|
18 March 2012
Image via Wikimedia
Neutral observers have been perplexed at the response of key figures in climate science skepticism since specialists from other scientific disciplines exposed flaws in the greenhouse gas ‘theory’, often referred to as the ‘greenhouse effect’ (GHE).
A bizarre opprobrium has come from the denizens of anti-orthodox climate alarmism which is much at odds with the usual tenets of dispassionate scientific skepticism.
Once imperious figures such as Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen (and now WUWT’s Anthony Watts) have been irate and less than dignified in their shaky defense of the greenhouse gas effect, the cornerstone of man-made global warming.
Are you an Empirical, Paradigmatic or Wishful Thinker?
Why do these so-called skeptics shun public debate on this pivotal issue? Well, let’s consider what experts like David Ray Griffin PhD say. Griffin and others from the world of philosophy and psychology advise that there are three types of personality at work here.
Firstly, there are empirical people who look at the evidence and are open to change their mind. The second class of people are paradigmatic, they buy into a paradigm about how the world works and say, “this is my set of beliefs and I’m convinced what you say doesn’t fit my world view, so I won’t accept your evidence." Then there is the third category - wishful thinkers (or fearful thinkers). These are those people who will not believe anything that makes them fearful - especially new ideas of great import.
In climate science the empiricists are rising above the maelstrom and shining through. Climatologists Tim Ball, Gerhard Kramm and Ralph Dlugi have gone on record to state there is “a lack of tangible evidence” for any atmospheric greenhouse effect because the science is “based on meritless conjectures.” Thus the empiricists are jumping the GHE ship. Empiricists embrace the new paradigm because the GHE is shown to belong more to the 19th Century rather than the 21st.
Even the mainstream journal Science appears to be backtracking from the fallacy after recently publishing a paper conceding, “Results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.” [1.]
Denialism is Borne of Fear and Irrationality
The paradigmatics and the wishful thinkers are most likely to fall prey to pure denial to help them avoid anxiety. They cannot so easily face the emotion of fear. They are afraid of being ostracized, having their status challenged, their incomes and jobs put at risk - in essence feeling helpless and vulnerable as their “consensus” fades. [2,3] At such moments they are more prone to lie and cheat, cherry-pick and be accused of falsify their science risking criminal prosecution.
It’s essentially what cognitive dissonance theory tells us. None of us wants negativity in our lives but these people are more prone to choose a defense mechanism: usually anger towards and/or ridicule of the messenger. They believe they have been offended. They pathologize and censor the messenger.
We can learn from experts like Dr. Griffin how to approach those paradigmatics and wishful thinkers who cling to the GHE. Griffin and his ilk advise we pose mostly open-ended questions and encourage others to face that up to the enduring truth that reality will never precisely be what we think it is; none of us are above false beliefs. Plus, our pride is a basic human flaw that obstructs such open inquiry.
Left-brain versus Right-brain Dichotomy
Empirical thinkers are those people least dominated by left-brain processing (left brain hemispheric thinking prefers conformity to simplistic world models). Empirical thinkers are more active with the right side of the brain (intuitive/creative, problem solving).
This is why Principia Scientific International is needed. It lays out the need for more empirical people to assist the other two basic personality types to confront their prejudices. PSI's pioneering PROM system (Peer review in open media) is an empiricist’s blessing and a methodology to be feared by paradigmatics and wishful thinkers.
Open, evidence-based science is the only way we will ever move these entrenched personality types forward. But we need to recognize that a lot of people are inherently incapable of accepting change. So whether we like it or not we are all affected by various degrees of cognitive dissonance. The challenge is acquiring the insight to address it.
John O’Sullivan is Co-founder and coordinator of Principia Scientific International.
[1.] Schmittner, A., et al. “Climate Sensitivity Estimated from
Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum,” Science
DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513
[2] U S Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International
Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims;
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009, March 16, 2009, page 87.
[3] Update, U S Senate Minority Report: More Than 1000
International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming
Claims; Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading “Consensus” in 2008,
2009 & 2010, December 8, 2010, page 153.
Comments
These so called sceptics (including Anthony and Lord Monckton's) attitude towards slayer science is very odd.
I'm unsure what the reason is (your above reason may be right) but it does their credibility no good at all.
I no longer consider Wattsup as a credible website. Its now no better than any other alarmist website. They are anti science (and anti open debate) and anti science is anti science regardless.
The second group (the leaders) includes primary, government funded researchers, left leaning political leaders like Kerry, activist and environmentalist leadership, and, of course, the Hansens, Gores, Manns, Briffas, Pachauri, and the rest of the extremists with which we are burdened. To the surprise of those in the first group, but not at all to the rest of us, these people do not necessarily believe or, for the most part, even care if global warming is anthropogenic. And, unlike the first group, these people are not only evil and wrong but also dangerous. They are not out to save the world but to gain political power and financial control over individuals, businesses and countries.
There are legitimate environmental issues. Surly we must continue to fight for and to find a way to protect our environment, reduce stress on fisheries, manage water, land and forest resources, protect endangered species if possible and were practical, and a myriad other environmental issues and crises we face. The real tragedy of the AGW shibboleth is that it will destroy the credibility of legitimate environmental movements, divert needed funding away from them, and make the efforts of those movements even more difficult. And this is why the people of the first group, if and when they ever figure it out, should forever condemn those of the second.
The rest of us already have.
Indeed - the sad irony is that most skeptics I know are staunchly in favor of cutting down environmental pollution. The difference between us and the green zealots is that we know carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a life-giving essential gas.
These people are NOT environmentalists, they don't give one hoot for the environment. If they did have any real understanding, they would know that CO2 has ONLY beneficial effects on the world's environmental sustainablity.
I'm totally with you on the issue of wind turbines-they are counter-productive.
I'm still waiting for any hard empirical or observational evidence supporting the contention that made-made CO2 (a small fraction of the total 0.04 percent CO2) causes any measurable global atmospheric warming.
Climate realists weaken their case when they openly embrace the very foundation of the alarmists' argument.
I fear that many "mainstream" AGW skeptics live in fear of peer ostracism and, therefore, are afraid to question the widely accepted theory of CO2-induced atmospheric warming.
Ferenc Miskolczi and others (including the "Slayers") have put forth convincing research that completely undermines the theory of human-induced global warming.
The important thing is to educate the young and prevent them from becoming part of the Brainwashed the Gorezillias.
Mother Nature- the weather is doing a good job of showing that the “Greenhouse gas effect” is a hoax.
RSS feed for comments to this post