Book Review: Chris Mooney: Storm World - the future of hurricanes

                          hurricane from low earth orbit

Chris Mooney: Storm World, Harcourt, 2007; 287 pages, appendices, index, copious chapter notes and references (happily relegated to the back of the text, 75 pages of notes!), impressive recommended reading list (6pages), list of interviews conducted, a few photos and graphs (but not enough).

abbreviations used in writing this article:

CC - climate change
GW - global warming

           The subtitle says it all: hurricanes, politics and the battle over global warming.

           The back story is interesting. For the scientifically inclined, it's not as interesting as the science behind global warming but, from a practical perspective, necessary reading. (Why, for example, are CO2 levels still increasing with 2015, the first year on record, topping 3 parts per million rise in atmospheric CO2?)

 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

          The cast of characters is colorful, the politics byzantine, the drama of human hubris and disordered nature! As in Greek or Shakespearean tragedy we suspect that the disorder of nature is punishment for human hubris and inflation in the face of the gods. Such are our times.. we live a Shakespearean tragedy (? MacBeth ?)

  

             Mooney strikes me as an idealistic young man who has done his best to be "objective" by temporarily attempting to suppress his own opinions and prejudices. The fact that he succeeded - to the degree possible in our imperfect world - is shown by an e-mail from prof William Gray (one of the major anti-GW actors) following the publication of the first edition of Stormworld: "You were dealing with a character (me) and you portrayed me pretty much as I am. You have now saved me from having to write my autobiography!" Since Mooney is a pro-global warming (GW) journalist and writer, this is strong praise indeed for his objectivity from a prime adversary! (Mooney admitted that, on a personal level, he liked the obstreperous Gray and would have liked to have had an inspiring teacher like him while at university.)

              Unfortunately, climate science does not have enough data (or well founded theoretical models of hurricane physics) to accurately predict the evolution of the threat posed by hurricanes in an era of CC / GW. The scientific study of hurricanes is barely out of its infancy. Earlier cultures most exposed to hurricane fury were preliterate (for the most part) and left no "time series" of hurricane strikes for future researchers to detect trends with. Worse, hurricanes are geographically limited to a few ocean basins and are relatively compact and short lived events. They may be intense for those who live through a really bad one but their small geographical and temporal footprints reduce their large-scale observability.

              Until the 20th century, most hurricanes were never observed. A few ship captains who managed to survive their impact provided lurid descriptions of their fury. Hurricanes would regularly - but randomly - lumber ashore in the American South-east but no one knew where these strange storms originated, less still was known of their dynamics and physics. A few sea captains and academics studied hurricanes from a desire to save human life and property or simply out of curiosity. Interviews with seagoing survivors provided a primitive hurricane "database": location, time, direction of rotation, wind speed, storm velocity, and survival tricks (how to angle a ship with respect to dominant winds to increase chances of survival..)

               A true observational hurricane science emerged only in the post WW II era, based at first on aircraft observation and more recently (circa 1965 - 70) aided by panoramic satellite imagery. Thermodynamics, the science of the movement / transformation of energy (in this case, heat), began to be applied to the study of hurricane dynamics as mounting quantities of data began to pour in.

             Unfortunately, the "Time Series" of scientific hurricane observations is still too short to interpret the "changes" we see - or think we see! - today. The very existence of trends in hurricane intensity / frequency is hotly contested. Existing time series are too short, methods of recording have evolved over time or are inconsistent between recording teams. Some regions of the world had - or still have - limited tracking facilities. When it comes to the evolution of hurricane intensity or frequency, "the jury is still out" as they say.

              

                    hurricane aftermath: flooding (and potential sanitation problems)

            A recent automated metastudy of satellite imagery using a consistent hurricane intensity algorithm only added fuel to the fire. Some regions, like the South-east USA, showed a definite increase over time in intensity of major storms while other regions showed either a slight decline or no detectable trend over time. Too early to judge if the trend is solid. Nevertheless, the money of the best computer climate modelers is on increased maximum hurricane intensity due to an observed (not theoretical) rise in sea temperature in hurricane breeding grounds (presumably due to human caused GW). Determining if hurricane frequency is changing - and changing how in the different categories of hurricane strength - is even dicier..

             Hurricane intensity and frequency turn out to be very important in a globally warming world for several reasons:

1- sea levels are rising globally, with few exceptions. These rises are observations, not theoretical deductions.

