I stopped arguing with self-described “skeptics” on the topic of global warming some time ago, and I don’t intend to start again. I am however interested both in trying to promote sensible policy outcomes and in considering the broader political and cultural implications of the debate. For this purpose, there is no need to argue about hockey sticks, global warming on Mars or any of the other talking points that chew up so much time on the Internets (for anyone who is actually in doubt on any of these points, this is a useful resources
I’ll start with some facts that are, if not indisputable, at least sufficiently clear that I don’t intend to engage in dispute about them
(i) All major scientific organisations in the world[1] endorse, in broad terms, the analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which states that the world is getting warmer and that, with high (> 90 per cent) probability, this warming is predominantly due to human action
(ii) Most prominent politicians[2], thinktanks, activists, commentators and bloggers on the political right in Australia, the US and Canada (along with a large section in the UK) reject, or express doubts about, this analysis. The uniformity of views is particularly notable among conservative thinktanks.
The dispute between mainstream science and the political right has now been going on for at least fifteen years, and has already had some profound impacts. At the beginning of this period, the right could plausibly present itself as the pro-science side of the “Science Wars” in which the enemies were the massed forces of leftwing postmodernism (a powerful force, given their near-total control over departments of English literature), sociologists of science and the wilder fringes of the environmental movement. However, this was always a storm in a teacup, ignored by the vast majority of scientists.
By contrast, the current war is being fought for high stakes, with the end result either a disastrous defeat for the institutions of mainstream science or the intellectual discrediting of the entire political right. There has been no significant convergence between the two sides. On the contrary, even as confidence in the mainstream scientific consensus was solidified be the released of the IPPP Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, the rightwing opponents of science were buoyed by the La Nina event of early 2008, which produced a sharp, but temporary drop in temperatures, particularly in the Pacific. Comparisons with the El Nino peak of 1998 enabled them to announce that global warming had stopped, a point which was amplified in vast numbers of opinion pieces, blog posts and public statements, though not, to my knowledge, defended by any peer-reviewed statistical analysis.
Even such an obvious fact as the melting of Arctic ice, confirmed in the most direct fashion possible by the announcement of regular shipping routes around the Pole, with associated territorial claims, has been the subject of endless quibbles (attempts to restate these quibbles in comments will be deleted).
Furthermore, unlike the endless culture war disputes where the debating tactics of the right have been developed, there is a fact of the matter regarding anthropogenic global warming, which will sooner or latter become undeniable. Either global warming will continue, finally confirming the mainstream scientific viewpoint, or it will not.
Given the accumulation of scientific evidence, the odds are pretty strongly in favour of the first outcome. Scientific conclusions supported by a diverse range of independent theory and evidence sometimes turn out to be wrong, but you wouldn’t want to bet on it. Even more rarely, non-scientists with an axe to grind turn out to be right where scientists are wrong, but you really wouldn’t want to bet on that.
This raises the question of why the right has been so keen to double down on this issue. Of course, there’s no organised process by which an anti-science viewpoint on climate change and other issues is agreed on as a central orthodoxy from which dissent is prohibited, but you only have to look at the output of the political right in the English speaking countries to see that this outcome has been realised.
There are many explanations, perhaps so many that the outcome was overdetermined – powerful economic interests such as ExxonMobil, the hubris associated with victories in economic policy and in the Cold War, tribal dislike of environmentalists which translated easily to scientists as a group, and the immunisation to unwelcome evidence associated with the construction of the rightwing intellectual apparatus of thinktanks, talk-radio, Fox News, blogs and so on.
The issue is not going to go away, regardless of the short-term success or failure of attempts to reach a global agreement to stabilise the climate. The more clearly the political right is identified with the anti-science side of this debate, the harder it will be to salvage any of its existing institutions.
In a two-party system, even total intellectual incoherence will not prevent a political party from winning office when its opponents fail. But I’m surprised at the extent to which supporters of free markets have been willing to tie their case to an obvious imposture.
fn1. The only partial exception of which I am aware is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which takes an equivocal position
fn2. For reasons of political necessity, some rightwing politicians occasionally make statements endorsing mainstream science on global warming. But only a handful (John McCain being the most prominent) give more than a half-hearted assent, and many (Brendan Nelson is an archetypal example) give different positions depending on the audience and the way the political wind is blowing on the day.
