Josh writes:
I have been musing for some time about a way to show the range of sceptic views compared to non-sceptic views and I think I have come up with something simple that could be useful and fun.
Below is an example of a two part scale showing Science in one band going from Certainty to Uncertainty and a corresponding Policy band below showing policies that cost more or cost less. I have added some possible examples of ranges of opinion and people from around the climate blogosphere.
Click the images to get bigger versions.
As it is only an example, I may well have put people in the wrong place or got the ranges wrong – my apologies. Also let me know what improvements could be made and I will post new versions.
If you would like to print out your own version here is the scale on its own:
And here are some people:
Have fun and let me know what you think.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I suggest grafting Bastardi’s physique under Anthony’s face. Oh wait, that doesn’t sound right…
Not only that, but it’s a stupid misnomer. The “sky dragons” are the GHGs which we are supposed to fear. The group considers itself Slayers of the fear-mongers and hence of the Dragons.
On the scales, I’m a tiny tick from the far right-hand limit on both scales, btw.
Well, that made me chortle!
I think I’m somewhere near Judith Curry on that scale
– a weak & fearful, not as much warming as predicted position.
Not sure why anyone thinks that the Climate inherently can’t be predicted
– it just seems to me that the models are calibrated to run too hot, since factors such as the heat absorption in the Oceans have been ignored, and fudge-factors based on aerosols have been introduced in their place.
With “No Faith In Science” at one end, the other end might be “Complete Faith in Science”.
The problem is, if we are talking about proper science, then the Skeptic position is more aligned with the science while the Alarmist/Believer position is not.
On the other hand, if the key word is “faith”, then the Skeptic position is more aligned with “No Faith” while the Alarmist/Believer position is more “Complete Faith”.
I believe that the science isn’t settled and have complete faith that as we continue to apply proper science we will increase our knowledge.
Others have mentioned that Bjørn Lomborg should be rated. Cliff Mass should also be put in.
His blog today has a gem about communication.
“Moses Versus Joseph: A Biblical Lesson in Communication about Climate Change”
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/03/moses-versus-joseph-biblical-lesson-in.html
I have no faith in my fellow man, some of which so happen to practice science.. Why dont we model quantum physics to get an idea about the foundation that all this politics and greed are built upon..
Then we can talk of the infinity of possibilities that consciousness brings.. Matter only matters because we want it to matter.. If reality is there for our amusement its also safe to say that this intelligence (yes) is also self regulating.. There is no reason to believe its not.. How could something so complex as energy to matter because Im taking the time to look, be feeble enough not to filter out the idiots..
I think that would be the sky dragon you people speak of.. Relax its all a game 🙂
Some of the slaying the sky dragon people are among those who recognize the atmosphere operates according to ideal gas law, which to this day is not admitted on any blog of import worldwide.
There’s ideal gas law which the atmosphere operates by: the infrared cooling model of earth, where the infrared gases cool both the surface and, the nitrogen/oxygen bulk gases
and there’s the entire face of the earth who got boon swoggled into claiming the infrared gases warm the earth, in the ”infrared cooling model” which describes the planet.
People have told the entire world time and again, the infrared radiative gases are the ones that give the earth’s formal cooling model the name, ”infrared cooling model.”
It is the people who endorsed the infrared warming model who are constantly chirping about how popular they are, and not how right they are. Indeed everyone knows: the mainstream of climate science is junk.
I agree with John Whitman’s comments.
You left out Lord Monckton and his adversary Prof Moriarty aka Rajendra Pachauri….
Really interesting plot. It made me ponder a few things
When one draws the world in this way, do most people tend to put themselves in the “clear thinking middle” with the less enlightened off to either side? I think Josh’s plot fits this pattern and i must confess if i was to draw my own world map i would calibrate it with me somewhere to the left of Judith but very much in the middle. I notice some of the people who objected to their placement wanted the map to be re-centred on them. And fair enough. Maybe we all do. Do these maps say more about us as ego-centric humans than as depictions of the world?
I continue to wonder how the male/female dynamic, the young/old dynamic (and indeed the still in a position of power/retired dynamic) affect people’s world views and their response to all this. I don;t agree with everything Judith Curry says but i do wonder if her “female, c.60, still working” status is part of her “value” in the middle of things. So where would one put the average man or woman on this plot. And i note that if SKS are “boys”, is there an age thing here (i think Dana Nucetelli is 33). I am always interested in the theory that a human who is male, old, retired (and possibly an engineer!) will skew to the right on this chart.Anyone got any views?
Putting “science” in the middle of your plot, Josh, is a bit cheeky. Language is power, of course, and so good for you in claiming a word that comes from the latin for knowledge. But it does rather suggest that you sit at the peak of knowledge and people’s ignorance increases as they slope off to either side of you. A good cartoonish flourish, quite cheeky but not the most objective bit of labelling i have ever seen.
( PS I just looked up a spectrum i sketched last autumn. Sure enough i put myself in the middle. Sheesh, ego! For the record it went –
1. Guilty CAGW believers. Really fanatical. Often driven by anti-capitalist sentiment (and possible some sort of self-loathing thing as part of this?)
2. CAGWers. Quite a “man on the street” position. Many politicians. Think we should act now. The IPCC? Tendency to over claim on certainty.
3. AGWers. Its a big thing but not sure what should be done or how big a priority it is. A lot of politicians. Lots of scientists.
4. Bit worrieds. Think something’s up but then again who knows given what one reads? Large chunk of the populace.
5. Rational sceptics. Are trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. Do engage with the “other” side.
6. Professional deniers. “Denying” often serves identity needs or professional needs more than anythinge else. Don;t engage with other side but still debate within their own community.
7. Fundamental deniers. The mirror image of 1. above. Completely ossified beliefs with strong psychic needs to preserve these against all comers.)
If it wasn’t for the “certain” “uncertain” words Mann might fit on both ends.
Perhaps some should be stacked one above the other? To put them side-by-side appears to move one more to one extreme or the other than they may really be.
(I know, tough to communicate in a “cartoon” and it calls for a judgement but it is something to consider.)
Maybe instead of only individuals have a “plate” with groups of individual?