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
Reading all these posts confirms one thing to me; there is way too much hate in the whole AGW/politics topic.
I’m not convinced that the alarmists (or at least the leaders of that movement) even believe in it themselves. Certainly one look at the homes of Al Gore or Oprah shows that they don’t see any need for themselves to conserve; that’s something the masses are supposed to do for them.
And I don’t see much need for wilderness or wild animals in the world anyway. Most of them simply aren’t below us in the food chain. And if the amount of park land ever drops to anywhere near the demand for it, it will pay someone to buy and maintain it and charge admission.
The real problem in today’s world is the willingness of government to help busybodies appoint themselves everybody’s mothers. The point of being an adult is to be able to tell people like that to f*** off and die, and make it stick. That’s a human right.
@ur momisugly DN:
When you say:
“So in addition to fixing the problem of T refusing to scale linerarly with CO2 concentrations over any time period (except to the extent that, according to ice core data, T seems to respond to changes in CO2 concentration), …”
didn’t you get the ice core data arse-about? I seem to recall the Vostock ice-cores showing a correlation between CO2 and T whereby the CO2 tracked T approximately 800 years afterwards. If that is the case, delta CO2 possibly responds to changes in T, not vice versa.
Otherwise, well said!
Cognitive dissonance explains this : just about everyone believes themselves to be good. If they have devoted years pursuing a thesis they have not only invested intellectual energy but also emotional energy and their sense of self so that when confronted by evidence that contradicts their views, it is easier to deny/rationalize/ distort this than admit error, where an outsider would have no difficulty precisely because they are uncommitted. This is not a fault of left or right but simply human nature. Perhaps if science education elevated empiricism and honest data above theory people would be more honest
H.R. says:
Education and intelligence are two seperate things. It’s a mistake to assume that all formally educated people are intelligent and it is another mistake to assume all people without a formal education are not intelligent.
Your mistake lies in the use of the phrase “to assume all people without formal education are not intelligent.” In a society with universal public education and a lot of opportunity for higher education for merit scholarships for those who are bright, not wealthy, there will be a correlation between educational level and intelligence.
Most intelligent people would choose to get more formal education, if it were available, because it is a ticket to a better life. Some may not like the effort and may not want to spend the time it takes to get a formal education, but they would be a minority. Some feel they may not be able to afford it. That is why there is only a correlation between intelligence, rather than an identity.
Kaboom says:
October 31, 2010 at 4:37 pm
@ur momisugly DN:
When you say:
“So in addition to fixing the problem of T refusing to scale linerarly with CO2 concentrations over any time period (except to the extent that, according to ice core data, T seems to respond to changes in CO2 concentration), …”
didn’t you get the ice core data arse-about? I seem to recall the Vostock ice-cores showing a correlation between CO2 and T whereby the CO2 tracked T approximately 800 years afterwards. If that is the case, delta CO2 possibly responds to changes in T, not vice versa.
Otherwise, well said!
It is distressing to see propagation of the fallacy, that CO2 leading temperature change in the recent cycles of ice ages and warming, shows that CO2 cannot cause warming. Radiation physics and measurements of the atmosphere shows that CO2 will warm the atmosphere, and this has been understood since 1859. The ice ages are understood to be initially driven by changes in the earth’s orbit and axis which increase solar summer heating in the northern hemisphere. The increase in CO2 concentration which is driven by the resulting increases in temperature and the increase in water vapor concentration amplifies the temperature increases during the glacial cycles.
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh2.html
When the temperature, CO2 and CH4 curves are carefully compared, it is found that temperature changes usually precede CO2 and CH4 changes by 500–1000 years on average. This indicates that climate change causes CO2 and CH4 changes. However, these greenhouse gas changes are a positive feedback that contributes to the large magnitude of the climate swings.
Mike says:
October 31, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I think the truth is most people who think AGW is real don’t understand the science…
______
C’mon Mike, please get real. There are many highly educated scientists who are the very best in their fields who believe AGW is real and who understand the science far better than 99.9% of the bloggers who think AGW is not real. To assert they “don’t understand the science” is to miss the entire debate that brave people like Dr. Judith Curry are trying to open up. This issue isn’t whether they “understand the science” but what they do with that understanding and how it is presented to policy makers (especially, of course, the issue of uncertainty in the science),
Peter Sørensen says:
“Or how about Palin claiming that she knows a lot about russia because she’s seen russia across the Bering strait…….”
