Clive Hamilton wrote a piece for Crikey earlier this week in which he likened those who deny climate change to those who deny the Holocaust. He said:
We think of Holocaust deniers as being immoral because we suspect them of being motivated by anti-Semitism or a desire for political advancement through stirring up racial hatred.
We think of climate deniers as being immoral because we suspect them of being motivated, not by truth-seeking, but by political goals, a desire for funds from fossil-fuel companies or personal aggrandisement.
Now, I’ve gone on record as saying that I have no time for Hamilton, and this piece just confirms my low opinion.
Sinclair Davidson wrote in Crikey (ungated version here):
The challenge for Clive Hamilton is to explain how an argument over appropriate policy for the future is equivalent to the Holocaust, where millions of people were deliberately put to death. Hamilton can make as many fancy-pants arguments he likes about consequentialism and what-not. To equate climate change scepticism…with the Holocaust is the mark of a moral dwarf.
I agree with Davidson wholeheartedly. (Isn’t “moral dwarf” a lovely insult? I must save it up for the future…)
The distinction between the Holocaust or Shoah and climate change is very simple. The former has happened, and has resulted in the deaths of millions of people. The second is still under debate, and has not resulted in the deaths of millions of people yet. The notion of climate change is that global temperatures are rising because of the greater release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by human beings, and that certain things will result from this. But the important thing is that the events which have been predicted by the IPCC have not yet happened. They represent a scientific hypothesis.
Yet again I feel irritated about the lack of understanding as to scientific hypotheses, and want to jump up and down about Karl Popper and falsifiability. You can’t ever say in science that something is definitely going to happen. All you can say is that, on the available evidence before you, it seems likely that a certain result will occur. But if further evidence comes to light, then this may disprove the hypothesis. It may be very unlikely that the hypothesis be disproved, but it can still happen, particularly when the predicted occurrences are very far-ranging and subject to a large number of variables. This is why it is important to keep your mind open to all possibilities in science, even unlikely ones. I don’t actually know whether anthropogenic climate change is happening or not – but I certainly want us to keep testing the hypothesis and think very carefully about what the responses should be.
By contrast, the Shoah is an entirely different thing. It is something that happened in the past, not something that is predicted in the future. I am generally pro-freedom of speech, but the one thing that really challenges my principles in that regard is anti-Semitism. My fingers itch to hit the “ban free speech” button on this topic.
Holocaust denialism has taken on a new life since the Israel-Palestine dispute. The idea is that the Holocaust is a “made up” event designed to engender sympathy, and the implication is that the UN granted Israel to the Jews on false premises. Holocaust denial is simply vile. It is a fact that millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents, trade unionists, communists and others were killed in concentration camps. To say that they were not is appalling. Furthermore, as Davidson points out, the killing in the Shoah was deliberate, and the victims often suffered cruelly before death.
The point is that there is masses of empirical evidence to prove that the Holocaust occurred. Now, I know that empirical evidence is not fashionable these days, but as a lawyer, I tend to think that it’s important to be able to back up one’s facts with evidence. By contrast, one cannot look back into the past in the same way at climate change. It is something which may occur in the future. It is simply a prediction. It may be a convincing prediction or a well-backed-up prediction, but we cannot yet say what the consequences will be on a practical level. Any predictions are by their very nature speculative.
There cannot be a moral equivalence between denying something terrible which has already happened and something terrible that may happen in the future. In fact, it’s important to question scientific hypotheses, and to question what the economic, social and moral responses should be to a predicted future event.
Further, there cannot be a moral equivalence when the historical occurrence involved deliberately killing, imprisoning and torturing millions of people simply because of their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or politics. It shows that Hamilton really doesn’t understand the deliberate nature of what occurred in the Holocaust. It’s a cheap shot which smacks of “Godwin’s Law“.
Update:
In a heated discussion on Facebook, I have realised what my fundamental problem with Hamilton’s piece is. Painting someone as akin to an apologist for fascist killers is not the way to persuade that person of the error of their ways. Nor will you get very far if you display a patronising and arrogant attitude towards those who think differently to you. All that will do is perhaps stop the person from expressing their opinion in public. Oh yes, I forget, that’s what Hamilton wants to do…
Hamilton has a history of wanting to suppress freedom of speech, which is one of the reasons why he’s unpopular in the blogosphere. At base, that is what the point of this post is. In a piece such as this, his aim is to yet again prevent people from expressing views which are different from his.
51 Comments
SL
Too right on Hairshirt’s inability to see the difference between the stygian reality of what has already actually happened and the rainbow of future predictions.
I made a decision years ago not to bother with the topic of AGW on blogs (as I detect have many here), but one very interesting stat is that since 2004, public belief in a hell of a lot of countries (including Australia, US, UK) has declined dramatically and unremittingly in what is allegedly the unwavering homogeneous consensus of the real live reality of the 176,978,234 claims attending the AGW thesis and the “scientists” who make up this consensus. Similarly, demand for “urgent government action” has also declined as has “climate change” on a ranking of public policy priorities.
I wonder why 2004 produced such a spike of fear, and then why it has sloped off since?
Jayjee, ’twas actually me (LE) who wrote this one – one of the reasons why I don’t really fit into a pigeonhole is because I don’t follow the “leftist creed” on this one. I’ve decided to “out” a few of my more controversial views lately.
Yes, I generally avoid AGW too (after a few run ins on the blog in early days when blogging by myself). It’s actually not worth arguing about whether it’s happening or not. The arguments get so passionate on either side that it’s almost like religious belief. If anything, I’m an agnostic on the question. I am just not sure what is happening or what is causing it, and for that reason, I think we should tread very, very carefully before taking any really drastic actions.
One thing I don’t like is scare-tactics. Decisions based on fear are usually poor ones. Another thing I don’t like is people trying to suppress dissent, which is what Hamilton is doing here (following KRudd’s lead).
Somebody failed set theory and logic 101.
I have no time for Hamilton but Davidson is no better, so you’ve damaged your credibility by associating yourself with him.
One of Davidson’s favourite party tricks is to bang on about the “Great DDT Hoax” and how it has killed millions of African babies and how anybody who suggests otherwise is a baby killin’ holocaust denier. I guess the difference is that we expect so little of those of a libertarian bent (SL excepted of course!).
Mel, I think that is totally unfair. I shouldn’t cite a logical well-written article because the author has another opinion with which you disagree? As far as I know, I don’t think Davidson has written much about DDT – I thought that was more of a stoush between J.F. Beck and Tim Lambert.
I like Sinclair Davidson’s writing, even though I don’t always agree with his opinions. He is clear and I’d say he’d be an exceptional economics teacher. You should know enough about me to know that I never discount someone’s opinions just because I disagree with them on some point. I’d say the same of Hamilton – if he wrote something which was well-argued and logical, I’d be happy to agree with him. Pity he hasn’t managed it yet.
Having heard Sinclair Davidson talk on economics, yes he is very clear in explaining economics.
The thing about trying to do Holocaust moral equivalence Hamilton-style, is it makes your cause Really Really Important and the those disagreeing Really Really Evil. It is moral grandstanding of the worst sort.
What is your view on the current science? “I don’t actually know whether anthropogenic climate change is happening or not” but “All you can say is that, on the available evidence before you, it seems likely that a certain result will occur”. What does the available evidence point to? If you had to make decision at Copenhagen, what would you do?
Hey Mel, be sure to tell LE that you refer to Jews as ‘oven boy’.
[ADMIN: Okay, OTT, but then so was the earlier comment. Break it up, fellas].
Kevin, to be honest, I don’t really think I’m qualified to debate the science. I am not a statistician or a climatologist. I am the child of two scientists, and married to a scientist, but that does not a scientist make…
What I would do in Copenhagen depends in large part on which country I represented, and what all the other countries decide to do, including especially the US, the EU, China, India and South East Asia generally.
