The Climate Debate Progression
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 07.29.06
Finally, the climate debate tip is right in front of us, and a predetermined outcome in view. The climate science “skeptics” have held sway over the media for decades but at long last seem to be running low on intellectual ammo, if not credibility. And the ‘silent majority’ of scientists are speaking out publicly and boldly: a sign of positive rational change. The ghost of Galileo (pictured) smiles down from heaven as the tower is unlocked. Take the recent example of Naomi Oreskes (see her often cited paper Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change) who has written an op ed piece for publication in the Wall Street Journal and another, in greater depth, in the Los Angeles Times, which stated: “To be sure, there are a handful of scientists, including MIT professor Richard Lindzen, the author of the Wall Street Journal editorial, who disagree with the rest of the scientific community. To a historian of science like me, this is not surprising. In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs and values.” We especially enjoyed her analogy to the scientific consensus process around plate tectonics. Highy recommended reading. Now back to our progression.
Economics is the next-most convenient way to confuse and alienate the public about climate issues. By the fall of 2006, expect an outpouring of economic gloom and doom studies from experts at the usual Think Tanks…matched perhaps by a few “can do” economic impact studies. And, expect a much confused print and broadcast media: offering up a "he-said", "she-said" dichotomy devoid of meaning.
And if “the dark science” debate does not do the job, Halloween will be the perfect time to scare people with the prospect of higher heating bills: carbon tax tooo scary; mandatory transportation efficiency tooo scary.
Economic debate and energy bill fear mongering do not mark the end of the progression. Like all good stories, there will be sub-plots with mysterious outcome. One such thread is the leadership effect of companies like Wal-Mart, GE, Intel, and BP. Business is capable of teaching government to lead in the right direction, at least, pointing out that conservation of resources drives green design and can benefit the economy.
If global geopolitical conflicts continue to amplify, oil prices are predetermined to become increasingly volatile as well. The price signal (carbon tax- and regulatory-mandate driven economic impacts) will be masked by the global noise in oil price fluctuations. Economists are as incapable of adding precision to geopolitical variables as anyone else. At the end of the modeling run, then, it comes down to human instinct: the final driver of every tipping point. Economic modelling will be over-run by the noise of reality.
via:ecoamerica.net. See also: ::The 4 Stages of Global Warming Denial
Yes, but a lot of the so-called "skeptics" are in the payroll of energy companies.
For example:
1. The clowns at the Competitive Enterprise Institute ("CO2: We Call it Life"), who've received more than two million dollars from Exxon Mobile.
2. Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, who received $100,000 from
Intermountain Rural Electric Association, which is heavily invested in power plants that burn coal.
That's called being a whore, not a skeptic.
Rather amusing that this article, completely without irony, invokes the name of Gallileo to make a spurious argument for scientific "consensus". The scientific "consensus" in Gallileo's time was for the geocentric model of the universe.
Of course, this only serves to undermine the argument that scientific fact depends on any sort of "consensus" -- an alleged "silent majority of scientists" notwithstanding. Science is not a democracy.
What really does make the mention of Gallileo ironic, is that it seems the global warming enthusiasts are increasingly taking on the characteristics of a religious faith -- not unlike the very same religious orthodoxy which persecuted Gallileo. For example:
Bishop of London: Contributing to Climate Change is a Sin
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/bishop_of_londo.php#perma
That the article further accuses global warming skeptics of "fear mongering" or having "sway over the media for decades" is bizarre, to say the least. Hello? Have you read a newspaper in the last several decades? Have you watched Al Gore spout forth in his Hollywood extraveganza "An Inconvenient Truth"? As to who has held sway in the media, I'd suggest the situation is exactly the reverse of what the article claims.
==== author's response follows ====
Interesting view. Moves irony toward paradox.
My perspective in writing the post was that Galileo was silenced (through house arrest by a religiously controlled government) for stating his view of the universe, which differed from religious dogma. Obviously this imprisonment slowed the changing consensus of how the solar system actually worked. The analogy I was trying to make was that the mass media's propensity for representing scientific disagreement as a pure unresolvable dichotomy, is what has hidden the truth about climate change, but that the "tower has opened", releasing modern day 'Galileos' if you will.
Incidentally Milton, I had a look at your listed URL: http://www.dhmo.org, and was not able to easily discover who administers, guides, or funds that site. Would you mind pointing us to that information please? Much appreciated.
I think your argument was pretty clear, John. Some people, like the clowns at the CEI and professor Michaels, simply will never "believe" in global warming because it's in their best financial interests not to do so. If someone were to pay me a lot of money to say global warming (or evolution) is a myth, I might just do it -- but I would charge a lot more money than Prof. Michaels to sell out my children's future.
As for Milton's "argument," global warming is not a religious faith -- and is hardly comparable to one. By definition, faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven.
Global warming is a fact -- one that has been proven by hundreds of scientific studies. Even a report commissioned by the Bush White House, which was released three or four months ago, established clearly that the earth is getting warmer and humans are "at least partly" responsible for this trend. About the only people who refuse "to believe" in this are in the pockets of oil and energy companies.
