Facts and Morality Beat Communications Tactics
Dec 11th, 2009 | 43 responses
Matthew Yglesias has a really good piece about morality and global warming:
Something those of us who want to prevent catastrophic climate change need to remember is that we’re right. Not just factually right, but morally. But while it’s true that effective communications tactics employed by the other side have been helpful to their cause, ultimately the main thing that’s helped them has been the willingness of people who know better to act in a morally indefensible manner.
[...]
We’ve developed a public culture in the United States in which it’s regarded as grossly naive to suggest that a Senator or an executive ought to do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing. But if you think of any major problem this country has ever solved—the Civil War, women’s suffrage, defeating Nazism, Civil Rights—it’s always required not just smart tactics, but moral behavior, people willing to cast risky votes, people willing to risk physical harm in combat or non-violent resistance. It’s been the same all around the world throughout history. If people don’t want to do the right thing, the right thing doesn’t get done.
Read more here.
43 Responses to “Facts and Morality Beat Communications Tactics”
I don't think the morality is so clear-cut, in my opinion it's more like a moral dilemma.
Regardless, unless we get our fiscal house in order the federal government is going to collapse taking the world economy with it. When that happens, people will forget about the “morality” of global warming.
I don't think the morality is so clear-cut, in my opinion it's more like a moral dilemma.
I had the same thought. Yglesias takes a point reasonable people can disagree over, claims he's got it figured out and tries to stake out the moral high ground.
I do not think that “reasonable” people can disagree on this. People/big corporations that stand to lose money will deny climate change and the ignorant may, or may not, believe them. There are highly sophisticated tools to fool people into believing lies.
The fact that 'X' number of metric tons of carbon in the form of coal & oil have been locked away in the earth for hundreds of millions of years and are now being released in a highly inordinate amount is a way of summarizing in a sentence the whole dilemma.
Real people stand to lose as well – not just corporations, hence the morality isn't so clear cut. The point being is that action on climate change – the kind of action that IPCC says is necessary – will impose significant burdens on all Americans. There's no free ride here.
There are so many issues that those who support massive climate interdiction wish to ignore.
First, while indeed there is strong evidence, indeed conclusive, of global warming over the recent past (geologically speaking), there is equally compelling evidence that during the last 10 years something has changed in those trends. That is equally undeniable.
Second, the underlying cause of the previous warming and current cooling, and the amount attributable to man vs other factors, is NOT a settled issue.
Third, no current climate model that explains the recent warming trend can explain the current anomaly of the cooling trend.
Fourth, there is no historical reason, given then failure of every single past attempt to predict long-term global changes in weather and temperature trends, to believe that all of a sudden we have 100% predictive tools available to us.
Finally, given how little we actually do know for certain about the specific underlying causes, and the inability to have strong confidence in our current predicative capabilities, how in the world can we have the hubris to believe we can predict the effect of any of the changes proposed?
Reducing harmful emission is in and of itself a good idea, but the Holy War being waged to take over the global economy in the name of Gaia is misguided, and obviously a Trojan Horse.
And anyone who does not think science and scientists cannot overestimate their current knowledge and predictive abilities obviously knows nothing about the history of science.
Nailed it. It's easy to find excuses to not to the hard work, to avoid taking the long view, etc. History is replete with examples, but there are also examples of people stepping up to the plate when necessary. That always came with a cost. however. Short view or long view? Courage or apathy? Excuses and rationalizations are easy, and become easier still when media nuts and politicians muddy the issues out of subservience to greed and/or partisan loyalty.
Kathy, I'm not so sure that facts and morality beat communication tactics at all. Much of the reason why the skeptics have convinced the public is that they are better at communicating than the climate scientists are. A friend of mine forwarded on a post from Climate Progress making the case why scientists aren't more persuasive. If you get a chance, it's a pretty good read.
I think a good place to start looking is the complete lack of scientific literacy in the country in the first place. I teach college-level chemistry and believe me, a very large majority of students are either (a) taking a science class because they have to, (b) taking the same science class again because they failed it last time, or (c) doing the absolute bare minimum just to pass (D for done). Most of my colleagues will just lecture for an hour each class period and expect students to soak up knowledge like a sponge. When that doesn't work they wonder why students today aren't getting it.
