follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
 

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« Look, everybody: more Time-Sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences (TESS)! | Main | How many times do I have to explain?! "Facts" aren't enough, but that doesn't mean anyone is "lying"! »
Saturday
Apr272013

"Yes we can--with more technology!" A more hopeful narrative on climate?

Andy Revkin (the Haile Gebrselassie of environmental science journalism) has posted a guest-post on his blog by Peter B. Kelemen, the Arthur D. Storke Professor and vice chair in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

The essay combines two themes, basically.

One is the "greatest-thing-to-fear-is-fear-itself" claim: apocalyptic warnings are paralyzing and hence counterproductive; what's needed to motivate people is "hope."

That point isn't developed that much in the essay but is a familiar one in risk communication literature -- and is often part of the goldilocks dialectic that prescribes "use of emotionally compelling images" but "avoidance of excessive reliance on emotional images" (I've railed against goldilocks many times; it is a pseudoscience story-telling alternative to the real science of science communication).

But the other theme, which is the predominant focus and which strikes me as really engaging and intriguing, is that in fact "apocalypse" is exceedingly unlikely given the technological resourcefulness of human beings.

We should try to figure out the impact of human behavior that generates adverse climate impacts and modify them with feasible technological alternatives that themselves avoid economic and like hardships, Kelemen argues. Plus, to the extent that we decide to continue in engaging in behavior that has adverse impacts, we should anticipate that we will also figure out technological means of offsetting or dealing with the impacts. 

Kelemen focuses on carbon capture, gas-fired power plants, etc.

The policy/science issues here are interesting and certainly bear discussion.

But what captures my interest, of course, is the "science communication" significance of the "yes we can--with more technology" theme.  Here are a couple of points about it:

1. This theme is indeed likely to be effective in promoting constructive engagement with the best evidence on climate change.  The reason isn't that it is "hopeful" per se but that it avoids antagonistic meanings that trigger reflexive closed-mindedness on the part of individuals--a large segment of the population, in fact-- who attach high cultural value to human beings' technological resourcefulness and resilience.

from Kahan, D.M. Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk, in Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics and Social Implications of Risk. (eds. R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, S. Roeser & M. Peterson) 725-760 (Springer London, Limited, 2012).CCP has done two studies on how making technological responses to climate change --such as greater reliance on nuclear power and exploration of geoengineering -- more salient helps to neutralize dismissive engagement with and thus reduce polarization over climate science.

These studies, by the way, are not about how to make people believe particular propositions or support particular policies (I don't regard that as "science communication" at all, frankly).  The outcome measures involve how reflectively and open-mindedly subjects assess scientific evidence.

2. Nevertheless, the "yes we can--with technology" theme is also likely to generate a push-back effect. The fact is that "apocalyptic" messaging doesn't breed either skepticism or disengagement with that segment of the population that holds egalitarian and communitarian values. On the contrary, it engages and stimulates them, precisely because (as Douglas & Wildavsky argue) it is suffused with cultural meanings that fit the moral resentment of markets, commerce, and industry.

For exactly this reason, individuals with these cultural dispositions predictably experience a certain measure of dissonance when technological "fixes" for climate impacts are proposed: "yes we can--with technology" implies that the solution to the harms associated with too much commerce, too great a commitment to markets, too much industrialization etc is not "game over" but rather "more of the same."  

Geoengineering and the like are "liposuction" when what we need is to go on a "diet."

How do these dynamics play out?

Well, of course, the answer is, I'm not really sure. 

But my conjecture is that the positive contribution of the "yes we can --with technology" narrative can make to promoting engagement with climate science will offset any push back effect. Most egalitarian communitarians are already plenty engaged with the issue of climate and are unlikely to "tune out" if technological responses other than carbon limits become an important part of the conversation.  There will be many commentators who conspicuously flail against this narrative, but their reactions are not a good indicator of how the "egalitarian communitarian" rank and file are likely to react. Indeed, pushing back too hard, in a breathless, panicked way will likely make such commentators appear weirdly zealous and thus undermine their credibility with the largely nonpartisan mass of citizens who are culturally disposed to take climate change seriously.

Or maybe not. As I said, this is a conjecture, a hypothesis.  The right way to figure the question out isn't to tell stories but rather to collect evidence that can help furnish an answer.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (17)

There are many areas where "deniers" and "Gaia worshipers" can overlap on CC if each argues for their true objectives openly.

Moving to scrubbed coal, natural gas, fracking to get more natural gas, nuclear power, and reduce the immature renewable tech such as food to fuel, windmills, and solar would have the "deniers" onboard.

The "denier" complaint with the current tech with renewables is that they cost to much for what you get out of them and have other really bad environmental and social costs. The one renewable that really works is hydro, and this is not counted as a "renewable power source" by law in Calif which is really dumb.

But much of the Green movement today is anti-capitalist more than they are pro-environment. Check out J.E. Lovelock, one of the original environmentalists, and his current view of the Green community. He is considered a "denier" today. As the argument between the two factions is political, not technical, I see little hope for compromises on CC In the near future.

April 27, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterEd Forbes

O my..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/26/optimism-appealing-pessimism-more-my-thing

From the Guardian no less

"Bruckner is a French philosopher, an essayist and novelist who was in London last week to publicise his new book, The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse: Save the Earth, Punish Human Beings. Beneath that frightening title lurks a superficially attractive message: we need to stop beating ourselves up about climate change because no good will come of it. Bruckner sees "ecologism" as a successor to communism.."


"The enormity of the diagnosis, the absurd inadequacy of the remedies" is the way he puts it. What then? Trying to establish a median "between reasonable warning and sterile panic", Bruckner concludes that "we have to count on the genius of the human race", meaning ingenious technical fixes that wait to be discovered, unknown unknowns."

April 27, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterEd Forbes

I am a capitalist, so is Arnold Schwartzenegger, George Schultz, Al Gore, David Cameron, Angela Merkel and most of the political leaders who have embraced renewable energy.

In fact, if the playing pitch was level, renewables energy sources would wipe the floor with the fast-becoming-obsolete fossil fuel technologies. If you can convince me that natural gas companies are serious about reductions in the amount of methane leakages from their pipelines, then I am willing to consider it as a birdge technology out of fossil fuels altogether. But why should gas companies bother when they believe they have the political muscle to undermine regulation from within?

In principle, I have nothing against nuclear power. But nuclear has not had decent research done on it for decades, the lead time on a nuclear power plant is 10 years - why bother when we can have well-engineered improvements on solar and wind power by then. I fear nuclear power is a cul-de-sac.

As for "subsidies", fossil fuels are the most subsidized energy source on earth, most of it favouring the better off. So say the IMF http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr1393.htm

Carbon scrubbing is another technology that has fallen behind hopelessly .. why have the coal industry not been researching this technology? Probably another cul-de-sac, but if research can be funded by a tax on coal, then why not?

My idea of "we can do it with technology" is a carbon price, preferably a revenue-neutral tax, that can be remitted to the consumer, or invested in research on alternatives to fossil fuels. If fossil fuels at kept at the current artificially low price, with no allowance for their negative consequences, and with their subsidies intact, then fuggetaboudit.

Short term I recognize that we need to continue using fossil fuels for a period in order to produce the next generation of energy technologies, but the shorter that is, the better.

April 29, 2013 | Unregistered Commentertoby

I am a capitalist, so is... Al Gore?!!

Capitalism isn't the issue here. The issue is free markets versus protectionism. There are plenty of capitalists in favour of protectionism - as Adam Smith once said: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Businesses and politicians support renewables because it is an excellent excuse to raise prices, levy taxes, get more power and control over other people's lives, sell access, and exclude the competition.

Free market capitalists are a different breed, and oppose all that. And those are the ones who argue against emissions reduction on economic grounds.

Yes, Al Gore, who used to be a big guy in the tobacco business, is now a multi-millionaire in the carbon credits business. Very much a capitalist...

"In fact, if the playing pitch was level, renewables energy sources would wipe the floor with the fast-becoming-obsolete fossil fuel technologies."

OK, let's level the floor, then. No subsidies for any of them. You won't find any climate sceptics arguing with that. What do you suppose could be stopping them doing it?

