The Climate Mirror
From the same thread, more evidence that the standoff has hardened into two immutable world views. One side says:
Global warming denial is very much like a religious cult, and reaching the hardcore members is difficult.
The other side counters:
Global warming belief is very much like a religious cult and reaching the hardcore members is difficult.
Have we reached the war of attrition stage?
I think people naturally self doubt themselves. A primary motivation for moving towards religion is fear. Could it be that everyone’s just a little worried that the other side might just be right after all? 😉
Not too much new in these viewpoints & it certainly applies to more than one issue (gun control anyone? taxes? abortion? a creche at christmas?)
What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.
Robert Kennedy
It depends who your ‘opponents’ are..
I’ve been happilly chatting to IPCC scientists like R Klien or Richard Betts on Twitter, or guardian journalists like Leo Hickman (both privately publically, etc)..
Getting to know each other sharing a joke or 2, plus some serious (as serious as 140 chars allow 😉 debates)
I even arranged for Richard to receive a copy of – Tom Fuller’s book – Climategate – the crutape letters. Richard asked for some recommendations and was keen to read it. Sent under ‘plain cover’ after all it was going to him at the Met Office.
So who are the ‘enemies’ where is the ‘fear’… and the attrition is amongst the very vocal FEW…
The fear is in the over emotional alarmism of environment groups, not scientists. Or are things even more politically divided in the USA vs the UK?
The trouble with these kinds of debates is one side wants to use the power of the state to impose its view on others. The other just wants people to be left to make their own choices.
I find it interesting that the roles played by the actors have been reversed on abortion and climate change.
Keith,
That point simply emphasizes the polarization of this issue. Each side sees the “other side” as doing the same thing they are essentially doing, while being blind to what they are doing.
The analogy to a religious cult is very apt, particularly for the AGW Church. It reminds me of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages in so many ways (a tool of the Control Freak ‘State,’ Star Chamber/Consensus, indulgences/carbon offsets, the attacks on ‘heretics,’ etc.), In terms of the actual ‘debate’ as it stands now, I am reminded more of Monty Python’s ‘Dead Parrot’ skit. Or, in terms of the crumbling scientific Consensus, their Black Knight.
If all this was about real scientific evidence they would not have jumped to their convenient CO2 conclusion from Day One. But they did, and then screamed ‘denier’ at anyone who dared ask questions. That says it all. CO2 is Satan brother! And, of course, believing that is the only ‘moral’ behaviour.
But it is just the same old ‘us and them’ game:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
Unite us for whose benefit? The ‘little people’? LOL.
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
<i>Have we reached the war of attrition stage?</i>
Probably not…we are moving into the ‘irrelevant’ stage. Kind of like when divorcing parents argue over custody of ‘the child’ for so long the child turns 18 and moves out on its own.
Whether or not I believe in Climate Change or whether or not I believe there needs to be a ‘price on carbon’, the market price of oil and coal is going up making substitution an increasingly attractive option.
Here we go..Indonesia…the worlds largest steam coal exporter has decided it’s going to jack the price of steam coal. In the same vein..Vietnam, which just 4 short years ago was a major steam coal exporter is set to become a net importer in the next year.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/regulation-flares-indonesian-coal-prices/443212/
Let’s play the Kloor game.
more evidence that the standoff has hardened into two immutable world views.
Who to believe? Both arguments look the same therefore they must have equal merit.
Keith has never been big on assessing the relative merits of various arguments, or bothering to quote anyone in full when doing so might distract from the characterizations he’s aiming for.
I don’t think anyone wants to know what the NewYorkJ game would look like–nor how it would be played…
I was writing a year ago that the climate debate resembled nothing so much as WWI trench warfare. One of the primary reasons is people like NewYorkJ.
Tom,
“One of the primary reasons is people like New YorkJ.”
So when I point out the disingenuousness of the other side, like I did here, when skeptics do stuff like this purely to score political points, that’s to highlight how it takes two to play the game.
Unfortunately, you tend to show only contempt for the side you putatively have more in common with. Why is that? Why can’t you just call BS on both sides when you see it? How about dishing out your disapproval equally.
Tom Fuller’s warfare is more of the chemical weapon variety – rather toxic and sometimes harmful to civilians.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php
I do. I’ve made my opinion of people like Monckton and Morano very clear and frequently as well. But they’re not rude to me in the comments section of weblogs I frequent.
The point is, the skeptical side holds no levers of power and is all over the map. It only makes sense to be critical of individuals. The consensus side is entrenched and holds all the levers of power, starting with the data, but also commands the media agenda (to the point where when a skeptic gets quoted in the media it is labeled false balance). They get large sums of money from energy companies and environmental lobbies. For those who disagree with the consensus, it only makes sense to criticize the position.
How hard is that to understand?
Bad analogy, Keith.
The green team is like a cult in many respects: core beliefs, high-profile leaders, propaganda, etc.
The other team is more like atheists – we just don’t believe in this particular god for all kinds of reasons.
I could quickly list maybe 20 pro-cult organisations (WWF, Oxfam, my own government, etc).
I would be very hard-pressed to list more than a handful of formal anti-cult groups. GWPF in the UK and maybe some of the US think-tanks.
It’s an asymmetric battle. Big Green Cult on one side versus an army of agnostic Davids.
Finally, (for now), I don’t think I have very much at all in common with people like NewYorkJ, or Eli Rabett, or Steve Bloom–something I’m sure they’re very happy about, too.
They choose to stay stuck in the mud, wallowing and whining and reading animal entrails for the next prophecy of doom. They literally cannot conceive of a solution to anthropogenic contributions to climate change other than one that is centrally directed and universally mandated.
I don’t want to be like them.
Just like other cults, the Rapture is always about 20 years in the future.
Politicians are trapped now. They initially bought into the cult ideas out of political exhaustion – they no longer believe in any political ideals like socialism or capitalism so why not give this new thing a spin? And could have been a useful source of votes.
Now they are trapped in their own rhetoric. They keep sipping the Kool Aid but the all-out Jonestown de-carbonisation is always 20 years in the future. Just like the rapture.
#14 is such a moderate and complete statement of principles that nothing need be added
LMAO! Attrition? Current events fit harrywr2 analysis, “irrelevant stage”. All the promises of fuel from cornstalks, cheap solar, etc… irrelevant.
I am still curious as to Keith Kloor’s list of acceptable solutions or understanding of the problems (real ones) and what sacrifices the “middle of the road journalist” (tongue in cheek) are willing to make for what outcome? Or, the sheeple format that the UN has enough “middle of the road politicians” to make this decision for us.
Anyhow, for dishing out on Fuller, I call hypocrisy. I have seen Tom taking the same BS from these “attrition facilitators” for years. I have seen Keith Kloor put up with the BS for about a week or two and get fed up. Tom Fuller rarely comes out gunning. It may be a Fallacy of Economics, but I find the attrition facilitators from various rodent runs to be unproductive. Watching these types turn on Mark Lynas pretty much sums the whole thing up.
So Keith, if we factor out the BS on both sides, what are we left with? More attrition?
Tom
“I do. I’ve made my opinion of people like Monckton and Morano very clear and frequently as well. But they’re not rude to me in the comments section of weblogs I frequent.”
###
I have to say my experience mirrors yours. There is more too it than this, however. I’ve done some experiments. No matter how nasty I am to skeptics, they remain somewhat civil toward me ( some stuff got snipped so I wasnt really allowed to take it as far as I wanted to ) On the other hand.. you could go to MT site, suggest that Alley would be a good spokesperson and get the shit beat out of you.
we’re traitors dude. For me that’s a fascinating perception. Ever wonder why its impossible for a skeptic to be a traitor.
Tom, Steven,
Why the focus on blogs and individual (and often anonymous commenters)?
Are you saying that a small minority of these commenters are influencing your attitude towards the pro-AGW community?
Also, Tom (12), your characterization of the playing field seems a bit stilted here (the consensus side “commands the media agenda”? that must be news to them).
Here’s the thing, Tom. You’ve often made broad indictments of the entire climate science community, based on various events (climategate, IPCC missteps, etc), which echo the Morano/Inhofe/Watts conspiracy/fraud meme.
As I’ve said before, such leaps are akin to someone claiming that all journalists are frauds because of a few famous cases of plagiarism. or all non-fiction memoirs are made up because of a few famous fabricators.
My larger point being, the content featured on Watts and often Bishop Hill is every bit as purposely selective (e.g., slanted) as that featured on Climate Progress. So when a ridiculous survey like that Rasmussen poll comes along, they highlight it to advance a point of view, without any context.
And the faithful eat it up, because it reinforces their pre-existing point of view.
That’s the game, that’s where this is at. Both sides playing up and feeding into the stereotypes of the other.
But because one side is seemingly more polite to you, you give them a pass. Well, start calling out their BS more often, I suspect they won’t remain so polite.
# 17 & 18
I’ve noticed more tolerance at sceptic sites, too…. I think I also saw some discussion at Lucia’s that made the same observation.
Add the lack of gloom and doom mentality and you may undertand why reading the stuff at sceptic blogs (some of it good and not slanted) is more fun. Some of the AGW faithful come across as Climate Goths (if you could colour their opinions). Gloom, doom, scarcity: goodbye SUV, welcome bicycle.
re 8
==============
You’ve often made broad indictments of the entire climate science community, based on various events (climategate, IPCC missteps, etc)
=================
What you are point out is that the credibility of climate science has been tainted by Climategate. What can be done to rehabilitate this effort?
I have read Lakoff’s book on the political mind with his description of narratives, metaphors and the framing of ideas. When I hear the words of climate scientists, I hear advocacy, I hear people trying to sell me something. I hear used car salesmen. I don’t hear somebody apprising me of the situation with all of the caveats of uncertainty that make up science and public policy. I hear advocates and I hear scientists proclaiming that climate science should be about advocacy.
Back in the 89s when the Japanese market was opening, there was an ad running in the high tech trade press from a marketing company with Japanese contacts. It showed a middle aged Japanese man dressed in a business suit seated in a straight backed chair. His arms were crossed and his face was skeptical. The copy of the ad read “I don’t know your company. I don’t know your products. I don’t know you. Now, just what did you want to sell me?” The same ad should be run in all of the journals that run climate science papers. Why should I trust someone just because he says that he is a climate scientist?
Climate science has lost the trust of the public and it was not lost because of some nasty words written on a few blogs. Can this trust be regained or is the field so tainted by advocacy that it can only be dealt with as one deals with used car dealerships?
Keith, when one consensus acolyte is rude to me, it’s an individual. When you get called names by many, and it’s always in the same manner, often using the same language or at least speech patterns, and it’s always for thought crime, then that becomes the movement.
Dhogaza, Tim Lambert, Joe Romm, Eli Rabett, Dano, Sod, Steve Bloom, Maple Leaf, Bernard J, Paul Klemencic, NewYorkJ… and their slightly more polite acid tossers, rustneversleeps, thingsbreak, Michael Tobis. I’ve been screamed at by all of the above for several years now, often all in the same thread.
