Religion is off the hook in this post. At the moment, my greatest frustration is with skeptics—global warming “skeptics.”
Many conservative commentators have giddily pronounced the death of global warming after the recent string of snowstorms (“snowmaggedon” or “snowpocalypse”). Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, argued “the most severe winter storm in years” would “seem to contradict Al Gore’s hysterical global warming theories.” This sentiment has opened the floodgates for all sorts of crazy. The Utah legislature recently gave global warming science a vote of no confidence. Donald Trump called for Al Gore’s Nobel Prize to be stripped away. And Glenn Beck expressed regret that climatologists haven’t committed suicide en masse over their alleged failures.
Look, an episodic snowstorm does not undermine the theory of climate change in the slightest. In fact, it’s perfectly consistent with and predicted by global warming models. Plus, there is a reason it’s called global warming. You can’t assess climate trends by looking out your window on any given day. What climatologists do instead is track the mean global temperature over time. Myopically focusing on a snowstorm, then, hides the fact that the past decade was the warmest on record and that this is among the warmest winters.
None of this is to say that there can’t be doubts about global warming. The Climategate fiasco reminds us that scientists are human—despite their occasional pretensions to objectivity. But at the very least, here’s what we do (0r should) know about climate change:
1. The world is warming.
2. Humans almost certainly play an integral role in its warming.
3. There is vast scientific consensus behind 1 and 2.
Legitimate questions can be raised about how much warming is occurring and how much exactly we’re contributing. How we should respond to climate change (if at all) should also be up for debate. I for one don’t think that climate change is an existential threat to our species and that draconian international protocols are the only recourse. So don’t lump me together with the shrillest doomsayers. I just ask that you spare me regurgitated Glenn Beck talking points.
If, like me, you know a lot of ill-informed global warming deniers, these resources will help you debunk their arguments:
Jon, what do you have to say for the tidal wave of criticism leveled against the IPCC for unsubstantiated “evidence” of man-made global warming? I have wondered why so many people interested in climate change have been silent over the recent controversy involving the IPCC… And while I agree it’s unwise to claim “snowmageddon” is proof that global warming isn’t happening, you must also acknowledge that the lack of snowfall in recent years has been heralded by the global warming crowd as “evidence” that man-made global warming is occurring (even an Obama administration scientist has disagreed with such analysis). It just seems pretty convenient that pretty much anything and everything is now “evidence” for the climate change movement. In a way, it reminds me of the simplistic use of religion to explain any/all natural occurrences.
It isn’t fair to simply disregard any criticism of man-made global warming theories as standard “neo-conservative, Sean Hannity-listening, Glenn Beck regurgitating, nonsense”. Isn’t science supposed to be flexible and open to competing theories? Or is science something which should adhere to the same rigid spirit of dogmatism which infects other professions today? It’s pretty easy to say you are right, and then proclaim that all of science is on your side… but the truth shows us that man-made global warming is being hotly debated right now, by SCIENTISTS and other professionals, especially in light of recent events involving the IPCC.
For someone who is not a scientist, but is interested in the political side of the debate, it seems to me that the climate change crusade is tumbling down like a house of cards… perhaps that’s why you feel compelled to provide ammunition for other global warming crusaders.
By tidal wave of criticisms against the IPCC, do you mean the recent spate over their unsubstantiated Himalayan glaciers claim? The criticism was deserved, and I find it disconcerting that it made it into an IPCC report, but let’s not overstate its implications. An unfortunate editorial overlook in an IPCC report is not tantamount to a conspiracy, nor does it discredit the other equally alarming claims in the same report.
Regarding this latest controversy, Bjorn Lomborg had this to say: “It’s important to say that the scandals we’ve had don’t change the fundamental point that global warming is man-made and we need to tackle it.”
Lomborg used to be the darling of global warming deniers. He was (and is) a very vocal opponent against Kyoto, and routinely disagrees with the scientific community over the particulars of climate change science. So that he said the above quote is significant.
The IPCC does some great work, but I understand and am sympathetic to some of the criticisms against the organization. I’d agree, for example, that the IPCC is too politicized. A few IPCC scientists have recently proposed institutional reforms to mitigate political interference and other problems; I think their proposals merit consideration.
It’s worth pointing out that many scientists have criticized the IPCC for the conservative nature of its reports. The science the IPCC culls together is sometimes outdated, and only reflect the “lowest common denominator” findings. In particular, the IPCC has been criticized for underestimating projected sea-level increase for this century.
Finally, the IPCC is not the only scientific body that is concerned about climate change. Far from. So skeptics are knocking a strawman when they attack the IPCC and neglect the scientific community at large.
“And while I agree it’s unwise to claim “snowmageddon” is proof that global warming isn’t happening, you must also acknowledge that the lack of snowfall in recent years has been heralded by the global warming crowd as “evidence” that man-made global warming is occurring…”
Acknowledged.
“It isn’t fair to simply disregard any criticism of man-made global warming theories as standard “neo-conservative, Sean Hannity-listening, Glenn Beck regurgitating, nonsense.”
For starters, I’d never think of neoconservatism in relation to global warming. That’s an odd juxtaposition; what would preclude a neoconservative from believing in global warming? Anywho, I’m not dismissing all skepticism as Fox News-induced. Much of it is, but certainly not all. I noted in my post that there is room for debate on the particulars of global warming, but the criticisms from Hannity, Beck and their ilk are out-of-bounds and betray their scientific ignorance.
“Isn’t science supposed to be flexible and open to competing theories?”
Yup. And for the most part, it is. If your point of view isn’t reflected in the consensus, I submit to you it’s because you’re wrong, and that you’re not the victim of collusion or conspiracy.
“For someone who is not a scientist, but is interested in the political side of the debate, it seems to me that the climate change crusade is tumbling down like a house of cards…”
The scientific support behind climate change hasn’t eroded, but I certainly fear that the political will to confront it has lost a lot of steam. So yeah, you caught me. ;)
That may change come summer, though. Every winter, public consciousness of global warming seems to disappear. If we have a hot summer this year, all these current snowstorms will melt away into obscurity and people will again be worried about global warming. Then again, concern for the environment will probably remain rather muted until the economy recovers.
Sigh.
As to the evidence for climate change, nothing we’ve seen yet has been inconsistent with global warming. I do agree that it looks like they’re simply interpreting the evidence as being in favor, but even if the event was inconsistent with global warming that doesn’t mean that global warming science is wrong. Where the concern is over long term weather conditions, one inconsistency could be meaningless if the overall trend is consistent.
While science is open to competing theories, there simply aren’t any with supporting evidence, or evidence to refute the dominant view. Science isn’t close-minded, it might be slow to change though. I think that the scientists who disagree, either haven’t studied the issue thoroughly or they simply are harboring suspicions in spite of the evidence.
s errors, it is very hypocritical of certain news organizations to act as if this shows something is terribly wrong with the IPCC.
(0) WG 1: The Physical Science Basis, WG 2: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, WG 3: Mitigation of Climate Change.
(1) Synthesis report: 104 pages. WG 1: 996 pages. WG 2: 976 pages. I was unable to find an official length for the WG 3 report, but I think it’s about the same length as the WG 1 and WG 2 reports.
(2) I am, perhaps unfairly, counting the malformed paragraph in the WG 2 report as 3 errors, and added in the 9 errors in the previously issued official errata.
Marc Neilsen said: 2010.02.17 05:00 :
This accusation is often made, but whenever I have asked for evidence of a climate scientist making any such remark, the claimant has failed to deliver. Perhaps you will be the first?
Evidence against global warming would be a long period – about 30 years – without a positive trend in global temperature anomalies. That is entirely fair, as the primary evidence that global warming is occurring is a long term upward trend in global temperature anomalies.
Marc Neilsen said: 2010.02.17 05:00 :
The IPCC AR4 consists of 4 documents, the synthesis report, and 3 reports form each of the 3 working groups(note 0) . They total about 3000 pages(note 1). There are about 12(note 2) or so known errors in those 3000 pages (after about 3 years of intense scrutiny). That is a very low error rate. Furthermore – given the errors that have occurred in the reporting of the IPCCs errors, it is very hypocritical of certain news organizations to act as if this shows something is terribly wrong with the IPCC.
(0) WG 1: The Physical Science Basis, WG 2: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, WG 3: Mitigation of Climate Change.
(1) Synthesis report: 104 pages. WG 1: 996 pages. WG 2: 976 pages. I was unable to find an official length for the WG 3 report, but I think it’s about the same length as the WG 1 and WG 2 reports.
(2) I am, perhaps unfairly, counting the malformed paragraph in the WG 2 report as 3 errors, and added in the 9 errors in the previously issued official errata.
I apologize to everyone for some of my comments appearing multiple times. No two blogs interpret html exactly alike – and sometimes I make mistakes. Since there appears to be no preview on this blog, I must experiment in order to determine the source of a problem.
The resistance to environmental stewardship here in Utah is one of the most frustrating things about living here. I really get pissed when I read the letters to the editor in the Herald Journal on this topic.
Here is my beef: even if you want to be a global warming denier, it is plenty easy to see that pollution is bad for a number of other reasons. And here in Cache Valley those reasons are not speculative and abstract, they are concrete. Like you can’t let your kids go outside to play for 20 days a winter because the air is so filthy and unhealthy that you can’t see downtown from the bench!
I do think that the environmental efforts that will find the most success are those that come from the “crunchy conservative” point of view. Pope Benedict has articulated a robust environmental vision that still recognizes the special place of man in creation. More traditional environmental arguments that level the moral status of man and animals (or, to the extreme in deep ecology, level the moral status of man and eco-systems) are not going to find any traction. Benedict’s vision integrates environmental justice with social justice and a proper understanding of the family. It is the sort of thing that conservatives ought to get excited about. (Liberals probably will not like his connecting pro-life morality to the environment, but give him credit for having an integrated and unified moral vision).
Read one of his talks on the matter here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html
By “special place”, does the Pope mean the location where priests, bishops, cardinals and popes are sent for sexually abusing little children?
