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:
This salon writer is fully indoctrinated in the cult of CAGW. Using terms like denier will only backfire on these Trotskyites. Another reason why I refuse to play into their attempt at controlling the narrative, by calling CAGW by its proper name of global warming and not climate change.
“This is shown to be wrong by our analysis, because uncertainty can never be too great for action.”
On the contrary, when uncertainty is great, the only wise action is based on what little we are certain about. Take the stock market for example. Uncertainty is very great about the value of any stock or small group of stocks 10 years from now. So what action is prudent? The gradual purchase of a highly diversified portfolio of investments, because that action has been shown to be the most rewarding no matter how ‘uncertain’ the future of any given market is. One would have to be an idiot to argue that we should invest all of our money in the Acme Corporation because it has the most ‘uncertain’ future.
In the face of great uncertainty, it is a fool who acts on what is unknown. It is a wise man who acts on what little is known and seeks to know more. Right now, we know that increasing CO2 is having little impact on global climate and that little impact is almost all positive. Lewandosky’s argument would require that we take action to prevent both catastrophic global warming AND catastrophic global cooling, because the uncertainty is high for both of them. Even more, we must take immediate action to safe guard us against all possible negative outcomes, especially the ones that have the most uncertainty, like giant asteroids, alien invasions, a zombie apocalypse, the Yellowstone Caldera and your mother-in-law coming to live with you, to name just a few of the uncertain possibilities.
” On the contrary, uncertainty implies that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty.” (Isn’t this a definition of paranoia?)
Let’s test this argument using the weather. The further into the future we go, the more uncertain we are about the coming weather. Does this fact alone mean that the coming weather is more likely to be worse than the current to near term weather, simply because we are less certain about it? Obviously not! In fact, the weather could not care less about our certainty in it, and the same goes for the climate! Furthermore, this argument implies that the weather is more benign now than 200 years ago because we are better able to predict (we are more certain) what it will be in the days ahead! Lewandowsky’s argument suggests that all we really need to do to avoid catastrophic global warming is become more certain about our climate forecasts. If ‘uncertainty’ implies that it will be worse than expected, than ‘certainty’ implies that it will be better than expected! Right?
The Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland has come to life, and he publishes in scientific journals about climate change.
Rosenburg couldn’t beat his way out of a wet paper bag.. Roesnburg is parroting the insurance companies profit song of uncertainty about major catastrophic damage coming SOON! All while they are statistically clearly declining for now.. as they make their rates skyrocket.
I wonder who his big money contributors are and how much he is being paid by to produce his swill..
I even think we even have to review the hypothesis claiming fossil fuels are not renewable in the first place. I suspect that hydrocarbon fuel especially natural gas are regenerated faster than first thought. Basically by converting from wood fuel to coal and from pastureland (don’t need as many horses) back to forest we are creating a natural global sink for CO2 and creatin of future hydrocarbons.
If deniers are winning, why is it that the US government is taking actions to shut down so many coal plants, and make it economically impossible to build new ones? Natural gas, thank goodness, is quite low in price these days, due to tracking. But ten years, twenty years from now? Who knows?
When natural gas gets back to prices seen in 2005-2007, we won’t have the coal plants to generate electricity in their place, and electricity prices will be substantially higher than they would have been.
Meanwhile, of course, US CO2 emissions are an ever-shrinking percentage of world wide emissions, as China (especially) and India grow their emissions. Look at the first graphic here:
http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2012/12/climate-change-strategies-including.html
In 2002, the US emitted about 50% more CO2 than did China; by 2011, China’s CO2 emissions were almost double those of the US, and Chinese CO2 emissions are still growing very fast.
Here is an International Energy Agency presentation on energy use and growth for the next couple of decades:
http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/conf_WEO2013_Birol_v20140227ok.pdf
Winning doesn’t necessarily mean putting legitimate doubts about warmist alarmist into the public mind. It also has to do with policies that usually end up irreversible.
ArnoldG says:
April 27, 2014 at 5:39 am
Maybe somebody can explain to me why we regards [Cook and/or Lewandowsky] as worthy of attention, since he neither does any work on climate nor was he high-profile. In my opinion this man is a non-issue and a detractor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The reason these people get our attention is they engage in absolutely ruinous activity: annual spending on global warming research & remediation of the non-existent problem is estimated at $350,000,000,000 (0.5% of world GDP), AND THEY PROPOSE TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE SPENDING.
This money (mostly tax dollars) could be much more productively spent solving real problems (starvation, malaria, etc). It currently generates a huge wave of global warming pseudo-science – sort of like replacing cosmology with astrology.
The historical mechanism for controlling academic & scientific bovine excrement (no other name quite fits) is supervision through academic peer review to ensure compliance with the scientific method. However, this self-regulating mechanism has been corrupted by political intensity and the sheer tidal wave of money demanding yet more documentation of non-existent CAGW.
This is a ludicrous and dangerous situation, and that is why we pay attention and respond to guys like this.
