
Beware the church of climate alarm - dpatru
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine/beware-the-church-of-climate-alarm/2008/11/26/1227491635989.html
======
DanielBMarkham
I, for one, love pseudo-science. I dig UFO studies (what better way to learn
about the process of learning?), world religions (what drives people to vary
their beliefs so widely yet cling to each detail?), reincarnation (are those
strange stories true or just crap?) and all sorts of things that involve
reason, creativity, and some sort of evidential and symbolic modeling process.

But I know it ain't science. It's fun, it's speculative, and it's
entertaining. It ain't science.

What I don't like is when religion joins with theories that can not be
reliably tested and scare-mongering under the rubric of science. Then they
deny being the pseudo science that they are. Seems like it combines the worst
of everything: end-of-days, a call for repentance, smearing the critics, and
smarmy self-righteousness.

That's just my opinion, mind you. I really think if you've only got one earth,
a hugely complex environment and some kind of computer modeling system that a
little degree of humility probably is a good idea. I'm happy with saying "I
don't know." Seems like even (or especially) if you take a large grant that
should be a fine response.

Global warming may be true and deadly. But that still doesn't make it science.

I'm looking forward to the new Czech pol. Discussion and skepticism is a good
thing, especially when it comes to science.

~~~
dejb
> Global warming may be true and deadly. But that still doesn't make it
> science.

What is science but the study of physical truth? Isn't the ultimate aim of
science to be able understand the way the things work so that it is possible
to project the conseqences of different actions into the future? Your position
is irrational and stupid.

~~~
emmett
I agree with you, but "Your position is irrational and stupid" is abusive, and
likely to cause people to believe that you are in the wrong. Which is
unfortunate, because in this instance you are right.

~~~
dejb
I think it is an unfortunate situation where insulting a stupid proposition is
seen as worse than proposing it in the first place.

My belief is that thinking people should take a tougher line on ignorance,
irrationality and stupidity. By choosing to engage with these type of opinions
with a 'neutral stance' you are giving strength and legitimacy to their
arguments. You are essentially saying 'Although your argument seems
reasonable, I disagree for the following reasons'.

So maybe I went too far. But I do think there should be a cost for making
spurious arguments. Also I feel the casual viewer of arguments shyould be left
in no doubt as to the validity of the original statement.

------
jsmcgd
Implicit straw man: "Climates have always changed and they always will". Who
is refuting this?

"There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature". Please.

The real shame is that although I believe that global warming is man-made I am
genuinely open to being persuaded otherwise. But I've yet to hear a counter
argument that isn't self contradicting, dishonest or full of cherry-picked
data and ad hominems. It suggests the 'climate-skeptic' camp is dominated by
people who have (perhaps involuntary) ulterior motives.

~~~
oldgregg
I see your point, but I'd say there is cherrypicking data on both sides. In
terms of motives, certanily Gore and many scientists have been personally
enriched by promoting global warming.

Sure humans have affected the climate, but I'm _scared_ by the level of
religious language and fanaticism:

"Repent of your carbon emissions!"

"The world will be destroyed in ten years!"

It used to be like 75 years but I guess people didn't really care so now they
employ all these fear tactics. New York will be under water in our lifetime?
Seriously? Many alarmists employ the same language that Pat Robertson does
about the second coming and that Bush does about the terrorists.

As soon as I think I'm being manipulated by fear I get really skeptical. Al
Gore _IS_ a politician and his messianic message is demagogy as much as
anything.

~~~
garbowza
There's a danger in personifying overall concern about global into a single
spokesman, Al Gore. It's a fallacy to try to discredit everyone who believes
in climate change by simply tearing down Al Gore himself. It's a convenient
way of not confronting the facts on either side of the argument.

~~~
Prrometheus
He did get a Nobel Peace Prize for his fear-mongering, so I'd say he does
represent the mainstream establishment philosophy on the issue.

~~~
nradov
Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, not one of the scientific prizes. The
Peace Prize is entirely political. Yasser Arafat (a famously corrupt and
dishonest politician) also got one, so their standards are obviously not very
high. <http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/>

------
pfedor
My hypothesis: global warming hype will decline, not because the global
financial crisis but because of the new administration. The main reason global
warming was such a popular meme in the recent years is by the power of
association. So many people had a grudge with president Bush and the
republicans were perceived as global warming skeptics, therefore everyone felt
that preaching the global warming doom was a way to emphasise their hatred for
the president. Now that there's no one to hate in the White House the global
warming preaching will lose its cathartic power. (This of course is totally
unrelated to any actual reasons to believe whether the climate change is man
made or what actions should be undertaken to control it.)

