Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers


by Newswire    
11:53 am - October 28th 2009

      Share on Tumblr

None of the top ten Conservative bloggers believes the theory that man-made global warming is an established fact; all ten reject David Cameron’s view that the issue should be an urgent priority if the party were in government.

Party leader David Cameron has said that “the dangers of climate change are stark and very real. If we don’t act now, and act quickly, we could face disaster”.

The Tory blogs could hardly disagree more. The scale of the Tory netroots revolt over climate change is revealed by Next Left’s survey of the climate change views of this year’s top 10 Conservative blogs, as identified by Total Politics magazine’s blog awards poll.

Indeed, Next Left can now declare that the unlikely winner of ‘greenest top Tory blogger’ is John Redwood MP, who had never previously been mistaken for Zac Goldsmith. Redwood’s combines his own scepticism with the argument that it would be prudent to take some steps to adapt to possible negative consequences, while welcoming the benefits of global warming too. This would appear to mark Redwood out as a deep green when compared to his fellow Tory top bloggers.

….more at Next Left

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author

· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


A sceptic is not the same as a denier.

Equally from what you describe of Mr Redwood’s views he is in no way suggesting he believes in anthropogenic climate change just that he recognises that the climate is changing.

I think you will be hard pressed to find a prominent Tory blogger who doesn’t think climate change is happening. You’ll find a lot however who aren’t convinced CO2 emissions are causing it.

Poor effort

I’m neither a Tory nor a blogger, but I am with Redwood, oh, and and with Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I’d rather listen to the likes of Stephen Hawkings and other prominant scientists about the causes of climate change then ignorant Tory bloggers who couldn’t really give a hoot about anything which may interrupt their own individualistic lifestyle.

One of the major problems with the whole green agenda is this aggressive attempt by the left dominated green lobby to polarise the debate always into an us and them mentality.

Thus you either accept global warming and therefore by implication would welcome enforced sterilisation of 90% of the worlds population so we can get back to pre historic subsistance levels of hunter gatherer culture (except of course you would only ever hunt beans, nothing that had legs would be hunted), or you are a baby eating, fascist “denier”.

The word “denier” is now used routinely to attempt to close down debate on global warming, as though those who doubt the green-left orthodoxy are some how the modern flat-earthers.

There are many, like myself who whilst accepting the basic premise that AGW is a real effect, do not to accept that this must mean that the green-left ‘solution’ is the only or indeed correct one.

Yesterdays “make eating meat as socially unacceptable as smoking” is a classic example. Apart from anything else, what brain dead moron believes that it is a electorially viable policy to propose to force everyone to become veggies whether they like it or not?

At least try to propose ideas that don’t sound like you are a bunch of Christmas banning killjoys who actively take pleasure in making peoples lives shorter and more miserable in a debatable attempt to control the global thermostat.

Can we please evolve this debate into a discussion on the range of “solutions” that can be considered that people will go along with.

i suspect that if the debate did move on to a less polarised and more nuanced discussion of a range of possible outcomes and solutions, then the “deniers” would more readily engage in a constructive debate, rather than feel forced to oppose what is widely seen on the right as the lefts latest wheeze (along with H&S of course) after losing the cold war.

Steak Tartare, waiter

Hm, well I’m not a member of the Conservative party, nor a blogger, but I’m likely to be voting tory next time – and I’m not so sure about the “scientific consensus” on MMCC.

As a scientist – and one who administered large scale government funded science (and engineering) programmes and projects during my career – there are any number of worrying aspects about the overall MMCC bandwaggon that make it sound pretty unscientific to me.

In general most concerned scientists talking about MMC, within their own sphere of specialism, make reasonable enough sense – which is why I have for many years supported precautionary measures. The overall presentation of the issue at international level is another kettle of fish – and rather a smelly one.

A major problem is the dependence of the MMCC model, at every stage, on extremely difficult and demanding statistics and computer modelling. Without this none of the global “models” can be built or interpreted or even have any meaning. But there are real shortages of the statistical skills and the available modelling technology leaves much to be desired – I sit on a little advisory body that supports research in these areas and my more technically in-touch colleagues despair of the shortfalls in statistical and modelling expertise. In the MMC area there is lots of evidence of shabby statistics and misused models (do a google search on the “Hockey Stick” graph of global temperature – now withdrawn from IPCC publications).

Beyond this there is a deeply unscientific approach to people producing counter-MMCC interpretations/results – who seem to be subjected to ad-hominem denunciations rather than reasoned argument. What are the chances of public sector funding for research pursuing doubts about MMCC?

I don’t know how much MMCC is happening or how much current claims based on large scale models can be taken seriously. More seriously I can’t understand why so many of those concerned to demonise those of us exercising informed scepticism can swallow the MMCC case wholesale, parrotting its “science” – and at the same time resist with horror the obvious precautionary solution – and the most soundly science based one and the one most likely to limit the economic, environmental and social damage arising from carbon reduction targets – nuclear power.

My clear impression is that at the international level the MMCC agenda has been captured by greenies who have their own, essentially counter-civilisation, agenda.

Can we please evolve this debate into a discussion on the range of “solutions” that can be considered that people will go along with.

Well, the ball is right’s court, and all they’re doing is shouting ‘communist’ at the top of their voice (as the parts of your post surrounding that one sensible paragraph amply illustrate).

Thus you either accept global warming and therefore by implication would welcome enforced sterilisation of 90% of the worlds population so we can get back to pre historic subsistance levels of hunter gatherer culture (except of course you would only ever hunt beans, nothing that had legs would be hunted), or you are a baby eating, fascist “denier”.

Except, of course, that that’s utter arse gravy. Absolutely nobody (with the possible exception of a tiny handful of fringe internet nutters) is advocating “enforced sterilisation of 90% of the worlds population”, or a return to ” pre historic subsistance [sic] levels of hunter gatherer culture”.

If you’re going to resort to such absurd mischaracterisation, why should anybody take you seriously?

“I’d rather listen to the likes of Stephen Hawkings and other prominant scientists about the causes of climate change then ignorant Tory bloggers who couldn’t really give a hoot about anything which may interrupt their own individualistic lifestyle.”

What’s wrong with individualistic lifestyles? Do you enjoy the thought of regimenting and controlling people? This, I suspect, is why many on the Right are very suspicious of those who promote the idea of global warming caused by humans – such people seem to take a great deal of pleasure in the idea of using it as an excuse to raise taxes, attack capitalism etc.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with “individualistic lifestyles” (a lot of us greenies are pretty fucking individualistic in many ways), but when your specific individualistic lifestyle necessarily involves polluting everybody else’s air to the point where it starts modifying the climate, we have a problem.

