Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. explains why some leftist bloggers set themselves up for failure when they espouse their intellectual superiority. Screaming “hell, high water, global boiling, climate disruption, etc ” while at the same time saying “you’re too dumb to understand it” looks to be an epic “failure to communicate”.
He writes:
If you spend anytime at all perusing the blogosphere, you will find a common theme coming from self-described liberal or progressive bloggers, and that is that those on the political right are ignoramuses.
The argument is that they are just too stupid to know what’s what – they are even anti-science, rejecting knowledge itself — and consequently they support dumb candidates advocating ignorant policies. Such arguments are particularly evident in the corner of the blogosphere that discusses the climate change issue. This line of argument of course is a variant of the thinking that if only people shared a common understanding of scientific facts they would also share a common political orientation (typically the political orientation of whomever is expressing these views).
Read his whole post here where he explains why.
Or buy his book:
The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming is now available at Amazon.com
Why has the world been unable to address global warming? Science policy expert Roger Pielke, Jr., says it’s not the fault of those who reject the Kyoto Protocol, but those who support it, and the magical thinking that the agreement represents.
In The Climate Fix, Pielke offers a way to repair climate policy, shifting the debate away from meaningless targets and toward a revolution in how the world’s economy is powered, while de-fanging the venomous politics surrounding the crisis. The debate on global warming has lost none of its power to polarize and provoke in a haze of partisan vitriol. The Climate Fix will bring something new to the discussions: a commonsense perspective and practical actions better than any offered so far.
Editorial Reviews via Amazon
From Publishers Weekly
Pielke (The Honest Broker) presents a smart and hard-nosed analysis of the politics and science of climate change and proposes a commonsense approach to climate policy. According to Pielke, the iron law of climate policy dictates that whenever environmental and economic objectives are placed in opposition to each other, economics always wins. Climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success, he writes, and because the world will need more energy in the future, an oblique approach supporting causes, such as developing affordable alternative energy sources rather than consequences, such as controversial schemes like cap-and-trade, is more likely to succeed.
Although some may protest on principle the suggestion that we accept the inevitability of energy growth, Pielke’s focus on adaptation to climate change refreshingly sidesteps the unending debate over the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and opens up the possibility for effective action that places human dignity and democratic ideals at the center of climate policies.
The book is available at Amazon.com and I think it is destined to be a best seller in the “Global Warming” category.
The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming is now available at <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fix-Scientists-Politicians-Warming/dp/0465020526/&tag=wattsupwithth-20″ target=”_blank”>Amazon.com</a><!–more–>
Why has the world been unable to address global warming? Science policy expert Roger Pielke, Jr., says it’s not the fault of those who reject the Kyoto Protocol, but those who support it, and the magical thinking that the agreement represents.
In <em>The Climate Fix</em>, Pielke offers a way to repair climate policy, shifting the debate away from meaningless targets and toward a revolution in how the world’s economy is powered, while de-fanging the venomous politics surrounding the crisis. The debate on global warming has lost none of its power to polarize and provoke in a haze of partisan vitriol. <em>The Climate Fix</em> will bring something new to the discussions: a commonsense perspective and practical actions better than any offered so far.
Editorial Reviews via Amazon
From Publishers Weekly
Pielke (The Honest Broker) presents a smart and hard-nosed analysis of the politics and science of climate change and proposes a commonsense approach to climate policy. According to Pielke, the iron law of climate policy dictates that whenever environmental and economic objectives are placed in opposition to each other, economics always wins. Climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success, he writes, and because the world will need more energy in the future, an oblique approach supporting causes, such as developing affordable alternative energy sources rather than consequences, such as controversial schemes like cap-and-trade, is more likely to succeed.
Although some may protest on principle the suggestion that we accept the inevitability of energy growth, Pielke’s focus on adaptation to climate change refreshingly sidesteps the unending debate over the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and opens up the possibility for effective action that places human dignity and democratic ideals at the center of climate policies.
The book is available at <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fix-Scientists-Politicians-Warming/dp/0465020526/&tag=wattsupwithth-20″ target=”_blank”>Amazon.com</a> and I think it is destined to be a best seller in the “Global Warming” cate
Will someone tell me again what the “C” stands for in CAGW?
REPLY: Catastrophic -Anthony
I am sure cognitive dis-function is not constrained to one political belief system. The save the worlders, from whatever background are not always wrong. Just mostly mislead by others into somewhat appalling behaviors. These others are not necessarily ignorant, but do have schemes that we wouldn’t want applied to ourselves nor our loved ones. I find it a shame that usually my only real choices are limited to Republicans or Democrats.
Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals and Society” is another good read.
In trying to award themselves ‘scientific’ degrees, even though they don’t understand such basic scientific formulae such as V=IR and P1V1=P2V2, the ex-pot smokers went to college a bit late in their life, studied something for which they obtain a BS in political science and became political scientists. These scientific non-starters are now telling us that we, that is those who can read the science and understand it, are deniers, skeptics, child killers, in the oil producers’ pockets etc etc. But all I know is that the science I learned at my university gave me enough basic knowledge to understand all the science, pro and con, on AGW. I have formed a scientific opinion: AGW is just a big scientific mistake at best, a global scam at worst. Climategate was the end of the scientific story, however, the political/MSM tandem is still pumping oxygen into the AGW lungs…but it’s clinically dead and soon they will abondon the corpse and create another frankenstein out of the dismembered bodies of AGW/ACC/GCD
Ideologs don’t see outcomes as relevant to actions. If the action is “correct” then a negative outcome is irrelevant. Consider the “you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet” remarks by Fabians about Stalin’s genocide of the kulaks.
Malcolm Miller says:
October 31, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Grow up, you guys! Leftism is about looking after people instead of money…
—————————————————————————–
Socialism is the equal distribution of misery….Winston Churchill
From where I come, Malta, we suffered extreme leftism for 16 years. The Labour party here describing itself as the party of the poor/workers party and ended its three terms (some elections were even rigged) with high unemployement and relatively poor people compared with mainland europe.
Now, their pet theory is climate change/environment and wind turbines. Lucky we they’re still in opposition after 23 years.
Ever tried explaining to a university graduate why their beautiful theory doesn’t work in the real World?
DaveE.
DesertYote says:
October 31, 2010 at 1:51 pm:
“In the future, we will be forced to consider Marxism, but we are not ready now.”
I advise anyone who feels this way to go on holiday with a copy of Schumpeter, “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”. It’s the intellectual equivalent of Olbas Oil.
As to Dr Pielke’s analysis of the typical illiberal induhllectual: One of the major problems for the Left is institutionalised hubris. I thought for one moment that Dr Pielke had blown the gaff – but then realised that the Left would ignore it.
Whatever the educational system is doing to people from the ages of 5 – 24,
it is obviously exactly the opposite of what would be best for optimal brain function.
🙂
Bearing the above in mind, perhaps we could persuade our illustrious president to put in place an educational program so that, within say 5 years, every student will be above the average in IQ.
…urk!
A college degree does not mean you know it all. The smartest people i know have good old fashion common sense, and some have degrees and others do not. High IQs does not translate to being smart, if you do not have common sense and use it in what ever field you you chose to persue then the degree is useless!!! Stephen Brown great post , being former USMC myself you hit the nail on the head.
Malcolm Miller says:
October 31, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Grow up, you guys! Leftism is about looking after people instead of money, …
You didn’t finish this off correctly. the rest of the statement is “… whether they want it or not, need it or not, asked for it or not, asked you to do it…
David A Evans – The operative word hereis tried . And , yes I have – to little avail . It’s almost as though modern history doesn’t exist .
