Tuesday, 8 April 2014

How to make me believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming...


This is brilliant - the fourteen steps:

  • Step 1 – Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
  • Step 2 – When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
  • Step 3 – Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
  • Step 4 – Stop the hate.
  • Step 5 – Stop avoiding debate.
  • Step 6 – Answer questions.
  • Step 7 - Stop enjoying catastrophes.
  • Step 8 – Don’t use invalid arguments.
  • Step 9 – When you are wrong, admit it and apologise.
  • Step 10 – Stop claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are warming the globe significantly.
  • Step 11 – Stop lying.  If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
  • Step 12 – Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way.
  • Step 13 – Stop blaming everything on Global Warming.
  • Step 14 – Why are the only solutions always big-government “progressive” policies?
 Go read the rest - it's worth your while.



wcoaphorse2010 said...

Step 1: Make a genuinely falsifiable hypothesis;
Step 2: Allow others unfettered access to your data to allow them/us to reproduce/falsify your work.

If you can't manage even that, then the word 'science' is being so appallingly misused in the description of your 'discipline' that you risk bringing the whole of science into long-lasting disrepute.

asquith said...

What I actually think is that knee-jerk opposition to all forms of environmentalism, ever, is an article of faith for many right-wing people, who think that it can't possibly be happening because the wrong people think it is and they hate most of the proposed solutions. Therefore it can't be happening, QED.

One thing I have to add to the debate is this. It came from an encounter I had with an Australian oil executive, who had all the sterotypical views. He said surely it was pointless to have environmental regulations when China and India would pollute for us all.

And I simply said to him that he wouldn't want to endure the air and water pollution that are considered normal in these countries, nor would he want the state or corporations to ride roughshod over the common man as they routinely do in large parts of the world. You may not like a particular regulation, and maybe I wouldn't either, but disagreeing with the concept of regulation is wrong on this grounds.

And we haven't even got the levels of primary poverty that MIGHT be viewed as an excuse in those countries. (The few people who are destitute, we can argue over how they came to be in their state, but no one can say it's due to a lack of resources in the country as a whole).

I will keep my back yard clean even if my neighbours all live in filth and make money selling to fly tippers, and so would any resident of the estate if they wanted to live decently and said money wasn't the only think keeping them from dying of hunger.

Yes, it is a bit disconcertingly faith-y that so many "greens" simply insist on being, for instance, anti-nuclear, in spite of the arguments that this is one of the less environmentally harmful sources of energy. But even then, the likes of Monbiot have often followed the facts and, if it is a church, have become semi-detached members or heretics or those people who vaguely believe but without belonging to an actual denomination.

You, the readership, and this Oz friend of yours might care to read "Green Philosophy" by Roger Scruton. He acknowledges the importance of environmental protection and advances the case that, not only should traditional conservatives be caring about this issue, but that their way is in fact the best way of dealing with it.

As a liberal I disagreed with several of his stances but rea the thing productively and think it would be a welcome addition to any debate. Unfortunately very few noticed it though.