Jump to content
Science Forums

The GW denialists are winning


Michaelangelica

Recommended Posts

The GW denialists are winning. What can be done?

Denialism is a term that has been defined as "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none."[1]

 

As well as being used to describe rhetorical tactics, the word denialism has been used by Michael Specter to describe the situation where a set of people choose to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.[2]

 

It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of an artificial controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[1]

. . .

Several motivations for denial have been proposed, including religious beliefs and self-interest, or simply as a psychological defense mechanism against disturbing ideas.[12][13]

 

Very dramatic events in oz at the moment.(For us, in this small pond). Events that may hold lessons for others.

The political opposition parties (libs/nats) seem hell bent on forcing an election on global warming and the proposed Oz emissions trading scheme.(ETS)

I, along with the Liberals current leader (until Tuesday when he will be rolled) thought that fighting an election on this issue would lead to political annihilation. So much for my complacency.

Tonight I have been looking at the various surveys of public opinion on GW and ETS (SMH source)-- support for, and belief in GW has been waning dramatically.

US belief has dropped from 71% to 57% in 18 months

The percentage of Australians who say that Climate Change is a threat to Australia's interests has declined from 68% in 2006, to 66% last year, to 52% now (Lowy Institute poll).

Support for an ETS has dropped from 72% last October to 67% last month.

Conservatives in the Liberal party see this as an opportunity;. traditionally fighting elections on a "fear' campaign they will be able to cite the enormous cost and many unknowns of an ETS and the insignificant effect such a sceme will have on Global emissions. (We account for about 1.5% of Global emissions the modest ETS proposed may drop that by 5%)

A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that man-made global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled last year.

 

The Science Museum in London's Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they've seen the evidence and want governments to take action. By early this month, 1006 people had endorsed it and 6110 had rejected it.

 

On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are ranked at 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the global warming category. Never mind that they've been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?

George Monbiot

 

one Journalist has an original theory of why all this is happening

Grim reaper's role in climate change denial

GEORGE MONBIOT

November 28, 2009

is it fanciful to suppose that those who are closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against reminders of death? I haven't been able to find any experiments testing this proposition, but it is surely worth investigating. And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the past two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?

 

 

A comment on the artice appeals. It is perhaps what the species deserves(?) for having its collective head up it's collective arse:-

in addition, since it would appear that human evolution has brought us to this point, should we interfere with the wonders of that science? God forbid.

Simon | Cooranbong - November 28, 2009, 9:32AM

Floundering against the global current

November 28, 2009

 

Somehow a seemingly irresistible force for climate change action unravelled. Now it's time to point fingers at those responsible.

 

How did it happen? Both of Australia's main political parties agreed the country needed to cut its carbon output. Labor and Liberal agreed Australia needed an emissions trading scheme to do it. And the idea had powerful support - about 70 per cent of public opinion.

. . .

So how did it happen that today we find the emissions trading scheme dead? How did it happen that Australia's entire approach to climate change is trashed?

. . .

How did it come to pass that a bipartisan consensus, with overwhelming public support, could collapse so completely in two years?

. . .

the Prime Minister failed to lead opinion, failed to marshal his arguments, failed to explain his policy, failed to carry the country. He has answered many questions on the subject but failed to aggressively press his case.

. . .

With Rudd refusing to make a strong case, public comprehension of his plan is low. Few understand how his emissions trading scheme would work. He has not tried to explain it.

 

With the chief proponent largely absent, naysayers and climate change denialists got lots of air-time. Rudd had handed a megaphone to the case against climate change action.

 

The anti-ETS voices have got away with all sorts of hysteria. They chorus, for example, that it would be the biggest economic shake-up in our lifetimes. This is false.

. . .

All these trends converged this week when the Liberal Party's conservatives decided to bring the issue to a point. As recently as July, Abbott had urged the Coalition to vote for the ETS because it was unstoppably popular.

. . .

The ETS, at least in this term of Parliament, is dead. It now seems that it can be revived only if Rudd aggressively campaigns on the issue between now and the next election, making it a climate change election. Another one.

Peter Hartcher

 

I admit i have stopped long ago arguing with GW denialists. Their arguments are boring and too easy to knock down. When Denialist letters were first printed in the local rag i responded as did others. Now a denialist letter a week is published without any rejoinder..

