“Government’s climate policy firmly based on latest scientific evidence” — UK Energy and Climate Secretary

UK Minister takes dead aim at climate skeptics in speech to Royal Society

No 680 Posted by fw, February 19, 2013

“It is fair to say that trust in politicians is not something the public has in abundance. That is why, when it comes to climate change, it is so important that all the rigours of the scientific method are applied. That it is the science that drives policy. And that we hear loud and clear from the experts.” —Ed Davey

Could it be that President Obama’s recent “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will” speech may have stiffened the spine of other government leaders and their ministers. Others, excluding, that is, Messrs. Harper, Baird and Kent who continue to have their heads buried in tar sands oil, spewing a feeble defense of their “ethical oil” record.

Pity our three blinkered ministers can’t see their way to follow the lead of Ed Davey, UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary. He has laid down the gauntlet: “Those who deny climate change and demand a halt to emissions reduction and mitigation work, want us to take a huge gamble with the future of every human being on the planet”

To read one account of Davey’s address to the Royal Society, click on the linked title below. Alternatively, read this post with its added subheadings.

Davey takes fight to ‘dogmatic’ and ‘blinkered’ climate skeptics, by James Murray, BusinessGreen.com, February 12, 2013

Davey takes on the skeptics

Ed Davey

‘Those who deny climate change and demand a halt to emissions reduction and mitigation work, want us to take a huge gamble with the future of every human being on the planet’

Ed Davey will aim his most vocal criticism to date at those climate skeptics who seek to delay and undermine action to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, accusing them of adopting a “dogmatic” and “blinkered” stance that represents “a huge gamble with the future of every human being on the planet”.

The Energy and Climate Change Secretary is to deliver a speech at the Royal Society this afternoon to a meeting of the AVOID symposium, a government-funded climate research programme incorporating the Met Office, the Tyndall Institute and several other research bodies.

In it Davey will offer fresh assurances that the government’s climate policy is firmly based on the latest scientific evidence and call on scientists and researchers to play an even more proactive role in supporting the development of the green economy.

“It is fair to say that trust in politicians is not something the public has in abundance,” he will say. “That is why, when it comes to climate change, it is so important that all the rigours of the scientific method are applied. That it is the science that drives policy. And that we hear loud and clear from the experts.”

In addition, Davey will aim pointed criticism at those who reject this evidence, including some MPs on the government’s backbenches, arguing that they are denying a body of evidence that is largely “irrefutable”.

“When the scientists tell us that the evidence proves that smoking is addictive and can cause a whole host of deadly medical conditions from emphysema to heart disease, we believe them,” he will say. “So if we have this trust in scientific evidence, why would we make an exception when it comes to the science of climate change?

“Good science is questioning, skeptical, analytical – testing theories and understanding risks. Two hundred years of good science – teasing out uncertainties, considering risk – has laid the foundation of what we now understand. It screams out from decade upon decade of research. The basic physics of climate change is irrefutable.”

 “Those who deny climate change…want us to take a huge gamble with the future”

He will also argue that climate skeptics are failing to acknowledge the broad risk mitigation benefits that come with transitioning towards a low carbon economy.

“You know, when I am confronted by some of the most dogmatic and blinkered people who deny that climate change is happening, I am reminded of the sentiment of the famous USA Today cartoon,” he will say. “If we really are wrong about climate change, we will have created a better world for nothing.

“In reality, those who deny climate change and demand a halt to emissions reduction and mitigation work, want us to take a huge gamble with the future of every human being on the planet, every future human being, our children and grandchildren, and every other living species. We will not take that risk.”

The public attack on climate skeptics, including lobby groups such as former Chancellor Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, provides the latest evidence that the government is ratcheting up the rhetoric in support of its green agenda.

Even PM Cameron is distancing himself from fellow Conservatives who oppose ambitious green policies

Only last week Prime Minister David Cameron publicly distanced himself from those in his own party arguing against the adoption of ambitious green policies, declaring that “to those who say we just can’t afford to prioritize green energy right now, my view is we can’t afford not to”.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg adopted a similar stance in defence of the government’s green agenda, arguing last week that sustainability and economic growth “go hand in hand”.

Davey, whose speech will be accompanied this afternoon by an address from the outgoing Chief Scientific Adviser Sir John Beddington on the importance of the role science plays in informing government policy, will today also argue that a global climate change treaty is within reach, but will require significant support from the scientific community.

“We can’t leave this to the politicians to save the planet”

“We can’t leave this to the politicians to save the planet,” he will say. “This has to be a whole of society effort, and no contribution will be more crucial than that of the scientific community. Conceiving solutions, engineering new efficiencies, bringing new energy sources to the market. We share a positive vision of a green, clean energy and transport – and a better, healthier way of life. And the progress of science will help us get there.”

SEE ALSO

• The day a Harper MP threatened to throw me out of his constituency office. Part 1/2: The Meeting, Posted on December 10, 2010 — The threat stemmed from my questions about Conservative government policies related to climate change.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing

Debating denialists — an exercise in futility?

Pointing out the fallacious arguments of denialists is like kicking a bee hive: the comments section will fill with lots of angry buzzing.

