DEZ seeing zed is dead

Question: What is going to happen with the stock market?

Answer: I hope individual investors will look forward, not backward.

Question: Answer definite.

Answer: Not definite, hope, definite.

“Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?” GWB

What’s missing? You covered a lot. The one I find most difficult is “indifference”. I really don’t know how to reach a person who is indifferent – apathetic. It’s like trying to revive dead wet ashes into a roaring fire.

The other is greed.

Hey gang — it’s my fault, but Adam isn’t here right now to discuss the post. However, as a frequent commenter on environmental issues (including global warming) I’m here to chime in as well.

One of the really noxious aspects of these “skeptics” is that they abscond with the good name of real skeptics, in my book. I worked with folks from various skeptics’ organizations in the ’90s debunking various militia/Patriot “New World Order” conspiracy theories, and I’m familiar with the kind of work they do. These “professional” skeptics are mostly industry shills — about the opposite of serious skepticism.

I am re-reading. There is a lot to digest here. I think I am in negative overload. I really am tired of candidate bashing to the point my filters are protesting. I must now spend time each day listening to classical music to replenish my soul.

I’m not a skeptic, I just want to throw eggs and yogurt at the TV but then I would have to clean up the mess. Music is much better.

Well, I’m sort of a skeptic.

I’d add the category of “Intellectually dishonest,” or just plain “dishonest.” As in people who really do understand the big picture, or at least could if they endeavored to do so, but just won’t.

Some of these folks are acting out of personal financial interests. Some are acting politically. Some are just turning their backs on their home planet and saying, “Screw it. I won’t be around.”

But, one thing they all have in common is an unwillingness to concede an argument, no matter how reasoned, or even to give ground. They are so wrapped up in preserving the status quo, they lack the vision to see or search for another way.

When stripped of everything, all questions end up at:

Who am I?

How about the category of “indifferent”.. as in, who cares if nature dies and we wind up with a planet with the capacity to support fewer people, I’m going to keep on stealing from the taxpayers ’cause I’m going to be rich, and if I’m rich it won’t matter because I’ll be in that thin sliver of humanity that can keep on partying while everybody else suffers. In fact, if that happens, I’ll feel even more smug and superior than I do now. Perhaps this is a subcategory of Jean2k’s dishonesty, but it may be something more than that. I sincerely believe that the Jenna’s and Not-Jenna’s and Barbara Bush’s of the world are of this mindset.

Intellectually dishonest … I think that this is there but might merit a separate category.

Could we think that “skeptic for fun and profit” could be partially this?

This is potentially pretty devastating:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..5237.shtml

Yeah, I think a lot of industrialist types also think they can come up with technological solutions to whatever problems they cause.

Reminds me of Blade Runner and the resulting animal-less world.

Welcome Mr. Siegel.
Reading your piece now.

David … between this and family, will be trying to engage in both … inadequately.

Now, I absolutely agree (as per the start) that this whole thing is giving skepticism a bad name.

It is healthy for life and society to have some skepticism, to be look at things with a questioning eye. But, with this, one should be ready to be convinced that there are facts and reality behind what one is questioning. The “Global Warming Skeptics” are, to a large extent, impossible to convince and simply muddying the waters with truthiness arguments. That is not healthy skepticism, that is obstinence.

This is a fantastic post.

Another point worth adding: There is a real human cost involved as well. People will die from the effects of global warming — we just don’t know how many yet. But these “skeptics” play games with “facts” as though they were mere words. That should earn them some kind of just moral outrage.

“Indifferent” might work better than “life is good” … the two are interrelated.

“Indifferent” also fits against people who are so self-centered that they can’t be bothered with anything larger than themselves.

Now, where does this one fit: I know car enthusiasts who will literally say that if they have to trade the earth’s future for having a V-8, that they’ll take the engine’s roar, “after all, the car I get to enjoy today, the problem you’re talking about is tomorrow …”

There is a fundamental disconnect between human beings and the earth. It is as if many people believe or imagine that they are somehow not a result of life on earth…as if they just “arrived” here….combined with myth, religion, greed, obliviousness, consumption, disregard for nature….

