From the now bankrupt and bereft GAWKER in 2014:
Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.
And then there’s the worst of all, the infamous 10:10 video which blew up schoolchildren who didn’t believe.
Fortunately, such ugliness didn’t take root, and sensible people, even those who live on the fringe, have started to reject such things. This study shows why such labeling and ugliness is counterproductive.
Summary:
Labels play an important role in opinion formation, helping to actively construct perceptions and reality, and to place individuals into context with others. As a highly complex issue, climate change invites a range of different opinions and dialogues about its causes, impacts, and action required. Much work has been published in the academic literature aiming to categorize differences of opinion about climate change using labels. However, the debate about labels acts as a distraction to more fundamental and pressing issues of policy response. In addition, the undercurrent of incivility present in the climate change debate also contributes towards a hostile and unconstructive conflict.
This is an evolving area of academic enquiry. Recent work has examined how the different labels of climate change opinions are constructed, used in practice, and portrayed differently in the public and policy spheres. The growing number of categorization systems used in the climate debate are also argued to have implications for the science-policy interface, creating a polarized debate involving many different actors and interfaces.
Moving away from unhelpful use and construction of labels that lead to incivility would enable constructive and fruitful dialogue across this polarized debate. A way forward would be to explore further the role of underlying motivations and rationales as to why these different opinions about climate change come to exist in the first place. Focusing on potential overlaps in perceptions and rationales may encourage constructive discussion amongst actors previously engaged in purposefully antagonistic exchange on climate change.
Excerpts:
…
Disagreement about climate change is not surprising. As Merton first articulated, debate and the continued questioning of all findings and conclusions are fundamental parts of the scientific process.
Climate change is a complex issue to communicate, particularly to non-scientists. This is additionally challenging when it is assumed that simply communicating about the science of climate change is sufficient to increase understanding, engagement, and willingness to act. This is known as the “technocratic model” or the “information deficit model” (Hulme, 2009; Sturgis & Allum, 2004); however, this linear approach often raises significant challenges in communication and debate on climate change. This is because viewpoints on contentious topics are not solely decided by evidence and may be influenced by many other factors (as we outline below). Nonetheless, the expectations of participants in the climate debate, notably decision-makers, can lead to an over-reliance on evidence-based policy that cannot necessarily be fulfilled, particularly where large uncertainties are involved and where decision-making processes are highly context-dependent (Dessai, Hulme, Lempert, & Pielke, 2009).
Research into the boundaries of the science-policy interface has enabled a deeper understanding of how to manage the challenges that emerge in the climate debate (Jasanoff, 1990, 2004). Science that is used to inform decision-making needs to be perceived as credible (e.g. that it is rigorously assessed and reviewed), salient (e.g. that it is relevant to debate participants such as decision-makers), and legitimate (Cash, Clark, Alcock, & Dickson,2002). Though evidence does not always address these attributes (Howarth & Painter, 2016), they can help frame how science is produced, assessed, and used in the climate debate. However, things such as scientific uncertainties can limit the influence of science as an input to policy-making (Dessai et al., 2009; Frigg, Smith, & Stainforth, 2015).
Achieving such outcomes, however, also depends on applying a more critical understanding of those dimensions of climate change that are currently debated and why. They also depend on recognizing the rise of intense incivility in relation to these lines of disagreement, and the unfortunate role that labels play in seeding polarization and deepening disagreement.
…
Why are People Debating About Climate Change?
The climate change debate is rarely focused solely on technical scientific data; it encapsulates a range of topics. It is also fundamentally about how knowledge claims interact with worldviews, perceptions of risks, and values (Demeritt, 2006; Douglas, 2009; Su, Cacciatore, Brossard, Corley, Scheufele, & Xenos, 2016). Consider several of these dynamics and how they seed various forms of debate.
First, accepting that human influence is a contributory factor to climate change can be an uncomfortable challenge to peoples’ values and ways they see themselves in the world (Braun & Jorgens, 2013; Hulme, 2009). It is uncomfortable because the potential range of policy options to address climate change, such as changing individual behavior or imposing regulatory controls, all have related ideological implications (Dryzek & Lo, 2014). For example, depending on your viewpoint about the role of government in society, the introduction of a carbon tax can be seen as a challenge to individual freedom and an unnecessary government burden, or it can be regarded as a cost-effective and efficient mechanism to incentivize climate change mitigation (Hoffman, 2011a). Therefore, if the truth of the science behind climate change is disputed and doubted, this reduces the legitimacy of, and underlying need for, the associated policy response. The values held by scientists have also been subject to interrogation, particularly in terms of wider debates regarding how to reconcile a desire for a so-called “value-free ideal” of science (Douglas, 2009, 2015) with an understanding of the role of personal subjectivities in human action.
Second, climate change can also make people feel uncomfortable because of the implications for individual behavior (Fudge & Peters, 2011; Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole, & Whitmarsh, 2007). Understanding how fossil fuel emissions relate to consumption patterns may make people feel guilty about their lifestyle choices, and so, to avoid feeling guilty (Cohen, 2001; Lorenzoni et al., 2007), it can be easier to debate the legitimacy of the science. Climate change can also make people feel uneasy because it reduces peoples’ perceived sense of control over nature (Longino, 2013).
Third, much work has been carried out examining the psychological basis underpinning debate about climate change. Much of this work has examined the concept of risk. A substantial strand of analysis has focused on identifying differences in risk perception and understanding how these relate to values and ways of valuing knowledge. Building on the work of Douglas and Wildavksy (1982), who developed the cultural theory of risk, and the theory of the psychometric paradigm developed by Slovic (2000), Kahan, Jenkins-Smith, and Braman (2011) suggest that differences in “cultural cognition” mean that people tend to form perceptions about risk that suit their own values. Kahan et al. (2011) identify two categories of risk perception:
- Hierarchical-individualistic: People in this category tend to be more skeptical about environmental risks, because if they were widely accepted, they would negatively impact the freedom of industry and commerce, which are highly valued by this group.