No 507 Posted by fw, June 19, 2012

The “bee hive” sub-title of this post paraphrases a sentence from the lead-in paragraph of Phil Plait’s absorbing personal narrative, A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I am the target, published on his blog on February 2, 2012 in Discover Magazine. (Phil Plait, Ph.D. is an American astronomer, formerly in the physics and astronomy department at Sonoma State University, who resigned in 2007 and now writes full time).

Turning to the title of this post, it derives from an experience related to my June 13, 2012 post, Climate change denier meets his nemesis. I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised to find two comments submitted challenging my concluding sentence, “And on that closing note, I say touché! Game, set and match to the climate science team.” In hindsight, I made the mistake of approving the two comments even though they bore the unmistakable denialist cant.

A day or two later I found parts of my post prominently displayed on another blog with this highlighted derogatory personal comment, which is pretty typical of the denialist crowd:

“This is so typical of the AGW hysteria crowd.  They can’t stand it that someone may possibly have a differing opinion.  Because we know for certain throughout history that consensus science was always absolute and irrefutable.  That’s why today we believe that the earth is the centre of the solar system, that the world is flat and that this planet is only about 6,000 years old.”

I knew then that I should have followed my initial intuitive reaction and permanently deleted the first two comments, not that that would have prevented my post from appearing on this other person’s blog. (BTW, I have since deleted the two comments and have created a firm new policy that as editor/moderator I reserve the right to reject comments that I judge to be from climate science/change deniers).

Although I was vaguely familiar with denialists’ tactics, I decided to gather evidence to support my decision to refuse, in future, to be suckered into a futile debate with denialists.

Here’s an overview of what I discovered, relying primarily on the writings of denialism expert Mark Hoofnagle

First, this piece of advice that comes right to the point: “Don’t make the mistake of actually debating denialists.” That from Mark Hoofnagle, who, along with his brother, Chris, is a leading observer of denialism.

Mark is a medical doctor, physiologist and blogger. He was one of the originators of the concept of “denialism”, especially in relation to global warming. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge. Mark runs the denialism blog at ScienceBlogs. Chris, an attorney and consumer protection advocate, is the author of The Denialists’ Deck of Cards which defines the common attributes of denialism.

Here are highlights of what Mark has to say about denialism, excerpted from two sources Denialism and The New Scientist Debates Denialism

Denialism defined: Brothers Mark and Chris Hoofnagle, describe it as “the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.”Arguing with denialists is useless, because they will invariably dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their ideological beliefs.^.(Source: Denialism).

Elsewhere, Mark writes: Whatever they are denying, [denialists] have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics. All set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda.

Common tactics and methodology used by denialists are largely similar, including, for example –

• Conspiracism - Suggesting scientists have an ulterior motive for their research, or that they are part of some hidden plan or agenda.
• Selective evidence - Relying upon discredited or flawed work supporting their idea while dismissing more credible work; presenting discredited or superseded papers to make a field look like it is based on weak research. The selective use of evidence by denialists includes quote mining and cherry picking.
• False experts - Citing paid, partisan scientists, or self-appointed ‘experts,’ often from an unrelated field, inflating favorable ‘evidence’ while discounting the contradictory, often while misrepresenting the significance of each.
• Impossible expectations - Seeking to prevent the implementation of sound policies or acceptance of a theory by citing the absence of ‘complete’ or ‘absolute’ knowledge.
• Misrepresentations and logical fallacies - Denialists sometimes employ logical fallacies: red herring; straw man; appeal to consequences; false analogy.
• Additional propaganda techniques that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid include: flag-waving, glittering generalities, intentional vagueness,  oversimplification, rationalization, slogans, stereotyping, testimonial, unstated assumption.

Ideological denialism

Ideologies that conflict with commonly accepted scientific theories or facts can drive their holders to engage in personal forms of denial, either to favor their personal beliefs, or to avoid having to reconcile those beliefs with contradictory evidence.

Corporate denialism

International corporations such as ExxonMobil have been heavily criticized for contributing to scientists and scientific experimentation disputing the scientific consensus on global climate change. ExxonMobil has strenuously denied the accusations, stating that “The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Newsweek and Mother Jones have published articles stating corporations are funding the climate change denial “denial industry”.

Political denialism

The GW Bush Administration’s replacement of previous science advisers with industry experts or scientists tied to industry, and its refusal to submit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification due to uncertainties they assert are present in the climate change issue, have been cited as examples of politically motivated denialism in the press.

Conspiracy theories

Denialism also takes the form of conspiracy theories, such as the government blew up the World Trade Center, not terrorists, and the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations.

RELATED RESOURCES

• Skeptical Science: Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism — Be sure to check out “MOST USED Climate Myths, a treasure trove of responses to all the usual denialists’ arguments, including, for example: It’s the sun; There’s no consensus; It’s cooling; Models are unreliable; Measurements of average temperature are unreliable; Animals and plants can adapt; It hasn’t warmed since 1998; Antarctica is gaining ice…
• SourceWatch –The Center for Media and Democracy publishes SourceWatch, a collaborative resource for citizens and journalists looking for documented information about the corporations, industries, and people trying to influence public policy and public opinion. With the help of volunteer editors, SourceWatch focuses on the for-profit corporations, non-profit corporate front groups, PR teams, and so-called “experts” trying to influence public opinion on behalf of global corporations and the government agencies they have captured.

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing