE OCEAN, KINDLY NOTE THAT THE OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERE TAKEN TOGETHER WEIGH 1.405E21KG OF WHICH THE ATMOSPHERE IS 0.37% AND THE OCEAN 99.63% BUT SINCE WE ARE ATMOSPHERE CREATURES WE TEND TO HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE BIAS AND ASSUME THAT THE ATMOSPHERE DRIVES OCEANIC TEMPERATURE AND COMPOSITION. WE PROPOSE ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSUMPTION THAT ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA CAN CONTROL THE STATE OF THE OCEAN AS IN SAVING THE OCEAN BY TAKING CLIMATE ACTION IS NOT CREDIBLE IN LIGHT OF THE RELATIVE INSIGNIFICANCE OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

(2): AGAIN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SIZE OF THE OCEAN ESTIMATED AS 1.4E21 KG OR 1.4E18 METRIC TONNES, THE PROPOSITION THAT THE OBSERVED DIFFICULTY OF SOME SEABIRDS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS TO FIND SUFFICIENT FOOD IN THE OCEAN TO RAISE THEIR YOUNG CANNOT BE TAKEN AS EVIDENCE THAT THE OCEAN MUST THEREFORE BE IN SOME KIND OF ECOLOGICAL PERIL POSSIBLY DRIVEN BY HUMANS FISHING AND EMITTING FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS. THESE KINDS OF HYPOTHESES ARE LIKELY A CREATION OF CIRCULAR REASONING IN RESEARCH ARMED WIITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE OCEAN IS IN PERIL DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEEKING THE KIND OF DATA THAT COULD BE USED TO JUSTIFY THAT POSITION. THIS IS RESEARCH IN REVERSE AND MORE LIKE ACTIVISM THAN SCIENCE.

(3): AS FOR THE ASSUMED IMPACT OF HUMANS ON THE OCEAN IN TERMS OF FISHING, POLLUTION, AND CLIMATE CHANGE, WE NOTE IN A RELATED POST: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/04/22/climate-science-101-4-22-2021/ THAT: THE WEIGHT OF THE OCEAN 1.4E18 TONNES. THE 7.8E9 HUMANS ON EARTH ADD UP TO NO MORE THAN 4.88E2 TONNES, LESS THAN THE WEIGHT OF A SINGLE POLAR KRILL SWARM IN THE OCEAN. THE WEIGHT OF ALL THE THINGS THAT HUMANS HAVE BUILT IS 1.1E12 TONNES. THIS MEANS THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE OCEAN IS ABOUT 3 BILLION TIMES THE WEIGHT OF ALL THE HUMANS ON EARTH AND 1.3 MILLION TIMES THE COMBINED WEIGHT OF ALL THE HUMANS AND ALL THE THINGS THAT HUMANS HAVE BUILT. THAT THE OCEAN IS THREATENED BY HUMANS IS NONSENSICAL IN VIEW OF THE IMMENSE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE OCEAN AND THE RELATIVE INSIGNIFICANCE OF HUMANS.

(4): THAT THE OCEAN IS THREATENED BY HUMANS IS NONSENSICAL IN VIEW OF ITS IMMENSE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY AND THE RELATIVE INSIGNIFICANCE OF HUMANS BUT THE BIGGER ISSUE HERE AND IN THE AREA OF OCEANIC CLIMATE AND ECO WACKO FEARMONGERING IN GENERAL IS THAT WE DON’T REALLY KNOW THE OCEAN. IT IS A HUGE PLACE THAT WE ARE ONLY NOW BEGINNING TO STUDY AT DEPTH. THAT HUMANS ARE AN ECOLOGICAL THREAT TO THE OCEAN OR THAT HUMANS ARE ABLE AND OBLIGATED TO TAKE CARE OF THE OCEAN TELLS US MORE ABOUT THE HUMAN EGO THAN ABOUT THE OCEAN.

(5): WITH REGARD TO THE REFERENCE TO THE HARM DONE BY HUMANS TO THE OCEANIC BIOTA BY OVER-FISHING, WE NOTE IN THREE RELATED POSTS THAT THE OVERFISHING HYPOTHESIS HAS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE BUT SUFFICIENT MOMENTUM AND READERSHIP TO HAVE BECOME A TOPIC FOR ENVIRONMENTALISM FEAR MONGERING EVEN AFTER MORE THAN 50 YEARS OF FORECASTS OF OVERFISHING CATASTROPHIE HAVE ENDED IN COMICAL FAILURES. LINKS TO RELATED POSTS BELOW.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2010/05/19/oceans-running-out-of-fish/

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/23/fishing-for-climate-calamity/

CONCLUSION: CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVISM, THOUGH IT CLAIMS LEGITIMACY BECAUSE IT IS A SCIENCE, IS INCREASINGLY EXPOSING ITSELF AS ANTI FOSSIL FUEL ACTIVISM THAT USES FEAR OF FOSSIL FUELS AS A TOOL WITH SOPHISTICATED CLIMATE MODELS THAT CAN CRANK OUT THE SCIENCE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE FEARMONGERING.

FINALLY WE NOTE THAT THIS EXTREME ECOLOGICAL CARING FOR THE OCEAN THAT IS PRESENTED AS A VERY SENSITIVE VICTIM OF HUMAN ACTIVITY AND HUMAN TECHNOLOGY, IS NOT FOUND IN THE CLIMATE SCIENCE PUSH TO FILL COASTAL OCEAN FRONTS WITH WIND TURBINES.

HUMAN CAUSE: THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS HUMAN CAUSE BECAUSE WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CAUSE OF THE WARMING TREND, WHATEVER IMPACTS THE WARMING MAY HAVE ARE ALL NATURAL.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/11/09/the-issue-is-human-cause/

QUESTION: WHY ARE ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS SO COMPLEX?

ANSWER: Environmentalism started out with the idea that humans must take care of their environ (surroundings) to enhance human welfare. As for example humans are now better off without smog and acid rain thanks to the hippies and their creation of the EPA. This principle is summed up in the old hippie wisdom that if you shit in bed you will sleep in shit. But then at some point we embraced the Bambi Principle that humans are not part of nature but an evil destructive force on nature so that humans must manage and take care of nature and ensure that there are no human impacts on nature.

This view likely derives from Genesis where humans are given dominion over nature. However this view is so far removed from reality that it has created irrational difficulties and complexities in environmentalism to the point where we are not allowed to have environmental impacts on other creatures as a way of safe guarding Bambi from harm. Yet, all creatures have impacts on all other creatures. This is an essential dynamic of nature and how it evolved to its current state. We are a creation of this dynamic and therefore part of this dynamic and not its manager.

Environmentalism has been corrupted by religion. The contradictions in the Genesis and Bambi views of nature and environmentalism have no resolution and these contradictions create the complexities in the simple idea of environmentalism that created the EPA and created environmentalism. This once great idea of methods to enhance human welfare has been rendered complex with the contradictions of post EPA new age WOKE environmentalism that has thus morphed into do good-ism in a never never world where humans take care of the other creatures. These assumptions have created a field of study with no end to the complexities and contradictions that eco wacko activists and teachers can conjure.

LINKS TO RELATED POSTS

THE BAMBI PRINCIPLE: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/15/the-bambi-principle/

DIVINE ENVIRONMENTALISM: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/15/divine-environmentalism/

DATE: 29MAY2021

QUESTION: WHAT CAN AN ORDINARY AMERICAN KID DO TO HELP SAVE THE PLANET

ANSWERED BY GARY ROCCO

HERE IS GARY’S ANSWER {WARNING: LANGUAGE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHLDREN AND THE FEEBLE}

THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A PICO SECOND.

WHAT CAN A KID DO TO HELP SAVE E ST LOUIS?, SS CHICAGO?, NEEDLE PARK IN CENTRAL FILTHYDELPHIA?, COMPTON?, HAW-HAWTHORNE?, OR CARACAS???? NOW IF A KID CAN’T EVEN SAVE HER VILLAGE, SAY BED-STUY, WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF HER SAVING THE PLANET?

YOUR CULTURE, YOUR TEACHERS, AND YOUR PARENTS HAVE PUT RIDICULOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE NOTIONS, IDEAS, AND IDEALS IN YOUR IMPRESSIONABLE HEADS. TELL THEM TO FUCK OFF AND DIE.

YOU HAVE TO PURSUE THE ATTAINABLE. FIRST FIGURE OUT WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE. THEN DO THEM.

WHEN YOUR TEACHER ASKS YOU WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO SAVE THE PLANET, SIMPLY TELL THE BASTARD: WHY, TEACH, DO YOU INSIST THAT WE DO NOBLE DEEDS RATHER THAN GET ACQUANTED WITH AND AND DO THE ORDINARY BUT NECESSARY ONES?

GARY ROCCO, MERCHANT MARINE, ON QUORA

THIS POST IS A PRESENTATION OF THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF THE USE OF FEAR IN ADVERTISING AND PRODUCT OR BEHAVIOR PROMOTION AND ACTIVISM AGAINST UNDESIRABLE PRODUCTS AND BEHAVIOR. THIS FIELD OF RESEARCH IS CALLED FEAR APPEAL. THE FULL TEXT OF A SIGNIFICANT WORK IN THIS AREA IS PROVIDED BELOW THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. IN THE BIBILIOGRAPHY THAT COMES FIRST WE HIGHLIGHT THE WORK OF RESER AND BRADLEY THAT THE USE OF FEAR APPEAL IN CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT APPROPRIATE AND THE WORK OF STERN THAT FEAR APPEAL IN CLIMATE CHANGE HAS FAILED AND CREATED DENIERS.

ABSTRACT:

Fear appeals have been used successfully to increase advertising’s effect on consumer interest, recall, persuasiveness, and behavior change. However, the inner workings of fear appeal have not been fully agreed upon or understood. The purpose of this paper has been to review and examine the fear appeal theories and literature. In particular, emphasis was given to defining a fear appeal and examining the use of fear appeals. Thereafter, fourteen theories of fear appeals were presented with overall findings derived from these theories and literature.

In essence, the bottom line of fear appeals is that they work. Threatening information does motivate people to safer and recommended behavior. Based on over 50 years of fear appeal research, a fear appeal should contain threat and efficacy information sufficient to both evoke fear and inform about adaptive behavioral responses. In addition, Hastings, Stead, and Webb (2004) state, “there are genuine concerns about the broader marketing implications of fear appeals, and they may breach the Hippocratic injunction of ‘First, do no harm’.” In response, a continued understanding of fear appeal theory and literature can contribute first to doing no harm and second to more effective advertising practice. The context of this presentation is the use of fear appeal in climate science where the fear of global warming is the primary driver for its general acceptance and the success of renewable energy activism.

