As climate denial goes the way of snake oil and table tipping, real Skeptics would like the media to please stop sullying their good name.
Prominent scientists, science communicators, and skeptic activists, including Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” physicist Lawrence Krauss, Cosmos co-creator Ann Druyan, and many others are calling on the news media to stop using the word “skeptic” when referring to those who refuse to accept the reality of climate change, and instead refer to them by what they really are: science deniers.
The statement, signed by 48 Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), comes as a response to a New York Times article from Nov 10, 2014, “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline,” which referred to Sen. James Inhofe, who believes climate change to be an elaborate hoax, as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.”
“As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong,” says the joint statement. “The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is ‘denial.’
“Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.”
Signatories to the statement, drafted by physicist and science communicator Mark Boslough, also included Nobel laureate Sir Harold Kroto, philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, science education advocate Eugenie Scott, and David Morrison, Director of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe at the SETI Institute, as well as CSI executive director Barry Karr, Skeptical Inquirer editor Kendrick Frazier, and Center for Inquiry president and CEO Ronald A. Lindsay.
CSI promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is an affiliate of the Center for Inquiry. The complete statement is available at bit.ly/DeniersNotSkeptics.
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry:
Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.” The Nov 10, 2014, New York Times article “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline” referred to Sen. James Inhofe as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” Two days later Scott Horsley of NPR’s Morning Edition called him “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” These are not equivalent statements.
As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
Here, leading climate “skeptic” and outgoing member of the Science Committee, Paul Broun on Science, and “lies from hell”.
Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title “skeptic.”
As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is “denial.” Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.
We are skeptics who have devoted much of our careers to practicing and promoting scientific skepticism. We ask that journalists use more care when reporting on those who reject climate science, and hold to the principles of truth in labeling. Please stop using the word “skeptic” to describe deniers.
Mark Boslough, Physicist
David Morrison, Director of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, at the SETI Institute
Bill Nye, CEO the Planetary Society
Ann Druyan, Writer/producer; CEO, Cosmos Studios
Ken Frazier, Editor, Skeptical Inquirer
Barry Karr, Exec Director, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Amardeo Sarma, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Executive Council, Chairman GWUP (Germany)
Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Ronald A. Lindsay, President & CEO Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Center for Inquiry
Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University
Christopher C. French, Dept of Psychology, Goldsmiths University of London
Daniel C. Dennett, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy at CUNY-City College
Douglas Hofstadter, Director, The Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University
Stephen Barrett, Co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Professor, Department of Psychology, Emory University
Terence Hines, Dept of Psychology, Pace University
James Randi, President James Randi Educational Foundation
Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer and Director of the Center for SETI Research
Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Henri Broch, Physicist, Emeritus, University Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
Eugenie C. Scott, Chair, Advisory Council, National Center for Science Education
Edzard Ernst, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, University of Exeter, UK
Indre Viskontas, Cognitive Neuroscientist, Host Inquiring Minds Podcast
David J. Helfand, Professor of Astronomy, Columbia University
Mario Mendez-Acosta, Journalist, Science Writer, Mexico City
Cornelis de Jager, Astrophysicist, Past President, International Council for Science
Sanal Edamaruku, President, Rationalist International
Loren Pankratz, Psychologist, Portland VA Medical Center, Retired
Sandra Blakeslee, Science Writer
Benjamin Radford, Deputy Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine
David Thomas, Physicist and Mathematician
Stuart D. Jordan, NASA Astrophysicist, Emeritus
David H. Gorski, Cancer Surgeon, Wayne State University School of Medicine
Anthony R. Pratkanis, Professor of Psychology, UC @Santa Cruz
Jan Willem Nienhuys, Mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands
Susan Blackmore, Psychologist, Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth
Ken Feder, Anthropology, Central Connecticut State University
Jill Tarter, Bernard M. Oliver Chair, SETI Institute
Richard Saunders, JREF Million Dollar Challenge Committee, Producer – The Skeptic Zone Podcast
Jay Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy, Williams College
Lawrence M. Krauss, Director, The ASU Origins Project, Arizona State University
Barbara Forrest, Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University
Kimball Atwood, Physician, Newton, MA
James Alcock, Psychologist, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada
Massimo Polidoro, Science writer, author, Executive Director CICAP, Italy
E.C. Krupp, Director, Griffith Observatory
Dick Smith, Film Producer, Publisher, Australia
There’s another word for deniers like Inhofe, and it’s not “skeptics”…
http://www.great-taiwan.com/blogs/forumosa/seatbelts.jpg
I’ve always given some of the deniers the benefit of the doubt in that they must surely know they are spouting ridiculous nonsense and are just doing it for financial or political reasons but Inhofe seems different in that he actualy appears to *believe* what he spews.