You’re basically trying to argue in favour of an unrestricted right to shit in the drinking water.

Dunc

Clearly I was exagerating. I had thought the obvious extreme absurdity of it would have flagged that. Though I note that it is the characiture of the left view you objected to, and not to ‘baby eating fascist deniers’ , which suggests your mindset is indeed in a left vs right mindset rather than the science and its consequences one I wish to see.

Neil

Since the left can’t get past yelling “denier” whenever someone has the cheek to disagree with them then I suggest that it is the right who are pushing the debate forward. Unless you guys get round to actually debating, then the right will keep pushing forward, and one day you will wake up and find you lost the argument because you were not prepared to engage in it.

So ‘winning the argument’ will stop the climate change? How very, er, post modern.

What else can we reverse just by having a good old chinwag? Gravity? Magnetism? Evolution (oh, sorry, you’ve already tried that one).

Well, that confirms fears and suspicions – the Tories are little different to the Rethuglicans – if something has the potential to reduce their income, it can’t be true. QED: global warming is the hoax!

It’ll be interesting to see how the public – who are largely aware and accepting of the terrible threat posed by global warming – will react when they start to discover the Tory party is stuffed with Deniers.

“Rethuglicans” – you should be on the radio with that.

I suspect the public will be quite relaxed.

They certainly don’t appear to buy into the “terrible threat” narrative.
Hyperbole is generally counterproductive.

Wow. That is a really devastating thing to point out. One of those strokes of genius that is to point out something obvious that we all kind of already knew anyway. Well done the Fabian Society.

The point is that the Cameron revolution to detoxify the Tory party is pure spin, not even extending to Cameron & Osborne themselves, they remain toxic. The bloggers represent the real heart & soul of the Tory party activist base who are unreconstructed Thatcherite sociopaths, and who will reach instinctively for the Chicago School toolbox as the response to any problem. They are utterly blind to the environmental perspective beyond basic shire-pleasing NIMBYism.

My God what a disaster the next Tory government is going to be. People like Matt London @6 with his “I’m not a member of the Conservative party, nor a blogger, but I’m likely to be voting tory next time” make me despair. Like lemmings heading for a cliff.

Here’s comment that I challenge having spent a long time trying to engage the sceptic community on this site in polite debate:

@1 “A sceptic is not the same as a denier.”

To all intents and purposes, yes they are.

Neil: Gravity has a well-known liberal bias, as any fule kno.

Tories are not deniers, they’re just ‘sceptical’ of claims that HIV causes AIDS or ‘sceptical’ that evolution actually took place.

Is that right? Oh and yes, you’re all scientists too right?

Hilarious

Neil,

There you go again. You cant help yourself. AGW and its consequences clearly are debatable. which of the following would you contest?

1) Three is a debate as to the extent of the effect of AGW – Not even the IPCC would claim to know exactly what will happen for any given scenario. The science is evolving and every iteration changes the forcasts

2) Carbon reduction is in fact NOT the only solution. For the sake of argument we in the UK may be beftter off inversting in sea wall defences and alike strategies to deal with the consequences of AGW, rather than seeking to avoid it.

BTW: Gravity IS debatable. I.e. there is no scientific consensus on what Gravity is. Newtons equations are an excellent approximation. Relativity gets us closer. But no one can tell you what is actually is (lots of theories abound), just its rather obvious (and i’ll grant non-debatable) classical scale effect. Once the true cause of gravity is pinned down who knows what gravity defying technologies might eventually unfold?

Magnetism has a far more well understood theoretical basis. However aspects of magnetism remain elusive and subject of much theoretical and experimental effort.

Clearly as a non scientist, you ought to take more care when citing examples of uncontestable fact

@19 “BTW: Gravity IS debatable.”

Oh no, another bloody lemming.

18. I thought this thread was about climate change.

But since you raise it, your examples further demonstrate the pre concieved notions of the right the left routinely habour as gospel truth, and would rather cling to baseless notions than consider the other guy might have a point.

AIDs HIV sceptics do exist, but I never noticed they were a uniquely right wing phenomena. the former President of South Africa never struck me as a natural Tory, that is for sure. Yet you cite it as somehow a generalised truth about the right.

Creationism is very prevelant amongst the American right, but not the Tory party in the UK or the right in Europe. Yet you cite it as somehow a generalised truth about the right.

One reason the left is in such a parlous state at the moment is attitudes like yours, seeking to to see an enemy of your own imagining rather than the one who is actually in front of you.

Wow this is incredibly polarised.

@16 &18

On what basis do you try and equate sceptic and denier? Someone who has not been convinced does not automatically put them on the side of the opposition. Most rational agents (and I would hope readers of this blog would count themselves in that group) approach this issue, like any other, from a roughly central perspective and then see if either side is convincing. Just because they do not find one to be so that does not mean they unquestioningly turn to the other.

@18 specifically

Do you know a Tory who questions HIV-Aids or evolution? Otherwise what bearing does that have on this debate?

It is precisely because we are not scientists that we don’t believe either side devoutly. I have no scientific qualification beyond GCSE and therefore would never be so arrogant as to say MMCC is definitely happening or that it is definitely not happening. Would you?

Strategist – if you don’t believe me then trawl New Scientist for a myriad of articles on this well known conundrum of modern physics.

Dontmindme, you could ‘debate’ gravity all year (in fact, I get the feeling you’d actually like to) but the value of the gravitational constant wouldn’t budge – no matter how condescending your tone.

Neil

“you could ‘debate’ gravity all year and the value of the gravitational constant wouldn’t budge”

Actually much theoretical and experiment effort has gone in to trying to establish whether the constant is infact variable over time. So far the data I have seen suggests it is not, but there is a lot of theoretical work that suggests it is, and a lot that it isn’t. Until there is a better experimentally supported theorectical basis for gravity, the debate will go on. Thats the nature of science. there are no orthodoxies so true as to be beyond question. If there are, they are not science.

When you stop misusing science in debate, i’ll stop correcting it.

I’m usually alone in these ‘debates’ as being the only one who has ever written a climate modellling program, at undergrad a decade ago admittedly but using a rather natty neural network approach. What I learned was that slight tweaks in the incoming data stream cause massive variation in the output results. A hundred different runs produce a hundred different results, all equally likely but only in so far as the input data and the relative weights are accurate. And there’s the rub, we so don’t know what is accurate that we can’t reliably model next week’s weather let alone next year’s. Modelling the interconectivity of a chaotic system as large as the atmosphere is, frankly, beyond us at the moment.
So there you have it, although I’m not a climate scientist I am a computer scientist and I call ‘foul’ on all ‘facts’ based on climate modelling.

Why do I get the impression that many people will actually be *disappointed* were the AGW hypothesis to be discredited?

So there you have it, although I’m not a climate scientist I am a computer scientist and I call ‘foul’ on all ‘facts’ based on climate modelling.

Which is what this blog is all about…

http://www.climateaudit.org/

@cjcjc:

Reality doesn’t conform to what you want to be true:

Global survey has found that people from diverse backgrounds in the US and worldwide overwhelmingly want faster action, deeper GHG emissions cuts and stronger enforcement than either US climate legislation proposals or Copenhagen treaty conference preparations are currently contemplating: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS223047+22-Oct-2009+PRN20091022

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/30/climate-change-us

Regardless, scientific reality is not determined by the opinion of uninformed members of the public. 97% of published climate scientists and 100% of all national science academies confirm anthropogenic climate change to be real and happening now.

You’re free to deny this – but that’s why you’re called a Denier.

P.S. climateaudit.org? Any moron can write a blog.

And there’s the rub, we so don’t know what is accurate that we can’t reliably model next week’s weather let alone next year’s.

Climate models don’t model weather, they model climate.

Modelling the interconectivity of a chaotic system as large as the atmosphere is, frankly, beyond us at the moment.

Except that climate models are tested against the real world and work very well.

@27 Mark: “I’m not a climate scientist”

You sure ain’t, baby. For example, you think that the purpose of a climate model is to predict the weather.

@23 Tory Outcast “Wow this is incredibly polarised.”

Yes, I’m afraid so. Your position that a sceptic is not a denier is entirely reasonable if you’re coming into it from the outside. From inside the scientific debate it’s not been a reasonable position since the early 1990s. Believe me I spent ages on this site politely asking sceptics to tell me the scientific cause-effect basis of their position and they were utterly unable to do so.

In practical terms, say you are a lemming and the an inter-governmental panel tells you that jumping off the cliff may be deleterious to your health, whilst a Washington lobbyist funded by the lemming-fur industry tells you that actually gravity is debatable, hasn’t been proved, be premature to change course. That’s how polarised it is.

dontmindme, you seem to have trouble with the difference between ‘theoretical and experiment[al] effort’ and ‘debate’.

Just so’s you know, here’s one difference: The former is hard work, while the latter is something any haughty gobshite on a messageboard can manage.

So I can understand why you’re calling for more ‘debate’.

Neil

“However we select from nature a complex [of phenomena] using the criterion of simplicity, in no case will its theoretical treatment turn out to be forever appropriate (sufficient)…. I do not doubt that the day will come when [general relativity], too, will have to yield to another one, for reasons which at present we do not yet surmise. I believe that this process of deepening theory has no limits.”

Albert Einstein

That is: In science, debate is eternal and never finished.

Spot the difference:

a) Einstein’s contribution to science

b) dontmindme’s contribution to science

The Next Left post doesn’t use the word ‘denier’ and tries to report fairly on the different reasons the relevant bloggers give for different degrees of either scepticism or opposition to climate change theory, while pointing out that this lonely dissident position in challenging the groupthink happens to be one that they all share, to some degree or another.

I was actually surprised it was 10 out of 10, rather than 7 – 9 out of 10.

None of the top 10 blogs agree with David Cameron, party policy or the “political consensus” and that was the central point.


I noted that

The post says:
“Pointing out the scale of climate scepticism among the online opinion formers on the right does not, of course, prove that they are wrong, or right. That is a matter of scientific evidence. (Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts). But, as a matter of politics, the lack of support for party policy from the most prominent netroots voices on this high profile issue suggests there will be vocal pressure from the party will be to play down the climate change issue.

Some will be deeply concerned about that; others will celebrate it”.

I did acknowledge that they don’t all share the certainty of Douglas Carswell in knowing that the whole climate change theory is a bollocks conspiracy. I get the clear impression that Carswell is trolling for a greater share of the attention paid to Hannan and Nadine. I particularly loved his argument that Plimer could hardly be thought wrong when he has so MANY footnotes
http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=1015

Neil

LOL. True enough (indeed I might concede beyond debate).

But I am sure I know that your attitude to science is based on a flawed understanding of it. And I will do my bit by pointing that out each and every time you misuse the concept of science in support of what are in fact political goals.

36. Shatterface

‘Indeed, Next Left can now declare that the unlikely winner of ‘greenest top Tory blogger’ is John Redwood MP’

I was kinda hoping Redwood was a skeptic just to see the headline ‘Greens Cut Redwood Down To Size’

I don’t like the word “denier”, but I don’t think “sceptic” is quite right in most of these cases. It suggests a thought-through, evidence-weighing position which isn’t at all right. What we need is a word for people who very vocally don’t give a fuck. Perhaps “climate klutz”, or something.

dontmindme – please point out where I used the concept of science in support of a political goal.

@larry – ‘bullshitter’ covers it, don’t you think?

‘Until there is a better experimentally supported theorectical basis for gravity, the debate will go on. Thats the nature of science. there are no orthodoxies so true as to be beyond question. If there are, they are not science.’

The difference between a sceptic and a denier is that both may say stuff like that, but only one will actually try to use the political argument that their competitors shouldn’t be allowed to build any more skyscrapers in central London because the gravitational constant might change…

@39 “I don’t like the word “denier”, but I don’t think “sceptic” is quite right in most of these cases…. Perhaps “climate klutz”, or something.”

Yes, yes, yes! I like it. Klutz is perfect.

Like someone in the cockpit of a plane with engine failure, sucking on his pipe and advising the captain on where is going wrong despite having no clue how the aeroplane works or what all the different button or controls do.

Neil

Post 13, when you tried to compare debating climate change with debating the gravity & magnetism. As I was arguing for a debate about something you apparently think is true beyond all need of debate, I take that to be at best a misunderstanding of science, and at worst a deliberate attempt to close down legitimate debate by a mis-stepped attempt at ridicule.

Once again, dontmindme, you seem to be confusing ‘science’ and ‘debate’.

41 Soru, then that makes me sceptic.

I would make no provision in the planning laws and guidelines for the possibility of a variable gravitational constant.

After all, at human architectural scales and timeframes, any effect, even if it were shown ultimately to exist, is too small to be significant…

Neil

Since you insist on asserting it, so that I might better understand your point of view, please explain to me what you understand by the word ‘science’

@45 “I would make no provision in the planning laws and guidelines for the possibility of a variable gravitational constant.”

Splendid! You’ve grasped the point. I’ll take it that you are looking forward to a good deal being struck in Copenhagen.

I’m an agnostic on the entire Climate Change issue. I simply don’t know enough to question the science behind it, and I don’t care enough to become sufficiently science-literate to equip myself to do it. Life’s too short.

