11. And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Genesis 9:11
Cassandra: None would believe my warnings: there I failed.
The Agammenon
I’m going to step off the science hurdy-gurdy for a moment and analyse the debate over climate change from a theological and philosophical standpoint. This is an attempt to better understand what anxieties lie beneath so much of the anti-AGW science push, and whether some among its ranks hold beliefs that may, knowingly or otherwise, be propping up their dogmatic pursuit of AGW pseudoscience.
In brief, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a segment of the anti-AGW science crowd whose belief derives from internalised faith about the mythological Noachide covenant — God’s promise to Noah that God will never again destroy the world in a flood. The rising sea-level scenarios of AGW science are a direct physical challenge to this belief.
Now, a few Biblical literalists may be wishing to confront AGW science head-on for this reason. But I also believe that a far greater number may be challenging AGW science guided by an unconscious or unacknowledged anxiety that AGW science somehow negates or derogates the Noachide myth. Or, perhaps they’re just too embarrassed to admit it.
Cassandra: Til now I was ashamed to speak of this.
This would hardly be the first time that new scientific propositions have faced opposition that is fueled, at its base, by the psychological discomfort of a challenge to humankind’s status in creation. For the medieval church to accept the heliocentric view of the universe was a huge theophilosophical challenge. Much of medieval theology seemed made little sense unless the earth was the centre of creation. Likewise, centuries later, the challenges of evolutionary theory and continental drift seemed to derogate humankind’s status once again, at least for the supernaturally-inclined.
But again, we have seen that mainstream religious institutions have been able to incorporate heliocentrism, evolutionary theory and continental drift and yet still espouse a coherent (to their believers) set of theories for religious, spiritual and ethical conduct. In terms of educational psychology, the initial cognitive dissonance arising from a direct challenge to faith-based beliefs can be overcome by incorporating the new data and relating it to existing knowledge, thus clarifying and re-configuring the knowledge base in a new way.
I believe this educational process is yet to occur for many supernaturally-inclined believers, for whom God’s promise to Noah seems to be under threat by rising sea-level scenarios.
I think there are many reasons why this analysis could be useful in shedding more light on the AGW debate:
1) A recent ‘taxonomy of delusion‘ by John Quiggin, while helpful, did not examine any aspects of faith-based beliefs that may be part of this particular powder keg. I think when no rational motivation can be found for a particular school of thought, it’s helpful to look for an irrational one. Irrational, emotional or faith-based views are far more durable than rational beliefs, and quite impervious to scientific evidence. That I think is the unacknowledged source of much anti-AGW dogmatism.
2) The “scientific” debate has degenerated into a slanging match best illustrated by this recent comment from poster Hannah’s dad:
Denialists remind me of my dog hannah and her ball.
No matter how many times you pick the ball up that she has just dropped at your feet she’s back in a flash dropping it at your feet again, and again and again…
…Denialist makes a statement, somebody corrects said statement, shows it to be factually incorrect and actually cites evidence to support said correction but the denialist is back, just like hannah, with another ‘fact’, which gets corrected but the denialist is back, just like hannah, with another ‘fact’ which ….
There’s so much recycling of old debunked canards, repeated knee-jerk retrieval of mucky dog-slobbered tennis balls, and shifting of goalposts, that the “scientific” debate now resembles some kind of surrealistic performance art rather than an informed, civilised discussion.
3) Finally, and this is just a personal intuition, much of the argumentation and methods espoused by the anti-AGW science crowd seem to share features in common with those of Creation Science or Intelligent Design. I’m not talking about specific scientific points here: rather, what I’m suggesting is that creation science or intelligent design can only become coherent by disregarding a great deal of what we now know about basic physics and chemistry. Likewise with anti-AGW science.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing — if they’re right, the position of the anti-AGW crowd is a breakthrough of Nobel-prizewinning proportions. Their assertions, if proven correct, would overturn much of our basic understanding of physics, chemistry and atmospheric science. If an obscure patent-clerk in the early 20th century, working with pencil and paper, can come up with physical theory that overturns Newtonian mechanics, perhaps a retired atmospheric scientist can indeed, with the last of his cognitive faculties, squeeze out some physics-busting treatise that will later be hailed as a breakthrough. But then again, would you bet your seaside house on it?
So, to conclude, a few points that I hope will tangentially illuminate my position and tease out some further ironies:
The latest much-anticipated ‘AGW-busting’ book is, as Helen helpfully pointed out, published by a house that specialises in Christian conservative literature. The publishers perhaps wish to do their best to help out God and remind God that God has promised not to destroy us all in a Flood. I hope God’s listening to them.
Another irony in all this is that, after many years arguing against creation scientists over their purported discovery of Noah’s Ark, it seems that Ian Plimer might have unwittingly thrown in his lot with a crowd who are very attached to the other end of the Noah myth. I wonder how hard God is laughing at Plimer now?
Next, like creation scientists and intelligent designists, the anti-AGW crowd will loudly insist that their views are based solely on the science, and that no other beliefs or ideas inform their positions. Yet I can’t help but wonder, given how deeply the Noachide myth is woven into the subconscious of Abrahammic cultures, whether there’s just a little more than the “science” behind this.
Finally, I am reminded of another mythological figure, that of Cassandra. Ridiculed, ignored, ostracised and finally imprisoned for her scandalous prophecies of doom, Cassandra was of course cursed to be right. That pretty much sums up the feelings of many environmentalists.
I wonder who will win this struggle? YHWH or Apollo? Noah or Cassandra? One thing’s for sure, until the antagonists can understand the basis of their anxieties, science will be ever the loser. And if we bet on the wrong Horse, we’ll be up to our neck in Greeks, so to speak.
***UPDATE*** Over in Pedants’ corner, we’ve had a diverting discussion about the nature of Cassandra’s curse. She was cursed to not be believed in spite of being right. The original article made this point in shorthand as I assumed knowledgeable readership. The readership has turned out to be so knowledgeable that they can’t help but to insist upon the curse being explained in full. If you consider that Cassandra was cursed to be disbelieved in spite of being right, and then consider the way environmentalists’ efforts are now being curtailed thanks to the anti-AGW noisemakers, you may consider the analogy to be even more apt, when explained in full.
Aaaahhhh, but the promise to Noah was only that God would never again destroy the world in a flood, not that humans would never be silly enough to do such a thing.
Mercurius, well done.
About time some-one pointed the finger at the gorilla in clerical garb that appears every time a denialist claps his trap.
It’s all in the bible mate we are the boss we dominate, we control and God said so.
The world was created for us by a God who looks just like us or we just look like him. (not sure which) The same person who designed us so intelligently that he put the toilet in the middle of the playground.
Huggy
I heard Phillip Adams talking to Ross Garnaut, (?) the other night. The former who said, he had a wary suspicion that Wong and Rudd’s *Christianity* might see them more easily put a CPRS or ETS (whateves) on the backburner, as they possibly, secretly, were hoping on some kind of ’second coming’. A sort of a new testament version of the old testament idea you illustrate. But a professed atheist, such as Adams is, seems bound to have some darkly held fear (and loathing) for those not subscribing to his particular world view. I don’t think his suspicions will gain much traction and belied more about his own uncertainties and insecurities than it did about Wong or Rudd seriously counting on the clouds to part etc . . .
Hmmmm, I’m not sure about this. Shorter Mercurious seems to be:
1. Denialists are irrational
2. some of them are religious
3. religion is irrational
4. therefore denialists are irrational because of religion?
I’m not sure I agree with this if that’s the premise. Certainly, it’s an element of denialism, but I hesitate to posit it as the only, or even prime, one – furthermore plenty of religious people are very concerned about climate change.
I think the reasons that people disagree with the science behind climate change are wide and varied, and I would be hesitant to tell someone (especially someone I disagree with) that I know better than they do what they’re thinking. I feel like it’s a bit condescending (easy enough to do with denialists, I know).
Sociologically speaking I think humanity’s relationship with nature, and our environments in general, are far more complex, nuanced and multi-faceted than this view allows, and certainly a relationship experienced through many different lenses beyond a religious one. I think it’s a bit reductionist and in some ways beside the point. People are allowed to think what they like – we are frequently irrational as humans and rarely pilloried for it. It’s actions that we are judged on.
The irony of all this is that I speak as both a firm believer in climate change, and an atheist! But I just don’t feel comfortable with this kind of neat explication.
I’ve also pondered the origins of deep-seated denialism.
From the goings on at Jennifer Marohasy I have concluded that for many of the true-believers, AGW, and Teh Greens in particular, are a threat to the very heart of Capitalism, a world view in which Man has dominion over Nature. The idea that Man is part of Nature is heresy and inherently threatening. Greens are portrayed as putting Nature before Man and will therefore destroy civilisation as we know it, forcing us to live like stone-aged agrarians, and likely to eat our babies for good measure.
I doubt that may of Marohasy’s coterie are religious folk, although they do have a fundamentalist belief in the supremacy of man and technology in the pursuit of individual gain over all else.
The Sky Fairy is going to come down and wave his magic want and make it all better. Anyone who disagrees will be burnt at the stake.
A case of over-analysis I think Mercurius. Most denialists are quite literally incapable of believing that AGW will cause the consequences predicted by mainstream science. It’s a cognitive deficiency and failure of imagination akin to the obese person who refuses to concede they might get sick even as their blood pressure climbs and they find it harder to get up stairs.
Consequently, because they cannot (not don’t want to, or refuse to, but lack the mental capacity to) acknowledge the possibility of AGW, they see the whole thing as a fraud. How in their minds could it be anything else? That explains the otherwise bizarre righteous fury that so many denialists exhibit.
I’m referring here to the denialists who sincerely believe in their position. There’s a whole other bunch of hacks and careerists of course who care SFA about the reality because they don’t believe it will affect them personally. For them the whole thing is just a hugely enjoyable and often profitable game.
The same failures of cognition and imagination afflicted many supporters of the Iraqi invasion and occupation. They were incapable of giving concrete meaning to the ongoing tragedy of deaths and injuries and displacement. For them the whole thing was an abstract exercise in deductive logic. It’s no coincidence that many invasion advocates are also denialists: their incapacity to imagine any reality other than the one they have created in their own minds means they live quite literally in an alternative universe. No amount of evidence or argument will get them out of it.
Brendan Nyhan has been publishing some relevant papers lately. One of his findings is that producing evidence that negates someone’s strong preconceptions can actually STRENGTHEN them. It’s like the power of will is summoned to counter the impact of data. So I think you’re on the right track suggesting that most denialists are not rational and not susceptible to evidence-based argument but I suspect the explanation lies in a simple failure of cognition and/or imagination.
With some denialists I think there’s also an element of cognitive dissonance of the kind that finds it unpleasant to believe that people they deeply dislike and disapprove of (i.e. TEH BLOODY GREENIES) could be right about something important.