John Quiggin 
Proponents of the ‘global warming has stopped’ theory will have a hard time explaining future hot years, hotter perhaps than 1998. Personally I am enjoying the cool summer and wish it was a permanent feature. The arguments become even more complicated when Malthusian limits are invoked, one suggestion being that global consumption in real terms will never return to 2008 levels. I’m waiting for the deniers to propose we should burn more fossil fuels on the grounds that warming is a furphy, but the evidence is mounting that the supply of all fossil fuels including cheap coal will peak within a generation. Therefore I suggest that now is good as it gets to be a GW denier and the facts on the ground will get less supportive with each passing year.
“there is a fact of the matter regarding anthropogenic global warming, which will sooner or latter become undeniable. Either global warming will continue, finally confirming the mainstream scientific viewpoint, or it will not.”
Considering people are freezing their balls off this summer “the odds are pretty strongly in favour of the [second] outcome”
So we are talking about pseudo-science and its probabilities, not REAL science that actually predicts a future outcome and can repeat its prediction successfully many times over.
Well I do not bet with other peoples money, especially based on a probability (even if YOU tell us it is 90% on). Every punter knows short priced favourites loose more often than they win. Give me a certain outcome based on a Scientific prediction to back. I’ll be happy to tell the punters to put their rent money on that because REAL science predicts future outcomes and pseudo-sciences don’t.
If you TAX and SPENDERS are so concerned about AGW, then maybe you should introduce something like Observer put out there last week. It is something that would give you a carbon tax whilst being benign to the punters.
Rather than look for extraneous reasons, John, I think it’s best to assume most of the denialists genuinely believe the arguments they make. One argument they commonly make to rebut your above claim re Exxon Mobil is that any money made available by such renegade bodies is outweighed at least one-hundred fold by that made available to supporters of the mainstream science position and hence there is a vested interest in conforming to the dominant paradigm.
It is almost impossible to overlook the fact that some of the arguments used by the denialists, including the above materialist argument, reflects the arguments leftists have used on other issues.
As an example, leftist Comrade Kim over at Larvatus Prodeo has applied the same technique in her endeavours to revive the ailing fortunes of Freudianism. Take this for example:
“Incidentally, if one were to proffer something of a materialist, sociological (free?) association, a lot of the attacks on psychoanalysis for not being “empirically testable”, etc, just happen to coincide with increasing unwillingness on the part of US health insurance companies to pay for therapy that takes time.” http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/03/29/dispatches-from-the-freud-wars/
Melaleuca, I agree that the right has genuinely come to believe this stuff, and, as you say has adopted many of the arguments of the old anti-science left. I’m interested in what might be called the disposition to belief.
So, since Tony G has volunteered, I’d be interested in his thoughts. What is it that led you to think that all mainstream science organizations are wrong on this, while the sources on which you rely are correct? Do you think the scientists are stupid, corrupt, ideologically motivated or some combination of the three? Do you think AGW is an exceptional case, or is science in general like this?
I think we are seeing the reaction of people whose interests and intellectual range suit them to the status quo, trying to keep that status quo propped up.
“But I’m surprised at the extent to which supporters of free markets have been willing to tie their case to an obvious imposture.” Given the chasm between Adam Smith’s opinions of the honesty and public-spiritedness of merchants and capitalists, and the Right’s deference to that same group, I think it is more accurate to characterise the Right as ‘pro-businesses’ rather than ‘free market’. Which explains some of this problem.
What is also strange is the lack of imagination the political Right ascribes to their favourite demographic. If businesses can make lemonade in geographic and political lemons like Siberia and Africa, and can use economic collapse for ‘creative destruction’, why can’t they also adapt to climate change? (Aided, of course, by setting up proper markets for them to trade in.)
John Ralston Saul wrote (somewhere, I cannot find the reference right now) about the Chicago School: market forces can only be supreme if you ignore geography. But now geography is said to be threatening the Right’s free market and this, if true, means something must then protect the geography from businesses. There are only two things which are said to be able to regulate businesses – one, the free market has a patchy record; while the other, government, is the political Right’s bete noire.
So there is an alignment on the Right between interests, habits and intellect to inspire them to deny global warming.
I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. The right can’t afford to admit that the left has been correct about anything at all given the fear and loathing we caused them in the ’60s and the angst over Nixon. If they admit that we were right about Vietnam, peak oil (although many of us didn’t think of it in quite those terms), overpopulation and pollution (just to skim the surface), their brains would explode from the final recognition of their cognitive dissonance.
One of the properties of science is that it stands in the way of desire.
Desire dreams a future world where the desire is fulfilled. Building that future world does not have unforeseen consequences – unforeseen is undesired.
Science stands in stark constrast as it presents a world ‘as it is’, severely curbing the scope of desire and clarifying the consequences of actions.
Science then is the enemy of people who desire a future without consequences.
The population of the crazy right, in the light of the financial dieoff, is way beyong carrying capacity,hence the lemming like search for a cliff.