- Egalitarian-communitarian: People in this category are more likely to perceive that commerce and industry create social disparity, and therefore are more likely to think that such activities may create environmental risks and should be regulated.
Fourth, debate continues on climate change, because people tend to weigh and consider uncertainty and evidence in diverse ways. Rabinovich and Morton (2012) found that among those who believed that science was about ongoing debate, messages about climate change that communicated high levels of uncertainty were more persuasive than for those who saw science as a search for absolute truth. Knowing that uncertainty is valued differently is important because it has implications for the value people place on different pieces of evidence as a basis for policy decision making (Landström, Hauxwell-Baldwin, Lorenzoni, & Rogers-Hayden, 2015). This is particularly pertinent given the inherent uncertainties regarding climate change (as a complex system with feedback loops and interactions). The idea of confirmation bias is thus also relevant, whereby people are understood to value evidence differently based on their existing attitudes towards, and understanding of, a subject (Corner, Whitmarsh, & Xenias, 2012; Kraft, Lodge, & Taber, 2015; Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979)
In summary, all these differences in values, risk perception, and understanding of uncertainty mean that people come to value knowledge about climate change differently (Collins, 2014; Martin & Richards, 1995; Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2001). These different assessments of the claims about climate change, and the associated valuations of expertise and evidence, are important contributory factors to how people respond to the idea of climate change.
…
Names and Labels in the Climate Debate
One of the most common forms of incivility and hostility in the climate change debate is the use of derogatory names, which people who hold opposing viewpoints use to refer to those with whom they disagree. While a certain element of debate focuses on the evidence brought forward by debate participants, the antagonism is frequently more personal and related to reducing the legitimacy or status of the other individual in question. These labels identify individuals at either ends of an extreme spectrum—either those who believein climate change (also known by labels such as warmists), or those who deny or are skeptical of various elements relating to climate change (usually climate change science, but not necessarily). There are rarely labels that describe those who are apathetic about climate change, or who have no fixed viewpoint. The section below explores the types of labels used in the climate debate in more detail.
The cause and effect relationship between the use of labels and the polarization evident in the debate is unclear. In other words, we do not know whether the use of such labels are causing polarization, or whether the political polarization of the climate change debate influences the subsequent use and polarized nature of these labels. The existence of a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism is also possible, with the use of labels reinforcing the polarization and vice versa (Howarth & Sharman, 2015).
As discussed at the beginning of this article, skepticism is a standard part of scientific inquiry. However, in the climate change debate, the term “climate skeptic” now more commonly refers to those who express uncertainty, dissonance, or cynicism about climate science or the need for climate policies. The first occurrence of this skeptic label in relation to climate change can be traced back to 1989, with the label greenhouse skeptic (Nerlich, 2014), which was overtaken a decade later by global warming skeptic as the most common term, up until 2005. Following this, climate change skeptic became the most commonly used label, followed closely by the label denier. A suggested reason behind climate change denial is that climate change is too worrisome a topic—if it were to be real, significant lifestyle and other changes would become necessary which may not be desirable (Weintrobe, 2013).
…
Labels, Incivility, and a Path Forward
The use of such labels contributes to intense incivility common to the climate change debate in a number of ways. But such conditions do not need to exist, and by recognizing the unfortunate impact of labels, a path forward beyond incivility can be defined.
First, labels can be used to mask the detail of particular points of view, such as the motivations behind why these opinions are formed in the first place. This is of particular concern given that the meaning of some labels may change over time. Consequently, what may once have been a term with a positive or neutral implication (such as the idea of skepticism within scientific practice) changes as it becomes associated with particular individuals who hold outsider views. For example, uncertainty is often not due to a lack of scientific understanding, but is a result of differing and competing scientific understandings, which are amplified by political, cultural, or institutional contexts. In addition, uncertainty, and the words we use to describe uncertainty, can mean different things to different people (Morgan & Mellon, 2011).
In the scientific enquiry, the term has come to be associated with ignorance. Uncertainties can therefore be deliberately highlighted by those seeking to cast doubt, which can further deepen opposition between those who conceive of science as a “search for absolute truth” and those who understand it more as an ongoing debate. It is also important to recognize that, even among experts, the definition of uncertainty can be difficult to pin down. For example, in their guidance note to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the preparation of the third assessment report, Moss and Schneider (2000, p. 35) recognize that the term uncertainty “can range in implication from a lack of absolute sureness to such vagueness as to preclude anything more than informed guesses or speculation”—making it possible to easily use the concept as a negative term.
Second, labels can also be used in a pejorative and derogatory manner. Calling someone an “eco-loon” (Delingpole, 2012) is specifically intended to delegitimize their viewpoint, and calling someone an “alarmist” immediately reduces the credibility of the intended message. The label “denier” has also been alleged to have connections to Holocaust deniers (O’Neill & Boykoff, 2010).
Third, labels like denier or alarmist only identify those people at the polarized extremes of the debate, making it seem like these polarized extremes represent the majority of individuals (Jones, 2011). This is despite evidence suggesting that the majority of the public does not ascribe to either extreme (Whitmarsh, 2008). Framing the debate as binary and dualistic creates the aforementioned duel between warring factions. This makes it less and less likely that dialogue is possible with the “other,” because they have already been identified as both different, and more importantly, wrong.
Since polarization is related to the notion of group identity formation, labels help to create and preserve the identity of members of a group. This is important because it fosters an “environment where preservation of one’s ideology, identity, and the group one belongs to takes priority over constructive deliberation of knowledge or evidence: who one is becomes more important that what “one is arguing” (Howarth & Sharman, 2015, p. 246). Thus, in order to maintain the cohesion and identity of the group, psychological mechanisms, such as assimilation bias, whereby information that conflicts with a pre-existing point of view is discarded or discredited, are more likely to occur (Cormick, 2011; Whitmarsh, 2011).
