Elevated from a comment by Doug Proctor November 14, 2013 at 10:00 am
I’ve been thinking about what makes the warmist-skeptic fight go on and on. What I have noted is the constant difference in how each side places its emphasis, and that this shows up in its speech. Specifically, the skeptics use declarative, as in “this will”, “this shall” or “this does”, and, of course, its negative equals. The warmists use conditionals, i.e. words like “could” or “should” or “may” or “might” that indicate undefined probabilities and, in truth, possibilities, things that are determinable only after the fact.
The use of conditionals after 25 years is remarkable (here I make a declarative statement). Despite all the models and claims of correlation/matching of observation, we still have no “does”, “shall” or “will” in the IPCC or other CAGW programme. The dangers and fears are in the distant future, discussed only as emerging from the present, but still only becoming obvious in some, never-close-to-today, tomorrow.
This is not an academic situation. The human world acts on what it thinks, and it thinks through words. If the words are confusing, its thoughts are confused and its actions are not necessarily the best. The Mainstream Media (MSM) is particularly prone to confusion from the way they are instructed, and prone to confusing the readership by the way they combine emotional response with a misunderstanding of what the use of conditionals in a discussion means. The MSM think conditionals represent scientific caution, but what they represent is scientific uncertainty. The extent to which they are used represents the consideration of the likelihood that what they think “will” come, actually comes.
From what I see, there are four different types of (Un)Certainty involved in the CAGW narrative: 1) Computational, 2) Emotional and 3) Representational and 4) Ideological. (There may be more, or more subtle versions of these, but these 4 are probably close to the general breakdown.)
The IPCC 95% type is Computational Certainty, that is the outcome as proposed by models is consistent with input data and mathematical relationships between identified factors. McKibben’s certainty is based in Computational Certainty, as in “Do The Math”. It could also be labelled “Intellectual” Certainty, as it is based on the idea that nature is deterministic enough, and we are smart enough and knowledgeable enough to figure out what is going on in a usefully predictive way. The application of the argument by ignorance is applicable to this form of certainty: if we can’t think there is another way, then it must be the way we say. While naively reasonable, and a reflection of the arguments Sherlock Holmes was claimed to use in solving crimes, how it is used by the IPCC adherents is actually a perverse misuse of what Holmes did: Holmes used the concept to bring to the table non-current, usually non-obvious solutions, which would be then investigated closely. The IPCC cabal use it to dismiss the non-current and non-obvious).
The second type, the Emotional Certainty, is what roots Gore, the IPCC Summary and the 97% Consensus concept. With Emotional Certainty, the statements say that we are personally comfortable with the work done and where it ended – with the understanding that not everything could be done, but we believe to be the most important parts were covered. Outside the workers themselves, this comfort derives from authority, the trust in credibility of certain socially recognized individuals or groups. The MSM in particular seizes on this particular form of Certainty (regardless of how they, themselves, perceive it). Anyone connected with the IPCC is credible, therefore I am comfortable with what they say. Personal investigation in this regard is unnecessary, and indeed is a “skeptical” activity for those still not convinced, as it suggests a “better” understanding can exist outside what one gleans from just the Summary remarks. The notable history of a President misleading America about the reasons for going to war, or a Bernie Madoff misleading investors as to what was happening to their money makes no impact on the credibility of other parties: that was then, this is now (and these ones).
Ideological Certainty is what drives the eco-green. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Maurice Strong, David Suzuki, Friends of the Earth, the Waterkeepers, opponents of the XL Keystone pipeline: the arguments for CAGW are mere backups for other, anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, pro-nature beliefs. This is not to say that those other beliefs are not valid, only that the principle position is not CO2-based warming per se. With Ideological Certainty, the certainty is that continuing the path we are on, the status quo, will cause socio- and environmental damage that is unacceptable (and may be catastrophic). The devil is in the general, not the detail: if we continue to consume and destroy – and fossil fuels are a fundamental part in this activity – the bad things will happen. Arguments about actual temperature sensitivity are not relevant. Whether we will experience 4 degrees or 1 degree warming by 2100, our societies are still on the road to ruin. It is this movement that must be stopped.
The fourth type of Certainty is Representational, in which what is projected is compared to what, at an initial state, is observed. This is where the skeptical position focuses. The skeptic wants to know the detail of what IS to happen and so looks to what HAS happened as a true indication (by pattern or observation) of how closely a predicted outcome has been matched by actual outcome. He does this so that he may respond – as he would say – “appropriately”.
The skeptic recognizes that responses are, and should be, proportional to the triggering event: a minor problem should not have elicited a large preventative measure if a small one would have sufficed. Energy – emotional, physical, social – is liimited and should be used wisely and sparingly if possible. To determine the details and hence the level of action that is appropriate, of course, one needs facts. And facts are not determined in policy summaries but in the field and the laboratory. Facts are not nailed down by consensus, i.e. group opinion, but by falsifiable testing. The skeptic, in his hunt for facts, is forced to read and question. Arguably having this desire for Representational Certainty is where the various skeptics or luke-warmers like Pielke, Lindzen, Watts and ourselves come in.
