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.
Zeke says: @ur momisugly November 14, 2013 at 5:24 pm
The only reason the “warmist/skeptic fight goes on and on” is because we have a free internet…
The conversation will continue as long as there is freedom of speech, of expression, and the right to peaceably assemble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unfortunately in the USA Congress just killed the “right to peaceably assemble” link and they are working hard to kill the freedom of speech (try using the N-word) and freedom of expression. If you are passionate about anything besides sports you may find yourself on the DHS Terrorist Watch List.
The Department of Defense is now labeling patriots and our Founding Fathers as extremists, I kid you not.
FOIA document obtained from the Department of Defense entitled: AFSS 0910 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT INCIDENTS (EOTI) LESSON PLAN
The ‘Right’ is not the only group labeled extremist.
I guess the only Americans not listed as ‘Extremists’ by the government are the brain-dead couch potatoes.
john robertson says: @ur momisugly November 14, 2013 at 5:45 pm
… 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is not the “weak mined do-gooders” that bother me, it is the power hungry, money grubbing sociopaths and their endless ranks of bureaucrats that scare me to death.
Toto says: @ur momisugly November 14, 2013 at 6:29 pm
…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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The pro-nature propaganda is tossed in to rope in the useful idiots. Unfortunately they are legion.
Doug, I’d be interested in your take on noble cause corruption related to each. I often wonder if this is the impenetrable membrane through which knowledge osmosis does not seem to occur.
For example. In 1987 I met one of the best chemists I have ever known. We were working on cleaning up a huge liquid hydrocarbon pool floating on the aquifer beneath a large oil refinery. Her work on QA/QC was exemplary. She could see anomalies in the most esoteric of laboratory reports that won her an award from the EPA. Good luck sliding something past her! That was before she went off for her PhD (in some aspect of atmospherics) and til I got back from a sojourn cleaning up toxic sites in Australia in the early ’90’s.
Today, when we discuss the AGW subjects, I get authority (she does not understand this when I try to explain it to her) such as so-and-so says this or that. I reply with emails ripe with annotated figures, quotations from papers, attaching the papers themselves. Documenting that whatever is prognosticated to happen from AGW pales in significance to what has actually already occurred (in the paleo record) that it begs credibility to even think you could detect it at an end extreme interglacial.
Detection limits of a great variety were a huge part of how she would slay shoddy laboratory analytical data and the shoddy interpretations others had drawn from it. I was quite impressed. Which is why I was shocked when it didn’t get through that the IPCC’s AR4 worst case scenario for sea level rise by 2099 was +0.59M amsl, which is less than 10% of the least case estimate of sea level rise at the second thermal pulse at the end of the last extreme interglacial, which is +6.0M amsl, and just over 1% of the worst case estimate of +52M amsl.
The shock would be if the anthropogenic signal could somehow be detected at all if the envelope of natural climate noise was 10 to 100 times (1 to 2 orders of magnitude) greater than the very best “anthropogenic signal” from the worst case AR4 upper error bar scenario. It was a complete reversal of her former logic as a forensic environmental chemist. “Now” a “signal” can apparently be presumed to be something as dreadful as 1%-10% of the background noise, in order to be considered not just important but critical! Again, I was impressed, but not positively this time.
When I consider noble cause corruption I am often struck by two rather empirical thoughts. It took us about a million years (from roughly 2.8 to 1.8 or so million years ago) to go from cutting just one sharp-edge per rock (single-variable processing) to two (first multi-tasking anyone??), setting off the Acheulian tool period. It took us almost twice that long to go from two sharp edges to cooking metals out of rocks (from about 1.8 MA to mid-Holocene), setting off the various metal ages (iron, bronze etc.). Which was what, some 5,000 years ago or so? Given whatever human speciation/generations that represents, how many have actually moved beyond one or two variables? Or, how many variables can each of us now juggle at one time? Doesn’t noble cause corruption limit the number of variables one can juggle? How many realize the number of operations, variables checked etc. are involved in posting a simple or complex comment here? If there is only a single variable to process (CO2), what in the world happened at the end-Eemian, end-Holsteinian (MIS-11 and D-O events)?
The second thought regards when do we plunk down, and how can that be corrupted? How is it possible for a hominid supremely well-versed in deeply scientific analytical logic (plunked down) to not only be reprogrammed to espouse the opposing argument (re-plunked down), but also be impervious to the most simplistic of analytical logic such as signal to noise ratio (SNR)?
