tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post2345473116915218572..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Why do smart people disagree about facts?eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-57050616055571955312014-03-05T16:40:33.920+01:002014-03-05T16:40:33.920+01:00Raffa#30,
sure, social scientists suck, too!Raffa#30,<br /><br />sure, social scientists suck, too!Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-8082197066944938472014-03-05T11:56:18.170+01:002014-03-05T11:56:18.170+01:00Werner,
Would you agree with me in saying that, t...Werner, <br />Would you agree with me in saying that, to rephrase slightly what you said (February 28): some 'social scientists are 'hobby' (climate) scientists and easily come to the wrong conclusions', as they lack 'the theoretical and empirical basis'. The poltical actions they propose are however proposed with the 'authority of social science'.....<br />Raffa Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-54425324125213565172014-03-02T11:12:51.543+01:002014-03-02T11:12:51.543+01:00Raffa,
from Hasselmann to Hansen, from Schellnhub...Raffa,<br /><br />from Hasselmann to Hansen, from Schellnhuber to HvStorch, all "big men" in climate science have their social theories. They suggest economic models or apocalyptic warnings in order to solve the climate problem or to steer society; they propagate the great transformation, adaptation or honest brokering: all social theories which have nothing to do with their own scientific expertise (which doesn't necessarily mean that these ideas are wrong). These theories are borrowed from social sciences (whose nature is debate), and they are presented in the disguise and with the authority of science (not debatable). This is what I meant by: they assume the role of social scientists - maybe not the best description for my idea. I hope you get my point, anyway!Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-48478169864289313112014-02-28T19:17:11.171+01:002014-02-28T19:17:11.171+01:00Can you give an example of a working climate scien...Can you give an example of a working climate scientist who assumes the role of a social scientist?<br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-69149824170655863792014-02-28T12:04:51.015+01:002014-02-28T12:04:51.015+01:00Thomas,
I agree with some of the inconsistencies ...Thomas,<br /><br />I agree with some of the inconsistencies you mention in Victor's argumentation; to make use of the same categories on the "we" side is perfectly legitimate. I also agree with Karl Kuhn here. I think science and political science are not really comparable; while science tries to give answers to clearly defined questions, political or social sciences often make arguments based on theories and empirical findings. Different game, different rules. Problems arise when political or social scientists assume the attitude of scientists - even when working quantitatively, political science cannot give "scientific" answers. So far, so good, but: unfortunately, climate scientists also notoriously tend to assume the role of social scientists without having the theoretical and empirical basis. And here Victor is right: scientists as "hobby" social scientists easily come to wrong conclusions - such as defending consensus and fighting skeptics instead of addressing the real problems of adaptation and mitigation. The strict separation of science and politics realistically does not make much sense anymore; the climate issues is tempting both sides to illegitimate border crossing.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-27415626348053294522014-02-28T11:24:00.597+01:002014-02-28T11:24:00.597+01:00@ Thomas
you asked:
"What EXACTLY in this Vi...@ Thomas<br /><br />you asked:<br />"What EXACTLY in this Victor's text (that would be called in French "Bouillie pour les chats") was considered so important or interesting that it deserved to be published here?"<br /><br />The justification is that Victor argues against the alarmist conviction that it is climate deniers who, by confusing the public about some 'crystal-clear science', prevent effective policies to do something about climate change (this 'something' is almost never further specified ...). Instead, his argumentation supports the notion that it is the costs of policies in terms of public budget, consumer purchasing power, and swing votes that determine the course of 'climate action' in different countries. I find this a reasonable proposition. We must not forget that the international consensus to 'do something on climate change' is somewhat older (Kyoto 1997?) than the scientific consensus (IPCC 2001?), so the political consenses arguably did not need the scientific consensus as urgently as the Cook crew wants us make believe.<br /><br />Wording issues: His text seems targeted at hardcore alarmists. In order not to get labelled denier by them yourself, it seems you have to do a bit obligatory denier bashing. <br /><br />Discussing whether a politologist is a 'scientist' or not, or a 'Wissenschaftler' or not, does not help making positive use of Victor's arguments.Karl Kuhnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-44385215067630411002014-02-28T10:11:32.758+01:002014-02-28T10:11:32.758+01:00I have carefully read Victor's text.