Australia is a relatively small player in all of this. Despite our idea that we are prominent on the world stage, we don’t actually have much influence other than in Oceania. The main stories which feature in international newspapers about Australia are stories about sharks, spiders, bushfires and floods.
Therefore, given the fact that the practical impact of us cutting emissions will be minimal if no one else does it, I think we should be careful about making a lone grand gesture because it may well go unnoticed. And it’s likely to stuff up our economy in the process. However, if other larger more influential countries do agree on certain measures, it could be prudent to follow suit. So my answer is: it all depends.
Actually, I feel that it’s premature to be making any kind of final decisions on what should be done. I feel like more information and research is needed.
I’d also support looking into options of how deleterious effects of global warming could be mitigated in the event that we can’t stop the process itself, even despite carbon sequestration etc.
And I’d support a lot more investigation into different fuel sources. My husband did his PhD on fuel cells, and the sad thing is that despite all the rhetoric, no one was prepared to to fund the continuation of the research in Australia.
Moral dwarf is a pretty funny and accurate description of Hives.
I simply can’t stand him. Even the mention of his nation gets me upset. He is the worst, moralizing, sermonizing poseur I’ve ever read. Even readers at the left wing Crikey, which gives the dickhead pixel space, don’t seem to like him either.
I would go close to arguing that Hamilton is perhaps one of the most unpopular people in the country.
The only reason he wanted to control the web is because of the amount of criticism and abuse he receives from all quarters.
LE
The other problem is that much of the general public simply does not trust or respect ‘scientists’ and ‘economists’. And it is precisely these two groups whose arrogance and condescension has reached a crescendo over AGW.
There is just a little irony that manyof these same AGW alarmists were prominent in the union of elites that became increasingly shriller about Australian ‘rednecks’ and ‘racists’ during the Hawke/Keatign years. The disastrous result was a backlash seen in the rise of so-callled ‘Hansonism’, the loss of the Republic referendum and the strut of post-Tampa Howardism.
I fear these same Luvvies have stuffed the AGW issue as well.
The “need more evidence” types seem incredibly arrogant, as they put themselves above every reputable journal and panel on climate change since the 1970s. I wonder if the same level of arrogance would be exhibited in deciding whether action was needed for a medical condition starting to manifest in their child? There’s more cause for “debate” about the dangers or otherwise of second-hand smoke around children and offices than there is about climate change from what can be gleaned from the reputable literature.
As to Hamilton likening climate skeptics/deniers to nazi genocide deniers…. that’s a totally invalid analogy. I cannot think of any mechanism, however dubious, that would put anybody at risk if a few nutters, or even the whole world, had a correct or incorrect belief about the practices of a political regime that has been defunct for over 60 years and remains justifiably odious. If we look at the potential for harm from a disbelief in a nazi genocide program, even if that disbelief was universal, then holocaust deniers must be considered harmless, however stupid they might be.
Waiting for the science to settle on Climate Change is like the doctor waiting for lab results while the patient lies dying on the table.
People who live in Israel and don’t want Iranian nukes dropped on them might dispute that, Dave. Just sayin.
Now this will no doubt turn into an Israel/Palestine thread… time was when an Israel/Palestine thread or a fractional reserve thread signified the end of the world, at least in blog terms. Now I think I’ll award that dubious honour to climate change threads, which bring out the absolute worst in everyone, including, it would appear, the scientists themselves.
What I really don’t want is for this thread to turn into a “climate change IS NOT happening”, “no, climate change IS happening” thread. Ultimately, I find such debates fruitless and annoying. It just ends up getting all nasty and personal, and no one ever ends up changing anyone else’s mind.
I don’t think it’s arrogant to request more information. There’s a whole lot more involved with the whole climate change thing than just the science – there’s economic, moral, political and social concerns, and how best to accommodate all of those things. It’s a balance, and we need to think carefully how to best solve the potential problems which may arise. Why should one stop investigating things? There’s always more to know…that’s the great thing about the world.
Anyway, the question is not whether climate change is happening, but whether comparisons with the Holocaust deniers are valid. I say such comparisons are not valid as a simple matter of logic.
