Bishop Hill Mark Maslin does fallacy
Dec 17, 2014 Greens Mark Maslin, the head of geography at UCL, has written another of those "I won't discuss the science with bad denier people" articles that adorn the left-wing press from time to time. His hypothesis is that we are simply arguing the toss because we oppose the inevitable consequence of avoiding manmade global warming, namely the introduction of international Marxism:
So in many cases the discussion of the science of climate change has nothing to do with the science and is all about the political views of the objectors. Many perceive climate change as a challenge to the very theories that have dominated global economics for the last 35 years, and the lifestyles that it has provided in developed, Anglophone countries. Hence, is it any wonder that many people prefer climate change denial to having to face the prospect of building a new political (and socio-economic) system, which allows collective action and greater equality?
The lack of self-awareness in his accusations of political motivation is comical of course, but it's also worth pointing out that the motivational fallacy has been understood since the time of the ancient Greeks. Unfortunately word of this learning doesn't yet seem to have filtered through to University College London, where Professor Maslin seems blind to the possibility that the upstarts who disagree with him might be correct despite the fact that they don't want the UK to look more like China or North Korea. (Or even that people might find the failure of the models or the lack of significant warming just a bit of a worry).
Perhaps someone should drop Professor Maslin a copy of Madsen Pirie's How to Win Every Argument which explains these things in a wonderfully accessible fashion. I worry though that Professor Maslin might think that Dr Pirie is only promoting the use of logical argument as a way of opposing international socialism. It's hard to get through to some people.
Bishop Hill
...as a scientist I am always worried when an individual attacks a person’s integrity instead of the science in question as it usually means they have no answer to the weight [of] evidence presented.
Mark Maslin a few weeks ago
I am very sorry but I will not be responding to comments posted concerning the science of climate change...
Mark Maslin yesterday
Reader Comments (111)
Really?
When a full time FOE activist, with an Eng Lit degree, like Bryony Worthington is invited into government to draft the most expensive single piece of legislation ever enacted - I think we can consider the democratic process well & truly circumvented.
The only reason pressure groups like FOE, Greenpeace, WWF etc exist is to attempt to subvert democracy by lobbying, bullying & political blackmail.
" As free as you are to heckle, they're not obliged to engage with you. "
The Michael Mann lawsuits (note the plural) against various hecklers suggests that the freedom to heckle is in dire jeopardy. Do you condemn Mann -- not for his science, but for his attitude towards debate?
I suggest that it is not enough for the individual (either of "denier" or "alarmist" persuasion) to refrain from punishing "the other side" whether by name calling, law-fare, or tactics between. I suggest instead that a joint-advocacy in favor of debate EVEN WITH THE WORST OFFENDERS AMONG THE OTHERS, is a position of maturity, strength and persuasion, while a refusal to engage is an admission of the weakness of one's own side and case.
I note too that Mann leads classes in the ethics (or other, nonscientific aspects) of the debate, advocates for particular politicians, and otherwise claims his scientific accomplishments privilege his advocacy. Were he content to advocate for the science, he could rightly demand to be debated as a scientist by other scientists. As he opens the arena to other tactics he forfeits choice of opponents and rhetorical weapons. Had the proposed Mann standard been in place in the 19th century, the researcher Mark Twain called "the highest authority in science now living", Lord William Thomas Kelvin, could have sued upstarts who suggested his theories on the Age of The Earth (and Sun) were wrong, and Twain himself, the greatest HECKLER, in English, then living, would have been in legal danger for supporting one side over the other.
The science community does itself no favors by protecting a particular fraud under the general umbrella of the discipline's presumed integrity or validity. The Piltdown Man was not "proven" correct because independent evolutionary researchers found other fossil evidence in other parts of the world from other epochs of history showing similar "missing links" among the hominid family tree. The Piltdown Man WAS, as the Creationists correctly pointed out, a fraudulent work, splicing together two kinds of evidence to present -- fraudulently -- a narrative the pro-science moment considered important to tell. That modern hecklers remember the Piltdown Man and remember the history of science and use that example in the debate about Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" is not insulting to climatology as a whole. Rather, it elevates climatology to the importance of Evolution, or Relativity, or Quantum Theory. _IF_ the discipline matures to the point that out-of-sample evidence falls in line with predictions from theory or models, then we have a basis for -- carefully -- making policy. But many climatologists pretend to be ignorant of the history or possibility of frauds or mistakes or weakly made argument supporting poorly-thought-out policy. And just because a critic is generally wrong --as once were the Young Earth Creationists like Kelvin and Twain -- doesn't make such a critic either unscientific or anti-science.