And I mus...I have carefully read Victor's text.<br />And I must say that I was really underwhelmed - rather primitive, low intellectual standards, nothing new and/or original.<br />He basically makes an Nth attempt at partition of the population in the most simplist - binary way.<br />There are "we" (where he puts himself) and "they".<br />"They" are further subdivided in " categories - shills, skeptical scientists and hobbyists.<br />He then proceeds to caracterise (e.g to project intentions) each of this categories what has been also done N times.<br /><br /><br />However by the same token and applying the same axioms on the "we", there are obviously also 3 categories - shills (Greenpeace, WWF etc), CAGW scientists and hobbyists.<br />Now the only interesting question is where does belong Victor himself ?<br />He is clearly not a scientist what leaves shills and hobbyists.<br />As he gives no evidence that he would be a hobbyist with a level of competence like, say, S. McIntyre or Lucia Lindjgren, that leaves with the highest probability the hypothesis that he is a shill because there are only " categories.<br /><br /><i>First, we in the scientific community need to acknowledge that the science is softer than we like to portray. The science is not “in” on climate change because we are dealing with a complex system whose full properties are, with current methods, unknowable.</i><br />and<br /><i>The most interesting advances in climate science concern areas where there is no consensus but the consequences for humanity are grave, such as the possibility of extreme catastrophic impacts. </i> (sic!)<br /><br />These statements support the hypothesis indeed. By some loose standards one could consider that sociology (or even worse - politology) is a science. <br />About every physicist would agree that if it is a science then it is a science so far from natural sciences and the scientific method that the word "science" itself starts to loose the sharp meaning it originally had.<br />So while by these loose standards Victor could label himself "scientific community", it obviously doesn't imply that he has any understanding about the real beef - the dynamics of this non linear, strongly coupled complex system which is called climate.<br /><br />Finally as his own "theory" implies that he is just a "shill" of a different color than the "shills" of the opposing camp, why should anyone listen to what he has to say? <br />And especially why "they" should listen ?<br /><br />As for me, I have only one question.<br />What EXACTLY in this Victor's text (that would be called in French "Bouillie pour les chats") was considered so important or interesting that it deserved to be published here ?Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-64817181563787879412014-02-25T19:03:08.066+01:002014-02-25T19:03:08.066+01:00everyone who believes that sceptics are deniers, i...everyone who believes that sceptics are deniers, is a flat earth believer and ignorant!<br /><br />look at this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/25/preliminary-results-on-skeptic-survey/<br /><br />lg<br />michael m.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-40994717622268411992014-02-24T21:51:42.955+01:002014-02-24T21:51:42.955+01:00@Hans
"please try to avoid inflaming asserti...@Hans<br /><br />"please try to avoid inflaming assertions such as "They are not discussing anything, and their zombie arguments and ideas aren't serious." "<br /><br />I don't see why this should be inflaming. If I said it about HIV deniers it should be uncontroversial. My point is only that those deniers of the climate variety (and not *all* contrarians) are the same. I certainly don't say that every contrarian fits the the profile, but plenty do (and that's easy to see if you read the plosmedicine link I gave on HIV denial, and make the appropriate substitutions for 'HIV').<br /><br />Nobody needs to be inflamed by the truth, and well, if they are, it's true anyway.<br /><br />@MikeR<br /><br />I agree that there are certainly plenty in the 'believer' camp who misunderstand or exaggerate the science. But I don't go along with the false symmetry and difference splitting because that is *not* the same as a group which routinely assumes/asserts/acts-like scientists are charlatans engaged in fraud, manipulation of data, a conspiracy to silence their 'truth' from the literature, and on and on. The latter is a classic denial pattern and we see it on every topic from evolution to HIV to vaccines to smoking/cancer links. In some cases it is the same people ('crank magnetism').Frank O'Dwyerhttp://frankodwyer.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-25090235250476251882014-02-24T05:42:24.399+01:002014-02-24T05:42:24.399+01:00Hmm - Andreas, I didn't think I disagreed very...Hmm - Andreas, I didn't think I disagreed very much with Victor. I liked his article a lot, and he "spoke truth to power": said a lot of things that AGW believers wouldn't like to hear. I had a few quibbles, but that's inevitable with someone who sees things differently.<br /><br />Frank and Nobody are a different story, and I was addressing them. As near as I can tell, they don't see that there is anything on the other side but lies and stupidity. I was just pointing out that the lies and stupidity they see are symmetrically distributed.MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-35372062593279083682014-02-23T21:21:53.628+01:002014-02-23T21:21:53.628+01:00MikeR,
