In a world first, Ambit Gambit blogger Ronda Jambe publishes her exclusive interview with acclaimed writer, the late Michael Crichton. The interview focusses on his 2004 novel State of Fear, in which he posits a media/legal/political conspiracy to create fear in citizens. His philosophy, deeply informed by his wide reading and probably genius level intelligence, is that science should be continuously examined for bias through independent mechanisms. This, he believes, would have stopped the eugenics movement in its tracks before the Germans extrapolated its implications with devastating efficiency.
This is the edited transcript:
RJ: Mr Crichton, since publication of State of Fear in 2004 the evidence has continued to pour in on climate change. Have your opinions changed at all?
MC: I believe I was absolutely correct in my argument that the science underpinning policy on climate change is tainted. However, my assessment of who is pulling the strings and why has shifted somewhat. I also see now that the evidence of multiple stressors on a wide range of planetary support systems is overwhelming.
RJ: Do you still think the legal/media/government forces are aligned to misguide the public?
MC: Yes, I do, but my understanding has become much more nuanced. You see, even in my present circumstances I have access to wifi, and have done a great deal of reading about both the science and the politics of climate change. The influence of the fossil fuel industry, and the interconnections between those with the most power and ability to fund communication projects, such as banks and global media outlets, often works against the remaining democratic activities of the state. Right now we are seeing that in relation to the gun lobby in the United States, which is largely funded by arms manufacturers. Because I am insistent on research and rigour, I have provided some links to articles about the funding of the NRA, which I thank you for publishing.
How to Break NRA’s Grip on Politics: Michael R. Bloomberg …
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-26/how-to-break-nra-s-grip-on-politics-michael-r-bloomberg.html
Jul 26, 2012 – The NRA is a $200 million-plus-a-year lobbying juggernaut, with much of its funding coming from gun manufacturers and merchandising…
Who Really Funds the NRA? Not It’s Members
http://michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/who-really-funds-nra-not-its-members.html
RJ: Thank you, our readers appreciate that. Is your concern really about governance?
MC: Most natural systems, including social systems, can be modelled as non-linear complex adaptive systems. In physical systems, the laws of physics, chemistry, gravity, etc drive the systems. But in human systems, shared values drive the system. Systems of governance are subject to these same rules, but look different in every culture. Thus, what passes for good governance in Nigeria is more violent and corrupt than the US version, but maybe not by all that much, as Nazi Germany showed us all.
The power of these values can be, and is, manipulated by those who can speak the loudest. That usually means those who have the money to buy time and influence through the media and politicans.
The crunch comes when this powerful elite don’t pay attention to the big bifurcations in the system that their own imbalanced efforts create. Think: the Reformation and the papal corruption. Traces of that self-serving but ultimately self-destructive mind set can be seen today in the many sex abuse scandals that are plaguing the Catholic Church all over the world.
RJ: Do you accept the view that a huge catastropic collapse of society, a bifurcation, as you call it, is likely to happen on a global scale in this century?
MC: Even mathematically, any system with a number of exponentially increasing indicators is inevitably going to break and form a new system. And certainly all the indicators of environmental change are increasing at rates far above what humanity and many other natural systems can adapt to, with population as the leading example. We see this in the work of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and others on planetary boundaries. What is likely is that some elites will find niches of safety for themselves and their families.
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/researchnews/tippingtowardstheunknown/thenineplanetaryboundaries.4.1fe8f33123572b59ab80007039.html
RJ: So for you the global economic problems are just a side show?
MC: The words for economy and ecology come from the same Greek root, meaning ‘to manage’. They are different aspects of the human impact on our limited system, the age of the anthropocene, as Paul Cruxen and others have dubbed our recent past.
RJ: Do you see any way to avoid the coming multiple collapses of human and natural systems?
MC: The evolution, genetics and therefore the psychological programming of homo sapiens is oriented towards protection and promotion of the group. Only in the past century has humanity even begun to think in terms of groups larger than the tribe, or town, or nation state. There have of course been precursors, such as the Holy Roman Empire,which had limited authority and didn’t, in any case, face global constraints such as we now have. It will shortly become a struggle for what’s left that can create pockets of greater resilience. If we can shift our thinking and action and self-management to focus on securing the fundamentals of food and water and security, then some areas and some groups will be more likely to ride out this century successfully.
