I think this description fits where I am pretty well:
Lawrence Solomon, a columnist for Canada’s National Post—and the victim of an earlier smear campaign—decided to ask who these “deniers” really are and what they really believe. What he found is telling: “Among all the deniers I have profiled,” Solomon writes, “I have never encountered one who disputes that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect, or that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas…. The arguments are all about how powerful the effect is, especially when considered in combination with other factors, various feedback mechanisms both negative and positive, and other influences that might or might not overwhelm the effect of CO2.” In other words, Solomon found that the “deniers” are, in fact, not in denial at all. They are merely dissidents from the political orthodoxy of climate catastrophism.
I’ve always found it interesting that people tend to see issues as black or white, lump other folks into either category, and then demonize the perceived “other side.” The over-simplification of the climate change controversy (a la Al Gore) is no exception. Kudos to Solomon for having a look at the shades of grey.
This is exactly the point. When commenting on “believers” sites,I always begin by explaining that I accept that the globe has warmed, that the greenhouse effect exists and that human generated CO2 does indeed contribute to global warming. I contend that every other intelligent skeptic I know agrees. I stipulate that these issues are “settled science”. If you don’t preface your comments with this, when you disagree with anything else, they’ll call you a “denier” (and it’s not just a debating trick, I really do accept those points).
Once this is established, in conjunction with a calm, rational style, you can often get to talking about what really matters, climate sensitivity. Then you can move on to establishing that a climate sensitivity of 3.0 C +/- 1.5 C is NOT “settled science”. The whole “Climate Change” topic consists of many different issues and they really need to be seperated somehow.
Not related to this particular blog but to an earlier one (apologies for that) but you may find this link of interest regarding the BBC emails the other day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7350000/newsid_7355700/7355760.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1
Quantity matters. This is why it’s called “quantitative science.”
First they claimed that the Earth isn’t warming.
Then they claimed that CO2 doesn’t cause warming.
Now they admit that the Earth is warming and that CO2 causes warming. But it doesn’t warm things all that much.
I wonder what’s next?
Weatherman is obviously not climateman.
You can always find looney skeptics. But serious skeptics recognize the CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the earth has warmed over the last 150 years (and last 400 or so).
I wouldn’t go so far as to say they accept that human generated CO2 is proven to have caused warming, but I think most of us expect that it has (the evidence is simply underwhelming, but the physics is strongly suggestive).
As for what’s next… it’s the deflation of the true believers’ position, which is only held together today by sociological, not scientific forcing factors. Furthermore, as more of the public start to understand their personal consequences of the policy proposals of the true believers, they will look more closely at the overall hype, and become more skeptical.
It is one thing to have an intellectual debate about the issue. It is another when the economy suffers and individuals start to directly suffer in a nation with enormous reserves of hydrocarbons that we don’t use due to environmentalism (primarily coal).
I don’t see you as a curious thinker. Like most people on the net, you look for things to confirm your day one hypothesis. Rather than for killer analyses that could shift your view. And you cite analyses preferentially as they help your “side” rather than as they reveal interesting things in the area of debate.
Tit for tat TCO – I see you as a shill for the enviromental lobby, who fronts himself off as a deeply engaged sceptic, but parodoxicly reserves his attacks for the that side of the debate only. It is telling that when the usually foul mouthed TCO has words of praise, he only feels confortable expressing them when in the company of believers of the mainstream media’s position, and bestows them exclusively on members of that troop.
If you are seeking a balance, TCO, you could always tune in the weather channel. It’s 24/7 now.