Fourth, labels contribute towards the incivility in the debate by acting as fixed markers of opinions. People may feel the need to continue to debate the position that they have either self-designated, or been designated to by others. These positions can become hardened into stereotypes that frame the “negative other” as using so-called junk science to make their case (Koteyko, Jaspal, & Nerlich, 2012). This is in opposition to the “sound science” used by the party who thinks they are in the right (McGarity, 2003–2004). This can lead to debates becoming less and less (ostensibly) about evidence (as that may conflict with the pre-existing position), and more about more about explicitly attacking the credibility and status of any opponents.
Finally, the blanket nature of the labels used in the climate debate, and their inability to capture the nuance and complexity of individual peoples’ positions, values, and worldviews, also serves to demonize individual debate participants. Max Boykoff (2013, p. 13) concisely argues that the “treatment of individuals through denigrating monikers does little to illuminate the contours of their arguments; it actually has the opposite obfuscating effect in the public sphere.” Previous research conducted, aiming to explore motivations of climate scientists and climate skeptics who actively participate in the debate, found that understanding overlaps in their motivations may in fact enable more constructive dialogue on the issue (Sharman & Howarth, 2016). Promoting self-reflexivity as well as identifying and emphasizing commonalities (even among explicit rather than “true” underlying motivations) were argued to provide fruitful avenues for conflict resolution.
While a common public perception is that of a single debate where climate scientists are representatives of scientific truth, and skeptical voices are the dominant challengers, there is a growing understanding of a more multi-layered reality to the divide over climate change that can be understood through the analysis of the potential misalignment of actors and their roles in public debate.
Critically, identifying and emphasizing overlaps in opinions, views, values, and beliefs may defuse the antagonism evident in the debate. Hostile arguments may reduce if participants are reminded of commonalities, such as a mutual love of enquiry and scientific understanding, or of agreement on the antagonistic and potentially off-putting nature of the current climate debate (Sharman & Howarth, 2016). This could produce a constructive and more civil debate on climate change, with the use of labeling as categorizations of opinions, and not ways in which to isolate or exclude participants in the debate.
The full paper, open source:
Influence of Labeling and Incivility on Climate Change Communication
Candice Howarth and Amelia Sharman
Subject: Climate Change Communication Online Publication Date: Feb 2017 DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.382
[Editor Note: missing introduction restored about 10 minutes after publication ]
I’m a climate change denier, only, I don’t deny that the climate changes, it always has done, always will. Isn’t it strange that the only solution to AGW isaglobul socialist based guvment that has control over ALL the world resources, which it will meter out to all as they seef it!
Alan as people used to say, ” Suck it up and get on with it” and as Joe Bastardi always ends his comments? “It’s the only weather you got”
Alan,
Very observant , the climate has always changed, this may be new to the scientists.
Instead of going the full conspiracist theory nutter, try actual evidence that would pass peer review muster ?.
The only person who I have heard deny climate change is Bill Nye, the science lie.
In his recent interview with Sen Sanders he clearly said that without humans we would have a climate similar to that of 1750.
That sums up his ludicrously simplistic view that climate is totally constant and 100% of change is due to human influence. I don’t think you will find anyone on the planet make a more ignorant statement than that while pretending to be an authority “science guy”.
Now that, is climate change denial.
with a little of a conspiracy, you can get the science magazines controlled by those that postulate the AGW. There is a crowd for the are eating out of it. Like the priests of any religion. They are earning their food out of preaching something,
I was yesterday debating this question of AGW and people said, “how can you reject the evidence”?
I told them, there is not any evidence. According the Oxford dictionary, evidence means “clearness, obviousness” But I do not see anything obvious or clear. But I conceded that evidence also means “testimonies and data” presented to favor a conclusion. I told them, if you want to be a scientists and to prove the theory of AGW is right, you must look for arguments against it, not in favor. By looking at all arguments against and not finding any argument, you must think you have not looked well, or perhaps
the theory is right. Moreover, I told some of them, you must explain all past climatic puzzles we had discovered and have an easy way to explain them. Like the graphics of temperature NGRIP of Greenland
All those jitters up and down of temperature need to be explained, to believe they know what they are saying.
Another argument is the stupid lines rising of the computer simulations. If there computer simulations
are so good, why do they present such divergent results? Y with this divergent simulations we need to be stupid to believe this shows a 95% degree of confidence.
Which peer reviewed it that, the rubber stamped ones? Or the, let’s change the numbers they don’t agree with our models ? That evidence ? Or the we changed the numbers, now to prevent anybody from seeing what we did, let’s destroy the original data, that evidence ? Or OMG, you want us to tell you how we arrived at certain conculsions, how can we work under such Conditions! We might have to immigrate to France ! That one ?
Actual evidence supports Alan the Brit.
You’re close Alan. But this psychobabble is not science-backed. It all goes back to the Club of Rome and their misanthropes, i.e., Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism as Fellow Engineer and author, Robert Zubrin explains in his marque work ” The Merchants of Despair”. Available from the Heartland Institute.
From my perspective, it was the ClimateGate emails that clarified for me what the credibility was for the mainstream climate science. Those individuals had the outward status in “climate science”, and they destroyed their own credibility by the own words. They showed a clear intent to deceive the policy makers, suppress by unethical means dissenting ciews from making it to peer-reviewed literature, and also to hide the uncertainty of their own data all from their own communications within their small cliques. And the authors of this piece seem to have convenienty ignored that clear Climate Gate email evidence of where truth-seekers are and who are the charlatans.
Yup! This isn’t about “resolving conflict in an amicable way,” this is about people pushing a damaging political agenda vs. those trying to stop them from doing so, with good reason. Big difference.
In lieu of a “like” button, I am submitting a “like” post.
explicitly attacking the credibility and status of any opponents
=================
isn’t calling someone a denier “objectification”. By calling someone a “denier” you are trying to change them from a person to an object. Something less than human.
How is this any different than treating women as “sex objects”? How is the “denier” label (the “D” word) any different than the “N” word?
It also referred to as “othering”.
http://www.yiannisgabriel.com/2012/09/the-other-and-othering-short.html
Fred, objects can not “deny” anything, since they do not have opinions, nor means of communication. So no to your “objectification”
Ever notice how most of the name calling comes from leftists? If you are skeptical of the science behind global warming you are a “denier.” If you want to see an end to unlawful immigration from Mexico you are a “racist.” If you voted for Donald Trump you are “ignorant” or “uneducated.”
