William Hogarth Election Celebration
This post is in response to a number of comments made by regular contributors to Harmless Sky on the Tory Environmentalism – is everybody listening? thread. Here, Here, Here, Here.
Geoff Chambers says, ‘There’s a fascinating debate to be had on the effect of the current global warming catastrophe on British politics and media coverage …’ And of course he’s right.
We’re approaching the first general election that is likely to bring about a change of government in over a decade, and the previously remorseless march of AGW alarmism is beginning to falter, so how could it be otherwise? It would be difficult to get a cigarette paper between the three main party’s policies on this subject, but opinion polls constantly show that the politician’s apparent certainty is not shared by the electorate. Something has to give.
Geoff then goes on to consider the role of politics on this blog, assuming that this area of discussion is entirely off limits. That is not the case.
What the blog rules actually say is:
Politics:
It certainly isn’t possible to discuss climate, the countryside and landscapes without straying into this minefield, although I wish that this was not so. Please try to be reasonably moderate in your utterances and avoid party politics altogether. There are plenty of other blogs that deal with such matters.
This is an un-moderated blog, but when I do occasionally step in editorially, it is almost always because discussion of a political aspect of climate change has drifted on to other unrelated political issues, got heated, and ended up a long way from the subject matter that Harmless Sky is intended to cover.
I have particularly requested that contributors should avoid party politics as there are few people who can conduct a party-political debate objectively, and a rough-house that creates much heat and very little light usually ensues. This kind of thing may be fun for those directly involved, but it tends to be tedious if you have to read it, and I do have to read it.
For at least the next six months (assuming that the election takes place in May) I’m prepared, in fact eager, to see comments drawing attention to any differences that may emerge in the various parties’ policies relating to climate change, or any other environmental issues for that matter. However that does not mean that discussion of the Labour Party’s latest green initiative will be allowed to become a knock-down-drag-out fight over the relative economic competence of the main parties, or whether the prime minister is attempting to subvert democracy. And I am all too familiar with the trick of rounding off a five paragraph rant about foreign policy with a spurious reference to alternative energy. Such efforts are likely to be snipped in toto.
You have been warned.
That said, I would not be surprised if the coming election campaign provides the opportunity for the blogosphere to really come of age. Time strapped journalists rely more and more heavily on recycling press releases without proper investigation, or consideration of the motives of those who provide them. This is leaving huge gaps in the spectrum of news and opinion that the MSM covers, and the range of opinions that it considers. There is so much that concerns people that rarely, if ever, receives any attention. Sometimes I think that large parts of the press are now like disk jockey’s who have become used to just reaching out to a carousel for the next disc , but never wonder when the contents of the carousel was last updated. We seem to hear the same old tunes over and over again.
As a result, there is an emerging trend towards the new web-based media influencing the news agenda. Just ask yourself whether Climategate could have happened without the blogosphere? Or whether the utter futility of the Copenhagen summit would have become apparent so quickly without there being an alternative to the deceptively up-beat spin flooding from governments and organisations that had most to lose as a result of its failure.
Geoff also says:
I’ve often felt the rough and tumble of blog discussions reproduces the long-lost art of political all-in wrestling, of the kind you see in Hogarth’s illustrations of 18th century election campaigns. The point wouldn’t be to score party political points, but to get some heat into the discussion …..
This conjures up an intriguing image, but I doubt whether he really thinks that political persuasion with the aid of a cudgel would reinvigorate political life. On the other hand, it does seem likely that this election will be very different from those since 1997, and there may be copious amounts of metaphorical Hogarthian blood on the carpet before the campaign is over.
There seem to have been two distinct types of election in recent history. Firstly, there are those where the electorate hardly seem to be interested in the outcome because they expect the status quo to be maintained regardless of who wins. Such elections are characterised by unremarkable political leaders and a desire to see no more than a minor touch on the helm of the ship of state. Then there are elections that take place when the whole nation is galvanised by the possibility of a major change in the fundamental priorities that determine public policy. The elections of 1948, 1963, 1987, and 1997 are examples. It seems possible that, in due course, 2010 will join their ranks, but in this case there may be one very important difference: important issues that concern the public may not being addressed at all. Blogs can help to prevent this happening.
In another post, I mentioned an article by Matthew d’Ancona that castigated the political classes, and all parties, for arrogantly failing to engage with the public and acknowledge their views because they are inconvenient. The examples he chose were the MP’s expenses scandal and global warming. The days when MP’s could afford to ignore what is discussed on blogs is over, and the large proportion of new members that will be elected this year are far more likely to be aware of this than those who they will be replacing.
