I was recently posting on a right wing blog in the UK (James Delingpole's blog in the Telegraph). The blog was a response to the seemingly conclusive report by BEST. See it here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021144716.htm

Now, the deniers still try to squirm their way out of accepting AGW, so I thought I'd look at it from a philosophical / psychological point of view. Hopefully, this exchange (not in its entirety here) might be of interest:

Do you really think Prof Curry debunked the BEST results? You need your cognitively dissonant heads checking. Delingpole is clearly a presuppositional political blogger, not a scientist and not someone who knows what he is talking about on this subject. To be honest, most people posting here are presuppositionalists who give away their true colours by their ad hominems. If people are too quick to slag off the 'other side', it means they have 'taken sides' rather than being objective with the data and evidence. If people are willing to claim that the science is being used to 'control people' and other such nonsense, then it is a sad state of affairs. Science done by scientists in this field is far from being this covert propagandist conspiracy theory that so many of you like to think. Any government and organisation worth their salt would not choose THIS for a conspiracy. It's ludicrous. This is clearly a smokescreen put up by people who have a severe case of cognitive dissonance. 1) AGW is true based on the consensus of the vast majority of RELEVANT scientists 2) I recognise this and change some aspect of my life. 

These two ideas are not harmonious, and so 1) goes, thus invalidating the need for 2).

Thus the over-enthusiastic ad hominem style attacks on adherents to AGW is a way of justifying their own behaviour. Classic psychological tactics are evident all over the shop.

It makes you wonder why you people aren't so hyper-critical and sensitive over EVERY piece of scientific endeavour. Oh, it's because it doesn't negatively impact your life, politics, practices and behaviour. Of course.

Now I admit to believing the science of AGW, though I'm aware of my own biases and baggage. Weighing up WHO does the science, and which organisations fund pretty much ALL the 'science' and information dissemination denying AGW, I am fairly confident of my position. Although argumentum ad popularum is not a logical QED and can clearly be fallacious, it's still a bloody good indicator. if it's good enough for all the major scientific organisations around the world, and if it's accepted by the VAST majority of relevant scientists ("It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes" http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/..., 97-98% by PNAS), then it's a good starter for me. It's no surprise the correlation (more in the US) of people who deny AGW being those who deny evolution and other similar worldviews based on presupposed ideals. 

All I implore is people work FROM the evidence TO the worldview, not FROM the worldview TO the evidence.

I can't wait to read all you ranters getting all defensive / offensive.

Just for the other side of the story, which I'm sure you'll find fault in before you assimilate the actual findings: http://planetsave.com/2011/10/...





 This was then picked up on by a poster who said this:


"First you whine over ad-hominems and then you call anybody who disagrees "ranters", "presuppositionists" etc. And to make you even funnier you present no facts or even intellectual arguments to debate against but "belief" which is what you have when you are religious.
A few facts therefore:

Estimated Co2 concentration today is at 387-389 ppm.

Estimated Co2 concentration in the mid-late Cambrian was at 7200 ppm, with no corresponding rise in temperature, although the planet was steadily much warmer at the time than today.

Estimated Co2 concentration in the late Ordovician was at about 4200 ppm even while the planet experienced an ice age.

During the late Carboniferous there was another ice age, this time with the Co2 concentrations at about today`s level.

Following this ice age the Co2 levels rose to about 3100 ppm but following a steep rise in temperatures, not preceding it like the hack David Attenborough claimed in his award winning documentary First Life. This lie is just one of the interesting ones I`ve come across regarding this issue which lead me to conclude that propaganda is being used on a vast scale to brainwash slackjawed morons and other academics into believing a false version of reality regarding climate history.

There is therefore no observable connection to be made between the level of Co2 and global temperatures. If anything the Co2 levels rise when it heats up and my guess is that this is either the cause of increased animal life in the warm weather, increased volcanic activity as the earth heats up or both. As I have already pointed out, the much trumpeted correspondence after the greatest ice age in late Carboniferous is fraudulent since the temperature rose before Co2 levels. This is the only historical or paleoclimatological example you`ll hear from the climate hysterics while the entire record supports the "deniers" from start to finish.

The Medieval warm period was at least 1,5 degrees warmer than today, without any cars or industry. Hysteric`s graphs will seek to hide this inconvenient fact but fairly credible paleoclimatological and historical charts are still available. Read them before they fall down the memory hole of the Wikipedia generation!

The Little Ice Age preceded the current warm period and is where the hysterics usually start their fraudulent graphs, as if skating across the English Channel in winter is somehow more "normal" than current temperatures. Considering that we haven`t really been measuring climate for more than a few hundred years I guess we don`t quite know what is normal and not. But then I don`t have fancy titles and grants so what do I know?

