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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Konrad says:
November 14, 2013 at 4:37 pm
*
Konrad, that was an excellent comment. You are right, this thing is self-destructing. I sometimes forget that as the juggernaut thunders on. I particularly like your last paragraph:
“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.”
Thank you.
Gene Selkov says:
November 14, 2013 at 2:47 pm
“For example, the new “liberals” oppose liberty to the extent that a whole group of people who still think liberty is important is now forced to adopt a new name. They call themselves “libertarians”.”
The progressive socialists a.k.a. liberals are currently starting to co-opt the term “libertarian”. As they own the media this will succeed. It already has in Germany with the “pirate party”.
And you had that pseudo-libertarian vote-splitter against Cuccinelli in America. He’s on the record saying he’s sceptical about reducing taxes and all that von Mises stuff etc. i.e. a “liberal” plant.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/the-pirates-are-here/
“the arguments for CAGW are mere backups for other, anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, pro-nature beliefs”
Replace ‘pro-nature’ by ‘anti-human’. There is a subtle difference. The anti-human part is real, but the pro-nature part is only a romantic ideal for most.
Konrad says:
November 14, 2013 at 4:37 pm
“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. ”
They still run the USA and the EU and will take them down with them. That is, the parts that are still standing.
Steve Reddish says:
November 14, 2013 at 5:27 pm
“Slightly off topic to this thread, though on topic to several posts to this thread and others:
[…]
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.”
Unfortunately I can’t really decipher which “such claims” you mean; and whose comments you would not prefer to read, and who it is that you think does not know what he is talking about, and what that what is.
You could be right about this, Doug.
R. de Haan says:
November 14, 2013 at 3:13 pm
Exactly!!!! Look at some other scientific endeavors currently in progress. Can anyone exercise control over the masses if Cassini makes some kind of major discovery? If water is found on Mars will that change any economics or politics here on Earth? Do new theories about the galaxy cause any one or any group to demand social changes? It is when politics enters the fray that gives rise to such a great rift between sides of a debate. And that is because we all know that politics is the major influence on the world we live in and politics is based solely on ideology.
Unfortunately Dirk is right. Cagw is a runaway train. Co2 is considered to be pollution by the s.c.
Just got my blood levels checked. My co2 level is above normal. I kid you not. I think I have a fever
Terry Oldberg says:
November 14, 2013 at 3:51 pm
…
re: ‘equivocations’….
One of the worst ones is the term “climate change”. Climate change per se, is a change of climate. To the AGW crowd, ‘climate change’ is automatically man-made, so that they can instantly fabricate the ad hominem ‘climate change DENIER”, when in fact nobody is “denying” anything. To the warmist, however, a denier is ‘denying’ that change is human caused, while making it sound as though sceptics promote an unchanging world….when, in fact, it the AGW crowd that holds that premise dear. Constancy is paramount, for change is alarming. That this escapes most people is astounding. Not only is the ‘denier’ term ridiculous in its ongoing application, it accuses the sceptic of being ‘guilty’ of the warmist’s prime motivation, to seek a constant world based on some arbitrary climate baseline. Go figure.
….furthermore, the oft-uttered saw “climate change is REAL, and it’s happening NOW”…is held forth as some kind of astounding revelation that elevates the AGW-promoter to some new level of observational skill…when in fact, they say nothing of significance at all…
I’m skipping to the end and someone else may have posted in this topic, but….. The author of this has not seen the columns that appear in our local paper, and possibly elsewhere as well. This past Tuesday we saw: [carbon-based fuels] that are driving climate change
They will be critical players if global emissions are to be reduced enough to stave off runaway climate change.
No, some warmists are flat-out making statements. No conditionals.
Ian M
What makes the warmist-skeptic fight go on and on?
after all these years, WhyTF does WUWT showcase this nieve speculation as if we’re only just now ready to ask it?
Anyone with his eyes open asked and answered this question years ago. : The world elite rich have been pumping $bn/yr into the AGW religion for 30 years. The skeptics are the rational response to the religion.
No need for long rambling essay.
Shame that #1 science blog WUWT has so many posts that are rehashes.
An interesting post, thanks for brining it to my attention Anthony, and thanks Dug Proctor for taking the effort to take the thought-time to produce this.
I am not sure I understand you #2 reason, although I have also asked myself these questions. What we must ultimately be against are the ideologues. They do not waffle – theylie deliberately and out-rightly.
Good thoughtful post.
Language is politically charged. I raise this because I have a friend on Leyte and the phone is dead and I pray my friend is not. I raise this because the Philippine government failed almost as completely as a government could to protect its citizens from a natural disaster – warnings given too late, no construction of typhoon shelters in a region that is hit by twenty typhoons on average a year, the failure to mobilise adequately after the disaster and desperately traumatised people are starving. I raise this because in my community a pitifully small group of Filipinos and some Australians are trying to raise as much money or anything of value to help. And we keep ringing the dead phones. And then this –
http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/typhoon-haiyan-this-is-a-climate-crime-20131115-2xkif.htmlhttp://www.watoday.com.au/comment/typhoon-haiyan-this-is-a-climate-crime-20131115-2xkif.html
The corrupt and incompetent Filipino elite that has contributed so much through its neglect and venality to the deaths that were unnecessary and largely preventable engage in an immoral technique of blame shifting. The richly funded climate warming NGO’s are mobilised to provide diversion from the real criminals. A climate crime enters the discourse from the elite that on this very day are neglecting their people, who lie dead in the streets of a provincial capital. The rottenness of the warmist political strategy is now exposed. Functionaries of warmist NGO’s are paraded before the world’s media parroting the mantra of ” climate crime” . And there is no sense of shame. I raise this finally because the dead deserve better than to become a statistic in a tawdry propaganda exercise by those who basically care less about their suffering than their use value in a political campaign. I almost forgot. None of the prominent climate alarmists in our community have joined our pitiful efforts to help. They must be busy elsewhere.