Just a year or two ago, bloggers endlessly discussed what was in the MSM, but had little impact on the news agenda. There was little or no sign that mainstream journalists and editors were interested in what bloggers said or did. As each month goes by the influence of the blogosphere is increasing because more and more of the public are seeking news and opinion on the internet rather than on paper, television or the radio. The MSM now have to compete for the audience not just among themselves, but with a whole new world of output.
In a blog post on the BBC website, Andrew Neil – as experienced a journalist as you can expect to find – has drawn attention to this point. His extremely hard hitting round-up of all the tribulations that have beset the once cosy and complacent world of mainstream climate science since the release of the CRU emails includes this obsevation:
The bloggers, too easily dismissed in the past, have set the pace with some real scoops — and some of the mainstream media is now rushing to catch up.
Wise editors understand what their readers want, either instinctively or by spending money on market research. Looking at where the heavy blog traffic is to be found can be much cheaper than commissioning opinion polls and focus groups. In the case of climate change, the mere number of web sites that deal with this subject from a sceptical point of view, and the traffic they get, must tell them something. They will also be aware that when they publish articles about global warming on their own websites, a large proportion of the comments they receive are sceptical.
Opinion polls show that the UK public rank concern about global warming very low in their list of priorities, but when it comes to policies that will lead to higher fuel bills, increased taxation, despoliation of the countryside, restrictions on travel and massive payments to the developing nations that is a very different matter. The public are very interested in these issues.
It is unlikely, if Matthew d’Ancona is right and politicians are so immersed in their own bubble that they have become divorced from the electorate, that climate change will play any greater role in the UK general election campaign than it has in recent by-elections, council elections and European elections unless somethng happens to dispel their complacency. If there is an outcry in the MSM against expensive proposals that will supposedly avert climate change, that would be something the main political parties would be unable to ignore.
Geoff is probably right, a rumbustious and widely populist outcry on the net could have an effect, not directly, but as a result of the message that it would send to the MSM, and if they fall into line then there is no way that politicians will be able to duck these inconvenient issues.
If Geoff’s dream of a truly Hogarthian election campaign comes true, I would not want to be part of it, but relying on the same period in history, there is a very obvious parallel that can be drawn between the 18th century pamphleteers and bloggers. In both cases radical voices became audible because concerned individuals were able to mobilise cheap means of mass communications to spread their views. And there is another similarity. Their pamphleteers ideas only spread because their publications were passed hand-to-hand, in much the same way that information on the net goes viral and spreads by links from site to site.
Although the notion of a rumbustious, rough and tumble 18th century style election campaign might have its charms, it would be unwise to take this analogy too far. Radical politics in the 18th century culminated in the French Revolution.
Now, where’s that guillotine?
PeterM 99
Peter I think you are reading too much propaganda, and are reading too much into the polls that show a narrowing gap between Labour and Conservative. Now I don’t wish to offend anyone’s sensibilities but the current incarnation of the Labour party is as far from left wing as it’s possible to get, and it is very authoritarian. This and their gross mishandling of the economy is the root of their unpopularity. That few of their policies have delivered any benefit only adds to their woes. Likewise the current incarnation of the Tory Party is showing all the leftish tendencies that destroyed Edward Heath. As for the Lib Dems, they always do well in the polls as they can promise all sorts of things they know they’ll never be called on to deliver.
But those with cooler heads will have noted that the three elections of note during 2009 showed the Conservatives holding their support (not good enough it needs to go up if they harbour thoughts of an overall majority) Labours vote collapsing allowing some flattering Conservative gains such as the unprecedented gains in Wales, the Lib Dem vote falling allowing the Conservatives to retake some English Councils, UKIP gaining support to become clear Number 4 almost all at the expense of the Tories, the green party vote failing and going nowhere, the BNP vote holding as it was but because they are strong only in Labour strongholds, and Labours vote collapsed they gain 2 Euro seats.
And those who take an open minded interest in European Politics noted that this general trend was mirrored across the entire EU. This generated a degree of panic in the ranks of the EU bureaucracy. So Peter, the Green garbage is not a vote winner at the moment in Europe so stop trying to tells us what is happening here when you have little clue.