Most importantly: Co2 and oxygen interact in what used to be known as the carbon cycle, and which scientists used to know and even school children be taught about. The principle of this balancing measure in the atmosphere is that animals exhale Co2 which is then used by plants to make among other things sugar and oxygen. This is then eaten or breathed in by the animals etc. The consequence of this is that increases in Co2 lead to increased plant life, more oxygen, more food and generally better conditions for animals etc. This was and should still be common knowledge and anybody not familiar with this simple principle of life of earth have no business calling themselves scientists. But this was before the collective insanity of carbon taxes of course. These crazed and genocidal attempts at taxing life itself, based on the fact that all life is carbon based and hence puts off Co2 as a result of biological activity, are so reprehensible that the people advocating them should be put on the stand at a new Nuremberg trial, not be given air time on tv or awards by other insane quasi scientists.

Co2 makes up about 0,08 % of the atmosphere and is therefore a trace element, scarce if anything. By far the most potent "climate gas" is water vapor and it is far more abundant than the beneficial gas Co2.

Water levels are not rising, whatever Al Gore has tried to tell you. You can document this by contacting your nearest harbor master inquiring about sea levels over the past 100 years. In my town it has not risen by as much as an inch and if there`s global warming and sea rise it should manifest all across the world, and not just in Mauritius.

I could mention dozens of more facts like these which you will no doubt decide not to "believe". I would stress though that requiring "belief" in order to validate it bodes ill for climatology and some may say it deserves the fate of phrenology for this and other reasons. Not least of them the patent swindle perpetrated by the ICC in front of the Copenhagen Feudalism Reinstitution Conference in 09. This fraud is incontrovertible, scandalous and massive and only really contained by the feigned ignorance of the MSM. Unlike you I don`t "believe" this, they admitted to it themselves. And this is the type of "science" you "believe" in!

If your belief fades however I recommend you look for the Club of Rome`s documents from the 70s where they say they "hit upon the idea of global warming, man made climate change and man made disasters" as uniting principles for the peons during globalization. Maybe this will help you "believe" that the AGW "science" is political, not scientific."



To which I said this:


 What I find interesting is this. Unless you are yourself a climate scientist, where did you get your facts from? i imagine you have gleaned most of your information, like most people these days, from the internet. That's no bad thing. But 1) is it reliable and true and more importantly 2) do you really think, if you have googled a bunch of stuff, that every single scientific academy across the world hasn't done this too? Or better still, accessed primary data to question such theories? 

These guys, now, have their careers and lives on the line with all the controversy surrounding climate debates. As such, do you really think it would be a case of the top scientists of the NAAS or the RS saying, "Aw, shit, did you see that awesome bunch of stats that Skulb dug up the other day on Delingpole's blog? Sheesh, he's right! Why didn't WE google 'climate+denial+science+conspiracy' and then we really would be closer to the truth?!"

Now, I'm not saying that your interpretation of your information is a priori incorrect. However, I do question whether all the top scientists in the world haven't thought about it already, and factored all sorts of data and modelling into their own theorising.

Now people on here love to spout of crazy talk of deep throat climate conspiracy and the like, but a more objective take would be this:

Who is more likely to empower a governmental conspiracy in a consumer driven global economy which relies on growth to be sustainable in economic terms?

a) bleeding heart liberals and greens who don't have the power, capacity, conscience or wherewithall to organise a global conspiracy to change the entire world's consumer practices?

or

b) the companies and organisations (manufacturing, resources etc) who DRIVE the economies and who feel threatened by the science of AGW, who stand (in THEIR eyes) to lose the most by AGW being true?

Seriously, mate, do you really think that a) would and could create a conspiracy? Who do you REALLY think is pulling strings around this here world? Jeez, I know people who work on planning committees in local governments who have resigned themselves to always losing appeals to developers who can thrown money at projects and legal appeals til they get through. Extrapolate that into the global marketplace and you will realise how utterly ridiculous you 'conspiracy theorists' sound. 

Slag me off, call me a whacko, say 'ooh, look the fanatics are out tonight' and other juvenile things you do, but do some thinking, please. Shit, I would prefer AGW to be false, I really would. I don't want to change my practices at all. But I am smart enough not to fall into the fallacy of an argument from desire, and to know how powerful my own confirmation biases are.

This isn't about science. This about what YOU want to be true, and how to find the information to allow this to happen for you. That much is explicitly clear from such comments as: " In any case, I am not willing to sacrifice my standard of living".
Comments like these reveal more than quoting second hand 'facts' which may or may not be true, which may or may not be relevant, and so on.

I see this in my own family who suck stuff up in whichever newspapers they read uncritically, quoting stuff verbatim as if it is an objective truth without an iota of spin.

