Bishop Hill The edge of the academy
Jan 31, 2013 Climate: Sceptics Yesterday I had an interesting exchange of views with various members of staff at the University of Nottingham over the limits to academia. At what point does someone teeter on the brink between legitimate academic research and political activism?
I am uncomfortable with the idea of marketing as an academic specialism full stop. I seems to me to be hard to justify taxpayers having to cough up their hard earned cash so that academics can try to find ways of selling them things. Are we really happy with the man who sweeps the floor in the widget factory keeping middle-class boffins in this way?
However, there are situations that are worse still. Work aimed at changing other people's views on any particular issue is entirely illegimate. The particular case we discussed was that of Talking Climate, a website best known for its video extravaganza "How to Talk to a Climate Change Denier". Their website gives this information:
Talking Climate is a UK-based partnership between the Climate Outreach and Information Network (COIN), the Public Interest Research Centre (PIRC), the Understanding Risk group at Cardiff University and the ‘Climate change as complex social issue’ research group at the School of Sociology and Social Policy, Nottingham University.
PIRC, is a climate activist group, run by familiar names such as Christian Hunt (of the Carbon Brief), Kirsty Schneeberger of UK Youth Climate Coalition, former Ralph Nader sidekick Charles Medawar, self-declared "climate advocate" Tim Helweg Larsen, and well-known climate academic-cum-activist Adam Corner. COIN is equally well known, and explains its job as trying to change attitudes and behaviour on climate change.
My Twitter conversation took in, among others, Brigitte Nerlich of Nottingham University. She had part-funding the Talking Climate Project out of her research money. She agreed with me that there was a difference between an academic's need to be policy-relevant and the situation in which they used their positions (and presumably public money) to advance particular points of view - a value-judgement.
This being the case seems to me that Prof Nerlich has a problem. She needs to convince us that when she was approached by these two patently activist organisations with a view to obtaining funding, she authorised the expenditure because she felt that together they would produce a website that was not seeking to advance a particular point of view. The chances of anyone being convinced by this are, to say the least, slim. I said I thought her actions represented a misuse of public funds. She protested, saying that she was non-political, a position I challenged, perhaps somewhat mischievously, by asking her to fund me as well. This is not, on the face of it, an unreasonable request, given that this site has become the venue for many important interactions between climate scientists and sceptics.
Unfortunately, that was the last we heard from Prof Nerlich.
I was then challenged by Adam Corner, who as well as being a board member of PIRC is an academic at Cardiff's school of pyschology. He is therefore central to the Talking Climate project. Corner's position was that Talking Climate is a "resource for research on climate change communication" (I urge readers to examine the site themselves to make up their own minds on this question) and that it actively sought engagement with sceptics. Here he cited a comment thread with Geoff Chambers., although I think Geoff visited the site to comment is hard to construe as Marshall et al "actively seeking engagement".
But that's besides the point. Corner's final take was, rather remarkably, that I was only objecting to Nerlich's funding it because I think climate is contentious. Presumably he thinks climate is uncontentious.
What though, did he mean by "climate"? I couldn't get much out of him on this, apart from "you think AGW is contentious". This of course is not true, since I repeatedly say that mankind affects the climate, not least through CO2 emissions. That much is not contentious - at least not for me.
But the global warming debate is, nevertheless contentious. Estimates of climate sensitivity in the IPCC's draft report vary from a "shrug your shoulders and think about something more important level" of 0.7°C to a distinctly alarming 11°C per doubling. So, no matter what Adam Corner says, the global warming debate is contentious - this is the official IPCC take on the subject. That he pretends it is not puts him in a very small minority and cannot obscure the fact that he and his colleagues are using public funds to advance their view of that debate.
And even if the IPCC gave a single estimate of 11°C based on the output of a single climate model? Would that justify taxes being taken from people who disagree? Do Nerlich and Corner even recognise the right of people to have different opinions? If they do, then how can they justify using public funds to pay people like George Marshall to publish his slime?
Reader Comments (112)
Sigh! I meant 'Adam' at the end.
Widget factory workers and taxpayers in general would be surprised to know what they are funding. E.g. Prof. Spanier (former head of Penn State) is an expert on mate swapping in the mid-west. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g18580h5t244324u/fulltext.pdf). Spanier is (or was until the Sandusky story came to light) a respected leader of a respected academic institution. I suspect that climatology is not the most dishonest and corrupt discipline on the campuses (hence the general reluctance to discuss climatological activities by Acton and others).