Ever notice how much leftists rely on strawman arguments? When defending EPA they argue that their opponents are in favor of dirty rivers and polluted air. When defending Federal subsidies of PBS they argue that their opponents want to kill Big Bird.
Ever notice how much leftists rely of heavy emotional arguments? Like enforcement of immigration laws will tear little children away from their parents? Like building the Dakota pipeline will desecrate “sacred” Indian burial sites? Like reforming the abuses in current medicaid laws will kill little granny?
Science should NEVER include name calling. And when you hear these strawman type arguments you know that either you are hearing propaganda or you are listening to someone who doesn’t understand the issues. And any politician who tries to protect graft and corruption in governmental programs ought to taken out and trampled to death by a herd of deranged wild yaks.
And science should ESPECIALLY not include name calling related to skepticism, when skepticism is the very foundation of science! The “how dare you question the science” arrogance is telling – about how pathetic the so-called (climate) “science” really is.
When you have no credibility on the economy, you can’t use cost-benefit arguments. Everything in the real world has costs and benefits. Choices are all between various imperfect options; some better than others.
Everyone uses strawman arguments, but some people only use logical fallacies. I think the simpler and starker an argument is (especially ban x, y and z) the more likely it is to rely on logical fallacies, moral or emotional blackmail and false existential threats.
It’s all about “constructing perception and reality.” Or I would say, constructing a “consensus” alternative reality that all pretend to agree exists. Why does this bring to mind the Salem witch-hunts of the 1600’s?
Oh, yeah . . .
liberals are funny animals….they know they lost…..but have no idea why
That is because they truly believe their theories are correct. It’s just that past implementations have been incomplete or done incorrectly.
You’re right, Joe. They say socialism hasn’t failed – it just hasn’t ever been really tried yet.
Ralph Dave Westfall:
Socialism has worked and is working wherever it has been applied.
However, communism on the extreme left and libertarianism on the extreme right have usually induced disaster wherever either has been applied.
Richard
LOL! Great joke.
Hey Ralph! “socialism hasn’t failed – it just hasn’t ever been really tried yet.”
Actually, that is correct. We will know that socialism has been really tried when the result is not simply a few survivors and millions dead, but zero survivors and everyone dead.
philjourdan:
In a thread about labeling you pretend my factual statements are a “joke”.
Firstly, I was refuting the falsehood from Ralph Dave Westfall. I demonstrated that we socialists don’t make the claims he falsely asserted we do. In reality, we proclaim the demonstrated benefits and achievements of socialism (as I did).
Secondly, you have tried to frame the facts as a “joke”, so I suggest you try to justify your framing of the facts by
1
Naming a country that has adopted socialism (e.g. one of the Scandinavian ones) and explaining why you think its success is really failure,
and 2
Naming countries that have adopted communism or libertarianism and explaining why you think their failure is success.
Richard
LOL! Still joking. You are a funny comedian. Not too hot on history, but great jokester!
Socialism can work for awhile. It always fails eventually because eventually you run out of other people’s money.
Of course those who rely on other people’s money for their livelihood will continue to support socialism right up to the bitter end.
The only place where libertarianism has ever been tried was Iceland back in the middle ages, and it lasted for several hundred years.
Of course the socialists have to re-define terms, such as trying to claim that any instance of anarchy is libertarianism.
Kind of how they try to claim that national socialists (fascists) are actually right wing.
Don’t look now, but Scandinavian socialism is starting to creak towards it’s inevitable collapse.
Socialism, as Margaret Thatcher observed, is great system, that is… until you run out of Other People’s Money. (OPM).
“richardscourtney March 3, 2017 at 12:06 pm
Ralph Dave Westfall:
Socialism has worked and is working wherever it has been applied.”
It was applied in Ethiopia, didn’t work and was overwhelming rejected after a very short time.
Venezuela is another socialist paradise. If you are going, bring toilet paper.
Jason Calley, philjordan, Patrick MJD, joelobryan and MarkW :
I intend no insult to anyone by making a single reply to you all. I do it to minimise my difficulty in posting to the web.
Patrick MJD, I am not familiar with the Ethiopian example you assert and would welcome information on it.
Jason Calley, you seem to be confused, all those slaves worked to death on American plantations were killed by libertarianism, not socialism.
philjordan, as does any troll, when called on your offensive falsehood you cannot substantiate it so you provide another piece of trolling.
joelobryan and MarkW, the pretense that others do what they do is normal propaganda for the right; e.g. see the comment of Jason Calley above. So, yes, Margaret Thatcher did famously lie that “socialism fails when it runs out of other people’s money”. That lie was an attempted smokescreen for her buying votes with other peoples’ money by selling council houses at far below market value. This kept her in power until the resource ran out when he own political party (i.e. the Conservatives aka the Tories) ousted her. The loss of council houses had many harmful effects including creation of the lack of affordable housing in the UK which still exists to this day, and it is one of the reasons that the present leader of the Tories and UK PM, Theresa May, admitted to her Party Conference that the Tories are known as “the nasty party”. May is trying to correct that; for example, Thatcher asserted and acted on the libertarian view that
but after years of the Tories being in government, Tory PM May proclaims she wants to establish
MarkW, as is your usual behaviour, in attempt to promote your fasc1sm, you present offensive falsehoods from behind your shield of anonymity. Many people have practiced libertarianism (e.g. Al Capone), and fasc1sm is and always has been the far-right by definition.
Richard
LOL! Still Joking! I love it! Falsehood? I only laughed at a joke. I guess you do not believe in jokes. Your loss. I love a good joke.
You might want to learn how to laugh.
richardscourtney
March 3, 2017 at 12:06 pm
Socialism has always failed. Communism fails more rapidly. Socialism with conservative opposition takes longer, but eventually you run out of other people’s money. Venezuela is a prime current example, despite its natural wealth. Old Europe is so deeply in debt that it’s in the process of collapse.