            Rising sea levels combined with increased storm surges from stronger 'canes with more precipitation makes an explosive mixture. Some areas are particularly prone to future catastrophic storm surge flooding: South-east USA, low lying areas of South and South-east Asia.. (see footnote 1)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JbzypWJk64 

2- Rising population pushes more people into at risk floodplains (India, Pakistan but also wealthy retiring baby boomers in Florida and other parts of South-east USA). Increased exposure to risk combined with more intense and / or more frequent storms provides another explosive mixture. One recent study focusing on the Caribbean nations concluded that without adaptive measures the cost of storm damage could rise from the present 4% GDP to 9% in 2030, more than double in a mere fifteen years!

http://www.swissre.com/rethinking/climate_and_natural_disaster_risk/Low-tech_ways_to_cope_with_climate_risks_in_the_Caribbean.html 

3- Population increase is particularly pernicious because not only does it push more people into risky areas (flood, landslide..) but the increased density / number of people affected makes each major event more costly. This is another potentially explosive mixture and, for central governments, a politically destabilizing one favoring recourse to police state tactics..

            The world economy is not in great shape. The boom times are over, cheap oil is over: in the long run, shale oil is not viable below about $60 / barrel while tar sands (Alberta) require $70 - 90 / bbl for profitability. Can our world really afford increases in big storm disaster relief? Humanitarian relief programs (United Nations) are already cutting back on emergency relief (Lebanon, Sudan, Ethiopia, Haiti..) Think of the Middle East / North African refugee drama unfolding in Europe today (note 2). Yet GW promises much worse to come. GW's major effects rise from drought, storm and wind damage, storm surges, flooding and landslides. Even if the major country to be affected by potential increased hurricane intensity / frequency turns out to be the US, that country, with its deepening and polarizing economic inequities will become increasingly unable to handle its own increasing extreme weather costs and provide aid to rising humanitarian aid costs elsewhere. On the "deepening and polarizing economic inequities" in the US and their political blow back:

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2016/03/why-is-donald-trump-winning-answer.html

              However, as Mooney points out the jury is still out on CC / GW and  the future evolution of hurricane risk. Big 'canes (like Katrina - New Orleans - or Sandy - New York or Haiyan - the Philippines) have hit recently.  But is this "trend" a "real" one or just a random (or cyclic) variation due to natural causes? Hurricanes don't have the power to directly make a civilization collapse - as drought does - but they can add to our increasing burden of environmental woes. And this burden can indirectly trigger long term - potentially fatal - geopolitical tensions. CC-induced extreme weather, the ending of the Little Ice Age in Europe, did not "cause" the French Revolution but it was a (complex, multi-level) destabilizing influence.

                           Typhoon Haiyan, Philippines - Nov 8, 2013


             The potentially destabilizing effects of "small" rises in global temperature - of the order of 1 - 3 C - are ignored or scoffed at by GW "sceptics'" and deniers: "I'd like warmer winters." or "What difference does a measly 2 C make? It can vary by 50 C here between summer and winter." Tunnel vision can be comforting (if stupid)!

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2016/03/reclaiming-citizenship-democracy-and.html 

               Extreme weather events - generally linked to minor overall temperature excursions like the Little Ice Age (circa 1300 - 1850) - can have a potent (unsuspected and unpredictable) impact on world history. This impact has in part, been obscured by the affluence created by the era of cheap fossil fuel - now ending. 

               In the past, crop yields were much lower, transport was lousy (unless you lived along a river) and most of the population lived hand to mouth. A bad harvest - due to extreme weather in summer - would cause mass misery. Two bad harvests in a row would cause mass death, grain reserves having dropped to the minimal levels required for replanting after the first bad harvest. Generally, the second - and third - failed harvest in a row were the real killers.

                In Europe, the end of the Little Ice Age produced a period of climatic instability which resulted in minor localized demi-famines. The political unrest resulting played some (indeterminate) role in the French Revolution. Don't forget, this was the time of the Enlightenment: people's expectations of a better future were running high. King Louis payed with his head for the People's frustrations.. (See, for example, Simon Schama: Citizens, a chronicle of the French Revolution, Random House, 1989)

               The point here is that, in an already politically destabilizing USA, a wave of hurricane disasters could push the country over the edge - into what? One shudders to think - Trump again, and then there's those Right Wing militias..

