BPSDB
Guest post by Milan Ilnyckyj:
As well as being a contributor here, Milan is a blogger and the editor of BuryCoal.com. He is a graduate of the University of British Columbia and Oxford, and has published academic work on climate change, fisheries, nuclear power, and other environmental topics.
Climate change deniers have been extremely effective in using the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia and the errors discovered in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (IPCC) to confuse the public discussion of climate change and delay mitigation action internationally and in the United States. They know that they don’t need to win the debate. Simply keeping it running by maintaining the semblance of ambiguity is sufficient to stave off the legislative action they want to avoid, and which is necessary for stabilizing the climate.
That said, the signs of climate change around the world are undeniable. The Arctic sea ice is vanishing, species are migrating northward and uphill, the ocean is becoming more acidic, and so on. In a report commissioned by the Aspen ski resort, it was explained that, in a worst case scenario, the climate of Aspen in 2100 would resemble that of Amarillo, Texas. Well before that, change will have become so obvious and undeniable that nobody disputing it will be taken seriously.
That creates a strategic opportunity. The people out there today claiming that the science is deeply uncertain and no action should be taken are in the process of proving that they cannot be counted on to provide good analysis of empirical evidence or good advice on policy. That provides the basis for an argument that they should not be listened to in the future. Given the range of matters on which these people campaign (everything from anti-vaccination agitation to questioning the health risks of smoking to advocating a financial system free from any regulation), it seems probable that them being sidelined from public discourse will be beneficial to democracy and the quality of decisions made in the future.
It is truly frightening that the climate is changing quickly enough to prove these people wrong during their own lifetimes. At least we can salvage something from the policy wreck they have helped to sustain, by learning which individuals we certainly should not be turning to for advice in the future. Achieving that requires two things. First, we need to remember who it was claiming that the science was deeply uncertain or that no action should be taken, back in 2010. Second, we need to prevent them from weaseling out and disowning their past claims. These people are nailing their colours to the mast now, and should be judged on that basis in the future.(Posted by Milan)BPSDB
IMAGE CREDITS:
Image from globalwarmingheartland.org
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread”
is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply; - The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
[…] in Daily updates, Internet matters, Politics, Science, The environment, Writing Today, I was proud to contribute a guest post to the excellent Greenfyre’s environmental blog: The deniers are discrediting themselves. […]
Yes, and the fact that all the denier stuff is now on the web (and especially YouTube) will be extremely useful in this regard 🙂
However, being completely wrong is unfortunately hardly a discrediting factor today. Take the financial crisis for example. The people who did not see it coming are still being listened to, probably because they managed to convince everybody that nobody could see it coming.
I expect the deniers to take the same stance.
“the science was too uncertain at the time, we were right to ask questions” etc.
Of course, then there are all the conspiracy theories, baseless fraud accusations, and general quackery, all archived on the interwebs. Everybody will try to distance themselves from it, but having all the evidence available online will make it quite difficult – so maybe there will be a teaching moment for humanity after all, but I am not sure there will be people willing to learn.
I don’t think the financial crisis is analogous, because the denial and paralysis which characterizes the post-2008 American financial sector is largely due to regulatory capture. Nobody is choosing to listen to these people; it’s just that there isn’t any choice.
Unfortunately, we are only at the beginning of what will be a decade of fierce denial. Once health care reform succeeds or fails, the USA is going to have the climate policy discussion, and it will be ugly.
[…] = 60; That creates a strategic opportunity. The people out there today claiming that…Source: Greenfyre Filed under: Fisheries Science Leave a comment Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments […]
I hope books like ‘Climate Cover Up” by James Hoggan and “The Boiling Point”
or “The Heat is On” by Ross Gelbspan will wake up enough people concerning the biggest disinformation campaign since Hitler and Goebels realized what you can do with telling big lies over and over again.
But what I would really like to see is a TV documentary on the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign.
Hard hitting, with names, money trail, motive, psuedoscience, faked graphs.
Maybe featuring people from the blogosphere sites, like Desmog Blog, Climate Progress, Real Climate, greenfyre, Open Mind, Deltoid, etc and maybe Ross Gelbspan, who all know what they are talking about. Bring it to where people are, in front of their TV sets. A lot of people don’t read books these days. That’s what the denier PR machine counts on, the dumbing down of America. The deniers are hitting hard. It’s time to hit back.
