Four lies and an empty set

The switch from ‘scepticism’ to an overtly anti-science, and anti-scientist, position has paid some dividends for the advocates of delusional views on climate change. Although the only wrongdoing in the CRU harassment/hacking campaign was that of the hackers and their allies (more on this soon), the false charges of scientific fraud got much more media attention than their refutation, and the early responses to alleged FOI breaches (including that of some pro-science writers such as George Monbiot) failed to recognise of the deliberately vexatious misuse of FOI by the anti-science group. In this context, the discovery of a genuine error in the 1700 page IPCC Fourth Assessment Report regarding projected changes in glaciers could easily be spun into something much bigger.

It seemed for a little while as if the delusionists had scored another win, when Phil Jones, the scientist who has been most viciously target by the hackers/harassers gave an honest answer to a deliberately loaded question prepared by them and put to him in a BBC interview

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods…

This was headlined by the Daily Mail as “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995?.

But, now it looks as if this is starting to backfire. Anyone who has successfully completed a basic course in statistics knows that “statistically significant” has a special meaning which bears almost no relationship to the usual sense of the term “significant”, and this fact is beginning to sink in.


The statement “there has no statistically significant warming since 1995” can better be stated as “if we ignore all the data before 1995, we don’t have enough data points to reject, with 95 per cent confidence[1], the hypothesis that the observed warming since 1995 has been due to chance variation”. That isn’t true if you replace 1995 with 1994 or any earlier date going back to 1970. It’s clear that those who dreamed up this talking point knew enough stats to realise that they were being deliberately deceptive, and that ignorant “sceptics” would read the statement as saying “no significant warming since 1995”. They were right and the talking point ran through the delusionist commentariat and blogosphere at record speed.

The only problem is that such an obvious lie can be, and has been called out, and is essentially impossible to defend, except by an admission of culpable ignorance or gullibility. Here’s The Economist (not exactly zealous on climate change) responding to the original Daily Mail article (h/t Tim Lambert)

This led to a Daily Mail headline reading: “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.”

Since I’ve advocated a more explicit use of the word “lie”, I’ll go ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie. Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995; he said the opposite. He said the world had been warming at 0.12°C per decade since 1995. However, over that time frame, he could not quite rule out at the traditional 95% confidence level that the warming since 1995 had not been a random fluke.

Anyone who has even a passing high-school familiarity with statistics should understand the difference between these two statements.

And here’s Brad DeLong skewering Russ Roberts as the lyingest economist alive, then downgrading the charge to one of reckless gullibility when it became clear that Roberts had relied on a Daily Mail headline, thereby making a complete fool of himself.

Looking at the responses of ‘sceptics’ to this episode we can distinguish four or five sets (depending on your views about set theory)

1. Those who originally designed the “no significant warming” talking point. Members of this set are deliberate liars playing on the ignorance and gullibility of their target audience. As far as I can tell, the first to put this line forward was Richard Lindzen of MIT, who put it up in early 2008, tied to the cherry picking “no warming since 1998” claim (see here). Lindzen certainly has the training to know how dishonest this is. More recently, it’s been pushed by Lord Monckton and others, who may perhaps fall into set 2.

2. Those who quoted the question and answer, and took “not statistically significant” to mean “insignificant”. Members of this set have demonstrated, first that they don’t know basic statistics and second that, despite claiming to “make up their own minds” about climate science, they haven’t bothered to acquire even the most basic knowledge necessary to such a task. At a minimum, members of this group are lying to themselves, in the same manner as other exemplars of the Dunning-Kruger effect

3. Those who relied either on the Daily Mail headline, or on the second-hand versions propagated by members of set 2. Members of this set have demonstrated both a high level of gullibility and ignorance of the basic data on climate change, which clearly shows a substantial increase in temperatures since 1995 (whether or not this is statistically significant). Again, they are lying to themselves if they think of what they are doing as “making up their own mind”. Here’s
a graph of the data.

4. Those who recognised the dishonesty of the Daily Mail line, but stayed silent out of loyalty. As far as I can tell, most of those on the delusionist side with even basic statistical knowledge (McIntyre, McKitrick and Wegman for example) have kept quiet, in McIntyre’s case linking to the BBC interview without comment and letting his audience draw the necessary silly inferences. If anything remotely comparable had been put forward by a supporter of mainstream science, they would have been all over it.

