Guest essay by Eric Worrall
University of East Anglia Philosophy teacher Rupert Read is outraged that the government funded BBC would invite a climate “denier” to appear on the same show as himself.
I won’t go on the BBC if it supplies climate change deniers as ‘balance’
Rupert Read
Thu 2 Aug 2018 22.16 AESTLike most Greens, I typically jump at opportunities to go on air. Pretty much any opportunity: BBC national radio, BBC TV, Channel 4, Sky – I’ve done them all over the years, for good or ill. Even when, as is not infrequently the case, the deck is somewhat stacked against me, or the timing inadequate for anything more than a soundbite, or the question up for debate less than ideal.
But this Wednesday, when I was rung up by BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and asked to come on air to debate with a climate change denier, something in me broke, and rebelled. Really? I thought. This summer, of all times?
So, for almost the first time in my life, I turned it down. I told it that I will no longer be part of such charades. I said that the BBC should be ashamed of its nonsensical idea of “balance”, when the scientific debate is as settled as the “debate” about whether smoking causes cancer. By giving climate change deniers a full platform, producers make their position seem infinitely more reasonable than it is. (This contributes to the spread of misinformation and miseducation around climate change that fuels the inaction producing the long emergency we are facing.)
From a public service broadcaster, this is simply not good enough.
…
In the end, the broadcast went ahead without me. Much of it wasn’t bad. The scientists interviewed were excellent. But the framing of the debate was awful, and framing is everything, so far as the message that most listeners receive is concerned. The presenter introduced the segment by asking, “Is climate change real?” The journalist doing vox pops bombarded ordinary people with canards such as, “Maybe it’s just a natural cycle?” And, of course, a climate change denier was given a huge and undeserved platform on an equal basis to his opponent.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/02/bbc-climate-change-deniers-balance
How UEA – a philosopher who refuses to debate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From his Wikipedia link…
“Read studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Balliol College, Oxford,[2] before undertaking postgraduate studies in the United States at Princeton University and Rutgers University (where he gained his doctorate). Influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy, his PhD involved “a Wittgensteinian exploration of the relationship between Kripke’s ‘quus’ problem and Nelson Goodman’s ‘grue’ problem.”[2]
He is Reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia, specialising in philosophy of language, philosophy of science, and environmental philosophy, previously having taught at Manchester.[2] He has contributed to many books, including, in 2002, Kuhn: Philosopher of Scientific Revolution, on the work of Thomas Kuhn, and, in 2005, Film As Philosophy: Essays in Cinema After Wittgenstein And Cavell. His book Philosophy for Life: Applying Philosophy in Politics and Culture, was released in July 2007.[4]
Read was one of five contributors, including Dr Nassim Nicholas Taleb, to a paper entitled “The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)”.[5]”
What is environmental philosophy?
Environmental philosophy:
What does a graph really mean?
Is data real or just a perspective?
questions of that ilk
“How dare the BBC allow my beliefs to be questioned”.. I guess this guy would be one of those lecturers who’s so pants only those who join his cult can pass his classes.
Given his projected 3 reasons for not attending any particular event I must choose his third as the main one.
He MUST see his viewpoint as something far less than ideal and unconvincing to win the “Debate”. Otherwise I don’t see any reason to pass up an opportunity to educate any skeptic and show them the errors of their ways…Unless his argument is without substance.
Perhaps he is just a Stand-up-philosopher
Yes, if he had a valid argument to make, he would be eager to debate the subject.
LOL, I’ve been outed.
Climate change is not a belief or a cult. It’s a fact. It is proved by science. So yes, if you’re teaching environmental philosophy, those who get the facts wrong should fail.
Environmental philosophy:
Is a debate a debate if there is only one side?
Is a debate over when one side refuses to take par by declaring that they have “won”.
Does anyone care if this toss-pot activist academic takes part in a discussion on parochial radio show?
How does one rationalize taking grant money to do a study when the conclusion is already written?
Conclusion are always there, it just takes a philosopher to tease any one of them from the noise!
Just like the sculptor and the rock. same rock, different sculptor and get a different sculpture. That is the state of science these days.
Plus, what a philosopher has to do with climate change is beyond me, only a philosopher could answer that. And no-one would understand anyways.
Environmental philosophy is philosophy that spontaneously self-generated and now evolves via random mutations and environmental pressures into something grand and wonderful.
Taleb’s papers on the precautionary principle are stinkers. The precautionary principle works in a small number of situations with very specific characteristics. Climate change is not one of them, neither is GMOs.
The precautionary principle was invented by Greens when the science and cost-benefit analyses went against their feeble ideas.
Correction: the precautionary principle was invented by careful engineers. It was picked up (not adopted, not admired, not understood, not invented) by political extremists who were looking for ways to sell their otherwise unpalatable demands for an unelected international bureaucracy to be placed in charge of energy policy, mining policy, housing policy, education, transport policy, water policy and air quality management policy. It saves the neo-Marxists the gore of a revolution. (Blood is so icky.)
Because their proposal is such a stinker and results in the infantilization of the entire population of the planet (exempting only them and their running dogs) they needed some mechanism that might ‘force’ everyone to accept their quaint, sci-fi-rooted propositions. The precautionary principle, having not understood it, seemed like a good idea at the time.
The downside for them, now that a lot of people have been introduced to it outside the confines of systems engineering, is it will inevitably be applied to them – the radical Greens.
