There is one problem here. You expect people to trust or to to hate. Yet people like me do neither – we question (which is the point of science) and challenge. Scientists do this with everything – how does evolution work? is the data for gravity sound? has the speed of light been mesaured properly? This is reasonable – it is unreasonable (and unscientific) to believe (as Mr Delingpole may) that any argument for man-made climate change is wrong; it is equally unreasonable (and unscientific) to believe that the case is settled, when there are still clearly issues to be solved.

The worst thing that anyone could do however is make this tribal. If you appropriate belief in man-made climate change to the left, then rightwingers will seek to bring it down, regardless of evidence and the left will ignore science and turn this into the religion that Mr Delingpole believes it is. If you believe the science (whichever way you believe the science leans), then leave the politics out of it and debate this as science. Otherwise you force believers in man-made climate change on the right (David Cameron for example) to change camps and damage the very scientific policy you seek to promote (or vice versa).

Watchman,

Congratulations on your epic comprehension failure.

Paul,

Well, I was basing my comprehension on points such as “Amongst the Conservatives, climate denialism is no doubt becoming a way of solidifying the tribal vote.” So tribal was kind of suggested to me.

And I use trust as Giles’ own word and hate as besides it being in the title preferable to the perogative (and generally incorrect) denier which was also used. I focus on this because I do not feel the links to arguments against the theory of man-made climate change were to anything like the correct places (I can suggest some sites if you want – but it is not the point of this thread), and I did not want to argue that point here.

My point, perhaps not clearly conveyed, is that this is polarized (possibly a bad pun in this context?). I doubt polarisation is wise as it means the science gets trampled by more Mr Delingpole’s and his more virulent ‘warmist’ opponents. So portraying this as a clash between trust and hate does tend to take away from the actual issue, which is understanding what the science is actually telling us.

Anyway, if I have failed to understand some subtle nuance here I apologise. My reaction was that this was another piece assuming climate change will be a political battleground, and with the best will in the world, that would not be good for climate science whatever your belief.

Too true. Hatred and a desperation to be proved correct on both sides of the debate.

Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit and a contributing author to the IPCC said:
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.”

Nice.

It’s hardly a conspiracy theory to be utterly disgusted by bad science and be concerned about the effect on policy makers.

I’d agree that you have to base your personal scientific beliefs on the consensus but you must be prepared to change those beliefs if the “consensus” is heavily biased or derived from charlatans or indeed turns out not to be a concensus at all but manipulated publication bias.

A large majority of climate skeptics, including myself, would object to the tag of “conspiracy theorist” as I don’t believe that there’s a conspiracy as such. If anything, it’s probably a great example of groupthink and a shared incentive.

I strongly suspect that AGW does exist but it’s the manner in which that “science” is conducted that I object to.

“For a great proportion of our scientific beliefs, we have to rely on a long-established consensus. For example, I ‘believe’ that a hydrogen atom has a proton and an electron because I have been told by a huge consensus, it sort of makes sense, and I trust the consensus. I have perceived and reasoned in no way that is connected to the proposition being true. For views on evolution, the Holocaust, whether transfats cause cancer, or carbon dioxide causes global warming, no single person can themselves compile enough evidence. You need to rely on scientists who themselves rely on more scientists.”

And yet many widely held, and well attested, evidentially established consensuses (?) have broken down because of one incongruity, one sceptical mind.

Newtons gravity model was for more than 200 years was virtually unchallenged consensus. The evidence overwhelming. The experiment evidence extremely impressive. Yes there was problems with details, like small errors in the orbit of Mercury and the like, but the correlation of the data to the theory was just awesome.

And then one uppity patent clark showed all the professionals that they were wrong. And he did it to overcome problems that appeared to be entirely unrelated to gravity (i.e speed of light etc)

Now we have a new consensus, where the data and experiments are even more beautiful fits to the theory.

Doesnt mean its right. Just means its the best model we have.

Of course current gravity theory is the poduct of more than 300 years of research, experiment and revolutions in science. In none of those 300 plus years were desicions about future expenditure and the economics of the entire planet at stake.

Climate theory is a somewhat more recent innovation, and making long term predictions based on compter models, even more recent. The data fits rather less precise. The politics somewhat more contreversial. So excuse us sceptics if we dont regard climate models with the same awe we regard the general theory of relativity.

Contrary to your case, the individual can distinguish the qualities of theories from different branches of science. We do not have to, inded we would be foolish regard all consensuses alike.

@Watchman. Hear, Hear.

Ahhh don’t worry folks, when the mysterious “market forces” swing in favour of AGW [as they must, when essential stuff such as food, energy, land all come under increasing pressure] the deniers of the right (wrong?) will be lining up to denounce anti-AGW people as Trots and Stalinists. And probably vice-versa.
(ref: the pro- and anti- European Union arguments – the Right used to be all in favour, the Left firmly opposed).

Swings and roundabouts.

Unfortunately, by the time that happens the swings and roundabouts – in fact the whole bloody park – will be underwater.