Rosenberg’s profile at Al Jazeera is here, where he is described thus: “Paul Rosenberg is the senior editor of Random Lengths News, a bi-weekly alternative community newspaper.”.
Nothing in his profile suggests any scientific training or background, which in Lewandowsky’s normal bizzarro reality would disqualify him from even holding an opinion, let alone discussing it publically, but I guess exceptions are made for unqualified individuals supporting the consensus. Some other gems from his recent opinion columns for Al Jazeera (isn’t that owned by Big Oil?) include:
To be fair, Obama had to act quickly before Jimmy Carter ran over to Iran and negotiated a nuclear deal for him, as he did with North Korea.
And on the subject of that pesky “blance” in reporting:
There is ample material in Rosenberg’s writings for another Lewandowsky study on “conspiricist ideation”; they should do lunch sometime. Activist/Senior Editors for alternative community newspapers don’t make a lot of money so I’m sure Rosenberg would appreciate Lewandowsky’s generous practice of free psychological disorder diagnoses.
Perhaps we could take some of these ideas to the people who manage federal workers’ retirement funds: the more uncertain a stock’s prospects are, the more you have to buy. This will no doubt encourage many more people to ignore what their common sense tells them and just believe. “Use the consensus Paul. Let go … trust me.“
I wonder if these are the special people that can actually see “The Emperor’s New Clothes”?
Greater uncertainty about risk also means greater uncertainty about whether any particular step wil do any good.
Rosenberg, Lewandowsky and Oreskes sound like the jerks i came across this past year I looked at as much data as I could. Them and cook….the nuts all “Quote” skeptical science I laugh tell them no link a reputable source not a group think tank sources….please
ohnWho says:
April 27, 2014 at 6:27 am
“180 degrees away from where so-called “common sense”
Atmospheric CO2 causes a warmer atmosphere = “Global Warming”.
“Global Warming” is a changed climate = “Climate Change”
“Climate Change” could be either cooling or warming, hence “Climate Change” could = “Global Cooling”.
Therefore, according to the Warmist/Alarmists, the warming caused by increased atmospheric CO2 is causing us to cool.
Yep, 180 degrees out from common sense.
Cheeers to John Who
OK so here is my opinion what we need to do and fast, now……
We need to aproach this from a advertising publicist point of view.
Physics sis now deemed kinda cool, maybe almost sexy lol..thanks “Big Bang Theory”
But I know aerospace engineers, test pilots (yes I fly), and they do no have comic books, none I know
We need to make it cool to be a rational thinker
Lord know James Randy knew and tried this…….it is not easy
We still have 95% dumb people
We need to teach rational thinking in grade school, High School, and colleges, and require it !!!
From the fry cook at McDonalds to the aerospace engineer would have such a better life with that knowledge and ability.
Maybe people will finally stop believing in levitation, talking to the dead, ghosts, aliens, lizard men, and all the other BS that a weak mind can be enthralled and entranced by.
the likelihood of being in a car crash, his solution would be ban all cars.
=========
the most dangerous appliance in the home is the bathtub, because it causes the most injuries and deaths. Rosenberg and Lewandowsky are arguing that we need to ban bathtubs.
the problem for Rosenberg and Lewandowsky is that they have lost sight of common sense. they are so consumed with “saving the world from itself” they have lost sight of reality.
The ability to unhinge one’s mind in order to swallow a contradiction bigger than one’s head is completely essential for any type of consensus. The only way for an individual to perform such a feat is to join a group.
The fact that Rosenberg divides the debate into deniers and non-deniers demonstrates he does not understand the situation.
Rosenburg like Lewandowsky is a watermelon-fascist thinking himself clever to disguise his genocidal loathing of political conservatives and climate rationalists (whom he labels as deniers) in technical and psycological language. But this trick makes him no less a fascist.
The trace gas CO2 essential to life has existed at levels of 1000-20000 ppm for most of the last half billion years history of multicellular life.
In the recent glacial Pleistocene CO2 levels have at times fallen close to the 170 ppm threshold at which plant photosynthesis starts to be inhibited. Indeed plant evolution has reacted to this harmful stress by proliferation of C4 plants which utilize CO2 more efficiently.
In the last century CO2 has increased from 280 to about 400 ppm. And these morons are telling us that this change is a threat to humanity and the planet earth itself.
This catastrophist ideation delusion feeds into pre-existing misanthropic-Malthusian psycosis, namely a need to wage a war to the death in a tribalistic manner on those they dislike, who are enemies of the people because they don’t read the Guardian or the salon.
He is just a little late. HIs doublethink was predicted for 1984: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.
Thought experiment #1
During the day the Sun heats earth,
If there is clouds at night the heat is trapped in,
If there is no clouds the heat dissipates fast and we get colder nights,
The co2 levels are roughly the same all over the planet,
So we know it wasn’t the co2 that held all that heat in at night it was water vapor
Water vapor is 95% the greenhouse gas and is not distributed evenly
Conclusion co2 is not driving the heating and cooling, … water vapor and the Sun’s output is.
End Thought Experiment #1
The Sun control the heating, not co2
The Oceans and poles act as regulators and can delay the Sun’s actions
Long trends of solar activity are what effects the overall Temps
Climate models do not have the Sun’s output in their models, they also do not use long solar trends in their models
If a climate model goes into runaway greenhouse effect at 2x present co2 levels,
Than the models must be thrown out,
since we know that in the past, Earth has had 15-20 times present co2 levels
The models are not working throw them out, start over……….Ian Bach
http://ianbachusa.wordpress.com/
I think the belief that skeptics are winning are misplaced. The same people who gave us Obamacare and still in place working to give us ObamaClimateCare, and all evidence points to their success. It is not enough to win the hearts and minds of the people – you have to win at the ballot box. Look at the current European elections – the majority government likely to emerge will still be profoundly green. UKIP, should it win, will be a toothless front runner without coalition support, and that seems unlikely.
This, as the climate hysterics have always known, was never about science – it is all about politics, and this is an area where the skeptics demonstrate miserable skill. It is long past time to turn the whack-a-mole conversation away from Lew, Mann, and the boyz and towards identifying and supporting candidates that hold a science-based non-alarmist view of global climate. There’s not much time, and we cannot allow the alarmist pop-up weasels to keep us distracted.
Perhaps this political focus can be a central part of Anthony’s push for a common voice organization. Without some political success we’re doomed to four more years of whack-a-mole skepticism which on analysis is nothing more than preaching to the choir.
Another contradiction here is that the far and even moderate left, a large part of the CAGW movement and essential to its survival, is itself profoundly conspiracy-obsessed. Their opinion writings are filled with wailing about the evil world dominating web of banks, governments, corporations and billionaires. Eli Rabbet’s blog is a good example of this, with its liking for terms like “capitalist imperialist pig”.
One imagines that objective Lewandowsky would make these left wing conspiracy ideators the subject of his next study.
Mr. Rosenberg’s self-description: “Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English.”
_____
That information alone raises serious questions of dubiosity in re the quality of his thinking.
According to Wikipedia, Al Jazeera English is owned/controlled by the House of Thani, the ruling family of Qatar, whose source of wealth is … oil.
So much for Mr. Rosenberg.
We are winning? No, we are forcing a long delayed scientific self-correction of climate science by exposing the failed CAGW theory to the public.
Paul Rosenberg’s irrational article ‘Why climate deniers are winning: The twisted psychology that overwhelms scientific consensus’ and irrational articles like it are the reasons that the broader climate science can now more easily accelerate its self-correction of the incorrect CAGW supporting research methods emulated by the invalid assessment processes of the IPCC.
John
Follow the Money says:
April 26, 2014 at 9:19 pm
“Also again, the writer is an amateur because he does not see, regardless of any opinions about science, that Lew’s “Recursive Fury” paper reads as if he is having a mental breakdown.”
…..either that or he has been smoking something that he shouldn’t have.
“‘Deniers’ are winning for one simple reason: Empirical data trumps bullshit.”
Common sense tells me skeptics are not likely to win. The pause will not last. Very soon temperatures will go up or they will go down. If they go down for a time, they will then go up. Or they may continue going down for an extended period. Warmists will declare they were right decades ago when they said CO2 causes cooling and it is worse than we thought. Either way the Climate Changers will point and say, “We told you so!”. Followed by global carbon taxes, etc. Once the new controls are in place they will be permanent.
john says:
April 27, 2014 at 7:40 am
If deniers are winning, why is it that the US government is taking actions to shut down so many coal plants, and make it economically impossible to build new ones? Natural gas, thank goodness, is quite low in price these days, due to tracking. But ten years, twenty years from now? Who knows?………..
Winning doesn’t necessarily mean putting legitimate doubts about warmist alarmist into the public mind. It also has to do with policies that usually end up irreversible.
john,
Well said!
Regardless of how ludicrous some of the AGW extremists may seem, they are achieving their retrograde agenda through manipulation of public opinion and governmental action . They are ‘winning’ greater regulatory control of the US economy everyday…. because AGW believers are in administrative control.
Mac
phlogiston says:
April 27, 2014 at 8:14 am “Rosenburg like Lewandowsky is a watermelon-fascist thinking himself clever to disguise his genocidal loathing of political conservatives and climate rationalists (whom he labels as deniers) in technical and psycological language. But this trick makes him no less a fascist. In the last century CO2 has increased from 280 to about 400 ppm. And these morons are telling us that this change is a threat to humanity and the planet earth itself.”
Agreed. The genocide is the end game. The CAGW fraud is the latest avenue. The morons are the sheeple who ride the trains to the genocidal end game; soon to be coming to a neighborhood near us all.
Memo to “special” Solon readers: There are examples of counter-intuitive relationships in science and other disciplines such as quantum mechanics in physics and comparative trade in economics. But running from model error with excuses and name calling is not a characteristic of any of these and other theories that work in repeated trials and testing.