James Sexton says:
November 14, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Very well said. As for “consensus,” we must always ask what specific hypotheses are included in the consensus. For example, what is the consensus on the “forcings and feedbacks calculation,” which has never been successfully resolved.
The CAWG activists/fanatics have created their own reality. Observations and analysis (in peer reviewed papers) that disproves CAWG is ignored or blocked from publication. Science and logic is on the side of the so called skeptics. CAWG has been disproved.
The CAWG activists, just as some politicians believe lies, suppression of data, ignoring of facts and analysis that disproves the cause, and name calling of critics is OK if it is supports the ‘cause’.
In addition to the CAWG activists, there are a host of profiteers and politicians that are using CAWG for their own agenda. The profiteers do not care about the environment or about the CAGW cause.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/20/if-things-continue-as-they-have-been-in-five-years-at-the-latest-we-will-need-to-acknowledge-that-something-is-fundamentally-wrong-with-our-climate-models/
Hans Van Storch: “There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”
The conversion of food to biofuel is causing a catastrophic loss of habitat. If that madness is not stopped there will either be food wars or starvation of undeveloped countries.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
The Clean Energy Scam – The U.S. quintupled its production of ethanol–ethyl alcohol, a fuel distilled from plant matter–in the past decade, and Washington has just mandated another fivefold increase in renewable fuels over the next decade. Europe has similarly aggressive biofuel mandates and subsidies, and Brazil’s filling stations no longer even offer plain gasoline. Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson and George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the Carlyle Group.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402
Biofuels ‘crime against humanity’ – Massive production of biofuels is “a crime against humanity” because of its impact on global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. “Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity,” UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural subsidies and to stop supporting only programs aimed at debt reduction. He says agriculture should also be subsidised in regions where it ensures the survival of local populations. Meanwhile, in response to a call by the IMF and World Bank over the weekend to a food crisis that is stoking violence and political instability, German Foreign Minister Peer Steinbrueck gave his tacit backing.
In the main scientists of whatever hue don’t say “shall” or “will” or “is” but choose less definitive words as they know that science is rarely settled. So “probably” or “it seems likely” or “the results suggest” are much more appropriate. You didn’t comment however on the mantra “the science is settled” of which AGW proponents are so fond and is of course as categorical as the “wills” and “shalls” etc used by those who are less convinced of AGW. In fact this mantra probably has had more of an adverse than a positive effect on scientists who are unsure of the ause of global warming
So what are we going to do about it?
“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. ”
Nah.
He leaves out the most important one: 0.) Evidential – which is separate fro computational. In climate, computational stems always from the science philosophy of the person(s) creating the formulae/equations. Their assumptions (ideology) determine what importance they assign to each and every term in every line of code. E.g., the climate sensitivity – because they assign high importance to what CO2 does in the atmosphere, the warmists assign a high value to climate sensitivity.
Thus computational is separate from evidence (raw tree ring data, raw measured instrument temps, raw ice core data, calibrated C14 dates, UAH satellite raw data, ARGO raw data, etc.), all of which are evidence BEFORE the ideology translated into computation.
I thought this would be 5 minutes I would never get back until I got to Calvin and Hobbes. Thank Gawd for Calvin and Hobbes!
A.D. Everard says:
November 14, 2013 at 6:09 pm
—————————————–
In your previous comment you wrote -“The fight must continue. This is not something we can meet in the middle ground about.”
This is a very important point. For most sceptics this has been a long hard war. I met Anthony Watts when he toured overseas some years back. I indicated that I believed sceptics would win. He was not so sure, and many sceptics today still see the problem as insurmountable. Everyone wants the war to end, but there is a danger in this. The fellow travellers are desperate to engineer a soft landing and some tired sceptics may be willing to allow it. But if we do, we are just putting a band-aid over a gangrenous wound in our democracy.
Sceptics have a social obligation not just to assault but assault through. The fight no longer needs to be carried by sceptics alone. The general public, angry at being deceived, will soon join the fray. We must arm them our greatest weapon, with the permanent Internet record of the of the actions of the AGW fellow travellers.
The collapse of AGW offers not just the opportunity to destroy the current crop of parasites, it can also be a teachable moment that vaccinates our democracy against future infection.
Sceptics control the true record of the AGW inanity, not the complicit lame stream media. “Unchristian” as it may sound we have an obligation to ensure the social and political destruction of every AGW fellow traveller. If we do not, future generations will suffer continued attacks on science and democracy.
“The warmists use conditionals, i.e. words like “could” or “should” or “may” or “might””
As IBM taught in the 60’s, FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is the most powerful sales tool. Powerful tools are essential to sell nonsense.
Mike Bromley the Kurd:
Thanks for sharing your example of the equivocation fallacy in action. Unfortunately, applications of this fallacy often succeed in deceiving people. In global warming climatology, a result from this phenomenon is what Dr. Vincent Gray calls “The Triumph of Doublespeak” in a paper of the same name ( http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=483&Itemid=32 ). “Doublespeak” is a synonym for “equivocation.” To prevail in the debate over governemental policy on CO2 emissions, proponents of reason must successfully combat doublespeak aka equivocation. This end can be pursued through insistence upon disambiguation of terms in the language in which this debate is conducted.
Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.
~Leo Tolstoy
Robin nailed it:
This is not to say that those at the top actually believe in Marxism. What they believe in is power and enslaving their fellow man. Marxism is just a useful tool like CAGW,