Scientist-turned -filmmaker Randy Olson has posted a two-part (one, two) interview that he conducted with Marc Morano. Here is an excerpt:RO: Okay, so let’s start with this — do you have doubts about President Obama’s birth certificate?
MM: [laughter] Do you mean am I a “birther”? Not in the least.
RO: Would you vote for Sarah Palin for president?
MM: [laughter] Why would it matter who I would vote for? I don’t think it’s relevant, but I would say this, for people who think I’m this big G.O.P. operative, I’ve only voted for two Republican presidential candidates since I became of legal age to vote in 1988.
RO: Are you an anti-evolutionist?
MM: Haha, not at all. In fact, you know it’s not an issue. The implication of your question is that somehow the skeptics are aligned with creationists. In all my years of dealing with Senator Inhofe the subject of creationism and evolution never even came up. Someone even did an analysis of it in our scientists report, and I think they may have only found one or two creationists out of 700-some names.
Morano might want to check out today's New York Times on that last point. But if Morano isn't a creationist, but other skeptics are, and Morano doesn't typically vote Republican, but many skeptics do, are we introducing a sort of willful intellectual poverty into the debate over climate change by the practice of collapsing everything into two sides?
Olson concludes of Morano:
No, he’s not overwhelmingly charismatic, but he’s a whole lot better than all these climate folks that have tried to take their swings against him. Does anybody remember long ago when Muhammed Ali was climbing his way to the top? One chump and after another would enter the ring and go home battered. This feels similar.
94 comments:
Roger,
I really don't understand the point your are making about creationism and voting republican.
Are you trying to point out the absurd propoganda from Olson and the NYT or are you actually agreeing that they have a point?
Perhaps the statement could use some rewording.
The attempt to link skeptics of AGW with religious issues or even those who reject evolution is very entertaining but does not deal with the problems of AGW failing in the public square.
Remember that in the minds of the writers and commenters at the NYT article, you are one of the worst of the worst denialists. Along with your father.
It is the believer's inability to parse through a complex argument that is the problem.
Creationism, tobacco companies and oil conspiracies are just filibustering to distract people from the real issue.
"The secret in propaganda is that when you demonize, you dehumanize," James Forsher.
Roger,
I agree that the white hat/black hat dualism is not conducive to intelligent debate.
Still, on the NYT article you reference from today, I do believe it is fair to ask climate skeptics how they feel about anti-evolutionists hopping aboard their train. So I raise a challenge here:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/03/04/moment-of-truth/
Roger:
Based on Romm's performance with Morano, you should have no problem. Though I suspect that after reviewing this performance - he will decline all offers.
In the unlikely case that he does accept, I would bring a pad and pen to help list his wild overstatements. Did you know the USA is facing an increase of between 10 and 15F by the end of the century?
Which brings up another point - Morano's opponents in these debates appear to be even more willing than he is to misrepresent verifiable facts. Did you know that there were 5000 IPCC scientists (Marc Maslin?)?
Isn't strange that Romm accept to engage Morano a true skeptic, and yet refuse to debate you.
If Romm didn't exist we would have to invent him.
I too am missing whatever the point was here. Perhaps the meaninglessness of it all would be captured if "gay" were substituted for creationist or republican.
Sylvian--
Maybe Romm's experience with Morano taught Romm he (Romm) is not very agile in person.
On CNBC a couple of months or so ago, Bill Gross, the founder of PIMCO (world's largest bond fund manager) was on in the morning. Investments in alternative energy came up and one of the anchors asked him about some of the many questions that have arisen about the science which supposedly supports CAGW theory. Gross responded, "You're a good Republican."
Roger,
I don't know the details of this situation, but I think you're probably way off base.
Here's what Morano said: "Someone even did an analysis of it in our scientists report, and I think they may have only found one or two creationists out of 700-some names."
Here's how you replied, "Morano might want to check out today's New York Times on that last point."
And your link is to a New York Times article about how some creationists also mention global warming.
But Morano was apparently talking about *scientists*. Specifically, apparently there were ~700 scientists who wrote some report for James Inhofe.
So your response in no way refutes or is even relevant to what Marc Morano said.
-10-Mark
My response was to this point:
"The implication of your question is that somehow the skeptics are aligned with creationists."
"...aligned with creationists."
You mean like fellow-travelers?
"Are you now, or have you ever been...?"
This whole thread sucks, Roger. Why in the hell are you picking a tiny piece of this interview with Morano to discuss "religious concepts?" You are ignoring MOST of the interview. Shame on you!
-13-jae
Feel free to discuss whatever strikes your fancy in the interview ... I obviously did not reprint the whole thing nor have I limited discussion.
So have at it! ;-)
OK, Roger, please let me have your ultra-honest comments on this part of the interview:
"MM: I definitely think he continues to deserve allegations."
Do you stand for cleaning up the very obvious terrible corruption of "climate science," or not?
Roger,
You think the reference to the New York Times article is evidence that, "...somehow the skeptics are aligned with creationists"?
Seriously?! You probably should take one of your university's courses in logic. That isn't even close to logically valid.
If someone asked if global warming alarmists were aligned with communists, and I pointed to an article that showed that 2 or 3 communists also thought global warming was going to be catastrophic, would that be evidence that global warming alarmists were aligned with communists?
-16-Mark
Did you catch this part of the post?
"But if Morano isn't a creationist, but other skeptics are, and Morano doesn't typically vote Republican, but many skeptics do, are we introducing a sort of willful intellectual poverty into the debate over climate change by the practice of collapsing everything into two sides?"
-15-jae
Have a look at my Yale e360 piece from last week.
"I do believe it is fair to ask climate skeptics how they feel about anti-evolutionists hopping aboard their train."
I do believe it is fair to ask you whether you are familiar with the term "ad hominem argument"? How about "association fallacy"?
If not, I suggest you consult Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Is the jab of the tar brush being confused with meaningful debate and insight?
"are we introducing a sort of willful intellectual poverty..."
Who exactly is this "we" degrading the debate by trying to slot skeptical thinkers as creationists, "birthers" and general bad egg neo-cons?
Can we be a bit more specific here?
On similar territory I see Mssrs Schneider and Ehrlich are keen to mount some sort of PR fight back against skeptics as they see them.
Climate scientists get back to their bad old ways.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/05/scientists-plot-to-hit-back-at-critics/
Attack ads in the New York Times will only confirm in the public's mind that there is something dirty and seriously disquieting about the current state of climate science.