This article was fair-minded, balanced, realistic, witty and lacking in hubris. Which begs the question, what the fuck is it doing on LibCon?

Hello Dontmindme, I think you set up a problem which doesn’t exist with your comparison of Newton and Einstein with the IPCC and Bishop Hill.

Newton’s laws of motion will accurately predict the movements of balls on a billard table. They will continue to do so for all time regardless of what Einstein’s theories say. If you want to build a bridge across Yangtse or Mississippi river Newton’s laws are good enough.

The models and inferences of the IPCC may not be perfect but they appear good enough for now.

With regard to Giles’ theory it holds water perfectly. There are those who critise the climate change consensus because they have genuine queries, but there appear a much larger number with little grasp of the knowledge who are deliberately taking another side. It should not be about sides.

“And yet many widely held, and well attested, evidentially established consensuses (?) have broken down because of one incongruity, one sceptical mind.”

Really? Can you name one? A scientific consensus which was subsequently proved to be utterly wrong and is no longer true in even a limited context? I doubt it.

Newton’s theory didn’t “break down” – it was and is perfectly valid except in a very few limiting cases, such as at speeds approaching the speed of light.

The last thing the climate debate needs is a right /left polarisation. We need to ensure sufficient data is collected from which statistically valid conlcusions can be drawn. If that requires spending millions on collecting data and perhaps re-doing investigations and experiments , then so be it. Part of the problem is that in the age of publish or perish, too many papers are published based on insufficent data to make conclusive statements .

Climate science often requires sending skilled people to remote parts of the World to collect data- hiring a ship to take cores of sediments from the sea bed is expensive. Sometimes it is better to undertake one large experiment than several smaller ones. However there is often not the money to undertake one large experiment, so several smaller ones are undertaken looking at the different aspects of a problem which are inadequate to make conclusive statements; sufficient understanding of how the factors inter-relate is not gained. Sometimes the the experiments have to be altered to fit in with the grants which can cause problems. Sometimes several consequetive experiments are needed, the latter ones drawing on the knowledge of the formers ones and investigations being gradually refined. There is also the problem of ensuring that an experiment/investigation includes all the people with the relevant skills.

The oversimplification of the Earth’s climate over the last 600M years is a great mistake.

“For example, I ‘believe’ that a hydrogen atom has a proton and an electron because I have been told by a huge consensus.”

But what the hell is an electron, a wave or a particle? It is very hard to spot them, and scientists can only predict their behaviour using some very strange probabilistic logic. They sound more like a convenient placeholder, or ‘provisional designation’ as Heidegger might describe it for further scientific investigation. They certainly don’t exist in anyway like the the current textbooks would have it. They’ll be ‘wrong’ in a few years. It would be a lot more sensible for you to not believe in the ‘truth’ of these tidy little narratives.

Instead, I believe that some clever Engineers can make hydrogen bombs blow up! And that our current theories are really useful for explaining how to build them and when they will work and when they will not. You don’t need a consensus on that, and the only conspiracy theory behind it would be to say that every hydrogen bomb explosion was faked for the media. That is the point at which they enter into my world.

So, I am not going to defend Delingpole, but I think you should consider the possibility that skeptics are simply operating with a slightly different conception of what science is about, and thus have a higher threshold for when they consider a theory to be true for their purposes.

“The passionate believers tend to be to the Left of them, sometimes eager haters of capitalism, sanctimonious, and plain irritating. ”

And wrong of course. Which is the thing that most gets my goat about the whole climate change thing. Assume that the IPCC is correct (which I do in large part). What we get told we must do about it by Greenpeace, nef, WWF, the Green Party, Monbiot and all the rest is wrong: by the very measures that the IPCC uses to tell us it is happening.

There are actually economists working with the IPCC (Richard Tol and Sir Partha Dasgupta come to mind) and what they say we should do about it all (for what we do is a question of economics, not climate science) is exactly opposite to what all the campaigners keep saying.

Which really does get my goat I’ll have you know.

“Newton’s laws of motion will accurately predict the movements of balls on a billard table. They will continue to do so for all time regardless of what Einstein’s theories say. If you want to build a bridge across Yangtse or Mississippi river Newton’s laws are good enough. ”

But they are not if you want to build a global positioning system. Then you do have to take account on non newtonian physiscs. Context is everything. Incuding economic context

The climate debate has certainly polarised and both sides are quite intractable. This isn’t really conducive to calm debate and analysis.

As to the trust thing. Yes, as a general principle, we do have to trust others, particularly experts and specialists. This is simply a consequence of the division of labour. But those experts and specialists can very quickly lose that trust and once gone, it can take a long time to get it back.

Tom Freeman has posted a link to a Nature article that describes much more precisely and with proper backing what I was fumbling towards in this article:

http://viva-freemania.blogspot.com/2010/01/here-comes-science-bit-segregate.html

The first para says it all:

“People endorse whichever position reinforces their connection to others with whom they share important commitments. As a result, public debate about science is strikingly polarized. The same groups who disagree on ‘cultural issues’ — abortion, same-sex marriage and school prayer — also disagree on whether climate change is real and on whether underground disposal of nuclear waste is safe.”

Of course, I was not endorsing this tribal approach to science. I just noticed how much I myself started hating one side of the argument, and wondered how on earth I had arrived at this point.

I also don’t want to condemn the idea of dissent, which is clearly vital to science; but rather to argue that an awful lot of tribal side-taking is adopting the convenient disguise and cache of intelligent dissent. Once things reach a certain level of nastiness, you no longer need to bring in the honourable tradition of dissenting science to explain why the readers of certain papers seem to have collectively proven the scientific consensus wrong.

A large majority of climate skeptics, including myself, would object to the tag of “conspiracy theorist” as I don’t believe that there’s a conspiracy as such.

You may object to the tag – but that’s what you certainly are…

Julius Caesar said it 2000 years ago – libenter homines id quod volunt credunt – men willingly believe what they wish (was the case).

25 degrees and brilliant sunshine here in Cape Town – just thought you might like to know that!!

“A large majority of climate skeptics, including myself, would object to the tag of “conspiracy theorist” as I don’t believe that there’s a conspiracy as such.

You may object to the tag – but that’s what you certainly are…”

One day you will realise that comments like that are, um, how shall I put it, er?

Unproductive.

17

Why would someone who is sceptical of something, that even advocates say isn’t certain, be a conspiracy theorist?

Wiki says – ”Conspiracy theory…has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.”

Now, some who identify themselves as sceptics might also believe in a conspiracy, probably involving Al Gore and the UN. Equally some who identify as (whatever the opposite to sceptic is) might also believe in some conspiracy to undermine them, big oil in the role of Dr Evil.

So we can see that a ‘sceptic’ is something quite distinct from a conspiracy theorist, though you can be both at the same time. So why would Sunny use the term? It’s perjorative.

By using the term, you simply prove the comment by Giles at 16 to be correct.

So why would Sunny use the term? It’s perjorative.

To ask is to answer…

Giles,

I think we may be in more agreement than I thought then. Apologies again for somewhat misinterpreting you – although I think in general most of us aren’t at the polarized level of nastiness yet.

Sunny,

As I say, most of us aren’t polarized yet. Please don’t give us encouragement to polarise against you because you assume you are right and your opponents are wrong. At least they try and use evidence rather than assertion.

One day you will realise that comments like that are, um, how shall I put it, er?

Unproductive.

But it’s a fact. And furthermore – I don’t believe in humouring people just because they perpetuate stupidity. Am I really likely to convince Delingpole, Kevin Monk et al if I become nice towards them? Highly doubt it – especially since the tin-foil hat wearers to dominate the conspiracy theorists are the most virulent and aggressive people around.
You simply have to compare the tone of Monbiot’s articles with that of Delingpole to see who wears the crazed tin-foil hat.

I do find it amusing though – when rightwingers are afraid that they’re on the wrong side but dogmatically stick to a view, they ask that they are treated with respect. However on other issues where they feel more confident: they are full of vitriol and abuse towards lefties.

I’ve no objection to people holding beliefs as a matter of trust (naturally, I do it as well), but I do think that this should go hand-in-hand with a mite of humility. If one doesn’t understand the science of AGW, for example, one must accept that those who challenge it aren’t necessarily being ridiculous.

“Conspiracy theorist” is also a slightly tedious label to bandy about. There’s nothing wrong with theorising conspiracies; it’s only when they’re bad ones that the mockery can kick in.

(By the way, what’s a “crazed tin foil hat“; I’ve yet to meet a sane hat let alone a mentally impaired one. Can’t we at least have more creative insults for Delingpole and co.?)

Sunny,

False comparison there, as Mr Monbiot may be well informed and up with the debate, but Mr Delingpole is basically in the same situation as someone like me who has to pick up information where they can.

Perhaps a better comparison would be between Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit (also well read, courteous and willing to admit evidence that does not support hime) and Mr Monbiot.

And incidentally, even when I disagree with you I try to be respectful. You are a human being and therefore worthy of respect, regardless of being right or wrong (I may chose to jump all over one of your statements, but that does not detract from your inherent worth as a human): I would suggest that a similiar attitude on your part might help. Or do you want to lower yourself to the level of those you are legitimately criticising?

16

Having just read Sunny at 23, I’m beginning to realise how profound that Nature article is.

I guess once this degree of polarisation has occured, there’s not much that can be done about it.

Once Global Warming has been settled, they’ll probably move onto another topic and continue their arguments. Same people, same dogmatism, same insults, different debate.

If one doesn’t understand the science of AGW, for example, one must accept that those who challenge it aren’t necessarily being ridiculous.

Not if their only reasons for being ‘sceptics’ are so ridiculous that they deserve nothing but derision.

