Thongchai Thailand

Author Archive

Paris, the most beautiful city in the world.

Donald Trump Paris Agreement Withdraw Would Challenge World | Time

The only AGREEMENT in the Paris Agreement is that the participating countries AGREED TO SUBMIT INDCs. That is all that the participating countries agreed to do. And in fact all the countries that had agreed to submit INDCs did in fact submit INDCs.

The key to understanding the Paris agreement is to understand what an INDC is and what it isn’t

(1): First of all, the way we understand what the word agreement means is that there is one document – one statement, that all the participants signed and agreed to abide by but there is no such document in the Paris Agreement.

(2): This oddity of what is called an agreement is a creation of the failure of the COPs (United Nations Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC) and that failure is best understood in the context of the history of the UN’s ambition to be a kind of global Environmental Protection Agency by way of the UNEP (united nations environment program).

(3): The UNEP began life with a bang when the UN put together a Global Agreement called the Montreal Protocol where all the nations signed the same document agreeing to change refrigerants. This agreement is credited with having solved the ozone depletion crisis. This apparent success of the newly formed UNEP led to the assumption that the UN could likewise put together a “Montreal Protocol for climate change” (MPFC) with a global agreement to reduce global fossil fuel emissions.

(4): To get such an agreement signed by all nations, the UN put together a global agreement signed by almost all nations called the UNFCCC where the signatories agreed that climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution. The nations that signed this agreement are called Parties to the UNFCCC. The next and final step in resolving the climate crisis was to call a “Conference of Parties” or COP, for the parties to sign a binding emission reduction agreement. Sadly, the COP ended without a signed “Montreal Protocol for the Climate (MPFC).

(5): This failure was a significant event. Flustered and confused in the abject failure of the COP, the UN bureaucrats decided to call for another COP to be called COP2 and line up some more impressive speakers about the dangers of climate change and make some modifications to the emission reduction agreement to get the parties to sign the modified MPFC. But COP2 also failed.

(6): The UN bureaucrats were unable to comprehend the enormous difference between changing refrigerants and overhauling the world’s energy infrastructure. and ventured into a program of tweeking the contract and bringing in more impressive speakers and more scary assessments of what will happen to us and the world and maybe the planet if we don’t do the MPFC. The short version of this story is that after COP3, COP4, COP5, COP6, COP7, COP8, COP9, COP10, COP11, COP12, COP13, COP14, and the very dramatic COP15 in Copenhagen that was described by climate scientists, climate activists, and the UN bureaucrats as a DO OR DIE meeting. It died.

(7): But the climate movement and the UN could not accept this devastating failure and the UN bureaucrats decided that what they needed was a change in strategy. It was the devastating failure in Copenhagen that convinced the UN bureaucrats that more and more speakers with greater and greater fear of climate change will not work and will not deliver the MPFC. It was in Copenhagen that the subtle shift in strategy had to be made to keep toning down the demands in the MPFC until the all the Parties would sign the climate agreement.

Copenhagen - Wikipedia

(8): And so the climate agreement dream was not over yet and on we went to COP16, COP17, COP18, COP19, COP20, COP21, COP22, COP23, and COP24. But still no MPFC and still without an agreement.

(9): A dramatic shift in strategy came in COP25 in Paris. The new desperate strategy was this: If they won’t sign the contract we wrote let them write the contract that they will sign. And so it was that in COP25 in Paris, France that this new strategy was implemented where each nation could independently and in isolation write the agreement that it was willing to sign and then sign it. The collection of these “INDC”s that don’t agree is then assumed to be an AGREEMENT of some kind so the UN can say that they did their job and delivered the MPFC..

(10): The contradictions in this claim have gone unchallenged and so it is to this day that we still accept a collection of INDCs that don’t agree and that are not binding as some kind of global climate action contract that can be claimed to be the delivery of the promised MPFC.

Cirque du Soleil clowns in Paris, Nov 28 2012 - ABC News (Australian  Broadcasting Corporation)

(11): The reality is that the Paris Agreement is not an Agreement to agree but an agreement to disagree and that therefore there is no MPFC and no global agreement to cut global emissions and that this is why we are in an illogical climate action plan of the climate heroism of nation states without a MPFC to reduce global emissions.

NUMNUT UN BUREAUCRAT USES COVID TO SELL CLIMATE | Thongchai Thailand

(12): The new strategy of climate heroism of nation states is something to which the UN fully agrees as the UN Secretary General has framed his new climate action program as some kind of cheerleader making speeches for “AMBITION” of nation states to cut emissions. This is now the confused state of affairs in the expectation that the UN would deliver the MPFC. That didn’t happen. We do not have an MPFC.