It should be noted that not all anti-CAGW narrative is driven simply by a desire for Representational Certainty before we act. Ideology, emotion and a narrow but intense trust in intellectual work also drive some skeptics. Certainly CFACT, Morano, the GWPF are seen in the eyes of warmists to be not just attacking the facts of the CAGW story, but the spirit: the obstructionism against CO2 reduction is perceived as anti-regulatory, pro-free market, pro-energy industry sentiments. Which, to some extent, is true. But all of us determine the course of our lives and support on the basis of multiple pulls and pushes, motivating factors that shift through time.
What makes the CAGW fight persist, IMHO, is that we argue about “Certainty” as if we are dealing with the same thing and each side is either foolish, perverse, or a paid shill not to recognize what each side holds. What I am saying in the above essay, is that we are not dealing with the same thing. I have listed four different aspects that lead to the decisions we make on supporting or not supporting CO2-related initiatives. The technical, dictionary-defined words are the same, but we argue because we are not using the same mental vocabulary.
===============================================================
UPDATE: Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) observes:
Calvin and Hobbes explain why Climate Change alarmists are almost invariably rabid about it
The fight must continue. This is not something we can meet in the middle ground about. Our early passiveness about green ideals has allowed the green monster that stalks the Earth now. One side gives an inch, the other takes a mile.
The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmers WILL NOT STOP until our nations are destroyed and millions killed to purge the Earth of the cancer they think is Man. That means we can not stop either until the work is done and this sham is shown for what it is.
I think your post is very good and very accurate, except that finding and talking in the same language will not solve the problem. The lying must stop. The emotional blackmail must stop. The destruction of the environment, of industry, of society and of civilization must stop.
Above all, hatred of the human animal must stop. Teaching the next generation – and the next and the next – to fear and despise the very technology that gave us extended life, health, riches, comfort and enjoyment, seriously Must Be Stopped.
I’ll go out on a limb here but I think the majority of the climate scientists are probably on their last nerve with the IPCC, the UN and politicians in general (Ok -maybe not Mann who seems to thrive on being a media whore). If you disconnected the funding from the political agenda the debate would be more civil and productive. In Biology, HIV funding while somewhat controversial at the time let us learn about the immune system in greater detail. That research led to vaccines for cervical cancer, antivirals for Hepatitis C, and new drug therapies for cancer and autoimmune disease, as they say not to shabby. I think if the politicians backed off and let the real scientists do the work the benefits will be similar. I’m pretty sure the “deniers” would be the first ones to back the funding as they have an underlying interest in understanding the climate better as well.
Mr Proctor. Thank you for your erudite and insightful piece. I think many of us could use your framework in understanding those we come across that have these as their prism through which they perceive. It has certainly clarified things for me.
I am dumbfounded on a frequent basis by them. Now I understand a bit more about the orientation that would create their illusion.
A good example is an editorial I read yesterday on the Typhoon, which admitted that there might not be any link to climate change but that “politicians should agree that polluting the air or our waterways and oceans isn’t good for people or for the planet.”
Therefore never let a good crisis go to waste? The end justifies the means, as long as its a Noble Cause (which I define).
I see Sweet Old Bob got the same point in while I was typing… there is something to be said for short posts!
SR
Mind you, I do think the ‘Noes’ tend to win on points. But then, I am lazily guilty of reading very little on the subject apart from what I come across on this website, so I suppose I would think that.
Which tells me that I find the whole thing more of an entertainment and an education than a concern.
In fact I only found this website several years back because I was doing a bit of recreational research into the childishly thrilling (to a geologist) subject of Ice Ages, and found myself at an excellent WUWT article by Frank Lasner, and have come here ever since for similar good fare.
Apart from which, nothing much has changed round here for the past 40 years. The tide still goes in and out to the same point. The summers are hot and long and the winters are wet. Occasionally there is hail, the threat of a cyclone, or a dead whale washes up on the beach. Politicians, TV and newspapers remain mostly crap. House prices, power bills and the quality of coffee and cars goes up, and the cost of garden furniture, electronics and power tools goes down. Yawn..
Come on, when’s the next ice age? They promised me one at school!