RJ: One last observation – You have great resonance with the work of Bjorn Lomborg. He, too, in The Sceptical Environmentalist, argues for evidence-based policy. Yet the rules of evidence are, as you eloquently point out at the end of State of Fear, are themselves subject to agenda setting.
MC: Yes, I have said that everyone has an agenda, except me.
RJ: That’s another thing we have in common, then. Thank you so much. Is there anything you would like to add?
MC: I would only like to draw the sceptics attention to a recent report from NASA, whose records I trust, on the speed and scale of global climate temperature rises.
2012 SUSTAINED LONG-TERM CLIMATE WARMING TREND, NASA FINDS Scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record. -- full story > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130115190218.htm Next week Ronda, wearing a NASA-surplus astronaut’s suit, warmly chats with Hitler.
What a disgraceful attempt to taint the memory of a clear and forthright thinker.
Michael Crichton’s book was published in 2005. It was a work of fiction with liberal footnotes to verify the facts which he set out in the course of the book. He knew what to expect by way of attempted criticism from an unprincipled and dishonest opposition, and this was an appropriate way to meet it.
In December 2004, the Climategate miscreant, Michael Mann did a review of it, saying: ” The first set of comments relate to the attribution of the recent warming trend to increasing CO2. One character suggests that “if CO2 didn’t cause the global cooling between 1940 and 1970, how can you be sure it is responsible for the recent warming?” (paraphrased from p86) . Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures do appear to have cooled over that period, and that contrasts with a continuing increase in CO2, which if all else had been equal, should have led to warming”
He then launches into an apologia as to why the warming did not take place which is about as convincing as Gore’s film, 35 Lies in 90 Minutes. Typical of the fraud backers, who believe it to be impressive, he talks about “forcings”
On 19 November 2009, some benefactor of the human race, leaked thousands of emails from the Climategate miscreants, the small group of scientists who conspired to back the AGW Fraud, and this disclosure ended the credibility of the scam. The phrases “hide the decline”, and “Mike’s nature trick” entered the language. Just a reminder by way of a very small sample, of some of the disclosures:
Mann:
the important thing is to make sure
they’re loosing the PR battle.
That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.
[2733] Crowley:
Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.
[5131] Shukla/IGES:
[“Future of the IPCC”, 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
[0850] Barnett:
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
[2884] Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]
I can imagine Michael’s delight at these disclosures of the dishonesty which he had presciently set out in his book. The fiction was now proven by documents from the crooks themselves.
I remember in 2003, when I first woke to the dishonesty of the fraud backers, and the savage attacks I sustained when I posted my opinion on a site. That is if my post was not refused or deleted.
What a breath of fresh air Michael’s book was. Honesty standing like a beacon in the midst of the AGW bullies and liars.
What a difference now when a politician, Boris Johnston, publishes his doubts the other day, and of 2079 comments on the article, only a handful are critical. The rest are supportive of the dismissal of AGW.
Comment by Leo Lane — January 23, 2013 @ 6:07 pm
Leo, do you dispute the NASA figures?
And have you noticed all the wild climate events?
I think quoting old interviews is not useful, let us talk about the data.
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 23, 2013 @ 8:08 pm
Thanks Ronda, refer me to the science which demonstrates a measurable effect on climate by human emissions.
The IPCC cannot do it, but if you can, we have something to discuss.
Comment by Leo Lane — January 23, 2013 @ 8:31 pm
Rhonda
Happy to talk about the data: There has been no global warming now for 15 years.
And your misrepresentation of Michael Crichton suggests you had no understanding of the man, his philosophy, his views on science and his belief in the need for evidence based environmentalism
You are a fraud.
Comment by Jennifer Marohasy — January 23, 2013 @ 9:18 pm
I had a word to Michael, and his recollection is different to yours, Ronda:
This is the edited transcript:
RJ: Mr Crichton, since publication of State of Fear in 2004 the evidence has continued to pour in on climate change. Have your opinions changed at all?
MC: I believe I was absolutely correct in my argument that the science underpinning policy on climate change is tainted. Since my death, the publication of the Climategate emails have demonstrated the unfortunate corruption of science by a small group of scientists centred on East Anglia University who have shown absolute contempt for their obligation to science, and have brought it into disrepute.