Also Peter I need to remind you that AGW or climate change, call it what you like is not a minor trivial area of policy. It’s not about saving the world; it’s more about how we are to be governed in future. So it’s not like a decision to build a new airport, or privatising a railway, it’s a decision of fundamental importance to our democratic rights. Currently politicians are not listening, and continue to tell us what’s good for us, forgetting that it we who put them where they are and it’s our will that they should be representing, or should I say the will of the majority, not the vocal few.
Peter Geany,
I agree that the narrowing gap between Labour and Conservative, or who wins in the May election, isn’t a major issue.
There is always, in every generation, the suggestion the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ may have been correct for previous generations but, for a variety of reasons, they are no longer applicable to the current state of politics.
I would argue that the terms still are useful but have changed from what we may have all understood them to be from our younger days. Then to be on the Left meant being in favour nationalision of the means of production, the workers’ republic, the direct redistribution of wealth, long hair, free sex etc. The Right was about authority, preserving what was left of the British Empire, fighting Communism and the influence of the Rock Music! A gross oversimplification, I know, but you know what I mean.
Now the left is more establishment oriented, which is why it appears, superficially, that the British Labour party is no longer left wing. But nevertheless in western countries there is the same current of ‘Social Democratic’ thought in many parties, which would also include the American Democrats. It would even include the moderate wing of the UK’s Tory party with its strong commitment to the the British NHS and education spending.
The right have changed in their own way too. They have become much more ‘Libertarian’ in their outlook with a push towards the concept of minimum government and the jettisoning of much of their previous social conservatism. Its now quite possible to be an openly gay, and right wing, politician in Australia for instance. That would have been unthinkable even just 20 years ago. The down side is that the old ruling class concept of ‘looking after ‘ the population has been discarded in favour of a much more individualistic approach. The fault lines between the two groups don’t neatly follow traditional party boundaries, I would agree, and I’d point to Politicians like Daniel Hannan and David Cameron and ask the question of whether they should be in the same party.
Its this ‘new right’ group who seem to have the most difficulty with the concept of AGW. It just doesn’t fit in with notions of individualism and minimum government. They may claim that their objections to AGW are scientific, but its just beyond belief that the people who rant against against Al Gore, the UN, the so called New world order etc on numerous contrarian websites have any scientific understanding of the problem whatsoever.
PeterM:
I have no doubt that most of those who “rant” about climate change – from each end of the spectrum – have little, if any, understanding of the science. So what? There will always be ignorant people who take extreme positions on any controversy – worrying about them is a waste of time.
Robin,
AGW proponents don’t have to understand the science. Like I explained before – I have a very poor understanding of why the DNA molecule is a double helix. I do believe that mainstream science is correct on the issue though.
On the other hand, if I had any doubts, I’d have to a high level of stupidity to say anything at all before increasing my level of Biochemical expertise to almost Nobel prize level.
But I guess that’s not such a problem for most Climate change deniers……..
Robin,
I guess I should have said that AGW proponents do, of course, need to be able to provide proper scientific references when required. They are no more allowed to overstate the dangers than climate change deniers should be allowed to understate them.
PeterM:
OK – so “AGW proponents do, of course, need to be able to provide proper scientific references”. Well, given that the relevant hypothesis is that the consequence of mankind adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will be catastrophic climate change, please refer us to a “proper scientific reference” verifying that hypothesis.
tempterrain (#99) questions whether one can be a left-wing denier. Obviously, there is no logical connection between one’s political belief and espousal of a aceptance of a scientific hypothesis. Equally obviously, there is a tendency for “progressive” (left-wing) political ideas to be associated with “modern” scientific thinking (e.g. Darwinism in the 19th century tended to be espoused by political progressives).
It is clear that right-wing libertarians, who are a powerful force in U.S. Republican Party (less so in the British Conservatives) are bound to be suspicious of any call for limitations on their freedom coming from a supra-national body like the IPCC. In Sarah Palin they have found their ideal representative – an attractive Arctic Amazon – and good luck to them. That’s how democracy works, by finding someone to vote for that you agree with. (And doesn’t the American left look stupid with it’s sexist élitist sneering?).
We left-wing sceptics have a more difficult time, since the libertarian wing of the Left likes the Green “feel” of global warming doom, and the authoritarian statist wing likes the opportunities for taxes, social engineering, and wealth redistribution.