you won't like to hear it, but you are...MikeR,<br /><br />you won't like to hear it, but you are giving a good example for Kahan's thesis. No, I'm not speaking about your thoughts about global warming (I don't know), but about your disagreement about the facts Kahan or Victor are giving.<br /><br /><em>So what are you talking about? Why do you think that the fools on the AGW skeptical side are any worse?</em><br />No, Kahan says acceptance of facts is a matter of the cultural group you belong to, and that's not foolish behaviour but very rational. Furthermore, people denying facts are often quite smart, see http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/the-tragedy-of-the-risk-perception-commons-culture-conflict.html<br /><br /><em>"Do they imagine that AGW skeptics, or independent people who want to understand,..."</em><br /><br />If you were right, the deficit model would be the proper approach. Maybe you are right, maybe there are a lot of people who simply try to understand (Kahan doesn't say accepting of facts is a problem of ALL skeptics! And Kahan doesn't say you belong to the group he's interested in). That's the reason why Cook regards his consensus approach as complementary, see<br />http://www.culturalcognition.net/john-cook-on-communicating-con/<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-12100185552661456052014-02-23T16:57:17.832+01:002014-02-23T16:57:17.832+01:00Nobody, you you know that statements like "wh...Nobody, you you know that statements like "<i>why do deniers call others Nazis, Lysenko alike, communists, bastards, liars, frauds, etc.?</i>" are unwanted. Indeed, such summarily assertions must be false, as you speak about a rather diffuse group of people, and you certainly know only very few of them. Try to keep to certain levels of politeness.<br /><br />You also know that people making such claims are on both side of the aisle - the problem is that there are people like you, who make such unbounded, silly and insulting claims. Undoubtedly there are people of the sort, you describe, but they are in both extremist camps, and both of them are a pain in the back.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87981405108131406652014-02-23T16:41:57.569+01:002014-02-23T16:41:57.569+01:00why do deniers call others Nazis, Lysenko alike, c...why do deniers call others Nazis, Lysenko alike, communists, bastards, liars, frauds, etc.? And at the same time, deniers are complaining about being called deniers? <br /><br />Can somebody explain this? Seriuosly, I cannot understand this hypocrisy.<br /><br />Anyway, this discussion is pretty boring. The causes are pretty well known, why people deny things. <br /><br />One is this: Just imagine. You have a strong point of view, you have a strong political opinion or follow an ideology. And then you find "information" in the Internet or in "Die Welt" or so that does fit into your view of the world. You will not unlearn this "facts", even they are a lie or at least a wild distortion of the reality and learn the real facts. Instead, you will deny facts that do not fit into your reality because your reality is in danger. All your beliefs. You will deny. <br /><br />IMHO, this is not bad. It is natural. There are some psychological studies about it. I do think anybody is free of such problems.<br /><br /> It is just bad that some people and groups use this "trick" to defame science. <br /><br />Nobody.<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61572577506587198342014-02-23T15:09:20.319+01:002014-02-23T15:09:20.319+01:00@Frank
I can only repeat what I said to you. The o...@Frank<br />I can only repeat what I said to you. The ones who are unmoved by evidence are found on both sides of the issue. You didn't respond to that comment, but they are easy to find on the AGW side as well. Read any comment thread, you will find people who insist that we won't be able to breathe because the acid oceans will kill all the plankton, that vast land areas of earth will be inundated by rising seas, that there are already massive disastrous changes in extreme weather, that 8 or 10 degrees C rise is guaranteed unless we immediately ___. Some of which are perhaps possible, but all of which are against the current scientific consensus, if the IPCC can represent that. You will find people talking about nonexistent hundreds of millions of dollars of oil money being spent each year to promote AGW denial. And you will find people talking about the 97% of climate scientists who agree on everything. They deny that there is a single issue in the physics/ecology/biology/economics/politics worth talking about, that might impact on the need for immediate carbon cuts.<br /><br />Not only on comment threads. You can hear the President of the United States and other leading figures repeating some of this same nonsense, and saying that anyone who disagrees is from the Flat Earth Society.