A recent opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor echoes some things I have been saying recently about climate change skeptics. As is often the case with their other views, the climate change skeptic locks in and does not waver. There is no point in bringing up evidence, facts, peer reviewed journals or any other information grounded in the scientific method. They will always have an answer that contradicts because that's what true believers do.
Instead, heed the points of Andrew Hoffman. He begins be defining the playing field.
One of the strongest predictors of an American's beliefs about global warming is political party affiliation. According to a 2009 Pew survey, 75 percent of Democrats believe there is solid evidence of global warming compared with only 35 percent of Republicans.
Climate change has been enmeshed in the culture wars where beliefs in science often align with beliefs on abortion, gun control, health care, evolution, or other issues that fall along the contemporary political divide. This was not the case in the 1990s and is not the case in Europe. This is a distinctly American phenomenon.
I find this terribly sad but it is true. Moving on....
For skeptics, climate change is inextricably tied to a belief that climate science and policy are a covert way for liberal environmentalists and the government to diminish citizens' personal freedom.
True but that's how they are with everything. They's a comin' to gin us!
A second prominent theme is a strong faith in the free market, an overriding fear that climate legislation will hinder economic progress, and a suspicion that green jobs and renewable energy are ploys to engineer the market.
This is even more prevalent than the first point. Odd, because one would think that an emerging market would be something they would get behind. Of course, they wouldn't if it meant they were proved wrong about something.
The most intriguing theme is strong distrust of the scientific peer-review process and of scientists themselves: "Peer review" turns into "pal review," and establishment scientist-editors only publish work by those whose scientific research findings agree with their own. Scientists themselves are seen as intellectual elites, studying issues that are beyond the reach of the ordinary person's scrutiny. This should not come as a surprise, although it seems to have mystified many climate scientists.
This is what I hear the most on here. It's an excellent example of propaganda and extremely disappointing that many people have fallen for this. That's what you get with Jupiter size hubris.
So what do we do about it?
The focus of the discussion must move away from positions (climate change is or is not happening) and toward the underlying interests and values at play. It must engage at the deeper ideological levels where resistance is taking place, using new ways to frame the argument to bridge both sides.
For example, when US Energy Secretary Steven Chu refers to advances in renewable-energy technology in China as America's "Sputnik moment," he is framing climate change as a common threat to economic competitiveness. When Pope Benedict links the threat of climate change with threats to life and dignity, he is painting it as an issue of religious morality.
When the Military Advisory Board, a group of retired military officers, refers to climate change as a "threat multiplier," it is using a national-security frame.
And when the Pew Center refers to climate change as an issue of risk management, it is promoting climate insurance just as homeowners buy fire insurance. This is the way to engage the debate; not hammering skeptics with more data and expressing dismay that they don't get it.
Completely true. If we frame the issue as one of economic competitiveness, morality, national security, and insurance, we take the reality of what is happening into realms that clearly affect people's lives. Having a socially awkward person of science trying to explain climate change to your average citizen-especially one who believes we are becoming Russia-will fail every day. If, however, they see how our society's various institutions are reacting to this and they hear it from someone who is socially easy to deal with, the paradigm shift we need will occur.
As Hoffman says, we need another Carl Sagan.
Oh, and as a simple PS, I thought I would throw in this quote from his piece.
I and many of my colleagues are regular recipients of climate-skeptic hate mail and a few of us have even received death threats.
Hmph. Must be another "Voice Inside My Head."
27 comments:
Part of the problem is that many conservatives view science in the same light as they view religion or politics. They think that scientists "believe" in evolution and global warming in the same way that Christians believe in Jesus Christ.
Scientists occasionally speak along those same lines, but they don't really mean it in the same way. When a scientist says he "believes" in evolution, he means that he thinks the theory adequately describes the process of development from lifelessness to us over a period of billions of years. He doesn't think that we know every single thing about that process, and thinks that many of the ideas we have are likely incorrect. As we learn more some of those ideas will be corrected and new ones will replace them.
But as a working theory, we can learn a lot from it, run tests on it, make predictions and measurements and see if things work out the way we think. We can see the processes of evolution working even today, over periods as short as hundreds of years. They actually take place over much shorter periods -- witness antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pesticide-resistant insects and herbicide-resistant weeds -- but the anti-evolution crowd just waves that aside the same way they wave aside heretical interpretations of the books of the bible.
