For a long time, I’ve used the term “delusionist” rather than “sceptic” to describe those who reject mainstream science on global warming. In general, the term “sceptic” is inappropriate for the vast majority of this group, since their position is hardly ever based on a willingness to look sceptically at evidence without reliance on a preconceived views. The gullibility with which so many delusionists parrot the latest talking points (“Hockey stick broken!”, “Global warming on Mars”, Warming stopped in 1998″ and so on) is clearly incompatible with any kind of scepticism. And, given the volume of evidence that has accumulated on the issue, only an adherent of some very strong form of scepticism could reasonably remain undecided. Such a sceptic has now appeared in the form of Adam Shand, a Channel 9 journalist who said, in a recent Sunday program on global warming “it’s only an assumption” that summer is warmer than winter. I imagine he gets great prices on ski holidays, by going in January!
Of course, once you’ve gone this far in scepticism, why not go the whole hog? Radical scepticism provides the perfect argument for rejecting action to mitigate global warming – if we have no reason to believe in the existence of the external world, then trashing it can’t be a problem, can it?
While I’m on delusionism in the media, I should note that Gerard Henderson has a piece in the SMH trying to have it both ways in claiming to accept mainstream science on while touting the views of delusionists (there’s no suggestion that attention should be paid to those who think the consensus view understates the dangers!).
Meanwhile, Graham Young continues to trash the credibility of Online Opinion which once promised to become a serious alternative to the mainstream media. Clive Hamilton bids OLO farewell after its publication of a delusionist piece written by Canadian energy industry PR man Tom Harris.
John Quiggin 
Ian,
You are correct, the data wasn’t conclusive at the time and scientists and lay people were arguing about the diameter of the earth. i.e how flat or unflat it was.
Paragraph 6 here;
http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
“the invention of the flat Earth myth can be laid at the feet of Washington Irving, who included it in his historical novel on Columbus, and the wider idea that the everyone in the Middle Ages was DELUDED has been widely accepted ever since.”
The myth of people being labelled DELUDED in the middle ages has a funny parallel with people be labelled “delusionist� today.
Last pargraph here;
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html
“The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: “Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?””
To re word it in today’s greenhouse context.
The argument is simple and powerful, if not elegant: “Look how stupid these “delusionistâ€? are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny AGW today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?””
Actually Tony my argument would be:
“Look how stupid these “delusionistâ€? are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny AGW today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who bought the nonsense about Columbus proving the Earth was roundâ€?”
SJ:
Maybe like Dean, his Understanding Of Economics Is Quite Complete.
And he’s probably also Aware Of All Internet Traditions.
— bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Hi John, in response to this: (comment 43):
“Which report are you talking about Dave? If you’re talking about the IPCC… are all 4000 climate scientists and do all 4000 agree with the report?
Do you disagree that the “climate always changes� and do you think Tim Flannery has been honest in his portrayal of the current state of the debate?
IPCC – an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and is caused by man. An overwhelming number of researchers believe smoking causes lung cancer. But, hey, I haven’t seeen the smoking exactly cause cancer myself, so I’m skeptical and will keep smoking.
‘Climate always changes’. Because the climate has varied naturally in the past this means we should ignore the extremely rapid man-made warming now. Or as someone else put it here, because people die, and its happened before, I should ignore any self inflicted risks to my health.
Tim Flannery. What, exactly, has he done wrong?
Arsenuc is a naturally-occurring compound which is present in all our food. The levels of fluctuate but if it were dangerous then I’m sure that over the past billion years or so of evolution we would have evolved a defence against it.
Now there are SOME scientists who claim it’s dangerous but many of them have ties to the health or food-testing industries and are obviously just out to protect their grants.
Sure some politicians try to wipe up public hysteria about Arsenic in drinking water but they’re just out to grab more power for themselves.
Similarly lung cancer is a natural condition which has been around for as long as human history.
The rate of lung cancer fluctuates and its absurd to suggest that human smoking could have such an effect on the entire mass of air that people world wide breathe as to affect that rate.
The Anthropogenic Lung Cancer theory is just the result of a random fluctuation in the natural lung cancer rate seized upon by grant-hungry scientists and power-mad politicians.
Think Al gore is fat? Well get this – the link between smoking and lung cancer was first proposed in NAZI GERMANY.
So in order to discredit the theory all we need ot do is point out that Adolf Hitler promoted it.
Climate “skeptics” get outraged at being referred to as “denialists” because of the supposed link to Holocaust denaialism.
But realsie is that such a horrible comparison.
The Holocaust denialists are just saying that there’s no definitive consensus on the number of Jews killed by the Nazis and the exact circumstances of their death.
There are eminently qualified historians (David Irving for starters) who dispute some elements of the so-called consensus.
Surely there’s nothing wrong with that?
(“Skeptics” who wish to explain the difference are free to do so. “We’re good and the Holocaust denialists are bad” is not a particularly strong argument.)
What lies has Flannery said? Ever? He certainly considers this to be an extremely urgent issue, fundamental to our wellbeing. So do lots of highly educated, scientifically literate people. He highlights some of the high risk, lower probability impacts to try and get some action on this. He makes nothing up, unless SATP would like to prove otherwise?
I’ve got to confess up to a dislike of Flannery’s statements on climate. In short I agree with Realclimate’s swipes at him.
How cute… bi-IJI has decided to leave the science, and instead attack an economist as not understanding economics. 🙂
Ken: I suggest that the AGW-proponents jump too quickly to insults. You respond with insults. Were you trying to prove my point?
Ian: I think you misunderstanding what most holocaust denialists say. Their argument is that there was no intentional policy of mass-murder. That’s quite different to questioning the exact number killed (which nobody knows for sure).
As for being offended, I think it is quite clear to every honest observer that the intention behind the word “denialist” is to provide a negative connotation. It’s equally clear that “delusionist” is meant simply for insult-value… with the intention of intimidating people to ignore the skeptic argument. I don’t particularly mind if people want to be offensive. That happens a lot in political debate. I actually think it generally works against the insulter.
Dave — I’m not sure if you’re arguing against me or some straw-sceptic. You mentioned 4000 climate scientists. I thought you may have meant the IPCC. If you did… perhaps you’d like to double-check your facts to make sure they are accurate. After all… I’m sure you value honestly and accuracy in this debate.
You misunderstand the point being made when sceptics say “climates always change”. The point isn’t that all climate change must forever be natural. Instead, they are trying to make people aware that natural climate change is a viable explanation for changing temperatures. Some people aren’t aware of this.
As for your “rapid man-made warming now” line… are you even vaguely aware of historical temperatures? Define “rapid” and check facts.
Temujin:
So is it true after all that your Understanding Of Economics Is Quite Complete?
That even before you’ve even tried writing a single journal paper, and even before you’ve read the Stern report, or the McKinsey report, etc., you already know the entire state-of-the-art about cost-benefit analysis for AGW mitigation?
I guess truly then your Understanding Of Economics Is Quite Complete…
If we use some other word such as “skeptic” or “inactivist” you’ll still find some other excuse to whine. You just want to whine, that’s what.
By the way:
Irony perfectly encapsulated in a single sentence.
“Steve at the pub, you’re not fit to wipe Flannery’s arse when it comes to understanding climate change. Your entire revocation of this well-understood science issue is motivated entirely by your ideological settings.
(and now you’ll tell me Flannery’s a communist, right? ha ha)”
Gee Wilful, you sure put forward carefully weighed facts in a scientific manner.
On the contrary Wilful, Flannery isn’t fit to wipe mine, as my carbon footprint is on helluva lot smaller than his.
If that prancing dandy practised what he preached he would be on the road to having a tad of credibility. Until that unlikely event, I’ll remain a better man than he is.
There is little reason to decare him a communist, however given your default standard of discourse (see above) I believe you can guess for yourself how you are seen on the evolutionary scale.
Gee Wilful, you sure put forward carefully weighed facts in a scientific manner.
So, by omission, you agree that Flannery hasn’t told any lies. Got it. It’s what you don’t say as well…
(your default standard of conversation round here is about as low as it gets without being warned/banned).
bi — what makes you think that I haven’t written a single journal paper, or that I haven’t already responded to the Stern report? Stern is an “economic denialist” who shot his credibility with his absurdly low time value of money.