Thank you for your contribution to our image as civil, thoughtful people, hyoid…
I less than three skepticalscience.com
Thanks, while there may be a bit of debate on the extent that humans play in global warming, I really liked the points made in the article. Many seem to have forgotten that climate change models result in dramatic weather changes, many of which mean increased strength of storms, including hurricanes and yes, even snow storms.
Mark does raise a good point, that for scientists arguing for climate change, both heavy snowstorms, and extremely warm winters could be “evidence” of climate change (why? because it is an abnormal change in climate…). A very easy position to be in. So in order to really validate the proof of these claims, you have to look at overall data and how well the theories/models predict outcomes. Any rational person in my mind would at least have to say that climate change as a result of humans is AT LEAST a possibility. The staunch denial by many conservatives is frustrating because rarely will they enter into a rational discussion of the possibility.
Currently with the IPCC issues, conservatives have said, “See! The data was WRONG! The conclusions were false! Therefore climate change is a myth!” A huge fallacy.
Just because there is no data does not mean that climate change was a myth, and just because a few stats twisted by biased climate change supporters does not mean all other data is wrong.
I know that climate change is always happening. I would guess that Humans are having an impact. It seems that most of the data supports this (although I recognize that I am not a scientist). And I am frustrated by the bias on both sides.
I love the last two paragraphs of James’ comment here, because they sound just like something one could hear over the pulpit at an LDS testimony meeting. Allow me to illustrate:
“Just because there is no [historical/DNA evidence] does not mean that [church history/the Book of Mormon] was a myth, and just because a few [facts] twisted by [Joseph Smith and his] supporters does not mean all other [doctrine] is wrong.
I know that [the Church] is always [true].”
Here’s a handy graphic that shows some common arguments: http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful/climate_skeptics_960.gif
In response to Kleiner, I’m glad that that the pope may be more environmentally minded than other religious leaders, but I don’t appreciate him blaming atheists for the problem.
“Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied? If the human creature’s relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the ‘final authority,’ and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.” – Pope Benedict
Here’s a random article on it: http://www.examiner.com/x-10853-Portland-Humanist-Examiner~y2009m8d29-Pope-blames-atheists-for-global-warming
Also, for the climate change skeptics, here are some links:
Here are some sources that might help,
1. NASA http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarmingQandA/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif (The graph)
2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
3. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) http://www.wmo.ch/pages/about/wmo50/e/world/climate_pages/global_warming_e.html
4. American Meteorological Society http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
5. National Center for Atmospheric Research “How do we know Earth is warming now?” http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php
6. Earth System Research Laboratory – Global Monitoring Division “Climate Forcing” http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.html
7. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp
8. Jet Propulsion Laboratory – California Institute of Technology “Global Climate Change” “How do we know?” http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
9. American Geophysical Union (world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists) “Human Impacts on Climate” http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
10. American Association for the Advancement of Science “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now” http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/
11. The United States Energy Information Administration “Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy” http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm
12. Massachusetts Institute of Technology “Report: Human activity fuels global warming” http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html
13. California Institute of Technology “How We Know Global Warming is Real” “The science behind human-induced climate change” http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf
14. Atmospheric Sciences – University of Illinois – Champaign “Evidence continues to mount that human activities are altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale.” http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/research/01climate.html
15. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution “Global Warming” http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457
16. The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre “Climate change – the big picture” http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/
17. The UK’s Royal Society “Climate change controversies: a simple guide” http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Based in Switzerland) “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report” http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
19. Japan Meteorological Agency “Global Warming Projection Vol.7” http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/gwp7/index-e.html
20. The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society “Our climate has changed substantially.” “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable.” http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications
21. Royal Society of New Zealand “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.” http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx
22. National Geographic Magazine http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/
23. Scientific American Magazine http://www.sciam.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change
The link about the Pope’s article responded with a series of ad hominems. I’ve heard plenty of atheist whining over this remark, but never a substantive response to his criticism of atheistic materialism. Frankly I think B16 is right. Materialist metaphysics and the reduced philosophical anthropology that follows cannot give an account of the intrinsic value of man nor a robust account of why we should care for the environment. If man is only matter then life becomes a game of quantity and our encounter with ourselves/others/world becomes entirely technological. The secularist and scientistic comportment cannot impart moral status to either man or nature. As such, man and nature become mere raw materials which are available for exploitation and we quickly fall into a “a feverish race to possess the most possible”.
Bottom line, in my view (and the Pope’s) a robust moral view is incompatible with the denial of transcendence. An adequate anthropology is necessary if we are to give an account of our moral obligations (to ourselves, others, or the environment). This is Benedict’s point, of course – “It is in man’s respect for himself that his sense of responsibility for creation is shown.” And any adequate anthropology has to include the category of transcendence.