Hey, I could be wrong. I'd like to be wrong. On balance, i don't think i am, but a little less dogma and a little more respect for 'the other side of the fence' is always nice.



There was then another poster who said this:


 
"What I find interesting is this. Unless you are yourself a climate scientist, where did you get your facts from? i imagine you have gleaned most of your information, like most people these days, from the internet. That's no bad thing. But 1) is it reliable and true and more importantly 2) do you really think, if you have googled a bunch of stuff, that every single scientific academy across the world hasn't done this too? Or better still, accessed primary data to question such theories?" What does this mean then, other than nobody without a PHD in climatology needs to have an opinion? Or this: "Do you really think Prof Curry debunked the BEST results? You need your cognitively dissonant heads checking. Delingpole is clearly a presuppositional political blogger, not a scientist and not someone who knows what he is talking about on this subject. To be honest, most people posting here are presuppositionalists" Here is a hint, nobody really thinks any of the straw men thoughts you posit for us. You want to argue with people who believe the things you say they believe? Try here: http://www.brainygamer.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/14/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg



To which I answered this:

So you are claiming that I am producing a straw man of what people believe, and to prove this you supply assertion as denial. At least my assertions cohere with the evidence of what people are actually saying on this blog. Yours seem like flat denial in a defensive sort of way.

"What does this mean then, other than nobody without a PHD in climatology needs to have an opinion?"

No. My point was fairly explicit. It would be rather odd to think that the best scientists in the world would be concluding one thing at the exclusion of all these obvious fact that Skulb produced. Let me reiterate:

"These guys, now, have their careers and lives on the line with all the controversy surrounding climate debates. As such, do you really think it would be a case of the top scientists of the NAAS or the RS saying, "Aw, shit, did you see that awesome bunch of stats that Skulb dug up the other day on Delingpole's blog? Sheesh, he's right! Why didn't WE google 'climate+denial+science+conspiracy' and then we really would be closer to the truth?!"

Now, I'm not saying that your interpretation of your information is a priori incorrect. However, I do question whether all the top scientists in the world haven't thought about it already, and factored all sorts of data and modelling into their own theorising."
I then backed this up, in the event of the ubiquitous 'conspiracy' claim by clearly pointing out that conspiracy is not likely for such people (especially when the science is so disparate), but rather very much more likely for people with profit as a driver.



There was some more back and forths, most of which contained ad homs. I ended with this remark:


 I'm interested in motivations for accepting and denying AGW as a presupposition. I am interested in this very same approach with evolution, and I see a similar right wing (religious) presupposition which demands that evolution is untrue in order to allow for more impregnable beliefs. In other words, cognitive dissonance. 

I then look at the AGW debate and I see EXACTLY the same thing. It amazes me that almost every denial website and blog proclaims conservative tendencies, and economic liberalism (and in the States, a religious element too). I would like to see the evalusation of the evidence more objectively undertaken. 

One must naturally be skeptical of a view that comes AFTER and seems DEPENDENT UPON a pre-existing political or religious worldview. This is what interest me (thought the science does too). I think too many people try to argue the science from an unqualified position. This is why I have taken more of a back seat on the science. I see all the deniers websites and they way they approach the data evaluation and dissemination and I find it fascinating.

The WCR who you espouse claim this in their about us section " It’s the perfect antidote against those who argue for proposed changes to the Rio Climate Treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the United States". To me, this says, "We are against curbing US carbon emissions for economic reason" and I see that as a motivator to how they evaluate the science. 

I then look at Delingpole's reliance on people like Morano at Climate Depot, part of CFACT who are funded by ExxonMobil, Chevron, DaimlerChrysler and so on. In fact, to me, it seems fairly suspect that every single climate denial organisation seems to be funded by corporations with a vested interest in finding AGW incorrect.

So science aside, it interests me what motivates both individuals and organisations to deny AGW. Luckily, it seems fairly obvious, since most deniers wear their worldviews on their sleeves.

I would start taking much more note when the middle ground, the centrists, start denying AGW, start gathering evidence and evaluating it in a peer-reviewed manner, and start concluding that it is all a lie. But that doesn't seem to be happening. Let's face it, Muller was a denier. I remember when deniers used to laud him. Now he concludes anithetically, he is the most evil man in the world!



The posts can be seen here:  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100112834/global-warming-is-real/#disqus_thread

Make sure you select 'Newest First' in the Disqus display.


My main point in saying this is that you can see what motivates AGW denial. It is not the search for scientific truth (otherwise they would and should concentrate on more disciplines in science), but a desire not to change their politics and lifestyle. 

And so often, one can predict their political allegiance AND their religious belief based upon their position on global warming.