Next you’ll be saying we shouldn’t say anything bad about the 9/11 Truthers or Holocaust Deniers because I haven’t personally gone out to inspect Ground Zero or what happened during WW2.

but Mr Delingpole is basically in the same situation as someone like me who has to pick up information where they can.

Delingpole ins’t just picking up information – he actively perpetuates propaganda fed to him by various nutjobs, and then does it because he hates the left. This is dangerous nuttery, for which people are now being harassed by Telegraph readers.

nd incidentally, even when I disagree with you I try to be respectful. You are a human being and therefore worthy of respect

Sure – I’m happy to address you respectfully – but that doesn’t detract from the fact I think climate sceptics are conspiracy nuts. I don’t think any different when well meaning Truthers come here to ask questions and ‘challenge the establishment’.

Surely to be a “conspiracy theorist”, I’d have to believe there is an act of ‘conspiration’ – which I don’t.

There appears to be a group of independently acting scientists who are incentivised, either financially, through fear of ostracisation, or a million other factors to support the AGW theory.

Conspiracies require large scale stealth coordination. In general, I tend to think that such coordination is impossible. As a result, as far as I can remember, I’ve never prescribed to ANY conspiracy theories.

Skepticism and conspiracy theorism are not mutually exclusive but neither are they the same thing.

So being a skeptic and not believing in ANY conspiracy, am I still to be labelled a Conspiracy Theorist?

Try not to insult me this time. Whilst I totally support your right to be offensive, I’d prefer it if you weren’t.

Incidentally – polarisation is inevitable: I’ve been an environmentalist for about 15 years. The first charity I ever supported financially was Greenpeace, who have been warning about the impact of climate change for decades and been arguing for a more responsible use of the planet’s resources.

It’s only in the last 5-10 years, as green issues have entered the conciousness of the mainstream, that the right have swung into action with their denialism (although Esso funded astro-turfing went on for decades before that). And now suddenly the debate is seen as “polarised”.

If some of you pull your heads out of your arses it won’t be so polarised. And yet, hilariously, the left is blamed for polarising things.

When conservatism and selfish, cartoon-like libertarianism (both cheeks of the same arse) rightly go the way of East European Socialism, the adoption of cringeworthy AGW denialism will no doubt be a major curiosity to the historians who pick over the ashes.

How can a Rightist political movement, no matter how intellectually and morally bankrupt, get that wrapped up in its own glaring stupidity to blind itself to evidence?

Not if their only reasons for being ’sceptics’ are so ridiculous that they deserve nothing but derision.

Yeah, precisely, but there’s a distinction between a) taking the piss because someone holds an opinion that seems ridiculous, and b) taking the piss because someone holds an opinion that you’ve shown to be false.

Next you’ll be saying we shouldn’t say anything bad about the 9/11 Truthers or Holocaust Deniers because I haven’t personally gone out to inspect Ground Zero or what happened during WW2.

Well, yes, it is silly to take the piss out of someone if you’ve no idea what they’re talking about. I, for example, have scorned telepathy, yet your predictive skills are uncanny.

There appears to be a group of independently acting scientists who are incentivised, either financially, through fear of ostracisation, or a million other factors to support the AGW theory.

Are you prepared to at least consider the possibility that one of those “million other factors” might just be that a careful analysis of the data and a detailed understanding of the underlying physics inescapably leads to the conclusion that the theory is correct? In short, that they might be right?

There appears to be a group of independently acting scientists who are incentivised, either financially, through fear of ostracisation, or a million other factors to support the AGW theory.

That’s a conspiracy theory – because there aren’t just some independent acting scientists but the vast majority. Deniers like Ian Plimer et al are NOT peer reviewed scientists. See? Hence ‘conspiracy nuts’

Dunc – Yes I am. I’m entirely willing to consider that AGW theory is correct.

Sunny,

“If some of you pull your heads out of your arses it won’t be so polarised. And yet, hilariously, the left is blamed for polarising things.”

Is James Delingpole or the Daily Express on the left now then? I worry you are falling into Giles’ described trap by being defensive when there is no need.

And peer review does not make you correct – I have a peer reviewed paper published that I know contains a fairly glaring error for example (not in climate science). It is a way of improving accuracy, not guarenteeing correctness – unless you accept the reviewers (normally two or three) are actually all knowing already.

@35: True, peer review is no guarantee of accuracy – but it usually does do a pretty good job of weeding out the sort of obvious errors that a moderately well-educated layman might spot, which covers at least 99.9% of the objections typically raised about climate science in the media and on blogs. (You know, the usual ridiculous claims that climatologists don’t consider water vapour, solar variability, or the Urban Heat Island effect, etc, etc, ad nauseum.)

The distinction that I’m trying to make is that ‘conspiracy’ implies a centralised pact of stealth coordination in order to deceive the entire world. It doesn’t seem very likely does it and that’s why I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy, hence I object to the insinuation that all skeptics are conspiracy theorists.

