“A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence.” Richard Dawkins.
Yesterday, I started down the road of determining how one gets to the truth of a complex issue. I called the post Doggedly seeking the truth. My proposition was effectively saying that just because a person believes in argument ‘a’ or argument ‘b’ that doesn’t of itself make ‘a’ or ‘b’ the truth.
Unwittingly, Martin Lack of the blog Lack of Environment reinforced that point in spades. He wrote in a comment to yesterday’s post:
The deliberate spreading of misinformation is a fundamental part of the industry-led movement to deny the reality of anthropogenic climate disruption. Alex Rawls is just part of this campaign and I therefore do wish that you would consult me before deciding to help publicise and/or lend credence to such nonsense.
Now I have every sympathy for Martin’s outpourings of feelings; his blog is based on the conviction of his own beliefs. A position of integrity.
But taken literally, Martin’s words, “consult me before deciding to help publicise” mean that he wishes to influence what I choose to write. Of course he didn’t mean to convey that.
Back to yesterday’s post. With Dan’s permission, I reproduced the personal email that he sent me with those two articles. Dan isn’t on the payroll of the Koch brothers or blindly following an “industry-led movement to deny the reality of anthropogenic climate disruption“, he is a thinking human who is yet to be convinced that AGW is as rational a process as, say, gravity!
Humans are not fundamentally rational; we are emotional beings who even in this 21st century have little real understanding of what a human being is. (Must be honest and say that this last sentence is a tickler for a mind-opening video on the nature of human consciousness coming out on Friday.)
So if Dan is not convinced about the effects that mankind is having on Planet Earth, then spare a moment to ponder about the millions of others around the world who are far less capable, even if they had the time and inclination, to adopt a rational, open-minded view of the complexity of AGW.
It gets even more convoluted. In Professor McPherson’s video that was presented yesterday, this gets said, “If we act as if it’s too late, then we becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy”. On the face of it, that’s obvious. But on Guy McPherson’s blog Nature Bats Last the video has it’s own post and includes a comment left by Daniel, from which I quote:
Guy,
There are so many insoluble dilemmas concerning industrial civilization, it’s almost impossible for anyone to attempt to propose a “solution”, or attempt to describe the work that now needs to be done, without becoming a hypocrite.
At this stage, hypocrisy is unavoidable. Beyond the point of overshoot, at least in our culture, all that’s required to be a hypocrite, is to be alive.
I have watched your presentation evolve over the last few months, and with this latest one, something struck me as peculiar. You’ve added this line:
“If we act as if it’s too late, then we becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy”.
Basically, implying that we shouldn’t accept that it’s too late. Yes?
The evidence that now exists, has established an immovable catastrophe, which is now, well outside human agency ( aside from the looming boondoggle of geo-engineering). This is what the evidence shows. We have effectively already become a self-fulfilling prophesy. The most dire warnings of the last three decades, have now become prophetic. What are eight non-reversible feedbacks if not a physical manifestation of a self-fulfilling prophesy?
To which Guy replies:
Daniel, you’re asking the same questions many others have been asking lately. I’ll try to respond with my next essay, which I’ll complete and post in a couple days.
(I’m pretty sure that next essay is this one: Playing court jester.)
Seems to reinforce the message. That we really shouldn’t be surprised at the delusions, games and power interplays going on, especially in the corridors of power, so to speak.
Right! Time for me to show my hand!
I am totally convinced that we humans are responsible for the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and that this accounts for the majority of the abnormal weather events being experienced in so many parts of the planet.
I think I’m right. Therefore I give more weight to the evidence that supports my view that, guess what, reinforces me thinking I’m right.
Is that scientific? Of course not! Science is about producing reproducible outcomes. With, say gravity, that’s a piece of cake.
I’m not a scientist, far from it. Therefore the following statement may be unreliable. That the problem with producing an uncontroversial, hard-wired proof that man is screwing up (you see, I did say that I wasn’t a scientist) our planet is that we don’t have other planets with which to test the thesis. When it surely is an uncontroversial, hard-wired proof it will be too late!
Having said all that, tomorrow I will present the best evidence that I can find to support the notion that Dan’s beliefs are wrong.
Back to Casey and that scent:
Hang on, let me finish sniffing your bum! Ask Ruby to help, she’s just by the fence.
We can never be as rational as dogs. But maybe if we learnt to live more in the present, as dogs do so well, the world would be a much simpler and sustainable place.
Last words from Guy McPherson from Playing Court Jester,
On the road, there’s little possibility to develop a lasting relationship. I throw a Molotov cocktail into the conversation, and then I leave the area.
On the road, I describe how we live at the mud hut. I describe the importance of living for today. [my emphasis]
Learning from Dogs 
With the greatest of respect, Paul, I think your unfamiliarity with scientific method is made far too obvious in this post. Indeed, it seems to come perilously close to endorsing the ubiquitous fallacy with which our modern society is afflicted – the belief that all opinions are equally valid.