And Keith, they’re on their best behaviour here.
They don’t realize that in politics, the means becomes the end. No victory is ever complete, no defeat is total, and it’s how you play the game that enables you to pass the torch to the next generation.
Or not.
More on point, Keith, of course the consensus team commands the media agenda on climate issues. The skeptics don’t even know what forward calendar is.
And again, with skeptics you can only criticize individuals–they are too disparate to be a ‘movement.’ I criticize the ones I disagree with. That does not include Anthony (other than for frequent errors on his weblog) or Bishop Hill.
As for the Rasmussen poll, as a market researcher I know too well how ephemeral polls are. The consensus side does push polling, the dinosaurs of right wing think tanks do push polling, the results are used for a very short season and then they are forgotten.
Doesn’t have to be that way, but it is.
#14 remains such a moderate and complete statement of principles that nothing need be added.
But of course, as in all else, manipulation of the conversation helps
#24, when you write “But of course, as in all else, manipulation of the conversation helps” we know we hear it from the master.
Tom (22),
Part of your problem is that you have a thin skin. You take insults from commenters personally. Don’t get me wrong: I get wound up, too. But I concluded long ago that it’s futile to have a reasonable conversation with the more excitable members of either tribe–be they at WUWT or at Deltoid. There is a group think at these types of sites, as well, which is reinforced by the hosts.
Anyway, who cares what the ideologues think? They are part of the greek chorus.
As for people being on their best behavior here, they don’t have a choice. Those who just want to flame get warned and if they become repeat offenders, they get put on moderation. That usually discourages them from commenting after that.
So Eli wanders innocently into this slime pit, only to find that he has been tossed into the jello by Tom Fuller. He notes, rather obliquely, that Tommie is not exactly contributing to a tone of civility, and, of course, he then gets slimed again by Tommie and the owner operator, the later somewhat obliquely, but, as we all know, KK does not appreciate when the geek chorus calls him on his churnalistic tendencies.
Still, let the Bunny look at the one non spittle flecked statement in #14:
——————————
They literally cannot conceive of a solution to anthropogenic contributions to climate change other than one that is centrally directed and universally mandated.
——————————–
Climate change is global in reach, where the effects are temporally and geographically far removed from the causes, and where those who are responsible for the causes are not the ones who will reap the whirlwind.
It is this combination that makes climate change the perfect moral storm.
Make no mistake about it KK is trying to sell some breakthrough. And, just like the Chinese Great Leap Forward, everyone can be sure that this problem will be solved in their backyard by little Tommie Galt working out all the details. In the words of Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilization, well, that would be a good thing.
Attrition is hitting both sides as this quote from a 17 year old Sloaney girl illustrates.
But parents shouldn’t worry that their girls will turn into eco-loons. “Honestly,” says my informant, “we’re all, like, sooo bored with climate change. I can’t wait to leave school to escape.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100100831/drop-the-brooms-you-capitalist-scum/
Keith,
Are you saying that what we see here is “people being on their best behavior”?
Stu Says:
August 12th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
<i>Could it be that everyone’s just a little worried that the other side might just be right after all?</i>
It takes a long time for most people to integrate ‘new information’ into there information belief systems.
If I look at the charts for the inflation adjusted price of oil and coal between 1980 and 2000 I see a good solid downward price trend. Simple economics says declining prices = increased consumption.
It’s understandable that someone concerned with the environment looking at those charts would conclude that humanity isn’t going to just double CO2 levels…but quadruple CO2 levels. The ‘worst case’ IPCC emission scenario’s are an absolute certainty if those trends had continued.
The trends didn’t continue. They’ve been going the other way for 10 years. Every year for the last 10 years US EIA has projected coal prices would drop ‘next year’. They’ve been wrong for 10 years.
Coal and Oil extraction costs are providing some of the ‘price on carbon’ that various climate advocates have been adamant the world needed if it was to avoid the ‘worst case scenario’.
Pielke Jr’s ‘clean energy cheaper then coal’ plan doesn’t really have much of a cost gap to close….a substantial portion of the gap having been closed by increasing extraction costs.
If I look at ‘levelized cost’ for new coal, nuclear and wind there isn’t that much of a difference.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html
Clean Energy ‘cheaper then coal’ isn’t just a pipe dream anymore.
Willard (29)
Compared to other sites that are less moderated, yes. Is there still too much snark and snarling? Yes, unfortunately. (See Eli, for example–and that’s the stuff I let through.)
Tom Gray (21): .
“Climate science has lost the trust of the public…”
No, it hasn’t. Legitimate polls refute this meme, which unfortunately, Judy Curry buys into.
But as I’ve said, those who want to perpetuate it, will do so at every opportunity (see Fox video clip featured in that linked post).
Keith,
I think you are confused about what the general public believes. The reason that a Democratic president, Democratic house and Democratic senate, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars, a cheerleading news media, an enormous political organization dedicated to the issue, a long list of Corporate backers like GE, and big money on Wall Street could not get a global warming bill passed is because too many politicians carefully weighed the views of their constituents and decided that voting for the bill was a career killer.
That is a significant, real world “poll” which contains a whole lot more substantive evidence than some small sample opinion poll asking about attitudes.
The real question is whether people are so firmly convinced of the threat of global warming that they are willing to undergo the chemo and radiation treatments that alarmists are prescribing to cure the problem. Some don’t believe there is a problem at all. Some don’t know whether there is a problem. A lot of people have heard there is a problem, seem to be willing to believe it, but aren’t convinced that life as we know it needs to be restructured. Those three categories total more than half of likely voters. Thus, no climate bill passage.
