Bridge building between AGW and the public...(a newbie rants...)

[NoScotsman]

Too many AGW proponents, by over-stating the work of scientists, do more to hurt their cause than to remedy it. Being more honest about the limitations of present-day climatology and being more circumspect with regard to skeptics and fence-sitters, would go a long way towards attracting more adherents to their position.

Consider the following: AGW, as a scientific theory, does not presently provide a satisfactory model sufficient to explain or predict all observable outcomes. But what if it did? What if the latest computer model DID accurately predict the weather 10, 20, 50, and 100 years out? Even if such a computer model/theory DID explain all known relevant phenomena, it would still be logically incorrect to assume that the theory MUST be correct. (Just as there are no known phenomena inconsistent with the Big Bang theory (to my knowledge) yet this does not constitute proof that the universe is developing according to this theory.)

The above example is based on simple logic and applies necessarily to all sciences. For example, the wave theory of light didn't explain photon anti-correlation experiments, although it successfully predicted the results of the double-slit experiment. Skeptics who pointed to the limitations of wave theory weren't dismissed as "deniers" or "anti-science". They merely wanted to find a better explanatory model, such as those based around quantum mechanics, which provided a better explanatory model of both phenomena. Such is the case with many AGW skeptics I read on this board.

Bearing all of this is mind, AGW proponents would do better to speak of probabilities rather than certainties and be a little more honest about the limitations of present-day climatology. After all, our world is filled with uncertainty: Economists and psychologists suffer the uncertainties of global economies and astonishingly complex brain architecture--all which limit the reliability of their work. However, we RELY on their work nevertheless because reasonable people will agree that proactive management guided by the best science available (though imperfect) is better than doing nothing.

In short, reasonable people are willing to adopt AGW theories (for the sake of precaution if nothing else), but they also want to be told the whole truth about the uncertainty of the underlying science in the exchange.

Please note: I make a distinction between climatologists and AGW proponents (such as those posting here at JREF). I find little fault with climatologists or their work. The problem, as I see it, is a public relations one, propagated by journalists, bloggers, and other laypersons who try (unsuccessfully) to bridge the ever-widening gap between science and the general public.

[FarmallMTA]

Too many AGW proponents, by over-stating the work of scientists, do more to hurt their cause than to remedy it. Being more honest about the limitations of present-day climatology and being more circumspect with regard to skeptics and fence-sitters, would go a long way towards attracting more adherents to their position.

Consider the following: AGW, as a scientific theory, does not presently provide a satisfactory model sufficient to explain or predict all observable outcomes. But what if it did? What if the latest computer model DID accurately predict the weather 10, 20, 50, and 100 years out? Even if such a computer model/theory DID explain all known relevant phenomena, it would still be logically incorrect to assume that the theory MUST be correct. (Just as there are no known phenomena inconsistent with the Big Bang theory (to my knowledge) yet this does not constitute proof that the universe is developing according to this theory.)

The above example is based on simple logic and applies necessarily to all sciences. For example, the wave theory of light didn't explain photon anti-correlation experiments, although it successfully predicted the results of the double-slit experiment. Skeptics who pointed to the limitations of wave theory weren't dismissed as "deniers" or "anti-science". They merely wanted to find a better explanatory model, such as those based around quantum mechanics, which provided a better explanatory model of both phenomena. Such is the case with many AGW skeptics I read on this board.

Bearing all of this is mind, AGW proponents would do better to speak of probabilities rather than certainties and be a little more honest about the limitations of present-day climatology. After all, our world is filled with uncertainty: Economists and psychologists suffer the uncertainties of global economies and astonishingly complex brain architecture--all which limit the reliability of their work. However, we RELY on their work nevertheless because reasonable people will agree that proactive management guided by the best science available (though imperfect) is better than doing nothing.

In short, reasonable people are willing to adopt AGW theories (for the sake of precaution if nothing else), but they also want to be told the whole truth about the uncertainty of the underlying science in the exchange.

Please note: I make a distinction between climatologists and AGW proponents (such as those posting here at JREF). I find little fault with climatologists or their work. The problem, as I see it, is a public relations one, propagated by journalists, bloggers, and other laypersons who try (unsuccessfully) to bridge the ever-widening gap between science and the general public.

Now, here's I handle the problem of scooping all that global warming outside...

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/02/i-am-ashamed-of-my-toro.html

[shadron]

Please note: I make a distinction between climatologists and AGW proponents (such as those posting here at JREF). I find little fault with climatologists or their work. The problem, as I see it, is a public relations one, propagated by journalists, bloggers, and other laypersons who try (unsuccessfully) to bridge the ever-widening gap between science and the general public.

I'd point out that you may want to consider the case of a professional climatologist being a member here on JREF. Most people don't like to get down to the point of saying where they live or what their exact profession is. I don't know if any are here as a fact, but I do know there are a number of professional physicists, chemists, astronomers and engineers here, so I'd not be surprised.

In addition, there are a number of professional blogs concerning climate that are readily available. They are treated with the same disgust by the other side that anyone else is. There seems to be no respect for authority, scholarship or field work in this argument. I think there are those who do fill the gap, but the amount of character assassination, innuendo, name calling, pseudo-argument, hair splitting and political partisanship is second only to abortion as a topic.