Perhaps we have all become complacent and should remember that most don't understand science or scientific methods-- or the art of predicting an uncertain future-- at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it is real, it should be seen as a small deviation from a larger trend. ...Guess I'm adopting the denialist position of waiting for a longer trend to establish itself.:)

So many things point in that direction, that I can't believe any vocal minority -or major single event- could derail a growing understanding of the future.

 

But the point about complacency is well taken. I've written a letter-to-the-editor type piece for our local newspaper. I also occasionally blog on the newspaper's forum -to answer some of the most outrageous affronts to critical thinking or overall understanding- but it'd be nice to see more of that.

 

I recently saw someone talking about the "prescient minority" and how they need to keep standing up for what they see as right; at least as long as the "vocal minority" is also doing so.

I'm just sayin'....

~ ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one of the many tragedies of living in a "buy now, pay later" society. Until effects are seen "at home", it's easier to perpetuate ignorance.

 

In any case, "winning" implies that there is a "competition". That distinction exists only for those that create it.

 

As far as "combating" misinformation, I agree that it should be met with reason. I try to do my part here and in "real life". Every little bit helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Everybody,

 

I want to listen to your opinions, learn more about the physical sciences and share my thoughts and the information I've found in an open, honest and polite manner. Why are you using the term "denialists" when you are writing about skeptics? Is there a PC term for those who have determined man made CO2 emissions are catastrophically changing climate?

 

I assume you've all seen the data leaked from the CRU at the University of East University of East Anglia, what do you think of that material? Did it influence anyone's opinion about the policy of reducing CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change?

 

I want to thank all of you for your posts, I've read them and I see you all have put a good deal of thought into your comments. I'm going to have to work hard to keep up, I promise to do my best.

 

With Friendly Greetings,

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Everybody,

 

I want to listen to your opinions, learn more about the physical sciences and share my thoughts and the information I've found in an open, honest and polite manner. Why are you using the term "denialists" when you are writing about skeptics? Is there a PC term for those who have determined man made CO2 emissions are catastrophically changing climate?

 

I assume you've all seen the data leaked from the CRU at the University of East University of East Anglia, what do you think of that material? Did it influence anyone's opinion about the policy of reducing CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change?

 

I want to thank all of you for your posts, I've read them and I see you all have put a good deal of thought into your comments. I'm going to have to work hard to keep up, I promise to do my best.

 

With Friendly Greetings,

Brian

 

Welcome Brian!

 

The term skeptic implies a level of critical thinking that is not usually evident in the typical denialist.

 

Alarmist is the preferred term to pair with denialist. I would be honored to be known as such if an alarm can wake humanity up to what they face in the future; and the consequences of being wrong aren't nearly so saddening.

 

AGW proponents are skeptics too. They are skeptical that everything is fine and don't necessarily buy into the myth that "technology (or the free market) will solve all our problems," or that science has all the answers either.

 

If denialists want to be called skeptics, what does that leave for alarmists? "Believers" would be a natural counter to the term skeptics, but I'm not a "believer." There is plenty of complexity to still be understood, and I don't buy into the knee-jerk philosophy that man is bad and nature is good, or that every conclusion that science develops is infallible.

===

 

As for the emails, when you also read the context, it's pretty clear there was nothing sinister going on, and that there was a lot of concern and effort put into trying to understand how climate works. Imho, the conspiratorial language only surrounded the efforts to deal with (or acknowledge having to deal with) the pesky skeptics who kept deluging them with emails asking for the researcher's time and effort to be devoted to supporting a denialistic agenda.

 

It'd be great to discuss this with someone who applies more critical thinking than the typical Bjorn Lomborg.

If there is a specific example that you'd like to cite, I'd be happy to try ...as long as it isn't ambiguous within the provided context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think of the disposal of the temperature data at the CRU? The material was requested under the freedom of information act, but Phil Jones disposed of the data when they moved to a new building. Doesn't this seem like, "The dog ate my homework" science? Do you need any citations to Phil Jones discussions on deleting data before complying with FOI requests, or the news story about the disposal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think of the disposal of the temperature data at the CRU? The material was requested under the freedom of information act, but Phil Jones disposed of the data when they moved to a new building. Doesn't this seem like, "The dog ate my homework" science? Do you need any citations to Phil Jones discussions on deleting data before complying with FOI requests, or the news story about the disposal?