Update:
In a heated discussion on Facebook, I have realised what my fundamental problem with Hamilton’s piece is. Painting someone as akin to an apologist for fascist killers is not the way to persuade that person of the error of their ways. Nor will you get very far if you display a patronising and arrogant attitude towards those who think differently to you. All that will do is perhaps stop the person from expressing their opinion in public. Oh yes, I forget, that’s what Hamilton wants to do…
Hamilton has a history of wanting to suppress freedom of speech, which is one of the reasons why he’s unpopular in the blogosphere. At base, that is what the point of this post is. In a piece such as this, his aim is to yet again prevent people from expressing views which are different from his.
Hmm, I think under Henry Thornton’s analysis, I’m a “climate change worrier”.
“Now I think I’ll award that dubious honour to climate change threads, which bring out the absolute worst in everyone, including, it would appear, the scientists themselves.”
Well yes and no. I can’t help but think of the story of the Oz scientists who discovered stomach ulcers were caused by a bug rather than by stress, poor diet etc.. They were sneered at and ridiculed by many of their colleagues for years for holding such a heretical belief. Similar melodramas play out all the time.
The process of scientific discovery, like every other human endeavour, is at least 50% soap opera.
Good God, now Dirty Davo is reading other people’s private emails: http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/?p=7022
Isn’t this type of activity illegal as well as being a breach of property rights?
Get over it Mel, if you have issues with Sinclair take it up at his site!
And how so ‘yes and no’? I’m confused! Those emails you don’t think Sinclair should be reading seem like a good illustration of the effect of climate change on scientists’ brains, doesn’t it? So yes?
And your example suggest that the idea of a scientific consensus in a poorly-understood area with extremely limited evidence is dangerously silly. I happen to vigorously agree – but doesn’t that argument, in favour of skepticism and criticism, add even more weight to suggestions that climate change brings out the worst in the pro-AGW activists, including scientists, who seem unable to brook any questioning of ‘the science’? So yes and yes?
~ ~ ~
I have no time for anyone who tells me that the world is about to end and it might be too late to do anything. I regard them as positively dangerous when they tell me that I should throw a few trillion at it (and incidentally them) just in case. Bankers are just as much in this group as greenies.
I’d rather go with the Copenhagen consensus than this latest stupid Copenhagen.
– [insert here] delenda est
I am neither a physicist nor any thing else that comes under the completely vague title of “climate scientist”, but I have studied a bit of History and Philosophy of Science. The Likes of Hairshirt would do well to follow suit.
Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend are all extremely accessible and strip any sheen these ninnies think they have when it comes to understanding global warming/climate change/coming ice-age and its implications.
To those people who say, “I trust the scientific consensus” I repeat the above, with the addendum, “now, where is that revolver”?
mel
Yes, I remember a close mate of mine spent a very uncomfortable period during his teenage years and twenties with constant stomach ulcers. He was always dashing out at 2 in the morning to buy milk. He was forever being told it was “stress”. Then one day he wakes up and the doctor says forget the milk, the stress, and the discomfort, just take this pill!
“Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend are all extremely accessible and strip any sheen these ninnies think they have when it comes to understanding global warming/climate change/coming ice-age and its implications.”
I’ve read those three and they do no such thing. What are you on about? You’re not mixing Xanax with booze again tonite by any chance, JG?
Oh crap I appear to be in a bitchy mood today- pls delete my above two comments if they’re deemed unsuitable
Oh dear, philosophy of science. Truth, especially when pleading a lack of expertise or information is pretty irrelevant… we are talking about risk management here and probabilities. (See AS4360, the relevant Australian and the identical international standard for risk management).
Besides, I’d love to see those saying “no strong action is needed now on climate change and ocean acidification”, those who pooh-pooh the consensus of acknowledge experts, would base their decisions for medical treatment (especially for suspicious lumps or chronic conditions that are unlikely to kill in the short term) by exactly the same criteria. Given the correlation between climate do-nothing-yetters and politics (left/right), or even profession (scientists v accountants), I reckon there’d be a significant demographic change for the better.
grammar oops, but you get the idea
Remind me never to get a job at East Anglia… looks like a really toxic workplace culture. I know everyone is going on about how vicious academics are, but let me say this: yes academics can disagree nastily about all manner of things, but I have never (in working at 4 different universities in 3 countries) seen it on this scale. The physical intimidation is the kicker.