The AGW assertion never made sense to me, and intuitively I knew that it was wrong.
It is nice to see my judgement vindicated with those guilty of the deceit condemning themselves with their own words.
We still only have a glimpse of the corruption behind the scenes, with surface evidence demonstrating it when an institution like the Royal Society publishes an outright lie about the effect of human emissions on climate.
RJ: Do you still think the legal/media/government forces are aligned to mislead the public?
MC: Yes, I do, and evidence of the corruption which underpins it is becoming evident. It seems clear that the general public will no longer accept the misinformation that they swallowed so easily before Climategate, which has in turn energised many people to provide the evidence of the lack of integrity in those promoting the AGW agenda.
RJ: Do you think that this is the end of the AGW bandwagon?
MC: Yes, but it will not dissipate easily. There are too many vested interests at stake, and they will have difficulty accepting the unpalatable truth that it has all been a scam. The Church of England, for instance, was persuaded by Gore to invest $300million in “green” projects. They did this because they believed Gore, and will not now easily accept that he is the unprincipled liar he has proven to be. There will be long and bitter rearguard actions by the scam artists. Their misinformation will continue for some time into the future. Hansen will continue his support of the doomed fraud. He is in too deep to back out. Look at this weasel worded example of his influence at NASA:
2012 SUSTAINED LONG-TERM CLIMATE WARMING TREND, NASA FINDS
Scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880,
continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.
It is meaningless drivel, but it is authoritative because it comes from NASA.
We still have quite a way to go, and a lot of innocent people will have to sustain losses, because they have been misled in a ruthless calculated way.
RJ: Thank you for this fascinating update.
Comment by Leo Lane — January 24, 2013 @ 12:33 pm
Leo, the NSW gov site offers this:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/climatechange/evidence.htm
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/
If you don’t accept the IPCC, NASA or NOAA, or the Hadley Centre in the UK, (they have a pdf on the evidence) who would you believe?
I believe I understood Crichton very well, and he would have changed his opinion based on the overwhelming evidence.
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 24, 2013 @ 1:16 pm
Ronda, you do not understand the question. Jennifer thinks you are a fraud, but I am sure you are just ignorant.
The petition to US Congress to take no action on global warming, signed by more than 31,000 scientists is based on the fact that the proponents of AGW have been unable to give any scientific basis for their assertion. The petition says in part:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…….increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects..”
Read it in full here:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
The leaked draft of the coming Report of the IPCC reveals that they remain unaware of any scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
Human activity contributes about 3% of atmospheric CO2. There is a 10% natural variation in volume, so it is not surprising that the effect of the human contribution cannot be shown to exist.
It is similar to the situation where the Minister for Lies About Sea Levels, Greg Combet, urinates in the ocean adjoining his waterfront home. We know that the ocean is polluted but it is trivial and not measurable.
We know that there is a contribution to atmospheric CO2 by human activity, but it is insignificant, and its effect is not measurable.
Comment by Leo Lane — January 24, 2013 @ 2:57 pm
an excerpt from Kevin Grandia’s artiucle in the Huffington Post: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
The Petition’s Sordid Beginnings
The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].
Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson’s group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.
Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”
An Unverifiable Mess
Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you’ll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.
For example,
“Munawwar M. Akhtar” – no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
“Fred A. Allehoff” – no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 24, 2013 @ 3:28 pm
and this: http://climatesight.org/2009/06/17/ignore-the-petition-project/
Surely any position backed by Glen Beck has to be carefully considered. Do you really want to be part of his ilk?
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 24, 2013 @ 3:30 pm
I just want you to put up science which shows any measurable effect on climate of human emissions. If you cannot, then face facts; AGW is baseless. The majority of the population accept this, why not you?
The so-called debunking of the petition makes no difference to the fact that,as the petition says, there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
Please address this and desist from irrelevancy.
Comment by Leo Lane — January 24, 2013 @ 4:00 pm
Please tell me why you do not accept the evidence of the scientific bodies I mentioned, and what kind of evidence you would accept.
If you won’t allow that those whose job it is are giving us evidence, then what is the point of continuing this discussion?
You asked for evidence, I gave scientific sources. You have only offered a debunked pseudo petition which is not based on peer reviewed research.
PLease address the data that I have offered.
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 24, 2013 @ 4:21 pm
Ronda,
You do not seem to know the difference between an assumption, and evidence.