That is what can do us in. The very famous Asian quantum physics professor from NYU, whose name I have conveniently forgotten, has said that we are a…something like…a level one intelligent life form…that we will self destroy because of it.

If humans could just stop. Just stop. Realize that we are here and that we are from here and that if we don’t take care of here…we are doomed as a life form…

Now…how to change that kind of thinking?

I realize, perhaps, what you mean by indifferent … “Yeah, who cares what happens to those poor people, I’ll still have my gated community, my private jet, my money … It won’t hurt me.”

To a certain extent, this is some part of American society, I think, who believes that this will hurt ‘the poor’ and ‘other people’.

County Joe had some thoughts:

Who Am I ?
Who am I
To stand and wonder, to wait
While the wheels of fate
Slowly grind my life away.
Who am I ?

There were some things that I loved one time,
But the dreams are gone I thought were mine,
And the hidden tears that once could fall
Now burn inside at the thought of all
The years of waste, the years of crime
Passions of a heart so blind;
To think that, but even still
As I stand exposed, the feelings are felt
And I cry into the echo of my loneliness.

Who am I
To stand and wonder, to wait
While the wheels of fate
Slowly grind my life away.
Who am I ?

What a nothing I’ve made of life
The empty words, the coward’s plight
To be pushed and passed from hand to hand
Never daring to speak, never daring to stand
And the emptiness of my family’s eyes
Reminds me over and over of lies
And promises and deeds undone
And now again I want to run
But now there is nowhere to run to.

Who am I
To stand and wonder, to wait
While the wheels of fate
Slowly grind my life away.
Who am I ?

And now my friend we meet again
We shall see which one will bend
Under the strain of death’s golden eyes
Which one of us shall win the prize
To live and which one will die
‘Tis I, my friend, yes ’tis I
Shall kill to live again and again
To clutch the throat of sweet revenge
For life is here only for the taking.

Who am I
To stand and wonder, to wait
While the wheels of fate
Slowly grind my life away.
Who am I ? Who am I

How about Honest Skeptics? These are people who disagree, but are open to being convinced otherwise IF you can show them evidence they will accept. A consistent skeptic is one who is skeptical of everything – including their own skepticism.

My understanding of scientific integrity is that it must include the ability to look at any deeply held theory, any collection of facts, and always be willing to ask “What if I’m wrong?” Conversely, it also requires holding to those theories and facts in the face of doubt until a better explanation comes along with evidence to back it up and/or the facts will no longer support them.. Sometimes it also means being honest enough to admit you simply don’t know.

Hypocritical skepticism is tough to overcome because the skeptic’s own interests are at stake. Call them Dishonest Skeptics if you can demonstrate their credibility is suspect.

Faith-based skepticism is tough to overcome because of a world view that will not accept inconvenient truths. Pray for them – and find people of Faith they will believe in. They’ll believe in people over facts.

Apathy-based skepticism simply doesn’t care: find a way to motivate them.

I am teaching a college Freshman Seminar called “Science and the Citizen”. One of the top issues they identified for discussion is global warming.

We watched the first part of “An Inconvenient Truth” in class today- too long to finish watching in one class. I’ll be interested to see what the discussion is like after.

I have a student from Bangladesh- actually the most savvy in the bunch, and he was part of the “global warming group” – they divided up according to topics in first part of course.

He posted some comments a while back on our class discussion thread- which are I think worth sharing- as for underlying causes as to denial, I’d peg “economic/ money talks” as #1.