In the spirit of self-analysis, I think a similar kind of cognitive dissonance was exhibited during the Cold War by people on the left who found it unpleasant and thus psychologically impossible to believe that anti-communists could be right about the Soviet Union because said anti-communists were often people who many on the left disliked and disapproved of because of their views on other issues (anti-abortion, anti-queer, pro-war, anti-anti-racist, anti-union, etc.).
I don’t believe in God.
I am yet to be convinced that climate modelling can accurately predict the future climate.
I am yet to be convinced that man’s contribution to the natural process of climate change is as large as is currently being pushed (i.e. poor modelling). We still don’t fully understand the role of oceans as hint sinks or the role of the sun (eg sun spot activity).
I am yet to be convinced that man can do anything on a global level to significantly change man’s impact on climate change.
I am yet to be convinced that Australian efforts would make any measurable impact on changing global climate change (both morally and physically).
I am yet to be convinced we can accurately forecast the economic impacts of climate change or the proposals to tax and regulate CO2 emmissions.
I am yet to be convinced that a global ageement will be entered into or complied with (Kyoto is a joke).
I am yet to be convinced that man’s ability to adapt won’t enable us to cope with whatever change is happening.
I am yet to be convinced that government regulation and taxation will lead to the most efficient distribution of resources to face the challenges of the future, one of which is climate change.
I am yet to be convinced that climate change is a bigger problem than, say, salinity in the WA Wheatbelt, or under investment in water harvesting and storage infrastructure, or any other of the miriad of immediate environmental issues facing us.
Convince me and I will agree.
This is not much different from the republican debate in many ways. The UK has absolutely direct legslative influence over us – yet Republicans call for change. When I ask them to cost how much their proposed changes will incur and lsit the actual measurable benfits of their proposal, they can’t. Show me the positive measurable benfit and I will agree.
Slim, I think you’ve got it in a nutshell.
Razor – what do you think about the
Montreal Protocol and the CFC / Ozone issue?
Thanks for the cite Mercurius although hannah was a little put out by your reference to “mucky dog-slobbered’ as if that were some sort of negative. But she is willing to let it go over her head.
I think you, and Quiggin, have a relevant point.
One expressed in the previous thread [at # 68 I think] by Huggybunny when he said “it’s all about dominion”. A point he repeats here.
Maybe its not ALL about dominion but I reckon the religiously authorised injunction to control nature is challenged by AGW and some religious types object to restrictions being place on their ‘god given right’.
In the previous thread I cited Genesis 1.28 where god says to Adam and Eve and thus today’s fundies as well:
“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and SUBDUE it and have DOMINION over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and every living thing that creeps on the earth …and so on…”.
Its worth checking out the new Climate Sceptics Party as noted in a post over at Grodscorp where, as well as standard anti-AGW stuff, we have the intrusion of ‘family values”.
Sound familiar?
Cue Steve?
mmm – Noahcide myth!
Good to see non-Christians quoting the bible out of context again!
What was that aboout a flood again? A Global Flood! Global warming is not going to cause a flood of the same proportions (current predictions are for rise of 1.3m over next 100 years).
Anyway, have a look at 2Pet 3:7 and related verses for “end of the world (& the reason why)” discussions.
Don’t forget Voltaire’s wise words: “Prejudices are what fools use for reason”.
So, if you dismiss faith-based arguments out of hand – you are prejudiced. Likewise with reason-based arguments.
Is your “intellectual rigour” your prejudice? (or is it simply your insecurity that causes you to be deaf to another’s perspective?)
Razor,
Are you also yet-to-be-convinced that:
* climate modelling is meaningless and can provide no insight at all?
* man’s contribution to the natural process of climate change is insignificant?
* that man cannot do anything on a global level to significantly change man’s impact on climate change?
* Australian efforts would not make any measurable impact on changing global climate change (both morally and physically)?
* we can not reasonably forecast the economic impacts of climate change or the proposals to tax and regulate CO2 emmissions?
* a global agreement will not be entered into or complied with?
* man’s ability to adapt will enable us to cope with whatever change is happening?
* a lack of government regulation and taxation will lead to the most efficient distribution of resources to face the challenges of the future, one of which is climate change?
* climate change is a smaller problem than, say, salinity in the WA Wheatbelt, or under investment in water harvesting and storage infrastructure, or any other of the miriad of immediate environmental issues facing us?
* that if we can’t know something for sure, or guarantee success then the best course of action is to sit on our hands and do nothing?
Russell – yes the CFC/Ozone thing is quite succesful from a compliance view. Whether it will actually lead to the ozone hole disappearing – well, we have to wait and see.
But, if you are trying to compare CFCs with greenhouse gas emmissions then that is an appples and oranges thing. On the science side CFC/Ozone effects appear to be comparitively easily understood. The impact of “greenhouse” emmissions within the dynamics of climate, atmosphere, oceans and land is much more complex. We still don’t understand let alone accurately model the global climate. And that is just the science side of things.
On the politcs and economy comparison of CFCs v greenhouse gases as an issue – carbon based fuels are one of the fundamental building blocks of our current civilisation, unlike CFCs which were readily replaceable with minimal economic and social impact.
Thanks Mercurius for another analytic tool to use in throwing some light on matters of hot dispute. I’ve found it is useful to look at hot topics in terms of group theories (particularly Wilfred Bion) to ponder on strongly held differences in approach. The concept of power inherent in these theories includes theosophical stances if one substitutes the concept of God for that of power and authority.
desipis – by saying “do nothing” you imply that nothing changes. Change is constant. I believe that we will adapt as required. I do not trust the government of Australia or the rest of the world to produce the solutions to our challenges.
Take the peak oil argument for example. It has been going on for almost a hundred years now. Yes, over time, we will deplete the oil resouces of the world. As tht happens the market will identify opportunities to replace oil based energy. Price signals will do this best, not government reugulation or subsidies.
One other reason I have for not being convinced about the issue is the screaming hypocrisy of the Al Gore, Flannery, Obama, Rudd, Wong, Chromy, Sting, Bono, et al who all fly around the world spewing CO2, living very nice lifestyles and conferencing in Bali and Copenhagen 9all places I like to holiday in) and yet preaching gloom and doom and that I should freeze my arse off in a cold bathroom under a trickle of luke warm water on a winter morning. You can jam that where the sun don’t shine.
Hi patrickg,
I certainly wasn’t seeking to present this “as the only, or even prime” element of denialism. I thought I’d put enough qualifiers in there, but if it wasn’t clear enough then I apologise.
Nor was I presuming to tell others what they think (a pet hate of mine in any circumstance). I was explaining how it appears to me that the dogmatism of others may derive in part from a certain faith-based anxiety that’s deep-rooted within our culture, perhaps even subconsciously. I hope I made it clear that this is an open speculation, or intuition of mine. I welcome your contribution to the discussion on it.
—-
Razor, your professed statements of your position on this seem perfectly reasonable in isolation…
…but taken together, unless I’m misunderstanding you, I’m afraid your professed views form an insurmountable set of conditions that no evidence could, in principle, ever satisfy. Karl Popper would not be pleased.
How so? I’ll explain:
But how on earth (sic) can we show you “positive measurable benefits” if you assert, a priori, that you don’t believe any such predictions to be valid? It’s difficult to avoid an inference that your claimed openness to being convinced is a furphy — since you’ve set your preconditions of acceptance in terms that no evidence can ever validate. You’re skirting dangerously close to an appearance of bad faith.
Now, I don’t for one moment suggest that I could produce whatever evidence might convince you, since I’m no scientist. Nor, as I hope was clear from the post, am I going to allow this thread to degenerate into a tit-for-tat recycling of the sham “scientific” debate that happens interminably on this and other blogs. But what I’m curious to know is this — what would convince you? What, in Popperian terms, would be evidence capable of overcoming your skepticism? Put a set of goalposts down that are valid Popperian falsifiable propositions, don’t move ‘em (another tired old trick), and I’d be interested to see if some current or future scientist could kick a goal.
You also seem to have a perfectly contradictory view on the ability of humanity to impact the climate, or to adapt to changes in climate. This you summarise as:
You seem to be saying that…we can’t affect anything on a global scale about our activities which might be affecting things on a global scale, but we can adapt to anything that might happen on a global scale? That sentence was hard to type because it’s nonsensical — as is the logic of your two statements taken together.
And yet, not to be outdone:
I don’t get this: You have great faith in “man’s ability to adapt”, yet no faith in “government regulation and taxation”. Well, who or what do you think directs government? Who or what do you think is designing environmental policy? Who or what do you suppose will implement whatever mitigation strategies we come up with? Cheetahs? Fairies? Klingons?
Furthermore, if you are so confident that we can adapt to any climactic conditions that might eventuate, how can you not also be confident that our activities can’t change the climate — for better or worse — now — whether as unintended by-products of other activities, or as intended, directed mitigation strategies? There was a giant hole in the ozone layer a generation ago, and it’s closing because of specific government regulations that were globally adopted and which have mitigated a global climate problem. That was a pretty solid “adaptation” to the demands of a pretty dire climactic issue, don’t you think? If you believe that we’re capable of changing the climate by demolishing all the rainforests or removing all the fish from the sea, how can we not also be capable of mitigating the effects of these impacts?
Your statements @ 9, taken in toto, seems to me a fairly obstinate blend of fatalism, cynicism and nihilism. But, the one thing it don’t resemble to my eye is honest skepticism.
Mercurius – it is a well known fact that the Romulan Tal Shiar substantially influence all world governments through their extensive network of agents.
I think Mercurius that Razor believes The Market will sort it all out, don’t you worry about that.
Razor,
I’m not a religious type, but I’m reminded of that story about a man who gets stuck on a roof in rising flood waters, who turns away multiple rescue attempts because “god will save him”, and then when he dies god explains that the rescue attempts were god trying to save him.
You have the same blind and ignorant faith in “the market” that the man in the story had in god. The government taking action that is supported by the majority of the population is how “we will adapt as required”. Change doesn’t happen by magical forces it takes action by people, and one of the biggest proponents of change in our society is the government.
If you really are so anti-government, perhaps you should move to Somalia and enjoy a wonderful life free from government intervention.
Can’t let this little ray of sunshine from Paul @ 14 go either:
Ahem, Paul. The Bible is not the sole property of Christians. Nor is it the original property of Christians, either. My people had it first, you know — so I think I’m entitled to quote from it in any context, thank you very much.
If you can’t cope with figurative language, you’d best run along to a different blog, dearie. But then again, one thing I’ve learned the hard way is that Bible literalists are incapable of a figurative discussion under any circumstances.
Umm…where to start? I made a tentative suggestion that I believe some of the anti-AGW crowd may (knowingly or otherwise) be motivated by a faith-based anxiety that stems in part from the Noachide covenant. You in turn accuse me of “dismissing faith-based arguments out of hand” — so effectively you agree that some of the anti-AGW positions are indeed faith-based. Thanks for arguing my point for me.
