The Greenfyre strikes back

Greenfyre - the man who "doesn't debate" - does not take criticism as well as he hands it out and has responded to the deconstruction in my previous post. Unlike Greenfyre, I allow people right of criticism so his original comments are welcome and untouched.

Now let's respond. My previous article was long so I'll make this rebuttal as quick as possible.

    GF says.... 

i) In that whole long screed you can't accurately quote & link a single specific [sic] to substantiate any of your claims ... that tells any thinking person all they need to know;

Any "thinking person" would see that I had made several links in the article. Since GF omits to mention what the "specific" is (irony, anyone?) this is a pretty appalling response.

   GF says....

ii) You need to look up "argumentum ad ignorantiam", you clearly do not understand it;

Here is the definition from http://philosophy.lander.edu as I specifically linked to in the article:


*******************

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
	A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
		Statement p is unproved. Not-p is true.		Statement not-p is unproved. p is true.

*******************


Let's look at the second basic pattern: "Statement not-p is unproved..." "Santa Claus does not exist" is an unproven statement, because a negative cannot be proven. We can show it's very unlikely that he exists and it would be impossible for him to visit every home in one night, but we cannot categorically prove he doesn't exist.

"The current global warming is not entirely due to anthropogenic activity" is an almost identical premise. The only exception being that basic theories of heat transfer and radiative forcing make it likely that some of the heating is being accelerated and slightly exacerbated due to man's activity. However the premise remains the same, it's impossible to prove that all the heating is not due to us humans.

So when it's pointed out that climate science is a new science, unbelievably complex and not yet understood fully by anyone, so we should be careful about abusing other opinions, then how is the argument ad Ignorantiam an acceptable response? It's not. It's simply saying: "I'm right, because you can't prove me wrong".


There's one more area I should be more clear about. In my article I mentioned:

His comment policy warns us that any "gibberish" will be deleted. His idea of "gibberish" is quite broad of course and includes theories relating to Climate Change papered by highly qualified scientists.

The actual wording of GF's comment policy is:

Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be moved or deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish

In short: "I'll censor anyone who disagrees or disputes with me". Notice what the final words link to;  the index already discussed that features "Skeptic  Vs Science"  arguments. Those "skeptic" arguments very loosely and sloppily cover arguments from sunspots and solar activity as discussed by astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, a dismissal of  the clear growth of Antarctica's sea ice as discussed by Syun-Ichi Akasofu. Perhaps most ludicrously of all it rejects the overwhelming evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than today. The lie to this is given by a plenitude of papers as disseminated by the Idso family, all respected scientists.

That's just three examples. So by describing arguments advanced by such people as "gibberish" seems a bit rich for an NGO. Minority? Maybe. Gibberish? Hardly. And apart from some bluster, we've now dealt with the full extent of GF's response. Perhaps now it's becoming clearer why he "won't debate".

Dousing a damp Greenfyre - responding to personal criticism by Mike Kaulbars

http://www.demotivation.us

You can learn a lot about a person from watching them argue. When feelings or values are questioned is when our words are most unguarded. Even the internet offers no escape, as we are about to see in our special little case study. I hope we may learn something about dealing with aggressive people in debate, use or misuse of logical arguments and climate change science on the way. Heck we might even get a glimpse at human nature and the art of misdirection thrown in somewhere, too.

How will we achieve this? By my deconstruction and rebuttal of a blog called Greenfyre, run by Mike Kaulbars. There's nothing really special about the blog in terms of popularity, content or design. In fact, it's very much a blog's version of Nicholas Cage; great things may be expected but mediocrity is always delivered. So why bother? Well, it's become personal. Mike has been abusive to me several times of late because I've challenged him to a debate on a neutral forum of his choice. He's sidestepped all those challenges and continued his abuse and censorship of my comments. That's his prerogative. This article is mine.

Yet in this petty squabble we can see a far bigger and more positive picture. Greenfyre's blog is very typical of environmentalists and their attitude to Climate Change and those who dissent with mainstream opinion. Every time you read the name "Greenfyre" in this article, don't think of one dull blog, think of the huge number of people around the world who hold a very similar point of view and reason in a similar way. There's a lot of insight and learning to be had if we look for it. However, before we start I should mention my own attitude to the Climate Change debate is briefly summarised here.

