5 ms·

But isn't it strange that many climate deniers are skeptical of global warming, yet have total faith in a much more implausible idea: a coordinated group of sci

But isn't it strange that many climate deniers are skeptical of global warming, yet have total faith in a much more implausible idea: a coordinated group of scientists are systematically suppressing dissent to further their ideology.

ellyagg 16y ago
Uh, what? The recently leaked emails specifically showed climate scientists attempting to work together to suppress dissent, e.g., urging that people in the group stop submitting to a particular journal because it published "skeptical" studies. I think you may be misconstruing what many skeptics believe. No skeptics believe there is a vast conspiracy of scientists working together to pull a fast one on the public even though they know that global warming does not exist. Instead, some skeptics believe a small culture of well meaning scientists have fallen victim to a host of well-known and self-reinforcing biases that make their analysis, and especially their extrapolations, suspect.
- DilipJ 16y ago
  "No skeptics believe there is a vast conspiracy of scientists working together ..." uh, isn't that a suspect extrapolation? Just Google what Sen. Inhofe has to say on the subject. Just like the article said, there is a significant overlap between those who deny AGW and those who deny evolution. And if over a century of empirical evidence is not enough to convince them that they're wrong, what good is a few decades worth of data?
brc 16y ago
I don't deny the climate. It exists, I can see that out the window. I don't deny that the climate has gotten warmer on trend for the last 150 years. I don't deny that humans have increased the c02 concentration through the activities of forestry clearing and fossil fuel burning. I am skeptical of the proven link between c02 and large temperature rises. I am extremely skeptical of the climate models developed. I am extremely skeptical of the climate alarmism promoted through science and quasi-science publications, and on through the regular media. People have made these predictions for 30 years, and not one has come close to being true. I am extremely skeptical that the current costs associated with ineffective present-day solutions (cap & trade, carbon tax, wind power etc) are going to be less than long-term adaption if climate change proves to be a problem. Yet, for most of the climate change cheer squad, I am filthy denier who probably believes that cigarettes don't cause cancer and who probably doesn't believe in evolution. The blanket 'with us or against us' attitude developed by many is the worst thing : denying criticism or outright rejection of alternative views is the worst kind of denial. Solid scientific concepts don't need to be packaged, managed and sold to the public.
- brazzy 16y ago
  Solid scientific concepts don't need to be packaged, managed and sold to the public. Many people understandably belive that they do need that when such concepts are opposed by well funded industry lobby groups and everyone's preference for not having to change their lifestyle.
  - brc 16y ago
    Please, enough with the well funded industry lobby groups line. I'm sure you can come up with better arguments that this talking-point line which has no basis in truth. There is no evidence, none, that there is a well funded industry lobby group in operation. The large mass of skeptical enquiry into climate science is done by amateurs and/or people with tenure in universities. It is done on low-rent blogs and in pay-per-visit speaking tours, and all done on a comparative shoestring. I remember reading an article somewhere that breathlessly revealed that a climate skeptic had been paid $100,000 for a speaking tour to spread the no global warming line. $100,000 is a drop in the bucket, an absolutely meaningless figure. This was the best they could come up with, when it's quite simple to see, say, $1.4 million dollars being spent to explore the link between malaria and climate change when there have been plenty of scientific papers to say there's no link at all, or such a small link it is drowned out by the noise. Compared against the billions spent by governments, NGOs, lobby groups, and yes, oil companies, to promote climate alarmism, it is an ocean compared to the bits and pieces of fuding that well known sceptics. You've only got to compare the heartland institute's climate seminar in chicago - a two bit affair, to the grandiose climate-alarmism conferences in Indonesia, Copenhagen, and later this year, Cancun to really see the difference. I will agree with you that nobody wants to change their lifestyle, and that is a major problem for the adoption of policies. But then, in democracies, the burden of proof lies with the person proposing the changes, and they should be self evident. This is a sup-optimal solution, no doubt, by the inertia involved means that it prevents making too many mistakes. If all of the various scare campaigns of the last 100 years were all enacted straight away, we'd have seen millions of human lives, and billions of man-years of effort wasted making the planet a worse-off place. By all means continue to argue to your passion, but I would advise coming up with a new meme over the 'industry funded lobby groups' one.
mistermann 16y ago
" a much more implausible idea: a coordinated group of scientists are systematically suppressing dissent to further their ideology." This "implausible" (are you fucking kidding?) idea is certainly not without precedent. But so what? If these scientists have a theory, present it, and deal with critical review. If you are correct, the science will prevail, correct? The pink elephant in the room is, funding for your scientific theory. If they were truly independent legitimate scientists, they would welcome critical analysis of their theories, that's what real science is all about. But modern science is not so much about "science", it is about funding. Doing "science" is an enjoyable pursuit, and if you can find someone to fund it for you for say 10 or 20 years, it can be a nice ride.