Most scientists are willing to ditch any theory that's just plain wrong. When presented with mountains of irrefutable proof gathered over a period of years, most will jettison incorrect hyptheses (some won't, but hey -- we're all human). That kind of thinking is alien to conservatives. They believe things because they want them to be true, whether they are or not.
Just take trickle-down economics, which has become an article of faith, regardless of the failure of the theory over the last 30 years.
Some conservatives are now willing to say that global warming is really happening, but it's not our fault (Tim Pawlenty just jumped on this bandwagon). But Pawlenty's argument is doubly bogus. If natural processes are driving the warming, then we're in even bigger trouble, because the CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere will undeniably make the problem worse -- it's a simple matter of physics -- and it's that much more urgent that we do something immediately.
If Pawlenty is right we're doomed to never-ending waves of wars, famine, disease and floods, no matter what we do. If the scientists are right we can actually prevent all those problems by doing things that will benefit us -- reducing CO2 will reduce all pollution and make for cleaner air; using less oil will make us less dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuala, etc. Using less coal will mean fewer miners dying, less acid rain, fewer toxic waste escapes, etc. Starting a whole new green tech revolution would mean a huge economic boost as everyone buys new things that use less energy.
Even if the scientists are completely wrong, the only real damage will be to entrenched interests like oil companies, coal companies and the like, who stand to lose their economic monopolies on energy production.
The most intriguing theme is strong distrust of the scientific peer-review process and of scientists themselves: "Peer review" turns into "pal review," and establishment scientist-editors only publish work by those whose scientific research findings agree with their own.
And of course in Marky World, that is solely a function of belief, right? It can't possibly have anything to do with speculation by students and articles by activist journalists with no scientific education whatever finding its way into an IPCC report as "peer reviewed science". The IPCC, of course, being run by the ultimate authority, an experienced.... er, railroad engineer.
So why is it that studies that say being gay is harmful are automatically suspect, regardless of peer review or lack thereof, but studies saying "OMG we're all gonna DIE because of climate change!" are automatically accepted as fact, even after the peer review process has already allowed opinions proven to be no more "scientific" than a randomly chosen Facebook page?
Please understand, I'm not saying being gay is harmful, I don't claim to know. I'm just wondering why you will apparently accept any degree of sloppiness in science, so long as it supports your opinion.
I think it's ridiculous to compare the "studies" that being gay is harmful with climate change studies. Even if we were to accept the validity of the former, you are comparing two completely different types of science-one soft and one hard, if you will (no gay pun intended:))
Your comment, however, is a classic example of how you draw completely invalid comparisons in order to create a fictional narrative (aka propaganda). Climate studies are as inaccurate as "gays are bad" studies...social security is a Ponzi scheme...Democrats are socialists etc.
I'm much more interested if you think that climate change is an economic or security threat.
Here is an even more intriguing and counterintuitive result.
The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax, according to a new study [PDF] from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project.
Many science writers and policy wonks nurse the fond hope that fierce disagreement about issues like climate change is simply the result of a scientifically illiterate American public. If this “public irrationality thesis” were correct, the authors of the Yale study write, “then skepticism about climate change could be traced to poor public comprehension about science” and the solution would be more science education. In fact, their findings suggest more education is unlikely to help build consensus; it may even intensify the debate.
Read the whole thing. I was quite surprised.
Most scientists are willing to ditch any theory that's just plain wrong.
You haven't read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions have you? Of course since I'm a 'conservative' (i.e. "not liberal"), my recommendation of it will immediately cause it to be intellectually suspect in your mind.
I find it amusing that you're constantly carping about "true believers"...
...and yet it is you, not conservatives, who speak of "Wall Street" who screwed us, as though no one on Wall Street accurately predicted what would happen, protected their clients and tried to warn others.
...and yet it is you, not conservatives, who speak of "the corporations" who are doing all these bad things, as if they are all the same.
...and yet it is you, not conservatives, who speak of how we need to take away subsidies from "Big Oil" and "invest in green energy", as if the largest single investor in green energy (in other words, the people we'd be giving money to by "investing in green energy") wasn't, in fact, "Big Oil".