There are three issues I want to deal with here. One, the blog itself: its tone, its content and the manner of the blogger. Next is use of the 'denier' tag. Finally we'll analyse the logical constructions and method of debate used. At the end of this piece I'll link to some excellent sites that offer a wealth of scientific information on climate change. That will summarise my viewpoints on the science better than I could do myself.

The Greenfyre blog - alarmism at its best

Lest I make the debate more personal than needed, the easiest way for anyone to get a feel for Mike's blog (I'll call him "Greenfyre" or "GF" from now on for the same reason) is to take a look at the introductory page and browse around a little. It shouldn't take long for the picture to form.

When I first encountered GF's blog I asked an innocent question and was told by GF that I was "humiliating myself" along with some other niceties. More recently when I requested a debate, GF - the man who runs an entire blog based around argument - told me he "doesn't debate".

To his credit, GF is honest about the aggressive and bellicose nature of his blog. It's exactly what he states it is - a collection of arguments and responses. But of course there are two basic types of argument - rational or hysterical. The two are not mutually exclusive but the latter often occurs without the former. Rational argument is done calmly, with logic and a clear mind. Hysterical argument is usually aggressive - peppered with insults and anger and is designed merely to silence the opponent, rather than decide who is right.

Looking at GF's "tag cloud" in the right hand column of his blog tells us immediately what type of argument we are looking at. Three forms of the word "denier" make up the biggest clouds along with sensationalisms like "exposing deniers" and "climate justice" (whatever that means). A quick scan of articles draws a similar conclusion. Of his five most recent articles, three have nothing whatsoever to do with science. Indeed, two of them are simply pseudo-tutorials about how to infer someone who disagrees with his arguments is akin to a Nazi, another is simply a mockery of one person. The other two cover little science.

His comment policy warns us that any "gibberish" will be deleted. His idea of "gibberish" is quite broad of course and includes theories relating to Climate Change papered by highly qualified scientists.

There is a science section with a variety of links, but none of the links are authored by Mike and it is clearly a side-issue. Is such an approach productive? Would the unsure, the intelligent layman, the inquisitive or the shy be persuaded to follow and concur with the scientific beliefs of such a person? If not, how is the blog useful?

That's the problem when dealing in nothing but polemics. It's hard to keep rational when all you're doing is fighting with people. GF - like so many others -  has become fanatically sure he's right. Once a person reaches that stage, reason and facts challenging that belief become objects of anger or even hatred. Science is not immune to such emotions. The Roman Inquisition were sure they had science on their side when they sentenced Giordano Bruno to death for suggesting The Universe was infinite. 

The "Denier" tag

Denier: A person who denies http://www.yourdictionary.com/denier

The 'Denier' tag is used - usually lazily and indiscriminately- by left wing and/or environmentalists against anyone who dissents with their views on climate change. The reason why such a label has been chosen should be obvious. The word has two implications. The first one is being in the wrong, as a person who 'denies' something usually has to defend themself against something and is usually placed on the defensive. The second, more subtle but powerful implication is the obvious association that I don't even need to specify.

When you hear the word, what are the pictures that follow? It's loved by alarmists for this reason. Its undertones are strong, obvious and sinister yet cannot be proven, in the same way it can't be proven that FIFA took a bung in their recent World Cup vote.

But the disgraceful tag isn't just immoral, it's plain wrong. What is it that "deniers" actually deny? That climate is changing? Of course not, climate is always changing. That it's getting hotter? Even leading sceptic Lord Monckton regularly publishes a report showing global temperatures, which are, of course, increasing. Do they deny that it's getting hotter because of humans? I've yet to find a single credible person who believes that anthropogenic activity does not play a single part in recent warming.

So how do those who use the "denier" designation get away with it then? Most of them don't. Challenge them on their meaning and they cannot take the argument as far as we've just taken it in the last paragraph. But a few will claim that "deniers" means anyone who disagrees with the mainstream viewpoint on global warming. Aha! So are we getting somewhere now? Not really.

