Cold Water On "global Warming"

[Lonan3]

Ermmm...this 'cold water' on 'Global warming.'...... is it fluoridated?

[Chinahand]

You know things are bad when the jargon smoothly cuts in "global warming denial"--- another new thought crime

 

The denial of scientific evidence and the exploitation of a normal scientific debate to create a false controversy are two of the biggest problems humanity faces in improving rational decision making.

 

If you regularly follow people who deny AIDS is caused by HIV, or who think vaccines cause rather than reduce illness, or who say human activities aren't damaging the climate etc etc (or, Thanks Lonan3, who think fluoridization is deliberate poisoning!) you'll see a common pattern.

 

Selection bias is a very real problem and one humans are almost pre-programmed to fall into - we tend to trust some people and distrust others - and so subjectivity regularly trumps objectivity.

 

If you objectively look at these issues you'll find a healthy robust scientific debate - there are genuine controversies and lots of good science going on collecting evidence etc. But some people aren't objective - they subjectively only look at evidence that supports their case, or which, in their view, weakens the prevailing opinion to stir up a false controversy.

 

I believe that is hugely damaging - with AIDS it is putting millions of people at risk by discouraging condom use, with MMR it cost lives and much heart ache - beyond little children getting ill, I wonder how many children will be born in the UK with birth defects due to their mothers catching Rubella due to a lack of imunity etc. With global warming it allows oil companies and people with vested interests to profit from the damaging of the world - I'll never forget Bush's spokeman saying economizing was not the American way.

 

Mollaq talks of thought crimes - that language is too extremist, but when objective evidence based decision making is hijacked and distorted by people with a subjective agenda there is a real risk that bad decisions will be made.

 

I am all for evidence based debate and controversies - global warming science is full of them - but it is simply wrong when subjective, biased use is made of evidence to unfairly distort a debate. That is what deniers do and they should be called out on it and brought to account.

[pongo]

Your social conscience is laudable but like the old story of Peter and the Wolf, the guy that cried wolf was the baddie.

 

You are confusing your references to wolves. Nobody cries wolf in Peter & The Wolf which has nothing to do with the fable.

[Albert Tatlock]

I am all for evidence based debate and controversies - global warming science is full of them - but it is simply wrong when subjective, biased use is made of evidence to unfairly distort a debate. That is what deniers do and they should be called out on it and brought to account.

Though this clearly works both ways. I think this article sums up some of the problems and credibility issues.

[Dr_Dave]

I am all for evidence based debate and controversies - global warming science is full of them - but it is simply wrong when subjective, biased use is made of evidence to unfairly distort a debate. That is what deniers do and they should be called out on it and brought to account.

 

Great post.

 

You can see some of the tactics employed by denialists (is that even a word?) in post #5 of this thread:

 

I know - when I saw that this film will be shown, credibility took a bit of a dive. Nevertheless, I simply think it's good to look at all aspects of the debate. The global-warming-is-manmade fraction has by now caused absolute hysteria everywhere and at times it seems it's simply not allowed to even consider another theory.

 

I don't know the poster's actual view on this matter, but these bits stood out. Apologies if I'm misrepresenting.

 

My own personal interest is evolution denialists (intelligent design creationists in particular), and I see this language used all the time. Constantly reinforcing the view that those who doubt are the ones with an open mind, while science is closed minded, dogmatic, oppressive.

 

To the casual observer, with no in depth knowledge of the issues and no appreciation of the weight of evidence on the side of the scientific consensus, this sets the denialist up as a sympathetic figure. In our society, we hate the idea of free thinking being suppressed. Denialists play on this to a massive degree.

 

"We only want to consider all sides"

"We think people should make their own mind up"

"Teach the controversy"

"Science is a religion, those who speak against it are heretics and are silenced"

 

It's hard to counter this, because the denialist is not willing or usually able to consider the evidence in a rational manner, so the only retort is to dismiss, and this further reinforces the view that science is arrogant and elitist. Combined with the fact that scientists are often not the best communicators of ideas and, well, the outlook is bleak.

 

Dave

[ai_Droid]

Though this clearly works both ways. I think this article sums up some of the problems and credibility issues.

 

Confusing the issue somewhat, the IPCC for example are not an environmental group.

 

Superb post Chinahand.

[Albert Tatlock]

the IPCC for example are not an environmental group.

Indeed not, they are in fact a political group - that operate processes in which scientists take part.