I suspect that part of the problem is that science in general has developed (like mathematics) beyond the point where it can be followed by even a reasonably intelligent layman. As a result the overwhelming majority of the population simply cannot follow the debate closely enough to develop an informed opinion. On the most trivial level, most people probably couldn’t tell you the difference between weather and climate.

On the other hand, historical arguments are much easier to follow, what with most of them being in the vernacular. And if we look historically there have been a whole series of ‘end of the world’ panics, from Malthus to Paul Ehrlich on population, to global cooling, to the global running out of resources by 1990, to us all dying of BSE/AIDS/SARS. They all have one thing in common.

To someone who cannot follow the combination of climate science and computer modelling, the argument boils down to: trust us, this time we’re right. And the response to that is either belief, disbelief or scepticism.

Given this incapacity to understand the scientific bases behind the climate change arguments, I’m not sure that a general degree of scepticism is not the more understandable reaction. Which of the following reactions is more rational?

I don’t understand this argument, but I believe it.
I don’t understand this argument, so I don’t believe it.
I don’t understand this argument, so I don’t know whether or not to believe it.

Good question, dontmindme. I checked the Encyclopedia Wingnutya, and it says “Science: the process of shouting ‘communist’ at any set of results you dislike, while delaying the execution of any action based on those results for as long as possible through the use of long and pointless digressions.”

That’ll do me. I get it now.

There’s a whole lot of difference between a denier, a sceptic and a cynic.

A denier thinks AGW is made up.
A sceptic isn’t sure either way.
A cynic (which a number of the Tory blogs seem to be) are sceptics who have seen that governments are using AGW as a way to raise taxes and restrict our freedoms even further (see that berk the other day who wants to prevent me eating meat – I’ll eat meat if I want, and I’ll drink and smoke if I feel like it too).

I hope you see the difference. I hope you can also see that there has to be a better way to reduce CO2 emissions without ramping up taxes on everything so that we essentially force compliance with the threat of poverty.

Thank you @36 Sunder for clearing up the patently false representation of Sunder’s post in this thread. While Sunder tried to raise a genuine issue about the commitment of Conservative bloggers to climate change as an electoral issue, many decided to distort his post to suit their own anti-Tory purposes.

And anyone who thinks that a ‘skeptic’ and a ‘denier’ are the same thing evidently needs to purchase a dictionary before engaging in discussions on this matter.

@48 Wahey! Our first 24 carat climate klutz since the term was coined.

Try substituting “a klutz” for ” an agnostic” in the first sentence of Tim J’s comment. Perfect.

@51 Letter from a Tory “anyone who thinks that a ’skeptic’ and a ‘denier’ are the same thing evidently needs to purchase a dictionary before engaging in discussions on this matter”

The debate has moved on old fruit. The contention now is that a “skeptic” and a klutz are the same thing.

Not a single sceptic out there has disproved that contention on this thread yet.

@52 – he also missed out a reaction:

“I don’t understand this argument, but I’ll debate it anyway.”

@48 Millenarianism seems to have a constant appeal somehow

@Matt London

do a google search on the “Hockey Stick” graph of global temperature – now withdrawn from IPCC publications

Sigh.

Not this denialist canard again. IPCC makes use of Hockey Stick graphs in its reviews. The graphs are there in its publications if you actually bother to go read them (which you obviously haven’t).

Yeah, to lay persons the science is complex and the statistics mind-blowing. That’s why we – through the UN – get top researchers to review all the peer reviewed stuff to break it all down into digestible chunks for us.

As a scientist you know that. Appeals to wonder and awe do not invalidate fears over MMGW.

“Millenarianism seems to have a constant appeal somehow”

Oooh, look at you, with your Politics, trying to shut down the End-Of-The-World debate…

52/53 – Your definition of ‘klutz’ (which has a perfectly good meaning already) is:

Like someone in the cockpit of a plane with engine failure, sucking on his pipe and advising the captain on where is going wrong despite having no clue how the aeroplane works or what all the different button or controls do.

Whereas my position, as stated, is someone who has no idea how an aeroplane works shutting the hell up and staying in my seat. I wasn’t putting this forward as an ideal position, just stating that it was mine faut de mieux. I have already spent eight years in higher education, I have no intention of going back to study a degree in a subject I have no interest in, in order that I can follow a debate in which I have in any case no say.

I just thought it worth mentioning, because I suspect that this is not an uncommon position.

54 – I’m not debating the argument at all. Just explaining why I don’t positively argue for the existence of climate change. On which basis (if, ha!, I were a ‘top Tory blogger’) Sunder would probably be able to add me to his denialists list.

Strategist,

Back to the begining. I was arguing that the left has a tendency to want to close down debate by throwing the word denier at anyone who doubts/disagrees/takes issues with any aspect of what might be characitured as the ‘we are all doomed unless we go back to the caves’ belief that;

1) AGW is enevitable, and more than that AGW is without corrective action -see(2) below- going to be so devastating that it must be avoided at all costs

2) The only viable corrective action is ‘carbon reduction’ on a massive scale.

3) the corrective action in 2 will work if only we all accepted that this capitalist/consumerist/meat-eating lifestyle we have is the root of the problem.

It seems to me to be an entirely reasonable and defensible point of view that 1,2 and 3 are all debatable.

It is my suggestion that the left is doing itself no good by pretending 1-3 are beyond debate.

On another thread on the topic I have already said that I hope Copenhagen goes well, but that we would be foolish to make all our policy reliant on it going well at the conference and its subsequent implementation.

Tim J, I agree it was a bit harsh calling you a “klutz”, but the arguments in favour of AGW are not difficult for a layman to follow if you spend a bit of time reading up on them. You certainly don’t need an understanding of climate modelling as the arguments are not based on these models, they are based on physics.

If you don’t have time for that then fair enough but in that case surely the sensible thing is to put more faith in the arguments of those who are experts in their field and study climate for a living than the arguments of others.

I don’t understand this argument, so I don’t know whether or not to believe it.

This is patently silly too. You use microwaves don’t you? You fly on planes don’t you? In each case you’ve taken it on trust from scientists that the plane will fly and the Microwave won’t kill you.

And yet you get a whole bunch of Tories who know little about the science yet stridently claim they don’t like it anyway and that its all a bit communist conspiracy.

In fact even some libertarians do (see wingnut Charlotte Gore).

And then you get people like cjcjc first crying that no one is taking him up on his climate-change bet (I did eventually, if only to shut him up, and he admits he’s losing already) and then claiming that a ‘sceptic’ is somehow more respectable than a denier.

I’m sorry but a sceptic is a denier from where this debate is.

Also, another Tory up there asked where various Tories were ‘sceptical’ about HIV-AIDS. See this week’s Spectator magazine. We’ve covered it plenty of times too.

I don’t see any reason why right-wingers should be trusted on science since they’re only interested in the politics not the evidence.

Shorter post #59: “Back to the begining. COMMUNISTS!”

“It is my suggestion that the left is doing itself no good by pretending 1-3 are beyond debate.”

If we go back to the beginning of this thread, we see that the left has no part in this debate. It’s a debate that needs to be had between David Cameron and his party and the role of the left is to invite intelligent citizens to spectate, and draw their own conclusions on the wisdom of voting in the Tories.

If you ask my opinion, 1 & 2 for practical purposes now should be beyond debate. 3 gets into interesting stuff. Klutzthink like that from Mark M @50 (“see that berk the other day who wants to prevent me eating meat – I’ll eat meat if I want”) pushes the debate towards a technical fix as education is clearly going to be the long haul. Mark M will insist on his right to shit in the public water supply and he cannot easily be stopped.

62. Shatterface

‘I’m an agnostic on the entire Climate Change issue. I simply don’t know enough to question the science behind it, and I don’t care enough to become sufficiently science-literate to equip myself to do it. Life’s too short.’

It might well get shorter though. Invest in a little time. You’ve got the Internet, research the subject yourself.

Neil,

I have not used the word once, and I would not use it as it is not appropriate in this case (I cant think why I would – eco-lefties and communists are not the same at all. Communism has no point of view on how the production of carbon affects the climate on a plantary scale insofar as I am aware, only on who should be producing it). You however do seem to be suffering from the very ‘I know how you right wingers think’ preconception syndrome I have observed in many of the left.

Sunny

“I’m sorry but a sceptic is a denier from where this debate is.”.

So I in your case I am right then. You actually do seek to close down debate by yelling denier at anyone who disagrees with you on climate change.

64. Dan Pangburn

All of the global average temperatures for the entire 20th century and on into the 21st century are readily calculated with no consideration whatsoever needed of changes to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas. The details are in a new paper at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide.

This is patently silly too. You use microwaves don’t you? You fly on planes don’t you? In each case you’ve taken it on trust from scientists that the plane will fly and the Microwave won’t kill you.

Well, technically I’ve used the evidence of my own experience that planes do fly and that microwaves don’t kill people – the Samuel Johnson principle. A better example would have been medicine – I really do take the medicines I’m prescribed because I take the science on trust.

But that’s not an exact parallel either. Because this confidence isn’t always well placed, and expert opinions are constantly changing. Gas mask filters in WW2 were made of blue asbestos you know, thalidomide is a great cure for insomnia. This doesn’t mean that I’m ‘denying’ climate change, just that I don’t think ‘trust the experts’ is always a great argument.

Tim J, I agree it was a bit harsh calling you a “klutz”, but the arguments in favour of AGW are not difficult for a layman to follow if you spend a bit of time reading up on them. You certainly don’t need an understanding of climate modelling as the arguments are not based on these models, they are based on physics.

Physics eh? Uh oh. My A in GCSE physics caused my teacher to question the entire concept of the GCSE as a worthwhile exam. I can follow the arguments that climate change is happening, and also that this is very likely caused by human activity. But when that turns into a debate about what to do about it, I can’t then follow the various competing theories and arguments. I’m not unusually thick I don’t think, it’s just that scientific debate tends now to take place in a rather rarified atmosphere.

cjcjc (and others)

I recommend reading this:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/04/gwsbingo.php

Mark M@ 50
“There’s a whole lot of difference between a denier, a sceptic and a cynic.”

What kind of twisted ‘logic’ is that? If I said that was ‘not sure’ that the holocaust happened would that make me a ‘denier’ or merely a ‘sceptic’? Would you accept the term ‘holocaust sceptic’ to describe David Irving et al?

If you DENY the existence of a scientific consensus on AGW, you are a DENIER.
If you DENY the existence of thousands of papers of research on the subject, you are a DENIR.
If you DENY the existence of scientific evidence of AGW you are a DENIER.

Caesar had it right:

Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

Men willingly believe what they wish (to be the case)

“If you ask my opinion, 1 & 2 for practical purposes now should be beyond debate. 3 gets into interesting stuff”

So you want to talk about getting back to the caves then…

@66 That’s not good enough, I’m afraid, Dan. You need to postulate the physics of how increased atmospheric CO2 wouldn’t cause global temperature to rise.

This is the answer that never comes from climate klutzes such as yourself.

Prof Richard Lindzen’s – the DENIER from MIT – latest paper doesn’t in fact DENY the influence of CO2, but takes issue with the sensitivities which the consensus models have estimated.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/new-paper-from-lindzen/

I assume that this is the kind of research/debate which everyone can agree is permitted?

You actually do seek to close down debate by yelling denier at anyone who disagrees with you on climate change.

I’m not shutting down any debate – I’m just pointing out what people such as yourself, Tim J, cjcjc etc are.

@71 Don’tmindme. “So you want to talk about getting back to the caves then…”

Oh blimey. Your path ends up with the survivors living in the caves. I want a better solution. I really don’t want to end up sharing a cave with you, believe me. Old Mark M would start shitting just upstream of the water supply and the whole thing would just be a nightmare.

74 – you’ll have to tell me what I’m denying. Other than possessing a science degree, which I freely admit that I deny.

@73 cjcjc: “Prof Richard Lindzen’s… latest paper doesn’t in fact DENY the influence of CO2, but takes issue with the sensitivities which the consensus models have estimated”

Does he change the sign from a + to a 0 as Mr Pangburn does?

I have no idea who Mr Pangburn is, but I suspect that the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has probably done a bit more than that.

Or are you not prepared even to countenance what he is suggesting?

74

You clearly are so preconcieved in your notions of what i think you can not even read what I have written. I have on this and other posts already said that on balance I beleive that AGW is a real effect. Yet somehow I am a denier for disagreeing with you on how we should deal with that fact?

75

I have not said what my approach is. When will you lefties get it? Just beacuse I am by free and happy admission right wing, does not mean I am from the Dick Cheney school of politics. There is no right wing consensus on climate change. What there is is a wide scepticism bourne of the view that the arguments being pushed by the green lobby has in essence been subordinated to a left wing political agenda. Being called a denier by Sunny for agreeing with the notion that AGW is on balance a real effect, but disgareeing with Sunny about what should be done about it tends in his case at least to support that view.

@73 “I assume that this is the kind of research/debate which everyone can agree is permitted?”

I’ve had a quick look now. From my perspective, this is precisely what I’ve been asking for, so, yes. He is postulating a mechanism, hurrah.

I hope to God he is right, but let us see what the experts have to say on it. His Wikipedia entry contains the following quotes, which both have an immediate appeal to me:

John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research… said “People like him are very useful in finding the weak links in our thinking.”

James Hansen, a climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimated a climate sensitivity of 3-4 degrees Celsius. Hansen based this estimate on evidence from ice cores. According to Hansen: “Dick’s idea that climate sensitivity is low is simply wrong, [...] The history of the earth proves him wrong.”

‘So you want to talk baout getting back to the caves then…’

Yes, I am sure that will be high on the agenda at the Copenhagen summit. There will be panel sessions on whether limestone or dolomite caves are better, workshops on how to make stone tools, and then a special celebrity fashion show featuring a range of bearskins.

@73: Yes, it’s permitted. It’s also permitted to point out that he used a outdated data set (uncorrected for variations in satellite altitude, a significant factor), and that the claimed result disappears if you actually use the corrected data. Given that the data set was corrected several years ago, I’m unsure as to why any serious scientist would use the uncorrected data, given that the correction is entirely uncontroversial (amongst people with any clue, at least).

See, for example, Reexamination of the Observed Decadal Variability of the Earth Radiation Budget Using Altitude-Corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data, Wong et al., 2006, Journal of Climate Vol 19.

81 Bearskins? how morally reprehensible. Hunting bear for their skins? What is this Copenhagen summit you speak of that is so backward in its thinking?

cjcjc,

Yes of course it’s permitted, but since Lindzen’s claims for climate sensitivity contradict pretty much every other serious study which has been done on the subject they should surely be approached with caution rather than simply taken at face value.

I’m sure they should

To what other studies are you referring?

I have on this and other posts already said that on balance I beleive that AGW is a real effect. Yet somehow I am a denier for disagreeing with you on how we should deal with that fact?

If you agree that man-made activity is contributing to global warming, and that as a society we have to try and find some solutions to this (these could be: technological, changes in behaviour, pricing pollutants properly etc) then you’re fine. That’s all we’re arguing.

The problem is most Tory blogs, as shown in the evidence presented by Sunder Katwala – don’t even share that basic fact. That is a cause for worry.

There have been any number of studies, see

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html

Obviously there are some quite extreme variations and some studies are more sound than others, but my understanding from reading various discussions on the subject is that the consensus has for some time been between 1.5 and 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2, and current thinking is that the best estimate is 2.6 – 3.0 C

@Strategist

FYI ‘climate’ is just global weather. It’s really just a question of scale, so although big ideas like global climate sound impressive all it really means is, for instance, whether it’s more or less likely to rain in October in mid-Atlantic. If your model can’t tell predict over the short-term then don’t expect me to take any notice of its long-term rantings, especially in a chaotic system. You have written a model haven’t you? No?
Thought not.

@87 – thanks

@88 Mark M: “FYI ‘climate’ is just global weather.”

Meaningless!! You may find that it’s the average weather

“If your model can’t tell predict over the short-term then don’t expect me to take any notice of its long-term rantings, especially in a chaotic system. You have written a model haven’t you? No? Thought not.”

Sorry, am I supposed to have a model or not?

Stupid stupid stupid stupid klutz.

@87 Andrew Adams “and current thinking is that the best estimate is 2.6 – 3.0C”

…which is an environmental disaster.

Seeing as I’m included in the list but my comment is on the other site I will clarify here as well. I don’t deny climate change or whatever name it is going by now, my objections are philosophical upon what science is and what one can say they “know”.

So, when I hear people like Sunny using the word “scientific” as if that alone adds authority to what they’re saying, and then further suggesting that science produce “unequivocal” conclusions, or even worse that truth must be accepted because there is a “scientific consensus” I moan about it, whether it is for claimte change or anything else..

Starting with the notion that “the science is unequivocal”. The phrase itself is complete bollocks, and no serious scientist would ever say such a thing. Knowledge, specifically “scientific knowledge” is only ever a best approxomation of truth on the basis of continued failure to disprove a working hypothesis. It is never unequivocal and it is always open to challenge and change.

Put it like this, a thousand experiments can support a hypothesis, but it only takes one to completely destory it. So, in the case of climate change, or to be more specific “man made climate change” it may very well be true, but you cannot say that it is unequivocally true unless you wish to delve into the realm of flawed inductive reasoning and pseudoscience. Deductive science has at its philosophical core scepticism because you cannot test a hypothesis without applying sceptical thinking to it because there must be a logical opposition to your hypothesis.

Secondly, I take issue with the ad populum fallacy being deployed when people like Sunny and other talk about there being a “scientific consensus” or worse that they are arguing using “peer reviewed science”. Number one, just because lots of scientists accept a given hypothesis it does not make it right, and you’d be hard pushed to find any scientist who would argue otherwise. Number two, when the “peer reviewed science” argument is deployed it’s not only an ad populum fallacy but its also an ad verecundiam fallacy. Just because a bunch of scientists read and reviewed another scientists work and said they agreed with, likewise, it does not follow that the work is right.

There is also anothe rphilsophical objection to the “scientific consensus” line, on any subject, not just climate change. It’s inspired from a deeply political philosophy of science. Specifically from Thomas Kuhn’s “History of Scientific Revolutions” which, inspired by Marx’s work on historical materialism, argued that science is only ever about an idea that gains consensus. Thus we went from Copernicus, to Gallileo, to Newton, to Einstein because each of their ideas were the fashionable ones with most questions to answer at the time. The problem with this of course is that it implies the very worst kind of scientific reletivism.

The endgame of all this is that people like Sunny who scream about “science” and “climate change” together, are actually adhereing to philosophical understanding that are entirely unscientific. That doesn’t mean hwoever that the hypotheses they are supporting, in this case climate change, are wrong. Just that the arguments they deployed to support them are fundamentally flawed.

So retruning to the original point, I’m not a climate change denier. What I am is someone who thinks those that throw the charge around should get themselves to a philosophy of science course and start changing their language when they talk about such subjects. Until they do that I will continue to point out that their arguments about the “science” are being made in fallacious and pseudoscientific ways.I won’t even delve into the hypothesese they want to champion if they persist in doing so in a way that claims there is some sort of absolutism to those hypotheses.

As I said over NextLeft. on the specifc matter of climate change, I couldn’t care less if the climate is changing because of man, the sun or the evil pixies. I do have an issue with the approach of those that are zealous about it thinking that banning/taxing is the solution though. If you want people to “go green” then give them proper incentive to do like tax breaks on things. However, zero road tax on the Prius is dumb because it has higher emissions than many petrol cars.