Libertarianism has never been tried, but would succeed brilliantly if so, given the spectacular results of small increments of it. Only political and economic freedom can succeed in achieving lasting prosperity.
“richardscourtney March 4, 2017 at 2:55 am”
It’s no assertion, I have been to Ethiopia and I was married to an Ethiopian, so I learnt about her home country. This link, albeit New York Times, it’s a start and is accurate as far as I can recall.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/08/world/new-ethiopia-feudal-ways-yield-to-marx.html?pagewanted=all
“richardscourtney March 4, 2017 at 2:55 am
That lie was an attempted smokescreen for her buying votes with other peoples’ money by selling council houses at far below market value. This kept her in power until the resource ran out when he own political party (i.e. the Conservatives aka the Tories) ousted her. The loss of council houses had many harmful effects including creation of the lack of affordable housing in the UK which still exists to this day…”
On this I can agree. It was a very bad political move IMO, but politicians will do anything to stay in power. So former council tenants were sold a house, paid for by taxpayers, only to sell them at market rates after a few years. That put millions in to housing poverty, which, as you say, still exists today. The other policy that lead to her downfall was the poll tax. But she was not the PM who shut down more coal mines than any other PM in UK history. No, that crown rests firmly on Wilson’s head. And IIRC, the Beaching report, commissioned under Labour, executed by the Tories. Labour would have done it anyway if they were in power.
I voted for Thatcher twice in her last two terms. The last time I voted was for the National Party in New Zealand. I have not voted since because, given how much they value democracy, I believe no wannbe President/PM has earned my vote, none of them, and I deal with that.
I guess the morale of the story is you cannot trust politicians from either side of politics.
Patrick MJD:
Thankyou for your reply to me thaty says
“Marxist- Leninist Government”!?
No wonder I had not heard of your so-called example of a failed socialist country.
It was communist (i.e. Marxist- Leninist) and NOT socialist.
Richard
@richardscourtney
“you seem to be confused”, says the man who writes “slaves worked to death on American plantations were killed by libertarianism”
Libertarianism may work or not, may exist or not, but to say that it implemented slavery just shows the speaking man’s ruins between his ears.
Didn’t read further. After such nonsense any nonsense can be expected, and any truth will be suspect, so i have rather read them elsewhere.
Gloateus Maximus:
Your post is very, very funny.
I refuted the assertion of Ralph Dave Westfall that said of socialists
I refuted that by demonstrating what we socialists do say when I wrote
You have replied to that by saying in full
Clearly, Ralph Dave Westfall’s mistake was to confuse the behaviour of libertarians as being behaviour of socialists because socialists don’t say, “socialism hasn’t failed – it just hasn’t ever been really tried yet.”
You have demonstrated that libertarians do say,
“Libertarianism has never been tried, but would succeed brilliantly”.
And that assertion is wrong on both counts. Many (e.g. Al Capone, the Kray brothers, and etc.) have applied libertarianism. Indeed, libertarianism was the norm in the Wild West before the Rule of Law could be applied. Libertarianism’s failure is inevitable because it imposes great suffering on the great bulk of a population.
And that suffering results from libertarians taking other peoples’ money for their own use, which is something socialists don’t do.
Richard
paqyfelyc:
You make an attempt at insult and self-justification. I commend that you try to include wit (assuming you have any) in any similar future attempts: if you do then your attempts may work and not give the impression that you are a bot.
Richard
“richardscourtney March 6, 2017 at 5:32 am”
Armchair opinions. It was an experiment in socialism..with a view to full blown communism…nothing more,nothing less. The desire *WAS* communism, no doubt, but they had a go at socialism. It failed! Been to Ethiopia? No, didn’t think so.
The original quote that popularized the ad hominem “denier” is this: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” (Goodman, Ellen. No change in political climate. The Boston Globe, February 9, 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070214041353/http:/www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
Furthermore, note the use of the term “alleged” in the following quote from the article under discussion…
“Calling someone an “eco-loon” (Delingpole, 2012) is specifically intended to delegitimize their viewpoint, and calling someone an “alarmist” immediately reduces the credibility of the intended message. The label “denier” has also been alleged to have connections to Holocaust deniers (O’Neill & Boykoff, 2010).”
Noone who knows anything at all about the climate “debate” would use the word “alleged”. It is the goto word in virtually any attack on skeptics. Methinks I note the side to which the author might be leaning? On the other hand they appear to be doing their best. Remaining unbiased is hard!
I’d forgotten why I don’t read Goodman any longer, thank you.
From the way policy makers treat the climate consensus and especially how they treat the large and growing number of skeptics, I would say that the worst sorts of ideas about skeptics has taken root in far too many in government. And when one looks at opinion leaders in the cliamte consensus, the hatred and ill will towards skeptics has not moderated at all.
To steve k….and the boston globe
Interesting review of labeling and politics. This discussion might be rather good.
There is a strong psychological tendency to categorize arguments that people have an emotional involvement in, and support or dismiss arguments accordingly. The degree of emotional involvement has damn little to do with the support one has for one’s opinions, however.
Another thing is the interaction of politics and other opinions not directly related to economic model type politics. Many, but not all, advocates of climate change programs are economic leftists. Many, again not all, opponents are sympathetic to capitalism tending towards libertarianism. Much of the venom is due to general dislike for the politics of the various participants, not the actual content of their other beliefs.
What’s not good about this discussion is that it appears to assume a legitimacy exists in “climate science,” when such “science” contradicts observation, the very basis of real science.
I noticed that the paper played down the name-calling by “believers” and emphasized the “poor” behavior by the skeptics. Under the veneer of an objective call for civility is a sanctimonious attempt to equate the malicious treatment of skeptics with derisive eye-rolling and admittedly, some name-calling by said skeptics. Which side has systematically targeted their “opponents” and attempted to ruin their reputations, negatively impact their employment, and socially stigmatize them?