Each time a barking mad radical Green proposal flies out of the air into the public discussion space, it will be clasped, put on hold, and deep-frozen for careful examination, based on the precautionary principle that demands we do nothing rather than accept any vain imagining or ponderous, baseless proposition that ends with the phrase, “…so, give me money and power and stop asking questions.”
Debate? What’s to debate? He’s right. Is there any use in debating philosophers who haven’t a clue about what they pretend to comprehend? How is this guy’s mathematical ability? Does he understand the difference between convection and radiation? Does he understand feedbacks? If he understood these things he would leap at the opportunity to show in a public debate, all the wisdom and skill current in the field of the philosophy of climate change. There is, after all, nothing so powerful as a field of study that begins and ends in words.
+++++++
On this rare occasion, in view of the last sentence, and applying the precautionary principle correctly, I add:
/sarc.
Judith Curry’s take on my Proactionary Principle: https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/19/proactionary-principle/
What is environmental philosophy?
It is a misspelling of philosophistry
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/philosophistry
Definition of philosophistry – Shallow philosophy; sophistry passing as philosophy
Roger, kudos for the vocabulary tip.
POED, 1925, “Sophisticated”, defined as corrupt & adulterated! Sounds about right!
What is environmental philosophy?
This mind numbing gross stupidity.
when the scientific debate is as settled as the “debate” about whether smoking causes cancer. By giving climate change deniers a full platform, producers make their position seem infinitely more reasonable than it is.
I agree, Gary. “When the scientific debate is as settked as the debate about whether smoking causes cancer” then this pretentious a**hole might have a case.
Until then he can put his theories to the test in open debate.
The big puzzle is why anybody with the requisite number of brain cells thought inviting a philosopher to debate a scientific subject made an iota of sense.
Or why anyone claiming to be a thinking human being would run away from the opportunity to argue his beliefs. Unless of course they are just “beliefs” and he only believes because those nice guys down the road at CRU said it was so.
Yeah i got 2 down votes for high lighting that garbage,……..
Theres atleast 2 proper [snip] around here.
Gary
That is their right, it is a public forum. Isn’t the head post about not accepting an alternate view.?
Regards
Fair enough………
Perhaps the gimcrackery specialists at BBC or those who are of like minds at the New York Times should invite this dork to debate the merits of the Keynesian multiplier as an effective device for governments stimulating real economic growth, don’t you reckon? Or Perhaps they could arrange for a debate between Paul Krugman and Larry Kudlow. Tickets, anyone?
Since Earth’s open oceans have an albedo of about .04 (4% reflectance) and oceans cover about 71% of Earth’s surface, what is the process and the path and the wavelengths by which all of that energy that is being absorbed by the oceans gets released back to space?
Patrick MJD:
Environmental philosophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Environmental philosophy is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the natural environment and humans’ place within it.[1] It asks crucial questions about human environmental relations such as “What do we mean when we talk about nature?” “What is the value of the natural, that is non-human environment to us, or in itself?” “How should we respond to environmental challenges such as environmental degradation, pollution and climate change?” “How can we best understand the relationship between the natural world and human technology and development?” and “What is our place in the natural world?” As such, it uniquely positions itself as a field set to deal with the challenges of the 21st Century. Environmental philosophy includes environmental ethics, environmental aesthetics, ecofeminism, environmental hermeneutics, and environmental theology.[2] Some of the main areas of interest for environmental philosophers are:
Marco Casagrande Sandworm, Beaufort04 Triennial of Contemporary Art, Wenduine, Belgium 2012
Defining environment and nature
How to value the environment
Moral status of animals and plants
Endangered species
Environmentalism and Deep Ecology
Aesthetic value of nature
Restoration of nature
Consideration of future generations[1]
“environmental aesthetics,”
“How to value the environment”
“Aesthetic value of nature”
“Restoration of nature”
So they advocate the demolition of wind turbines then, obviously.
Basically…..I’d LOVE to join the discussion…….but my COMMENT is stuck
AWAITING MODERATION !
IF and WHEN it passes muster …….I would like to add these comments to it :
IT appears to offer to society an explanation of “who we are and how we got
here and what the hell we are supposed to do to survive here
WITHOUT disrupting anything , especially ECOFEMINISTS ,
because it’s ALWAYS MEN who get to do the hard ,dirty and dangerous work,
so , naturally , MEN are ALWAYS at fault !!
THIS is the NATURAL EXPLANATION for us and everything !!
IF it’s good……then it’s MOTHER NATURE at work……..IF it’s NOT then it’s
those (expletive!! ) MEN mucking EVERYTHING UP again !”
FUNNY THAT ! IT IS A RE-STATEMENT OF THE BIBLE EXPLANATION
ONLY THIS TIME IT HAS IT THAT ADAM PICKED THE APPLE , NOT EVE !!
Evidence : There it is , Stuck in his throat !!
“Lived experience ! ” “Utterly infallible , in depth research and analysis ! ”
It would make you LAUGH if it wasn’t taken so seriously !!
THERE ARE TRUCKLOADS OF BOOKS ABOUT IT !
and NOT a bloody word of sense in the whole confounded lot !
OUROBOROS exemplified ……a Dragon slowly eating itself !!!For eternity !!