It higlights that climate scientists have simply lost the plot. Behaving in such a mendacious fashion will badly hurt all science.
Hi Roger,
Totally off topic. I note that Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change journal have just published a review article titled "Detection and attribution of climate change: a regional perspective" by Stott et al.
As the university I attend does not have a subscription to this one I have had to put through a request that will get me a copy. This is okay for me but what about anyone else who has an interest. Given this paper documents the results of public funded research why wasn't it published in a free for view journal? I note that you are on the editorial board so may have an interest here.
Just quietly ...how many climate journals do we need????
All of us need to examine our own biases but it usually helps when others point them out! That's what being a skeptic is all about. Without that opposing view you can easily end up with totalitarianism. There is a lot of evidence now that this vital, corrective, opposing viewpoint is summarily ignored, or smeared, in climate science.
The fact that religion is taught in schools at all is testament to man's innate ability to believe any dogma whatsoever. Some of us though see that AGW proponents and their brethern, the Malthusians, have already become a substitute belief system totally outwith objective science. Creationists are harmless now but there was a time when their unchecked dogma was extremely dangerous and that's the real lesson they need to teach in schools. Never mind divinity or evolution, let's teach our children about man's huge capacity for believing mass delusions and his history of harming others because of those delusions.
Slightly off topic I wonder why they want creationism given equal time when it seems not as many as you'd think are being properly taught evolution there anyway:
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/state-local/poll-reveals-texans-believe-dinosaurs-humans-coexisted-1.2169184
Actually, I think that comparing evolution to current theories of AGW would be a great thing. Of course, I'm at the opposite of where the creationists are coming from.
One of the popular arguments against evolution is the eye ball, and how there's no way that a natural process could have come up with that complicated organ (paraphrasing).
Much of the CO2 theory of warming comes down to the same thing (again, paraphrasing): We don't understand all of the things that go on in this incredibly dynamical system that is the Earth, but we've found a really simple reason that sounds somewhat plausible.
I said it before, there's a large segment of the AGW group who are on hyper-alert for any of the following in others:
1. Doubts about Global Warming
2. Doubts about Man-made Global Warming
3. Doubts about role of CO2 of Global Warming
4. Doubts about proposed degree of Global Warming
5. Doubts about alarmist scenarios for Global warming
6. Doubts about proposed policy solutions for Global Warming
7. Doubts about particular bits of science/data in AGW theory
8. Doubts about particular bits of science process used to develop AGW theories
9. Doubts about funding, conflict of interest, or even presentation style of leading AGW figures
10. Ask the wrong kind of question
11. Negative comment or questing style of presentation or use of language
This group, if they think they see *any* of the above, as far as they're concerned, you're a Republican Palinite Birther, who believes in creationism, a flat-earth, supports tobacco companies, and is probably funded by Exxon.
And even if they can find evidence for anything in the previous paragraph, you're a denialist whose been duped by Exxon's paid promoters.
You'd think that such a simplistic view of the world would only come in ill-thought out internet comments - but I think it comes from the top. We all know which blogs exemplify this attitude.
And worst of all, it's not just online. Certain journalists seem to have adopted it too - we've all seen people (we all know examples) who actualy believe in AGW, but have been labelled as denialists.
kieth,
You ask how skeptics should feel about creatoinists getting on board the AGW skeptic train.
How about- at least the creationists are getting something right?
How about- what does someone's unrelated beliefs have to do with AGW theory?
Or, if there should be a litmus test, are AGW believers willing to disavow all on their side of the table who call for or endorse terrorism to achieve the goals of the AGW movement?
Say, if a Paul Ehrlich type person- who has been documented to be flat out wrong in his major predictions, and who called for policies that include forced sterilization, strict food and resource rationing, etc.- climbs aboard the AGW movement, would you be willing to toss him off?
Mark (18):
If we're talking about an isolated instance, it would be unfair of me to make a generalization. But it appears we're seeing a very tactical decision by creationists in some states to piggyback on the anti-AGW bandwagon. If I was in your camp, that would really tick me off--because I believe intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum.
I don't see why some of you are so sensitive to my challenge. It's really no different than asking John McCain, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, to repudiate the incendiary, anti-Obama slogans that was frequently shouted during his campaign rallies (egged on sometimes by Sarah Palin).
And Frontiers of Faith and Science (26),it's really no different than me asking environmentalists and climate advocates to not be alarmist about their projections. Or asking them what they think of Joe Romm's bullying tactics.
What's the big deal here? When the Unabomber and Earth Firsters were doing their thing back in the 1980s, I don't think it was unreasonable for mainstream environmentalists to repudiate the violent acts that was committed in the name of environmentalism. So why is it unreasonable for me to ask climate skeptics to renounce creationists who seek to advance their agenda by hooking it up to the climate skeptic movement? These people are making the case that teaching intelligent design is no different than teaching sound science as its espoused by climate skeptics.
That doesn't bother you?
The question I have is why would a scientist interject feelings and inflammatory labels to distract from a discussion of the science?
Associating AGW skeptics with creationists is just another example of how activists smear skeptics as "anti-science."
I just read a post at WUWT pointing to a Washington Times article about AGW scientists hitting back. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/05/scientists-plot-to-hit-back-at-critics/
Is the tar brushing here part of that effort?
Bradley,
I'm not an activist. I've been very, very critical of climate advocates--more so of them than anyone else in this debate.
It is creationists that are seeking to advance their agenda by associating themselves with AGW skeptics. How does that strike you?
Jay Richards at AEI has a post up about the NYT article. It's a fairly lengthy post, but this quote, I think, gets at Roger's "willful intellectual poverty."
"...No doubt they're hoping that, say, Richard Lindzen will have to explain why he agrees with those nefarious creationists on the global warming issue, and that he'll have to spend his time issuing statements of agreement with evolution."
keith,
There are AGW proponents who have burned SUV's, various buildings and in one instance bombed a pipeline in Alberta for "the cause". Would that make all, including myself, who acknowledge the affect we have on our environment future social saboteurs? Are you another Wiebo Ludwig looking for a target? I certainly am not. I'd also hope those of differing opinions would not hold him and others like him against me too.
I've been asking a pretty straightforward question: how do climate skeptics like being co-opted by creationists?
The underlying issue for anti-AGW is one of sound science, right? So here we have a case were religious advocates are looking to march under your banner. Instead of dodging the question, or ascribing ulterior motives to the NY times (or me), just answer the question.