Mate, I don’t think I’m the one who has a problem in the “intellectual rigour” department. Actually, I’m not that fussed if other people want to espouse positions that are nonsensical in fact or in logic, but I’ll reserve my right to disagree with them. Honest disagreement is not “prejudice”. If you believe I’m “prejudiced” because I don’t agree with you, then that can only stem from a belief that yours is the only possible correct view — which I’m afraid, makes you the one who is prejudiced.
The sun is a greater influence on this planet than human beings.
I’m sorry your geocentric climate perspective cannot allow this scientific thought to enter your mind.
Merc – “But how on earth (sic) can we show you “positive measurable benefits” if you assert, a priori, that you don’t believe any such predictions to be valid?”
Easy – produce a model of the climate which accurately matchs the past – including things like the 1998 El Nino spike etc.
“I am yet to be convinced that man can do anything on a global level to significantly change man’s impact on climate change.” I am referring to the ability to get a workable global agreement. The industrialisation of the BRIC economies will smash any effort by the developed world to reduce CO2 emmissions. What ever the climate science says, the poitcs and economy of it is unstoppable. Over 3 billion people want to live an energy intensive westernised lifestyle. The world can’t agree on nucler weapons, the Middle East, Dohar Trade talks etc.
Of couse we can effect things on a global scale – if everybody decided to stop consuming energy then hey presto, but it ain’t going to happen.
I am certainly not a fatalist or nihilist. I’d prefer realist but if you think I’m a cynic that’s your call.
I’m curious about the reference to “The Agamemnon”. I had heard of him only as a character in the Iliad, not as the name of an independent book. Can anyone enlighten me?
Monkey: go search on oreistia by, I think, Aeschylus.
Thanks Razor @ 25: well, if you want a complete climate model, why don’t you ask tehdude $ 24? He seems to know all about what really runs the climate — the sun! So I guess he can supply you with a climate perfect model too.
Well, as I said, I can’t supply you with your perfect climate model, since I’m no scientist. But the thing is, neither can any scientist. What you’ve asked for is a contradiction in terms. You should know this: Climate science is a stochastic exercise that can only produce fuzzy averages, not specific events. No stochastic global model will produce a specific prediction of a regional event like El Nino in 1998.
What you want for Christmas is a two-horned unicorn. You ain’t gonna get it — but that’s because your wish is outta order. And if you’re going to cling to your wish as a reason to ignore the findings of climate scientists, then you’re just being obstinate.
*insert picture of Karl Popper, looking grumpy and wagging his finger at Razor*
That’s not what they’re trying to model. That’s not what they need to model. You don’t seem to understand the issue. No wonder you’re not convinced.
Mercurius is a bit of a giggle. I have been following the debate for years and have hardly seen a single blog post that draws any analogy with Noah’s flood. Yes some anti-AGW’s are religous, but a lot of religious people are pro-AGW – most Australian Churchs for starters.
The apocalyptic, calvinistic moralising of AGW zealots is much more typical of religion than the attitudes of most sceptics. The preferred term, “denialist”, has obvious religous overtones in itself.
I make a living from relying on financial analysts and economists, so I am pretty clued up on how wildly inaccurate they can be. Call it gun shy if you want.
On the climate modelling side – firstly, El Nino events are a natural phenomena and should be modelled for accuracy. I don’t expect them to forecast major eruptions of volcanoes or metorite strikes, but they should be able to theoretically model these types of events. But El nino has a significant influence on outcomes for the globe and should be replicable if we understand the system. To say we don’t is either an admission of a lack of understanding or a cop out (too hard!).
Secondly – fuzzy averages – how fuzzy? What is an acceptable margin of error or confidence interval? Trillions of dollars of tax and investment are relying on these numbers. Billions of peoples’ standards of living rely on these outcomes and yet we are asked to rely on fuzzy averages. Not me.
And yes I do believe the market is the best provider – and no I don’t beleive in no government, just small, with a light touch. We would probably not be able to sit here crapping on liek this without a market based solution for all the hardware, software, intectual property etc etc that the market has provided (with some governemnt role).
I’m a skeptic.
If you want to understand skeptics go and read their sites. Go and read Watts Up. Go and read the best of the Climate Skeptics books. Cool It (which could even be described as not a Skeptic book as the IPCC position is accepted) and Climate of Extremes would be worth a look. I’ve read Flannery’s book and wasn’t convinced. I’ll have a look at Stern’s soonish.
One of the things that annoys me most about the debate is how both sides ontinually ascribe ‘evil’ motives to the other. I really trust believers when they say that they believe this is the biggest threat to the world. I think they are wrong, but I believe them. When Jennifer Marahosy writes epics about what she thinks Greens believe I cringe. When Quiggin wrote his thing it appeared to be as bad.
As for my thoughts. Well, C02 does influence climate. It will raise temperatures. Richard Lindzen’s position that without feedback you get, say about 0.5-1.5 C of change would appear to be completely consistent with what we have seen so far. Indeed, RSS is at 0.1 C / decade, UAH at 0.13 C / decade and Hadcrut at
about 0.16 C / decade and GISS at 0.19 . The actual measured sea rise increase
is, what, 3mm a year?
As for Popperian criteria, if we see an increase 0.3 C / decade or above for at least, say about a decade then I’ll change my tune. What about you believers?
If the climate is flat or rises slowly for the next 10 would 20 years of low to
no rises make you question your position?
As for policy, well, Lomborgs idea of spending 0.05 % of developed countries
GDP on low carbon long term energy seems wise. In Australia that would
mean about $300 M a year or about half of DSTO or 1/3 of CSIRO’s budget. A low
carbon tax, with no exceptions, would be a reasonable way to obtain this.
We’re not all Rush Limbaughs on the skeptic side. Many, many are swinging
voters and even Left wingers. I voted for Rudd. Many of us would be convinced
by temperature rises that were larger than what we’re seeing now.
(Apologies for the weird line breaks )
Cool Razor – well I understand your position better from how you make your living. How did you go relying on all those wonderful free-market boosters of the never-ending boom in credit default swaps? As I recall, Soros and Buffet had been saying for years we were headed for trouble, and were shouted off the stage for being Cassandras. All those smart people at the ratings agencies and CNBC had all the answers, and anybody who didn’t want to join in the fun was a party-pooper. Until, well, you know…
If you think the market is the best provider, perhaps the free market can come up with some interesting and innovative solutions to reducing carbon emissions? Like, I don’t know, some kind of scheme, perhaps, where a price is put on carbon, perhaps, and trading in it takes place, perhaps. Now, why hasn’t somebody thought of that before?
Hi Merc, thanks for the response – i suspect we’re in furious agreement.
This said, if what you’re highlighting is what see as simply one part (perhaps even small) of denialist motivations, then why bother calling it out, at the expense of numerous other motivations, etc? I don’t want to come across all negative nancy here, I’m just looking to find the value in analysing these discourses this way.
Razor,
Why are you so ready to accept the benefits of the market and downside of the government, but so skeptical about everything else?
Likewise we would probably not be able to do it if governments hadn’t invested in a telecommunication system that covered the vast majority of the population ensuring the presence of a large enough market for the technology and communications companies to grow in.
As Mercurius points out, that’s what most of the governments are doing w.r.t climate change; creating a market for companies to grow and innovate within.
Patrickg, it’s called ‘know your opponent’. If you don’t know what makes someone tick, how can you hope to persuade or convince? If somebody is resisting proposition x because they believe (mistakenly) that it challenges or is somehow bound up in some closely-held and cherished proposition y, then you first need to decouple the two issues in their minds, so they can begin to think more clearly about them.
Or, to put it another way, if you give someone ice-cream when all they are thinking about is strawberries, they ain’t gonna thank you, no matter how high you pile the plate. I think that’s why the “scientific” debate is often so poor and why some people aren’t convinced by any amount of credible scientific data — we’re serving the wrong dessert.
Mercurius @ 19
The two statements might be reconciled by observing that humans don’t cover or need to cover much of the earth. So it can be argued that to engineer habitable areas for 10 billion is easier than making some change which is truly global. A lot of that effort could be seen as ‘wasted’ on areas no person is there to appreciate.
A bit like how I have aircon in the living room but don’t extend it to the garden.
‘fraid you might be drawing a long bow here. My entire extended family are cheerful evolution-hating fundies, but I’ve never heard them talk about CC in the terms you describe. They tend to be fatalistic about its effects, but there’s no denial that bad things may happen this century. Events like CC are taken as signs of the end times, and often there’s a certain sense of relief expressed when bad news crops up. Means Jeebus will be here any minute to
smite all those smug bastardsset things right, don’t'cher know.I think 7 and 8 pretty much nailed most of what’s going on – fear that adaptation means giving up hard-won shiny things, plus distrust of othered groups like ‘lefties’ and ‘greenies’ and especially ’scientists’. I think that in addition, there’s a strong element of ‘I’ve got enough to worry about already’, and frequently a kneejerk oppositional response to the word ‘environment’.
I read on Eureka Street today that Thomas Berry has died – here’s a bit from Paul Collins, on Berry:
“Religion, he argued, was meant to provide an interpretative pattern, a way of making sense of ourselves and the cosmos. But it has failed. ‘The greatest failure of Christianity in the total course of its history is its inability to deal with the devastation of the planet.’ Christians have sensitivity to suicide, homicide and genocide, ‘but we commit biocide (the killing of the life systems of the planet) and geocide (the killing of the planet itself) and we have no morality to deal with it’.
‘Religion’, he concludes, ‘is absorbed with the pathos of the human.”
Merc @ 31 “If you think the market is the best provider, perhaps the free market can come up with some interesting and innovative solutions to reducing carbon emissions?”
– - like tree plantations to offset carbon with associated tax benefits. Right, now where did I put those prospectuses for Timbercorp . . .
The same place you should have put the ones for Babcock and Brown?
Razor at 38: Probably you put them in your John Howard file – it was on his watch that they received all those tax perks.
Decades ago Tolstoi provided another explanation for failing to acknowledge the growing evidence. “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”…
Always remember, Experts once said the world was flat, and that the Sun circled the Earth. It is healthy to be a skeptic, yet have an open mind, but one not so open that your brain falls out.
What about Bush and Cheney and Big Oil and Palin and . . . they’re all responsible!!!
Mercurius
Ignorance of The Torah, Greek tragedy, and science all in one post. Impressive
Please be so munificent as to enlighten me, Adam.S, with your great insight, you fantastic fighter of ignorance, you.
I must say I’ve never read anything that says AGW won’t happen because of God’s guarantee to
Up-napishtimNoah. My first response was: don’t give them any ammo..