There are his comments from a wider world perspective.

~~~
The Kyoto Protocol is the most important multinational treaty that tries to tackle global warming by reducing carbon emissions. However, its effectiveness has been severely hampered by the US, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, declining to sign (and ratify) it.

The main reason the US hasn’t accepted it is because it would harm the US economy by adding costs and also weaken it compared to the rapidly growing economies of China and India. The US argues that China (which will soon become the leading greenhouse gas emitter) and India do not have to make serious sacrifices under the treaty.

China and India believe that as they try to develop and eliminate widespread poverty, they shouldn’t have to bear the same costs as developed (richer) countries. And they would also point to the fact that the west’s economic rise during the 18/19th century industrial revolution harmed the environment. Therefore developing countries should be able to develop the same way as richer countries did in the past and not take on additional costs to protect the environment until they can afford to do so.
~~~

he also added some great links, but I’ll put those up in a later comment.

bom dia, pups

Had a nice rollerskate with the pup while mr wobbs read some posts here on FDL.
great, fantastic, post. I’m going to let mr read the actual post, then I will be back to post *g*

Ding! Wow. That’s what I’m talkin’ about…

“What a nothing I’ve made of life
The empty words, the coward’s plight
To be pushed and passed from hand to hand
Never daring to speak, never daring to stand
And the emptiness of my family’s eyes
Reminds me over and over of lies
And promises and deeds undone
And now again I want to run
But now there is nowhere to run to.”

The National Weather Service has again issued a flood warning for New Orleans, after the Lower Mississippi River Forecast Center predicted the river will hit 17 feet at the Carrollton gauge on April 22.

Well, let’s just hope the Levees hold this time.

Good evening from the kathouse where I’m looking now at what looks likes oil tankers driving down the river road … use to seeing their stacks and antennas, not the entire frigging thing … and they say the weather isn’t changing …

What is it in human nature that perhaps is incapable of remembering lessons of past events or sustaining the future? The past fades and lessons wither. Our attendtion is held briefly on problems of the future and soon are forgotten. It isn’t just Westerners but this seems to be a worldwide human condition. Do people just become bogged down with daily survival?

We rebuild on the volcano side forgetting the last eruption and build in flood plains forgetting the possibilities. Does this have something to do with some inner knowlege we are temporary thus the earth is temporary to our brief reality?

one linky

http://www.ciel.org/Climate/devcountrycommit.html

snippets, but the whole thing’s worth a read~~

~~When he signed the framework convention, George Bush senior understood that it would be both unfair and futile to demand of developing countries that they take actions commensurate with our own. Developed countries are responsible for virtually all of the excess emissions that have accumulated in the atmosphere. Even today, on a per capita basis, their emissions exceed developing country emissions by an order of magnitude….

Whether or not one agrees with the established approach to developing country participation, it is important to recognize that developing countries cannot be forced to accept a different one. Until now, they have adamantly resisted doing so, and there is no indication that this attitude will change in the foreseeable future. For the U.S. to refuse to act unless and until developing countries relent could result in years of wasted effort and squandered opportunity to avert damaging, and possibly catastrophic, climate change.~~~

Hoping beyond hope for you all down there that they indeed hold.
If they need extra support, I hear gonzo is looking for work.

do worthless sacks of hot air fill holes in levees?

hmmm good question. i wouldn’t want you all to be the guinea pigs.

There’s another kind of “skepticism” at play here too: When I was writing about the militias in the ’90s, it was interesting how many of them insisted that they were really profound skeptics at heart — they were just skeptical of everything that the government told them, which then extended to the “liberal media” as well. Anything that was the “official story.”

Unsurprisingly, they were also profoundly gullible when it came to believing every cockamamie black-helicopter/NWO conspiracy theory that came floating down the pike. This included Holocaust denial, which at least in general form does in fact resemble global-warming denial.

I think a lot of the “global warming skeptics” are marketing to the same working-class — and decidedly “bitter” — folks that were susceptible to “New World Order” and “Clinton conspiracy” theories in the ’90s.

Very well done post. Let me humbly add my $0.02 as a physicain. Physicians are professionally very skeptical. We generally practice as we were trained. A scientific publication has compelling evidence that we should change our practice from x to y. We know that studies are sometimes flawed, and, whatever is in the study just doesn’t seem right to us, so we don’t change our practice. Then another study confirms the first. And the third and forth and you think I’m going to say we finally relent, don’t you? No, not us, or at least not all of us. it often takes 5- 10 years, if ever to get us to change our practice. Now, not infrequently, between the 3rd and 4th, and 6th and 7th, contradictory studies, or at least equivocal ones, come along, allowing us some ammunition to defend our practice. eventually however, the evidence becomes overwhelming and even the most skeptical finally relent.

