Friday, October 09, 2009

The Evolution of Global Warming Denial

The science of global warming has been advancing over the last few decades considerably. The mass of evidence, data and analysis now not only includes models, weather data, satellite measurements and ice-core samples; they stuff you associate with climate science. But we have also seen data coming from biology, ecology, chemistry, physics and other disciplines that is backing-up and building on the existing knowledge. This is a daunting issue for those intending to deny global warming because they not only have to overturn the climate data but also explain the changes in migration and growth patterns, rainfall and other such associated effects.

Like it's cousin, creationism, the denial of global warming has been fragmenting and evolving as it tries to find a way around the complete lack of any credible evidence for it's position. A decade ago most of the denial was focused around the science; but as the door has closed on this the movement has fragmented into various factions;

-those who think the scientists are mistaken and it is not happening ('flat-earth' denialists)

- those who think it is a conspiracy run by the NWO/communiststs/league of evil scientists/anarchists/environmentalists etc ('alien abduction' denailists)

- those who think God's law means it is nothing for humans to bother with (climate-creationists)

- those who think it is happening but humans are not causing it ('sun-spot-volcano-ice-age' denailists)

- those who think it is happening and humans are causing it but we should not change (the economic school of climate denial)

Now a new faction has emerged; the 'post-structuralist denialist'; these are people who raise vague philosophical arguments to reality in an attempt to avoid reality. It's a bit like a first-year philosophy student who goes around stating that 'nobody can prove anything' and quoting René Descartes (wrongly) at you in a drunken haze. This is fun stuff for late night discussions over alcohol but abstract to the max. Here's a recent example of a post-structuralist denialist in action:

Until AGW believers can honestly look at the people of this world as a resource instead of a threat, AGW as a political argument is doomed to repeated defeat .... Al Gore, James Hansen, George Monbiot of the Guardian, all the premier advocates of drastic change to combat global warming, have some kind of deafness--a deafness of the heart. It's why they are getting their posteriors kicked in public debate and policy discussions.


Did you see what he did there; yes he's using the tired of denialist label of 'believer' which is to imply that global warming is not a fact, but a 'faith' and yet he offers no proof of the position; yet castigates those who are proven to be right on the science for some vague philosophical notion of 'how they view the world' - which allows him to neatly side-step the insinuations of the fact that he offers zero evidence for his position. Yup; this is a debate based around 'nobody can prove anything' where the denailists are right because they 'view the world right'.

It is a bit sad that this is what they are reduced to; metaphorical card-tricks - but they have no choice because the postlude-science they have hitched tier wagons too has collapsed and died and Jedi-mind tricks is all they have left.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The science of global warming has been advancing over the last few decades considerably."


Ya just google "yamal divergence" to get an idea just how much climate science has advanced over the last few decades. Sounds like science fraud to me.

Anonymous said...

Curiously, there have been a spate of blog articles today and recently which center around this same theme: evolvement of AGW denial.

I wonder if there is some central direction to coordinate the minions of AGW alarmism.

It wouldn't surprise me.

JeffM

Anonymous said...

You are aware that it is possible for scientific truth to not line up perfectly with liberal policy goals?

I mean, really, are you that intellectually immature?

I got news for you, nature doesn't care about liberals or liberalism. Just because you want to curtail industrial society for a more collectivist state, does not mean that physical phenomena will obey.

And no, you can't just make a committee of liberal scientists take a vote on behalf of intelligent humanity.

dbmm said...

Firstly, the writer isn't a 'liberal' s/he is an anarchist. As for 'liberal' scientists I don't exactly see how NASA, one of the organisations investigating climate physics and at the very heart of the US military-industrial complex, is 'liberal'.

However, AGW denial is aggressively promoted by the major oil corporations. These are enormous, authoritarian organisations, run in the same top-down style as North Korea or Cuba. How on earth can you throw around accusations like 'collectivist', when to all intents and purposes, you're not much better than communists yourselves.