Michael Bloomberg By Bloomberg Philanthropies – https://www.flickr.com/photos/bloombergphilanthropies/29828795984/, CC0, Link.
“Red” By Miguel Discart from Bruxelles, Belgique (2016-03-19_09-11-02_ILCE-6000_6651_DxO) [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
.jpg){kind=link}
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A self identified Libertarian who believes in “aggressive” carbon taxes thinks ordinary Republicans can be persuaded to embrace his ideas if the party leadership tell them what to do.
How the science of persuasion could change the politics of climate change
Conservatives have to make the case to conservatives, and a growing number of them are.
by James Temple April 16, 2018
Jerry Taylor believes he can change the minds of conservative climate skeptics. After all, he helped plant the doubts for many in the first place.
Taylor spent years as a professional climate denier at the Cato Institute, arguing against climate science, regulations, and treaties in op-eds, speeches, and media appearances. But his perspective slowly began to change around the turn of the century, driven by the arguments of several economists and legal scholars laying out the long-tail risks of global warming.
Now he’s president of the Niskanen Center, a libertarian-leaning Washington, DC, think tank he founded in 2014. He and his colleagues there are trying to build support for the passage of an aggressive federal carbon tax, through discussions with Washington insiders, with a particular focus on Republican legislators and their staff.
…
Lesson 1: Pick the right targets
Political scientists consistently find that mass opinion doesn’t drive the policy debate so much as the other way around. Partisan divides emerge first among “elites,” including influential advocacy groups, high-profile commentators, and politicians, says Megan Mullin, an associate professor of environmental politics at Duke University.
They, in turn, set the terms of debate in the public mind, spreading the parties’ views through tested and refined sound bites in media appearances, editorials, social media, and other forums.
For the most part, people first align themselves with groups, often political parties, that appeal to them on the basis of their own experiences, demographics, and social networks. They then entrust the recognized leaders of their self-selected tribe to sort out the details of dense policy and science for them, while vigorously rejecting arguments that seem to oppose their ideologies—in part because such arguments also effectively attack their identity.
…
I suspect Jerry is over-estimating the influence of “elites” on their followers.
I doubt the Republican establishment was keen on President Trump winning the Republican nomination, but somehow he went and did it anyway.
The article itself cites an example of a green Republican who was successfully challenged in a primary by a Tea Party candidate.
Hillary Clinton was the Democrat establishment favourite by a wide margin. But on election day many registered Democrats did not vote for her, despite an expensive election campaign establishing her credentials as one of the Democrat elite.
In Australia and Britain establishment Conservatives have suffered a haemorrhage of support to minor parties like UKIP and One Nation, because their elites are trying to push voters in a direction many of them are unwilling to travel.
If there are no decent choices on offer, people sometimes hold their noses and vote for the least worst candidate. But history has repeatedly demonstrated how quickly support for “elites” can crumble if someone who faithfully articulates the concerns of ordinary people steps up.
Skeptical “mass opinion?”
James Temple seems unaware of the raging the disagreement among skeptics on just about any topic of climatic science. He cannot have read physicist Dr. Charles Anderson’s and Dr. Roy Spencer’s exchange on CO2 radiation. Or Dr. Spencer’s doubts about Christopher Monckton’s CO2 feedback amicus brief. Or the far from unchallenged though prevailing skeptical view of photon flow in terrestrial infrared radiation, relative to the electromagnetic fields of black box radiation theory. Is he aware of “Javier’s” brush off of Dr. Murry Salby’s atmospheric physics on Climate Etc.? Does he know there are skeptics who think CAGWT “physics” does not qualify as such and is a debating society time-waster? Okay, Temple, just who is giving orders here?
Other than the papers of Drs. Michael Connolly and Ronan Connolly, there has been scarcely anything on this site suggesting that the physics of mass/gravity/height could produces all of our 33-degree planetary warming. James Clerk Maxwell hypothesized that it determined surface to top-of-troposphere temperature in 1872, 24 years before Arrhenius suffered his dubious brainstorm. From the 1950s to 1976, hundreds of scientists and engineers confirmed calculations based on Maxwell’s theory with space shots and compiled the “US Standard Atmosphere.” It validated the theory of mass/gravity/height warming from the earth’s surface to space. But here we thrash about to deconstruct CAGWT nonsense (which being nonsense is unaffected by argument) and always come up short of winning. Why not? It amounts to playing by house rules on the house tables.
Tom Anderson,
“James Temple seems unaware of the raging the disagreement among skeptics on just about any topic of climatic science.”
It doesn’t matter how much disagreement there is if the common denominator is about policy rather than science.
The fact that there is disagreement among skeptics is not a sign of independent thought so much as a lack of a cohesive theory to explain the evidence. Much “skeptic” science is more about tearing holes in CAGW theory and evidence in order to influence policy than about finding the truth – evidence for that includes the frequency with which policy is mentioned in the context of science.
Man oh man, Kristi is laying it on thick today.
The fact that skeptics don’t agree is proof that the skeptics are wrong.
I see that she’s still pushing the line that those who agree with her are the only ones who do science.
Kristi, tearing holes in other people’s theory is how you do science. If you knew anything about science, you would already know that.
The mere fact that it is so easy to tear really big holes in your theories is why we ridicule the notion that you are actually doing science.
