Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo68

Quite clearly you have never been to University, as that is the biggest load of bollocks I have read for some time. I would also assume you have never been to a doctor, used an accountant or engaged lawyer.

Now in terms of the subject matter......the layman as in many fields of thought will outnumber the knowledgable 10-1. If I had an interest in the whole climate change debate.....I would be looking to those that had years and years of experience, training and knowledge....not a bystander with their own theories.
As for the comment on Aborigines as being a source of information.......those that are still out bush are more interested in their own ecosystem/resources and protecting that....not unlike the average person,

Regards

Stevo

---

I would agree with that, but that does not require a PhD. My gripe with the original contributor to the Science Show was that he wouldn't accept any comment from someone who wasn't a PhD. And if you look an my post, it isn't a bystander I am talking about ... it is someone who has observed and read and thought about the issues of concern..

I am not trying to denigrate guys who have Phds. What I am trying to do is to broaden the discussion to include all who have a useful contribution to make.

The higher education system has its own dogmas and biases which can blind people who have been trained by it. Those who are not a part of that system can often see those things. To then insist, as these guys do, that only those who have been trained by the system can comment is to perpetuate the blindnesses that they create.

I have no doubt that many here will say that scientists are trained to be objective and will therefore make allowances for their own biases. With the best will in the world - and there are many scientists who are aware of the problem, and who genuinely do try to make allowances - if you cannot see your own biases you can't make allowances for them. And not everyone - including scientists - wants to. We - all of us - are finite, flawed human beings, and no-one has a mortgage on the truth. That is why debate is so important. Different points of view have to be aired. Dogmas have to be challenged. Conventions have to be questioned. Trying to suppress dissent by ridiculing it, as this Science Show episode did, is unhealthy and leads to the establishments of scientific dogmas which may or may not be true. Or only partially true.

Trying to limit the debate to PhDs only is an intellectual snobbery that does nobody any good.

Willem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bee utey

The people who write most about climate change denial seem to be those who don't wish it to be true, therefore it can't be true. I was earbashed once by a bloke who said climate change wasn't happening because weather records had been kept at his family farm for over 100 years, and no change was apparent. With that kind of scientific rigour he must be right.:o

---

It is almost the same as using the available data the climate change scientists have and using it to describe the climate change over millions of years. The statistical basis for the hypothesis on climate change is equally floored. Funny how they don't say global warming anymore. It is now climate change.

If you say the history of the world is 1 day. The statistics they are using are about the last minute. Hardly a credible basis on which to predict the doom and gloom they are pedalling.

There is no doubt that our activities are having an effect but not to the level that some of those saying that Katoomba will be a seaside suburb in 50 years are banging on about.

Anyone who says otherwise is howled down as some non-believer and heretic. They are even brainwashing the kids in primary school who now spout this stuff like nursery rhymes.

What an entertaining thread. Mutual insults passing back and forth.

I have a problem with the entire argument.

Firstly The scientists are saying if I am correct that the " deniers" have influenced the majority of populations in most Western countries to not believe that climate change was happening.

How successful of them and how naive the "unwashed (non PHD) masses".

Only one problem.
How many non smokers and logical smokers ever believed that smoking was not harmful and nicotine was non addictive or in fact that coal does not pollute.
I think very few, so the scientists are suggesting that climate deniers are vastly more successful regarding climate than they were with smoking .

I believe that the general populations have very refined BS filters.

I routinely talk to many old codgers with a lot of life experience and many point to the fact that they cannot yet see any say changes in sea level despite scientists claiming that this will be one of the first signs.

I have yet to see a scientific analysis on what the major icelandic eruption will do to climate change. Yet if their models are so accurate surely it would only be a matter of inputting the data and out it comes. I reckon that none will have such an event in their models.

Every low probablity storm is claimed by some scientist ( or pseudo scientist) as "proof" of climate change while some of us with a longer experience are saying " I wonder when the next cyclone will hit Brisbane. It is overdue."

IMHO scientists have done themselves and science a major disservice by taking the attitudes expressed in the show.