One more footnote — as Obama and his party lose credibility on the economy, jobs, and foreign policy, they will lose some credibility on every other issue, too. At a minimum because if they lose voters because of those issues, they lose voters for climate bills, too.
Tom Fuller: “They choose to stay stuck in the mud, wallowing and whining and reading animal entrails for the next prophecy of doom. They literally cannot conceive of a solution to anthropogenic contributions to climate change other than one that is centrally directed and universally mandated.
“I don’t want to be like them. ”
Nobody wants to be like that. But the contrary seems like blind faith in an unregulated marketplace that history, even recent history, doesn’t show as being justified.
Leaving aside Tom’s recently displayed litany of top-down regulatory pressures that he happily advocates, let’s agree that it would be great if there were bottom-up agreement to avoid carbon to the point where emissions were cut 80% by 2050.
Such a cut is what we need to have a good chance of keeping us out of geoengineering territory, which pretty much would require a powerful world government agency, which presumably those objecting to a treaty would find even more objectionable.
So what would it take? If new coal plants are built until the day that magical mystery fuel X is proven at scale and at a price that undercuts coal, they will stay online for another forty years.
And if fuel X is not accessible to countries with coal supplies, they’ll be motivated to keep a coal industry going. Local interests in coal producing areas also will resist. How do we achieve the near-unanimity across all nations to turn the trajectory around by 2020 and send it steeply downward by 2050?
I mean, what are the chances that whatever subtle genius actually concocts fuel X from crushed granite and seawater and sunlight and bioengineered bacteria (it will have to be something like that) is going to want to give it away?
It’s not that I can’t imagine it happening. It’s not that I don’t want it to happen. It’s that I can’t see betting the farm that it will happen, and in this case it really is the whole farm.
It is fine to put some attention into optimistic scenarios, and to work toward their achievement. (I personally think solar-thermal has great promise.) But it is not prudent to ignore backstops and allocations. All we need is one big coal-producing country or region not cooperating and we are all hosed. And we do have a couple of candidates for such…
In short, the idea that people are opposed to instrumental solutions is for the most part wrong. There may be a few such but not many. It’s just that without allocating specific responsibility to specific nations there doesn’t seem to be any way to make it add up.
Again, this isn’t what I want. Convince me it is otherwise and I will be grateful. But all I see from the so-called moderates is posturing and confidence and bluster. I’ve yet to see anything remotely resembling a substantive argument.
The time for modest actions came and went twenty years ago. It’s too late to rely on avoiding inconveniencing the voters now. Half measures only serve to irritate people without achieving anything.
The only solution in the absence of magic fuel X is to get people to understand what they are fighting. I guess it’s called the “deficit model” around these parts. And I’ve had my failures but I plan to keep trying to explain.
And one of the things to explain is exactly what New York said in # 7. It is the responsibility of the press to evaluate the claims, to determine which set of claims is correct, to do so competently, and to explain it. It is the failure of the press to do so which leaves us in the very predicament that Keith describes in the top level article.
“As in the fancy resort where single young women go to look for rich husbands and rich husbands go to look for single young women, the situation is not quite as symmetrical as it might at first appear.”
Keith (29),
Thank you for your reply. Another question:
Why the focus on the Greek chorus blogs and specific individuals like Eli?
” It is the responsibility of the press to evaluate the claims, to determine which set of claims is correct, to do so competently, and to explain it.”
Hmmmm. The press has never been able to do this in any other time and with regard to any other issue. If Obama says he can insure an additional 30 million people and reduce current spending levels, the press reports it. If a Republican issues a statement that this is ridiculous, the press reports that a racist Republican has insulted the president. No effort to evaluate the claim.
In those rare instances when efforts are made to evaluate claims, they are invariably poorly done.
Blaming the press for a failed propaganda campaign is a game for losers. You’d be better off finding out where you went wrong and trying to correct it. Good luck.
Of course, there are some who can recognise the religious strand on both sides – the agnostics. I hope I am one of those. Some of us lean more towards scepticism, some the other way. The blog where I’ve seen the highest proportion of such people is Judith Curry’s. Its popularity may indicate there is an appetite for rational and reasonably good-natured discussion in a significant minority of people interested in this issue. It’s unfortunate, if predictable, that this constituency seems practically invisible at most other venues, where the war of attrition is treated as if it’s all there is.
===========
Tom Gray (21): .
“Climate science has lost the trust of the public”¦”
No, it hasn’t. Legitimate polls refute this meme, which unfortunately, Judy Curry buys into.
===============
Hw do you account for the lack of action of climate change outside of Europe and Australia?
1. Eli never wanders innocently–anywhere, anytime. Never.
2. Eli then accuses Keith Kloor of selling some breakthrough, his sly and nasty manner of labeling Kloor a shill for the Breakthrough Institute. He doesn’t understand that outside his warren, being associated with the Breakthrough Institute (not that Keith is) is not at all a bad thing. They make more sense on their worst days than Rabett does on his best.
3. Then, some commenters actually make sense, including willard!
4. Dr. Tobis then pronounces that there is only a postulate and its contrary position, forgetting that the primary attribute of humanity is its ability to squirrel around until it finds a completely different solution.
4.a Tobis then confuses my support of government acting rationally and within its legitimate purview to address climate concerns with an international treaty with impossible goals and enforcement mechanisms that will affect (torment) only the poor.