SL
it seems that the thuggery is pretty pervasive in that entire field of science. I’m not making any observation about AGW. However it really seems to me that you head over to the other side of the lane and you’ll end up getting your teeth kicked in.
Actually Dave, what knowledge of the history of science teaches you is all about this “consensus” thingy.
Here’s an article in The Australian about the hacking of the University of East Anglia server for those who haven’t heard. Very, very toxic workplace culture. And it links it with Hamilton’s piece – anyone who questions the consensus is seen as “evil” and worthy of exclusion.
See, I don’t think personal views should come into science like that. I think that if you find something which is contrary to your hypothesis, you should investigate it more, not rubbish it or attempt to black ball it. Your hypothesis may still be right – but it will be stronger if you take criticisms into account.
I think Jayjee is right – such a kind of mentality pervades academic thought. You see it in my own field too. Some restitution lawyers and equity lawyers have been very unpleasant to those who question their view of the law. It really disappoints me. I am friends with people who have diametrically opposite views to me on restitution, and I read their articles with interest. Sometimes I find substantial points with which I agree in them.
You learn from taking into account different views. I know I’ve learned a lot from this blog from the very different views of my co-bloggers and commenters. I can’t stand it when people say that you should just hate and ignore those who have different views.
Dave, I don’t get your comment. My objection is not to doing anything – I think people can do what they damn well please – but to paying for it!
In fact, with medicine in general, I believe that we are far too restrictive in our regulation of medical treatment and people should be free to get ‘unsafe’ treatments provided that
a) they make an informed choice, and
b) they pay for it.
I have no problem applying the same standards to global warming.
Nor do I have any problem applying risk management standards. Except, last time I checked, the most comprehensive attempt to do this was the Copenhagen consensus I referred to. I don’t consider the Stern report good risk management practice, rather good organisational theory à la Dilbert (in summary: exaggerate, obfuscate, spread panic, ask for more money to deal with it).
LE: let’s hope that we can ‘get over’ climate change disagreements quicker than the restitution – equity disagreements. What a glum precedent!
– [insert here] delenda est
it seems that the thuggery is pretty pervasive in that entire field of science.
It is not that uncommon. In “The Trouble with Physics” Lee Smolin comments that there was a time when if you weren’t investigating string theory you could have great trouble finding a position in academia. Now it is the opposite.
In the good old days when there were scientists on usenet, those discussions were quite entertaining. For example, on bionet.neuroscience there was one psychotic individual always proclaiming his theories of cerebral organisation. Very clever but mad as a hatter. A Prof of Psych used to refer to him as “psycho boy”.
Economics, just listen to how they argue with each other!
Anthropology and sociology are gold mines of abuse.
In “Opening Skinner’s Box” (Lauren Slater) she states how if you walk onto a Uni campus and mention “Skinner” you will probably be met with hostility. As one behaviorist once told me: the most vocal opponents of behaviorism are those who know least about it. I’ve seen this first hand many times. Can someone please explain to me why so many people in the humanities hate Skinner?
Or take the recent case where it was found that Merck were financing a “peer reviewed biomedical journal” that only published papers supporting its products. Or the recent ruckus regarding the Aus guidelines for ADHD treatment. It was found that one of the authors had undeclared income of 1.5 million dollars from a ADHD drug maker. And that 7 of those on the panel had received money from the relevant drug companies. Which reminds me, which doofus came up with the idea that simply declaring a conflict of interest prevents that conflict of interest influencing one’s judgment? There are multiple examples of drug companies withholding or distorting data on their drugs. Or how about all those researchers and doctors who took money from drug companies in return for putting their name to a paper supporting a product? Dangerous, stupid, and as far as I’m concerned the doctors, scientists and staff involved in this should be sent to Siberia.