The fact that the science to which you referred me assumes an effect by humans does not make it so.
It is simply baseless science making unjustified assumptions.
You have not supplied any scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. Your difficulty seems to be a lack of comprehension of what you are being asked.
As I say, you are ignorant, and probably not fraudulent.
Comment by Leo Lane — January 24, 2013 @ 5:18 pm
Ronda, you have now been informed of the lack of any scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
If there were any such science it would not be hard to find, and the Climategate miscreants would not demonstrate a frantic detrmination to mislesd the world on global warming. Read their emails.
Since you are now aware of the lack of science to back your position, you will demonstrate a lack of honesty, if you do not acknowledge your situation.
In such case you can no longer plead ignorance, and I would have to acknowledge that Jennifer is correct. You are a fraud.
Comment by Leo Lane — January 26, 2013 @ 5:56 pm
Sorry, I don’t accept that accusation. I see data from many directions that says our climate is changing rapidly.
It is hardly an assertion to say that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere; this is well-established.
Those who reject the science will roast with the rest of us.
And you have not answered my question: who would you believe? What evidence would you accept?
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 27, 2013 @ 1:09 pm
You ask what evidence is acceptable, Ronda. Obviously, a peer reviewed paper, published in a scientific journal, which shows a measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
If I am asked for the basis no which I assert that climate is governed by natural cycles, leaving no room for the unsupported assertion that human emissions affect climate I refer you to Mclean et al 2009. This was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Amusingly, the stir which this caused among the fraud backers was disclosed in the Climategate emails.
They rushed a reply into print, which was easily dismissed, because the science in the Mclean paper is well established, and left no basis to discount it.
Climategate miscreant Trenberth’s unethical behaviour in relation to the publication of a critique of the Mclean paper, which he organized,with his accomplice Foster, was demonstrated in a Climategate email where he reports an approach which he made the publisher of the Journal in which Mclean et al appeared:
“Incidentally I gave a copy [of the Foster et al. critique] to Mike McPhaden and discussed it with him last week when we were together at the OceanObs’09 conference. Mike is President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras, and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.”
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28, 2009.
A reviewer of the original draft of Foster et al said:
“But as it is written, the current paper [Foster et al. draft critique] almost stoops to the level of “blog diatribe”. The current paper does not read like a peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the objectively-based, peer-reviewed literature.”
This gives you an idea of the standard of scientist you have supporting you when you back the AGW fraud, Ronda. It is not based on science, but on politics, and misrepresentation.
Let me have your reference to the science on which you rely, Ronda.
Also, you might have a read of the Climtegate emails, so that you know the calibre of the supporters of the fraud you are backing.
Comment by Leo Lane — January 27, 2013 @ 8:31 pm
The climategate scandals has been chewed to death. Yes, some scientists acted inapprolpriately. They were too passionate about their cause, a common failing among humans (you and I excepted?)Crichton acknowledged this, and long ago Thomas Kuhn wrote about this in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Always, you have to follow the money and the power.
Now who has the money in this game of climate denial? That is where Crichton hit a nerve: he saw the power of big gov and big media and big law. Most scientists are little people, and the overwhelming majority of actual climate scientists say human can and are affecting the climate.
Do you acknowledge that our species has affected forest cover, animal densities, and, through mining, geophysical forces (you do know that fracking is associated with earth tremors?)
Regarding peer reviewed science, what do you think of this for peer consensus:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? – Skeptical Science
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of … A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human … They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus …… Holding the accepted theory to the highest standard is what a scientist is supposed to do.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 28, 2013 @ 7:33 am
oh my, a climate change skeptic debate. i didn’t know these specimens still existed above ground.
if only there were some easy way to debunk the tired old war horses like ‘it hasnt warmed in 15 years’ that get bandied about.
oh wait, there is:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
the thing about climatology is, it ain’t rocket science. its not that difficult for the motivated lay person to get their heads around the physical concepts involved or to perceive the ‘big picture’. in fact, the whole reason we saw the whole global warming thing coming decades ahead of time is because the basic physical principles of heat exchange, spectral absorption, atmospheric chemistry etc. are fairly basic science.
so we have a situation analogous to consulting 100 doctors about your health, 95 of whom declare on inspection that your physical characteristics are such that in a decade’s time you will develop a certain disease, for physical reasons they have elucidated and can describe to you. 5 other doctors think you’ll be fine.