“What is it that led you to think that all mainstream science organizations are wrong on this, while the sources on which you rely are correct?”
I don’t rely on “organisations” to dictate my view. I listen to what they have to say noting that by their very nature they have to make compromises to get a consensus view, but as general rule, being an individual I rely on my own enquiries to form a view. At this point in time, based on my own enquiries, there seems to be a lot of dissension and conflicting views among the majority of individual scientists, some of whom are members of these “organisations”.
Based on this, my view is the same as yours….Either global warming will manifest itself, “finally confirming the mainstream scientific viewpoint, or it will not.”
But, until that happens it is going to be difficult to get “a global agreement to stabilise the climate.” Especially as we all can’t agree or see that it is ‘in fact’ unstable.
Tony G wrote:
“Every punter knows short priced favourites loose (sic) more often than they win.”
Speakung as a former short-priced favourut on sivirel occasions un my younger days, I must point out thet un the case of the IPCC/mainstream posution on globel warmung, the favourut us not sumply short priced, but shorter then tin to one on, evin bifore the tote hes takin out uts percintege. Therefore your enelogy us musplaced.
The tenacity of the right on this subject surprised me a few years ago but it only reminds me of the approach taken to tobacco smoking. The science here was equally strong (once it was dragged out of hidden away reports) but denied with a straight face. My main conclusion is that the forces aligned with money and business interests will maintain that interest even in the face of danger and destruction. It also fits with my view that the capacity of business interests to reinterpret our world thru marketing to us that we are better for this product or that is a bit limited when there is a more obvious marketing device in the GW debate i.e. the weather. It is difficult to glam up/ explain away what people see and feel every day reinforced by actuality of deep droughts and more extreme weather events.
You would have thought that the adaptive capacity of capitalism would have kicked in by now with businesses trying to exploit the alternative energy market with more gusto. But as with cigarettes why move to a new market when this one hasn’t been fully exploited and the economic benefits of the alternative market have yet to materialise. There is still plenty of oil, so why rush, it is a resource that should be exhausted. Of course as in the smoking example the costs of such approaches usually sits with governments. Of course the capacity of governments to deal with the worst aspects of GW, will I believe, be well beyond them
Another angle on the probabilistic projections of the IPCC can be gleaned from reflecting on the comments of some Coalition MPs when the IPCCs 4th SAR put forward its >90% balance of probabilities. These comments were along the lines of “would you drive a truck across a bridge which the engineer said had only a 90% chance of holding up?” A sensible person has to answer “YES” when the alternative is to drive across a bridge with less than a 10% chance of holding up.
I mistakenly posted as my equine sock puppet at #12. Sorry!
1) I don’t know about Oz, but for the US, isn’t just global warming, it’s a wide variety of topics. I recommend Chris Mooney’s “The Republican War on Science” that describes how this came to happen here, as the Republican party didn’t used to be this way.
2) At least in the US, if you can find out funding sources of conservative thinktanks, certain family foundations (Olin, Scaife, Koch, etc) show up pretty often. Thinktanks need funding, so they get it where they can, and those foundations may actually contribute more than, say ExxonMobil, although it’s hard to tell.
Thinktanks are like little lobbying/PR firms, and one may recall that the PR firm Hill&Knowlton *invented* the anti-science strategy for tobacco companies. [Hill had quit smoking for health reasons, but he invented the “controversy” approach to help tobacco sales. See Allan M. Brandt, “The Cigarette Century”, p165-.] It’s hard to know what such entities really believe, or if it matters.
3) I recommend the McWright/Dunlap paper, Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement’s Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy, and
Jacques, Dunlap and Freeman, “The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism”, Environmental Politics 17:349 – 385, 2008), free here.
4)A few months ago, I put together a catalog of anti-science reasons at Deltoid. It’s pretty clear that there is a wide variety of reasons, and it seems unlikely that everyone actually believes what they’re saying. Many do, even though they might be acting against their own (or their descendants’) self-interest.
5) Note that the conservative thinktank taking-on of the *business* mantle is a good tactic. There are a huge number of businesses, but the anti-science push comes from a relatively small number, particularly those that often privatize profits and socialize the costs/risks.
Google: western pennsylvania coal subsidence
for an example of how that “privatize profit/socialize cost” works – I grew up in that area, although thankfully not over old coal mines. Many mining companies quit decades ago. Houses still collapse.
Thinktanks often fundraise on “avoid excessive regulation”, but I think most of the funding comes from “no regulation of *my* business, no matter the externalities” folks.
