Does this sound very much like what I’ve been writing about for well over a decade here at Pirate’s Cove?
How the science of persuasion could change the politics of climate change
Jerry Taylor believes he can change the minds of conservative climate skeptics. After all, he helped plant the doubts for many in the first place.
Taylor spent years as a professional climate denier at the Cato Institute, arguing against climate science, regulations, and treaties in op-eds, speeches, and media appearances. But his perspective slowly began to change around the turn of the century, driven by the arguments of several economists and legal scholars laying out the long-tail risks of global warming.
Now he’s president of the Niskanen Center, a libertarian-leaning Washington, DC, think tank he founded in 2014. He and his colleagues there are trying to build support for the passage of an aggressive federal carbon tax, through discussions with Washington insiders, with a particular focus on Republican legislators and their staff.
I wasn’t aware of the notion that Conservatives and Libertarians were super interested in wanting massive government interference in people’s lives and the economy.
Hint: real ones aren’t. And Taylor surely isn’t either, at least not anymore. Especially when you read ahead
Lesson one: Pick the right targets
Political scientists consistently find that mass opinion doesn’t drive the policy debate, so much as the other way around. Partisan divides emerge first among “elites,†including influential advocacy groups, high-profile commentators, and politicians, says Megan Mullin, an associate professor of environmental politics at Duke University.
They, in turn, set the terms of debate in the public mind, spreading the parties’ views through tested and refined sound bites in media appearances, editorials, social media, and other forums.
Basically, this is a “you peons should listen to your political masters, and we need to influence the political masters to Force the plebes to act in a certain prescribed manner” schtick.
And, yes, if you read the rest, you rather do get inklings of Alinsky’s rules for radicals. But, the most important part is about playing to the elites, getting them to comply, and, hey, what politician doesn’t like power?
Don’t forget that the Earth is actually warming, changing the climates, and mostly from CO2 from we humans burning fossil fuels.
Many people take this seriously. For the American right-wing it’s just another political fight to have, and eventually lose. Civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights… Conservatives eventually lose unless they can construct the police state they crave.
Don Juan tRump agrees with you. That in itself should make you reconsider your position.
Don’t forget, Leftists have to lie in order to make their point. When that doesn’t work, personal attacks and ridicule follow.
But we on the Right love the Light.
We Light lovers win in the end. If we haven’t won yet, it must not be the end.
I love when the party of big government accuses the right of wanting a police state. I don’t know if it’s denial, or just projection. But, either way, it’s profound irony is unchartable.
He’s got an MBA from Wharton from back in the days when it actually meant something and you had to do the work to get it.
All Jeffery has is a lot of cooked data the world knows is cooked.
Whom should we believe?
Assertion monkey asserts.
About the time he decided to get in on the Climate Change gravy train.
And yet again…. We don’t deny that the climate is changing just like it always has and always will. We argue causation. There is NO proof that climate change is mostly caused by man.
William Teach: I wasn’t aware of the notion that Conservatives and Libertarians were super interested in wanting massive government interference in people’s lives and the economy.
There’s an entire wing of conservatism, called social conservatives, that are interested in using government to regulate people’s personal lives.
William Teach: Basically, this is a “you peons should listen to your political masters, and we need to influence the political masters to Force the plebes to act in a certain prescribed manner†schtick.
Actually, it’s due to cultural affinity with the group. People root for their quarterback.
William Teach: We don’t deny that the climate is changing just like it always has and always will. We argue causation. There is NO proof that climate change is mostly caused by man.
Science doesn’t deal in “proof”, but evidence. That evidence indicates that it is extremely likely that humans are the dominant cause of global warming. This conclusion is supported by a consilience of evidence from different fields of study; from the physics of heat flow to historical records to satellite observations.
From the kiddiez who proclaimed that “according to the basic physics of heat flow the Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively”.
Back to your sandbox, kiddiez, you haven’t a clue.
Real evidence indicates that it is extremely likely that humans are NOT the dominant cause of global warming, cooling, warming, etc.
And We The People have no “cultural affinity” with the lying Swamp.
Oh, stop with that silly shit about social conservatives. The modern left is the biggest group of ideological fundamentalists in the US. Just exchange “God” for “It’s for the common good” or “it’s the right thing to do” and you have infinitely more damage done to this country based on leftist fundamentalism. And your evidence is shit: I don’t even know where to start, from the founding models (GIGO) to the data that has been changed upwards to serve the narrative to the brand name changing (global warming to climate change), people know when they’re being served a load of bullshit. The left tried to bully and marginalize, and even went with the “debate is settled” stupidity to try and get another tax source, and people said “we’ll pass.” But, please, all leftist states can start their own cap-and-trade programs to show how everyone how serious they really are, so get at it.