"If you can convince me that natural gas companies are serious about reductions in the amount of methane leakages from their pipelines..."

Who are you proposing is to pay for it?

"But why should gas companies bother when they believe they have the political muscle to undermine regulation from within?"

Gas companies would be quite happy with regulation. Only the biggest companies have the capital resources to comply, so it keeps the competition out, and it would therefore allow them to expand their businesses and raise prices, and the government would stop anyone else doing anything about it, by means that would be totally illegal if they tried it. The reason they don't is not that the gas companies are against it, but that the politicians know that massive price hikes to pay for regulatory compliance is politically toxic.

What companies don't like is regulation aimed solely at them and not their competition. But I'm sure you could do a deal with them to spread it around...

"In principle, I have nothing against nuclear power. But nuclear has not had decent research done on it for decades, the lead time on a nuclear power plant is 10 years"

Whose fault is it that we haven't done any research lately?

And whose fault is it that the lead time is 10 years? It takes less than 5 to actually build one - the rest is down to regulation.

"why bother when we can have well-engineered improvements on solar and wind power by then"

Not likely! Wind is near the limit of what's feasible. Solar could be improved significantly but we're talking 40 years, not 10.

"As for "subsidies", fossil fuels are the most subsidized energy source on earth, most of it favouring the better off."

Mmm. Sort of. "On average, the richest 20 percent of households in low- and middle-income countries capture 43 percent of fuel subsidies," The vast majority of fossil fuel subsidies are in poor and developing countries, as a welfare measure against fuel poverty. Yes, the well-off use more fuel, so they benefit more. But without it, the poor would not be able to afford fuel at all, and if you tried to differentially price it that would lead to the poor selling their subsidised fuel to the rich. Developed countries subsidise it very little - many of them tax fuel heavily- and the subsidy per kWh for renewables is far higher, although smaller in total because it's a smaller market.

But I'm fully in favour of scrapping all subsidies and differential taxes. You've got my support on that one.

"Carbon scrubbing is another technology that has fallen behind hopelessly .. why have the coal industry not been researching this technology?"

They have. It doesn't work. It costs about 30% of the energy generated to capture the CO2.

"My idea of "we can do it with technology" is a carbon price, preferably a revenue-neutral tax"

Taxes require administration and regulation, so they can't be revenue-neutral. It would be a highly regressive tax - the burden falling proportionately more on the poor and middle classes - which is politically unpopular. And there is the difficulty agreeing on the correct price.

There is, actually, a free-market alternative, which is to develop a sort of futures market in climate change. For example, you issue a negotiable bond that pays a very good return on face value on the day the seas rise past 1 metre (say), or is void in 2100. (Or vice versa.) People who believe in climate catastrophe consider it to have value, and will buy it from people who don't believe and think it doesn't. The market will settle on a price, reflecting our collective belief in climate change, and you can then charge your carbon taxes in them, pay for research and mitigation with them, invest in them for insurance against future disaster, and everyone will agree that the price is right. Whoever eventually turns out to be wrong will pay the full costs.

I suspect the reason they don't (besides it being harder to fiddle) is that it would reveal precisely how much people did believe in climate catastrophe. What people say is one thing, but when they're asked to back it with their own money...

"Short term I recognize that we need to continue using fossil fuels for a period in order to produce the next generation of energy technologies, but the shorter that is, the better."

Agreed. We reckon it will be in about 40-60 years, if you extrapolate current progress. But I'd be all in favour if it turned out to be earlier.

April 29, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

@NiV & @Toby:

What do you guys think of Bob Inglis's positions? Much more interesting "capitalism" specimen than Al Gore or Koch Bros.

April 29, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterdmk38

"What do you guys think of Bob Inglis's positions? Much more interesting "capitalism" specimen than Al Gore or Koch Bros."

Is he? I've only had a quick skim, but his belief in climate change seems... unsophisticated.

I was going to say more, but it wouldn't be constructive criticism, so I'll give it a miss.

The only way he stands out is in not fitting the Republican stereotype. Although I'd guess how surprising you find that depends on how firmly you think Republicans all fit the same stereotype. I suspect Republicans themselves would mutter about "RINOs..." and not be surprised at all.

Anyway, his views on climate change don't appear to be notably consistent with or even related to capitalism, so I'm not sure what to say about it.

How about someone like Bjorn Lomborg? On the one hand free market, environmentally heretical, and economically sceptical. On the other, always accepts on each issue the 'official' statistics, and therefore accepts the IPCC consensus. Isn't that a more interesting example?

April 29, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

Speaking of instructive engagement:

The negative impact of environmental messaging became apparent when 210 study participants were given $2 to go light bulb shopping. When energy efficient, but more costly, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) were sold with a sticker that read "Protect the Environment," conservatives shied away from them.

When the more expensive CFLs were sold without environmental messaging — but touted the fact that CFLs last 9,000 hours longer than the less expensive incandescent bulbs and reduce energy costs by 75 percent — more conservatives bought them.

When both bulbs were priced the same — 50 cents — all but one participant bought the more energy-efficient bulb, regardless of the content of the label, indicating that people across party lines give the biggest weight to economic value, the researchers note.

Haven't vetted this study - but it seems nothing of not completely unsurprising:


Abstract

This research demonstrates how promoting the environment can negatively affect adoption of energy efficiency in the United States because of the political polarization surrounding environmental issues. Study 1 demonstrated that more politically conservative individuals were less in favor of investment in energy-efficient technology than were those who were more politically liberal. This finding was driven primarily by the lessened psychological value that more conservative individuals placed on reducing carbon emissions. Study 2 showed that this difference has consequences: In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled. These results highlight the importance of taking into account psychological value-based considerations in the individual adoption of energy-efficient technology in the United States and beyond.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110

Go team motivated reasoning!

April 29, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

The issue is free markets versus protectionism.

An argument based on a false dichotomy - at least for most. Only for extremists is it the one "versus" the other. For most folks, it is a question of the correct balance.

And those are the ones who argue against emissions reduction on economic grounds.

There are no true Scottsmen, eh? Once again, you have a very convenient taxonomy. As I see it, there is a very large group of people who argue against emissions reduction on economic grounds.


You won't find any climate sceptics arguing with that.

Again, a conveniently monolithic categorization of climate skeptics. You pick and choose amongst them, and discard those that are inconvenient as being not true Scottsmen.

Your position raises the question of how subsidy is defined. It is a complicated question - not one well-served by monolithic taxonomies.

Gas companies would be quite happy with regulation.

??? Gas companies in my neck of the woods fight tooth and nail against regulation, and spend bags of money to lobby politicians who oppose regulation. Gooogle my governor Corbett, and where he gets his campaign contributions.

Only the biggest companies have the capital resources to comply, so it keeps the competition out, and it would therefore allow them to expand their businesses and raise prices, and the government would stop anyone else doing anything about it, by means that would be totally illegal if they tried it.

A nice theoretical argument - but it doesn't reflect reality.

AThe reason they don't is not that the gas companies are against it, but that the politicians know that massive price hikes to pay for regulatory compliance is politically toxic.</lockquote>

Someone should tell the gas companies that they're wasting all that time supporting the campaigns of politicians who oppose regulation.

Whose fault is it that we haven't done any research lately?

Which countries have the most extensive amounts of nuclear energy? Those with centralized energy policies and those that have spent gobs of money of federal support for nuclear energy. Many of those countries have very active environmental groups.

And whose fault is it that the lead time is 10 years? It takes less than 5 to actually build one - the rest is down to regulation.

More efficient regulation is an entirely worthy goal. But regulation exists because the public want nuclear energy regulated. Is the regulation inefficient to some degree because of anti-nuclear advocacy? I'd say sure. But the notion that the public would support no regulation is chasing utopian dreams and holding reality hostage against a fantasy.

Gotta go. That will do for now.

April 29, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

"And those are the ones who argue against emissions reduction on economic grounds.

There are no true Scottsmen, eh? Once again, you have a very convenient taxonomy. As I see it, there is a very large group of people who argue against emissions reduction on economic grounds."

Isn't that what I said?

April 30, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

Isn't that what I said?

My larger point was that your distinction between capitalists and "free market" capitalists (as a "different breed") is unsupportably categorical - except to describe a very small group of extremists.

More specifically, my point was that although you say:

And those are the ones who argue against emissions reduction on economic grounds.

there are many people who argue against emissions reduction who do not fit within your tightly delineated, and thus practically miniscule, group of "free market capitalists." Yes, those who fit in that group argue against emissions reduction on economic grounds, but they are not "the ones" who argue against emissions reduction on economic grounds: They are a subset of the larger group - not the group in and of itself as you stated.

April 30, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Joshua,

The distinction was between free market capitalists and protectionist capitalists.

"very small group of extremists" is marginalising language. It's a big enough group to have its own recognised school of economics, including some pretty prominent ones.

"there are many people who argue against emissions reduction who do not fit within your tightly delineated, and thus practically miniscule, group of "free market capitalists.""

OK, on what basis do they argue? What are the economic arguments against reducing emissions besides the free market ones? It sounds like an interesting topic on which to extend the discussion.

I'm always keen to learn.

April 30, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

"very small group of extremists" is marginalising language.

Fair enough - I didn't really intend it that way, but to say that the distinction you make cleaves off a group at the very end of the spectrum.

There are many who support "free market capitalism" but who do not reject regulation out of hand or taxes or subsidies. There are many capitalists who believe in minimizing the role of the government in economics, but don't (at least what seemed to be) your description. The definition of minimizing is subjective. What you might consider minimal is likely to differ from what someone else considers minimal.

So someone who does not have an "extreme" (or relatively absolutist) view on government intervention, a plain brown wrapper capitalist who fits into the category you dismissed, and who believes in minimal government involvement in the economy but who draws that line in a distinctly different place than you, may well feel that (mandated) carbon emissions reduction would be counterproductive, or at least not beneficial, on economic grounds.

On a related matter - the question for me is where do you distinguish between your own views and those of the large body of "skeptics? (or capitalists who you dismiss as not being "free market capitalists")? My point is that, IMO, you have a pattern of assigning certain labels to those who share perspective with you on matters scientific and political - and then dismissing many who would self-identify as "skeptics" (or free market capitalists), but who have beliefs that are, in varying degrees, incongruent with your own. That distinction seems to me, to be largely arbitrary - not in the sense of being random, but in the sense of being based on a subjective rational. It is the same when you dismiss the many self-identified "skeptics" - who have no real grounding in the science - as not being "skeptics" because by your definition "skeptics" are "skeptical" because of a carefully considered rejection of the evidence for AGW.

April 30, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

"There are many who support "free market capitalism" but who do not reject regulation out of hand or taxes or subsidies."

Like there are communists who don't oppose the rich exploiting the working classes for profit? Yes, I suppose there are.

"but don't [fit] (at least what seemed to be) your description"

Ah. Maybe that's the problem. I didn't describe them. I described the protectionist capitalists. I guess you deduced some definition of free-market capitalists from the contrast, and disagreed with it?

The bits about subsidies were just me agreeing with Toby, who seemed to object to subsidies, and did say he was a capitalist. Two of us commenting on one blog simultaneously! Given how rare we are, what are the odds of that? :-)

But seriously, all the stuff about rejecting all subsidies was just following Toby's line of discussion. He seemed to find certain subsidies offensive, and didn't believe subsidies were needed for renewables. I was simply pointing out that climate sceptics don't argue with that, and we'd be fine with it if you wanted to get rid of them. That part wasn't meant as any part of a definition of "capitalist".

It's certainly possible that there are sceptics who support subsidies - but I don't know of any, or any who offer any economic justifications of it. I agree it's rhetorical hyperbole to speak as if there are none, but I'd expect that if someone wanted to disagree they'd have examples to discuss, which would take the conversation forward.

Not every statement I make needs to be parsed quite so literally. :-)

April 30, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

Like there are communists who don't oppose the rich exploiting the working classes for profit? Yes, I suppose there are.

A useless analogy. So I'll repeat (with a slight edit for clarity):

"There are many who support "free market capitalism" but who do not reject, out of hand, regulation or taxes or subsidies.

