Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

RobH4413 · 01-24-2013, 05:14 PM

Grabbed this off Michael E. Mann's ( an American physicist and climatologist) facebook page. I'm a weather nerd so this is right up my alley. Sorry it's long.

Some additional thoughts about terminology: "Denial" vs. "Skepticism" in the Climate Change Debate.

This is a topic I explore in some detail in my book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" (http://bit.ly/sRasaq), particularly in Chapter 6, "A Candle in the Dark" (which pays homage to Carl Sagan's masterful discussion of true skepticism vs. fake skepticism/antiscience/denial in "The Demon-Haunted World").

My view is that far more damage is likely done to the discourse on climate change by pretending that those who deny the existence of the problem are simply "skeptics" and labeling them as such (or using similar euphemisms). Doing so simply provides cover for bad faith attacks on the science, and potentially leads those in the middle (or are much more likely to be be potentially part of any meaningful progress in climate change mitigation) to stay on the sidelines rather than engage, believing that the threat has been exaggerated or overstated.

Work by Ed Maibach and others (see e.g. this piece: http://www.minnpost.com/environment/2011/11/why-arent-we-more-worried-about-global-warming) has shown that the single greatest obstacle to progress on this issue is in fact the belief by those in the middle that scientists are *not* in agreement" on the reality of the problem, despite the overwhelming consensus that actually exists.

Allowing the forces of antiscience to continue to frame themselves as "skeptics" plays right into that fallacy, and arguably does far more damage than alienating those who actively deny the science (what are often referred to as "climate change deniers") by calling them out for their denial. Yes, deniers don't like being called deniers (just as fools don't like being called fools, etc). But not calling them out for what they are is potentially a far greater threat to progress than alienating those who are (a) unlikely to change their mind and therefore (b) unlikely to actively work toward any truly meaningful mitigation efforts.

It is telling in that regard that President Obama yesterday in his Inauguration speech chose to call out those who "deny" the science of climate change despite the overwhelming evidence. This implies that his administration, his advisers and speechwriters, etc. have come to the same realization: That the continued denial of the problem by some poses a far greater threat than does offending those who are engaged in that denial, and unlikely to be part of any meaningful solution (i.e. carbon emissions regulations).

01-24-2013, 05:14 PM	#158
RobH4413 Wildcard Bitches Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bethesda, MD Age: 40 Posts: 2,638	Re: Global Warming? My A$$ Its Cold Outside Grabbed this off Michael E. Mann's ( an American physicist and climatologist) facebook page. I'm a weather nerd so this is right up my alley. Sorry it's long. Some additional thoughts about terminology: "Denial" vs. "Skepticism" in the Climate Change Debate. This is a topic I explore in some detail in my book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" (http://bit.ly/sRasaq), particularly in Chapter 6, "A Candle in the Dark" (which pays homage to Carl Sagan's masterful discussion of true skepticism vs. fake skepticism/antiscience/denial in "The Demon-Haunted World"). My view is that far more damage is likely done to the discourse on climate change by pretending that those who deny the existence of the problem are simply "skeptics" and labeling them as such (or using similar euphemisms). Doing so simply provides cover for bad faith attacks on the science, and potentially leads those in the middle (or are much more likely to be be potentially part of any meaningful progress in climate change mitigation) to stay on the sidelines rather than engage, believing that the threat has been exaggerated or overstated. Work by Ed Maibach and others (see e.g. this piece: http://www.minnpost.com/environment/2011/11/why-arent-we-more-worried-about-global-warming) has shown that the single greatest obstacle to progress on this issue is in fact the belief by those in the middle that scientists are not in agreement" on the reality of the problem, despite the overwhelming consensus that actually exists. Allowing the forces of antiscience to continue to frame themselves as "skeptics" plays right into that fallacy, and arguably does far more damage than alienating those who actively deny the science (what are often referred to as "climate change deniers") by calling them out for their denial. Yes, deniers don't like being called deniers (just as fools don't like being called fools, etc). But not calling them out for what they are is potentially a far greater threat to progress than alienating those who are (a) unlikely to change their mind and therefore (b) unlikely to actively work toward any truly meaningful mitigation efforts. It is telling in that regard that President Obama yesterday in his Inauguration speech chose to call out those who "deny" the science of climate change despite the overwhelming evidence. This implies that his administration, his advisers and speechwriters, etc. have come to the same realization: That the continued denial of the problem by some poses a far greater threat than does offending those who are engaged in that denial, and unlikely to be part of any meaningful solution (i.e. carbon emissions regulations). __________________ This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps!