« Reserve status in doubt | Home | Garnaut draft report released »
Radical scepticism
By jquiggin | July 3, 2008
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.
Topics: Environment |
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Before we had religious zealots trying to ram their crap down our throats, now we have greenhouse zealots doing the same thing and calling none believers delusional.
Well maybe the greenhouse zealots are suffering from delusions of grandeur.
The more the weather changes the more it stays the same.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
“There is a potential division in Labor on any emission trading scheme between its inner-city tertiary educated green voting base and its suburban and regional supporters who are employed in manufacturing and mineral industries. Sections of the former group can be disturbingly intolerant.”
I’d agree wholeheartedly with that. As for this-
“From a non-scientist perspective, it is reasonable to assume that the near consensus view is correct. But this does not lead to any necessary conclusions about when Australia should embrace an emission trading scheme in the short term.”
I’d generally agree with the sentiment but change the last sentence to more accurately reflect the truth that- “this does not lead to any necessary conclusions about IF Australia should embrace an emission trading scheme AT ALL.”
That said I’ll be interested to see what sort of ETS Garnaut can come up with to allay all my concerns about the current mythological creature the ‘inner-city tertiary educated green voting base’ have been worshipping for so long.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Actually it’s a very good question to ask of those who think we do need an ETS as a result of AGW. Why should we sign on to an ETS generally? Any takers? Perhaps then we can see how well Garnaut’s flesh on the bones stacks up with their reasoning. A useful exercise to explore any better alternatives too.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Actually it’s a very good question to ask of those who think we do need an ETS as a result of AGW. Why should we sign on to an ETS generally? Any takers? Perhaps then we can see how well Garnaut’s model stacks up with their reasoning. A useful exercise to explore any better alternatives too.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Actually, I don’t think the term delusionist is very good. Delusions are false beliefs that the individual believes are true. This suggests a lot of the people you are talking about actually believe what they are saying is true. This seems highly unlikely to me, and not backed up by evidence (how many of the smoking doesn’t cause cancer brigade ever smoked, for example?)
July 4th, 2008 at 8:13 am
I think delusionist covers both producers and consumers of delusion. And while the wishful thinking required to be a consumer is obvious (see Tony G at #1 for example), it’s not inconsistent with a belief that what they are saying is true.
Of the leading purveyors of delusion, the only one I’d be absolutely confident in labelling as a conscious fraud is Steve Milloy.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:38 am
re: #1 Tony G
See my comment #62 in earlier thread.
Can your explain why your unsupported opinion carries more weight compared to a few people I quoted:
- the CEO of a major gas&electric utility
- a geoscientist who ran the British equivalent of MIT and was later Chairman of Shell
- and a Nobel physicist / Stanford professor?
There is science and then there is policy, and there are a lot more degrees of freedom in the latter than in the former.
People who persist in denying solid science simply marginilize themselves out of relevance in debates about the latter.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
There seem to be a lot of economists (Garnaut etc) and people who are qualified in everything but climatology who are the ’self proclaimed experts’ on the subject.
Climatologist and geologist that study long term weather and climate are saying it is difficult to state categorically how the weather behaved in the past and it is more difficult if not impossible to state exactly how it will behave in the future.
The weather has been changing constantly since the world began, people have always talked about the weather.
We can all agree on one thing and that is the anthropological global hot air expelled talking about the weather has increased a lot recently!
July 4th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Prof Q, I’d be _very_ inclined to add Jennifer Marohasy to the list of conscious frauds.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
What really annoys me with these denialist idiots is that we cant opt out of their stupidity. We are all stuck on the planet and we are all going to fry.
I think for once we have to stand up to these morons with their deluded non scientific views, for our own survival.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
#8 I’m not aware of any economists of significance who set themselves up as experts in climatology. We (Garnaut, Stern, me and most others) listen to the real experts. That means reading lengthy IPCC reports, talking to actual working climatologists and so on (I’m willing to bet Tony G has never done either).
By contrast, the number of utterly ignorant bloggers, blog commenters, hack journalists and so on who regard themselves as being better qualified than the experts is just about beyond counting (though still, fortunately, a small minority of the population as a whole).
July 4th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
“The weather has been changing constantly since the world began….” - Tony G
And people have been dying ever since there have been people, so why don’t we get rid of hospitals?
July 4th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
There are denialists, delusionists, skeptics and people like myself who I would describe as realists.
I don’t deny that climate change is a problem, I’m not deluding myself that that man-made CO2 emission isn’t part of the problem. My main concerns with the current debate is that we seem to be rushing headlong into a climate change response that might be worse for Australia than doing nothing.
The following questions need answering -
What is the economic impact of the ‘do nothing’ case for Australia?
What impact will we have on global climate change by curtailing emissions in Australia?
What will be the impact on Australia if we introduce a an emissions permit system ahead of our trading partners and the worlds major sources of greenhouse gasses?
The ‘reality’ is that we need to very careful that we don’t rush into something because we’re being urged to do so by green zealots - who may or may not have ulterior motives for trashing the Australian economy.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“listen to the real experts”
There is no truely conclusive evidence and there are many examples of conflicting evidence. Core samples are just one of the many examples.
Re: “GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years”
“However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa–or whether they increase synchronously. It’s also ‘UNKNOWN’ how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation.”
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
At this stage man has not progressed enough to be able to accurately predict the weather a couple of days out let alone control the weather, although some economists might think they can control it through taxation.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
“The weather has been changing constantly since the world began….” - Tony G
Is this supposed to be:
(1) a refutation of AGW
(2) a proof that AGW doesn’t matter, or
(3) part of a personal narrative?
It looks like part of narrative to me. 1 and 2 are trivially wrong.
Narratives are fun, but if you want to develop good public policy you’re way better using science.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Shorter Tony G: There is no such thing as truth, so I can believe what I like.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
JB
No, it is a fact and since I got up this morning the temperature has changed from 7C to 16C.
The amount, degree and direction of the nearly infinite amount of changes in weather over the last 400k years is anybodies guess. What it will do tomorrow is an even bigger guess.
People have fantasised about controlling the weather for centuries and now we have economists who say they can do it with taxation.
If AGW is proved to be a problem and it is far from proven that it is, and if you guys were fair dinkum about reducing green house emissions, then Australia with hundreds of years of natural gas reserves could easily convert nearly everything to run on that and cut GH emissions by 90% with very little economic pain.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
My goodness, you’re brilliant. All we need to do is shut down the coal fired stations and build gas ones and it’s problem solved! Why hasn’t anyone else thought of this?
Oh and can you please make the primary school distinction between weather and climate?
July 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Dictionary.com;
“1. the composite or generally prevailing WEATHER CONDITIONS of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2. a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate.
3. the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest.”
No wilful convert them like you would your car or replace it when it needs replacing with a CNG one.
You have until 2050 even by your own flawed calculations to get it done.
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/act/content/2006/s2269708.htm
July 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Tony G
re: my previous question in #7.
Can I take it you don’t intend to answer us as to why your opinions carry more weight on this topic than the people I mentioned? or any weight at all?
The wrong arguments you mention can be looked up at John Cross’ ,a href=”http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php”>Skeptical Science.
32 Empirical evidence for AGW [empirical]
37 if scientists can’t predict weather, how can they predict long term climate?[weather]
10 CO2 lags temperature [co2lag]
You q
I’m curious: you’ve mentioned what climatologists say. Do you regularly attend climate science lectures by world-class climatologists and talk to them? If so, who, and where?
July 4th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
There is no truely conclusive evidence and there are many examples of conflicting evidence. Core samples are just one of the many examples.
Tony, ice core samples don’t conflict with AGW. In fact they provide strong support for the hypothesis.
And better yet, the prediction about CO2 levels being linked with ice ages was made over a hundred years ago by Arrhenius who (besides being one of chemistry founding fathers) was the first person to suggest that humans would raise the temperature via carbon dioxide.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
John M, I think that you’ll find that Tony know more about the climate than the world climatologists. And he can do this without even reading their scientific publications. Quite a skill.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Tony G
re: my previous question in #7.
Can I take it you don’t intend to answer us as to why your opinions carry more weight on this topic than the people I mentioned? or any weight at all?
You quote an 8-year old web page by a consulting forester saying they don’t understand some things, most of which were well-understood by climate scientists years before. Do you regard that as an authoritative source? Why?
The wrong arguments you mention can be looked up at John Cross’ Skeptical Science. i.e., these arguments have been refuted by real science so often that John has a numbered set, ordered by recent popularity
32 Empirical evidence for AGW [empirical]
37 if scientists can’t predict weather, how can they predict long term climate?[weather]
10 CO2 lags temperature [co2lag]
I’m curious: you’ve mentioned what climatologists say. Do you regularly attend climate science lectures by world-class climatologists and talk to them? If so, who, and where? Do read Science or Nature, for example?
July 4th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Tony G:
Try plotting a graph with two axes. On one axis have the amount of warming, and on the other axis have the probability of it happening. This will give you a better description of the problem than a simple dichotomous “yes” or “no”. You will also notice that the “0″ on the amount of warming axis gets a very low probability.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
The climate change faith may be more difficult to reject if it wasn’t for nutters like flannery running around making outrageous statements.
How the heck can one join a church that has such weirdos for priests?
July 4th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
John Mashey
We will just agree to disagree.
I am not advocating believing anyone or that my opinions carry any weight at all on this topic. I do not try to predict the weather and I challenge anybody who insists they can to prove it phd or not. Whether it is based on long term (400k years) analyses or short term (centuries, decades or days)
Wasn’t the consensus among scientists at one stage that the world was flat and then weren’t they proved wrong by Columbus.
The evidence from ice core samples, limes stone in caves and similar long term studies etc is inconclusive because it mostly conflicts with each other unless or until they collaborate with each other. Any fair dinkum study into long term climate using bonafide scientific methods is usually qualified with a similar statement to this ;
It’s ‘UNKNOWN’ how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation.”
The variables are just to great to be conclusive.
This link states that the use of natural gas (of which Australia has 200 years worth of reserves) will cut greenhouse emissions by 80%. Conversion of nearly everything is simple and it is 1/3 the cost of present fuels.
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/act/content/2006/s2269708.htm
This might not suite people getting paid $400k+ per year who sit on their arse to pontificate about climate change or other vested interests, but it is economically viable to convert everything to CNG
JM or JQ or KM answer my question, if it is so urgent to kerb emissions of green house gases, why aren’t we moving to converting everything to CNG as it will cut emissions by 80%.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“At this stage man has not progressed enough to be able to accurately predict the weather a couple of days out ”
which leads us back to Alan Shand’s comments about summer and winter.
Personally I think the sun might explode tomorrow so paying taxes is stupid.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Tony,
In no particular order:
* Columbus didn’t discover that the world was round. That was known a long time before him.
* The ice cores etc don’t conflict with each. There are uncertainties due to imperfect data, but this is very different to conflicted with each other. Many features of the ice cores results were predicted in advance of their discovery. In science, this is a powerful argument.
* However, as we get closer to the present day, our data quality improves by orders of magnitude. Nobody has come up with a creditably quantitative explanation for the good quality data which does not include a significant contribution from greenhouse gases.
* Your link states that CNG has 80% less emissions than petrol - this doesn’t mean that Australia can reduce its GHG emissions by 80% by switching to CNG.
* There are significant issues with CNG. When I was a child, New Zealand made a significant push towards CNG with pretty poor success. However, putting a price on carbon, will encourage the uptake of alternatives such as CNG.
* For pontificating about climate change, I make far less than $400k.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
How the heck can one join a church that has such weirdos for priests?
