Are There Subspecies of Climate Skeptics?
A reader wonders if there are two different breeds of climate skeptic–the political/ideological variant in the U.S.–where the climate debate resembles a caged match, and the more rational-minded species in Europe:
From what I gather, there really are people in the U.S who don’t believe in the greenhouse concept or the radiative properties of Co2, or that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide would have some effect on the temperature of the atmosphere. Maybe now the over-use of the term “˜denier’ makes more sense”¦
I know this doesn’t apply to everybody, but I think sceptics in Europe are sceptical about the predictions of catastrophic rises, consequences, or the cost-effectiveness of mitigation. I.e. they are extremely sensible people
In other words, are American climate skeptics bat-shit crazy, and their European cousins the sane ones?
I can only speak for the skeptics in the Netherlands, and most of them are of the US variety. Some are a bit more sophisticated (copying the screenplay from overseas in an effort to become the Dutch Watts or McKitrick). There are only one or two well-meaning skeptics, who are just old and contrarian.
The range of skepticism in the US is quite broad. Of course we have people who believe/don’t believe in almost anything.
In the US the ‘energy security’ discussion is more complicated.
We have plenty of coal, plenty of gas and still manage to produce 1/2 of our oil domestically.
I don’t think there is a major European country that is self sufficient in coal and gas.
I think most people will readily accept any excuse to resort to protectionism/nationalism as long as it doesn’t cost too much.
The subspecies exist certainly but I don’t think there’s a good US/European divide. The “batshit crazy” variety is much more prominent in the US and most worryingly in elected federal government positions but is also present in the UK, Ireland and Australia.
“In other words, are American climate skeptics bat-shit crazy, and their European cousins the sane ones?”
In all honesty, they aren’t that different in their confidence that climate change isn’t something to worry about much. In order to assume the risk, they must be certain of it.
Hi Keith
James Painter at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford recently published a report (online here) that defines a few different subspecies of skeptics (or sceptics as we call them on this side of the pond).
All the best
Mike
James Painter’s study also examines the prevelance (rather the lack of) sceptical voices in the media in France, China, India and Brazil — as compared with the UK and USA.
The ‘pseudo-rationalists’ are on the rise.
Anteros is a good example. They make a pretence of reason (‘look, we accept the GH effect; GAT is rising; anthropogenic CO2 has SOME effect’ etc) but of course reject the need to actually do anything constructive in response.
It’s the casual departure from the scientific mainstream heralded by ‘CO2 has SOME effect’ that sets the bells ringing. Question the basis for the pseudo-rationalists’ universal assumption of a low climate sensitivity and you end up with Lindzen and Spencer or just evasion and bluster and waffle and sometimes outright lies.
The appearance of scientifically informed rationality is a very convenient camouflage for ignorance, intellectual laziness and occasionally, politically-motivated disinformation.
Actually, a Watts or a McI will throw at you (or at least host on their site) pseudo arguments re the AGW effect being fictitious, the AGW effect being true but the Hockey Stick a Lie, the Hockey Stick being true but the temperature has been falling the last ten years, or the hockey stick being true but the economic consequences of AGW are trivial. And etc. Depends on the audience. Who knows which of these they really believe, or whether they are capable of believing them all at once.
All US climate change skeptics are anti-science crazy, just like all US citizens tote guns….are obese…..thump bibles…..enjoy oppressing minorities…..speak only one language (well that one is pretty damn accurate)……it’s a long list!
KK –
Just one tiny complaint. You left off the 😉 at the end of this quote –
“I.e. they are extremely sensible people ;)”
Which makes my contention seem even more provocatively polarising than I intended…
Keith,
If this was a bait to invite maximum number of alarmist trolls to spread their shit on the same thread then congratulations.
But you know the answer perfectly well, don’t you?
#8 BigCityLib
a Watts or a McI will throw
Actually, Steve McIntyre recommended Science of Doom as a good primer on radiative physics quite some time ago..
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/scienceofdoom-com/
This comment from Steve should give you some insight into his thinking –
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/scienceofdoom-com/#comment-229164
Steve: Lindzen doesn’t contest the first-order CO2 effect. The downwelling spectra are things that I think IPCC should have shown to deal with the “just a trace gas” argument. The $64 issue comes with clouds and feedback and it will be interesting to see how that goes. This has been the big question since Charney. In my opinion, IPCC should have very large sections, even chapters, on the most important scientific issue, rather than the relatively thin gruel that AR4 offered.
Does anyone in the Climate Community believe they have clouds ‘right’?
Dessler has taken a couple of stabs at finding a statistical correlation between clouds and temperature as has Spencer, each coming to opposite conclusions. It is hardly an area where ‘the science is settled’. If it was settled my local weather person wouldn’t be giving me ‘odds’ on whether or not it is going to rain today.
There is a whole gradient of skeptics in the US.
Some don’t believe in the CO2 warming effect.
Some accept CO2 warming (direct), but not the amplification warming (indirect).
Some merely quibble over the estimated temperature increases or sea level increases.
Some accept CO2 warming, but wonder if the current warming is due to natural variation (in other words it was as warm in the recent past, when CO2 was low – so maybe the current warming is caused by whatever made it warm before).
I myself accept the direct warming increase (about 1.2 degrees C), but question the indirect warming projections (the other approximately 1.8C). I also know that we don’t understand a great deal about the climate, and our estimates come with very very large error bars.
So the answer to the question is YES, but there are more than two subspecies.
…and all this time I thought Wall Street was the epicenter and citadel of hypocrisy:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/tim-barnett-on-the-hockey-stick-statistics-were-suspectthe-rest-of-the-team-knew-of-problems-with-manns-reconstruction/
Per Neven.
Most climate skeptics in the Dutch speaking world focus more on namecalling than doing actual science.
And Belgium’s best know sceptic believes the government is spraying us with biological/chemicals agents.
What a ridiculous post.
Keith, how many posters on your forum are arguing whether the earth is warming? or whether humans have at least some responsibility?
This is simply painting with the “anti-science tea partiers are morons” brush that you wish was true, it would make your job much easier to discredit this view.
The other side can paint with the “paranoid alarmist’s catastrophe is absolutely certain and imminent” brush.
Arguing against caricatures of the opposition is standard practice in this debate, and accomplishes nothing but allowing people to vent.
The real debate is what is the CO2 sensitivity, and how and when are climate models going to be reliable enough to trust?
Notably there are very few posts concerning the core issues here, it seems more like a unicorn hunt for the silver bullet to change everyone tomorrow.
The unfortunate reality is that we simply cannot get the answers we need until we have decades of more data. This is not a sprint as climate campaigners wish it to be, it is a marathon.
I believe I hold the majority viewpoint amongst sceptics, and that can be summarised as:
1. Saying GW in the 20th century is false is batshit craziness type 1.
2. Conversely, saying that there was GW in the 20th century is uncontroversial.
3. Saying there was possibly some AGW in the 20th century is a plausible hypothesis. It may have been due globally to increases in CO2, and more locally due to land use changes. We do not know to what extent natural variation might also have had an influence; indeed, might predominate.
4. Saying there’s definitely been CAGW in the 20th/21st century and that it will get worse as CO2 emissions increase, based on evidence so far (and general lack of knowledge), is batshit craziness type 4.
The batshit crazy types 1 and 4 seem to be quite noisy in the political arena either side of the pond, but type 4 craziness is politically correct and has by far the greater influence and power of the two. People holding to 2 and 3 strive to be heard and understood, but tend to be lumped in with those in category 1.
The battle then is projected by batshit crazy 4’s as one against batshit crazy 1’s. This is not helped by the fact that the former insist on using the imprecise and effectively meaningless terminology “climate change”. It’s pointless asking a typical sceptic like me whether I accept climate change; it’s an exercise in Newspeak that I refuse to engage in. My position is made clear above: speak to me not of climate change.
I often wonder whether a significant factor is the relative importance of Christianity in the USA vs. Europe and other Westernised countries. Christianity provides a rationale for faith-based morality, but even though it has declined in importance in parts of Europe and other Westernised countries (but not so much in the USA), I think people still need to feel they act morally, and have some (albeit secular) faith-based rationale for that.
The nature and source of one’s morality (Christianity or otherwise) will probably affect how one approaches a topic like GW, or evolution, or possibly other contentious scientific topics. I’m not saying that responses will be monolithic, but the frequency distribution of responses may well differ from country to country.