Witness the poster just above me:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2736/4351620724_489c324987.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iowahawk_blog/4351620724/)
Reader Milt Clary shares this impressive Big Block Chevy machine that treats the symptoms of global cooling while simultaneously attacking its source.

Kinda humorous, but typical.

[macdoc]

OP
Economists and psychologists suffer the uncertainties of global economies and astonishingly complex brain architecture--all which limit the reliability of their work.

and that is where your "thesis" faceplants.....

Economists and psychologists constructs are NOT based in physics - climate change is.

Had you used say aerodynamics or hydrodynamics or even nuclear fusion where we don't know all there is to know but proceed anyways you might have some credibility.

As it is, your rant despite it's trimmings just reeks of another ill-informed denier trying to sound "reasonable" :rolleyes:

Get over it....

It's warming
We're primarily responsible

Move on to the solutions - that's where the discussion lies.
The climate science community has been there for more than a decade - even the fossil fuel company scientists called the reality of AGW incontrovertible back in 1995.

The physics of AGW is clear and established despite wishful thinking from a few flat earthers remaining
...only the timing of the consequences and how far we let BAU carry on is uncertain and that of course allows no prediction..only a range of scenarios as who knows what the **** silly H Sapiens apes will do next.

None of the BAU scenarios are in any way benign :garfield:

[thaiboxerken]

There seems to be no respect for authority, scholarship or field work in this argument.

Or evidence.

[A.A. Alfie]

And straight off the bat, the insults start. :boggled:

Nice try NS, but you are "either with them or against them" (in far too many instances) where a balanced even concilliatory standpoint will be ridiculed and you will be abused by the true believers.

Groupthink and self delusional elitism, imho. :)

[Xulld]

Well, I mean it gets old re-educating every person who either did not take physics in high school, or slept through it.

I think people who understand are just getting tired of making rational arguments to get swept aside by the common jive.

computer model DID accurately predict the weather 10, 20, 50, and 100 years out?

Well its not the weather they are trying to predict . . . I think this is a common misconception.

Its the difference between energy in/energy out of our atmosphere and how THAT effects climate.

Its a small shift, but makes all the difference.

[bobdroege7]

And straight off the bat, the insults start. :boggled:

Nice try NS, but you are "either with them or against them" (in far too many instances) where a balanced even concilliatory standpoint will be ridiculed and you will be abused by the true believers.

Groupthink and self delusional elitism, imho. :)

You know with your better than 14 posts per day since you have joined the forum, you could have spent some of that time studying the physics behind the greenhouse effect, and if you had done that you might have come to the conclusion that the science is valid.


Because you can't come to an informed opinion of climate science without a firm grasp of the science.


And that leaves you with an uninformed opinion and what good is that?


As for the OP, there are a few misconceptions, and a few of them lay in the perceptions of what people believe that scentists could possibly do.

One of them is the ability to predict weather 10 years from now, they never will and they never have said they could.

Predicting climate is easier, but I think there is a disconnect between how accurately scientists say they can predict the future climate and how the public perceives that ability.

[A.A. Alfie]

You know with your better than 14 posts per day since you have joined the forum, you could have spent some of that time studying the physics behind the greenhouse effect, and if you had done that you might have come to the conclusion that the science is valid.

Because you can't come to an informed opinion of climate science without a firm grasp of the science.

And that leaves you with an uninformed opinion and what good is that?

As for the OP, there are a few misconceptions, and a few of them lay in the perceptions of what people believe that scentists could possibly do.

One of them is the ability to predict weather 10 years from now, they never will and they never have said they could.

Predicting climate is easier, but I think there is a disconnect between how accurately scientists say they can predict the future climate and how the public perceives that ability.

And what was the point here apart from more insults at one who doesn't follow the party line.
Please look up Groupthink.
I have looked at the literature and to date nothing changes my skeptical viewpoint.
Nor for that matter has it eased my feelings that warmers have the attitude I stated above. Indeed, time and again it has been shown by the warmers as prevalent and is in evidence here "straight off the bat".

Rather than 'attack me' for pointing out what I did, why not give Macdoc a little aside into what good grace and manners are - especially for a newby?

I actually think I know the answer but I would love to hear your response to this last question.

[Slimething]

Well its not the weather they are trying to predict . . . I think this is a common misconception.

Its the difference between energy in/energy out of our atmosphere and how THAT effects climate.

Its a small shift, but makes all the difference.

I agree with the opinion above except I'm not sure whether or not AGW will have a small or large effect on climate.

I agree with the OP that voices of the rational scientists working on climate change have been eclipsed by extremists who predict we will all die in our beds under ten feet of water. Most people have become inured against apocalyptic claims because they haven't proven true.

It's really a shame that Al Gore chose to champion the AGW side. That kind of help they did not need. It's like choosing your relatives. OTOH, the anti- side has people like Imhofe, who is no better.

[mhaze]

I agree with the opinion above except I'm not sure whether or not AGW will have a small or large effect on climate.

I agree with the OP that voices of the rational scientists working on climate change have been eclipsed by extremists who predict we will all die in our beds under ten feet of water. .....What? You don't have a boat in your bedroom to sleep in?

That water's gonna rise.

(They said so!)

[BenBurch]

I agree with the opinion above except I'm not sure whether or not AGW will have a small or large effect on climate.

I agree with the OP that voices of the rational scientists working on climate change have been eclipsed by extremists who predict we will all die in our beds under ten feet of water. Most people have become inured against apocalyptic claims because they haven't proven true.

It's really a shame that Al Gore chose to champion the AGW side. That kind of help they did not need. It's like choosing your relatives. OTOH, the anti- side has people like Imhofe, who is no better.

The Scientists say a large effect. Why don't you accept that?

[bobdroege7]

And what was the point here apart from more insults at one who doesn't follow the party line.
Please look up Groupthink.
I have looked at the literature and to date nothing changes my skeptical viewpoint.
Nor for that matter has it eased my feelings that warmers have the attitude I stated above. Indeed, time and again it has been shown by the warmers as prevalent and is in evidence here "straight off the bat".

Rather than 'attack me' for pointing out what I did, why not give Macdoc a little aside into what good grace and manners are - especially for a newby?

I actually think I know the answer but I would love to hear your response to this last question.

If you think I was insulting you, you are wrong, and you need to look up what skepticism is, as you are not skeptical.

There is a big difference between looking at the literature and understanding it.

Using the word warmers is an ad hom attack or don't you get that?

Lumping us all into the groupthink category is biased, prejudicial and just plain wrong.

And I have actually tried to be nice!

And I agree with MacDoc as the temperature is still rising, the glaciers are still melting, (all of them, although one or two may be freezing faster than they are melting), the arctic will be icefree soon, the greenland and antarctic ice sheets are shrinking, and sea levels are still rising.

It will be a tough nut to crack.

[BenBurch]

It appears Greenland is melting a lot faster than predicted, too, Bob.

Which I suggested would be the case; They were very conservative in their models for that.

[MattusMaximus]

Too many AGW proponents, by over-stating the work of scientists, do more to hurt their cause than to remedy it. Being more honest about the limitations of present-day climatology and being more circumspect with regard to skeptics and fence-sitters, would go a long way towards attracting more adherents to their position. ...

Please note: I make a distinction between climatologists and AGW proponents (such as those posting here at JREF). I find little fault with climatologists or their work. The problem, as I see it, is a public relations one, propagated by journalists, bloggers, and other laypersons who try (unsuccessfully) to bridge the ever-widening gap between science and the general public.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/77474823c4a54b00a.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12117)

Excellent post! Welcome to the Forums, NoScotsMan :)

ETA: I might also add that the fact that Al Gore stuck his nose into the middle of this thing didn't help. It provided all too easy cover for those who wish to simply dismiss AGW science as "political".

[lomiller]

The Scientists say a large effect. Why don't you accept that?


Because it’s not rational!

Since it not rational we shouldn’t listen to scientists whom say it!

When we ignore the 97% of climate scientists who say there is a problem the evidence clearly shows no global warming!

Since the evidence shows no warming, claims of warming are not rational!

:dl:

[A.A. Alfie]

If you think I was insulting you, you are wrong, and you need to look up what skepticism is, as you are not skeptical.

My apologies if you weren't trying to be insulting - it came aross that way in a couple of ways.

I have looked up skeptical and I find I fit quite snuggly in the definition. Too bad that it doesn't fit your definition, I guess.

There is a big difference between looking at the literature and understanding it.

Yup. I concede this point time and again.

Using the word warmers is an ad hom attack or don't you get that?

Lumping us all into the groupthink category is biased, prejudicial and just plain wrong.

Warmers and deniers seem to be the accepted terms of reference to me. No matter how many times I explain that we have no deniers on this forum the word is still used.
Is 'denier' an insult too? I suppose it is, it is also interesting that the term is used even when the individual in question acknowledges the earth is warming.
What terms should we use instead?

I agree about lumping all in the groupthink category - not everyone is in there. My apoologies to you on this point.

And I agree with MacDoc as the temperature is still rising, the glaciers are still melting, (all of them, although one or two may be freezing faster than they are melting), the arctic will be icefree soon, the greenland and antarctic ice sheets are shrinking, and sea levels are still rising.




Now I ask again.
Do you agree with Macs tactics to use ad homs, insults and ridicule first up?
Do you agree with his stand point that all those who do not follow the party line are all deniers?
I use warmer and you call me on the insult.

This thread is supposed to be about 'bridging the bridge' between the warmers and deniers. Yet you too are quick to attack the denier, rather than the warmer. Rather proves to hopeless task the OP was trying to achieve and validates my initial point 100%

If you want to be genuinely reasonable as you have claimed, why not apply it to both sides and take issue with the groupthink driven warmers?

[bobdroege7]

My apologies if you weren't trying to be insulting - it came aross that way in a couple of ways.

I have looked up skeptical and I find I fit quite snuggly in the definition. Too bad that it doesn't fit your definition, I guess.


The definition I was using, requires a refusal to take things on faith, a willingness to examine the evidence and a willingness to change ones mind in light of evidence contrary to one's position.