It does seem to be the case that the main topic of 'research' in recent posts at Adam's blog seems to be the question of "how can we persuade more of the public to join us in our activism?".
But in his defence he does allow critical comments.
Paul Mattghews - no he does't anumber mine still get deleted. as they did before anybody else from Bishop Hill had heard of Talking Climate.
Some of mine only appeared, because i get tweeting, to them why are you deleting my comment.. they even amended one article, (because of something I suggested) but would not let my comment show.
As for George Marshall.. educating the activists..
2007: George Marshall talking exactly the same theme at Climate Camp 2007 (there as COIN) running workshops (cattle trucks, middle of night, screaming)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SqFZgoE_Us&list=UUAPNm2nJnBuJi91IfEOHbJg&index=8&feature=plcp
2007: Climate Camp 7 next generation youthful student running a workshop, describing what sceptics are (Exxon, etc.), great global warming swindle and deniers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wGNDnkahVw
2007: Climate Camp 7, 20 something's Christian Hunt (PIRC, CarbonBrief, Greenpeace), Richard Hawkins(greenpeace) at Climate Camp (zero carbon Britain workshop, both PIRC, Hunt arrested at HoC, UK Youth/climate Camp Hawkins arrestedat Kingsnorth)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCs2ckDIkeM&feature=relmfu
Jan 31, 2013 at 3:08 PM | geoffchambers
yeah well, personally I've had about as much as I can take of the abuse of public funds by the trendy "not for profit" crews.
Instead of respecting the intended purpose (which really isn't open to much interpretation) on the evidence I've seen (housing associations) the UK "not for profit" company structure is the fashionable vehicle of choice for the abuse of public funds and opacity of activity in what should be "community" endeavors - it is not unreasonable to expect transparency and explanatory commentary in their operations.
UKYCC's meager balance with no supporting calendar / diary and no explanation of funding might well be utterly innocent. However, my curiosity is sufficiently piqued to try full frontal approach - so mañana mis amigos jóvenes.
TerryS wrote:
Timothy Helweg Larsen is also a director of Quarries as batteries LLP who have submitted a plans for a £100m scheme in Snowdonia. I don't know how much of this would be publicly funded.
I'm a CAGW sceptic but the Quarries as Batteries pumped storage scheme seems a good idea to me, provided the electricity cables are put underground. The scheme shows that not everything that Timothy Helweg Larsen supports is wrong. While I share some of His Grace's worries about universities getting money to try and change people's views (which is rather different from simply educating the public) I think the people who posted abusive comments about Timothy Helweg Larsen and other academics are damaging the sceptic cause by their displays of bigotry.
"Mankind affects the climate, not least through CO2 emissions. That much is not contentious"
Since when is this not contentious? Have I missed some new scientific evidence? I thought that the recent "low climate sensitivity" papers were only putting an upper bound on sensitivity to CO2, which is a long way from showing that the CO2 increases actually caused the temperature increases.
Do we know what caused the medieval warm period? Can we categorically exclude the same causes for any current warming?
Dear Dr. Corner, I took the trouble to go to your "Talking Climate" blog, rather than rely on second hand information.
"No policy goal" you say.
I invite other readers of this blog to check out your site and draw their own conclusions.
If public money is being mis-spent then at least in theory the National Audit Office should investigate.
SJF
"Since when is this not contentious? "
It is not contentious because there is no opposition that isn't an object of ridicule to the average British broadsheet reader, including myself. Namely Ridley, Monckton, Lawson, Delingpole, Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute.
"@Bishop Hill there is sufficient broad-based societal agreement – through science, wider academia, government, public, civil society – that climate change is enough of a risk (as is obesity, smoking etc) to warrant public funds being spent on research to find out how to make the country more sustainable and less 'at risk' from climate change, which will include some amount of behavioural change/public engagement.
I can't say it any clearer than that
Jan 31, 2013 at 3:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdam Corner
-------------------------------------------------------
Adam, if you can't put it any clearer (sic) than that, then I fear that your science communication project is in trouble, and not just in terms of deficient grammar.
I have read this quote three times and still do not understand what it means - and after a few decades as a public servant working on policy, I am pretty practised at deciphering bafflegab.
What on earth do smoking or obesity have to do with it? Besides, it may come as a shock to you, but there is plenty of contested science around issues like second-hand smoke and the use of statistics around obesity. Indeed, these are areas where an excess of zeal and dogma have drowned out sound science and facilitated bad public policy. But, I digress.
