Bishop Hill A new typology for the climate debate
Sep 15, 2012 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other This is a guest post by Lloyd Robertson.
I think we need a new typology for people who comment on climate--better than warmists vs. skeptics or any other "teams". I propose three main analytical categories:
- state of mind
- whether still learning or not
- communicating with public/media honestly or dishonestly.
For state of mind, I want to distinguish ordinary ignorance, Socratic ignorance (knowing when one doesn't know something), and knowledge.
The best combination of the three categories would be Socratic ignorance combined with some knowledge, still learning, and communicating honestly. In this category I would put your distinguished self, Steve McIntyre, and some bloggers I read including Lucia (including posts by Zeke), Judy Curry, and Pielke Jr. I would be more impressed if lukewarmers were prepared to say that much of the IPCC AR4 is not only shaky, but nonsense. Judy Curry stands out for having taken a fresh look at all this, and calling a spade a spade.
What impressed a lot of us about Climategate was the contrast between the way folks spoke in private, and the way they spoke in public. In public it was all about suppressing any admission of ignorance or uncertainty in order to maintain the dogma. In private, though, there was sometimes something like Socratic ignorance combined with some knowledge. For example, Trenberth saying on two occasions that there were important things he and his colleagues didn't know about temperature, "and it's a travesty that we don't know." Socratic ignorance, probably some ordinary ignorance, some knowledge, possibly trying to learn, communicating dishonestly. Ed Cook saying "we honestly know fuck-all about what the … [temperature] variability was like on timescales greater than a century with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all)." On this last point, though, Cook probably realized that there was substantial paleo evidence against the warming dogma, and none to speak of in favour of it: a combination of ordinary and Socratic ignorance, not much knowledge, not trying hard to learn, communicating dishonestly.
Let's have some more fun: Trenberth again, but this time constantly in the news saying every hurricane is the beginning of Armageddon. Plain ignorance, lack of knowledge (not the field in which he's trained), not trying to learn, still communicating dishonestly in that he knows or should know better.
This raises a subtle point. If one is convinced that a person wallows in complete ignorance and folly, it is difficult to blame them for anything they say. How can they be dishonest about the truth if they really don't know anything? Of course there is the dishonesty in failing to achieve Socratic ignorance, and for a scientist, there is dishonesty in not trying to find out more, or not trying to disprove one's favourite theory.
For all I know, Lewandowsky has never known anything on any subject, including how to conduct an online survey. But doesn't even an ordinary, fairly stupid person have enough sense to be more honest about his mistakes than Lew is being?
Of course I am a skeptic, and I am giving the impression that the egregious faults are all on the other side. I suppose the skydragons, whoever they are, are plain ignorant, not trying to learn, but probably honest. I don't read them, I had never even heard of them until Judy Curry sharpened her lance against them.
Muller is probably an interesting case: impressive in his defence of McIntyre and Anthony Watts, blowing his own horn a bit too much as he confirms the mainstream view of temperature, and then going out on a limb by attributing the warming to man-made CO2. We have Michael Mann's word for it that the question of attribution is not settled, and it is certainly not as simple as Muller made out. So: on that question, plain ignorant, lacking in knowledge, and not trying hard enough to learn. On the other hand, Muller is probably always honest--perhaps to a fault given his non-Socratic belief that he is always right.
Reader Comments (106)
Just for the record, any visiting slayers and lurking slayers shouldn't take Maurizio's words to heart and become depressed (although I'm pretty sure he wishes that would happen ! but enough confusion already!). The simple thing is that, as Richard points out above, a good part of Maurizio's comments are reflective of long-term observation of what has transpired here and at other blogs, in connection to some slayer-like beings.
Secondly, what is the problem with the position of a slayer? If doubt exists at such a fundamental level, then every argument in the global warming tree - and it is a big tree with lots of branches - sounds meaningless. The slayer is impelled to intervene at every argument with the cry - "but what about the back-radiation blah blah blah - it doesn't even take place!" Given the utter ignorance and stupidity of human beings, that may well be. But the problem is that this approach boils all conversation down to the quantum properties of the so-called greenhouse gases.
We can have conversations assuming various portions of one's opponent to be true. I say this as a 'deep skeptic' who questions the entire basis of the global warming nonsense, from historical and science-historical grounds, among other reasons, and therefore as someone who believes, can understand the 'slayer's position.'
Sorry if I sound odd.
Richard, I have alluded before to my distaste for a gentleman's club or senior common room approach to the CAGW tyranny, which because of its policy impacts on the whole of society needs a very broad coalition of opponents, and much plain speaking. To use a word like hermeneutical (at least you could have spelled it correctly) smacks of elitism, has an obfuscatory effect and I would suggest is not likely to win friends and influence people. Why not just say 'Some people's interpretation of Lloyd's post was confused', if that's what you meant.
You clearly see yourself as someone at the forefront of the debate, and since we are on the same side you often do say things I agree with, but how about trying to look at things in a broader context? Both Bish and Dellers, for instance, write 'for the people' in their very different styles, and for a popular uprising against an unjust lunacy that is very apt. This issue does not need to be over-intellectualized; the unsavoury truth is plain to see and should be expressed equally plainly, preferably with persuasive eloquence.
Just a word for Richard Drake.
There was no hint and no "best guess".
All that happened is that a few months back I asked mdgnn a specific question. He put me onto what he said was one of his articles in pdf. When I followed the link I found myself on the site of a very well-known writer in the sceptical blogs.
Now there are two possibilities that I can see:
i) mdgnn is a plagiarising usurper in which case mentioning the writer's name would serve no purpose except to needlessly complicate his life;
ii) mdgnn is indeed the writer in question in which case it's for him to reveal himself if he so wishes; I don't know his reasons for hiding behind the avatar and have no right to force the issue.
Whichever of the two cases it may be, I cannot take it upon myself to divulge the name.
I only mentioned it because I suspected your epithet "pseud" may be unfair.
Now a general query: I have searched through some of the sites I visit regularly for a thread invaded by Slayers and have so far not found one. If anyone could give me a link to one or more specific cases which have particularly shocked them, I would be grateful.
Shub: I've only just seen that comment and you've hit all the necessary nails on the head for me. Thanks. (And to the other two: that I'm afraid will have to suffice. Pity about the decent feedback for Lloyd. Finding other disrupted threads is left as a exercise for the reader.)
loquacious said:
" I believe argon and krypton are used in in double-pane glass because they are monoatomic and therefore have the lowest possible heat capacity when convecting heat between two panes of glass."
The "super greenhouse gas" Sulphur hexafluoride is also used because of it's high density and low heat capacity (much like co2).
Did you hear the one about the Irish greenhouse effect ?...
water vapour, it actually lowers daytime surface temperatures !