There are Christians on both sides of the ‘debate’. The Roman Catholic Church is ful of beans on the environment (whilst continuing to urge sexual behaviour that contributes to over-population). But the alliance forged between agents of the American political and economic elite and the fly-over fundamentalists (largely established so that the latter would persistently vote against their own interests) continues on the environment.
.
I’m not sure the vast bulk of people who talk about AGW have ever read anything deeper than their favourite media pundit. That’s both sides.
Adam S – Ignorance of The Torah, Greek tragedy, and science all in one post. Impressive
.
I’ll second Merc’s request for elucidation there.
.
There’s no extensive dealing with Homer et al or Genesis but what there is is correct. And the opposition between the Greco-Roman and the Judeo-Christian implied therein, I think, pertains to the clash of sensibilities in the AGW ‘debate’.
.
The only thing missing is that we need Odysseus. He was cool. He figured out how to get things done without getting everyone, like, killed n’ shit.
From FT.com via Herald sun/A. Bolt:
“China and the US failed to achieve a breakthrough at their latest round of climate talks on Wednesday, raising the stakes in the global effort to fight global climate change.
The two countries responsible for almost half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions ended three days of negotiations in Beijing. While there are still months to go until the December meeting in Copenhagen, where 181 countries, led by the United Nations, plan to work out a new climate pact, the two biggest emitters’ glacial pace towards compromise is likely to discourage others from making concessions during a pre-Copenhagen round of negotiations under way in Bonn, which is set to wrap up on Friday.
Todd Stern, President Barack Obama’s special envoy on climate change, tried to sound optimistic when the US delegation ended its China visit but could hardly conceal that little had been achieved… ”
As I said above – “I am yet to be convinced that man can do anything on a global level to significantly change man’s impact on climate change.” I am referring to the ability to get a workable global agreement. The industrialisation of the BRIC economies will smash any effort by the developed world to reduce CO2 emmissions. What ever the climate science says, the poitcs and economy of it is unstoppable. Over 3 billion people want to live an energy intensive westernised lifestyle. The world can’t agree on nucler weapons, the Middle East, Dohar Trade talks etc.
Adam S.: “Ignorance of The Torah, Greek tragedy, and science…”
45 Mercurius at 6:03 pm: “Please be so munificent as to enlighten me, Adam.S, with your great insight…”
Obviously only Adam S. can speak for himself, but I will tell you that you have somewhat misunderstood Greek tragedy insofar as your Cassandra quote is poorly chosen, and I’ll explain why. Adam S. may have other reasons of his own.
In the myths, Cassandra was cursed by the god Apollo (I think as a punishment for spurning his advances), and she was specifically cursed not so much “to be right” (as you say) but more precisely, never to be believed in spite of being right. In other words, it was not due to the obtuseness of the Trojans, or anybody else, that Cassandra was never believed; it was due to her personal curse. No matter how clearly she managed to explain herself, no one was ever going to believe her, due to the power of the god’s punishment. It wasn’t a bug, it was a feature. Cassandra in this regard has more in common with say Midas or Sisyphus than she would with Tiresias. So your quote here lends no gravity nor clarity to your position, and is in the end more meaningless than meaningful; that in itself is not a fatal flaw in your argument, but given the downright oddness of your position, it butters no parsnips and builds no particular confidence in your other conclusions, viz. ‘If this is how you treat one text, etc etc.’
That may not be what Adam S. had on his mind, but it’s a “just sayin’” thing nevertheless.
If you are right, WG, and I expect you are, then you are too hard a marker. If a better analogy could have been chosen it doesn’t destroy the argument as such.
Interesting post, Mercurius.
.. and anybody who can’t recognize the ready application of Mercurius’ proposition to themselves (reconstructed atheist or no) isn’t looking far enough under their hood
And it’s not only Christianity – it’s also our species moral birthright – that the world was our oyster. Afterall – it bloody well was. We aced the joint.
But now the game has changed. It’s no surprise there are a few recalcitrants – it’s only a surprise that the majority have adapted to the new truths so quickly.
Mercurius:
“Cassandra was of course cursed to be right.”
Walter Grumpius:
“she was specifically cursed not so much “to be right” (as you say) but more precisely, never to be believed in spite of being right.”
She was indeed (and specifically, no less) ‘cursed to be right’. Apollo granted Cassandra the gift of ‘being right’. She spurned his love in spite of his gift. He repaid this spurning, not by simply removing the gift (which would have been no revenge at all), but by *ruining, or, more appropriately, soiling, and making her suffer*, his gift to her. Thus, Cassandra very much became ‘cursed to be right’.
“In other words, it was not due to the obtuseness of the Trojans, or anybody else, that Cassandra was never believed; it was due to her personal curse”
That woefully misinterprets how the god, Apollo, deployed his ‘curse’. It wasn’t Cassandra ‘cursed’, so to speak, or put under a ’spell’, it was the Trojans (and everybody else) who were *made to become obtuse toward her gift*. The Trojans became spellbound by their god, and (their own account of) his account of Cassandra.
Tragic when that happens, isn’t it
Sally R — it seems to me that you’re really saying the same thing as myself in terms of the ultimate effect, but simply spinning it the other way to suit your own concerns. But be that as it may, I think there’s a pretty simple test of this (not to go off into too much of a tangent about Greek myths in a global warming thread). It’s been a long time since I’ve read either “Agamemnon” or “Trojan Women” and I don’t have the texts handy, but I’d propose this as an arbiter: in either of those texts (or any other in which Cassandra features as a character), if, in the wake of the calamity, any other participating character (besides the chorus or a narrator) laments their obtuseness after the fact and says “Cassandra, you were right all along, why didn’t I/we listen to you?!?” then I’ll consider that you (and Mercurius) are right and I’m wrong. If on the other hand, nobody regrets not listening to her or even notices, and it’s merely Cassandra who’s frustrated by her misfortune, then I’d say that indicates that I was correct. If only the chorus or the narrator notices, then I say we consider it a tie. Like I say, I haven’t laid eyes on the texts in years, so the game is afoot.
If nothing else, it’ll give a few Greek enthusiasts with time on their hands something to research.
The Fall of Troy – Book XII by Quintus
…
“O wretches! into the Land of Darkness now
We are passing; for all round us full of fire
And blood and dismal moan the city is.
Everywhere portents of calamity
Gods show: destruction yawns before your feet.
Fools! ye know not your doom: still ye rejoice
With one consent in madness, who to Troy
Have brought the Argive Horse where ruin lurks!
Oh, ye believe not me, though ne’er so loud
I cry! The Erinyes and the ruthless Fates,
For Helen’s spousals madly wroth, through Troy
Dart on wild wings. And ye, ye are banqueting there
In your last feast, on meats befouled with gore,
When now your feet are on the Path of Ghosts!”
Then cried a scoffing voice an ominous word:
“Why doth a raving tongue of evil speech,
Daughter of Priam, make thy lips to cry
Words empty as wind? No maiden modesty
With purity veils thee: thou art compassed round
With ruinous madness; therefore all men scorn
Thee, babbler! Hence, thine evil bodings speak
To the Argives and thyself! For thee doth wait
Anguish and shame yet bitterer than befell
Presumptuous Laocoon. Shame it were
In folly to destroy the Immortals’ gift.”
So scoffed a Trojan: others in like sort
Cried shame on her, and said she spake but lies,
Saying that ruin and Fate’s heavy stroke
Were hard at hand. They knew not their own doom,
…
“if, in the wake of the calamity, any other participating character (besides the chorus or a narrator) laments their obtuseness after the fact and says “Cassandra, you were right all along, why didn’t I/we listen to you?!?” then I’ll consider that you (and Mercurius) are right and I’m wrong.”
For the record, I find it irrelevant whether other characters (besides the chorus or a narrator, which both obviously did) later realised and/or lamented their obtuseness and denialism, or not. How could they as such, narratively speaking, since the curse was never lifted?
Walter, perhaps it’s worth considering that your initial argument @49 and its ‘fatal flaw’, were both pedantically based upon you mistaking an adjective for a verb
Since gods don’t exist, what the point of trying to ascribe any part of the discussion of global warming to them or their books of faerie tales?
#54 demonstrates exactly nothing. Besides, to carry the analogy forward, if instead of yelling “Fools! Ye know not your doom!” she had simply said, “Hey fellas, look inside the horse, there’s a bunch of Greek soldiers in there waiting to ambush you” then perhaps you might have an argument about the cursed obtuseness of everybody else except Cassandra.
#55: “perhaps it’s worth considering that…” Worth considering briefly, and then rejecting, your (to date) mistaken claim.
weez #56: “Since gods don’t exist, what’s the point of trying to ascribe any part of the discussion to them…”
The thing is, that’s not what we’re doing. We’re discussing whether or not a text and a trope have been correctly understood and properly employed. If they haven’t been, it could shed analogous light on the merit of the argument in the post; that’s all.
WG, it is clear now that back at 49 you went in too hard on Mercurius given the currency of your knowledge.
Hey WG – I was aware of the nature of Apollo’s curse. Cassandra was cursed to be right and not to be believed. You may think this an apt analogy for the environmental movement (or George Soros’ and Warren Buffet’s warnings over many years about credit default swaps), or you may not.
At any rate, I used a short-hand in the article for this point, because I thought also that readers were aware of it — as you have demonstrated in spades in fact that you are.
I also think you are losing the forest for the trees here. It’s funny how often people can be ridiculed for being “such a Cassandra” — when in fact she was right all along!
But, *sigh*, I guess you won’t believe me
I’ve updated the article. Clarifying the true nature of Cassandra’s curse makes the point more strongly, so thanks WG for strengthening my argument.
Mercurius – no doubt out there somewhere is a small subset of sceptics who base their opposition on religious belief but if you are trying to suggest that represents anything other than a tiny subset you are revealing more about your own prejudices than theirs. This looks very suspiciously like ” that person doesn’t agree with me, I can’t possibly be wrong and I believe the strength of my arguments are unquestionable so the only possible reason for them not agreeing is they are a religious nutter”. Your post unfortunately is insightful for all the wrong reasons.
Here is an issue that is essentially one of statistics and your faith in your argument has grown so strong you believe those who aren’t convinced must be religious nutters.
I’d also add that My guess is the sceptics whose opposition is borne out religious belief would about approximate those who believe in AGW and GAIA.
The other thing I find very interesting in this debate and this applies to both sides, is you can go to either a believer or sceptical site and the comments that attack the otherside rather than debate the actual argument are utterly interchangeable. Go through the posts above attacking sceptics only and you’ll find nigh on mirror image quotes bar the word beleiver/denialist is obviously different on sceptics sites where it is just an attack comment.
We all need to have a think about that!
Nah…not so much. Somehow I don’t think the heretics you refer to as obstructing the millenarians’ efforts are gifted with Apollonian cursing superpowers. They’re just not convinced, due no doubt to their irrationality or deep character flaws.
Ackshally, I reckon you would have been better off with the Book of Jeremiah for your mythological memeing, as a mate relayed to me t’other day.
