Yes in the wake of the Climate McCarthyism we see on display against Lennart Bengtsson, I wonder if these people might re-think some of their own roles in the smearing of climate skeptics?
The webcast is on now at Yale Climate Connections, and is titled:
“Re-thinking Climate ‘Denialism’”
May 15, 2014, 2:30pm EDT, 11:30am PDT
From http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/30onclimate-videos/
As discussions drag on over what to do about our warming climate, let’s step back to reconsider the battlefield of rhetoric and discord. And how and whether it eventually can lead to harmony.
Political scientist and climate change policy expert David G. Victor, of the University of California at San Diego, encourages changing labels and strategies in ways that recognize a more complex political landscape. No more “climate denialist” name-calling, he urges.
Co-author of the recently published mitigation report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Victor will be the featured guest on The Yale Forum’s next 30onClimate webcast — May 15 at 11:30 am PDT (2:30 pm EDT).
30onClimate moderator Bruce Lieberman will interview Professor Victor about the complicated rhetorical landscape of climate change, and importantly, what the latest report from the IPCC has to say about where the globe’s climate is headed and what we can do about it.
You can access the webcast either by Google+ or YouTube feed
Have a question? Send an e-mail now!
Some background:
“Bizarre and threatening” is the term U.C. San Diego political science professor David G. Victor uses to describe how many in the climate science community view what some call climate “denialism.”
But Victor thinks a big part of the problem involves just how scientists and their supporters approach the subject — beginning with the use of the term “denialism.”
“If you really want to understand what motivates these people and what motivates the captains of industry and voters who listen to them,” says Victor, “stop calling them denialists.”
Source: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2014/03/climate-denialism-through-eyes-of-uc-davis-political-scientist/
It really shouldn’t be difficult to find polite and non-judgemental terms for all the main positions in the climate debate. The widespread use of “denier” and other insults merely shows how many people are more interested in destroying the opposition than in proving their own case. To demonstrate that it’s possible, here’s a simple “Climate Concern Scale” that I just made up:
Concern Level 0 (the “stasists”) – Nothing unusual is happening to the Earth’s climate so no action is required
Concern Level 1 (the “naturalists”) – Global Warming is happening but is largely or wholly due to natural causes so the only possible response is to adapt to it as best we can
Concern Level 2 (the “adaptionists”) – Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening but the consequences are not likely to be very serious so gradual adaptation is a sufficient response
Concern Level 3 (the “mitigationists”) – AGW is happening and the consequences are likely to be very serious so adaptation will not be sufficient and large-scale mitigation efforts are required
Concern Level 4 (the “catastrophists”) – AGW is happening and the consequences are likely to be catastrophic so mitigation strategies must take priority over all other political, economic and social concerns
Concern Level 5 (the “fatalists”) – It is already too late to prevent CAGW so all attempts at mitigation or adaptation will be unsuccessful
OK, civility break over. War resumes in 3..2..1..
For John A., I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote:
“Why did I reject AGW? Partly because I recognized the very strong religious background to this supposed Theory of Everything that in my view is as pervasive and unfalsifiable as the Christian doctrines of Original Sin and the Fall of Man. It is Creationism in secular garb. Little wonder that it proponents are on the hunt for backsliders and infidels.”
I think that puts the current state of affairs very well; Climate Alarmism is the new Hellfire and Brimstone Religion for people who tell themselves they’re too smart to fall for a Hellfire and Brimstone Religion.
But politically, since one party has gone “all-in” in support of this idea, you have a choice, as we all (in the USA, at least) have a choice – do we vote to support the secular religious fanatics? Or do we try to vote in those people who oppose the secular religious fanatics?
Or do we simply drop out, and just hope that someone else takes care of our problems for us?
I wish there were some other choices besides those three, but as things stand today, there really isn’t.
I suspect one reason they call us deniers is because of the Dragon Slayers. It’s like the moderate Republican Party accidentally finding itself in bed with Bible bashing fundamentalists or moderate Democrats with North Korean Communists.
My question is simple: WHAT DO I DENY??? (I can be viewed as a ‘moderate’). From my experience MOST sceptics argue about the projected temperatures and speed of warming for the year 2100. Even the IPCC can’t really agree. I do agree with the IPCC on “the most important greenhouse gas” gas though.
I forgot to add
IPCC
“16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
The terms should be “believer” and “heretic”, to more clearly align the differences with the religious context.
OK, I will say it if no one else will. The real DENIE*S are actually on the Warmist side. I predicted this over 3 years ago on the Guardian comments section. I told one commenter that we will soon know who the real denie*s are as the climate changes – again. That is what we are seeing today.