What do you propose we do with these deniers once its established damaging global warming is in fact true and caused by humans?
I think a good start might be to modify blog engines to detect when they’re trying to post their denialist tripe and amend their denialist comments appropriately, so instead of “Ray”, the blog engine will instead show “Ray (discredited climate idiot)”.
What do you think of this proposal, Ray?
— bi
Your proposal does not suprise me Frank. Perhaps then you can move on to the yellow star and the arm brand?
Hey, the little denier coward is back!
So, still refusing to learn anything about science?
Ray:
Actually, it’s your reply that doesn’t surprise me in the least. What I’m proposing is precisely to add information, rather than to remove it. This is all well and good free speech. Yet, predictably, you prefer to portray an act of free speech as an act of oppression.
You make it clear that, even if you’ve been proven conclusively wrong, you’ll still insist that anyone who points out that you’re wrong is a fascist.
— bi
Frank, Labeling those who disagree with you as idiots does not foster free speech, its that type of rhetoric that has lost the public debate for you. ( I ) don’t matter, what does matter are the increasing number of scientist bailing off the AWG bandwagon and polls showing fewer people buying into AWG hype.
You have Phil Jones and Micheal Mann’s science and all of us are idiots, Monty Python thanks you for the script.
Ray, the reason you are labeled an idiot is not because you simply disagree with us.
You continually show that you are an idiot by not understanding simple science and arguing the exact opposite of what well established (i.e. established long before global warming became a political issue) science tells us. You are a DKI type of idiot. I’ll let you decipher what DKI means.
Ray, remember that your question was this:
Let me break it down for you: If man-made global warming is, in fact, true, and a serious problem, then you are, in fact, an idiot.
Simple as that.
Of course, you’ve even if it’s been established that you’re wrong, you’ll still insist that you’re just expressing “disagreement”. And you wonder why you and your ilk are being called “deniers”? The answer is right here.
— bi
And if you are wrong?
Then I’m sure you’ll be wasting no time in calling me an idiot, won’t you? Unless you’re suddenly going to treat AGW proponents with the same respect that you keep demanding from other people, but I highly doubt that.
— bi
A couple of things I’ve discovered over the years and some observations:
1) Conspiracy theorists never investigate real conspiracies because the fake ones are much safer to investigate. Investigating real conspiracies can get you hurt or killed. This is why Monckton can safely rant about Global Warming being a conspiracy by what essentially comes down to the Illuminati, but we see very little in the mainstream media about how the deniers function.
2) The professional deniers know what the consequences of their actions will be if they are successful, in fact they are counting on them. If large areas of the Earth are turned into lifeless desert that opens up all kinds of opportunities for oil and coal exploration. Besides we will need those energy resources to survive in a world growing more hostile to life. So what if a large portion of the Earth’s population dies, it will mostly hit the poorer people who don’t buy much coal and oil anyway. This is the way they are thinking.
3) Drawing parallels between “Climategate” and Watergate may not be a bad thing. I recall that there were a series of other break-ins before the Plumbers were caught that caused all kinds of problems for the Democratic party and helped Nixon get elected. But the investigation of Watergate break-in eventually revealed the truth. I expect that a similar series of events can be made to happen by investigating who was behind the hacked emails.
But I don’t want to just sit around and wait for the future. I want to stop the inactivists right now, when the climate can still be saved.
Can we do that? Will we do that? Or are we just going keep writing about the problem while doing nothing to solve it?
* * *
Berbalang:
Yet, strangely enough, almost nobody seems to be doing that! Journalists are spending their time obsessing with Phil Jones and Roger Pielke Jr., inactivists are busy manufacturing talking points, scientists and activists are spending their time complaining about journalists and fending off inactivist talking points.
And nobody seems to know what the Norfolk constabulary and the National Domestic Extremism Team are doing with the case these days, or what progress they have (or have not) made.