5. Those genuine sceptics who pointed out the dishonesty of the claim, and called out those on their own side of the debate who promoted it. Obviously, members of this set deserve some serious respect and attention in the future. Unfortunately, the intersection between this set and the set of “sceptics” in the currently prevailing sense appears to be the empty set[2]

So, a challenge to those who think there is a debate to be had here, as opposed to a series of silly talking points to be whacked down with greater or lesser success. Can you

A. Provide a coherent defence of the “no statistically significant warming since 1995” claim. To limit trollery, this should begin with a statement, in your own words, of the basic hypothesis testing framework in which this concept arises? ; or

B. Give an argument as to why anyone should pay any attention to those on the “sceptical” side who have formulated this claim, propagated it in some form or another, or allowed it to pass without comment?

I will award grades to the responses.

Diversions to other talking points, general delusionist rants and so on will be deleted.

fn1. “Reject with 95 per cent confidence” also has a special meaning, subtly different from “reject with 95 per cent probability of being right”, but the difference doesn’t matter much in the current context
fn2. Corrections on this point will be gratefully accepted and prominently publicised.

119 thoughts on “Four lies and an empty set

  1. “entirely justifiable abhorrence to nuclear energy”

    You keep saying it, but that still doesn’t make it true. Fran and several others have tried to show where you’re going wrong on your analysis of the danger/threat/costs of nuclear energy, but it’s like you’re not listening.

  2. “Taking the science seriously on AGW is a separate matter from the debate about mitigation strategies and the two really shouldn’t be mixed.”

    Careful, you are approaching agreement with the dastardly Professor Davidson 😉

  3. @Jarrah
    Its you and Fran who really arent listening Jarrah…do you notice any politicians in Australia with nuclear power plants high on their political agenda at the moment?

    On the contrary – there are none.

    Not one.

    Why would that be? Perhaps they are better at judging the moods and desires of the majority than you and Fran despite the barrows of nonsense on nuclear you both push (or wone pushes and the other jumps up tio support for I dont see much evidence from you here on nuclear Jarrah – care to post a link??).

    Ive posted reams on the danger of nuclear here including on Chernobyl (links available), which no-one and no orgnisation has or is able to fully cost yet because the illnesses keep coming and they are generational, but some such as yourself dont listen at all…let alone listen well.

    Now why would that be Jarrah? Philo has also noticed the biased and ideological positions you take. Fran less so but on nuclear at least Fran backs up her arguments with some stats whether I agree or not.

    Dont think it escapes my notice that you are remiss in that regard Jarrah.

  4. Are politicians so wise and knowledgeable that you base your public policy preference on whether they have it on their agenda? Dear me. I’ll bear that in mind next time you criticise a politician. And is the majority always right?

    Yes, you’ve posted reams on here. Not reams of evidence, but definitely reams. Yep, reams is what you’re good at. Apostrophes, not so much. 🙂

  5. @Jarrah
    LOL…
    The “dastardly Professor Davidson” is well within his subject domain to be discussing the economics of mitigation strategies and you would expect economics as a field to deal with this. I disagree with his basic assumptions that preference the present, but then I’m not an economist so I leave that to people who are. It really annoys me when economists, including some of my favorite ones weigh into the science debate against literally thousands of specialists! That makes me wonder about their ability to recognise their own limits. Likewise you would expect engineers to build the technology, not model climates or evaluate the economic effects of mitigation strategies.

  6. Terje, you still appear to support or at least sympathise with attacks on climate science and scientists. Maybe it’s more a case of not being fully convinced so wait and see (doubt and delay) than outright denial. Or of perhaps thinking the smoke denialism generates indicates a real fire in climate science rather than a problem with those generating that smoke.

    I think “attacks” is the wrong word but given you have elected to use it and for the sake of a conversation I’ll persist with it. I support “attacks” on the critics of AGW. I also support “attacks” on the opponents of AGW. I have limited time in the day and this blog currently occupies more of my current blog time than any other (the ALS blog sometimes dominates but not lately). Given the inclination of this blog I’m more likely to be seen introducing contrarian views that attack supporters of AGW. However the fact that I turn up at this blog and spend so much time here should indicate that I’m interested in both view points.

