Tag Archives: catastrophe

CAGW: A Snarl Word?

The term has both appropriate and inappropriate usage.

This is a mirror of my guest post at Prof Curry’s ‘Climate Etc’ blog last week :
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/26/cagw-a-snarl-word/

Footnotes file here (common to ‘The Catastrophe Narrative’ companion post below):
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/footnotes1.pdf

  1. Introduction

Rational Wiki says: ‘CAGW”, for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific literature on climate.’10

Where in turn the link for ‘snarl word’ says: ‘A snarl word is a derogatory label that can be attached to something (or even to people), in order to dismiss their importance or worth, without guilt. When used as snarl words, these words are essentially meaningless; most of them can be used with meaning, but that seldom happens.

So setting aside the snarl implications of the word ‘denialist’11 above, is all the usage of the ‘CAGW’ acronym meaningless, i.e. it is essentially a snarl word only? Or is there significant meaning associated with some usage? i.e. does it have legitimate, ‘non-snarl’ currency also, associated with real meaning? Continue reading

Advertisements
Posted in Social Psychology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Catastrophe Narrative

A narrative propagated by emotive engagement, not veracity.

This post came out on Prof Curry’s most excellent blog ‘Climate Etc’ yesterday.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/14/the-catastrophe-narrative/

Footnotes file here (common to ‘The CAGW Snarl Word’ companion post below):
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/footnotes1.pdf

  1. Introduction

Within the public domain there is a widespread narrative of certainty (absent deep emissions cuts) of near-term (decades) climate catastrophe. This narrative is not supported by mainstream science (no skeptical views required), and in the same manner as an endless sequence of historic cultural narratives, propagates via emotive engagement, not veracity.

The catastrophe narrative is propagated by all levels of authority from the highest downwards, granting it huge influence, and differentially via favored functional arms of society, plus at grass roots level. Over decades, various forms via which the catastrophe narrative best propagates have become established via selection, and can be categorized. While covering a large range, these forms typically feature powerful emotive cocktails (mixed emotions invoked simultaneously) and great urgency, which are highly adapted to undermining objectivity.

This narrative elephant in the room not only tramples upon the mainstream output of science, but all other  attempts at objectivity, at a minimum invoking bias wherever it propagates, and at maximum a complete disconnect from domain realities. While the catastrophe narrative is sometimes acknowledged even by those on the orthodox side of the climate change issue, it is typically neither studied nor opposed (and not infrequently its propagation is praised). On the skeptic side, there is often misunderstanding regarding who propagates this narrative and who merely fails to oppose it, which leads to mis-labelling. These issues are discussed in more detail within a companion post to be released shortly. Below deals just with narrative propagation and the forms via which this occurs. Continue reading

Posted in Social Psychology | Tagged , , | 4 Comments