I’m sure there’ll be those in different countries with identical opinions and reasons for holding them. What will mark out the batshit crazy is their lack of tolerance for people holding different views. Unfortunately, regardless of absolute numbers, batshit craziness type 4 has the loudest voice and the deepest pockets. It doesn’t matter if CAGW eventually proves to be correct; the batshit craziness consists in insisting we KNOW it is correct given the current state of the evidence. “Knowing” we are correct when we lack sufficient evidence to say that is nothing new, and we’ll carry on behaving like this until we grow up as a species.
I think Anteros missed the boat when it came to dividing between Euro and the US skeptics. It seems to me that there are many european “skeptics” that are just as BSC (e.g., Claes Johnson, Georg Beck) as any of the US “skeptics”. Even though I know many don’t like the word, I think denier is appropriate for these guys. I do think there is quite a range of different skeptics, form those that deny any GHG effect (the so-called 2nd Lawers) to those that mostly question the poorly supported projections of future effects. Many of the most alarmists (e.g., Trenberth, Romm) would even classify someone such as Roger Pielke Sr. as a skeptic, even though he mostly disagrees with the relative role of CO2 and other GHGs compared to land use changes and points out (propably correctly) that GCM have shown nearly no predictive skill. My thoughts on the state of climate science mostly fall in line with thinking such as Pielke’s.
Please strike “ridiculous post” statement. Too much caffeine this morning.
I think German’s decision to close all its nuclear power plants “bat-shit crazy”. Was that decision sane?
I doubt whether one would have to be “bat-shit crazy” or crazy at all to be sceptical or skeptical or even to think that it is a hoax.
The proportion of first-hand to second-hand evidence of climatic change can be very small. Some do see climatic change with their own eyes, e.g. those with an interest in phenology, and even then only if their local environment is evidently changing.
The media, PR, and politicians seem adapt at describing a world view and have quite a lot of latitude given a populace relying largely on second-hand information. I doubt that it is that difficult to produce a variety of convincing and divergent world views that are internally self-consistent and rational. When people are living out different realities it does not mean they are crazy. Perhaps one can infer that the other lot are crazy.
Sometimes the debate seems to focus on the way each pole characterises the others advocates. The other being a bunch of alarmists doom-mongers or fossil fuel funded pundits. The shrills versus the shills.
I can speak for myself and say that I have found that much of what I beleive to be the case in areas that are of interest to me, based on the general media coverage, is either not quite the case, bogus, or indeterminate given a few hours or weeks of digging around. A lot of that is due to the effect of the internet and the piles of information, good, bad and indifferent that it contains. I can pardon myself for coming to the conclusion that I have but a weak grip on any reality other than mine own. Unfortunately for me, it seems that it is the important stuff that is dubious.
I may be terminally paranoid or perhaps people are fabricating myths and doing so for reasons I suspect are not in my best interest but theirs. Given the wide ranging differences of opinion or fact, or fact posing as opinion, in all things climatic, I have a choice of sometimes more, sometimes less plausible realities to pick from.
Picking a plausible reality, is something muh facilitated by the internet and the modern media in general. I can sort of remember when there was a notion of a common reality and those with incompatible views were bonkers. In hindsight some, perhaps much, of that common reality was delinquent, bias, propaganda, spin. To that degree the narrative was myth or simply mistaken and overturned by freshly discovered information.
If others are at all like me, they may be becoming increasingly sceptical or skeptical of anything relating to things that matter, the important stuff. Given conflicting information half of it has to be wrong but on inspection the half that I think should be correct isn’t really true either.
I read the odd discussion concerning how to improve the narrative, or framing and such, in order to get the point (which is not necessarily the truth, whatever that means) over in a more convincing fashion. I think they may have missed something. The information (and propaganda) age has moved on and it is not about narratives and frames anymore. Reality is giving way to the shopping experience and becoming pick-and-mix.
I don’t think there is any thing special about the climate change debate, pick another subject and you may find that people don’t just fall into two camps but are dotted around the field, each with their own snip bits of information, woven into a rational scheme that may make sense to them but not to others.
