Quite a nice post at the Skeptical Science website about The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Similar nonsensical behaviour [to framing Schrödinger’s cat as ‘simultaneously’ alive and dead] happens with people who deny the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. There are various states of climate denial, with some states contradicting others. For example, some believe global warming is not happening. Others believe global warming is happening but is not caused by humans. Others believe humans are causing global warming but that the impacts won’t be bad.
Now, it’s perfectly understandable for a community of people to hold mutually inconsistent beliefs. But can one person hold three inconsistent beliefs at the same time? Can a person argue that global warming is not happening, then smoothly transition to arguing that global warming is happening but is caused by something else?
They can, and they do. We see it in the blogosphere all the time. One day a blogger claims that global warming stopped years ago. Next they blame the (previously nonexistent) global warming on the sun. Before long they’re back to denying there’s a problem at all.
There’s a psychological reason for this hovering between states of denial. People who believe in one state of denial are more likely to believe in other states of denial. If you deny one aspect of climate science, odds are you deny other parts (or all of it). In for a penny, in for a pound.
How do we explain this weird, counterintuitive phenomenon? It can be explained by the “quantum theory of climate denial.” This theory holds that climate deniers exist in a fuzzy quantum state of denial, simultaneously rejecting many or all aspects of climate science.
Apply a stimulus (for example, show them some scientific evidence) and they collapse into one of the three states of denial. This enables a denier to exist in one state of denial, then transition to a contradictory state, then jump back into the first state of denial again. (emphasis added)
And there’s quite a good analysis of this ‘theory’ being applied editorially by Rupert Murdoch newspaper, The Australian in this article from The Guardian:
… worth reading, and it links to another good one: Let’s be honest – the global warming debate isn’t about science whose subtitle (and argument): ‘The scientific evidence on human-caused global warming is clear. Opposition stems from politics, not science’ resonates with me.
We need conservatives to be constructive, not obstructive
Ultimately this climate ‘debate’ is not about science. The scientific evidence is crystal clear that humans are causing rapid global warming. The longer we wait to do something about it, the more climate change we commit ourselves to, and higher the chances are for a climate catastrophe. From a risk management perspective, failing to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is just plain stupid. Opposition to climate action isn’t about the science, it’s about the politics and policies.
So let’s debate those policies. The more input we have from different political and ideological perspectives, the better crafted the solutions will be. After all, Republicans came up with the concept of cap and trade as an alternative to government regulation of pollutants, and it was a good, successful idea.
Denying the science and obstructing the solutions will only make the problem worse.
– P
Very strange post Pete … very strange comments (by you … and quoted by you) too … i refer you back to Bjorn Lomborg.
“political” … “in Denial” … thats all a bit of a “quantum leap” in reasoning i think.
I think i’ve just had a glimpse into your very soul ….
An old friend of mine once asked another friend of ours (who was a fairly religious fellow … and continually stating he was “only a very humble guy”) … this old friend said and i quote … “… you arent proud of your humility are you….”
Personally – the science isnt settled … and its unscientific to suggest it is. Its an orwellian dictatorship that says the science is settled and we “know who to blame”.
Commonsense and good old dialogue and communication are the key.
Refer to Lomborg to unknot the gordian nature of the reasonings in this post … and the convolutions of justification and defence.
Thanks Ivan.
“Of all the crazy things in our politics, few are more self-immolating than the persistence of climate change as a partisan issue. A founding father of modern environmental activism was a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, but his legacy is no more honored in today’s GOP than Lincoln’s. You’d think that the speed and perils of global warming would be settled fact, given all the catastrophic signs that Americans can see with their own eyes. But on the right, climate-change denial has become a proxy for a whole smorgasbord of powerful ideological imperatives: opposition to governmental regulation; resistance to taxation (especially of such Republican sugar daddies as the coal, oil, and gas industries); class resentment of intellectual elites in academia and Prius-driving Hollywood; and, in some quarters, rejection of any kind of science that dares undermine the supremacy of God as the primary actor in all Earthly activity. “
from http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/frank-rich-why-the-gop-denies-climate-change.html
I still dont understand … what is your position.
Mine is this … commonsense has to prevail … the science is not settled as to who is most to blame if at all … you cant disadvantage people who actually have to live by imposing regulation that disadvantages …. assholes shouldnt profiteer from the situation particularly by spreading and encouraging fear and misinformation …
Stop quoting others and for once in your life mate … unequivocally spell out your own … real position on a matter … quit hiding behind elegant re-heated other peoples arguments.
Anything or anyone that preaches or promulgates fear …. be it catholic dogma, fundamentalist religious believers … and irresponsible well paid scientists … economists etc has to be suspect … you keep using other peoples words to say that the science is settled. No it isnt … too many qualified and eminent people on both sides of the divide are involved for it to be settled.
The idea that science is morally bankrupt, and thus we can trust absolutely nobody, is now a remarkably *common* belief, and for some people at least, believing that most governments and scientists are part of some great big conspiracy to defraud the proletariat and/or take over the world must be quite *scary*, you’d have to think…
Hence one might argue it is not the 97% of all climate scientists and their increasingly fuckstrated allies in the war for collective sanity who are the fearmongering “alarmists” in the room, but rather their more vociferous opponents, for whom Grey’s Law seems increasingly applicable:
“Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”
I think you mean “frustrated” .. not the mangled descriptor you used.