So, will you debate whether or not Mann should sue? Pure policy, no science, no privilege to pro- or anti-"side" of the issue. Purely a debate on engaging, or not, hecklers?
always worth reading ATTP's comments at his own blog, when he comments here..
here is an example:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/talk-politics-not-science/#comment-40038
vtg, "on debating, Bishop hill are the equivalent of the SWP. Would you waste your time on a debate with them? "
"Well, no. I guess I’m not actually trying to debate with them, as that is naive. It think it’s more just an indication of my masochistic tendency :-)" - ATTP
Barry,
In general, I think that what I said is a reasonable comment. It is typically remarkably unpleasant commenting here and I really should stop. Since writing that comment, there have been a couple of notable exceptions such as Nullius and Michael who have at least tried to discuss the topic. I haven't really hidden my disdain for Bishop Hill. I don't think highly of the blog, or of the typical comments. Given that most here don't think highly of me, my blog, or my commenters, I'm not sure why this is an issue. I'm always willing to be shown that my impression is wrong, but until such time as that happens, I'll continue to hold it.
There's nothing at all wrong with you going and posting what I said on my blog here as it is completely public, but it does make you seem a little like a tattletale.
Peeps! Please, ATTP is just begging for traffic and for someone to stroke his huge ego. He tried TWICE on this thread before anyone answered him - and then he was in like Flyn. I tend to scan straight past his comments now as they are all seem to be typed with his left hand. I mean, the guy is lurking. His quickest response to date was ONE minute. The slowest seems to be FIVE. I just note the times and move on past. I feel cleaner for it. And Barry Woods's comment tends to say it all: we're being baited for another's ego. Let's just ignore him and allow him to rest....
you are free to post here - ATTP - but many regular readers of B Hill are banned at your blog -
your blog, your privilege, but you coming here to do what exactly, stir, indulge your masochism and sense of what - superiority?
achieves what exactly - just polarises things a little more, you clearly think little of the people here, your attitude and disingenuousness makes that mutual.
To take a chunk of what you said ATTP:
I think MM's tweets to @rustyrockets and his remarks about equality I think we know his ideological concerns. It is disappointing that he lacks the self-awareness to recognise them while projecting them on others.
Barry Woods,
"you are free to post here - ATTP - but many regular readers of B Hill are banned at your blog -"
Oh that explains it then. I was going to ask why ATTP doesn't just write a post about this on his blog, and discuss it there. That would then save us from whines like this:
"I'll try making my point one more time, in the hope that someone actually addresses it."
I have some questions for ATTP: If you genuinely want dialogue, then do you think your chosen username helps? It seems to be chosen to try to put down those you disagree with. If you don't want dialogue, then why do you keep turning up?
Of course Maslin doesn't want us to be like China - just think, all those coal fired power stations - not to mention the billionaires.
Mark Maplin is bold enough to post under his real name, and argue things out - putting his reputation on the line publicly - ATTP can drive by, and hen write condescendingly about Bishop Hill at his blog, with the usual suspects gang -
I'd happily meet Mark and argue things out - I even suggested to ATTP we meet, have a chat away from the blogs, a long while back, suggesting he come to the Inconvenient tweet panel debate, my experience since, says, waste of time. attp does not do 'good faith' imho of course.
Maslin has now put a couple of comments at the end of the article. He seems to be shocked and surprised that his childish name-calling insulting article accusing people who don't agree with him of being politically motivated, has resulted in insults and accusations of political motivation.
Aha - so our resident esmiff below is Eric Smith at the conversation.
This is a book by a (former) Guardian journalist and (real) Marxist professor, James Heartfield. He's old school. He's intelligent and he's a denier. Tee hee.
Green Capitalism: Manufacturing Scarcity in an Age of Abundance
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Green-Capitalism-Manufacturing-Scarcity-Abundance/dp/1906496102/ref=asap_B004OB12EO?ie=UTF8
'Never argue with fools. They will drag the discussion down to their level, then beat you with experience.'
(I can't remember who said that, but obviously a man much wiser than myself.)
Maslin is a product of a massively dumbed down education system in which they took out the difficult bits and deprived students of the ability to think rigorously. Does that make me sound old ????
Dumbing down school exams risks 'catastrophe', warns Royal Society of Chemistry
The dumbing down of school science exams risks creating a "catastrophic" shortage of skilled workers, experts have warned.
Scientists said a lack of rigour in GCSEs - fuelled by a culture of "teaching to the test" - was destroying teenagers' problem-solving and thinking skills.It came as research suggested standards demanded by schools have dramatically declined in the last 50 years.In a study, 1,300 of the brightest 16-year-olds were presented with questions from old O-level and GCSE papers.
An average of one-in-seven questions from tests taken in the 60s and 70s were answered correctly. Even pupils awarded elite A* grades in corresponding GCSEs this summer struggled with traditional questions.
The Royal Society of Chemistry said the report provided "first hard evidence of catastrophic slippage in school science standards".
It insisted that Government boasts of rising standards were an "illusion" fuelled by easier tests and better exam preparation.The RSC has now launched a Downing Street petition calling for GCSEs to be dramatically toughened up amid fears ministers are "failing an entire generation".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3526199/Dumbing-down-school-exams-risks-catastrophe-warns-Royal-Society-of-Chemistry.html
Paul Matthews. Well spotted.
My name is neither Smith, nor Smiff. The clue to the source of the 'Smiff' name is my BBC name, Morrissey Smiff.
Barry,
I've never quite understood what you seem to be suggesting here. Since I haven't banned the host of this blog from mine, I don't see why that there are commenters here who can't comment on my blog, means I shouldn't comment here. I also don't think it is many.
I certainly wasn't aiming to stir and I certainly don't think I'm superior. I was hoping people might engage in some kind of constructive discussion and some have indeed done that.
Again with the pseudonymity. You don't have to agree, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with being pseudonymous, and given how many who know who I am, I'm surprised it's lasted as long as it has. I'm also not sure why you would accuse me of a drive by. Most people complain that I don't leave soon enough.
As far as my attitude goes, yes it isn't all that great. However, I've been told I'm a LYING ASSHOLE, being told that I'm an arrogant pathetic little sh*t, and been psycho-analysed by more than one commenter (which I always find a little ironic given the outcry over the recursive fury paper), amongst other wonderful retorts. Not that it really matters, but if Andrew Montford (or, in fact, anyone) were to comment on my blog, I would moderate any such comments. So, you'll excuse me if I don't feel too badly about the fact that my tone isn't always as good as one might hope it would be. To be clear, though, I don't that badly of the people. I actually imagine that most would be perfectly nice and pleasant people in person. I just don't think highly of the blog or the comments, both of which are inanimate.
James,
I don't know if my username helps or not. I'm guessing you think it doesn't, but it wasn't intended to hamper. I would quite like dialogue, I'm just not really convinced that it's really possible. I have no issue with people proving me wrong, though, and sometimes people do (as some have today).
Same experience as Barry, ATTP likes to surround himself with people in constant need to say they agree with each other, cannot possibly conduct an intelligent conversation with others in good faith as he's inevitably right from the start.
The P in ATTP, I thought, stood for Pedantry: it doesn't, it stands for Pomposity. He should get a blog of his own. (Oh, he has...)
ATTP,
"Doesn't this rather illustrate the point that Mark Maslin was trying to make? "
If you say so. What I see is Prof Maslin being either clueless or disingeniuos. He claims that people who do not willingly accept assertions of global warming being the most significant threat to human existence do so primarily from political reasons, and then goes on to say that there is only one political system under which the supposed threat can be dealt with.
Maslin is a buffoon. If you want to self identify as one as well, then feel free to support his point of view.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to wait for someone to provide real evidence that some sort of threat really exists. As they say in Missouri - show me.
timg56,
No, I don't think that is what he was suggesting. Are you sure you read the right article?
So, another 'warmist' clown helpfully reveals himself to be a cartoon leftist with a comically inflated ego.
This is becoming something of a pattern.
Encore!