How’s THAT for a POST-MODERNIST dismal VIEW OF THE FUTURE WORLD .
When I last looked…..”WE” arrived here because we
CO-OPERATED SUCCESSFULLY WITH ONE-ANOTHER !
IT WAS A JOINT VENTURE ! Some sort of a “primitive” equality perhaps !???
THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME MUTUAL TRUST AT SOME STAGE !??
They say familiarity breeds contempt , but then
it breeds everything else as well !!
Trevor, for the love of tap dancing Rosie O’Donnell… Please, dear boy, STOP using all caps!
this is a site for gentlemen/women… wait… is it gentlepeople now? I digress.
Please. Dear friend… type like someone having a conversation, not an emotionally immature whackadoo
Agreed. When I see a post with all caps, I just skip it.
As do I. Which is a shame, because I think you have made some good points, but my mind can’t overcome the assault to my vision. This isn’t a flame war, we’re actually having a discussion, and you could be more a part of it by (greatly) reducing the all caps. I agree it’s frustrating not having access to bold or italics (is there a new primer up yet to show me how to do it on the new server?) but too much all caps just chases readers away.
Agreed.
Auto.
I was not aware that html codes could not be used on this site.
Thanks
Have a nice day!
https://youtu.be/uzWO7O-qHWI
You do bold and italics the same way you did it with the old server. Use basic HTML.
I use caps sometimes, but I try to use them sparingly – ALL caps works to deemphasize the emphasis.
Well stated, Joel. I think that goes for most of this community of souls.
“environmental philosophy” is the oxymoron that makes “military intelligence” seem like a tautology.
‘What is environmental philosophy?’
It is the practice of forcing empirical reality through the prism of one’s beliefs.
“books, including, in 2002, Kuhn: Philosopher of Scientific Revolution, on the work of Thomas Kuhn,…”
I’ve been re-reading Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” He uses equivocal language and describes science incorrectly. Kuhn, in short, was wrong.
I can see, on this re-reading, why post-modernists love Kuhn’s rendition so and have elevated it into canon.
Kuhn’s description of science does not allow a distinction between Einstein and Aquinas. All of science is implicitly rendered as fashion and opinion.
Kuhn is a god-send for post-modern social determinists.
you got it! that makes at least 2 who do…lol he’s just another berzerkley guru.
now howbow popper’s mysticism?
carlos castaneda marks, for me, the hard left turn of caliphornia’s academic standards.
dunno if you remember- his phd thesis in anthropology was found to be fiction.
it was embraced as science.
I also studied PPE at Oxford, quite likely at the same time as Read. Please don’t judge us all because of this bozo. The fact that he contributed to a paper on the Precautionary Principle is also disappointing. It’s an idiot principle that blocks progress. For that reason, I developed an alternative: The Proactionary Principle.
Why does some bloke working at a university need a Wikipedia page?
Nassim Nicholas Taleb is a classically trained, philosopher/mathematician/author of Christian Lebanese descent, reads books in several languages, and specializes in the probability of rare events with potentially catastrophic impact on society, describing how little prepared society actually is to deal with such events because of man’s bias toward normality, actuarial calculations of normality and statistical normal distribution curves that minimize both the frequency and severity of “fat tail” events that albeit rare occur on a regular basis throughout the history of economics, geology, meteorology, astronomy, paleoclimatology, politics, terrorism etc. His book The Black Swan popularized the name of such events now used in the media, most often the financial press. NNT defined a Black Swan as unpredictable, having a massive impact, and after the fact human nature concocts an explanation that making it appear less random and more predictable than it actually is. He is an innovative thinker in the field of investment risk management who recommended a “dumb bell” approach to portfolio management with the majority of assets invested in safe and highly liquid investments and a small proportion in hedge instruments that would dramatically increase in value if financial catastrophe should occur, which he described along with much else in his book Anti-Fragile. Anti-Fragile, defined as the true opposite of fragility, the present state of our economy and society due its inability to cope with change, volatility, and risk, the Incompleteness of Knowledge, is a step beyond the robust and resilient. The robust merely recovers back to baseline post disaster; whereas the Anti fragile thrives on change and risk and uncertainty taking advantage of them. He has written about the logical rigor of scientific disconfirmation, “If I spot a black swan I can be quite certain that “all swans are white” is wrong. But even if I’ve never seen a black swan, I can never hold that statement to be true. Rephrasing it again: since one small observation can disprove a statement, while millions can hardly confirm it, disconfirmation or rejection is more rigorous than confirmation or acceptance.” NNT Antifragile. 2012.
My note: For humanity acceptance is easier than rejection. He became a writer and a flaneur after making his fortune working for Wall St employing ideas related to financial risk. His most recent book Skin in the Game is a book of political/financial ethics that there should be a symmetry between risk and reward and that political corruption at the highest echelons of our society has bestowed great rewards on those who have taken no real risk but instead have transferred the risk to society at large. To my recollection his thoughts about AGW are veiled in the books that I’ve read. His collaboration with Mr Read aligns with the scathing criticism of the use of GMO in agriculture that appears in his last book.
Aha! PPE at Balliol.. that explains a lot! Thank you Patick MJD for the enlightenment!
With the exception of Taleb ( a classical liberal), his interests are mainly in thinkers (Wittgenstein, Kuhn etc.) whose ideas support collectivism, totalitarianism and anti-individualism. Taleb went wrong on AGW due to his mistaking white swans (natural variance) for ‘The Black Swan’ (or catastrophe, and also the name of his rather fine book). A mistake anyone can make.