Also, while we’re in pedants’ corner, could you correct the spelling of Agamemnon in the first instance? Ta.
*cut to cheesy intro*
Most annoying cartoon robot ever.
I beg to differ.
Using two mythical characters to support the AGW story….very appropriate.
Using pointless snark to bolster ignorance…very appropriate.
Ah, at last! A full-blooded discussion of the George Pell Theory of Climate Change on LP. Remember, during the Popefest, when asked about Climate Change, he said ‘There’s more to it that that’ or words to that effect?
As always, Paul, it’s the conservative Protestants who lead in the field of condemning other Christians. All Christians should be Green!
Beret Boy taught how to write Japanese poetry by the Jesuits [?} (Have I got that right – my Spanish isn’t brilliant even though I hung round with Chileans for years)
Obviously you haven’t grown up with or met some of the Conservative Catholics I came across.
Nah, it means he writes his haikus in crayon.
Ah, Friday. That means
Fanatical devotion
To the Pope in Rome.
Con a-happen in
il Vati; be with my Anne,
she troppo pretty.
Dragging things back to base partisanship for a mo, I think Adrien is on the money up-thread the alliance forged between agents of the American political and economic elite and the fly-over fundamentalists
Some have even bothered to document this now decades long alliance:
http://www.waronscience.com/reviews.php
Bolstered ignorance,
With exercised pointless snark,
Takes about a month.
Grumpius – So your quote here lends no gravity nor clarity to your position, and is in the end more meaningless than meaningful; that in itself is not a fatal flaw in your argument
.
Nonsense.
.
How does your elucidation on Cassandra’s curse affect Mercurius’ points at all? The argument, which is more an analogy, says that there is a theocratic resistance to the very idea of AGW grounded perhaps in the belief in God’s promise never again to flood the Earth.
.
I think this may be spurious because I’ve never heard anyone bring up the story of Noah/Upnapishtum in relation to AGW. But the curse of Cassandra, to foresee doom accurately and to be disbelieved, is pertinent, or rather, was, to AGW. For years most people, left and right-wing, simply disregarded the warnings of various scientifically literate people of varying philosophies including Mrs Thatcher.
.
Now we have the phenomena where a section of the populace doggedly hold on to denial bolstered by little more than the transparent cherry-picking of the likes of Andrew Bolt. It does appear somewhat like the Trojan’s obtuse and finally self-destructive attitude.
.
Sometimes I wish it would happen and soon, total disaster. Cause if it did I’d be racing across to Sth Melbourne, draggin’ old Bolt out the door and forcing him to look at his own irresponsibility. He has disaster coming. But his children don’t. And that’s what makes my blood boil more than anything. These ‘family values’ loudmouths who seem quite prepared to sacrifice future generations to today’s resource firm heavy investment portfolios.
Liam – I thought you were ore of Br Rice type Mick.
1548 – in the middle of the bloody Inquisition – and, yes, I have read them, and the Imitation of Christ, and the St. teresa of Avila stuff, and the poetry of St. John of God and of Gerard Manley Hopkins. Also the Book of Majorie Kempe. Spare me. Spare me.
Kingsley @ 62,
Mate, you’ve charged, tried and convicted me of over-ascribing this idea as though I’ve applied it to vast swathes of the anti-AGW crowd, when I don’t and I didn’t.
As I explained to patrickg all the way back at 19, I thought I’d put in enough qualifiers to show that I was merely speculating about whether this Noah-anxiety might be, even unconsciously, driving some of the opposition (incidentally, that would include a few non-believers who are in any case steeped in a culture informed by the Noah-myth). But I never presented this as a catch-all argument, and it’s not germane of you to ascribe that to me when I’ve already explained myself on that point very clearly @ 19.
But this suggestion of yours really takes the biscuit:
Please don’t tell me what I think. See my reply to patrickg @ 19, please. I don’t have a strong faith in this argument — it’s a tentative speculation.
And at no time have I assumed, or suggested, nor do I believe, that anti-AGW is due to religious nuttery. That again is you convicting me of over-ascribing arguments that I did not make.
It doesn’t do for you to take my suggestion to an absurd and grossly distorted limit-case, as you do @ 62, and then suggest that because the absurd limit case is absurd, therefore my original quite modest suggestion is entirely without basis.
But if you’d like to know where you can level your charge with greater accuracy, go check out the average denialist site. You only have to wait about 0.00000005 seconds on an average Andrew Bolt post before an accusation is made that AGW is a ‘religious’ idea and all its adherents are ‘religious’ in their belief about it. They would seem to me to fit 100% your charge of “that person doesn’t agree with me, I can’t possibly be wrong and I believe the strength of my arguments are unquestionable so the only possible reason for them not agreeing is they are a religious nutter”.
What I do speculate, and this is but a personal intuition, as I made clear in the article, is that some elements of of the Noah-myth might be contributing to the anti-AGW anxiety, unbeknownst even to our interlocutors. Granted, this is almost unfalsifiable and not a terribly rigourous claim – it’s almost in Jungian ‘collective unconscious’ territory: but I merely wanted to put it forward to poke around a bit. Where’s the harm in that?
I made what I thought was a modest suggestion. It has provoked some quite vehement reactions, which could be a clue that I’ve touched a nerve somewhere after all. While many of those who’ve disagreed have explained their position quite reasonably — others, have been rather less so.
Mercurius _ When I read the post carefully there is language that is sort of guarded and measured and there is some that clearly is not eg
“But I also believe that a far greater number may be challenging AGW science guided by an unconscious or unacknowledged anxiety…”
and
“This is an attempt to better understand what anxieties lie beneath so much of the anti-AGW science push”
By your own words you clearly think a significant portion of the sceptics suffer from this delusion you have dreamed up.
I’d be interested to know just what % you think actually come from this standpoint because if it is very low one wonders why post about it all?
IF you think it is high that’s fine, but that says something about you also.
Likewise you object to me apparently telling you what you think and your entire post is dedicated to doing exactly that about sceptics? C’mon.
Why is it so hard for beleievers to conceive that a case reliant on statistics ( no one disputes CO2 insulates can we please get past that) might have it’s sceptics? Indeed “all” it really is about is how strong is that insulative effect countered against other impact in the climate system. Is it that surprising there is a difference of opinion over that?
Kingsley, if you can’t parse language sufficiently well to see that the article was speculative in tone (hint: ‘I believe’ and ‘may’ and ‘an attempt’ etc.), whereas your own attributions are declarative in voice, then I can’t really help you any further.
What % of people? Don’t be obtuse. I haven’t a view on that. It’s not really the point. I notice some commenters here ruled out the idea altogether because they’ve never seen an anti-AGW cite the Noachide covenant as an argument against global warming. I really can’t respond to such a literal mis-take on what was offered as a figurative discussion, and a bit of harmless cultural speculation. I’m still a bit amazed at the vehemence of some of the responses, and it still leaves me wondering if I did hit a nerve somewhere after all.
This was a tentative effort, an attempt, to drum up some ideas and thoughts, in the spirit of Montaigne. Since you seem to have little patience for such open-ended explorations, but from your questions seem to want all the answers to fit in neat little ‘either-or’ boxes, I’m at a loss to understand why you’ve bothered to comment at all.
Have a good weekend!
I thought Razor pointed out the position clearly,and not being convinced,certainly as I understand that, as a statement, doesn’t imply that one is incapable of understanding why some have accepted what appears to be what they are confident about.That is in the unwillingness to not accept the non Global Warming scenarios,for it would appear there are a number of general and specific ones dealing with present geographical locations, from my observations and understanding of presentations, the non Global Warming position isn’t one of a definite no change.Thus some Global Coolists,as they are now becoming have shown on both Artic matters and Antartic matters that many observations are very strange.We even had from within the C.S.I.R.O a matter confirming only a loss of ice in a very small area,whilst on the Lismore ABC Radio, a woman was claiming the melting was going to lead to a loss of some species of penguins forever,and they were the canaries down the mineshaft.I am convinced now that the Earth generally is cooling,so I wont argue the case against those who think its warming.I am shocked however, by the power of coal and oil interests,which is particularly galling to those of us who have had an interest in all the endeavours against the exploitation of Earth as a resource.Bob Brown’s problems right now really offends me.I however finding it difficult to accept him calling the matter of sunspot activity as backward science,when ,in fact,it is leading edge technology,and some very advanced physics.Thus many people opposed to Global Warming scenarios,are more inclined to be airing Physics type propositions, than stochastics alone,or a sort of preamble, that doesn’t seem to get, that modelling is a process that implies its own rules,as much as extrapolates within those rules.The non convincing realities for me,because I am not a scientist,is the engagement of particular forms of counter argument to those who say to the Global Warmers” you simply haven’t got the evidence”.For example, Solar Forcing is the terminology used to cover the influence of sunspot activity,or in the present circumstances a lack of it,that suggest to the Sunspot anti-Global Warming Skeptics something of a cyclical matter that is isn’t,or hasn’t appeared for some very long time,as a cycle, and thus as they see it a very worrying development if behaviour of sunspot activity ,if and when it may appear again a courting of a worse Global Cooling than that offered up by Schnieder etc. than in the early seventies [1970s].I think Schnieder may have been genuine then,in the fact, that the tools for understandings the processes of change and what it meant,did not even meet computable modelling potentials as a form of science.But he has been getting it wrong since,although,I doubt he can claim his wisdom the first time makes it easy to accept his position today.I have read attacks on him,and,found it not that reassuring.So the dilemma for me was,but, not as a global coolist,is that conservation, non-polluting efficient technologies etc.are important tome.I had something to do with a solution to clean birds who had been caught in oil slicks,I have suggested a number of things that were general environmental solutions…although tracing them back to me now would be difficult.I was a regular book buyer at the Whole Earth Bookshop in Melbourne,and loved Whole Earth Catalogues.Alas my income was never up to it..so I am no capitalist..and the attacks on that man who shared his underpants in Childhood seems really quite ungenerous,and not in the best interests of those who express much doubt about the relevancy of their reasoning.Although I suspect, that will be a very hard lesson for those who continue to find the man has no capacity to find whatever are the important facts on the matter.I read two articles tonight in Nexus Magazine New Times June July2009 Vol.16 ,No.4 that wont go down well with the crowd here.One was about an Alien matter,and a review by of Plimer’s book.I had my cynical antenna up about the Alien Abduction case…and found something in the writing that seemed only human thinking..until further notice..and the Review of Plimer’s book is how it has panned out.Both articles remind me of the supposed sides of the Global Change debate in many ways.I have spent quite a great deal of computer time use, checking out the sites that are anti-global warming…there certainly doesn’t seem to be a over-riding religiosity in those who cannot accept the premise of warming.And Fielding is just but one man,repeat one man,as a Senator, who has to decide.The mathematics of exaggeration have closed around him.I am very disappointed.
