2010-07-02 Ten camps

2010-07-02 Michael Tobis Only In It For The Gold \global warming/skepticism\global warming http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/07/ten-camps.html Ten camps Ten camps The author suggests that participants in the dialogue about global warming can be divided into three major camps, with a total of ten subdivisions: I. MOSTLY ACTIVISTS

We believe that there is so little evidence against the proposition of risky anthropogenic climate change that current policy inaction is clearly and grossly inappropriate.
 * Ia - postmodern climate scientists, who believe that the press has failed to communicate to the public, and feel ethically obligated to step up; mostly interested in conveying understanding to the public (Schneider is the prototype; RC editors, Eli, Stoat, Bob Grumbine, myself). Believe an informed public is crucial to a sound policy. Often represented by blogs.
 * Ib - climate scientists who have been inducted into IPCC WG I and have been explicitly asked to communicate; charged with conveying the balance of evidence to the policy sector
 * Ic - WG II and impacts communities, especially ecological sciences; were already politicized and frustrated before climate became an issue
 * Id - Committed activists who use science as a legalistic debating hook; may be aware of mitigating evidence but try not to discuss it; mostly interested in using science in debate toward supporting active policy (Romm is the prototype)

II. MOSTLY PASSIVISTS ("INACTIVISTS")

Believe that climate science is extremely immature AND that, lacking evidence, the sensitivity of the system to anthropogenic perturbations implicitly MUST be small compared to natural perturbations.


 * IIa - Credentialed scientists; a very small group which would barely exist were it not for the extrascientific momentum of the inactivists. Opinions carry little weight among honest scientists.
 * IIb - Committed activists who use science as a legalistic debating hook; may be aware of mitigating evidence but try not to discuss it; mostly interested in using science in debate toward opposing active policy (Watts)
 * IIc - The really odd group; scientifically educated people from other fields who approach climate science with a hostile attitude. Various levels of sophistication and ideological commitment; generally have a pro-science attitude, but various levels of understanding in the conduct of observational science. Typically though not always very weak grasp of climate physics and a consequent overemphasis on statistics. Often saddled with a very confused idea of the history of climate science and the state of the scientific culture. Extremely difficult to address as a group. (McIntyre, Liljegren).

III. "NEUTRAL" IN STANCE

Try to maintain a posture of balance in some way between the other positions. Effectively act as allies for inactivists.


 * IIIa - The majority of climate scientists (non-postnormalists or normalists) who believe that policy is somebody else's job, who have no IPCC role, and who have not yet been attacked by the Morano wing. Believe (with Pielke Jr.) in the purity of science and the traditional model of it. Not interested in policy; sometimes grim and fatalistic about it.
 * IIIb - The mainstream press, which have grossly misidentified IPCC-like consensus and skepticism as the two wings of the scientific debate. Believe in informing the public but accidentally misinform them. Keith and Andy Revkin are exemplary.
 * IIIc - Academics, generally not from physical or biological sciences, who see career advancement opportunities in a neutral stance and don't fully understand the scope of the risks. Usually economists, political scientists, some academic engineers. Almost invariably represented in the press by Roger Pielke Jr.

It may be useful to add this to the global warming position quiz in some form.

The author suggests that participants in the dialogue about global warming can be divided into three major camps I(activists, inactivists, and neutrals), with a total of ten subdivisions.   