4b. He then reaches lightyears beyond the science to state that ‘we are betting the whole farm’ on hopes for finding a solution to climate change. If the whole farm is the % of GDP lost to BAU scenarios as predicted by the Stern report, which used as its base a world of 15 billion people that develops at 3% a year, we’re not even betting the garden, let alone the farm.
4c. He then states he is willing to be convinced that solutions exist, but shows in the same breath that he is unwilling to read about them–volumes exist on the subject, but he remains blissfully ignorant.
4d. Then Michael Larkin cites Judith Curry’s venue as a place where rational conversation that includes skeptics may take place. The regulars at Curry’s weblog that he speaks so highly of consist largely of people censored out of Real Climate, or harassed unmercifully by Tobis’ regular commenters throughout this tiny slice of the blogosphere.
Doctor Tobis, let us speak of X fuels. I doubt if you would admit natural gas into the pantheon of potential solutions, but you have to concede that nuclear, hydroelectric and solar can get the job done, with judicious (and far better) use of wind power.
If you were to spend one tenth the time promoting their takeup that you spend criticizing the media, the media would have something different to write about–the success of X fuels.
It is an irreconcilable error to limit the mirror image to the extremes. The mirror image occurs at every point along the spectrum. This error leads only to I know you are, but what am I communication. Looking at the entire span of the mirror leads to opportunity rather than conflict.
I think Keith got it a bit wrong in his opening:
the standoff has hardened into two immutable world views
My view is that the world views predate climate change debate. The opposite views are based on opposite ideas on human nature, how the world works and how problems are solved…. well, as we can see, some don’t even see a big problem while others see the end of the world.
As stan put the question:
The real question is whether people are so firmly convinced of the threat of global warming that they are willing to undergo the chemo and radiation treatments that alarmists are prescribing to cure the problem.
MT believes it is all about pushing the agenda and people (through politicians) will do the right thing, i.e. cut emissions:
the only solution in the absence of magic fuel X is to get people to understand what they are fighting…. It is the responsibility of the press to evaluate the claims, to determine which set of claims is correct, to do so competently, and to explain it.
and from the other side, Tom Fuller in another discussion:
Lomborg, both Pielkes and others (including myself at the minor-league level) have put forward the idea that helping the world get richer and more resilient is in fact an ethically superior proposition than the extreme, top-down approach to bringing emissions to zero.
So, is this really more about politics, values and what kind of a society and solutions you want? Big government vs. small government and all the related stuff? Simon versus Ehrlich?
Jarmo (40),
“So, is this really more about politics, values and what kind of society and solutions you want?”
Absolutely, but it’s even more complicated than that, as Raypierre observed in this comment to an earlier post of mine on green nimbyism:
“AGW is nearly as much of an “inconvenient truth” for most of those who consider themselves environmentalists as it is for those who would like to continue relying of fossil fuels.”
Personally, I think the enviro community should encourage this kind of debate, but because it creates all this tension, many would prefer to avoid it altogether.
Michael Tobis (33)
“It is the failure of the press to do so which leaves us in the very predicament that Keith describes in the top level article.”
Despite all the evidence repeatedly presented to you that contradicts this notion, you continue to cling to it. Nothing short of amazing. Talk about being in denial…
Keith # 41
Well, Keith, it looks like the climate debate in the US mirrors events on the Capitol. No willingness to compromise unless a disaster looms tomorrow.
I guess MT does not realize or willfully ignores the fact that the task he has undertaken has two separate parts: a)convincing people that AGW is a clear and present danger, and b) convincing them that the solutions he proposes (drastic emission cuts now) are the way to go. Even if people agree with a, they may think b is not the way to go (as Tom Fuller does).
Jarmo (42)
At the risk of being obvious, I believe that many proponents feel if they can achieve a strong enough success with A. then B is immaterial. What they fail to realize is that for many of the uncommitted , acceptance and prioritizing that A. is a (Clear and Present Danger) is influenced by their comfort level with B. (drastic emission cuts now). Is this illogical, irrational, and self centered; yep and also perfectly human. Complicating this further is the exclusion of Nuclear as an option by many proponents. I know some proponents have stated that Nuclear should be considered, but they do so very quietly and usually without the same emotion and conviction as other alternatives. This too seems illogical, irrational and self centered to many. If proponents spent less time bashing the Media for not doing more to support A. and more time supporting a viable B they would stand a better chance of achieving their stated goal.
Tom Gray (37)
“How do you account for the lack of action of climate change outside of Europe and Australia? ”
The same way I account for it before climategate.
#43 Jeff Norris
I think the easy part is to convince people of A, the big problem are the real emission cuts. Greens push stuff like cycling, recycling, becoming vegetarian and getting a Prius as a part of the solution (usually because they already are cycling, recycling, vegetarian and have a Prius ;)).
Natural gas might be a viable replacement for coal in the US in short term (a 40 % reduction in CO2 is not to be despised) and probably a lot more realistic than producing the same power with wind and solar.
Michael Tobis Says:
August 13th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
<i>How do we achieve the near-unanimity across all nations to turn the trajectory around by 2020 and send it steeply downward by 2050?</i>
The technique is called ‘setting conditions’.
As recently as 10 years ago there wasn’t a way for non-nuclear power countries to become nuclear electric power countries without being accused of secretly wanting a nuclear weapons program and incurring the wrath of ‘you know who’.
The IAEA worked with the ‘nuclear club’ to come up with a legal framework acceptable to all. The number of countries with announced nuclear programs has skyrocketed as a result.