               Several aspects of the CC / GW (pseudo-)debate are worth noting:

- Big Money speaks loud. The fossil fuel industry wants to stall green energy development in order to max out profits for their stockholders and overpaid CEOs as long as possible.

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2015/08/the-organisation-of-denial-conservative.html

- The instrumentalization of religion for political ends. Religion has been hijacked to serve the CC denial movement. Thus we are presented with paradoxical (yet highly dogmatic) views concerning God's "will" for humanity's evolution. 

1- God will not let "christian" America "run out of anything" because God, in the Book of Genesis has made a pact (Covenant) with his followers. This pact, following the Jew's denial of Christ, has been transferred to one or more of the Christian sects. Some Americans, apparently, see themselves as a particularly virtuous nation and assume that the Covenant has now been transferred to the American nation in its entirety. Accordingly, no matter how stupidly Americans treat the environment, as long as America "does God's Will", God will mop up after their idiocies. Not an edifying view of God! I personally find it both sacrilegious for its moronic "morality" and blasphemous for its arrogant pretending to know God's will. 

willful blindness and fundamentalism 

2- Alternatively, God does not want to compensate for his worshippers' sinful ways. In this view, God actually wants to destroy the world. We are living the End Days. Those who try to "save the world" (environmental and social justice militants) are therefore serving Satan, The Master of This World. Following the internal logic of this Myth, in wrecking the planet's ecosytems we are merely doing what God wants done anyway..

Sierra Club - the agent of Antichrist 

The instrumentalism of science for political ends: Baconian Science versus Model (Hypothesis / Theory / Paradigm) driven Science. Francis Bacon, 1561 - 1626, an early theorist of scientific methodology, believed that knowledge of the physical world should be systematically collected and organized for "mankind's benefit". Scholars would be engaged to sift through the resultant "data base" searching for recurrent patterns (statistical correlations): "if event A occurs then B is likely to follow, 4 chances out of 5". Much traditional - and useful - medecine and weather lore is based on such empirical observation over the generations. People whose livelihood depended on the weather: farmers, fishermen, hunters, sailors, soldiers, professional travelers.. would expoit local regularities of climate and weather to their advantage. The word "local" is imperative: weatherlore (weather folklore) isn't based on atmospheric physics so can claim no universality. It simply encodes and memorizes useful local correlation between events to make life a bit easier and more profitable. Example: "red moon, rain within two days" provides useful information to fishermen even if no one understood that it was caused by approaching storm fronts kicking up dust which reddened light from the moon by scattering blue and violet light.

          Later, as science evolved, a deeper understanding of underlying physical mechanisms emerged and was embodied in mathematical and, more recently, computer models. This "type" of science has been dubbed Model (Paradigm / Hypothesis / Theory) driven science.  

          Over the last few centuries an academic - and fruitless - (pseudo-)"debate" has errputed from time to time within the philosophical and scientific communities over which brand of science - Baconian or Model driven - is "better". I personally have never been able to understand what the fuss was about (I'm not alone!) In reality, the modern Scientific Method cycles between Baconian and Model driven phases, requiring both to function. 

           When a new area of investigation opens up, data collection / organization is necessarily the prime activity (the Baconian phase). Once sufficient data is collected, scientists search for patterns, employing well established mathematical models of underlying physical processes to guide the search for patterns or to "understand" the observed patterns (correlations between events). One or more models (hypotheses, paradigms..) are then constructed to explain the observations. These models are then used to make predictions to test the models against physical reality. Predictions are tested in lab experiments (or for experiments too big for the lab, one seeks confirmation in Nature's lab, in observations of the physical environment). If observations confirm predictions, we say: "the theory is validated (confirmed,..)" - until it is invalidated by faulty predictions..

           When predictions don't match observations, we check if we have not made a simple computational or observational error, we verify the experimental set up, we repeat the experiment and ask others to do so. We compare notes. If the deviations from predcted values / outcomes persist we may be forced to:

- tweak minor aspects of the theory: include the friction of air in calculating the velocity of a projectile over time

- make substantial modifications to the mathematical model while retaining its core structure and assumptions: we still believe in Matter and Energy but after Einstein we know that one can be converted into the other

- in extreme cases we may have  to scrap the whole Model and start from scratch: early modern physicists believed that magnetism, electricity and heat were physical "fluids". We now know that the first two are a mysterious emmanation of matter - electromagnetism - while heat varies as the square of the average velocity of the atoms / molecules which a body is composed of

- in the limit, deviant observations may lead to the discovery of new, unsuspected phenomena, leading to a new cycle of Baconian (observational) science followed by model building, prediction and testing (Model driven phase)..