The "mainstream" opinion on global warming is engineered by the IPCC (I've discussed them before), a panel of scientists who pool their ideas together. But IPCC members rarely agree on the exact amount of warming or exactly how responsible humans are for it, or any of the other statistics in their reports. Their reported estimates are a compromise of opinion. So what "deniers" actually dare to dispute is not the single viewpoint of any single human but a very broad range of compromised statistics from a group of people who also agree to being unsure.

So what is it that 'deniers' are 'denying'? Apparently we are denying that sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 centimeters this century (as the IPCC warn). So if your own forecast is 17 centimeters, you're a denier. Not a "dissenter", a "disagreer", a "contrarian" or a "rebel", just an evil "denier".  Likewise, if you believe that average temperatures will rise by 1.0 degrees before 2100, you're a Nazi. But if you believe the rise will be 1.1 - 6.4 degrees, that's OK, you're inside the IPCC estimate, you're one of the good guys!

Oh and it doesn't matter that the IPCC have been wrong so many times before. ( one, two , three random examples. ) That's irrelevant propaganda, probably thrown out there by Nazis.


The use of logic and debate

As we've already seen, Greenfyre's blog is mainly based around polemics and argument rather than learning or informing people. But polemics and arguments can be deceptive and psychologically cogent when structured carefully.

We all know a good example of this - the last word. How many of us can really deny (no pun intended) that we feel better when we get the last word in an argument?  It takes a strong person to resist such a temptation. In the case of science, it shouldn't really matter what order the facts come in, but the way they are presented can influence people.

This is why GF links to an ostensibly neutral website that presents all the arguments from "Skeptics" (credit at least for avoiding the cheap-shot 'denier' tag) and then presenting the "science" as a response. Note that by using the term "science" on one side, it implies the 'skeptic" is not using science. In all 139 arguments, the skeptic' line is given first and the "science" second. This gives a strong impression that all "skeptic" lines have been answered and dealt with. That is not true, nor is it how a real debate works.

In a real debate, parties take turns to speak, analyse the opponent's arguments, point out flaws or faults in their argument and reinforce their own angle. If this can't be done, then an honest person should reconsider their own position.

A look at the list of arguments GF links to is a worry. The third argument - the 97% myth - has been proven as deception. The second argument is aimed at someone who denies humans cause any warming, and we've established how rare they are. The first argument - the sun is causing warming - is "debunked" by one single graph. One single graph to discuss a hugely complex, incredibly important and powerful topic.

I can't go through every listed argument but you get the point. Important issues are swept away simply by the way they are presented; as not having 'the last word'. This is a big deal, because it will heavily influence causal readers, the easily mislead and researchers.

GF is also aware of the power of the 'last word' and the way arguments are presented, which is why he "fisks" the comments of anyone and everyone who disagrees with him. 'Fisking' means taking apart a person's argument line by line and responding to it. This is a commonplace and perfectly fair tactic and I do it myself.  However GF actually does it with the person's original comments, the online equivalent of speaking over someone. It's not only rude, it's also prejudicing how the person comes across to other people. A similar tactic to the Scientologist method of publicly smearing anyone whom they think is about to speak out against them. Likewise, Greenfyre Mike has a "Dunce's Corner" for comments "too stupid to reply to". Needless to say, he is judge and jury about who gets sent there.

All these antics serve to make GF or anyone else feel secure. By always having the last word, they feel nobody can threaten their belief system and nobody can persuade others that their viewpoint is wrong either. It's not how honest science works, though.


Use of logical arguments, and lack thereof

It's not just back and forth argument that can be misued in scientific discussion.  Logical arguments can be used and abused in such circles and their effect can be just as powerful as the 'last word' psychology, especially when the recipient or target is unaware of what is happening. Let's take a look at a few examples....

The 'denier' tag is of course, ad-hominem attack. This has become so obvious that GF now uses this as a double bluff, claiming that anyone who uses the term doesn't know what it means.

Further arguments come into play. Clearly GF is playing  the "Argument By Vehemence". People don't like being insulted and many will shy away from argument if they believe it will happen.

We have yet more examples on the field of play. On one occasion I pointed out to Mike that Climate Science is new, incredibly complex and as such nowhere near fully understood. My point being that in such circumstances he could or should not label people as deniers for disagreeing with his opinions. He responded (well, fisked actually) that I was using argumentum ad ignorantiam, his inference suggesting something cannot be true because we don't understand it. Actually that's a poor use of the argument, a better explanation of it is here.