At the cutting edge of science, and even down to the handle of the knife, consensus is actually quite rare. The shenigans that occurs is quite appalling. I have no idea how to change that.
John
When I returned to uni as a mature-aged student, my intention was to become a neuroscientist. Having come from careers in banking and management consulting, I had seen up close so, so, soooo many times when analytical principles – valuation models for example – would be bent so far out of shape just to suit whichever way the political wind was blowing on the client’s board of directors. I was looking forward to the integrity, the sincerity of the pursuit of truth and beauty, the camaraderie, and the integrity of academia.
By the end of the first year of my Neuroscience degree, I went “Yikes! These grey-bearded, sartorially-repellent, snarly dorks make the investment bankers and management consultants look like a bee-hive of cooperation. I wondered what role
the 10 to 100-fold difference in income made?
Anyway, I quickly decided. Nope, I ain’t goin’ near no rat-filled lab to pay the rent!
John
Oh, and by the way, when we studied Skinner in first year Psychology, I thought the guy was a genius, and before his time. I have no doubt he was onto some profound insights that would/have/will reveal themselves as we gain the technology to understand the brain more.
LE says:
“See, I don’t think personal views should come into science like that. I think that if you find something which is contrary to your hypothesis, you should investigate it more, not rubbish it or attempt to black ball it. Your hypothesis may still be right – but it will be stronger if you take criticisms into account.”
SL says:
“Remind me never to get a job at East Anglia… looks like a really toxic workplace culture.”
You are both sounding exceptionally silly. The amount of pressure on climate scientists is incredible. Leading scientists in the field can’t do anything without it being picked over and dissected and as this episode shows, their opponents will go to any lengths to try to discredit them; they have a bloody good reason to be a little paranoid and neurotic. No other group of scientists are each and every day accused by influential opinion leaders and a small number of their peers of being one or more of incompetent, dishonest, hoaxers etc etc etc…
Type the name of a prominent climate scientist like “Gavin Schmidt” and the word “fraud” into your browser then have a gander at the venomous links. It’s like Helen Dale being hounded year in year out by one hundred Robert Manne clones.
I once had someone explain to me (after the snark over my book) that the reason the fights in literature were so medieval is because the rewards were so small.
Perhaps the same is true of academia, although that said this does seem to be especially bad, even for academics. I have seen some pretty nasty disagreements in my time, but not on this scale.
Mel, did you really just write that the East Anglia research laboratory is not a toxic workplace because science in general is a toxic field in which to work??
John, you seem to have failed logic 101 when you expected neuroscientists to be ‘nicer’ than corporates and bankers. In general, unpopular bankers don’t have jobs, and same for board directors. These people may in fact be nasty, and may be controlling and manipulative or what have you, but they specialise in interacting with people.
Scientists don’t.
John, you seem to have failed logic 101 when you expected neuroscientists to be ‘nicer’ than corporates and bankers.
I never said that, you must be referring to Jayjee. Jayjee’s comment may relate to the fact that the board has a common interest: wealth creation. Scientists do not necessarily have common interests. Many neuroscientists spend their entire lives study very discrete processes and are not particularly interested in the big ideas of consciousness(red herring), cognition, etc etc. That is, neuroscientists are not on some collective grand enterprise to understand neural function, most are, quite rightly, still engaged in butterfly collecting.
Jayjee’s expectations have nothing to do with logic. It is a common apprehension that scientists are engaged in the “objective pursuit of the truth”. Laughable, as a great many people have learned when they look into what really happens in science, they begin to realise it is not that different from many other areas of human endeavour. It is definitely good at establishing useful information but it is still be done by human beings.
Spare me the cheap shots, I can return the same in spades.
mel
I have no idea who/what is/isn’t a “climate scientist”. I have read/heard just far too many professors, Nobel Prize winners even, in Physics, Geology, astronomy, Applied Math, Statistics, Economics, and on and on trashed because “they are not ‘climate scientists’. Most of the trashing ironically coming from sociologists, cutural studies, and marxist/leftist economist types!
Mel
Gavin Schmidt has no formal training in atmospheric science.
I’ve probably jumped onto this thread after all the steam has gone out of it, but it’s an interesting one. Agree with LE that Hamilton’s analogy is a particularly poor one. But I think that he’s gone to extremes in order to emphasize how life-and-death he believes the global-warming threat to be.
If there was any sort of analogy that would fit neatly, and I’m not convinced there is, I’d be more inclined to liken climate-change denialists to the types who opposed Federation back in the 1890s. Sure, it was big and divisive at the time, but the majority view prevailed and there were no resistance movements to prevent it nor rearguard actions to return the Commonwealth to six separate colonies. I’m hoping that’s what eventually happens with climate change: that as with Federation, the extreme fringe opposing it grows ever smaller and denialists become as common and as highly thought-of as secessionists.
Unfortunately, Hamilton’s ill-considered analogy has done nothing but give the denialists a fallacy to seize on to make themselves appear reasonable and moderate, as many of the commenters here have done. Likewise, the East Anglia University emails have generated a feeding frenzy of “A-ha! Gotcha.” among denialists.
I’m convinced the Earth is warming sufficient to make it uninhabitable and I find the evidence compelling that human activity is the cause. I believe the longer intervention is delayed, the more difficult it will be to mitigate its effects.
And I don’t think Australia’s response to the crisis should be dependant on the response of any other country. The okay-but-you-first logic sounds like something thought up afterwards to desperately shore up a ridiculous position.
I also can’t see a big difference between the faux-balanced “do more research” viewpoint and the “do nothing – it’s all a conspiracy” standpoint. They both amount to the same thing.
What also shits me is that all hell has broken loose from the denialists over the not-enough-but-something-at-least CPRS. How would they be if an Australian govt was actually serious about reducing emissions?
Even though the views on climate change of contributors here at SkepticLawyer might be argued logically and expressed eloquently, they still add up to denial, and this is where I agree with the essence of what Hamilton was trying to say: we can’t afford denial.
The desired end result of the climate change skepticism here is little different to that of Bolt; Devine; Fielding; Albrechtsen; Minchin; Robb; Abbott; Mirabella; et al, ad nauseam.
Not an analogy as such, but I’d be interested to hear if anyone finds that offensive .
Denial of what exactly? That the earth is going to end if we don’t do what Hives suggests.
Hi LL, call me a climate change denialist, or whatever you like. I don’t mind that. Personally, I don’t think my own position is strictly denialist – I’m not like one of those US shock jocks who thinks it’s all a conspiracy to increase government control. I prefer climate change agnostic or a climate change worrier – I’m not sure what’s happening, but I am keeping an open mind. I want to do something, but I want to wait to see what other countries propose as well.
I would also prefer that academic research into this area was less polarised. It seems that everyone’s in “pro” or “anti” camps. I don’t think that the East Anglia e-mails prove anything one way or the other about the veracity of climate change.
The point of the e-mails relate to oft repeated argument that there’s a strong consensus. The leaked e-mails apparently show that some scientists were excluding the opinions of those who disagreed with the consensus from refereed journals, or manipulating certain data so that it accorded with what they wanted to see. The fact that they allegedly did this suggests to me that consensus point is not as strong as it was. By the same token, I’ve seen frequent accusations from the pro climate change camp that denialist scientists also allegedly manipulate data and make it say what they want to see.
I wish they could all put the politics aside. Science is not about getting a politically expedient result (or at least, it shouldn’t be).
Although then again, as someone who works in academia, the vitriol of the leaked e-mails shouldn’t surprise me terribly much. You’ve no idea how passionate these debates can get. It was only the other day that a colleague of mine was telling me he’d been accused of being a Nazi for doubting a variety of restitutionary principles (which is simply unacceptable from my point of view, although I am broadly pro-restitution).
