Researchers have designed an inventive test suggesting that the arguments commonly used by climate change contrarians don’t add up, not only according to climate scientists (we know what they think already) but also in the view of unbiased experts from other fields.

The trick? Disguising the data — and its interpretation — as if it was part of an argument about something else entirely.

More

Very clever. :)

> climate change contrarians

There’s no such thing as a “climate change contrarian”.

All the article is doing is inventing fictitious arguments in order to refute them.

(Warning: The following written in Devil’s Advocate mode)

The whole climate change debate boils down to a moral question, and is thus amenable to mathematical solution.

The key question is: “Do the net benefits obtained by speeding up climate change exceed the cost of speeding up climate change?”

“Do the net benefits obtained by speeding up climate change exceed the cost of speeding up climate change?”

sounds like an invention to support the contrarian position.

I don’t like this study.

it has its problems as outlined but the premise is interesting, none-the-less.

mollwollfumble said:

> climate change contrarians

There’s no such thing as a “climate change contrarian”.

Of course there is.

“Climate change contrarians” are those who, for whatever reason, dispute the overwhelming evidence that continued unrestricted emissions of CO2 and other GHGs is very likely to cost far more than the cost of greatly reducing those emissions.

As for the study, I expect the climate change contrarians (or the pseudo-sceptics as I prefer to call them) will love it, because they can apply the same methods to their cherry-picked data, and thus further muddy the waters.

I always thought climate change denying was about the bottom line, money or profit, these changes you want whilst quite sensible for the long term future of the human race, will cut into our profit margin and even though most of us our filthy rich we aren’t filthy rich enough.

Cymek said:

I always thought climate change denying was about the bottom line, money or profit, these changes you want whilst quite sensible for the long term future of the human race, will cut into our profit margin and even though most of us our filthy rich we aren’t filthy rich enough.

No doubt a large part of it is, but I think there are some who genuinely think that a contrarian approach is valid, as opposed to a genuine sceptical approach, which considers the consequences that would arise from any of the evidence being wrong, not just the evidence that leads to the consensus view.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

I always thought climate change denying was about the bottom line, money or profit, these changes you want whilst quite sensible for the long term future of the human race, will cut into our profit margin and even though most of us our filthy rich we aren’t filthy rich enough.

No doubt a large part of it is, but I think there are some who genuinely think that a contrarian approach is valid, as opposed to a genuine sceptical approach, which considers the consequences that would arise from any of the evidence being wrong, not just the evidence that leads to the consensus view.

That’s probably a sensible approach but as usual it’s the loud mouthed ones that get all the attention and pretty much reckon its all lies or a conspiracy to get scientific research money and spend trillions on renewable energy