Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 3rd, 2013,
Robyn Williams: Did you hear Tom Griffiths the historian on Late Night Live last Tuesday on those who deny climate change? As if it’s a matter of belief.
Tom Griffiths: Yes, isn’t that a very interesting way of undermining understanding of what is a scientific theory. Scientific theory is not a matter of negotiation, it’s not a matter of voting, it’s not a matter of belief. Dissent is only credible if it’s founded on testable evidence and has an alternative holistic theory. And I believe that the IPCC has probably made a mistake in using the word ‘consensus’, which we hear a lot, because consensus sounds like politics, not science. It evokes compromise and negotiation, it suggests somehow the majorities are instrumental and possibly temporary. And it seems to allow space for contrary or dissenting opinions without need for new evidence, that you can have a political stance or an emotional stance or a stance on belief. And sceptics and contrarians will often use those terms about belief, about dissent, about being an agnostic on this issue, as if it is a matter for personal belief.
Redfearn, G. 2013. How commentators and the blogosphere treat climate sceptics, 3 August. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/how-commentators-and-the-blogosphere-treat-climate-sceptics/4858714#transcript
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 397ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that climate denial had not gone away, and was continuing to be funded where necessary. But also we should never forget there are just people who have resolutely decided that 19th century physics must be some gigantic conspiracy, and that if a problem involves collective action via states, then it must automatically be a hoax.
The specific context was that journalists and academics always like to have something to write articles about, because published articles is how you keep score, how you get grants, how you get professorships, how you get corner officers, and PhD students you can bully/steal from, and so forth.
What I think we can learn from this: sceptics, like the poor, will always be with us
What happened next. Well, the bullshit just keeps on bullshitting, doesn’t it? And the academics keep on scribbling.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Also on this day:
August 3,1958 – under the pole goes the Nautilus
August 3, 1970 – Nixon warned about climate change and icecaps melting
August 3, 1988 – Exxon tries to downplay “the greenhouse effect.” Again.