The essay opens with an amazing bit of Orwellian doublespeak. Astonishingly the author claims that skeptics speak in certainties such as “this will”, “this shall”, “this does”. Talk about turning the Buddha on his head! In reality the skeptics look at the data and the empirical evidence and suggest that something else might be going on. The alarmists on the other hand have no empirical cause and effect data but rather look into their crystal models and pronounce the end is nigh. I suppose the concept of four types of uncertainty has some utility in sorting out this mess, but to me the concepts of cognitive dissonance go a lot further in helping to understand what is going on. The genetic predisposition of people to clump together over any common belief, however preposterous, is also clearly at work. Certainly you don’t have to look very far to find ample evidence of groups of people including scientists, believing things that are later shown to be silly. It is disingenuous in the extreme to try to characterize skeptics as the declarative group and it was very hard to read beyond that point.
Their biggest weapon:
Calling those who do not accept the premise of catastrophic man made global warming
“Climate Change Deniers”
Which of course, is their biggest lie.
What makes the CAGW dispute persist, beyond the benefits of the funding involved for being an advocate, is the fact that in the 70s ecological marxism arose as a theory to provide an alternative crises to justify social, political, and economic transformation.
And the theorists knew they needed to use necessity to sell the transformation away from consumerism and individual choices.
I remain stunned by the materials that exist that openly lay out precisely that.
Robin,
That’s why I was surprised to find Stewart Brand (Mr “Whole Earth Catalog”) is now pushing nuclear power with a will.
I would agree with much of what Doug has written, but only in so far as it relates to the past. It does miss out a small group, those supposedly motivated by “Computational Certainty” who chose to fudge the figures (post 1990) to promote what they knew was a failed hypothesis because they were driven by “Emotional Certainty” to believe the ends justified the means. Some of the scientists supporting the IPCC clearly knew prior to 1995 that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.
However the situation of the past has changed. Those continuing to push AGW propaganda now have an air of utter desperation. Most of those once motivated by computational certainty know the hypothesis has failed. A great number of those with little scientific understanding once motivated by emotional certainty are realising something is very wrong. More and more fellow travellers are coming to the realisation that this is going to end very, very badly for them.
It is only now the fellow travellers are contemplating the inevitable collapse of the AGW inanity and the consequences of their actions. They have realised far too late the danger posed by the Internet. It is not just that the Internet allows a democracy of ideas and communication to bypass the control the fellow travellers have over institutions and the lame stream media. The Internet remembers. Forever. The motivation of many of the fellow travellers could now be simply described as blind panic.
The reason the debate keeps on is because the fellow travellers have no exit strategy. In the age of the Internet there is no way out. In the past a compliant lame stream media could be used to engineer an exit strategy, but those days are gone. The lame stream media are no longer the gatekeepers of opinion or records. The forth estate has become the fifth wheel. All the old tricks such as “walkback”, “issue fade and replace” and “snowstorm” are pre Internet, they don’t work any more.
The past motivations of the AGW fellow travellers are not their current motivations. They are no longer fighting to “save the planet”, they are now fighting to save their own hides. From one side of the planet to the other, the Professional Left have gambled everything and lost. The shrieking panic as they try to flog the putrefying remains of their dead stalking horse back to life is now just adding to the crushing weight of their shame. It may be grotesque, but in the face of the permanent record of the internet the fellow travellers have no better plan than delaying the inevitable.
Larry Kirk said @ur momisugly November 14, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Me too! Then I studied geology and discovered we have been in an ice age for many millennia 🙂
What makes the warmist-sceptic fight go on and on?
To my mind, the primary reason is simple: It is because AGW and CAGW are used interchangeably by those promoting CAGW. The science of AGW is reasonably well established, and sceptics on the whole accept the basic principle of the science, but observe that it does not support CAGW. Those promoting CAGW draw no distinction between AGW and CAGW. For example they use surveys of opinion on AGW, such as Doran and Zimmerman (2009) to claim consensus on CAGW.
Doran and Zimmerman (2009) (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf) asked 10,257 Earth scientists the question “2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”. 82% of the 3,146 respondents answered “Yes” to this question. Obviously, the result hinges on people’s understanding of “human activity” and “significant”. Many people do believe that human activities other than the use of fossil fuels, such as land clearing, do contribute to global temperature. Many people would consider any contributing factor above say 10% to be significant. Many or even most CAGW sceptics would answer “Yes”: to this question if they were confident that their answer would not be misused. Yet somehow the paper has been used to “show” that 97% of scientists support CAGW.
This misuse of AGW is at the core of the argument. CAGW sceptics are labelled “anti-science”, “d*ni*rs”, etc, because CAGW scepticism is seen as disputing AGW. Any AGW consensus that can be found or concocted is portrayed as CAGW consensus. Greenies and left-wing politicians find CAGW very helpful. The MSM will not or cannot distinguish between AGW and CAGW. And so the issue is kept confused and the fight continues.
Fight? If one means the angry blabber between the right wing loons and the left wing nuts, both share a unitary interest in not really wanting to follow the money. They’re emotionally wedded.
I think you missed the biggest certainty of all, and that is the self interest certainty.
