We are all aware of a claimed consensus on climate science, although what the consensus actually is and how far it goes has yet to be defined, in my view. That is not the issue raised here. A book authored by Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977) Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment (New York Free Press), explores the concept of ‘Group Think,’ which shows a remarkable parallel with the way the climate science consensus is operated and protected.
Eight symptoms of Group Think are listed below:
1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
4. Excessive Stereotyping: The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.
5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
8. Mind guards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.
I can certainly see how ignoring the dangers of concentrating all of our efforts on futile CO2 reduction, ad hominem attacks, personal smears, US State Climatologists losing their jobs, and the likes of RealClimate plus some media outlets as ‘Mind guards’ fits into this framework. No doubt some blog readers will agree and can think of other examples. Others, of course, will disagree.
Thanks to John McLean for alerting me to the concept of ‘Group Think.’
Maybe what it was in the past. Royer.
The question remains - what will be the increase in global average temperatures for a doubling of CO2?
Sam - the ratio may correct but it's totally irrelevant. It's a ruse argument.
again:
There are massive natural CO2 fluxes - see the wiki diagram. But without us it's roughly in balance. The natural cycle of seasons will make it wiggle. A big volcano blast may cause a little wiggle.
The CO2 is going up and up and up in the atmosphere. The origin from clever isotopic fingerprinting confirms it's from burnt fossil fuels. Similar chemistry shows the oceans have sink large amounts of CO2 in the surface waters. Recent research however shows the major sink - the Southern Ocean is starting to saturate.
Le Quere C, Rodenbeck C, Buitenhuis ET, Conway TJ, Langenfelds R, Gomez A, Labuschagne C, Ramonet M, Nakazawa T, Metzl N, Gillett N, Heimann M
Based on observed atmospheric CO2 concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. This weakening is attributed to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities and projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction in the efficiency of the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (~25 years) and possibly a higher level of stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multicentury time scale. 10.1126/science.1136188
So who cares what the ratio is. The CO2 is going up. Why - largely from our combustion of fossil fuels.
Those emissions recycle more longwave radiation back to Earth and change the world temperature.
We're changing the balance with known effects on the associated radiation flux.
The code is called MODTRAN.
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.html
So all in all the ratio is a ruse argument based on ridicule for effect. e.g. but it's a "teensy weensy" amount. Which is why SJT has said so is botulism in ridiculing rebuttal.
CO2 is part of life but also death. Dead things decay to CO2 so being romantic doesn't work. Yes it's not a "pollutant" in the classic sense of a poison. It's an emission - a side effect of our energy use. It's a greenhouse gas unfortunately - if was O2 or N2 which are not greenhouse gases it wouldn't be an issue.
However a warming planet will also cause feedbacks - ocean won't sink as much CO2, soil carbon will be "burnt off' more quickly by microbes, vast amounts of carbon in tundra and peat bogs may be liberated further jacking up the CO2 and temperature. Some have said there's a whole 300ppm out there if it all went up ! If the Amazon lost rainfall vast amounts would be liberated from tree death etc.
Anyway you can dream about it or read some science which I have listed here and above.
Really this is almost the last thing we should be arguing about.
P.S. The CO2 fertilisation story is more complex than you think (and a minor sideline) - will it go into yield or lignin? Doesn't work without rainfall. Will cause big ecosystem changes as C3 and C4 plants compete.
"CO2 is part and parcel of life as we know it. Branding it as a pollutant is the height of folly and stupidity."
Good, so if you try to breathe in pure CO2 what happens?
Sam - "There may be differing isotopes found in CO2 but it isn't as straight forward as you are stating."
Why?? Reference??
"As oceans warm they release CO2 into the atmosphere"
Whats causing them to warm??? Reference?????
Luke and Ender, sorry for the long delay in response - other side of the world and all that.
I don't think the isotopic fingerprint as proof of human-generated CO2 is a valid claim. CO2 generated from human activity is indistinguishable from that generated by underground coal fires, forest fires, et. There may be differing isotopes found in CO2 but it isn't as straight forward as you are stating.
As oceans warm they release CO2 into the atmosphere - this is the real correlation between CO2 and temperatures and why CO2 volume increases lag behind temperature increases. As oceans cool, CO2 is absorbed back into the ocean. This feedback mechanism feature makes a great deal of sense if you consider that nature is providing increased amounts of atmospheric CO2 to be available for aerial fertilization during warmer periods conducive to photosynthesis and plant growth.
Luke, you still haven't indicated what you believe the relative human/natural CO2 contribution is since you claim the 3%/97% ratio is incorrect. I have never seen anything else claimed other than small variations in this ratio.
'Group think' also applies to panels and committees such as the US CCSP reports.
What happens when living matters dies and decays like your brain Louis. It produces CO2. Duh !
SJT,
If you only exercised a modicum of thought you woul have worked out that trace amounts of botulism may well be pathogens but what animals exhale botuli as part of their normal metabolism?
None.
CO2 is part and parcel of life as we know it. Branding it as a pollutant is the height of folly and stupidity.
But the you would have known that.
Interesting - RC utterly utterly unrepentant on AIT.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=483