How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[Bananaman]

As it seems my job to add more fuel to the flames by quoting from recent articles in the media I shall continue in similar vein:

Lord Lawson closes on a note that others of us have struck in trying to puzzle out the deeper reasons for this great climate panic. He recognises that in many ways the global warming ideology has filled the vacuum left by the collapse of Marxism: "Green is the new red."

He sees parallels with the apocalyptic visions held out by certain religious movements in the past. He is alarmed by the fanatical intolerance shown by many believers in global warming to any heretic who dares question their certainties.

He ends by describing "the new religion of global warming" as "the Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a best-seller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense.

"We have entered," he says, "a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet.

Full article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/06/ealawson106.xml


Lawson on television said that he's had many books published in the past with no problems at all. When publishers found out his latest book was critical of climate change he ran into a brick wall. No-one wanted to publish it. I think he said he finally got it published somewhere in America, but even then only after a struggle. It is like religion. Imagine trying to get a book published in a strongly Catholic country which heavily criticised the Catholic faith. I imagine you'd run into the same problems.

Bananaman.

 

[varwoche]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/06/ealawson106.xml

Note to self: Add Lord Lawson to doofus list.

 

[Bananaman]

Note to self: Add Lord Lawson to doofus list.

It's your prerogative, but all opinions should be heard.

Out of interest, since you posted a list of papers earlier in this thread (heavy as they were on the words 'might' and 'may'), Varwoche, old thing, have you ever actually had to wade through a pile of published papers and get the meat out of them?

I'm not being pernickerty, I'm genuinely interested.

Bananaman.

 

[TrueSceptic]

As it seems my job to add more fuel to the flames by quoting from recent articles in the media I shall continue in similar vein:






Full article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/06/ealawson106.xml


Lawson on television said that he's had many books published in the past with no problems at all. When publishers found out his latest book was critical of climate change he ran into a brick wall. No-one wanted to publish it. I think he said he finally got it published somewhere in America, but even then only after a struggle. It is like religion. Imagine trying to get a book published in a strongly Catholic country which heavily criticised the Catholic faith. I imagine you'd run into the same problems.

Bananaman.

Lawson has no expertise in science so what would he have to say on the matter? Perhaps the problems that arise when science meets politics?

I find it highly implausible that he would fail to find a UK publisher because he is a GWSceptic, and even more so that it would be difficult in the USA. This stuff sells. I think he is playing the heretic card, and you seem to be doing the same.

 

[Bananaman]

I find it highly implausible that he would fail to find a UK publisher because he is a GWSceptic, and even more so that it would be difficult in the USA. This stuff sells. I think he is playing the heretic card, and you seem to be doing the same.

You'd think so wouldn't you. I agree that politics is the real problem. The politics of global warming are so deeply ingrained now that we don't even notice them.

But here's a thought experiment for you: imagine that global warming from carbon emissions from humans was proved beyond doubt to be nonsense. What would the political implications be? What would be the implications from every classroom to every boardroom in the land? A lot is vested in it. Take the bull by the horns if you dare.

Having said that, I'm a fence sitter. And I probably shouldn't admit this, but I work for the NERC in Britain.

Bananaman.

 

[Alric]

But here's a thought experiment for you: imagine that global warming from carbon emissions from humans was proved beyond doubt to be nonsense.

Then we should still move towards an oil-free economy. Just for other reasons. Policy and national security comes to mind.

 

[Alric]

And here is the answer to the question of how to be a global warming skeptic. Create a manufactroversy!

This is from an excellent blogpost in scienceprogress.org

"With all the sophisticated sophistry besieging mass audiences today, there is a need for the study of rhetoric now more than ever before. This is especially the case when it comes to the contemporary assault on science known as manufactured controversy: when significant disagreement doesn’t exist inside the scientific community, but is successfully invented for a public audience to achieve specific political ends.

Three recent examples of manufactured controversy are global warming skepticism, AIDS dissent in South Africa, and the intelligent design movement’s “teach the controversy” campaign. The first of these has been called an “epistemological filibuster” because it magnifies the uncertainty surrounding a scientific truth claim in order to delay the adoption of a policy that is warranted by that science. "

 

[mhaze]

Then we should still move towards an oil-free economy. Just for other reasons. Policy and national security comes to mind.

There is no such thing as an oil free economy unless you go considerably back to pre industrial times. And there is no conceivable "post modern" economy that is oil free. Neither is there any good reason to ever conceive of such a thing, or to consider it "good".

Oil is used for many things besides energy production, it is a foundation of industrial society.

Want solar panels? Takes oil.
Want energy from wind? Takes oil to build and transport.
Want plastics?
Computer wafer chips?
Want fancy batteries for clean greenie cars? Takes oil to make them.
Fertilizer?
Medicines?
Space satellites?

If tomorrow a magic box was invented and handed out that provided limitless free energy with no emissions or pollution, oil would continue to be a foundation of the economy. It's use for energy production would go down, but it's use for other purposes would go up.

 

[CapelDodger]

Note to self: Add Lord Lawson to doofus list.

