Six aspects of denial
I’ve adopted the “Six Aspects of Denial” from Sean B. Carroll’s book “The Making of the fittest”.
These are the most common non-scientific objections to the science of climate change. Actually, I will be so bold as to say these six “aspects” are pretty the only arguments the denial movement has: there is no science that supports their position.
I’ll be this framework to “tag” or categorise the type of arguments used by the denial movement in all future posts. At the end of each post I’ll nominate which aspect of denial I note, and offer a brief explanation. In this I’ll be taking a leaf from the wonderful work that John Cook has done at Skeptical Science. I’m hoping such a framework helps people identify the type of arguments used by the denial movement.
I hope this framework helps people understands the flawed logic behind many of the arguments used by the denial movement.
- Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on in internet forums they attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.
- Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All them are simply ad hominim attacks: playing the man.
- Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change, when in fact their is near unanimous agreement.
- Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harm” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government” into existence. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).
- Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution decides the scientific evidence. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.
- Acceptance repudiates key philosophy – For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between having to accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsibly for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent.
[...] Six Aspects of Denial [...]
I am a sceptic of global warming but I am not a sceptic of climate change. This is a seriously different view. You could say I am not a ‘denier’. But I am a sceptic of over-dramatisation and jumping around like crazy monkeys about an issue. Which has resulted in stupid environmental policies that just aren’t sustainable, or don’t even achieve the goals they are set in motion for. Solar power and wind power are costly alternatives that just can’t be maintained by our economy in this day and age
Benjam”stupid environmental policies that just aren’t sustainable,
Non sustainable environmental policies’
i will have to dwell on that awhile benjamin
This a superb analysis… thank you so much.
You perhaps describe the denial-disinformer — someone actively promoting denialistic thinking. Because most people – are ‘in denial’ are not actively promoting… just going along with the denial-disinformer.
As if there are denial predators – and denial victims.
Did anyone watch the George Negus segment on climate change last week?
George started off by referring to the climatologists as “the climate Gurus” .
“In Western usage, the meaning of guru has been extended to cover anyone who acquires followers, though not necessarily in an established school of philosophy or religion.[2] In a further Western extension, guru is used, or even misused from the original religious meaning, to refer to a person who has authority because of his or her perceived secular knowledge or skills, such as in business.”
why not just use “the climatologists doing the science” ?
After a fair, for a journalistic segment on climate change, he finished off with
“I hope they are wrong’
well gee whiz George why not “I hope we act on their advice” ?
I missed it but will try and track it down. Thanks head up.
And his sign off? Well…
I hope they are right: better to be forewarned than not at all.
Let us take each of these in turn and see what they say.
1. Doubt the science – You bring in creationism and alternative health. Both of these crackpot ideas can be tested and can be shown to be wrong. The warmist view cannot be tested. Whatever happens to the cliamte the warmists always maintain that their view is right. That has been shown on this site where you have claimed that global warming is responsible for freezing temperatures and heavy snow falls.
2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists – A bit rich from a warmist. The warmist lobby never fails to maintain that it is gloabl oil etc that finances corrupt science. For the most part I would not question the motives of warmist “science” but I would question their methadology and in many cases their true scientific credentials. The likes of Phil Jones have no scientific training other than “cliamate science” and a poor or non existent grasp of statistics. Additionally in general scientists do not like to own up to the fact that they do not know things so a claim to understand climate is well received by scientists generally rather like erroneous explanations for the plague 500 years ago. Many “deniers” prefer an alternative explanation for the truth, which is that we do not have the knowledge that the warmists claim to have.
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – “Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change, when in fact their is near unanimous agreement.”
Actually most warmist “scientists” do not share the certainty expressed on this site. They know they have feet of clay. To talk of consensus reveals that what we have is a matter of opinion not of fact.
4. Exaggerate potential harm – Right now it would be difficult to exaggerate the potential harm to mankind of trying to do without fossil fuels. Mankind has been liberated from all sorts of nasty things by coal, gas and oil. Wind farms and other green nonsense is not yet a plausible substitute. They may become so but right now they are not.