Keith,
Skeptics are not being co-opted by creationists.
Wattsupwiththat is not linking to religious sites.
Climate Skeptic is not promoting conferences on creationism.
Dr. Spencer is not using his climate science or his use of satellites to promote Christianity.
Dr. Pielke, Sr. is not using scriptural references or hosting guest posts by creationists.
You are asking a manipulative question designed to get a particular answer and are frustrated that you are not getting that answer.
Too bad, so sad.
The only intellectual poverty that seems noteworthy is from the AGW social movement.
My answer regarding creationists figuring out that AGW is bunk is this:
At least they are getting something right.
"The underlying issue for anti-AGW is one of sound science, right?"
If only...
keith 34-
Sorry, but your question is not deserving of a substantive response. The Alinsky antics are a distraction. There is no banner as you suggest.
keith -34-
FTFA: "The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general. "
It's an interesting strategy, in that it does what education perhaps should already be doing. Though I'm not sure how young a "philosophy of science" would make sense to start teaching. But the application and limits of science are certainly an interesting topic. Of course, certain forms of ID aren't inconsistent with evolution.
I don't see this as being anything terribly dangerous. This sort of thing pops up from time to time, but it's not even a most pressing issue with respect to just public education. The analogy falls far short of, say, domestic terrorism.
I think it is AGW proponents who would like to see AGW skepticism co-opted by Creationism, and are willing to write stories and blog posts to that effect.
-34-keith
who says climate skeptics have been co-opted by creationists? You're just re-phrasing the classic "have you stop beating your wife?" question.
The larger logical fallacy is what does Evolution and AGW have to do with each other? Evolution doesn't prove AGW.
If we wanted to find a closer equivalency between Evolution and AGW, we could try the following thought experiment--let's suppose it was decided that the only way for humanity, based on our propensity for war and destruction, to survive was dependent on homo sapiens evolving in some critical fashion into a new, distinct species, and we only had 100 years to do it in.
One hundred years to design the perfect next evolutionary step for our species and then make it happen. Shouldn't be too hard. Evolution's pretty locked down as science. And remember, not "super" human, but a new species, and not just any species, but the one we design that will address all the problems we face.)
Go for it.
All I'm looking for is a little intellectual consistency. I'm not someone who believes in playing that guilt by association game. I've been a victim of that myself.
But since religion is just as politicized in public debates as global warming, I thought it would be interesting to see what climate skeptics thought about that new creationist tactic.
Creationists, unable to achieve their agenda through legal means, are looking to exploit the recent gains made by skeptics in the climate debate--for their own religious and political purposes.
I guess that doesn't bother any skeptics still reading this thread.
re: #34 keith
Let me ask: how do climate scientists like being co-opted by political advocates / activists for almost all of whom the actual content of the science is not of any interest whatsoever ?
Climate science is now in the exact same state that lead to our so-called energy policy for the past 4 decades. It's a political football and the sole objective is politics, not science.
This is a lets-not-talk-about-the-real-issue. If you are losing the argument it is much better to focus on something completely irrelevant, as this question is.
The real issue is that climate science has a humungous image problem - a lot of the actual science is good, but we have bad politics and bad economics linked to it. Change those and you can mend the image.
keith -40-
"All I'm looking for is a little intellectual consistency. I'm not someone who believes in playing that guilt by association game."
So, you're saying that not playing the guilt by association game (from either end) is or is not intellectual consistency? You may have pure motives, but I hope you can see why this looks like a bit of gotcha-style trolling.
Keith-
How does it feel to be you and have 9-11 truthers co-opt your green movement? Isn't it about time to move beyond this display of silly buggers?
For some time Dr. Pielke has been "sticking it" to the AGW side for objectionable behavior and practices. I see this post as nothing more than a failed attempt to demonstrate he is in the middle. Unfortunately, he didn't apply the same standards of debate. Not good! :~(
Matt,
So far I've had one climate skeptic on my blog say he wished the creationists stayed in their own sandbox. Admittedly, this is a small sampling, because my readership is considerably smaller than Roger's. So I thought I'd come over here and pose the question.
Call it what you want, I was just curious to see if the concern for sound science among climate skeptics extends beyond the AGW issue. For this crowd--by that, I mean those who patronize Roger's blog--apparently not.
-45-Keith
I am just catching up to all this. I'm not sure that I get your challenge.
A. Let me use myself as an example to see if I understand. I am often asked, "how do you feel about skeptics who use your work on disasters to advance their agendas?"
B. You are asking, "How do skeptics feel about creationists using global warming to advance their agenda?"
Fair enough so far?
My response to the question in A. is that my policy preferences are not hidden -- I prefer action -- and I am also opposed to waging politics through science. While I am in favor of action on climate change, if those opposed to action are not misrepresenting my work, then what do I have to complain about?
So were I a skeptic, I guess I'd say of the creationists, so long as they are faithfully representing the skeptical arguments, good for them. I sense you are getting a bit of that in the replies here.
Or are you looking for something different? Such as ... "I find you creationists offensive, please don't use my issue to your ends." Many people have wanted me to say such a thing related to disasters -- "I find your politics offensive, so don't associate it with my research." However, that is not how science and politics works.
Anyway, let me know if I've completely missed your point.
Roger,
You write: "You are asking, 'How do skeptics feel about creationists using global warming to advance their agenda?'
Fair enough so far?"
No. That's not what creationists are doing. Here's how physicist Lawrence M. Krauss is quoted in the NYT story:
"It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”
In other words, doubt about evolution is put on the same playing field as doubt about climate change. So if science can be wrong about climate change, then it can also be wrong about evolution. That's the reasoning by creationists.
That's the tactic they are employing, apparently.
Now, you also suggest I might be asking climate skeptics to say this: "I find you creationists offensive, please don't use my issue to your ends."
No, on the first half on that, but as to the creationist effort to package doubt about evolution with doubt about climate science, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask skeptics how they feel about that.
keith,
You quote from Krauss in the NYT, but that's an accusation by a non-creationist (the context of your post seemed to imply that it was an admission of guilt by a creationist):
"Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist who directs the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University and has spoken against efforts to water down the teaching of evolution to school boards in Texas and Ohio, described the move toward climate-change skepticism as a predictable offshoot of creationism."
It's clearly not a creationist saying that's what he's trying to do. I've no doubt that some of them (possibly all or many) definitely have that motive.
I think you've had several answers to your question, including:
It's irrelevant.
Makes climate skepticism look good.
Stop trolling.
