Logout|My Dashboard

Climate change denial and motivated reasoning - Daily Inter Lake: Opinion

Login to DailyInterLake.com

Subscribers Click Here

Non Subscribers Click Here

Climate change denial and motivated reasoning

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:00 pm | Updated: 1:05 pm, Thu Apr 17, 2014.

In his Nov. 3 op-ed in the Inter Lake on “Climate Controversy: Is Global Warming Settled Science or Political Dogma?” Dr. David Myerowitz asserts among other things that “the planet isn’t warming” and that man-made global warming is not a very good theory.

The title of his op-ed reveals his intent is to perpetuate two myths: One is that human-caused global warming is still an open and controversial scientific question, when in fact, it is not. The second is that science on any subject can ever be “settled” in the sense that all uncertainties about every detail can be eliminated, which is both an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation that no area of science can ever expect to meet.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?



Choose an online service.

    Current print subscribers

      You must login to view the full content on this page.

      Thank you for reading 5 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 406-755-7000 . You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

      Have an online subscription?

      Login Now

      Need an online subscription?



      Choose an online service.

        Current print subscribers

          More about

          Welcome to the discussion.


          • jdoug posted at 5:56 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

            jdoug Posts: 5

            Rebel Rouser: May I ask you if you are not a slight bit confused as to what the difference is in Carbon DIOXIDE and carbon MONOXIDE is. One is what you breath out and the other is deadly and is produced by the burning of something with out enough oxygen and therefore the killer gas CO is produced. In short, CO2 is not a pollutant in that it is colorless, odor less and one and one half time heaver that the rest of the atmosphere. If you are confused about this there is probably no limit as far as the other misconceptions you are burdened with.

          • ragodan posted at 2:04 am on Fri, Jan 10, 2014.

            ragodan Posts: 33

            The Flat Earth Society meets on the Flathead Reservation on Flathead Lake in Flat bottom boats drinking Flat beer (because the consensus is that Co2 emmissions from beer can cause climatic change) for a Flat fee of Five dollars every Friday

          • flyfish posted at 10:21 pm on Thu, Jan 9, 2014.

            flyfish Posts: 199

            So where exactly does the Flat Earth Society of the Greater Flathead Valley gather for its bi-weekly meetings. It must be at either the Fairgrounds or Christian Center as for the large following it has in this area.

          • ragodan posted at 6:15 pm on Thu, Jan 9, 2014.

            ragodan Posts: 33

            I agree with mooseberryinn. It's going to really cut in to the Bong industry though once they are banned too. I wonder what's worse: driving a Subaru 40 miles a day to work and back or a Chevy Silverado 20 miles a day to work and back? (got a bike rack on that Subaru? do you use it?) How many champions of the planet drive internal combustion engine vehicles? Drive their kids to school every day? Get on the internet (plugged into an outlet powered most likely by fossil fuels) Wind turbines are the answer!!!!! I just can't wait until a flock of those giant storks are scattered all across the field in front of my house helping block the hideous glare of the sun bouncing off the snow pack of the Mission Mountains. I'm actually contemplating going vegan, all those cows, all that bio gas, can't be good for the ozone layer.

          • mooseberryinn posted at 8:10 am on Thu, Jan 9, 2014.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2687

            Well, that's it then, time to park all the cars and trucks, shut down all the power plants, ban all the wood stoves, ground all the aircraft, stop all the trains etc. etc. [sad]

          • Todd Tanner posted at 11:16 pm on Wed, Jan 8, 2014.

            Todd Tanner Posts: 15

            A number of studies - Oreskes 2004, Doran 2009, Anderegg 2010, Cook, et al. 2013 - confirm that approximately 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth is warming and that people are responsible.


            Just so we’re clear, meteorologists are not typically climate scientists. Consequently, a survey of AMS members tells us very little about what actual climate scientists believe.

            At the same time, the AMS is a respected professional organization. What is the AMS position on climate change?

            “There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate.”


            The AMS agrees with the NAS, NOAA, NASA and every other major scientific organization. The planet is growing warmer, people are responsible, and our future is at risk.

          • ragodan posted at 6:41 pm on Wed, Jan 8, 2014.

            ragodan Posts: 33

            To quote the famous philosopher Tom Cruise:
            "Follow the money!"

            btw: good rebuttal Dr. Fulks

          • LA posted at 2:50 pm on Wed, Jan 8, 2014.

            LA Posts: 2

            Dr. Fulks,

            Thank you for providing us with this information.

            L A Johnson, PhD (Geology)

          • gordonfulksphd posted at 2:32 pm on Wed, Jan 8, 2014.

            gordonfulksphd Posts: 7

            Dr. Elwood:

            Your comment that: "almost all climate scientists with expertise and experience on the subject believe... that global warming observed over the past 60 years is caused largely by humans." is seriously flawed.

            First of all, it is not factually correct. A paper coming out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society written by a well known government climate propagandist (Professor Ed Maibach of George Mason University) and his colleagues reports on a survey of professional members of the society and finds that opinion is roughly evenly divided. That is far from the consensus you claim.

            But is consensus the way we do things in science anyway? OF COURSE NOT. Science is based on sturdy logic and robust evidence. Beliefs are the realm of religion not science. Consensus is the realm of politics.

            Scientists on both sides of this argument will tell you that the earth's climate has not warmed in about 15 years. Yes, it has bounced around quite a lot but with no significant trend. That's very important to realize, because it limits the possibilities for CO2 as a thermostat.

            Even my astrophysical colleague Dr. James Hansen has admitted to this.

            Even the US National Academy of Sciences has admitted that climate models have missed the actual temperature trend (from high quality satellite measurements which began in 1979) by a factor of two. That's huge! It is far larger in the tropical mid-troposphere. Climate models are high by a factor of 3.5 there.

            It is clear that you are married to a failing paradigm. As Maibach points out in his survey, many supporters of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming are largely convinced by the consensus argument. That's a shame because we have known for 2300 years ago that consensus is a logical fallacy, one of the 12 principle fallacies described by Aristotle.

            Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)

          • commonview posted at 8:46 am on Tue, Jan 7, 2014.

            commonview Posts: 13

            Even in Earth's relatively recent history the span of time during which the latest round of "global warming" or "climate change" takes place is a very small blip on the ticker tape. The climate is going to change. Period. There isn't anything humans are going to change this in any significant way to make an impact, either warm, or cold.

          • rtchoice posted at 7:43 am on Tue, Jan 7, 2014.

            rtchoice Posts: 17

            It sounds like poor old Jerry got hit in the head by a flying piece of Polar Vortex!

          • ragodan posted at 3:08 am on Tue, Jan 7, 2014.

            ragodan Posts: 33

            Sooner or later the issue will be "global cooling", some people just need to whine about something.
            Funny how everyone has become either a climatologist or a meteoroligist all of a sudden, full of "facts" and opinions that can be disproved with some research and counter study. But who has the time or money? Banning internal combustion engines to "improve the climate" would be like banning people from swimming in the ocean because they are peeing in it. Drive a Prius, then take a drive in a full size truck, it's like eating a 6 ounce tofu cake versus a 12 oz T-Bone. Can't haul trash to the dump in a car (well you could, but I don't recommend it) and I've never seen a snow plow on a Prius much less a trailer hitch to haul cold patch for pot hole repair. Yes, some of us DON'T live in town and we take care of ourselves. The only reason you can drive a car around here is because SOMEONE ELSE in one of those dreaded trucks did all the work for you. I would bet that if the truckaphobics were given a truck and a salary where they could afford the gas that 9 out of 10 would park the Prius (in the back of the truck of course)

          • Fast posted at 12:37 am on Tue, Jan 7, 2014.

            Fast Posts: 248

            If your hot just put less wood on the fire. [beam]

          • ragodan posted at 5:47 pm on Mon, Jan 6, 2014.

            ragodan Posts: 33

            I'm SO GREATFUL for global warming!!!! Other wise instead of 60 degrees below zero in Bismark ND it would be 120 !!!!
            I wonder if those on the beaches in the Golf of Mexico are saying "how come there are icicles on the outside of my margarita?"