5. Appeal to personal freedom – “One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom.” Quite right too. many warmists are just itching to impose restrictions on humanity’s use of fossil fuels. Luckily for mankind, people for the most part allow the warmists to make some posturing in rich countries but totally ignore it in eg China and India.
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy – “For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth.” Such people make no assumptions about unlimited growth, they are keen on letting people do what they want. Only state planners tend to aim at growth, while usually failing completely to achieve it. A key feature of most planned economies has usually been the subservience of everything to one key target such as growth or industrialisation. The results have usually been disastrous for the people involved and have not usually achieved the desired result. The warmist view is similar to this. It would like to make the reduction of CO2 emissions almost the sole aim of governmental policy and to disregard almost everthing else. An example is given by the statement “the “market” can’t fix climate.” Well it could even on warmist terms by putting a cost on CO2. But that would involve a choice for individuals who might opt for more CO2 and take the risk with climate. That is not an idea that appeals to the warmist lobby who much prefer targets that have to be met (but will not be) whatever the cost to individuals.
Elsa, everything you have said reveals that you are extremely ignorant of many of the things you are trying to speak authoritatively about. Ignorance in itself is not a bad thing. We are all ignorant of many things. The key is to recognise your ignorance and try and become informed on the subject matter before commenting, otherwise you will end up looking quite silly and your opinion will not be taken seriously.
1. “The warmist view cannot be tested.” Your use of the word “view” inaccurately describes the way scientists put forward scientific information. You make it sound like an opinion which it isn’t. Scientists do research, run experiments and they interpret their findings based on well-established mathematical and statistical protocols. They then report their findings. These are not opinions or “views”. In fact the use of the word “warmist” is suggestive that these scientists have some sort of membership to a “warmist” club. I am fairly certain that the vast majority of climate scientists would be much happier to have very different results to their research.
“…where you have claimed that global warming is responsible for freezing temperatures and heavy snow falls.” If you disagree with the hypotheses and modelling that shows climate change and associated global warming will cause extreme weather events, including snowfalls and cold temperatures in some parts of the world, all that does is demonstrate that you haven’t bothered to search the literature and look at the results of modelling yourself. This shows the ignorance I mentioned in my opening paragraph.
2. “I would not question the motives of warmist “science” but I would question their methadology and in many cases their true scientific credentials.” I would question what your scientific credentials are that you feel you are qualified to question others. You cherry-pick Phil Jones as an example. Phil Jones has an Environmental Science PhD and has worked his entire career at the East Anglia climatology unit. His specialty is paleoclimatology. There are very few people who are more qualified than
him to undertake climate research, particularly in his area of expertise so I don’t know where you get the idea that he isn’t qualified. Actually I do know but it doesn’t need to be mentioned. But lets pretend for a second that he isn’t credentialled enough. How about the thousands of other climate scientists in the world who are all saying the same thing? Are they all not qualified?
“scientists do not like to own up to the fact that they do not know things….” Really? Clearly you have never read a single scientific paper. I have read thousands and I find it difficult to think of a single one where the author has not admitted to gaps in their own knowledge. It is what makes a scientist tick. Its what science is all about. Its about filling the gaps in their own and the collective knowledge of everyone. It’s what drives them. Sure, scientists have egos, just like everyone in society does, but to suggest that ego gets in the way of objective reasoning is extremely insulting and shows your ignorance yet again.
3. “Actually most warmist “scientists” do not share the certainty expressed on this site. They know they have feet of clay. To talk of consensus reveals that what we have is a matter of opinion not of fact.” You really reveal yourself here by putting “” around ‘scientists’. Once again though, you demonstrate your ignorance and highlight the fact that you haven’t read many, if any papers on the subject. You will find that there is a consensus among climate scientists that the world is experiencing anthropogenic global warming and climate change. There are slight differences in the various modelling that is being undertaken by different scientisits in terms of future impacts but they ALL agree there will be and are already experiencing negative impacts. Some disagreement around the edges does not negate the consensus.
4. “Wind farms and other green nonsense is not yet a plausible substitute. They may become so but right now they are not.” There has been plenty of modelling that suggest gradual shifts to green energy is feasible and cost effective. For example, Melbourne University in Australia released a 194 page report on the feasibility of Australia shifting to 100% renewable energy over just 10 years. Taking into account fiscal, social, economic impacts as well as the functionality and effectiveness of the solar thermal and wind systems, found it would cost an additional $8 per week for the average house but would have a net gain of 90 000 long term jobs as well as revitalise Australia’s manufacturing sector. So far from implausible, such solutions are highly feasible. Once again, a little bit of research on your part would allow you to make some of these statements from an informed position.
5. “many warmists are just itching to impose restrictions on humanity’s use of fossil fuels.” and rightly so given they have been demonstrated to be the problem.
“…but totally ignore it in eg China and India.” China has been a problem up until the last few years in terms of policy on emissions. You will no doubt be surprised to learn that China in particular has recognised this and has some of the most adventurous and forward thinking policies in place now to ensure they curb emissions by much more than the US and other big polluters going forward. Throwing up the old rightest “what about China, what about China?” catchcry does not reflect reality anymore.
6. “An example is given by the statement “the “market” can’t fix climate.” Well it could even on warmist terms by putting a cost on CO2.”
As long as the market is driven by greed and fossil fuels remain cheap, the market cannot fix climate. Fact of life. The mega-rich who run the world markets don’t care about climate because they have put themselves in such positions that if they did change their tact their companies would collapse. It is expedient to carry on with business as usual and to hell with everyone else.
“…might opt for more CO2 and take the risk with climate.” Risk is no longer on the table because the science is well and truly in on that. However, as long as disinformation from scientific illiterates and “google galileos” continues and equally intellectually bereft and ignorant sheeple continue to believe their nonsense, this perception that business as usual will do will persist to the detriment of everyone. The denial movement is a modern day Nero.
In conclusion, your ignorance is demonstrated most by your need to resort to the use of propaganda for a scientific subject. If you continue to choose to be ignorant of a subject you wish to discuss, you will be demonstrating one of the worst human behaviours and that is wilful ignorance. It is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “lalalalalala” which as you know is a very childish path to tread.
” Many “deniers” prefer an alternative explanation for the truth, which is that we do not have the knowledge that the warmists claim to have.
How can claiming that we do not have the knowledge be an alternative explanation ,
the knowledge we already have explains it , your preference is immaterial
forcings have been studied for many decades,
You need to better explain your preference, what do you believe is the current forcing ?
“How can claiming that we do not have the knowledge be an alternative explanation”
You make a good point. It is not an alternative explanation. However it remains true.
“the knowledge we already have explains it , your preference is immaterial
forcings have been studied for many decades,”
We delude ourselves if we think we have any proper knowledge. What has happened is that models are set up and bent in such a way as to fit the facts. Their outcomes are then presented as though they establish knowledge, which is really just a well disguised circular argument.
You need to better explain your preference, what do you believe is the current forcing ?
My preference is for being honest about how little we really know as opposed to fooling ourselves that we know a great deal. As to the cause of the temperature changes in the last 200 years I can think of many possible factors but I do not know which of them (if any) or in what proportions have affected the temperature. I would also think it very possible that there are some other factors of which we are as yet unaware that have had an influence too.
“As to the cause of the temperature changes in the last 200 years I can think of many possible factors.”
Want to share a few of those with us elsa.
Well to give an example it has recently been suggested that the atomic bombs in the 1940s affected the climate. This is a very plausible thing to say. However it is used to explain the cooling that took part in the middle of the last century. Nothing wrong with that either. Where there is a problem is in saying that this can now be added to the models, without in any way realising that the ability to just add an extra factor at will negates the whole of the previous attempt at explanation via models of climate change.
Elsa, climatologists got a first-hand and accurate look at exactly how much climate can be altered when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991. The after-effects of the eruption allowed them to refine and calibrate climate models.
It’s obvious you have never heard climatologists explaining how models are developed, you seem to be unaware of the lengths they go to to account for all possible forcing effects or the vast array of data sets incorporated in the models.