THE WORKS OF PROFESSOR MARY POFFEROTH OF SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, USA

“Fear is a powerful tool that grabs our attention and can evoke an emotional response. This is why fear appeal, a well-documented method of persuasion, is employed throughout media and advertising. This study examines nine climate change-related magazine covers of  The Economist, a prestigious business magazine, with a special focus on fear appeal using con-tent analysis, semiotics, and compositional interpretation. The results show a duplicity inmessaging that conveys an appeal to fear through imagery while at the same time balancingthis fear with positive, hopeful linguistics that promise oversimplied solutions to a complex,multifaceted problem.”

QUOTED FROM FEAR APPEAL RESEARCH PAPER ON ACADEMIA.EDU: LINK: https://www.academia.edu/RegisterToDownload/BulkDownload by Mary Poffenroth, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.

SUMMARY: The climate disaster narrative, loosely defined as a storyline of varying degrees of apocalyptic conditions where the Earth’s landscape is ruined, is a common one throughout climate change communications (Lowe et al., 2006). The trends that emerged from the data after applying content analysis, semiotics, and compositional interpretation are fear appeal Imagery As A Predominant Method Of Persuasion. Fear appeal, a method of persuasive communication is said to have three processes. These are response shaping, response reinforcing, and response changing. Since response shaping assumes that there is no prior knowledge of the issue or event, it was removed from this study. Response-reinforcing visual communication occurs when the viewer already embraces the belief or behavior promoted by the creator (Cameron, 2009). In this study, all nine covers reinforce the belief that climate change exists. Seven of the nine cover images reinforce the climate disaster narrative (Figure 1). The first cover image to not reinforce the climate disaster narrative was in December 2009. This cover suggests to the viewer that climate change is within our power to stop, if we so wish it. This messaging also supports the American national narrative that we have the power to change anything of which we disapprove. The second cover to reinforce the threat of climate change but not reinforce the climate disaster narrative occurred in November, 2015. This is by far the most distant of all the covers from the climate disaster narrative and also happens to be the one example of the response changing process as presented by Cameron in 2009. The response-changing process, the most commonly associated goal of persuasive communication, is to motivate the consumer to change an already practiced belief or behavior into something that the creator supports (Cameron, 2009). Most of the covers in this study do little to attract the attention of a climate skeptic, except for the cover of the November 2015 issue, which presents a clear appeal to a wider audience on the climate change belief spectrum. Fear Appeal Lies On A Spectrum: Fear appeal as a persuasive tool lies on a spectrum of varying degrees of strength. Of the nine climate change covers analyzed, two covers featured a low appeal to fear (2005, 2015), two were moderate (2006, 2009), and five exemplified a high level of fear appeal (2007, 2010, 2010, 2012, 2016). Chronologically speaking, The Economist began with a relatively low use of fear appeal, but as the years advance toward the present, the climate change covers of The Economist dramatically increase in fear appeal communications, especially in terms of imagery, with the one distinct outlier being November 2015. The denotative text and associated connotations of cover years 2005 and 2015 did little to evoke a negative emotional response, while covers from years 2006 and 2009 elicited a negative emotional response, but the overall connotation of the piece was not distinctly fearful. The highest fear appeal rating was given to those covers that conveyed deliberate imagery and/or messaging clearly meant to evoke a fear-based emotional response such as a man running from a tornado or a post-apocalyptic world filled with ominously colored gasses. This level of fear appeal was found in cover years 2007, 2010, 2010, 2012, and 2016. Although the cover art of climate change visuals of The Economist utilize fear appeal as a persuasive method, they fail to deeply communicate a threat to the reader’s immediate and personal well-being. Overall, all nine climate change issues of the Economist distance the issue from the reader by portraying scenes that disconnect him or her from the ultimate causes that are within his or her realm of influence and the effects they will have on his or her own life. All but two covers display varying degrees of a landscape that are both an iconic representation of reality and an indexical representation of the two most common climate change themes in media: melting ice (December 2005 and June 2012) and extreme drought (September 2006 and November 2010). Four of the covers present symbols of a future that may or may not exist, both in a positive outcome (November 2015) and a post-apocalyptic one of ruined, polluted skies (June 2007 and November 2016) and monstrous storms (March 2010). In five of the nine covers (Figure 1), The Economist takes a position of advocacy by providing solutions, or showcasing the solutions of others. These five covers still fit into the two-part fear appeal definition proposed by Ruiter et al. (2001) where the viewer is presented with both a threat, usually one that will elicit an emotional response, and a recommended protective action to mediate or remove that threat (Figure 1). The Economist uses fear appeal imagery to grab attention and reinforce the severity of the threat, while at the same time conveying textual messages of reassurance that a solution, or at least a mitigation, to the threat not only exists but is attainable. Each of these threatening images is accompanied by a hopeful message in the headline. These headlines connote to the reader that all is not lost and that nhe or she can take action to “stop”, “clean up”, and “live with” the effects of climate change (Ruiter, 2001; Cameron, 2009). None of the cover art deeply connects to an urgent threat to human survival. The landscapes are mostly of far-away places most American readers will never visit, and the overwhelming power of optimism bias lets readers’ minds reason that a fire- and smoke-filled future doesn’t really apply to them. All nine cover images are framed in a way that distances them, and thus the issue of climate change, from the readers, either physically, geographically, or personally. This results in none of the covers eliciting a powerful emotional response and therefore not creating a deep, visceral fear arousal. Only two of the nine covers deal with causes, and they are both from the same contributor to climate change: industrial smoke stacks spewing dark gaseous clouds into the sky. Although this imagery does arouse the viewer’s fear of having to live in a polluted world, it does little to make the viewer feel responsible for the outcome or empowered to change it.

PART-1: BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1): RESER AND BRADLEY 2017: CLIMATE SCIENTISTS STRUGGLING WITH THE APPROPRIATENESS OF FEAR BASED CLIMATE ACTIVISM

Reser, Joseph P., and Graham L. Bradley. “Fear appeals in climate change communication.” Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. 2017. There is a strong view among climate change researchers and communicators that the persuasive tactic of arousing fear in order to promote precautionary motivation and behavior is neither effective nor appropriate in the context of climate change communication and engagement. Yet the modest research evidence that exists with respect to the use of fear appeals in communicating climate change does not offer adequate empirical evidence—either for or against the efficacy of fear appeals in this context—nor would such evidence adequately address the issue of the appropriateness of fear appeals in climate change communication. Extensive research literatures addressing preparedness, prevention, and behavior change in the areas of public health, marketing, and risk communication generally nonetheless provide consistent empirical support for the qualified effectiveness of fear appeals in persuasive social influence communications and campaigns. It is also noteworthy that the language of climate change communication is typically that of “communication and engagement,” with little explicit reference to targeted social influence or behavior change, although this is clearly implied. Hence underlying and intertwined issues here are those of cogent arguments versus largely absent evidence, and effectiveness as distinct from appropriateness. These matters are enmeshed within the broader contours of the contested political, social, and environmental, issues status of climate change, which jostle for attention in a 24/7 media landscape of disturbing and frightening communications concerning the reality, nature, progression, and implications of global climate change. All of this is clearly a challenge for evaluation research attempting to examine the nature and effectiveness of fear appeals in the context of climate change communication, and for determining the appropriateness of designed fear appeals in climate change communications intended to both engage and influence individuals, communities, and “publics” with respect to the ongoing threat and risks of climate change. There is an urgent need to clearly and effectively communicate the full nature and implications of climate change, in the face of this profound risk and rapidly unfolding reality. All such communications are, inherently, frightening warning messages, quite apart from any intentional fear appeals. How then should we put these arguments, evidence, and challenges “on the table” in our considerations and recommendations for enhancing climate change communication—and addressing the daunting and existential implications of climate change?

(1): SAFFRON AND NICHOLSON-COLE 2009: FEAR BASED ACTIVISM ISN’T WORKING AND MAY BACKFIRE

O’Neill, Saffron, and Sophie Nicholson-Cole. ““Fear won’t do it” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations.” Science communication 30.3 (2009): 355-379. Fear-inducing representations of climate change are widely employed in the public domain. However, there is a lack of clarity in the literature about the impacts that fearful messages in climate change communications have on people’s senses of engagement with the issue and associated implications for public engagement strategies. Some literature suggests that using fearful representations of climate change may be counterproductive. The authors explore this assertion in the context of two empirical studies that investigated the role of visual, and iconic, representations of climate change for public engagement respectively. Results demonstrate that although such representations have much potential for attracting people’s attention to climate change, fear is generally an ineffective tool for motivating genuine personal engagement. Nonthreatening imagery and icons that link to individuals’ everyday emotions and concerns in the context of this macro-environmental issue tend to be the most engaging. Recommendations for constructively engaging individuals with climate change are given.

(3): THE JOY OF CLIMATE ACTION WORKS BETTER THAN THE FEAR OF CLIMATE INACTION.

Stern, Paul C. “Fear and hope in climate messages.” Nature Climate Change 2.8 (2012): 572-573. Bain et al. identify, in a laboratory setting, how climate change deniers can come to change their views to support pro-environmental policies. Contrary to the idea that scientific knowledge is central to such change, they show that informing these people about the expected impacts of climate change had no effect on their positions. What did change the positions was thinking about how limiting greenhouse-gas emissions might promote interpersonal warmth and scientific and technological progress.

(4):

Williams, Kaylene C. “Fear appeal theory.” Research in Business and Economics Journal 5.1 (2012): 1-21. A fear appeal posits the risks of using and not using a specific product, service, or idea such that if you don’t “buy,” some particular dire consequences will occur. That is, fear appeals rely on a threat to an individual’s well-being that motivates him or her toward action, e.g., increasing control over a situation or preventing an unwanted outcome. While threat and efficacy clearly are important for fear appeal effectiveness, these two ingredients alone are not sufficient. Additionally, empirical results regarding fear appeal effectiveness are not conclusive. However, the literature conventionally agrees that more effective fear appeals result from a higher fear arousal followed by consequences and recommendations to reduce the negativity. The purpose of this article is to review and examine the fear appeal literature with the aim of understanding the current overall fear appeal theory. In particular, this paper includes the following sections: introduction, definition of a fear appeal, use of fear appeals, theories of fear appeals, overall findings from the fear appeal theories and literature, and summary.