    On balance I believe the world is warming. I believe that humans are a primary cause. I believe that nuclear technology is a viable solution. I believe that a tax on CO2e emissions is a viable policy response. These are views that I have held for several years and which I have stated repeatedly.

    Sorry, I just don’t believe you really take climate change seriously; certainly not enough to condemn those who, without any serious science based cause, promote doubt, denial and delay – and worse, deliberately distort and defame to promote that cause.

    Part of the problem of the AGW debate is that complex issues of science, economics and politics have become bundled. There is a mentality of ‘your either with us or your against us’. I find this hysterical. So in that sense there are aspects of the debate I don’t don’t take too seriously. Do I take the risk of global warming seriously? Yes but it does not keep me awake at night. I’m more worried about being in a plane crash which is to say I’m not that concerned. I am however interested.

    I note that you evade the question of the ethics of making what selected scientists say amongst themselves, however obtained, an issue, rather than the preeminence of results of published science and it’s conclusions.

    Likewise I note that you evade the ethics of what these scientists reveal of themselves by making the manner of the information being release an issue. In practice both are issues but your focused on the minor issue. The content of the emails is of broad public interest. The fact that some hacker possibly broke into a server is of concern to the owners of that server but isn’t of much public interest. Servers get hacked all the time. I think you’re focusing on the bit that isn’t of much relevance to the public policy debate.

    The conclusions haven’t been changed, with or without tree ring proxies. Only public perceptions have changed and in ways that encourage and entrench active opposition to action on climate change. I fail to see that it’s been a positive that will improve our response to this world changing issue.

    Whos conclusions haven’t changed?

  7. Michael, I think that’s part of Davidson’s overall point[1] – once the science is established, the engineers and economists and political scientists should take over, and there’s a heap of discussion to be had on mitigation/adaptation that isn’t helped by people such as Quiggin branding all those who want to have that discussion as “denialists” or “delusionalists”, which is an insulting conflation. Lomborg, for all his faults, is no Monckton. MacIntyre, despite his ideological fervour, is no Carter. Davidson, notwithstanding his obvious bias, is no Inhofe.

    fn 1 – I am in strong opposition to Davidson’s take on AGW in general, and I think he gives way too much space and credence to actual denialists.

  8. The whole nuclear thing is just a diversion and an exercise in baiting in the Australian context. How it ends up being some kind of bargaining chip in the AGW debate is beyond bizarre.

    It isn’t a bargaining chip. It’s just a very reliable energy solution that doesn’t produce CO2 emissions which is currently prohibited for symbolic reasons.

  9. @jquiggin
    Further to my post @ 26, I should have made it explicit that I do not accept that my statement implies I reject “both the whole of economic theory and a massive body of empirical evidence which suggests that individuals and companies do respond to prices.”

    The argument turns on ‘binding budget constraint’. Consider a consumption of an arbitrarily chosen individual in the interior of a budget set, defined on a commodity space (goods and non-financial services), versus a consumption at the budget constraint, defined on the same space. Only in the latter case is the budget constraint binding in the commodity space. .

    I’d be happy to acknowledge that my statement rejects the representative agent macro-economics models. It may well be that representative agent macro-models are the most widely known models among applied economists but this is not the same as constituting all or even a significant part of economic theory (not counting the private ones exposed on this blog-site by some libertarians and others). As for micro-economics, the marginal analysis decision models, used in some textbooks (eg McTaggart et al), consider only the special case where the budget constraint (in the 2 dimensional commodity space) is binding. I don’t know how students are supposed to make the jump to macro-economics where there is talk about ‘saving’ and there are dollar signs all over the place. The Arrow-Debreu model allows the description of ‘saving’ (the Fisher separation theorem in micro or intro finance texts is the smallest dimensional illustration), assuming complete commodity markets. This is not helpful to students who can’t sell future contracts on their labour services when paying fees. Some may take out a loan (others may get a private transfer payment from parents or friends). So we need not only a commodity space but also a space for the financial sector of an economy. (I am still in the framework of established mainstream economic theory.) Surely, a useful theory ought to be able to deal with a large set of observables and not only with a totally artificial special case for which there does not even exist one empirical observation in support for any of the assumptions.