People have a right to sell out. But just because tobacco companies used to say nicotine was not addictive didn't mean it was true. And the fact that "scientists" who've chosen to prostitute themselves tell us that global warming is a myth doesn't make that true either.
Seriously, why would we be concerned if this wasn't true? (unlike Prof. Michaels, no environmental organization is paying me.) Why would Al Gore have talked about this for decades, long before it was a popular subject, if he didn't honestly believe this was a matter of importance?
Furthermore -- do you have children? When they ask you in twenty years what you did to help stop global warming, what are you going to tell them: "Oops."?
sig
PS: Oh, I'm not sure how this is relevant but the person behind the website you mentioned is Tom Way:
http://www.csc.villanova.edu/~tway/
=== author's response follows ====
Thanks. I checked it out. From his posted biosketch: "Dr. Way lives in Newark, Delaware with his wife Laura and their three children, Emma, Mellie and Ned, their two cats Harriet and Scamp, in a soon to be carbon-neutral home". Nice.
John --
" Obviously this [Gallileo's] imprisonment slowed the changing consensus of how the solar system actually worked."
That's entirely a matter of speculation, of course. However, I'm sure you'll agree that the existence -- or non-existence -- of any "consensus" didn't affect the actual functioning of the solar system one iota. I'll go out on a limb here and say that the solar system, and, indeed, the entire universe, for that matter, doesn't require a "consensus" to behave the way it does.
I'll say it one more time: science is NOT a democracy. No amount of lobbying, editorialising, or slick advertising will repeal the law of gravity.
But I do take your point that Gallileo was a trouble-maker, and that you'd be just as happy to be rid of such trouble-makers nowadays.
"Incidentally Milton, I had a look at your listed URL: http://www.dhmo.org, and was not able to easily discover who administers, guides, or funds that site. Would you mind pointing us to that information please? Much appreciated."
Uh, fellows -- although your brilliant sleuthing would put The Hardy Boys to shame -- you do realise dhmo.org is a satirical web site, don't you? Er ... don't you?
--
editor note: Hmm, when people talk about the "scientific consensus", they don't say it's important because it affects reality in itself (stop building strawmen), they mention it because it's a good indication of what the best current scientific, open, peer-reviewed knowledge is.
"you do realise dhmo.org is a satirical web site, don't you? Er ... don't you?"
Yeah, I do recognize it. It's quite a good one at that too!
It is designed to look like a real thing at first glance, though, and I assume John just had a quick look (before the 1998 design made him hit the "Back" button, maybe ;).
Uh, fellows -- although your brilliant sleuthing would put The Hardy Boys to shame -- you do realise dhmo.org is a satirical web site, don't you? Er ... don't you?
---
You are the only one who brought up an irrelevant website, instead of trying to present a coherent (and properly spelled) argument, Milton. I guess when you can't refute the truth, diversion and ranting about other topics will have to do.
Stay the course!
Author's explanation:
I did indeed hit the back button on DHMO.org in part because of the cluttered site design. My main motivation to back off, however, was that old canard of using a synonym for 'water' to poke fun at the Rachel Carson crowd.
As someone who worked for over a decade in the chemical industry I can assure you that the technique of encouraging chemophobics to make themselves look foolish by asking to have the dreaded DHMO "banned" would be of limited practical value in influencing risk perceptions of society at large.
But you got me so beat on the carbon neutral home thing that I am remined of the need to use my limited time on earth focused on trying to make it a better place! Time for a loooong shower (high exposure) with a water saving spray head.
Editor --
"editor note: Hmm, when people talk about the "scientific consensus", they don't say it's important because it affects reality in itself (stop building strawmen), they mention it because it's a good indication of what the best current scientific, open, peer-reviewed knowledge is."
My pointing out that any amount of scientific "consensus" is ultimately irrelevant as to the veracity and verifiability of the objective facts, does not constitute a "straw man" argument.
You say that "consensus" is an somehow an indication of the current state of knowledge. It is not. If anything, it is an indication of the current state of popularity. That is a completely different thing.
I remind you that historically many scientific theories have enjoyed wide "consensus", yet were subsequently proven false. To name only a few, we could cite:
- the caloric theory of heat
- the phlogiston theory of combustion
- the luminiferous aether theory for the propagation of light
- Rutherford's atomic theory
- the medical theory of "four bodily humours"
The list is almost endless, but it's fair to say that each of the above theories enjoyed very wide "consensus" among serious thinkers of the day. Even in present times there are adherents of homeopathy, feng shui, and bodily chi energy, in spite of the fact that no credible evidence for these theories has ever been produced.
It is a very week argument to claim any sort of "consensus" as a basis for the objective truth of a scientific theory, as history has repeatedly demonstrated.
All that aside, we need to be clear on one thing: you are not making a scientific argument, you are making a political argument.
In any case, in spite of claims to the contrary, there doesn't seem to be any scientific "consensus" on the causes and effects of global warming (Carnival barkers like Al Gore or David Suzuki, notwithstanding).
It's funny that about the only people on the planet who don't believe in global warming are the same people who believe Bush is a good President. If that doesn't prove they are delusional, I don't know what will.
And yes, there is a consensus (whores like Patrick Michaels notwithstanding.)
Very nice to see some well-reasoned discussion going on here.