Tactics and Motivation of Global Warming Denial

[elwoodblues]

What should the burden of proof be for creating public policy based on scientific evidence. Should it be "more likely than not", something greater than that, or should the uncertainty be just on factor (among many) in weighing the costs/benefits.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
What should the burden of proof be for creating public policy based on scientific evidence. Should it be "more likely than not", something greater than that, or should the uncertainty be just on(e) factor (among many) in weighing the costs/benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

A market-based solution would say the latter assuming a honest assessment of the situation is possible and there is time for the markets to act. I happen to think there is time to study the situation and understand it better before acting, but the Al Gore's of the world remind me of telemarketers or televangelists who try to pressure you into buying because if you don't the opportunity will be gone.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You know my old college had some really old books in the basement. One was titled the Dynamics of Ether or something to that effect from the turn of the century. An entire book about how ether was everywhere and filled all of space. People really believed that back then, it was "consensus" for awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Scientific opinion has been wrong many times

[/ QUOTE ]

There points are by and large irrelevant, and miss the mark by a mile.

But this does introduce one of the favorite fallacious arguments of the creationist and global warming denialist camps: "scientific consensus was once X, but X was discovered to be wrong, therefore scientific consensus is not to be trusted."

The scientific method is such that it corrects for knowledge that was previously in error. The reason why we discovered what was formerly scientific consensus to be wrong is precisely the same reason why it's most reasonable to believe the current scientific consensus is correct. Claims which rest upon scientific consensus as being infallible are almost by definition invalid, but similarly, the very notion of epistemology demands that we respect scientific consensus as being the closest to the normative truth.

In other words, pointing out scientists or scientific consensus has been wrong in the past says absolutely nothing, repeat nothing, about the validity of current scientific consensus. This should be patently obvious to everyone, but since we see the "lolz but everyone once thought the Earth was the center of the universe, and people got the plague from miasmas, so how can we trust anything people say about global warming and/or evolution" argument so frequently, apparently it's not quite that obvious to some.

If you insist on relying on this argument ("lolz but everyone once thought the Earth was the center of the solar system, they were wrong, therefore scientific consensus needs to be doubted"), then surely you're not certain about the validity of the theory of gravity, or germ theory, or heliocentrism, since hey, the consensus has been wrong before. That's all we need to know in order to cast doubt, right?

The obvious response to this is by the various "consensus is wrong camps" is something along the lines of: "but wait, gravity, germ theory, and heliocentrism have been sufficiently demonstrated empirically". Bravo. At least we finally get to the crux of the real argument, as opposed to just fallaciously pointing out that people have been wrong in the past in some kind of strained attempt to discredit the current consensus.

Put differently, if the consensus in the HSNL forum was that PokerStars had the softest games at mid-high stakes NL, would "but everyone once thought the center of the solar system was the Earth" be a legitimate reason to believe PokerStars *doesn't* have the softest mid-high stakes NL games? It's 'legitimate' in that there's likely no way to be certain which site has the softest games, but the consensus in HSNL is likely to be right anyway, even if categorical certainty doesn't exist, and pointing out the popularity of geocentrism six centuries ago does absolutely nothing to change that.

[natedogg]

There is way too much effort spent arguing over whether the climate is warming and/or whether human factors are the dominant reasons.

Instead, we should be asking.

1. What will the effects be?
Guess what: nobody knows! It's all wild guesses from people who really don't have the expertise. You end up with some guy in a lab running computer models about hurricanes giving press conferences where he claims that half of china will die in a famine due to global warming. (hyperbole alert but you get the point). He's as unqualified to talk about future food production and the global market for grains as most of us.

2. Even assuming human carbon production is the main culprit, can we even realistically reduce carbon emissions to a degree that it will matter?

If I understand correctly, even something as drastic and economically damaging as the kyoto protocols (which none of the adherents have been able to meet anyway) would have only dented the GROWTH of emissions rates. the point is that we may have unleashed an uncontrollable beast here and arguing over whether we should replace our old lightbulbs or outlaw SUVs is probably fruitless. Short of draconian oppressive measures enforced worldwide, it is probably unrealistic to think that we can solve the problem of carbon emissions with policy. The long-term solution for reducing human carbon emissions is probably going to be a mediation technique, not from reduction.

If cheap carbon really is running out and on the verge of becoming super-expensive, then new alternatives will become more profitable and THAT will reduce emissions. For example: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004517.html

However if carbon remains cheap, it's NOT going away. It's not realistic to think it will. Policy advocates should focus on mediation research/spending as opposed to gas taxes and other measures aimed at discouraging consumption.



natedogg

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know my old college had some really old books in the basement. One was titled the Dynamics of Ether or something to that effect from the turn of the century. An entire book about how ether was everywhere and filled all of space. People really believed that back then, it was "consensus" for awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Scientific opinion has been wrong many times

[/ QUOTE ]

There points are by and large irrelevant, and miss the mark by a mile.