As for the nonsense about scientific topics not being debated, that is because the AGW believers do not WANT to talk about the science. I realize the above excerpts are just that, excerpts, but I have to wonder if the authors put as much effort into showing the motivations of the believers as they did with the alleged motives of the skeptics. None of my problems with the scam are that it “challenges” my ideology or identity. My problems with the scam include (but are not limited to) the fact that the actual data do not support the claims, the sneering condescension of the self-appointed elites as they practice their hypocrisy, the immense dishonesty of the advocates, and THAT IT IS NOT SCIENCE BASED OR SUPPORTED.
It’s the reality, stupid. (See what I did there?)
Another issue is just who is doing the name calling.
On the skeptic side, most of the name calling is being done by anonymous posters on hundreds of web sites. For the most part, the skeptical leaders haven’t stooped to name calling.
On the warmist side, the name calling goes all the way to the top.
Scott Adams, creator of the “Dilbert” comics, in his blog on the black arts of persuasion discusses in MANY posts the relative effectiveness of emotions vs. facts and figures in framing arguments. The sad truth is you can have 100% of the empirical evidence on your side, and still lose to utterly nonsensical emotional gymnastics for the simple reason that they are not equal–they grab the brain in different ways. He has had much to say about climate issues recently–if you haven’t already, check him out!
So in the end, the greatest emotional appeal wins and humans are no more than dogs begging for a treat?
“So in the end, the greatest emotional appeal wins…”
Sheri, that’s a lesson the progressives learned a long time ago. If you ignore the ad hominems (always their first argument) practically all of their positions turn out to be no more than tugs on your heart strings. If you don’t support their positions you just don’t care enough for your fellow man.
What the elites understand but their followers fail to recognize is that progressive theory is based on a belief in the ultimate goodness of mankind. Without that none of their theories or positions hold water. Of course the progressive elite know better. They ‘know’ the rest of us are just too ignorant to govern ourselves, a “basket of deplorables” that must be told how to think and how to act. For an excellent example of the progressive attitude look up Marc A. Thiessen’s article (“Thanks to Jonathan Gruber for revealing Obamacare deception”) in the Washington Post on November 17, 2014.
I am Spartacus.
I am Spartacus
these guys are Spartacus
All guys are Spartacus, Oh and just for clarification? What are women? Cleopatras?
asybot: Smart enough to stay out of this one.
Now let me see, the 10:10 video showed men, women, & children, being blown up by “others” because they didn’t agree with the “others” veiwpoint. ISIS, blow up men, women, & children, because…………………? What a coincidence!
Yes. And thank you, Richard Curtis, (of Blackadder fame) for that piece of execrable “entertainment”. He withdrew it shortly after it was first shown, but well worth seeing to glimpse into the mind of those who are utterly convinced they are right, and can do anything to “persuade” the non believers. Yep. Sounds like a religion I can think of.
Dave:
I agree, it does sound like Zionism.
Richard
Actually, it sounds exactly like the “Committee for Public Safety” headed by Robespierre during the French Revolution. Anybody who disagreed with them was (by definition) against freedom and had to be executed. They ordered the first documented genocide of the Vendee region of France.
Anytime anyone claims that there is no such thing as “Liberal Fascism”, see Robespierre as exhibit one.
A belief that Jews should be allowed to return to their ancestral homeland?
Sounds like you are attempting yet another redefinition of terms.
Candice Howarth and Amelia Sharman do good work but I’m sort of hoping the other side don’t take their advice on board. The warmists’ hostility to anyone asking even the most reasonable question is partly what is destroying their credibility.
Alarmists are entirely reliant on argument from authority (IPCC says …) and character assassination (Deniers / mavericks say …). When evidence is not peer-reviewed in academic journals and endorsed by the IPCC they can’t even read it. They refuse to put their brains in first gear. Some otherwise reasonable FB friends of mine even told me Joe Romm is an ‘expert on climate science’. I think too many alarmists are lazy. Climate is a wicked problem. Numerically predicting it is still beyond us. I can, sort of, understand why they prefer argument from authority to understanding that transcends platitude. One is easy, the other hard.
Good Point.
I think Trumps support thrives on the excesses of the media and many Democrats because they have destroyed their credibility with continuous, outlandish claims.
Counterproductive namecalling may have been. But the whole journal where this was published is still dedicated to the nutty proposition that skepticism about CAGW results from failure to communicate the climate science properly, rather than failure of the climate science itself. And those failures are now massive. No warming this century except by Karlization. No accelerating SLR. Polar bears thriving. Greening. Snow. Failed models. Instances of clear academic misconduct (Marcott 2013 in Science) and utter statistical incompetence (Mann hockey stick).
Yes, that’s the basic problem. They once again assume the “climate scientists” pushing AGW have a legitimacy that simply doesn’t exist.
Ristvan
So true! This argument of poor communication rather than poor science is now rampant. I think Heartland’s book”Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” (https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming) is the clearest response to this misdirection I have found. It addresses the misleading memes that derail reasonable discussion. The only shortcoming I saw in the book is it was written before the recent papers that show anthropogenic CO2 emissions unrelated to atmospheric CO2 or global temperature.
It can be downloaded as a .pdf at the heartland site.
“Counterproductive namecalling may have been. But the whole journal where this was published is still dedicated to the nutty proposition that skepticism about CAGW results from failure to communicate the climate science properly, rather than failure of the climate science itself.”
That’s exactly right. They are working on the assumption that CAGW is real and is happening now, and they are trying to figure out a good way to communicate that “truth” to the rest of us.
Psychological factors certainly have an effect on how some people address the CAGW issue, but there are lots of people who are just looking for some facts that can confirm CAGW, but haven’t seen any yet. Being capable of discerning that there is a lack of evidence should not be a disqualifier, or be thought of as an aberrant mental condition.
They are studying how best to proselytize people who aren’t sufficiently susceptible to their present propaganda techniques. Copernicus didn’t need to to this. Newton, nope. Darwin, nope. Einstein, nope. They just provided their data and analysis and let it sink in. If the climate loon’s data was good and the analysis from it was right then there would be no problem with convincing the vast majority of folks. Let them keep studying how to sell snow to Eskimos. It will never work.
ristvan: Did you read Marcott’s actual paper?