That's All Folks HD - YouTube

(13): THE ONLY FUNCTION OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT IS THAT IT ALLOWS THE UN TO PUNCH OUT WITH A FACE SAVING CLAIM OF HAVING DELIVERED THE EXPECTED MPFC SUCCESS.

SEE ALSO: THIS OUTSTANDING POST ON THE UN BY ERIC WORRALL AT WUWT

LINK: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/05/un-climate-message-we-are-rapidly-reaching-the-point-of-no-return/

Eric Worrall (@worrall_eric) | Twitter

What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters | Steven  Koonin - YouTube

STEVE KOONIN RESPONDS TO THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE ABOUT HIS BOOK UNSETTLED

Scientific American has published a criticism of me and my recent book, Unsettled. Most of that article’s 1,000 words are scurrilous ad hominem and guilt-by-association aspersions from the twelve co-authors. Only three scientific criticisms are buried within their spluttering; here is my response to each them. The first criticism concerns rising temperatures: A recent Washington Post column by conservative contributor Marc Thiessen repeats several points Koonin makes. The first is citing the 2017 National Climate Assessment to downplay rising temperatures—but the report’s very first key finding on the topic says temperatures have risen, rapidly since 1979, and are the warmest in 1,500 years. In fact, Unsettled explicitly acknowledges a warming globe, but also the problems in comparing instrumental and proxy temperatures that weaken confidence in the “warmest in 1,500 years”. The book’s Chapter 5 criticizes in detail the 2017 report’s misleading and inaccurate representation of a different temperature metric, US extreme temperatures. To the surprise of many, the country’s warmest temperatures have not increased since 1960 and are no higher in recent years than they were in 1900. The authors go on to offer: The second is Thiessen quoting Koonin’s use of an outdated 2014 assessment on hurricanes to downplay climate concerns. But the newer 2017 report finds that human activity has “contributed to the observed upward trend in North Atlantic hurricane activity since the 1970s.” In fact, Unsettled’s Chapter 6 discusses the description of hurricanes in the 2014 report, in the 2017 report, and in more recent research papers through 2020, including an authoritative 2019 assessment by eleven hurricane experts. None of those studies claim any detectable human influences on hurricanes. Finally, we’re given: A third point downplays sea level rise by portraying it as steady over time, cherry-picking reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the rate of sea-level rise has quadrupled since the industrial revolution, as climate scientists pointed out years ago when Koonin made this same argument. In no sense does Unsettled portray sea level rise as “steady over time”. Rather, the book’s Chapter 8 does quite the opposite, describing the full decadal variability as portrayed in the IPCC reports and subsequent research literature, but somehow omitted in the 2017 National Climate Assessment. The IPCC statement that rates of rise between 1920 and 1950 were likely similar to those of recent decades complicates attribution of recent trends. It is telling that these three criticisms cite Thiessen’s column rather than what I’ve written in Unsettled. That they are readily countered suggests the authors haven’t read the book or, if they have, they aren’t acting in good faith. That’s precisely the same unprofessional behavior found in the easily rebutted “fact check” of, again, a review of Unsettled, not the book itself. To paraphrase a statement attributed to Einstein, “If I were wrong, it wouldn’t take a dozen scientists to disprove me – one would be sufficient.” As I write in Unsettled, I welcome serious, informed discussion of any of the points I raise in the book. Unfortunately, the article by Oreskes et al. falls well short of that standard. Steven E. Koonin is the author of the bestselling book Unsettled: What climate science tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters.

World's Largest Offshore Wind Farm Begins Operations off England's Coast

THIS POST IS A LITERATURE REVIEW ON IMPACT OF LARGE WINDFARM ARRAYS ON THE ATMOSPHERE

THE ESSENTIAL THESIS PROPOSED BY SOME ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTISTS IS THAT WIND FARMS ALTER NATURAL WIND PATTERNS AND THAT CAN IN TURN IMPACT WEATHER PARTICULARLY SO IN CREATING DROUGHT CONDITIONS. A BASELINE PAPER IS BARRIE ETAL 2010 AVAILABLE AT THIS SITE BY CLICKING ON THE “DOWNLOAD” LINK BELOW. WARNING: CLICKING ON THE DOWNLOAD LINK WILL CAUSE A LARGE PDF FILE TO BE DOWNLOADED TO YOUR DEVICE.