I point you – as i did Pete to the example of Bjorn Lomborg … an eminent personage. I also point you toward the equally eminent climate (or associated disciplines) scientists who have issues with the current dogma.
You are too trite (i think) – although i couldnt quite follow your walled-off (apparently though not established in undeniable fact) expressed attitude…
Besides which … who is or was implying that science is morally bankrupt. I will immediately take that matter up with the estates of Josef Mengele, Prof Herbert Green and also Werner Von Braun … if you want???
Clever comments mate … just not clearly understandable to the average joe …
Yeah, nah, after all these years of prevarication, despite the tornadoes, sea level rise, icemelt, acidification, and so on and so forth, “frustrated” doesn’t really do it justice…
If you’re just an average joe, unlike your namesake, then the important thing for you to realise is that none of the denialists like Lomborg have any scientific credibility left, so all they can do now is keep repeating and rotating the same old bullshit in the hope that the cheques keep rolling in from the great big BS-funding machine the Koch brothers and various other miscreants have been pumping cash into for decades.
I read we are now in for another 4ft of sea-level rise by 2100 on top of the, as everyone in the know was already saying, incredibly conservative 3ft estimate the IPCC announced not long ago. Amazing how the IPCC get painted as alarmists when in fact they have almost always *underestimated* the actual risk levels, with very few exceptions!
But I suppose you are correct in that average folks are probably capable of thinking only *some* scientists are lying to them, and thus badmouthing climate scientists doesn’t throw *all* science into disrepute in the minds of average folks who don’t know just how intertwined it is with all other science, so arguably climate denialism is much more simply slanderous, deceptive and incredibly dangerous propaganda, as opposed to genuine fearmongering as I suggested.
Yeah, on second thought the slice of humanity who understand how anti-climate-science propaganda is absolutely anti-all-of-science propaganda is *also* the slice of humanity least likely to pay *any attention* to said propaganda, so I must admit that particular line of thinking was totally off-base.
How often do you see the climate-denialists admit they were wrong, by contrast? Not very fucking often. More evidence not to trust the fuckers. Ever.
Well mate … its stunning (hmmm) to see such a stunning example of openness of mind …
Hmmm
As i said … clever (closed loop) comments.
I was impressed with Lomborg – his courage and indeed his integrity.
Hmmm
Strange reply mate … (i couldnt reply to your latest ‘thing’) … but i thank you sincerely for making your case more readable and understandable …
First thing … Lomborg is NOT a denialist … so you need to revisit that issue perhaps. He is a climate change believer … but with a twist … investigate it and watch the doco “cool it”
I am not a climate change denialist .. i simply say that the science isnt yet settled … and when it isnt settled it leads to extreme points of view and then of course … opportunists leaping into the breach with the $ in mind….
Re your last point matey … denialists (or should i say those often given that inaccurate descriptor) are often never given the chance to dialogue … its all “the science is settled… etc etc ….”
Dialogue and understanding – is not composed of 3rd party refutations and endless cross referencing (which often appear as if they are a vanity project in progress) .. in the end it must come down to honest unvarnished exchanges of ideas.
Otherwise it aint worth shit … and then who cares whether the world gets swamped in climatic events or indeed destroyed. In 50 years most of us wont even be alive.
So – whats it to be mate … dialogue and understanding – or dogma and superstition of a very modern sort … based on fear and uncertainty. What do your children want as a legacy???
Thats the question im asking you and Peter … but he keeps on cross referencing and avoiding the question …
I’m inclined to call it denialism whether they’re denying that it’s happening, denying that we’re causing it, *or* denying that it’s worth trying to do anything about it, as the quantum theory of skeptidenialism Peter linked to says, it’s usually the same people spouting pretty similar crap, although there is *so much* crap now it’s getting a bit beyond a joke.
Thus one can only salute the monumental effort they have put into their epic takedown of almost every single bit of crap in the entire denialist canon, in order of most commonly encountered, which is here:
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Since you keep saying the science isn’t settled, I would particularly recommend reading:
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
Because at some point one has to stop hoping for 100% agreement, because you’re never gonna get it.
Lomborg could potentially gain some credibility by calling out some of the more obviously idiotic denialists, explaining how they are full of shit and how he is not like them. And he could also explain which of his past statements were wrong, explain how he made those mistakes, apologize for misleading people, and explain how he’ll avoid making similar mistakes in the future. Until then I can’t see how he has any credibility at all?
Hmm. I just found this, and I think it says pretty much everything I currently have to say on the man:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
I see he’s also mentioned a few times on the SkepSci blog. I haven’t read all of these.
http://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=lomborg&x=0&y=0
If there is anything you do not currently understand about the climate debate, I refer you again to:
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
There seems little point in us recovering what they have already covered in such magnificent detail.
I understand that you may, for whatever reason, want to engage in more “dialogue” in the comment sections of random blogs, but I’d much rather talk about stuff that *hasn’t* been talked about a thousand times before by people who know much better than we do on this subject, so yeah, sorry.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/krauthammer-george-will-attack-climate-science.html
I would absolutely give my eye teeth to actually hear and see your OWN viewpoint …
Wouldnt that be a red letter day …