Just astonishing that someone so stupid could be appointed to such a high office.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
Upton Sinclair
The greenblob get their money from eco-terrorism. By scaring the citizenry into handing over money to prevent imaginary terrors.
personally, I’ve not had a pay cheque in at least six years and I know most other sceptics are completely altruistic.
And you have the gall to suggest that it is us who only believe what we believe because of the money.
Go join age concern where you can find out what these evil policies are doing for the elderly as they can’t afford to heat their homes as some 37,000 extra people die each winter.
Maybe there would be more money for freezing seniors if you weren’t on the dole, or were contributing moneys as taxes to the coffers?
And you have no fucking idea what the term “terrorist” means.
As if those of us concerned about AGW were the sorts of people who want the elderly to freeze. Look to your own political brethren for that, you misguided schmuck.
Scottish- I am sorry to hear that you have been so sorely misled. I am truly at a loss as to how to get through to those who will not accept what the researchers in this complicated field of climate science have been trying to tell us for over 3 decades. All that I can say is forget all of your biases, and take another look. The evidence is piling up on a daily basis, even some long term doubters of AGW are now beginning to shift their positions in light of the undeniable facts.
Scott, what exactly is “ecoterrorism”? Can you name an instance of one? And who’s supplying this vast amount of money to pay the tens of thousands of researchers who are supporting climate change? As Deep Throat once advised, “follow the money”!
Maybe you’re a little isolated up there in the hills of Scotland and hope that climate change might bring you more than one day of summer a year? Hey, I feel your pain!
“Hey, I feel your pain!”
No, you don’t “feel his pain”, unless you’re wearing a kilt with no underwear like ScSc is. That is hard on the gonads in the winter, and even harder on reasoning abilities, considering where the “brains” of folks like ScSc can be found —-tucked up there amongst those things that need Preparation H—-anyone who would make the following statement needs to buy their Prep H in the large economy size.
“The greenblob get their money from eco-terrorism. By scaring the citizenry into handing over money to prevent imaginary terrors”.
Lord love a duck!!
In Alaska they have a problem with the high cost of heating oil for residential use. Some people lower down on the pole have to take second jobs just to pay their oil costs. Home builders and politicians who could have authored stricter building codes back, forty years ago did not heed Jimmy Carter’s warning.
But now the market and the government planners are reacting: Cold Climate Housing Research Center has figured out ways to make Alaskan homes more efficient with both retrofits and new construction, saving folks lots of money on their oil bills. Energy efficiency wins the day, often with 3, 5, 10 year paybacks; the savings afterwards being profit (and on new construction, a well designed building can have zero to little extra cost incurred for greater efficiency, per Amory Lovins examples at RMI).
http://www.cchrc.org/results
And meanwhile, back in reality, multiple energy price studies from multiple independent sources have shown adding wind energy lowers the price of electricity for a given time period compared against places without wind (i.e. little to no rate hikes).
http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber=6079
http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/AWEA%20White%20Paper-Consumer%20Benefits%20final.pdf
Energy Price Changes from 2008 to 2013 for states with at least 7% wind have an aggregate of -0.37% (i.e. the price dropped a little) whilst states with no wind resources felt a 7.79% increase in electricity prices.