This tactic, used often by the tobacco companies, is to want to stand in the middle of a crowd, hurl bricks at police, and hope that the police shoot back into the crowd, or even better, at bystanders who will then join the crowd.
It is really a mistake to lump all businesses together as anti-science. I think it’s a relatively small fraction of businesses, albeit some large ones.
The Economist is strongly free-trade, but actually thinks AGW is real and that some regulation is OK. As I’ve said elsewhere, some people think The Economist has turned into an awful left-wing rag and dropped their subscriptions in disgust. 🙂
Peter Darbee is a conservative who is CEO of PG&E, the (very large) utility for Central and Northern California. Read this story of how he studied up on AGW. He has *no* problem accepting the science and government/private cooperation. He much prefers low-overhead government that sets some rules&objectives and lets business unleash its creativity for solutions to the details. Of course, this is Northern California, which has a fairly clear view on this, but Darbee gives passionate talks on climate & efficiency, and PG&E’s actions reflect that.
6) Finally, there seems to have been a progression of arguments:
a) SCIENCE
The science is wrong, AGW is a hoax, or natural, or stopped, etc.
[Vastly untenable, but some will persist forever in ignoring physics and statistics, and keep fighting the last war.]
b) ECONOMICS
Well, AGW is real, but we should {adapt, not mitigate}, wait until major research breakthroughs, it will cost too much if we do anything soon, our descendants in 2100AD will be really rich, etc, etc.
I think this is starting to wear down as well, but it still has some currency.
c) POLITICS
Finally, there is “AGW is real, but there are more important priorities.”
This is the most sophisticated argument, especially since the other priority alternatives can be chosen to appeal to a much broader audience, and with the right rules, can be assured to put AGW last. There is an art to doing this cleverly, and it shows up in government politics as well as businesses.
Bjorn Lomborg seems beloved of conservative thinktanks for his skill in this kind of misdirection argument.
7) IMHO: It seems good thing in democracies to have multiple parties to keep eyes on each other. Since “keeping government as small and unintrusive as possible” seems reasonable, especially in conjunction with “and as big as really necessary”, it’s sad to see a major party go completely off into the total unreality of anti-science. I would far rather that the conservative side stop arguing about the science and put their energies into straightforward arguments on politics and public/private mechanisms and balance. Political conservatives can actually be rational about this [Darbee above; CA Gov. Schwarzenegger.
I am much happier when I actually get to choose between reasonable candidates from two different parties, which actually happens occasionally where I live.
With the Web, it’s a *lot* easier to backtrack what someone has been saying, and I’d never trust somebody who repeatedly denies strongly-supported science. Many people are marginalizing themselves away from the policy table.
I think what most of us ignore is the vast wealth holdings some organisations have to devote to “anti science” propaganda. Not because they are necessarily “right wing” (individuals personal views within the organisation are subjugated to views that protect and maintain the organisations profit) and the organisation will deploy resources in pursuit of that aim, placing ethical concerns behind. They will recruit or fund others such as lobby groups and media peronalities in order to manipulate the views of mass voting blocs through the media, in order to secure the election of what they see as sympathetic politicians. Unfortunately willing people will always be found to go along with the charade as will willing politicians.
I think the reason for the right “doubling down” is psychological, not philosophical. The more the extreme right have been colonised/joined with the religeous nutbars, the less rational they have become. Blind faith in one area (religeon) is seeping into the others (science, economics, politics) too. Their own personal emotional (and employment?) security is wrapped up in their views being correct. They don’t even want to consider the alternative.
I think the more rational among them just hope the evidence proving their error won’t show up before they retire or die. Sort of like Bush hoping the recession wouldn’t hit till after he left office.
I would have thought that this was very much an American syndrome. The religious connection with business probably derives from the private school (more usually operated by catholic and protestant organisations) origins of the wealthier end of town. The next stepping stone down that path would be the private clubs where these things will be talked about. I imagine that anyone with a religious affiliation has to be conflicted on the issues of origin, and once there is a public position from the “club” then loyalty must play a role (the Howard gang for instance). Perhaps this whole movement is trapped by its own momentum and can only end when it finally destructs from a collision with undeniable reality. It might take a few hundred years, though, to full recognition from the vatican.
I think it is interesting to consider anti-science, but attaching anti-science specifically to the ‘right’ may lead up garden paths as there are many on the ‘left’ who are anti-science.
Why would anyone have a problem with Science? A look at a current opinion piece at the ABC site
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2461817.htm
shows that some readers feel slighted at the prospect that there is a field of endeavor that they cannot join. Basically they don’t want to think they aren’t smart enough to do science and so find a way to denigrate it. I have long thought envy plays part in the hostility to intellectuals in Australia compared to the love of sports people – with sports people one can fantasise that with the right training ‘there go I’, but when someone is a lot smarter there is nothing that can bridge that gap.
So hubris takes its place in the anti-science camp.
Also science speaks against fantasy and the uncontrolled will – it places hard limits on what is possible, and exposes consequences that cannot be dismissed through rhetoric alone. Anyone who hates being thwarted might get a little petulant when science stands in the way of their dreams, particularly if they also want to see themselves as virtuous. Of course if they don’t care about morals and virtue – ie are a psychopath – then they will act accordingly. I am of the view that there are quite a few high functioning psychopaths throughout the workforce – where engaging in ruthless manipulation is often an advantage.
The Anglophone Right is in the process of being “mugged by reality” because of its unreality based Climate, Class and “Civilization” War positions. Although the scientific basis of the Rights anthropological work-view has been substantially confirmed by it’s successes in the Culture War.
The Right still has the whip hand institutionally, but it has mostly lost it’s grip intellectually. Thus Right-wingers still call the shots in the corridors of power where key financial, martial and environmental decisions are being made.
Nothing breeds change like epic failure. The inescapable facts on the ground are forcing Right-wingers to abandon long-held and much-cherished positions.
Bush is pulling troops out of Mesopotamia, nationalising banks and even building a proper border protecting wall! Undoubtedly as storm-surges start to swamp lower Manhattan we will see the Right taking action on climate change.
Like the other issues it will probably be too little to late. Unless of course the forthcoming US depression forces Americans to make ecological virtue out of economic necessity.
John, I think Steven Colbert said it perfectly when he quipped “Reality has a left-wing bias.”
You say:
“the intellectual discrediting of the entire political right”
What if they don’t care (and a lot of people actually find that appealing)?
Nanks@18 is on the money.
There is a fundamental disconnect between what people ‘want’ to believe, and what science tells us about the how the Universe works. People subconsciously look for evidence that conforms with their worldview (whether religious or ideological) and discard the evidence that doesn’t.
This is not just limited to what passes for debate on AGW. Look at the dispute on teaching evolution going on over in the States at the moment. Or the foolishness associated with the MMR vaccine and autism. Or recycled water, or GM foods…
The ‘political right’ (whatever the hell that means? – neo-con, libertarian, paleo-conservative, fascist, objectivist Ayn Randoids – there’s such a smorgasbord to choose from…) does not have monopoly on ignoring reality when it suits them.
Ben Eltham@20:
I think a better line would be that “reality has a scientific bias” but I’ll give Colbert his due 🙂
I think the psychological reasons are more powerful than the issue of funding from Exxon/Mobile, although that’s hardly irrelevant.
As has been noted above the right is now incapable of admitting it was wrong about anything, and particularly something first promoted by 60s lefty-hippies opposed to things like the the Vietnam war (the fact that environmentalism had some key conservative supporters in the early days having been largely forgotten by both sides.)
But the other point raised by nanks and other is valid and under-explored. The right believes in a dream of eternal growth and conquest. They can’t deal with the idea there might be limits (even if, as JQ has noted so often the limits are on material consumption not economic growth per se).
John, I just would like to add that the ‘skeptics’ who live on another planet are out of touch with the majority of the population who believe in a clean and green environment.
What planet are you on Michael?
Obviously not this one, otherwise you are “out of touch” with the majority who do not think an ETS is the way to go.
“A recent Newspoll survey says “A total of 51 per cent said there should be a delay or there should not be an ETS at all.”
Well PrQ, I once again say look at the the right wing denialists are saying and take it at face value. As to the right libertarian type denialists, it’s clear that they are techno-optimists. They aren’t particularly fazed by AGW because they think even if a problem occurs human ingenuity and the market will take care of it. Other rightists take the resilience of the earth for granted and point to a range of previous erroneous “Green scares” to back up there point.
Such folk will not change their minds until there is “blood on the wall”- ie. visible evidence of catastrophic AGW in their very own backyards …
John, if I may reply to Tony G by saying you might be interested to know that the poll results of 21 nations released on the 19 November 2008 by World Public Opinion found ‘very strong support for the government requiring utilities to use more alternative energy, such as wind and solar, and requiring businesses to use energy more efficiently, even if these steps increase the costs of energy and other products. Fewer than half of the nations polled favor putting more emphasis on nuclear energy or on coal or oil’. However, the most important factor was that the majority rejected the notion that ‘shifting to alternative energy sources would hurt the economy, believing instead that it would save money in the long run’ for which I tend to agree with.
G’day Prof Q. I’m not going to dispute the capacity of science to describe reality, but it is worth remembering that Science only provides answers to questions that are asked.
There are many factors that have contributed to the US predominant position in the modern world, but a major factor has been the general willingness of the US elites to utilise the treasures derived from pure and applied scientific endeavours. Time and again over the last 150 years or so US policy makers and industrialists hae asked questions that scientists and their siblings the engineers have answered with aclarity and effect.
So successful have these elites been that they have fallen for the common fallacy that their success has been due to their own intelligence and/or the support of their god. Also that this success gives them the right to direct the questions that science ought to investigate. In this they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Natural Philosophy and related enquiry.
Since Rachel Carson and the tobacco wars the repubs and their thinktanks have acted as if they feel that Science has escaped their control, gone feral, their response to the science relating to AGW is simply the latest manifestation. what they don’t understand is that science is feral, incremental, painstaking and often tedious, but feral nontheless. If the Repubs and co are really at war with Science, they better be prepared for a long one.
JQ, the ‘war’ has been against intellectuals, scientists, historians and philosophers of all persuasions, in fact it would seem, the campaign of derision and disinformation has been extended to any thinking person who attempted to question the orthodoxy of corporate facism. The war on science has been selective and particularly vicious and directed against biologists, atmospheric scientists and any other discipline that had the temerity to counter the prevailing neo conservative orthodoxy. It is easy to overlook or forget the many many scientists and engineers who even now labour to produce weapons, chemicals and genetically modified organisms in the interests of efficiency and business, where those scientists are useful then there is no attack on them but on science and intellectual pursuits that add nothing to profit but much to truth and understanding. Even economists have not been immune to the late twentieth century version of the inquisition.
Although there may be a crisis of legitimacy, and many intellectuals and academics are now discussing the portents of this vacuum in politics and thought, the protoganists of facist corporatism will, with increasing ferocity continue their battle against intellectuals and alternative world views, even as their reality collapses, as it has in the first stage of economic ruin as the financial system now collapses along with their delusions and fallacies. The collapse of the biosphere as we know it will be the second stage, and will change nothing, after all our way of life, our material comfort, and our economics and political systems depend and are inextricably bound up with continuing the current delusions and fallacies. Then we will discover we have been living in a facist state all along and failed to recognise its character.
JQ I will think you will find skepticism and conservatism are pretty much of a muchness. In fact the Great infidel himself David Hume is regarded as the first modern Conservative.
Once again your reasoning is based on base political grandstanding, the right will not be defeated and neither will science (whatever those two things are?) A better way of looking at the issue is to think of the skeptics as short sellers, they get a lot of bad press, becasue they ask a lot of awkward questions that keeps everyone on their toes and the market place of ideas honest.
A better criticism from your political view point is that the “rights” skepticism had descended into nihilism, which is a wrong but more logical statement.
In fact while we are on the subject of logic, As I understand it there was no “initial condition” of nature. It has and will always been in flux, therefore trying to return mother nature to her initial “cooler earth” condition seems to me a little illogical don’t you think?
You have asked a dam good question; another good one. The evidence for evolution is pretty dam good but the right push for the teaching of creation in science.
If you can discredit science evolution goes away, and those that want to return us to the dark ages win.
Yes the chances that science has made a mistake on Global warming is small, but it’s bigger than the chance that they have made a mistake when it comes to evolution. Global warming is the best chance of moving us back to fairies and goblins and other supernatural beings.
The question on my mind: Are the mad right so bereft of ideas that now all they desire is a trip back to the past.
Sean@30: I’ll think you’ll find that skepticism has got very little to do with conservatism (or any other political belief) and everything to with science and reason.
Pseudo-skeptics, on the other hand, masquerade as skeptics with one essential difference. They have already decided what their position is, will cherry-pick data to support their position and will obstinately refuse to change their minds in the face of new evidence.
True sceptics, on the other hand are always open to changing their minds should new facts emerge.
What we are witnessing is the reason why science and ideology (political or religious) are basically incompatible. Political rhetoric is not dependant upon facts. It is dependent upon charisma, group-think, fallacious reasoning, and a priori assumptions which cannot be falsified. It is assisted in this by a scientifically and statistically illiterate media who generally seem unable or unwilling to skewer bad arguments.
Ben, I am using it in the political sense from its philosophical roots, afterall the opening posts was about the politics of so called MMGW.
IN the main, skepticism in its political sense is conservative (being skeptical about changing the established order ect)
As for “reason” Induction has yet to be resolved, which it wont be. Therefore the purity of reason will always be in question, its just a little less myth laden than politics.
The right has its own science and it is hard to tell fact from fiction. Does coffee cause cancer and the many other tales carried by the press? Angela Shanahan in the Oz has the story of the estrogen pill causing terrible problems and quotes supposed scientific evidence. How to judge its validity? Those who have been helped by the pill will tend to dismiss supposed damage caused by the pill. The scientific evidence is far from conclusive. Whilst those who have always disliked the pill (catholics like Shanahan) will believe the scientific claims. Belief is what matters.
People are more certain about climate change because there is evidence that they can understand. Those who claim to be sceptics on the other hand don’t believe the claims which are counter to what they want to happen.
Belief is powerful against weighty evidence. Even now Darwin’s theories are in active dispute for some and there are scientists who work to manufacture evidence to contradict Darwinian theory. There is cognitive dissonance. The psychology supports the economic approach (eg Greed is Good) whereas the science can be ignored as inconvenient or derided as wrong when it interferes with the belief system of the people concerned. So Ben @#32 scepticism may be a part of science but it is very much tied into belief systems especially as Prof Q states there is a tribal dislike of environmentalists which translates into a wider dismissal of science that environmentalists support.
Jill,
Your comment “the science can be ignored as inconvenient or derided as wrong when it interferes with the belief system of the people concerned” can be observed both ways. That is what I would expect to be the case with a Catholic (pro lifer?) latching onto science to support the Pope’s negative position on the pill.
On Darwins theory. I believe that there a good case to say that mice now have a genetically transfered visual image of a toaster built into their DNA. The evidence is strong. Even in the very cleanest of kitchens a mouse will find just one crumb in the bottom of a toaster and leave his dirty little black message to prove his presence. If my theory is correct then here is clear evidence of animal adaption to changing environments.
[…] John Quiggin examines such denialism, writing: I’ll start with some facts that are, if not indisputable, at least sufficiently clear that I don’t intend to engage in dispute about them (i) All major scientific organisations in the world[1] endorse, in broad terms, the analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which states that the world is getting warmer and that, with high (> 90 per cent) probability, this warming is predominantly due to human action (ii) Most prominent politicians[2], thinktanks, activists, commentators and bloggers on the political right in Australia, the US and Canada (along with a large section in the UK) reject, or express doubts about, this analysis. The uniformity of views is particularly notable among conservative thinktanks. […]
I love it when the alleged conservatives call left wing people “tax and spenders”, as opposed to the you conservative who spend, but believe the money is manna from heaven.
Charles @31 said;
” If you can discredit science evolution goes away, and those that want to return us to the dark ages win.”
The Left and their affiliates the National Socialists loved evolution and its ‘natural selection’ processes so much they decided to implement the science of Eugenics.
JQ says
“I am however interested both in trying to promote sensible policy outcomes and in considering the broader political and cultural implications of the debate”
For arguments sake the debate could start by addressing “Phillip Stott” concerns with AGW movement approach to the skeptics:
“Stott has been critical of terms like ‘climate sceptic’ and ‘climate-change denier’; he believes in a distinction between the science of climate change and what he asserts is the Barthesian myth [14] of global warming [15], saying,
“… the global warming myth harks back to a lost Golden Age of climate stability, or, to employ a more modern term, climate ‘sustainability’. Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron. The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires, than about climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred to as ‘climate change deniers’; precisely the opposite is true. Those who question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate change – it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm.”
*The emotional descriptors that label climate skeptics as “denialist” or the right “anti-science” has got to stop for any debate on AGW too be coherent.
Phillip stott…
“attitude to climate change is best summed up in a central passage from a letter published recently in The Daily Telegraph (June 10, 2005)”
“Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: ‘Is climate changing and in what direction?’ ‘Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?’ And: ‘Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?’ The most fundamental question is: ‘Can humans manipulate climate predictably?’ Or, more scientifically: ‘Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?’ The answer is ‘No’. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma.”
*Then you need to address the above questions without the dismissive emotional arrogance displayed by the most influential beneficiaries of GW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stott
If you want to talk science avoid making global warming a “Moral Matter” stick to the science. Just Google “GW and Moral Matter” for an example.
Finally read an article written by Yuvan Levin “The Science and the Left” to understand the pending dilemma the left has in aligning itself more closely with science.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/science-and-the-left.
Then address this question, would the carbon tax “pill” be to bitter to swallow (or reconsider) in place of C&T or has “the train already left the station”? Particularly as C&T sounds a lot like another leveraging exercise for the bourgeois, as the unraveling of the highly leveraged financial markets continue to decimate the world’s global financial markets and its recipients.