PART-2: KAYLENE C WILLIAMS 2012 FULL TEXT: THE THEORY OF FEAR APPEAL,

A REALLY GREAT LECTURE BY PROFESSOR KAYLENE WILLIAMS

DEFINITION OF A FEAR APPEAL

Fear appeals are built upon fear. Fear is “an unpleasant emotional state characterized by anticipation of pain or great distress and accompanied by heightened autonomic activity especially involving the nervous system…the state or habit of feeling agitation or dismay…something that is the object of apprehension or alarm” (Merriam-Webster, 2002).
Fear evolved as a mechanism to protect humans from life-threatening situations. As such, nothing is more important than survival and the evolutionary primacy of the brain’s fear circuitry. Matter-of-fact, the brain’s fear circuitry is more powerful than the brain’s reasoning faculties. According to Begley, Underwood, Wolffe, Smalley, and Interlandi (2007, 37), “The amygdala sprouts a profusion of connections to higher brain regions – neurons that carry one-way traffic from amygdala to neo-cortex. Fear connections run from the cortex to the amygdala, however. That allows the amygdala to override the products of the logical, thoughtful cortex, but not vice versa. So although it is sometimes possible to think yourself out of fear (‘I know that dark shape in the alley is just a trash can’), it takes great effort and persistence. Instead, fear tends to override reason, as the amygdala hobbles our logic and reasoning circuits. That makes fear ‘far, far more important than reason’.” Due to this circuitry, fear is more powerful than reason. Fear can sometimes be evoked easily and absurdly for reasons that live in mankind’s evolutionary past. For example, reacting to a nonexistent threat, such as a snake that is really a stick, is not as dangerous as the other way around – failing to respond to the actual threat of a snake. The brain seems to be wired to flinch first and ask questions second. As a consequence, fear can be easily and untruthfully sparked in such a way that is irrational and not subject to reason. (Begley, et al., 2007; Maren, 2008) Even though many marketers can recognize an appeal based on fear, there is no agreement regarding what causes a message to be categorized as a fear appeal (Witte, 1993). In general, however, a fear appeal posits the risks of using and not using a specific product, service, or idea. Fear appeals are defined by Kim Witte (1992, 1994), a prominent author in this area, as “persuasive messages that arouse fear by depicting a personally relevant and significant threat, followed by a description of feasible recommendations for deterring the threat” (Gore, Madhavan, Curry, McClurg et al., 1998, 34) The premise is that fear appeals rely on a threat to an individual’s well-being which motivates him or her towards action; e.g., increasing control over a situation or preventing an unwanted outcome. That is, a fear appeal is a type of “psychoactive” ad that can arouse fear in the participant regarding the effect of the participant’s suboptimal lifestyle (Hyman and Tansey, 1990). (Lewis, Watson, Tay, and White, 2007)
A fear appeal is composed of three main concepts: fear, threat, and perceived efficacy. “Fear is a negatively valenced emotion that is usually accompanied by heightened physiological arousal. Threat is an external stimulus that creates a perception in message receivers that they are susceptible to some negative situation or outcome. And, perceived efficacy is a person’s belief that message recommendations can be implemented and will effectively reduce the threat depicted in the message.” (Gore et al., 1998, 36) Witte and Allen (2000) have concluded that fear appeals are most effective when they contain both high levels of threat and high levels of efficacy. That is, the message needs to contain (1) a meaningful threat or important problem and (2) the specific directed actions that an individual can take to reduce the threat or problem. The individual needs to perceive that there is a way to address the threat and that he or she is capable of performing that behavior. (Eckart, 2011; Jones, 2010; Lennon and Rentfro, 2010) In addition, Cauberghe, De Pelsmacker, Janssens, and Dens (2009, 276) state, “Message involvement is a full mediator between evoked fear, perceived threat, and efficacy perception on the one hand, and attitudes towards the message and behavioral intention to accept the message on the other.” Fear appeals can be direct or indirect. A direct fear appeal focuses on the welfare of the message recipient. An indirect fear appeal focuses on motivating people to help others in danger. Whether the fear appeal is direct or indirect, three additional factors contribute to success: (1) design ads which motivate changes in individual behavior, (2) distribute the ads to the appropriate target audience, and (3) use a sustained communication effort to bring about change (Abernethy and Wicks, 1998).

USE OF FEAR APPEAL

Fear appeals have been used for many products, services, ideas, and causes. Some examples include smoking, dental hygiene, personal safety, pregnancy warnings, child abuse, AIDS prevention, safe driving practices, insurance, financial security, sun exposure, climate change, food additives, social embarrassment, motorcycle helmets, anti-drug abuse, immunization, smoke detectors, cell phones, safe sex, stress, and regular health exams. Specific advertising examples of fear appeals include Michelin tires and the baby, Talon zippers and “gaposis,” Wisk and ring around the collar, Bayer aspirin and heart attack prevention, drug use portrayed as eggs frying in the pan, J&J Advanced Care cholesterol test product, fear of gun crime to disarm the American public, Christianity and God’s punishment for sin, and World Wildlife Federation’s “Don’t buy exotic animal souvenirs.”
The use of fear appeals is common in many types of marketing communications. Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) have conducted a content analysis of popular magazine advertisements. They found that of 2,769 magazine ads examined, 131 contained fear appeals (4.8%). This was less often than other types of appeals: testimonials (11%), humor (10.8%), comparisons (10%), and sexual appeals (8.6%). But, it was more often than aesthetic appeals (4.1%) or before/after appeals (4%). While this study was done on magazine ads, it should be remembered that television serves the largest audiences of any mass media and is the primary source of information for many Americans (Abernethy and Wicks, 1998). With regard to television, fear appeals are perhaps the most common tactic used in public service announcements (PSAs). In these PSAs, threats of physical harm, injury, and death are used more frequently than social threats (Treise, Wolburg, and Otnes, 1999). More recently, fear appeals have been tested in terms of information security behaviors. Fear appeals impact end-user behavior but not uniformly as perceptions of self-efficacy, response efficacy, threat severity, and social influence also impact end users. (Johnston and Warkentin, 2010; Elliott, 2003; Eadie, MacKintosh, and MacAskill, 2009). Fear can be an effective motivator. “In the typical fear appeal context, fright and anxiety in the target audience can result because danger to themselves is perceived by members of the audience” (Bagozzi and Moore, 1994, 56). In fact, stronger fear appeals bring about greater attitude, intention, and behavior changes. That is, strong fear appeals are more effective than weak fear appeals (Higbee, 1969). In addition, fear appeals are most effective when they provide (1) high levels of a meaningful threat or important problem and (2) high levels of efficacy or the belief that an individual’s change of behavior will reduce the threat or problem. That is, fear appeals work when you make the customer very afraid and then show him or her how to reduce the fear by doing what you recommend. (Witte and Allen, 2000) However, too much fear can lead to dysfunctional anxiety (Higbee, 1969). In general, there is a direct relationship between low to moderate levels of fear arousal and attitude change (Krisher, Darley, and Darley, 1973). Weak fear appeals may not attract enough attention but strong fear appeals may cause an individual to avoid or ignore a message by employing defense mechanisms. Importantly, extreme fear appeals generally are unsuccessful in bringing about enduring attitude change. (Ray and Wilkie, 1970)
The literature seems to support the current practice of using high levels of fear in social advertising. High fear should be the most effective providing that the proposed coping response to the threat is feasible and within the consumer’s ability. However, because of ethical concerns regarding the use of fear appeals, alternatives also are suggested that can be used in lieu of fear appeals, i.e., positive reinforcement appeals aimed at the good behavior, the use of humor, and the use of post-modern irony for the younger audience. O’Keefe and Jensen (2008) suggest that gain-framed or positive appeals generally are more engaging than loss-framed or negative appeals. Gain-framed appeals appear never to be dependably less engaging, despite the greater strength of negative information and the greater engagingness of fear-inducing messages. (Hastings, Stead, and Webb, 2004). Historically, fear appeals have been researched from the vantage point of four dimensions: (1) degree – high vs. low emotional arousal, (2) type – physical or social discomfort, (3) positioning – appeals describe undesirable actions leading to negative consequences or appeals describe desirable actions leading to avoidance of negative consequences, and (4) execution style (e.g., slice of life, testimonial) (Stern, 1988). For example, Tanner, Hunt, and Eppright (1991) have found that the severity of the threat, the possibility of occurrence, coping response efficacy, and self-efficacy should be considered when developing fear appeals. Bagozzi and Moore (1994) have noted additional mediating variables: internal control of reinforcements, self-monitoring, attitudes toward the ad, sensory mode preference, media, product, and involvement. In addition, fear appeals have been found to be moderated by source credibility, interest, value of communication, relevance, and ethics (Quinn, Meenaghan, and Brannick, 1992). Schoenbachler and Whittler (1996) have further elaborated on sensation seeking and adolescent egocentrism as mediating variables in the response to fear appeals. One important conclusion is that although fear is a motivator for some people, the fear resides in the individual rather than in the message content (Denzin, 1984). As noted by Ruiter, Abraham, and Kok (2001, 613), “fear arousal is less important in motivating precautionary action than perceptions of action effectiveness and self-efficacy. Moreover, perceived personal relevance may be critical to the emotional and cognitive impact of threat information.” The precautionary information or reassurance in the message, rather than the capacity to arouse fear, is likely to have the greatest impact on behavior, especially given that fear may inhibit the establishment of precautionary motivation through the instigation of fear control processes. As can be seen, many direct and mediating variables seem to impact fear appeals.
Based on over 50 years of fear appeal research, Nabi, Roskos-Ewoldsen, and Carpentier (2008, 191) state that a “fear appeal should contain threat and efficacy information sufficient to both evoke fear and inform about adaptive behavioral responses.” For example, Cohen, Shumate, and Gold (2007) identified the types of advertisements that are most likely to be utilized in national and statewide anti-smoking campaigns in the Media Campaign Resource Center (MCRC). They found that anti-smoking advertising relied overwhelmingly on appeals to attitudes. Some 61% of advertisements mentioned the benefits of not smoking while 17% mentioned the barriers. The consequences of smoking were mentioned more than the viewer’s self-efficacy. In a similar vein, Gallopel-Morvan, Gabriel, and Gall-Ely (2011) found that tobacco fear appeals need to be combined with self-efficacy and cessation support messages since they provoke avoidance reactions. Rather than using sadness, fear, or anger appeals, ads were more likely to use informational and humor appeals. (Leventhal, 1970; Mongeau, 1998; Witte, 1992; Myers, 2011)

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS FROM THE FEAR APPEAL LITERATURE

Each of these fear appeal theories or models presents some useful distinctions. Overall, the following generalizations are offered with regard to the current status of fear appeal theory and literature.