The irony of course is that the argument from ignorance is coming from the Greenfyre. Because Climate Science is so complex, there really is nobody who can lay claim to having all the knowledge or all the facts about what will happen. And therefore, since GF's arguments cannot be disproven, they must be true!

As with every other section, I could give further examples but you surely get the picture. For a good breakdown of logical fallacies, go here. When you see one being used, simply call it out.

Conclusion
In this article we've seen many of the ways that we can be deceived, mislead, manipulated or just plain bullied. We've also seen how some logical arguments can be used or misused. Simply knowing the techniques that some of these nasty aims can be achieved is often enough to defend against them.

But none of us are perfect. We're often better at deciding or misleading ourselves than anyone else. If readers - including Greenfyre - feel that I've been unfair or wrong in any of my conclusions, then my offer offer of a debate or simply a discussion still stands. In the meantime however, my own verdict is that Greenfyre may well have some solid scientific arguments but they are lost in the shrill voice of his angry rants. In that, we may be able to see the many faults of a person so convinced they are right.

Links:

Sites that generally disagree with IPCC opinion:

www.co2science.org - contains details of hundreds of peer reviewed science papers concerning climate change. Also has links to a highly informative alternative (to IPCC) climate change report.

http://www. icecap.us/ - similar to the previous link

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ - slightly more polemical than the above two sites but still highly informative. Christopher Monckton is  regular contributor to the site and is hated by many environmentalists for matching their aggressive tactics.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/ - the most popular sceptic blog online. Sometimes has up to ten blogs per day.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/index.htm - an underrated site with a lot of research, graphs and data.

http://climateaudit.org/ - the site of Steve McIntyre, one half of the duo that exposed Al Gore's hockey stick graph fraud.

Sites that generally concur with mainstream theory:
http://www.realclimate.org/ - Partly run by William Connelly , who is banned from Wikipedia for aggressive censorship and editing of GW articles and publishing links to his own site as source. Still useful though.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ - The IPCC site

http://www.unep.org/climatechange/ The UN's climate change site

Other sites of interest:
www.skepdic.com - a fantastic and longs serving site dealing with sceptical views of most things paranormal. The only worry is that it has recently inserted a link to Greenfyre's blog. I can only think it was done as a personal favour.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html - Again, a list of faulty arguments


http://www.weaselwords.com.au/index3.htm - a site documenting public uses of weasel wording, another form of deception.

Climate Change - still no evidence it's humans

It was an event so remarkable that it was almost lost on some people. Dr Phil Jones - the professor at the centre of the East Anglia CRU "Climategate" scandal - was allowed to approve which papers were used in evidence during some of the "independent" investigations into the scandal. It's a bizarre decision that seems equivalent to a robber approving which stolen items can be used as evidence in court. Then again, perhaps it's not all that surprising since one of the "independent" investigative bodies had the logo and email address of East Anglia University on their own logo.

But really, who cares? Who will notice? For most people, Climategate is old news. The casual current affairs observer read that some scientists got in trouble, they may have been lying about global warming but then a whole bunch of people checked and said they were fine. As for those already involved in such a fiercely polarised debate, well, they were never going to budge anyway. Sure enough, order was quickly restored as the whitewashing investigations did their job, the media went crawling back to every scientist who assured us climate change is real and the sceptics became the pantomime villains once again. Certainty was restored.

The only problem is, nobody seems to know: what we are supposed to be certain of? Next time you hear someone preaching about climate change, how serious it is and how we need to take action yesterday, ask them a few questions. Start with something easy such as: "What exactly are we certain is happening?". Most of them will mention Earth is getting warmer, the halfway smart ones will remember to mention something about co2 or anthropogenic activity.