Getting back to the main point, I certainly don’t mind at all that you strongly disagree with my opinion. You have expressed your disagreement politely and logically. I’d only find your comment offensive if you thought I should be prevented from expressing my opinion.The twenty-million-dollar question is: do you think I should be allowed to express my opinion freely?
I’m not an AGW skeptic, Lad Litter — that’s where people get LE and I turn and turn about, assuming that the libertarian is the skeptic and the leftie is the true believer. For once the shoe is on the other foot
Where I differ from most AGW proponents is in my dislike of turning environmentalism into religion (as Hamilton does) and my view that humans who think they can reverse long term weather trends are engaging in vast hubris. We need to focus on mitigation, because changing what we’ve created is a wee bit like a certain Saxon king sitting in the Thames estuary commanding the tide to go out…
Not at all, LE & SL – to be honest, when you venture into the political area I don’t find a lot I can agree with here at SkepticLawyer but your viewpoints are well argued and I admire your civility towards dissenting commenters.
I’m inclined to shy away from the polar absolutes in most controversial areas. Neither side is prepared to ascribe a single skerrick of merit to the other. And they won’t even allow a balanced view. I don’t believe it’s simply a matter of either for or against in the following examples but the proponents of either side tend to not tolerate ambivalence. I just don’t discuss Israel vs Palestine; Serbia vs Croatia; Greece vs Macedonia; abortion; or Essendon vs Carlton.
But where I sympathize with Hamilton and his ilk – and reject the notion of global warming activists being cultish – is that there might not be time or space for ambivalence about the threat climate change poses. So to Hamilton, who clearly believes we’re in an emergency, not being sure about climate change is little different from disbelieving in it.
And my understanding of Cnut, SL, was that he commanded the tide to turn in order to demonstrate the limits of his authority. Malcolm Turnbull would play him if they started casting the movie tomorrow.
LL, I think my negativity towards this whole thing comes from the way I react to scare tactics. I hate people trying to scare me into decisions.
When a religious education teacher told me my parents would go to hell unless they believed in God, that’s when I decided to ditch religion and join them in hell. Possibly that’s why I am one of only leftish people I know who belong to the skeptic camp? It’s a little lonely here by myself sometimes, although SL did point out that Martin Ferguson is also probably here with me (in a group of two).
I don’t like scare tactics about migration or refugees or Muslims or stuff of that nature either. They just make me want to reject any valid points the person might be making. I have to work hard to get over the feeling of being railroaded into a decision by fear.
Anyway, I tend to agree with SL’s proposition that we should look to mitigation as much as prevention. If there are going to be disastrous consequences, what can we do to mitigate them, and save lives? I also think we should be looking at alternative energy sources regardless of the whole climate change thing. Climate change just makes the need more pressing, but it’s clear we have to find other options.
Lad Litter
“Denial” of what? The Holocaust!?
That was precisely my point. Our ability to change the weather is limited at best.
I’m with SL. I actually think that we should be chuffing crap into the atmosphere for the simple reason that it could come back to haunt us in a big way longer term.
However I find i have more in common with the sceptics that I do with the religious believers like Robespierre “Rob” Hamilton who I don’t even want to share the same oxygen with.
well, the deaths have already started from climate change:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/death-toll-soared-during-victorias-heatwave-20090406-9ubd.html
Anyone who has lived through the revolting heatwaves now hitting southern australia knows this is just a taste of whats to come. But hey, who cares, we can’t be absolutely sure so lets just keep going…..its all a big conspiracy by ‘the scientists’.
See, I find two things strange:
- Its actually now just happening in front of people’s faces. Revolting heatwaves in Victoria, record temperature smashing all previous records by a massive margin, incredible heatwaves in South Australia, melting ice caps, and on and on and on.
- The delusion by the ‘skeptics’ that they are some sort of truth-telling ‘put upon’ minority, when in fact the money and lobbying put into climate change denial is many many times that of the environmental groups. If this was a debate about anything else which didn’t involve a vast fossil fuel sector, it would have been sorted quickly and we would have all moved on. Its sad to see the right wing nutters get used by the fossil fuel industry to destroy the planet.