1. When people feel fearful, they are motivated to reduce the fear, threat, or danger.
2. Fear appeals are built upon fear. That is, they identify the negative results of not using a product or the negative results of engaging in unsafe behavior.
3. The use of fear appeals generally is effective in increasing interest, involvement, recall, and persuasiveness by potentially causing distress to the target audience.
4. In general, the more frightened a person is by a fear appeal, the more likely he or she is to take positive preventive action.
5. Overall, there is a curvilinear relationship between fear intensity and change in the target audience. If the fear is too low, it may not be recognized. If it reaches a threshold that is too high, the individual may engage in denial and avoidance.
6. When tension becomes too high, fear appeals seem to become less effective. That is, high tension leads to energy depletion and negative mood. In addition, ads that focus on mortality-related risks may inadvertently make mortality salient and turn off the audience members who, in turn, are desperately trying to save their core worldviews.
7. An individual’s response to a threat is based on two cognitive processes: threat appraisal and coping appraisal.
8. A fear appeal should contain threat and coping efficacy information sufficient to both evoke a manageable level of fear and inform about adaptive behavioral responses.
9. Fear appeals will not be successful if the individual feels powerless to change the behavior.
10. Fear appeals are most effective when they provide (1) moderate to high levels of meaningful threat and (2) high levels of self-efficacy or the belief that an individual’s behavior change will reduce the threat, and can be attainable by him or her.
11. Fear appeal effectiveness also depends on the individual’s characteristics, language, cultural orientation, stage of change, attitudes, and goals.
12. For example, individuals highly involved and ego-involved in a topic can be motivated by a relatively small amount of fear. A more intense level of fear is required to motivate uninvolved individuals and those that are not ego-involved.
13. Behavior depends on the value an individual has placed on a particular goal and the individual’s assessment of the likelihood that a given action will achieve the goal.
14. As such, fear is both a drive and a cue in that fear may be acting as a cue below the threshold and as a drive above the threshold.
15. Demographics also influence fear appeal effectiveness, e.g., age, sex, race, and education.
16. Individuals with high self-esteem react more favorably to high levels of fear than do people with lower self-esteem. Lower self-esteem individuals are more persuaded by low levels of fear.
17. Emotionally intense, high-impact ads may require fewer exposures to evoke strong emotions and stimulate empathy. But, subjective knowledge impacts the degree of emotional response to fear appeals, e.g., knowledgeable people may be more receptive to messages that are designed to be less emotionally arousing.
18. Cognitive and emotional processes are mutually engaged and mutually supportive rather than antagonistic. Individuals seem to use emotions as tools for efficient information processing and this enhances their abilities to engage in meaningful deliberation.
19. The more vulnerable an individual feels, the less effective a fear appeal.
20. Defensive avoidance appears to be directly related to one’s characteristic level of anxiety.
21. Fear-appeal messages will be most effective if they are interesting, attention-capturing, novel, relatively unknown topics, culturally sensitive, and cause the recipients to initially feel good about themselves, later sensitize them to their own risk, and then have their unhealthy point-of-view dispelled with empowerment.
22. While these are the general findings regarding fear appeals, many moderating variables have been studied with varying results, e.g., values and beliefs, prior knowledge and experience, aware vs. latent publics, presence of addictive behavior, what is “hot information” for the individual, whether it is a direct or indirect fear appeal, and the information processing capability of the individual.
23. In spite of these general conclusions, there remains a considerable question as to whether or not the use of fear appeals is ethical and how to make a fear appeal more ethical.

CONCLUSION

Fear appeals have been used successfully to increase advertising’s effect on consumer interest, recall, persuasiveness, and behavior change. However, the inner workings of a fear appeal have not been fully agreed upon or understood. The purpose of this paper has been to review and examine the fear appeal theories and literature. In particular, emphasis was given to defining a fear appeal and examining the use of fear appeals. Thereafter, fourteen theories of fear appeals were presented with overall findings derived from these theories and literature.

In essence, the bottom line of fear appeals is that they work; threatening information does motivate people to safer and recommended behavior. Based on over 50 years of fear appeal research, a fear appeal should contain threat and efficacy information sufficient to both evoke fear and inform about adaptive behavioral responses.

In addition, Hastings, Stead, and Webb (2004) state, “there are genuine concerns about the broader marketing implications of fear appeals, and they may breach the Hippocratic injunction of ‘First, do no harm’.” In response, a continued understanding of fear appeal theory and literature can contribute first to doing no harm and second to more effective advertising practice.

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF AN NPR ARTICLE THAT THE DANGERS OF 1.5C ABOVE PRE-INDUSTRIAL THAT THE IPCC HAD WARNED US ABOUT ARE NEAR AND THAT A STATE OF CLIMATE CHAOS IS IMMINENT.

LINK TO ARTICLE: https://www.npr.org/2021/05/26/1000465487/earth-is-barreling-toward-1-5-degrees-celsius-of-warming-scientists-warn

PART-1: WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS

Earth Is Barreling Toward 1.5 Degrees Celsius Of Warming, Scientists Warn.

Climate-driven droughts make large, destructive fires more likely around the world. Scientists warn that humans are on track to cause catastrophic global warming this century. The average temperature on Earth is now consistently 1 degree Celsius hotter than it was in the late 1800s, and that temperature will keep rising toward the critical 1.5C benchmark over the next five years, according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization. Scientists warn that humans must keep the average annual global temperature from lingering at or above 1.5C to avoid the most catastrophic and long-term effects of climate change. Those include massive flooding, severe drought and runaway ocean warming that fuels tropical storms and drives mass die-offs of marine species. The new report from the WMO, an agency of the United Nations, finds that global temperatures are accelerating toward 1.5C of warming since pre-industrial. The authors of the new report predict there is a 44% chance that the average annual temperature on Earth will temporarily hit 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming at some point in the next five years. That likelihood has doubled since last year. “We’re seeing accelerating change in our climate. Annual temperatures on Earth fluctuate according to short-term climate cycles, which means some years are much hotter than others, even as the overall trend line goes up steadily. As climate change accelerates, it gets more and more likely that individual years will exceed 1.5C since pre-industrial.

We had some hopes that, with last year’s COVID scenario, perhaps the lack of travel & the lack of industry might act as a little bit of a brake but what we’re seeing is, frankly, it has not.

Years with record-breaking heat offer a glimpse of the future. For example, 2020 was one of the hottest years on record. Last year, global temperatures were about 1.2C hotter than the late 1800s, according to the WMO. Millions of people suffered immensely as a result. The U.S. experienced a record-breaking number of billion-dollar weather disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires. Widespread droughts, floods and heat waves killed people on every continent except Antarctica. Recent climate disasters underscore the extent to which a couple degrees of warming can have enormous effects. For example, during the last ice age the Earth was only about 6 degrees Celsius colder than it is now, on average. An increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius “is a very, very, very, very big number. We need to be concerned about it.”

Roads Become Rivers: Nearly 4 Million Chinese Evacuated Or Displaced From Flooding

The goal of the Paris climate accord is to keep the increase in global temperatures well below 2 compared with pre-industrial levels, and ideally try to limit warming to 1.5C. Those thresholds refer to temperature on Earth over multiple years. Exceeding 1.5C in a single year wouldn’t breach the Paris Agreement. But with every passing year of rising greenhouse gas emissions, it becomes more and more likely that humans will cause catastrophic warming. The report estimates there’s a 90% chance that one of the next five years will be the warmest year on record. It is yet another wakeup call that the world needs to fast-track commitments to slash greenhouse gas emissions and achieve carbon neutrality,” WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said. The United Nations warns that, as of late 2020, humans were on track to cause more than 3C of warming by the end of the century.

How The U.S. Could Halve Climate Emissions By 2030: SCIENCE

If the U.S. follows through on new promises to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, it would help limit global warming to some extent, although other countries including China would also need to reduce their emissions dramatically in thenext 10 years. In April, the Biden administration pledged to cut U.S. emissions in half by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Most of those cuts would need to come from electricity generation and transportation, including all but eliminating coal-fired power plants and transitioning to electric cars and trucks. Congress is considering infrastructure legislation that could help push those transitions forward. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry is seeing more pressure to invest in clean energy. On Wednesday, a Dutch court ordered Shell to cut its carbon emissions more quickly, although the company says it expects to appeal the decision. And a small activist hedge fund successfully placed at least two new candidates on Exxon Mobil’s board of directors, with the goal of pushing the company to take climate change more seriously.

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

CLAIM: If the U.S. follows through on new promises to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, it would help limit global warming to some extent: RESPONSE: This statement is false. In related posts we show that climate action needs to be global. There is no opportunity for climate action herosism of nation states because the climate-action nation will cede a trade advantage to non-climate-action nations where there will be a corresponding rise in emissions. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/23/renewable-energy-statistics/

CLAIM:: Climate action being taken against Exxon and Shell: RESPONSE: Climate action must address the combustion of fossil fuels and not their production as there are many non combustion uses of fossil fuels with no climate change implication.

CLAIM: Four million Chinese affected by floods. RESPONSE: Floods and droughts in China have been recorded for thousands of years LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/22/climate-science-versus-the-fangzhi-2005/ . That there was a significant flood in China during the climate change era does not provide evidence that the flood was caused by climate change or that such floods can be avoided in the future by taking climate action.

CLAIM: The authors of the new report predict there is a 44% chance that the average annual temperature on Earth will temporarily hit 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming at some point in the next five years. RESPONSE: That there is a 44% chance we will temporarily reach 1.5C since pre industrial at some point in the next 5 years does not have an interpretation as barreling toward 1.5C. We have temporatily hit these kinds of high temperatures before but the temporariness of the event renders it as internal climate variability that has no climate change interpretation. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/

CLAIM: We had some hopes that, with last year’s COVID scenario, perhaps the lack of travel & the lack of industry might act as a little bit of a brake but what we’re seeing is, frankly, it has not. RESPONSE: A critical and significant assumption in climate science is that atmosheric CO2 concentration is responsive to fossil fuel emissions AT AN ANNUAL TIME SCALE. In that context the failure of that responsiveness in the covid year requires an explanation.