[Snip. Calling people ‘denialists’ is against site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
“Climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success, he writes, and because the world will need more energy in the future, an oblique approach supporting causes, such as developing affordable alternative energy sources rather than consequences, such as controversial schemes like cap-and-trade, is more likely to succeed”.
There is no climate problem, therefore we need no climate policies, no UN IPCC, no government policies or regulations to deal with CO2.
The free market will take care of the world’s energy needs as it did during the past century.
There is no basis to broker a deal based on Pielke’s view because the entire AGW scam is based on fraud.
No surrender.
This is the problem with luke warmists.
They question the warmist policies but keep the fraud alive.
For sensible people, beliefs about climate do not split along left/right political lines. Interest in natural climate & weather phenomena spans political, economic, & social spectra. In the long run, anthropogenic computer-climate fantasies based on absolutely untenable assumptions will fool neither masses of sensible people on the left nor masses of sensible people on the right.
Toxic pollution remains a real problem. Personally I also heavily advocate natural parks & forests. Climate alarmism is neither politically nor environmentally strategic.
Intelligence is a matter of internal wiring – it’s innate. Education is acquired information – external. The two are often confused. An educated person may come across as intelligent but may, in fact just parrot information, make poor use of resources, and be inept at problem solving – an educated fool. On the other hand, an intelligent person may not necessarily be educated and thus unable to impress others with academic achievements but be highly successful in recognizing and using resources and very good at problem solving – a true intellect.
Fools, whether educated or not, usually have superiority complexes, having to put others down to achieve self importance. They’re predisposed to pretense and ad hominem because they’re short on intellect and social skills. They are often underachievers in life and seek significance through self promotion. Intelligent people, both educated and uneducated, are generally confident in their abilities and are achievers or doers. They tend to be more congenial, resourceful, and intellectually honest. They tend to be more successful in life and more reserved by nature. You see both kinds here.
Don’t tell me what I don’t know. Show me what you know so that I may learn.
Grumpy old Man disagrees with:
October 31, 2010 at 3:28 pm:
“In the future, we will be forced to consider Marxism, but we are not ready now.”
Actually, that was me. Think about it, if energy is “dirt cheap”, then the social system will have to be rethought entirely. There are taxes that EVERYONE takes advantage of at sometime. If we have an abundant source of energy that continues to do more and more work that humans used to do, it is inevitable that we would have to re-think the system.
The current “socialistic plan” is irresponsible and “takes advantage of the poor” just like the system “they” would like to replace. Every socialistic national endeavor has resulted in a tyranny (i.e. elitist control) which has been an issue of debate since the Grecian times.
Take away is, consider if we do achieve fusion; cheap reliable energy, and we have automatons doing all the work with this energy, does capitalism survive?
The fact is that acting against climate change requires understanding and acceptance of sophisticated scientific concepts, which predict problems far in the future, and would primarily affect people making a precarious living in the developing, and non human biological species. Most people are not willing to pay anything extra, or make any change in their lifestyles to battle such a distant threat. Those who are less well educated, and politically conservative, are less likely to accept the scientific research which is the basis for the theory of AGW. This is not just my opinion, it has been proven by scientific surveys.
http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB_Hamilton_Climate_Survey.pdf
If you look at the above link you will see that acceptance of AGW is 37% for HS or less,
42% for associates degrees, 55% for bachelors, and 63% for Postgraduate.
It also shows that political affiliation accounts for a lot of the opinions on AGW.
What is interesting is that people believe that scientists share their personal beliefs about AGW. Whatever one may think of about the validity of AGW, there can’t be any uncertainty about what research scientists think about AGW. Two surveys have shown the 97% of researchers believe AGW is happening now. This survey was actually performed by Roger Pielke Sr.
It is clear that advocates of action against AGW, who complain about the public’s lack of education being a factor in public opinion against taking action to stop AGW are correct. Pielke doesn’t really deny that from what I have read so far. What Pielke is saying is that their public statements about this are poor politics, and will not help their cause. He is probably correct about this.