I really do.
I am a skeptic. It’s not a dirty word, and is in fact a basic requirement in science. I am also of the left, closely associated with unions, never voted Liberal in my life and agnostic. I despise creationists, fundamentalists and extremists of all kinds. I try hard not to become an extremist.
This article raises interesting ideas about the whacky end of the skeptic continuum.
I would like to put on the table the notion that a parallel analysis is equally valid for the extreme end of the AGW spectrum. Namely the ultra Green, vegan nutbags whose fervant embrace of apocalyptic vision has even more resonance through history and religion. Some of these extremists believe CO2 is a pollutant, babies are pollutants and the human race is so destructive and inherently evil that it would be best for us to hurry up and make ourselves extinct: it’s only what we deserve for our sins against our planet.
Even one the bloggers here said something along the lines of “I almost wish the disaster would hurry up so Andrew Bolt would be exposed as a fool” – an abominable sentiment surely, though I am no fan of Andrew Bolt myself. I appreciated the Cassandra allegory, as I don’t think there is enough classical allusion in modern society, but in my view Cassandra’s truth is the skeptics view which is so mocked, belittled and misrepresented in the media.
Until a year or so ago, I too was an unquestioning AGW believer, then decided I should read more of the science on both sides for myself. I have been surprised to discover that in the scientific world, there is indeed a genuine debate raging amongst many reputable scientists. I have been appalled by false claims of “consensus”, and comparisons between skeptics and holocaust deniers, and constant personal abuse of any scientist who questions the new orthodoxy. I for one would only beg that a genuine scientific debate is conducted openly; but I know that sadly this is unlikely.
Our understanding of the world’s climate is clearly in it’s infancy. Computer modelling is great for playing around with in theory, but must not be sold as reliable predictions of the future. They have predicted nothing of value yet (in any sphere of science), which is why they are constantly having to be updated. Perhaps it is because they predict what so many want to believe that they are accepted with religious fervour, rather than scientific questioning.
[Paragraphing added - Brian]
Did you know the last thing that came out of my box was hope?
Pandora
Who are the “reputable” scientists you have read, referred to in what would have been your 5th or so paragraph if you’d used them?
And re. the Andrew Bolt quotation, do you always take everything literally?
PP @ 84, I just can’t read unparagraphed prose, so I added some, perhaps not ideally placed as I’m not an English teacher.
What was revealed was a bit disappointing. Routine shots at the “ultra Greens” and modelling, plus a reference to a “genuine debate raging amongst many reputable scientists”, which I can’t find anywhere myself.
Nothing new here.
Re GW, Noah’s Flood. This is a serious point I’m going to make about eschatology (which I think loosely defined is the theology about the Last Days.I was always under the impression God made to Noah was he wouldn’t destroy the world by flood again, and the rainbow was the covenant signifying that promise. Now, somewhere else in the New Testament (I think Matthew,or Revelations [Apocalypse] but its years since I;ve read it so I’m not sure,) there’s a passage indicating the next time the world ends it will perish in fire. Surely, in this later case the analogy with GW is obvious. (Not that I for one moment agree with the suggestion, except when I’m out about town spooking the Fundies.)
DENIALIST: You people are a bunch of religious fanatics
ALARMIST: No you lot are the religious fanatics
DEN: You are
ALA: I know you are but what am I?
DEN: You are!
ALA: You!
DEN: No, you!
.
Guys, guys calm down. You’re both religious fanatics.
Brian, I am grateful for the added paragraphs. I usually love them too (86). I will blame the effect of the wee small hour of writing. And no, I don’t take everything literally, but I have noted before a sort of gleeful anticipation of the apocalytic revelation of climate disaster in some the the extremists on that side. While dismissing my “routine shots” at ultra greens and modelling, it seems you are happy to engage in pretty extreme characterisations of skeptics. Just trying to get some even handedness happening.
To find the debate I turn to climatedebatedaily.com which refreshingly features articles from both sides, or should I say all sides, as there are so many different perspectives on this.
ILPT @86 Ian Plimer is one of many reputable university based scientists who has been denigrated and ridiculed since emerging on the “wrong” side of the debate. I don’t recall anyone questioning his credentials previously, when he was known as a fierce defender of scientific principles.
I admit Brian that I have no new or original contributions in this debate, as I, like most of us, lack the scientific expertise to speak with authority. I am just sharing my perspective, and the frustration I feel that such a vitally important issue is portrayed so falsely in the media in black-and-white terms, and has become hopelessly politicised as a left-right issue. I am simply stating that it remains essentially a scientific issue, and should be treated as such. And skepticism is good! It means open and questioning, as opposed to closed and ideological.
What I really noticed in the articles I read was that the “alarmists” seem to have stopped talking science, and mostly refer to authority. All roads lead to Rome (IPCC) in this side of the debate, whereas on the other side there was actual diversity in perspectives and evidence. The skeptics generally are pointing to the enormous range of alternative explanations for changes which we measure in our climate. Surely no-one can deny that there are, and always have been, many climate cycles and patterns that cause constant change. So if a group of scientists suddenly want to claim that recent changes are 1. unprecedented, and 2. caused mainly by human CO2 emissions, it is their responsibility to provide pretty solid evidence of both of these points. I actually started reading more so that I could satisfy myself that this evidence existed. I was truly surprised to find my doubt increasing, not decreasing, and the alternative views sounded pretty solid.
I was stuck in particular with the way the AGWers seemed very keen to deny the existence of pretty well established and relatively recent climate phenomena such as the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Little Ice Age, all of which occurred without the assistance of humans. And to scoff at the influence of the sun on our climate seems downright odd.
The IPCC seems to have developed some of the features of an apocalyptic religion, constantly denigrating the arguments of opponents, not in scientific terms, but abusive personal terms calling for punishment, and belittling the credentials of the skeptics, wanting them to be silenced. If the IPCCs evidence is so compelling, why not stick to the science and scrap the abuse and hyperbole? Sorry, but I get edgy and suspicious when one mob starts to claim sole ownership of the truth, wanting to punish and ridicule anyone questioning its authority, and expecting the whole world to follow its prescriptions for salvation. It has happened before so many times in history, and usually with dire consequences.
I don’t expect I am going to persuade any of you to think differently, and that is fine with me. In fact, I am still considering the evidence myself. I do want to let you know that there are plenty of mainstream and lefty folk out there who have yet to be fully persuaded, and are worried about the divisive, one-sided direction of the (non)debate. And let’s not be distracted by the lunatic fringes of both sides; they don’t help at all.
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Examinercoms-exclusive-global-warming-debates-Roger-Pielke-Sr-part-1
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d8-The-Global-warming-debates-Part-2-of-Examinercoms-exclusive-interview-with-Dr-Roger-Pielke-Sr
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Let the denouncement of heretics begin. How dare scientists propound an opinion that is not what we want to hear!
the AGWers seemed very keen to deny the existence of pretty well established and relatively recent climate phenomena such as the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Little Ice Age, all of which occurred without the assistance of humans. And to scoff at the influence of the sun on our climate seems downright odd.
You see, AGWers as you call them haven’t denied the existence of the things you speak of, nor have they scoffed at the influence of the sun on our climate. What they ARE doing is questioning the conclusions that denialists have come to regarding these events, and the ways in which they interpret the influence of the sun. This sentence just gives the impression that you simply don’t understand what people are talking about.
The IPCC seems to have developed some of the features of an apocalyptic religion, constantly denigrating the arguments of opponents, not in scientific terms, but abusive personal terms calling for punishment, and belittling the credentials of the skeptics, wanting them to be silenced.
Calling for punishment? Where? Links plz.
Sigh!
PP @ 90, again you trot out “climate phenomena such as the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Little Ice Age” which have been done to death and answered many times by reputable scientists working on climate science.
On Ian Plimer, Look at how he misuses graphs as pointed out by Tim Lambert at Deltoid.
Charlie Veron, reef scientist, said that Plimer was not only wrong about reefs, what he said was mostly the opposite of the truth.
Here are critiques from Leigh Dayton and Michael Ashley, professor of astrophysics at the University of NSW.
Here’s a collection of Plimer’s errors and scientific booboos in the book by Ian Enting (note his qualifications).
This is what Professor Kurt Lambeck, President of the Australian Academy of Science and substantively Distinguished Professor of Geophysics at the ANU has to say. Prof Lambert, it turns out, is an expert on sea level rise and finds Plimer’s views sadly astray.
Today David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne reviewed the book. He was not complimentary and answered some of the questions you raised along the way.
I was going to point you to an erstwhile sceptic, Vibenna, linked to by Deborah, who went through a process I could totally respect, but unfortunately for sceptics came up with the wrong, ie. right answers in the end. Unfortunately his blog is now “protected”.
RS @ 91, I’m not sure how Quiggin would categorise those guys, but Garnaut in talking to Phillip Adams the other night accepted that there were a few scientists with appropriate qualifications who didn’t fit the mainstream view. No need to burn them. Let them plow on and see whether they end up disturbing the paradigm. My view is the best they will do is raise a few queries here and there which will eventually be incorporated into the mainstream.
It’s not for me as a non-scientist to judge, but I think the one from NZ on sea level change is definitely behind the curve.
I have to say I have a serious problem with the use of the word denial in this context.
I consider myself a skeptic, but I do not deny climate change. I do not believe that there will be runaway global warming, but I do not deny that humans have had an impact on this process. I believe it is a predominately natural phenomenon. I am open to be convinced that I am mistaken on ALL these points, and many others.
The use of the world denier and denialist tend to signify someone who is as close minded, inflexible and unscientific as those to whome they apply the term.
I despise people like Andrew Bolt, but I am constantly enraged by the treatment genuine skeptics recieve. Witness the above linked Quiggins taxonomy. No where does he entertain the possibility that there are enquiring minds to whom the facts simply do not add up, or from which they derive a different conclusion.
The comparison to holocaust denial which you see bandied about sometimes is particularly abhorrent. The holocaust is a historical fact, and history is what has already come to pass. The climate change/AGW debate is about what MIGHT happen, in the future.
To simply dismiss the thousands of scientists who have genuine concerns about the science behind this issue and how the debate is being handled is nothing less than evil. This, of course, applies to both sides.
phillip travers – I’m sure you wont read this, but from this an other blogs I’ve seen you post at, you seem to do this all the time – the wall of non-paragraphed text is a shocker to read – but I thank you for it, for the rare occasions I try, it tells me that I should not have. The drivel is more impenetrable than the visual. Keep at it and I will know to skip.
RS it would be strange indeed if all scientists agreed and I’m comfortable with the notion that there are more than two sides to the story. FWIW I think Quiggin’s taxonomy is or should be a work in progress. I was thinking that some of the scientists that you identified don’t fit it all that well.