           "Real" science - as it is practiced today - is like a two man band saw: push - pull - push -pull.. Baconian observation - Model building and testing - Baconian oservation - Model building and testing..

               I conclude that the Baconian "versus" Model driven science debate is a pseudo-debate (not to mention abstruse, academic, pedantic, useless and boring..)

              What a surprise then - or is it? - that this pseudo-debate has been instrumentalized in the larger pseudo-debate over whether or not CC / GW is occuring. The fossil fuel lobby and Conservative Think Tanks discovered in meteorologist prof William Gray an inveterate and boisterous Baconian who, for whatever reasons, detested model-driven climate science and was willing to take the stage at any moment to denounce CC / GW as bad science. A true God-send! Gray played a major role in the controversy swirling around GW and hurricane science in the early years of the new millenium.
  
               For the Conservative Think Tanks who paid Gray's travelling expenses and honorariums, the issue was never philosophical or scientific truth but the instrumentalization of an academic pseudo-debate to discredit CC / GW science and the drive for alternative (carbon free) energy sources: wind, solar, geothermal, tidal power, energy efficiency, public transport, rail transport.. measures which would harm the bottom line of the fossil fuel megaliths, their clients, stockholders and CEOs.   
 
notes:

1- An important source on how serious CC / GW is becoming is the re-insurer, Swiss RE. Re-insurers are the insurance companies of insurance companies. They provide a "slush fund" into which their client companies can dip in case of extremely heavy payouts following major natural disasters. In its own interests Swiss RE, one of the biggest, has begun to take CC / GW science seriously and promotes CC adaptation measures to protect vital ecosystems and human infrastructure. 

http://www.swissre.com/rethinking/climate_and_natural_disaster_risk/Low-tech_ways_to_cope_with_climate_risks_in_the_Caribbean.html 

 2- CC (drought) as a factor in the Syrian tragedy? 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-water-to-blame-for-the-conflict-in-syria-72513729/?no-ist

CC / GW as "threat multiplier" in the geopolitical arena:

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2014/10/pentagon-preprares-for-climate-change.html 

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2014/10/climate-change-is-threat-multiplier.html 

Reclaiming citizenship: democracy and its discontents - 1

abbreviations used:

CC - climate change
GW - global warming
LIA - Little Ice Age

            Civilization is at a tipping point. There is now no serious doubt left that mass human die off is a distinct possibility. Overpopulation, environmental destruction, badly managed natural wealth (renewable resources like the ocean fisheries), climate change - all these augment geopolitical instability. Witness the rise of terrorism in recent decades. Mass human die-off is the human equivalent of "ecological overshoot" followed by population collapse which occurs when an organism manages to temporarily overexploit a vital resource, causing a population boom followed by a bust when the resource runs out. Various assumptions about human response to the environmental / demographic crisis naturally lead to different die-off "scenarios": geographical specificity, intensity, duration, possibility of rebound,.. After Rome fell, Western civilization was reborn during the Renaissance eight centuries later. Other civilizations vanished like the dinosaurs. One thing is certain to most (if not all!) thinking people today: we live in a Time of Troubles. These are usually associated with mass human die-off.

A historical example: The onset of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Duration: circa 1300 - 1850. At the beginning of the 14th century: the Renaissance, Europe was urbanizing, the bourgeosie flourished as did commerce, wealth and population. These were the Good Times of the Medieval Climatic Optimum: slighly elevated temperatures, climatic stability and in Europe, generally good, if not superior crop yields. Cultivars migrated northward: olives and wine were grown in England! Microbes migrated too: malaria and leprosy - tropical diseases today - were edemic throughout Europe, as far north as Scandinavia.

               But things changed incredibly rapidly, within the span of a few decades, as the LIA slammed into Europe with astounding ferocity.