          • mooseberryinn posted at 12:39 pm on Sun, Jan 5, 2014.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2687

            Golly, nice truck, wish I could afford that. but, that's exactly right. Gotta ban all gas/diesel vehicles. Walk to work, carry building supplies on a horse-drawn cart etc. Gotta save the planet!

          • Rebel Rouser posted at 12:03 pm on Sun, Jan 5, 2014.

            Rebel Rouser Posts: 1563

            mooseberryinn posted at 9:43 pm on Sat, Jan 4, 2014.

            " We must shut down all power plants using coal or natural gas"

            Anthropomorphic global warming aside moose, what about the constant polluting of our atmosphere (the air we breathe) by the global increase of using these energy products? Do you believe that China's insatiable appetite for burning cheap energy is not affecting the quality or safety of the air you and your grand children are breathing? I have a very simple test for you to use proving that fossil fuels are polluting our environment. First drive your 2014, $41,750.00 Ford, 6.7L Power Stroke® V8 Turbo Diesel, into your over-sized garage Shut the door, open the passenger side window while leaving the truck running. Next, turn the sound system on and listen to your favorite music. Keep a log book and write down everything you experience over the next 3 hours. Later you can log the data into your spread sheet and quantify the experience. Please post your results for us, okay?

          • Todd Tanner posted at 10:50 am on Sun, Jan 5, 2014.

            Todd Tanner Posts: 15

            I don't typically comment on the DIL's website, but Jerry Elwood's exceptional new climate piece deserves an outpouring of public support. I'd like to thank Jerry for sharing accurate and up-to-date scientific information, unencumbered by bias or prejudice, and for standing up to the climate doves who are willing to put our future - including our children and grandchildren - at risk.

            I'd like to be very clear about this. An overwhelming number of our scientific experts - approximately 97% - say that we're warming our planet and threatening our future. Yet our climate doves tell us not to worry - that every major scientific organization on the planet is wrong, and that global warming is a hoax or a communist plot.

            So now we have a choice. Do we listen to the Neville Chamberlains of climate denial and drop our defenses, or do we stand with the Winston Churchills of the world, accept the reality of a warming planet, and defend ourselves and our families from a huge threat?

            That should be an easy choice. We should stand up for ourselves, our families, and our country, and we should tackle the threat head-on.

            The next time a climate dove tells you that we don't need to take immediate action on global warming or climate change, tell him (or her) that every major scientific organization on the planet, along with the U.S. military, agrees that human-caused climate change is threatening our future. Then ask them one simple question. Why don't they want America to prepare for that threat?

          • commonview posted at 10:22 am on Sun, Jan 5, 2014.

            commonview Posts: 13

            The research on global warming, climate change, or one of the new terms they like to call it, "climate destabilization" is questionable at its very core. If a researcher wants to get FUNDING ($$$) for their time/work it has been far easier to get it if they tie themselves to the "global warming" subject. You won't get additional research FUNDING ($$$) unless your findings reinforce the popular view that man is at fault for a large part of our climate, warm, cool or change. This means that much research ignores other factors involved in the debate, else, the money dries up for you as a researcher. I'm not saying we don't warm up, cool down, change, etc. I am just saying follow the money and you will find the research may be tainted.

          • LA posted at 4:29 am on Sun, Jan 5, 2014.

            LA Posts: 2

            Global warming and cooling may be due to cloud formation caused by supernova explosions.

            CERN will be conducting experiments to test this model.

          • mooseberryinn posted at 9:43 pm on Sat, Jan 4, 2014.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2687

            Well then, I think in order to save our planet, all burning of anything must stop immediately. The carbon dioxide is causing all this global warming. We must ban all gas and diesel engines, all natural gas engines, and any steam engines burning coal or natural gas. We must shut down all power plants using coal or natural gas. We must ground all aircraft powered by combustion and/or jet engines. We must shut down all home furnaces using natural gas and/or woodstoves. There's probably more, I'm sure, but that's where we need to start. oh, and no candles either. [beam]