Oh yes, and I’m not actually a member of the Tory Party. I’m merely on the Right.

Why does no-one ever want to admit to being a tory? Is it really that embarrassing?

Errr assuming that was directed at me, I used to be a member, stood for COuncil in fact, then I decided I didn;t want to be involved in party political activism anymore and would just express my own opinions on things, where they coincide with the Tories, so be it, where they don’t, they don’t.

P.S. I just ntoiced the picture on the main page with this post which has the rather amusing and fallacious “we come armed only with peer reveiwed science” line.

That’d be a ‘yes’, then.

No, it would be a no. I’m quite happy to say I was a member of the Tory party, but I’m not a Tory per se. I’m a small ‘c’ conservative philosophically (in realtion to change and the approach to it) but I’m also socially and economically liberal. How can I possibly say I’m a Tory in that respect when I don’t take the Tory Party line on everything they say and do? I’ll happily say that some people consider me a Tory because I’m on the right. Suggesting its about embarrassment is just silly though and its a deviation from the post here too.

Phew. I’ll bet everyone is taking a collective sigh of relief that we’ve got that cleared up.

Truly, dizzy thinks and nations tremble.

:rolleyes: I doubt anyone is giving a collective sigh of relief. The vast majority of people couldn’t give a flying fuck about this site, mine, Dale’s or any of the others. There are far more important things in the world like X Factor and Strictly.

Truly we both comment and less than 0.01% of the nation gives a rats arse.

It’s probably less than 0.001% – and that would still be 600 people!

“Truly we both comment and less than 0.01% of the nation gives a rats arse.”

Which is why I don’t feel the need offer up chunks of my life story on here. You, however…

Dizzy, that’s the most thinly-veiled attempt to annex the philosophical high-ground while indulging in obfuscating arse-piss, that I’ve ever read.

Let’s grant every single of your points for the sake of argument (though frankly your dismissal of peer review as an “ad verecundiam fallacy” is pretty idiotic). What your crapping on about copernicus and kuhn boils down to is this: (a) some people who campaign on the subject of climate change don’t fully undestand the science, and use somewhat inapt language when discussing it; therefore (b) you refuse point blank to discuss the central issue at all, except at a meta-level where you get to split linguistic hairs, ignore the main debate, and concentrate on pointing out at very great length that in the end we can’t actually really know anything with 100% certainty now can we? (Though obviously you dress up this pathetic argument in the language of historical materialism, etc.)

And then when really pushed to clarify your own position, you admit that you “couldn’t care less”.

Dizzy, that’s the most thinly-veiled attempt to annex the philosophical high-ground while indulging in obfuscating arse-piss, that I’ve ever read.

That’s unfair, Larry – he’s come out with far less thinly-veiled, obfuscating arse-piss in the past than this weak effort. How about when Dizzy claims that the BNP are lefties, even though some of his own commenters have loudly told him why they sympathise with or intended to vote for the BNP?

Then there was that time that Dizzy castigated all those miners for their selfish desire to keep their jobs, because if they hadn’t been deliberately crushed by the state, Dizzy would’ve had his democratic right to choose his electricity or mobile phone supplier infringed? And then there was that time when Dan Hannan told FOX News that Britain was a socialist hellhole and told load of fork-tongued lies about the NHS, and Dizzy concluded that this was yet more evidence of how awful the left is.

So let’s not be too hasty about a bit of half-assed cake-eating-and-having about global warming. He’s shown he’s capable of being a hack and a nimrod on far less controversial issues than that.

I’m looking forward to the rest of his autobiography, though. Coming to a comment box near you soon!

I didn’t dismiss “peer review” as an ad verecundiam fallacy. What I dismissed was the use of it as an end to justify an argument. Peer-reviewed or not, its the science that matters, so arguing that because its peer-reviewed it is more authoritative is the verecundiam, not the peer-review itself.

And, as was linked to by NextLeft, some of the climate change peer review has been shown to have lots of mistakes in it. That alone doesn’t negate climate change as a theory, but if you note that the peer review has failed you are called a “denier”. It;s not even A-Level debate quality to be honest.

*** “What your crapping on about copernicus and kuhn boils down to is this: (a) some people who campaign on the subject of climate change don’t fully understand the science, and use somewhat inapt language when discussing it!” ***

Actually it’s slightly wider than that. Firstly, I’m not saying they don’t understand “the science”, I’m saying they don’t understand what “science” is and does. More importantly though its about the fact that they misuse the idea of science, in order to make their arguments sound more authoritative. Which sounds more authoritative? As I said above, a course in the philosophy of science can help. To be honest it’s usually covered in a undergraduate social science degree, although I think its done in more detail in Masters courses.

As for not caring less, what I mean by that is whether climate change is man made or not is inconsequential to me. I’m not going to stop driving my 3Litre 4×4, nor will I stop taking regular flights. If I want to fill my kettle up to the top with water and then boil it for just one cup I will. If I want to leave all my appliances on standby I will. If I want to leave my computers on permanently I’ll do that too. That’s what I mean when I say “I don’t care”.

Do I think “climate change” is man made through CO2 emissions? Simple answer, I don’t know. There is, so I’m led to believe, ample experimental work that leans in that direction, but I’m also led to believe that there has been other experimental work that has thrown up anomalies that don’t fit with the other experimental work. As I said earlier, you can carry out thousands of experiments to “prove” your hypothesis, but it only takes one to disprove it.

So, like I say, I don’t know if the apparent changing climate is man made or not, and either way, I’m not changing my behaviour.

And yes, that does make me an exceptionally selfish individual, but I like my car and my computers.

“If I want to fill my kettle up to the top with water and then boil it for just one cup I will.”

And if you want to pour the boiling water down your nose, just to spite your face, you will, ‘cos that is the way you roll, innit?

Anyway, back to the important stuff; dizzy, how was your childhood?

Daddy?

arguing that because its peer-reviewed it is more authoritative is the verecundiam

And what do you think the point of peer review is, if it doesn’t make the science more authoritative? If you’ve ever submitted a paper to an academic journal it’ll probably have been returned to you covered in red ink and the thoughtful input of an expert in the field. The result? As a general rule, better and more authoritative papers get published.

What you mean is that it doesn’t make it infallible, which is true. Sometimes rotten papers get through; somtimes experts make mistakes; sometimes the scientific consensus is wrong. Despite your insistence, I don’t see anyone arguing otherwise.

Hammering and hammering away at the dull, obvious point that sometimes scientists get it wrong, while at the same time refusing to discuss whether they’ve got it right or wrong in this particular instance, is not a useful contribution to the discussion.

FR – notice the qualifier “that I’ve ever read”.

“Despite your insistence, I don’t see anyone arguing otherwise.”

