Even if there were almost no skeptical scientists, I don’t think you can make the case that the science supporting AGW is “pretty good.” At least not for the purpose of supporting policy measures and certainly not the extraordinary changes alarmists are demanding.

To establish that the case has been made scientifically, I believe that the science should be proven. Every element of the case for AGW should be established by studies which have been replicated repeatedly by other disinterested scientists and checked and re-checked. The work should be transparent for all to see. Quality control should be the highest possible. Statistical work in the studies should be examined thoroughly by experts in statistics and reflect the best approach available. Given the enormous stakes, that doesn’t seem too much to ask.

Nothing remotely close to that has been done. We have slipshod garbage like the hockey stick accepted as gospel throughout the climate science community without anyone bothering to check anything. Doesn’t exactly inspire any confidence in that scientific community. Given the growing pile of quality disasters piling up of alarmist studies, why should anyone afford them any credibility? Quality control is poor. Transparency is a joke. Replication is non-existent. And politics dominates.

They don’t have enough credibility to have “proven” anything.

let me venture a distinction that seems to have been overlooked: “demagoguery” refers to a class of tactics for obtaining and strengthening their political power

Agreed. The climate scientists are resorting to these tactics, and they are doing so in an attempt to strengthen their political power.

That they fail just means demagogy doesn’t always work.

…4) no doubt those whom you consider demagogues have differing views as to the justification and efficacy of their actions.

The word “demagogy” has a definition. It’s even discussed at legnth at wikipedia.

I described the climate scientists resorting to using logical fallacies like strawmen, red herrings, appeals to authority and appeals to motive.

At the wikipedia, you will find these listed under “methods” of demagogy.

Those who use these methods may think their actions justified, or the methods effective. However, by definition of the word itself, resorting to these methods means resorting to demagogy.

As it happens, blog posts complaining their methods of communication are have been ineffective appear on a number of pro-AGW blogs. You are right they may not see the connection between their failure to communicate and the tactics that appear in comments, above the fold, in newspaper columns etc. And, maybe I’m wrong and they are ineffective for other reasons.

I think it’s the demagogy that is causing them to fail.

But while we`re talking about it, let me venture a distinction that seems to have been overlooked: “demagoguery” refers to a class of tactics for obtaining and strengthening their political power. Those who do not aspire to such political power are not “demagogues” – though they may be prophets crying from the wilderness, blowhards, Cassandras, pundits etc. Of course their behavior remains fair game for discussion.

I checked the dictionary and apparently demagoguery and demagogy are both OK, even though I have a natural preference for demagoguery. To me, demagogy sounds like a religion that worships demagogs.

I think both the topics themselves and the behavior of people who address the topics (and profess to have credibility due to “science” as opposed to other sources of legitimacy) should be equally open to critique, discussion and evaluation.

“Environmental groups assumed that once the debate over the science was settled, the debate over policy would be settled too. But things didn’t turn out that way.

The strategy worked. News coverage today rarely, if ever, cites sources who question the existence of climate change or its anthropogenic origins. And few policymakers continue to publicly question climate change. The assumption among environmental leaders was that once the scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change was occurring was established, this consensus would translate into a consensus as to what to do about it — a consensus that would embrace the policies long advocated by the national environmental movement, namely the Kyoto framework at the international level and cap and trade legislation at the domestic level.

But a funny thing has happened over the last several years, as opinion about the reality and urgency of the climate crisis has “tipped.” The consensus that would allegedly result once broad public acceptance of anthropogenic climate change was achieved has fractured. Efforts to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Accord at the international level have stalled, as developing economies, led by China and India, have balked at any framework that would constrain carbon emissions and slow economic development in the developing world, where most of the growth of carbon emissions over the next century will come from. The fragile coalition of businesses, some segments of the energy industry, and environmentalists that appeared ready to support a domestic cap and trade system has frayed, as the environmental movement has demanded that all carbon allowances be auctioned and business interests have balked at the increasing costs of the regulations.”

It sounds like Nordhaus is really saying that, rather than any “consensus” collapsing, what is happening is that those who hoped that agreement on the scientific basis for concern would translate easily into particular policies are finding out that it just ain`t so. It`s not clear to me that environmentalists generally held such assumptions, but in any case it seems to me more productive to focus on incremental policy suggestions that will win domestic and international support. (I met Prins last year and am familiar with his writings, BTW.)

In any case, I would note that I agree wholeheartedly with what you said last year: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/joe-romm-throws-another-fit-4812

“The “facts” do not determine whose political views are right and whose are wrong. Saying that science “inexorably” leads into a certain political direction is just wrong, and introduces a set of pathologies into the policy process. It leads people to the mindless tribalism and unsupportable claims to absolute certainty about science, as often displayed by Romm.”

I would note that the pathology you point to in Romm is shared by many in the virtuous, patriotic, freedom-loving camp of various Amy Ridenours, who have similarly assumed that climate science dictates policy, and so until recently have preferred to base their arguments over policy on disagreements over science.

I confirm that I was only trying to understand/explain behavior, not to condone or endorse it.

As to the “demagoguery”, I would merely note that (1) we do not share instantaneous access to all information, (2) even if we did, we would likely interpret it differently and have differing preferences regard to action, (3) we are all adept at self-justification, and (4) no doubt those whom you consider demagogues have differing views as to the justification and efficacy of their actions.

Discussions about demagogy that focus simply on the efficacy of the tactic employed may be useful, but I think that such discussions may easily lose focus. Focussing on the on the merits of policies advocated may be more productive.