‘Environmental Philosophy’ is may be a reference to the kinds of thinking Anna Bramwell discusses in her books. Unfortunately, the ideas she analyses are frequently those of the world’s first Green government in the 1930s, that is, the Third Reich.
When the other side of the debate is thought of as a denier we are not really in the science arena
https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/08/03/the-sorcery-killings-of-melanesia/
Indeed, the whole ‘denier’ idea has nothing to do with science, its home is found in politics or religion. But that is such a popular idea with the climate ‘science ‘community tells us a great deal about the relationships between that community and the practice of science .
What we are is sceptics. That is the normal and correct ‘philosophical’ approach to science. I neither believe nor disbelieve in Global Warming as such. Climate change is a pretty meaningless term as that has been happening constantly since the beginning of time.
AGW theory is utterly unproved and the grand predictions that are regularly made about it never, ever come about. Additionally, the worst prognostications are not even supported by the hypothesis. Finally, the prescriptive measures to correct this non-problem are worse than even the predicted calamities.
Philosophy is about the most valueless “discipline” in the academic universe. They’re still arguing about the same stuff the Greeks were 2000 years ago. The philosophy is “settled”. Laughable twit.
Couldn’t agree more !!
I don’t think it could be said much better, John.
Bravo!
Denis Diderot , 1713-1784, wrote “scepticism is the first step towards truth”
The reason the term “Climate Change” was created was that it isa heads I win tails you lose expression, if the climate system warms, it’sClimate Change, if the climate system cools, it’s Climate Change, either way it’s all mankind’s fault!
Here is the rejoinder I use when presented with the phrase “Climate Change”:
May I please ask you to define the phrase “climate change”? In your mind, what exactly does that mean?
Is “climate change” what has occurred to Earth’s biosphere over the last 200 years, or the last 2 billion years, or what will happen in the future 1,000 years?
Is climate change something only caused by humans, or is it due—in whole or in large part—to natural processes?
Is climate change alarming at any level, say Earth’s average temperature increasing by 0.1 C per century, or is there a certain quantifiable rate in any parameter “x” whereby “change” starts happening (e.g., >3 C warming per century, or >100 ppm CO2 increase per century)?
What are the full set of metrics that are to be monitored for defining “climate change”?
And what is the ideal climate at which humans should be satisfied such that no further change, upward or downward, is acceptable? Is that state in the past, now, or in the future?
And is there a, ahem, consensus among Earth’s population—from Eskimos to Polynesians to Sahara desert nomads—that the “ideal-climate-that-should-nevermore-change” is agreed upon?
In summary:
“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.” — Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
I guess he is merely philosophically opposed to debate. It couldn’t be that he could be shown to be incorrect anywhere in his assumptions; could it?
How could a philosopher debate a scientist anyway? Denier or otherwise. He wouldn’t have a clue about details, he’d be smashed at every turn no matter who he was up against.
Bingo! That’s why he didn’t go. He was up against a real scientist.
“I won’t go on the BBC if it supplies climate change deniers as ‘balance’”
by Rupert Read
Here we have Rupert Read who teaches philosophy at the University of East Anglia and chairs the Green House think-tank, explaining why he refused an invitation to discuss climate change on the BBC because it was with a so-called “denier.”
The big joke here is that after refusing to go on air to put his point of view he is now making a formal complaint to the BBC “because the BBC cannot defend the practice of allowing a climate change denier to speak unopposed.”
This is the level of stupidity of the climate hysterics.
This is their level of debating skills.
Still, what can we expect from the University of East Anglia?
Perhaps he’s the modern day Chicken Licken. He certainly seems to have grasped the chicken part.
And not forgetting this is the university of East Anglia. Could it be he’s spent too much time hanging around with those in their Climate Research Unit?
Did you mean Chicken Little, I think Chicken Licken is something to do with KFC.
The original version is the tale of Chicken Licken
http://www.dandelionlearning.co.uk/documents/resources/storytelling/fiction_texts/Y1_-_Chicken_Licken.pdf
That was ‘finger lickin” chicken —- By the box or by the bucket or by the barrel —-But then they discontinued fried chicken livers which were the favorite pieces for some people, so they no longer have a consensus agreement on the finger lickiin’ thing. There are now a lot of deniers running around the barn yard.
More recently: Chicken Licken is a South African fast-food fried chicken restaurant chain. The company had an 80% share of South Africa’s fast food market in 2010, tying with McDonald’s. According to a case study.
How can two companies both have 80% of the market?
Mark,
You must not have gotten the memo: some 87.3% (or maybe it’s 97%; I can’t remember, and I’ve lost my copy of the memo … ) of all statistics are made up on the spot … … … … …
80% of the Chicken Market and 80% of the Burger Market
‘ I said that the BBC should be ashamed of its nonsensical idea of “balance” ‘
I obviously don’t listen to BBC here in the States, but I get the impression that sceptics hardly EVER get air time, and certainly NEVER without a “Green” also appearing.
So I’d ask the good Professor, what number of appearances of those who don’t share your beliefs would be “reasonable”?
Speak up. I thought I heard you say zero!