 
             The early years of the 14th century marked a rapid transition from the Medieval Optimum to the LIA: extreme weather destroyed crops, extensive - and inhabitual - flooding combined with repeated cold waves resulted in many deaths from hypothermia and malnutrition related infections (due to immunosuppression). Then the bubonic plague hit, a newly emergent disease similar to AIDS, Ebola and SARS in our day. New epidemic strains of old diseases are killing the little brown bat of North America and amphibians worldwide. Epidemiologists and ecologists suspect that changing climate plays a role in emergent diseases by modifying host-parasite interaction. Today, for example, we see malaria spreading to regions formerly malaria free as global warming (GW) allows mosquitios to inhabit regions formerly too cold. At any rate, once bubonic plague appeared, its spread was facilitated by extreme weather induced crop failure and mass malnutrition which suppressed human immune systems. (In modern times, it is estimated that malnutrition induced disease kills as many as 10 times the number that initially starve to death.) Waves of "environmental refugees" flooded into towns and cities seeking employment. These mass migrations became "vectors" of bubonic plague transition. Overcrowed, malnourished, immunosuppressed migrants living in unhygenienic conditions were fertile ground for the plague to take root. Those that survived fled - and carried the plague with them. Waves of plague washed over Europe from country to country. A century and a half later, circa 1450, Europe's population had declined by a whopping 25 - 40% according to the experts you consult - at least they concur that it was a Time of Troubles accompanied by mass human die-off, note 1.

         The fact that we live in a Time of Troubles is the central fact of our existence today (deny it as we will). If we choose to live authentically, we must accept it (though we quibble over its general significance, personal relevance, timing, outcome..)

         One point, though, stands out as capital: we cannot blame fate. Our "fate" was collectively constructed - or "chosen". It was not imposed by God. Undoutedly, evolution played a role in the way our minds work but that simply means we are the products of evolution, not its slaves. A big part of the evolution of the human mind was the development of a "General Problem Solver" which evolved to operate in a relatively context free fashion on all sorts of complicated and ambiguous problems. Above all, humans are endowed with "reflective reason": the capacity to "stand outside ourselves", view our own actions from "above", study their trajectory, postulate where that trajectory will lead and take corrective action, if needed.

           It is high time that citizens of democracies reclaim their citizenship from the economic / commercial / financial / industrial / bureaucratic juggernaut which has "stolen" our citizenship, our power and our rights.

          Reclaiming citizenship? In democracies citizens are free, equal and bonded in fraternal respect. That's the theory anyway..

                  Liberty  -  Equality  -  Fraternity
                  Liberté  -  Égalité    -  Fraternité
                  Libertad - Igualidad - Fraternidad

             Le Peuple est Roi! The people are the rulers in a democratic regime. The buck stops at the people. If we don't like the state of the world - and we take democracy seriously - the people are responsible for the state of the world. Either the people are King or they are not - you can't have it both ways..

             But what do we see today? The "King" - the People - have let themselves be divested of their power by Corporate power and greed (and the influence it buys). My favorite definition of fascism runs:

Fascism: the control or seizure of the State by the Corporate Elite.

            We need only think of how mass media control the flow of information and the biases (if not outright lies) they introduce to serve the political and social agenda of their clients (the fossil energy industry, for example). The fossil energy lobby has mounted a somewhat effective compaign against climate science and renewable energy technology. This campaign was not sufficient to block renewable energy development, only slow it significantly (particularly in North America and, by providing a false model of "development", in large third world countries like China and India).

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2015/08/the-organisation-of-denial-conservative.html       

          Of course, it is easier to displace blame onto a cabal of Evil Greedies than to step up to the plate and accept responsibility: we, the people, have let ourselves be duped; we have bought into a soul destroying, culture destroying, planet destroying hyper-consumer society. Now the shit is in the fan and we ain't got nobody to blame but ourselves. Easier to blame someone else than give up all the goodies we've gotten ourselves addicted to, eh?

Logical inconsistency in conspiracy theories? 

          There exists an omnipotent, omniscient - and evil - Universal Conspiracy (names vary) which controls all aspects of our lives and the life of human societies in general. 
Since the Universal Conspiracy controls all information flows, the information we have about UC and its doings cannot be trusted. Therefore, we can conclude nothing about UC, even its existence. 

When conspiracy theories become dangerous. The most obvious case is when displaced responsibility is shifted to defenseless scapegoats. These are useful to ruling elites because they can be safely abused, temporarily releasing pent up frustration, fear and rage among the masses. Unfortunately, the fix wears off fast so a fresh bout of hate-spew (if not violence) is soon required.