Isn't Lawson related by marriage to Munchkin? (By the way, the "Lord" is properly left out.) Since I've been living in the sticks I've so lost track of Society. Not that Nigel Lawson was ever part of Society; he named his daughter Nigella, which says a lot about a chap, and none of it good. Started out as a journalist, doncha know . If it hadn't been for that dreadful Thatcher woman nobody in Society would ever have registered him. Or Munchkin, come to that.

 

[CapelDodger]

And here is the answer to the question of how to be a global warming skeptic. Create a manufactroversy!

And keep them coming. It's a lot like log rolling. We, fortunately, can sit on-shore sipping beer and enjoying their antics.

 

[hammegk]

And keep them coming. It's a lot like log rolling. We, fortunately, can sit on-shore sipping beer and enjoying their antics.

Shouldn't you & the other zealots here spend your free time waving banners and shouting "The Sky Is Falling!"?

 

[mhaze]

Shouldn't you & the other zealots here spend your free time waving banners and shouting "The Sky Is Falling!"?

Or "Floods, Pestilence, Famine and Droughts be a coming."

Big ideas like those, some minds they ...fill up.

Wait...waving banners and ...shouting...

At the same time?

 

[CapelDodger]

But here's a thought experiment for you: imagine that global warming from carbon emissions from humans was proved beyond doubt to be nonsense.

Let's imagine that it is nonsense.

What would the political implications be?

They would be exactly what we've seen them to be. Bugger-all. The only difference would be that the subject of AGW would never have come up. If CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas we wouldn't need to worry about it. Unforunately, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

What would be the implications from every classroom to every boardroom in the land? A lot is vested in it. Take the bull by the horns if you dare.

A lot of what is vested in what else by whom? How deep-laid is this plot?

Having said that, I'm a fence sitter. And I probably shouldn't admit this, but I work for the NERC in Britain.

Why shouldn't you "admit" it? We're all very open around here.

 

[CapelDodger]

Shouldn't you & the other zealots here spend your free time waving banners and shouting "The Sky Is Falling!"?

I do what I want, wthin limits. I don't tell other people what they should be doing. That's what zealots do.

 

[CapelDodger]

Or "Floods, Pestilence, Famine and Droughts be a coming."

Big ideas like those, some minds they ...fill up.

Wait...waving banners and ...shouting...

At the same time?

The way you clutch onto anything you regard as a kindred spirit is verging on the embarrassing. Cowpoke is another drive-by, just you wait and see.

 

[mhaze]

Getting a wee bit smashed there now are we, CD? It shows in your style.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I do what I want, wthin limits. I don't tell other people what they should be doing. That's what zealots do.

How true. The "sceptics" are the zealots, constantly wailing, "AGW is a lefty conspiracy. GW is entirely natural. GW isn't happening, etc.".

 

[TrueSceptic]

A gem from our old friend Bob Carter. He manages to include just about all the language and false claims so popular with GWSceptics. Just the sort of language a proper scientist would use (irony). I especially like this bit.

The second is the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, the release of which coincided with the launch of the International Climate Science Coalition at a major climate rationalist conference in New York in early March.

Climate rationalist!

 

[mhaze]

A gem from our old friend Bob Carter. He manages to include just about all the language and false claims so popular with GWSceptics. Just the sort of language a proper scientist would use (irony). I especially like this bit.

Climate rationalist!

More Carter:

“The roughly 50 computer experts and scientists who form the core advisory group for the IPCC's stance must have realized for several years now that the game was up. There is indeed copious evidence that climate is changing, as it always has; and that natural biological and physico-chemical systems - again as always - are changing in response.

But as to human causation - the evidential cupboard is bare. “For the last three years, satellite-measured average global temperature has been declining. Given the occurrence also of record low winter temperatures and massive snowfalls across both hemispheres this year, IPCC members have now entered panic mode..."
​

A rationalist.

TS should be much happier out of the closet, having revealed his motivations quite clearly-

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic
This thread is about ... it is indeed about politics. GWS denial is not driven by science; it is driven by right-wing politics of the most despicable kind.​

 

[TrueSceptic]

More Carter:

“The roughly 50 computer experts and scientists who form the core advisory group for the IPCC's stance must have realized for several years now that the game was up. There is indeed copious evidence that climate is changing, as it always has; and that natural biological and physico-chemical systems - again as always - are changing in response.

But as to human causation - the evidential cupboard is bare. “For the last three years, satellite-measured average global temperature has been declining. Given the occurrence also of record low winter temperatures and massive snowfalls across both hemispheres this year, IPCC members have now entered panic mode..."
​

A rationalist.

No, someone who doesn't understand how the science works and brazenly lies about it.

TS should be much happier out of the closet, having revealed his motivations quite clearly-

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic
This thread is about ... it is indeed about politics. GWS denial is not driven by science; it is driven by right-wing politics of the most despicable kind.​

What closet would that be? What we are doing here is examining the behaviour of GWSceptics, which is clearly driven by right-wing ideology and has nothing to do with science. We have also seen how dishonesty is an essential part of GWS behaviour, both in commenting on the subject of GW and in their interactions in this forum.

You still have not apologised for that lie about what I said, have you?