AGW-sceptics call ourselves sceptics, so it’s unlikely we’d be offended by the term.
Wilful, you got a problem. You’ll find it in the mirror. Your last comment is the frying pan calling the electric jug “black”.
“@63(your default standard of conversation round here is about as low as it gets without being warned/banned).”
I understand your embarrasment. However petulant statements like that don’t help your image any.
Flannery has exaggerated, and Flannery has said he has exaggerated. The man freely states that he does it to get headlines.
He is passionate about climate change, very different to being an authority on it.
He may be a twit, however to my knowledge he is able to debate without personal insults and profanities.
In deference to Flannery I’ll stay out of his area of expertise.
I shall refrain from making comments on paleontology.
John H, my point is that the global warming skeptics don’t deserve the term “skeptic”. A good example of this is your post on the Great Global Warming Swindle. You handwaved away criticisms and when I pointed out that the criticisms included well backed up accusations of fabrication of data, I had to fight my way through hordes of global warming “skeptics” (you included) seeking to play down or ignore my claim.
You may not like the global warming skeptic/creationist comparison, but this misuse of science to back up an idealogical objective is exactly the same.
Temujin:
Because you don’t mention those.
Hey guys, look at the reasoned, dispassionate discussion that Temujin is engaging in, which is of course in stark contrast to the propensity of the “AGW-faithful” to descend to “insults”…
Oh wait, The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… Om… Om… Om…
Truly, your Understanding of Economics Is Quite Complete.
“Unlikely”? Hmm… I guess using the word “skeptic” is OK as long as the context doesn’t make you look dumb, eh? Because otherwise the word “skeptic” is being used as a pejorative, and that is so very wrong…
In the meantime, of course, the words “AGW-faithful”, “alarmist”, “warmaholic”, etc. are balanced, informative, neutral descriptors that must be used at every opportunity.
But hey, it’s time to bring out the super-duper mantra again! The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… Om… Om… Om…
Bottom line: If your “skeptic” self truly wants reasoned discussion based on facts and figures, then that’s what you’ll get. But obviously you don’t want reasoned discussion, you just pretend to want it.
— bi, International Journal of Inactivism
“Flannery has exaggerated, and Flannery has said he has exaggerated. The man freely states that he does it to get headlines.”
More slander from the Man With No Name – or courage.
(Catchup after holiday):
When science and policy intersect:
a) First, understand any relevant science enough, including the ways in which scientists write and especially describe uncertainties and bounds thereof.
b) Then, argue about economics, policies, and politics.
As JQ says in #11, good economists read IPCC and talk to experts.
======
In #20, I offered Tony G pointers to accessible *science* to help him get educated if he were so inclined. In retrospect, this was probably a waste of time, but it’s worth giving someone a chance.
That stirred Temujin [John Humphreys’ new name, viewing Genghis Khan as an early libertarian] to write [in #35]:
“John Mashey — just because common arguments have been numbered, that doesn’t mean they have been answered. I’ve seen all the “answersâ€? to issue 10 and they don’t remove the cause for concern.
I am a sceptic. You faithful (on both sides) are sure you have the answers. I think that there are gaps in human knowledge and that occasionally government policy doesn’t work perfectly. But I don’t expect the “AGW faithfulâ€? to engage in rational argument when they can rely on insults.”
Temujin:
Since you made the *very strong* assertion that you’d seen *all* the answers to issue 10, in post #38, I asked simple questions to see whether *all* the answers included the famous Lorius paper or not:
“Did you read the 1990 Lorius, et al paper that John Cross mentioned? Do you understand what they were saying? Do you understand whether or not later ice-core records confirmed or disconfirmed what they were saying? If you still have cause for concern, have you talked to real climate scientists (I mean, people who publish serious peer-reviewed research) about it?”
To which you replied (in #41):
“The “concernâ€? (perhaps wrong word) about #10 is that the historical link between co2 & temps does not prove that co2 is the primary driver of temps. I agree it also doesn’t disprove it.”