The IPCC for it’s part is a strange beast. because all you can point to is its official statements, principally its assessment reports, the last of which, issued in 2007 took into account no refereed papers appearing after June 2006.
The IPCC at that stage said it was at least 90% sure that GW was principally AGW. I haven’t checked whether the working group reports agree with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), but there was probably some conservatism in that assessment because the has to be agreed to on a consensus basis by political representatives.
At those sort of odds, given the implications if they are right, it would be irrational not to take them seriously.
There is evidence that mainstream scientists are worried. See for example the conference at Copenhagen this year. Also Monbiot’s report of same.
A source you quoted, Thomas Fuller, did a column last week that would send a cold shudder up the spine. You’ll notice he identifies 13 refereed papers that the IPCC would not have had available to them.
The UN Environment Program, aware of the IPCC problem with keeping up to date, has issued a UNEP Year book 2009 (see Ch 3) which is more than a little unsettling.
Today’s AFR (The Prince, worth the price that page alone) regarding Fielding’s new co-conversion to a new level of anti-science
[quote]
Along with Swift Boat Veterans and oil companies, Heartland’s supporters include the Cornwall Alliance, the evangelical Christian group opposing environmental reform which Fielding appears to support
[/quote]
There are many moderate Christians that, of course, accept science and that the Earth is >6000 yo etc etc – but there’s also this branch of wackery that Fielding and the Happy-that-Tiller-was-murdered crowd that loathe science or rational thinking – practically, I don’t know what we can do with that lot, so knowing thine enemy may not help in this case – I’d almost write them off as permanently stupid, but then on the other hand, it may be wise to note them, to kerb any recruitment potential they may have.
Dave, to be honest I don’t read it either except an occasional phrase that catches the eye as I skip over.
RS@95
“I consider myself a skeptic, but I do not deny climate change.”
Bullshit – see below
“I do not believe that there will be runaway global warming, but I do not deny that humans have had an impact on this process.”
Bullshit on 2nd part – just look at the next statment..
“I believe it is a predominately natural phenomenon.”
Denialism tactic line 101
“I am open to be convinced that I am mistaken on ALL these points, and many others.”
Bullshit – I don’t believe that for a second and neither do you.
Inquiring minds my arse – there is a swag of science out there – I don’t understand the half of it, but there really bright buggers that do and they are good enough to publish per-reviewed papers – I admit, I wish I had a fraction of the smarts – then there is is the other mob – balance, my bum – no scientist that’s ever published a paper in this sphere, just ratbags for whatever reason – and that’s what the OP and Quiggen were trying to identify, ie the motivations of the anti-evidence mob such as yourself – what is their gig? The have no original research of their own nor can they publish anything, anywhere that’s not peer-reviewed or not open to corruption.
And you’re wondering why we don’t consider you a freak, or stupid, or just thrown your brain into a camp of ant-science – sceptic, my freckle, you’re a follower – now please enlighten us as to what! Please
(BTW – there are not thousands of scientists as you claim that are denialist – if you are genuine on this then your source is mistaken – there are 0 climate scientists, but a handful roughly <400 non-climate scientists that are, much <0.1% of all scientists – and possibly it could be that some of them are religious fundos who see their allegiance to be with the fundos rather than to evidence.)
So RS – and others like him that may be reading – please spare us the crap you’ve followed the science, please let us know if it’s religious affiliation or other allegiances, possibly political, that you wish to see a continuation of profits(public funding) for oil and coal.
Dave, thank you for that well considered and academic response. You are a credit to academia, and in recognition of this fact I award you the Andrew Bolt “I’m a fucking moron” prize. It comes with a biscuit! Well done, Sir.
Oh and you’re the academic – please furnish us with some references – I’ll look into them instantly – and good luck on picking up the Nobel on how CO2 is not a greenhouse gas too.
But snark aside (and maybe I was hasty in reply, my apologies) – are you religious?
You know, I am actually going to respond to your absurd rant. You do not deserve it, but never let it be said I am unsporting
““I consider myself a skeptic, but I do not deny climate change.”
Bullshit – see below”
Brilliant analysis.
“I do not believe that there will be runaway global warming, but I do not deny that humans have had an impact on this process.”
Bullshit on 2nd part – just look at the next statment..
“I believe it is a predominately natural phenomenon.”
Denialism tactic line 101″
I am denying nothing, there is no contradiction between believing we have an impact on global warming but that we are not the driving force. Water vapour is the main green house gas afterall, not CO2. And even if CO2 were the main GHG, we contribute far less than is generated in nature.
“I am open to be convinced that I am mistaken on ALL these points, and many others.”
Bullshit – I don’t believe that for a second and neither do you.”
Psychic too are we? Well done.
“Inquiring minds my arse – there is a swag of science out there – I don’t understand the half of it, but there really bright buggers that do and they are good enough to publish per-reviewed papers – I admit, I wish I had a fraction of the smarts – then there is is the other mob – balance, my bum – no scientist that’s ever published a paper in this sphere, just ratbags for whatever reason – and that’s what the OP and Quiggen were trying to identify, ie the motivations of the anti-evidence mob such as yourself – what is their gig? The have no original research of their own nor can they publish anything, anywhere that’s not peer-reviewed or not open to corruption.”
So what you are saying here is that you have an illeducated opinion, but that anyone who disagrees with that opinion is a ratbag. Such brilliance of mind. Go back and look at the links I provided and visit climatedebatedaily.com (which, incidentally has won awards for its objectivity from green groups, and the Guardian and the Times, both AGW advocating papers) and actually educate yourself. There is evidence being produced, whether it is correct or not is another matter, but simply dismissing it marks you out as nothing more than a zealot.
“And you’re wondering why we don’t consider you a freak, or stupid, or just thrown your brain into a camp of ant-science – sceptic, my freckle, you’re a follower – now please enlighten us as to what!”
Ironic, given that you have just labelled yourself as follow of the the AGW side moments before. Also quite a nonsensical statement.
“(BTW – there are not thousands of scientists as you claim that are denialist – if you are genuine on this then your source is mistaken – there are 0 climate scientists, but a handful roughly <400 non-climate scientists that are, much <0.1% of all scientists – and possibly it could be that some of them are religious fundos who see their allegiance to be with the fundos rather than to evidence.)”
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
31,000 sceptical American scientists, including many leaders in their respective fields. Correct or not, they are reputable, they are scientists and they are skeptics.
“So RS – and others like him that may be reading – please spare us the crap you’ve followed the science, please let us know if it’s religious affiliation or other allegiances, possibly political, that you wish to see a continuation of profits(public funding) for oil and coal.”
I am an atheist, Labour member and I fervently believe it is vital we find renewable energy sources so we can break our dependence on fossil fuels and the environmental damage associated with them (which goes far behind CO2 emmissions, whether you accept such emmissions are harmful or not).
I, unlike you, have an open mind. I want to see debate. I am ready to be convinced when the evidence is produced. I concede I and every other skeptic may be dead wrong. I do believe we should take action to ameliorate the effects of climate change whether we are responsible or not.
Dave McRae you are a disgrace, and people like you on both sides should be ashamed of themselves.
Disgraced for not following “smoking is good for you science” from Heartland – ahhh, I’ll get over it
.
Thanks for the reply though – I am struck as to why you think IPCC and all the climate scientists that contribute to it are drongos and the Heartland institute is such a fountain of wisdom, but I think I’ll just have to chalk it up to to yet another of those things I will not ever fathom.
An interesting fact, the earliest references to smoking beinf harmful to the health date from 1706 or thereabouts, a British doctor noted it.
I no nothing about the Heartland institute, other than that they sponsored that conference Senator Fielding visited recently. I am not in a position to say how reputatable or odisreputable they are. There are certainly ratbags amongst the skeptic community, they may well be some of them. That is not to say all skeptics are ratbags, and the same applies to those on the opposite side.
I should add that I think the integrity of a scientist who accepts money or accolades from a fossil fuel interest group is damaged, but I also think the same ofa scientist who accepts money or accolades from a green group. There is a lot of money in renewable energies and there is no reason to accept that people with a vested financial interest in one side are less malevolent than those on the other. Any scientist should be careful to maintain professional integrity.
To clarify my remarks, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, but its effect pales in comparison to that of water vapour, and methane.
I do not think the IPCC and all who contribute to it are ‘drongos’, I believe some are, and I believe others are merely incorrect in their assumptions. They me also be correct, but I have yet to be convinced of this.
By the IPCCs own data we have only experienced half the temperature rise to date that they predict, which in my opinion reflects poorly on the accuacy of their predictions. On the other hand, if they are right, the fact we have half the predicted rise it at least hopeful.
I am glad to see a more conciliatory and open response from you Mr McRae. I recommend you read the links I have posted, read both sides, and form your own opinion. You do not have to agree with me, but do make the effort to educate yourself.
Whether you choose to believe me or not, I am genuinely open minded on this and any other subject.
Helen @ 92 Google “James Hansen” and “high crimes against humanity” re threats of punishment
Here’s just one link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
History shows that once a regime of punishment begins it tends to continue down the line to anyone holding the “wrong” beliefs.
Michael Mann’s (in)famous hockey stick graph certainly attempted to rub out the Medieval Warm Period.
Also, this particular post (as I understand it) was about trying to get into the headspace of a particular, possibly small, maybe not so small, subset of contrarian – a certain brand of evanglican christian
Why did you pick this post, rather than the 50million other global warming posts that deal with specifically Global Warming rather than the participants, to dazzle us with stuff/debate that you suppose we’ve never seen before (we have BTW, those denailist links, we’ve seen them a million times before, they’re everywhere, and it’s why I got narky back there – the “the climate change is natural” and “I’m open minded” when every one of the >5000 climate change scientists say it’s not natural, but you obviously think they’re nongs and they and we can’t find the ‘evidence’ you have in your bookmarks)
Mercurious, I apologise for participating in taking this thread off topic – feel free to scrub this exchange or archive it off to teh debate corner or somesuch
China have said they won’t cut emmissions and won’t sign anything at Copenhagen. Reported in The Times 12 Jun 09.
Mercurius @ #s 79, 81 — This is just an idle speculation — a guesstimate, as it were; a mere attempt at an essay of a prologue to a more nuanced understanding, take it as you will, but not too seriously please: but I imagine that I suppose that it could possibly appear to me that what you may (or may not!) seem to be doing, is simply taking an opportunity to smear your opponents with a load of ‘nutter’ insults, and perhaps then possibly (or not! please don’t misunderstand me!) hoping to make a clean getaway. If you succeed, then great; but if somebody like say kingsley calls you on it, well, you do always have your fallback position of plausible deniability, don’t you. Possibly.
Anyway, it’s just a speculative thought.
“Give us control of the global economy to dismantle as we see fit, or else we’ll call you a crazy Xtan loony, whatever your actual objections may be.” Gee whiz, what’s a gamblin’ man to do in a situation like that?
