Climate fear 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Shellenberger's book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, is being praised by environmentalists who agree that climate rhetoric whips up inappropriate, non-factual fear.

Mr. Shellenberger wants to correct false claims of alarmists. Here are a few of his points:

• climate change is not making natural disasters worse
• carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations
• wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels

As a consistent activist, he's been on a mission over the past few years to save nuclear plants, which are emissions-free.

Much more information is available at the website of his organization, Environmental Progress.

Climate fear 1

Maybe you noticed that recently some celebrities are publishing books that seem to deny a cause they used to believe in. Today's post is about a climate environmentalist who did that. 

Michael Shellenberger does have Climate (global warming) credibility. Back in 2008 Time magazine named him a hero of the environment. 

But now he is apologizing for scaring people: On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

About half the people surveyed believe that climate change is going to lead to extinction of human beings, all because of fear tactics used by climate change activists according to Shellenberger.

He wrote an article summarizing his argument and published it in Forbes magazine. Forbes left it up for a day, Sunday, and then took it down. Why?

(cont'd tomorrow)

Bias framing

One way to influence other people's opinions is to withhold information that would counter your argument. If the picture you paint for others is framed to your advantage, they can be fooled.

Everyone does it - that is, everyone frames the argument the way they see it.

But if you are the audience, make sure you ask some questions. Is anything important being left out of the way they frame it?

Dissent

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

So, yes, the arguments surrounding "climate change," aka global warming, are complicated. If you are not a climate scientist, and you can't independently study relevant evidence, how do you know which side to support?

The writer of the Dilbert cartoons is a "trained hypnotist" and says he has studied persuasion. He has some thoughts as to how people choose a side in the debate.

"No one is using reason, facts, or common sense to arrive at a decision about climate science. Here’s what you are using:  1. Fear 2.Unwarranted trust in experts 3. Pattern recognition.

"I accept the consensus of climate science experts when they say that climate science is real and accurate. But I do that to protect my reputation and my income. I have no way to evaluate the work of scientists.

"[T]he cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist."

image: tvtropes.org

Consensus

(cont'd from last Friday's post)

So there was "scientific consensus" back in the 1970's that the earth was cooling and at risk of a new ice age. Today we're told that there is "scientific consensus" that the earth is warming and at risk of multiple disasters.

This view is actually an amalgam of claims:  1) Temperature of the globe is rising as a long-term trend, 2) It's caused by human activity, 3) Its effect on earth is bad, 4)  Politicians must make drastic economic changes.

That's an awful lot to agree on, not to mention the fact that point #4 is not even science but rather policy. Politicians, not scientists, make policy - which is simply an answer of what to do with information.

PC speech has labeled scientists with dissenting views as "deniers" (as in holocaust deniers). That's pretty strident rhetoric for science, since dissenters usually spearhead scientific progress.

The whole thing is complicated.

(cont'd tomorrow)

Crises

One of America's too frequent crises erupted last week. And again I've chosen to ignore it in this blog. I always do ignore them, and here's why.

First, the presses and the internet just blaze with rhetoric, red hot passions along with cool analysis.  There are lots of voices, so I'm confident that you can find what you want to read about every crisis without my input.

Instead, I feel called to bring your attention to some important things that are not currently in crisis mode, good articles and books that you might miss.

What's the value in that? I'd like us to think things through before issues turn into crises.

Anti-semitism testimony

If you liked author Eric Metaxas whom I've been quoting lately, you might want to see this video.  He's the one in the dotted tie.

He is testifying at a hearing of the House of Representatives subcommittee on Anti-Semitism: A Growing Threat to All Faiths.  It's the "archive hearing video, part 1 of 2", and he appears at about these times: 00.51.00, 01.36.00, and 01.51.00.

NY Times reports bogus science claims

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/neuroscience-under-attack.html?_r=3&

The New York Times article cited above reports that some books and articles about the human brain have gone overboard trying to explain things by brain chemistry, and that some scientists are blogging to correct this inaccuracy.

As an example of an inaccurate, misleading book, they mention The Republican Brain which was published earlier this year:

"which claims that Republicans are genetically different from — and, many readers deduced, lesser to — Democrats. “If [this] argument sounds familiar to you, it should,” scoffed two science writers. “It’s called ‘eugenics,’ and it was based on the belief that some humans are genetically inferior.”

(Just FYI, eugenics was the theory that inferior people should be stopped from reproducing. Eugenics has been completely discredited and is considered dishonorable.)

The lesson here is to not blindly swallow everything somebody writes or says!  Even if it sounds scientific.

This article from the NYT says it very well, " bogus science gives vague, undisciplined thinking the look of seriousness and truth."

So you will still have to think things through, even when it looks like an expert said it.

Perspective reversed

The word "bigot" is defined by dictionary.com as:

"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race"

Professor Rorty's quotation below is so provocative.  Was the highly credentialed professor intolerant of his students' parents' religious ideas?  Was he a bigot by this definition?  Does he sound a bit vicious?  Just saying.