No, social Conservatism seeks to maintain the traditional values, the ones that actually work.
You know it’s the Lefties pushing government to regulate people’s personal lives, with co-ed bathrooms and babies out of wedlock and same sex marriage and drugs for everybody.
According to the climastrologists’ interpretation, which now asserts a new and improved The Science™ Is Settled consensus figure of 99.999999999983% to make its evidence even more evidencey.
“Civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights…†Please enlighten us on how the right wing is supposedly weakening those rights. Good luck
If you weren’t for gay marriage you were “against” gay rights. He’s a moron when it comes to the history of civil rights, and it doesn’t do any good to point it out.
This has been true for a long time. People still think that politicians will change the way they vote on legislation if they get enough constituent mail on a subject. They never do. They will just get sneaky and do it in the dark instead of publicly proclaiming they did it. You don’t elect politicians who will do as you say, and thus change their mind depending on the latest Poll. You elect politicians who you trust to do what you want, and then vote for someone else when they disappoint you.
Bill589: Real evidence indicates that it is extremely likely that humans are NOT the dominant cause of global warming, cooling, warming, etc.
That is incorrect. You might start with the basic physics. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
Bill589: And We The People have no “cultural affinity†with the lying Swamp.
The point is well illustrated with your extreme example of group identity.
Hoss: Oh, stop with that silly shit about social conservatives.
The facts don’t go away because you don’t like them. Social conservatism has long been an important cultural phenomenon, so to claim that conservatives as a group are not interested in wanting massive government interference in people’s lives is simply false.
Hoss: from the founding models (GIGO) to the data that has been changed upwards
As noted above, the basic physics of greenhouse warming were established long before modern climate science developed. Data adjustments go through peer review, just like any other science. There have been studies just on the subject of homogenization. And independent statistical analysis of the raw unadjusted data has confirmed the warming trend. See Rohde et al., A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011, Geoinformatics & Geostatistics 2013.
Seems the kiddie have a problem with that word: fact.
We have admissions the data was cooked.
By all means, supply your evidence.
Easy enough to look up for yourself, ya little nignorant lazy dumbfvck.
formwiz: We have admissions the data was cooked.
The original surface temperature data wasn’t collected for climate research, but mostly for local weather forecasting. It was collected under varying conditions, in different countries, and with inconsistent protocols. For instance, if instruments are changed or moved, then there may be a discontinuity in the record. The process of accounting for these discontinuities is called homogenization.
There are a number of reasons why we have confidence in the determined trend. Homogenization is subject to peer review. Independent statistical analysis that doesn’t reply on homogenization shows the same warming trend. Satellite observations show the same warming trend. Studies of ice melt and other independent observations support the warming trend.
You have confidence in the determined trend because it confirms your conclusion. The fact it was determined precisely to achieve that confirmation, is frantically kicking at Toto and insisting we ignore the man behind the curtain.
McGehee: According to the climastrologists’ interpretation, which now asserts a new and improved The Science™ Is Settled consensus figure of 99.999999999983% to make its evidence even more evidencey.
U.S. Global Change Research Program: “it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
Why they rely anomalies.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/19/climate-science-double-speak-update/
McGehee: You have confidence in the determined trend because it confirms your conclusion.
No. It’s because multiple methodologies and independent data-sets support the same warming trend.
First of all, it’s not the warming trend, it would be the alleged cause of the warming trend. And it’s easy to manufacture warming trends with adjusted data. There’s many, many more examples. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/massive-tampering-by-giss/
Jl: it’s not the warming trend, it would be the alleged cause of the warming trend.
Take that up with those who deny the warming trend. Oh, that would be you …
Jl: And it’s easy to manufacture warming trends with adjusted data.
Again, we have multiple methodologies and independent data-sets that support the same warming trend.
Oh goody! A graph that shows anomalies.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/19/climate-science-double-speak-update/
And we have multiple data sets proving temperature “adjustmentsâ€. https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/
Again, it easy to show warming when this happens:https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new-yorks-temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa/
formwiz: No, social Conservatism seeks to maintain the traditional values, the ones that actually work.
Social conservatives seek to maintain traditional values, whether they work or not. To do so, they often advocate for government interference in people’s lives, contradicting the claim above.
Jl: And we have multiple data sets proving temperature “adjustmentsâ€.
Ignoring the argument doesn’t make it go away.
1. Independent statistical analysis of the raw, unadjusted data supports the same warming trend.
2. Independent data-sets, including satellite observations, support the same warming trend.
Social liberals seek to abandon traditional values, whether they work or not. To do so, they often advocate for government interference in other people’s lives.
Ignoring the evidence of “adjusted†data doesn’t make it go away, either. The link about NY shows the raw, unadjusted data showing one thing, and NOAA shows something completely different. There’s many more
This has been shown before, but it seems even the alarmists are coming around to the idea that the surface temp record is contaminated. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/02/alarmists-throw-in-the-towel-on-poor-quality-surface-temperature-data-pitch-for-a-new-global-climate-reference-network/
Jl: Ignoring the evidence of “adjusted†data doesn’t make it go away, either.
That the data is adjusted is not in dispute. That there is independent support for the observed trend is evidence that the adjusted data is also supported.
Uh no. Independent support that is constrained by the same parameters of the IPCC using the same terms, values, logarithms and computer programs is not evidence or support of anything but the preceding
flawed adjusted data.
Y’all are misleading again, Kiddiez.
j,
What exactly are you arguing? Is your point that the Earth is NOT warming now?
No, never said that. I’ve said much of the warming is due to adjustments, or can’t be differentiated from normal warming. Same thing down in Australia. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/australian-temperature-records-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/
“42% of temp recording stations don’t meet NOAA’s sitting standards.†From the GAO in 2011 (under Obama). https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf
Jl: I’ve said much of the warming is due to adjustments, or can’t be differentiated from normal warming.
Start with the first fact first. The Earth’s surface is warming. You say that the surface station data has been adjusted, and can’t be relied upon; however, independent analysis of the raw unadjusted data supports the warming trend, and independent data-sources, such as satellite observations support the warming trend.
So, start with the first fact first. The Earth’s surface is warming. If you continue to deny that the evidence supports that the globe is warming, then there’s little point in discussing why it is warming.
Jl: 42% of temp recording stations don’t meet NOAA’s sitting standards.†From the GAO in 2011
So? Independent observations, such as satellite data, show that the surface station data accurately represents the warming trend. You can point to problems with the surface station data, but then you have to explain why other data-sources show the same trend.
Since 1979, kiddiez, satellite data has kept NOAA honest. The Temps did not go up as fast and as high as their (NOAA) predictions. Temp data couldn’t explain the pause, which wasn’t predicted.
So then the historical temp records were adjusted downward, which has been the contention all along…
“It’s warmingâ€. Never denied it was warming, again. Yes, as it has been since the last little ice age. The question is what’s causing it? Warming doesn’t automatically equal AGW warming. The satellite data also showed a pause of about 17yrs which directly contradict the global warming theory.. “The unadjusted raw data show a warming trend.â€. You mean the raw data that comes from sites where 42% of them don’t even match NOAA’s standards? Of course they show warming-that’s the point. Your attempt to simply ignore, for instance, the GAO report is quite amusing. .
The graph the kiddiez never refer to:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/nasa-giss-absolute-temperature.png
“The earth’s surface is warming..â€. Except for the fact that the MWP, which was as warm, or warmer, shoots all kinds of holes the gw theory. http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx
Wait for it…
“The Medieval Warm period wasn’t global.”
Ha!
Jl: Never denied it was warming, again.
What was all that about, well, nevermind. We agree the Earth’s surface is warming.
Jl: The question is what’s causing it?
That’s right. There are several ways to approach the problem.
You might consider physical first principles. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896. Arrhenius calculated a rough estimate of climate sensitivity not that much different from modern values.
You might also consider other mechanisms. When we look at natural mechanisms, however, they do not explain the warming trend, but anthropogenic causes do.
Jl: The satellite data also showed a pause of about 17yrs which directly contradict the global warming theory.
UAHv5.6 TLT 2000-present: 0.203°C/decade
Jl: Your attempt to simply ignore, for instance, the GAO report is quite amusing.
We didn’t ignore the problems with station data — we granted it! The data was collected for local weather reports, not for climate science. There’s all sorts of problems with the data. That doesn’t mean the data is useless.
But you’ve already granted the Earth’s surface is warming, so not really sure what point you are trying to make.
Jl: Except for the fact that the MWP, which was as warm, or warmer,
Probably not, but even if so, there are many mechanisms that can affect the global mean surface temperature. The problem isn’t current warming, but continued warming due to human activities.
Wikimedia… wow!
And Mann’s Hockey Stick to boot!!!
dp,
The little kids only have a file that was left by the previous Zs. They have no understanding of what they are posting, but it sounds good. The references that they have made have been discounted for decades. They go to other conservative sites and try the same thing, most just ignore them and like adolescents they will tire of the exercise and go away.
david7134: The references that they have made have been discounted for decades.
“UAHv5.6 TLT 2000-present: +0.203°C/decade” has hardly been “discounted for decades”, but is based on satellite observations over that period.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/18/an-interesting-plot-twist-call-it-an-anomaly/