Likewise I don’t see anyone saying “you know what, we might be wrong on this”, or “we’re almost positive that this is the case”. Instead you hear politicians and campaigners insist that they are right, that the “science is unequivocal” (I believe both Miliband’s have used those words in speeches)

As for it not being useful, it is in relation to the title of this post which suggests, wrongly, that I’m a “global warming denier” when all my posts on the subject have always been about the philosophy of science. Oh yes, and above I was pretty clear about whether they have it right or wrong, I don’t know, and it doesn’t really matter to me either way.

Likewise I don’t see anyone saying “you know what, we might be wrong on this”

Well what would the press say if they did?

BUNGLING EGGHEADS ADMIT GLOBAL WARMING “MIGHT BE WRONG”

Would that clarify anything? Inject some much needed Popperian rationalism into the debate? All it would do is kick up a lot of sand and confuse the issue even more. Like it or not, the sphere of political debate is not couched with the same care and caveats as an academic paper, never has been, never will be.

Anyway, for anyone who knows the first thing about science, the caveat “you know what, we might be wrong on this” goes without saying. So, no, I don’t think it’s reasonable to emphasise it in big neon warning lights, over and over again, in just this one case.

Would your fetish for avoiding absolute statements also come out when scientists claim to have found new exoplanets, or a new type of meson?

Of course not, because it’s a deliberate ploy to cast doubt on science you find inconvenient without actually sticking your neck out and saying anything substantive about it. So instead you produce a long list of philosophical reservations which are completely universal, and no more relevant to climate change than they are to particle physics or astrobiology.

Likewise I don’t see anyone saying “you know what, we might be wrong on this”, or “we’re almost positive that this is the case”. Instead you hear politicians and campaigners insist that they are right, that the “science is unequivocal” (I believe both Miliband’s have used those words in speeches)

Two points:

1. Politicians and campaigners rarely included qualifiers of any kind, because they’re not scientists. If you’re getting your impression of science (any science) from such people, you’re getting a distortion.
2. The basic science at issue (i.e. that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere results in a positive radiative forcing) is settled. It’s about as solid as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Now, while your philosophy-of-science approach is technically correct (it’s theoretically possible that we may, at any time, find that the First Law is wrong) you don’t tend to hear people qualifying their acceptance of the laws of thermodynamics much either. People who actually do science usually take that stuff as read, so they don’t bother endlessly restating it for the benefit of philosophical pedants.

“Anyway, for anyone who knows the first thing about science, the caveat “you know what, we might be wrong on this” goes without saying.”

What about for the people who don’t know the first thing about science?

“it’s a deliberate ploy to cast doubt on science you find inconvenient without actually sticking your neck out and saying anything substantive about it. ”

Now you’re not only making judgments on my motivation, you’re also not acknowledging what I said above about how whoever is right or wrong, because, I don’t know, it won’t change the things I do.

Let me say this clearly just once more. I don’t know if the changing climate is because of man or not, I do know the climate is changing though. I’m going to stick my neck out and say I’m going to keep consuming the energy I want too whether it is man made or not. The theory is not inconvenient to me, if it was I would be arguing it’s wrong, but I’m not.

My “list of philosophical reservations” are about the twisted and divisive terms of the debate, nothing more and nothing less. Jesus wept, just look above at some of the comments, or comments elsewhere on this subject. It’s all about absurd black and white, you either believe climate change or your a denier of it.

Well I say bollocks to that. That’s as stupid as when GW Bush said “you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists”.

What about for the people who don’t know the first thing about science?

I don’t really think a lot of windbaggery about copernicus and inductive reasoning is going to do much to help that particular constituency.

Who said it would?

May I clarify position then? On the central question of whether climate change, your position is that you a) don’t know, and b) don’t care.

Notwithstanding, you do have a contribution to make to a meta-discussion about the terms of the debate. You are approaching this from a philosophical perspective. However, you accept that anyone who knows anything about science already fully understands all the points you are making. So your contribution is of no use to them.

Might it perhaps of interest to people who don’t know anything about science? No, you accept that it’s of no value to them either (perhaps because you’ve deliberately framed it in a longwinded and unnecessarily technical terms).

To summarise then, on the central debate you have nothing to say. On the meta-debate, you do have something to say, but you acknowledge that it’s something no-one will benefit from hearing.

Again you;re missing the crucial point, the only reason I am posting here is because the title of this post says something about me which is simply not true and my comments have been made to point out what I have said rather what other have said I have said.

And what do you think the point of peer review is, if it doesn’t make the science more authoritative? If you’ve ever submitted a paper to an academic journal it’ll probably have been returned to you covered in red ink and the thoughtful input of an expert in the field. The result? As a general rule, better and more authoritative papers get published.

And when people bring up peer reviewed science to support the theory of AGW we are obviously not talking about a single paper, which indeed may be flawed and would not constitue proof in itself – we are talking about the entire body of peer reviewed science on the subject. When that overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, points in one direction it is surely reasonable to take notice.

And when people bring up peer reviewed science to support the theory of AGW we are obviously not talking about a single paper, which indeed may be flawed and would not constitue proof in itself – we are talking about the entire body of peer reviewed science on the subject. When that overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, points in one direction it is surely reasonable to take notice.

Not in Right Wing la-la land.

Same goes for their assumptions on the free market… and indeed almost the entire gamut of their political thinking when empirical evidence (ie. massive economic slumps caused by lack of regulation and greed) contradicts it.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Article:: Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers http://bit.ly/uzXMZ

  2. sunny hundal

    How will Cameron deal with this? RT @libcon: Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers http://bit.ly/uzXMZ

  3. James Nee

    RT @pickledpolitics: How will Cameron deal with this? RT @libcon: Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers http://bit.ly/uzXMZ

  4. StopTheRight

    RT @libcon: Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers http://bit.ly/uzXMZ

  5. Liberal Conspiracy

    Article:: Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers http://bit.ly/uzXMZ

  6. sunny hundal

    How will Cameron deal with this? RT @libcon: Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers http://bit.ly/uzXMZ

  7. Tweets that mention Liberal Conspiracy » Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers -- Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by sunny hundal, Liberal Conspiracy. Liberal Conspiracy said: Article:: Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers http://bit.ly/uzXMZ [...]

  8. James Nee

    RT @pickledpolitics: How will Cameron deal with this? RT @libcon: Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers http://bit.ly/uzXMZ

  9. uberVU - social comments

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: Article:: Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers http://bit.ly/uzXMZ

  10. andrew

    Liberal Conspiracy » Top Tory blogs all global warming deniers: I did acknowledge that they don't all share.. http://bit.ly/18TaoR





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.