As recently as 5 years ago there was uranium export restrictions to India. There was no point in India even talking about building nuclear power plants as they wouldn’t have been able to acquire fuel. I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the Chinese decision making progress in regards to ‘nuclear power’ wasn’t driven by fears that they too could be cut off from fuel by the nuclear suppliers groups.
Treaties take an enormous amount of time to complete.
Then we have the ‘conditions setting’ in the Developed World.
There is no shortage of well intentioned people in the developed world that believe we can meet our energy needs without bankrupting ourselves with windmills and solar panels.
The only way to disabuse these people of this belief is to put up some windmills and solar panels and publish the generating statistics on the internet. (I would note Germans are particularly hard headed once they make a decision).
We can see the results of the UK’s ‘setting conditions’ unfolding now. The UK’s nuclear power build plans are being met with relatively little public outcry. The usual suspects are screaming but the general public seems to have accepted the reality that a significant portion of UK energy will come from nuclear power.
In the US the energy act of 2005 and 2007 provided a framework for ‘setting the conditions’ in the US. Nuclear plant licensing was revamped so that we have a much more rigorous ‘design licensing’ process in exchange for a much simpler building and operating license process. The result of which there are still no nuclear plants designs with a ‘license’.
But once we finally get one licensed it won’t be a 5 to 10 year process to get a license for additional plants.
We have also built quite a few windmills and solar panels. The US EIA has just recently started bearking out monthly generating statistics for windmills and solar PV. The ‘winter’ generating statistics for solar PV are ‘beyond sad’. It’ll take a while for people to come to the conclusion that they can probably do without electricity in the summer…but electricity in the winter is a ‘life and death matter’.
If one looks at the aging of the US’s existing coal power fleet…’end of useful life’ doesn’t start to kick in for the bulk of the fleet until about 2020. The levelized cost difference between new nuclear and new coal in the US isn’t that large.
In 2000 someone faced with a decision of building a new nuclear plant or new coal plant would have also been faced with the possibility that there new nuclear plant might never obtain an operating license. Hence we had a bit of a spate on building new coal plants.
The conditions today are different. The EIA isn’t projecting any new coal plant construction after 2015. The handful in the pipeline will be completed and that will be the end of new coal construction. The ‘conditions’ have been set.
If I follow local news in the communities surrounding Hanford nuclear reservation there is ‘chatter’ about the possibility of building another nuclear plant. I’ve even seen articles broaching the subject of nuclear power in Wyoming…which one would think would be the last place on earth to transition away from coal.
Here is the article in the Wyoming newspaper.
http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/04/25/news/19local_04-25-11.txt
I don’t know if you follow baseball..but sometimes what is happening in the bullpen is a better indicator of how the game will turn out then what is happening at home plate. The ‘bull pen’ for climate change isn’t currently ready to pitch the final innings.
One side says:
The other side counters:
I enjoy reading this blog, so I am surprised that you do not see that those two quotes are not equivalent. The first contains a nasty insult by using the grossly offensive term denial. If one side routinely talks about the other using derogatory language even on the most authoritative sites then it is pretty clear who has the moral high ground.
The admirable principles laid out in your comment policy: No ad homs, no slurs, no personal insults, no name calling, no guilt-by association, no nastiness.
should mean that you do not allow the use of the terms denial and denier. After all the decision about whether a term is an insult should be made by the “insultee” rather than the insulter.
Patrick,
I’m glad to hear you enjoy reading the blog, but my policy about the term “deniers” extends to myself. Commenters from both sides of the debate regularly use terms I eschew, such as “denier” and “warmist.” I do moderate the blog for civility and such, but the aforementioned terms have become part of the vernacular and so I let people use them on the site, even if I don’t.
Keith, while the term “denier” is very frequently used I cannot accept that it has therefore lost its offensiveness, and it is not equivalent to the term you compare it to, “warmist” “Denial” was deliberately chosen as an grave insult which sought to compare sceptics to holocaust deniers. That is just about the most offensive association you can make. No sceptic accepts the term and self-describes using it. The term “warmist” does not carry any loaded guilt by association with anything even moderately offensive, but if people on the other side of the argument really are offended by it (why?), then it should not be used.
Years ago black people were very frequently called n****rs and it was part of the vernacular. If challenged someone who used that word would reply, “Well they are n*****rs aren’t they, so why should I not call them that?” I suppose that people who lived in certain parts of the USA were so used to hearing the word that they could not believe that there was anything wrong with it. Perhaps people who read a lot of climate change believers’ blogs become so used to seeing the term “denier” that they forget how offensive it is.
This is your blog and you can adopt whatever policy you like, however if you allow comments to contain the term “denier” then your desire to maintain civility equally on both sides of the argument seems to be compromised.
Patrick,
I believe my reasoning is the same as Judith Curry’s. Looks like the ratio of commenters on her site is roughly 70/30 percent (skeptic/pro-AGW) and she doesn’t prevent the term from appearing there, either.
All I can say is this: if you find the term that offensive, ignore the commenters that use it and don’t engage with them.
Also, FWIW, I don’t see an equivalency between “denier” and the racial slurs you reference. “Denier” is not an insult to someone’s race, religion, gender, culture, or sexual orientation.
Bart Verheggen, in a comment over at his site, says something worth noting on this thread:
“I am torn between wanting to overcome the divide while at the same time being cynical about its possibility.”
Hello Keith,
I can understand why you don’t want to run over the same old ground on the use of “denial” & “denialist” with Patrick. But, a reasonable request that has been made in the past is to determine, from people who freely use the word “denialist”, what is it that a denialist denies?