It is my personal view, that all who wish to make the case for action on emissions would be better advised to put convincing people as to “the truth” onto the back burner and figure out how to build a coalition. I may have the most wacky of notions and may be a complete loon and disagree with almost anyone on anything yet be amenable to doing something, a little, or a lot about emissions provided I am allowed to be sceptical of anything or everything else.
Sometimes it feels like the “planet is only worth saving” if done for the “right” reasons, with the “correct” motives, by those who “believe” in the “cause”. Well, Bollox to that!
Alex
Keith Kloor –
As a somewhat academic observation I can see how even the slightest selectivity in quotation can change the emphasis – and therefore the meaning – of a passage of writing.
Obviously, if you want to provoke some tribal reactions you aren’t going to want to quote me saying –
“I know this doesn’t apply to everybody…”
or that –
“I think I can see that ‘sceptic/skeptic‘ is generally used...”
And that –
“In the States ‘sceptic might be used…”
If you did, it might be a bit of a stretch to say “In other words, are American climate skeptics bat-shit crazy?”
It makes less of a polarised statement, but is obviously closer to the original meaning.
In case it seems like over-sensitivity, I understand the reasoning and don’t have a problem with it.
However, I think you could have framed the question to elicit much more interesting responses about any possible differences in scepticism either side of the Atlantic. Perhaps also, there’s an even more interesting question of how people see other’s positions in the debate – in the way you did about attitudes to ‘the middle’.
If you felt I was gratuitously Yank-bashing, I apologise!
@ 14
Not exactly on topic, but a good collection of quotes anyway. I found I Ed Cook’s contribution most illuminating.
@ Michael Larkin (16)
I’m not sure how many people have so much stake in the GW vs. climate change faux dilemma. Clearly, GW as expressed in the growth of mean temp in 20-th century involved more than just that. Regional temperature changes are far from uniform, the precipitation patterns have also changed, and it’s also part of the climate, whether you like it or not. The term “climate changed” has existed for much longer than some people believe. It shouldn’t be hard to confirm that major universities offered classes in CC (not GW!) at least as early as 1990.
@ Alex Harvey (20)
>I doubt whether one would have to be “bat-shit crazy” or crazy at all to be sceptical or skeptical or even to think that it is a hoax.
Technically not. It is probably enough to believe Rush and ignore everything else. But for someone who actually made a bit of an effort to look into evidence and think I’d diagnose BSC.
Michael Larkin @ 17
I agree with you. It is also true that the B-S crazies in 1 and 4 are also going to be the loudest, the most vehement, the most combative and probably the most closed minded. To be in group 2 or 3 means being able to live with some uncertainty but means that B-S crazies will see you as their opposite number, so you’ll get abuse from both sides.
Perhaps what I’m seeing is that people [everywhere] have a very varied use of ‘sceptic’. It can basically be used by everybody except those at Romm’s end of the spectrum but from there everybody else looks the same [and gets lumped together].
Anteros – apology accepted since it did come across as US bashing. Glad you saw the light before I had to keep listing names (monckton, milcolsevic…..). And I agree that different people define skeptic differently. Those such as Romm call anyone who doesn’t toe the entire party line as a skeptic or worse. Morano and his ilk would probably include anyone, even those that deny the CO2 has radiative properties or that there has been some overall warming over the past century (i.e., BSC group 1 as per michael Larkin)
Just a reminder of how loopy some people are:
Keith
If this was a bait to invite maximum number of alarmist trolls to spread their shit on the same thread then congratulations.
Thanks to Sashka for that insight.
BobN –
I’d forgotten about Moncton – and I’d have had trouble claiming he has some American ancestry given his accent…. Delingpole too..
Somebody is being an extremely simplistic troll with this meaningless blog.
Michael Mann is getting good reviews at WSJ for his response to James Delingpole’s piece there.
@ 30
Really? That’s strange given that he lied in the very first sentence.
@ 31
Just the first sentence?
“are American climate skeptics bat-shit crazy, and their European cousins the sane ones?”
A blog post that contains the words “bat-shit crazy” can’t lead to anything worthwhile. Thus, it’s against my better judgment that I comment at all.
But I cannot resist asking whether Keith has ever heard of Lord Monkton.
@ 31
I wouldn’t know. I have a habit of not reading anything that begins with a lie.
#14 Thanks for alerting us to this collection of E-mails.