I described the protectionist capitalists. I guess you deduced some definition of free-market capitalists from the contrast, and disagreed with it?

You described a binary taxonomy. "protectionist capitalists" versus "free-market capitalists." I have repeatedly explained that (IMO) such a simplistic, and binary taxonomy only applies to the extreme ends of the debate - and as such, only descriptive of a small group.

From what I have seen, there are many who oppose emissions reductions on economic grounds who do not fit into your extremist group - a group which is not, categorically, "protectionist capitalists" but instead, exclusively and categorically, "free-market capitalists."


It's certainly possible that there are sceptics who support subsidies

Well - "skeptics" would probably more or less all oppose subsidies for renewables - but many, in fact, support other types of subsidies. For the majority of "skeptics" the opposition to subsides is selective. There are some, at the extreme end of the spectrum, who oppose all subsides on principle. This, again, is basically repeating the same point yet again.

So I've made this point numerous times now, and IMO, you're running around it - e.g., throwing out useless analogies (that are wholly unrelated and aren't enlightening in any way. Analogies are only substantially useful if they are enlightening. Otherwise they are pretty much empty rhetorical devices).

And you have not responded to the more general point I made about your pattern of a selective process for categorizing groups.

Probably time to move on to another thread, methinks.

April 30, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

"You described a binary taxonomy. "protectionist capitalists" versus "free-market capitalists." I have repeatedly explained that (IMO) such a simplistic, and binary taxonomy only applies to the extreme ends of the debate - and as such, only descriptive of a small group."

Doesn't that apply to all taxonomies?

"From what I have seen, there are many who oppose emissions reductions on economic grounds who do not fit into your extremist group - a group which is not, categorically, "protectionist capitalists" but instead, exclusively and categorically, "free-market capitalists.""

We are in total agreement, then?

"And you have not responded to the more general point I made about your pattern of a selective process for categorizing groups."

I've responded to it on other occasions in the past. It's a part of the way normal language works. People use labels as convenient handles for vaguely defined groups that they want to talk about and don't want to spend half an hour precisely delineating. Normally, people infer the intended meaning from context automatically. Usually, you do too, but every now and then you jump on some minor example of it and blow it up into a big deal.

You have asked where I draw the line between my own views and those of "the large body of "skeptics"", but there is no such body. Some people are sceptical on some parts of the theory and not on others. There are core 'team' climate scientists sceptical of some elements, hardcore "sceptics" who accept other parts of the science. There's no line, and not even a simple one-dimensional continuum. There's no clear definition by which you can classify people as "more sceptical" or "less sceptical" than others. There is no "body of sceptics".

You can't say "sceptics". You can't say "people", or "scientists", or "capitalists" or "politicians" or "energy companies" or "the general public", or use any other label unless what you say applies literally and universally to every single member, of every nationality and in every age. The only way you can get round it is to talk like a social sciences paper describing its sample selection criteria.

I just put it down as one of your quirks, and try not to let it derail every conversation. No offence intended.

May 1, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

We are in total agreement, then?

Not at all. I think my syntax was unclear. I'll rephrase:

From what I have seen, there are many who oppose emissions reductions on economic grounds and who do not fit into your extremist group: (That group being those who are categorically not "protectionist capitalists" (in any degree) but instead categorically (and exclusively) "free-market capitalists." The # who do fit into such a group as yours is miniscule.)

NiV - you create binary categories that serve ideological aims. Perfect language does not exist, but qualifying your language would make your analysis more accurate and more scientific.

And with that - time for me to move on.

May 1, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

"Not at all. I think my syntax was unclear. I'll rephrase:"

It's evidently still unclear, because we still appear to be in total agreement. What I was saying is that those who oppose emissions reductions on economic grounds are not protectionist capitalists but free market capitalists. I was saying that the issue is not capitalists versus non-capitalists, but the free market versus protectionism, with the protectionists aiming to profit from green subsidies, and the free market types opposing the cost to society the subsidies and sub-optimal energy production that emissions reductions demand would entail.

You appear to be paraphrasing my position exactly, while saying it's not what I said.

But moving on would seem to be a good idea. We're just going around in circles here.

May 1, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>