Love Seans analogy @30 ” A better way of looking at the issue is to think of the skeptics as short sellers, they get a lot of bad press, becasue they ask a lot of awkward questions that keeps everyone on their toes and the market place of ideas honest”.
is an accurate description of an eternal self correcting mechanism of nature that the left (or right) can only participate in not control.
Nice Godwin, Tony G but, as is your wont, completely irrelevant.
Shorter ubiquity: do nothing! Be happy!
The sensible policy option is not to assume one can direction the climate to a particular desired outcome; rather, the assumption is that added CO2 is bad, so we should stop.
It’s that simple, despite the attempts of some to FUD up the discussion.
Best,
D
‘Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?’ The answer is ‘No’. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma.””
This is actually one of the dangerous ones. This is a lie clothed in scientific terms to make it sound true. It is also reasonable sounding. Most people would agree that a large system cannot be changed by ‘puny’ human efforts however the lie is contained in one sentence:
“not doing something at the margins”
This is intended to deceive. It takes a great deal of understanding of the climate system to realise that greenhouse gases are at the HEART of the system and are one of the fundamental mechanisms that regulate the temperature of the planet.
It also takes a even greater amount of understanding to realise that in non-linear complex systems a small change in a attractor like CO2 can have effects out of all proportion to the size of the change.
The anti science section of the Right is dangerous because it exploits the ignorance of people of the mechanism of global warming and crafts it’s lies in a form that appeals to the ‘common sense’ view that most people have of climate and weather.
Jill@34:
Sorry Jill, there’s no such thing as right-wing science or left-wing science. Science is just science. Beliefs and personal opinion don’t enter into it, until the point where society decides what to do with the scientific knowledge that has been gained. But that’s politics, not science.
In answer to your question about assessing the validity of scientific claims, you simply look at the evidence. If the evidence is insufficient, there’s no problem with saying that you’re not sure.
Tony G@38:
“The Left and their affiliates the National Socialists loved evolution and its ‘natural selection’ processes so much they decided to implement the science of Eugenics.”
I can only assume that when you make such an obviously ridiculous and spectacularly ignorant claim that you are joking.
I think that equating conservatism and scepticism is plainly wrong, given that the political conservatives as represented by Howard and Bush align themselves with the evangelicals, who seem to strongly believe in the literal truth of the bible and insist that evolution is a flawed theory. And if these people don’t really represent conservatism then conservatives need to explain where their scepticism was when they voted them into power.
Having said that, Bush did recently state that he didn’t believe in the literal truth of the bible. It’s a pity he didn’t say it 8 years ago, it would have saved us a whole heap of trouble.
Ben @ 43
Left wing socialists can live in denial if they want, but the fact remains that a left wing socialist party the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” implement the science of Eugenics. A ‘science’ based on the theories of evolution, natural selction and Social Darwinism.
It is ludicrous to suggest the right is verse science.
What the right is verse is Excessive Government, a mandate of the left. Combining Excessive Government with science can be disastrous. This can be seen with the Eugenics experiece .
Misguided policies based on misrepresenting the science in the name of excessive government, that is the mandate of the left.
Now the left feel we need excessive government again to fight a new scientific evil, AGW (or is it AGC? who knows?… anyway, lets call it climate change, because we can prove to the masses that’s happening, before we extort them.)
Tony G – “What the right is verse is Excessive Government, a mandate of the left.”
So ‘right’ thinking people would be against privatising insurance companies and banks? Have a look at your free market capitalism mates bailing out US companies and supplying them with 700 billion of welfare payments. All the people in welfare in Australia would be hard pressed to get through this amount in a century.
As for your reference to the Nazis I hereby invoke Godwin’s Law so no further mention of them will be tolerated unless you wish to appear more foolish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
You really are funny Tony. What doctrine of socialism states that you should persecute people based on race? That’s right… none! Your argument is flawed because the Nazis weren’t socialist; they were fascists hiding behind socialism.
And you cannot even claim that communism is a socialist system because it operates a two tiered class system.
@ Tony G. If you think the Nazis were following: “A ’science’ based on the theories of evolution, natural selction [sic]…” you know nothing of the two. A common misconception, to be sure, but one nonetheless. You’re thinking of selective breeding as applied to humans. Natural selection does not involve the a conscious agent managing reproduction.
Tony G@45:
Sorry mate, epic fail.
You obviously have not even bothered to read the article which was attached to the other end of that link you posted.
PS: I think what you meant to refer to was eugenics.
Tony G @38
What are you trying to say; facts should be ignored because knowledge can be abused?
As an aside, from my memory of history book burning was a highlight of that period. The mad right haven’t got there yet but they are sure working hard at it.