Now ask a very slightly more informed questioned that cannot be answered with bluster, something like: "When was the last year that temperatures actually peaked?"(Answer: 1995) , follow that with a few more moderate queries like: "How much of the temperature rise is due to carbon dioxide?" (Nobody knows) "What is the hottest time period on record?" (Answer: The Medieval Warm Period)  and so on. Before long they'll admit they don't know. You might even get called a 'denier' or some other insult for good measure. The reality is that most of us don't really know a great deal behind the science of climate change, but some of us like to pretend we do. In truth, we do as all generations have done and look to our finest minds to guide us in the esoteric ways of science. Therein lies the problem.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are the multimillion dollar taxpayer-funded unit of scientific specialists who are responsible for researching, predicting and advising the rest of the world about global warming. With a huge amount of lobbying influence and a whole wealth of corporate interests flying around, we can surely be forgiven for expecting the unit to provide us with accurate, understandable and specific data about what's happening and what's going to happen. The reality is the exact opposite.

Predictions, warnings and forecasts from the IPCC ever since its inception in 1990 have been vague, wrong and contradictory to the point of resembling a tabloid astrologer's column. We've been warned over and over again of temperature increases that have not happened. We've been told the warming would first appear at the poles. Hot weather spells are due to global warming but snowfall is also a sign of the same thing. There will be more floods or hurricanes.  Certain animals will become extinct, others will multiply by the horde. The extra co2 - required for respiration in plant life - will encroach the rainforest. It will create droughts, but extra rainfall is also a symptom. The surreal list goes on and on. Can we really blame the laymen for being unclear when this is what they are fed on?

The list of doomsday events such as extra natural disasters, melting poles and "unprecedented" (one of the IPCC's favourite and most overused words) heat are not random. They are designed to create fear, for fear is what keeps the taxpayers happy to part with their money for the nice scientists who will protect them.

But if you've lost any sleep about any of these nightmare-like events we've been warned about, go and get some shuteye right now. There is absolutely zero evidence that hurricanes, volcanoes or any other disaster has increased in frequency. In fact, they seem to have declined very slightly.  The decline of the Arctic ice has received (ahem) extended interest from the media and the IPCC, both of whom neglect to mention that decline has been in trend since the end of the last Little Ice Age and is not accelerating. Meanwhile, the Antarctic ice is doing great. Funny, we don't hear about that.

As for "unprecedented" temperatures and the warnings from the likes of Al Gore that several of the last fifteen years have been the hottest on record, well it's just plain false. That's the reason alarmists hate to hear about the Medieval Warm Period.

Of course, none of this proves that AGW is false or a flawed theory, but it must surely prove to any sane person that even our supposed finest minds really don't know what is happening, to what extent it's happening or what will happen in the future. So why is there so much talk of a "consensus"? Could the multi-million dollar business interests of the IPCC have anything to do with it? Don't mistake this as a conspiracy theory. The only "conspiracy" you need to accept here is that powerful people will lie to get themselves rich. WMDs anyone? How about some MPs expenses on the side?

There's more reason to be sceptical. Huge parts of the AGW theory fall flat on their face. The theory clearly states that warming will appear in the troposphere, it isn't. It says that co2 will drive climate, in history the opposite has happened on a large scale. It states the sea levels should rise exponentially, they aren't. There's any number of examples where things simply aren't happening as they should be if the basic theory of increased radiative forcing generated by increased co2 emissions was straightforward and steadfast.

Perhaps the biggest slice of misinformation in this whole debate is the term used to describe scientists who oppose the mainstream opinion, the so-called 'deniers' - a term deliberately chosen for its disgusting undertones - is used to smear knowledgeable, qualified and good-natured people who dare to dissent. Very few scientists I have read from have denied the climate is changing, climate is always changing. What they dispute is the extent to which co2 plays a role in that change.

The theory of heat transference in the atmosphere is well established, but as we've seen, climate is a new and uncertain science with an incredible number of factors to consider; solar output, natural feedbacks, cloud feedback, continental shifts, astrophysics and more. A number of well-qualified scientists question if the increased co2 emissions will have any effect whatsoever. Many more believe that there will be an effect, but it will be far gentler than the IPCC suggest, and the trillions of dollars we will spend trying to cut temperatures by a minuscule percentage may be far better spent on reducing real pollution, researching cleaner energy, building hospitals or any other number of good causes. A layman 'denier' like me is inclined to agree.