• Global sea ice OK
• Antarctica sea ice OK
• No surface warming for 17 years
• The heat went deep, deep undercover
• Multi year ice up slightly in the Arctic
• Failed IPCC projections………..again
• Thermal expansion????
• Rate of sea level rise NOT accelerating despite their best efforts, no credible evidence.
They have created their own traps, painted themselves into a corner, digging themselves into a hole, nailed their flags to the mast and are looking for possible rat holes. There are none, you blocked them.
I am a CAGW sceptic.
If I lived in the United States I would most probably vote Democrat, though I would not rule out voting Republican, depending on the issues. Is this hard to understand? I was not born a pigeon and I will not be pigeon-holed by anyone.
There are many Democrats in the United States who are sceptical of CAGW.
There are Jewish scientists and none-scientists who are sceptical of CAGW.
Why should they be called the offensive D word? It’s a very simple question which demands a simple answer. Below are some examples of individuals who simply disagree. I want any Warmist to step up and proclaim the D word on any of the following. Life is not black and white, but shades of gray.
HERE ARE THE ALLEGED DENIE*S
Siegfried Fred Singer
[Atmospheric physicist]
Why I Remain a Global-Warming Skeptic
Searching for scientific truth in the realm of climate.
“But the main reason that I am skeptical about the IPCC, and now the Berkeley, findings, is that they disagree with most every other data source I can find. I confine this critique to the period between 1978 and 1997, thereby avoiding the Super El Niño of 1998 that had nothing to do with greenhouse gases or other human influences. ”
Wall Street Journal – November 4, 2011
—————-
Professor Richard Siegmund Lindzen
[Atmospheric scientist]
What Catastrophe?
MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist
“All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?””
The Weekly Standard – Jan 13, 2014
—————-
Dr. Nir Joseph Shaviv
[Israeli-American physics professor]
Nir Shaviv: On IPCCs exaggerated climate sensitivity and the emperor’s new clothes
“The longer answer is that even climate alarmists realize that there is a problem, but they won’t admit it in public. In private, as the climate gate e-mails have revealed, they know it is a problem. In October 2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote his colleagues:”
JoNova Guest Post – 13 January 2012
—————-
Dr. Nathan Paldor ?
Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
By Nir Shaviv
On Sunday last week, a global warming debate was held at the Hebrew University, in front of a large public audience. The speakers included myself, and Prof. Nathan Paldor from the HU, on the so called sceptic side,…..
Science Bits – 3 December 2007
————-
Lord Lawson
[British Conservative politician & Member of the House of Lords]
Climate change: this is not science – it’s mumbo jumbo
The IPCC’s call to phase out fossil fuels is economic nonsense and ‘morally outrageous’ for the developing world
“This is not science: it is mumbo-jumbo. Neither the 90 per cent nor the 95 per cent have any objective scientific basis: they are simply numbers plucked from the air for the benefit of credulous politicians and journalists. ”
Daily Telegraph – 28 Sep 2013
—————-
Benny Peiser
[Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation]
“No one knows whether next winter will be warm or cold or average, no one knows whether next summer will be hot or wet or dry. It’s very, very difficult to make long-term predictions and therefore, I remain rather sceptical about the reliability and accuracy of these kind of speculation. They are pure speculation, they are not based on any hard facts, it’s an assumption.”
GWPF – 25 March 2013
—————-
Dennis Prager
[Columnist & talk show host]
“Climate change: A reasoned skeptic’s response”
Jewish Journal – December 7, 2011
—————-
Daniel Greenfield ??
[Columnist & blogger born in Israel]
The God of Global Warming
“The God of Global Warming is the embodiment of liberalism and holds all the politically correct beliefs while carrying out brutal atrocities in the name of the left’s favorite political causes.
…..Now Carbon has become the new Storm God, bringing bad weather because people won’t do anything meaningful, like cripple their economies and destroy their standards of living to appease him……”
Jewish Press – November 19th, 2013
Bruce writes “David Victor is clueless as to the motivations of skeptics/climate realists so he invents some categories, which are basically straw men.”
It was interesting to see his categorisation of sceptics was people who where concerned about increasing government control. Its like they cant bring themselves to believe that many of us are actually sceptical about the science. Sceptical about the interpretations of the data, whether the data is fit for use on answering a particular “climate” question or even whether a particular analysis is a valid thing to do.
So for example my take on David Victor is that he has his own area of speciality which he looks at with respect to the climate science and doesn’t understand enough about the science itself to have a view on where scepticism is warranted and to him the so called consensus is all he needs to know the science is mostly “correct”
I’m with beesaman and John A. From my left wing nutter point of view, a lot of the commentary around AGW scepticism seems to emanate from the grind-the-faces-of-the-poor-send-the-children-down-the-mines-burn-the-widows-and-orphans-restore-early-Victorian-society tendency. For at least half the world, this gives AGW a very nasty smell. It requires dedication to logic and science to separate the political aura from the core science, and many people do not have the time, or the training, or, in some cases, the inclination to do that. They go with what we might call their political instincts.