Next, you assert that climate change has something to do with 'sustainability', whatever that means this week to that person. To you, this is seemingly so utterly self-evident that no further explanation is required. In the interests of better science communication, I would be grateful if you could indulge this possibly dense reader and explain what you mean.
You then leap to the next rock like an extraordinarily agile mountain goat by taking it for granted that climate change is enough of a risk to require behaviour change. The rocks in between, like how much of a risk, how certain we are, and whether 'behaviour change' is going to affect climate, are passed over in a single bound.
It's not communication at all - it's a series of unconnected, unproven assumptions which lead you to where you want to be. In fact, it's rather like a human version of those fabulous models that have been doing so well (also at public expense) in leading Western countries down the path to economic and political decline.
Johanna - What on earth do smoking or obesity have to do with it?
Actually quite a bit. What Adam is talking about here is something I referred to earlier as a symptom of contemporary politics that is wider than the climate debate, and involves a transformed relationship between individuals and the state.
What Adam believes are 'societal agreements' is in fact a party-political consensus on what the function of government should be. It's not an explicitly stated consensus, of course -- mostly because, as with Adam's research, the conventions of public life are not really the subject of contest or reflection.
On this consensus view, the principle aim of government is to protect the public from risks. In the past, this didn't extend much beyond the basics -- defence of the realm, and so on -- following which there was a stronger delineation of public and private spheres. But responsibility of government has been extended into the private sphere. (If you want some jargon, it's called 'biopolitics' by some). In fact it goes further than that, as we can see with Adam's work, there is an attempt not just to protect us from risks from 'the other', but also from ourselves, and this means even making our emotional lives the object of policymakers (I'm not kidding).
Here's an exposition from Stern:
-- "Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy". BY LEONARD A. SMITH AND NICHOLAS STERN. http://www.lorentzcenter.nl/lc/web/2011/460/presentations/Smith.pdf
So the only dialogue that exists in the public sphere is between experts and policymakers -- the latter appointed by nominatively democratic processes. Then we see the principle -- of politics as risk management -- applied to risks: smoking in public spaces, obesity, excessive drinking, fizzy pop, exercise, antisocial behaviour, and so on... things that were typically considered matters of personal responsibility, but which the government now takes an interest in. And it doesn't stop here. It then goes on to 'nudge' -- ways of influencing behaviour -- through to auditing our 'sense of well-being' through a 'happiness index', to rival GDP as the government's measure of performance.
And this is where it gets interesting (in my view). Once you dissolve that boundary between private and public, and make 'risk management' (rather than economy) and subjective experience the business of politics, authority no longer needs your consent. Indeed, you are a risk factor to yourself, and to other people as they are to you. Consequently, democratic control of political institutions is itself dangerous. This is the way political elites justify themselves, from the Town Hall, through the Academy, to the UN Assembly in today's world. Adam's 'societal agreement' doesn't need to include the hoi polloi; it just needs to be a convention in the management of public life.
So Adam's point is essentially that we accept the intervention of public agencies to prevent smoking and obesity, thus we accept interventions to protect us from climate change. And that's why I find his and his colleagues' work so objectionable. It's condescending, paternalist and elitist before it has even begun. Once it's premises and presuppositions are unpacked, it is more 'ideological' than any manifesto ever offered by anyone hoping to form a movement, because whereas manifestos of political movements past aimed to appeal to individuals as rational, autonomous moral or political agents -- i.e. they sought consent -- the impossibility of individuals understanding or acting in their own interests is what gives this new form of politics its authority. Adam and his colleagues are unable to understand that this 'science' is owed almost entirely to this obnoxious ideology -- they think it's just science. And 'science' transcends ideology. In precisely the same way, religious zealots cannot understand how bad can be done while seemingly doing God's work.
Apologies for the over-long comment.
Ben Pile
You are forgetting that there no longer exists a state which represents the people. There is only a state that represents big business. The nanny is capitalism, not some fantasy socialism so beloved of the right.
You will find nowadays that the solutions to society's problems are provided by private business. Like ATOS and the legion of other petty criminal entities that provide help for the unemployment caused by the government's (big business) economic policies. Anyone who thinks that the extra 2 million Thatcher added to the dole queue were scroungers is maliciously stupid. Mass incapacity benefit was a Tory invention to massage the figures.