-47-Keith
Yes, what Krauss describes is what creationists are doing. You write, "So if science can be wrong about climate change, then it can also be wrong about evolution. That's the reasoning by creationists."
Isn't it fair for a climate skeptic to say, "I really don't care what creationists do, that is there business"?
or
"I am skeptical about the science of climate change but not evolution"?
It seems that there is a reverse polarity of sorts going on here also, which is that so say
1. Creationists are way off on the science.
2. They are wrong to deny evolution.
3. They now deny climate change.
4. Since they are obviously anti-science they are thus wrong about their views on climate change.
This logic does not hold (I hope fairly obviously).
It is of course politically astute for those wanting to wage climate politics through science to lump climate skeptics in with creationists, and they'll take any help that they can get on that front from the creationists! So from a tactical perspective I would think that astute climate skeptics would want to distance themselves from such a connection -- a la Morano. So is your question about political tactics?
Roger,
My question is much simpler: how do climate skeptics feel about creationists essentially saying they're just trying to get a fair scientific hearing in the classroom, just like climate skeptics are doing with respect to AGW.
keith 50-
How do the feelings of AGW skeptics about anything have any affect on the price of tea in China or the understanding of natural climate variation? Do the truthers cause you spasms?
keith,
Congratulations. You've successfully hijacked the thread. Your troll rating goes up a point and you may be eligible to level up.
Roger,
"It is of course politically astute for those wanting to wage climate politics through science to lump climate skeptics in with creationists"
About equally astute as lumping AGW Proponents
in with communists.
I'm pretty sure the rightwing 'base' already believes AGW Proponents are communists. But as the 'Right' learned to it's detriment in the 1950's, if you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a communist, you soon lose the center.
Keith,
You finally, in quoting Dr. Krauss, move ever so slightly from guilt-by-association.
Since creationists, in fact, have not had any impact on public schools, I don't care.
And, living where i live, I actually know creationists and I know that they are limited in their views of science, but are hardly anti-science. They simply believe God created everything as is, with no need for change. Many of these people are actually involved in science and engineering. But from the pov of the NYT, these people are ignorant anti-science.
I see their problem as much more complex and nuanced, even as I disagree with them. And, by the way, it is easier to talk to most creationists than it is to talk to AGW believers. The creationists tend to be more tolerant.
So please excuse me for not picking up what you were saying.It was not clear.
So to answer your question again:
No.
I have no problem with creationists realizing that AGW theory- the idea that CO2 is casing a climate catastrophe- is something worth being skeptical of.
In fact, from my perspective, as creationists learn the differences between evolution- well proven, useful and significant- and what AGW has become, some of the creationists may actually see the difference, and stop thinking that evolution is bad science.
And to the extent that AGW promoters, as has been well documented, have misused the scientific process to over state and misrepresent the risks of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is they, not the creationists, who are anti-science.
-52-
Ease up please.
WOW. For the life of me, I cannot figure out just WHAT is on-thread or off-thread here. Maybe it's my age. Sigh.
Roger,
In the spirit of your last note, please allow me to withdraw my 'troll' comment.
Roger,
When I see someone engaging in poisoning the well, I call them on it. Or do you think neither Randy Olson nor keith were using that tactic and that their questions were legitimate rather than a tactic to forestall debate on the actual topic by deligitimizing the opposing side?
I guess my problem is that I have absolutely no idea what this sentence means:
"But if Morano isn't a creationist, but other skeptics are, and Morano doesn't typically vote Republican, but many skeptics do, are we introducing a sort of willful intellectual poverty into the debate over climate change by the practice of collapsing everything into two sides?'
I know it's not Pennsylvania Dutch, because my grandma and mother spoke that and I'm pretty good at it. It's not Colorado Kool-Aid, because Coors does that. It appears to be all English words. Is it Pielke-speak?
Now, I have noticed from the comments that I am not the only one who has problems with the meaning of the statement. So, Roger, why don't you shed a little light on just what you are saying here?
-59-jae
Sure, thanks for asking ...
The point is simple: If there are a diversity of views/perspectives among those who are crudely lumped into the category of "skeptics" are we missing some context that matters in making sense of the debate?
Obviously I think we are. Olson's questions reflect a cartoonish approach to the issue. I'd say Manichean, but Lucia might be reading;-)
Keith's questions get at this (perhaps indirectly) on this thread ... there is not a tribe called "skeptics," just like there is not a tribe called "alarmists." This issue has more than two sides. By pretending that it does (or worse fooling ourselves into think so) we are missing a lot that matters.
More clear?
-57- Thanks!
-58- Sure I think that Olson was delegitimizing. Keith was asking about that issue and pressing self-described skeptics for a response. Seems fair enough to me.
Regardless, we can talk about it can't we? Maybe we agree to disagree, but hearing out other's views probably can't hurt even if so ... at least that's how I see it.
Keith (27):
"If we're talking about an isolated instance, it would be unfair of me to make a generalization. But it appears we're seeing a very tactical decision by creationists in some states to piggyback on the anti-AGW bandwagon."
What about the evangelical leaders who have "piggybacked on the pro-AGW bandwagon"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html?_r=1
The NYT article above says there were 86 such leaders. How many of them are creationists? The NYT article you cited tells one nothing about the percentage of creationists who are pro-AGW versus anti-AGW. (Not that it would make any difference, anyway.)
"If I was in your camp,..."
I'm not in any camp. I agree with individuals when I think they're right, I disagree with individuals when I think they're wrong.
For example, I agree with Roger that the cap-and-trade legislation in Congress is a bad idea, and that a modest carbon tax would be better. But I disagree with him that removing CO2 from ambient air with towers and disposing of it underground is a good idea.
Or Joe Romm: I agree with him that nuclear power in the U.S. (with uranium fission reactors) looks too expensive, but I disagree with him that the cap and trade legislation is a good idea, and I think most of his apocalyptic predictions regarding temperature and sea level rise are clearly wrong. In fact, I don't even think global warming is a significant problem (now or in the forseeable future).
"I don't see why some of you are so sensitive to my challenge."
I'm "sensitive" to your "challenge" because your "challenge" represents fallacious reasoning on two accounts:
1) You don't have any substantial scientific evidence of what opinion "creationists" have towards global warming. You've read a newspaper article that says some creationists are anti-AGW. But you don't know how many creationists are pro-AGW.
2) Even if "creationists" were 100% united with respect to AGW (pro or con) it wouldn't make any difference. Just because a person or group of people are wrong about one thing, it tells one nothing about whether they are wrong or right about something else.