But the scientific community is very, very resistant to educational reform. The scientific community has had their opportunity to reach the public, but they blew it by offering “weed out” courses that scare the crap out of anyone who might even be remotely interested in science. There's a reason why attrition in the STEM disciplines is higher than in any other discipline and it isn't because of student aptitude or interest. Until the scientific community recognizes this, we're in for an uphill battle.
Again, I think the resistance comes more from the solutions being offered that with problem. Renewable energy and energy independence are good ideas even without climate change. Encouraging an increased use of solar/wind/hydro/bio-diesel, especially on an individual basis, could build up a lot more support than attempting to give yet another corporate or government entity power over us.
Well, now I know what your handle refers to, jchem.
You're right, that *was* an interesting article. I skimmed it for now, but I'm adding the blog to my feeds.
I would add that I think in the specific instance of climate change, there is a powerful incentive *not* to believe — or perhaps better put, to believe the deniers rather than the scientists — because it's pretty damn scary to think about Washington, D.C., and New York City being under water in 10 years. So the deniers have the wind at their backs, so to speak, and the facts and morality people are shouting into the wind.
Well, there is a disturbing tendency to lump deniers in with legitimate skeptics. And some of the most prominent AGW (anthropogenic global warming) scientists have not done themselves any favors by too often failing to differentiate between politically-motivated criticism and legitimate scientific criticism.
I think it's pretty clear that AGW is real. What's much less clear is the degree to which it is occurring and what is in store for the future, which does have a direct impact on policy. Skeptics on that score are also labeled “denialists” which doesn't do anything to solve the policy disputes much less scientific disputes. So count me as skeptical that DC and NYC will be underwater in 50 years, much less 10.
Andy, I think you make a good point about the importance of differentiating between legitimate skeptics and denialists. I think that determination can be a bit tricky however. Is there a point at which a skeptic becomes a denialist? For example, in the past I've gone to great lengths to provide useful material about global warming (on a different forum, not TMV) including debunking of questionable science and theories that had already been either disproved or taken way out of context. To make a long story short, even after making some of these things crystal clear, there were a few people who would continue using the debunked information over and over again as though it had somehow been redeemed. After that, I decided that there are simply some folks who are going to stay with their POV regardless of evidence. Now, having said this, I do believe there are legitimate skeptics and a lot more who are willing to say they simply don't know enough about it, which of course is a fair position to take… for now.
I agree with what you say and would add that there are differing interpretations for ambiguous evidence, so sometimes the “debunking” can be a matter of perspective, particularly regarding predictions about future climate change.
The problem I have with many AGW scientists is a general lack of transparency regarding data and methodology. Science requires the ability for others to replicate work which is impossible when scientists do not release their data and model code. Without the ability to independently and completely evaluate conclusions the “debate” gets reduced to accusations which doesn't help science or promote sound policy.
Kathy et al
I find that labeling those who have problems with the current AGW theory as a moral problem is really an unfair charge. Yglesias' absolute statement that he is not only factually right, but morally right too smacks of a fanaticism that we normally see in the abortion debate. Kathy, how many times have you tried to debate pro-lifers who “know” they are morally right? Hasn't that experience shown you the cost of such certainty?
I ask for objectivity from those who believe that AGW is real. I know from past posts of many here who have attacked George Bush for altering WMD data to fit his predetermined belief that Sadam was guilty. The proof of that data manipulation is less than the proof of data manipulation by Mann et al's Emails.
The Email discussion of this manipulation is clearly stated, and Mann has stepped down as the head of the CRU as a result. Where is the morally superior position in that?
The old attack that skeptics are so only for special interest money is a good example. How many millions have Jones, Mann et al received through grants that came to them because the “threat was so critical?” Being a skeptc for the money is a low profit, professionally high risk decision. Why not fall into line and go for the big bucks? Maybe people like Steve McIntyre are skeptics for moral reasons.
I have tried to engage those who believe in AGW merely to discuss the problems in the deceptions used by the IPCC reports. I've been called a “denier” as if ad homonin attacks are answers to my questions. Kathy, do you or others debating for the pro-choice position like being called “baby killers?” Morality and subjectivity have much in common when it is used as an argument.