 

Yes, please provide sources.

 

Disposal of temperature data? Was it relevant?

 

Do people even know how science works? :rolleyes:

 

It's a shame that the denialists have little more than rhetoric to support their ideals. I'd really like to see a denialist write up a valid methodology for an experiment to show that AGW is not occurring. Scientific endeavors are not for the faint of heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

 

Sorry, I'll do better at citations, I don't know what's been posted here before, I'm keeping up with this thread, but there are many others. I don't want to spam, but I won't post claims I can't back up.

 

I understand Phil Jones has gotten over $22 million in grants, I'm kind of surprised he couldn't find some space for the original data. Darwin didn't dump any specimens he used to prove The Origin Of Species, did he?

 

Phil Jones has collected a staggering $22.6 million in grants

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think of the disposal of the temperature data at the CRU? The material was requested under the freedom of information act, but Phil Jones disposed of the data when they moved to a new building. Doesn't this seem like, "The dog ate my homework" science? Do you need any citations to Phil Jones discussions on deleting data before complying with FOI requests, or the news story about the disposal?

 

I read a recent (Times online) article about that. If I recall, the reams of paper and magnetic tapes were tossed when they moved (because they moved). If he had tossed the data in response to an FOI request, then I'd be suspicious.

How many years elapsed between the records being tossed and the FOI request?

 

As the article said, back then (1960's and 1970's ?) people didn't think about the importance of archival records in general, and specifically, climate science was just a backwater science at the time. Who would have thought about posterity in that position?

 

Even the library where I retired from, tossed their card catalog when after things went online (during a remodelling - to avoid the cost of moving it ...plus it was all online), and that was in the 1980's! They, like so many others who did similar things, came to regret the decision; but it wasn't done maliciously. At the time it was seen as being modern and progressive, but mostly a cost- effective move (remember the economy back in the 80's ...like the billions to bail out the S & L's?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My idea for an AGW experiment would be a massive release or sequestration of CO2. Similar tests have been done in the atmosphere with man made particulates. We'd be able to learn about climate feedbacks, if we could do this type of test.

 

That's wishful thinking on my part, as a second choice I'd like to see if we could increase CO2 emissions to push atmospheric levels of CO2 up to 500ppm before 2050. We might be able to do this if we had an energy policy that actually encouraged the use and production of energy.

 

I understand that CO2 has a greenhouse effect on temperature, I understand from experimental tests that doubling CO2 created a 0.5 C increase. The IPCC science amplifies this with a bunch of positive feedbacks, that I don't believe have ever been experimentally tested. Please let me know if there are any climate feedback experiments, I'm woefully ignorant of such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my take. Al Gore is a professional politician. Politicians are not noted for telling the truth. Name one in recent memory. It may not be his fault, since that is how the game is played and Gored followed the rules and became really good. He reached all the way to VP and almost to P. He learned to walk the tight rope between image boosting, making deals, and the truth, with image usually where the things will default. In the end mudding slinging to tarnish image is the final push.

 

The rules of this image game work under the assumption, if we had a real doctor and a good actor playing a doctor, most people would prefer their doctor be more like the actor, instead of the actor be more like their doctor. We can put aside competence if he looks competent and charming on the surface. This makes us feel better.

 

That is where lying at the edges comes in. It makes you look good and appear more competent. But actions speak louder than words, with the fearful Gore having one of the largest carbon footprints, while he tells us we need to cut back or we are doomed. Most people, don't think their favorite actor should learn better doctor skills, so he can lead by example. We are happy with the actors charm and he needs to perfect that, so he can win an academy award.

 

The rules of the game have also trickled down, with some scientists becoming more like the actor, who does the theatre circuit to entertain us. Image is also important so mudslinging is part of the game. But we also need to use rhetoric to stir the emotions. If we lower the floor on the opposition party with mud, it appear like we have risen above. If we fire up the emotions we will be loved on stage.