Because he knows what he’s talking about, and you don’t.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
“it is a fact and since I got up this morning the temperature has changed from 7C to 16C.
The amount, degree and direction of the nearly infinite amount of changes in weather over the last 400k years is anybodies guess. What it will do tomorrow is an even bigger guess.” - Tony G
Dear god!
I thought that this one was so weak that the Denialists (oops, sceptics) had dropped it in the very early rounds of lets-make-up-some-weather-analogies-and-see-if-they-work.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
The whole point of Garnaut et al in the draft is that uncertainty, risk, and impact are central to our response to the likelihood of severe impacts due to global warming. Of course the science is incomplete - no scientific field has ever “finished” its job - as there is always a new thing to measure, another question that can be asked. Using the most credible knowledge we have now is all we can do, and that is what Garnaut et al are persevering on achieving.
The real question for Tony G (and others with similar opinions) is why do they dismiss hard won data, observations, and other forms of evidence, when deciding on what to do in the face of uncertain consequences? Especially when the alternative “theories” are opinion based far more than evidence based? If you want to debate the science behind AGW, feel free to go out in the field and to do the research, then use it to strengthen your argument or to rebut your argument, as the data dictates. Of course, without data, it is real easy to feel smug in denying that AGW could be remotely correct.
I’m getting a strong feeling that wilful ignorance is becoming a way of life in Oz; and for that matter, at the Oz. Sheesh!
July 4th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
John
where is the primary source for Shand’s comment? Neither your not Tim Lambert quote it.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Zarquon @29. Don’t bore us with the basis for your statement that I don’t know what I am talking about.
However, your statement that Flannery knows what he is talking about is rubbish. Flannery (in addition to being a zealot) is a self-confessed exaggerator on climate change matters.
When the main pushers of the global warming religion are nutters like him, it is only ever going to attract the most soft-headed of our number.
Global warming/climate change (or whatever name it currntly goes by) is purely a matter of faith for those who choose to believe.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
SATP Says:
The earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth, and SATP has sensible things to say. The truth value of these statements is about the same.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Louis — you can see the full show here: http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/?p=448
Q — this seems to be another example of you simply being rude in an attempt to shame sceptics into submission.
John Mashey — just because common arguments have been numbered, that doesn’t mean they have been answered. I’ve seen all the “answers” 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 faithful” to engage in rational argument when they can rely on insults.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Louis, for the Shand-Flannery exchange,follow the link from Lambert’s blog. From Shand’s comment, I don’t think he could be described as a radical sceptic; that would imply some effort. He’s just a blithering ignoramus with a deadline who’s realised some boffin-types are opposed over some issue. It’s not as though PBL have a dedicated Science Unit.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
John Humphreys Says:
Shorter John Humphreys: “I haven’t got a clue, but I’m nevertheless certain that everyone is wrong.”
July 5th, 2008 at 5:10 am
re: #35 temujin
re: issue 10
So, exactly what is your cause for concern?
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?
Do you (a) have a list of explicit *science* worries, such that if they were resolved, you would say:
“I now believe AGW is real and it’s a problem, and we’d better deal with it, although I will argue for minimal-government mechanisms”.
OR
is (b) there no such finite list, i.e., the goalposts will always move?
If (a), what’s your list?
July 5th, 2008 at 9:33 am
SATP: Flannery is a weirdo so we can’t believe anything about climate science.
Let’s take this a little further. Isaac Newton was a weirdo given to Alchemy and had very strange views on the Pope, so we can safely ignore his laws of gravity and motion. Plus, Einstein proved him wrong, didn’t he?
What a convincing set of scientific arguments those are, and how sensible of you to make them.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Hal 9000, Flannery states that he is making it up to “scare” people. This is his “scientific argument”
When Newton dropped an apple, it indiputably fell to the ground. A scientific experiment that worked for him every time.