Do atheists still read Nz? He is, by far, the most consistent anti-theist I can think of. He articulates everything I have said above better than I have. He is one of y our own, listen to him. But I am afraid most contemporary atheists are just the sort of people Nz abhors – chicken shits who reject God but not the consequences of rejecting God, wimps who still live by the morality (liberal democracy and all of its norms) that is simply the child of Christianity. (I don’t mean this as a mean-spirited personal attack, I lob this good-natured insult at my friend Prof Huenemann all the time). If it were possible for a materialist metaphysics to produce a robust moral framework, wouldn’t a SHAFTer have given some indication of what this would look like after dozens of calls for such a thing on this blog? The silence on that matter has become deafening.
Even people who are terrible at philosophy, people like Steven Pinker, know better. Pinker has called the idea of human dignity “stupid”. If you refuse to believe anything that is not scientifically verifiable, then why would you believe in human dignity? Why would you believe in equality? Equality is not an empirically verified idea (in fact, it seems empirically false, people are not actually equal). Equality is a moral idea. One must think beyond the merely material and the scientifically demonstrable in order to get robust moral concepts.
Here is what Pope Benedict says about the matter in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate: “When nature, including the human being, is viewed as the result of mere chance or evolutionary determinism, our sense of responsibility wanes. In nature, the believer recognizes the wonderful result of God’s creative activity, which we may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise, while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation. If this vision is lost, we end up either considering nature an untouchable taboo or, on the contrary, abusing it.”
WHY should the materialist atheist be moral? On what grounds can you justify obligations to the environment? Is materialism up to the task of explaining something like “intrinsic human dignity”? These are questions that SHAFTers need to answer. Absent an answer, no number of potshots at the Pope or at Catholic hypocrisy (Benedict has spoken about how the Christians have too often failed to heed the call to stewardship) refute Benedict’s philosophical point.
Kleiner, I find it interesting that you speak as though you have a claim to some sort of objective morality.
“On what grounds can you justify obligations to the environment?”
Umm, really? On the grounds that it is bad for me if I do not. Do I also have to justify why I should watch out for my own personal well being? Climate change is not only a problem for the individual, but also for the individual’s genetic line and for all of humanity.
“… the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.”
This sounds more like a description of an Ayn Rand type capitalism than atheism. Sure, she was an atheist, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that atheism leads to greedy capitalism. There are also plenty of religious people who strive to possess the most possible.
If you doubt that there is an objective morality from which one can speak, well then you are making my point.
I do speak as if there is objective morality, because I am a moral realist (I think there is an objective morality). And I have arguments in support of my position, a basis for my moral judgments that is rooted in a particular non-reductionistic philosophical anthropology and a natural law moral framework that follows from it. The question is whether or not materialists and atheists can justify anything other than the pursuit of self-interests. Climate change may or may not be bad for you as an individual (depends on how long it takes for the impact to be felt). But I don’t know why you have a moral imperative, from a materialist point of view, to care about future generations.
Ben – I am not saying that all atheists are Randians. I am just saying that atheists don’t have any good reason to not be Randians.
Ben is right, there are plenty of Christians who engage in this feverish pursuit of things. But they are hypocrites. The atheists who do so are just working out a natural consequence of their views.
Objective morality implies a need for something outside of our realm stating what is moral. This would call for a God of some sort. Where does God get his morality from and how is it objective?
Also, please explain your viewpoint of morality, and why an atheist couldn’t use a similar argument. Unless your moral realism requires the existence of a God?
I would argue that our basic morals stem from our evolutionary background. Simply, it was more effective to mate repeatedly if members had certain shared morals. Sure, many of us borrow some morals from Christianity, but how could we not? Almost everything in western culture has stemmed from Christianity, so it would be ridiculous not to admit that. However, that doesn’t mean that cultures without Christianity do not have morals. Just by looking at the world religions you can easily see that Christianity is not required for morals. I would even argue that if a secular society had evolved (which is very implausible because of the role beliefs play in human evolution) they would share many morals that we have.
There is a set of morals that all humans living in a large society need to cooperate under. I would call these morals objective for humans living within that society, but not objective regarding a “higher power” or any such nonsense. Also, the morals that the society must follow will constantly change throughout large stretches of time. Also, these morals will be different from culture to culture.
Also, I’m curious, you demand that atheists present some sort of objective morality, but what do you expect? Would you like us to publish a book of laws that atheists subscribe to? How would that change our own personal morals? Christianity is a clear example of having a book of rules/morals to follow but majority of believers do not follow those morals.
The reason I care about my individual genetic line is two fold. 1) it was instilled in me to care about my genetic offspring through the tinkering of evolution. 2) Offspring is the most tangible evidence of my existence, and the most influential thing I am most likely to leave behind. The second note is more personal to me.
“I am just saying that atheists don’t have any good reason to not be Randians.”
I would say that I have no reason to be a ‘Randian’. I’ve seen its impact on people, and it isn’t something that I would strive for. While I agree with some of what Rand had to say, I also disagree with a whole lot more.
…I am not saying that all atheists are Randians. I am just saying that atheists don’t have any good reason to not be Randians.
“Randians” (known elsewhere as Objectivists) are moral realists.
Dr. Kleiner:
What do you mean when you say “secularist,” “materialist,” and a “denial of transcendence”?