Your comment, however, is a classic example of how you draw completely invalid comparisons in order to create a fictional narrative (aka propaganda).
Your comment is a classic example of using a side issue to ignore and dismiss a point that doesn't fit your narrative. You apparently don't want to address, or even acknowledge, that you are a "true believer" who will accept any half-assed opinion as long as it's "peer-reviewed" and fits your ideology, even though the exact same peer review process called for policy based on non-scientific articles by journalists and speculation by students. And you continue your true belief in it even when the ISBN numbers of the articles in question can be quoted to you and sourcing to the original work provided.
Hi M,
Just so there is no ambiguity about your position...Is it fair to say that you believe the following statement to be true in its entirety:
Climate change is occurring, it is occurring because of human activity, immediate action by us humans can slow or reverse climate change, and failure to slow or reverse climate change will have catastrophic impact on the planet and its inhabitants
Is that an accurate summary of your position?
Further, based on this posting, it seems your argument is that anybody who does not agree with the entirety of that statement is lacking in their understanding of the situation, and that's likely due to the fact that it has not been framed for them in a context that they appreciate.
Is that your contention?
Is that an accurate summary of your position?
Not exactly. I'll reword so it's clear.
Climate change is occurring, it is likely (not certainly) occurring because of human activity, immediate action by us humans can possibly slow or reverse climate change (although it may be too late), and failure to respond to climate change will have a negative impact (to varying degrees depending on geographic location) on the planet and its inhabitants. Therefore, we have to plan for possible global security issues. I'd add on that the emerging market of green energy could bring the world out of its economic sludge right now.
To put it simply, it's all about likely possibilities for me but not certainty. The certainty of the climate change skeptic is ridiculous and is yet another sad example of the whole "proving people wrong" ideology.
I think you mean certainty of the deniers not skeptics. Skeptics are certain that they are skeptical. :)
Let's follow your example:
Climate change is occurring:
Duh, it always occurs. This isn't a computer game.
it is likely (not certainly) occurring because of human activity:
Hmm, you say likely, skeptics say unlikely. Because of this schism, wouldn't you like to see better data that provides more likelihood and removes some of the skepticism? Especially when things like this appear:
NASA Study shatters assumptions
or this:
Humans aren't significant cause of CO2
Yeah, hard scientific data and additional theories to test which bring to light a number of problems around AGW alarmist models and arguments.
immediate action by us humans can possibly slow or reverse climate change (although it may be too late)
Here is where the rubber meets the road. Some hubris alarmists have around 1. that you even can define the problem (see previous item) and 2. that humans can effectively control a planet level climate. You are living in science fiction land.
and failure to respond to climate change will have a negative impact (to varying degrees depending on geographic location) on the planet and its inhabitants.
Failure to respond.... respond how not knowing the cause? Especially in light of the two previous links?
Therefore, we have to plan for possible global security issues.
Since you don't know the cause and can't predict the results, how do you plan?
Did you even think your position out?! Apparently not since it doesn't fit your narrative. Project much?
Now, alternative energy is a good thing no matter what. The world runs on energy and we can never have enough. If it benefits the environment and provides jobs, great! Lots of positives and all can get on board with that.
What you FAIL to realize is that nobody on the skeptic side is willing to commit Trillions of world wealth based on some hocus pocus alarmist theories and solutions that may be just pouring money into a rathole.
“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.” - Dr. Judy Currey Bio
We already knew you were there, M.
nobody on the skeptic side is willing to commit Trillions of world wealth based on some hocus pocus alarmist theories
Let's review this line from the article.
"A second prominent theme is a strong faith in the free market, an overriding fear that climate legislation will hinder economic progress, and a suspicion that green jobs and renewable energy are ploys to engineer the market."
Your statement above also reminds me of a line from an article I am about to discuss.
"3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate."
Regarding security issues, would you like to review the DoD forum on energy security?
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/1010_energy/
It's on the right hand side of the screen. There's quite a bit of information on this site. Take your time and read through it. I hope you change your mind.
Let's review this line from the article.
Which is supposed to mean what, in terms of actually rebutting the point made?