* * *
rocco:
I suspect they’ll use the ‘Yeah, I got bamboozled by the Heartland Institute’s denier talking points, but that’s because the Warmists were too nasty, so it’s their fault’ excuse.
frankbi:
True, but the only details the news media is getting is from the deniers. People are aware that the emails were stolen and leaked, but they are unaware that this was the backup plan of the hacker and the original plan involved a faked confession from a climate scientist. This needs to be brought up in every media story about “Climategate.” If the media can’t be shamed into covering actual science they can at least be shamed for missing out on what could turn out to be a Pullitzer Prize winning story if they would be willing to do some serious investigating.
I would recommend that anybody investigating the hacker keep their files hidden off-site and not easily accessable from their computer, like on a thumb drive that can be removed and hidden. Don’t assume your desk is safe!
Berbalang:
No, I agree with you, which is why this diagram exists. I’m only frustrated that virtually nobody else seems to want to put in the effort into getting to the bottom of SwiftHack.
Suffice to say that I am taking some security precautions in my own little investigation of the CRU crack. I’m keeping them secret, though. 🙂
— bi
frankbi:
“But I don’t want to just sit around and wait for the future. I want to stop the inactivists right now, when the climate can still be saved.”
The problem is, we have already fired all of our guns. The think tanks have been exposed. Bush administration has been exposed. Bogus arguments have been debunked. How can anybody still take the deniers seriously is beyond me.
All I’ll say is good first post.
Hope to see more!
I have written a number of other posts on climate deniers and delayers.
As I understand it, most ‘deniers’ in fact don’t deny climate change, they are sceptical it is anthropogenic in its cause. Perhaps the article would carry more weight if it contained a little scientific analysis rather than just a polemic.
Actually most deniers don’t give a damn whether the planet is warming or why.
AGW denial is primarily a result of hatred of environmentalism and/or Reality rejection syndrome.
The actual scientific arguments are irrelevant to them. When it’s cool, the planet is not warming. When it’s warm, it’s natural causes… ad infinitum.
There are a few real skeptics out there, but you don’t see them very often. Probably because they prefer reading physics textbooks to blabbering about Al Gore on the Internet.
Rocco you are very wrong. I along with most “nonenvironmentalist” despise environmentalism but value and care greatly for the environment.
“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”
Vaclav Klaus
Blue Planet in Green Shackles
Good grief and you wonder why you are called an idiot.
“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”
In some sense this is true, but not in the way you mean.
Unless we deal with climate change quickly, we will eventually have to do so in a far more draconian way. It is much better to start with a modest carbon price now than to face harsh rationing in a couple of decades.
You will obviously need to put forward a more compelling argument that you have to date.
There is no question the world would respond to what they saw as a threat to our future, we certainly have in the past. (Hitler, any number of diseases, asbestos, tobacco) What is missing is the consensus. We are being asked by a very small number of apparent politically motivated zealots in an arm waving panic to drasticlly alter our lifestyle while Freeman Dysons, Pelkes, and Lindzens et al caution otherwise.
They are not idiots.
S2, can we have Ray’s and samspade’s talking points moved to a more appropriate thread?
— bi
Yes and and while you at it lets burn all those denier books, pull fox news off the air, and call everyone who disagrees with us idiots.
Shame on you Frank.
Go ahead and portray every action, no matter how mild, as being the equivalent of gassing people with Cyklon B.
Continually yelling persecution is, you know, getting a bit old.
— bi
I believe you are conflating political and scientific consensus. Scientific consensus HAS been achieved with regard to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) while the political consensus on what to do about it has not.
The problem with denialists is the denial (dishonest or otherwise) of scientific facts in order to steer the political discourse away from effective action.
I agree with Milan that there is both an irony and a real danger here that the foot dragging being partially sustained by denialists gives us the highest probability of necessitating the drastic alterations to our lifestyle that you, I, and many others are both concerned about.
And one point of absolute agreement: the “very small number of apparent politically motivated zealots” is an very apt description – of the denialists. When you understand that, you understand Milan’s anger over what we’re facing.
“any number of diseases, asbestos, tobacco”
Do you realize that behind each one of these issues, there is a denial campaign, using the same methods and arguments as AGW deniers?
In fact, it is often the same people who are doing it. Don’t you think that’s a problem?
