Stephen L. Brown, in his April 10, 2009 response to you, wrote:

[Anthropogenic global warming] is somewhere in between. It is a one-off event with no actuarial data to use, and all of the predictions of future harm are essentially model-driven (climate models plus various theory-driven extrapolation of consequences). But we do have actual temperature records and lots of evidence that something is going on – glaciers and sea ice disappearing, trees blooming earlier, ecological changes and extreme weather events that may or may not be the result of the warming trend. The folks who are truly AGW denialists seize on the model issue as a reason to disbelieve the predictions, arguing that the models have not been sufficiently validated, and so on.

Stephen’s words set off my usual alarm bells. We do indeed have “actual temperature records,” but to equate actual changes in temps with *anthropogenic* global warming – with human causal responsibility – on the basis of those records is emotional (or ideological), not scientific. It’s a basic error to confuse connection with causality. We do not have (or I have never seen reliable data on) “lots of evidence” that humans are the major cause of the measured warming. (Oh, and of course, the warming has stopped, so now they call their putative enemy ‘climate change’ …)

(This discounts the lack of scientifically valid placement of the recording devices for these “actual temperature records.” Activists on the left refuse to address (that I have seen so far, in my admittedly superficial reading) that the insufficiently few remaining (not scientifically placed) temperature gauges are pretty much all located within cities or on cement lots or otherwise in nothing close to scientifically correct placements, such that there can be a true gathering of hazard data. (Plus, it leaves out the current commensurate warming of Mars, which I do not believe “we ” are causing.)

The left screams about dying polar bears, but carefully does not mention that it’s only some communities of bears declining, and other polar bear communities are maintaining or even gaining population. (I love polar bears: I want the U.S. and Canadian govts to start flying in (live) sheep and dropping them where the bears can feast … Bet THAT would make the leftists scream!)

(Not to forget that the right just as strenuously blocks any moves toward actually (accurately, scientifically – apolitically!) testing real world-wide temps, and planning ahead for the coming (if it is) warming, regardless of source.)

Stephen (seemingly; forgive me if I’m wrong) accepts that global warming is occurring and it’s AGW – but I must challenge that premise. As you, Peter, seemed to answer him: Relying on models – tentatively agreeing that they can be useful whether right or wrong – assumes that the mitigation efforts (“addressing the hazard,” in your lingo) will not do other / different / further / unacceptable damage. (As a Taoist might say: Don’t just do something, stand there!) It also assumes that the data being plugged into the model are valid. There is “lots of evidence ” (of whatever validity) that the activists on both sides are making stuff up:

Al Gore says lying is okay: “Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there is a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is …”

Rush Limbaugh says: “Follow the money and understand what’s really going on. This is a hoax. It’s junk science. It’s being portrayed as something to make you scared to death we’re all going to die…”

The scientists who (I hope) are actually doing valid research are not getting into the media; the scientists and activists (who are sometimes the same people) in the media seem to have agendas other than scientific.

Since both sides are ideologically motivated, since both sides revel in their own confirmation biases, what can risk communicators do to try to move either side (or the public they’re both trying to stampede) closer to the center of your seesaw? How do we reach people who can’t trust their own information sources?

Copyright © 200 by >