You may be right that most dictionary definitions only go as far as the first part, but you have shown a willingness to swallow the worst of the comments concerning the stolen emails without a moment of thought.



Yup. I concede this point time and again.



This is an example of the biggest problem as most people have a hard time with the science.



Warmers and deniers seem to be the accepted terms of reference to me. No matter how many times I explain that we have no deniers on this forum the word is still used.
Is 'denier' an insult too? I suppose it is, it is also interesting that the term is used even when the individual in question acknowledges the earth is warming.
What terms should we use instead?

I agree about lumping all in the groupthink category - not everyone is in there. My apoologies to you on this point.



I guess you have missed the many times Mhaze has argued that there is no greenhouse effect. Him among others.





Now I ask again.
Do you agree with Macs tactics to use ad homs, insults and ridicule first up?
Do you agree with his stand point that all those who do not follow the party line are all deniers?
I use warmer and you call me on the insult.



This thread is supposed to be about 'bridging the bridge' between the warmers and deniers. Yet you too are quick to attack the denier, rather than the warmer. Rather proves to hopeless task the OP was trying to achieve and validates my initial point 100%

If you want to be genuinely reasonable as you have claimed, why not apply it to both sides and take issue with the groupthink driven warmers?



I still believe in polite discourse, but I would rather waste my time trying to convince the sceptics rather than lecture the choir on proper table manners.

How's that for a mixed metaphor?

Some of your posts have been downright trollish and we should give you the benefit of the doubt?

Some complain that the apocalyptic visions of some of the lead scientists and Gore in particular are too alarming and are just meant to scare people, and continue with the canard that none of these visions have ever come true in the past.

Maybe they are challenges to the next group of scientists to prove them wrong or to do better science to refine their predictions to a more precise picture of what is to follow in the future climate wise.

But looking to the past to predict the future is the best we can do and we know there were periods historically when there were little to no ice at the poles and sea levels much higher than today and we know the temperature was only 3-5 C warmer than today.

We've sealed the deal for 2 degrees already and that's why the cry is for action now.

I'd prefer not to have to move New York and London for starters.

The only solution is more education and study.

If you don't want to study the science, get out of the kitchen.

[A.A. Alfie]

The definition I was using, requires a refusal to take things on faith, a willingness to examine the evidence and a willingness to change ones mind in light of evidence contrary to one's position.

You may be right that most dictionary definitions only go as far as the first part, but you have shown a willingness to swallow the worst of the comments concerning the stolen emails without a moment of thought.

You need to show me the definition you have used.
You also haven't heard what I've had to say on the emails either. Some are nothing, some require further investihgation (which is being undertaken) and some appear to be quite damning.
They are controversial and only time will tell what they bring to bear.

This is an example of the biggest problem as most people have a hard time with the science.


Yep.


I guess you have missed the many times Mhaze has argued that there is no greenhouse effect. Him among others.

My understanding of a denier is one who does not believe in global warming. Is Mhaze one of those?
I also notice you avoided the other questions about terms.


I still believe in polite discourse, but I would rather waste my time trying to convince the sceptics rather than lecture the choir on proper table manners.

How's that for a mixed metaphor?

Some of your posts have been downright trollish and we should give you the benefit of the doubt?

Trollish? - not too sure about that.
Provocative? - sometimes.

I don't want the benefit of the doubt; I know where I sit in this and I would not have a clue whether AGW is real or not.
I remain skeptical as do millions of others because we don't get the science and something smells very odd.
Millions accept the science but don't understand it any more than I do.
Why?

My place in this forum is "off" the science and lies in observation of what Joe Sixpack sees. Joe lives on this planet too you know.

But you prove my point again here and the uselessness of the OPs hopes when you talk about teaching table manners to the choir. It is something of a double standard imho.
You want rational and reasonable discussion - I suggest you look to the 'warming' posters here (who will remain unnamed) who time and again look to brow beat the honest into submission.

It is these Warm mongers set the tone for debate or rules of engagement, not I and certainly not the newby.
The evidence is just up there ^^^ (post #4) if you want to have another look.

[bobdroege7]

"IPCC is pseudo porn now. You probably shouldn't put it up as evidence of too much. They tell lies."


Who posted that?

An honest poster?

I think not.

A trollish poster?

perhaps

I think you underestimate Joe sixpack and he may understand the science better than you.

As for Mac post number 4, I see nothing wrong there, comparing the sciences of economics and climatology as facing the same issues is indeed a faceplant.

Overall I think you protest too much and would make better use of your time by learning the science, but if you choose to remain ignorant, well then, remain ignorant.

[A.A. Alfie]

"IPCC is pseudo porn now. You probably shouldn't put it up as evidence of too much. They tell lies."

Who posted that?

An honest poster?

What's dishonest about it?
I am not the only one that is questioning the IPCC.

Provocative - sure.
Blunt, why not.
BTW, I also think that there is denier porn out there too.

Like I said, I did not set the rules of engagement, they were set by the warmers.

As for Mac post number 4, I see nothing wrong there, comparing the sciences of economics and climatology as facing the same issues is indeed a faceplant.