I think, to be fair that you are grossly exaggerating the claims made by climate scientists. I’ve heard many of them interviewed and none claim to know with complete certainty what the effects of anthropogenic climate change will do to the planet in 50 or 100 years time.
What they do know with certainty is the chemistry and physics which allows them to outline a range of possible outcomes. What you don’t seem to appreciate is that many of the assessments are extremely conservative and that if anything, they are guilty of understating long-term effects.
In any case, climate change effects aren’t just observable in the atmosphere, they have also been clearly noted in changes in ocean acidity due to increased CO2 absorption, thinning shells in assorted small marine creatures, steady changes in bird and insect migration times, migration of plants and animals into new areas and increasing number of temperature extremes etc.
There is plenty of good science is out there if you are really interested.
2011 Perth’s hottest ever year
http://www.theage.com.au/wa-news/2011-perths-hottest-ever-year-20120104-1pksh.html
“What do believe is the current forcing”
“We delude ourselves if we think we have any proper knowledge. What has happened is that models are set up and bent in such a way as to fit the facts. Their outcomes are then presented as though they establish knowledge, which is really just a well disguised circular argument.
As we see your fall-back position is always going to be that the science is bent,
If you wish to debate the hoax then go to a conspiracy theorist site, you are a complete waste of time when every reply from you is “its a hoax”
I have not suggested the “science” is bent. I have suggested that we simply do not know many of the facts that the warmist (and actually some “denialist”) “scientists” claim to have. Since we have no method of disentangling the effects of the various possible effects on climate it is not possible to attribute x degrees to CO2 if you are a warmist or y degrees to solar abnormalities if you are one of the scientistic non believers in the warmist faith that claims to have an alternative explanation.
John, Lawrence. Give it up. Elsa’s position has not changed from the very first time she wrote anything on a climate blog.
Her position? The obvious fact that we do not know everything that could possibly be known about the earth and its climate means that we know nothing useful about the earth, its oceans, its ice, its climate.
If I were knitting her a jumper, she’d complain while I was finishing the first sleeve, having the back and the front completed in the knitting bag, that I’d “done nothing” useful. Only when the whole garment was stitched together, trimmed, ironed, folded and wrapped would she concede that I’d done any useful work at all. (Let’s not concern ourselves with preferences about colours or button sizes.)
However, if you were knitting the jumper and had only finished the first sleeve, you would force her to wear it every day, then you’d write a law to force everyone to wear the same first sleeve and pay a jumper tax to you for the privilege.
Cheers.
Would I?
I have not suggested that we know nothing useful. I would say however that we know very very much less than the sort of claims to knowledge that are made on this site.
I don’t try to work these guys out anymore, i have been on forums where they have rubbished religion and creationism only to discover later that they are active members of fundamentalist young earth creationist churches,
lying for god , a doctrine of both the KORAN and other religious extremist dogma
I am never sure why the subjects of religion and creationism are raised by my opponents. I do not believe in a god and I am not a creationist, in fact I am a very strong supporter of the theory of evolution. No doubt there are “deniers” out there who believe in both but I am not one of them.
Then that might leave you as one that has trouble facing up to reality, rather than accept reality you are protecting yourself by denial, this is a well understood human protection mechanism , many people that get cancer, even alcoholics use denial as a means were they do not need to confront reality
I notice a distinct tendency to move away from the point whenever the going gets tough for the warmist camp. Rather than answer my criticism they tend to harp on about god or creationism or even, Moth’s speciality, vaccinations.
John Byatt now offers a complete about face on this. It seems that my lack of belief in god, lack of belief in creationism and my support for evolution make me someone who has trouble facing up to reality. So it seems the “denier” who believes in god is damned because he does and the “denier” who does not believe is damned because he doesn’t!
You have, consciously or not, continued what appears to be plagiarism by posting the “six aspects of denial”. This looks to be a lift & twist of Six Wrenches That Twist The Mind” from Toffler’s Book “War and Anti-War”. These wrenches may also be applied to the carbonistas:
1. Atrocity Accusation.
Bob Brown & his Green Shirts blame the coal industry for cyclone yasi.