Many in the UK also don’t listen to the BBC
Read this. Explicitly equating various forms of denial, so ‘climate denial’ is explicitly and repeatedly described to be on the same level as holocaust denial, anti-vaxx… and a bunch of other denials.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/03/denialism-what-drives-people-to-reject-the-truth
Might merit a story in itself. Not often you find this position stated so explicitly.
Just read through this Michel – thanks.
Dear me, what an absolute pile of pseudo-intellectual excrement. The sad thing is – and it’s the same if you read Lewandowski, Oreskes etc, it never once occurs to these authors that a “climate denier” might have a strong, reasonable, technical or scientific case for his/her stance. The warmists’ “truth” is unquestionable, it seems.
Wow, one of the worst I’ve ever read. Thanks Michel.
Yeah, click of the author’s name and see what other articles he has written Seems obsessed with anti-semitism, holocaust denial Jewish Labour Party , Jeremy anti-jewish Corbyn, etc etc. Of course in the jewish run Guardian he gets free reign.
The one case of being in denial he does not cover is the one where Arctic Ocean is not ice free, global warming is not running anywhere and the wheels are falling off the climate bandwagon.
The Guardian isn’t ‘Jewish run’, and never has been. Whatever that means, anyway!
The key thing about the ‘climate denial’ claim that differentiates it from some of the others is that there is no specific thing that the ‘deniers’ are said to be denying. The others are pretty much binary.
In the case of the Holocaust, the claim is that it never happened. In the case of vaccination I am not sure of the specifics, but the upshot is, don’t do it.
In the case of climate, we have a very wide range of beliefs, where skepticism about any of them is stigmatized as denial. As an example, if you accept that CO2 causes warming, that the warming is dangerous and emissions should be globally dramatically lowered, but think that neither Paris nor wind turbines will do this, you will be called a ‘denier’.
If you doubt that the present warm and dry European summer is evidence for something vaguely callled ‘climate change’, you will be called a denier.
But these, and similar gradations of opinion, are part of a wide spectrum of arguable views of the state of climate science. As are, for instance, differing views of climate sensitivity or natural variation’s contribution to recent warming.
This is just a science which is still developing and changing/ The accusation of ‘denial’ is the assertion that there is something, though its never specified exactly what, that is certain, and which only the stupid, uninformed of venal can refuse assent to.
By contrast with vaccination my impression is that anti-vaxx regards any and all vaccination as ineffective or dangerous. Those who deny the Holocaust seem to claim that it never happened, the camps were not killing camps etc. Both of these examples are cases where the details may be in contention still – is a given vaccine actually safe and effective, for instance. The numbers of the dead in a given episode may be uncertain and argued about. But the phenomenon, that in general vaccination works, or that there were millions of people shot and gassed, these are not open to question, and it seems to be this that the deniers dispute.
The effort with climate science is to rush to fixed judgment too soon, by assimilating all skepticm about any aspect of what the speaker claims to have found in climate science to these other fields of denial.
It has an interesting parallel to the precautionary principle argument, which is basically an attempt to justify dramatic and expensive policies which have no scientific justification, by arguing that in this case you don’t need one.
The case of vaccination is even more nuanced than climate.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-03-03/hsbc-and-the-sham-of-guardians-scott-trust/
here is an interesting article about those “liberal” media sites
This article from Grauniad is quite frankly very scary! The people who write this kind of pseudo-intellectual crap live in cloud cuckoo land. This kind of stuff is just a few steps from the incitement that sociopaths of the worst kind need to justify all manner of draconian measures to censure and “re-educate” those who have deviated from the true and righteous path. We live in dangerous times!
160 mentions of ‘denial’ (which includes the terms denialist etc.). 7 of ‘denier’ and 6 of ‘deny’ in that article. That’s not journalism, it’s brainwashing.
“…….who are we as a species? Do we all (the odd sociopath aside) share a common moral foundation? ” (my emphasis).
Possibly the stupidest statement I have ever seen. One doesn’t have to be a sociopath to have different morals to another.
It goes on, compounding the stupidity, “How do we relate to people whose desires are starkly different from our own?”
Like who? The “odd” sociopath? Or are the rest of us who don’t share Mr. Kahn-Harris’ particular moral compass all sociopaths?
Is it moral to eat a cat, dog or rat? Not in the UK, but in China, it’s quite acceptable. Horse anyone? Our French cousins celebrate eating them!
Is it moral in the western world to have sex under 16 years old? No, of course not. Yet the female anatomy is designed to emit signals of fertility from as young as 12 years old. And in some cultures, that’s evidence enough for marriage. So how does Mr. Kahn-Harris deal with that dilemma? By tarring these people as sociopaths, that’s how. Imagine that, entire cultures sociopathic yet he dismisses it with “Do we all (the odd sociopath aside)”.
Did nature make this happen, or perhaps God? Are western moral standards, therefore, at odds with nature/God and numerous other countries/cultures? I’m prepared to bet there are numerous cultures out there who consider western morals reprehensible.
Dear Lord (not that I’m a believer) this is the type of distorted logic we “deniers” must tolerate.
This article is typical of the leftist, elitist crap that thou shalt do as I say, not as I do.
[Snip] I hate socialism!
Is the aptitude for science in human beings really so under-developed?
ThomasJK
As we have no point of reference, e.g. an off world culture, I don’t think there’s there’s an answer to that.
If you stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly, the other side goes away and you win. Used to work in the playground every time.