Secondly, while I don’t believe in God, that certainly doesn’t mean that I deny the existence thereof or adhere to materialism (as I understand it). I try to be very open to the possibility of both of those things existing, but at this point I haven’t been convinced of the reality of the former. I might some day. What’s wrong with affording myself and others the chance to figure out answers to the great questions of life before we blow each other up? I’m a 20 year old college student who knows almost nothing, and it seems imprudent to jump to hasty conclusions about the nature of the universe.
No one has it all sorted out, Mike. I certainly don’t. But I am convicted by a few things and I argue for them. I’ll continue to do so until I see another account that makes better sense. My arguments are this blog are meant to demonstrate one thing that I feel pretty damn sure about: atheistic materialism cannot provide good answers to basic questions about human nature, human experience, and morality. As I say time and time again, the absence of any positive account of atheistic and secular humanism just seems to make my point on this score for me.
Some rough and ready definitions of some terms that are getting tossed about:
Secularist: the view that faith/religion are impediments to reason and human progress. This is to be distinguished from those (like me) who think faith and reason are complimentary.
Materialist: materialism is a metaphysical view. The metaphysical claim of materialism is that the only thing that exists is matter. Everything (including things like consciousness) can be explained entirely in terms of matter and material relations. Most new atheists are scientific materialists. Not all atheists are explicit materialists, though most are (and even those who haven’t thought about it much end up being de facto materialists).
Denial of transcendence: But the overarching criticism that I have of the whole family of beliefs held by SHAFTers is that they are reductionistic. Materialism is an obvious example of a reductionist move – explain the higher (consciousness) in terms of the lower (matter). Love is just lust. Man is just a clever ape. etc etc If there is one thing that distinguishes pre-modern from modern philosophy, it is the reductionist tendency of modern philosophy. Moderns tend to explain the higher in terms of the lower. Pre-moderns tend to explain the lower in terms of the higher.
Reductive philosophies tend, then, to be immanentist. This is why functionalism and behaviorism are so prevalent, these are explanatory methods that systematically avoid the question of unseen causes. They remain within the sphere of the directly observable. But in my view, any account of man that does not include the category of transcendence is mistaken. Human nature is teleologically organized, we have ends that are both terrestrial and transcendent. Man is both earthly but also has a call to something Beyond. This can be understood in any number of ways, some of which are more explicitly theistic than others. I propose that any view that does not get a handle on this built-in tension in human nature (between the immanent and transcendent), fails to explain very basic human experiences (things like love).
If modern history has taught us anything it’s that given enough time, science will eat religion’s lunch. The “unseen things” are simply placeholders for our ignorance and not an indication of transcendent metaphysical entities. How many unknowns have we concluded are actually caused by supernatural phenomenon? Zero. How many have ultimately given way to scientific reductionism. You can’t count the number. Tons. What does this tell you?
The IPCC AR4 consists of 4 documents, the synthesis report, and 3 reports form each of the 3 working groups(0) . They total about 3000 pages(1). There are about 12(2) or so known errors in those 3000 pages (after about 3 years of intense scrutiny). That is a very low error rate. Furthermore – given the errors that have occurred in the reporting of the IPCC’s errors, it is very hypocritical of certain news organizations to act as if this shows something is terribly wrong with the IPCC.
(0) WG 1: The Physical Science Basis, WG 2: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, WG 3: Mitigation of Climate Change.
(1) Synthesis report: 104 pages. WG 1: 996 pages. WG 2: 976 pages. I was unable to find an official length for the WG 3 report, but I think it’s about the same length as the WG 1 and WG 2 reports.
(2) I am, perhaps unfairly, counting the malformed paragraph in the WG 2 report as 3 errors, and added in the 9 errors in the previously issued official errata.
What is it about Catholics and word salad?
It’s hilarious – on a good day – to hear any Christian blather on about moral frameworks, objective morality, and self-interest (as if the entire faith weren’t goalpost-shifted & dolled-up relativism, not to mention the world’s most widely-accepted example of solipsism). It stops being funny when one of them harasses a bunch of kids, threadjacks, and trolls their blog. Much like Sky Pops killing his son (who was actually a Sky Pops clone) on the cross just so the world can marvel at a walking, talking Zombie Jew, one wonders: who’s he trying to impress?
The discussions at, say, Richard Dawkins’ board (accessible from the sidebar links) tend to feature a wider audience and tend to be chewier. Of course, it’s often theists who are the chew toys, but if atheism and secular humanism have done such a shoddy job of supporting their claims, then surely a step up in weight class couldn’t possibly pose a threat. Right?
@Kleiner (re kleiner said: 2010.02.17 23:25
All very interesting, but what on earth does it had to do with the topic of the post? If you haven’t twigged yet, it’s about Climate Change and Climate Change Denial. You seem to be interested in defining words like Secularist and Materialist. Talk about Off Topic.
If you’re so interested in derailing the conversation to talk about Why Atheists Have No Morality why don’t you start your own thread instead of hijacking this one?