“We are being asked by a very small number of apparent politically motivated zealots”
A.K.A. the majority of the entire scientific community…
“to drasticlly alter our lifestyle”
That sounds alarmist…
“They are not idiots”
I think you should examine where exactly are the anti-AGW arguments actually coming from, you will be surprised.
Rocco, they are then as now called sceptics and have been crutial to the success of science.
Frankbi March 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm
“Then I’m sure you’ll be wasting no time in calling me an idiot, won’t you?”
No.
People _paid_ to deny health or environmental effects of various substances “have been crutial to the success of science”?
Ok, that’s it. I’m calling Poe’s law on this one.
Speaking of Lindzen
“Unless we deal with climate change quickly, we will eventually have to do so in a far more draconian way. ”
Absolutely Milan.
The whole point of doing something now is to avoid far worse later.
Rocco I think that’s what they call: ‘Opinion presented as fact’.
Oh ya then there is also Mother Nature who just hates you guys.
Take a look at what is happening to multi-year ice:
The numbers colour-coded on the right show how long any particular bit of ice has been around.
Milan, note the date 2007 and note the sea ice is escaping thru the Fram Strait and out to sea. Wind currents not global warming.
The fact that there is hardly any multi-year ice left is strongly indicative of global warming. Because of the tilt of the Earth, the polar regions will always be cold in the winter. What is changing in the Arctic is the amount of ice that can endure through the summer months. Ice that has survived two winters is said to be ‘multiyear’ ice. Because more salt has been forced out from it, it is harder than younger ice. That makes it more durable, as well as a greater hazard to ships. While the decline in the overall extent of Arctic sea ice has been dramatic, the decline in the extent of multiyear ice has been even more so.
Furthermore, at least some scientists believe that most of the melting taking place has been from the bottom, and anecdotal reports from people operating icebreaking ships suggest that the multiyear ice still out there isn’t the same thing as what existed before. It is riddled with brine channels and weaker, and sometimes just consists of a thin layer of young ice covering small chunks of old ice. As such, it is more vulnerable to melting. This weak and vulnerable ice can provide a false impression of strength, when viewed from space. David Barber, Canada’s Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the University of Manitoba, has explained to Parliament that “we are almost out of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere.”
Sea ice volume is also important. It is harder to measure than the extent of sea ice, which can be observed in all sorts of ways by satellites (optical instruments, synthetic aperture RADAR, passive microwave emissions, etc). One effort to estimate how ice volume is changing was based on multibeam SONAR on submarines. An 11 day survey conducted by Peter Wadhams, using the nuclear-powered HMS Tireless concluded that 40% of Arctic sea ice has been lost since the 1970s. Another team, led by Drew Rothrock, used previously secret US submarine data to confirm that figure for all areas that submarines have been visiting.
I agree volume (size? nah!) is important but anecdotal reports and recent discoveries will only be of value in the future once baseline volume can be established. I don’t see how it can be of value today.
Until then we have a meager 31 year history of sea ice extent, which currently is recovering from having been blown out of the Arctic sea in 2007. The northwest passage has been open in the past.
I do not recall offhand but when was Arctic sea ice supposed to vanish entirely?
The sea ice site that Ray links to only has data for the last 5 years: oddly it gives the curent extent at under 12 000 000 km².
This site http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm shows data back to 2002 and shows curent extent at > 14 000 000 km²
http://uk.nanoq.gl/emner/news/news_from_government/2009/08/klimatale.aspx?abonnerpaa=1ded4b74-e523-41b5-882e-7b015049d38f
Mr. Kuupik Kleist, Premier of Greenland.
“The changes of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the decreasing trend in sea-ice cover around Greenland are manifestations of global climate change. Accelerating changes have been seen across the large outlet glaciers of the Greenland ice sheet, affecting the waters around us.”
Even more ominous new from the arctic: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116532&org=NSF&from=news
Rocco, March 5, 2010 at 3:40 pm
In 1989 Natural Resources Defense Council “scientists” reported Alar to be a human carcinogen – one that posed particular risks for children – public outcry forced apple growers to stop using it and Uniroyal to pull it off the market. Apples were dumped in the landfills. Orchard owners who absolutely had a financial stake in the debate denied apples posed any health risk, and they were correct! It was all Bullsh*t, apples treated with alar were harmless.