I am sadly, no longer astonished.
In a similar vein, whatever you might think about a report on torture, claiming that IT is going to cause repercussions, rather than the torture itself, is in a level of denial I would have been astonished to admit could happen, but am, no longer.
It’s not Climate Change, per se, that is so depressing (yet). It’s what happened to our country.
They’ve (right wing media) been serving out the ‘controversy’ propaganda regarding the utility of torture, as well.
The usual suspects. Oh my. What an old story http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/27/climate-change-deniers-sceptics
And not one of them with any doubt whatsoever about climate change, I presume? Otherwise, despite accepting the GHG effect for example like me, they’d be still called “deniers” simply for refusing to consider global warming as the most important problem at the moment.
ps No self-respecting skeptic would try to make an argument out of collecting signatures from “prominent scientists” -as it defies the point.
ps By trying to call themselves “scientific skeptics”, these people show they just don’t get it. Skepticism is this (guess who’s the author)
“A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.”
“People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs.”
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.”
And this (quotes by a different author, just as known)
“Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality”
“What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.”
“One of the most painful circumstances of recent advances in science is that each one makes us know less than we thought we did”
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
All the people listed above have betrayed one or many of these fundamental truths of skepticism and rationality.
Why give any credibility to someone who denies science out of their own convenience? I wish they would all deny gravity as well and jump out of the 10th floor or something. People can put themselves in personal risk as much as they want, but they don’t need to put the whole freaking planet at risk because they aren’t willing to understand simple physics.
Perhaps you’re certain of your science John 8)
This isn’t about science. It’s about decision making based on science. The science is pretty clear, and as long as one side isn’t making up BS and trying to pass it along as science, then there’s no problem. But the deniers are often the ones making up bogus science or bogus math.
The word denier dates from the 15th century and simply means ‘one who denies’.
“…Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions….”
That definition fits climate change deniers to an absolute ‘T’.
There is simply no other word in the English language that is more apt.
There is no such thing as scientific consensus. If it’s science, it’s not consensus. If it’s consensus, it’s not science!
(Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman)
I think there is a consensus that apples fall down, not up. Also, that water boils at 100 C at sea level.
Also, that tobacco causes lung disease. All of these are about the same level of certainty as that heat trapping gases trap heat –
more heat trapping gases trap more heat, and that heat makes things warmer.
The old Pierrehumbert argument. Oh well.
There is a consensus that warmer gases raise upwards. This doesn’t mean the top of Mt Everest is red hot. Because there’s a consensus the world is much more complex than a single effect however measurable in the lab.
But if Feynman was right then the world’s complexity is not scientific, therefore irrelevant. So the rising warm air should make the upper atmosphere hotter than the lower – but we know it’s not, ergo global warming is a hoax.
Well, that was easy.
I believe the correct attribution of that statement is:
(Writer of bad science fiction, Micheal Crichton)
A ‘scientific consensus’ – is not a “vote” – its’ a consensus of EVIDENCE.
Reality isn’t determined by a consensus; consensus is determined by reality.
A scientific consensus gradualy emerges over time when the evidence from ALL of the research becomes so overwhelming that there is really nothing left to argue about any more.
This has been the case with regard to the basic tenets of climate science; That an increase in heat-trapping gas in the atmosphwre traps more heat – for more than 115 years now.
There have been at least ten major studies on the consensus and every single one of them has produced the same figure of around 97% to 99.9%.
Oreskes, 2004
STATS, 2007
Bray and von Storch, 2008
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
John Cook et al, 2013
Powell, 2013
Plati, 2013
Richard Feynman is wrong.
Indeed, there is no reason why consensus shouldn’t reflect reality over time, especially when rigorous testing has been done over and over so many times by so many scientists that there is really no hypothesis that can compete.