Maslin is a Marxist first and foremost and like the familiar anti establishment protestors that turn up at any event that fits their cause he now has attached himself to the global warming band waggon like so many others.
Why his article is deemed worthy of discussion I have no idea but like some blogs,ATTP formerly a failed critic site of WUWT as one prime example, the content can be read, digested and ignored. Any discussion with or about the perpetrators just fans the flames of ego and encourages the authors to think that they are somehow intrinsic to the debate. They generally are not and certainly not in the cases of Maslin and ATTP.
(Puts on patronising sneer) "Are you sure you read the right article?"
But it wasn't 'right' it was 'left'. That's the point. Not Science. Politics. Maslin said so.
Many perceive climate skepticism as a challenge to the very theories that have dominated climate science for the last 35 years, and the lifestyles that it has provided scientists in developed, Anglophone countries. Hence, is it any wonder that many scientists prefer climate change alarmism to having to face the prospect of building a new research (and socio-economic) system, which allows collective review and greater transparency?
aTTP above:-
…… and earlier, responding to a polite critic on his own blog:-
I'm not sure if I'm banned at aTTP's blog or not - I've given up commenting there anyway.
I don't mind aggression and insults, when passions are raised on blogs, we dish out a fair bit of that here.
What finished me with aTTP is the creepy, whining narcissism of people who have intertwined their beliefs with their self-esteem to the point where any criticism of them is countered by desperate attempts to prove that they are not only right about everything - but also on a superior intellectual & moral plane to their opponents.
That, combined with the instant application of moderation whenever the proprietor's arguments come under the slightest pressure, imbues the place with a juvenile hysteria which seems to have driven nearly all dissenting opinion away - and left a weird, whingeing echo chamber of permanent outrage.
ATTP,
"I don't know if my username helps or not. I'm guessing you think it doesn't,"
You're *guessing* that? There's pretty good evidence to help you along there. Like when I said "If you genuinely want dialogue, then do you think your chosen username helps? It seems to be chosen to try to put down those you disagree with."
ATTP again:
"but it wasn't intended to hamper."
Wasn't it? "...And Then There's Physics". Are you honestly saying that that wasn't intended as a jibe? Can you explain your reasons for choosing that name?
"I would quite like dialogue, I'm just not really convinced that it's really possible."
So go back to your own blog then, where you can shut down dialogue to your heart's content, as you do.
"I have no issue with people proving me wrong, though, and sometimes people do (as some have today).
I would quite like dialogue, I'm just not really convinced that it's really possible."
You seem to have an interesting belief that we really want dialogue with people like you. I don't think it's remotely necessary. Really, it's OK for you to just leave. We won't miss you. And it won't have any impact on what Mother Nature is up to. Which is the important thing.
ATTP,
You claim you want to have civil conversation with people, yet you proceed to pull stuff like this:
"No, I don't think that is what he was suggesting. Are you sure you read the right article?"
In other words - you deny that any point you don't like or agree with even exists.
Another example: Equality does not equal communist dictatorship.
A reasonable person is likely to agree with this, sans any context. However there is plenty of context associated with Maslin's statement. Do you really think that people are generally a bunch of uninformed idiots? That we have never heard others talk in terms of "... building a new political (and socio-economic) system, which allows collective action and greater equality" before? Denying that there is a very real possibility that some of us understood exactly what political position Mark Maslin is coming from is, in my view, dishonest.
So, ATTP, exactly why should anyone here bother with someone who can't be trusted to act in an honest fashion?
"So he won't talk about 'the science' but only stuff of which he is completely ignorant."
The problem any of these guys have is that they're claiming to be able to see the future state of a coupled non-linear chaotic system, that itself interacts with at least two other chaotic systems, society and technology. They can pretend to know what the weather will be like in 50 years time, but they have no idea how society and technology will have evolved. Robert Malthus can be excused for his error, and he did add something to our scientific knowledge which is being ignored. Scientists - even the most superior of them - cannot foretell the future.
So here we have a scientist who'll only discuss the politics because the "science" is being used to forecast the future, of a coupled non-linear chaotic system.
BTW. Please take ATTP as kosher if you wish but always keep in mind that he's a wannabe that would revel in your disparagement. My understanding is that there can't be a denier alive who doesn't have the same grasp, or better, on the physics than ATTP. He yearns to be the next Dana (God help him), without., apparently, understanding that Dana writes blogs on papers that protect him.
