Martin From Canada | 31 Oct 2016 7:12 p.m. PST |
The ‘Alice in Wonderland' mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism Authors: Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook and Elisabeth Lloyd Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earth's climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe "is cooling" can coexist with claims that the "observed warming is natural" and that "the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us." Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that "something must be wrong" with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions. link |
JSchutt | 01 Nov 2016 3:27 a.m. PST |
Leave it to a "scientist" to use that many words in a theory about a theory to call someone else stupid… |
T Callahan | 01 Nov 2016 8:26 a.m. PST |
I love the line from the article… "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." — The White Queen, in Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There Terry |
Great War Ace | 01 Nov 2016 8:34 a.m. PST |
"…cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking…" How about the view that warming is good, freezing is bad? Climate change (once upon a time called "global warming") is inevitable. Just because homo sapiens unlocked CO2s et al. "greenhouse gases" does not de facto produce a doomed world. Far from it: but it does produce a changed world. I would rather live on Arrakis than Hoth. There, I've said it again. Extreme examples can be facile. That said, I'd never advocate dispensing with pursuits of alternate, cleaner energy. We ought to be looking into every mode of energy production and implementing the best ones. And this needs to be free of gov't constraints. The free enterprise system is the only way that mankind has ever attained to plenty and security from famine, plague and slavery…………… |
ScottWashburn | 01 Nov 2016 12:01 p.m. PST |
"I would rather live on Arrakis than Hoth." Uh, but transferring all our people (cities, technology, etc. too) to either one, we still all die. :) Seriously, though, the idea that 'warm is better' has its limits, too. The magic number is 104 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature photosynthesis stops and plants can't grow. Rising temperatures are already affecting the yield of certain crops in certain areas. If it gets hot enough the equatorial regions, and places like India, will become deserts. A couple of billion people will have to relocate. What fun. |
Gunfreak | 02 Nov 2016 3:44 a.m. PST |
Yes, wouldn't it be nice if the Atlantic outside of New England was as warm as Florida? Wonderful warm water, oh and all the cod is dead. and so the entire ecosystem of the north Atlantic collapses. |
Alxbates | 02 Nov 2016 11:39 a.m. PST |
I'd rather live on Hoth than Arakis, frankly. |
Charlie 12 | 04 Nov 2016 8:23 p.m. PST |
Yes, wouldn't it be nice if the Atlantic outside of New England was as warm as Florida? And destroy the Atlantic ocean current. Which would wreak havoc on the worldwide weather system. Yeah, great idea, that… |
Great War Ace | 05 Nov 2016 7:24 a.m. PST |
Warm and cold would shift locations. Humans are the species that migrates on two legs. It's how we have survived for hundreds of thousands of years. If the Intermountain West turned into a desert, I reckon that I'd move too…………. |
Gunfreak | 06 Nov 2016 3:08 a.m. PST |
Sure you'd move and so would 5 billion other people. No problems at all. And with the ocean ed, billions of pellw would loose a major source of food. If you feel warm is good. You can movie to Venus. It's extremely warm and therefore extremely good. |
Great War Ace | 06 Nov 2016 5:16 p.m. PST |
Many people will die off as a result of climate change, by the typical scenarios pushed by the "science". This is unavoidable. Implied but not pushed. Science cannot save us in our billions. A much smaller human population will solve the problems of where to live………….. |
Mithmee | 07 Nov 2016 1:25 p.m. PST |
Thing is people die every day and over the next 70 years around 8-10+ Billion individuals will die. Oh and the earth wouldn't be any warmer than it is now. |
Charlie 12 | 07 Nov 2016 9:12 p.m. PST |
Oh and the earth wouldn't be any warmer than it is now. I wouldn't bet on that. Its already warmer than it was a hundred years ago (or fifty years ago)… |
Charlie 12 | 07 Nov 2016 9:16 p.m. PST |
Warm and cold would shift locations. Really? You do realize we're talking about the global AVERAGE rising? There won't be some mysterious new "cold" areas popping up… |
Mithmee | 08 Nov 2016 12:55 p.m. PST |
Its already warmer than it was a hundred years ago (or fifty years ago)… So is it warmer than: 500 years ago? 1000 years ago? 1500 years ago? 2500 years ago? |
Mithmee | 08 Nov 2016 12:58 p.m. PST |
Really? You do realize we're talking about the global AVERAGE rising? There won't be some mysterious new "cold" areas popping up… How would you know? You focus much on a Global Average when you really do not have data from every spot on this planet. Oh and a lot of the data is made up. Plus you are focusing on a very shot period of time less than 50 years. Get the temperature data for the last 5000 years (IE that means everywhere on the planet for every single day of those years). |
Martin From Canada | 09 Nov 2016 4:02 a.m. PST |
Look at Marcott et al 2013 link |
Charlie 12 | 09 Nov 2016 8:11 p.m. PST |
Martin- You do know that Mithmee has the "true word"? I mean how could he not be wrong (never mind he never brings a shred of hard science to back his "interesting" notions). Bottomline: One can refuse to believe all the hard science there is. But that still doesn't make it wrong…. |
SBminisguy | 02 Dec 2016 2:32 p.m. PST |
Leave it to a "scientist" to use that many words in a theory about a theory to call someone else stupid… LOL! And it still fails the Feynman test: YouTube link |
Bowman | 03 Dec 2016 5:56 p.m. PST |
How would you know? You focus much on a Global Average when you really do not have data from every spot on this planet. That's a burden no other historical science has to follow. How many dinosaur fossils would you need to know that dinosaurs existed? How many Sicilian excavations do you need to know that Greeks colonized this area? If you want to know if the temperature of the Earth is changing, what else would you measure besides a global average? Do tell. Oh and a lot of the data is made up. Please show us the evidence for your claim. Get the temperature data for the last 5000 years (IE that means everywhere on the planet for every single day of those years). Hilarious! So you can't do Climate Science unless you have a time machine and a billion thermometers? |
Bowman | 03 Dec 2016 6:22 p.m. PST |
The problem with Climate Science denial is twofold: 1) Simply saying that climate science employs knowingly made up data and that it is purely politically motivated is somewhat naive. This presupposes that those who chose to go into this field, are inherently dishonest, amoral or incompetent, when compared to their colleagues in other fields of science. Is anyone seriously suggesting that climate scientists are somehow less competent or honest than say, biologists or physicists? 2) There is a clear consensus about climate change amongst climate scientists. That sometimes generates snide comments here, but it is no different than within other fields of study. It is similar to evolution best explaining the diversity of living things for biologists and the heliocentric explanations that describe solar systems for astrophysicists. AGW is the current best explanation that describes the unprecedented rise of atmospheric CO2. And therein lies the rub. The problem with the miniscule amount of publications that seem to deny or downplay the effects of AGW, is that they don't seem to display any consilience. This means that there is no convergence or concordance of evidence that points to another explanation for the observed phenomena. In other words, if AGW was fundamentally wrong, the evidence produced by the non-consensus research should all be pointing towards the actual causes. The evidence should be converging. It isn't. |
Martin From Canada | 04 Dec 2016 7:24 p.m. PST |
Bowman, even simpler. They have a Maxwell's demon in their heads, allowing only confirmatory information in and contradictory information out. And/or you have Oreskes's theory that a substantial number of deniers are deathly afraid of "watermelons" and still live in Senator McCarthy's fantasy world where the International ready to take over government at the drop of a hat. |