 

The term GW denialists is a mudsling that is designed to create the illusion one side is carved into diamond in an objective way and anything else is a lie. It is image spin trick that keeps people from reading information. For example, if I did something wrong and Joe saw me, I might avoid censor, if I can discredit Joe. Now his information will be suspect, before you read it, so you might not waste the time. I get way with it. Without that image lowering tactic, someone would ask Joe and I might look bad.

 

Those who are "pro natural global cycles", in contradiction to the natural global cycles denialists, tried to stay with the data for a long time but got beat down with mud. Now, they have learned to play the political game. This is demonstrating how important acting is in this science game. Nobody trusted the natural global cycles doctor, until he learned to be a better actor or gain some actor support. This is leading to the trend of electing science by popular vote. Truth should be independent of the political process, where truth can be an inconvenience with respect to an image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, singling out Al Gore is like warmists picking on Exxon. They both have a job, it's just that we don't need Al Gore every week. Energy is essential for our economy and there is no replacement for fossil fuel. We might find something better, but central government control isn't likely to help.

 

Climates warm, cool or stay about the same. When they stay about the same, they do it extremely fast. I don't know how much man made CO2 contributes to atmospheric CO2, or how much atmospheric CO2 influences climate. The greenhouse effect seems much weaker than natural climate variation, the Keeling Kurve™ keeps going up, but temperature doesn't. We need more time to study climate, before we embark on novel climate mitigation policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climates warm, cool or stay about the same.

 

Oh no! I feel an entropy coming on. :naughty:

 

When they stay about the same, they do it extremely fast. I don't know how much man made CO2 contributes to atmospheric CO2, or how much atmospheric CO2 influences climate.

 

These things are well known. CO2 acts as a barrier for IR waves. In a certain sense, it's like a blanket on the Earth. It is certainly essential, but any tip of the scale is an unbalance.

 

"Man-made" carbon isotopes are traceable.

 

Carbon-14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The greenhouse effect seems much weaker than natural climate variation, the Keeling Kurve™ keeps going up, but temperature doesn't. We need more time to study climate, before we embark on novel climate mitigation policies.

 

I agree. We need to study much more. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a recent (Times online) article about that. If I recall, the reams of paper and magnetic tapes were tossed when they moved (because they moved). If he had tossed the data in response to an FOI request, then I'd be suspicious.

How many years elapsed between the records being tossed and the FOI request?

First, no one knows when/if the data was tossed during the move or after the FOI requests.

 

Second, the Harry_read_me text presents some VERY alarming programmer notes on the horrors of trying to migrate the existing data (sometime between 2006 and 2009) and speaks of horrors such as over-written data, data lost from db because of this, error checking that simply did not work, ranges of .5 to 1 full degree (I assume Celsius). No references as to which numbers represent latitude or longitude so this poor guy is trying to guess which way is up (literally) and more questions regarding JUST the data transfer process, nevermind the whole of the program itself.

 

Third, the raw data is vital in reproduction of results. A graduate with a bachelors in Science knows this and I expect higher quality controls the higher up the ladder.

 

 

Even the library where I retired from, tossed their card catalog when after things went online (during a remodelling - to avoid the cost of moving it ...plus it was all online), and that was in the 1980's! They, like so many others who did similar things, came to regret the decision; but it wasn't done maliciously. At the time it was seen as being modern and progressive, but mostly a cost- effective move (remember the economy back in the 80's ...like the billions to bail out the S & L's?).

Your comparing library card catalog with this???

 

Edit: I would also point out the analogy is flawed because the raw data (the books themselves) are still available in the library.

/edit

Allow me to offer a counter point:

 

When I worked for the state, with data retention laws, we went through a computer upgrade of our data, data that was backed up by microfische (microfilm). Now countless runs were made checking data to make sure the migration worked (yes there were still errors, and yes we uncovered many even after the migration was finished, on some record fields), and the original DB was securely backed up twice, once on tape, and the original was copied to provide the DB used in migration. There was no destruction of original DB files during the whole programming process.