"I do believe it is fair to ask climate skeptics how they feel about anti-evolutionists hopping aboard their train."
I think *everyone* should be hopping aboard "my train"! If I think I'm right, why would I object to anyone agreeing with me??? It's not logical.
P.S. And when I think I'm wrong, and change trains, I think everyone else should change trains with me. :-)
I'd say Manichean, but Lucia might be reading.
And so I am! I'm a Pelagian heretic myself.
My question is much simpler: how do climate skeptics feel about creationists essentially saying they're just trying to get a fair scientific hearing in the classroom, just like climate skeptics are doing with respect to AGW.
I'm puzzled by your question because I can't imagine anyone -- skeptic or otherwise-- would have strong feelings. I'm also not sure who you encompass in the group you call "skeptics".
Who are you hoping will answer? If you ask someone specifically, it may turn out their emotions are engaged by creationists current position, and they'll answer you. I suspect many will just respond, huh? Why should I care; it's got nothing to do with me. But that's a guess.
Roger (17):
I did catch the part of your post where you wrote, "But if Morano isn't a creationist, but other skeptics are, and Morano doesn't typically vote Republican, but many skeptics do, are we introducing a sort of willful intellectual poverty into the debate over climate change by the practice of collapsing everything into two sides?"
I just thought the "willful intellectual poverty" was wrong. I don't think it's "willful". It's simply fallacious logic.
And I didn't understand why you introduced your own fallacious logic by suggesting that Marc Morano read the NYT article. The NYT article wasn't relevant to what Marc Morano said.
Marc Morano said, "The implication of your question is that somehow the skeptics are aligned with creationists."
The NYT article provided no evidence to dispute Morano's assertion. (It would have been another matter if the NYT article had reported something like breakout sessions of global warming skeptics conventions that dealt with pro-creationism or anti-evolution.)
-64-lucia
Pelagius was a denier, no? ;-)
Mark (62),
I'm afraid you're totally misunderstanding what I'm asking. The fault may be mine, in the way I've worded my questions.
I'm not interested in debating whether Evangelicals are pro or anti-AGW. Nor am I trying to suggest that there is anything wrong with Evangelicals being in agreement with climate skeptics. What I care about is that some of them are using science as a cover--again--to try and advance their agenda. There's nothing scientific about the theory of intelligent design, but its proponents have argued that it should have a place alongside evolution in science classes.
Those efforts have stalled. However, if the Times story is accurate, the movement to reintroduce creationism as a legitimate scientific theory (via intelligent design) may be re-energized by riding the current anti-AGW wave. And that's precisely because they argue that what they're seeking is no different than what skeptics seek: a fair, science-based hearing.
I believe this is deceptive on their part, because there is no scientific merit to intelligent design. It should not be taught in science classes alongside evolution, just as you wouldn't teach the belief of some Native American tribes, who insist they emerged from the Grand Canyon.
So I guess what I've been searching for here is some common ground, some sense from climate skeptics that their deep respect for science transcends the issue of AGW. That would also tell me that the vehemence of your stance is not ideological, political, or religious. It's based on a pure, healthy respect for science.
So if I had beers with some of you, I might hear about how you're just as incredulous that there are many, many people--very well educated--who are convinced that childhood vaccines cause autism--even though there is no scientific proof of that. You might tell me how surprised you are that many Americans believe that 9/11 was a U.S. government plot, or that many Americans continue to insist that President Obama is not a legitimate U.S. citizen. And so on.
But I'm not asking in this thread for skeptics to consider the relative merits of any of the claims of these subcultures. (I only suggest they might come up for informal discussion over beers.)
I ask what you make of the creationists because of their seeming intent to associate their struggle to be heard with yours.
Is this any clearer?
-60- Roger
"... are we missing some context that matters in making sense of the debate?
Yes we are.
Unfortunately, I see more and more an effort in the name calling to polarize the issue. I see it being done more from the AGW side, but I may not have the full picture--I'm basing this on how the MSM reports, and the dominate paradigm is pro-AGW, so it's easier for them to frame the debate to a larger number of people.
The logical fallacies involved appear to be numerous, but I think the ultimate purpose is to kill debate all together. AGW goes beyond the science at this point (any movement that seeks cooperation among 100+ nations on a singular solution necessarily is beyond science) and is really being presented as a unified package. Questioning any part of the package is questioning AGW itself.
This can actually be most clearly seen in the treatment of Roger (along with many others in academia) by the Joe Romm's and Real Climates of the world. There's a certain fundamental orthodoxy and if you stray just outside of that, you are the other. It doesn't surprise me the contempt heaped by AGW proponents on skeptics, but it's also heaped on people who are by and large favorable to the AGW position, especially on the core science (e.g., Roger).
There's a lot of talk about tipping points, and I think one tipping point we are getting close to--though not necessarily in a linear progression--is where sympathetic researchers whose work doesn't follow the narrative 100% are shunned and vilified. That's when the science turns into dogma and we all lose.
I'm not sure what should be done, or can be done, about any of this, except to keep chipping away, to keep clarifying and articulating the nuanced positions out there, both on the skeptic and proponent sides, and not to give in to the name calling.
One thing I'd love to see is a sociologist or anthropologist do a real in-depth demographic study on all the different people, groups and positions in the debate. That would be eye opening.
"are we introducing a sort of willful intellectual poverty into the debate over climate change by the practice of collapsing everything into two sides"
Quite right Roger. Anyone who believes in, or alludes to American think tank controlled, divide and rule politics is less than half witted.
keith -66-
Perhaps AGW skeptics are co-opting the Creationists?
So, succinctly, here's my answer. Creationism in any form is clearly not science. It's wrong to try to say that it is. It's not wrong to scrutinize science, including evolution.
However, the possible harm that I can see if they succeed in passing some law similar to what was discussed in the NYT is so small, that it really doesn't seem to matter that much, especially with all the other issues surrounding education.
Probably something like asking James Hansen to denounce propane grills, or something. He clearly disagrees, but why waste breath on such a small issue?
UAN,
Well said.
The AGW social movement is incredibly defensive, engaging in ad hom, guilt by association, misuse of science, argument by authority, etc. The need of many AGW believers to enforce an orthodoxy around the apocalypse underpinning AGW is bizarre, when you actully examine the evidence critically.
Keith,
And some skeptics might be pro-life, as well.
So what?