CLAIM: 2020 was one of the hottest years on record. Last year, global temperatures were about 1.2C hotter than the late 1800s, according to the WMO. RESPONSE: Climate change is a theory about long term trends in global mean surface temperature. What is the relevance of this citation that a high temperature event occurred in a certain year? LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/

THIS KIND OF REPORTING IS BRASH AND UNBRIDDLED CLIMATE ACTIVISM BUT IT IS NOTHING NEW. THIS BEHAVIOR OF THE MEDIA IS NOW MORE THAN 40 YEARS OLD. HERE ARE A FEW OTHER GOOFY THINGS YOU CLIMATE CLOWNS HAD RAVED ABOUT IN THE PAST.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/04/13/the-science-of-climate-science-is-fear/

HUMAN CAUSE: THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS HUMAN CAUSE BECAUSE WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CAUSE OF THE WARMING TREND, WHATEVER IMPACTS THE WARMING MAY HAVE ARE ALL NATURAL.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/11/09/the-issue-is-human-cause/

THIS POST IS CRITICAL COMMENTARY OF THE ASSUMPTION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IS THE APPROPRIATE CLIMATE SCIENCE AUTHORITY TO FOR SETTING HIS CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AND AGENDA.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE. IT IS CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE EPA BECAUSE THEY MEET ALL EPA REQUIREMENTS.

THE CREATION OF THE EPA, A HISTORICAL NOTE.

In a related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/30/the-humans-must-save-the-planet/ we preent the historical roots of environmentalism and the formation of the EPA.

There we note as follows:

The rapid industrial and economic growth in the post-war era progressed mostly without adequate safeguards against environmental degradation. This situation became sensationalized through a series of high profile events that captured public attention. The wanton use of pesticides such as DDT was blamed for killing butterflies and birds (Carson, 1962). The explosive growth in automobile ownership shrouded large cities like Los Angeles and New York in smog (Gardner, 2014) (Haagen-Smit, 1952) (Hanst, 1967). The widespread dumping of industrial waste into lakes and rivers was highlighted by events such as the fire in the Cuyahoga River (Marris, 2011) (Goldberg, 1979).

The hippie counter-culture movement of the 1960s rejected many conventional values and in particular, the assumed primacy of technological advancement and industrial growth. It opposed the unrestricted use of pesticides, herbicides, preservatives, food additives, fertilizers, and other synthetic chemicals. It fought against the release of industrial waste into the atmosphere and into waterways, the harvesting of old growth forests for the wood and paper industries, and the inadequacy of public transit that could limit the number of automobiles in big cities and the air pollution they cause (Rome, 2003) (Zelko, 2013).

This environmental movement was the driving force behind the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA in 1970 which was given the laws, the ways, the means, and the power to act quickly and decisively to clean up the air and water(Ruckelshaus, 1984). The EPA cleaned up the air and the water in the USA with strictly enforced new laws and procedures that limited the concentration of harmful chemicals in all industrial effluents and also required all new enterprises to obtain the approval of the EPA of their environmental impact before they could proceed. The remarkable success of the EPA made it a model for environmental law and environmental protection in countries around the world (Ruckelshaus, 1984) (Andreen, 2004) (Dolin, 2008).

THE RISE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE

Although global warming papers were published since 1938, it did not become an issue in the public or government agenda until the Senate Hearing in 1988 when James Hansen of NASA GISS presented the case for human caused global warming by way of fossil fuel emissions. He presented a very scary forecast of the horrors to come if the world does not immediately take climate action in the form of not burning fossil fuels. The Hansen testimony is made available in a related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/05/09/hansen88/ Highlights of the testimony along with critical commentary is provided in another related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/11/a-climate-industrial-complex/ .

This means that it was 18 years after the formation of the EPA that climate change became an issue of public concern and the lead in research, data collection, and activism for climate action within the government structure of the USA was taken by NASA and specifically NASA-GISS and not the EPA. There is no basis in this context to assume that the EPA is an authority on climate science.

CONCLUSION:

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USA DOES NOT HAVE A CLIMATE CHANGE AGENCY. THE CLOSEST WE CAN COME TO SUCH AN AGENCY IS NASA GISS BY DEFAULT OR PERHAPS NOAA. IN THE CASE OF NOAA, PERHAPS TOM KNUTSON COULD SERVE AS BIDEN’S CLIMATE CHANGE ADVISER AND CONSULTANT. I HAVE READ MANY OF TOM’S PAPERS. HE IS HIGHLY QUALIFIED.

THE EPA IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. IT HAS NO ROLE OR FUNCTION NOR HAS IT DONE ANY RESEARCH OR PUBLISHED ANY PAPERS IN CLIMATE CHANGE. THE ASSUMPTION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT CAN ADVISE HIM ON THIS ISSUE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAS NO BASIS. CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS THAT MEET ALL EPA SPECIFICATIONS.

EXCERPT FROM THE HANSEN 1988 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 

1. CLAIM: Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements that goes back 100 years. RESPONSE-1: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory about long term trends in global mean temperature. A one-year temperature event has no interpretation in this context. RESPONSE-2: In your paper Hansen 1988 and also in the official position of your NASA GISS organization you state that that AGW started in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data. If AGW started in 1950, then what is the relevance of the 100-year instrumental record reference period for the temperature record in 1988?
2. CLAIM: Causal association requires first that the warming be larger than natural climate variability and, second that the magnitude and nature of the warming be consistent with the greenhouse mechanism. RESPONSE: Neither that the warming is larger than natural climate variability nor that the magnitude of the warming is consistent with the greenhouse mechanism proves causation. For that it must be shown that a statistically significant detrended correlation exists between the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global surface temperature over a sufficiently long time span. The choice of 30 years as the time span for this evaluation is not supported by the literature where we find that longer time spans are required, preferably longer than 60 years.
3. CLAIM: The warming is more than 0.4 degrees Centigrade for the period 1958-1988. The probability of a chance warming of that magnitude is about 1 percent. So with 99 percent confidence we can state that the warming during this time period is a real warming trend. RESPONSE: The probability is more likely to be 100% that it is a REAL warming trend but none of this serves as evidence that the warming was caused by the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration attributed to fossil fuel emissions.
4. CLAIM: The data suggest somewhat more warming over land and sea ice regions than over open ocean, more warming at high latitudes than at low latitudes, and more warming in the winter than in the summer. In all of these cases, the signal is at best just beginning to emerge, and we need more data. RESPONSE: If the signal is just beginning to emerge and you need more data to figure it out then you don’t really know and your claim to 99% confidence has no basis.
5. CLAIM: Some of these details, such as the northern hemisphere high latitude temperature trends, do not look exactly like the greenhouse effect, but that is expected. There are certainly other climate factors involved in addition to the greenhouse effect. RESPONSE: Lip service to internal climate variability { LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/ } is paid but the issue is completely ignored in the invocation and assessment of the greenhouse effect of CO2 and its alleged dangerous consequences such as extreme weather that places an enormous cost burden on all of humanity to overhaul their energy infrastructure.
6. CLAIM: Altogether the evidence that the earth is warming by an amount which is too large to be a chance fluctuation and the similarity of the warming to that expected from the greenhouse effect represents a very strong case. In my opinion, that the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now. RESPONSE: “too large to be chance fluctuation” and “similarity of the warming to that expected from the greenhouse effect” do not constitute ” strong case”. Such suspicions may be sufficient to construct a hypothesis to be tested with data in a hypothesis test in which what is suspected is the alternate hypothesis and its absence is the null hypothesis. No such empirical evidence is presented possibly because none exists.
7. CLAIM: we have used the temperature changes computed in our global climate model to estimate the impact of the greenhouse effect on the frequency of hot summers in Washington, D.C. and Omaha, Nebraska. A hot summer is defined as the hottest one-third of the summers in the 1950 to 1980 period, which is the period the Weather Bureau uses for defining climatology. So, in that period the probability of having a hot summer was 33 percent, but by the 1990s, you can see that the greenhouse effect has increased the probability of a hot summer to somewhere between 55 percent and 70 percent in Washington according to our climate model simulations. RESPONSE#1: The weather bureau does not define the period 1950 to 1980 to define climatology. It simply specifies that the distinction between weather and climate is that weather is short term but climate can only be assessed over periods longer than 30 years. The period 1950 to 1980 has been arbitrarily selected by NASA and by Hansen because, in their own words, “Hansen: because in the 30-year period 1950-1980 there is a strong measurable warming rate with 99% probability for human cause” , “NASA: We start in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data“. This kind of bias in the selection of the time span when the theory being tested is the warming “since pre-industrial” caused by the industrial economy is a form of circular reasoning and confirmation bias. It is not science. RESPONSE#2: AGW is a theory about long term trends in global mean temperature. It is not possible to relate that warming trend to the extreme form of geographical localization implied in the claim about heat waves in specific cities of the USA as in “frequency of hot summers in Washington, D.C. and Omaha, Nebraska“. Internal climate variability dominates in geographical localization of this kind. Internal Climate Variability is described in a related post. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/ where we find that “Internal variability in the climate system confounds assessment of human-induced climate change and imposes irreducible limits on the accuracy of climate change projections, especially at regional and decadal scales“. It is noted that these internal climate variability studies find that 30-years is too short a time span for the study of AGW climate change and state that the time span must be longer than 30 years preferably 60 years.
8. CLAIM: A study of the temperature in July, for several different years between 1986 and 2029 is computed with our global climate model for the intermediate trace gas scenario B. The results show that there are areas that are warmer than what the greenhouse model predicts and areas that are colder than what the greenhouse model predicts. This is because in the 1980s the greenhouse warming is smaller than the natural variability of the local temperature. This appears to be anomalous with the greenhouse effect but the data for a few decades later in the 19902 show show warmer temperatures across the board. RESPONSE: The NASA and the Hansen position on AGW to this day (September 2020) holds that “Hansen: AGW started in 1950 because in the 30-year period 1950-1980 there is a strong measurable warming rate with 99% probability for human cause”, NASA: “AGW started in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data”. But the analysis presented by Hansen appears to be AGW went missing in the 1980s only to return in the 1990s. However this analysis by Hansen is flawed because AGW is not a theory that about temperature at any given time or place or any given decade or place. It is a theory only about long term trends in global mean temperature at time scales longer than 30 years preferably 60 years or more.
9. CLAIM: in the late 1980s and in the 1990s our model yields greater than average warming in the Southeast United States and the Midwest. This anomalous result can be explained if the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of the United States warms more slowly than the land. This leads to high pressure along the east coast and circulation of warm air north into the Midwest or southeast but there is evidence that the greenhouse effect increases the likelihood of heat wave drought situations in the Southeast and Midwest United States even though we cannot blame a specific drought on the greenhouse effect. Therefore, I believe that it is not a good idea to use the period 1950 to 1980 for the study of AGW climatology. We should see better evidence of the greenhouse effect in the next 10 to 15 years than they were in the period 1950 to 1980. RESPONSE: “That he believes that it is not a good idea to use the period 1950-1980 to study climatology is inconsistent with NASA position and that AGW started in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data.
10. CLAIM: There is a need for improving these global climate models, and there is a need for global observations if we’re going to obtain a full understanding of these phenomena. RESPONSE: This statement is an admission that the assessment of the AGW presented above as an impact of fossil fuel emissions that has dangerous consequences and that therefore we must stop using fossil fuels to fight climate change was made without the information or the scientific data and arguments needed to make that assessment.