~~~
Devilboy
This is probably true. Most people in EU countries (excluding the UK) are
pretty sure that man-made global warming is a fact. Only in the USA, Australia
and the UK do you find this strong contingent of people who think that it's
all a conspiracy and lies. You have to conclude that the governments of these
countries have a hand in this public feeling.

~~~
Brushfire
Although I Clearly cant speak for UK, Australia, or other Americans, I know
people that believe in man made global warming, they just dont see it as a big
deal.

There is a difference between people who irrationally disagree with relatively
conclusive evidence and those who are skeptical about outcome.

------
yters
What we need is for both sides in these kinds of controversies to nominate
their best spokesperson and have them participate in publicized debates. Not
just in global warming, but in all areas of public controversy. Hopefully this
would lead to much less balkanized discourse. Plus, it would help both sides
respond to the other much more civilly and tolerantly since people would no
longer feel so much at war with each other.

~~~
mseebach
Good luck finding few enough sides. There are easily about eight sides in the
global warming argument.

Is global warming even happening?

Is man-made CO2 causing it?

Will reducing man-made CO2 help?

Is the best way to mitigate this to stop emitting CO2, to research green tech,
nuclear or to look into measures allowing us to live in a hotter world? And
why? How is "best" defined?

Then you'll need impartical referees. When side D claims that no recent study
shows that X is true, and side G says there is, who's right? What exhibits are
allowed, and how?

But never the less, this form of debate exists and thrives, it's called peer-
reviewed journals. Too bad that the climate debate is too much in a hurry to
use them.

~~~
yters
True, but does the public generally have access to these journals? Maybe
issues like this would be alleviated some if the journals were opened up.

~~~
mseebach
As lutorm said.. also, if this is condensed into a 45-minute townhall format,
you get "My friend Joe the Eskimo thinks icebears are cute" and while it's
great TV, no-one is more clever for it.

~~~
yters
I'd say people are better informed if they get to hear the best of both sides
instead of only one. Have the global warming skeptics been able to put
something out that gets the publicity of "An Inconvenient Truth?"

Even in the case where one side is clearly correct, I think its position can
only be strengthened in the public eye if its arguments are compared to the
best opposing arguments. Only if people assume the opposite can I see a good
case for one sided propaganda, but I don't know of a good reason to assume
this.

~~~
mseebach
In an ideal world, yes.

But we've just seen a couple of guys debate the next four year of one country
in a very public way. It took them a year, not to reach any kind of common
ground, much less agreement, but to get to the point where a few pct.pts.
likes one guy better than the other. This was even made easy by pre-defining
that there will only be two sides to the debate.

The climate debate discusses the future, not of one country, but of the entire
earth, and if we end up on the side of the "alarmists", we're not trying again
in 4 years - this is a 20-50 year plan.

So, yes, I agree with you, but my pragmatic practical side (the one that will
not be allowed in a brainstorm session) argues that it's just not practical.

------
guyupstairs
Some of Professor Plimer's arguments have been countered elsewhere previously.
Please see [http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-
deni...](http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-
iii-%E2%80%93-prof-ian-plimer/)

More generally, I would offer <http://www.realclimate.org> as a blog which
offers excellent scientific discussion of climate change.

------
Tichy
From the article:

"Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that
"we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite
vicious and irrational"."

Strange thing is, I only ever see this kind of article from the "no-global-
warming" camp. I don't recall reading any articles bashing the "no-global-
warming" people's personalities. Could be my selective memory, could be
something else...

~~~
pfedor
From the second paragraph of the article: 'The New York Times opened a profile
of Klaus, 67, this week with a quote from a 1980s communist secret agent's
report, claiming he behaves like a "rejected genius" [...]' So yeah, I would
conclude it is your selective memory.

~~~
Tichy
Hm, true...

------
yters
Btw, has anyone else here read James Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow?"

I read it, and it is very eye opening just how many of the major scientific
"facts" and causes rest on pretty shaky, if not outright false, foundations.

~~~
yters
Upvoter, did you read it? What did you think?

------
sh1mmer
One of the most interesting quotes I heard recently on NPR was someone from
Obama's transitional team explaining that a green energy industry is win-win.
Developing and deploying green energy will boost the U.S economy while
reducing carbon emissions. Whichever side of the argument you fall on, fossil
fuels won't last forever and greener tech tends to be applicable in a much
wider range of circumstances making it convenient for the modern lifestyle.

~~~
cturner
There's an opportunity cost to everything you do. So if you prioritise carbon
emissions and the result of that is that poor people can't keep their families
warm, you lose. Most of the evils of politics in the first world happens as
opportunity-cost theft, because it's easy to hide. For example - force people
to pay taxes, enlarge government in the process, and then fund something
stupid and thereby prevent the original person from putting it to better use.

