Here is my attempt to make sense of the academic literature categorising the rhetorical positions adopted by climate change ‘sceptics’. However, please note that the term ‘sceptic’ is used solely for convenience: Given that the totality of post-industrial climate change can only be explained as primarily human-caused, these forms of ‘scepticism’ represent varying degrees of ideological blindness. 
Given the recent speech by Pope Francis on Capitol Hill, it will be interesting to see how resilient this ideological blindness is – and/or how strong the cognitive dissonance is – amongst the Catholic members of the Republican Party.
-
Archives
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- December 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
-
Meta
See also https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
Any ideological blindness is alive and well judging by the latest piece of crockery by Richard Lindzen who has resorted to that well know peer reviewed journal ‘The Big Issue’ where he bafflegabs to a lay audience using his usual outrageous obfuscation: ‘CO2 is not the enemy,’ writes Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of atmospheric sciences at MIT. ‘It’s bigger than this…’ So Lindzen continues to reinforce his reputation of being untrustworthy on this issue as others have pointed out earlier (from Wiki): “The April 30, 2012 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is “feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.” Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen’s views “Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”” Lindzen seems put out by the thought that millions of dollars are going to what he describes as alarmist scientists neglecting that many hundreds more millions are going to the denial/delay campaign of which he is a part (Exxon and the Kochs are now under increasing scrutiny). Not only that, there are many disparate scientific fields which underpin the knowledge that we have a problem, not just the physics in which latter Lindzen has made a career out of being mostly wrong. Good work if you can get it. Another who is feeling put out especially by being ‘ostracised’ is Judith Curry who is the subject of another egregious piece by David Rose (of Mail infamy) this time in ‘The Spectator’ (suspect Lawson still has influence there) as reported on by Sou at Hot Whopper. Poor Judith and Richard they have made their beds and now have to lie in them (take that anyway you wish).
LikeLike