But eventually, the evidence wins (sort of*) and we relent. So nowadays, everyone gets cholesterol lowering medications, and aspirin after a heart attack, etc.

My point is this: I don’t expect climate scientists are that much different than me and my colleagues. Eventually the evidence becomes so overwhelming that you can’t ignore it and the landslide of opinion proceeds as it should. That is where they are now, but there are the few pseudo-skeptics and others, whom the author has described quite well, that just will not buy it. There are still a few dingbats out there denying the connection of smoking and cancer, etc.

So, to my * :
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
Max Planck

Cheers,

cmhmd
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com (Single Payer Blog)

Have we reached the point where post-modernism is the assumed standard of discourse? First, the preface: IANAPM (I Am Not A Post-Modernist), but PoMo strands seem to run through this subject, and perhaps need to be examined.

Siegel writes,

Too often, it seems, those discussing the issue of “skeptics” and “deniers” simplify the motivational path. Thus, we will see blunt statements that X motivation, Y reasoning drives skepticism when, in reality, the situation is more complex. While it quite possibly exists, I have yet to see a treatise examining and deconstructing different types and motivations for deniers and skeptics when it comes to Global Warming.

This is right on target. If I have learned anything correctly (maybe I haven’t), PoMos are skeptics by trade, always questioning the superficial impression. Siegel is right to alert us to “different types” of skeptics– not just on Global Warming but on other fronts (Global Warming seems to be a particularly apt example.) But of course, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so let us identify the various genera and species of skeptics.

I’m writing this at work, and I’ve already been interrupted at least once, so my chances of writing a coherent comment are diminishing. I just have time at the moment to applaud the identification of different types of skeptics, each with their own characteristic agendae and their own style of discourse. I tend to associate, for example the skeptics about the toxicity of tobacco with the skeptics about global warming– their modus operandi seem similar. On the other hand, let us take as Type B the typical Firepup’s approach to almost anything coming out of this administration, especially the DOJ. That’s indeed a different brand of skepticism.

Do we need a program to sort out the teams and players?
I’d like to engage more, but will have to be content with reading comments.

Bob in HI

Oh Jeez.

Here in Texas, I wish it would rain…spring grass getting crispy already…next week there is predicted rain..we can’t take another drought…especially with the fuel prices…livestock feed will go through the roof again…but Texas is a desert actually, with fronts that bring rain…often in excess…or often..not at all…

I often walk out on the land and wonder how the ancient peoples handled it…they didn’t have weather.com…they had weather or no weather…and so the myths and truths began…

Mississippi River predicted to hit 17 feet next Tuesday. And much more…

http://www.nola.com/news/index…..arnin.html

“Skeptic for fun and profit” certainly describes the crass commercial skeptic. You described this part of the skeptic spectrum well, as well as much of the rest of the spectrum.

But, the entries following the words “skeptic for…” are many, and span much of the human condition beyond fun and profit.

I guess I was attempting to consolidate “professional skeptic” categories into a common theme. These professionals enter the “debate” with no intention of learning or conceding. That’s what I call intellectually dishonest.

Thanks for your thoughtful article.

I’d be inclined to get out of the way…just in case…being a flood survivor myself. Get out now, one can always come back if the levees hold.

unfortunately, it’s not the rain here, it’s all that rain and snow upriver coming down here… we’re still below our average and have been for awhile…

Perhaps the appropriate response to such people is.. yeah, go right ahead. Sink all that money you’ve made off those Halliburton stock options into an $80 million mansion in Palm Beach. Go right ahead. And when your time comes, may FEMA be as effective for you as it was for the less privileged folk in NOLA. :)

Bob. There is a reason for seeing similarity between tobacco and Global Warming. From the UCS, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air (warning: pdf), which looked at the links & parallels between those arguing tobacco wasn’t related to cancer and those arguing GW isn’t real/important. From the press release,

ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue

“ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,” said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Director of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.”

Thanks for the analogy to medical profession, the Max Planck, and making me think.

