It provides cover for a faux-sophisticated stance. I'll unfairly generalize to note that it's used by people who don't understand science or economics that well, to demonstrate their supposed sophistication. The type of people who read Malcolm Gladwell or Thomas Friedman because these writers are supposedly thought-provoking.
As an example, take the responses to Stephen Dubner's post at the NY Times on what people are doing to address climate change:
Comment #10 (Paul CS):
Here are my thoughts on global warming. I see four issues that need to be addressed before we can adequately approach the problem:
1. The first point we must establish is: Is the Earth really warming at a significant pace? I’m skeptical but open to convincing that this is the case.
2. The second point: Is this warming caused by humans or is it natural? I know less about this point, but there are many intelligent people who think this is a natural phenomena — a cycle the world has been going through for millions of years.
Thanks, Paul, for your open-mindedness and skepticism! We'll get scientists and experts right on that, studying and drawing the same conclusions that they already draw, but that you so wonderfully dismiss.
Comment #7 (MPD):
Who says we need to fight global warming (assuming that it’s happening - but I’m not getting in that fight now)? We know that the earth has gone through many warming and cooling cycles in it’s history. (The high-plains desert that I’m typing this from used to be a tropical rain forest millions of years ago). I’d assume that economists of all people would know that it’s hard (often impossible) to define optimal. So who can say that 1)there’s an optimal climate for the earth, and 2)that the current climate is optimal and that “global climate change” is a bad thing.
No one has ever thought of this!
Of course it's silly to argue with anonymous Internet postings, but the president has used the same evasion multiple times: ``we need better science."
So my question for all these genius skeptics:
What would convince you? What concrete scientific evidence would you need to persuade yourself that global warming is happening, man-made, and bad?
If you can't answer this, you're not being properly skeptical. You're being an ass.
Then we get into the lovely ``I don't trust all those biased experts" schtick:
Comment #53(Michael D):
Your questions are all based on the flawed premise that global warming is occurring. I would have much rather seen some real questions concerning the “hype” that is global warming, as opposed to what a nut like Ed Begley Jr. thinks.
A “PhD” after someone’s name should incline you to believe the opposite opinion, Ed.
[In reply to Ed Begley Jr.'s note that many people with Ph.Ds think global warming is occurring.]
Yes, this is a great point. We should not trust people with Ph.Ds in atmospheric sciences. We should trust, um.... ? Lawyers? Lobbyists? MBAs? And next time you have a toothache, you should go see your lawyer, who has a JD instead of DDS.
Then there's the reply to Comment #58 (Dan):
Just because someone claims to be a ’scientist’ who studies the environment, doesn’t mean their ‘opinions’ are correct.
There is a reason that peer-reviewed scientific evidence is the gold-standard in our country. The overwhelming majority of you would trust a doctor who wants to treat you for meningitis. You’d agree because years of peer-reviewed studies have shown that to work, and because not doing so has enormous consequences.
Peer-reviewed scientific literature clearly indicates that there is a global climate crisis. The reason why so many deny it, is that accepting it requires us to do something about it. We innately evaluate situations we see so that they align with our world view. This makes it very difficult to make dramatic changes in our lifestyles.
It’s much easier to ignore reality and cling to fringe group beliefs, but I doubt you’ll do that the next time you’re sick or injured. Instead, I’ll see you at the hospital.
in which the snarky commenter Dan-O (#62) shouts:Dan,
Peer-reviewed scientific literature? What literature? Al Gore’s blog posts?
And who are the peers reviewing it? Prof. Sherman Frankel [another commenter -ed]?
Fringe group beliefs? Who’s on the fringe my friend?
Yes, please, I would appreciate a visit in the hospital.
This is the "if I don't look at the evidence, I can pretend it isn't there" reply. (Also, note that he doesn't get the reference to a point I copied above.)
Which is, frankly, stupid.
I must allow that not everyone has a university's access to the Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of Climate, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences or similar journals. Only by ignorance, however, could you imagine that these don't exist.
In closing, Douglas Adams put it best (twice):
"A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitch hiker can have. Partly it has great practical value — you can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan Beta; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V, inhaling the heady sea vapours; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly on the desert world of Kakrafoon; use it to sail a mini raft down the slow heavy river Moth; wet it for use in hand-to-hand-combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or to avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mindboggingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you — daft as a bush, but very ravenous); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough."
"One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he didn't actually understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid. He was renowned for being amazingly clever and quite clearly so-but not all the time, which obviously worried him, hence the act. He preferred people to be puzzled rather than contemptuous. This above all appeared to Trillian to be genuinely stupid, but she could no longer be bothered to argue about it."
Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Recent IPCC report
No comments:
Post a Comment