If the evangelists of the global warming church have a Micheal Moore type credibility rating, then that church is going to find scepticism aplenty in the broader population.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:48 am
SJ — you perfectly show the bigotry of the AGW-faithful. You aren’t interested in discussion.
Mashey — If I may paraphrase… I already believe that “AGW is *probably* real and it’s a cause for concern that might require government action, although I want the government action to pass a robust benefit-cost analysis and I would prefer us to be cautious in the face of uncertainty”.
I have previously suggested a moderate carbon tax (fully-offset with other tax cuts), to be introduced slowly.
Be honest. What did you assume my position was?
The “concern” (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.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Look, the denialists are so right. Really if 4000 or so climate scientists want to get together and produce a report - it can’t be right, because the denialist geniuses know that ‘climate always changes’ and Tim Flannery is (apparently) a bit weird.
And now we get the fantastic opportunity get to be the experiment! We will be the guinea pigs for the denialists assurances. Thanks guys.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
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?
July 5th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
If you see smoke coming in through your bedroom door, do you wait until you are *absolutely sure* that your house is on fire? Or do you go looking for a fire extinguisher?
Even if you don’t have perfect information, that does not mean that the best course is to do nothing.
Even if the course of action indicated by the best available information is expensive, you can expect that it will still be cheaper than the results of not doing anything.
Even if the information that we have is not certain, we are better acting now on that basis and then reassessing the situation when we have some more information.
And attacking the person who says something does not tell us anything about whether what they say is true or useful.
July 5th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I don’t think it matters much who is “right”. From what I have seen I don’t think humanity has much capacity to influence events. I think the economy will behave metaphorically be like a frog boiling in water.
I plan to go and see the Reef and Kakadu a couple more times, apologise, and then kiss them good bye.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
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 faithful” to engage in rational argument when they can rely on insults.
Yawn.
Any attempt at rational debate has been well and truly killed off by the “skeptics”. Why should anybody attempt to engage with pseudoscientific jokes. I’ve tried, but have been beaten down by arguments similar to what JQ quotes above. It’s no different to debating with creationists.
I’m happy to discuss AGW with anybody who is willing to debate in good faith. Unfortunately, the words “honest” and “knowledgeable” don’t belong in the same sentence as the “global warming skeptics”.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
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?
Reminds me of the totally bullshit smear campaign against Gore. Fact is he said that there is a real risk of sea level rises of 20 feet, and fact is a lot of scientists think this is quite feasible, likely even.
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)
July 5th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“Hal 9000, Flannery states that he is making it up to “scare” people. This is his “scientific argument””
SATP
He did?
when and where?
for someone given to baseless threats of law suits you seems exceptionally casual about defaming others.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
For Tony G’s elucidation, I link to a map of the world which Columbus took with him on his journey:
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/
The scientists of Columbus’s day were well aware the world was round - however they believed the westward route ot Asia was too long to be feasible.
Having spent time in the Azores, Columbus was convinced there was land relatively close to the west based on evidence such as debris washing up after storms.
He therefore theorised, incorrectly that the world was much smaller than scientific opinion of the day maintained.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Silly question. Obviously you roll over and go back to sleep because fighting house fires is a government responsibility.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
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 “delusionist” 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?”"
July 6th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Actually Tony my argument would be:
“Look how stupid these “delusionist” 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 round””
July 6th, 2008 at 2:57 am
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
July 6th, 2008 at 10:18 am
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?
July 6th, 2008 at 10:38 am
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.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:49 am
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.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:07 am
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.)
July 6th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:32 am
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:02 am
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:53 am
“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.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:04 am
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:26 am
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).
July 7th, 2008 at 10:46 am
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:38 am
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
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
July 7th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“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.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
(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 “answers” 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 faithful” 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 “concern” (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”.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
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.”
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
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.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
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.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:34 am
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.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:08 am
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.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:31 am
“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.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I think we should probably call a halt here. FWIW, Garnaut, quoted by carbonsink at #70 has it right.