For me the answer came in the mid 1970s as what I came to call “The Nine-Times Rule”, that the human being is nine times more susceptible to rumor than it is to fact. From a paper we debated at some length in a graduate course in psychology. Recent confirmation is to be had here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3931.pdf
If 90% of us can be permanently switched by just 10% salespeople then, supposedly, you should be able to keep your climate if you like it. Period. If you like your climate (witch-)doctor you can keep him/her. Period. Only cavemen remember the ice ages and witches that caused them. It is merely a question of mental osmosis across a permeable, or less, cortex. If CO2 is not the heat-trapping “thermostat” it is prognosticated to be, then what do you have in mind for the next, and likely imminent, glacial inception? If CO2 is the heat-trapping “thermostat” it is made out to be, would you recommend removing it from the late Holocene atmosphere so as to not impede onset of the next glacial? In any case, how long will the Holocene last? (Please, no one quote Loutre and Berger 2002/2003 again, that was put to rest by http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf last decade.)
Without CO2 will MIS-1 turn out to be like MIS-11? If not, could we force it with CO2? Could we force it with anything else? Or would you prefer the next glacial regardless?
That can be boiled down to just one question/variable for the “let me be perfectly clear” amongst us:
Would you like fries with your future climate?
Or would you “rather fight than switch” (Tarleton’s cigarettes) the next inevitable glacial inception in some other, perhaps more savvy way?
And on and on……..
FIGHTING out of the red corner in The UFC (Ultimate Fungible Climate) Heavyweight Division is:
The Late Eemian Aridity Pulse (LEAP) (the interglacial which preceded the Holocene interglacial) Sirocko, et al, 2005 (“A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception”, nature, vol. 436, 11 August 2005, http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdfdoi:10.1038/nature03905, pp 833-836.):
“Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..”
“The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
FIGHTING out of the blue corner is the mannly, season 2009 pre-Climategate champion, a mixed mutational arts (MMA) geo-jitsu practitioner hailing from Penn State (well, maybe we better not go into all of that….), with a professional record of but just a few disclosures, massive lower-thinking knockouts, and no draws (well, there was no data sooooo….).
After 17 years we go to the judges for a decision………
Judge El Nino de Pacifico scores it 1998 no contest.
Judges AMDO and PDO score it 34/30 years positive modes et al since 1979.
Judge SOL was conflicted-out due to possibly pernicious, but not too spotty, peak non-engagements.
So by split-decision that’s the way it is near the end of year 11,716 since the end of the Younger-Dryas cold interval.
Go Genus Homo! MIS-1. Somehow. Forever! ……….and on and on and on
Let whatever climate FIGHT there is LEFT begin……..
meemoe_uk says: @ur momisugly November 14, 2013 at 7:17 pm
…Shame that #1 science blog WUWT has so many posts that are rehashes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are many who are new to this blog so “rehashes’ are not unwelcome. There is also new data available on old topics or new insights from these new people.
DO not forget there are many many people who read WUWT who never comment and getting information out to them is a priority.
William Astley says: …. Biofuel….
There is more damage being done than most people realize.
The vast majority of biofuels in the US are generated from corn.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12039&page=10
Huge amounts of western water is used to irrigate corn for biofuels.
http://www.coloradocorn.com/resources/ethanol-biofuels
Corn is a heavy feeder and requires fertile, well-drained soil. In other words it is a major drain on the soil.
And then there is erosion.
WUWT is on a roll. These two posts above and Willis’ excellent post about fishing in the Salomon Islands a day or so ago. I have long stopped wondering why I come here everyday.
Watch as it gets closer to January budget battle, Gail, we’re sure to see much more of the extremist show. They’re ‘smelling blood’ this time and with the approaching mid-terms this could even be even worse than last. They have the memory of a fruit gnat and run around all impatient, like they only have a short time on this planet to get their mission accomplished… and then run go get dressed up for the Fox News book promotion scam. 🙂
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:
It would have been better wording for me to have said “several posts to this blog”, as I did not mean I was referring to several posts to this thread alone.
DirkH says:
November 14, 2013 at 6:36 pm
Dirk, By “such claims” I meant “The claim that there is no rational, scientific basis for a belief in God…”
I brought my comment to this thread because it has posts on the subject of people holding a position on CAGW based upon emotion, not reason. As I have seen posts making “such claims” (of no rational, scientific basis for God) occasionally on this blog I thought this would be an appropriate time to note that “such claims” were actually based on emotion not reason, as there clearly are rational and scientific reasons for believing in God.
I also wanted to note that “such claims” were off topic for this blog, not just this thread.