Yes. And wrote up the academic misconduct expose. You can read it as essay A High Stick Foul in my ebook Blowing Smoke, or as earlier version guest post Playing Hockey-Blowing the Whistle at Judith Currys Climate Etc, posted March 19 2013. The evidence is conclusive and damning. Forensic comparison of his thesis section 3 to the Science paper, supposedly the ‘same’.
Regards, Sheri. Something to know-unlike many here, I never comment without having first checked the facts.
Apologies. I thought you were referring to Marcott and not to the Science version. Many people don’t realize that Marcott did not say what Science did. (Your write-up was very interesting. Thanks for letting me know about it.)
“Hierarchical-individualistic: People in this category tend to be more skeptical about environmental risks, because if they were widely accepted, they would negatively impact the freedom of industry and commerce, which are highly valued by this group.”
I classify myself as individualistic, but the reason I am skeptical about the Global Warming risk, is that I have looked at the science from the perspective of an engineer, in particular the climate models and the temperature record.
The climate models are useless tools to predict the future climate outcomes. Far to little is known about natural climate variability and there is no agreement by the climate modelers on the key factors the drive the climate. The outputs of the climate models do not match historical data, even the data that has been manipulated to better match the assumed output that CO2 is a major climate driver.
Secondly there is almost no temperature records for the ocean temperature. Since most of the heat energy is stored in the oceans, the temperature record for the oceans and the flow rates of the ocean currents are far more important than the land temperatures. Measurements of the surface temperatures of the oceans is interesting and useful for predicting weather, but meaningless in terms of climate change. The sparse information of the temperature history over the depth of the ocean and the flow rates of the ocean currents is to a first approximation zero.
The uncertainties in our understanding of the climate drivers are at least 1 order of magnitude greater than the impact of CO2.
Particularly to non-scientists who call themselves climatologists.
The point being that they need to denigrate others as they can’t treat them as equals. When they try to debate their ‘equals’ they lose.
Without the facts on their side they have to shout loudly. Otherwise people might notice that AGW isn’t very important.
Without facts on their side their best bet is the very name-calling and vilification they have been applying for many years now. The article seems more a resignation that their tactics have failed than an attempt to promote anything “constructive.”
Notice the subtle(ish) implication that the only people who “disagree” are non-scientists. 97 percent for-EVAH.
Certainly, the name calling and ugliness is counterproductive — and intentionally so, in many cases. Certain people do not wish for there to be any rational discussion of the subject. These people deserve to be called out, perhaps even a label.
The analysis is framed from the perspective of how to get those pesky skeptical deplorables under control and sell them on how the enlightened believers are to be obeyed.
Agreed. I’m sick of that pompous attitude.
Is it “stupid”? Or just an indication of the person who is doing it? Most are aware that those using derogatory terms are doing so because they lack either the maturity or the knowledge to debate (or both).
Probably both. Many feel threatened that they may have made a mistake—a very, very public mistake and don’t want it found out. Followers are often lazy and non-thinking—they go with the alpha male and do whatever they are told. Never question the leader because the leader is the failure if this falls apart, not the lowly followers. They were “tricked” by the experts. You can’t expect them to actually study any thing. And everyone else was doing it. It’s blame-avoidance at it’s peak.
Resorting to rhetorical logical fallacies reveals the lack of a solid scientific basis and evidence by the accuser. Categorizing as “climate denier” is the ad hominem fallacy.
Richard Feynman
A new climate expert in Canaduh…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bank-canada-deputy-climate-change-carbon-1.4007234
“The deputy governor of the Bank of Canada touted the case for pricing carbon during a speech in Montreal on Thursday, warning that climate change and actions to address it will have “material and pervasive effects on Canada’s economy and financial system.”
Yes, addressing climate change will have “material and pervasive effects on Canada’s economy and financial system”.
The question is: After you spend all that money, how much will that reduce the Earth’s temperature? Answer: It may not reduce it at all. You are going to waste all that money and have nothing to show for it. You will be poorer for it. Eventually you will say, “What were we thinking!?
Madness isn’t it? Where did they get that figure from? Out of a polar bears arse I think.
Even if “the temperature”, whatever that is, goes down, there’s no way to know if it was due to the money being spent, or just because.
Canada? If global warming theory is true, Canada will be a tremendous beneficiary. If they were smart, Canada (and Russia) would be pumping out as much CO2 as possible. They could increase the amount of arable land tremendously.
How much will the Bank of Canada be making from these “carbon pricing” schemes?
Well, SOMEONE will make money. I can guarantee it won’t be anyone very nice:
http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2017/03/01/low-results-in-quebec-california-cap-and-trade-auction-weeks-ahead-of-ontario-s.html
“The latest Quebec-California auction — the 10th one held since their respective carbon markets were linked on January 1, 2014 — saw just 18 per cent of the current allowances sold, according to results released Wednesday.”
Reminds me of “energy saving experts”. You need to put in $15,000 worth of triple pane windows, a $6000 96% efficient furnace, buy $300 in LED light bulbs, $1000 for a new energy efficient frig, $2000 for a water-saving washer and energy efficient dryer, and $700 on a water-saving, energy-saving dishwasher, or you’ll go broke from energy costs in the future.
I just made that statement about climate followers and advocates (i.e. people who repeat ‘climate news‘ rather than those who make it). The corresponding argument about the leaders (who make the news/science) is they want simplicity and certainty. ‘Solving‘ climate with models, Hockey Sticks, and a simple cause: CO2, gives that. But it’s not just about simplicity and certainty. Climate alarmism is a moral crusade where one can believe in a trans-human solutions : ‘the science‘. It all makes perfect sense when understood as a drama for existential meaning in a world where God is dead.
I didn’t even know He was sick. 🙂
They do use “The Science” the same way a minister would use “The Word of God”.
God isn’t dead. He’s retired, and now he spends a lot of time on the golf course. Fifteen billion years looking after the universe; he’s earned it.