Of course there are people with education posting on this web site who reject the idea of AGW. That should be no surprise, because this web site would attract such people. Certainly the statistics don’t say that 100% of people with bachelors degrees or higher, so the posters who are believe AGW is nonsense don’t prove that lack of education is not a factor in the public’s failure to accept AGW. It only shows that this is not the only factor in determine people’s opinions.
It is not comforting that political conservatism, and lack of education are causing people to believe falsely that scientist do not accept AGW is an important effect, when the contrary is true. This false belief persuades them that the science behind AGW is incorrect also.
I forgot to include the link to Pielke Sr.’s survey in my previous post:
http://www.centralcoastclimatescience.org/poll-annan.pdf
“Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. explains why some leftist bloggers set themselves up for failure when they espouse their intellectual superiority. Screaming “hell, high water, global boiling, climate disruption, etc ” while at the same time saying “you’re too dumb to understand it” looks to be an epic “failure to communicate”.
Not a communication failure I think, rather an attempt to bolster the failed CAGW conjecture by spreading alarm and trying to panick the public. Despite the millions spent it became obvious that CAGW wasn’t going to happen, but the need to ensure the green agenda could still press forward resulted in the observed furore.
“The science is settled”, “It’s worse than we thought.”, “The polar bears will be wiped out.”, “Sea levels will rise 8m.”, “Hurricanes will destroy the USA.”… e.t.c., e.t.c, e.t.c.
Fifteen years of no statistically significant global warming and one read through some of the Climategate emails. This was enough for anyone with even an ounce of grey matter to see that CO2 is just a bit player regarding climate and natural cycles are the real agents of change.
CAGW and the green agenda are both dead. Lets screw the coffin lid down nice and tight and bury it six foot under.
Maybe off topic butI was just thinking this: Do we really need ‘Climate Scientists’? Could we survive without them?
Well, of course we could. we got along very nicely without them thank you very much until the species evolved about 20 – 25 years ago. Frankly we’d be better off without them.
AGW is the 90’s version of New Math. It doesn’t matter if the result is wrong, as long as the method is correct.
Zeke the Sneak says:
October 31, 2010 at 3:33 pm
You are right!, and perhaps you don´t remember when, after the Russians launched their first satellite, the Sputnik, there was the intention (just that I guess) to change education…..and now what is it called education?: Teaching kids how homosexuals engange in their counter nature relations?, not teaching them to think by their own?
I will tell you, one day I went to pick up my wife from the school she works here in SA. I found a group of teens, sitting around a pine tree, trying to memorize formulas of aromatic hydrocarbons: I took some rosin out of the pine tree and told them this was one of them, I told them to smell it and chew it and taste it; I am sure that 30 years after they won´t ever forget it. Another example, Pythagoras square triangle equation it is taught, literally as: C2=a2+b2 and NEVER by drawing a square on each catet and on the hypothenuse.
The trick when the first computers appeared was to tell the students to make a program to solve any given problem: While doing it they learned waht was the problem really about; it gave birth to the idea that computers were helpful in education, which now THEY ARE NOT, etc.etc.
Not to mention the fact that, as a consequence of self conceit, the less understood is a teacher the wiser he/she considers himself (this is tragically valid too for “new age scientists”), the more entangled and obscure his/her explanations are the more wise and intelligent they consider themselves. The worst it could happend to them is someone to appear around, like Pythagoras, who showed that a slave taken from a prison could demonstrate his famous square triangle formula. They, daughter and sons of mommy and daddy, being so accustomed to “mutual caressing activities”and self indulgement, are really driving occidental culture to the deepest of darkness eras ever known. No, don´t say we are surrounded by intelligent gadgets and artifacts, THESE WERE the making and the product of the ingenuity of such dropouts as Bill Gates and others, were not for them we would not have all the confort we have in our lives. Wake up little Susie!