THE ARGUMENT IS PRESENTED IN TERMS OF AN ENERGY BALANCE.

THE ENERGY YOU TAKE REMOVES ENERGY FROM THE ATMOSPHERE.

THAT IN TURN CAN IMPACT THE NORMAL OR NATURAL ATMOSPHERIC WIND PATTERNS AND WEATHER AND CLIMATE AS IN WARMING OR COOLING BECAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT HAVE THE ENERGY IT HAD BEFORE THE WIND TURBINES REMOVED SOME OF IT.

THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IS THAT IN THIS MECHANISM WINDFARMS CAN CAUSE, AMONG OTHER ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA, THINGS LIKE DROUGHT AND OTHER WEATHER ANOMALIES.

BELOW WE PRESENT A BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THIS TOPIC AND A SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS.

Power plants: Lillgrund – the largest offshore wind farm in Sweden -  Vattenfall

WINDFARM IMPACT ON ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA: A BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mann, Jakob, and Jonas Teilmann. “Environmental impact of wind energy.” Environmental Research Letters 8.3 (2013): 035001. Abstract: One purpose of wind turbines is to provide pollution-free electric power at a reasonable price in an environmentally sound way. In this focus issue the latest research on the environmental impact of wind farms is presented. Offshore wind farms affect the marine fauna in both positive and negative ways. For example, some farms are safe havens for porpoises while other farms show fewer harbor porpoises even after ten years. Atmospheric computer experiments are carried out to investigate the possible impact and resource of future massive installations of wind turbines. The following questions are treated. What is the global capacity for energy production by the wind? Will the added turbulence and reduced wind speeds generated by massive wind farms to cool or heat the surface? Can wind farms affect precipitation? It is also shown through life-cycle analysis how wind energy can reduce the atmospheric emission of eight air pollutants. Finally, noise generation and its impact on humans are studied.

Wang, Chien, and Ronald G. Prinn. “Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 10.4 (2010): 2053-2061. Abstract. Meeting future world energy needs while addressing climate change requires large-scale deployment of low or zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emission technologies such as wind energy. The widespread availability of wind power has fueled substantial interest in this renewable energy source as one of the needed technologies. For very large-scale utilization of this resource, there are however potential environmental impacts, and also problems arising from its inherent intermittency, in addition to the present need to lower unit costs. To explore some of these issues, we use a three-dimensional climate model to simulate the potential climate effects associated with installation of wind-powered generators over vast areas of land or coastal ocean. Using wind turbines to meet 10% or more of global energy demand in 2100, could cause surface warming exceeding 1 °C over land installations. In contrast, surface cooling exceeding 1 °C is computed over ocean installations, but the validity of simulating the impacts of wind turbines by simply increasing the ocean surface drag needs further study. Significant warming or cooling remote from both the land and ocean installations, and alterations of the global distributions of rainfall and clouds also occur. These results are influenced by the competing effects of increases in roughness and decreases in wind speed on near-surface turbulent heat fluxes, the differing nature of land and ocean surface friction, and the dimensions of the installations parallel and perpendicular to the prevailing winds. These results are also dependent on the accuracy of the model used, and the realism of the methods applied to simulate wind turbines. Additional theory and new field observations will be required for their ultimate validation. Intermittency of wind power on daily, monthly and longer time scales as computed in these simulations and inferred from meteorological observations, poses a demand for one or more options to ensure reliability, including backup generation capacity, very long distance power transmission lines, and onsite energy storage, each with specific economic and/or technological challenges.

Barrie, D. B., and D. B. Kirk-Davidoff. “Weather response to a large wind turbine array.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 10.2 (2010): 769-775. ABSTRACT: Electrical generation by wind turbines is increasing rapidly, and has been projected to satisfy 15% of world electric demand by 2030. The extensive installation of wind farms would alter surface roughness and significantly impact the atmospheric circulation due to the additional surface roughness forcing. This forcing could be changed deliberately by adjusting the attitude of the turbine blades with respect to the wind, which would enable the “management” of a large array of wind turbines. Using a General Circulation Model (GCM), we represent a continent-scale wind farm as a distributed array of surface roughness elements. Here we show that initial disturbances caused by a step change in roughness grow within four and a half days such that the flow is altered at synoptic scales. The growth rate of the induced perturbations is largest in regions of high atmospheric instability. For a roughness change imposed over North America, the induced perturbations involve substantial changes in the track and development of cyclones over the North Atlantic, and the magnitude of the perturbations rises above the level of forecast uncertainty.