Jquip says:
November 14, 2013 at 5:44 pm
Jquip, you have presented a philosophical, and therefore rational, argument as to why God cannot be proven scientifically. While I was not claiming that God could be proven scientifically, In making your argument, you accept the possibility of a rational argument for God. I was referring only to those who claim that there is no rational basis for believing in God.
Lest you think when I say that I did not claim that God can be proven scientifically, that I am backpedaling from my statements that belief in God is consistent with science, consider that Plato (One of the first to philosophise on teleology) cannot be scientifically proven to have existed either, yet it is not anti-science to believe he did exist.
But I do not wish to tie up this thread any further with this off topic subject. If you wish to continue, reach me via my yahoo email at stevereddish
It seems to me that the whole of this argument is predicated on two camps: “warmists” and “sceptics”. IMHO the most important aspect is the huge number of people who could not care less either way.
In our French conversation lesson the other morning, we were discussing an article on the “transition écologique”, i.e. stopping the use of carbon-based fuels. Our neighbour who takes the lesson was clearly fully on board with the “fact” that carbon causes global warming and its use as a fuel must be stopped to save the planet. She was quite surprised when I said that I did not believe that was the case. Although there are other environmental issues which I think are important, carbon dioxide was not one of them.
As an intelligent woman not particularly interested in climate, she has been immersed in the (mis-) information provided by media of all types and accepts the “message”. The “passive co-conspiracy” mentioned earlier in the comments is the biggest threat to this nonsense not going away. It’s all to do with the vast numbers of people who are not that interested. Fortunately, the wide-ranging consequences of the inexorable rise in the cost of energy will eventually force the “not-interested” to become interested. So perhaps loony energy legislation, rather than static temperatures, will be the trigger and provide the unintended consequence of ending this swindle.
Those who read and comment on this blog probably feel comfortable in the company of like-minded souls (spiced up with the occasional contrary opinion). We are a tiny minority. The vast numbers out there simply do not care. The only way that they will care is when a link between the stupidity of the policies and their standard of living is clearly established.
In response to:
“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 course of action that Greenpeace, the green parties, and CAGW activists are advocating – limiting CO2 emissions and massive investments in green scams – will not work (will not stop climate change as the climate change was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes and the majority of the CO2 increase was caused by CO2 released from the deep ocean when the planet warmed not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions and regardless the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing change so there is no CAGW problem to solve) and will (has damaged) damage, not protected the environment.
For example green peace and the green parties are ideologically fanatically anti-nuclear. They inherited that ideology. To be ‘green’ is to hate nuclear power, to hate companies, to hate development, and so on. Anti defines the cause, the ideology. The anti is a given, accepted without thought when one joins the movement. The followers accept the ‘ideology’ as a given, they do not form or change the ideology. The ideology is pasted on unchanged, from generation to generation. It is independent of facts and logic. The ‘green’ movement has failed.
William: I would highly recommend a read through this analysis.
The Death of Environmentalism – Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World, By Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf
A number of prominent environmentalists (see film Pandora’s promise) and CAGW advocates (for example James Hansen) are now advocating the support of fourth generation nuclear power which uses 99.5% of the fission energy of uranium rather than 3% of the energy of uranium. Facts and analysis have changed their minds. The US developed a prototype working fourth generation reactor in 1986. It is a failsafe design: It shutdown when running at full power on complete loss of power (tested at full power)/on complete loss of coolant (tested at full power), the fourth generation reactor reduces nuclear waste by a factor of a 100, leaves only short life nuclear waste, is a factor of 30 times more efficient, and so on.
An efficient compact effective source of energy is a tool that is useful, regardless of the political party in power.
Ian L. McQueen says: I’m skipping to the end and someone else may have posted in this topic, but….. No, some warmists are flat-out making statements. No conditionals.
This article is not helpful. I was actually explaining to a pro-IPCC person yesterday that their language was not appropriate to a scientist and now we have a whole article criticising the appropriate scientific use of caution.
Indeed, I’ve spent two days having pro-IPCC people saying “it is” “it does” “it will” when it was nothing of the sort.
Saying thing “are true” is what politicians do … because they gamble they can get away with it.
saying things “maybe true … if this and if that” is what a proper scientist says. This because a proper scientist is always open to the possibility that new evidence will come along which will require them to change their interpretation. So science is never settled.
And a very good example of this came up in the recent Salby lecture in Edinburgh.
Take e.g. the IPCC statements:
“All these increases [in CO2 from pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity”
and
“The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be caused by human activities because the character of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon.” (IPCC AR4)
There are no conditions in these
But as Salby demonstrates (finding 9) and in his words “this is impossible”.