The actual point I make about what's in that post revolves around the use of the word "denier" which you have conveniently overlooked. Nothing in the OP even suggests they are a denier yet our friend is quite happy to sterotype without investigation.
You called me on "warmer" as an insult, yet seemingly condone denier to a newby.

Double standards as I suggested, and further highlights the point that you and yours are quite happy with ad homs, ridicule, scorn, derision and abuse as long as it is going just one way.

[Aussie Thinker]

Welcome to the forum NoScotsman.. nice maiden post too.

Even though I am an AGW sceptic I completely understand the lack of tolerance we get.

It is EXACTLY how I would act to a creationist or 911 conspiracy theorist.. in their eyes we are just as loony as those nutters.

I have this funny little smug thought in the back of my head.. in 20 years when we have to pump extra CO2 into the atmosphere to stave off global cooling ill laugh.

[A.A. Alfie]

[QUOTE=bobdroege7;5629462
I think you underestimate Joe sixpack and he may understand the science better than you. [/QUOTE]

Do you mind if I quote you on this one?

This comment really belongs in "the warmers are becoming skeptics" thread. It supports some of what I've been saying regarding the migration of opinion of Joe Sixpack from warmer to skeptic. Joe (who is smarter and better informed than me) also thinks that the science and controversies are smelly.

[Slimething]

The Scientists say a large effect. Why don't you accept that?

Ben, "large" doesn't fit into my lexicon. In various roles as an estwhile chemist, I've gotten pretty adept at thermodynamics, mostly kinetics. "Large" just doesn't cut it. I can't use it.

I'm not being difficult. I agree AGW is a credible construct. However, we need real factors to predict what could happen and choose among alternatives. This has nothing to do with Arrhenius establishing the blanketing potential of gases as that is fact. It's all about the kinetics and quantifiable effects.

I've often posted that I consider climatology an infant science and AGW a challenging concept for even a mature science. I haven't seen the rigor in climatology or even AGW that 's demanded of most physical constructs so I'm waiting for that do develop before I give full creedence.

I've seen a lot of scares in my time. I'm not saying that AGW is a scare story but I'm going to reserve judgement on impact until the nubers are in.

[a_unique_person]

And what was the point here apart from more insults at one who doesn't follow the party line.
Please look up Groupthink.
I have looked at the literature and to date nothing changes my skeptical viewpoint.


You have the time to look up groupthink, but not physics?

[A.A. Alfie]

You have the time to look up groupthink, but not physics?

On the contrary; I looked up both.
The former makes a lot of sense, the latter (largely) loses me as I have conceded time and time again. I do, however I keep trying.
Really, your memory is appalling. :p

[macdoc]

AA
You don't try - the physical evidence is out there and overwhelming and you've never even asked for the basic sources as any one of us would supply

You use your self trumpeted ignorance of climate science as an excuse to not have to confront and answer questions you are uncomfortable with.

This is a science forum your continued activity here along that line is puerile and transparent in the extreme.

and then you hand out nonsense and insults ad nauseum.

eg
your memory is appalling

if you don't know the science underlying things discussed here go somewhere where you can participate in a meaningful way.

••••

OP - not sure a bridge is really useful at this point....the world at many levels is moving forward towards carbon neutral and it's one of those progressions like S02 abatement and CFC elimination that perhaps should be left out of public discussion as it just becomes a idjit talking point for the few dinosaurs on the right wing fringe.

Let the progress continue...ie the declaration by the EPA on carbon emissions will see many court cases just as occurred with S02 and compliance will move forward.

Each nation will find it's own course of action.

For instance the boycott of tar sands oil will eventually wear on Alberta - they already spent millions on PR campaigns to try and change minds in the US....eventually the clean up Pembina proposed years ago will be the cheaper route.

All California has to do is outlaw dirty oil for instance.

I see willing regions organizations from companies, to cities, to sub national regions and some nation states like Sweden and Norway fully committed to carbon neutral and are "in progress".

I'd say in many cases individuals and sub-national organizations are far beyond the ponderous movement at the national level.

They ARE getting on with change.
Ignoring the few flat earthers left on the denier side would seem to me best use of resources.....:garfield:

[A.A. Alfie]

yawn.

Same old, same old.

The OP here is about building a bridge. He puts up a brick or two and you are the first in to knock it down. Rather than answer my question/observation on that, you come at me with the usual rubbish (I love the attention by the way - always have :D) :rolleyes:).
You then accuse me of reckless ad homs etc. In fact it is you who sets the tone and the evidence is in post #4 of this thread.

Why not try to explain your usual lack of manners?
Perhaps you are just skeptical of his/her intentions with the OP?
Perhaps you are just sick and tired of the tyre kickers and those "just asking questions"?
Maybe you are just trying to scare off anyone who doesn't think like you.

So, what is it Mac?

Maybe you should look up groupthink too?

[a_unique_person]

On the contrary; I looked up both.
The former makes a lot of sense, the latter (largely) loses me as I have conceded time and time again. I do, however I keep trying.


I would have thought that a skeptic would have recognised the need to understand the case for an argument before he dismissed it as wrong?



Really, your memory is appalling. :p

Just keep the insults coming, it's typical of the denialist style.