Some AGW believers- even prominent ones like Hansen, call fro criminal activity and even endorse large scale terrorism in support of AGW policy goals. Do you think you would be well received at RC or over Joe's place if you dominated a thread to ask your question over and over about how they feel for terrorists to be co-opting their movement?
As to creationists, you have been answered so many times, but, out of courtesy and respect for our host, one more try:
So what?
They will not succeed in getting religion taught as science now or in the future. Many AGW skeptics will be among those who resist their efforts to do so.
Will AGW promoters succeed in suppressing all dissent on climate by false associations and arguments from authority?
I would like the courtesy, from you, of a reply to my point about the damage the promoters of AGW are doing to science by their misuse of science, as well as to the other questions you have been asked, instead of a repetition of your question.
It is called dialogue.
FFS (70):
You just don't get what I'm trying to do here.
Also, just as it would be wrong for me to assume that your comment is representative of all climate skeptics, why do you talk as if pro-AGW folks were a monolith, who are doing "damage" to science "by their misuse of science"?
As for me going over to Joe's place to dominate a thread, I don't see that happening. Evidently, you not familiar with my history with him.
Anyway, I've got a long track record of blog posts taking to task alarmist, ad-hominem rhetoric. Feel free to go over to my blog and read up on that.
As for my question, I won't rephrase it again. We can end the dialogue here. It's been interesting.
I don't think Keith gets that most were replying to the post itself and ignoring him. Keith your answer is that nobody likes the band-wagon jumping but it's impossible to stop and hence best ignored. The logic is not the worst I've ever seen in this debate - imo that honour goes to "warming caused this cooling" or "the reconstruction is independent of the sign of the predictors", ie warm is cold and down is up.
There was once a good comment on a realclimate thread where 7 different perspectives were identified from we're-all-doomed to anti-science. Most of us are a bit guilty of pushing our opponents up and down this scale whether they fit or not. The worst one is to say it is anti-science to deny that excess CO2 will cause warming. Yet nobody actually says that; the skeptic's argument is that it is highly likely it has negligible effect compared to the rest of the physics that are very poorly understood (iow a fart in a hurricane).
Keith(66)
"There's nothing scientific about the theory of intelligent design, but its proponents have argued that it should have a place alongside evolution in science classes."
I agree. But if I were a science teacher of students from roughly 4th grade through high school (and had complete job protection) I would not hesitate to cover intelligent design and the Christian Genesis (e.g. 6000 year old earth, The Flood and Noah's Ark, homo sapiens and chimps not descended from a common ancestor) in science class.
"I believe this is deceptive on their part, because there is no scientific merit to intelligent design. It should not be taught in science classes alongside evolution, just as you wouldn't teach the belief of some Native American tribes, who insist they emerged from the Grand Canyon."
I WOULD teach such beliefs alongside Christian Genesis and evolution. And the ancient Greek origins nonsense (e.g. the Titans, Zeus and friends). And when my students went home and said, "teacher says..." and their Christian fundamentalist (or Native American fundamentalist ;-)) parents went ballistic, I would send a certified letter to their parents, begging them to meet me wherever they felt convenient to discuss what I had been teaching. True science has absolutely nothing to fear from religious faith.
"So I guess what I've been searching for here is some common ground, some sense from climate skeptics that their deep respect for science transcends the issue of AGW."
"So if I had beers with some of you,..."
Pepsi or Coke for me, please. ;-)
"I might hear about how you're just as incredulous that there are many, many people--very well educated--who are convinced that childhood vaccines cause autism..."
I'm not incredulous at all. In fact, on the old Tech Central Station website, I made a comment in response to an article to the effect that the scientific evidence is pretty solid against mercury in childhood vaccines causing autism. I was actually emailed by a woman who's son was autistic, expressing outrage that I would state such a thing, especially considering that I'm an environmental engineer. I responded that my opinion was definitely on something well outside my area of expertise, but reiterating that I thought the evidence was pretty strong. And I expressed my deepest sympathies for her son and her.
As a matter of fact, in the time since then I've developed my own medical problems that have resulting in me going to emergency rooms on multiple occasions. So I understand the woman's position even more, and find it completely understandable. (The doctors thought I was having panic attacks. I knew they were wrong.) (They were.)
"You might tell me how surprised you are that many Americans believe that 9/11 was a U.S. government plot,..."
That does leave me incredulous. Particularly Steven Jones, the physics professor also known for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion.
http://stj911.org/contributions/index.html
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
"I ask what you make of the creationists because of their seeming intent to associate their struggle to be heard with yours."
Everyone wants to bet on a winner, Keith. ;-)
Seriously, though, it's probably some combination of that, plus most of them obviously know very little about science.
"Is this any clearer?"
A bit. But I also think we've largely wasted time that could better be spent discussing more important matters, e.g.,
"Resolved: The IPCC Third Assessment Report's (TAR's) projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases constitute the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science."
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/01/resolved_the_ip.html
Two creationists have actually played vital roles in the history of climate science. Sir John Houghton, appointed by Margaret Thatcher to head the Hadley Centre and a former chairman of the IPCC is a fanatical environmentalist. Also
As a fervent evangelical Christian, Sir John claimed that global warming might well be one of those disasters sent by God to warn man to mend his ways ("God tries to coax and woo but he also uses disasters"). He went on: "If we are to have a good environmental policy in the future, we will have to have a disaster".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7280369/What-the-weatherman-never-said.html
The second would more accurately described as a would be creationist. By failing a divinity degree Al Gore proved that he wasn't intelligent enough to be a creationist. God punished him by removing all traces of human personality, thus ensuring he would be the only politician in Democratic Party history who could possibly have lost to GW Bush.
He also invented the internet but was given no credit by an ungrateful world.
Roger, 60:
Thanks, I get it now.
"Keith's questions get at this (perhaps indirectly) on this thread ... there is not a tribe called "skeptics," just like there is not a tribe called "alarmists." This issue has more than two sides. By pretending that it does (or worse fooling ourselves into think so) we are missing a lot that matters."
I agree, but I don't think there are just two groups. There is a continuum, all the way from the Gore view to heretics like me that even question the greenhouse effect (as is is usually represented). In fact, the continuum exists for each subject matter. So maybe most people are skeptics in some sense, and the term "skeptic" really doesn't mean much?
75-
Being a skeptic only means you don't buy the first thing that comes by, sadly some folks buy the first thing that goes on sale no matter what it is.
keith,
Are you going to respond tot he questions asked of you, or continue to ignore or repeat your question?