Don’t forget the “tell the teacher” part, which Read is also doing.
Philosophy means ‘love of wisdom’. Socrates used debate to acquire wisdom.
In my experience, those who refuse to debate are the ones who know they can’t win a debate.
EDIT: Those who are confident in their abilities and data, are usually eager to debate. Anywhere. Anytime.
University of East Anglia. University of East Anglia.
Where have I heard that name before. Oh yes! now I remember. And no wonder he doesn’t want to debate with “deniers”.
Is there something in the water at UEA?
It’s 97% whisky
What a complete and utter Moron!!!
It seems that many believers are exhausted. We need to double down and apply even more pressure.
The True Believers in CAGW seem to be walking around with that vacant, disoriented thousand-yard stare. It’s the body language of losers.
Rational intelligent people debate those with whom they disagree using evidence to support their case. Bigoted ignoramuses just scream ‘unfair’ and rely on abuse. Guess, Mr Read, which category you fall into.
Just when you thought that the sheer, squirming embarrassment of being an academic associated with the University of East Anglia could not get any worse along comes this self-regarding twerp. This is what happens when arrogance meets ignorance. Natural cycles? No,no, they’re just canards. For all those folk who have a different viewpoint to CAGW sceptics and have the guts to come on here and fight your corner, what do they think of this behaviour? Nick Stokes, you’re not afraid to mix it at Anthony’s place, what’s your view on all this?
As a former academic who taught in UEA’s School of Environmental Science I am in no way ashamed of having done so. You have a rather large tar brush.
Your response has no meaning if you do not include where you stand on the debate, Alan.
Are you saying you do not deserve John’s criticism because you disavow CAGW? Or, are you saying you are proud member of the group that calls out “denier” to those of us asking for evidence of CAGW?
SR
He chickened out, that’s all.
The rest is verbal justification of nonsense, familiar to any “philosopher.”
Factualism vs. Denialism? If there should ever be a “winner” just what, exactly, will they have won and will the victory be worthwhile?
Mr Read is signaling his virtue. Having lost the scientific debate but seized the moral high ground along with the rest of the CAGW herd, whose company he is obviously reluctant to leave or to anger or to disappoint, assured in the correctness of his belief by the constant drone of Left wing media and academic bias, ignoring the flaws of confirmation bias, ignorant of the rigors of scientific disconfirmation, like a general marshaling an ever weaker force to put in the field, he is on the defensive, setting the rules of engagement and molding the battle field to suit his objectives, by denying others the chance to puncture his ego and force him into a full retreat and confront the humiliation of having to admit that he and his elitist environmentist friends might be wrong.
So why is a philosophy professor being asked by the BBC to discuss science issues in the first place? And why does he think he is more qualified than a scientist who is also a Denier? I also love the self-importance – I have denied the BBC and the public the benefit of my brilliance, now they shall suffer!
I had a look at the original twitter thread, and it is full of strawmen and idiocies. Will the BBC put flat-earthers on to “balance” arguments was a typical comment. That and insulting actual scientists like MAtt Ridely.
Still, the more Greenies who refuse to go on the BBC the better
It’s a philosophical hissy fit.
Rupert Read us a prime Cnut*
He teaches the ‘Philosophy of Climate Change’ and a more unpleasant piece of excrement was never wiped off a rural shoe.
like Michael Mann, he too sports a vanity beardlet.
It is no surprise he refused to appear with anyone who has an ounce of integrity or intelligence. He wouldn’t want the public humiliation.
* the king who attempted to use human commands to hold back the incoming tides.
Leo Smith
King Canute didn’t attempt to hold the sea back. The point of the demonstration to his courtiers was to enlighten them that even a man as great and powerful as him couldn’t stop the tide coming in.
IYCB:
Intellectual Yet Cowardly Bigot
Pseudo-intellectual
‘Much of it wasn’t bad’. Precisely because that joker did not participate.
Personally I don’t debate science with those that gave it up as a subject as early as they could because it was too difficult.
They’re running scared now. 🙂
He admitted it himself: He is a Green, not a Philosopher.
Not only should he not appear on the BBC, he should be removed from any philosophy teaching duties.
Reasonable people might also ask why on earth he gets invitations from the BBC in the first place, but we already know the answer to that: The BBC is also not true to its charter and has Greenpeace representatives on speed-dial.
Email sent to this “philosopher” who refuses debate.
Obviously he is unconvinced by the strength of his own debating skill.
I hate to admit this but the only way that this hoax will crumble is either a mini ice age hits us, or that at one point only 10% are alarmists. By that time the other 90% of the population will have heard THE BOY CRY WOLF ONCE TOO OFTEN. The insidious thing about this is the alarmist side will always be able to claim that an extreme weather event was caused by climate change ; in other words global warming. So we must call them out on this at every point whenever someone says that there are more extreme weather events now than before . The stats say NO but we have to keep hammering that point across.
A mini ice age would still be co2, only they would suddenly have discovered ”their mistake” in their radiative model.
Not necessarily a mini ice age. I think a cooling period similar to the one in 50s/60s/70s will do the trick, and that will happen next, imo. A flat 20-year trend, then 30-year… Arctic sea ice incrase…
We’ve already had a flat 20 year trend. It didn’t phase them.
It forced them to change from Global warming to climate change to climate disruption.
Weren’t you paying attention? NOW it’s the SKEPTICS AND REPUBLICANS that came up with that change!
At this point, they’re rewriting history as it suits them.
Just think of the overall damage to society on that alone.
I’m sure they’ll be able to find a way to claim that a mini ice age is consistent with global warming, and be able to provide model outputs to ‘prove’ it.
All rise. The court is in session.
The prosecutor’s office will now state the case for the plaintiff.
We the citizens of the world charge that man standing over there, Mr. CO2 to be guilty of crimes upon humanity. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh and other cries throughout the courtroom.
What have I done? cries out Mr. CO2
You have caused catastrophic warming, and all hell has broken loose across the planet with the ice caps melting and with storms and other extreme weather events now battering humanity mercilessly. How do you plead?
NOT GUILTY Your Honour.
Will the lead prosecutor lay before the court evidence of the charges?
We shall. Your Honour.
At your honour’s convenience we should like to present the 32,458 papers that have been published on all aspects of global warming and since we have a 97% consensus that means that 31,484 papers have confirmed that global warming exists and that that man over there Mr. CO2 caused it.
Gasppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp.A large gasp from the courtroom.
You don’t expect me to read all of these papers do you?
No Your Honour but if it pleases the court, we can bring in a computer hookup to the court and run one of our climate computer simulation models (GCM’s) that PROVE what the studies are saying.
And how would a computer model do that?
Well Your Honour, almost all of the above 31,484 papers used computer models to justify their conclusions that Mr. CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change if he isn’t stopped..
I see what you mean.
If it also pleases the court we would also like to call witnesses for the prosecution.
Proceed.
I call Dr. James Hansen, an eminent climate scientist and possibly one could call him the most famous climate scientist of all time, and a 5 times arrested political prisoner to the stand.
Mr Hansen Do you swear ………………blah blah blah……………………..
I do.
Mr Hansen . How many scientific papers have you published sir?
Approximately 190.
Were they all peer reviewed?
Of course.
Would you retract anything you have ever said or published?
I stand by every word.
In your opinion, what is the fate of humanity in light of Mr. CO2’s actions?
I am afraid it is too late. The following are my most famous quotes on this. Many of them; I said more than 10 years ago.
“The climate dice are now loaded. Some seasons still will be cooler than the long-term average, but the perceptive person should notice that the frequency of unusually warm extremes is increasing. It is the extremes that have the most impact on people and other life on the planet.”
“Imagine a giant asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth. That is the equivalent of what we face now with climate change, yet we dither.”
“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm [parts per million] to at most 350 ppm… If the present overshoot of this target CO₂ is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.”
“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.”
“We are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption.”
“It would be immoral to leave young people with a climate system spiraling out of control.”
“Global warming has already triggered a sea level rise that could reach from 6 metres (19.69 ft) to 25 metres (27.34 yards).”
“What we are doing to the future of our children, and the other species on the planet, is a clear moral issue.”
“How long have we got? We have to stabilize emissions of carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one degree… We don’t have much time left.”
“Planet Earth, creation, the world in which civilization developed, the world with climate patterns that we know and stable shorelines, is in imminent peril.”
“Global warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening.”
“Only in the last few years did the science crystallize, revealing the urgency – our planet really is in peril. If we do not change course soon, we will hand our children a situation that is out of their control.”
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
“If we fail to act, we will end up with a different planet.”
“The climate system is being pushed hard enough that change will become obvious to the man in the street in the next decade.”
“We have at most ten years – not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions… We are near a tipping point, a point of no return, beyond which the built in momentum and feedbacks will carry us to levels of climate change with staggering consequences for humanity and all of the residents of this planet.”
“As you get more global warming, you should see an increase in the extremes of the hydrological cycle – droughts and floods and heavy precipitation.”
“Adding CO2 to the air is like throwing another blanket on the bed.”
“The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years.”
“What has become clear from the science is that we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels without creating a very different planet.”
“We have to, in the next ten years, begin to decrease the rate of carbon dioxide emissions and then flatten it out. If that doesn’t happen in ten years, we’re going to be passing certain tipping points. If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You can’t tie a rope around an ice sheet.”
Does the defendant’s lawyer wish to cross examine Mr. Hansen?
We do Your Honour .
Mr Hansen, How many predictions have you made about the planet that had specific consequences with deadline dates attached to them?
I don’t remember.
Well then let us refresh your memory.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/06/22/the-failed-predictions-of-james-hansen/
There seems too many to count but may we round it off to around 20 failed predictions with 0 correct ones?
BUT that’s not the point. Our civilization is at stake.
YES Mr. Hansen, our civilization is indeed at stake but not for the reasons you think. No further questions Your Honour
The witness may stand down.
Does the prosecution have any more witnesses to call?
No Your Honour. The evidence is all in the papers and computer models.
Does the defendant have any witnesses on his behalf?
Well Your Honour, we wanted to call Dr. Michael Mann as a hostile witness but he said that he doesn’t play hockey and he refused.
I don’t understand the last comment.
Your Honour, It was a reference to the infamous hockey stick graph that he created. It is in some of those 31,484 papers before you.
I hope the defendant doesnt expect me to read all those papers.
No Your Honour. They were all pal reviewed anyway and almost all of them relied on computer climate models.
Your Honour The defendant would like to call the 125 or so computer climate models to the stand all as hostile witnesses.
But they aren’t human. They are just computer code.
Well Your Honour We could recall Dr. Hansen and he could substitute for the computer models.
The court agrees.
Dr. Hansen is hereby recalled to the stand.
Mr Hansen Do you swear ………………blah blah blah……………………..
I do.
Mr. Hansen Isn’t it true that the computer models have not had 1 publicly available accurate temperature prediction about the future including your Scenario C in 1988?
But BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBuut BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBButt I protest to the court.
Yes Mr. Hansen
Your Honour the computer climate models are still only a work in progress and the ICPP has been quoted in its 3rd assessment report as saying “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPs Did I say that?
I would like to retract that statement.
Too late Dr. Hansen . May the court stenographer verify that what Dr. Hansen has said be entered into the court record.
Does the prosecution wish to cross examine Dr. Hansen?
No we do not Your Honour.
Your Honour, the defense would like to call one more witness to the stand?
Mr CO2. Do you swear ………………blah blah blah……………………..
I do.
Mr CO2 In your defense would you outline for the court why you are NOT GUILTY.
Well I’m a humble molecule. To quote WIKI
“I am linear and centrosymmetric. The carbon–oxygen bond length is 116.3 pm, noticeably shorter than the bond length of a C–O single bond and even shorter than most other C–O multiply-bonded functional groups. Since I am centrosymmetric, I have no electrical dipole. Consequently, only two vibrational bands are observed in the IR spectrum – an antisymmetric stretching mode at 2349 cm−1 and a degenerate pair of bending modes at 667 cm−1. There is also a symmetric stretching mode at 1388 cm−1 which is only observed in the Raman spectrum.”
So it is true that I do absorb LWIR, but I am outnumbered in the atmosphere. I am only 410 ppm. Every pico second those damn N2 and O2 molecules are always colliding with me and causing me to lose my photons. And convection is always carrying me to the top of the atmosphere where any energy I have is released into the colder temperatures. 30% of me gets recycled to the oceans and the land surface every year anyway so I don’t stay long. Besides even though mankind adds me to the equivalent of 3.3ppm only 1.5 ppm of me is net addition every year to the atmosphere.
Millions of years ago I was as much as 8000 ppm and nobody died because of me. Besides I am in every pop drink(kids love me) and hundreds of other industrial processes. Plants need me to survive and you Your Honour are breathing me out right now.
I am???????????
Yes your Honour this stuffy court room is probably 2000 ppm right now.
And the oceans need me and the rocks too . I have lots of friends.
BUT the mean EPA in the US got the law to call me a pollutant. I haven’t polluted anything. The ice caps are only repeating their cycles of melting and cooling every 60 to 100 years and there havent been any more extreme weather events now than there ever was. The oceans have a ph of over 8 which is nowhere near to being acidic because it is a log scale. the coral reefs arent dying off and there are more polar bears than there ever were. I could go on and on about every scare story ever invented by the alarmists has been refuted but I dont want to bore you with the details.
The temperature you see outside can vary 20 C in one day, easy. And even the IPCC says that I only caused the temperature to go up 0.8 C in a century. It wasn’t me Your Honour. I didn’t do it. There has never been a century in the earth’s history where the climate hasn’t changed that much. It changes all the time. If you dismiss the case against me Your Honour, I will secretly tell you what causes climate change.
I don’t do deals in my courtroom Mr CO2.
Sorry Your Honour
Proceed
Well the last thing I will say your Honour is that I think this is one big conspiracy against me by the climate scientists. Think of it this way Your Honour. If we didnt have to worry about the future climate and if there was nothing we could do to change it , why would we need climate scientists? It is in their best interests to put fear into every child’s heart by teaching them in school that they will drown in rising seas or burn up in the rising heat. This fear you see is what keeps the funding going. Why, your Honour, the climate change scandal is now a trillion and a half $ industry in the world?
It issssssssssssss?
Yes Your Honour. There is lots of money at stake here. One final thought your Honour. They want to jail my friend Mr. Methane too, because all the worlds cows by farting contribute to green house gas release and they say Mr. Methane is 20 times more dangerous than me.
Don’t believe it Your Honour. We are innocent.
Does the prosecution want to cross examine Mr. CO2?
No. Your Honour we can’t find any fault with Mr CO2’s testimony but that doesnt mean our models are wrong.
Any more witnesses?
No Your Honour
I will hear your closing statements next time.
The court is adjourned.
[Long, but well-written. Thank you, .mod]
Alan Tomalty
Only two observations and they are most certainly not criticisms:
1. It is my experience that once sworn in during a court case, the swearing in isn’t repeated. The judge usually reminds the witness they are still under oath if they are recalled. At least in the UK.
2. The defence failed to ask the defendant whether there was, in those 31,484 papers, a single one which empirically demonstrates that CO2 causes global warming.
The answer, obviously, would be “no, the evidence against me is all conjecture, assumption and circumstantial”.
I enjoyed reading it and it was a lot of work.
The oath for Hansen and Mann should be, ” Do you promise to continue to lie in the manner which you have maintained throughout your entire career”? Just so we know where we stand!
Seeing as this post is also about the BBC and global-warming, this delightful little nugget is not off-topic:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45036469
Chuckle. I’ll bet someone at the BBC is rather displeased with the person who let that slip through. The author had better watch out for their career.