Reality Distortion Fields and the Great Global Warming Consensus
Posted by Paul Woodland | 13 Comments
I’ve been fascinated by the global warming consensus for a number of years, because it is such an excellent example of how we as a species can delude ourselves on a global scale with amazing speed and thoroughness. The Internet is a wonderful propaganda tool, and as a marketing professional I have come to admire the tactics used by Gore and his minions to spread the global warming gospel.
However, as a rational human being I am concerned. I can see that the importance placed on consensus is a direct attempt to destroy the scientific method of working towards the truth through careful observation of reality. It is the classic battle of subjectivists vs. objectivists and the subjectivists’ method of science by consensus has been winning.
Luckily, those who understand the scientific method have a very powerful weapon on their side, reality. The natural world has been drilling a number of holes into the global warming gospel over the past few years and the news media has finally begun to pick-up on this. For example, we have experienced a series of mild hurricane seasons despite catastrophic predictions. Further, while everyone has been wringing their hands about the ice cap at the North Pole shrinking, the ice layer at the south pole has been steadily expanding.
I have recently read two interesting articles that I hope are harbingers of a cultural shift away from alarmist group think and towards a respect for true scientific inquiry into the nature of earth’s climate. The articles are as follows.
In “No Consensus on IPCC’s level of ignorance,” John Christy Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama eviscerates his colleagues on the IPCC for making false claims of certainty to achieve their political and professional objectives.
The article “In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm” by John Tierney examines how “availability entrepreneurs” like Al Gore use memorable images like hurricanes, wild fires, and starving polar bears to instill fear in the public conscience despite the fact that there may be little or no connection between these images and the observed increases in earth’s temperature.
This technique plays on our natural human tendency to make decisions based on the most current available information rather than the most accurate information. Availability entrepreneurs used these heart wrenching or scary images to start “availability cascades,” which they profit from politically and economically.
The interesting thing about the politicized version of the global warming debate is that it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. World leaders and Gore’s wall street billionaire friends don’t care if the earth warms a couple degrees or not. They are fighting a knock down drag out fight for control of the motive power of the world. Your everyday scientist or activist probably doesn’t realize this, but the end game is control by government fiat of not just the oil industry, but all energy channels throughout the world.
Of course, this is a bold assertion. The examination of the global warming debate as an economic, political, and philosophical power play certainly requires further inquiry. However, for the moment I would simply like to share these articles and show you why I think the debate is such an interesting and important topic for our time.
Comments
13 Responses to “Reality Distortion Fields and the Great Global Warming Consensus”
Leave a Reply
Trust us
As with Anna Karina, we prefer to remember the U.S.A as she was in the 1960s.
Seek and ye shall find
Archives
Matt Friedlander’s Tumblr Feed
Josh Friedlander’s Twitter Feed
- JoshFriedlander: RT @realrobcopeland: The indices involved declined to comment, choosing to express themselves instead as line graphs.
- JoshFriedlander: You should be reading @kanyewest right now. Is this guy Andy Kaufman back from the grave or is this sh@t serious?
- JoshFriedlander: RT @askanyone: ‘We do not talk, we bludgeon one another w/ facts & theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines & dig ...
- JoshFriedlander: RT @GerryDuggan: Of everything that went away last year I'll miss due process the most.
- JoshFriedlander: One of the best people to follow, with consistently good tumblr&twitter updates: @glendaluft http://t.co/8wKHUGfk
January 3rd, 2008 @
Those polar bears are going to die, you jerk. We need to halt all industrial production in China and India RIGHT NOW. Those polar bears are worth far more than an increased quality of life for 2.45 billion people.
January 3rd, 2008 @
Paul, you’ve struck a chord my brother’s been playing for years on global warming with regard to scientific method. Namely, that any scientific experiment needs to have both a test case and a control case. Planet Earth is the test case – where is the control? Where is the Earth without human beings putting carbon into the atmosphere to see what kind of climate shifts would occur? No one can deny that temperatures are rising, but is it the result of human behaviour? And even if it is, is it worth slowing the growth of your economy to make a tiny dent in the warming process?
My brother also maintains, and I agree, that even if sea levels rise considerably (and thus far they haven’t despite all this massive melting that’s been going on for years) he believes in the ability of humanity to overcome such diversities. The water won’t come rushing into Manhattan overnight. If it happens it will be a slow and steady rise that people will begin to notice and then build walls. Amsterdam is on the coast of The Netherlands and below sea level, for Christ’s sake! New York may once again become New Amsterdam.
January 3rd, 2008 @
Good for you! Finally, some sanity about the farce of global warming. I have learned in my long life that in any issue that seems overly popular, the truth will be found in the reverse.
January 3rd, 2008 @
I add to the chorus of people that believe in the scientific method over propaganda. Unfortunately, we live in a world where questions are branded as “hate,” and anyone that dares to question the consensus a “hater.” I am glad you are raising the proper questions in this debate and asking people to challenge the assertions upon which conventional wisdom is being built. The Earth warms and the Earth cools, those are the only two postulates which are proven. How or why either of these two happens are still very much open to debate, regardless of what some people with loud microphones may tell us.
