Why Ethics Requires Encouraging Warmists To Make Silly Links Between Tornadoes and Climate Change
There’s a Donald A. Brown Associate Professor at Penn State happy to demonstrate that professorships should be assigned more carefully, and teaching of “environmental ethics, science, and law” is too much for person to do.
For those not in the know, Prof (Ha!) Brown has used lots of words to argue that “Ethics Requires Acknowledging Links Between Tornadoes and Climate Change Despite Scientific Uncertainty“. Basically, even if science says there’s no link (perhaps, just perhaps, there’s a negative link), Prof (Ha! Ha!) Brown argues that the link must be done because in the face of possible future disasters, it’s ethical (??) to lie now to the public.
Reactions have been predictable, from debunking to horrified to speechless. But (as already suggested at Revkin’s place), personally, I do welcome silly professors saying silly things about climate change (they mean, about AGW). In fact (this is my comment at Lubos’):
By overusing the AGW concept, [they] will cheapen it to oblivion. Furthermore if AGW is a moral cause, then it’s demonstrably non-scientific, as science will only take the third place after ethics and politics. So the IPCC becomes even less important, or meaningful.
Go, go, AGW go…one stupid claim at a time, and AGW will soon be gone!!
The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE 
Let me just say right off that I accept that 97 – 99% of all PhD climate scientists believe that the earth is warming due to the effects of land use and green house gasses being released into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates during the reign of the modern human being… and I defer to their expertise and the presentation of the information.
I’m [not] shocked by the number of strawmen arguments, even if in jest. Really..hate the poor because we want to wean the masses off of fossil fuels… flip that – will they be able to afford the electric bills to run the A/C non-stop? Too much BS here – look at the science for a change and stop making fun of the stories. The science is solid, and as with all science, it’s got error bars.
And I think you’ll find that the scientists are not saying there is a direct causal link between
the unprecedented number of severe storms and weather, but that it is predicted that destabilization of the climate due to global warming will occur and with it more severe storms — which is exactly what we are already seeing.
Does anybody deny that CO2 can trap heat? Venus is a pretty damn good example of it. We need CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the temperatures warm enough for life, that’s a fact. Why deny that the more of it there is, the more heat is trapped and not re-radiated to space?
And – if you are still reading…science is self-correcting. You won’t find that you can lie in science at this scale and get away with it. If you are already thinking this is a conspiracy, then there is no hope…nothing will dis-confirm your theories…any counter-evidence will only be part of the conspiracy.
Here’s hoping some of you wake up a little bit and realize that Greenland’s rate of melt and the low level of summer sea ice in the Arctic are not just flukes, along with all the other converging lines of evidence.
Steve
(a) if you “defer to their expertise” then why should anybody care of your opinion on the topic?
(b) “The science is solid”. As if…check the uncertainty in expected temperature increase between the IPCC TAR and AR4.
(c) If “it is predicted that destabilization of the climate due to global warming will occur” then such a destabilization cannot be happening now. And by the way, there is no scientific indication that it is happening.
(d) Venus is not a good example. There are many, many differences between Earth and Venus, not just atmospheric composition.
(e) “science is self-correcting”. Yes. It doesn’t mean climate science has self-corrected itself as yet.
(f) “If you are already thinking this is a conspiracy”. I have repeatedly stated I do not believe AGW is a conspiraacy.
(g) “Converging lines of evidence” have not converged enough, evidently. It’s all a matter of opinion.
We are told “to lie – by people who find it easy to lie.” – Dr. Chandra – 2010 The Odyssey Continues.
MM – I sent a comment, very similar in sentiment to that which you express here, 2 days ago to professor Brown but he did not post it. Philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates have to be spinning in their graves at the retardation of reason and logic provided by the likes of psychologists like professor Brown. Professor Brown is making great progress though in moving his followers towards the menality prevalent in Mayan sacrificial rituals which i’m sure he hopes will soon ward off evil deniers. :*)
Look at Stuart Pimm’s blog, him having a violent disagreement with Nature magazine for publishing the species extinction rate overestimation paper:
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/21/this-week%e2%80%99s-claim-that-the-species-extinction-crisis-is-overblown-is-a-sham/
Comments follow:
1] “When is it acceptable for scientists to abdicate scientific integrity and social responsibility to garner attention? Never, in my opinion. Already, the anti-conservationists and climate-deniers are busy citing He and Hubbell to dismiss any evidence of the dire consequences of “business as usual” for humankind. ”
2] “I am an ecologist with experience in wildlife conservation policies. I have enthusiastically subscribed to Nature’s newsletters immediately after I have graduated, at the dawn of the Internet era. I realized eventually that the Nature publication doesn’t have any reverence to nature. This paper is a dire confirmation of my hunch.”
I’ve just submitted a comment pointing out that to call the IPCC “Nobel Prize winning” means to omit it was the Nobel Peace Prize. Will it pass censorship?
This just goes to show that the greenies want to believe that humans are evil no matter what the science says. Climate change alarmism is a faith.
I read Prof Brown’s article. While it has “problems” I feel you seriously misrepresent his position. He much more carefully qualifies his statements than is obvious from your critique and there is some merit in some of his arguments. It doesn’t serve anyone’s cause very well if a writer can justifiably dismiss a “critical” review as grossly biased. Giving a bit more credit where credit’s due and majoring on genuine problems with a paper will get you better results long term.
Russell – is there any link? no. What is therefore making a link? It’s fabricating a lie. Cue inflationing of AGW . end of paper.
Do we need 20 year olds still beliving in the tooth fairy? Why would we want people believing a fabrication on storms and climate?
The real ethical argument is why the alarmists refuse to want reliable plentiful electric power for the developing world.
The BBC interviewed a Nigerian the other day and when asked what he wanted from the forthcoming elections he replied ‘Power!’ ‘Political power’ the interviewer asked, ‘No, Electric Power!!’
Just about says it all.
I know what you mean. The greenie left have a hate on for poor people. They want expensive electric power which will hurt poor people, it won’t bother the rich. They want expensive gas which will make poor people take the bus, it won’t bother rich people. They want everyone to pay for solar panels and wind turbines which will drive up the cost of everything, which again only hursts the poor, it won’t bother the rich. I don’t understand why they like to beat up on the poor so much. It’s truly bizaar.