[mhaze]

yawn.

Same old, same old.

The OP here is about building a bridge. He puts up a brick or two and you are the first in to knock it down. Rather than answer my question/observation on that, you come at me with the usual rubbish (I love the attention by the way - always have :D) :rolleyes:).
You then accuse me of reckless ad homs etc. In fact it is you who sets the tone and the evidence is in post #4 of this thread.

Why not try to explain your usual lack of manners?
Perhaps you are just skeptical of his/her intentions with the OP?
Perhaps you are just sick and tired of the tyre kickers and those "just asking questions"?
Maybe you are just trying to scare off anyone who doesn't think like you.

So, what is it Mac?

Maybe you should look up groupthink too?Come on man, get with the program!

Look, we've generated a great set of scare stories - you gotta admit that - we've got hurricanes,floods, droughts, whole cities vanishing like Atlantis, nightmares of hundreds of millions or billions dead or starving, pandemics, cat population explosions, giant snake invasions....

Now we have to handle those people who stay unscared.

Can't have them mucking up the schemes, right?;)

[a_unique_person]

Come on man, get with the program!

Look, we've generated a great set of scare stories - you gotta admit that - we've got hurricanes,floods, droughts, whole cities vanishing like Atlantis, nightmares of hundreds of millions or billions dead or starving, pandemics, cat population explosions, giant snake invasions....

Now we have to handle those people who stay unscared.

Can't have them mucking up the schemes, right?;)
Sheer fantasy.

[a_unique_person]

Do you mind if I quote you on this one?

This comment really belongs in "the warmers are becoming skeptics" thread. It supports some of what I've been saying regarding the migration of opinion of Joe Sixpack from warmer to skeptic. Joe (who is smarter and better informed than me) also thinks that the science and controversies are smelly.

You have absolutely no right to speak for a 'joe six pack', nor does claiming to do so absolve you of the skeptical duty to understand the evidence for the claim for AGW. If you don't understand the science, as for help. If you still don't get it, the only logical course is to defer to the accepted authority. All the peak science bodies around the world accept the evidence for AGW.

[thaiboxerken]

I have this funny little smug thought in the back of my head.. in 20 years when we have to pump extra CO2 into the atmosphere to stave off global cooling ill laugh.

Yea, that's about the same time Jesus will come down and Rapture all of his folks. :rolleyes:

[A.A. Alfie]

I would have thought that a skeptic would have recognised the need to understand the case for an argument before he dismissed it as wrong?

Just keep the insults coming, it's typical of the denialist style.

Who dismisses it at wrong? Please please please show me where I have said that.

As for the insults. The first one was in post #4. I raised it, questioned it and was - in turn - insulted. As usual, the warmers set the tone and whine when they cop some back.

You have absolutely no right to speak for a 'joe six pack',

Sure I do

If you don't understand the science, as for help. If you still don't get it, the only logical course is to defer to the accepted authority. All the peak science bodies around the world accept the evidence for AGW.

I do ask for help - you're just annoyed that I look a little wider than the gullibles.
And guess what I find? This little thing going on called a "debate", or "argument" if you will.
It seems the science isn't settled after all.

The stench is just getting stronger and it is you who are in denial.

[cornsail]

Maybe you should look up groupthink too?

I showed you why the theory of group think doesn't apply to the situations you were arguing for..

[A.A. Alfie]

I showed you why the theory of group think doesn't apply to the situations you were arguing for..


Where? I honestly don't recall reading anything that has negated the proposition.
Just because you showed me does not make it right either does it? :rolleyes:
It fits here by the (immediate) stereotyping (and insulting) of someone who shows a contrary view.

[jmarcure]

I love you guys. You have enabled me to take a more definitive position.

[macdoc]

It fits here by the (immediate) stereotyping (and insulting) of someone who shows a contrary view

you mean someone who shows no inclination to learn the underlying science, remains proud of that self proclaimed regime of ignorance and still wants respect in a science forum......

Yeah you'd likely call that group dissing......well deserved....:garfield:

[bokonon]

But looking to the past to predict the future is the best we can do and we know there were periods historically when there were little to no ice at the poles and sea levels much higher than today and we know the temperature was only 3-5 C warmer than today.
I'm curious -- how do we know sea levels were much higher in the past, and (more importantly) how much is "much"?

We have sea fossils in Europe, North America, and Asia in places where there is dry land today, but in the places that come readily to my mind (the Alps, Great Plains / Southwest, and Everest) today's dry land seems mostly due to tectonic activity rather than falling sea levels.

I understand that volumes of land-based ice masses today can be calculated, and converted to equivalent quantities of water. I assume that models exist to predict how much of that water will on average remain airborne for various levels of "warmer climate" and how much will contribute to raising aquifers and sea levels, allowing some crude predictions of future sea levels to be made with some level of confidence in their probability.

I haven't seen the science which calculates higher sea levels in the past which were due to warmer temperatures, but I'd welcome some links if you have a couple of favorites.

[BenBurch]

I'm curious -- how do we know sea levels were much higher in the past, and (more importantly) how much is "much"?
...