<br /><br />It is hard for anyone who knows anything about this to read these and not wonder: These people are sneering at others? Don't they realize how they come across? Do they imagine that AGW skeptics, or independent people who want to understand, will come to accept their point of view when anyone can tell that much of what they say is totally ignorant?<br /><br />So what are you talking about? Why do you think that the fools on the AGW skeptical side are any worse? I don't claim they are any better. But if these are deniers, so are these.<br />I don't mean to attack you, but the only way I can see that you noticed one group and not the other is if you think that those claims I mentioned in the first paragraph are true. In that case, what you wrote would make sense, but I'm afraid it would put you into the category of people unmoved by science or evidence.MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-40737963030315455982014-02-23T11:21:39.470+01:002014-02-23T11:21:39.470+01:00Frank, please try to avoid inflaming assertions su...Frank, please try to avoid inflaming assertions such as "They are not discussing anything, and their zombie arguments and ideas aren't serious." <br />Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-64450932652073965422014-02-23T10:27:20.362+01:002014-02-23T10:27:20.362+01:00@MikeR
But I don't say that any debate should ...@MikeR<br />But I don't say that any debate should be shut down. I say that denial is a real phenomenon that afflicts multiple scientific disciplines. I also say that anyone who thinks deniers are engaged in a 'debate' and can be moved by evidence is mistaken if not deluded. That is not how a denier works.<br /><br />Nor do I deny that that there are serious scientific issues that are still being open and discussed (though of course they rarely have anything to do with the headline conclusion about global warming, i.e. that it is happening and seriously risky). I simply say that deniers are not engaged in any such discussion. They are not discussing anything, and their zombie arguments and ideas aren't serious. <br /><br />The existence of this denialist phenomenon across a whole host of scientific issues, and not limited to climate, is not something people are imagining, and it matters. Who could possibly object to there being a word for it?<br /><br />Still I suppose it is to be expected that when there are people who deny the existence of global warming and global warming risks, there will be people who deny the existence of global warming denial too.Frank O'Dwyerhttp://frankodwyer.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-18035863265632354822014-02-23T06:42:21.010+01:002014-02-23T06:42:21.010+01:00@Frank O'Dwyer
The user of the term is an atte...@Frank O'Dwyer<br />The user of the term is an attempt to shut down debate. Of course every cause attracts fools. Any of us see fools who believe in AGW every day on any comment thread, saying all sorts of incompetent unscientific nonsense. That doesn't mean that AGW is nonsense, it means that lots of people don't or can't take the trouble to become competent in the science. The same is true of those on the "skeptical" side. <br /><br />But the use of the term deniers, and especially when someone does what you did and equates it to vaccine denial, etc., is an attempt to deny that there are serious scientific issues that are still open and being discussed. That is the point that Victor makes in his presentation: the science is not solid enough to make a clear statement like, We know that CO2 poses a disastrous danger that requires immediate cuts in carbon emission. Some parts of the science are indeed clear, but other critical parts still need a lot of work. It is those who try to pretend otherwise who are denying the science.MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-28292078253155154372014-02-22T22:50:24.039+01:002014-02-22T22:50:24.039+01:00Reiner,
maybe the reason is that from a sceptic p...Reiner,<br /><br />maybe the reason is that from a sceptic perspective those texts seem to be kind of patronizing.<br /><br />Vielleicht fühlt man sich als Skeptiker wie ein Patient auf der Coach des Psychiaters oder wie ein Kind, das bei seinen Eltern einen Ratgeber "Wie gehe ich mit verhaltensauffälligen Kindern um" entdeckt.<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-91265869027969883372014-02-22T18:38:23.165+01:002014-02-22T18:38:23.165+01:00Reiner,
I agree with you that I overreacted in my...Reiner,<br />I agree with you that I overreacted in my previous comment. Which also a symptom of a degenerated debate.<br />Your implication about my frustration does not apply for me, as I also agree that it is not scepticism that prevents eg Obama or Congress to enact more extensive carbon cuts.Karl Kuhnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87098068563628578242014-02-22T17:55:55.320+01:002014-02-22T17:55:55.320+01:00Karl Kuhn, MarkB