    I understand, the “massive body of empirical evidence which suggests that individuals and companies do respond to prices” refers to empirical estimates of price elasticities for various goods, using aggregate data. One doesn’t need representative agent models for that but merely a hypothesis that ‘on average’ there is an inverse relationship between aggregate quantity of a particular good sold and its price, all else being equal. Further, these price elasticity estimates are not measurements of individuals’ price elasticities. The distribution of individual price elasticities is not known. There is also income elasticity. I can’t think of a reason why the income elasticity for roof or ceiling insulation should be different, “on average”, to that for other goods in a similar price range. I don’t believe people are so silly as to leave windows open in winter to use up the same amount of energy for heating just because the insulation was paid for by a subsidy. Or, alternatively, to leave the windows open in summer with air temperature outside being much above inside for the sole purpose of using up energy for cooling only because the insulation was paid for by a subsidy. But, this is an empirical question and I said it is too early for an empirical study due to lack of sufficient data. Then there is cross-price elasticity. It is possible to have a mind so closed by years of training in acquiring specialist skills that it came to believe that only marketable goods and services are ‘consumed’, even though the very person’s own daily activities contradict this belief. Such a mind may not conceive of the possibility that a person who was budget constrained in the product of the commodity space and the securities space, decides to spend the potential savings on energy consumption to buy (from him or herself) a ‘more comfortable’ internal environment to carry out his or her preferred activities in his or her own house. (I am still within established economic theory, although aggregate market price data can no longer be used to estimate cross-price elasticity; personalised prices are relevant.)

    My statement is empirically refutable. For example, my statement would be refuted if each and every individual with a positive amount of mortgage loan (defined in the securities space) sells the mortgaged asset (in the commodity space) and buys another one (in the commodity space) which involves a loan with smaller interest payment (or interest and principal repayment) when there is an interest rate increase. Any evidence?

  10. Ernestine, representative agents and macro models have nothing to do with it. Your statement is empirically refuted whenever an increase in tax on some commodity causes a reduction in the consumption of that commodity, as happens very regularly.

    Of course, in a theoretical world with more than two goods all sorts of things are logically possible and for that matter, you can do a Giffen good model with two goods, but in the world we live in, demand curves generally slope downwards.

  11. It isn’t a bargaining chip. It’s just a very reliable energy solution that doesn’t produce CO2 emissions which is currently prohibited for symbolic reasons.

    You are right – It shouldn’t be used as a bargaining chip – that’s my point which I obvisously failed to make in referrence to comments like this

    E.M.H :
    While I am certainly somewhat sceptical of the AGW theory, I will openly admit that no statistically significant warming is not a valid talking point.
    I would like someone on the left to explain to me as to why they do not see nuclear power as a real solution to the supposed global warming and instead advocate a roll back of the industrialisation of western society.

    There are many such attempts made to bring nuclear into the debate about excepting the science. The argument in a crude form is this “if the left is skeptical about nuclear power then the right can be skeptical about AGW” – it’s never made directly but that’s the accusation. In this context it’s just a luminous three eyed mutant red herring 😉
    “doesn’t produce CO2 emissions” traditionally they have if you factor in building the plant (but so do solar panels). Anyway as I have stated previously, I’m neither for nor against nuclear power.

  12. @Michael

    The argument in a crude form is this “if the left is skeptical about nuclear power then the right can be skeptical about AGW” – it’s never made directly but that’s the accusation.

    Speaking as someone who very much accepts the mainstream science on the climate anomaly and who favours robust ubiquitous mitigation measures and regards nuclear power as a legitimate player in the solution, that’s not how I read the role of nuclear power in the advocacy of the agnorati. (isn’t making up words fun?)

    Nuclear power is adduced by the b-a-u crowd so as to wedge those who favour mitigation, and force them either to abandon advocacy or become Trainer- and Ehrlich-like and do “Limits to Growth”. If they can cast us as “hair-shirted” advocates of mediaeval lifestyles they can marginalise us where it counts — at policy discussion — because such a position will never be supported by more than a handful on the fringes. If nuclear is so evil then maybe coal (perhaps with CCS) is acceptable as the lesser evil, and from there the battle for serious reductions is lost. Then they only have to deal with those who advocate spending large sums of money to replace perhaps 20% of stationary capacity, but here the argument is again moot because no government will spend this kind of cash nor can any conceivable carbon pricing system fund it.

    So as long as the pro-mitigation lobby opposes resort to nuclear on principle, we can be wedged. On the other hand if we were to say, as PrQ suggests, that nuclear should be allowed to compete with other sources of low emissions energy and may the best suite of technologies win, then it is the other side that gets wedged. We look earnest and focused on the goal of reducing emissions whuile maintaining the standard of living. Some of them like nuclear power and would have no argument and some of them are terrified it will ruin property values.

  13. Fran Barlow :
    Nuclear power is adduced by the b-a-u crowd so as to wedge those who favour mitigation

    This is what I was thinking when I used the term “baiting”, my eloquence was insufficient to express it accurately – wedge is much more appropriate. I don’t dispute your analysis of the politics (btw what does b-a-u refer to?), but I do think there are a few different motivations behind the advocacy of nuclear. The attraction it has for libertarians is I suspect deeper than just using it as a wedge but I won’t get into pyschoanalysis.

    , and force them either to abandon advocacy or become Trainer- and Ehrlich-like and do “Limits to Growth”. If they can cast us as “hair-shirted” advocates of mediaeval lifestyles they can marginalise us where it counts — at policy discussion — because such a position will never be supported by more than a handful on the fringes.

    True. I also find the obsession with immigration curious. It gets brought up in an oblique way in the debate about excepting and mitigating AGW along the lines of “there is no point trying to reduce CO2 emissions if populations are set to increase”. This wedges the centre left because they might be in favour of immigration for social reasons whilst also concerned about population increases from an ecological point of view but not want to be aligned with the hansonites.

    So as long as the pro-mitigation lobby opposes resort to nuclear on principle, we can be wedged. On the other hand if we were to say, as PrQ suggests, that nuclear should be allowed to compete with other sources of low emissions energy and may the best suite of technologies win, then it is the other side that gets wedged. We look earnest and focused on the goal of reducing emissions whuile maintaining the standard of living. Some of them like nuclear power and would have no argument and some of them are terrified it will ruin property values.

    This is where it gets difficult in reality. For a start we need to define what we mean by nuclear power, the popular perceptions of mid 20th century technology are still pervasive. Most people would favour it if it can be shown to be safe and economical in achieving cuts in emissions. But again what do we mean by “safe”? Once we move to various “new generation” or pebble bed designs we might as well be comparing those with all kinds of other tantalising but unrealised solutions that are “just over the horizon” or perhaps mirages. As for maintaining standards of living we also can’t really anticipate this either. Who predicted thirty years ago there would be a massive uptake in SUV’s in the last decade? An economist speaking at the LSE (I wish I could remember who it was) summed it up well by pointing out how billions of money is spent on products which hadn’t existed in the past and therefore couldn’t be thought of as catering to revealed preferences. I am doing his argument a massive injustice, but it was something along those lines. If you start by assuming that future solutions will be achieved with current technology and current lifestyles then it easy to see the attraction of nuclear, but i’m not sure this is going to be the reality.

  14. @Michael

    [b.a.u. = business as usual]

    For a start we need to define what we mean by nuclear power, the popular perceptions of mid 20th century technology are still pervasive.

    Exactly why we whould say that whichever combination of technologies can generate the greatest utility per dollar of expenditure should be used. The word nuclear is fuzzy in this context just as are solar (PV? stirling dish, heliostats?) geothertmal (hot rock? ground heat?) or gas (OCC, CC, Brayton Cycle)… We should speak of LFTRs or LFMBRs or LWRs or whatever they are … We set up a set of standards for emissions and costs and timelines and backend connections and interoperability and response rates for slews then work from there.

    On the standards of living question … while the future is unclear (ha ha … pun not intended) one that assumes a radical cut (ie more than about 30%) in actual per capita energy usage is clearly one that implies a pretty drastic constraint on lifestyle. That simply won’t pass muster at any election.