Part of unemployment is caused by immigration, a policy that is driven by the CBI.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/07/cost-of-cheap-migrant-labour
The Labour Party complained about the Tories response to gambling problems. It was Labour who created the modern gambling industry for their masters in big business. It was Labour who started the attacks on the vulnerable, not Cameron.
Obesity is a problem cause by the rapacious food industry. Big business (government) provides a solution. The alcopops industry was enabled by Labour as were longer drinking hours.
The smartest novel I have ever read is 'Through a Scanner Darkly' by Philip K Dick. The same individual is a drug addict, drug dealer and policeman who monitors himself. He is sent to a rehab farm in which the drug he is addicted to (substance D) is grown.
That is the way the world works now. Global warming isn't the only scam.
***
Evidence points to aircraft – familiarly known as "torture taxis" – used by the CIA to move captives seized in its kidnapping or "extraordinary rendition" operations through Gatwick and other airports in the EU being simultaneously used for drug distribution in the Western hemisphere.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-waves-white-flag-in-disastrous-war-on-drugs-1870218.html
No, it's not a conspiracy.
Jan 31, 2013 at 4:27 PM | Ben Pile
Good post. Good points that challenge on the details. Now we are getting somewhere.
Ben, thanks for your post, which takes my points a step further. I was always first speaker in debating :)
What irritates me about this glib and content-free rationale is that the purveyors of the ideology you expounded are so complacent. They don't even bother to justify both taking our money and telling us how to live any more - they simply throw in a few code words like smoking, obesity and sustainability, and we are supposed to acquiesce without a murmur.
I have taken to calling them out on this and asking them to explain exactly what they mean, and it is surprising how often they are unable to answer the question. For example, my local water/electricity authority's recent annual report is couched in similar cant to justify spiralling charges. When I wrote to them to ask in what way, and how much, increasing our bills would change the climate, I got a baffled and non-responsive reply. They have never even thought about it in those terms.
As for 'nudging', it is a particularly obnoxious way of using public money and public authority. Apart from laws based on junk science, there is the relentless stream of publicity urging us to live in particular ways, with the clear implication that if we don't we are harming not only ourselves but others as well. Getting back to my water utility as an example, although our dams are more than 90% full, we are still urged to conserve water. Next, they'll have us saving string just in case.
Keep up the good work. While these pernicious policies have been a boon for ambitious academics and politicians, the populace is becoming infantilised, and being made to pay for it to boot.
Your Grace and esmiff, are you confusing possibility and certainty? I don't think it is contentious that CO2 has the physical properties to potentially cause some warming and that it _might_ have caused some or all of the warming, but I think it is still contentious that it has *certainly* caused warming.
And esmiff, I asked a couple of questions about the medieval warm period and your response has been to express contempt for some people I didn't even mention? Do you have answers for those questions? Even the IPCC reports couch their conclusions in expressions of likelihood, not certainty, and there has been much discussion of uncertainty at Judith Curry's blog.
I don't think it serves science well to concede that something uncertain is certain, just to avoid being called a "denier".
I agree with the Bishop about marketing not being an academic subject, in the same way as golf course studies and dance aren't either.
It was a wheeze thought up by marketing people who wanted to enhance their social standng, and make some jobs for the boy (or girls, I suppose) 0nly the people with marketing degrees get the top jobs and these jobs are the ones that pay more. This is exactly what happened to medicine in the 13th century when the universities took medicine under their wings and made the theory more important than the practice. Medics who learnt by apprenticeship were demoted.
Good stuff coming out here. All going along with my contention that there isn't a left and right any more, just us and them. They despise us. They, the political class, the politicians, journalists and academics who know what's best for the plebs. They can't actually do the job of government, the economy and health and education properly, so they engage in what is essentially displacement activity, bannig and regulating an nudging in areas where the aim is merely to be seen to do something, outcomes being moot or indeed statisitically misrepresented.
They don't like the public much. They have no respect for the masses and they despise our gross opinions and appetites. But most of all they fear us. They fear that we will find out. They fear that if we knew the truth we'd come out on the streets and their reign would be over. That is why they peddle certainty over issues which we know are more complex. That is why they stick to a line, or a lie, when it has been proven wrong. They cannot let go of the certainty which makes them feel justified in all the other actions. They have to look as if they are in control and know what they are doing or (in their minds) chaos will ensue. Anybody who has been a parent will recognise the feeling that you can't let the little so-and-sos think you are not in charge. You resort to 'because I say so' when all argument has failed.