And, by the way, are you suggesting no cholesterol reducing drugs for Global Warming deniers?

A bit late … Thank you. Compliments always taken. Sometimes even graciously. :-)

I realize that. The downriver devastating flooding occurs way after the rain event which, as you point out, doesn’t even have to happen where you live…I know….I hope everything turns out okay. Get out of the way, if in doubt. Don’t take a chance if there is real danger.

Bob

Considering it for a moment. Hmmm … Do you think that being called a “PoMo” might outrage some of the skeptic types?

“They” will think it is something sexual..elitist bitter sexual…something like that…something they’ve never heard of.

Or…some elitist dinner dish…Heh.

A Siegel-

Forgot to say thanks for a great post. And, I will def pass on your link to Climate change Project

Sorry, I didn’t have any coherent thoughts on main topic of your post- skepticism, though I did read carefully.

I’m not sure if or how this fits into your framework- but, as far as getting the message out re: global warming, two things strike me from class discussions so far- and I think they’re intertwined-

One is the problem with “journalism”- the uh “fair and balanced” approach. This was particularly clear in a talk that Lawrence Krauss gave at the AEI, about science and anti-science (available in CSPAN archives). He was particularly referencing the “debate” about evolution vs. creationists, where to be “fair and balanced” TV news gives equal times to both sides, even though there is nothing equal about the validity of their arguments. This would also explain why the “skeptics” aka supposed scientists get more than their fair share of air time. Hey, it’s about ratings and entertainment value.

Another is with the “kill the messenger” aspect to this- trying to deny Gore’s message, invalidate it, by attacking at many different levels. Like the “carbon footprint” of his house. Or saying that “Inconvenient Truth” was “too much about Gore”. Invalidate the message, by attacking the messenger.

Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science has a lot of good information on the creation of the “manufactured uncertainty” industry from the tobacco wars onwards.

Your rundown of types is definitely a good start; I’m a bit late to the discussion, but I’ll try to give it some more thought.

There are skeptics who are quite simply iconoclasts who don’t trust establishment positions on anything. They are doing it for either “fun” or “profit”. Some of these individuals are mildly, and some seriously mentally ill. Many find connections in all sorts of things and assume causality…some go the other direction and despite all the supportive evidence and direct experimental work showing causality, they fail to accept it because of the “conspiracy”.

I think that this isn’t a “fun or profit” category because many of these folks actually spend lots of money publishing tracts that are simply put in the rubbish tip, lose relationships over their obsessions, and actually live quite paranoid existences. There is a bit of ego involved…often they argue that “They ignored Copernicus! They shut up Galileo! They didn’t believe Einstein!” I the UK these sorts of individuals are often treated a bit better, they become well-known cranks, and are listened to with knowing smirks.

I’m unsure if there are any folks in the Global Warming debate that fall into this category. But I sometimes wonder if a certain percentage of scientists should be expected to drift off into the extremisms of hyper-skepticism.

Another Type might be the “Unwilling Skeptic” who is actually pushed into being a spokesperson by others who have found something in their writings that might suggest criticism of the “dogma” to others. Again, I’m not familiar enough in the GW issue to think of someone. But one can find the work of Steven J. Gould vociferously cited out of context by Creationists (particularly his work on punctutaed-equilibrium). Thus someone who is interested in expanding and reformulating orthodox evolutionary theory becomes a prominent “evolution skeptic” (which is only somewhat true) and then an “evolution denier”.

Two things:

1. You’re welcome.

2. Visit The Climate Project … a few clicks can get a live presenter who was trained by Gore (but brings their own knowledge/perspective/style to the table) to come to give a presentation.

Agreed, Chris’ book is quite excellent, on multiple levels.

Your discussion, sadly, does have resonance in the GW debate.

Richard Lindzen, who is perhaps the most heavily credentialed skeptic, has compared himself to Galileo.

There are also those whose work is misquoted, who are interviewed for documentaries & have clips used that misrepresent their material, whose questioning of a detail/specific issue is inflated to make it seem as if they question the underlying science.

Yes, there are the egomaniacal and the unwilling skeptics.