I believe that as time goes on, and as the info about the email leaks gain context – and consequently lose spin (and/or confusion) it will become clear (even to newly hatched “skeptics”) that little has really changed with regard to the (rather large) body of science. In any event, I'm sure we (at TMV) will all stay tuned, informed, objective… and try to be gentle with our characterizations.
Leave it to Yglesias and those morally or intellectually deficient or defective to mangle the facts and pursue the wrong thing(s). It is not surprising that related words would be misused by people like that, who insist on misdeeds.
“Reducing harmful emission is in and of itself a good idea, but the Holy War being waged to take over the global economy in the name of Gaia is misguided, and obviously a Trojan Horse.”
(Reducing truly harmful emissions, that is — real pollution, not politically incorrect chemical scarecrows.)
This is recycled Sixties-onward stuff, that unfortunately has developed “legs” or “momentum” (it has “snowballed” or progressed beyond “critical mass”), to humanity's loss and even potential peril.
You are the second reader here (DaGoat being the first) who suggested that Yglesias in his post is presenting *himself* as more moral (DaGoat attributed to Yglesias the sentiment that HE thinks he's got it all figured out).
I don't understand this interpretation. Yglesias is saying nothing about himself. He's talking about the issue. He's saying that global warming, or climate change, is a moral issue, and it is. There is also no reasonable doubt that — despite the 100 percent certainty that science never has — climate change is not just real but will have a devastating effect in every way possible including economically. There are decades and decades of research on this. The first studies on carbon emissions were done (if I'm remembering correctly) over a century ago. How you and DaGoat take from this the notion that Yglesias is suggesting he has it all figured out is beyond me. How can anyone possibly believe that this subject is about one person thinking he has it all figured out? This is hundreds of climate scientists all over the world, decades of research, obvious physical evidence, like melting polar ice caps. I mean, you guys know all this, I shouldn't even need to repeat it.
The abortion issue is not even close to being comparable, Hemm. As passionate as you know I am about abortion rights, there is always going to be time for supporters and opponents of legal abortion to keep arguing. Any laws that are passed can be repealed. It simply is not a global issue of human survival.
I also don't understand your insistence that the word “denier” in connection with climate change is an “ad hominem” attack. Would you consider “Holocaust denier” to be an ad hominem attack? I realize it's not a perfect analogy because the Holocaust was a discrete event that happened many years ago, but people were denying it even while it was happening, long after the truth of it could no longer be reasonably denied. In this country, and in England, and in all of the other Allied countries (maybe not Denmark).
There has to come a time, and soon, when normally intelligent human beings who are not irrational kooks (like Holocaust deniers) accept the reality of catastrophic climate change. Hopefully, that will happen before the polar ice caps melt completely. But I'm not terribly optimistic at the moment.
I agree with Matt Yglesias that AGW is both factual without the possibility of reasonable doubt, and that it's a moral issue.
Kathy
I'm glad you responded, and I will try to address your comments.
“You are the second reader here (DaGoat being the first) who suggested that Yglesias in his post is presenting *himself* as more moral (DaGoat attributed to Yglesias the sentiment that HE thinks he's got it all figured out).
I don't understand this interpretation.”
“Something those of us who want to prevent catastrophic climate change need to remember is that we’re right. Not just factually right, but morally. “
If I wrote the following aabout abortion, would you fail to see the parallel?
“Something those of us who want to {the death of the unborn} need to remember is that we’re right. Not just factually right, but morally.” You can't deny the exact same superiority implied.
As to climate change vs AGW, no one on your side seems to realize that these are two separate propositions. Global temps have been rising since the “little Ice Age” on our planet, skeptics will freely agree with that. The question that is at the heart of this matter is if mankind's CO2 emissions are responsible for that rise.
It dawns on me that you may not know just what the Climategate Emails uncover. Mann et al discuss how they have manipulated past proxy data temperatures to make the climate record appear flat prior to this century. Why would they do that? Well, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval warming period both show fluctuations in global temps that rival what we are experiencing today, so flattening these fluctuations makes the present rise appear singular and devastating. There is much more revealed within the Emails, but i'm not willing to cover every other manipulation and deceit in one post. I will be happy to do so if this conversation continues.