           More insidiously, conspiracy theory hate-spew excuses one from taking concrete action in one's personal life and immediate surroundings. This is why you see so much hate-spew on the internet. You get an immediate and potent "hit" or "high" with little real effort, an emotional "bolus" effect, like an injection of your favorite poison or a toke on a crack pipe. Ego gratification is also easily achieved by "unmasking" and hate-smearing Evil Greedies. Community based activism, on the other hand, is slow, demanding, often more ego-bruising than ego-stroking. Ultimately, conspiracy theories are another "last resort of the powerless" (or those who see themselves as such, whether it is admitted or not). In a similar vein: "cynicism is the last resort of the powerless" (unknown source).

The psychology of powerlessness and the lure of authoritarianism. What can finite, feeble, isolated, anomic wo/man do, facing such a protean, polymorphic Force of Evil? Raised as a traditional - if not reactionary - "christian", I recognize the situation of mankind facing the Ultimate Enemy, Satan, his power and his legions of evil spirits. The solution (I was) offered by the Church was to throw ourselves at the feet of God, beg his Mercy and Forgiveness and "seek to offend Him no more, obey Him in all things". Such views are often linked to the Authoritarian Personality as is the the most extreme form, fatalism, the belief that we are powerless before destiny.

"Another trait which is common to all authoritarian thinking,.. typical of authoritarian character, is the conviction that life is determined by forces outside the person, outside his interests and wishes, and that the only possible happiness consists in submission to these forces." 

http://www.cepsr.com/clanek.php?ID=328 

For the classical work on the Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality 

             So, then, are conspiracy theorists, CC / GW "sceptics" and deniers really closet authoritarians (consciously or consciously) seeking a Führer to submit to? Do they seek an embodiment of Absolute Good who will, in turn, give them a mandate to brutalize (evil) scapegoats with a clear conscience? (note 2)

              Personal experience suggests this might be so as do many observable tics and character traits shared in common with the classical Authoritarian Personality type (see especially the original work by Adorno et al - above link):

- stereotypy: individuals are judged collectively according to the group they belong to, not as individuals,

- black / white (dichotomous) thinking: "You're either with us or you're against us" - George W Bush. The world is divided into warring camps, no nuance (or alternatives) permitted. One side, "ours", is all Good, the other, "theirs" is the Incarnation of Evil.

- vilification, viturperation, denigration ("hate-spew"): CC /GW "sceptics" and deniers do not "debate" atmospheric physics, they spew hate. This was a major trait of authoritarians (nazi sympathizers) observed by Adorno et al: The Authoritarian Personality.

- fatalism: we are controlled by external forces. These are evil in nature. Our sole salvation - if there is salvation - is to submit to a force of Absolute Good (God or the Führer) who will guide us on the Right (and only right) Path.

- hypocrisy: clinical testing of high scorers on the "A-Test" (Authoritarin Scale) showed a "poorly integrated", "polyfacetted" personality structure. A "fractured" personality with poorly communicating parts (in extreme cases, on could speak of latent sub-personalities). The right hand did not know what the left hand did (and might not "want" to know - in the Freudian sense, a willful or self-interested ignorance). The authoritarian is often seen by others as hypocritical (perhaps manipulative and uncaring if a position of authority). Authoritarians accuse the groups they hate of the very traits and actions that are so evident in their own characters and actions. CC / GW "sceptics" and deniers abuse climate scientist of "cherry picking" data that fits their theories but one can find few greater cherry harvesters than the "sceptics" and deniers themselves! 

- scapegoating: high A-Test scorers show a greater need to find scapegoats to blame for all that's wrong with the world. Given the chance to work out their aggressiveness, some find great zest and pleasure (sadism).

- paranoia: trust does not flow easily. Few are trusted, the worst is always seen or sought for. The world is a hostile place, full of evil and - of course! - conspiracies.

