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:
“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.”
I’m in the Nat Gas biz. Music to our ears!!!!
You don’t think anyone in the oil and gas biz sheds any tears over those coal miners, do you? Heh. Nothing like having the government take out all of your competition for you.
(now if you’re just a ratepayer, then you should be crying, because you are going to be raked over the coals soon. But by then, it will be too late for you to do anything about it. Thank you, Obama!!!)
“Cognitive dissonance”
I believe this would be a diagnosis of anyone who might eschew common sense.
BatSh!t crazy to the average Joe.
It’s funny ’cause the alarmists are “winning” too. The Earth is fine.
Alarmists are so entrenched in their dogma that they won’t accept that ” catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 global warming” is not real. The theory is bust.
This is good news for everyone.
Rosenberg has clearly taken a page out of physicist Leonard Mlodinow’s book “The Drunkards Walk…How Randomness Rules our Lives” Somewhere in the introduction Mlodinow chimes in on the Global Warming Alarmist bandwagon, explaining that it is in essence precisely the randomness of certainty that is to blame for our having taken so long to come to grips with the nature and dangers of CAGW. The signs he says have been all around us, but owing to our lack of understanding of the random order of the universe, we have until now been unable to see it. And so goes his theory. It appears the contagion has spread to Rosenberg. It is heartbreaking in a way, when such otherwise great minds (Mlodinow…not Rosenberg) become entangled in a deceit of their own making.
“Time and tide wait for no man.”
“The notion of ‘tide’ being beyond man’s control brings up images of the King Canute story. He demonstrated to his courtiers the limits of a king’s power by failing to make the sea obey his command.”
How far we have fallen. Now our leaders have lost all sense of humility as they assure us they have the power to turn back the rising seas. We miss you King Canute!
something to look forward to.
2008
“Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was “the intelligence failure” in Iraq,[17] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq”
2025
Al gore later said that the biggest regret of his career was “the intelligence failure” on co2 while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2025 that his administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from co2”
Louis said
“I noticed a long time ago that many academics were devoid of common sense…”
Yup, as I have mentioned earlier in a previous topic, raw intelligence has nothing to do with wisdom/common sense. For some people they are inversely proportional. Maturity is the same way. Raw intelligence, wealth (especially at a young age) , and power have nothing to do with maturity, in fact, having those things can work against the formation of maturity in a person. I believe a 19 year old, illiterate farmer 200 years ago was far more mature than the typical American adult today (including myself). Kind of explains some things, doesn’t it? There are plenty of scientists, professors, and other people in academia today with high IQs and the basic maturity level of a child. I think some of them might be in the CAGW movement.
Some people have made a nice living out of an intentionally defective thought process which can only be described as wrong-think.
Chip Javert says:
April 27, 2014 at 7:50 am
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.
I do live in the Netherlands so i do know what you mean here, and on the AGW issues i totally agree. But it was not the point i was making.
What i don’t understand is why this guys, i do understand that this guy is anoying. But in my opinion we as a group are making him more important then he deserves to be. What happend until now is that there was a lot of noise. That is why i am asking, somewhere i must have missed a reason why he gets al this attention?
-Arnold
The IPCC’s uncertainty results from trying to force uncooperative data into the boxes of its preconceived fixes and solutions; when they don’t fit, it’s called by the wrong name. The proper term is “falsification”.
Its projectile vomiting disguised as projection.
The question is not Why Sceptics are winning, rather the real question this Salon Stroller is asking;” Why am I such a Loser”.
The comments at that article are revealing, sad demented folk congratulating each other on their supreme wisdom.
The German Video quote,previous posting, is gold.
We have spent $28.3 billion for electricity worth $2 billion.
This is the kind of realization that will begin the real discussion.
Which in my opinion is about to truly begin.
As for the alarmists desperation, it is very strange that the 17 years of no statistically significant warming would not prompt a sigh of relief and gratitude that we have more time to address the end of the world, than they imagined..Of course the divergence of their chosen indicators might cause sensible people to reexamine their assumptions.
Another fool or bandit confirming my supposition,CAGW is an Intelligence Test.
Buy this.. we can sell you…
Uncertainty can never be too great for action. The prospects of my new business are infinitely uncertain. Therefore, *everyone* should put money in my new business now.
Unmarked bills and precious metals preferred.
Seriously, if the last couple of years of middle school were replaced with having a job and paying bills, the modern Western world would be about 73% less dumb. +/- 34%, because of uncertainty.
I am myself an atheist but isn’t there a parallel to the academic alarmist consensus in the College of Cardinals declaring: ‘Sorry Dr Luther but the theology is settled’.
Ian Bach, perhaps you will appreciate this: Exhaled air is about 42,000 ppm. We should all pledge not to ‘poison’ any AGW believers by giving them CPR should the need be indicated.
Rosenberg and Lewendowsky are examples of persons over schooled but under educated, All they can do so issue multiple sonorous phrases, collectively devoid of any meaning. This is also commonly referred to as Psycho Babble or Newspeak.
Rosenberg’s Salon article is an obvious example of nullity of meaning passing as profundity. Its appeal to other readers of Salon as being incomprehensible gibberish, that they must not want to admit they don’t understand, lest their peers criticize them as moronic or imbecilic. So they marvel at the fineness and coloration of the verbal diaretic creation, and marvel at how well the Emperor’s new florid metaphors and sonorous sounds clothe him.
JohnWho says:
April 27, 2014 at 6:27 am
“180 degrees away from where so-called “common sense”
This is the problem:- the cool weather is “the cold sun” not by an increase in CO2. The “deniers” have won, thanks to the sunspot activity (or lack of).