This is how far too many conversations go online:
One person repeating themselves over and over, ignoring the answers and followup questions their question generates.
Finally the original questioner simply goes away.
I do believe it is fair to ask climate skeptics how they feel about anti-evolutionists hopping aboard their train.
Why?
Kieth,
What's the URL of your blog (you've referred to it in this thread)?
Re: your original question. I've recently become interested in AGW and educated myself somewhat. I'm definitely skeptical (we all should be, about many things!) and currently self-identify as a "Lukewarmer."
My position on Creationists in the AGW debate is: I'm uninterested in devoting a lot of effort to this putative connection. Not only is AGW an extremely difficult technical matter, it's also fraught with participants' emotions and preconceptions. The challenges for educated citizens are to (1) sort out some things about the science, and (2) figure out some policy directions.
The teaching of Evolution in the schools is a separate issue with its own complexities. On the question of the scientific merits of evolution, creationism, and ID, I agree wholly with Kieth. But that policy debate doesn't end there.
Discussing AGW's tough enough when we're trying to discuss "AGW," rather than discussing "AGW plus an additional contentious issue."
My blog can be found at: www.collide-a-scape.com
I wasn't trying to play gotcha with my question. I was just aiming to get a better handle on what animates climate skeptics. If it's really all about science--and not a larger bugaboo against Al Gore or environmentalism, liberalism, or whatever--then I wanted to see if something patently anti-science as Intelligent Design bothered you as much as it does me. And I figured since the creationists are looking to hitch their wagon to yours, I thought it was fair to ask what you made of that.
To put this another way, I know what motivates George Will. It's not about the science for him. It's ideological. If you're familiar with his decades long anti-environmental positions, then you know what I mean. Same thing with Senator Inhofe, but in his case, it's religious.
So I'm trying to see what's underlying the strong anti-AGW passions that course through the comment section in this blog. Because this is Roger's blog and not, say National Review's Planet Gore (where ideology trumps all), I've been working under the assumption that many of the commenters here are operating from a science-based perspective. I can respect that much more than I can respect anti-AGW being ideological or religious.
Keith Kloor
Everything about your background suggests that you are a very committed environmentalist.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/about/
It is beyond daft for you to impute motives on others for their views on science.
James Hansen, the leading 'science' advocate of AGW is also an extreme environmentalist. You wrote a gushing article about him in Nature magazine.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.124.html
Hansen recently endorsed an extreme ecofascist book by Keith Farnish calling for the end of industrial civilisation.
Farnish writes
The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization
Hansen
Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the 'system' is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests - they will not look after our and the planet's well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort.
--Professor James Hansen, GISS, NASA
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Times-Up-Uncivilized-Solution-Global/dp/190032248X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265053838&sr=8-1
Do you also endorse Farnish's views ?
keith,
Unless you are willing to answer questoins asked of you here, then it would seem that you are not seeking a conversation at all.
You are simply trying to manipulate people into saying things you want them to say so you can then attribute motives to them that fit your agenda.
That you simply repeat your questions without clarifying them in light of the answers you receive, in any significant way raises questions about what motivates you.
You seem to assume that ideology trumps all in certain people who hold skeptical positions, but have no inkling that perhaps ideology trumps all for you hard core enviro extremists. I find that a bit of fascinating self blindness.
Frankly, I find the assumptions you share of what you are asking and why to be dishonest, and deliberately so.
These aren't the views of spaced out 1960s hippies, but the science establishment.
Earth Day, Then and Now
Imminent global famine caused by the explosion of the "population bomb" was the big issue on Earth Day 1970
Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish
Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...."
Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.
• Paul Ehrlich,
It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,
• Denis Hayes,
Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….
• Life Magazine, January 1970
At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, its only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.
• Kenneth Watt,
Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the non renewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there wont be any more crude oil. Youll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy, and hell say, `I am very sorry, there isnt any.
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
http://www.reason.com/news/printer/27702.html
Eric144, (81)
Because I write about environmental topics, that makes me a committed environmentalist? Also, sorry, I don't see the article I wrote on Hansen as "gushing."
I'm not familiar enough with the book by Farnish that you're referring to, so I have no idea if you've accurately characterized it.
On a related note, I said in a comment earlier in this thread that I thought it was reasonable to expect greens to disavow the use of violent tactics used to advance a green agenda.
FFS (82)
I have no doubt that ideology motivates people with extreme views, whatever their political orientation. I'm also certain that ideology--much more so than science-- shapes a great many people's stance on climate change.
That said, I'm also trying to separate out the political and ideological actors in this debate (such as the Moranos and the Inhofes) from those who are just plain skeptical.
I haven't had much success, so I'm starting to think I just went about it badly.
Keith 80-
In my opinion, all of your denialist claims to the contrary, your tar brushing of others with your insinuations are a distraction from climate discussions. I suggest you consider Kos for innuendo smears.
That said, this is our host's house and his rules. I don't mean to presume.
keith,
I think you need to specify a little better what you mean by people acting upon ideology.
Does that simply mean they follow the lead of other people they otherwise generally agree with?
Is it a preference for a certain type of policy (e.g., statist vs free market), and they pick the side that they believe supports the predetermined policy preference?
Or is someone ideologically influenced simply someone you disagree with? This is a common fallacy in public policy debates, I think, where the author believes his position is the obvious and rational, and any opponent must be acting out of some irrational or ideological motive.
With respect to Inhofe in particular, I haven't really followed what he's said or done, except that he's about the only Senator who has consistently and vocally opposed policies promoted by other legislators and activists who believe in AGW. On his EPW Welcome Page, he has the statement:
"As the ranking member of the committee, I am committed to continuing the environmental progress we have made over the years. As we proceed, we must use the best science available, consider the costs associated with the policies we institute and constantly remind the bureaucracy that it is here to serve the people of this country - not rule over them."
From what you've said, you believe that he's not interested in the science, which would obviously contradict the above statement. If you'd said that his policy was based on ideology, I'd have a much easier time accepting that. But it seems you're doing what Roger argues against, which is trying to use science to argue politics.
Based on that sentence, which certainly does contain quite a bit derived from ideology, I'd say that it would take some pretty spectacular stuff to convince such a person that the best policy is to dictate what sort of energy should be used in the economy. Does that make his view of the science ideologically biased? I don't think so.
Keith Kloor
I would characterise your blog views and links, affiliations and activities as being that of a committed environmentalist. It would be dishonest of me to say otherwise.