Many mentions of Mann splicing the instrumental record to the proxy record. I’m shocked. Shocked!
Every point admitted by these “scientists” was discovered by Steve M after years of painstaking detective work. Yet in public they savaged him. What liars.
@ 34
You won’t be surprised that you didn’t miss much – usual embarrassing rubbish about his reputation and anti-science ‘deniers’. And something a bit hilarious about how his Hockey stick was totally vindicated by ‘independent’ studies.
Perhaps there are also subspecies of proponents for cAGW. I have many friends who are absolutely clueless as to the science yet are vociferously campaigning against fossil fuels because they are convinced that the elimination of CO2 will somehow lead to a wonderfully egalitarian new world. Anecdotally, at a coffee ship I struck up a conversation with a young woman who was ardently studying mathematical equations from a textbook. She told me that after a lifetime of performing music and art she had decided to go into electrical engineering. Why. “To change the world” (through alternative energy).
The majority of people on BOTH sides of the debate are best described by Stalin’s quote as Useful Idiots… good to keep the drum beat going and the masses swayed.
Best to look past the idiots on both sides.
# 38 – As I recall it was Lenin’s quote. Not that it really matters to your point.
The Stalin era word that seems most relevant here is Lysenkoism.
Hot off the press
Report: Global Warming May Be Irreversible By 2006
StuartR @39:
Very funny!
Actually it has been irreversible since 12000 years ago.
Since then we have warmed at least 3C and the sea level has risen 120 meters!
It sure is hard to separate out the warming of the last century from the warming of the last 12,000 years.
It sure is hard to separate out the warming of the last century from the warming of the last 12,000 years.
Not really. The Holocene was initiated by the 100ky Milankovitch cycle. Ocean thermal inertia delayed peak warmth until the Holocene Thermal Maximum. GAT has fallen discontinuously for the last 6ka. C20th warming – especially post-1950 – is mainly AGW.
There’s a broad spectrum of skeptics, on both sides of the Atlantic. Some are ridiculous, others are very intelligent. That is why they are so difficult to deal with. Generalisations like “skeptics claim…” are usually not valid. Smilarly with the AGW believers there is a spectrum from the loony wing to the perfectly sensible.
Charles (42)
I agree with what you say. Here’s the thing: skeptics (of all variety) group pro-AGW people into one category, just as pro-AGW similarly do the same with climate skeptics.
Neither side has the high ground.
And because the shrillest voices at the extremes dominate the debate, they establish the parameters for discussion.
This is really all I’ve been trying to say in many different posts.
Keith what is one supposed to do if the evidence warrants a ‘shrill’ response? Perhaps this belongs on your latest post.
> skeptics (of all variety) group pro-AGW people into one category
This is very untrue.
KK @43
I agree, and for that reason [the lumping together] there usually appears to be nobody in the ‘middle’ – apart from ourselves.
I think it is uncomfortable for us to see ‘reasonable’ or ‘moderate’ people who don’t agree with us – so we push them out to the extremes.
Anteros
This ‘middle’ you refer to is the belief (unsupported by best current understanding) in a low climate sensitivity.
It’s a misconception (or wilful misinterpretation) of the scientific mainstream view. Not some sort of valid, reasonable middle ground.
Keith #43, good point about the shrillest voicest dominating the debate.
Everyone needs to be aware of this.
Skeptics need to be aware (and keep reminding themseleves) that most climate scientists are not dishonest cheating decline-hiders.
And AGWbelievers need to keep in mind that most skeptics are not ‘bat-shit crazy’ right-wing science deniers.
@ charles
> good point about the shrillest voicest dominating the debate
Is it really? What debate are you talking about then? Surely, what happens at Romm’s or at Morano’s is not a part of a debate. These are just the echo chambers. I doubt that there are more than a handful of people who visit both places (generally: both ends of the spectrum) and that’s only because they need to grab juicy quotes.
So where does the real debate take place?
Sashka
What debate?
We’ve got ample evidence that increasing RF from anthropogenic CO2 emissions is causing energy to accumulate in the climate system, and numerous studies pointing to a climate sensitivity of ~ 3C.
The only thing left to talk about is why nuclear is vastly superior to renewables for baseload, and therefore the only logical choice for displacing coal from the global energy mix (as far as it can be, at any rate).