On 4/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Surveys of the audience before
> > and after the debate indicated that after the debate more people
> > were skeptical that global warming is a real problem. This
> > illustrates that just presenting the facts is not effective in
> > reaching people.
>
> It illustrates that much of the debate isn't about facts, but about
> moral values and judgment.
>
> I am actually of the opinion that if this* was purely a question of
> fact, you'd readily find agreement.
>
> * the nature of the response required to deal with climate change
First of all, does this observation reinforce or contradict Jim's
point? I think it is the former.
It is obvious that the issues of judgement and values, as well as
their expressions in expectations and unconscious biases, are at work.
However, we seem unable to reach agreement about the factual basis,
the way we might if we were observing a like phenomenon on a distant
inhabited planet.
That is to say, our values disagreements are affecting our judgement.
> > It has been clear for a long time that some people on that list
> > think global warming is just hysteria invented by scientists so
> > they can get research funding.
>
> Exageration isn't the same as lying, and arguably most of the hysteria
> doesn't come from climate scientists, but from the media and
> environmental activists.
Heiko, this is the first hint of unfairness I have seen in your own
postings. I find this response quite inconsiderate.
Jim has not taken the position that these is significant hysteria;
quite the contrary. For you to move from hysteria attribution when the
proposition was invalid hysteria detection seems unnecessarily
provocative. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding.
In my opinion, the lack of a clear understanding of a not enormously
complicated problem arises not because of the complexity of the system
in which the problem arises, but because of deliberate obfuscation of
the problem by self-interest on the part of owners of fossil fuel
reserves, which plays on certain intrinsic beliefs in some segments of
the society.
The misunderstanding is evenly distributed on both sides of the aisle,
but the consequences of the confusion are extremely asymmetric. Most
people who suppport policy action misunderstand the details of the
situation. Most people who oppose policy action (you can tell them by
the "draconian" that is always following them about) are confused
about whom to trust. They sign up for the wrong team.
I do not include yourself or other Lomborgists in this at all. You
have a much more reasoned case. I think you are wrong, but I think you
are wrong in the right way, in that you are accessible to reason and
are willing at least to identify your core assumptions. At least we
can come to agreement about where our assumptions differ, and perhaps
we can reach policy compromise where a values agreement is
unavailable.
That is not the issue Jim takes up here, or that I take up in my blog.
IPCC WG 1 report accurately represents both the center and the spreead
of the opinions of relevant physical scientists on the physical
science questions. This is cast as a vicious pack of lies, and many
people believe this or give some credit to this malicious slander.
This is tragic not only for our field, but for human civilzation.
These shenanigans are not unique to our field, and if they succeed
they will only become more common. We absolutely must build a network
of trust between those who know what they are talking about and the
public at large.
I believe that when I was young this existed, and now it is gone. Even
if climate change is overrated this is no small matter.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