Are you suggesting that AGW theory has been proven?
Are you suggesting that those who propose "immediate action" are not demanding "Trillions of world wealth" to commit to it, in both direct costs and lost productivity/standard of living?
Here's a fun experiment. Take the phrase you quoted,
nobody on the skeptic side is willing to commit Trillions of world wealth based on some hocus pocus alarmist theories
and pull the scare words out of it.
nobody on the skeptic side is willing to commit Trillions of world wealth based on theories
Okay, care to rebut the part of the phrase that actually means something?
My point is, Anon, that your are trapped in the belief of that second prominent theme that I quoted. You're not looking at the bigger picture here. We're talking about serious financial and security concerns occurring regardless of whether or not climate change is man made. Did you watch the video? I find it odd that the right (of which I presume you are but I could be wrong) are concerned about sharia law but not this.
This is serious business and it sickens me that climate change has become yet another victim of the right wing blogsphere. About time for a Thomas Sowell quote, I think, to make sure that our willful ignorance is justified.
We're talking about serious financial and security concerns occurring regardless of whether or not climate change is man made.
Yes, REGARDLESS. So take that part out of your argument as you are mixing the two into a garbled argument.
Alternative energy in regards to National Security, energy independence, addressing the future needs of energy demand, and pollution are all important. The DOD cares about efficiency, costs, and sustainability. Both tactical and strategic implications are touted in that video but they sure don't seem to have a big focus on trading carbon credits.
While this was a nice diversion, why don't you try reading those articles I linked and commenting about them. These are but a few of many exposing AGW as a potential manufactured crisis.
I find it odd that the right (of which I presume you are but I could be wrong) are concerned about sharia law but not this.
I find it odd that your 'reasoning' can't separate Energy strategy vs AGW theory and you continue to mix and match trying to prove some point.
Both tactical and strategic implications are touted in that video but they sure don't seem to have a big focus on trading carbon credits.
Oh, THAT video. Yeah, I busted M's chops on that when he first brought it up. Not one damn word about AGW or climate change, it was all about strategic/tactical advantage. A classic Markadelphia point to a link that doesn't really have anything to do with the point he is making as though it proves his point - whatever point might happen to be proven by the pointing.
Mark, on the one hand you demonize corporations as soulless entities who would murder their metaphorical mothers to make a buck, and then you claim that they're refusing to jump on to the phantasmagorical Green Energy boom only because it would prove them wrong. No, Mark, they're not jumping on it because there's not much money to be made except from collecting government subsidies. Mark my words, a lot of the projects going up (especially the windmills) aren't going to have a half-life of 5 years. Too many of them are being built as subsidy collectors, not real long-term energy resources. It's not much different than a lot of the Western railroads.
It's not much different than a lot of the Western railroads.
Ah, one of my favorite episodes from California history, circa 1880.
My point is, Anon, that your are trapped in the belief of that second prominent theme that I quoted. You're not looking at the bigger picture here.
My point is, Mark, that you are not holding climate science to the same standard you would hold anyone else. If you found out, and proved, that a student had a history of cheating on tests, and another instructor had a history of letting him get away with it, would you blandly assume that his recent work (as graded by that same teacher) couldn't possibly be a result of cheating?
And yet, even with specific examples of deliberate, unscientific fearmongering the IPCC labeled "peer reviewed science", that doesn't make you suspect the validity and accuracy of what they do in the slightest. Not only that, you feel compelled to dismiss, belittle and demonize those who do suspect it.
You were saying something about being "trapped in a belief"?
Anon, I'm wondering what sort of facts you would need to convince you otherwise. If you don't believe any of the available evidence, there's certainly nothing I could say to change your mind let alone the many scientists that have been studying this for years. It will go a whole lot easier and save both of us the trouble if you just admit that you will NEVER change your mind. At least be honest about it.
You are no longer dealing in facts but opinions. It's no problem to say that you don't like AGW or the scientists that have put forth these theories. Saying it doesn't make it factually accurate, though...a serious problem I encounter often with folks on the right. I don't like Dave Matthews. I think he's a terribly boring musician and completely gargles my balls. Being the music snob I am, of course I think this is a "fact" but it's not. It's simply an opinion just like yours...although yours is terribly unoriginal.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=unscientific+fearmongering+the+IPCC+labeled+%22peer+reviewed+science%22
You are no longer dealing in facts but opinions.
Horse shit. You have had the relevant articles linked to before, complete with ISBN numbers and bios of the authors. I'd do it again if the evidence didn't already indicate you'd ignore it yet again.
The guy whose claim of the rainforests "disappearing", which the IPCC accepted as "peer reviewed, factual science" is a journalist with the IUCN
http://www.iucn.org/
an environmental activist group. He is not a scientist of any sort, much less a climate scientist. Don't take my word for it, you can find the references in the bibliography of the IPCC report, just as I and others did, if you'd actually go look. Look for the letters IUCN in the sourcing, and then google the names of the authors.
That is not an opinion, that is a documented fact. Nor is it an isolated case.
Google brainfarted the link you posted, but I could see what you were driving at, so I googled "IPCC peer review".
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/ipcc-peer-review-tantamount-to-fraud-ipcc-official-admits.html
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3600.htm
No no, anon, you have to google the other words as well. Those would be "unscientific" as well as "fear mongering" with the words "IPCC peer review." You also have to answer his question. What facts can anyone present to you that will change your mind?
What facts can anyone present to you that will change your mind?
It will go a whole lot easier and save both of us the trouble if you just admit that you will NEVER change your mind.
I was wondering this about you guys.
I mean, Mark was directly asked if he'd continue to accept it as factual even if the data was questionable, the model was garbage and the peer review process corrupt, and his answer was that yes he would. Sounds like a true believer to me.
What facts do I need? How about something based in science rather than politics? You know, where your worst enemies have to concede the point because they can examine your data and your modeling and can't help reaching the same conclusions themselves?
Instead, we were given the "my dog ate my homework" excuse for the raw data, a mathematical model that generates a hockey stick even from random numbers, and a peer review process that allows articles by activists with no science background at all.
No no, anon, you have to google the other words as well.
Okay, done. Which allows me to add gems like these:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/25/ipccs-himalayan-glacier-mistake-no-accident
along with a bunch of grandstanding by politicians on both sides. And your point is?
Just out of curiosity, would you accept a diploma from Atlanta Public Schools at face value? That's the equivalent of what you're doing here.
We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism...
I've noticed this phenomenon myself. Of course, I doubt you and I would agree on who the "racists" and who the "anti racists" are. For example, I wouldn't put the "anti racist" label on La Raza, for much the same reason I wouldn't put that label on the KKK.
How about something based in science rather than politics?
But when you have the opinion that all climate science is politics that makes it rather difficult. The information you have relayed here about climate science is all gleamed from the right wing blogsphere, Anon. It's hard to have a serious conversation with you if that is the case. In other words, no critical thinking.
You lie.
The information concerning the "vanishing rainforests" was gleaned from the bibliography of IPCC 4. I told you just how to find it for yourself, as well.
But since you've proven yet again that you'll ignore it anyway, and this is about to fall off the front page, I suppose there's no point in going any further.
"True believers" indeed.
Wait, what?
US News & World Report is "right wing blogosphere"?
Funny how you dismiss anything from the "right wing blogosphere" as automatically untrue, there's no faintest possibility they got it right.
But when someone remarks about your biased sources when you reference Daily Kos of HuffPo, you expect them to ignore the bias of the sources and look to see if it's factual.
Why is it no one gets to expect anything similar from you?
When was the last time Mark referenced the Daily Kos or HuffPo? I'd like to see a link and a date. The climate change skeptic cult is on full display here. Pretty sickening. Nothing scientific about it all. Worldnet Daily and Big Government don't employ the scientific method.
When was the last time Mark referenced the Daily Kos or HuffPo?
It's been a while, more than a month. So what's your point? Does the fact that it has been a couple of months since he's done that and expected us to see past the bias suddenly justify dismissing US News and World Report and the IPCC report itself as "right wing blogosphere"?
The climate change skeptic cult is on full display here. Pretty sickening. Nothing scientific about it all.
Remember you said that next time you claim the IPCC report qualifies as "science", since that's the source of the argument you are claiming as "not scientific at all".
Post a Comment