January 4th, 2008 @
Look, nobody knows for sure what’s going on here, but I think you all can agree that the climate is changing. Whether or not Al Gore is full of hot air, we are all going to have to face the fact that climate change is real, and we don’t know what is going to happen as a result of it. I personally do not think anyone’s “quality of life” is going to be increased. In fact, the people who are going to get the worst of it are the world’s poor who live in coastal regions or poor agriculture-based places.
Questioning these things is imperative…but when that becomes sticking your head in the sand, that’s bad.
To use an analogy: If I shoot you in the heart with a 44 magnum, I’ve killed you, BUT there is no proof you wouldn’t have died of cancer in ten years or have been hit by a truck. Okay, but I’ve still caused your death. There is nothing wrong with admitting we are affecting our environment…because if you are willing to at least ACCEPT that, maybe we can control the effect we are having on it.
January 4th, 2008 @
I never said anything about sticking our heads in the sand. To the contrary, I am saying that we should open our eyes and use observed data about the natural world to present the most accurate picture of how CO2 effects the earth and our climate.
The hyperbolic statements made by political windbags like Gore are misleading and out of step with the observed data. This has pissed off a number of people in the scientific community to a point where they are finally willing to risk their careers to defend the integrity of scientific inquiry from those who would substitute consensus for observation.
January 5th, 2008 @
Fair enough…
January 6th, 2008 @
Jason asks: “… where is the control? Where is the Earth without human beings putting carbon into the atmosphere to see what kind of climate shifts would occur?” I’d suggest that we can find that control in the geological and archaeological record, which tells us that 20,000 years ago we had an ice sheet up to 1 mile deep blanketing most of North America north of th 40th parallel, and that 7000 years ago we had an area of open, blowing sand extending across Wyoming and Nebraska larger than the present-day Sahara. 1000 years ago we had grapes growing in Newfoundland, indicating the climate was warmer than today and suggesting that warming may not be all bad.
The climate changes continually. Given sufficiently accurate instruments the real surprise would be if no change could be observed. The problem and controversy arise in explaining the observed change given our current state of ignorance, in extrapolating a short period of perceived warming into the long-term future, in the sentiment that any change must inevitably be bad, and that by reducing our consumption of fossil fuels in the US we can somehow stabilize the world climate while giving a pass to the emerging third world, particularly China and India, or that we can somehow convince China and India to remain underdeveloped.
Personally, I think we should reduce pollution of all kinds wherever we can, if only as a quality of life issue. No one wants to live where the air burns your eyes. There are also good arguments for developing more diverse sources of energy and using the energy we do produce more efficiently. But I don’t think we’re going to achieve any of that by crippling our economy or by handing yet more control of the economy to the government, the usual solutions suggested by the global warming alarmists.
January 7th, 2008 @
All the bad news makes me happy. Let Oil go to $200, because it just make innovation in solar, wine and water power more economically viable.
But in the short-term, it is going to lead to more wars and stress as nations fight for scarce resources. The Chinese are already seriously militarizing.
Everyone talks about China’s need for huge amounts of raw materials as if this is a great Demand equation that will fuel exports. And it is, but at some point it will be necessary for China to ensure that it can import what it needs, and relying on global trade isn’t likely to satisfy them.
January 7th, 2008 @
Swen, I completely agree with you. But my suggestion that the experiment needs a control isn’t satisfied just by the historical record of the Earth. That tells us what Earth was like in the past without humans – not what would be happening now without humans. But I take your point that maybe we can learn a little from the past and recognize that the Earth has gone through many warming and cooling periods none of which had a disastrous effect on the planet.
I also agree with Swen on the point that we perceive any change as necessarily bad. Do you suppose people who live in Iceland will mind having a warmer climate? Or those Newfoundlanders who will once again be able to grow grapes? Okay, maybe some. Certainly as someone who lives in THE hottest place in Europe, even a change in 1 degree Centigrade would make a huge difference to me. But I’ll just move to Reykjavik.
Also, humanity has a tendency to be incredibly anthropocentric in this area. “Any changes that occur on the planet MUST be the result of us!”
When oil reserves run out or become scarce, the world will finally grow up about nuclear power.
February 26th, 2008 @
[...] will like this [...]
April 9th, 2008 @
[...] written often on this site about the faulty science and dirty dealings used to create the false impression of a scientific consensus about the effect of C02 on the [...]
December 28th, 2010 @
Hey guys,
“/
I really want to help the polar bears, i wanna adopt one, but my parents wont let me.. come on, i’m 11 years old and i wanna help them out, i get £8 every 2 months, i can use it to pay but no, not allowed!! i’ve done everything i could, i’ve been asking to adopt a animal since i was 6 years old!!!
I’ve written them letters asking, wrote songs about the needed polar bears and more!!!!
Anyone got any other ideas how i could get them to let me.. (plus it’s my money, i earn it but i can’t buy what i want with it) POOR POLAR BEARS!!!
Thanks for reading.. reply back to it if you want to adopt a polar bear as well or you have adopted one..
I LOVE POLAR BEARS!! THEY ARE ADORABLE, THEY SHOULD BE TREATED BETTER!!!