The “alarmists” will say that the increase in CO2 is the cause of cool weather but this has to be forcibly rejected.
I believe it was George Orwell who said: “Only an expert would say such a thing, no ordinary man would be such a fool.”
I want Ian Bach to write the script for the next Al Gore movie. Well done sir. You made me chuckle too.
Eamon.
“Deniers” are winning? Really? Maybe on this forum.
Only moments ago I heard an interview of John Holdren on NPR. There was no hint that “deniers” even exist. Holdren was introduced as the nation’s leading scientist. He was well spoken and confident. He made it clear that the entire executive branch of the US government is focused on climate change as the main environmental concern for the world. No mention of the current pause. It’s CO2 and we are in a race to meet the 2020 reduction target or we are in for it. Not able to find that interview transcript, but…
Statement by John P. Holdren on Approval of the IPCC’s Climate-Impacts Report, Mar 30…
“Climate change is a global threat, touching every region of the world and every sector of the economy.
The IPCC’s new report underscores the need for immediate action in order to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change. It reflects scientists’ increased confidence that the kinds of harm already being experienced as a result of climate change are likely to worsen as the world continues to warm.
The report highlights the widespread and substantial observed impacts of climate change, and its growing adverse effects on livelihoods, ecosystems, economies, and human health. Importantly, it also concludes that effective adaptation measures can help build a more resilient global society in the near term and beyond.
The IPCC’s findings reinforce the importance and urgency of work already underway across the U.S. Government to implement President Obama’s Climate Action Plan—with its multipronged focus on reducing U.S. emissions, boosting climate-change preparedness and resilience, and working across borders to develop global solutions.
Today’s approval follows more than five years of collaborative work by hundreds of physical and social scientists from the United States and around the world to comprehensively assess what is known about the global impacts of and vulnerabilities to climate change. More than a dozen U.S. Government researchers contributed to the report and Federal investments enabled many of the peer-reviewed scientific studies that underpin its findings.
I applaud the many expert contributors to this report, which today stands as the most comprehensive and authoritative synthesis of knowledge about global climate-change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability ever generated.
The Obama Administration is committed to continued participation in IPCC activities and to the rigorous use of scientific information as a foundation for action to address the threats from climate change.
I look forward to this Administration’s ongoing collaboration with international partners to finalize the IPCC’s full Fifth Assessment, set for release later this year.”
Show me where we are winning. Can we vote our way out? Which candidates stands for climate science reality? Can we litigate out way out?
Robert Bissett
“Deniers” are winning? Really? Maybe on this forum. Only moments ago I heard an interview of John Holdren on NPR. There was no hint that “deniers” even exist. Holdren was introduced as the nation’s leading scientist. He was well spoken and confident. He made it clear that the entire executive branch of the US government is focused on climate change as the main environmental concern for the world. …
Yet alarmism is slipping worldwide. The political establishment might still be giving climate alarmism lip service, but few politicians really care. America is desperate to avoid having to pay climate “reparations”. Europe’s commitment to green measures is splintering, as the economic pain of expensive energy takes its toll. Even green Germany is having second thoughts – they are building new coal generators. Canada and Australia both have openly skeptical prime ministers. In Britain, the openly climate skeptic UKIP party is polling 30% of the vote – they have risen through the polls by promising to cut people’s electricity bill.
Green policies ultimately carry the seeds of their own downfall. When a government really attempts to implement their nonsense, there is only so much pain people take before they reject the lunacy at the ballot box. America simply hasn’t hit this “green limit” yet. You will know when it has.
A glimmer of hope elsewhere. Not so much here. A study came out a few days ago confirming what many already knew…
“A recent study by professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin I. Page found that the U.S. now resembles more of an oligarchy than a democratic republic.
“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.””
We have been here before.
To some extent the last time it happened it increased by scepticism. Does anyone else remember “The most important video you will ever see” where the present had 4 quadrants:
Global warming is not catastrophic – do nothing
Global warming is catastrophic – do nothing
Global warming is not catastrophic – do something anyway
Global warming is catastrophic – do nothing
And he managed to make the third option look good because he discounted the cost of action to practically nothing. Better known as “What if we made a better world for nothing” argument. Looking at it again from today’s perspective we can assess the cost of action – like moving to renewables, taxes and carbon trading (big) better and the effects it has had on emissions (small) and the argument falls apart. Perhaps that is why this is no longer being pushed and is being re-phrased in pseudo scientific language.
My argument is that with increasing uncertainty drastic action is more likely to provoke unintended consequences…
Robert Bissett,
Interesting that the professors leave out the elephant in the room: enviro groups like the WWF, Greenpeace, etc. Not only do they pour more money into politics than businesses do, but they have something that businesses do not: millions of obedient single-issue voters.
Are sceptics ‘cockeyed optimists’ or delusional about who’s winning?
April 30th…..
“Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee is not waiting for the state legislature to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but instead has issued an executive order to implement a cap-and-trade program, eliminate coal power and fund green energy projects.
“This is the right time to act, the right place to act and we are the right people to act,” Inslee said. “We will engage the right people, consider the right options, ask the right questions and come to the right answers — answers that work for Washington.”
Inlsee argues that more action is needed if the state is to meet climate goals passed by the legislature in 2008. Those goals call for the state to lower its carbon dioxide emissions by certain amounts by 2020.
The governor’s office is now imposing a cap-and-trade system to lower carbon dioxide emissions in order to meet state goals. Inslee has created a “Carbon Emissions Reduction Task Force” to design the state’s carbon trading system. The task force held it’s first meeting on Tuesday and will give its final recommendations to the governor in November.”