English may differ somewhat between Oz and California, but that didn’t seem an answer to the straightforward question “Did you read and understand…” SO I’ll try again:
SIMPLE QUESTION #1 (YES OR NO, it’s not really that hard):
At the time you claimed to have read “all” the answers, had you read:
a) The Skeptical Science #10?
b) The Lorius paper, cited by Cross there?
c) The other papers cited by Cross, especially the Monnin, Caillon, and Stott papers?
d) The relevant parts of IPCC AR4 or TAR?
e) Discussions like RealClimate 2004 or RealClimate 2007. You posted something at RC a few weeks after the first reference.
These are nowhere near “all” the answers, but there’s enough there to have a rational discussion.
All of this fits together quite well … but nevertheless, people keep using “CO2 lags temperature” as an argument against AGW. (John Cross lists 25 he found in 2008 alone, years after this was well-known).
Real scientists know there are gaps in human knowledge, but most are very careful (sometimes overly so when talking to the public) to talk about how sure they are about various things, and much of real science is about quantification of uncertainty and reduction thereof. The IPCC is especially careful about this. “Scientists don’t know everything, so they know nothing” is a common bad argument as well. Has it ever occurred to you that sometimes gaps in your own knowledge may not be gaps to people with relevant expertise?
I never like to assume, but since you labeled yourself as a sceptic and me as a “faithful”, that would imply that you’ve studied the science thoroughly and critically [as a good sceptic should], whereas I must take it on faith, so I think it’s fair of me to ask you to support your claim by calibrating your search for knowledge:
QUESTIONS #2 (longer): What are your sources for your beliefs about climate *science*? And how much have you studied them?
#2A: science books? If so, perhaps you can name a some, hopefully 10-20?
[Your blog often posts lists of books, but I had trouble finding many references to real climate science. I like Bill Bryson in general, but his 15-page chapter on it is a bit light.]
#2B: Credible peer-reviewed science journals, like Science or Nature?
#2C: Climate science lectures by credible scientists? (If so, mention a few favorites.)
#2D: Climate science web sites run by scientific organizations?
#2E: Discussions with credible research scientists who know climate science? (If so, name some?)
#2F: Blogs, popular press, etc?
#2G: Specific people you believe on the *science*?
[This is pretty much a standard list I use, to try to understand where someone’s coming from.]
Note: whether or not governments do stupid things has exactly zero to do with the actual science. No amount of government regulation (more or less) affects the law of gravity, and if you step out of a 10th-floor window, you will fall, not just “probably”.
Garnaut said it all:
Unless there are some climate scientists here, there is nothing more to say. The rest of you are just talking out of your respective ar*es.
Oh BTW, its pointless engaging the libertarians. These are people who believe we should have the right to bear arms, but should not be obliged to wear sea belts.
They are completely and utterly insane.
I don;t normally cross-post comments from other blogs but this comment from Tim Lambert’s blog strikes me as apt here as well.
The underlying motivation of the denialists is quite simple.
They are fascists.
Refer to Umberto Eco’s fascist checklist (Eco of course had first-hand experience of Fascism growing up in Mussolini-era Italy)
http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
“The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.”
…
“2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake.
Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering’s fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play (“When I hear the word ‘culture’ I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” and “universities are nests of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.”
“5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.
Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.”
…
“8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.”
You know, like that fat bastard Al Gore
“12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.
This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons — doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.
In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view — one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.”
The typical “skeptic” who posts here is a middle class or lower middle class white Australian or American who also scapegoats minorities for social problems (read Lance or Ben on how most of America’s problems are caased by blacks); idolises the use of force on the individual level (as characterised by, for example, support for a latitudinous reading of the US 2nd Amendment and on an international level as indicated by their support for the Iraq War. They embrace conspiracy theories regarding the IPCC and are genuinely convinced that a few weeks reading the comments on climateaudit qualify them as climate scientists.