I would venture that the vast majority of the Tea Party Members realize the difference between what Sarah Palin really said and what Tina Fey, a comedian pretending to be Sarah Palin said on Saturday Night Live.
Good luck with finding the right words there in Denmark. Those who only dig deep enough to find what they want find often stop far short of finding the truth.
R. Gates says:
October 31, 2010 at 5:07 pm (Edit)
Mike says:
October 31, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I think the truth is most people who think AGW is real don’t understand the science…
______
C’mon Mike, please get real. There are many highly educated scientists who are the very best in their fields who believe AGW is real and who understand the science far better than 99.9% of the bloggers who think AGW is not real. To assert they “don’t understand the science” is to miss the entire debate that brave people like Dr. Judith Curry are trying to open up. This issue isn’t whether they “understand the science” but what they do with that understanding and how it is presented to policy makers (especially, of course, the issue of uncertainty in the science),
And, on the other hand, there are many millions who DO understand completely the math, the assumed and simplified “science” involved with global warming, and the massive errors and coverups involved with ONLY presenting the so-called CAGW theory to politicians in the name of taxes (1.4 trillion and counting) and bribes and influence and “igNobel” prizes and research funding and papers and incestuous peer-reviewed papers, etc.
The CAGW theorists (deliberately) understate uncertainty and re-write the summary for policymakers by themselves to deliberately make CAGW appear worse than it is. They deliberately exaggerate the threats, call for riots and call for death to skeptics, and appeal to emotions (never reason) to the public at large because they have no “science” on their side.
These so-called “scientists” have nothing but simplified theory on their hands. Long term data, unaltered data, proves them wrong.
Laura Hills says:
October 31, 2010 at 4:46 pm
“This is not a fault of left or right but simply human nature. Perhaps if science education elevated empiricism and honest data above theory people would be more honest”.
EXACTLY. This is the REAL debate. I am not sure how scientifically the two sides are into the whole debate, but one thing that is true, the distortion and torture of the data in the form of graphs and other visual media has stoked the fires (i.e. Hockey Stick, minimizing the MWP, etc). Humans are very adversarial to others taking advantage of themselves.
Could some of the real climate scientists here to comment on. (I was trained in physical chemistry, and my understanding is as follows:)
Assume incoming TSI is a constant, and the Albedo is also constant. We will make CO2 the driving force. Since radiation is scattered in all directions, and since the Earth is a sphere, there will always be MORE IR radiation scattered to space. This is independent of any heat “trapped” and is true no matter how many “layers” we compute in any models.
So, if the downwards component of IR radiation increases due to increasing greenhouse gases, then so does the outwards component by a slightly greater amount.
But since the albedo & TSI are constant (in this word model) and since the Earth loses more heat energy to space than that which is directed downwards, THEREFORE the Earth is cooling overall (loosing heat to space).
So, the warmer the Earth gets, the faster it loses heat. Since the incoming energy is assumed to be constant, we have a logical impossibility.
Can someone help me with this?
eadler
“Your mistake lies in the use of the phrase…“
Wow! You so perfectly exemplify what is meant be the the term ‘elitist’ that you should submit you picture for the Wikipedia definition.
MikeEE
racookpe1978 says:
October 31, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“Long term data, unaltered data, proves them wrong…”
_____
And your links to the specific data that PROVES AGW is not happening???
It’s clear that many of the European commenters here are pretty ignorant about American politics. It’s not their fault, however, but rather due to the sorry state of the manipulative European (and US) media.
By the way, we’re having a tea party here in the States on Tuesday…
I have to interject here. Not all universities are Marxists. My college was not. I went to East Carolina University for computer science (aka computer programming) and math. But before I went, I went to a local community college for some credits to save money. I had to take a bunch of junk courses to make me “well-rounded” student. Not once was I attempted to be indoctrinated into Marxism, or socialism, or any other -ism you can name. Granted, my field of study not in liberal arts. But even in the liberal arts classes I had to take, it had no indoctrination.
When I was at the local community college, my calculus teacher also taught at NC State University. NC State is considered to be a conservative college focusing more on farming and science. This calculus teacher was a staunch conservative and from what he said, he was the majority at NC State. That was 10 years ago. Also in this one class was a student from UNC-Chapel Hill (usually just called UNC). UNC is known to be a very liberal college. This one student from UNC was clearly indoctrinated into the left’s ideology. She kept trying to argue with my calculus teacher, but could not hold her own against him.
The point of this is that not every college is Marxist.
eadler: “Radiation physics and measurements of the atmosphere shows that CO2 will warm the atmosphere…”
Yes, radiation physics does show that when there is solar influx CO2 heats the atmosphere, and it also show that at night without solar influx CO2 cools the atmosphere, just as water vapour does. You forgot that bit.
Wow, the trolls are out tonight. Probably appropriate since it is, after all, Hallowe’en.
Eadler manages to write even more tortuous prose than my own unintentionally contorted offerings here. He writes:
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.
I would argue, to the contrary, that they mean the public’s ‘lack of indoctrination’ as the public is not too stupid to notice that the despite all the alarmist tripe thrown about in the media, their own daily experience is not showing much evidence of warming. Also, many of the least educated most likely don’t pay any attention to scientists diktats whatsoever, and those who read the papers regularly have become accustomed to scientists proclaiming the danger of cholesterol, fats, starches, sugars, caffeine and coffee, food in general, and then finding evidence that they may have been wrong. Anyone who tries to pay attention, after a few decades, does grow somewhat wary of the latest claims for immanent death or cancer for eating this or that normal food. Plus scientists regularly reverse their former pronouncements on the effects of ingesting Vitamin C, Vitamin A, Vitamin D (until recently thought to be extremely dangeous above 200 IU per day, now with a minimum recommendation of 2000 IU.) Plus, on top of that, anyone who has studied the history of science quickly learns that whole cadres of scientists have defended theories that were later found to be insufficient (eg wave theory vs particle theory of light) wrong (neo-Lamarckism comes to mind) or evil (eugenics). Why would anyone who has studied the history of science come to the conclusion — in a politically correct era in which to speak otherwise brings down opprobrium and even shunning from colleagues– that a survey indicating that 97% agree with AGW is therefore indicative of a defensible scientific theory.
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.
??????????
Moving along:
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 don’t thinks that those of us who are either conservative and uneducated (or conservative and educated or liberal and uneducated etc etc) who reject AGW reject it because we think that scientists do not accept AGW. We come to WUWT precisely because we do understand that most scientists still accept the theory, and we think that the theory is wrong, and that for the most part their acceptance is due to an unexamined acquiescence to what they believe is a scientific consensus. As has been spectacularly revealed in the last year (anniversary of the great day coming up, BTW!) that consensus has been manufactured by a very small coterie of ‘climate scientists’ who have a definite agenda. Scientists by dint of their education are not immune to the influence of belief systems, and the more that people understand how extra-scientific influences help determine the focus of investigations and kinds of explanations put forward by scientists, the better. The strangely left-wing prescriptions put forward by climate scientists as patently useless remedies to global warming that might possibly have tipped off your so called conservative and/or uneducated skeptics and led them to doubt the scientists as well as the science.
[Your post is not clear: Where do you wish to stop quoting him? 8<) Robt]
R. Gates says:
October 31, 2010 at 5:07 pm
“This issue isn’t whether they “understand the science” but what they do with that understanding and how it is presented to policy makers (especially, of course, the issue of uncertainty in the science),”
============
So, you have given your life over to the “policy makers”.
Wow.
Its really a matter of people who think and people who can’t think, its easy to find an abundance of morons on both sides of the political fence. This left right crap is just crap. If you look at the pew surveys on climate change, university educated democrats and independents are among those that are changing their views the quickest. Americans are amongst the worst in the world in holding dogmatic political views and spinning their political views whenever they can. Its a sad state of affairs when a nation is in decline like the US and they waste massive amounts of money on political spending. If you want to rail about anything involving politics, thats something to get worked up about. Imagine the year is 2010 and the US political machine is still fuelled by dollars from the private sector. What’s killing the US today is not the liberal lefties but an absence of free thinking folks.
[Is it not more troubling that the liberals want the “public debate” entirely funded by (their) very-well-controlled and politically-corrupt public money? Robt]
Chris Edwards says: October 31, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I have yet to see any real facts to support AGW, I’ve seen a lot of lies and corrupt data, I’ve seen a whole lot of own goals on their side and a lot of Nazi tactics, the real big thing is the elites cure for all pollution?? send it and all production to India and especially China, what a corrupt crock of shit.
Well done to them, they have ruined the economy of the USA and the EU, corrupted the banking system and enabled horrific pollution in China and India while destroying environmentally reasonable manufacture in the west. You do not have to look far to see the plan short term long term I cannot say, perhaps I would need to be as mad as them to understand their long term ideas!