After all, the language of science is necessarily precise. Since it seems that people who use these phrases mainly accuse others of denying something scientific, then it stands to reason that they embrace the pecision in definition that scientific discourse requires.
So, what does Joe Romm believe a denialist denies?
How about Kerry Emanuel?
Ira Flatow?
David Roberts?
The RealClimate gang?
Michael Tobis?
If the people who use these terms cannot agree on a common definition, then do these terms really mean anything?
Well, rejection is a lifestyle.
The super duper rejectionists reject the idea that greenhouse gas concentrations have increased in the last 150 years from 280 to 390 ppm.
Deep rejectionists may reject that it is the burning of fossil fuels that has lead to the increase.
The next level is to reject that greenhouse gases result in a warmer surface. Call this greenhouse effect warming rejection.
Then we have the cool greenhouse effect warming rejectionists who accept that the atmospheric greenhouse effect exists but reject the idea that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations will have any significant effect.
Then there are the warm greenhouse effect warming rejectionists who accept that doubling CO2 will have an effect, but think it will be ~ 1 K.
Then there are Climate Change is a Communist Plot rejectionist who think that the threat of climate change is a plot of the black helicopter UN crowd.
A subset, the first take care of the poor but don’t do that either crowd, AKA Lomborg rejectionists.
Which are you?
In #38, Tom Fuller makes this intriguing claim:
> Then, some commenters actually make sense, including willard!
I simply asked two questions.
The second question was the same as Keith asked Tom Fuller in #19.
Fuller’s answer in #22 amounts to claim that he clings to his stereotypes because Rude People Makes Him Do It.
This is unresponsive to what Keith asked.
Well, willard, I could withdraw my comment about you making sense, seeing that you are willing to misconstrue my answer later one. However, let me just say instead that reversion to the mean is commonplace.
Glad to see I’m not the only one who still gets disgusted by the denialist slur. Anymore I just assume anyone who uses it is such a jerk that I don’t need to take them seriously.
#48. Keith says: “Commenters from both sides of the debate regularly use terms I eschew, such as “denier” and “warmist.””
At least the term ‘warmist’ has some basis in the reality of their beliefs.
The dictionary definition of ‘denial’ is a refusal to accept a known fact. Or something very close to a known fact.
Since the AGW hypothesis/theory/story is not a known fact, the term denial is in appropriate and meaningless… unless you are playing politics Orwell style. Or we can pretend that it does not have the connotations which it does.
In any case, I too find the use of that word offensive and second Tom Fuller’s #55 on my reaction.
That said, it is becoming more and more obvious who is having problems with reality now that the AGW fairy tale is dissolving in the flood of new contrary evidence and in the wake of so many failed predictions.
Wonder where all that heat is hiding?
Steven,
Why the focus on blogs and individual (and often anonymous commenters)?
#####
I find it fascinating and amusing.
Other media is boring. If I cannot interact with it, then I pay it no mind. Same principle as give me your code and data.
Eli,
You argue a cascading heirarchy of rejection. However, similar charges could be levelled at those arguing the CAGW caused by CO2 set of hypotheses.
1. “The super duper rejectionists reject the idea that greenhouse gas concentrations have increased in the last 150 years from 280 to 390 ppm.” Well, rejectionists on the CAGW side of the argument reject the Beck work which shows something different.
2. “Deep rejectionists may reject that it is the burning of fossil fuels that has lead to the increase.” Rejectionists on the CAGW side reject evidence that natural causes and land-use changes could be factors too, possibly greater than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
3. “The next level is to reject that greenhouse gases result in a warmer surface. Call this greenhouse effect warming rejection.” Not many sceptics argue that increased CO2 won’t have some effect. The CAGW rejectionists reject arguments/evidence that sources of CO2 other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions are significant.
4. “Then we have the cool greenhouse effect warming rejectionists who accept that the atmospheric greenhouse effect exists but reject the idea that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations will have any significant effect.” Clearly CAGW rejectionists reject evidence for natural and land-use effects, and blame it all on anthropogenic CO2.
5. “Then there are the warm greenhouse effect warming rejectionists who accept that doubling CO2 will have an effect, but think it will be ~ 1 K.” And on the CAGW side we have those who reject the evidence/proof that the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 will result in warming around or less than 1 K.
6. “Then there are Climate Change is a Communist Plot rejectionist who think that the threat of climate change is a plot of the black helicopter UN crowd.” Well perhaps. But this sounds like more ad hominem to me. I certainly haven’t heard serious sceptic mount arguments for this, with evidence proof. Mayby you can provide examples?
7. “A subset, the first take care of the poor but don’t do that either crowd, AKA Lomborg rejectionists.” I’m not sure that I understand what seems to me to be a poorly expressed point, or actually another assertion with no evidence/proof offered.
Your heirarchy does at least provide a basis for examination of the evidence/proof for each of the sides. It would seem to me that the CAGW crowd would do better if they engaged with the sceptics on each issue and resolved the conflict.
Sometimes reading these conversations is like listening to a buffalax
i poo gold
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUFQ-Wn8J9Y
the moonlight had them naked and mangled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCv-NKl7uuQ&feature=related
i’ll charge you newbie.
Hello Eli,
Thank you for your seven descriptions; at least it’s a starting point. Two questions:
1. Will falling into any of these 7 categories (which covers quite a range of viewpoints) earn you the “denialist” tag?
1. My category would be “accept that the atmospheric greenhouse effect exists, rejects the idea that there exists enough historical data or theoretical knowledge to know whether the increases in greenhouse gas concentrations will have any significant environmental impact, but to minimize risk supports rational decarbonization efforts”. Does that make me a rejectionist/denialist?