Anyone that still dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not in touch with reality, and I usually ask those to jump out of the 10th floor of a building as they are disputing a consensus that is equal to that of the existence of gravity.
Totally agree, yes stop calling deniers skeptics.
We’re sceptics … you’re the deniers
18 years without warming and you still deny the pause.
18 years yes, and I still can’t spot anything resembling a pause:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/
Not sure we are on the same planet though.
One hiatus after another:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/plot/uah/from:1980/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend
Even Richard Alley say that there has been a cooling trend up to several times during his lifetime as a climate scientist:
http://youtu.be/Z_-8u86R3Yc?t=9m39s
🙂 – Alley likes to bring this out on his talks, and I perfectly understand the need to ridicule the “no warming” meme that keeps popping up like a mole in a whack-a-mole game. Hey, perhaps I should code a whack-a-climate-denier game, that might be a success!
I don’t know John, games get pretty tedious when you have to keep doing the exact same thing ad infinitum. 😉
I also have a fun idea about a “Climate Zombies” game where you have people like Inhofe come up from graves walking slowly towards you spewing things like “Its a hoax” – “No warming in X years”… if they manage to get to your base, they grab a brain and insert it and then suddenly understand they were wrong. 😉
the pause = “Lies from the Pit of Hell”.
What pause is that then?
The number of years that deniers have suspended the use of their brains because they don’t like the solutions?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/a-pause-or-not-a-pause-that-is-the-question/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar/
Scott, the issue of the “pause” isn’t about science, it’s about lying with statistics. The so-called “pause” was an issue regarding statistical significance, which was based on selecting a smaller set of years. Having a warming trend that doesn’t meet some statistical confidence level is not a refutation of the trend.
Problem here is mathematical illiteracy along with science illiteracy.
The pause has been mentioned in several science articles and prominent journals. Perhaps we could agree on a word to describe it? Eg slowdown. Anybody caring to disagree on slowdown?
I disagree.
I disagree as well.
See the video link to Dr Richard Alley’s lecture to see that this happens a lot, and what you call a slowdown is just a bump in a trend of rising global temperatures. Why journals mention this now is that they are trying to figure out what is underlying to this variation in the warming, not to disprove AGW and that its going to turn down towards cooling again for no apparent reason.
As Dana said once: “Does the global warming ‘pause’ mean what you think it means?”
So in order to have any meaningful discussion we need to know whether the conclusion to any observed slowdown means there is no AGW and we can just pack up climate science, or that there is indeed more we need to know about the variation.
But by observation, we also know that all past “hiatus” did not stop the coming years from becoming new record highs, so there was no need to address it really. Although its good for science to explore this better though as there might be more reasons to why atmospheric temperatures varies or we do not have good enough measurements of negative feedback that influence these variations, even though the oceans have shown a steady warming (which is a better measure of the energy balance).
https://www.google.co.uk/search?redir_esc=&client=tablet-android-samsung&hl=en-US&safe=images&oe=utf-8&q=Nature.com%20pause&source=android-browser-type&qsubts=1418307579007&devloc=0#hl=en-US&q=site:Nature.com+pause
here’s Nature.com engaging in lies from the pit of hell
There has been no pause in surface warming, either. Or don’t you understand what”
“14 out of 15 of the warmest years in history have been in the 21st century”
means yet?
“here’s Nature.com engaging in lies from the pit of hell”
Demon, git A-OUT! Ah Cummand yew!
Is that something we should consider for Omno? An exorcism?
Since he’s Italian, we could import an old Italian priest from the Vatican to do the deed.
Might make a good movie, too. I can picture Omno’s head spinning on his neck and his chubby little body floating in the air above his bed.
None of the replies addressed my point or even Nature’s. I have not said what a pause or slowdown might imply. I’m just looking for a common word to describe the fact that for the past X years temperatures haven’t gone anywhere considering the confidence interval of each data point.