2. Hyperbolic Inflation of the Stakes Involved.
Our children will inherit a depleted & desertified world.
3. Demonsiation of Opponents.
Deniers, flat earthers, in the pay of big business.
4. Polarisation.
The science is settled, anyone who argues against this fact is dangerous.
5. Claim Devine Sanction.
Witness the Climate Institute’s Faith Campaign. Your Gods are with US.
6. Meta-propaganda.
Everything said by the deniers is untrue, everything!
I am a retired industrial chemist turned small farmer who also know bull shit when it appears, on or off the ground. The mendacity of Gillard, Combet, Rudd, Howard and Turnbull in using the flawed non-science of the IPCC, and the pay for comment of Garnaut & Flannery, just to create another revenue stream is despicable.
1. Bob Brown is a politician. He uses catch cries just as they all do to push their own agendas. You’d do better to listen to scientific climate experts who actually take a more cautious approach to future predictions.
2. Our children will inherit a depleted world. If you have scientific credentials as you claim you would understand the exponential function and how it applies to growth.
3. It is well documented that many of the deniers originate in oil and industry-funded thinktanks. The information is freely available. its interesting to note how many of them aren’t really scientists.
4. There is consensus amongst climate scientists. To continue pushing the ‘science isn’t settled’ myth is either dishonest or evidence of wilful ignorance, which is actually worse IMO.
5. Propaganda, propaganda how I love you. how does this disprove the science?
6. Most of what is said by the deniers is untrue. It is based on misrepresentations of others’ work, misinterpretations of others’ work or dodgy work that doesn’t pass muster in terms of methodology, data integrity, statistical analyses, interpretation or all of the above. That is pretty straightforward and easily checkable.
For your last point i agree that politicians are despicable but that’s what they do. The Carbon tax isn’t the answer. You would much better to put your scientific credentials to better use and remember how scientific convention works. As an industrial chemist, would you give advice about medicine? Would you get a plumber to rewire your house? Would you go to the vet for heart surgery? Would you go to a hack meteorologist or someone who claims to be a lord and scientific adviser to a politician for information about climate?
Your rather messy response reflects the shallowness of your understanding of the real world of responsible science in either research integrity or the folly of leaping from observation to causation.
Your points. 1. Bob Brown: electors who voted for these wackos have handed control of this country to green fascists. What they say may be ridiculous, but what they have achieved and want to achieve through manipulation of our sad excuse of a government, is dangerous. 2. Off topic, the issue of man made climate change is independent of exponentiality. 3. Please provide the details of the funding of “deniers” by oil & industry.”Its interesting to note how many of them aren’t really scientists”. Really? well how about William Kinnimonth, Garth Paltridge, Stuart Franks, Piers Corbyn, Chris Landsea, David Evans, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Ian Wright and many others whose scientific training ( as is mine from the late 60s when a degree was worth something) allow them to review and evaluate IPCC reports and other media trash with insight.
4. Consensus among those who are paid to do work of the IPCC is hardly convincing when viewed against the background of the gross dishonesty of Jones, Mann, Bifra and their little nest of criminals who deliberately manipulated data, ignored data, ignored or downplayed the main contributors to climate variability such as solar cycles and water vapour.5. And your point is…? 6.Rather silly, but if you believe what you say why do you believe a mammalogist, neural scientist, economist and railway engineer and politicians who are either ignorant or dishonest when it comes to AGW?
Something for you to consider: When I plant a crop of “Wandering” variety oats, I sow 90kg per hectare of seed which is around 40% carbon (oil,protein,sugars etc). In an average year I will receive around 4,000 kg per hectare of grain which, at 40% C, representing a forty four fold increase in carbon. This has all been captured by the photosynthesis process which simply uses sunlight, carbon dioxide and water to produce the crop. And another thing, there is a similar amount of carbon remaining in the stubble after harvest. So we have nearly 90 times as much carbon captured from the atmosphere as was planted. Now consider this, if we had more CO2 in the atmosphere, crop yields would be higher due to the more efficient use of water in the photosynthesis process.