It seems more likely that there are incentives for supporting the AGW theory that encourage some scientists to act inappropriately and to be blind to any discent that doesn’t corroborate with their own prejudices.

‘By the way, what’s a “crazed tin foil hat“; I’ve yet to meet a sane hat let alone a mentally impaired one. Can’t we at least have more creative insults for Delingpole and co.?)’

A crazed tin foil hat is a hat made of crazed tin foil (i.e. foil which has been torn haphazadly rather than cut) and not a tin foil hat which is one sandwich short of a full deck.

(I may have got that a little muddled…)

33. Sunny H . Ian Plimer is a professor geology. To understand sediments and fossils requires a knowledge of climate. The impact of volcanic erruptions changes climate. To dismiss Plimer as not peer reviewed means that he has never published a peer reviewed paper.

‘And peer review does not make you correct – I have a peer reviewed paper published that I know contains a fairly glaring error for example (not in climate science). It is a way of improving accuracy, not guarenteeing correctness – unless you accept the reviewers (normally two or three) are actually all knowing already.’

PR’s not flawless but I don’t know a better system operated by any other profession.

“If by some freak the scientific consensus was wrong, and the Maldives froze over, Monbiot would no doubt stick to his guns for an indecent long time, freezing all the way.”

I don’t believe that. There’s nothing wrong with Monbiot, he’s a scientist and he accepts the facts as they are. You should take that back.

Kevin – it might just be possible to find the odd scientist prepared to act inappropriately and to be blind to any dissent that doesn’t corroborate their own prejudices, but to believe that they would ever be in anything but a tiny minority doesn’t seem very likely either does it?

The terms ‘sceptic’ and ‘scepticism’ have been completely devalued and abused by those many of those who argue against AGW.

All scientists should be sceptics, and I believe most of them are. However, a sceptic can ultimately be persuaded by the evidence if he or she has no counter evidence, AND STILL BE A SCIENTIFIC SCEPTIC.

Holding a contrary view is not the same thing as scepticism IF that contrary view is not supported by evidence.

Denying evidence exists is not scepticism, and is rightly called denialism.

Ignorance – that is holding an uninformed opinion – is not the same thing as scepticism, it is simply ignorance.

Scepticism cuts both ways. Be sceptical about AGW, but also be sceptical about the counter claims. The claims of the likes of Watts, Brooker, Plimer, Monckton, Delingpole etc. NEVER stand up to scrutiny, yet the ever credulous denialists, contrarians and ignorant laud them with barely a second thought.

Strategist…

…he’s a scientist…

No, he isn’t. He’s a journalist who comments on science.

Ben,

He appears to have some understanding of science. Please note also he is the only enthusiastic supporter of AGW theories who has publically shown he (or she, although obviously not Mr Monbiot) understands quite how significant the CRU emails were in weakening their case. He does not ignore unpleasant evidence, and if his biases influence him towards one particular conclusion, that is human.

To be fair, he is not peer-reviewed though. However, I still respect him as a person and read his points carefully even if I do not always accept them. It appears that I may be in a much smaller minority than I hoped in being able to do that though.

@44 He has an Oxford degree in zoology. He’s a scientist by training.

Watchman,

Oh, yeah, I’m not saying that he isn’t knowledgeable. However, the designation of “scientist” – rightly or wrongly – confers a bit of authority that he can’t, and explicitly doesn’t, lay claim to. I like to write, but I wouldn’t call myself a writer in anything but the most extreme circumstances (we’re talking about Christmas letters here).

Ben

s James Delingpole or the Daily Express on the left now then?

Huh? I’m saying the environmentalist movement has stuck to their guns on the issue for decades before right-wingers jumped on the opposite bandwagon and accused them of polarising the issue.

Sunny,

There are enviromentalists on the right as well – does the name Goldsmith ring any bells? – so this model doesn’t work and pushes polarisation back into a period of history where it does not belong. Environmentalists may have always been more likely to be left-wing, but as a position (as oppossed to a Greenpeace membership, which is a position within the movement) it has not necessarily reflected a left/right divide.

The number of right-wingers opposing AGW-inspired policy making (I’ve given up not using this abbreviation, despite my best efforts) is because they tend to feel it is big government in action, using the science as an excuse. Obviously some look for a weak point and attack the science (that they can is in itself of some concern though – there are valid concerns which I would like to see addressed even if they do not undermine the whole theory). If you use science to determine policy, this has to be expected. I suspect if the government was not pushing limiting Carbon Dioxide production, this would not be such a big issue.

The risk is that the political debate swamps the science. I believe that this ultimately is the point of the original post is it not?

Ben,

“However, the designation of “scientist” – rightly or wrongly – confers a bit of authority…”

Perhaps we should stop seeing scientist as conferring special knowledge and instead see it as one who does science. After all, do we give linguists or sociologists particular reverence, for all that they are as well trained?

Watchman @ 49

[blockquote]There are enviromentalists on the right as well – does the name Goldsmith ring any bells?[/blockquote]

Goldsmith is either not a real Tory or he is not a real Tory or he is not a real environmentalist. The two are mutually exclusive. Sooner or later he is going to choose as the Tory Party become increasingly hostile to the green movement in general and the Global Warming lobby in particular. I would seriously doubt that Goldsmith represents anything other than a tiny minority of the Tory Party.

{blockquote]The number of right-wingers opposing AGW-inspired policy making (I’ve given up not using this abbreviation, despite my best efforts) is because they tend to feel it is big government in action, using the science as an excuse[/blockquote]

What kind of argument is that? The Right feel able to deny the laws of physics, because they appear to be at odds with Tory ideology? Surely everyone can see the morally bankrupt position that is?

[blockquote] If you use science to determine policy, this has to be expected. [/blockquote]

Why is it got to be expected? Who could possibly argue that the laws of physics become more believable as the solutions become more palatable? Like carbon dioxide only absorbs infra red if the solution is cut welfare spending and scrap public sector pensions? Come on! If the right don’t like the solutions on the table, come to table and tell us a better solution, but you don’t get to the table until you accept the science. Instead of sniping at the science embrace it and improve the solution. Cap and trade is not the answer? Then what is?

[blockquote]I suspect if the government was not pushing limiting Carbon Dioxide production, this would not be such a big issue.[/blockquote]

With 11 months to go, this must surely rank for this years ‘No shit Sherlock award. In other words the Right have as much integrity as a bucket of sick? Yes, we all get that.

Watchman,

A tricky one.

“Doing science” does confer knowledge: not merely of the subjects of particular fields, but of research techniques, evaluative criteria and so on. The same is true for linguists/sociologists in their own studies (and some do attract broad respect: Pinker, say, or Chomsky). It isn’t naive to accord their opinions respect – just as one might to a doctor – but it is naive to imagine they’re unimpeacable. They are, after all, human.

Ian Plimer is a professor geology. To understand sediments and fossils requires a knowledge of climate. The impact of volcanic erruptions changes climate. To dismiss Plimer as not peer reviewed means that he has never published a peer reviewed paper.

Yes, volcanoes do affect climate, but Plimer claims that CO2 emissions from volcanoes exceed those from human activity whereas according to the American Geographical society human emissions are 130 times those from volcanoes. Plimer’s book has been shown to be full of many more such factual inaccuracies and many of the peer-reviewed papers he cites either do not support his assertions or actually contradict them. He has no crediblity on the subject of climate change.

Here is a 54 page pdf here listing the various errors, inaccuracies, unsubstantiated assertions etc in his book -

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

And here is Plimer making an absolute arse of himself in a debate with Monbiot on Australian TV

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

After all, do we give linguists or sociologists particular reverence, for all that they are as well trained?

We would give their opinions a certain weight in a discussion about linguistics or sociology.

“because they tend to feel it is big government in action, using the science as an excuse”

But largely because the libertarians (on the whole) have spent the past 2 decades denying there is an issue to address, rather than working out a form of environmental libertarianism to propose. I’d imagine if they did they would get a great deal of support for such positions (they could start by pointing out the environmental damage governments – particularly the military – have done historically).

“After all, do we give linguists or sociologists particular reverence,”

Given all the commentary on our broken society etc, you’d think people might pay more attention to what sociologists might be saying……

And here’s Monbiot making an arse of himself describing his vision of the new world order required to combat climate change…

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/interviews-lectures-conversations/George-Monbiot-on-the-climate-crisis-Part-II

Notice how the onus is on Monbiot to provide the solutions to each and every complex problem. He’s got some great suggestions though. I kid you not, I was belly laughing at some of them. AGW may be true but nothing could be worse than this… what was the phrase… crazed tin-foil hat wearer planning our escape.

“Doing science” does confer knowledge: not merely of the subjects of particular fields, but of research techniques, evaluative criteria and so on’

In other words training in one scientific field gives you practical knowledge of a *scientific method* which will also be useful in evaluating truth claims in other fields.

It’s that method that distinguishes modern science from simple taxonomy or outright woo.

On the subject of whether it is a conspiracy, here is a quick excerpt from Ian Plimer in that interview kindly linked to above:

“what I think is happening is governments just cannot resist the opportunity to tax us more, to set up huge bureaucracies, and this is what Copenhagen’s about. It’s not about science, it’s not about morality, it’s not about the Third World – it’s about money, and it’s about governments putting their hands in our pockets, taking out our money, and having to go through sets of sticky fingers to end up disappearing somewhere else in the world.”

I think that when, in order to hold a view you need not only some evidence and a theory, but also a fairly comprehensive theory about how a vast majority of others have taken the opposite view, then ‘conspiracy theorist’ is quite fair. A lot of modern Marxists seem this way too. But since Plimer needs not just some (apparently dodgy) geology, but also a theory about the bad faith of governments, it sounds like a conspiracy theory.

It doesn’t need Blofeld and a white cat . . .