Shorter Kleiner: blah, I know because I know what I know, bleat, there has to be a god because it would make no sense if there weren’t because I am just too lazy to be a clear and courageous thinker and have some intellectual honesty, bloviate, and I can hijack as many threads as I want because I am a righteous windbag.
Goodness gracious, why is this blogger tolerating this troll? Ban him. And when you see him on your campus, be civil and rejoice in the fact that you can control the quality of your blog’s discussion and happily ban this delusional, selfish, vain, conceited twerp of a sloppy thinker.
Wow, nice personal attacks there, Michelle B.
Shorter Michelle B: blah, personal attacks, more blah, some talk about laziness and intellectual dishonesty (notice I completely lack substance and bring no real arguments to the table), sloppy personal attacks, blah blah, more blah…
Yeah, and you call Kleiner a troll… ha ha ha.
The trouble for Kleiner, and he knows it, is he’s afraid to put his misconceptions, blatent lies, and his outright hypocrisy, onto a blog like Pharyngula, or Dawkins blog. Pharyngula is populated by actual scientists and they would rip godbots like Kleiner a new arsehole, in fact Kleiner is an asshalf, it would take two of him to make an asshole.
In all probability he has already been to such blogs, and failed to produce one single piece of falsifiable evidence in favour of his pathetic sky fairy existing, and left with his dumbfounded beliefs shaken.
As for his “atheists lack morality” bullshit, one just has to look at how moral xians are after they beat to death yet ANOTHER child in the name of the all loving sky fairy. Morality indeed !
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/showing_children_gods_love_wit.php#comments
And if Michelle B isn’t bad, the all-knowing “Nefarious” hits center stage.
Nefarious, while the religious have their problems, the arrogant, snarky, and malicious elements of your “new atheism” movement destroy any credibility that you may think you have. People like you are literally seething with hatred, and for that reason alone, you are not worth the consideration of any audience.
To all the atheists on this blog who are my friends, this guy right here is the reason I can’t take “new atheism” seriously. While my religious colleagues can be a little overbearing at times and often risk coming off as sanctimonious… I have met too many atheists who are simply motivated by the same kind of hatred which you spew out on this blog, and it’s difficult for me to take the movement seriously at all.
Marc, please point to an instance of hatred we (myself, Jon) have spewed out on this blog.
I’m talking true hatred, not criticism. The kind of hatred those parents had for their adopted kids in that link above.
Marc, don’t dismiss atheism because of the “new atheism” or individual atheists. If you afford the LDS Church slack for the failings of its members and leaders, you should extend that same slack to atheism and atheists.
James,
Sorry, the “you” I was referring to was “nefarious,” it wasn’t directed towards you or Jon. In fact, I think you are both pretty respectful and I enjoy our discussions. I am simply making an observation here, many atheists I have met are too spiteful and malicious for my tastes. And as a result, I don’t really have much respect for the “new atheist” movement. I realize that I am generalizing here, and I don’t appreciate when others generalize about groups to which I am affiliated… but I struggle to take some atheists seriously precisely because many of them are disrespectful and rude, like nefarious above.
Jon, I agree that everyone is entitled to some slack… And the reason I enjoy having discussions with you and James, the reason I frequent this blog from time to time, is because I think you make compelling arguments and I enjoy entertaining a different point-of-view. Even Dr. Kleiner, who is obviously religious like myself, has inspired me to consider new thoughts and ideas.
Individuals like nefarious are offensive to me… and I want you to know that anyone else who makes such personal attacks against atheists and the religious would merit a similar reaction from me. Perhaps it is because of my lack of experience with atheists, but for the most part I don’t feel very friendly towards “new atheism,” as I have met too many people who are discourteous and spiteful who dogmatically follow the movement. You, James, and other SHAFTERs have helped me to wise up a little when it comes to my perceptions of atheists, but in all honesty, atheists like nefarious really poison the well for me.
Dr. Kleiner:
I enjoy your posts and overall input on this blog. I would love to continue this discussion because I think it’s important. The some of the issues you have brought up have vexed me for some time. Could you recommend some literature on how higher concepts are used to explain lower ones? I recently read the Phaedo, which I thought was fascinating, and I want to start Nicomedian Ethics. Do you have any other suggestions?
Wow, where did you guys all come from? How did you chance upon our blog?
I’m glad you did, but I’d ask that you be more civil in the future. Prof. Kleiner is a friend of mine, and I almost always appreciate his contributions to this site’s discussions. It’s wrong for some of you to try to chase him out.
I don’t think Kleiner is under the illusion that he’s sparring with atheism’s best. He could probably engage more intelligent atheists elsewhere. But, to be honest, I don’t think the Dawkins’ and PZ Meyers’ sites are fair playing grounds. I’m sure there are very smart, scientifically-educated atheists who participate in those forums, but their voices would likely be drown out in a debate by the more ignorant and obnoxious atheists who post there.
Finally, you give Kleiner grief for not confronting the best of atheism, but have you confronted the best of theism? Do you regularly debate thoughtful theists on their own turf, at blogs like First Things?
In any case, welcome to the SHAFT blog.
Wow. Let me catalogue the insults: selfish, vain, delusional, conceited twerp, sloppy thinker, blatent lies and misconcetptions, beleiver in a pathetic sky fairy, bloviate, lazy, lacks courage, righteous windbag, and troll. Now there is some quality civil engagement in ideas for you. Ladies and gentlemen, the anti-theists and apostles of reason (or is it apostles of ad hominems?). At least the blogger who called me an “asshalf” was funny.
I am not “afraid” of the Dawkins blog. I’ve visited it and it seems, as Jon says, to be overrun with blowhards. Either way, I just don’t care about engaging anonymous people in the blogosphere. When I engage atheists it is with my local colleague Prof Huenemann (who grants much of what I say and is just willing to live with the consequences of Nz) and it is with my atheist students (most of whom are not willing to live with the consequences of Nz). I engage them because they are my friends and, as Aristotle says, one can only do philosophy with their friends. This SHAFT blog is mostly populated by locals from the Utah State University community. Most of the frequent bloggers on this site are current or former students of mine. I frequent this blog for a handful of reasons. (a) I am interested in engaging and challenging my students outside of the classroom. I have high regard for them as students and I personally like and care for them. And I think it is an act of love (not to mention one basic function of being a philosopher) to disabuse friends of error. (b) I am interested in these arguments. I was raised atheist and I take atheism very seriously (I wish some anti-theists would return the favor). Sometimes I don’t think atheists take atheism seriously enough (in particular, I don’t think they take seriously enough the specter of Nz). (c) The SHAFTers don’t seem to mind (or at least they graciously tolerate) my ongoing challenges. I don’t think it is out of place, they call themselves free thinkers so I am just offering up challenges to some of their presuppositions. The end game is not to win or to bully. The end of dialogue is reasonability and truth. And, it is worth noting, the frequent contributors to this page are considerable more respectful than our recent visitors, most of whom posted overheated bits of canned anti-theist rhetoric with absolutely no substance. I am proud to say that the SHAFTers are better than that. If they weren’t, I wouldn’t visit the blog. Only serious people deserve to be taken seriously.
Readers of this blog know that I reject the “god of the gaps” (in fact, I just sent Jon an article that he posted critical of these arguments). But it was nice to see a straw man thrown in to mix it up since all the other posts were ad hominems. Anyway, I second Jon’s remark – I wonder if the posters engage serious and thoughtful theism – the kind of theism that has serious rebuttals to the worn out new atheist bullet points. First Things is a good place to start. And you might actually read folks like Aquinas, Augustine and Pope Benedict. They all shit bigger than all of us (including Dawkins). In terms of contemporary debates, by any measure Pope Benedict/Ratzinger is one of the great intellectuals of our time.
One last aside before I move on to Ben (whose posts were thoughtful). I did not mean to hijack this post. I offered a “crunchy conservative” argument for environmentalism since I, like most SHAFTers, am tired of the those who don’t see any moral obligations to steward our environment. Ben replied, and we’ve had an interesting discussion about it. I presume Ben has enjoyed the discussion too, for if he didn’t care to engage the conversation then he would not have and it would have died a natural blog death.
Ben – obviously I do not expect a book length treatise on materialist morality. I could not do justice to my view on a blog either. But I would like to see you or others at least present a gloss or a summary of your view. This would include your view of human nature, what the foundations of your moral obligations are, etc etc. I don’t want a “book of laws”. What I want is an atheistic account of WHY I ought to be moral, why moral obligations have any real claim on me. In other words, I want a gloss on secular humanism. The atheist I respect the most, Nz, seems to understand that no such account could be given. If God is dead then it is just will to power. Period.
My view: I think basic moral claims are available to natural reason, and for this reason can be universally known across culture. I say this because I think morality is “writ into” human nature. A careful investigation into man, the development of an adequate philosophical anthropology, will drive our ethics. My ethics trades heavily on the work of Aristotle along with the natural law.
But Ben is right, eventually the foundation of my ethics will make a move to the transcendent. This move can take various forms, from Platonism (not particularly theistic) to Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover (more theistic) to Aquinas (explicitly theistic). This because the natural law will have to be ultimately rooted in the eternal law. That said, one can know the effect (human nature and moral norms) without knowing the ultimate cause (God).
So, in a nutshell, to defend my ethics I would first need to defend a teleological metaphysics of man. Having done that and having then observed basic goods for man (that man is naturally oriented to certain ends), I would be off and running (able to articulate particular moral obligations along with habits of character- virtues – which enable flourishing and the actualization of my natural ends). The metaphysics of man to which I subscribe find an excellent and very accessible presentation in the oft cited Machuga book, “In Defense of the Soul” (also a fine place to get a rejection of reductionism and an account of explaining the lower in terms of the higher). For a more thoroughgoing look at the ethics, McInerny’s “Ethica Thomistica” is a good start.
Ben points to an evolutionary backdrop for morality. But even Dawkins admits that morality remains a “mystery”. Here is my beef: even Dawkins admits that materialists cannot yet explain morality and consciousness. So what the hell kind of an anthropology is that? My assertion is that it is not just that materialists cannot YET explain it (I am NOT making god of the gaps argument), I think their reduced materialism is simply incapable of explaining these things.
Ben admits that some of our moral norms are Christian inheritances. I think we’d all agree on that. But I am not pressing you on what you believe (most of our moral views are probably similar), I am pressing you on WHY you believe it. If the moral norms are just inherited, then you have no rational basis for believing and obeying them. To borrow from both Nz and Sartre, you would have killed God but continued to live as if God were not dead. (By the way, I quite agree that you don’t need to be Christian to know moral norms. I am a humanist, after all – I think moral norms are available to natural reason).
At the end of the day, I think materialist atheists are stuck with one of two views: Hume’s emotivism or some form of consequentialism (like Utilitarianism). Ben seems to lean in both directions.
Sometimes he speaks as if morality is merely a projection of feeling (this is Hume’s view). To say something is “immoral” is just to say that “I don’t like it”. (I’ve seen Randianism and I don’t like it, it makes me feel bad). In my view, Hume’s emotivism is much too thin. The Humean has no response to the “sensible knave”, much less an answer to Thrasymachus or Nietzsche. Hume’s ethics are ultimately groundless. Some (Huenemann) are willing to live with this. I am not, and I don’t think we should.
Sometimes Ben speaks like a consequentialist (I’ve seen the effects of Randianism and the effects are bad). So perhaps you could be a utilitarian, but you’d have to make some claims about human nature first (at least psychological hedonism). But I think utilitarianism is inadequate. First of all, it is a moral system that can justify moral monstrosities. And I also think utilitarianism fails because I see no real justification for why I ought to care about anyone’s interests other than my own. Again, it has no real answer to Thrasymachus and Nz.
Ben also suggests a mild relativism. I’ve posted on this before – I entirely reject moral relativism. The immediate trouble is that the relativist hangs himself with his relativism. You undercut your ability to make any actual moral judgments. If morality is relative, then any claims that people ought to care about the environment is utterly toothless.
Actually, I think materialist atheists are stuck with one of three views. Hume’s emotivism, consequentialism, or Nz’s overman and skepticism of morality (taken up more recently by people like Foucault). If I were an atheist (and when I was an atheist), I would say that Nz’s view is the most consistent up and down. I don’t think either Hume or Mill can really respond to Nz.
It’s pretty weird. I’ve spent a great amount of time on philosophy forums and youtube arguing against atheist moralists about this. Too many atheists are attached to the notion morality, and many of them attack religion on moral premises or have had issues with religion on moral premises (e.g. Jon’s posts on LDS racism), hence their attachment to what is an obvious fiction. Moral skepticism naturally flows from atheism. I myself adhere to moral error theory, which is a subset of moral nihilism, which is a subset of moral skepticism.
Please keep any further morality discussions confined to the morality thread.
Public service announcement to hyoid and the other recent posters of his ilk: If you are going to mock others for being unreasonable, you might want to actually be reasonable yourselves. Take a logic class. Find out what a fallacy is. No number of personal attacks or identifications of hypocrisy disprove an idea. Christians sometimes do bad things and are often hypocrites, but this does no make Christianity false. I might be a douchebag, but that does not make my philosophical positions false. When you mock others for believing silly things but are incapable yourselves of making non-fallacious arguments, well it is just pretty damn hard to take you seriously.
Dr. Kleiner:
I have a couple of questions. First, why does Nz favor himself over others? What’s his philosophical reason for doing so? Why should I care about myself and my desires? It’s like when my friend Eli threatens me with damnation if I don’t worship his conception of Christ. My answer is “So?” (I think that he is trying to play upon my sense of self-preservation or well-being, and I don’t mean this as a response to all Christian theologies, just his.)
Secondly, wouldn’t Nz have to first establish that there is a “self”? How does he know that we are islands unto ourselves, that the “I” or “me” really exist?
You’ve talked about teleology. But surely, if a knife is made to kill an innocent does that mean it’s good for the knife to do so? Wouldn’t we have to establish that this creator is good, and maybe even perfectly good?
It would be impossible for me here to be fair to Nz. In a nutshell, I think Nz would actually reject unified notions of the “self”. For Nz, “I” am a tempest of competing desires and inclinations. That I restrain some and not others is because I have fallen prey to slavish moralities like Christianity. The task of life, for Nz, is to say yes to everything without getting pulled apart. SHAFT might invite Prof Huenemann to speak on Nz. He has recently published a book on Nz and really knows his stuff. He could do a talk on Nzian health and Nz’s critique of Christian “pathology”. I have some quibbles with Huenemann on his account of Nz, but on the whole I think he gives him excellent treatment.
Seriously though, yes you are right. To fully work out a teleological view you have to do some natural theology (show that God is good).
Knives don’t kill people, people kill people.
I think the general complaint is one regarding staying on-topic, not the merit or quality of discussion.
Atheists care about the environment for the same reason that people don’t generally burn down their own homes.