…in due course, you get sick in just the way the 95 doctors predicted. sounds like they knew what they were talking about, hmm ?
Comment by unintelligible belligerent — January 28, 2013 @ 6:33 pm
thanks, belligerent, nice to see a bit of rational thought entering this otherwise silly discussion.
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 29, 2013 @ 6:38 am
Thanks, belligerent, your post confirms that you are aware that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any effect on climate, and gave yourself a different question to answer.
You are still wrong, and quoting the pretend scientist John Cook, on the fraudulently named Skeptical Science does not help your case. John is a well known fraud backer. A confused fellow, but puts his all into the AGW scam. He supplies the information on sea levels to the Minister for Lies About Sea Levels, Greg Combet, who resides in a waterfront house, obviously not taken in by his department’s nonsense.
Ronda, I told you not to bother with people or entities with scientific names telling lies about AGW, there are plenty of them, from the Royal Society down.
I asked for science, and explained carefully how you quote science.
Jennifer is right, you are a fraud.
You have a precedent in imaginary interviews with deceased celebrities. Giovanni Papini did it. He reported only one imaginary interview with a live person: Picasso.
If you want to continue with your parallel to Papini, consider what his Picasso says:
“I am only a public entertainer who has understood his times and exploited as best he could the imbecility, the vanity, the cupidity of his contemporaries.”
You could do an imaginary interview with James Hansen who could say: “I was a successful scientist, but now I am only a public clown who has understood his times and exploited as best he could the imbecility, the vanity, the cupidity of his contemporaries to obtain backing for the AGW Fraud, which has now collapsed, leaving me exposed as a liar.”
Hope this helps, Ronda, I can see that you are in desperate need of help.
Comment by Leo Lane — January 29, 2013 @ 9:22 am
Belligerent, regarding your brash statement in regard to climate science, it may help you to know that a group of astronauts (“rocket scientists”) have formed to consider AGW. Their belief is in reality, so their opinion is different to yours, which relies, of course, on unreality:
“Because the United States and some other nations have prematurely accepted the AGW advocates points of view and conclusions as correct, a large amount of manpower and money is being spent on an attempt to ameliorate the supposed rise in global temperature. And, also because of the colossal impact on national economies needed to make significant climate changes (if this were possible,) we believe it is critical to be certain of the reality of the conclusions on this subject. …….
This study is very difficult because of the extremely complex nature of the physical and chemical interactions between the sun and earth that effect our climate. However, we are encouraged because a number of the members of the study group were successful in using scientific discipline to resolve unusual problems involved in the national effort of early manned spaceflight to achieve the goals of the Apollo Lunar Exploration Program.”
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/
Comment by Leo Lane — January 29, 2013 @ 11:05 am
look you clowns. you can deny that temperatures are rising until you’re blue in the face.
but the bugs are coming out earlier. the growing season is starting sooner. species are spreading to places that were previously too cold for them. birds are migrating sooner.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/society-eco/growing-season.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130128191233.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100128130221.htm
sounds like someone needs to tell the natural world that global warming is a hoax and isn’t happening.
or maybe you think al gore is bribing the bugs and the flowers ? lol.
morons.
Comment by unintelligible belligerent — January 29, 2013 @ 3:58 pm
further, on the meta debate of climate denialism versus climate realism:
what is the mindset of the denialist, as judged by their argumentative tactics and strategy ? does the denialist have an ‘open mind’ ? indeed, given the assumption that AGW is in fact occurring, is there any data or set thereof that could possibly convince a dyed-in-the-wool denialist of that reality ?
unfortunately the answer to both questions is often negative.
the denialist has at the root of their reasoning a single axiom: human exceptionalism – that we cannot possibly be responsible for any untoward occurrences in the course of our grand, bustling human enterprise.
from this axiom comes the ‘trench warfare’ approach the denialist takes: a series of defences in depth to be defended at each stage with a shotgun blast of random fallacious or misleading ‘science-bytes’, each of which takes much longer for the realist to fruitlessly debunk than it takes for the denialist to barrage them with …
trench 1: ‘its not getting warmer!’