I’m sure this post will produce outraged responses along the lines of “I don’t support “X” therefore you’re wrong about me.” Fascism was always a broad Church – Franco’s embrace of the Catholic Church contrasts with Nazi Germany’s ambivalent attitude towards Christianity; Goering and Speer were appalled by Hitler’s antisemitism (albeit primarily for pragmatic rather than moral reasons); Ernst roehm and the other leaders of the SA were liquidated because their anti-capitalist attitudes clashed with Hitler’s desire to ally with the German industrialists.
What matters is the general pattern:
Authoritarianism
Anti-intellecualism;
majoritarianism (hostility to ethnic, religious and other minorities)
the cult of violence;
Ultranationalism and xenophobia
Distrust for democracy (usually dressed up these days in libertarian clap-trap about the evils of government)
Belief in conspiracy thoeries; and
A sense of persecution and ill-traeatment (usually these days once again dressed upon as libertarianism and clap-trap about the evils of multiculturalism; railing about anti-Americanism and so on.)
I should also point out that being a Fascists doesn’t make you a bad person. One of my closest friund’s fathers served in the Wehrmacht. He’s a charming crusty old gentleman (in the best sense of the world) who loves his grandchildren; spends lots of time volunteering for various community groups – and still wishes Hitler had won.
Nor are fascists necessarily foolish – historically after all Ezra Pound, Werner Von Braun; Carl Jung and many other highly intelligent people were supporters of fascism.
So when I say that most “skeptics” are in fact fascists I simply offer a diagnosis not a moral condemnation.
Ian Gould Says @68:
““Flannery has exaggerated, and Flannery has said he has exaggerated. The man freely states that he does it to get headlines.â€?
More slander from the Man With No Name – or courage.”
Meaning me? Say what you wish. The day your opinion matters (or is relevant) coats will be required in hell.
Doubtless you aren’t worth much as a human being.
And still Steve At the Pub fails entirely to document his claims about Flannery while hiding behind a psuedonym.
Contemptible, worthless and a prime example of the type of individual I was describing in my last post.
I would really doubt that the delusionists are delusionists because they are fascists.
I would guess that a tiny minority of them are liars doing it for the money/prestige, whereas a much large proportion are simply ideologues who collect information that supports their beliefs while discount inconvenient information.
Yes Ken but what drives them to do so and what determines the particular belief set so many of them adhere to?
Not all fascists are “skeptics”, not all “skeptics” are fascists, but there’s a big overlap between the two groups.
Ken — my response to you on that thread was to say I thought you “overstated the problem”. I think you did. If that means you aren’t interested in further discussion, then so be it.
bi — do you really think people should start every blog discussion by giving references for all previous academic publications? Perhaps a better solution is for you not to jump to conclusions.
As for my term “economic denialist”… I am clearly framing that in response to the “AGW denialist” tag.
As for the terms “alarmist” and “faithful”, they are appropriate for some people. Just as “denialist” is appropriate for some people. When discussing AGW in a normal environment, I refer to the IPCC/Kyoto position as “mainstream” and those who agree are “AGW-proponents”.
But this blog is a very hostile environment. The entire tone of this blog is one openly and offensively hostile to sceptics. It is not suprising that it then becomes a slanging match. This is unfortunate… but I believe it is a clear policy of JohnQ to foster intolerance towards sceptics, in an attempt to shame us from commenting.
Mashey — Glad you spent time researching my personal blog… hope you liked it. You are correct that I haven’t read every single written word on the issue of lagged co2-temp data. I doubt anybody has, and the point is entirely irrelevant to the pursuit of truth. I didn’t read the rest of your comment because of the bitterness.
And that… combined with bi’s anger, Ian’s violation of Godwin’s law, and Ken dismissing all sceptics as dishonest & dumb … probably means that I’ve outstayed my welcome here.
If anybody does want to discuss further, you know where to find me.
“Ian’s violation of Godwin’s law”
Godwin’s Law applies to invoking Hitler or Nazism on a clearly unrelated topic.
Pointing out, in detail with specific examples, and with appropriate caveats that I was not referring to all “skeptics”, the parallels between climate “skepticism” and fascism is not the same as inserting a gratuitous reference to Hitler into an unrelated topic.
I think we should probably call a halt here. FWIW, Garnaut, quoted by carbonsink at #70 has it right.