The issue of scientific "group think" is a different one which I would be happy to discuss as I have some experience in funding and tasking some scientists in some fields not involved with climate.
Regards Philip A
BA Arts/Ec Psych. ( no Phd)

While I believe climate change may well be happening I'm not sure I believe we're the root cause of it.
I'm also made even more sceptical when I see the head of the IPCC making mega millions from something which hasn't been proven and which many countries including India, his own country, are still producing huge amounts of pollution and will be for many years.
This apparently is allowed as they are "emerging" nations and need to catch up to the first World nations.
I'm also very dubious of the motives of many of the true believers whose research is totally funded by grants from gullible governments who haven't the faintest idea one way or the other!
Will they be taking into account the huge amount of pollution from the volcanic activity of late? Or huge forest fires started by lightning?
How will they stop nature from doing what it's always done?
I suspect that all this will be shown to be the fault of greedy white western nations and there'll be a great transfer of wealth from us to the third world with KRUDD and his fellow travellers still jetting around on jollies every few months to exotic locations to talk about how well things are going.
Never ever trust anything a pollie is enthusiastic about.:D
Alan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilipA

the majority of populations in most Western countries to not believe that climate change was happening.

---

Oh really???
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...22mo0hOwaiSxLg (then click on "government priority, hoped for")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willem

I just read the gist of what three contributors said, and they were all about, and I quote:

'some of the reasons why it seems to be that the scientific community has not been so effectual in countering some of these sceptical, contrarian, denialist claims.'

This seems to me to pretty well in the basket of having made up their minds and don't really want to consider the evidence from others. Look at the terminology used - contrarian, denialist' - They're pejorative, derogatory terms. They don't even want to consider other points of view.

The first contributor, Riley Dunlap, has the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution.

All three are totally convinced they are right in their approach. Everyone else is a 'contrarian sceptic' who does not have a valid method. The American Association for the Advancement of Science had no-one of a different point of view to challenge them.

I am not here arguing for or against anthropogenic climate change. I am saying that by making this a one sided presentation the American Association for the Advancement of Science has left it wide open to being regarded as having little credibility.The only real debate, with different points of view, some of which were well considered, was in the comments afterward.

I could go on, but its time to knock off and go to bed.

Willem

---

Mate, you should have spent the time it took typing this to read more of the transcript or work your media player. You have totally misrepresented the point of the show and the points being made by the presenters. For your benefit - the point of the show was (IMHO) "why are there so many sceptics and how can we better explain the science to the public to counter the sceptics?".

To suggest that Riley Dunlap was using "the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution" (pejorative comment anyone?) is total rubbish. Dunlap was trying to demonstrate that there is a tendency towards books denouncing anthropogenic climate change being published by "conservative think tanks" and non-PhD or non-relevant PhD authors. In short - the sceptical literature is either published by groups with an agenda or by non-experts.

You make the comment that "All three are totally convinced they are right in their approach. Everyone else is a 'contrarian sceptic' who does not have a valid method. The American Association for the Advancement of Science had no-one of a different point of view to challenge them." I have to call bull**** on that - you have obviously not read the transcript properly or have decided to try and mislead the people who will only read the comments here and not listen to the show themselves. The whole idea of presenting a speech or paper at a conference is to explain your ideas. No one gets up to the podium and says, "well, I think that energy may be a function of mass and velocity, but here's 10 minutes about why I may be wrong". In the world of climate science there is a war of competing ideas - one side is not going to spend time espousing the virtues of the other. Get real man.

Basically you have missed the point entirely. This was not a debate, it was a discussion for like minded people. I assume from your comments that you expect to read "Red Hot Lies" and find half the book dedicated to a discussion on why the author could be wrong. You are in for a disappointing read.

Cheers,

Adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willem

I just read the gist of what three contributors said, and they were all about, and I quote:

'some of the reasons why it seems to be that the scientific community has not been so effectual in countering some of these sceptical, contrarian, denialist claims.'