The alarmists strike back

One of my local newspapers is the Bangkok Post. Today they ran this article as their front page piece.
The article contained the typical alarmist nonsense from some sections of the government  such as:

Weathermen, geo-hazard experts, forest firefighters, and disaster response officials are on high alert as their initial climate analyses show the high possibility of extreme weather events, triggered by global warming, which will become increasingly unpredictable.

These range from droughts, haze, flash floods, mudslides, sinkholes, coastal and river bank erosion, to forest fires..................

The wildfire forecast is based on the US Climate Prediction Centre's detection of an El Nino episode in the Pacific Ocean in August.

The centre reported that the sea surface temperature was 0.7-1.0C above mean level, indicating the development of a moderate El Nino phenomenon.

"El Nino will cause a higher than usual temperature plus less rainfall in the Kingdom in the first half of 2010, increasing the risk of forest fire," the FFCD reported. The division urged authorities to keep updating weather conditions instead of relying on normal climate patterns because "the unprecedented climate and weather fluctuations, resulting from global warming, make it extremely difficult to make long-term weather and wildfire forecasts." ...................

 "What we are most concerned about is the climate variability which causes sudden torrential rain, flash floods, tropical cyclones, and turbulent seas," he said.

"These weather events can strike a certain area within 24 hours, a week, or a month and people must be prepared for them."

People in all regions, except the South, could face extremely hot weather between April and May when the temperature might hit 40C.....................

High temperatures could be accompanied by tropical storms, hail and lightning strikes.

Regarding flooding, Mr Somchai said next year's precipitation rate is expected to be similar to this year's, and flood problems could be solved simply through good water management.

However, areas with more than two days of continuous rain should be prepared for flash floods, he warned.

The department deputy chief said he would like to see better disaster preparedness and response at the community level.

"Villagers, especially in disaster-risk zones, must be trained to protect themselves from natural hazards," he said. "Advanced weather forecast technology or disaster warning systems will be useless, if the locals don't know how to use them to save their communities."

Adichart Surinkum, director of the Mineral Resources Department's geo-hazard operation centre, monitoring geological-related disasters such as earthquakes, mudslides, land erosion and sinkholes, said preparedness was key.

"As natural disasters are increasing while weather conditions become more unpredictable, people's understanding of natural hazards and good disaster preparedness is key to their survival," Mr Adichart said.

At least the same edition also included this letter about climategate. Still, I was so incensed I had to write a letter to the BP once again. If they publish it, I'll link to it and give my sources. If not, I'll publish it here and source it again.

I'm a heretic

The claim that 'Global Warming has become a religion' is one that we seem to be hearing more and more of recently. I'm quite sceptical of this claim, but I must say that this blog entry tempts us to believe that yes, some people are getting religious about this.

Note the tone of the blog. Everything is aggressive, almost fanatical in tone despite the science involved. Note the non-stop scathing of 'deniers'. See the blogger make reference to a documentary that has not been released yet and already declares it to be full of lies and deception.** And most striking of all, the blogger feels the need to give us a clip of mister Tutu discussing global warming.

I can't help but make the comparison to religious fanatics who attack anyone who threatens their belief system, and bury their heads in the sand when any evidence disproving their beliefs is exposed. They will always shout it down as the work of the devil, of liars and deceivers. The burning hatred or bigotry is borne from insecurity.

I left some comments for the blogger and asked a few questions. His reply contained a series of ad hominem attacks. Is this the scientific way?


**Actually I think the blogger is referring to 'Not Evil, Just Wrong' as he links and plays upon this name in his statement. However, this documentary has already premiered, though he states it is in production.

AGW Simplified

Now that the CRU scandal is in its initial death throes, we can see everyone returning to form. Leftists are attempting to Jedi mind trick the public into believing they hold the moral high ground, as though the multifaceted lies had never taken place, let alone been disclosed. Indeed, it seems there will be no further punishments for those who actively deceived the public with the use of taxpayers money.

For some people, this is just a matter of point scoring. For me, it goes much further than that. I've already explained why I object to so much of the input on the AGW debate, and I've explained why it;s important that we put our faith in people actually qualified to run their mouth on the topic. For those people to betray us, is criminal. The eccentric chap at Devil's Kitchen has a very useful flowchart to explain the climate change psyche.