Broström, Göran. “On the influence of large wind farms on the upper ocean circulation.” Journal of Marine Systems 74.1-2 (2008): 585-591. ABSTRACT: Large wind farms exert a significant disturbance on the wind speed in the vicinity of the installation and in this study we outline the oceanic response to the wind wake from a large wind farm placed in the ocean. We find that the size of the wind wake is an important factor for the oceanic response to the wind farm. We show through simple analytical models and idealized numerical experiments that a wind speed of 5–10 m/s may generate upwelling/downwelling velocities exceeding 1 m/day if the characteristic width of the wind wake is of the same size or larger than the internal radius of deformation. The generated upwelling is sufficiently enough that the local ecosystem will most likely be strongly influenced by the presence of a wind farm.

Abbasi, S. A., and Tasneem Abbasi. “Impact of wind-energy generation on climate: A rising spectre.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016): 1591-1598. ABSTRACT: Several theoretical studies have been reported in recent years which have indicated that large-scale wind farms can have an impact on local and regional meteorology, possibly on climate. Now evidence of it based on field observations has also begun to emerge. The present paper traces the evolution of this knowledge. It discusses the theoretical studies on the possibility of wind turbines effecting climate change, and summarizes the emerging confirmation of those predictions. The concluding part of the paper assesses the implications of these findings in the context of the world׳s past experience on global warming and its present thrust to meet substantial portions of its energy needs with renewables.

Tang, Bijian, et al. “The observed impacts of wind farms on local vegetation growth in northern China.” Remote Sensing 9.4 (2017): 332. ABSTRACT: Wind farms (WFs) can affect the local climate, and local climate change may influence underlying vegetation. Some studies have shown that WFs affect certain aspects of the regional climate, such as temperature and rainfall. However, there is still no evidence to demonstrate whether WFs can affect local vegetation growth, a significant part of the overall assessment of WF effects. In this research, based on the moderate-resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) vegetation index, productivity and other remote-sensing data from 2003 to 2014, the effects of WFs in the Bashang area of Northern China on vegetation growth and productivity in the summer (June–August) were analyzed. The results showed that: (1) WFs had a significant inhibiting effect on vegetation growth, as demonstrated by decreases in the leaf area index (LAI), the enhanced vegetation index (EVI), and the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) of approximately 14.5%, 14.8%, and 8.9%, respectively, in the 2003–2014 summers. There was also an inhibiting effect of 8.9% on summer gross primary production (GPP) and 4.0% on annual net primary production (NPP) coupled with WFs; and (2) the major impact factors might be the changes in temperature and soil moisture: WFs suppressed soil moisture and enhanced water stress in the study area. This research provides significant observational evidence that WFs can inhibit the growth and productivity of the underlying vegetation.

LINK TO FULL TEXT:  View Full-Text

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: THE RUSH TO COVER THE WORLD WITH WIND FARMS TO SAVE THE WORLD FROM CLIMATE CHANGE WAS MADE WITHOUT DUE CONSIDERATION NOT ONLY OF THE INRTERMITTENCY ISSUE IN THESE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES BUT ALSO WITHOUT ADEQUATE RESEARCH AND CONSIDERATION OF THE costly IMPACT OF THIS TECHNOLOGY ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

AN ADDITIONAL COST CONSIDERATION IS PRESENTED BY WILLIS ESCHENBACH ON A WUWT BLOG POST: LINK: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/08/blocking-the-wind/ Here Willis provides significant evidence that the cost of capturing and delivering what is claimed to be free energy is surprisingly expensive.

Willis Eschenbach (@WEschenbach) | Twitter

QUESTION: What helps and does not help combat climate change?

ANSWER:

(1): Global warming is a Global issue created by humans all over the world burning fossil fuels. The climate action needed is a Globally coordinated program to reduce Global fossil fuel emissions all the way down to zero. This global nature of the problem and the required global format of the solution is why the UN was brought in.

(2): It was thought that the UN could repeat their global Montreal Protocol success in the climate change issue. As it turned out, the UN failed to live up to those expectations simply because the expectations were irrational. Overhauling the world’s energy infrastructure is a huge and deeply invasive project that cannot be compared with changing the type of refrigerant we use.

(3): The bottom line is that there is no globally coordinated program to reduce global fossil fuel emissions. This is the issue.

(4): As a result climate action has morphed into an eco wacko game consisting of the climate heroism of nation states, climate action with carbon cycle interventions as in “net zero”, climate action with what is called “woke” economics which holds that climate change is a creation of the evils of capitalism, and, an undefined eco wacko climate action of environmentalism where the idea is that climate change is a creation of the environment being overwhelmed with humans and human technology and human activity.