I would guess that people like Alex and me are on the left because we are natural contrarians, and the left has traditionally been the home of those who are “anti”. In the last thirty years, the right (at least in Europe) has dropped their racism, sexism, and censoriousness, while the left has adopted Blairite control freakery and the undemocratic posturing of theEuropean Union. So we lefties who are not totally brainwashed by the AGW movement have no place to go. (The performance or the Labour scientist MP Stringer at the Parliamentary Enquiry into CRU was the best news I’ve seen for a long time).
PS I’ve just seen tempterrain’s analysis of the evolution of left and right at #102. Very interesting, and applicable to all Western democracies, I would think.
PeterM
I think Robin has covered the point about the uninformed AGW opponents or blind AGW followers (103).
These fringe elements are of little interest in the ongoing debate surrounding the AGW issue, and debating with them is a waste of time.
On this site (and several others) I see well-informed bloggers who are rationally skeptical of the premise that AGW represents a serious threat debating various points related to AGW with equally well-informed bloggers who accept and defend the AGW premise.
These are the people who count in this debate, Peter.
And, just judging from the sites I have visited (as a “lurker” or an active participant) I would say the numbers are about equal.
Most are educated people outside the direct field of climate science, but there are, of course, climate specialists in either camp, as well.
I would specifically exclude any on either side (and these appear to be predominantly AGW supporters) who resort to irrational, emotional behavior, such as “ad hominem” attacks on their debate opponents. Debating with these individuals is also a waste of time.
Max
Max,
The point is not so much the level of understanding or ‘informedness’ of AGW deniers in their well entrenched positions but the motivations that led them to be deniers in the first place.
The idea that they have rejected the mainstream scientific position on AGW by an examination of the scientific evidence alone is not just credible. They’ve decided that they don’t like the political implications and have decided to shoot the scientific messenger.
Any subsequent attempt to bolster this denialist position by further scientific study really doesn’t change anything.
Robin,
If you want to know why AGW is a bad thing overall you could start by reading the Stern report.
For more scientific evidence see this page:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
PeterM:
Shame on you: you must know very well that neither of the links you offer provide “proper scientific reference” verifying the hypothesis that the consequence of mankind adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will be catastrophic climate change. To do that, it’s necessary to cite “proper scientific” research showing unambiguously: first, that recent warming is substantially man-made and, provided that is demonstrated, that further such man-made warming will cause catastrophic climate change.
Despite repeated requests, you have so far failed signally to provide such references.
Robin,
Isn’t asking for “research showing unambiguously…” the same thing as asking for proof? We’ve already been down this road.
PeterM:
The road we’ve been down has nothing to do with “proof”. As well you know. No, you’re the one who said (#105) that “AGW proponents do, of course, need to be able to provide proper scientific references when required”. Yet, when so required, the best you can do is refer to is a book by an economist and a website.
So this what you mean when you rabbit on about “mainstream science”. Sad really.
PeterM:
For a view of the reality of your “proper scientific references”, I suggest you read TonyN’s recent post: link. You may care to note my comment 6.
As for your favourite diversion from the topic, motivation, in the course of my charitable work – especially where concerned with “green” projects (e.g. I’m taking a lead role in developing a community garden) – I come across a lot of AGW believers. I haven’t examined their political affiliations, although I suspect they’re mainly Green Party or Labour supporters. But, the more I discuss matters with them (and they’re very nice people), the more I realise that they seem to be driven by an underlying faith in the innocence of nature and the wickedness of man. It’s not scientific evidence (they’re mostly rather ignorant of that) that convinces them of the dangers of AGW, it’s the way it neatly fits with that belief.
Robin,
If anything is sad its that someone should idle away their retirement time in infantile games like you do. You ask for evidence. When you get it you complain it’s not proof or “research showing unambiguously” as you’ve put it this time.
You don’t know what you are talking about basically and you’re just a waste of time.
PeterM:
So it seems you really think that a book written by an economist and a website are, to use your own phrase, “proper scientific references”. If that’s truly so, it’s pathetic. But I know you can do better than that. So I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down and start again. And a good place to start is the IPCC report and a good way to do it would be to follow the link I gave you at #113. Then join the discussion. You might learn something.
Robin,
The webpage I gave you contained 50 or so references. This is just one of them from Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06777.html
Now complaining that a “Nature” reference isn’t a “proper scientific reference” is rather like saying that a judgement from the UK’s House of Lords, or the isn’t a “proper” legal judgement.
There is another one here from Nature on the topical subject of Himalayan galciers:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1003/full/climate.2010.19.html
Now no doubt that you’ll tell me that they are all first class but don’t qualify on the grounds that they haven’t strictly followed the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Some lines of enquiry can follow the classical scientific method quite closely. For example, if drug X is being tested as a possible treatment for disease Y, a series of precedures, involving double blind tests etc, can be carried out. The results should be repeatable and capable of being verified by independent workers.
However, there are lines of scientific enquiry which are more like detective investigations and “whodunnits” which don’t fit the classical methods quite so easily. Whereas we can repeat a test of the effect of a virus on a mouse we can’t repeat the effect of a murderer on his victim. Just as it’s a nonsense for a defendant to claim that he’s not guilty because his crime is not demonstrably not repeatable, so too, are similar claims about the role of CO2 in global warming.
As people like Paul Feyerabend have pointed out, in practice, classical descriptions have limited relation to the way that science is actually practiced.
So can the IPCC’s study, and all the many papers which are in turn referenced by them, of the evidence on AGW be described as science? Well, yes, of course it can, and to suggest otherwise is to deny the role of science itself, and importance of rational thinking.
PeterM (#116):
I suggest you think before you post.
A reminder: I’m requesting that you cite (to use your own phrase) “proper scientific research” showing unambiguously, first, that recent warming is substantially man-made and, provided that is demonstrated, that further such man-made warming will cause catastrophic climate change. And what do you do? Well, you refer me to a book written by an economist and to a website. Then, when the nonsense of this is pointed out, you refer specifically to two papers from Nature referred to by the website.
OK, I think, fair enough. I have a look at them. And what do I find? Well, the first is indeed a research paper (well done). It’s about an increase in the population of the mountain pine beetle. It appears that “climate change has contributed” to the severity of the increase and that the resulting destruction of trees “may” [I liked that] make it harder for forests to absorb carbon. And essentially that’s it. The second is, er, a “news feature” – telling us how difficult it is to study Himalayan glaciers and noting, “how little is actually known about the fate of glaciers in this region”. Yup – that seems probable.
Peter: you must know this is a pitiful response. Neither reference even remotely addresses the essential question as to whether recent warming is substantially man-made.
Whatever makes you think they do?
PeterM
You speculate (109):
Sorry, Peter. Check out “rational skepticism” (Wiki) again.
Do you feel that you are better qualified than I am to state the reasons that I think what I do? Get serious, Peter.
Let me assure you that I have rationally “rejected the” alarmist “position on AGW by an examination of the scientific evidence” (or, to be more precise) the lack of empirical data supporting this position.
Some years ago I was still unconvinced one way or the other, but a closer examination of all sides of the story combined with the increasingly shriller and more far-fetched doomsday predictions led me to search for empirical data based on actual physical observations to support the dangerous AGW premise. I could find no such data, simply because it does not exist. I have challenged AGW-believers, like yourself, to provide such data, but, of course, they were unable to do so.
I cannot speak for others, Peter, but this is my rationale. To suggest that this is “just not credible” (to you) is totally absurd.
You sound like one of those fundamentalist supporters of “creationism”, who cannot imagine that any sane person would not agree with this premise, when the “proof” is clearly there in the “Holy Scripture”.
I’d advise you to back off on such silly statements, Peter. They only hurt your credibility.
Max
Max:
You talk of the danger of hurting PeterM’s credibility. But this is the same PeterM who appears to think (see posts 116 and 117) that a paper in Nature showing that climate change has “contributed” to a population increase of a particular beetle and that the resulting destruction of trees “may” make it harder for forests to absorb carbon is “proper scientific research” (his phrase) supporting the theory that global warming is largely man-made. Not much credibility there I would think.
Robin
Yeah. Peter likes waffles (like the beetle gambit) when he is pushed into a corner in a debate.
Since he is unable to provide the empirical evidence to defend his dangerous AGW premise against rational skepticism, he is forced to dance around the issue with side tracks. The “beetle gambit” is a new one and it is quite creative.
His best one is the “you guys must be driven politically, because it is just not credible that you object to the AGW premise for scientific reasons”.
Despite being polemic and convoluted, this is actually a beautiful ploy.
It attempts to deflect attention from his inability to come up with empirical scientific evidence in support of his premise by accusing those who have insisted on this scientific evidence of not being motivated by the science, but rather by politics.
Brilliant (but transparent upon scrutiny).
Max
Max,
Can you provide any evidence at all of ever being “unconvinced one way or the other” on the AGW issue?