But this does introduce one of the favorite fallacious arguments of the creationist and global warming denialist camps: "scientific consensus was once X, but X was discovered to be wrong, therefore scientific consensus is not to be trusted."

The scientific method is such that it corrects for knowledge that was previously in error. The reason why we discovered what was formerly scientific consensus to be wrong is precisely the same reason why it's most reasonable to believe the current scientific consensus is correct. Claims which rest upon scientific consensus as being infallible are almost by definition invalid, but similarly, the very notion of epistemology demands that we respect scientific consensus as being the closest to the normative truth.

In other words, pointing out scientists or scientific consensus has been wrong in the past says absolutely nothing, repeat nothing, about the validity of current scientific consensus. This should be patently obvious to everyone, but since we see the "lolz but everyone once thought the Earth was the center of the universe, and people got the plague from miasmas, so how can we trust anything people say about global warming and/or evolution" argument so frequently, apparently it's not quite that obvious to some.

If you insist on relying on this argument ("lolz but everyone once thought the Earth was the center of the solar system, they were wrong, therefore scientific consensus needs to be doubted"), then surely you're not certain about the validity of the theory of gravity, or germ theory, or heliocentrism, since hey, the consensus has been wrong before. That's all we need to know in order to cast doubt, right?

The obvious response to this is by the various "consensus is wrong camps" is something along the lines of: "but wait, gravity, germ theory, and heliocentrism have been sufficiently demonstrated empirically". Bravo. At least we finally get to the crux of the real argument, as opposed to just fallaciously pointing out that people have been wrong in the past in some kind of strained attempt to discredit the current consensus.

Put differently, if the consensus in the HSNL forum was that PokerStars had the softest games at mid-high stakes NL, would "but everyone once thought the center of the solar system was the Earth" be a legitimate reason to believe PokerStars *doesn't* have the softest mid-high stakes NL games? It's 'legitimate' in that there's likely no way to be certain which site has the softest games, but the consensus in HSNL is likely to be right anyway, even if categorical certainty doesn't exist, and pointing out the popularity of geocentrism six centuries ago does absolutely nothing to change that.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'll look more closely at the short post ("short", there's an interesting concept [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) to which I was directly responding, instead of snipping it out, you'll probably see why your response to me does not really match with the purpose of my post.

Also, there are many scientists who dispute various aspects of the warming claims, projections and conclusions. What should be under discussion is not whether "scientific consensus" on the matter is correct, because there is no true consensus, but rather whether "scientific majority opinion" on the matter is accurate. And even that would be rather involved as the topic has multiple aspects worthy of query.

[Flopz]

I was listening to a local call-in show the other night about the GW debate and why Christians are, for the most part, on the denier side of the argument.

Some guy called in and threw up Genesis 1:28 as an example…

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

He made sense when picking it apart. He said (I’m paraphrasing) that if Christians are to believe this passage, then why would they recognize GW? If they are told to subdue the earth, why would they let the earth tell us how to live our lives?

Kind of makes sense, because in an argument as wide spread and divisive as this one, you find most (if not all) Christians on the same side.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Eugenics was a very popular idea at the University of Michigan in the early 20th century, I'm sure it was elsewhere too

[/ QUOTE ]

Total hijack, but you're right that UM was literally the center of the American eugenics movement, but you wouldn't really know it now, given how silent the university is on its rather tainted history.

UM was home to at least some of the Kellogg Race Betterment Conferences throughout the 1910s - 1930s, but you can't even access the records of the conferences or the now defunct Eugenics Records Office, as UM locked the records away at Taubman. They are apparently very difficult to get access to, even for serious and prestigious researchers.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
What should the burden of proof be for creating public policy based on scientific evidence. Should it be "more likely than not", something greater than that, or should the uncertainty be just on factor (among many) in weighing the costs/benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood I would say that public policy will change soon in the U.S. and the changes will be based on the evaluation that it's more likely than not that man is contributing to global warming. My take, when I look at the intiatives in Congress, that the middle of the road position is that man is contributing to global warming. "Cap and Trade" policies are already initiated in Europe as an aside. Senators Bingaman and Spector (one moderate a Democrat, the other a moderate Republican) have introduced a bill for a "cap and trade" market that from my understanding is getting a lot of support in Congress. FWIW.

[EN09]

Dear 2p2'ers

Why all this discussion on such a weighty matter? We can ensure you Global Warming does exist - and should be taken seriously.

Signed,
Santa Claus
Easter Bunny
Tooth Fairy
Online Poker Being Rigged

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Policy advocates should focus on mediation research/spending as opposed to gas taxes and other measures aimed at discouraging consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I never thought I would see the day where you would repeat something I've said. Having a change of anarchocapitalist heart?