Perhaps, as usual, this comes down to a very semantic argument about how we interpret the word consiracy. For me, conspiracy implies some form of intended clandestine trickery or fraud and it immediately groups you with the nutters who think the moon landings were fake and 9/11 was an inside job.

The 911 and moon landing conspiracies are ridiculous because they’re adopted by people who will irrationally jump to the least likely conclusion.

I’m an extremely rational individual. I’m totally relaxed on planes and I shop for holidays to Mexico during swine flu pandemics. I weigh up the likelihood and the quality of the evidence that is presented to me and I act upon it. I did the same thing with AGW and saw a plethora of vested interests for those involved in the research. I question the quality of the evidence. I’m not sure it’s wrong and indeed I think that it’s quite possible but I still skeptically question the evidence. I don’t think that the bias or bad science is intentionally fraudulent but ,IMO, it doesn’t bring the argument to a position where it is beyond doubt.

Stepping on from whether AGW exists, is what you do about it if it does. That’s where I’d definitely be heading in a different direction to Monbiot. The question is whether Monbiot will let me tread my own path or will he drag me and the rest of us to hell with him.

Incidentally, if your wondering why I’m spending so much time haunting the LC blog it’s because I’m laid up in bed with illness. Fear not – I’ll be out of your way by Monday.

We would give their opinions a certain weight in a discussion about linguistics or sociology.

Or, in the case of Noam Chomsky, politics, history, fascism and all sorts of things.

or in the case of Noam Chomsky…not very much credence at all.

What impresses me is the lack of scientific consensus behind the AGW hypothesis. It is the sam group of people who get cited, time after time. The antis seems to outnumber the AGWs. And they weigh in with things about scientific process and mindset rather than just appeals to authority. Question real climate and you get a highly technical paper about lower-tropopausal warming as a response.

Do the AGWs have something to hide? They do their best to make it seem so.

Oh and the Greenpeace angle is a scream…remember how wrong they were about the environmental cost of disposing of the Brent Spar platform!

Do people judge Chomsky’s views on such things based on his expertise in linguistics? It would be silly if they did.

And while I think Shatterface @58 is right up to a point, when we talk about the views of “scientists” on AGW (or any other subject) I think that the ones that really count are those scientists who are actually active in the study of climate or closely associated fields.

Perhaps, as usual, this comes down to a very semantic argument about how we interpret the word consiracy. For me, conspiracy implies some form of intended clandestine trickery or fraud and it immediately groups you with the nutters who think the moon landings were fake and 9/11 was an inside job.

Well I wouldn’t argue with that definition. But there are people who think like that when it comes to AGW – I don’t think it is fair to blanket everyone who has doubts about AGW with this label but there are certainly plenty of them out there – the likes of Plimer, Phillips, Delingpole, everyone who describes AGW as a “scam” or a “fraud”. They literally do think there is a conspiracy involving scientists and politicians peddling claims that they know to be untrue.

What impresses me is the lack of scientific consensus behind the AGW hypothesis. It is the sam group of people who get cited, time after time. The antis seems to outnumber the AGWs.

How on earth are you measuring this? There are thousands of published papers related to climate change by thousand of different scientists. As far as can be measured the pro-AGW’s greatly outnumber the antis, see

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html

There is no significant body of peer-reviewed research which challenges the view that global warming is happening and is largely man made.

And they weigh in with things about scientific process and mindset rather than just appeals to authority. Question real climate and you get a highly technical paper about lower-tropopausal warming as a response.

In other words, you argue about science and people respond with references to actual scientific research. Arguments about scientific method and mindset are oftens distractions to divert attention from the fact that the skeptics can’t point to actual credible evidence to support their views. And appeals to authority are not neccessarly wrong – in what other branch of science or any discipline that requires a particular brand of specialised expertise is it considered unreasonable to defer to those who posess such expertise?

Diogenes…

What impresses me is the lack of scientific consensus behind the AGW hypothesis. It is the sam group of people who get cited, time after time.

A question of personal interest: a thousand architects and engineers believe it’s highly likely that the World Trade Centre towers were brought down in a controlled demolition. If the “lack of scientific consensus” causes you to doubt AGW, presumably you’ll feel the same way on this question?

Largely because the libertarians (on the whole) have spent the past 2 decades denying there is an issue to address, rather than working out a form of environmental libertarianism to propose. I’d imagine if they did they would get a great deal of support for such positions (they could start by pointing out the environmental damage governments – particularly the military – have done historically).

Largely because the libertarians (on the whole) have spent the past 2 decades denying there is an issue to address, rather than working out a form of environmental libertarianism to propose. I’d imagine if they did they would get a great deal of support for such positions (they could start by pointing out the environmental damage governments – particularly the military – have done historically).

“But largely because the libertarians (on the whole) have spent the past 2 decades denying there is an issue to address, rather than working out a form of environmental libertarianism to propose.”

Erm, haven’t you actually been paying attention? The libertarians (for this purpose, those who believe in markets) have won this entire debate.