You wrote
"I thought it was reasonable to expect greens to disavow the use of violent tactics used to advance a green agenda"
I suspect you may have read Keith Farnish's view that
"Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/
That sounds very much like a manifesto for an ecofascist revolution. Endorsed by the world's most famous climate scientist.
The most disturbing element is what Hansen himself wrote
"Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the 'system' is the problem. "
The democratic system is the problem. Haven't we been lead to believe that the global warming movement is liberal and progressive ?
The following was eaten by Blogger. It is from Matt:
"I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but while I disagree with the catastrophic AGW theory for scientific reasons, I also have disagreements with such policy measures as forced decarbonization of the economy. I suppose you could call those ideological, but they're largely based on my understanding of other fields like economics, and more generally, human nature.
If I thought that the CO2-centric theories of AGW had more scientific credibility, I'm not sure where I'd draw the line between doing something to prevent AGW and other issues. I suppose this isn't terribly dissimilar to, for instance, the desire to fight crime, and the various due process limitations placed on law enforcement.
Roger makes good points regarding the difference between having a genuine intellectual debate vs what might be smart politics, where logical fallacies and outright lies often beat out other means.
I only occasionally read George Will columns, and find that I generally agree with his conclusions, I'd be interested in what his "decades long anti-environmental positions" are. Environmental issues often get characterized, IMHO, as how well they can be described as feel good, regardless of any actual consequences. Consider, for example, tigers.
Ultimately, many "environmental" things come down to being luxuries for society. Having clean air and water is great, and everyone wants it, but if you're struggling just to eat, you've got bigger worries. So throwing wealth, and more importantly wealth generation away by implementing some supposedly pro-environmental policy may be a lot worse than living with a bit of pollution, at least temporarily, until you can find a better solution. "
Keith,
Perhaps you don't understand the fallacy of to decide that somehow Morano or Inhofe are illegitimate in their beliefs- not 'true skeptics' while others are. Morano or Inhofe or Will may be wrong, but to say that somehow they are just cynically saying what they say is not making you look credible.
And, once again, if you are not simply an extremist, then engage. Answer some of the questions raised. People who disagree with you strongly have taken the time to answer you. Be courteous enough to respond. Take a moment and read Farnish's own website, how he blithely calls for the violent destruction of the industrial world. And how Hansen supports him.
Then get back and give your impression.
Converse.
Note: for some reason Mozilla has been eating my comments on my home computer but Explorer is OK- perhaps someone out there knows the problem?
Anyway, back to the topic...
Keith, with regard to the
"strong anti-AGW passions that course through the comment section in this blog."
I simply don't know what is the most important climate forcing, nor how it will work through the planet's different atmospheric and oceanic systems.
I do have a passion for rooting out science abuse, though. I am a plant scientist and when I see people claiming that projections are valid about things that they can't possibly know (because we don't understand plants that well), and without any kind of empirical verification,- I get sort of a mistrusting, hornswoggled kind of feeling.
Which goes back to this being post-normal science, with trust being critical to acceptance of scientific views.
I think we should keep this going to get to triple digits. The Weekly Standard has an interesting picture of polar bears laughing at Gore: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial
Hayword's accompaning article concludes:
"The lingering question is whether the collapse of the climate campaign is also a sign of a broader collapse in public enthusiasm for environmentalism in general. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, two of the more thoughtful and independent-minded figures in the environmental movement, have been warning their green friends that the public has reached the point of “apocalypse fatigue.” They’ve been met with denunciations from the climate campaign enforcers for their heresy. The climate campaign has no idea that it is on the cusp of becoming as ludicrous and forlorn as the World -Esperanto Association."
With “apocalypse fatigue" I can understand the attempt to switch to tar brushing as we have seen demonstrated here.
Sharon,
I'm with you all on the projections part of this debate. I have a problem with scenarios decades down the road being asserted as certainties.
But I'm one who thinks the multiple lines of evidence point strongly to AGW. So that's why my weekend excursion here has been partly to find common ground.
It's interesting: I thought about pursuing this engagement with skeptics after I read the silly Foreign Policy list that included Roger as a skeptic. (I wrote about that on my blog too.) The whole point of that article was to show the spectrum of perspectives among climate skeptics. The problem is that their headline still grouped skeptics into one camp: deniers. And of course, they got it wrong anyway by putting Roger in there with skeptics, since he's not one.
But I do think this last part in the article's introduction was good:
"Climate skepticism covers a broad range of views. A first group -- call them the professionals -- has often raised legitimate questions, whether about methodology and transparency, and stuck more or less to a scientific critique about different aspects of climate science. And then there are the shouters, who don't add much more than sensationalism, confusion, and outright deception to the debate. To sort out the noise from the serious concerns..."
Alas, I don't think their profiles delivered on this. What I would like to see instead is some sort of composite profile of a skeptic that sheds light on the guiding motivation. Is it purely about science, or is there something else at work?
That's all I'm trying to get at. I want to know: are climate skeptics just as passionate about other hot button scientific issues that are fought over fiercely by interest groups? Or is it just the climate change issue?
I thought maybe I had an opening to pursue this with the NYT story about creationists hopping on the skeptic bandwagon. But as I said in a previous comment, I may have just went about it the wrong way.
I gotta move on, so after this weekend, I won't be so closely engaged with this thread. Perhaps I'll figure out a better way to ask my question and come back again some other time.
"I have a problem with scenarios decades down the road being asserted as certainties."
The problem with the IPCC scenarios is 180 degrees reversed from that. There are NO estimates of the probabilities of the various climate forcings (e.g. CO2, CH4, black carbon, sulfur dioxide, etc.) in the IPCC assessments.
This means that the IPCC essentially says nothing about the likely temperature rise in the 21st century. The IPCC should have probabilistic analyses of future values for each of the individual climate forcing agents, and the resulting overall temperature rise.
Keith,
You finally asked a question that can be answered.
For me the answer to your question is 'yes'.
I have been an active skeptic for nearly 20 years.
I go after what I see as goofy science whenever I see it.
I went after UFOologists and their followers, UFOols, back when a distressing number of people actually believed in UFOs and the great conspiracy cover up.
I beat up on apocalyptic pseudo-science wherever I find it. Y2K comes to mind.
I belong to a study group that explores the relationship between religion and science.
I see the social movement part of AGW as really not much different, except in breadth of popularity, as any of the other junk science movements I have studied over the years.
Post a Comment