What you are up against: climate alarmists and sociology

Matt Manos gets into Why It’s So Hard to Convince Warmists from the perspective of a sociologist. Note that he doesn’t get into the bigotry of the warmists in derisive labels for all who disagree and that he sticks to specific ideas and hypotheses that can be discussed and evaluated.

Penetrating rational ignorance is tough because the position warmists have taken isn’t based on logic. Their position is actually based on an appeal to authority. To question the rationally ignorant warmist is to question the field of science as a whole (to be a science denier) or to question the leadership of their favorite bellwether personalities. This will cause the rationally ignorant warmist to become defensive and try to stand up for their favorite bellwether. The rationally ignorant will also point to their favorite bellwethers and say, “Who am I to doubt all these intelligent people?” It’s intellectually offshoring. It’s lazy. It’s human nature.

 … If you really want to win the debate on global warming, change the opinions of the bellwethers. Change the economic incentives for the global warming scientific paper mill. Otherwise you’re stuck debating only the people who are unable to change their minds because it would cost them personally to do so. Rare is the person intellectually honest enough to bite the hand that feeds or is willing to violate social norms to speak the truth.

Behind this is the basic dilemma: how do people whose interest is in talking about measure and logic get a debate where feeling, emotion, and ideology are the primary factors defining conclusions? Many suggest that the Bellwethers undertake their position for reasons of influence and control. Climate change is a tool for them. The only way to change their views is to remove the potential for warmist alarmism as a path towards control and power. That would require removing the underlying governmental regulatory mechanisms that use weather and climate to rationalize new regulation. 

What that comes down to is the argument for a limited government as a government that does not have the power to tack on a little here and there is not so susceptible to those seeking power and control via corruption and regulatory misuse. 

Comments are closed.