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE ANTHROPOCENE THEORY THAT IMPLIES AN OVERRIDING AND DESTRUCTIVE ROLE OF HUMANS IN NATURE THAT CREATES THINGS LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE, LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY, AND SPECIES EXTINCTIONS.

PART-1: PALEOLITHIC HUMANS

1. THE PALEOLITHIC ERA; IN THE PALEOLITHIC ERA, HUMANS WERE ANIMAL-LIKE HUNTER-GATHERERS THAT LIVED ISOLATED LIVES WITH THEIR FAMILIES IN CAVES AND HUNTED AND ATE OTHER ANIMALS INCLUDING OTHER HUMANS. THERE WAS NO HUMAN SOCIETY OR COMMUNITY EXCEPT FOR IMMEDIATE FAMILY WITHIN EACH CAVE.

THE NEOLITHIC ERA: IN THE NEOLITHIC ERA CREATED BY GLOBAL WARMING 8,000 YEARS AGO OR SO, HUMANS CAME OUT OF THEIR CAVES, CUT DOWN TREES, CLEARED THE FOREST, BUILT HOMES, AND STARTED FARMING AND RAISING FARM ANIMALS. THESE CHANGES LED TO FORMATION OF COMMUNITIES THAT IN TURN LED TO COOPERATION, TRADING, LANGUAGE, SOCIAL INTERACTION, THE FORMATION OF SOCIETIES, AND THE BIRTH OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION.

IN THIS SYSTEM, SOCIETIES WITH BETTER LAND MANAGEMENT AND FARMING TECHNOLOGY, MORE MUTUAL CARING AND AND COOPERATION AND BETTER CHILD REARING CONSTRAINED BY MONOGAMY HAD A HIGHER PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS IN TERMS OF SURVIVAL, PROSPERITY, AND GROWTH WHILE THOSE WITH LESS MUTUAL CARING AND MANAGEMENT AND HIGHER LEVELS OF CRIME, MURDER, AND CANNIBALISM DID NOT DO AS WELL.

AS A KIND OF NATURAL SELECTION, THE EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS OF HUMAN SOCIETY FAVORED “LOVE THY NEIGHBOR, MONOGAMY, AND CHILD CARE”. IT IS THUS THAT OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS WHAT WE HAVE CULTIVATED AND WHAT WE SEE TODAY IS THAT HUMANS HAVE BUILT MOSTLY CIVIL SOCIETIES WHERE THE RULES OF LIFE OFTEN INTERPRETED AS RELIGON HAVE BEEN CULTIVATED BY SOCIAL EVOLUTION.

HOWEVER, THESE RULES OF SOCIAL EVOLUTION HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE REST OF NATURE OUTSIDE OF THE HUMAN SPECIES ALTHOUGH THESE HUMAN VALUES ARE NOW SO DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN HUMANS THAT WE TEND TO IMAGINE OR EVEN ASSUME THAT THESE VALUES MUST ALSO APPLY TO THE REST OF NATURE AS SEEN FOR EXAMPLE IN THE BAMBI PRINCIPLE OF ENVIRONMENTALISM WHERE ANIMALS DON’T EAT EACH OTHER BUT LOVE AND RESPECT EACH OTHER AS WE HUMANS HAVE LEARNED TO DO AND THIS IS WHERE ENVIRONMENTALISM HAS LOST ITS WAY.

ENVIRONMENTALISM IS NOT A WAY FOR HUMANS TO TAKE CARE OF NATURE BUT A WAY FOR HUMANS TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES BY MAKING SURE THAT THEIR ENVIRONS (SURROUNDINGS) ARE CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN WELFARE MEANING THAT ENVIRONMENTALISM SERVES HUMAN NEEDS AND NOT THE NEEDS OF NATURE.

THIS ESSENCE OF ENVIRONMENTALISM HAS BEEN CORRUPTED BY GENESIS WHERE HUMANS HAVE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD THAT GIVES THEM DOMINION OVER NATURE WITH THE IMPLICATION THAT WE ARE NATURE’S NANNIES AND CARETAKERS AND NOT PART OF NATURE. ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARGUE AGAINST THIS THESIS WITH THE ODD ARGUMENT THAT WE ARE PART OF NATURE BUT WE HAVE SUCH A LARGE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT THAT WE MUST TAKE CARE OF NATURE.

THE ENVRONMENTALISM THAT HUMANS ARE THE LORDS OF THE WORLD AND THAT NATURE AND PERHAPS EVEN THE OCEAN AND THE CLIMATE AND THE PLANET ITSELF ARE AT OUR MERCY SURELY DERIVES FROM GENESIS BECAUSE IT IS FOUND ONLY IN SOCIETIES WITH A CHIRSTIANITY CULTURE. AND THIS IS WHY THE IDEA THAT HUMANS CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE AND THEREBY THREATEN THE REST OF NATURE AND THE PLANET ITSELF MAKES SO MUCH SENSE TO THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY SUBSCRIBED TO GENESIS. THIS IS WHY THE IMPOSSIBLE IDEA THAT WE NOW HOLD THE FATE OF THE PLANET IN OUR HANDS MAKES SO MUCH SENSE EVEN TO SCIENTISTS WHO WERE RAISED IN A BIBLICAL CULTURE.

THE TRUTH IS THAT GLOBAL WARMING CREATED HUMAN CIVILIZATION OUT OF HUMAN ANIMALS AND THAT WE ARE THOSE ANIMALS CIVILIZED BY GLOBAL WARMING THE CAUSE OF WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE ANIMALS WE WERE WHEN THE WARMING HAD STARTED MORE THAN 8,000 YEARS AGO.

THE CURRENT WARMING PERIOD IS ONE OF MANY IN THIS INTERGLACIAL. THE PHENOMENON IN QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IN THIS CONTEXT IS NOT THIS WARMING CYCLE OR THAT WARMING CYCLE OR THIS COOLING CYCLE OR THAT COOLING CYCLE. THE PHENOMENON IS THAT INTERGLACIALS, ALL INTERGLACIALS, NOT JUST THE HOLOCENE, ARE NOT AT A CONSTANT TEMPERATURE. ALL INTERGLACIALS GO THEOUGH CHAOTIC CYCLES OF WARMING AND COOLING ALWAYS AT MILLENNIAL AND CENTENNIAL TIME SCALES, THE SAME TIME SCALE AT WHICH CHAOTIC BEHAVIOR IS FOUND IN GLACIATION AND DEGLACIATION PERIODS.

THE SELECTION OF JUST ONE WARMING CYCLE IN JUST ONE INTERGLACIAL TO STUDY AND THEREBY TO EXPLAIN THIS PHENOMENON IS NOT CREDIBLE. HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND SCIENCE HAVE ADVANCED BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS SINCE THE NEOLITHIC REVOLUTION THAT CREATED HUMAN CIVILIZATION BUT WHAT WE SEE IN THE CLAIMS OF CLIMATE SCIENCE, THAT THEIR STUDY OF A SINGLE WARMING CYCLE IN A SINGLE INTERGLACIAL EXPLAINS INTERGLACIAL TEMPEARATURE CYCLES, IS THAT THIS HUMAN CIVILIZATION HAS A LONG WAY TO GO TO MAKE OUR TRANSITION FROM RELIGION TO RATIONAL THOUGHT.

UNTIL THEN OUR OBSESSION WITH CLIMATE CHANGE HYSTERIA AND THE END OF THE WORLD WILL REMAIN OUR CURRENT RELIGIOUS OBSESSION. LINK https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/16/theend/

RELATED POST ON CLIMATE CHANGE RELIGION:

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/10/11/anthropogenic-global-warming-in-a-post-modern-world/

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE ON STEVE KOONIN’S NEW BOOK “UNSETTLED”. LINK TO THE SCIENTIC AMERICAN ARTICLE: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/

STEVE KOONIN HAS ALSO WRITTEN A RESPONSE TO SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN:

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/06/04/in-his-own-words/

PART-1: WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE SAYS

A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong
In Unsettled, Steven Koonin deploys that highly misleading label to falsely suggest that we don’t understand the risks well enough to take action.

By Gary Yohe May 13, 2021. Gary W. Yohe is the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies at Wesleyan University

