Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Salon writer Paul Rosenberg has created a gem of an article in which he claims, that the right direction in which to accept climate risks is “180 degrees away from where so-called “common sense” would take you.”
The strange thing is Rosenberg argues this is a good thing – that only by rejecting so called “common sense” can you orient in the “right direction”, to understand and appreciate Lewandowsky’s argument about uncertainty and risk.
As far as I can tell from reading his article, “deniers” are apparently winning the battle for public opinion, because most people can’t perform this impressive feat of mental gymnastics. Only special people (I assume Rosenberg means the sort of people who regularly read his articles), people who understand and appreciate Lewandowsky, can attain the required mental flexibility to utterly reject common sense. Or something like that.
I’m looking forward to Rosenberg writing an article on why black is white, why you should throw a pinch of salt over your shoulder whenever a witch gives you the eye, and why we don’t need all those stinkin observations to do model based science.
Full article:
It seems that they are very good at going a 180 away from common sense.
How about this load of tosh from the same source?
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/18/7_ways_to_shut_down_a_climate_change_denier_partner/
Then perhaps Mr. Rosenberg can answer this question: If the signature for Global Warming is more snow and cold–like what’s showing up in the northern NV and Idaho right now, the end of April!–then what’s the signature for Global Cooling?
We are at war with Eurasia……we have always been at war with Eurasia
Ian Bach says:
April 26, 2014 at 9:53 pm
“SOO WRONG…”
I vote to make Ian the head of the new climate skeptic organization.
Now he was making some common cents.
I think he just penned the first PR.
I couldn’t believe what I was reading in the comments section of that article. I had to turn off my screen because there was so much bile, venom and spittle hitting my face. I washed my face and posted this comment. I’m not going to that website again and anyone who suggests I should is a cruel, vile person
The strange thing is Rosenberg argues this is a good thing – that only by rejecting so called “common sense” can you orient in the “right direction”, to understand and appreciate Lewandowsky’s argument about uncertainty and risk.
Clearly, emphatically, metaphorically, and realistically. rejection of facts, data, solid analyses and common sense is not the ‘right’ direction. It is the left direction. It serves the left socialist democrat agenda…… so it is a ‘good thing’. Just ask Mr Rosenberg. He’ll tell you…..
policycritic
Then perhaps Mr. Rosenberg can answer this question: If the signature for Global Warming is more snow and cold–like what’s showing up in the northern NV and Idaho right now, the end of April!–then what’s the signature for Global Cooling?
More snow and cold of course, or abnormally hot weather, or suspiciously normal weather. Once you do the 180 degrees from common sense, and realise that any uncertainty whatsoever is a reason to panic, especially if you don’t know anything about the area of uncertainty, I am sure it will all be clear :-).
“Using that approach we showed that as uncertainty in the temperature increase expected with a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels rises, so do the economic damages of increased climate change,” Lewandowsky continued. “Greater uncertainty also increases the likelihood of exceeding ‘safe’ temperature limits and the probability of failing to reach mitigation targets. Likewise, in the context of sea level rise, larger uncertainty requires greater precautionary action to manage flood risk.”
Phew! Good thing the science is settled now and there’s no uncertainty anymore!
I shall sleep soundly in my bed tonight.
Ian Bach says:
April 26, 2014 at 10:00 pm
drunken math is bad thing why i dont drink often
Ian,
This AGW stooooopidity makes me want to drink to excess as well.
Mac
“They [Oreskes & Lewandowksy] are currently working together on a paper on the effects of denial on the scientific community …”
==================================================
Blair’s Law coined by Australian journalist Tim Blair:
“the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force”.
It’s settled science.
Says volumes about alarmists, doesn’t it? 😉
I hereby take the CCC pledge to increase my fossil fuel usage year over year. 🙂
I have spent over 2 decades working in the energy industry where my bread and butter job involves day after day analysis of risk vs. reward vs uncertainty. I know this subject matter and yet I only managed to read about 30% of that article before I just switched off. It is psuedo-intellectual garbage. Classic ploy …… just keep twisting words and concepts until everyone is utterly confused and make out you are so clever because everyone else is somehow so stupid. Intelligence is demonstrated by the ability to take something complicated and make it simple, not by taking something simple and making it complicated.
And yet the author somehow manages to title this masterpiece of obfuscaton “The twisted psychology that overwhelms scientific consensus” . The irony is inescapable.
The more the data goes against them, the more imaginative they have to be. What else do they have left but their imagination. I just keep waiting for any of their projections to be right. This is not a good time for warmists.
This article along with the one with on the IPCC as a political devise may finally convince any denier doubters the alarmist are not nuts, not stupid, etc. They’re just extremely dedicated to pushing their agenda using the methods honed over the last century. I.E. fear, crisis, spin and any means necessary. Their road always lead to totalitatianism
Out and out lies may start becoming very common (e.g., ‘…you can keep your plan’). Any means necessary.
It almost seems, imho, Paul Rosenberg’s article is a good introduction to the imposition of Newspeak. Oh, and it also explains why they’ve been pushing “it takes a village”, “pre-pre-kindergarten”, and common core. I’m betting their Big Brother will hold the title of Secretary-General.
@Christopher Hanley
“They [Oreskes & Lewandowksy] are currently working together on a paper on the effects of denial on the scientific community …”
Look after them! They are an exceptionally good resource for our side!
I am reminded of a large war about 70 years ago, when the UK were considering assassinating the political leader of their enemy, who had also appointed himself Supreme Military commander. In the end they did not, since his incompetence was assisting them materially in the war. The same situation applies.
I suggest setting up a fund to keep these people producing ‘scientific’ papers.
Methinks the reason the “deniers” are winning is because “writer/activist” clowns like Paul Rosenberg and obsessed psychobabblers like La Lewny keep butting in with their counterproductive drivel. Coming on top of a foundation of fraud like the Hockey Stick and ‘hiding the decline’ it’s like kicking an own goal then calling the crowd names for laughing and booing. It’s not what you expect for your ticket price but at least you are witness to the whole ridiculous carry on.
The entire thing is reminding me of the WIzard of Oz, when they finally get to meet the ‘Wizard.’ “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!”
I would enjoy watching these people twist in the winds of Climate Fury as facts ultimately neutralize this caustic cause. Unfortunately their rantings are not blithering soliloquies in an empty theatre, and I do not possess the soaring intellect needed to ignore them. So it takes it’s toll.
I would enjoy watching these people twist in the winds of Climate Fury as facts ultimately neutralize this caustic cause. Unfortunately their rantings are not blithering soliloquies in an empty theatre, and I do not possess the soaring intellect needed to ignore them. So it takes it’s toll.
Of course the CAGW people must argue going against common sense. How else would they convince people and nations to commit economic suicide?
The guy really can’t think straight. I quote: “uncertainty implies that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty” That is one of the most nonsensical sentences about uncertainty that I’ve read all year.
Only ‘special’ people … can attain the required mental flexibility to utterly reject common sense. They cite Lewandowsky, Hayhoe, Nuccitelli and Oreskes.
Your not wrong.
Rosenberg: “the scientific community … no longer mistakenly assume that the facts can “speak for themselves,”
Ummm, he means facts like ‘despite an almost exponential increase in co2 there has been little to no warming over the last 20 years’.
Yup, wouldn’t want /that/ fact speaking for itself!