Oh, and what #95 said, except that ‘evil’ is probably a bit much, when other objections will suffice.
The topic is a pretty serious one (I mean AGW, not all this gas about Noah): if it’s real then it is of course the main issue of our era, and if even if it’s not real, it does turn out to be consuming a considerable amount of intelligent people’s time. And the risks to world economic production and the well-being of many millions of people hang in the balance, so it’s serious even if it doesn’t pan out. That being so, one would like to see more laymen’s debate that is genuinely forthright, that takes its opponents seriously, that doesn’t resort to ideological finger-pointing, old debater’s tricks, and misdirection; let Penn and Teller handle that stuff.
The net effect of arguments like the one in this post is to make non-True Believers think twice about signing on to the Good Ship AGW, because this all just reads like a partisan swipe, of a kind that is drearily familiar and historically too often on the wrong side of reality. Swipes we will have always with us, true, but if AGW believers are as serious as they claim to be, then they might try acting the part.
I had already come across the Climate debate daily site and bookmarked it. IMO that’s not where the action is. The action is in explaining why so many observations outrun the forecasts that climate scientists made not so many years ago. So yes, it’s serious.
That’s all I’m going to say about that on this thread. The debate has been less than seemly at times and it’s time for me to move on. If Mercurius wants to scrub it that’s his prerogative.
Razor, I’ve got a post in the can that I’ll finalise and let out about the Bonn talks which picks up the point you make about China. In short we’ve got another 6 weeks of solid talks this year with all countries involved, so it’s not over till it’s over.
Give us control of the global economy to dismantle as we see fit, or else we’ll call you a crazy Xtan loony, whatever your actual objections may be.” Gee whiz, what’s a gamblin’ man to do in a situation like that?
Oh, and what #95 said, except that ‘evil’ is probably a bit much, when other objections will suffice.
The topic is a pretty serious one (I mean AGW, not all this gas about Noah): if it’s real then it is of course the main issue of our era, and if even if it’s not real, it does turn out to be consuming a considerable amount of intelligent people’s time. And the risks to world economic production and the well-being of many millions of people hang in the balance, so it’s serious even if it doesn’t pan out.
Only if you make it out to be zero sum as you do here, Japerz. The fact is that we ALSO have a slight problem of diminishing resources vis a vis human demand. Transitioning to a renewable energy economy will be necessary anyway. Continuing as we are is not an option.
Well spotted, Helen. For everyone’s benefit, Cats-Paw @ 110, Walter Grumpius and Mies van der Rocco on this thread are one and the same.
See comments policy about maintaining a consistent identity.
Thanks Brian,
Well then, to Cats-Paw @110, Grumpius, and van der Rocco.
I apologise for committing the twin sins of being Inconclusive and Not Having Reached A Firm View About Everything. This is a large field, with big ideas, and they don’t all neatly fit into my tiny little head. Obviously your head is much larger because you encompass the entirety of this debate with such elan. I shall try to be more dogmatic in future, the better to satisfy your preferences.
Plenty of people on this thread were quite capable of polite disagreement with me, and simply stated why they thought the article was off-beam. Why you also feel the need to lambast me for being Insufficiently Adamant is beyond me.
Here I was thinking the purpose of discussion is to explore ideas and see where they lead, whereas all along I failed to understand the important thing is To Be Very Sure Of Oneself In The Loudest Of Voices.
Great program on Background Briefing today – Paul Gilding, the Great Disruption.
For those who haven’t been to the BB site before, they provide a transcript in the days following each program, which is handy if you haven’t time to listen to the audio.
“Razor, I’ve got a post in the can that I’ll finalise and let out about the Bonn talks which picks up the point you make about China. In short we’ve got another 6 weeks of solid talks this year with all countries involved, so it’s not over till it’s over.”
Hummmmmm. This was posted at Beats and Pieces-
.
“China will not make a binding commitment to reduce carbon emissions, putting in jeopardy the prospects for a global pact on climate change.
Officials from Beijing told a UN conference in Bonn yesterday that China would increase its emissions to develop its economy rather than sign up to mandatory cuts.
The refusal is a setback for President Obama’s efforts to drum up support for an agreement at Copenhagen in December on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. As argument erupted between rich and poor nations at the Bonn talks, Yvo de Boer, the UN climate change chief, said that a worldwide pact to prevent global warming was “physically impossible”.
Hopes that Copenhagen might deliver tougher carbon reduction targets were dashed further when Japan failed to make a significant commitment to reduce emissions. Taro Aso, the Japanese Prime Minister, said on Wednesday that Japan would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent by 2020 from levels in 2005. The Japanese commitment is a mere 2 per cent improvement on its commitment under Kyoto.
Responding to the Japanese proposal, the UN chief made no attempt to hide his disappointment. “For the first time in my two and a half years in this job, I don’t know what to say,” he said. “We’re still a long way from the ambitious emission reduction scenarios that are a beacon for the world.” The Chinese rejection of cuts emerged after talks in Beijing between Todd Stern, the US climate change envoy, and the Chinese Government, in which Mr Stern appears to have backed down from earlier calls that China make a commitment to reduce CO2 emissions.
Qin Gang, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, said that China was still a developing country and its priority was to develop its economy, alleviate poverty and raise living standards. “Given that, it is natural for China to have some increase in emissions, so it is not possible for China to accept a binding or compulsory target,” he said.
The climate negotiations have been dogged by debate over which nations should take primary responsibility for cutting carbon emissions from the fuels such as coal and oil.
The Bush Administration had insisted that it would not agree to mandatory cuts as long as developing nations increased emissions. The Obama Administration has taken a softer line, accepting that China and India could not be expected to make equal commitments to developed economies. However, Mr Stern recently said: “They do need to take significant national actions that they commit to internationally, that they quantify and that are ambitious.”
Yea well good luck with that plan. Time for Mercurious to widen his satire to buddhists , animists and groups with weird self identification attitudes?
And these groups aren’t denying that there is a problem – it just seems to be they think it is someone else’s.
Thanks Murph. Have you got a link?
Helen I heard Paul Gilding too. I think everyone should read the transcript when it goes up. He has the same sense of urgency as Climate Code Red.
Helen: “Transitioning to a renewable energy economy will be necessary anyway. Continuing as we are is not an option.”
Yes, that’s entirely possible. (Heeey, didn’t that knock ya for a loop, I actually sort of agreed with you there… almost. Kind of.) Nevertheless it isn’t quite what we’re talking about in this case, is it. The human race could manage such a transition in its own sweet time, depending on the (pretty sturdy) pace of techno-innovation, if left to its own devices… unfortunately, if the AGW theory is true, it sort of puts a hard time-frame on things, yes? That’s what makes matters so complicated, wouldn’t you say?
If you wanted to cut global GHG emissions by say 25% over the next 10 years (or whatever figure is fashionable these days), and I mean in the real NEXT ten years, not some hypothetical UN-run future ten years, then in practical terms you are talking about cutting global industrial production by a significant margin on a VERY steep time curve. Since nothing like this has ever before been managed gently or even competently, it seems safe to say that millions would die as a result, possibly tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions. I think you should face that probability. IF you’re really serious and certain about your theory and its dire implications, then maybe that’s a price you’re willing to own up to. My question then is: just how serious are you? Or another way of putting it is: just how accurate are your modelling predictions? Are they as accurate as the predictions made every day by say heliocentricity or aerospace-travel science? If not, why not? What are you willing to bet on them?
This would ordinarily lead me to an even more grave concern, but it would be read here as snark so I’ll skip it.
Brian — well you’re certainly entitled to set the rules, sir, so I can’t fault you for that. But consider for a moment the idea of competing claims: sometimes one’s moniker comes with a lot of baggage, which might predispose the reader, especially on an avowedly partisan site, to a prejudicial view. In the interest of getting a “clean read,” so to speak, there’s options one might consider. But of course the thing remains at your discretion. I will ask you to note, however, that I’ve done no “sock-puppeteering” in the sense of creating bogus personae who support one another.
Mercurius — eh, more misdirection. But hey, it’s okay, man — just say 5 Sancta Marias, whoo! Five Hail Marys and you’re back on the street, with Father Rivera. I bet you were a regular champ on the high school debating team. Funny, ain’t it, how those rules no longer apply in the big bad world.
Mercurius, I doubt very much that there is some subconscious belief in the Noachic covenant fuelling climate denial. You’re assuming that most people must know the complete story of Noah, and I’m not sure that the majority do, for all that it is one of the best-known Bible stories.
Secondly, any vague belief of this sort would vanish as soon as examined. God promised not to destroy the Earth by flood, but nobody takes that to mean that nobody will ever die in a flood, that sea levels will never rise and fall, — if several billion of us end up clinging to the Himalayas for life, that’s still not complete destruction!
The only denialist I know well (my Dad) simply doesn’t believe that the puny efforts of humans can make such an impression on such a vast world.
Hannah’s Dad, a nitpick: Conservative Christian theologians understand that human dominion of the earth ought to reflect the dominion of a loving creator-redeemer — ie, exploitation is wrong, stewardship is right. I imagine conservative Jewish theologians have similar views.
ince nothing like this has ever before been managed gently or even competently, it seems safe to say that millions would die as a result, possibly tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions. I think you should face that probability. IF you’re really serious and certain about your theory and its dire implications, then maybe that’s a price you’re willing to own up to.
Sheesh! and they call people who accept the AGW science “alarmists”!
j_p_z, it’s almost certain that millions will die, if they haven’t already, from scarcity of food due to climate change in a time-frame of decades.
If the world took the problem seriously, then 25% in 10 years would not seem impossible. You might like to look at Jo Romm’s (Climate Progress) 14 wedges plus his recent update.
I knew who you were – your style is too distinctive – but please, I’m beggin’ ya, Jerry, get a goddamned gravatar.
Mies van der Rococo – heh.
Do as the clown says, Zed. May I suggest this friendly visage (as you yourself suggested a long time ago, IIRC)?
Jpz @ 118:
That was an impressive spray. My Rabbi will be most amused at the prayers you’ve prescribed for me. And thanks for the lecture about how the world is different from high school. Most helpful.
I’ll happily accept your injunction to grow up, j_p_z. You go first.
Most people think it is up to the governments to stop the progress of climate change. In one hand they are correct but on the other hand it is up to themselves to help the planet and our civilization. If we don’t do it singly then we will fail our future children and grandchildren who will have the unknown forced upon them. Governments and energy companies have started the ball rolling. We are seeing a large increase in renewable energy sources here in the UK. My local energy supplier “Welsh Gas” has been taken over by a larger firm SSE who specialize in creating hydro electricity. If we all work as one we will be able to make a difference. The question is how much of a difference can we make.
Business knows it’s happening and so do the landlords: they’re just trying to extract maximum gain whilst they can get away with it…soon they will not be well represented as their party will have lost most of its credibility and with it goes the masses!