ellyagg 16y ago

Uh, what? The recently leaked emails specifically showed climate scientists attempting to work together to suppress dissent, e.g., urging that people in the group stop submitting to a particular journal because it published "skeptical" studies. I think you may be misconstruing what many skeptics believe. No skeptics believe there is a vast conspiracy of scientists working together to pull a fast one on the public even though they know that global warming does not exist. Instead, some skeptics believe a small culture of well meaning scientists have fallen victim to a host of well-known and self-reinforcing biases that make their analysis, and especially their extrapolations, suspect.

DilipJ 16y ago
"No skeptics believe there is a vast conspiracy of scientists working together ..." uh, isn't that a suspect extrapolation? Just Google what Sen. Inhofe has to say on the subject. Just like the article said, there is a significant overlap between those who deny AGW and those who deny evolution. And if over a century of empirical evidence is not enough to convince them that they're wrong, what good is a few decades worth of data?

brc 16y ago

I don't deny the climate. It exists, I can see that out the window. I don't deny that the climate has gotten warmer on trend for the last 150 years. I don't deny that humans have increased the c02 concentration through the activities of forestry clearing and fossil fuel burning. I am skeptical of the proven link between c02 and large temperature rises. I am extremely skeptical of the climate models developed. I am extremely skeptical of the climate alarmism promoted through science and quasi-science publications, and on through the regular media. People have made these predictions for 30 years, and not one has come close to being true. I am extremely skeptical that the current costs associated with ineffective present-day solutions (cap & trade, carbon tax, wind power etc) are going to be less than long-term adaption if climate change proves to be a problem. Yet, for most of the climate change cheer squad, I am filthy denier who probably believes that cigarettes don't cause cancer and who probably doesn't believe in evolution. The blanket 'with us or against us' attitude developed by many is the worst thing : denying criticism or outright rejection of alternative views is the worst kind of denial. Solid scientific concepts don't need to be packaged, managed and sold to the public.

brazzy 16y ago
Solid scientific concepts don't need to be packaged, managed and sold to the public. Many people understandably belive that they do need that when such concepts are opposed by well funded industry lobby groups and everyone's preference for not having to change their lifestyle.
- brc 16y ago
  Please, enough with the well funded industry lobby groups line. I'm sure you can come up with better arguments that this talking-point line which has no basis in truth. There is no evidence, none, that there is a well funded industry lobby group in operation. The large mass of skeptical enquiry into climate science is done by amateurs and/or people with tenure in universities. It is done on low-rent blogs and in pay-per-visit speaking tours, and all done on a comparative shoestring. I remember reading an article somewhere that breathlessly revealed that a climate skeptic had been paid $100,000 for a speaking tour to spread the no global warming line. $100,000 is a drop in the bucket, an absolutely meaningless figure. This was the best they could come up with, when it's quite simple to see, say, $1.4 million dollars being spent to explore the link between malaria and climate change when there have been plenty of scientific papers to say there's no link at all, or such a small link it is drowned out by the noise. Compared against the billions spent by governments, NGOs, lobby groups, and yes, oil companies, to promote climate alarmism, it is an ocean compared to the bits and pieces of fuding that well known sceptics. You've only got to compare the heartland institute's climate seminar in chicago - a two bit affair, to the grandiose climate-alarmism conferences in Indonesia, Copenhagen, and later this year, Cancun to really see the difference. I will agree with you that nobody wants to change their lifestyle, and that is a major problem for the adoption of policies. But then, in democracies, the burden of proof lies with the person proposing the changes, and they should be self evident. This is a sup-optimal solution, no doubt, by the inertia involved means that it prevents making too many mistakes. If all of the various scare campaigns of the last 100 years were all enacted straight away, we'd have seen millions of human lives, and billions of man-years of effort wasted making the planet a worse-off place. By all means continue to argue to your passion, but I would advise coming up with a new meme over the 'industry funded lobby groups' one.

mistermann 16y ago

" a much more implausible idea: a coordinated group of scientists are systematically suppressing dissent to further their ideology." This "implausible" (are you fucking kidding?) idea is certainly not without precedent. But so what? If these scientists have a theory, present it, and deal with critical review. If you are correct, the science will prevail, correct? The pink elephant in the room is, funding for your scientific theory. If they were truly independent legitimate scientists, they would welcome critical analysis of their theories, that's what real science is all about. But modern science is not so much about "science", it is about funding. Doing "science" is an enjoyable pursuit, and if you can find someone to fund it for you for say 10 or 20 years, it can be a nice ride.