Contrast this to how Salby (or perhaps it was me) phrases his finding on Carbon 13:
“Carbon 13 is not a fingerprint of human emissions. Instead its production (at least in part) relates to surface conditions.” (finding 7)
This is the hallmark of a real scientist. The key here, is that Salby unlike the pro-IPCC people is careful not to say “the production of carbon 13 (the supposed fingerprint of humanity on atmospheric CO2) is due to surface conditions”. Instead he says “is due … at least in part”. And he says this, although none of the evidence (at least in his presentation) shows otherwise. Even though he does not have anything to show the human fingerprint, he properly allows for the possibility it may be found after further investigation.
Caution is the mark of a true sceptic
OK the science is uncertain
but the proponents are not they are 100% certain
– hence their emphatic green drama queening
– Catastrophe will come
– CO2 only has negative effects
– The heat has been proven to be hiding in the oceans and the temps have been proven to be rising
– This week’s weather event was caused by global warming
– and in their minds not only is everything certain, also everything is “more that ever” e.g. temperatures/ocean acidification/Arctic de-icing etc. are all changing faster than ever (in their minds)
– Note that it is a common rhetorical tricks among reporters and Greenpeace PR people to couch climate stories in conditional terms so that a LIE of certainty is created in the mind off the reader.
e.g. Harrabin’s “I could not find a single scientist in the Climate field”, beomes “there are no scientists experienced in the Climate field who are sceptical of large parts of IPCC science.”
Gail Combs: “The only reason the “warmist/skeptic fight goes on and on” is because we have a free internet…”
I think what we are seeing in climate may be typical of a wider “trade union” culture in academia. There is very much a closed shop mentality of 1970s trade unionists, that some work “belongs” to people and that no one else is allowed to do it. So “climate science” is seen as something that only academics are allowed to have views on. You can’t work on “our” subject unless you are one of “us”. We also find the attitude of like a trade union closed shop that: “anyone who questions the credibility of one of us, questions the credibility of us all … and therefore we will all attack back”.
In the past, this academic closed shop was not a problem – it may even have been helpful. It was possible because the discourse was held in academic journals and/or one needed expensive scientific equipment to obtain the necessary data on which to work. If there were outsiders, they were underfunded and easily dismissed.
Climate is different. Because there is very little real data, that which there has been has worked its way into the public domain and the internet has then made it readily accessible. Also, the environmentalists used the internet to make it popular (example Wikipedia). So, unlike many academic subjects this took off in the internet … at first the internet was the tool used to overwhelmingly dominate the argument to support the scare.
But paradoxically it is now the internet that has made it perfectly feasible for anyone with a PC to do climate research and then to get their research published on-line (like here) … without ever having to submit it to the academic closed shop. WUWT is still peer reviewed … but unlike in the past, the academic closed shop cannot dictate what can and cannot be published.
This is a fundamental shift in power in this subject away from academia.
So, yes the internet is responsible, but only because it has allowed us sceptics to bypass the academic closed shop. As one might expect, this has not been exactly welcomed by academia. This probably explains the way so many apparently sensible academics have had a knee jerk reaction against the reasonable arguments of sceptics. The “consensus” is not about science but about who whether the closed shop of academia has the right to do climate research and be the credible source of information.
But, the internet is here to stay. Academia cannot change the internet, so it is academia that has to change not us. They will get over it when they realise that the world outside academia has changed for the better.
on another thread
DrJohnGalan says:
November 15, 2013 at 12:53 am
… IMHO the most important aspect is the huge number of people who could not care less either way.
….So perhaps loony energy legislation, rather than static temperatures, will be the trigger and provide the unintended consequence of ending this swindle.
……The only way that they will care is when a link between the stupidity of the policies and their standard of living is clearly established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think you are correct. No one cared about the fractional reserve fraud that has been slowly moving the wealth of the poor and middle class into the hands of the elite for the last hundred years until the Forclosuregate and the huge bank bailouts. Then all of a sudden we got the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street and everyone was interested in how the banking system actually worked. Of course it hasn’t really mattered and the same parasites are still in charge in D.C. because we have no viable third party as the post on Ken Cuccinelli loss showed.