Peta meets a Warmist:
Peta: Hello Warmist, blah blah, blah usual pleasantries
Warmist: Hello Peta (then as above)
Peta: It snowed last night in Timbuktu (Peta’s from England and englanders talk about weather a lot)
Warmist: Yes, wasn’t it awful? Another sure sign humans are changing the climate with carbon dioxide greenhouse gases.
Peta: Well, let me say that I thoroughly agree with you that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, but I don’t think its changing the climate much
Warmist: Of course it is, you just now mentioned the desert snow, 97% of scientists say so and the science is settled.
Peta then goes on to produce reams of writing, tons of tedious little pictures & graphs, calls on a few oddball characters as his authority – all in an attempt to back-track (as the warmist sees it) on his first assertion that CO2 is a Green House Gas.
Warmist, in common with everyone on a high carb diet, has a short attention span. Warmist is thus bored to tears and soon wondering where and when their next fix of sugar is coming from, hence becoming increasingly irritated when Peta drones on and on, saying to opposite to what he said in his introduction.
I think its fair to say that ‘First Impressions Count’
So, when we wade in with our assertion (as Skeptics often do in an attempt to open a friendly dialogue) that CO2 has a warming effect and then proceed to try explain quite the opposite, is it really any wonder the Warmists think skeptics are crazy and not to be trusted?
What a load of disrespectful crap. I am a citizen of the US, from pioneer stock and will not allow some caretaker to benevolently change the narrative such that I could be pursuaded of the conjecture referred to as anthropogenic warming.
If there is such a thing as persuasive convincing language made to appear like honest climate change dialogue, the proposed style WOULD NOT BE IT!
it’s frat boy ethics: no means yes and yes means anal.
And silence means maybe later.
Either that or she’s passed out, in which case it means yes.
So much Hot Air to say bad mouthing those properly presenting scientific scepticism is unhelpful in arriving at the truth. Greenshirt protection racket tactics ;-). That’s it. The reason it is done is to suppress the truth by bullying and fiscal control by those with money and power, for whatever unscientific reason, of those who could resist a hypothesis with facts. Grants can catch fire.
Throughout, this article appears to accept that AGW is substantive, if subject to question, and there are better ways to communicate this as a major problem, hence justify the regressive solutions in science fact. Or did I misread myself? This is wholly wrong, IMO. If this then that – presumptive nonsensse. Some people have far too many words and too much time to say the same thin several time in a few thousand words, probably paid for by the taxpayer, none of it science or substantive.
the hidden premise is that anybody wants a debate.
i don’t.
i just want everybody to keep hands off my stuff.
One day, the term climate ‘denier’ will be an a somewhat inaccurate badge of honor, and the hysterical cry-babies and totalitarian wannabes who used it as an equally inaccurate pejorative will themselves be marginalized and shamed by their own rhetoric. I hope they’d all stop for a few moments and consider how few proud Nazis there were after Germany surrendered in WW-2? At that point, they all wanted to be seen as underground resistance fighters. Don’t be one of those guys. If you’re a government scientist or funded by government grants, and you hate what is being done and said about climate certainty that you think ain’t so, well, the time to speak is now, not after this all blows over and you can do it comfortably and without risk of losing your job or your pension. And don’t one of the guys who thought the 10:10 “No Excuses” video was high humor. It was, and is, a sick view of the world held by many people inside your alarmist coalition. If you hate people, then by all means, stay with it. If you love people and want to help people, get shed of their madness.
Oops, I used one of the magic words. I used it advisedly. Am now in moderation.
Why do scholarly papers that are examining the psychological drivers of the behaviour and beliefs of climate sceptics/deniers always miss the most important part of the argument. Almost no one argues that climate changes. Almost no one argues that humans on this planet have impacted the climate at least in some ways. What almost all sceptics/deniers argue is that virtually none of the proposed solutions will have any significant impact on temperature change, and that the costs associated with all of the proposed solutions are far higher than the cost of virtually all of the proposed temperature rises projected. Virtually none of the provided evidence of catastrophic warming/climate change suggests any kind of major problem.
It would be interesting to see what the psychological underpinnings are of alarmists who see a small rise in temperature as catastrophic in a world 3-4 times richer than the current one.
Two quick observations:
I used to have a friend who was OK, except that he was burrowing down the John Cook rabbit hole. Our friendly debates about CAGW started turning nasty as he was completely absorbed in confirmation bias and appeal to authority, and he soon began calling me a denier and would not listen to my explanations of a more nuanced position. I then realized that he was using the term denier exactly as one uses the term ni##er and for the same reason – to discredit the speaker and assert his own superiority. I warned him that if he used it again, I would never speak to him again. He did and I haven’t. No great loss.
Second, there are a group of my Facebook friends who regularly announce that since it rained on Tuesday, it is a sure sign of man made climate disaster. Science is not their strong suit – many believe the Guardian is a great source of scientific fact. HOWEVER, since the election of DJT, they have just STFU on the topic of climate change. Could it be that they no longer feel safe to spew their propaganda with impunity? Could it be that they understand that doing so will call down attacks from folks who challenge the credibility of what they simply “believed” were “facts” and now demand a higher standard of proof?
Some people who are/were on the alarmist bandwagon did so mainly because they liked being on the winning side, because it made them look like winners personally.
“While a common public perception is that of a single debate where climate scientists are representatives of scientific truth, and skeptical voices are the dominant challengers, there is a growing understanding of a more multi-layered reality to the divide over climate change that can be understood through the analysis of the potential misalignment of actors and their roles in public debate.”
So the author reveals the same ‘labeling’ bias that is being discussed. “Climate scientists” are on the CAGW side so the “skeptics” are thus apparently not “climate scientists”. In reality there is a very legitimate debate regarding the science between climate scientists on both sides. No one seems to deny that climate changes. The only legitimate debate is how much human activity has to do with it, whether it is dangerous, beneficial or benign and whether there is anything practical that can be done about it. Uncertainty (used in its scientific context) is clearly substantial and makes any resolution of this debate seem unlikely.