With the greatest of respect to Dan Gomez, he believes what he wants to believe – which is that humans are not so stupid as to screw-up (your phrase) their entire planet; so there simply has to be an alternative explanation. This is entirely understandable, it is the reason Clive Hamilton wrote Requiem for a Species – a book that laments our failure to prevent anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) as a result of many factors rooted deep in our psychology. Since Dan has a degree in the subject – and must be familiar with the work of Leon Festinger – it is deeply ironic that he cannot see this. No doubt, he projects his own misconception of reality onto others who, I suspect, he would characterise as believing what they want to believe – that humans are responsible for what is happening.
But why? I just don’t understand why anyone would actually want to believe that. However, ACD is not a ‘theory’ and acknowledging this is not a matter of ‘belief’; it is a rational response to all the evidence (rather than the desperately clinging to belief in the importance of a tiny proportion of the evidence that leaves room for doubt). However, to reach such a rational conclusion requires humility (to admit that all opinions are not equally valid) and courage (to admit that humans may well be very stupid).
The tobacco industry spent decades perpetuating doubt and uncertainty over the science that challenged the morality of marketing its product. For the most part, this campaign was very subtle; as the industry encouraged the creation of popular grassroots campaigns that questioned the motives of scientists and turned a public health issue into a civil rights issue. What astonishes me is the level of willful blindness required not to recognise that this is also exactly what the fossil fuel industry has done – and is still doing.
This is not conspiracy theory; it is a well-documented historical fact: In addition to recommending that ‘doubters’ read Climate Change Cover Up by James Hoggan and/or Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, I would also recommend people read the 1998 draft of an American Petroleum Institute (API) Global Climate Science Communications plan.
Despite being exposed many years ago, the API has continued to fund climate change denial to this day and the fact that it can do so is itself proof that people believe what they want to believe; the API is pushing at an open door. This is also the main reason that most scientists do not want to engage with the arguments (and evidence) put forward by Guy McPherson, which suggests that the situation is much worse than even mainstream climate scientists are willing to admit to themselves.
LikeLike
As a historian I am unable to follow the opinion of a majority that climate change is totally down to humanity, nor can I feel any great alarm over a rise in sea levels or temperature. I have the holistic view of the whole of history to see that temperature, CO2 and sea levels have fluctuated between extremes throughout the life history of this planet, we are by no means in an extreme point compared to other eras.
This is the Holocene, it is a warming period that started with the end of the last Ice Age. Today people panic over a few inches rise in sea level, yet they seem to be ignorant that in the last 10,000 years the sea levels have risen by 400m and in some years rose by metres at a time. The whole of the North Sea was once dry land where my ancestors lived and buried their dead, now under the sea.
The climate change debate confuses more alarming issues of GM and the over exploitation of the oceans. Most of what is going on with climate is natural, assisted in part by humanity. Simple and effective measures to pull carbon out of the atmosphere is to plant forests and conserve what is left of existing forests. Oil and coal is a limited resource, it will run out which will end the cycle of dumping carbon into the environment.
LikeLike
Alex, for the moment I will see if others wish to reply to your generous comment. Martin?
LikeLike
Hi Paul. It is not like you to leave a comment unanswered, so i just hope I have not upset you.:-)
LikeLike
Not at all. It was simply that some aspects of your great reply didn’t seem to resonate with my post. So I was going to call you and chat it through before gabbling off in the wrong direction. It will wait until tomorrow.
LikeLike
OK that’s good. Sorry if I went off-topic (I am well known for sometimes failing to just answer the question that has been asked).
LikeLike
Please forgive the delayed response, Alex, I have had a very busy day. However, there is no point me even trying to go to bed without responding to your comments; they will only keep me awake.
Firstly, you describe yourself as a historian, which could prompt an uncharitable person to question your ability to adjudicate on scientific matters. However, I suspect that you are trying to make the point that the mainstream view of climate science cannot be accepted as truth simply because it is the settled opinion of the majority (i.e. the ‘climate “sceptics” are like Galileo’ argument). If so, I am afraid this is a very tired old fallacy: Galileo’s battle was with the Roman Catholic Church and, today, even the RC Church accepts the reasonableness and reliability of the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD).
Secondly, I would want to say that no-one is arguing that humanity is entirely to blame: I think the latest data suggest that we are responsible for 70% of the Arctic sea ice melting (that is to say the other 30% would have happened anyway). I think this is still overly optimistic but there is no point arguing about the extent to which we are responsible because the positive feedback mechanisms now kicking-in (e.g. dark water absorbs more heat than white ice) do not care who was responsible; they are doing what they do regardless.
Thirdly, the fact that you are not alarmed about what is now happening suggests you do not appreciate the non-linear nature of many processes in nature (including population growth) . You also claim to take a holistic view of Earth history. Please forgive me but:
— Are you trying to suggest that climate scientists have failed to do this? or
— Are you trying to say that you are cleverer than they are? or
— Are you admitting that you are a conspiracy theorist who thinks they are all up to no good?
Fourthly, you appear to be a little confused about recent Earth history. However, this is understandable. Until recently, despite originally doing a Geology degree over 25 years ago, I decided to read up on palaeoclimatology.
However, I decided to read the peer-reviewed stuff; not the misinformation put about by the likes of Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Fred Singer, and Roy Spencer. Until very recently, I was also confused by the fact that the Sahara only became a desert 5000 years ago. However, even this has now been explained to me and, guess what? The explanation does not invalidate the argument that the Earth’s climate and sea levels have been remarkably stable since the Earth emerged from the last Ice Age about 10,000 years ago.
Without this stability, humans would never have invented deforestation, agriculture, cities, modernity, or industry. Therefore, the ending of this long period of stability is a very bad deal indeed. Sea level rise that goes on for several centuries (as it did at the end of the last Ice Age) will mean an end to urban dwelling in coastal areas; not good news for most of the World’s cities. I would therefore recommend that (like me) you register to watch the live podcast of the upcoming Geological Society conference on Holocene Climate Change at: http://www.geolsoc.uk/holocene13
Finally, I would like to address your remarks about other environmental issues. I agree with you that the picture becomes confused by ideologically-driven opposition to things like GM crops and civil nuclear power. I am not opposed to either because they are supposedly intrinsically dangerous. However, I do think we need to think hard before offering poor countries hi-tech solutions to their problems that serve the interests of multi-national companies and not poor people (i.e. think of Nestle and powdered baby milk). Therefore, apart from your repetition of the fallacy that ongoing change is mostly natural, I would agree with your closing remarks.
Please forgive me for being blunt in places: I genuinely hope you will take this as constructive criticism of your “sceptical” position.
LikeLike
Wow! Your long and extensive reply totally justifies me from inviting others to do a proper job. Thanks Martin.
LikeLike
Martin,
Please could you give links to any sources that has measured carbon dioxide or carbon circulating in the atmosphere over time.
Please could you also give me links to sources that list the demands of climate change scientists to governments and citizens to address climate change.
With thanks.
Alex Jones
LikeLike
Hi Martin,
I wonder if you could give to me:
1. links to sources showing measures over time of carbon or carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
2. links to proposals of climate change scientists to governments and citizens to deal with global warming.
LikeLike
Hi Alex. With regard to your requests:
1. I think you really need to define timescale but David Mackay’s comments regarding CO2 emissions in the last few hundred years are, I think, instructive: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_6.shtml
2. Climate scientists are not paid to advise governments on policy. However, James Hansen is probably the first and most well-known climate scientist to break ranks and start telling governments what they should be doing. The trouble with that is that he – and anyone else who has done so – is then accused of abandoning science and becoming political. It is a wonderful catch-22 situation that has been a gift to ideologically-driven sceptics everywhere.
However, I remain hopeful that people everywhere (both those that are sceptical and those that are just confused) will soon realise that:
a) Climate science is not a conspiracy to stall economic growth or impose global socialist government; and
b) Climate change denial is a well-documented conspiracy.
Please see my blog today: http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/there-is-nothing-abstract-about-climate-change-denial/
LikeLike
One more thing, Alex: The North Sea is not as deep as you appear to suggest. However, whatever you meant to imply is irrelevant. Even if the modest rise required to submerge the North Sea were to be repeated now, it would cause billions of human beings to either die or migrate; and the latter will dwarf any previous refugee crisis. I really do think you need to stop listening to people who say there is no cause for alarm; and start questioning why they are saying it.
LikeLike
Hi Martin, thanks for your considered reply. My position is neither as a denier or a supporter of climate change, but one that considers with open mind the possibilities of both sides of the argument. It is obvious that climate is changing, though I am sceptical about the claims that humanity is the main cause of it.
I am an empiricist by nature which means I make conclusions based upon observation, demonstration and experience. I need no PhD or peered review papers after my name to see what is happening with my own eyes, and to draw my conclusions using the inductive method.
Being the historian I am reinforces rather than weakens my position in the conversation around climate change. As a historian I know what happens in the climate has a direct impact on the events of history. I have the benefit of knowledge of history to see patterns that for all their scholarship the climate expert seems oblivious of. For instance climate change happens in cycles, with minor cycles within cycles. The overall cycle is to warmer climate a process that started long before the last Neanderthal drew their last breath tens of thousands of years ago, and continues today. In these shorter cycles there was periods when the North of the world grew cold, dry and the ice advanced; during those periods peoples were forced to migrate setting off a chain reaction of historical events. My ancestors in Orkney suddenly abandoned their advanced megalithic civilisation and went south to build Stonehenge due to climate change. The great advanced civilisations of the bronze age in the middle east and Mediterranean collapsed into the dark ages because the people of the North moved south because of the cold brought by change in climate, the reason why Scottish people share a DNA connection to those in North Africa. In the time of Julius Caesar a movement of peoples because of climate change set the scene for a great showdown between German, Celt and Roman that brought Julius Caesar to the gates of my town of Colchester and ended the golden age of the Celts at the battle of Alesia.
In my town of Colchester I have half a million years of human activity to study in the context of changes in climate and geography. It fascinates me to know that outside my front door on the busy road was once a fast flowing extinct river that cut out the steep inclines of the side roads, fed by melting glaciers. In the history I study and the landscape of my home town I see the concrete examples of climate change, which has been happening over tens of thousands of years, not the few decades some people are so obsessed about.
I am unable to get excited or alarmed about a few inches of sea rise, a degree rise in temperature because I know from history that everything moves in cycles and sometimes by leaps. I have no agenda since I am not under the influence of any special interest group on either side of the conversation. The ideal I encourage in everyone is to question everything they see and hear, to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
It alarms me more than the claims of what climate change may mean when I observe scientists behaving with hubris, attempting to control the conversation of climate change with emotive, aggressive and defensive tones. When I observe hubris on part of an authority, priest, ruler or scientist, who claims ownership of the truth at the expense of all other possibilities not only am I irritated but also wary. Hubris blinds,and it leads people to ignorance and stupidity.
The climate change scientist builds their paradigm upon theory and models, it is not the truth, it is an interpretation upon what they believe the truth to be. When a scientist gets locked into their belief of a truth with a closed mind to alternatives or other conflicting information then they are into the realm of blinding hubris. Worse, the scientist becomes fundamentalist in nature, the sort of mentality that persecutes alternative thinkers like Socrates or the many accused heretics that were burnt and hung in my town of Colchester for their ideas over the ages.
If the climate change scientist is looking for support for their agenda then the worst they can do is be arrogant and hide behind their abstract intellectualism. I may have no PhD, or scientific letters behind my name, or peer reviewed journals but I am not stupid, and I am a stakeholder. As stakeholder as citizen, as business owner, as an influence on politician and media I have the authority and a say in the world I live in, and so if the climate change scientist wishes to blank me behind their clever words and intellectualism then nothing is going to change other than make a lot of people antagonised towards those that seek to control the conversation on climate change. Hubris is one thing that will get my back up.
LikeLike
Hi Alex. Thank you too for your substantial response offering useful clarification of your background. I really do not want to repeat myself so, all I can say is that I think your septicism is no longer tenable (see Paul’s post today).
Sadly, you appear to admit that you believe you have a better grasp of palaeoclimatology than palaeoclimatologists, which I think is very improbable. Furthermore, although you responded to it, you do not seem to have taken on board my final remarks about the consequences, now, of even a few metres of sea level rise. Finally, you appear to be ignoring the thermodynamic reality that, since it has now started and will be very hard to stop, the melting of the Earth’s remaining ice sheets and glaciers (which is now accelerating because of positive feedback mechanisms) will result in at least 75 metres of sea level rise.
However, all of this “scepticsim” – albeit dressed up as merely having an open mind – is unfortunately explained by your a priori decision to doubt the reality that humans are causing most of the change that is now occurring, to which I cannot say more than I have already said… Apart from this: http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/is-having-an-open-mind-the-problem/
LikeLike
Gentlemen, I believe beyond doubt that we are in the end phase of mankind’s existence on this planet unless something happens soon on a massive scale to change this outcome.
However, the question of whether global warming and the resultant climate change is the result or not of man’s activities is now a bit of a moot point.
Because the feedback processes now in place practically guarantee the inevitability of total chaos.
I intend to write a post about these feedback loops for next week.
Thank you both for such thoughtful and lengthy comments.
LikeLike
Thanks for this response, Paul.
I look forward to reading next week’s post. In particular, I look forward to elucidation of the 10 different feedback mechanisms alluded to in McPherson’s Powerpoint presentation (i.e. as per video embedded in your previous post). As I said to you on the telephone, I am very worried by the probability that McPherson is right and that, as Pendantry is often inclined to say, civil disorder and anarchy are only one missed meal (fuel delivery or power supply interruption) away.
As a consequence of all of this, I think your second paragraph should have started with the word “Therefore…”
LikeLike
I agree with you Paul and Martin, humanity is moving into the end game stage.
I look forward to reading your post on the feedback mechanisms.
LikeLike
Gentlemen was clearly the proper way to address you both! Thank you.
LikeLike