 

So to increase work area the process began to figure out how to dump the microfische. Original records are not to be destroyed, no getting around that. Our office manager spend a bunch of time trying to find a home for the microfische, Historical societies, museums, etc. No one wanted it so it was impossible to get rid of the microfische. Its still there taking up room

 

I find it almost impossible that a scientist would throw away his work. His raw data. Crist I have trouble deleting blurry pictures from my computer related to my Crex studies.

 

Now what the emails have shown is an effort to resist FOI inquiries. There is clear conspricy to delete information so it would not be available to FOI. And that effort stretched across the ocean and involved others who are obligated under various FOI laws regarding destruction of data.

 

Now add into this that this particular unit was trusted with one of four temperature records. One of four, with emails indicating a willingness to delete data in correspondence with another of the four places TRUSTED with temperature data.

 

Dont forget all the papers supporting these claims of 'unprecidented warming' were based on this manipulated temperature data that is now (and fairly) questionable as to their accuracy.

 

There may be no way to calculate the whole adjustment method used to come up with in their conclusion for accuracy, a claimed accuracy of 100ths of a degree? of 10ths of a degree? (I cant remember which absolute they present as the data's +/- factor).

 

A skeptic should doubt the results when there is so much fog surround the whole process. The burden is on Phil Jones to produce the raw data or withdraw his claims and papers as not reproducible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post Cedars! We definitely need to look at *all* the data.

 

Nonetheless, this does not invalidate climate science. It does not invalidate current models.

It writes a "wall of shame" for some folks, but it doesn't invalidate their work.

 

Science definitely needs a watchful eye, but hacking emails is terrible. :naughty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I understand Phil Jones has gotten over $22 million in grants, I'm kind of surprised he couldn't find some space for the original data. ...
Brian,

have you ever heard of a "calendar"? It's a simple device (often made of just paper) that allows one to pin down the date of occurence of an event. Very useful.

 

Had you pointed out that the data in question was disposed of in the 1980's and that the FOI request was twenty years LATER, then it would have been obvious that no malicious conspiracy was involved.

 

Ditto the fact that the grants in question happened many years AFTER the data in question was disposed of, then the question of using some of that money to save the data would never have come up.

 

It would be very helpful if you developed the (good) habit of identifying the DATES of two or more events before attempting to correlate them. It's rather like condemning Bill Gates for not contributing one penny to save the life of Alan Turing -- ignoring the inconvenient fact that Turing died before Gates was born.

 

But thanks for bringing it to our attention that the original GW data was lost. Quite a loss, in my estimation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post Cedars! We definitely need to look at *all* the data.

I look forward to that day. People have been trying to get a look at *all* the data nicely with simple requests, then under FOI and now under lawsuit.

 

Nonetheless, this does not invalidate climate science. It does not invalidate current models.

It writes a "wall of shame" for some folks, but it doesn't invalidate their work.

Define what you mean by climate science.

 

Show me one model that predicted the current cooling. I can show you emails where some esteemed 'climate scientists' lament the current lack of warming. Its been duly noted they seem to struggle to use the word 'cooling', but I guess thats a post for psychology.

:naughty:

 

You say it doesnt invalidate their work. Why not? If they cannot produce the raw data, the experiment cannot be replicated and their work should be rejected. Such are the rules of science.

 

Science definitely needs a watchful eye, but hacking emails is terrible. :(

There is no evidence it was a hack. There is a lot of speculation regarding the source of the files. I am sure Phil Jones did not intend for this to be public, but thats a whole different can of worms and irrelevant to the fact.

 

You would have rejoiced at the release of Dick Cheney's/GWB emails (speaking of people avoiding FOI).

 

I remember working for the state and being told straight up my state email is subject to FOI and should be treated as though it is public info, not including the fact that my supervisors could read each and every email sent from my machine.

 

Science has received a HUGE black eye from this scandal. You cant get around the collusion, the conspiracy to suppress scientific efforts/papers of contradicting ideas, blacklisting/mcCarthyism of some of these people, the efforts to manipulate science for a political agenda, all of which runs contrary to the purpose of science.

 

And I cannot forget the FACT not everything is out there for download. We have NO idea how big this is.

 

If I wanted priests in robes who were above question, I would become a xian. I expect science to maintain its credibility by staying above the common psychological pack mentality. I expect the science to stand on its own and not need manipulations such as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...