> Whichever side of the argument you fall [..]

Be that as it may, if it develops as a result to market impetus you can be
generally confident that it will be a response to actual demand. Whereas as
soon as the government gets involved we lose our valuing mechanisms and get
locked into what the geniuses in the capital think is going to happen. Also,
it depends which fuels you pour your energy into and whether this is actually
a good choice. If you invest in a bad route there for political reasons (e.g.
ethanol) you'll have the effect of increasing world hunger as a side-effect.
Nuclear is another option which is difficult to separate from political
concerns.

------
swombat
"Climate change has always happened."

Sure, supernovas too, but if there was one on the way and we had a chance to
stop it we'd be damned fools not to pay attention.

"There's nothing we can do about it."

Bullshit.

~~~
huhtenberg
> Bullshit

Facts please.

~~~
justindz
Not defending or refuting this, really, but thought I'd point to a compelling
argument I saw on TED by a "climate engineer." The summary is that he claims
if things continue and there are problems and we haven't done anything about
them, people like him will step up and say stuff like "we can set off a few
volcanoes, put some ash in the air and cool things down." And he thinks you're
better off working on the problem now so that people like him don't get to try
things which could have unintended consequences. Or at the very least, be a
band-aid without neosporin.

It was an interesting talk.

[http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html)

~~~
rbanffy
Climate engineering is a very interesting idea, but since we don't understand
the climate very well, I would start with small steps and leave setting off
volcanoes or dumping iron into the seas for a future moment.

We have one planet to experiment with and we will have to live in it for the
foreseeable future. Until that changes, I will favor lower-energy experiments.

And, BTW, the whole idea of reducing carbon footprint, building more efficient
cities, transportation and generally living consuming less resources is a
great idea in itself. Remember, by the next 100 years, we will have a whole
lot more people hanging around.

~~~
mseebach
> ...but since we don't understand the climate very well

But, wait. Apparently we DO understand the climate well enough to know that
global warming is happening because of the small percentage of CO2 emissions
caused by humans, _and_ that by cutting our emissions, we can stop the
warming.

Based on that, we must have an _extremely_ thorough understanding of our
climate, and it should be trivial to simulate a vulcano going off and see if
it cools the climate.

~~~
rbanffy
You don't need to understand much of what goes under the hood of your car to
draw simple conclusions like "exerting pressure on the brakes slows it down".

You do need considerable understanding of how cars work if what you want is to
interfere with the engine functions to, say, increase its mileage.

We do understand enough to point to CO2 emissions as the probable cause of
global warming (the less heat we radiate back to space, the warmer we get -
it's that simple) but to manipulate the climate to a given objective while
avoiding uncontrollable side effects would require a much better understanding
of how the climate really works.

As Mark Twain cleverly said, it's not what you don't know that kills you. It's
what you are absolutely sure that just isn't that way. Would you take that
gamble?

------
paul9290
The green movement is big business making tons rich in the name of a better
world!

Im on this train! Are you?

------
pedalpete
Though I agree that bad science and sensationalism do much harm to the case of
climate change, there are many reasons to make the drastic changes to how
humans operate on the planet.

For any of the people who don't believe in climate change, I say to tell
yourself the story of how the rainforests disappeared and thousands
(scientists say millions) of species were lots for ever, and why.

Go look at a strip mine, and try not to feel like what we are doing is wrong.

This summer a small plot of trees across from where I have coffee was mowed
down for an olympic ceremonies park. Now I have no qualms about actually
taking down that small plot of trees (it's maybe 1.5-2 acres), in a prime
retail spot, and I live in a rain forest so loosing an acre to us isn't a big
deal, we're surrounded by trees. But the sound of those trees coming down, we
were all in shock, and really when you see all the dead trees lying there on
the ground, you feel ashamed to have supported it.

I also say to tell yourself the story of how your car runs, from the first bit
of oil being drilled to the moment that your tires spin, and if you can
honestly convince yourself that that is an efficient energy system, then
you're an amazing debater.

I honestly believe there are huge errors in the science which is spread
publicly, but it is the sensationalism of this science which is grabbing
attention and causing people to take notice. The negative effect is the
backlash of non-believers have ammunition.

~~~
pedalpete
surprised to see this down-voted. Insight and rebuttle or reasoning please?

~~~
Brushfire
You are appealing to emotional arguments instead of rational ones. Just a
thought.

~~~
pedalpete
I appreciate that, and thanks for the feedback. I thought the 'emotional
arguments' where easy to make it apparent that maybe we are doing something
wrong, climate change or not. The rational/scientific arguments can be argued.
Tough to stand in a clearcut and say 'damn happy we got rid of those trees!'.
;)