James,
I didn't say I was wanting to shut down debate. I said I didn't think it was possible. Sometimes I get the impression that I'm mistaken, then someone says something like
and I think I'm not. I should probably, of course, treat every situation on a case-by-case basis.
timg56,
Since you appear to be suggestion that I'm not honest, I'll try to explain myself. Maslin's article didn't say that people who do not willingly accept assertions of global warming being the most significant threat to human existence do so primarily from political reasons. He suggested that there is a tendency for those who reject mainstream climate science to do so because of their political ideology. He also didn't suggest that there is only one political system under which the supposed threat can be dealt with. He suggested that the real discussion should be about policy not science. You may think he was implying something other than what he said, but that doesn't change that he didn't say what you seem to suggest he did.
Also, I didn't say equality doesn't equal communist dictatorship, I said greater equality doesn't equal communist dictatorship. I have no idea what Maslins political ideology actually is, but I don't immediately assume that someone who suggests we should aim for greater equality is immediately a communist. Additionally, one of the reasons I pointed that out is that part of what Maslin was suggesting is that the rejection of mainstream climate science is based on a view that it is simply a conspiracy to introduce communism/socialism. I would like to think that this is not why some people would reject science, but much of what has been said here makes me think that maybe - in some cases - it is.
".. some people would reject science"
The strawman behind the "denier" meme repeated once again. The majority of the posters on BH do not appear to "reject" any of the science although many of us disagree with quite a lot of the interpretation of the science that is built into some of the current models. Similarly we do not deny any of the fundamental physical principles inherent in climate science but a lot of the current projections are based on major interpretations of those fundamental principals.
As far as we are concerned most of us are in the actual 97% but we find it impossible to engage with most of the climate scientists that refuse point blank to engage with any data that doesn't support their preconceived model. If it disagrees with the model it is wrong which turns Feynmans famous aphorism on its head
pouncer: "The statistics between fluoride and caries are clear".
What is clear? A major study in 2000 by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York said: "The review found that although a large number of studies had been conducted over the previous 50 years, there was a lack of reliable, good quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. The available evidence suggests that water fluoridation reduces caries prevalence but the degree to which it does is not clear from the data (results of individual studies ranged from a substantial reduction to a slight increase in prevalence). The available evidence also suggests that this beneficial effect also came at the expense of a likely increase in the prevalence of dental fluorosis (mottled teeth)."
There are various reasons to doubt the claims made for fluoridation: http://www.fluoridelink.info
There is much similarity between climate alarmism and fluoridation:
A false claim that the science is “settled”.
A false claim that practically all qualified scientists agree.
Suppression of inconvenient research.
Fraudulent research in support of the supposed consensus.
Government grants for those who support the establishment view.
Opportunities reduced or denied for sceptics to speak at conferences, retain employment or obtain promotion.
Reluctance to engage in public debate with informed opponents.
Committees of enquiry filled with those who will not rock the boat.
Nullius in Verba: you have provided a very good example of your argument in my discussion, “Understanding the role of CO2”, with you, Capella, TheBigYinJames and Schrodinger’s Cat making detailed, often contradictory arguments on the subject, with little vitriol (though I am sure I can hear TBYJ’s teeth grinding at times). While it might not have provided solutions to the problem, it certainly has clarified a lot of points of confusion in my mind. All that done in rational, if heated, debate, no name-calling or belittlement, and certainly no political point-scoring; a splendid example of how it should be done.
I think we should all lay off Maslin now and accept that he's just another activist 'climate scientist' to be largely ignored who has achieved fame in his five minute lunchtime. The pressure of that fame is obviously beginning to show: Of course, if the Prof changes his mind about talking science with 'deniers', then he will find there are many reasonable people who are willing to let him expand upon the "mass of scientific evidence" which supports his stance.
"Building on the second point I never really understood why people deny the science of climate change. It is a straight forward pollution problem. It in many ways it is similar to problems of Smog, DDT, Lead, Mercury, CFCs etc. Except it is a much large problem and has no quick technical fixes. And because this pollution issue is so large it has huge political implications. Why can aren't people focusing on those political discussions instead of just denying there is a problem in the first place."