—————————————————————————————
Chris. I share your anger with the arrogance and hubris of the so called elite. In the early part of this century, I would read about that wizard of economics Alan Greenspan and his apparently infallibility. The famous (but now infamous) Greenspan ‘put’ effectively stuffed the US economy. His acumen was something to revere (Emperor’s clothes?). The destruction of the US and UK economies was presided over by the likes of Greenspan, Larry Summers (US) on Clinton’s so called watch and George Brown (UK) under Blair’s towards the end of the 20th century. I watched the explosion of the (casino) banking system that they allowed and encouraged. This ultimately led to the collapse of the financial systems of the west. It took 10 years to stuff it up properly. It is still in a condition that nobody knows how to fix from what I can ascertain.
More recently (about 2 years ago) I began to question the science behind global warming, ocean rise etc. that previously I assumed was based on solid science. After some time I realised that the same arrogance and hubris abounds in this area as well. There seemed to me to be no real level of science that provided certainty for any of these claims. In fact, quite a deal exists to the contrary. And again it is taken up by our political leaders with alacrity. Again we see the commitment of trillions of dollars towards unproven technology (wind and solar power) and the abandonment of proven energy sources (coal and nuclear) At the same time the transfer of manufacture to the east (China and India) whose industry is based upon these two energy sources.
The point I am trying to get to is that these people blessed with great and superior education and intellect (Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan George Brown and Tony Blair) have not shown any more insight than the common person. It has been well documented and argued at the time that the removal of the last vestiges of the Glass Steagall legislation was likely to lead to the very trouble that we are now seeing. But no, hubris reigned – or was it hubris coupled with greed – there were plenty (the banks) who profited by this. It is well documented and argued now that global warming is not driven by co2 emissions and that what global warming there is does not lead to a catastrophic end of the earth. Hubris and greed – they seem to go together.
Douglas
Very Sad.
I guess we will all have to learn “Seig Heil” again.
Unfortunately that is where I see the United States heading.
good luck
Laura Hills says:
October 31, 2010 at 4:46 pm
“Cognitive dissonance explains this : just about everyone believes themselves to be good. If they have devoted years pursuing a thesis they have not only invested intellectual energy but also emotional energy and their sense of self so that when confronted by evidence that contradicts their views, it is easier to deny/rationalize/ distort this than admit error, where an outsider would have no difficulty precisely because they are uncommitted. This is not a fault of left or right but simply human nature. Perhaps if science education elevated empiricism and honest data above theory people would be more honest.”
There is no evidence that cognitive dissonance can explain the adoption of AGW theory by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. The theory of AGW is the result of over 150 years of scientific investigation. The theory is a result of years of collection of scientific data, beginning with John Tyndall in 1859, who was motivated by Fourier many years before. In 1959, a scientifically sound one dimensional theory of radiation propagation in the atmosphere nailed the role of CO2 and water vapor based on sound radiation measurements. The theory has evolved since then into a 3 dimensional model, aided by the development of super computers. There is no evidence that this was driven by cognitive dissonance. Arrhenius , who originated the theory of AGW, actually believed that AGW was a good thing, and a warmer climate would be beneficial to mankind. In addition, in the long term, it is understood by modern scientists, that CO2 emission could prevent another ice age from reducing the habitat for mankind to thrive. The rise of the theory had nothing to do with politics.
It is the people who deny that AGW is real who are trapped by cognitive dissonance. Survey data shows that many of them don’t even know that there is a consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real, and they believe the opposite. In addition many are driven by political conservatism to reject the science behind AGW, because it would require government legislation for mankind to stop or slow down AGW.
http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB_Hamilton_Climate_Survey.pdf
The scientific opposition to global warming has been financed by think tanks who draw their money from wealthy conservatives including oil and coal industrialists.
from New Zealand says: October 31, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Well, I have a Masters degree with 1st class honours and I can say that my studies, especially in the field of analysis, led me to see the blatant flaws in the leftist ideology. —In essence your average leftie is vain, self righteous, hypocritical, closed minded, self deluded, and intolerant – more so than any of the righties that I know.
————————————————————————————-
Whew! John – glad you got that off your chest! But sad to say – they don’t have this on their own John.
Douglas
“The scientific opposition to global warming has been financed by think tanks who draw their money from wealthy conservatives including oil and coal industrialists.”
Oh brother…get out the tinfoil hats…
By the way, didn’t BP give money to UEA and Jones bragged about it somewhere…hmmm….
I would rather hear what a truck driver or a shop keeper has to say about current events over some PhD who is educated beyond their capacity to think.