Alarmists use disputes among the skeptics – a natural “healthy” exchange of views – normal operation mode of science …
“… consensus …”, “… the leading scientists …”
– It’s the most important “final” (when lacking scientific) arguments alarmists
… let’s cite of my favorite paper:
„Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock …”
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research
“The academy is, after all, a club, and members are expected to be discreet. Like any exclusive club, the academic world fears public scrutiny. ”
—Richard Wisniewski, “The Averted Gaze”
“The thousand profound scholars may have failed, first, because they were scholars, secondly, because they were profound, and thirdly, because they were a thousand.”
—Edgar Allan Poe, “The Rationale of Verse”
„Stanley Rothman, Robert Lichter, and Neil Nevitte (2005) provide evidence that conservative scholars hold less academically prestigious positions than their peers…”
That’s why alarmists, unfortunately, have the power – control … And they want “build” us another new – old version of authoritarianism. As usual, they say: “In the name of humanity happiness” “save the planet” – not MAN but “planet”, “humanity” …
“Above all, hatred of the human animal must stop.” – full agreement, it is the most important.
Toto posted above:
““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.”
I was going to make exactly the same point. Thanks for beating me to it.
Human activity cannot be separated from nature. We exist within nature and as part of it, and are incapable of acting ‘unnaturally’.
I think it’s a lot simpler: a lot of people found a way to make money from the CAGW confrontation, on both sides of the fence.
For reasons of ego, laziness, economic necessity or simple lack of alternatives enough of them refuse to back off, so the fight goes on.
What makes the fight go on? Well it has nothing to do with science but everything to do with self-preservation.
Too many people and too many organisations have nailed themselves to their “incontrovertible settled gold standard climate science” cross.
If they were to now even suggest that maybe they were wrong about their CO2/greenhouse effect supposition on man-made global warming, the implications and consequences for them would be catastrophic. Reputations, careers, and their credibility would end up in ruins. The legal implications for them, alone, would be devastating.
That is why they really have no other option but to continue with the deceit and fraud.
The whole bloody lot of them should face criminal charges for knowingly engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct, and for bringing the field of climate science into disrepute.
When someone says “smoking causes cancer”, this is both a true and false statement, depending on how you view the question. Not everyone that smokes develops cancer, which makes the statement is false. People that smoke have an increased risk of cancer, which makes the statement true. Thus one can argue both sides of the question and be correct.
What applies to “smoking” applies equally to AGW. The question is both true and false at the same time, because the future itself is not deterministic. Both A and B are true and false in the future, and only when you arrive at the future can you establish that A is true and B is false.
This flies in the face of common sense, that tells us the universe is a 19th century clockwork mechanism, but it is the only conclusion that permits free will and self-determination. If the universe was truly a clockwork mechanism, then the future is truly written and all our decisions and actions were determined at the birth of the first ancestral universe, or before.
the notion that science can be used as an authority to answer “true” or “false” questions is an abuse of science. science is a methodology by which we discover “false”. however, science cannot discover “true” because of the unknown. what we believe true today may be shown to be false tomorrow, repeated on to infinity. the modern practice of casting science in the role of authority has led to a rash of false beliefs, no different than casting the church in the same role centuries before.
Scottish Sceptic: “Carbon 13 is not a fingerprint of human emissions. Instead its production (at least in part) relates to surface conditions.”(finding 7)
“is not” doesn’t sound very conditional to me. So you pointed out one conditional statement (“relates”), and assumed that the entire argument is conditional? You are not being objective.
ferd berple says at November 15, 2013 at 7:24 am…
While I get what you mean – that science is a tool to determine falsehood – I think you go too far when you say
It is quite reasonable to make practical decisions on incomplete evidence.
If you’ve never been to Australia you may choose to think all those who claim to have been there are delusional and that the pictures are fake as you have no direct evidence for Australia yourself. Such a judgement (extreme scepticism) is justifiable as you can’t prove truth.
Probably.
But is that the best strategy? Alternatively you could make a “leap of faith” and say that it seems reasonable to act as though Australia is real.
Likewise, practical belief in AGW is not inherently irrational.
Empirically irrational, maybe, but not necessarily beyond the wit of a reasonable man.
It seems to me that the general tone of this thread is that the argument continues because “they are wrong and we are right” or “they use belief and we use logic”. This kind of thinking is certainly contributing to the lack of civil discussion. I believe another reason is that extreme positions are wrongly deemed representative of both sides (skeptics reject the greenhouse effect, alarmists think every storm is proof of AGW). Attacking these extreme minority points does nothing for the core debate.
I think the reality of the situation is that the debate cannot end for another 50 years at least. Climate is something that varies on decadal and longer timescales. It will be very difficult to conclusively prove or disprove the impacts of any forcings in less than a century of data.