- jargonized speech: authoritarians often spout a weird, emotionally charged jargon. Warning! Professions and specialized branches of study - medicine, mathematics, philosophy.. - naturally develop specialized jargon ("shop talk") to communicate more effectively with their peers. Terms like "velocity" in physics don't have the same meaning as they do in ordinary usage: velocity in physics refers to the speed on an object relative to some reference point and includes the direction the object is moving in (relative to some frame of reference).
            The jargonized speech of authoritarians, though, seems intended either to obscure or to manipulate (or both). In a foundational document (Party Platform), published in September 1919, the Fascist Party of Italy put forth the principle that reasoned thinking (or debate) on political issues was to be short-circuited by linking hot-button words (communist traitor, Reds, pinkos, liberal, secular humanist, faggot, the N word,..) to individuals, groups, political positions and social policies. The goal is to mobilized the masses through demagogy. Donald Trump provides a good contemporary example of this use of hot button, emotionally charge hate-spew..

 - obsessional concern with social rank and convention: a trait well exemplified by many US Republicans (especially the conservative wing of the party). These folks are also more likely than Democrats (especially liberal Democrats) to deny CC / GW. They often attribute CC / GW with a plot to create a Socialist State (often centered in the United Nations). Many of those folks would seem to conform to light or moderate Athoritarian Personality Type profiles. However, I've observed that some of the flakier conspiracy theorists (professing belief in multiple - sometimes mutually exclusive - conspiracies) present a somewhat modified attitudinal profile. These "hard-core" conspiracy theorists openly flaunt their non-conformism and marginality. They flatter themselves as "counter-cultural". They seem little concerned with adapting to conventional norms. Are they simply variants of the Authoritarian Personality? Are they non-Authoritarians because they lack an essential trait? I am not sufficiently versed in social research to answer that question. (I intend to discuss this issue with a couple of psychologists, though..)


Aside: It is an interesting and informative exercise to apply these criteria to the Right Wing types making so much noise of late: Stephen Harper and many of the people around him, Donald Trump and other GOP luminaries in the presidential race (USA).

            What the long term effects of conspiracy theories, GW / CC denial, etc might be, one thing can be said of their practical effects in the here-and-now. They rationalize / justify maintaining the status-quo which, for many middle (especially upper midddle) class Occidentals, still ain't so bad, compared to the Third World or our own poor. Conspiracy theories functionally deresponsibilize a still relatively comfortable - but increasingly skittish - citizenry from reclaiming personal responsibility for the state the world is in. 

            Yet, if society is to "advance", or more modestly, if only a surviving fraction of humanity is to have a chance of flourishing, the citizen must reclaim the right, duties and responsibility of Citizenship.

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2014/08/four-pillars-of-sustainable-economy.html   
    

notes:

1- If we take the midpont of the above estimated range (25 - 40% die off), we obtain a 33% mortality. One out of three Europeans died between, say, 1300 and 1450 due to famine, plague, flood, hypothermia, malnutrition induced disease and their various combinations. However, this 1 in 3 figure surely underestimates the impact of the CC induced disaster. It represents the decline in population relative to the value attained circa 1300. In reality. population was "flourishing" - by Medieval standards - in 1300 and so the  real impact should be measured against this rising  trend and the value population would have reached if the LIA and plague had not intervened. If we consider the (hypothetical) case of a modest 2% population growth rate per decade for the period 1300 - 1450, we achieve a "business-as-usual" projected population increase of 34.5% between these two dates. Crunching these figures gives a more realistic die-off ratio of 1 in 2. That is, population declined by 50% compared to the value it would have reached if the Good Times of the Medieval Climatic Optimum had continued.

                       (1.345 - .67) / 1.345 = .5

          1.345 is the ratio of the "business-as-usual" projected population for 1450 compared to the real population of the baseline year 1300. The ratio of the real population in 1450 compared to the baseline is .67 (signifying a real population decline of 33%). The numerator 1.345 - .67, or  .675, is the difference between the real population in 1450 and the population projected if the Good Times of the Medieval Climatic Optimum had continued.

2- sceptic: original meaning versus use by CC / GW "sceptics". The term has its origins in Greek philosophy. Today, there are a variety of usages, sometimes contradictory. The following is the one at most variance with the attitude of most CC / GW "sceptics" I've met:

" methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism 

In contradistinction, CC / GW "sceptics" are ideologues who possess The Truth: CC / GW are lies concocted by the Evil Greedies in order to do evil things. Example: pro-GW college professors plot to make "trillions" off carbon credit trading - ignoring, of course, all those oil company CEOs and investors who risk losing millions or billlions if decentralized, locally controlled, renewable energy systems were to be widely developed!