[Lonan3]

There is little doubt that global warming is a fact - the only real area of dispute is the degree to which mankind has, and is contributing to it. Although, as a confirmed sceptic, I still feel that governments frequently use it as an excuse to promote their own agendas, I do believe that there has to be a concerted universal effort to minimise what, to a greater or lesser extent, appears to be inevitable.

For anyone who is unsure what the effects are likely to be, I offer a quote (long, but worth a read) from a Professor of Early Prehistory and Head of the School of Human and Environmental Sciences at the University of Reading:

 

"When global warming made the Tasmanian valleys uninhabitable after 14000 BC and the Sahara Desert after 5000 BC, their people found other places to live – the world was still quite empty of human settlement. But where will the new displaced populations be able to go? Those from the flooded delta regions; those from inundated low-lying islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans; those from Sub-Saharan Africa where the frequency and intensity of drought will become too severe to be relieved by any amount of international aid?

The global warming that brought the ice-age to its close created localities of abundant resource which people claimed as their own and were prepared to fight for, such as the Nile Valley at 14000 BC, Northern Australia at 6000 BC and southern Scandinavia at 5000 BC. Such conflicts were trivial affairs in comparison to those we know today; but our modern world seems destined to become yet more violent as the impacts of renewed global warming are felt.

Shortage of fresh water will become a major source of conflict. Its supplies are already under pressure owing to the demands of modern farming and daily human need. Such pressure will become severe with predicted reductions of rainfall and increased evaporation in the key catchments of the world. Water will eclipse land, politics and even religion as the source of disputes between Middle Eastern states – a development that has already begun. Moreover, global warming will likely exacerbate the existing extremes of wealth and poverty in the world; agricultural productivity in the developed nations is predicted to increase, while the reverse will happen in the developing world. Global terrorism is bound to thrive."

 

After the Ice; A Global Human History 20,000-5,000 BC, Mithen, Steven (Phoenix, 2004), p. 508

[ai_Droid]

Indeed not, they are in fact a political group - that operate processes in which scientists take part.

 

How is publishing scientific papers political?

[Albert Tatlock]

Indeed not, they are in fact a political group - that operate processes in which scientists take part.

 

How is publishing scientific papers political?

In this case by definition - when such reports are done for, and published by, a political body.

[ai_Droid]

I still feel that governments frequently use it as an excuse to promote their own agendas

 

I dont doubt that you're correct, particularly now with it being a more voter friendly policy, but can you give me some specific examples?

[ai_Droid]

In this case by definition - when such reports are done for, and published by, a political body.

 

I really don't get your point. By that definition, all peer reviewed papers are political? What exactly are you on about?

[Albert Tatlock]

In this case by definition - when such reports are done for, and published by, a political body.

 

I really don't get your point. By that definition, all peer reviewed papers are political? What exactly are you on about?

I'm on about exactly what I said to your comment (below) - do try and keep up with your own posts at least.

 

the IPCC for example are not an environmental group.

Indeed not, they are in fact a political group - that operate processes in which scientists take part.

[ai_Droid]

I'm on about exactly what I said to your comment (below) - do try and keep up with your own posts at least.

 

I still don't see a point, please explain it to me. You posted about environmental groups, I said the IPCC wasn't. What's your point?

[Dr_Dave]

There is little doubt that global warming is a fact - the only real area of dispute is the degree to which mankind has, and is contributing to it. Although, as a confirmed sceptic, I still feel that governments frequently use it as an excuse to promote their own agendas, I do believe that there has to be a concerted universal effort to minimise what, to a greater or lesser extent, appears to be inevitable.

 

I'm interested in your scepticism.

 

From previous postings, I've found you to be intelligent and reasonable. I assume that you're not a climate scientist - please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I also assume that you're aware of the body of evidence supporting man-made global warming, which is not conclusive but is certainly extremely compelling, especially given what is at stake. And that it is true that the majority of experts in the field (not politicians, economists or oil moguls, but climate scientists) are convinced enough to take steps. And that even a cursory reading of the various correlations - temperature rising (fact), atmospheric CO2 rising (fact), man pumping awesome amount of CO2 into atmosphere for the last 200 years (fact) - should be enough to give someone with a moderate scientific background cause for concern.

 

So my question, in the spirit of discussion and not in any way confrontationally, is: what leads you to reject the consensus opinion on this? And: Do you apply this rejection of consensus to any other widely accepted conclusions? (Smoking causing lung cancer, CFCs causing ozone hole, HIV leading to AIDS).

 

Dave