This seems to me to pretty well in the basket of having made up their minds and don't really want to consider the evidence from others. Look at the terminology used - contrarian, denialist' - They're pejorative, derogatory terms. They don't even want to consider other points of view.

---

Fair Comment there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willem

The first contributor, Riley Dunlap, has the usual snobbery about people needing a PhD before they can enter the discussion, or make a meaningful contribution.

---

umm, isnt that a ( i will quote someting i just read somewhere very recently, i am sure it will come to me where i read it sometime soon) "pejorative, derogatory term"
what's that old saying about don't throw stones ?

Quote:

---

Oh really???

---

Well what are the scientists on about?

I would also put forward that the questions and answers do not directly ask the question.

By Inference one can suggest that people believe its happening but their answers may not have meant that.

But that was hardly the point. Maybe I should have said "an obviously influential minority". the message was that the "deniers" seem far more successful on climate change than for smoking or coal.

BTW speaking from my Psychology days 791 US citizens on an internet survey I do not believe would be statistically significant so I doubt the whole basis of the survey. I do not know the statistical significance of the rest of the survey but UK 600?, France 600?
I also like the Chinese sample that the government has a very high priority on climate change . REALLY????
And the other high scorers who have bought the average up
Nigeria,Egypt,Turkey,Hong Kong,Mexico and Chile.
I can understand the motivations of many of the respondents who live in countries with particular problems eg Mexico City pollution, Nigeria -desire for western nations to give them money maybe?'

But where is the survey from?
I did a Google search and could not find it. I found lots more that say the opposite. If you want to debate topics please give the references so that they can be checked.
Regards Philip A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo68

Quite clearly you have never been to University, as that is the biggest load of bollocks I have read for some time. I would also assume you have never been to a doctor, used an accountant or engaged lawyer.

Stevo

---

It is a shame that your confrontative post is a reflection of your naivity.
Yes! I have been in 2 universities one here and one overseas and yes I have 2 qualifications and yes the one from overseas was enough to have 2 years credit in a course here limited for 20 students Australian wide.
Ah! and they appreciate my qualifications on the University here and in the private industry even with my poor english.
Bevery careful what you write or you can be a fool ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilipA

Well what are the scientists on about?

I would also put forward that the questions and answers do not directly ask the question.

By Inference one can suggest that people believe its happening but their answers may not have meant that.

But that was hardly the point. Maybe I should have said "an obviously influential minority". the message was that the "deniers" seem far more successful on climate change than for smoking or coal.

BTW speaking from my Psychology days 791 US citizens on an internet survey I do not believe would be statistically significant so I doubt the whole basis of the survey. I do not know the statistical significance of the rest of the survey but UK 600?, France 600?
I also like the Chinese sample that the government has a very high priority on climate change . REALLY????
And the other high scorers who have bought the average up
Nigeria,Egypt,Turkey,Hong Kong,Mexico and Chile.
I can understand the motivations of many of the respondents who live in countries with particular problems eg Mexico City pollution, Nigeria -desire for western nations to give them money maybe?'

But where is the survey from?
I did a Google search and could not find it. I found lots more that say the opposite. If you want to debate topics please give the references so that they can be checked.
Regards Philip A

---

I found the poll here:
World Public Opinion

Quote:

---

WorldPublicOpinion.org

WorldPublicOpinion.org is an international collaborative project whose aim is to give voice to public opinion around the world on international issues. As the world becomes increasingly integrated, problems have become increasingly global, pointing to a greater need for understanding between nations and for elucidating global norms. With the growth of democracy in the world, public opinion has come to play a greater role in the foreign policy process. WorldPublicOpinion.org seeks to reveal the values and views of publics in specific nations around the world as well as global patterns of world public opinion.

WorldPublicOpinion.org was initiated by and is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

---

Here is another:
Developed and Developing Countries Agree: Action Needed on Global Warming - World Public Opinion

I agree - the sample sizes are small - it was the first poll I came across. However all polls I have seen are in general agreement. I would be interested in seeing any (independant) polls you have found that show otherwise.