Someone needs to create a category for this —
The evidence shows that global warming science is incompetent (although some scientists are also clearly corrupt), that it has utterly failed to produce a process incorporating any concept of quality control, and that the methodology of a self-correcting science has been abandoned.
Only an idiot would embrace the conclusions of a process which lacks transparency, lacks quality control, lacks a corrective mechanism and is overwhelmed by financial self-interest and political interference. The only rational response when one encounters incompetence on so broad a scale is to require consistent quality measures be instituted before according the process any deference. One would have to be in serious denial to do otherwise.
Without quality, conclusions are garbage. Climate science desperately needs:
* proper instrumentation (siting, calibration),
* addition of some minimal quality measures for databases,
* transparency, audit, replication of studies,
* verification and validation of models,
* upgrade of the statistics and software to acceptable standards
When the people demanding world-wide change rely on a process bereft of quality control, they reveal themselves to be “not ready for prime time.” Get your act together before screwing around with people’s lives.
Tom Fuller: I’ve been screamed at by all of the above for several years now, often all in the same thread.
TF does a drive-by attack in #8, then complains about the recipient of the attack not responding politely. Rather childish, really. Many parents who have 2 or more young children can relate.
But we’re talking about someone, without real evidence,
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/06/03/context-climategate-emails/
who has accused the scientific community of all sorts of misdeeds.
We ackowledge the retraction in #55, and emphasize that Tom Fuller has not substantiated his claim that we misrepresented him when we said that he has simply dodged Keith’s question by appealing to tone trolling. Incidentally, we note that #56 is an interesting for a tone troll to make.
Interesting that both of you are so free with the denialist epithet–otherwise someone might take you seriously. Not me…
Let us put it this way to #1
1. “The super duper rejectionists reject the idea that greenhouse gas concentrations have increased in the last 150 years from 280 to 390 ppm.” Well, rejectionists on the CAGW side of the argument reject the Beck work which shows something different.
If you believe that Beck had anything significant to say, you are signing on to three impossible things before breakfast. In the words of Ralph Keeling
———————————————–
“It should be added that Beck’s analysis also runs afoul of a basic accounting problem. Beck’s 11″“year averages show large swings, including an increase from 310 to 420 ppm between 1920 and 1945 (Beck’s Figure 11). To drive an increase of this magnitude globally requires the release of 233 billion metric tons of C to the atmosphere. The amount is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally. Other CO2 swings noted by Beck require similarly large releases or uptakes. To make a credible case, Beck would have needed to offer evidence for losses or gains of carbon of this magnitude from somewhere. He offered none.”
——————————————————
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beckies-as-tonstant-weader-knows-eli.html
which is why it is rejected as Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon level nonsense. There is more, but that should get you started.
But, Mr. anonymous mud flinger, you don’t need to use the word denialist to characterize Beck. He’s an idiot. He’s wrong about global warming. He’s more or less wrong about everything.
It’s a failure of imagination to stoop to hate speech. I guess academia isn’t what it used to be.
Well here’s a first. A sceptic agreeing with the bunny.
Becks work simply shows concentrations in various cities at various times. These concentrations would vary depending on pollution levels and local weather conditions. While they are fine for a snapshot of that city at that time they really can’t be extrapolated to global figures.
On the flip side it would be nice have a few more stations like Mauna Loa. CO2 might be a “well mixed greenhouse gas”, but it would be great to have another 4 or 5 stations dotted around the planet, just to be sure.
JohnB sez: “On the flip side it would be nice have a few more stations like Mauna Loa. CO2 might be a “well mixed greenhouse gas”, but it would be great to have another 4 or 5 stations dotted around the planet, just to be sure.”
How many do you want? Help yourself.
Not a skeptic either. Just like skepticsore than anonymous flamers.
Tom.
Good to see you tonight. WRT the denialist nonsense. It is rather remarkable that some folks have not seen how arguing about the inapt denialist trope leaves them trapped with it. I dont find it offensive, it’s unimaginative, which is to say, it’s appallingly stupid. A diffusion of radical potential. Perhaps MT can come up with something better. Not.
Good to see you too–and congratulations!
Eli.
Thank you for your response re #1. Given that you postulated a heirarchy, and Beck’s work has been pilloried by many in “the CAGW movement”, I’m not surprised. At least you provided some evidence/proof. Not saying I’m convinced one way or the other. But it is clear that there is a question, and it can be resolved by careful consideration of the evidence for and against.
But how about similar evidence based proof on the other points? I’m sure you can do it. That way we might even accept some of your other points.
The main point of my comment is to reflect Keith’s original point about the war of attrition, and to try to show that the issue can only be engaged when the CAGW crowd engage in debate/discussion with the leading sceptical scientists. Running away from the debate doesn’t do it for me. And I suspect I am not alone.
Tom, Beck is also dead. nil nisi and all that.
———————————-
3. “The next level is to reject that greenhouse gases result in a warmer surface. Call this greenhouse effect warming rejection.” Not many sceptics argue that increased CO2 won’t have some effect. The CAGW rejectionists reject arguments/evidence that sources of CO2 other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions are significant.
———————————
Basically a straw puppy. CO2 is the strongest forcing right now, and has the potential in the future to be determining of global climate (say at 2x and higher), but try and find someone sane who says it is the only one. OTOH, Eli gifts you a copy of Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon and the endless nonsense about it at Curry’s.
If you think that anyone says CO2 is the only forcing look at this from the 2007 AR4
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg?w=480&h=370