As the Australian saying goes ‘Don’t come the raw prawn with me, mate!’ Translation – This phrase is usually used when the listener experiences some difficulty accepting the veracity of a particular statement.
The psychological thought process of a typical denier goes as follows:
1) Right wing libertarian type reads about the dangers of global warming.
2) Thinks “Can this be possible?”
3) Then hears that Al Gore thinks it is.
4) Then decides that therefore it can’t be.
5) Starts to dismiss the whole idea as a pretext for a tax grab, World Government, a bid for extension of control over the individual by the State by leftish politicians.
6) Decides those climate scientists must be in on the hoax too.
7) Starts to read those few mavericks who seem to be in disagreement with the mainstream. Lindzen, Spencer etc.
8) Armed with a tiny bit of knowledge, but plenty of retirement time on hands, starts to troll on various internet sites.
9) Finds the support of other trolls…..
Robin,
Maybe you feel that Nature shouldn’t waste their time publishing articles about Pine beetles. Maybe you feel that the said beetles have been recruited by the Great Global Warming conspiracy to eat trees outside their usual range!
I seem to detect a line of argument that might e suggesting that there is no proof that AGW is necessarily a bad thing but really I’m not sure what you are on about at the moment.
PeterM:
I don’t have the slightest problem with Nature publishing a paper about beetles. But for you to specifically cite that particular paper as “proper scientific research” supporting the theory that global warming is largely man-made exposes the sad vacuity of your understanding of AGW science.
PeterM
There you go again, with your silly “must be political because it can’t be scientific” rubbish.
Sorry. The “denier” process you describe does not fit for me.
I have told you several times that prior to around 2006 I pretty much accepted the standard line on global warming. BTW it had not yet taken on the “doomsday cult” character back then.
Around mid to late 2006 I started doing some checking. By that time the AGW hype was beginning to pick up steam, with the media having a field day, so I decided to see what was behind it all from the scientific standpoint.
Then came the AR4 SPM report in early 2007, which made me more skeptical, followed that summer by the AR4 WG1 report.
In between there were blurbs about Hansen “tipping point” testimony before the US Congress and Al Gore’s sci-fi movie, which sounded like pure scaremongering, so I started digging even deeper.
The more I dug the more inconsistencies I found.
I kept looking for some sort of empirical evidence based on actual physical observations to support all the frightening predictions, but they were just not there.
So I became a “rational skeptic” in the scientific sense, as is well defined by Wiki.
I also started looking at the mitigation proposals that were flying around, and found that these would have no discernable impact on our climate.
That’s how it all started with me, Peter.
How did it start with you? How did you become an AGW-believer?
Did it start with the science or with the politics?
Tell me. I’ll take your word for it.
Max
Max,
Call me naive if you like but I tend to believe what is written in journals like Nature and on websites such as those run by NASA and the Royal Society. I’m sceptical of many things, too, such as acupuncture and homeopathy.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/
I think I’m pretty much in agreement with the skeptics society, I’d say. Its really just a question of knowing which things to be sceptical of and which to accept.
I’d always put science before politics. I would say an item of similar difficulty for those on the left of the political spectrum would be on the safety question of nuclear power. Not for me though, science trumps politics every time.
PeterM
Well I guess we are both on the same track
I won’t call you naive, Peter, just because you accept what is written in journals, and I can accept your logic that groups like the RS speak from a position of authority and can generally be trusted to give unbiased opinions, to the best of their ability and knowledge.
I tend to be more skeptical, in particular if the claims begin to appear outlandish, whether this has to do with AGW or some other craze, in particular doomsday cults, etc.
“We have 8 months to save the planet!” is a bit too extreme for me to swallow (especially if it is coming from a politician).
“We are approaching an irreversible ‘tipping point’ from which we will be unable to recover” also fits into the overblown hype category (even if it comes from a senior climate scientist turned climate activist).
“Seven meter waves could come in 100 – or maybe just 10 – years” is also a bit hard to accept (even if it comes from the top UN bureaucrat).
We now see with the latest revelations that a lot of skepticism regarding the AGW premise turned out to be justified and many of the claims have been shown to be exaggerated or outright false.
As one blogger on another site opined:
I am still looking for the empirical evidence to support the dangerous AGW premise, but so far this evidence has eluded me, so I remain rationally skeptical of the premise.
But now we both know where we stand on this issue.
Max