IIRC, One reason is that we have stable geologic formations that for various reasons, like magnetic measurements, we know have not been thrust-faulted in millions of years, and we can find ancient beach lines.

Geology is not my thing, but I trust the the rockhounds to have figured this stuff out...

[bokonon]

That sounds plausible. As I say, I haven't seen that work. Did they quantify how much is "much"?

[BenBurch]

That sounds plausible. As I say, I haven't seen that work. Did they quantify how much is "much"?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=392&pictureid=2434

Found this in the "Sea Level" article on Wikipedia.

[BenBurch]

Recently;

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6638

[bokonon]

Interesting stuff. Looks like the past 8000 years have been remarkably stable for sea levels. Immediately preceding that, they were significantly lower (water locked in ice sheets which weighed down land masses), and in the distant past they were significantly higher.

I'd suspect that "a million years of Manhattan" is not in the cards no matter what we do, but a thousand years seems likely. In any case, thanks for the links.

[BenBurch]

However, we can document increase rates during sudden climate changes of 2.5 m/yr, so don't get too sanguine. The danger is that we will hit such a tipping point and Greenland will melt away in decades instead of centuries.

We'll know more in ten years when we see if the rise rate is staying linear or not.

[cornsail]

Where? I honestly don't recall reading anything that has negated the proposition.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5511973&postcount=180
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5512084&postcount=182
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5512193&postcount=187

Just because you showed me does not make it right either does it? :rolleyes:

It's not right according to the sources you yourself provided.

It fits here by the (immediate) stereotyping (and insulting) of someone who shows a contrary view.

There was no stereotyping that I could see and even if there was, Janis (your own source on "groupthink") doesn't claim that all stereotyping is groupthink--the theory was proposed to apply to specific situations, none of which are the case here.

[A.A. Alfie]

you mean someone who shows no inclination to learn the underlying science, remains proud of that self proclaimed regime of ignorance and still wants respect in a science forum......

Yeah you'd likely call that group dissing......well deserved....:garfield:

Ah yes. What I am hearing here is absolute justification for poor behaviour.
I assume you are addressing the (separate) topic of being rude to me in the above post, I am quite happy to cop that (in fact I enjoy the attention you give me :) ).

But you have no excuse for being rude to the OP. Is this your attitude to education is enlightenment Mac.
Could you please explain?

GROUPTHINK!

[mhaze]

However, we can document increase rates during sudden climate changes of 2.5 m/yr, so don't get too sanguine. The danger is that we will hit such a tipping point and Greenland will melt away in decades instead of centuries.

We'll know more in ten years when we see if the rise rate is staying linear or not.

Now that's a fantasy. It would scare ....

Uhhh.....nobody, I guess.

Wait....Ben is referring to that SEA LEVEL RISE THAT'S BEEN DECLINING? (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/)

(Hide the DECLINE!):clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Carefulplease]

Now that's a fantasy. It would scare ....

Uhhh.....nobody, I guess.

Wait....Ben is referring to that SEA LEVEL RISE THAT'S BEEN DECLINING? (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/)

(Hide the DECLINE!):clap::clap::clap::clap:

This article seems to completely overlook the fact that the main cause of decadal variability and the cause of the non-cyclical upward trend are completely different. The first source of variability mostly has to do with ENSO and NAO coupling of oceans and atmosphere. It is a matter of heat flowing back and forth between air and water. What causes the cumulative rise is the imbalance in the Earth energy budget. This causes thermal expansion and melting glaciers, mainly, for now. If this energy imbalance is maintained then sea levels will increase at commensurate rates regardless of past decadal variations, unless some basic laws of physics change.

[cornsail]

Ah yes. What I am hearing here is absolute justification for poor behaviour.
I assume you are addressing the (separate) topic of being rude to me in the above post, I am quite happy to cop that (in fact I enjoy the attention you give me :) ).

But you have no excuse for being rude to the OP. Is this your attitude to education is enlightenment Mac.
Could you please explain?

GROUPTHINK!

You embarrass yourself by inanely repeating "groupthink" without understanding the term and ignoring corrections.

You embarrass yourself further by complaining about rude 'warmers', despite the fact that you've criticized 'warmers' for "whining about name calling" by deniers.

No hard feelings, just letting you know.

[A.A. Alfie]

You embarrass yourself by inanely repeating "groupthink" without understanding the term and ignoring corrections.

You embarrass yourself further by complaining about rude 'warmers', despite the fact that you've criticized 'warmers' for "whining about name calling" by deniers.

No hard feelings, just letting you know.

Funny I don't feel embarrassed. :p

You are going to have to explain how groupthink doesn't fit. To me it seems to fit very nicely according to Janis (and others that follow). :)

I am not actually "complaining" about "rude warmers" either, merely pointing out theevidence - which is right here in post #4. I couldn't actually care less about the abuse except that it helps to prove to me (and others) the groupthink phenomenon, the hypocrisy and insipid justification.

No hard feelings here either.
Actually I very, very rarely have them. :D

[a_unique_person]

Funny I don't feel embarrassed. :p

You are going to have to explain how groupthink doesn't fit. To me it seems to fit very nicely according to Janis (and others that follow). :)

I am not actually "complaining" about "rude warmers" either, merely pointing out theevidence - which is right here in post #4. I couldn't actually care less about the abuse except that it helps to prove to me (and others) the groupthink phenomenon, the hypocrisy and insipid justification.

