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