Finally, do some work on solubilities, buffering action and the logarithmic relationship between addition of CO2 to the atmosphere and it’s resulting greenhouse gas effect. Then go and study the various claims made about ocean acidification, ocean warming, coral reefs and look for hard evidence. Don’t be disappointed that there is none.
Remember the leap from observation to causation is unscientific but well practiced by the Warmists.
“Finally, do some work on solubilities, buffering action and the logarithmic relationship between addition of CO2 to the atmosphere and it’s resulting greenhouse gas effect.”
why don’t you explain all about the logarithmic relationship Farmer Dave?
this will be interesting,,,,
I sense more than a little sarcasm in your challenge. I would have thought that someone with your seemingly rich knowledge on AGW would not need to seek clarification. Nevertheless, I shall keep it simple for you. Simply put, the relationship between additional CO2 in the atmosphere is not linear ie if 100 in = 2 out, therefore 200 in = 4 out but logarithmic. Willis Eschenbach in 2006 showed the logarithmic heating effect of CO2 relative to atmospheric concentration.
As an example, the initial 20ppm showed around a 1.7 deg C increase in temperature; the next 20ppm showed only around 0.35 deg C, the next around 0.2 deg C and so on. Eschenbach actually plotted Net Downwards Forcing (w/m2) against CO2 concentration in ppm.
thought as much
“Willis Eschenbach in 2006 showed the logarithmic heating effect of CO2 relative to atmospheric concentration.”
You are confusing atmospheric concentration with emissions. Radiative forcing is logarithmic in concentration, but the concentration increases faster than linearly with emissions, since the more you emit, the less is taken up by the oceans and the more remains in the atmosphere. That effect turns out to cancel out the logarithmic behavior, giving you a nearly linear warming (at least up to about 5000 gigatonnes total emissions).
Now instead of calling Mike an idiot , why don’t you take your own advice and study it yourself,
Hint: should be easy for a chemist!
1. facepalm
2. facepalm
3. double facepalm
4. double double facepalm
5. I will bother to explain this. When you have to rely on propaganda in a scientific argument than you have already lost because all it does is demonstrate that you have no scientific basis for your position.
6. I don’t. I do however pay attention to what climatologists, atmospheric physicists and paleoclimatologists have to say. When you trot out the same garbage that not really a lord monckton trots out, well……
Finally, the CO2 is plant food argument works really well in glasshouses where variables have been tightly controlled. However, in situ field trials have demonstrated that increased CO2 is detrimental to 5 out of 6 major food crops due to factors like soil nitrification and increased pests and disease and loss of fertility. The problem with deniers is they always trot out simplistic arguments due to either a failure to grasp the complexities or because its expedient to do so.
Are you a total idiot, or just being a pest?
Facepalm????Sounds convincing.
You, as usual, display the ignorance of someone who , as you put it, “trots out” throw away catch phrases without having even a basic understanding of the topic. Care to provide the evidence on your nonsense on the effects of CO2 on “soil nitrification(?)” and the connection you ascribe to soil fertility, pest & disease resistance? Seeing as you could not back up your previous claims, I expect nothing back but more blather.
Facts are that increased crop energy levels provides greater resistance to disease & pest attack. Higher energy comes from higher brix levels which come from CO2 conversion. Incidentally, pests tend to seek out the poorer crops. As for soil fertility, you once again display ignorance. At the risk of another of your childish “facepalm” responses, go talk with Martin Staapper or at least read what soil fertility is all about.
The best thing about your blog is the paucity of knowledge and lack of intelligence in your posts. This is congruent with the lies pedaled by the likes of Gore, Flannery and the pay for comment so-called “scientists” who have hitched their reputation to a fraudulent idea.
Perhaps you might respond with something other than your usual crap.
” pests tend to seek out the poorer crops ”
obviously not a farmer
“Obviously not a farmer”. I’m afraid I must disappoint you.