…until it gets too irrefutable for them to argue the point anymore, and then they retreat to …
trench 2: ‘it might be getting warmer, but its not our fault!’
…until they cant argue with the pretty basic science regarding greenhouse warming, when its time for …
trench 3: ‘it might be getting warmer and its our fault, but it wont be a problem!’
…and you can guarantee they will be screaming that from the top of their lungs as the world fries/drowns.
so does the ‘defence in depth’ and ‘shotgun blast of fallacious factoids’ represent a party debating in good faith, with an open mind ? or does it represent the obdurate ignorance and selective reasoning of the irrational ideologue ?
history will not judge you buffoons kindly.
Comment by unintelligible belligerent — January 29, 2013 @ 4:10 pm
leo – the science of climate change is not that difficult to understand. as regards emissions, do you really hold that human emissions have *zero* effect on climate ? you ‘dont believe’ in greenhouse gases or something ? because again, the science isnt that complicated.
a quote from steven sherwood:
“Many who are unwilling to accept the full brunt of greenhouse warming have embraced a more comforting compromise reminiscent of the Tychonic system*: that CO2 has some role in climate but its importance is being exaggerated. But accepting a nonzero warming effect puts one on a slippery slope: Once acknowledged, the effect must be quantified, and every legitimate method for doing so yields a significant magnitude. As the evidence sinks in, we can expect a continued, if slow, drift to full acceptance. It took both Copernicanism and greenhouse warming roughly a century to go from initial proposal to broad acceptance by the relevant scientific communities. It remains to be seen how long it will take greenhouse warming to achieve a clear public consensus; one hopes it will not take another century.”
Comment by unintelligible belligerent — January 29, 2013 @ 4:20 pm
Uninformed belligerent, you seem to have difficulty with comprehension.
I will ask again; give me the reference to science demonstrating any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
You have failed to do so, and thus have no scientific basis for your assertions.
As for consensus, the only possible consensus, at the moment, is that AGW has no scientific basis.
You have nothing to support any other assertion.
As for denialist, what am I denying? You have put forward no science to deny.
You are the denier. You deny that there is no science to support the AGW Fraud. If your denial is valid, then produce the science upon which you rely.
Comment by Leo Lane — January 30, 2013 @ 10:53 am
leo lane – tell me what is a ‘greenhouse gas’ ?
Comment by unintelligible belligerent — January 30, 2013 @ 7:12 pm
anyway leo, you prove my point regarding climate change denialists not operating in good faith. i could explain the basic science of climate change to you until i’m blue in the face, but you don’t lack the intelligence to understand it, you lack the willingness. so what would be the point ? you will never accept that we are causing the temperatures to go up, no matter what. so why should i bother engaging with you ?
you just want to say ‘prove this’ and ‘prove that’ and i could dance away for you until my fingers fall off but the reality is that there is nothing anyone could possibly say or do to convince you of the reality of AGW. it doesnt matter if the growing season is now on average 2 weeks longer than the long-term average. it doesnt matter if bugs are pupating and flowers blooming earlier and earlier. you have your head in the sand and you are perfectly happy to ignore anything which conflicts with your ideologically determined view of reality.
its kind of sad, really.
Comment by unintelligible belligerent — January 30, 2013 @ 7:21 pm
immature belligerent, you do not have to underline the fact that you have no science to back your assertions, you have made that perfectly clear.
As Professor Lindzen so clearly put it, your position is trivially true, but not measurable, and of no significance.
End of conversation, I will not reply to any more of your nonsense.
Comment by Leo Lane — January 31, 2013 @ 10:44 am
leo lane – the globe is getting hotter. we know this is true because of the record-breaking number of hot days and the tendency towards more extreme weather events. everyone can see this; president obama can see this; anyone who pays attention to the news can see this. its not theoretical; its happening right in front of us and all around us. the science is clear and there’s basically no one of any authority who disputes it.
then on the other hand, there is you and your band of fellow travelers, engaged in incestuous amplification of your faulty ideas because you all only read your ‘wattsupwiththat.com’ and such denialist websites.
who are we supposed to believe ? you ? or the bugs that are coming out earlier ? the trees that are spreading to climes that recently were too cold to support them ?
the evidence is all around us and for whatever reasons of your own, you choose to ignore it. good for you.
Comment by unintelligible belligerent — February 2, 2013 @ 3:58 pm