I am still suspicious about the ...Karl Kuhn, MarkB<br /><br />I am still suspicious about the level of engagement with Victor's text. Correct me if i am wrong, but you do give the impression that you jump at the "d-word", register your dislike, and develop some diffuse antipathy against Victor's argument. If you would read his piece you would notice at least two things:<br /><br />1 He was speaking at a seminar series on 'climate denialism'. The topic and title was given, and he tried to explain that this kind of framing does not help (yes, he uses the term, sometimes in inverted commas)<br />2 He calls the mainstream 'believer community'. In so doing, he will draw similar ire from this very community which feels insulted by being called 'believers'<br /><br />As we have seen here on this blog many times, it is not easy to find a typology which satisfies the social groups thereby categorized.<br /><br />But maybe your frustration with Victor lies somewhere else, at the core of his argument, that after all, the so-called contrarians (trying to find a 'neutral word...) are remarkably ineffective with regard to policy making. Their role has been exaggerated he says, and maybe this is what you don't like him saying? Perhaps you think that contrarianism is a good cause, and winning?<br />Just asking.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-88138902807623561012014-02-22T17:30:15.784+01:002014-02-22T17:30:15.784+01:00There's absolutely nothing wrong with terms su...There's absolutely nothing wrong with terms such as 'denier' or 'denialist' - as used here, for example:<br /><br />http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040256<br /><br />The parallels between the various types of denier (evolution denial, AIDs denial, vaccine denial, global warming denial, etc etc) are staringly obvious (the tactics, and fallacious reasoning, for example).<br /><br />So no wonder denialists of the climate variety seek to try to exclude such terms from use via concern trolling and borrowing the clothes of political correctness.Frank O'Dwyerhttp://frankodwyer.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-82516432341153919832014-02-22T15:54:49.525+01:002014-02-22T15:54:49.525+01:00Yes, MarkB, you are right. And meanwhile, "cl...Yes, MarkB, you are right. And meanwhile, "climate scientists" keep improving their denialism of past climate and cooling the past in order to magnifize the warming trend due to the last 17+ years of hiatusHeber Rizzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04793498789901743769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-27948055724729456612014-02-22T00:07:30.615+01:002014-02-22T00:07:30.615+01:00Reading Victors article has induced a rant, apolog...Reading Victors article has induced a rant, apologies up front.<br />The article is deeply insulting, from one side of his mouth he is asking for a moratorium on the word deniers and from the other then proceeds to use the word prominently throughout his "lecture"; along with a number of variants, for effect, such as, denier ecosystem, in the shoes of a denier, "we need to learn to live with denialists they are not going away".<br /><br />A message for Doug, first stop comparing people to holocaust deniers, who's main gripe is how over sold AGW has been by the press and politicians to sell awful policy prescriptions. Secondly apply equal standards to those hyping and overselling the science such .<br />Thirdly apply your own issued guidelines to onesself.<br /><br /> If for nothing else just to retain consistency in your arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-83820354317021846402014-02-21T18:40:19.044+01:002014-02-21T18:40:19.044+01:00"three categories of 'denialists': sh..."three categories of 'denialists': shills, skeptics, and hobbyists..." <br /><br />So we have a reasoned discussion of people the author disagrees with, and he classifies them as either nefarious, deluded or incompetent. And it doesn't understand why he's losing the debate? MarkBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-23839000714639256772014-02-21T18:27:50.192+01:002014-02-21T18:27:50.192+01:00...there are a lot of open questions in climate sc...<i>...there are a lot of open questions in climate science. Questions which alarmists like Michael Mann or Gavin Schmidt try to hide in public....</i><br /><br />That is a really important comment.<br /><br />Few people have the time and skill to assess all the relevant scientific papers which are published. Few researchers read ALL of them. So most people make up their minds on a 'gut feeling'.<br /><br />If a salesman comes to your house selling a new vacuum cleaner, and you ask him about the cleaning power, and he refuses to answer, talking about its pretty colour instead, most people would respond by thinking that there was something wrong with the cleaner. Even more so if he then accused you of wanting a dirty house because you are not interested in his cleaner.<br /><br />This is what is happening in Climate Change. There is no need for complex sociological consideration. Climate scientists are not responding to valid questions, and attacking the questioner. That's REALLY BAD salesmanship. The public may not be technical experts, but they can spot a dodgy salesman immediately. Dodgy Geezernoreply@blogger.com