I am a farmer and also subscribe to biological farming principles which concentrate on soil health through stimulation of microbes, improved soil mineralogy etc. As for pests attacking weaker plants first, they do. Each living thing has a survival instinct; which ever species has the best defence/attack strategies, or both, wins the battle..assuming it has the energy to implement those strategies. The organism with the the most energy to fuel their defence or attack system wins the battle. Thus, pests and pathogens generally succeed in plant with lower energy levels and in poorer Health. Attackers will pick the weakeswt victim to better the chances of winning.
What gave you the confidence to make judgement?
Sounds like you have not been doing it very long dave,
twenty years small crop farmer,
“Attackers will pick the weakeswt victim to better the chances of winning.”
next time i will check out the bugs flying from plant to plant looking for the weakest?
pure nonsense
Plants don’t possess instinct.
Like I said, I follow the biological farming model. No doubt it sounds a bit off, to you,but that is my choice. To call it pure nonsense is your call.
Rather than plant to plant..think paddock to paddock.
Or…farm to farm.
““Attackers will pick the weakeswt victim to better the chances of winning.”
“I mean the weakest paddock”
“No i mean the weakest farm’
think twice before calling someone an idiot dave
rgds
John, I’ve given up. Since he mentioned something about plant pathogens I thought I’d quizz him a bit (I have about a decade or so working as a plant pathologist in various systems) but really trying to deal with these people is tiresome. They don’t understand when someone who actually knows the subject says “facepalm” to them because they are in the category of too stupid to know what they don’t know. Although, Dave if you are reading this, how about you tell me all about how plant pathogenic fungi actively select from farm to farm the weaker plants? For example, when ascospores are floating about everywhere and landing on every host plant available, are there differences in the effectiveness of the healthier plants to mount defences against the fungi? How do you know? We are of course talking about biological systems here since your 20 years of experience qualifies you to discuss all these things. Just so you know, I’ve tested hundreds and hundreds of biologicals and nutrient supplements on a wide variety of crops in a range of environmental conditions.
Your insults are a clear indication of your fear. Deliberately “face palming” to indicate my “stupidity” is itself damming of yourself. You elected to ignore rather than respond to my questions on scientists, other than the IPCC clones. Care to comment on those I mentioned? Or is that too hard? I won’t lower myself to imply your ownership of stupidity but you might also give “checkable(?)” facts on funding of who you refer to as deniers. I would value your revelations on this.
By the way the term “denier” is a fanciful, if not demonising, term. The only denier I can find reference to is a unit of weight to measure the fineness of fibres. Dissenters would be a more civil term, if you and your clique understand the meaning of the word.
As for healthy soils yielding healthy plants, I don’t make claim of experience in this area. I do, however, respect the work of others I know who not only work in this area. That I chose to work with their ideas is, as I clearly pointed out, is my choice. As I see it there may be upside, but definitely little or no downside.
Could my position in this field be a more honest representation than your position on AGW?
Tell me, in all your testing of ” hundreds & hundreds of biologicals and nutrient supplements on a wide variety of crops in a range of environmental condition”.:
1. Under whose auspices-es was this work performed?
2. What did your work make of SC 27? be careful with your answer.
As ever I look forward to you response and hold out hope that you may lift the integrity in you answers.
Dissenter is a term I commonly use to describe someone with an educated opinion on the subject and qualifications in the area of discussion. It is a respectful term.
It was me that had the twenty years in small crops mike, one of the first to put asian veg into brisbane markets early eighties,
just anecdotal but had to let a large area of veg fend for themselves due lack of water one year and just concentrate on what i could
dried out stunted ,slowly dying plants did not get one attack from the pests, like us they preferred the choicest, healthiest plants, bastards
oops. trying to do too many things at once. You may actually know my family John. I grew up in Glasshouse on a farm and my parents were very active in the QFVGA. I’d rather not give out my email in here but through my YT account maybe?
Did not join Mike but my son would go to meetings when he was working with a well known farmer and long time member at Yandina, forget his name at present (thirty years ago)
will ask him tomorrow,..son got out of farming, good move!