“Much “skeptic” science is more about tearing holes in CAGW theory and evidence in order to influence policy than about finding the truth – evidence for that includes the frequency with which policy is mentioned in the context of science.”
1. If that were the case, there’d be less intramural warfare among skeptics. Instead, there’d be a consensus not to do so, on the grounds that “any stick is good enough to beat the devil.”
2. “the frequency with which policy is mentioned in the context of science.” is not all that frequent, IMO. Sometimes it’s non-existent. For instance, see the latest Nic Lewis / Judith Curry paper, up yesterday on Climate Etc. here: http://judithcurry.com/2018/04/24/impact-of-recent-forcing-and-ocean-heat-uptake-data-on-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/
And just who told me to think this?
The 396 W/m^2 upwelling and net 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop as shown on the K-T power flux balance diagram (Figure 10 Trenberth et al 2011jcli24) is calculated using the S-B equation with an assumed emissivity of 1.0 and an average surface temperature of 16 C, 289 K. Because of the conductive/convective/advective/latent heat participating processes of the atmospheric molecules the actual and correct radiative emissivity is about 0.16, i.e. 63/396.
This GHG energy loop is an inappropriate calculation with zero physical reality.
Without this energy loop the radiative greenhouse effect theory fails.
Without RGHE man-caused climate change does not exist.
It’s called “science.”
Don’t be frightened, spit out the Kool-Aid and give it a try.
So very many people here are certain of the motives and characters of progressives! Just think: many progressives are equally dismissive, disdainful and insulting of conservatives. Are they right? No. So why do you think you are, those of you who call liberals socialists or communists and irrational and mindless sheep? Every single one of the liberals I know are capitalists; it seems that conservatives pervert the definition of “socialism” to suit their insults.
And why do so many of you think you can think completely independently of the crowd? Are you aware of the manipulation you make yourselves subject to by frequenting this site? Or do you think you’re immune to it?
Don’t you realize most people think they think independently, and just about all of them are wrong?
Those who are truly great thinkers are aware of their biases, and make an effort to be aware of them and where they come from so that they can counteract them. I’m skeptical of those who hang out here and claim they think independently, then go on to insult the Other.
“Those who are truly great thinkers are aware of their biases, and make an effort to be aware of them and where they come from so that they can counteract them.”
Easier said than done, but something we should all try to do.
Fascinating. Kristi actually believes that the fact that she believes her professors unquestioningly proves that she and she alone is capable of independent thought.
The fact that we don’t agree with her professors proves that we are influenced by others and can’t think for ourselves.
Of course, everyone thinks on the basis of one or another group, or, preferably, a combination of them. Newton shrewdly observed that he “stood on the shoulders of giants.” So does everyone who cares to penetrate boundaries. The difference is in having the wit and intelligence to keep on discriminating among hypotheses’ validity and to avoid that timid thralldom to some controlling mindset, otherwise known as groupthink.
There is the occasional Alfred Weggener who holds out against his community, but even Weggener had his followers (although they were surely covert), and was himself a trained, well prepared geologist.
Saying what one meant: Make that “having the wit and flexibility” to discriminate.
The remarks of Prof Mullins on how people including sceptics look to their elite political leaders for their scientific beliefs is a perfect progressive psychogical transference from exactly what drives their sides beliefs (‘scientific beliefs’, God are we going to recover from this dark age rabbit hole). It looks like we are going to have full democracy in science but none in governance.
For an EXAMPLE of leftist elites telling their audiences what to think, check out this “Colbert” clip when he has to tell the audience to think that President Trump’s firing of Comey was actually BAD!
blob:https://www.youtube.com/a078e8a1-a92c-42de-96f4-6d8520abc7c3
Alan, I’m getting a 404 on that link.
Sorry, try
If that doesn’t work, do a websearch with “colbert audience cheers comey firing”
Thanks!
The naivety lies with the author, not the RAMs (Raggedy @ssed Masses). I am anything but a political elite. I nevertheless was a confirmed skeptic of Global Cooling when that was the rage, and also a confirmed skeptic of Global Warming now. Growing up in Northern Minnesota during the peak of the Global Cooling scare, I had every reason to believe in Catastrophic Global Cooling. After learning about chlorine in college chemistry, I filled a gallon jug with a home made slug of the nice green gas and set it out on my back porch to see if it would liquefy at -40. It was mid March, and never got that cold (again) that winter. When the Catastrophic Global Warming scare took over, I remember furiously struggling to finish my ground water heat pump – AC unit during the heat wave/drought of 1988. In all cases, I attributed the weather to weather, not global catastrophe. I was totally Apolitical during those times, but I followed the physics and the data, not some fast talking political hack like Temple, the author.
1) the title is somewhat misleading in that climate skeptics aren’t singled out as the only ones being susceptible to a group’s elites – the quotation and the actual article say that everyone is
2) the strategy outlined in the full article can be used by anyone – including skeptics
3) the photo – showing the elites of CO2 GW side – is the perfect response
4) elitist Jerry Taylor was swayed by “the arguments of several economists and legal scholars” – but not by scientists?!! – shouldn’t he be sure there’s an illness before seeking a cure
@shawn Marshall “libertarian ==> amoralist ==> anything goes”
You are conflating libertarian with libertine. They are not the same thing.