SciAm goes for a quoted “pause” https://www.google.co.uk/search?sclient=tablet-gws&client=tablet-android-samsung&hl=en-US&q=site:scientificamerican.com+pause&oq=site:scientificamerican.com+pause
Would “pause in surface temps” sound any more acceptable?
Ps I see Romm is particularly vocal about the “faux pause”. Does this mean Nature.com and Scientific American are using the wrong words? Who’ll tell them?
maurizio,
The only rational use of any term that implies the human forced component of global warming has slowed down is to introduce it in reductio ad absurdum demonstrating its utter meaninglessness. As is done in all those sources you link to.
You so love making vague, ambiguous and utterly meaningless assertions, for no other apparent reason than to be contrary.
I love showing you for the somewhat demented fool you are.
I guess this is why the word “contrarian” has in this discussion increasingly been redefined to “denier”, as its more about just being contrarian like a stubborn child than having anything meaningful to back up the contrary argument with (which is what a true contrarian/skeptic would have). Since we are actually dealing with people who are contrary to scientific facts and observations, we sort of expect some kind of contrary scientific information to back those statements. So far I would say very few have come up with anything. Most grasp at the same straws that this is all part of some natural N-year cycle even though they have not a shred of evidence of any physical causation to these cycles. All while they depend on their understanding of gravity every time they walk, or that the electrons in their iPhones find their way as they call their granny saying they will be late for thanksgiving because its snowing in winter.
http://www.countercurrents.org/rahmstorf181213.htm
Here’s Rahmstorf a year ago speaking of a “lesser trend”
Can we all agree there has been a lesser trend in global warming between 1998 and 2013, as explained by Rahmstorf? If not why not.
No you cant draw that conclusion simply because any slowdown is shown on a trend that is too short to mean anything due to natural variations causing these all the time (and some cooldowns are in fact human caused as well). What is important is to understand the underlying signal that will set the bar for the next “faux pause”. I am sure you understand this, you’re just being silly for some odd reason.
If you were observing the total dataset of temperatures this past 100 years, you can:
A) Recognize the trend over several decades that show true warming and realize that something is altering the planets ability to absorb heat (or limit the amount leaving the planet).
B) Look at some indicator that it might turn downwards again for no apparent reason in the hope that it was just a huge 50 year natural variation based on some unknown phenomenon that beats what we know about the effects of greenhouse gases on a planet.
Science sort of has proven without doubt that its A even though they have been looking for decades for anything fitting the box B – including any Nature article that mentions any hiatus, or IPCC for that sense. What they conclude with every time is that whatever illusion of a cooldown is just a short term fluctuation like so many we have had before.
John Christian – I am not drawing any conclusion. You might be right, we should look at longer trends to understand climate change etc etc. This has no consequence on the straight observation mentioned by Rahmstorf.
But that’s not what I asked. I simply asked if anybody objects to Rahmstorf’s words, and Nature’s, and the BBC’s etc etc.
Romm I understand is totally against it. Why? One could say “there has been a lesser trend, yes, but it doesn’t matter because X Y Z”. Why instead refuse to admit that there has even +been+ a “lesser trend”?
” Why instead refuse to admit that there has even +been+ a “lesser trend”?”
Because the trend is up, up, up. Temperatures are rising.
Which is why, despite the cherry-picked 1998 year, 14 out of the 15 warmest years in history are in the 21st century.
Get it yet? Halooo..anybody in there?
You can’t start with a cherry-picked year and claim there is “lesser trend”, because your initial premise is flawed. Especially if you are using the word “trend”.
Because the only “trend” to be seen is a consistent warming. What you and your fellow travelers insist on calling a trend is just expected noise amplified by a cherry-picked year. And that, to be kind, is sophistry.
The problem is that when low statistical significance is used to promote an idea that it refutes AGW, we aren’t really talking science anymore, but wishful thinking or a rejuvenation of the will to postpone what has to be done anyway – reduce carbon emissions.