Most importantly, the basis of the AGW theory of global warming rests upon the idea that increased CO2 emissions cause a direct correlation in global temps. Vomputer modeling is used to show this inexorable climb in temps as more CO2 is added. Kathy, have you looked at the model's projections versus the actual measured temps in the past decade? Probably not, most on the AGW side merely quote anecdotal evidence that the earth is getting warmer.
Take a look:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-globa…
If AGW is caused by our CO2 emissions, why has the measured temperature dropped in the past few years as the amount of CO2 increased at a faster rate than previous years? If AGW is caused by CO2 from us, why are temperatures showing that exact relationship? It's a simple question that no one on the AGW side can answer and no computer climate model saw this coming. If we base our fears on these models, and the models don't reflect present day reality, why are you certain you are correct? Part of moral certainty requires that one examine her beliefs with as much critical analysis she applies to those who hold other opinions. You may be morally certain, but you sure don't have evidence to prove your position.
“Human life begins at conception, and is not only factually right, I'm morally right too.” Now do you see where I'm coming from?
[...] Something those of us who want to prevent catastrophic climate change need to remember is that we’re right. Not just factually right, but morally. But while it’s true that effective communications tactics employed by the other side have been helpful to …Read Original Story: Facts and Morality Beat Communications Tactics – The Moderate Voice [...]
This would be the same Roy Spencer who is a proponent of “intelligent design” and who rejects evolution? Pardon me if I take his conclusions with a grain or two of salt. Also we are talking about long-term trends when we talk about climate change, not a few years here and a few years there.
For those with the math/science background, and the inclination to do fact-checking on their own, Iowahawk (of all people) does a phenomenal job of showing just why the leaked emails are significant, and why remaining skeptical to the current GW debate (over cause and severity) is warranted.
Fables of the Reconstruction
I'm just guessing here, but I suspect all those scientists and scientific organizations who are not being swayed by out of context reporting of the email hacks probably DO fall into groups with strong “math/science backgrounds”. I suspect these are people who are also more inclined than the general public to do fact-checking.
JSpenser
“Also we are talking about long-term trends when we talk about climate change, not a few years here and a few years there.”
Long term trends? Consider the Vostok ice core measurements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-co…
Kind of rhythmically up and down, isn't it? Maybe this is too long range for your tastes. The emails talk about removing the “variations” with the last 1500 years. If the AGW science works, why “smooth out” the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period?
I think a good place to start looking is the complete lack of scientific literacy in the country in the first place.
I agree, and that is reflected on both sides of this issue. My original degree was in chemistry, I did some research in chemistry and biochemistry, and 99% what I read about global warming has little to do with science but is mostly emotional and partisan. I'm not holding myself up as an expert on meteorology, but I have a good understanding of the scientific method and statistics.
I've often thought that the best person to decide on global warming and it's implications is some unknown nerdy professor we will never hear from, while the topic has been hi-jacked by pseudo-scientific loudmouths. It's a shame that such an important issue has been left to people with little idea what they're talking about.
DaGoat
I agree with your assessment by and large, but would also add that the scientifc method does call for peer reviewed studies free from partisan positions. That's part of this whole mess. The peer review process for Mann's and Jones' work has not been done in that empirical fashion.
Part of climategate's scandal is the Emails showing where said objective reviews were systematically aborted and counter position studies were squelched from publication.
No comment on the ID connection eh? I was of the understanding there was a concern about “junk science” here. Why should I take seriously the conclusions of someone (Roy Spencer) who is a proponent of intelligent design… something (I hope) you guys are aware is junk science.
Why should I take seriously the conclusions of someone (Roy Spencer) who is a proponent of intelligent design… something (I hope) you guys are aware is junk science.
I agree intelligent design has no place in a scientific discussion, it is religion and not science. I don't know much about Roy Spencer, but it sounds like he's the type that's too prevalent on both sides of this issue.
It's a shame that such an important issue has been left to people with little idea what they're talking about.
I wonder if we have any other kinds of people, in science or out of it. Even if we did, it's hard to imagine leaving an issue as far-reaching as this to an elite cabal.
In other words, if the solution to global warming is to mobilize the world's governments to listen to what our best and brightest are saying, grab the wheel of the global economy and take a hard left, that may be equivalent to saying there is no solution at all.