PART-1: FULL TEXT OF THE GARY YOHE ARTICLE AS FOUND IN SCIAM
Steven Koonin, a former undersecretary for science of the Department of Energy in the Obama administration, but more recently considered for an advisory post to Scott Pruitt when he was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has published a new book. Released on May 4 and entitled Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, its major theme is that the science about the Earth’s climate is anything but settled. He argues that pundits and politicians and most of the population who feel otherwise are victims of what he has publicly called “consensus science.” Koonin is wrong on both counts. The science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing stronger for decades. In the early days of research, the uncertainty was wide; but with each subsequent step that uncertainty has narrowed or become better understood. This is how science works, and in the case of climate, the early indications detected and attributed in the 1980s and 1990s, have come true, over and over again and sooner than anticipated. This is not to say that uncertainty is being eliminated, but decision makers have become more comfortable dealing with the inevitable residuals. They are using the best and most honest science to inform prospective investments in abatement (reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diminish the estimated likelihoods of dangerous climate change impacts) and adaptation (reducing vulnerabilities to diminish their current and projected consequences). Koonin’s intervention into the debate about what to do about climate risks seems to be designed to subvert this progress in all respects by making distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified statements about supposed uncertainties that he thinks scientists have buried under the rug. Here, I consider a few early statements in his own words. They are taken verbatim from his introductory pages so he must want the reader to see them as relevant take-home findings from the entire book. They are evaluated briefly in their proper context, supported by findings documented in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is important to note that Koonin recognizes this source in his discussion of assessments, and even covers the foundations of the confidence and likelihood language embedded in its findings (specific references from the IPCC report are presented in brackets). Two such statements by Koonin followed the simple preamble “For example, both the literature and government reports that summarize and assess the state of climate science say clearly that…”: “Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900, and that the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.” (Italics in the original.) This is a questionable statement depending on the definition of “heat wave”, and so it is really uninformative. Heat waves are poor indicators of heat stress. Whether or not they are becoming more frequent, they have clearly become hotter and longer over the past few decades while populations have grown more vulnerable in large measure because they are, on average, older [Section 19.6.2.1]. Moreover, during these longer extreme heat events, it is nighttime temperatures that are increasing most. As a result, people never get relief from insufferable heat and more of them are at risk of dying. “The warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.” According to what measure? Highest annual global averages? Absolutely not. That the planet is has warmed since the industrial revolution is unequivocal with more than 30 percent of that warming having occurred over the last 25 years, and the hottest annual temperatures in that history have followed suit [Section SPM.1]. Here are a few more statements from Koonin’s first two pages under the introduction that “Here are three more that might surprise you, drawn from recently published research or the latest assessments of climate science published by the US government and the UN”: “Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.” For a risk-based approach to climate discussions about what we “should do,” this statement is irrelevant. It is the future that worries us. Observations from 11 satellite missions monitoring the Arctic and Antarctic show that ice sheets are losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s. Is this the beginning of a new trend? Perhaps. The settled state of the science for those who have adopted a risk management approach is that this is a high-risk possibility (huge consequences) that should be taken seriously and examined more completely. This is even more important because, even without those contributions to the historical trend that is accelerating, rising sea levels will continue to exaggerate coastal exposure by dramatically shrinking the return times of all variety of storms [Section 19.6.2.1]; that is, 1-in-100 year storms become 1-in-50 year events, and 1-in-50 year storms become 1-in-10 year events and eventually nearly annual facts of life. “The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.” It is unconscionable to make a statement like this, and not just because the adjective “minimal” is not at all informative. It is unsupportable without qualification because aggregate estimates are so woefully incomplete [Section 19.6.3.5]. Nonetheless, Swiss Re recently released a big report on climate change saying that insurance companies are underinsuring against rising climate risks that are rising now and projected to continue to do so over the near term. Despite the uncertainty, they see an imminent source of risk, and are not waiting until projections of the end of the century clear up to respond. The first of these misdirection statements about Greenland is even more troubling because the rise in global mean sea level has accelerated. This is widely known despite claims to the contrary in Chapter 8 which is described in the introduction as a “levelheaded look at sea levels, which have been rising over the past many millennia.” Koonin continues: “We’ll untangle what we really know about human influences on the current rate of rise (about one foot per century) and explain why it’s very hard to believe that surging seas will drown the coasts any time soon.” The trouble is that while seas have risen eight to nine inches since 1880, more than 30 percent of that increase has occurred during the last two decades: 30 percent of the historical record over the past 14 percent of the time series. This is why rising sea levels are expected with very high confidence to exaggerate coastal exposure and economic consequences [Section 19.6.2.1]. His teaser for Chapter 7 is an equally troubling misdirection. He promises to highlight “some points likely to surprise anyone who follows the news—for instance, that the global area burned by fires each year has declined by 25 percent since observations began in 1998.” Global statistics are meaningless in this context. Wildfires (if that is what he is talking about) are local events whose regional patterns of intensity and frequency fit well into risk-based calibrations because they are increasing in many locations. Take, for example, the 2020 experience. Record wildfires were seen across the western United States, Siberia, Indonesia and Australia (extending from 2019) to name a few major locations. Take a more specific example. From August through October of 2020, California suffered through what became the largest wildfire in California history. It was accompanied by the third, fourth, fifth and sixth largest conflagrations in the state’s history; and all five of them were still burning on October 3. Their incredible intensity and coincidence can only be explained by the confluence of four climate change consequences that have been attributed to climate changes so far: record numbers of nighttime dry lightning strikes during a long and record-setting drought, a record-setting heat wave extending from July through August, a decade of bark-beetle infestation that killed 85 percent of the trees across enormous tracks of forests, and long-term warming that has extended the fire season by 75 days. So, what is the takeaway message? Regardless of what Koonin has written in his new book, the science is clear, and the consensus is incredibly wide. Scientists are generating and reporting data with more and more specificity about climate impacts and surrounding uncertainties all the time. This is particularly true with regard to the exaggerated natural, social and economic risks associated with climate extremes—the low-probability, high-consequence events that are such a vital part of effective risk management. This is not an unsettled state of affairs. It is living inside a moving picture of what is happening portrayed with sharper clarity and more detail with every new peer-reviewed paper.

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

WHAT GARY SAYS: The science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing stronger for decades. In the early days of research, the uncertainty was wide; but with each subsequent step that uncertainty has narrowed or become better understood. This is how science works, and in the case of climate, the early indications detected and attributed in the 1980s and 1990s, have come true, over and over again and sooner than anticipated.

RESPONSE TO GARY: With respect to the the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, a very significant such likelyhood was the repeated and failed forecasts about September minimum sea ice extent of the Arctic in the expectation of an Ice Free Arctic as described in these related post.

LINK#1: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/01/15/icefreearcticinsanity/

LINK#2: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/01/arctic-sea-ice-its-all-quite-devastating/

LINK#3: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/11/18/the-ice-free-arctic-obsession-of-agw/

THE COMICAL NATURE OF THESE FORECASTS DERIVES FROM THE FAILURE TO TAKE THE GEOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE ARCTIC INTO ACCOUNT

LINK#1: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/08/the-arctic-ocean-warms-from-below/

LINK#2: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/27/geological-features-of-the-arctic/

Yet another failed ice obsession of climate science is the expectation of the imminent collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) and its catastrophic sea level rise of several meters that has been an ongoing feature of this science since the Hansen testimony of 1988. This fearful forecast is derived from what had happened in the previous interglacial, the Eemian where the initial warming after deglaciation had raised temperature to 5C warmer than today. This strong and sudden warming trend of the Eemian had cause te West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) to collapse and raise sea levels by several meters. The hightened expectation that a similar event in the Holocene would seal the deal as it were on the need to fear climate change and to take climate action has kept climate sciience with an obsession for a similar event in the Holocene to the point that every ice melt event there or an evanescent high temperature event served as the trigger to send climate scientists into a hysterical expectation of the Eemian event in the complete absence of the climate conditions of the Eemian that had caused the collapse of the WAIS. This obsessiive interest of climate scientists in the WAIS was fed by the geological features of the WAIS the whole of which sits on the West Antarctic Rift System home to acive faults, a large number of active volcanoes both land and submarine, and the Marie Byrd mantle plume hot spot. The Pine Island glacier and the Thwaites glacier that have been closely watched and studied by climate scientists with every ice melt event there interpreted as climate change events, are located in the Marie Byrd Mantle Plume region and sit above active volcanoes. Ice melt events in this region and under these conditions cannot be understood as atmospheric phenomena as described in the documents linked below.

THE EEMIAN INTERGLACIAL: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/21/eemian/

ANTARCTICA LINK#1: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/04/04/pine-island-glacier-tipping-point/

ANTARCTICA LINK#2: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/10/16/is-climate-change-melting-glaciers-in-antarctica/

ANTARCTICA LINK#3: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/18/the-climate-science-obsession-with-the-thwaites-glacier/

ANTARCTICA LINK#4: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/17/glaciers-tearing-loose-climate-change/

ANTARCTICA LINK#5: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/09/west-antarctic-glaciers-doomed/

IN THE LAST LINK WE PROVIDE EVIDENCE AND LITERATURE CITATIONS TO POINT OUT FLAWS IN THE THE DESPERATE ATTEMPT BY CLIMATE SCIENCE TO ATTRIBUTE ALL POLAR ICE MELT EVENTS TO GLOBAL WARMING

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/07/climate-change-threatens-polar-ice/

AS FOR THE CREDIBILITY AND REIABILITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SINCE 1980, WE PRESENT A HISTORY OF CLAIMS AND FORECASTS THAT EXPOSE A COMICAL NATURE OF THIS FAILED EXRECISE THAT IS SURELY MORE FEAR MONGERING THAN SCIENCE

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/04/13/the-science-of-climate-science-is-fear/

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE BY ACTIVISM IS FOUND IN STATISTICAL ERRORS AS FOR EXAMPLE THE INTEPRETATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN TERMS OF EXTREME VALUES

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/22/climate-science-uncertainty/

IN HYPOTHESIS TESTS, THAT WHICH IS TO BE PROVEN MUST BE THE ALTERNATE HYPOTHESIS. ITS NEGATION MUST BE THE NULL HYPOTHESIS AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE MUST BE PROVIDED TO REJECT THE NULL ACCEPT THE ALTERNATE HYPOTHESIS BUT CLIMATE SCIENCE CONTAINS A BIAS FOR THAT WHICH THE SCIENTISTS WANT TO PROVE BY MAKING THAT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS THAT STANDS AS TRUTH UNTIL SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED AGAINST IT. ANOTHER SOURCE OF BIAS IN CLIMATE SCIENCE IS THE VIOLATION OF THE CIRCULAR REASONING VIOLATION OF THE RULE THAT A HYPOTHESIS DERIVED FROM THE DATA CANNOT BE TESTED WITH THE SAME DATA. THIS KIND OF STATISTICS INTRODUCES A BIAS IN CLIMATE SCIENCE. THESE STATISTICS ISSUES ARE DESCRIBED IN RELATED POSTS ON THIS SITE.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/04/05/the-null-hypothesis-issue/

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/22/climate-science-uncertainty/

THESE AND OTHER STATISTICS ISSUES IN CLIMATE SCIENCE ARE DESCRIBED IN THIS RELATED POST:

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/18/climate-science-vs-statistics/

READERS OF GARY’S ARTICLE IN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SHOULD TAKE THIS DARK SIDE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE SERIOUSLY AND GARY HIMSELF SHOULD PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION OF THIS SORDID HISTORY FOR A SCIENCE HE CLAIMS IS INDEED A SCIENCE AND CREDIBLE BECAUSE WHAT WE SEE IN THE LINKS ABOVE IS A KIND OF OF ACTIVISM PRETENTING TO BE SCIENCE OR AT BEST A KIND OF SCIENCE CORRUPTED BY ACTIVISM.

IN THE WORDS OF CLIMATE SCIENTIST JAMES HANSEN:

Scientific reticence hinders communication with the public about the dangers of global warming. It is important that policy-makers recognize the potential influence of this phenomenon. Scientific reticence may be a consequence of the scientific method. Success in science depends on objective skepticism. Scientific reticence has its merits. However, in a case such as ice sheet instability and sea level rise, there is a danger of excessive reticence. [LINK TO SOURCE DOCUMENT]

TRANSLATION: ADHERENCE TO UNBIASED OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY INTERFERES WITH CLIMATE ACTIVISM. THE WORD RETICENCE IN THIS CONTEXT IS BEST UNDERSTOOD AS “INSISTENCE ON FOLLOWING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WHEN WHAT WE FACE IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET”.

AND FINALLY, AN UN ANSWERED QUESTION FROM MICHAEL WAYNE BOX ON QUORA:

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/19/a-quora-question-5-19-2021/

A QUORA QUESTION 5/19/2021

Posted by: chaamjamal on: May 19, 2021

• In: Uncategorized
• 5 Comments

A QUESTION FROM MICHAEL WAYNE BOX SAYS;

I AM LOOKING FOR CLIMATOLOGY FORECASTS THAT ARE MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD AND THAT MADE A PROJECTION THAT HAS SINCE COME TO PASS. I AM LOOKING FOR A MEASURABLE FORECAST THAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE MEASURABLY TRUE.

ANSWER:

MAY 20: NO ANSWER YET

MAY 21: NO ANSWER YET

MAY 22: NO ANSWER YET

MAY 23: NO ANSWER YET

MAY 24: NO ANSWER YET

MAY 25: NO ANSWER YET

MAY 26: NO ANSWER YET

MAY 27: NO ANSWER YET

MAY 28: NO ANSWER YET

MAY 29: NO ANSWER YET

MAY 30: NO ANSWER YET

MAY 31: NO ANSWER YET

JUNE 1: NO ANSWER YET

JUNE 2: NO ANSWER YET

JUNE 3: NO ANSWER YET

BBC REPORT: LINK: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-57217326

Mount Nyiragongo turned the sky red and spewed out a river of lava on Saturday, but stopped short of Goma, a city of two million just south of the volcano. At least 15 deaths have been confirmed. More than 170 children are missing. The lava halted near Buhene district, on the outskirts of Goma, burying hundreds of houses and large buildings. All the houses in Buhene neighbourhood were burned. Lava crossed one highway connecting Goma to the city of Beni. At night, crowds were seen fleeing on foot with mattresses and other belongings. We watched the whole neighbourhood in the Nyiragongo territory go up in smoke. The fire came right down to here. Even now we can still see lava. People would need help to rebuild their lives. It is a population that has lost everything. The lava flow was slow, like, 1km/h, but it wouldn’ stop and then it started burning the houses. The lava reached villages on the outskirts of Goma but stopped short of the city. The lava in Mount Nyiragongo is particularly fluid and has the potential to move fast. The volcano’s deadliest eruption happened in 1977, when more than 600 people died. (BBC)

THE BLOGGER’S COMMENTS

THE CLIMATE MOVEMENT MAY STILL FIND A WAY FOR ATTRIBUTION USING THEIR EVENT ATTRIBUTION SCIENCE AND ALL THOSE COMPUTER MODELS AS THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT CLIMATE SCIENCE NEEDS THIS CALAMITY TO BE A CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT. FOR ONE THING, THE DEVASTAION AND THE HORROR OF THIS EVENT FAR EXCEEDS THE EFFECT OF TROPICAL CYCLONE GATI THAT HIT THE HORN OF AFRICA LAST YEAR (2020) BUT THE HORRORS FOUND IN THE EFFECT OF GATI WAS ENOUGH FOR CLIMATE SCIENCE, FIRST TO IMMEDIATELY ATTRIBUTE THE CYCLONE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND THEN TO GO INTO AN ORGASMIC PRETENSION OF LOVE AND CARING FOR THE CITIZENS OF SOMALIA THAT WERE AFFECTED …. AND THEN TO CALL FOR CLIMATE ACTION FOR UNDER THESE CONDITIONS ONLY THE CRUEL, THE HEARTLESS, AND THE RACISTS WOULD FAIL TO SEE THE URGENT NEED TO STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS. YET NONE OF THAT CARING APPLIES TO THE VICTIMS OF NYIRAGONGO APPARENTLY.

WE NOTE IN THIS REGARD THAT THE CLIMATE SCIENCE OBSESSION WITH ATTRIBUTING NATURE’S FURY TO CLIMATE CHANGE WITH EVENT ATTRIBUTION SCIENCE DOES HAVE SOME LIMITS ALTHOUGH THEY MAY FIND A WAY TO ATTRIBUTE NYIRAGONGO TO CLIMATE CHANGE. SEE FOR EXAMPLE, THIS ATTEMPT TO CLAIM A VOLCANIC ERUPTION AS AN IMPACT OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/21/global-warming-causes-volcanic-eruption-2010/

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/21/global-warming-causes-volcanic-eruption-2010/

HOW FAR THE TERMITES HAVE SPREAD AND HOW LONG AND WELL THEY HAVE DINED.

TERMITE DINNER #1:

TREE FARTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE! OMG! OMG! https://www.fastcompany.com/90638492/polluting-tree-farts-are-giving-new-meaning-to-greenhouse-gas

SCIENTISTS AT NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY HAVE PUBLISHED A NEW RESEARCH PAPER IN THE JOURNAL BIOGEOCHEMISTRY WITH THE FINDING THAT THOUGH TREES REMOVE CO2 FROM THE ATMOSPHERE WHILE THEY ARE ALIVE, WHEN THEY DIE THEY ROT AND GIVE UP THEIR CO2 BACK TO THE ATMOSPHERE AND TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE, OMG! OMG! THIS CHILDISH FINDING HAS FOUND NEW RELEVANCE IN THE AGE OF CLIMATE ALARMISM AND WITH THE ALARMING NEW PHRASE “TREE FART” TO DESCRIBE THE PROCESS OF DEAD TREES ROTTING AND RETURNING THEIR CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE. THIS IS WHAT SCIENCE LOOKS LIKE IN THE AGE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE. HOW FAR THE TERMITES HAVE SPREAD AND HOW LONG AND WELL THEY HAVE DINED.

TERMITE DINNER #2

HEAT BOMBS OF WARM WATER ARE MELTING ARCTIC ICE. OMG! OMG!

SCIENTISTS AT THE Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego HAVE PUBLISHED A NEW RESEARCH PAPER IN THE JOURNAL NATURE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE FINDING THAT POCKETS OF WARM WATER ARE MIGRATING FROM THE PACIFIC TO THE ARCTIC AND MELTING SEA ICE. AND IN CASE THAT DOESN’T SCARE US, THE SCIENTISTS HAVE COME UP WITH THE PHRASE “HEAT BOMBS” TO DESCRIBE THESE POCKETS OF WARM WATER FROM THE PACIFIC. THIS IS WHAT SCIENCE LOOKS LIKE IN THE AGE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE. HOW FAR THE TERMITES HAVE SPREAD AND HOW LONG AND WELL THEY HAVE DINED.

CRITICAL COMMENTARY#1: DEAD TREES

THAT TREES REMOVE CO2 FROM THE ATMOSPHERE WHEN THEY ARE ALIVE AND GIVE IT BACK TO THE ATMOSPHERE AND THE SOIL WHEN THEY DIE IS A WELL KNOWN PROPERTY OF TREES AND THESE FLOWS ARE WELL KNOWN AND UNDERSTOOD AS CARBON CYCLE FLOWS. THE SCIENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT ABOUT CARBON CYCLE FLOWS BUT THE FINDING THAT FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS CONTAIN CO2 THAT IS MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD AND NOT PART OF THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE CARBON CYCLE. THESE ARGUMENTS LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS ARE AN EXTERNAL PERTURBATION OF THE CARBON CYCLE THAT CAUSES ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO RISE BY WAY OF THE AIRBORNE FRACTION THAT IMPLIES THAT ABOUT HALF OF THE CO2 IN FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS STAYS IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND CAUSES ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO RISE. THE OTHER HALF IS ABSORBED INTO THE CARBON CYCLE. THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS THEORY ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE CARBON CYCLE ITSELF ON ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION.

CRITICAL COMMENTARY #2: HEAT BOMBS

OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS OR SO CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS BEEN GOING THROUGH APOCALYPTIC ORGASMS WITH THE OBSERVED DECLINE IN SEPTEMBER MINIMUM ARCTIC SEA ICE WHICH THEY HAD ARBITRARILY ATTRIBUTED TO GLOBAL WARMING “THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ARCTIC TWICE AS FAST AS IN THE REST OF THE WORLD”. THERE WERE EAGER AND REPEATED FORECASTS OF THE HORROR OF AN ICE FREE ARCTIC AND REPEATED COMICAL FAILURES OF THOSE FORECASTS. THE UNDERLYING ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN GLOBAL WARMING AND THE RATE OF DECLINE IN SEPTEMBER MINIMUM SEA ICE EXTENT. CLIMATE SCIENCE HAD THEN RESPONDED WITH THE NEW CLAIM THAT IT IS NOT EXTENT BUT SEA ICE VOLUME THAT IS RESPONSIVE TO GLOBAL WARMING IN THE ARCTIC REGION BUT NO SUPPORTING CORRELATION EXISTS IN THE VOLUME DATA EITHER.

LINK TO ARCTIC SEA ICE POSTS: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/25/list-of-arctic-sea-ice-posts/

IT IS THIS FAILED OBSESSION WITH ARCTIC SEPTEMBER MINIMUM SEA ICE EXTENT THAT EXPLAINS THE DESPERATION OF THE HEAT BOMB APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF ARCTIC SEA ICE WHERE HEAT BOMBS OF PACIFIC WATER MIGRATE INTO THE ARCTIC AND MELT SEA ICE AND THIS MELT MECHANISM WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO CORRELATE WITH ARCTIC TEMPERTURES. THIS BIZARRE OBSESSION OF THE NEED TO EXPLAIN ARCTIC SEA ICE IN TERMS OF GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT OBJECTIVE AND UNBIASED SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY. FOR ONE THING IT FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE GEOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE ARCTIC THAT CONTAIN SIGNIFICANT “HEAT BOMBS” OF ITS OWN THAT MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT TO UNDERSTAND ARCTIC SEA ICE DYNAMICS. CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS OVERLOOKED THIS IMPORTANT FEATURE OF THE ARCTIC WHICH IS GEOLOGICALLY VERY ACTIVE WITH MORE RATIONAL SOURCES OF HEAT BOMBS THAN THE PACIFIC.

WITH REGARD TO THE PACIFIC, IT IS NOTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE IS AN EPISODIC EVENT THAT CAUSES A HUGE HEAT BOMB FROM THE PACIFIC TO ENTER THE ARCTIC. IT IS CALLED THE “NORTH PACIFIC BLOB” AND IT IS DESCRIBED IN A RELATED POST ON THIS SITE: HOWEVER, THE BLOB IS ENTIRELY GEOLOGICAL AND EPISODIC AND HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING OR ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA.

LINK TO NORTH PACIFIC BLOB POST: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/14/atmosphere-bias/

LINK TO POST ON THE RELEVANT GEOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE ARCTIC: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/27/geological-features-of-the-arctic/

HOW FAR THE TERMITES HAVE SPREAD AND HOW LONG AND WELL THEY HAVE DINED.