I take it you were skeptical of Phillip Morris’s scientists telling you nicotine was harmless, Its a good thing then but a bad thing now for anyone to question scientists?
Please help me out here.
“public outcry forced apple growers to stop using it”
It looks like Ray is telling some porky pies again:
http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/docs/alarscarenegin.html
The amusing thing about that page is the letter from Elizabeth M. Whelan an industry spokes person.
Here’s Sourcewatch on the Alar affair:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alar_and_apples
Sounds very much like more of the same…
So, in defense of industrial disinformation on climate change, Ray cites industrial disinformation on agrochemicals?
Nice. It’s like these people are proud of being stupid or something.
The “alar scare” is actually a great example of both denial and risk mismanagement.
When daminozide was identified as a probable carcinogen in 1973, there was no reasonable system of health risk management, and more than a decade was lost to bickering about safety regulations. In 1989, CBS ran a story about government’s pesticide regulation (using alar as an example of its failure), and everybody freaked out. The whole thing could have been avoided if EPA actually did its job.
I guess the true level of carcinogenicity will never be known. The EPA estimate was 23 cancers per one million people exposed, National Academy of Sciences then criticised it for underestimating the hazard to children, and that’s pretty much it, to my knowledge.
After the ban, apple growers tried to sue NRDC, but their case was dismissed. So much for “the scare”.
The interesting thing here is that the denial campaign started mostly _after_ the ban, to create a universal narrative about evil environmentalists making things up, which you are using right now, to make a point on a completely unrelated subject. See how the process works?
Ray said:
This just shows you haven’t a clue about how science works. Scientists are skeptical all the time but go and confirm or disprove what they are questioning. It involves actually doing some research and actually finding evidence which will prove or disprove their question.
If someone just says “that is not true, it can’t be right” (which is what AGW deniers do) without any evidence whatsoever, that is denying the facts not skepticism.
You are typical of this denier mentality, you cannot provide any honest science to back up your denier claims. Quoting junk sites such as climatefraudit, wattsuphisbutt, icecap, etc is not being honest.
That is why you are called an “idiot”.
Years ago a teacher said to me…..
Little people talk about people.
Medium people talk about things.
Big people talk about ideas.
Ian I wish you would get past this idiot thing of yours. Posted above is a wealth of ideas and thoughts for you to attack, please do, I personally don’t matter a bit.
The medium is the message…
If you are the medium, you are the message.
Hence Ray, you are a vehicle suitable for attacking!
If you don’t want to be attacked, lay off spreading your message.
I don’t mind the personal attacks that much in that they reflect more on the person taking that crude position in a disagreement than me, a lowly messenger. but its a pity to waste time hurling crude insults when there are some interesting thoughts to dispute.
Desmog blogs forum just collapsed because of insults. Lets not go there as a forum and lets not go there as a people.
And Milan, cheers, good luck. I do hope you keep this alive but please bring it quality and honesty.
Hayeeee Archie!!! you are a complete fuckhead jerk bully.
Whew, that felt good.
Mod…please delete, thanks.
—-
They’re not personal attacks, they’re statements of facts.
You continually stay stupid things, ergo you are an idiot.
We have to keep repeating it to you because apparently you’re not getting the message, as you keep posting more idiotic stuff, making baseless accusations, and linking to junk science.
You make everyone dumber here through your sheer presence.
Archie Steele
“They’re not personal attacks, they’re statements of facts”
People like you would,nt know if a fact slapped you in the face
“We have to keep repeating it to you because apparently you’re not getting the message, ”
The Message aye, sounds like the twats I turn away at my front door trying to “save” me
“You make everyone dumber here through your sheer presence.”
Would’nt be difficult
—-
Not Drunk, just annoyed
Ray said:
“I don’t mind the personal attacks that much in that they reflect more on the person taking that crude position in a disagreement than me, a lowly messenger.”
You are a messenger that acts on their own orders.
Your attempts at a sympathy vote would only be valid if you knew nothing about the subject and had been ordered to deliver the message by someone else.
Your analogy does not stand up to scrutiny.
I agree with Ray that our movement is MOMENTARILY running out of steam, just when we need to be most energetic.
We will have to do a better job of compartmentalizing science and our passion.
Ian, Lets eschew ad hominem and personal attacks to convert the “undecided” and give up on the Rays of the world as lost causes.
We need to ” Work hard and be Kind ” to achieve civilized and productive discourse
and save the world.
For those in the US, consider joining the new Coffee Party http://coffeepartyusa.com/ also on facebook – dedicated to eradicating corporate influence on elections and government.
Ray said:
Hey, I have an idea. I think Ray is an idiot, lets talk about that.
Happy now?
Ray said:
Wrong. It collapsed (or at least now has very few comments) because they allowed too many idiots like you to slander scientists, spread their disinformation and lies. Good blogs such as Open Mind, RC, Deep Climate and Skeptical Science, make sure that people like you get a warning and if you continue in your dishonest ways then you won’t be taking up blog space which is far better used in honest and rational discussion, something which deniers refuse to do.
Shall we debate the existence of gravity?
A wonderful comment by the foremost professor in computational climate modeling, Steve Easterbrook in his blog:
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1431
“Now, if someone wants to debate, say the ethics of leaving subsequent generations to clean up our polluting ways, I’m all on it. That’s a matter of value judgment. If anyone wants to debate the existence or seriousness of anthropogenic climate change, I’d give the same response as I would if they wanted to debate the existence or strength of gravity.”
Just another logic-free, thought-free rant by Ray.
As a lay person I find the point comes down to this: without free/open access to peer reviewed journals, your average concerned citizen must rely on opinion/interpretation of others, and thus can not form his/her own rating of the scientific work. I’ve read this referred to as a “pay wall.” To me denial of access is equivalent to denial of information. Remove the barriers to access, and you gain AGW support. Given the $billions thrown away daily, certainly just redirecting one of them (free subscriptions to all!) could put an end to the debate.
bob rudinski, as a lay person I disagree. I didn’t need to read peer-reviewed cancer research to know that my daughter’s oncologist at Sloan Kettering knew a lot more about chemotherapy than I did.
Similarly, I don’t need to understand physics and chemistry to know that the members of the National Academy of Science know more about climate change than I do – or than Pielke, Watts, Morano, or you.
In fact your demand for more access is nothing but a red herring I suspect. I sincerely doubt you are capable of comprehending the raw data. And billions thrown away daily? Are you referring to the military? Because that is a ludicrous figure for climate science research.
Here’s a link to a handy chart from climate progress dot org that lists the professional associations and scientific organizations that endorse the science of AGW, compared to a list of those who dispute it:
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2010/03/handy-chart-from-climateprogressorg.html
Misunderstand I suppose … by $billions I meant … my US government’s waste … if one could be used as a source of ‘scientific education’ of the masses, then …
I do take issue with your (elitist) contention that comprehension is impossible or unlikely. There is nothing inherently evil with amateur chemists, physicists, engineers — you know — people interested in science — wanting to read the literature, and form their own understanding.
If your/our goal is to educate and remove politics as a bias, then free and open literature, easily obtained, is one step in removing barriers to comprehension.
That’s my motivation for posting.
Hi bob,
I share your concern to avoid elitism.
There is a vast intellectual literature of the social study of science that exposes how conservative and authoritarian the practice of science has become, in many respects. Of course this is not surprising since all social practices in our society are aspects of highly bureaucratized, power-divided economic structures. So anyone who cares about knowledge and social issues must develop skills for critical analysis.
Gail’s point was about the value of the raw data to anyone without quite a high level of technical training in climate science. Her point is well-taken.
Your point is also well-taken. However, it is precisely citizens with critical reflection skills, along with some basic knowledge of science, who accept the evidence for human-caused climate change.
There is good access to the science and there is thorough and thoughtful discussion of the evidence and the issues. You must be wanting to ignore all of this, not to see it.
If your motivation is to promote education, you are not achieving this goal.
cheers
bob – there are plenty of scientific publications available for free on the web, if that is what you want. There are also libraries in most towns where you can find information. And if you’re really interested in studying this there is nothing stopping you from buying books, journal subscriptions, or indeed using your credit card to get through the “paywall”. After all, we do live in a capitalist society and most things cost something. Self-employed and amateur scientists have ALWAYS had to use personal finances to pursue their interests.
It is also worth noting that a lot of the money we spend on climate change mitigation is money we would want to spend anyway for other reasons. Fossil fuels are becoming more expensive and harder to get. Air and water pollution remain problematic.
Even if climate change wasn’t a problem, we would still eventually need to transition to a post-fossil-fuel economy.
Bob, tell the commercial publishers like Elsevier and Springer that you demand the journals to be free for all.
Of course, you could always walk into a university library and pick up a paper copy to read (in the library itself). Totally free!
Not just university libraries – most will obtain reprints for you if asked
It does seem like a bit of a shame for so many people to spend so much time trying to rebut one person, who is clearly just here to provoke people.
Those who have a more productive way to fight climate change should really do that instead. Writing to or calling your elected representatives is a good idea (Ray’s perspective is certainly being expressed to them regularly).
As a person with a science/philosophy background, I place a high value on skepticism as a principle for engagement with the world. Those principles led me, a good 12 months ago, to begin educating myself about climate science.
Climate science is an unusually difficult area to properly grasp, particularly because statistical modelling seems so counter-intuitive to most people. My own work had also highlighted the influence of political and cultural values on the work of scientists. And to be frank, I had to admit to being biased against anything Al Gore was this passionate about.
When faced with a very complex problem though, we really have two options:
1. raise our level of understanding to match the problem;
2. re-frame the problem so that we see it as no more complex than our current level of understanding.
Option 1 obviously requires work, but option 2 is the kind of thinking we use every time we sound off to friends or family about the economy, the government… even about Madonna’s adopted kids. It’s easy, gratifying, even makes us look smart to our bar buddies, niece etc, but it makes not one step closer to understanding anything new.[1]
After many hundreds of hours of reading and re-reading data and analysis, two things are clear:
First, the science behind the IPCC positions is not only solid, but has been strengthened by genuine, honest skepticism from climatologists themselves over several decades.
Second, the thing LEAST evident from so-called climate ‘skeptics’ is genuine skepticism.
If you think decades of work by of thousands of average-wage, educated people from all over the world is somehow part of one political conspiracy, you are not a skeptic.
If you think 3 minor errors in a 1,000 page report invalidates the findings of the report, you are not a skeptic.
If you believe human beings cannot tell if the rise in CO2 these last 100 years is caused by humans, you are not a skeptic.
Real skepticism is about choosing the most reasonable position, not the one supported by the people you agree with about other things.
Science isn’t a political party issue. If you think it is, you might be several things, but a skeptic isn’t one of them.
By the way -congratulations on one of the benchmark climate websites, Mike. [2]
—-
Mark,
good for you. We need many more people like you willing to walk the walk. There should be such people in every local community: people known and respected, not far away scientists or blogheads.
I started four years ago and am still learning all the time. And that’s with a geophysics background.
Why do you refer to the emails as “leaked?” They were stolen.
Saying they were leaked sounds as if some bold person blew the whistle on something. This was a complex heist that was well-timed to occur right before Copenhagen.
Really, we need push attention to Whodunnit, not support the thieves’ agenda.
—-
This is a serious question and I wish the author would address it. It was not a LEAK. It was THEFT and well-timed release.
Calling it a “leak” just helps the deniers!
I don’t think the theft is really such a major issue.
After all, if someone broke into Exxon or BP or the Republican Party’s computers and discovered some dubious looking documents, it would be more important to evaluate the importance of the documents than to track down who was responsible for the theft.
Ultimately, climate science is not threatened by these emails, though it will take some time and effort to demonstrate that, for instance by means of independent reviews.
This is certainly not a time when we can afford delay, but the emails need to be responded to directly.
This cartoon relates to the post above.
[…] the same group of people be wrong about tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion, and climate change people will finally stop seeing these people and organizations as good sources of advice on matters of public policy. Oreskes and Conway have provided a service, in moving humanity toward […]
[…] I have expressed my hope that the increasing obviousness of climate change will discredit climate change deniers. Perhaps the same phenomenon could empower outspoken climate hawks – hopefully, before the […]
[…] but it will not be a case of the weak pressing the strong to change their behaviour. At some point, things will get bad enough that climate change denial will be obviously incorrect from the perspective of almost […]