“Something those of us who want to {preventthe death of the unborn} need to remember is that we’re right. Not just factually right, but morally.” You can't deny the exact same superiority implied.
Yes, I can, and I did, and you have not addressed what I wrote.
If I wrote the following aabout abortion, would you fail to see the parallel?
Superficially, I see a parallel. Climate change and abortion are both moral issues, but abortion is about personal morality and the opposition to it is based heavily on religious doctrinal belief (which, interestingly enough, underlies much of the resistance to accepting the reality of catastrophic climate change, as well). The argument about abortion is not whether it exists or whether it's real. The argument about abortion is whether it's morally acceptable. The morality of abortion IS the argument for anti-abortion people, while for pro-choicers, the argument is not whether or not it's a moral issue, but rather about who should make that moral decision, individual women or the state.
Climate change is also a moral issue, but in a completely different way and with a completely different impact. The argument is about whether mankind should take immediate steps to address what scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows IS happening to the earth's climate, or whether we should refuse to take action because the scientific evidence does not provide 100 percent certainty. The morality of the issue lies in what the consequences of global climate change will be *for human life on earth* if we permit lack of total clarity to prevent us from taking those actions. If it's not immoral to stand by and do nothing while 60 years of scientific research and eyewitness evidence points to the near-certainty of disastrous increases in sea level that would swallow entire cities in some places, turn fertile agricultural regions into parched desert in others, lead to even more devastating and destructive wars over increasingly scarce natural resources, then I'll have to admit that I don't know what the word “immoral” means.
If we base our fears on these models, and the models don't reflect present day reality, why are you certain you are correct?
I am not certain I am correct. I am certain that the scientific evidence collected over decades by hundreds of scientists (and I wasn't one of those scientists, so I really have to insist that this is not about what “I” think and what “I” am certain of) is compelling enough, convincing enough, and alarming enough to take action. We don't have certainty about how to fix the economy, either. We don't have certainty about how to eliminate the achievement gap between black and white children. We don't have certainty about whether we should take the flu vaccine or not. We don't have certainty about ANYTHING. So what do we do? We look at the body of evidence and make a decision.
Do you know with certainty what is causing the polar ice caps to melt, Hemm? Please tell me. Do you have certainty that, even though human CO2 emissions have gone up drastically over the last few decades, those emissions are not making catastrophic climate change worse and more rapid? I want you tell me FOR CERTAIN that those emissions are not a leading cause of climate change. If you can't do that, I want you to tell me why you are apparently so offended by the idea of an international climate conference to address these issues, and why the thought of capping carbon emissions is so terrifying to you.
“Human life begins at conception, and is not only factually right, I'm morally right too.” Now do you see where I'm coming from?
No. I don't. I wish I did, because maybe then I could understand why you, of all people, is taking this position.
As to climate change vs AGW, no one on your side seems to realize that these are two separate propositions. Global temps have been rising since the “little Ice Age” on our planet, skeptics will freely agree with that. The question that is at the heart of this matter is if mankind's CO2 emissions are responsible for that rise.
Everyone on my side understands that climate change deniers claim that there are two separate issues, but the distinction they make between climate change and man-made climate change is specious and self-serving. Up until very recently (a few years, maybe), there was no distinction made between climate change and man-made climate change. As far as the deniers were concerned, global warming was a myth and a fraud, period. The fact that now these same people, or many of them, are saying that well, yeah, global warming is real, or is probably real, but “it's not at all clear” that human activities are at fault. This serves two purposes: First, it allows the climate change ostriches to avoid looking like complete fools (or so they think), because at this point only a complete fool could any longer maintain the fiction that climate change is real. And second, it allows the ostriches to insist that there is nothing, or little, humans can do about it, because it's not man-made, and it would be so arrogant of us to think we humans can have any effect on the forces that shape global *climate,* for pete's sake. People are more scared of their lives in the here and now being disrupted or changed in unknown and uncomfortable ways than they are of the long-term effects of climate change on their lives, because they don't know or don't want to know how serious those effects would be, because no one can say with certainty exactly what the specific effects would be in any one given part of the world, and because maybe it won't even get that bad until after they're dead.
As to what the climate emails “uncover,” there is considerable disagreement even about that. What we DO know is that there are hundreds of other climate scientists all over the world who are not in any way connected with the email scandal whose research has shown that climate change is real and that the evidence for its man-made origin is overwhelming. What we DO know is that Arctic ice sheets that have been there for millions of years are melting so rapidly that anyone can see it just by standing and looking. What we DO know is that the snow cover on the Rocky Mountains is visibly decreased from 60 years ago. What we DO know is that events like Hurricane Katrina and snowstorms in Saudi Arabia and unprecedented flooding in Britain and record-breaking heat waves in Western Europe are just some of the increasingly more frequent freaky weather patterns taking place all over the world.
The argument is about whether mankind should take immediate steps … or whether we should refuse to take action.
I don't think that's the argument, Kathy. I think everyone agrees we should do something. Developing alternative energy sources and funding additional climate research seems quite uncontroversial.
The disagreement is merely over degree, whether we should take 100 million, 100 billion, or 100 trillion dollars worth of action.
Long term trends? Consider the Vostok ice core measurements:
There's no article there, Hemm.
The link I sent was to a graph of modeled and measured temps. I could give a sh*t about Spenser
The measured temps were from the u of Alabama, so what's your attack against them? And don't forget to tell me again about Vostok ice core measurement graph. Were these cores just too much a problem for you?
Seriously, stop the refusal to address information from real scientists. Spenser is as much a problem as is Hansen. I'm interested in the data, not the politics.
kathy the link was to a graph of proxy temps from the past 250K years. The graph clearly shows repeated spikes and dips throughout the deries. It also shows our time period at the upper end of one of the peaks. No article needed as I thought reading the graph was fairly straightforward. The point of the graph was to reply to JSpenser saying I was not looking long term enough. The fact that temps have been this high repeatedly in the past 250k years was my rebuttal.
BTW I will answer your longer reply tomorrow as to give you my best and clearest response.
Well, I assumed the link went to an article, but if it went to a graph, it still didn't go there.
We don't need more research to tell us there is a problem, Dr J. We need to do something about the problem. And developing alternative energy sources is important, but it's not going to be enough, at this point, to stop the worst effects of global climate change.
Okay, I stand corrected. One person is against research.
“Ignorance is Strength”, according to Orwell.
I think more apropos to believing any scientific issue, not just global warming in particular, doesn't need more research would be “Ignorance is Knowledge”.
Yeah, I'd rank it right up there with “Moralizing is Constructive.”
Okay, I stand corrected. One person is against research.
Oh, I don't think anyone is actually against research, but I take your point. When there's a problem — a massive problem, of course, because a minor problem wouldn't be scary — as serious as climate change, we have to be certain the problem really exists before we try to solve it. What if it doesn't exist? Then we've alarmed ourselves for nothing. Let's not act impulsively. We've only been studying this problem for a century and a half. That's less than nothing in geological time. Let's appoint a blue-ribbon panel and ask them to look into this problem. What we need is more research and more time to carefully consider all the facts and all the possibilities and then we can appoint another panel to specifically come up with a list of solutions. We'll comb through those and make sure they're not too radical or alarmist. We've got to think of The Business Question, after all.
Ohmygosh. I didn't expect this, but I feel so much better now. I always knew that research was essential to solving problems, but I didn't realize until now that you can use research to bury problems, too! This is ingenious. And since scientists tell us there is no such thing as 100 percent certainty in science, we can just keep on doing research until we get 100 percent certainty. Since we'll never get it, we'll never have to concern ourselves with solving the problem!
Thanks to you, Dr J, my new credo: Let's do more research until the problem goes away.
Thanks Kathy, great credo! An alternate version might be: Let's do more research until the problem jumps up and takes a bite out of our collective ass.
Kathy
I spent the weekend considering how best to give you the reasons for my skepticism of AGW. I originally thought of using a parallel between AGW and the abortion issue, but it's clear that without a huge, detailed discussion of definitions and clarifications, that analogy would take practically forever and that subjects complexity would muddy the waters more than provide clarification. I'd be happy to have that discussion as you and I share the same conclusions about that subject as you do.
To demonstrate the reason for my skeptical view of AGW, I think a simpler example would provide the crux of my concerns. Let's compare the science of AGW with the intelligence process that led George W Bush to attack Saddam. I choose this because we both have argued this issue on this site in the past, and both of us have demonstrated the same skepticism.
Every major intelligence service concurred with Bush that absolute evidence existed proving that Sadam had WMD and was producing additional biological weapons. As you recall, it was a “Slam Dunk.” National intelligence estimates, independent reports from other countries, and the national media all stated categorically that the threat was critical. As people came out questioning those assessments, these same people were called “uninformed, or traitors.”
It was only when memorandum, emails, etc were uncovered showing how BushCo had manipulated data, gave greater weigh to some reports over contra-veiling intelligence, and systematically attacked critics personally, did the majority of people begin to reconsider the analysis. In sort, those who criticized the public meme were castigated for their opinions.
The climategate Emails demonstrated the same tactics as BushCo. Mann, Jones, et al wrote about how to squelch reports that contradicted their findings. They threatened scientific journals by stating they would not publish with them if they published disagreement. They actively wrote about the systematic way to minimize variations in past temperature measurements to make their findings more drastic. The refused to provide the raw data they used to make their findings even though the Freedom of Information Act required them to do so. This is the basis of the scandal.
Bush stated that out country had a moral obligation to attack Sadam because of the critical threat to the Western World. The moral obligation was based upon the intelligence findings. If the findings were doctored, then the moral obligation is refuted. He argued that we couldn't take a chance, we had to act immediately. You remember the spiel. “You're either with us or against us.” He was factually right and morally right too, who could argue.
For my part, I raised question about the intelligence inconsistencies and the uncertainty early on when doing so brought plenty of attacks. I saw it as my moral responsibility. The same holds true now. To be moral, you must first be right. I'm skeptical of this assessment for many of the same reasons I was skeptical about WMD. I*'m being consistent in how I form my opinion. You may disagree, but don't be feeling morally secure unless you apply the same criteria for judgment on AGW as you did on WMD.
Hemm,
Again, a dismayingly inapt analogy. The most immediately obvious difference: There was no global consensus that Iraq had both WMDs or the means to deploy them at a moment's notice against the United States. The intelligence that existed was always mixed, and the Bush and Blair administrations picked the evidence that suited their pre-existing plans. There never was any overwhelming evidence that Iraq had these weapons at the time the invasion occurred, and there were many expert, widely respected voices who said it didn't. The *only* source for the claim that Iraq had biological and nuclear WMDs that could destroy the world was the same source that had been itching to overthrow Saddam Hussein since the end of the Gulf War.
The catastrophic climate change issue is exactly the opposite with regard to these facts. Without minimizing the seriousness of the climate email scandal, we are talking about one small group of climate researchers at one university in East Anglia in England. Yes, thousands of emails are involved, because they represent an entire decade's worth of communications, but only a tiny percentage of those (from what I've understood; I haven't read all the emails) involve discussion of committing ethical misdeeds, and they all come from one research institution in one location in one country. Decades worth of research, independent of and prior to as well as concurrent with that one institution and set of scientists, exists showing exactly the same or similar results (i.e., that man-made climate change is real). ONE institution's misdeeds do not wipe out and invalidate an entire independent body of scientific and physical evidence.
Beyond the above, there is something extremely distasteful, in my view, about equating war with the global effort to prevent, stop, or roll back the catastrophic effects of man-made climate change — as if reducing carbon emissions were in the same moral category as raining cluster bombs on Baghdad. Before doing the latter, I would want to have 100 percent certainty, or darn near close to 100 percent certainty, that Iraq was on the verge of attacking us with nuclear and biological weapons. I would hope, by contrast, that reasonable people would NOT want to wait for 100 percent certainty of man-made catastrophic climate change before starting to take action.
I do appreciate your thoughtful and civil attempts to explain your point of view, Hemm — but along with that, I have to say that I just cannot fathom where you are coming from or why you are taking this position. I just don't.
As if reducing carbon emissions were in the same moral category as raining cluster bombs on Baghdad.
Kathy, you're comparing the ideals of one effort with the downsides of the other. That's scarcely fair, as I imagine you'll agree if we turn it around: as if protecting the American people from deadly attacks were in the same moral category as blowing up the world economy.
Comparing them just on their ideals, saving people from drowning or starving and saving them from being blown up or gassed sound pretty morally comparable to me.