For this reason, I think the emphasis should be on science, and leave out the political rants.
I call them the “Sterilize the “extra” people crowd” and I hook my finges like quotation marks around “extra people” and I simply tell whoever’s listening
“I’ll be damned if I’ll join a bunch of academics who don’t know meteorology and aeronautics calculate the temperature of any volume of atmospheric air using the Ideal Gas Law – not the Greenhouse Gas Law. You DO know, there IS a calculation for any given volume of atmospheric air right? It’s called the Ideal Gas Law and that’s why the people at NASA knew Hansen was perpetuating dishonesty in research for saying there was potential for his claim. For the claim to have potential the atmosphere would have to not operate according to Ideal Gas Law, as it’s known to.”
That usually shows whoever I’m dealing with,
who they’re dealing with.
Avionics. We’re the field who keeps your jetliner from hitting mountains, and hitting the tarmac harder than it does, as the navigation computers assign atmospheric density and airspeed etc.
There’s no calculation in any science on earth that assigns atmospheric temperature according to trace gas percentage. Anybody and everybody don’t change it by spitting in the faces of we in the avionics and atmospheric energy fields who have told the world’s academics and media tuber heads that’s how it is since the beginning.
There is no atmospheric temperature calculation according to anything called a Green House Gas Law.
The atmosphere obeys the Ideal Gas Law which precludes there being
an ‘Green House Gas’ law.
The only science that claims to calculate atmospheric temperature based on trace gas percentage is the one the real scientists of the world are grateful our scientific reputations, don’t resemble.
When the avionics/aeronautics fields project what the temperature of a parcel of atmospheric air is, it’s with reliance on the information derived from projecting the Mercury and Apollo orbits,
and that information was based in research done since the beginning of aviation through the high research years of WW2 and beyond.
If there was a calculation for atmospheric temperature regarding volumes of air in it, which was based on the infrared spectral response of that air,
we’d know it. There isn’t one.
That’s why all the self professing “skeptics” can’t predict their way out of the worst bout with
non-stop self inflicted humilation in the history of science – certainly in most anyone living’s memory. They’re politicians, academics, political government employees, media hacks.
They aren’t skeptics, they’re believers –
in a scam,
who didn’t believe
it was as bad as the scammers claimed.
The true heroes of this whole story are the people who have refused to even touch the claim of there being any proof of a Green House Gas Law being uncovered, overthrowing the real law,
the Ideal Gas Law.
If the avionics/aeronautics fields were populated with people like inhabit the research and reporting of climate there would be no aeronautics/avionics because there’d be no science.
It’s why the 40 retired astronauts and engineers from N.A.S.A. called the “The Right Climate Stuff” group say repeatedly they are ashamed at what one of the employees of that organization James Hansen has done to the reputation of N.A.S.A.
Modern climate reporting is the disgraced, reporting on themselves. Everyone of them believed it and if they did they drove the ones who didn’t, out of reporting on it.
15 May: RTCC: Sophie Yeo: White House to host Google+ Hangout on climate change
A Google+ Hangout hosted by the White House will be a chance for US energy secretary Ernest Moniz and Environment Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy to address the biggest environmental move of Obama’s presidency so far: his plans to cut emissions from existing coal-fired power plants…
The Hangout will take place on Monday 19 May at 1pm ET, and participants can submit questions to Moniz and McCarthy over Google+, Facebook and Twitter, using the hashtag #WHClimateChat…
RTCC understands that the White House is now recruiting new staff to revamp its climate change division ahead of next year’s UN conference in Paris…
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/05/15/white-house-to-host-google-hangout-on-climate-change/
adopting their terms is accepting their terms of reference. A usual political trick. To make yourself king you have to adopt a narrative that makes others common which is a belitting insulting language that CLASSIFIES. So those who want to be kings in climate science have to belittle others into a class which if you manifest that would be a gulag.
when i get asked the usual trick question ‘do i believe in climate change’ i ask ‘do you believe in the scientific method?’.
Time to take a warmist to court over the term “denier”, which is both inaccurate and has implications of Holocaust denial.I have personally had a go at 2 groups in public who referred to me as a “denier” in the old denigrating tone.