Al Gore believes his drivel? Nonsense. He invests heavily in oil and fracking companies, and has bought a monster house beside the sea he insists is going to rise up and drown it. What Al Gore believes is that there is a buck to be made and he is going to make as many as he can. Let’s take a walk through all the industries and all the people who supply goods and services to those industries that benefit from their self interest certainty:
Wind mill manufacturers
Solar panel manufacturers
Electric car makers
Biofuel companies
Power utilities. Yes! They are forced to purchase high cost green power which they can then sell at high cost to consumers and make more money in the end.
News media. You betcha. There’s money to be made telling everyone the world is going to end. Nobody wins a Pulitzer prize for reporting that it is a nice day and nothing remarkable happened.
Oil and Gas companies. Yes! Coal is near 100% carbon so gets hit the hardest by emission controls. That capacity has to be replaced, and “green” can’t even come close, so the power generation companies turn to gas. That raises the price of gas, which makes oil more competitive in certain verticals.
Financial industry. Big winners, the more carbon trading there is, the more they get to skim off the top trading it.
Government. Huge winner. Now they have a tax they are being “forced into”. Perhaps the first ever example of a broadly popular tax.
That’s just off the top of my head, my point being that there is a very long list of people who benefit from playing the tune, even if inside their own heads they think it is way off key.
I ended up at this site, of my own free will.
May God help me, cus I’m now well informed 🙂
R. de Haan, well said.
There also is a perversion of word meanings. The prime example is “unprecedented”, the use of which by alarmists eliminates from consideration contrary facts that occurred prior to some usually vague, unspecified point in time. “Today’s warming is unprecedented”, but not stipulated, “since the end of the Little Ice Age” or, more accurately, “since the end of the 1930’s heat waves.” Or “sea level rise is unprecedented” (since the end of the Little Ice Age). “Ocean acidification is unprecedented” (since the Eemian interglacial 125,000 years ago). We learned what to expect in “1984”, and now we’re post-1984, and we’re getting it. “The past has no precedents, so the present is unprecedented.”
From the beginning the ipcc lied, if they told the truth none of this @ur momisugly#%&& foolishness would
Have seen the light of day. Money and power brought on by fear is the real story.
O,t. My town library is having a “climate reality global warming” talk hosted by ,drum roll please..
….”climate reality leadership corps”personally trained by Al bleebing gore. ….stay tuned. I will be there . Suggestions welcome
The only reason the “warmist/skeptic fight goes on and on” is because we have a free internet. The chances that this will continue if the internet is handed over to the UN (or any of its agencies) are slim to none.
The presence of a few good blogs has had an enhanced effect not explicable in terms of the billions which are spent on the propagation of AGW. I don’t understand it, when I consider the funding, status, and institutional weight behind the manipulation of science. The conversation will continue as long as there is freedom of speech, of expression, and the right to peaceably assemble. Other than that, what else do skeptics have but all that personal magnetism.
Slightly off topic to this thread, though on topic to several posts to this thread and others:
The claim that there is no rational, scientific basis for a belief in God is in itself an emotional claim, and it reveals that the claimer has not made a rational inquiry into the possibility of God.
But if a belief in God actually was irrational, believers would not be deterred by that claim.
So, save such claims for some other blog, please. I prefer not to read posts by those who don’t know what they are talking about.
SR
Konrad-
the past motivations as I describe them are the current motivations or I could not track this stuff going footnote to footnote having started in education. Tracking why the discrepancy between the declared goals and what was really going on.
Nice job Doug!
I see things a bit differently with respect to uncertainty that drives the debate. I think 4 is not enough.
On one side>
Funding
Ego
Ideology
Guilt
I can see the unimaginable thought clouds popping up in their heads over the last few years. Hint Josh?
On the other side >
Computational
Observational
Verificational ( is that a word?)
Documentational (¿)
Quit simple really 🙂
Steve Reddish: “The claim that there is no rational, scientific basis for a belief in God is in itself an emotional claim, and it reveals that the claimer has not made a rational inquiry into the possibility of God.”
Here’s some short-bus episemology for you. Let’s say my ex-wife exists and that she called me yesterday. Now take the list of commitments you need to make to accept that as true. Now ask me to demonstrate them for you.
I cannot, whether it is true or false. And that’s what prevents both extelology and godology from being disciplines in science. Though, if you’ll let me fake some things, we can get both in their on the same level of credibility of climatology.
The difference between bullshit and knowledge isn’t what’s true. It’s what you can lay down and demonstrate after having claimed that it’s true.
So after Chicken Little shouting “The sky is falling” for 3 decades, we should accept its delusions because it “could fall”.
The arguing goes on because an orchestrated litany of lies, has been propagated by a group of secular anti humanists, for purposes other than those they pretend to espouse.
I resent being imposed upon by weak mined do-gooders.
I argue regularly with an alarmist on a football site. His frothing denunciations are amusing. There’s no changing his mind though…