Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Red tape | Main | Ozone hole is back »
Thursday
Apr212011

Climate cuttings 51

I'm pretty busy at the moment, so rather than write anything, I'm just going to round up a few interesting links:

Shub shares my interest in the "official sceptics". His latest article looks at a critique of the movement from one of its members.

Robert Bradley Jr, writing at Master Resource, takes a long hard look at the symbiosis between BP, government and environmentalists.

Also following the money is Garth Paltridge, looking at how consensus can be bought and wondering where the independent advice is. Of course this used to the the role of the Royal Society, but they have taken the government shilling too, with inevitable results.

A shale gas well has apparently "blown", leaking fracking fluid into a river. Emma Pullman at Desmog says it's a disaster, others think otherwise.

Subscribers to the global warming hypothesis are very excited at the moment, the object of their interest being this article by Chris Mooney. The great communicators is looking at yet another cod-psychology piece about why sceptics don't believe what they are told.

The subscribers are having a bit of a fallout among themselves, with the vexed question being whether greens have more or less money to spend than big oil. A report by Matt Nisbet was rebutted by Joe Romm (who broke the news embargo in the process). Much shouting followed. Pielke Jnr and Keith Kloor watch on.

Pielke Jnr looks at the IPCC's new policy on conflict of interest and finds much to admire.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (11)

Independent: Earth Day and Facebook aim to attract a billion acts of green

I do believe facebook is a force against civil liberties... my personal opinion... ignore that and just consider that now facebook is an overtly activist green organisation.

People think I am just old-fashioned when I say I have no wish to participate...

Apr 21, 2011 at 8:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

I see the Guardian is fretting over fracking:

Senior executives in the fossil fuel industry have launched an all-out assault on renewable energy, lobbying governments and business groups to reject wind and solar power in favour of gas, in a move that could choke the fledgling green energy industry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/20/fossil-fuel-lobbying-shale-gas

Apr 21, 2011 at 8:26 AM | Unregistered Commenterwoodentop

I think that the work that Chris Mooney is describing is more than cod psychology. That of Kahan in particular has an interesting intellectual history. The model he uses goes back to the anthropologist Mary Douglas, and was used by researchers like Aaron Wildavsky (definitely a libertarian) to critique the green movement of the 1980s. One driver of Douglas's ideas was her field work in Africa where she found two tribes next to each other in identical climates, yet one viewed nature as inherently benign and the other saw it as hostile. The answer, she argued, lay in their different belief systems. The Mooney article gives a skewed view at the start but does go on to note that greens too have their 'blinders'. The reality is that it is hard for any of us to have an unbiased view of the world. That's why we need openness, flexibility, scepticism, provisionality etc in our political and science systems.

Apr 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM | Unregistered Commenterneutralman

Ok. I'll bite. What is "cod psychology"? (British slang for Americans...please help?)

Apr 21, 2011 at 10:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterOrson

I don't think I could take myself seriously enough to join a 'sceptics' group or association. My life experiences have taught me that any group of like-minded people tends to become very similar in outlook to a one-make motoring club - insular, silightly arrogant about the group's choices and the very opposite of sceptical.

Apr 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

I don't think I could take myself seriously enough to join a 'sceptics' group or association. My life experiences have taught me that any group of like-minded people tends to become very similar in outlook to a one-make motoring club - insular, silightly arrogant about the group's choices and the very opposite of sceptical.

Apr 21, 2011 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

Wow! The repeats are a worry.

Apr 21, 2011 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

Orson @ 10:36.
See freedisctionary definition 3.
Or enter 'cod latin' in a search engine.
It's fake, fraudulent, etc.

Apr 21, 2011 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterView from the Solent

Orson - "cod " is a slang expression for hoax, parody, nonsense. Origin unkown according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Apr 21, 2011 at 11:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Crawford

The Chris Mooney article dealt with a group of people who thought they would be destroyed by aliens on a certain day. When their predicition didn't come true they changed their story. Excuse me, doesn't that remind him of some people we know? And when their predictions failed they offered lame excuses, probably like George Monbiot's (I bet he regrets this), "This is what global warming looks like" when we're up to our butts in snow for the third winter in a row.

Apr 21, 2011 at 3:49 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Peter Crawford - I guess you noticed that the Concise Oxford Dictionary is also COD. Creepy eh?

Apr 21, 2011 at 5:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>