You’ll have noted that the solutions on offer are either 1) cap and trade or 2) carbon taxes.

Everyone agrees that we do one of these two….or at least, everyone does in public, with governmental power.

Markets ain’t perfect, externalities being the obvious example, so what do we do when we have externalities? Incorporate them into market prices and then let the market sort them out.

This is the libertarian answer.

All those arguing for different answers (govts picking winners, govts banning certain activities, govts deciding what we may do) are outside the mainstream here.

The mainstream answer is, for perhaps the only time I can think of in my lifetime, the libertarian/classically liberal one. Adjust markets so that they do incorporate true costs and then leave well alone.

‘The antis seems to outnumber the AGWs.’

Okay, lets play a game: you name a credible anti and we’ll name a credible AGW supporter and we’ll see who runs out of names first.

The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ten_facts_about_global_warming.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

now signed by 31000 scientists

when the mysterious “market forces” swing in favour of AGW

I had begun to think they had. After all, the banking crisis had left the City boys with reams of worthless paper and they need something to sell. Carbon Trading looked set to be the new derivitives market.

But then I came across this blog written by Andrew Neill:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html

@ diogenes1960 you haven’t been paying attention. Liberal Conspiracy has been over that here.

The Heidelberg Appeal makes no reference whatsoever to climate change but is routinely misrepresented by climate change deniers, notably Fred Singer. The text of the appeal states:

“We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved. But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational pre-conceptions.”

Irrational pre-conceptions seems as good as description of climate change denial as any I can think of.

And with respect to the splits in the anti-AGW gang it really is amusing how split they are. From Skeptical Science.

Still, I must tip my hat to Plimer and Monckton. Both utilised their formidable public speaking skills and rhetorical flourishes to persuasively explain why humans can’t be causing global warming. Plimer’s argument was that climate has changed in the past. Eg – climate has a high sensitivity. Monckton’s argument was that climate has a low sensitivity. I think the irony that the two were arguing contradictory positions was lost on most of the audience.

So the lesson I learnt was this. Monckton stood up, argued against man-made global warming and the skeptics in the room applauded. Plimer then gave an argument that contradicted Monckton’s assertions and the skeptics applauded again. In a sense, this perfectly encapsulates the skeptic movement as a whole. Global warming skepticism isn’t about furthering scientific understanding but proving that humans can’t be causing global warming. How you get to that conclusion is left as an exercise to the reader, with internal consistency not a prerequisite. Two skeptic arguments can contradict each other, even on the same debating stage, so long as the common enemy of man-made global warming is refuted.

The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it.

The claim is that almost all scientists who have relevant expertise in the field of climate science or related disciplines accept it. The vast majority of your 31,000 “scientists” (there was no verification of credentials) do not fit into this category, and in relation to the number of people in the US alone who could credibly be called scientists 31,000 is tiny.

Worstall, if what you say at 69 is true then why do so many libertarians engage in frenzied denial?

I’ve got my theory, it’s because they don’t want AGW to be happening so they come up with any old bollocks they can pretend is an argument.

If market solutions are available and popular, why do the likes of Iain Fale, Delingpole, clinically sane Melanie Philips etc. persist in their denialism?

Well the people I’ve met online who describe themselves as libertarians don’t want the government setting up markets or forcing prices upon companies who emit CO2. They don’t want the gvt doing anything at all, although many will admit the gvt needs to do the armed forces and criminal courts.

So methinks we could waste lots of time quibbling over which branch of ‘libertarians’ we are talking about.

Giles Wilkes comment about “crater the economy for the next 40 years” does stick in my throat though. There’s no evidence that anti-AGW action would do anything of the sort. It would slow the growth by a little per year, but on the other hand I recall Richard Tol saying that the effects of changes in interest rates by gvts were larger than the likely effect on the economy by anti-AGW measures.
Maybe Wilkes is taking the mickey out of the denialists, its hard to tell sometimes.

I do wonder where on earth people like Diogenes get their information. Clearly they have never actually read the IPCC reports, where hundreds of scientists are mentioned. Against this, the denialists and corporate stooges have, last I knew 4 scientists. There are a handful of others like PLimer and Monckton who have no relevant qualifications and whose arguments are complete rubbish, who oddly enough get acres of space in the media despite being wrong about everything.

Their side really is based upon small numbers.

Watchman @25:

Mr Monbiot may be well informed and up with the debate, but Mr Delingpole is basically in the same situation as someone like me who has to pick up information where they can.

Now, I’m not really talking about climate change but about common sense here, but:

if I’m reading this correctly, you are here describing George Monbiot as being in the category marked “Knows what they’re talking about”. “well informed and up on the debate” as opposed to “someone like me who has to pick up information where they can”. Yes? Good.

Now first point: most of the information is publicly available as data, it’s just very very big and therefore people neither have the tools nor the technique to get the information, out of the data.

Second point: surely being massively underinformed a given issue is an argument for Delingpole keeping his mouth shut about it?