So there you are. They think they are our parents. We don't think we are kids any more.
Any positions as chair of climate psychology going at some well-funded institution?
Ben Pile:
Good post. But I suggest there is a difference between state agencies intervening to protect us from the risks of smoking and obesity and such intervention re climate change. I’ll explain.
On Wednesday morning, I posted a comment on Guy Shrubsole’s article, “The UK Climate Movement: Eight Reasons to be Optimistic” on the New Left Project site. My comment hasn’t appeared. So maybe, after several tolerant weeks, NLP and (disappointingly) Alice Bell have decided that, after all, it’s best not to publish inconvenient posts. Yet mine, see below, contained no hint of “denialism” – nor even a hint that climate change might not be a risk.
I limited myself to commenting on two of Guy’s claimed successes – the “end of new coal in the UK” (re Kingsnorth) and the “halting of Heathrow’s third runway” – putting them into a global context. Re coal, I noted the World Resources Institute report about global plans to develop 1,199 coal-powered power stations and, re aviation, China’s plans to build 70 new airports in the next few years. I went on to ask Guy:
That seems a reasonable enough question. Yet NLP prefers not to publish it. I suspect that’s not because there isn’t an answer, but because it’s not one they’d wish to discuss openly. And that, Ben, is my point. Re smoking and obesity, it can be at least argued that there is a risk and that it can be “managed”. However, re climate change, there may be a risk – perhaps even catastrophic – but if so, neither the individual nor the state can do anything to avoid it. Yet the party-political consensus (here represented by “the UK Climate Movement”) is still keen to go through the motions of intervening to "protect" us.
"I am uncomfortable with the idea of marketing as an academic specialism full stop"
Oh for heavens sake I cannot believe I've read this.
As part of my MBA I did a term on marketing. This was a very academic subject akin to any other courses including accountancy or human resources. It professionally run and these comments show your own ignorance.
Marketing is key to all business and most of it has nothing to do with advertising. E.g. at the end of the course I helped my brother set up a veterinary surgery. The marketing course provided the basis for working out whether there were sufficient people in the area to warrant a new surgery, what kinds of animals and e.g. how they would travel - which helped decisions on equipment, parking and staffing.
It also helped understand how to contact people to inform them about the new surgery (and that wasn't difficult - the preferred way was that the premises had a clear sign - so the marketing budget went into a good sign).
And most marketing is in fact more "industrial sales" ... or business to business contact which is focussed mainly on customer relationships - very little on advertising.
I'm sorry to say this, but this is a stupid ignorant remark which shows you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Indeed, having wasted a lot of my own time trying to "market" reluctant sceptics, let me explain some home truths. Marketing cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Marketing cannot take a few grumbles on a website and sell it as a mass movement of committed people willing to make a difference - particularly when the website doesn't support the marketing.
Marketing cannot convince politicians that sceptics will have any influence on public opinion - if sceptics themselves aren't willing to speak to those who broadcast public opinion.
And perhaps above all else ... marketing cannot create public support for sceptics ... if even sceptics don't support their own sceptic organisation.
Your Grace may wish to tone this down a little. When one historian writes that, say, Hitler's rise to power was based mainly on factors A and B rather than, as most historians argue, mainly on factors C and D, her work is, in some sense "aimed at changing other people's views", in this case the other people being mainly her fellow historians.
Why there will never be a climate change 'communication'...
Adam Corner: 'You sir, won't start to think.'
Sceptical public: 'But you sir, won't stop to think'.
George Marshall:
"…I have decided not to accept your comments. My blog is concerned with “accepting climate change” not about it’s existance. “I am therefore not prepared to accept postings from people who do not accept the reality of climate change.” Denial of climate change is like Holcaust Denial but “I do not wish to draw a strong comparison.”
This is from a email that a Bishop Hill reader received (much like mine, posted earlier), when his comment was deleted at George Marshall's blog.
George Marshall was front and centre in the Guardian (climategate time) the post was about the £700,000 COIN got from DEFRA
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/25/whos-been-spinning-in-my-newspaper.html#comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change
Here’s an extract from George Marshall’s meanderings in the “cattletrucks” video which Barry Woods referred to previously:
Notice the way he says ignoring climate change is like ignoring your neighbours being dragged away screaming, then contradicts himself by saying that we can ignore climate change because there’s no recognisable threat or enemy.We sceptics are in danger of making exactly the same kind of mistake when we say, sometimes almost in the same breath, “it’s like fascism” and “it’s like seat belt legislation”.