"Thank you for all your comments as you can see this article has caused a stir and a bit of a twitter storm. I am sure many of you have read the comments below and as usual many of them are quiet shocking. For example the latest is from Charles Sifers who ends with “Enjoy the rest of your career as we'll be ridiculing you for decades”.
"However for an insight to what climate scientists have to deal with I have complied a quick list of insults from Twitter over the last 24 hours. Note: all I have done is copied and pasted these comment with no changes to spelling or grammar.
both nieve and arrogant
speaks volumes about Mr Maslin
lack of self-awareness
Making money out of scare stories
Must be tricky to see our analogue world accurately with the binary vision you appear to be endowed with
Just been explaining "highly educated" doesn't imply ur clever.
severe superiority complex
you believe there are fortune tellers who can foretell the future
you make silly claims
Deny whatever you want. Your career, your reputation
The #climate man without qualities
"Watermelon" (Green outside, Red inside) pseudoscience
Is it possible for a highly educated person to be so unaware?
equal opportunities insulter
idiot savantery
an authority on bigotry and intolerance
lost the right to be considered a respectable scientist weeks ago
Bigots like you
A professional lifelong political agitator & parasite on society
Marxist scientist outlining his ambitions for revolution
Are you really unaware that many highly qualified scientists think your "science" is a joke?
I think these political articles are just an easy way to make a name for oneself
is a Russell Brand fan"
OMG The things climate scientists have to put up with these days . . . . being called a RUSSELL BRAND fan!
ATTP,
"I didn't say I was wanting to shut down debate. I said I didn't think it was possible."
You're like a stuck record. You keep saying this. OK, so debate is impossible with you. So what? Get over it. We really don't care. Byeeee.
Ha ha, Jaime.
O/T, but after all this serious stuff, those who enjoy a good laugh should read this superb open letter to Brand from someone who was a victim of his latest publicity stunt:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/disgruntled-rbs-worker-writes-hilarious-open-letter-to-russell-brand-after-anticapitalist-publicity-stunt-leaves-him-hungry-9930135.html
As a name, ATTP is certainly condescending. However, it could be used by anyone in this debate to claim that "the hardest of the hard sciences is on my side".
The truth is that there is very little physics has to say on either side of the debate. Physics studies things at their most abstract; it can say something useful about an electron, a molecule, a billiard ball, a planet, a solar system, a galaxy, but each at its own scale. What physics has to say about CO2's radiative spectrum is at a molecular scale. To scale this to a whole planet, and the interactions with a host of other molecules and sources of radiation is far outside the domain of physics.
To invoke physics on one side or the other is akin to saying "I know my alphabet and I can tell you, Shakespeare was (a brilliant | no) writer".
The right answer to the irksome, but supposed clincher argument that "It's basic physics" is the rather unsatisfying "No it isn't".
ATTP, you, and Maslin, have it exactly backwards.
If Maslin insists on talking politics, then of course some political people will perceive that the science is political. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Further, if Maslin insists on talking ONLY politics, then some political people will feel that the science is ONLY political. After all, why should anyone believe the science be trustworthy if, when someone attempts to discuss the science, the scientist puts his fingers in his ears and says "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you-go-away"?
The reason people subconsciously trust scientists is that they feel that science draws people who are truthseekers. When scientists act political, people realize then that they are not dispassionate seekers of the truth, and may be subject to the foibles that many political people suffer, such as "The End Justifies the Means" arguments (see Schneider) and Confirmation Bias. This means people start doubting the science, since politics are seldom objective.
The cause of the alienation of these political folks, then, is that scientists are discussing politics. You amplify this affect by choosing to ONLY discuss politics. Instead,how about backing the politics out of the science, and talking only science, telling the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing But the Truth, to assure the political folks that the science is objective?
This reminds me of an AGW friend who was bemoaning reductions in science funding from congress. Well, if the science is political, then the funding will become political...what else would one expect? If you want bipartisan science funding...then you've got to pull the politics out of the science. And guess what...Maslin isn't helping fix that problem.
Ah yes, ATTP, just another hypocrite, not unlike Betts...
You activists are worth a study in psychology. Maybe the Loo can look into it.
Mark
Robert Swan
"The right answer to the irksome, but supposed clincher argument that "It's basic physics" is the rather unsatisfying "No it isn't".
