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)
James,
It's hard to see how you'd know this since you appear to never have actually tried. My own cynicism is at least based on many failed attempts (some of which, admittedly, were my own fault).
Climate science is largely the work of one man, James Hansen backed by major political figures like Al Gore and George Soros (one of world's biggest hedge fund owners). He was 90% eco fascist campaigner, 10% scientist.
Quotes
Imagine a giant asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth. That is the
equivalent of what we face now [with climate change], yet we dither.
It would be immoral to leave young people with a climate system spiralling
out of control.
So, we are facing an imminent event equivalent to the dinosaur extinction. Total devastation. Who is this unhinged Nostradamus ? The man who endorsed a book by Dark Mountain eco fascist Keith Farnish.
Farnish writes
"The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the
survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization"
and
Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for
instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to
the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas
emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an
accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in
this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element
of sabotage.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/
Hansen wrote
Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the 'system' is the
problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special
interests - they will not look after our and the planet's
well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to
require enormous effort. --Professor James Hansen, GISS, NASA
"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."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well said, James.
I first came across the CAGW scare while working as a policy analyst and adviser for the federal government. Every single lobbyist claimed that there would be catastrophic consequences if they were not given more money and power.
Not surprisingly, I quickly came to view those arguments as highly suspect.
It had nothing to do with left or right wing politics.
One needs to invert Maslin's argument to get anywhere near factual reality: There is a tendency of those who accept the conclusions of main stream climate science to do so because of their political ideology. And this applies to many climate scientists like Maslin, not just camp followers like ATTP.
Ah yes, the James Hansen Kombat Brigade hiding in the wastelands of northern Manhattan has struck again. Praise be to Rajandra K. Pachauri,i Rajandra K. Pachauri is great.
Not the IPCC (NIPCC) officials and funders from the Heatland Institute and the GWPF told reporters that it could take months to determine the full extent of the damage from what they are calling the worst ever ad hominem strike on a climate denialist blog, even as mop up crews from pielkeclimatesci and Watts Up With That worked the Internet around the clock to salvage whatever bits they could from the wreckage.
For esmiff and Eli:
Meet NASA’s New ‘James Hansen’ – Gavin Schmidt
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/10/meet-nasas-new-james-hansen-gavin-schmidt-the-man-who-hates-debate-loses-when-he-does-debate-has-been-criticized-by-prominent-scientists-for/
And here he is doing his own version of "I won't discuss the science with bad denier people":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA
Ok, so Gavin does not enjoy the sport of agitating bags of wind. Different strokes for different folks.
That maybe the view from the burrow, but more to the point of the post, for the rest of, us he is clearly not capable of defending his views from open rational challenge. Different strokes indeed.
Sad isn't it not to share strokes with a large white rabbit
The real identity of our little bright eyed stray is Dr Harvey Halpern who has a highly opinionated 6' 3" invisible friend. He can be contacted through Playboy International, Climate Division.
Just another example of the far left's despicable tactic of working to publicly hang their ugly character on their opponents by falsely accusing them of evil attitudes and practices they have long embraced.