(5): A failed climate movement has thus morphed into an eco wacko movement disconnected from the real issues and this movement has added to the state of confusion where everyone is in the climate movement but without a common definition or a common direction for climate action.

(6): Climate science has succeeded a little too well in making climate change an activism of the people and that has led to this state of confusion.

(7): Details in the documents linked below.

RENEWABLE ENERGY & FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/23/renewable-energy-statistics/

(8): EXCERPT FROM WOKE ECONOMICS: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/16/grantham-institute-climate-change/

EXCERPT:

THE PRESENTATION BY THE GRANTHAM INSTITUTE MAKES THE CASE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AND THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS IS INCOMPLETE AND DANGEROUSLY FLAWED WHEN ECONOMICS IS UNDERSTOOD IN THE ABSENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.

THIS ARGUMENT IMPLIES THAT CAPITALISM AS PRACTICED IS A DANGEROUS TOOL THAT IS SHORT TERM AND WITH ASSUMPTIONS THAT EXCLUDE NATURE. THE POINT OF THIS PRESENTATION IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE CONTEXT IS THE IMPLICATION THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A CREATIION OF CAPITALISM AND THAT THESE KINDS OF THINGS WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN IF WE DON’T FIX OUR ECONOMICS SYSTEM AND THAT WE CAN AND MUST FIX OUR ECONOMICS SYSTEM WITH AN ECO WACKO AGENDA INSERTED INTO ECONOMICS AND FINANCE TO INCLUDE NATURE AND THE PLANET BECAUSE WE ARE PART OF NATURE. THESE CHANGES TO OUR ECONOMICS SYSTEM ARE NEEDED SO THAT WE DON’T END UP DESTROYING THE PLANET.

ECO WACKO CLIMATE SCIENCE | Thongchai Thailand
The New Face of Eco Wacko Activism | Thongchai Thailand
HOW FAR THE TERMITES HAVE SPREAD AND HOW LONG AND WELL THEY HAVE DINED

scientific.american.special.edition - vishprjpt2

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/

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.

Action Alaska America Animal Animals Bird Birds Catch Fish Homer Prey Preys  Sea Seagull United States Stock Photo - Alamy

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.

Disney: Bambi | Book by Editors of Studio Fun International | Official  Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster

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

Café Bambi - โพสต์ | Facebook

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

Image result for god gives man dominion over the earth

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

Quotes about Environmentalist (99 quotes)
ECO WACKO ENVIRONMENTALISM IS EMOTION AND NEITHER RATIONAL THOUGHT NOR SCIENCE

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

What is a good answer according to you? - Quora

Kaylene WILLIAMS | Professor of Marketing | Doctorate in Business  Administration | California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock | CSU  Stanislaus | Department of Management,Operations, and Marketing
KAYLENE C WILLIAMS, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, STANISLAUS

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.

Mary Poffenroth: Biology lecturer & Fear researcher, San Jose State  University — CNL
PROFESSOR MARY POFFEROTH: FEAR IS A POWERFUL TOOL

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.

THE BOTTOM LINE

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.

Kaylene WILLIAMS | Professor of Marketing | Doctorate in Business  Administration | California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock | CSU  Stanislaus | Department of Management,Operations, and Marketing

.

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

1.5C BY 2027? | Thongchai Thailand

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.

Inside Biden's uphill battle to restore the EPA after Trump | Grist

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.

Climate Change Impacts in GCC | EcoMENA

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/

Creepy Clowns Making A Comeback In Maryland? | Annapolis, MD Patch

Inside Biden's uphill battle to restore the EPA after Trump | Grist

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.

Richard Nixon and the Rise of American Environmentalism | Science History  Institute

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).

Richard Nixon and the Rise of American Environmentalism | Science History  Institute

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: LINKhttps://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.

A FAILED OBSESSION WITH TROPICAL CYCLONES | Thongchai Thailand
THOMAS KNUSTSON, CLIMATE SCIENTIST, NOAA

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.

Graduate Student Part-Time PAID Internships in NYC at NASA GISS — New York  Space Grant Consortium
COP21: James Hansen, the father of climate change awareness, claims Paris  agreement is a 'fraud' | The Independent | The Independent
NASA Climate (@NASAClimate) | Twitter
Biden, Harris briefed by national security experts amid transition  obstacles | TheHill

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.