Climate trolls

Scott Adams has been talking about a couple of issues lately - obviously trolling although he does seem to actually believe what he is saying as well.
I am not sure why I keep feeling the urge to reply but hopefully documenting the obvious holes here will ease the desire. For a number of reasons I prefer not to respond on his site - I don't feel I want to login to comment for one, I really hate to feed the troll - which includes the other commenters, and there are so *many* comments that it is probably pointless anyway.
While Scott's statements are (deliberately) inflammatory, there are points of interest. The insight into Trump for instance, says more about American population than it does about the target. One clear point is Adam's own cognitive dissonance on the topic. He admittedly admires Trump and that is seriously colouring his interpretation of events, even to the point of changing his previous system of agreeing with the experts when he does not understand a topic. Trump himself, of course, disregards... no not disregards - denigrates - anyone who disagrees, whatever their level of expertise in the area.

As Feynman said "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled" - although there may be disastrous fallout in the meantime if the people who ARE fooled head off in the wrong direction. Feynman said this while investigating the Challenger disaster. In that case management convinced themselves as well as the funding bodies that no problem could possibly arise, while the engineers were constantly warning about known issues. There are significant similarities to the conversation about climate change.
But to cover Adams' comments- first he uses his favourite straw-man argument, talking about climate models. No, models are not accurate. Yes, there are multiple ones around each of which state something slightly different. No, the details don't agree with observed reality. As a business man, Adams knows that there are multiple ways to predict future earning, none of which predicts the future accurately but are essential to operations.
Actually, this is not a bad analogy since the climate change models are the same order of complexity, accuracy and uncertainty. Except that we are talking about the stock market, not an individual business. Who believes, that the stock market will drop suddenly? The market has risen and fallen in the past, but the smart money is on a continuing upward trend.

But that is not the point either. The models are used to predict the future, but they are not the core of the argument for climate change. Past performance shows an unprecedented increase compared with at least the last 12,000 years. The safe bet is that it will not suddenly stop. The models are just a fancy way of saying that. And, yes the data is based on a limited set of evidence, but it is a limited set in each of about a dozen difference disciplines each of which agree on the rough numbers. There is no precision in the data - but there is a clear trend.

But even that does not directly address Scott Adams central argument - which is mostly about his 'persuasion filter' and 'bullshit' detector. He says that there are significant disadvantages to any scientist who doesn't toe the party line and so everyone is jumping on the band wagon to keep their jobs. Which is shows a major lack of understanding of the scientific process for someone who claims to trust experts.
Climate change has been under discussion in the scientific community for decades. There were books about it in the 70's. It is not a new idea and there have been at least two occasions I can recall where action was taken to succesfully reverse human impact on the atmosphere. The acid rain problem, especially in Europe, was mitigated by cutting sulphur emissions and the hole in the ozone layer is finally starting to close over due to reductions in CFC usage. Neither problem is, or will be, completely solved.
In both cases, there was major push back from the companies most effected by the fix, and their politicians, about who's fault it was, who should pay and especially about whether the problem really existed. Which is the same as the current (political, not scientific) argument about climate change.

So the underlying issue is that there has been a recent - last five, maybe ten years - push back against science which has been on-going for decades. The denial camp is the late comer and, as challenger, the burden of proof is on them. However, the core arguments seem to be simply - "I don't want to believe it". I have not heard anything more substantial.
Nonetheless, these arguments carry some weight and this is core to Adams' point. The deniers are better persuaders. Of course, this does not mean they are right, or even that they believe their own arguments, only that they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Carbon emissions come, in the main, from energy generating systems - including the petrochemical industry. There is a  lot of money, political clout and - importantly - persuasive people involved in those areas. Ones that do not like to lose, and have the will and the means to prevent it.
In that context, it is interesting to note that the last 5-10 years also covers the rise of NewsCorp as it took control of much of the world media. Murdoch is definitely a master persuader - that is his entire business. He is also a climate change denier and most (if not all) of the arguments against it were first published in his media.


But back to the point; Adams apparently is a denier because that side of the "argument" have better persuasion skills. Of course, as every debater knows the ability to convince people of your argument is completely irrelevant to the reality. Climate change denialism is a flag of convenience for the folks at the top. It's a loyalty oath and a touchstone: they don't necessarily believe it, but it's very convenient to fervently preach it in public if you want to continue to turn a profit.
So, the story about your average joe scientist toeing the party line to avoid losing his job is backward. It is not a conspiracy of silence amongst thousands of people, but rather a concerted effort by a small number of master persuaders.

Finally, a comment about the fears of taking action whether or not climate change is real. As I understand it, and I haven't heard a good explanation, the problem of improving the world anyway is the potential economic impact. Which, of course, is not supported by economists or by ANY economic theory.

Taking action on climate change means adding regulation to a number of old, well entrenched industries - the ones who make profit from cost-cutting and processing efficiencies. The ones who are best able to automate, shed jobs and reduce costs. New industries are required for handling renewable energy and sustainable approaches - ones that create work that has not existed before and need experienced people to fill them. Ones that will spin off secondary industries to make use of what they produce.
While there is a threat to the old guard, for the rest of us, we stand to gain more work, better, cheaper products due to new production processes, cleaner air and water.

 But of course, this has all been said before and don't claim to be a great persuader, so it is unlikely any of this will make any difference at all... but I do feel I needed to say it.