I agree wholeheartedly with RoHa and the others over this left wing right wing debate. I am moderate left wing in my beliefs and I find much of the right wing ideology abhorrent. If I lived in the USA I would probably be labeled communist. However, I find the whole climate change debate appallingly unscientific and largely religious in its form and I feel the focus of this website should stick to science and get away from the left-right nonsense. I think some of the, obviously right wing, commenters here may be surprised at how many left leaning people are just as dismayed at the climate change debate as they are.
Prof Victor should note that some of his “hobbyists” skeptics are engineers who probably know more about climate science than the so called climate scientists as our profession has to deal with climate change in the real world with the construction of structures to withstand extreme weather events with a risk of occurrence for periods typically up to 1,000 years.
Our profession typically has a collective knowledge in developing modeling and analysis of empirical data than the so called climate scientists. Our modeling has to be right because our mistakes stand as monuments unlike so called climate scientists.
We know when so called climate scientists are gilding the lily because our profession is able to understand climate science and our skill sets in modeling and data analysis are more developed than so called climate scientists.
Yes Prof Victor you are right, keep calling us skeptics holocaust deniers and it will make us even more determined to win the debate against the totalitarian climate change scammers. With the internet and social media skeptics are able to by pass the warmist stooges in the media and science journals to win hearts and minds. Real climate scientists who practice their science profession in the spirit of Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace will eventually prevail over the scaremongering scammers.
wws
False dichotomy.
Do we support the secular religious fanatics or the theistic religious fanatics? Neither. The politics of the progressive left and conservative right are the “Smashmouth” politics of demagoguery and exclusion.
When I form my opinions and my arguments I make sure that I listen to and follow the logic of the arguments of my opponents. I think its called maturity.
I find it fascinating to read Mark Morano decry (correctly) the witch-doctor style proclamations of this weather being caused by this human behaviour and that extreme event being caused by that human activity. But the Republican Party is supported by and riven with people whose faith affirmations include exactly that in the Bible. Doubly ironic?
A mature approach would be to criticise the exclusionary tactics of people you are allied with, before you attack you political opponents.
Instead he advocates using labels of “shill, skeptic and hobbiest” To quote Mr. Victor from later in the article – “Denialism is here to stay,” Victor said, and “as the importance of the topic rises so will denialism.” -Typical
A. E. Soledad invokes the ideal gas law, but assuming it does accurately describe the atmosphere as he indeed claims, then the natural variations in air temperature over time will simply cause the unbounded atmosphere to expand and contract via the V term of the equation, just like the unbounded oceans do, and any additional greenhouse warming will merely do the same thing, so his paper tiger is toothless.
Reply to AndewZ –
I like your Climate Concern Scale. I would rank myself as a Level 2. Anthropogenic warming is well recognized at a micro-climate level and it would be incongruous to expect this would not translate into a global effect. How the global effect manifests over the entire future of humankind remains to be seen but I expect it to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
Just to be clear, I cheer those who are politically Independent; I think that is the most moral and ethical position anyone can take these days. And I do give a nod to at least some of the republicans who are trying to fight this, even though I never cease to wonder whether they’ll sell out as soon as the price is right.
But just this morning, here’s yet another example of typical Democrat rhetoric on the issue, a tweet from Keith Ellison, a Democrat member of the House of Representatives from Minnesota:
“Rep. Keith Ellison ✔ @keithellison
Communities of color are more vulnerable to deaths from heat waves, which climate change will make worse #ActonClimate
7:39 PM – 15 May 2014”
(end quote)
Who knew? Even the Climate is Racist now!!! And of course all of you “deniers” out there are racists, too. At least as far as the Democrat Party is concerned.
(Is Keith really so dim that he doesn’t realize that this is the punchline to a very old joke – “World Ends Tomorrow, Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!”)
Frodo says:
“John Boles says:
I hang out with a bunch of avowed atheists, but due to their politics they embrace the religion of climate change, it is maddening for me but I just do not bring up politics or CAGW.”
This is not surprising at all, but I do not think it is necessaily connected to their “politics”. I am a Catholic Christian myself, and I believe that God has put a desire in all of us to connect with something mysterious and much, much greater than ourselves. Some of the most “religious” people you will ever come across are atheists.
The problem is, most self-identified atheists have simply substituted the state for god. But there are still plenty of us who have no religious belief at all. (In fact, I endeavor to eliminate that term entirely from my vocabulary – I “BELIEVE” nothing
Don’t put us all in the same group.
JohnA: you clearly have bought into the common and demeaning ad hominem of the left in describing conservatives. I would concur with your desire to keep these discussions non-partisan, but you should be careful in arguing for non-partisan debate by deploying partisan slurs.
Just an observation: the preconceptions and MISconceptions I’m seeing about the beliefs of those of differing political stripes is truly staggering.
Not surprising, though – people rarely question the blinders of their own ideology.