    In a very real sense, if Australia could get its net emissions down to near zero, probably using Gen IV nuclear and maybe LFTRs, then having people emigrate here would be a good thing, since they would get the benefits of the physical and social infrastructure we have without having to duplicate it some place else at much higher cost. We could do cheap desal very easily and even begin to reinvigorate our inland river systems either by using the off peak power from reactors to clean sub-potable waste or storm water or via pumped desal from the oceans to the head waters of the rivers that need it.

  15. John, I am happy you no longer say that my statement, as quoted by you, rejects all of economic theory. Still, there seems to be a bug in the flow of communication. I don’t agree that my statement is empirically refuted “whenever an increase in tax on some commodity causes reduction in the consumption of that commodity, which happens regularly” because the empirical studies relate to aggregates while my statement relates only to individuals who are not budget constrained in the commodity space (due to their financial wealth relative to the monetary cost of their actually chosen consumption of goods). If the wealth distribution would not be as unequal as it is, I could agree that my point would be artificial -a mere theoretical possibility.

  16. BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

    Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods…

    For the sake of non satisticians (a massive majority of the population) like myself, Phil should have said “No!”

  17. @Fran Barlow
    On the standards of living question … while the future is unclear (ha ha … pun not intended) one that assumes a radical cut (ie more than about 30%) in actual per capita energy usage is clearly one that implies a pretty drastic constraint on lifestyle. That simply won’t pass muster at any election.

    For your information, I got my electricity consumption down by 25% , quater on quater, for the data available to me so far without any reduction in lifestyle. On the contrary, I noticed a small improvement in “lifestyle”. I still have about 10% of potential ghg emission savings without requiring any constraint on my lifestyle and before switching to renewable energy generated electricity. Its my project for 2011.

    Your promotion of nuclear power, directed at emotions, as in “pretty drastic constraints on lifestyle” is not credible, given my actual experience.

  18. Terje, “Whose conclusions haven’t changed?” – the conclusions of the scientists at the institutions charged with unraveling the processes of climate and human influences on it. The IPCC provides a broad summation.

    As regards being reduced to for or against I put to you that ‘for’ has at it’s foundation the science as mentioned above whereas ‘against’ is very reliant upon avoiding the science itself except to attempt to undermine acceptance and trust in it. Taking the focus away from carefully considered, published, peer-reviewed work of science, attempting to devalue it, by attempting to smear leading scientist is how to have serious policy debate? Your comments do make it clear that you buy into the notion that you think the scientists in question are less than honest. By implication their considered conclusions regarding climate change are brought into question.

    When does it become a matter worth getting hysterical about? When does it become clear that supporting the idea that this isn’t about free choice and the “freedom” to choose to oppose action on climate change – and deny it’s existence – is irresponsible and dangerous as well as wrong?

    Ultimately this isn’t a matter of freedom of choice but becomes an issue of responsibility and culpability; we are well informed enough to know that there’s a high likelihood continuing to act irresponsibly with regard to emissions will result in catastrophic consequences. Australian governments, intent on maximising revenue and gain from expansion of fossil fuel export and use come to mind as clear examples of being dangerously irresponsible. Although I think real efforts to develop renewable would work and not impoverish us, if there were explicit plans to phase out coal in favour of nuclear I wouldn’t be automatically in opposition. The nuclear issue is more immediately relevant elsewhere in the world to my mind but I find the investment the green-left has in anti-nuclear policy less worrying than the mainstream right’s investment in climate change denialism.

    I think those that deliberately promote doubt, denial and delay deserve condemnation and I don’t think that’s hysterical. This isn’t specifically critical of you, Terje, who at least acknowledges the issue. The expectation that our security and prosperity will continue unchanged can be stronger than fear of something as difficult to understand and hard to believe as the whole planet being changed. We have – many of us – relative comfort and security and we aren’t much touched by climate change yet but may fear that climate change policy will eat into that comfort and security. Apathy and indifference are obstactles enough without a climate of disinformation sustaining the view that doing something will be sure to hurt severely whereas climate change hurting us is deeply uncertain.

    I don’t think I’m being hysterical about this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s