The media is very gullible for any story and adds false balance to any debate while in essence we should have been done with even discussing whether this is an issue to better prepare us for the changes ahead, whether they be adaptation or carbon emission reductions (hopefully a fine mix of both). This is why its a shame that we still allow any air time for these kinds of views as it makes people who do not want to take any responsibility to push it a little bit further. I think we can safely say that has been the main reason why there is no serious shift in peoples habits yet. As many have noted, it takes a social shift, much like the now rather established idea that smoking is bad for you – carbon emissions are bad for you (us).
It would be very hard to get that shift against smoking if there were still constantly “skeptics” (actually deniers) that demanded equal balance for their views about smoking not being bad for you (and some would even say beneficial, like the trees love carbon idea). Fortunately that one is shot dead now and we can move on, and trying to figure the best way to phase out smoking all together, even though in some way that is much a personal choice (even though it takes a lot of tax money to patch people together because of their bad habits, much like obesity is).
Let me take another example, diesel combustion emissions, NO2 (or NOX). There is a lot of evidence that this is extremely bad for people, especially the formation of ground level ozone which is very harmful for any organic life. Why are people still buying diesel cars? Or indeed, why are they still allowed to sell them? Likely people know already of people who have Asthma problems, a condition that is also affected heavily by NO2, and a condition that is growing in numbers steadily in western countries. Do these people care about others with these problems? Why not? Is it because the dangers have not been marketed well enough for people to understand the problem? Convenience (and cheaper fuel prices) means more to people than the health of anyone they affect by their own habits. A bunch of egomaniacs, that’s basically what we are. Although it might sound over the top, I am openly uttering words like “ugh, that terrible diesel stench” (you can smell it everywhere here in Norway due to some very odd politics that made diesel cheaper than petrol). The hope is that for some it sinks in as something that makes people feel bad (and they might even feel it themselves, but choose to ignore it out of convenience or the love for a certain car brand). I have children with asthma as well, so for me this is personal.
The same way its gradually becoming personal issue for me that people disregard the dangers of carbon emissions out of their own convenience. The more people ignore it the more I use words like “denier”, “flat earther”, or just fucking idiot. So perhaps you can now understand why there is strong feelings in this. Its not a personal choice anymore, its affecting the lives of everyone around us, and its becoming more and more evident that ignoring the problem of carbon emissions could be pretty bad for all living things on this planet. The risk is too great, even if there are things we do not understand yet. Better safe than sorry.
Because there hasn’t. The big problem – and you know this full well – is that describing this stuff for the general public is difficult. Mainly because they’re looking for a 3 to 5 word motto as a takeaway, not scientific information or explanation. Scientists are a bit reluctant to abandon their habits of caution and completeness so they’re the worst people possible to ask for such a thing even if it were available.
And you know as well as anyone here, that 10 to 20 years is too short a time period to make any definitive never-to-be-qualified-or-contradicted statements about trends in atmospheric temperatures. (We’ll leave aside the chicanery of the usual suspects in using UAH trends to counter statements about surface temperature trends. That sort of thing is deliberately set up to make scientists look as though they’re fussing and fidgeting rather than being straightforward to the eyes of a non-scientific audience.)
You also know that a couple of El Nino years in a row will give the apparent, current, surface temperature trend a couple of notches steeper unless we also have a major tropical region volcano eruption in the same period.
Don’t quibble. Don’t argue. You do know all this stuff. You know it perfectly well.
Being contrary for its own sake might look like a good strategy to a toddler or a teenager. In an adult it’s simply silly as well as tediously unpleasant.
Sorry folks.
That should have been a reply to omno.
We knew that. Who else could it have been intended for?
Indeed, as Steven Novella say, while kids are more openly lying about things, grown ups are just better at concealing their bad habits (monkey brain behaviour) by trying to appear intelligent and meaningful.
Great post btw!