As an atheist, a liberal, a biological scientist, and an anti-catastrophist, I resent the writer’s implication that I must an uneducated, bible-thumping rube if I disagree with the unproven claims of radical climate scientists and the ecofreak party line. Stop categorizing people and examine your own beliefs please. I once bought all this hooey, but upon closer examination prompted by my respect for Dr. Michael Chrichton (a former scientist himself, not just a scifi wrighter), I find the scientific evidence wanting. There are now many other credentialed scientists who share my skepticism.
” if I disagree with the unproven claims of radical climate scientists and the ecofreak party line.I must an uneducated, bible-thumping rube if I disagree with the unproven claims of radical climate scientists and the ecofreak party line.”
Strawman. The writer didn’t imply that you were those things. Indeed, he spent considerable time explaining and citing sources, that indicate that ‘skepticism’ has multiple influences beyond religion and education level — it involves a whole ‘worldview’; he even explicity held out the case where high level of education was accompanied by skepticism of climate science.
Nor did he make any mention of ‘catastrophes’.. that’s your rhetoric (and Michael Crichton’s), not his.
No catastrophe? No problem.
The point is that it is perfectly reasonable to reject the consensus view based on science alone. One doesn’t need to have a particular “world view”, fear of taxes, religion, poor education, whatever. While there may be many who reject science based on those characteristics, there are many of us who question certain scientific claims for valid scientific and logical reasons.
The clue is in Keith’s headline… What always gets washed out in these kinds of articles about positions on AGW being tied to ‘world views’ is that a great many people were once believers in catastrophic GW and are now skeptical. There is no room to account for that with a purely ‘world view’ explanation. The reality of this is forgotten time and time again, or it is simply not understood what is actually going on here.
But it’s not hard to understand. What you have is simply a growing number of people who are actually interested in environmental issues who through education and involvement in these issues, start to become unconvinced by the fire and brimstone rhetoric coming over from the CAGW side. Of course, the same thing might also be happening in the reverse direction… from scepticism to climate concerned. But it proves the same thing. It’s not about ‘world view’. It’s about engagement with a series of scientific arguments.
People who insist on these categories or who like to imply that people are incapable of changing their minds due to facts alone, are way behind the curve on this…
Additionally why is it that so many of the CAGW advocates care so much about the future poor, rather than the poor now..
Especially as so many of the things that could help the poor now, would help them mitigate/adapt spould CAGW be true. Or, if not just protect them form the noraml droughts/floods/hurricanes/monsoons, etc
The resoning seems to be that we must focuss on emmission. Doing anything else, is to drop the ball with respect to CO2. more than one regular here seems to have similar thoughts – no names 😉
LOL!
As an atheist, a liberal, a biological scientist, and an anti-catastrophist, I resent the writer’s implication that I must an uneducated, bible-thumping rube if I disagree with the unproven claims of radical climate scientists and the ecofreak party line. Stop categorizing people and examine your own beliefs please. I once bought all this hooey, but upon closer examination prompted by my respect for Dr. Michael Chrichton (a former scientist himself, not just a scifi wrighter), I find the scientific evidence wanting. There are now many other credentialed scientists who share my skepticism.
“wrighter”? – I’m over educated, just can’t spell.
” if I disagree with the unproven claims of radical climate scientists and the ecofreak party line.I must an uneducated, bible-thumping rube if I disagree with the unproven claims of radical climate scientists and the ecofreak party line.”
Strawman. The writer didn’t imply that you were those things. Indeed, he spent considerable time explaining and citing sources, that indicate that ‘skepticism’ has multiple influences beyond religion and education level — it involves a whole ‘worldview’; he even explicity held out the case where high level of education was accompanied by skepticism of climate science.
Nor did he make any mention of ‘catastrophes’.. that’s your rhetoric (and Michael Crichton’s), not his.
No catastrophe? No problem.
The point is that it is perfectly reasonable to reject the consensus view based on science alone. One doesn’t need to have a particular “world view”, fear of taxes, religion, poor education, whatever. While there may be many who reject science based on those characteristics, there are many of us who question certain scientific claims for valid scientific and logical reasons.
The clue is in Keith’s headline… What always gets washed out in these kinds of articles about positions on AGW being tied to ‘world views’ is that a great many people were once believers in catastrophic GW and are now skeptical. There is no room to account for that with a purely ‘world view’ explanation. The reality of this is forgotten time and time again, or it is simply not understood what is actually going on here.
But it’s not hard to understand. What you have is simply a growing number of people who are actually interested in environmental issues who through education and involvement in these issues, start to become unconvinced by the fire and brimstone rhetoric coming over from the CAGW side. Of course, the same thing might also be happening in the reverse direction… from scepticism to climate concerned. But it proves the same thing. It’s not about ‘world view’. It’s about engagement with a series of scientific arguments.
People who insist on these categories or who like to imply that people are incapable of changing their minds due to facts alone, are way behind the curve on this…
Additionally why is it that so many of the CAGW advocates care so much about the future poor, rather than the poor now..
Especially as so many of the things that could help the poor now, would help them mitigate/adapt spould CAGW be true. Or, if not just protect them form the noraml droughts/floods/hurricanes/monsoons, etc
The resoning seems to be that we must focuss on emmission. Doing anything else, is to drop the ball with respect to CO2. more than one regular here seems to have similar thoughts – no names 😉
This is the distinct impression I got from Sir John Houghton, last year:
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/is-the-road-to-green-hell-paved-with-good-intentions/
sorry to self reference again, safes me making lots of rushed typos’ here 😉
an example (seen mentioned at C a S) of ‘don’t let the Perfect be the enemy of good’ a surgeons analogy I believe.
I believe in the theory of AGW, the actual impact into the climate is just unknown, and would appear to be very much on the lower end (or lower) than IPCC ‘projections’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/simple-physics-in-reality-my-feather-blew-up-into-a-tree/