Still no response to valid questions, only derision. If you don’t wish to provide sensible answers, say nothing.
I am more than happy to provide sensible answers to sensible questions.
Obviously not.
Keep the faith…that is all you have.
Good Night and Good bye.
Six Aspects of Denial? Didn’t take too much imagination to put this list together, you just documented the Warmist, Alarmist playbook!
It defines you perfectly and you couldn’t be any more hypocritical. I guess it must be frustrating that even after more than $100bil worth of promoting the AGW view of the role of Co2 in the climate, the majority of people aren’t convinced. Yet, the AGW-Alarmists don’t take responsibility for the failure of their argument. Instead of showing any respect to those still unconvinced, you pre-emptively denigrate them with the term “Denier (borrowing from the term associated with Holocaust Denial).” You do this to shut down debate and intimidate people.
You share more in common with the Creationist, or any form of extremist.
Why doesn’t the AGW alarmists eliminate the doubt by funding ALL science theories, instead of only those that support AGW?
Some people think a flat earth is a legitimate theory or that alchemy is worthy of study, funny that you aren’t arguing for serious money to be spent on these discredited ideas as well.
oh the irony!
Joe,
These guys are famous at being ignorant. Perhaps we should see their posts as ignore-rants.
If you ask them to give details of any of their points, you will probably either be ignored, put down/off with playground tactics such as “face palm”, or just patronised.
As for the term Denier, I suggest that we turn the issue around and accept the title and wear black armbands with a yellow “D”!
This would perhaps give the true picture of what is really persecution of intelligent people who have the temerity to question dogma and received wisdom. Those who accept the shortcomings (ie dishonesty) of Jones et al and praise length of time in a job some sort of qualification, are a true example of those in denial.
Maybe a big yellow stripe down your back would be better, after all, wilful ignorance is akin to cowardice. You and your ilk are afraid of the facts but moreso, you are afraid that when everything the real scientists you casually disregard says comes to fruition you will be forced to admit you were wrong. The narcicists worst nightmare. You will have to dig the hole a little wider to fit your shoulders in too.
By the way, derision is all you will get until you actually bother to educate yourself in the area in which you are commenting. First step would be to familiarise yourself with basic scientific conventions. Only then will you be taken at least a little bit seriously.
Unfortunately Farmer Dave gives forwardthinking farmers a bad name. There are many who are already planning ahead and changing practices as climate extremes affect production and/or the health of their stock. Unlike FD, they aren’t in denial.
Lovely response. Full of nuance, logic and grace.
Poor deluded boy, you really have to do better than that if you want to be thought of as being clever or, by a long stretch, intelligent.
Anyone who creates a blog such as yours, with all the credibility that a BA can bring to the table on issues of science, is probably crying out for the attention that they believe they deserve. Association with the currently adored is no substitute for interdependent thought based on reason.
Bow to the masters of the universe little fella and you shall be thrown a bone from the table…. should your pitiful existence be acknowledged by the mighty.
Lovely response Farmer Dave, full of nuance, logic and grace.
oh the irony
What sort of a title is watching the deniers? sounds like 1984 or a pack of nazis.
An opposing view backed by equally qualified scrientists is by your definition pathological and any opposing viw to yours is by your definition, wrong. Please explain the hockey stick and discuss the credibility of those scientists.
BTW, not all who question your science are deniers as is the common catchphrase-’questioners’ would be more accurate. It may also surprise you that not all who ask questions rather than blindly following like sheep, are uneducated or unqualified. In the true spirit of knowledge, questioners are waiting for the consensus which the ‘true deniers’ seem to be determined to ignore.
An opposing view backed by equally qualified scrientists is by your definition pathological and any opposing viw to yours is by your definition, wrong. Please explain the hockey stick and discuss the credibility of those scientists.
BTW, not all who question your science are ‘deniers – ‘questioners’ would be more accurate. It may also surprise you that not all who ask questions rather than blindly following like sheep, are uneducated or unqualified. In the true spirit of knowledge, questioners are waiting for the consensus which the ‘true deniers’ seem to be determined to ignore.