Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You really do seem to be on a roll. First
references to the "elites," and now assumptions
about "professionals" et cetera.

If the world consisted simply of some self-evident
reality that everyone perceived in exactly the same
way, there might be no disagreement among observers.
But the truth of the matter is that what we see in the
world is not determined by what exists "out there."
It is shaped by what our past experience has prepared
us to see and by what we consciously or unconsciously want
to see.

Knowledge and belief about the world do not exist in a
vacuum; they are social products whose content depends
on the context in which they are produced. A fundamentalist
preacher will tend to view pornography in one way; the
owner of a strip-tease establishment, in another way.
Each is inclined to perceive facts selectively and to
interpret them accordingly.

The same is inevitably
true of various professionals whose outlook is also
influenced by their background, training, and prior
experiences. I guess what I am trying to say is that
like anyone else we are all guilty of some measure of
bias - the tendency, often unconscious, to interpret
things according to our own values.

Joe,

Imagine if vaccination and public health suffered the same fate as climate science. What if the deniers and conspiracy theorists against vaccination suddenly got the upper hand and began to lobby politicians to suspend programs. All those "professional" medical scientists telling us all what to do - how dare they!

The "public" have as much idea of the pros and cons involved in the science behind inoculation as they do about climate science. They rely on on the scientists and professionals to tell them the truth. The big difference, however, is that protecting society from communicable disease doesn't threaten the economic and political status quo. Hence, in the case of climate science, a movement has been formed and backed by media and big oil interests to challenge the findings of the majority of scientists.

You can bring in your yobs, hoons, and their freedom of speech ad nauseam. They are not the ones sabotaging the planet's future. They are the ones who rely on "knowledge" to guide them on issues they don't comprehend - like immunisation, for instance. It's the professional class who have an economic stake in trumpeting denial who are attempting to fracture the connection between reason and practice.

Thanks Lexi, I agree fully. No dissent there :)

Poirot, I'm intrigued about the construction of an entity, 'Deniers', i.e. people like you and me who disagree with you and me. This is not much more than a way to demonise opponents by assuming they are another species, another category, and assuming 100 % that their doubts and scepticism are fake, that they are all working for the Vatica, or Murdoch, or the Rockefellers. And once they can be segregated as another species, not 'us', it's not that hard to think that somehow they ought to be ...... extracted.

I'd cue Arjay, except that he is working secretly for us deniers.

Can we please move on from slagging each other as 'alarmists' (or 'warmists') and 'deniers' ? Is it possible that we can stick to the arguments, and move away from such disguised ad hominems ?

And since when has the capability of 'deniers' been so dreadful that you can compare it with the power to stop vaccination and ruin public health ? You don't think that's not going overboard a little ?

As it happens, I'm all in favour of vaccination, but I would defend the right of anti-vaccination people, misguided as they may be, to put their case.

:)

Joe,

"You don't think that's going overboard a little."

That about sums up the seriousness with which most people rate climate change.

Anyhooo...bonmot posted these links earlier. They are a Q&A paper and a synopsis of a paper by James Hansen titled "Perception of Climate Change" - due to be published next week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DiceQNA.pdf

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf

It's nice that you're in favour of vaccination. I presume, therefore, that you believe the science behind it and connect the truth of the science to outcomes in society.
Perhaps we'll have to wait until we experience AGW extremes equivalent in menace to polio, diphtheria or smallpox for "skeptics" to enjoy the same reassurance regarding climate science.

Hi Poirot,

"It's nice that you're in favour of vaccination. I presume, therefore, that you believe the science behind it and connect the truth of the science to outcomes in society."

Of cfourse. I have the greatest respect for science - I don't see any contradiction between science and democracy, unlike your Clive. To me, they reinforce each other, and mainly in positive ways.

Si, if you'll pardon my suspicion that you are trying to put me into some anti-science, pro-evil box, can we get back to the arguments ?

And it isn't just AGLW (Anthropogenic Luke-Warming) now, it's extremes of weather ? Weather events that have never been experienced before ? Do you mean, like all those hurricanes that have hit the Gulf of Mexico since Katrina ? All those 46 degree days that have hit South Australia since the last one in 1981 ? Those floods of last year that were NEARLY as severe as the 1956 and 1974 floods ? Droughts that were almost as severe and as long as the Federation droughts of 1892-1900/1902-1904 ? As the 1930s drought ?

So which particular extreme weather events are we talking about, Poirot ?

I wonder if we would go on about 'extremes' if we still didn't have air-conditioning, like in the olden days, before we got so comfortable ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

".....I have the greatest respect for science."

"So which particular extreme events are we talking about, Poirot?"

It's not so much "particular" events - it's the increased occurrence of unusual and extreme events....but you know that already.
(I wonder if you'll bother to read those links?)

Sounds to me as if you've made your mind up on this one -

I'll leave you to ponder all the "events" from the past, which apparently preclude any requirement to question the increased frequency of extreme events.