Michael - I agree completely with your recommendations on how people who follow the AGW research should behave in debate.
Regardless of whether GW skeptics/denialists are writing in bad faith -- which I think most of them are -- expressing anger, contempt and exasperation in reply to their provocations is not likely to do any good. The GW Denialist who's being attacked is unlikely to change his/ her mind in response to a put-down, and the person who follows the scientific mainstream on AGW is likely to look foolish, intolerant, etc. I wonder about a couple of points in your blog, however. First, you seem to me to be saying that supporters of the IPCC's conclusions are losing some kind of public relations battle, and I wonder if that's really true. Certainly a number of conservative business leaders and politicians around the world are belatedly agreeing that yes, climate change is a problem. I don't know what the public opinion polls say, partly because it seems to depend on who's running the poll and what questions are asked, but my sense is that climate change is making headway in popular opinion, too. Is this impression wrong? Secondly, you convey the sense that it's somehow surprising or distressing that members of the right are becoming ever more adamant in their rejection of AGW science, even as the science improves. However, I think the economic self-interest of the energy companies who are funding some of the GW Denialist science, the ideological biases of libertarian advocates of laissez faire economics who see in AGW the threat of government interference in the markets, and the ego needs of legitimate scientists who have questioned AGW in the past all suggest that some people will never change their minds on this issue. It would simply cost them too much -- whether in terms of lost profits and emploment income, or in terms of ideological uncertainty, or in terms of professional status & pride. Thomas Kuhn, in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," notes that when scientific disciplines have undergone major shifts in paradigms in the past, it hasn't been the case that most of the older researchers who supported the older paradigms were instantly converted to "the truth." Instead, those with reputations to protect have generally continued to insist on the validity of Ptolemaic astronomy, phlogiston theory, pre- relativity physics etc until their generation died off. A new generation of researchers with no prestige at stake, and no emotional investment in the older paradigms, then has usually ensured the virtually universal acceptance of the new thinking. It seems extremely likely that similar patterns will prevail in the ongoing controversy over CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. Those of us who think we're on the side of "the truth" in this fight should not be surprised, or shocked, or angered by the fact that the GW Denialists stubbornly refuse to accept a version of climate science that they see as threatening either to their interests or to their basic understanding of reality. Resistance from them against AGW science is almost inevitable, and not worth taking seriously unless they carry large sections of the public along with them. On Mar 31, 1:00 pm, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's been a lot of talk about what is behind the thinking of the > "skeptics" crowd, kicked off largely by Gavin Schmidt's experience in > more or less losing a debate: > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-t... > > and by Chait's article "Why the right goes nuclear over global > warming" in the LA Times: > > http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-chait25mar25,0,3... > > I sent a comment about this to RealClimate, spending considerable > effort on formatting it for legibility. It looked fine in the > previews, but (unlike my previous efforts using HTML tags) got > hopelessly mangled in the commentary section. > > So I reposted my comment in blogger, along the way starting a climate/ > global change specific blog. I argue that there isn't that much > substance to the "arrogance meme", but it is a trap we easily and > regularly fall into. > > Here's the blog entry: > > http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-truth-is-losing-ground... > > Comments and inbound links would be much appreciated. > > mt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