Emif - You are forgetting that there no longer exists a state which represents the people. There is only a state that represents big business.
Obesity is a problem cause by the rapacious food industry. Big business (government) provides a solution. The alcopops industry was enabled by Labour as were longer drinking hours.
I am overweight. In fact, I'm probably borderline obese by BMI. At no point in my life however, have I thought that my over abundance of flab is because because business made me buy full fat milk (and sometimes even cream for my coffee), buy burgers, put butter on my bread, or spend too much time in my car rather than burning off my breakfast, elevensies, lunch, tea, dinner and supper. So, not feeling as though I have been led to over-eating and under-exercising, I do not believe a) that anyone else in this situation can blame big business either, and b) that the government can save me from big business. In fact, I'd rather be fat than be thin by virtue of the government nudging me, adding a tax on pop, a minimum price on booze, etc. There are risks which perhaps should be mediated by the state. But there are also surely risks that it should be up to people to manage for themselves.
You are right, however, to observe that the state no longer represents people -- this much was explained in my comment. And you are right to say that businesses such as ATOS, (and the third sector) are increasingly taking paragovernmental roles. But the reality of the fact -- if it is one -- of the state representing big business rather than us is rather more complicated than such a simple claim can carry -- especially in a discussion about risk politics. Actually, the state wants to protect us from the risks seemingly created by apparently predatory fast food retailers.
Robin G -...there is a difference between state agencies intervening to protect us from the risks of smoking and obesity and such intervention re climate change. [...] Re smoking and obesity, it can be at least argued that there is a risk and that it can be “managed”. However, re climate change, there may be a risk – perhaps even catastrophic – but if so, neither the individual nor the state can do anything to avoid it.
I don't think there is a difference. Risk-based/post-democratic politics are not legitimised by risks being extant; whether a perceived risk exists or not, the premiss of making risk management the organising principle of public life is that we cannot understand the risks, and that a relationship between expertise and the state outside of democratic control is necessary. As Rhoda explains it perfectly, they see us as children, who are incapable of understanding the risks they are exposed to.
So it doesn't matter that smoking is a real risk and climate change isn't a quantifiable risk, whose remedy is equally unquantifiable: the non-existence of risk is easily handled by those you speak of by recourse to the precautionary principle -- "risk assessment without numbers", and the PP's reach is comprehensive; it's a fundamental of international agreements and EU directives.
Ben: I’m not for a moment arguing that the reality of risk somehow legitimises state intervention. Perhaps I didn’t make my point clearly enough.
When I asked Guy Shrubsole, “What’s the point of the UK climate movement?” he didn’t reply – indeed NLP created a precedent by not even publishing my question. I suspect the reason is that the question is embarrassing. Most NLP people probably believe that climate change represents a serious, possibly massive, risk. However, I suspect most would accept – at least privately – that, because of the actions of the major developing economies, no amount of emission cuts by the UK or by individuals would make the slightest difference. Therefore there is, on the face of it, no point to the UK climate movement. But in reality there’s an important point: it’s another means of exercising control.
And that’s the answer to my question. But it’s not one they would wish to make public. If the principle aim of the political class was to protect us from risk, it would be prioritising a growing healthy economy, better able to cope with their perceived catastrophe when it comes. Yet they’re campaigning against that.
I think that underlines the real nature of the party-political consensus. Rhoda’s right: the political class fears us – fears we will find out. Therefore, their priority is to control us, not to protect us. And, although that’s also true of smoking etc, at least there an element of protection is genuine. In the case of climate change, it’s not even that.
Ben
There are no answers to this debate. You are arguing from an ideological, free will, individuality, survival, law of the jungle perspective. I come from a more compassionate perspective. I could be wrong. Only God knows. However ..
The very concept of free will is on shaky ground these days. We are to a very large extent governed by our unconscious.
Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide”
In a kind of spooky experiment, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences reveal that our decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them.
http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide
Corporations employ armies of psychologists to manipulate our weaknesses, particularly those of children. Children were targeted by the alcohol industry to combat their rivals in the cannabis and MDMA industries. Children were deliberately targeted by the tobacco industry because they know that a certain percentage will become hooked. Let's say 50%.
That is hard reality. Individuality is irrelevant in the face of those facts. Perhaps the right would like to see a new strain of genetically engineered sink estate peasants who were resistant to heroin, Haagen Daazs and Hoola Hoops ?
Further, the world is controlled today. The economy is controlled, the (oil and gas) markets are rigged and elites are directing the drugs market like they have since the days of the East India Company. Lehman Brothers went down with $150 billion debt and $400 billion of insurance (CDS). Ask the average voter what a CDS is and he won't have a clue.
My view is that government represent the interests of big business against us and that it is out of control. More than that, all our decisions are made in the United States (ratings agencies etc.) .
Christian Hunt
...
He holds an MA in Conflict Resolution, and a degree in Mathematics and Philosophy from the University of York."
Mathematics & Philosophy? Interesting combination and one which I can't see much of a connection between.
On a practical level it allows people doing Maths degrees to have some release from endless Maths. It gives people doing philosophy something to show employers that proves that they actually can think and do really hard stuff, not just faff around.
On an intellectual level, the type of thinking is very similar – I did a 300 course in Set Theory, and it was as ethereal as anything taught in Philosophy. The topic of "Logic" is taught in both schools.
Many schools have it as a standard course: http://yalecollege.yale.edu/content/mathematics-and-philosophy.
@ esmiff:
The very concept of free will is on shaky ground these days. We are to a very large extent governed by our unconscious.
Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide”
In a kind of spooky experiment, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences reveal that our decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them.
http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide
----------------------------------------------------
Speak for yourself, smiffy. Research of the type you describe is mostly speculation, like all those pictures of brain scans with pretty colours that claim to be able to predict something or other about personality or behaviour. They don't stand up to scrutiny.
As for the unconscious, it is far from proven that such a thing exists, and Freud has less credibility than Michael Mann these days.
It is simply untrue that people will buy whatever 'Big xxxx' brainwashes them to. If you had ever worked in private sector marketing, as I have, you would know that the vast majority of new consumer products fail, despite lavish and well researched marketing campaigns. They may struggle on for a while, propped up by subsidies, but within five years almost all of them are gone.
It is possible to 'sell' something in the short term, whether in politics or the consumer marketplace, through intensive advertising. But in the end, if people don't like or want the product, it will fail. That seems to be happening with windmills in the UK, it happened with Prohibition in the US and it is happening to the whole climate change circus worldwide.
It is a mistake to conflate people choosing to do things you don't like with evil manipulators pulling the strings. I don't care if people choose freely not to drink alcohol, or to be vegetarians, or to avoid whatever risks they are concerned about. What concerns me is that our personal lifestyle choices are being characterised as good or evil, with the State's thumb firmly on the scales on the side of what it considers to be 'good.' The thumb heaps junk science and regulatory repression on the side of diminishing our autonomy. There are plenty of corporate winners out of this approach, but it's not a giant conspiracy by them. They are just making a buck, which is their job.
The real villains are the 'experts' and the dopey politicians who follow them in the hope of getting a few votes for being 'caring'. You only have to look at the supermarket shelves - low fat, low salt, organic and all the other superstitious nonsense that has been promoted by ambitious 'experts' and sheeplike politicians are not there because of some giant conspiracy. They are there because political debate has been debased, responsibility has been shirked and an eager MSM has yapped along approvingly beside the politicians and gurus like an over-excited puppy.
It would help if they put an equal amount of time and money into a sister "How to talk to a climate alarmist" website.
Re "marketing" - in business, good "marketing" requires that companies listen to their customers, and, unless they do so, they will have a hard time making a sale. In contrast, "climate communications" is a term developed by academics who apparently have no experience in actual marketing and who appear more interested in telling people what to think than understanding why their message isn't getting through.
In my opinion, climate communicators actually interested in persuading people ought to spend time understanding their target market and why their message isn't succeeding as well as they think it should. That's what I"d do in their shoes. Instead of demonizing Anthony Watts (for example), "climate communicators" should invite him to one of their conferences and try to learn about the shortcomings of their message.
Hi Steve - before things got acrimonous I volunteered to do this with George Marshall and Adam Corner. saying that I don't think you understand the wide range of sceptical position, and that I was very willing to chat (ie a real live sceptic, and a Watts Up With That - guest author). you would think they would jump at the chance..
but no, possibly because Marsahll started the list of deniers,putting Lombord and others into a Deniers - Hall of Shame a decade ago (and preaching exxon funded deniers mantra above)
not interested, and they just deleted all my comments out of hand. and as you see, a very odd response (for a climate communicator) from George Marshall and Dr Adam Corner
They tried to get me to change my behaviour once. I told them I was quite happy with the one I've got. They said it was outmoded and inefficient. So I asked what was better about their new one. They explained its advanced 'Equitable' function of completely ignoring anyone who disagrees with you. I wondered how this might be equitable? They explained that when everyone had changed their behaviour there'd be no one left to disagree with. I said I'd think about it... at which they looked enraged and left. They've ignored me ever since.
Bishop Hill says:
//
"What though, did he mean by "climate"? I couldn't get much out of him on this, apart from "you think AGW is contentious". This of course is not true, since I repeatedly say that mankind affects the climate, not least through CO2 emissions. That much is not contentious - at least not for me."
//
Bishop - please can I ask you the same question I asked Matt Ridley when he expressed a similar certainty that mankind's CO2 emissions have undoubtedly effected climate: Please can you reference the three top pieces of evidence which have led you to this conclusion?
I am looking for the actual evidence you are using to support your position. Matt responded with one item which was a document dealing with a specific set of arguments which did not answer my request for evidence. I pointed this out and repeated the request for references, including if possible specific pages within his chosen reference, yet nothing more was heard from him.
Can you please pick this serious request up? I am not asking for, nor seeking, a discussion of radiative physics but I am pointing out it is a long reach from there to the certainty of you and Matt's position - especially as (iirr) the IPCC supported anthropogenic CO2 forcing is of the order of a rather low powered handtorch/m2 and the error bands on the IPCC's own figure on climate forcings allows for a net negative total value.
Thank you.
Feb 2, 2013 at 11:13 AM | Peter S
Reminds me of a very famous play usually translated into English as "Rhinoceros."
Hi Bish - can I bump you on the query raised by SJF and I above? Thanks
You are right to challenge me on this. Let me scratch my head a bit.
This stuff looks awfully like what used to be called Propaganda, the Communist states used to be very keen on it. In line with the general trend, it appears the State doesn't do it directly any more, they have contracted it out.
Thanks Bish - I'll stand by!!
Reiner Grundmann continues the discussion at his Klimazwiebel blog (he withdrew from his brief venture into BH, describing it is a "hornet's nest"), under a post on the closely related theme of Advocacy and social science.
He does not seem to have a very good understanding of BH's concerns. I have added a comment there.
Sceptics will always struggle to accept public funding being used to create debate and understanding around the challenges of climate change...so probably not much need for debate here to express that! Why do scpetics not find funding to develop their own websites and debating forums. Surely, if there is such a strong case against climate change, there will be plenty of money to promote that point of view. Get out there and get the money!
But as a scientific consensus is generally agreed on a global basis, I see not problem with it. Afterall, Government's promote and raise awareness of many things to create behaviour change in all walks of life. So, I see no difference.
The "global scientific consensus" is a myth which regular readers of this blog are well aware of.
Please don't start with the 97% rubbish again.
NW!
Oh OK I'll take your word for it then, actually hang on a minute. Show me the evidence and show me your credentials for me to take your word on it. I am not a climate scientists, so like when I see a doctor, I have to take their word above my opinion due to their greater knowledge of the subject. If you are a climate scientists then your opinion would be stronger to me. I could easily say that your opinion is wrong and then we are left at an impasse! Hence, the debate ends!
Something I've been thinking about all day and need some help answering. What is the biggest fear/concern sceptics have if Government's continue to develop policies to reduce the effects of human activity on climate. Is it that people will become poorer? Is it about reduced freedoms? Is it about wasting money? Or is it more ideological than that? Thanks
The elephant in the room that Ed misses, is that in climate science, government is funding an idea in which it has a monumental vested interest. So only a madman would actually believe what its science stooges (aka the IPCC and the Consensus) are saying. Especially when you take into account the rampant corruption in their ranks, as revealed eg by Climategate.
There are though many people who say they believe the science stooges, generally those with a totalitarian/leftwing agenda.
Tomcat I'm sure I am missing the elephant, so I'm asking what your fear is. I take it from your answer that you fear a totalitarian world order and the left wing. Is that right?
"Sceptics will always struggle to accept public funding being used to create debate and understanding around the challenges of climate change" - Ed
Hilarious. A steamrollering, utterly one-sided progaganda program propped up by hiding data and other shenanigans, is is now 'creating debate and understanding'.
Also, I'm not the sharpest bloke, so can you let me know the monumental vested interested. Thanks