Monday, May 21, 2012

Climate Science Disinformers Are Nothing Like Holocaust Deniers

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/climateprogress/lCrX/~3/6vN0zcPFKWA/
The climate science deniers, however, are very different and far more worrisome.
Posted by at 11:42 AM

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This is what I wrote in response to a Romm-ite who suggested that Climate "Partisans", i.e. skeptics, only look at one side, while the Climate "Defenders", look at both
(maybe it gets posted, maybe not):

Climate Partisans don't look at the evidence on both sides? The skeptics spend more than half their times debunking the warmist evidence. Of course they are looking at it. The question is whether that is done by the "Defenders".

The Partisans, as you say, tear apart the pro-CAGW studies. They pull public data and do their own citizen-scientist investigations (which includes me). The Defenders, as far as I have seen over the past 4 years of interest, stop at the appeal to authority stage. If the IPCC, Jones, Mann and Hansen say a thing is, then it is. Non-experts, i.e. those who disagree with the "consensus", don't have the ability to either understand sufficiently to criticize, or and cannot produce useful, if contradictory, evidence through their own efforts. Beyond that, they think as individuals for their own self-interest ("paid shills"), and not for the community (altruistic, like Gore), and so whatever they say may be a trick.

Not really....

You have it wrong, I'm afraid. RealClimate fights back against the skeptic arguments. But the appeal to authority - including this blog - is a mainstay of the warmist argument. Where do you see a warmist taking data from GISTemp or HadCru and saying, see, this is what we are talking about!

But the warmist/"Defender" position is not without validity. The argument for anti-CO2 action is strongest when the Precautionary Prinicple is invoked: if you accept that CAGW is reasonably possible, all effort to thwart the death of the "planet" is also reasonable. But is CAGW "reasonably" possible?

Virtually all skeptic argument is based on the belief that CAGW is NOT reasonably possible. If, in fact, the likelihood of CAGW through continued CO2 emissions is not reasonably possible - or probable - then the Precautionary Principle actually works AGAINST anti-CO2 action: the definite damage to society and the economy far outweighs the probable damage of CO2 increases in this view.

Another important note: much warmist "evidence" of CAGW narrative is evidence of WARMING, including its bete noir, melting ice. This is not evidence of CO2 harm per se. The skeptical side is that other processes cause warming of an equal amount. If you focus on the studies that say CO2 IS the cause of the warming, you will find much less "evidence" that is difficult to deny. This is terribly important to the skeptics, who look for data, but apparently less for for the warmist, who looks for conclusions.

What the skeptics want is to see the unique signature that CO2, not the other processes, have. And they don't see it. And the authorities don't discuss it. They discuss glacier loss but not the mid-tropospheric non-warming heat spot or how atmospheric heat bypasses the surface layers to "hide" out of sight in the ocean depths. Yet this difference in what you need/want to see is understandable in light of how the Precautionary Principle is being used in the CAGW context. As interpreted by Romm and elsewhere, very hard evidence isn't necessary.

If you want to see where individual work and thought is happening, go to the skeptics' blogs. If you want to see where philosophy, a belief in the wisdom of authority, the intelligence of the group, resides, go to the warmist blogs.

Think for yourself or let the group think for you. It is an age-old dilemma. But if you let the group think for you, it is still wise to wonder if everything you hear is all there is, and if whether you should temper their claims with a bit of doubt.

1:20 PM, May 21, 2012

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)