Absolutely right. Everything is complex nowadays, not just the climate. What makes the climate different is the political will to lie about it.
Robert Swan
"The right answer to the irksome, but supposed clincher argument that "It's basic physics" is the rather unsatisfying "No it isn't".
Absolutely right. Everything is complex nowadays, not just the climate. What makes the climate different is the political will to lie about it.
"No, I don't think that anyone is suggesting circumventing the democratic process."
huh
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/12/more-green-tirades-against-democracy.html
Mark T. He is very unlike Richard Betts. I have profound differences on the outcomes of global warming with Dr. Betts but I have to respect the fact that he's a real physicist and climate modeller who publishes in the scientific literature. In addition Dr. Betts is always courteous in his responses and, of course, extremely knowledgeable in the physics and modelling of climate change. A hypocrite is defined as " a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess..." I have never detected that in Dr. Betts.
ATTP doesn't even come over as a hypocrite to me, but unlike Dr. Betts he is someone who believes he's blessed with as superior mind. As I've said before he's trying to make himself a "player" in the warmist camp, unsuccessfully so far, which must be galling given how easy it is to become a warmist insider.
Can anyone explain to me what a discussion of the science entails if both parties agree on the science?
Has Maslin realised that the way to reduce CO2 emissions is to have more fat people?
Where does the fat go when you lose weight?
So to truly conserve and create a more equal society we all need to hit the buffet. Stat!
Steven,
I wasn't aware of that. However, was Hansen actually suggesting we circumvent the democratic process in our own countries, or simply suggesting that China could lead the way given that they can make decisions that might be unpalatable in some western democracies? It's not clear to me that what he was saying is actually consistent with a suggestion that we should circumvent the democratic process. I don't think that pointing out that democracies might find it difficult to solve certain problems is quite the same as suggesting that we should circumvent democracy in order to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppose_They_Gave_a_War_and_Nobody_Came
Seriously.
Engaging with these types on their own turf is soooo last century. They herd and drown out anything rational that pops up. The 'weight of evidence' thing is beyond tedious. They are extremely damaged goods along with those who drop their little shitebombs in here in hopes of getting a few hits back to their hovels.
Asking for reinforcements (Tallbloke) to fight a battle where the entirely political line was drawn light years away from the 'facts' is desperation in action. Along with 'arguing' with attp here.
rgb they most definitely aint.
What basis does this Maslin chap have for claiming that addressing dangerous climate change would require policies of:
"collective action and greater equality"
Or is that ideology leading the science, as he accuses other of...
A small point perhaps, but "A professional lifelong political agitator & parasite on society" was taken from a Tweet of mine, in response to Barry Woods and was clearly directed at George Marshall - not Maslin.
With the strict attention to detail & accuracy made famous by fellow scientactivist luminaries like Lewandowsky - Maslin is simply inflating his argument by chucking any irrelevant data he can grab into it.
Much like the rest of climate "science".
Whilst debating with aTTP and Maslin types is pointless, there are a lot of curious lurkers who can read the logic and arguments of both sides and might conclude that things aren't so black and white.
Maslins idea that "there is a tendency for those who reject mainstream climate science to do so because of their political ideology" is perhaps true of a few but most skeptics investigate the underlying science more closely than believers because experience has taught us to be naturally skeptical of such doom-mongers. Objective observers can only conclude that the actual science does not support what the mainstream scientists say it does. The popular meme of thermageddon turns out to be just pessimistic, dystopian, anti-industry hype just like the previous acid rain, deforestation, population bomb and ice-age scares.
But since the vast majority of the believers in thermageddon don't even bother to look at the science at all - they just repeat long-refuted lies and strawmen - not only are they more politically driven than skeptics, they are usually incapable of discussing any science in the first place.
What actual climate scientists cannot hide from is that the most important skeptic is mother Nature and the reason why they cannot easily admit that their interpretations of the science have always been overly pessimistic and circularly-reasoned is because turkeys don't vote for xmas.
Meanwhile many activists, like Porrit, Klein etc., freely admit that they believe our relentless economic growth is the underlying problem: They don't want mitigation via carbon traps or nuclear power as that will not halt economic growth so there could never be a sensible debate with such people.