No hard feelings here either.
Actually I very, very rarely have them. :D

You may as well complain about mathematicians being quite strident and tolerating no criticism of the following equation.

1 + 1 = 2.

They all agree on it, weird, eh? Groupthink, without a doubt.

[A.A. Alfie]

You may as well complain about mathematicians being quite strident and tolerating no criticism of the following equation.

1 + 1 = 2.

They all agree on it, weird, eh? Groupthink, without a doubt.

The sums are right, no groupthink there.
The sums may well be right in AGW too, and that isn't groupthink either.

But I think you are being deliberately obtuse, as it isn't the science that is subject to groupthink, but the humans: the players, the bloggers, etc, You know..., the warmers.
Groupthink is a human condition (or group of humans as implied) and the requirements for groupthink to be present is reliant on one or more of a specific set of symptoms to be in evidence.
I am pointing out the one that is the stereotyping of individuals and in this case is additionally coupled with insults.
It's pretty clear to me.

[a_unique_person]

The sums are right, no groupthink there.
The sums may well be right in AGW too, and that isn't groupthink either.

But I think you are being deliberately obtuse, as it isn't the science that is subject to groupthink, but the humans: the players, the bloggers, etc, You know..., the warmers.
Groupthink is a human condition (or group of humans as implied) and the requirements for groupthink to be present is reliant on one or more of a specific set of symptoms to be in evidence.
I am pointing out the one that is the stereotyping of individuals and in this case is additionally coupled with insults.
It's pretty clear to me.

So you are accusing the mathematicians of groupthink

[A.A. Alfie]

So you are accusing the mathematicians of groupthink

Is that a question or a statement?
If a statement then it is an out and out lie and/or once again you are being deliberately obtuse. :p
If it's a question, the answer is "No" and I suggest you re-read what was written. :)

[a_unique_person]

Is that a question or a statement?
If a statement then it is an out and out lie and/or once again you are being deliberately obtuse. :p
If it's a question, the answer is "No" and I suggest you re-read what was written. :)

I suggest you start a thread arguing that 1+1=3.

Or tell a teacher they should be telling students 1+1=3.

Try to tell a primary school child that 1+1=3.

Can you guess what the reaction will be?

You are being stupid, because you are prepared to admit the physics is correct, and the physics is what matters, because that is what determines if AGW is real or not, not the personalities of the individuals. The scientific world realised long ago that people are fallible and imperfect, hence the elaborate and refined process set up for advancing science. Your divergence into groupthink is nothing more than a waste of time. Start asking for help with the science. There are plenty of people here who have an excellent understanding of the subject, (not includling myself).

[A.A. Alfie]

That's nice.
But I'm not arguing the science here - for all I know it is 100% correct, so why do you think I am?
I am talking about the human beings beyond the science - like you. The warmers, gullibles and true believers who see this as "the greatest moral challenge of our time".

McArthyism keeps springing to my mind.

GROUPTHINK!

[A.A. Alfie]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5511973&postcount=180
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5512084&postcount=182
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5512193&postcount=187

You have looked at a single aspect of the symptoms here and decided that one - leadership, in which arguably you are incorrect - negates the whole theory.
Nice try but you have a whole list of them there to extinguish.

It's not right according to the sources you yourself provided.

Nonsense.
I think you are misinterpretting, not me.

There was no stereotyping that I could see..

Then you're not looking very hard are you?

..and even if there was, Janis (your own source on "groupthink") doesn't claim that all stereotyping is groupthink--the theory was proposed to apply to specific situations, none of which are the case here.

Sure he does and symptom #4 seems to fit quite snuggly to me. :)


At any rate, if not groupthink, is it just bad manners and smug justification for same we see here in post #4?

What is it if not groupthink?

[mhaze]

You have looked at a single aspect of the symptoms here and decided that one - leadership, in which arguably you are incorrect - negates the whole theory.
Nice try but you have a whole list of them there to extinguish.



Nonsense.
I think you are misinterpretting, not me.



Then you're not looking very hard are you?



Sure he does and symptom #4 seems to fit quite snuggly to me. :)


At any rate, if not groupthink, is it just bad manners and smug justification for same we see here in post #4?

What is it if not groupthink?

Hmmm...

http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm

Eight Main Symptoms of Group Think

1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.

2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

4. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.

5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.

6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.

7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.

8. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

[mhaze]

This article seems to completely overlook the fact that the main cause of decadal variability and the cause of the non-cyclical upward trend are completely different. The first source of variability mostly has to do with ENSO and NAO coupling of oceans and atmosphere. It is a matter of heat flowing back and forth between air and water. What causes the cumulative rise is the imbalance in the Earth energy budget. This causes thermal expansion and melting glaciers, mainly, for now. If this energy imbalance is maintained then sea levels will increase at commensurate rates regardless of past decadal variations, unless some basic laws of physics change.

Really?

You seem to miss the fact that your preordained correct conclusions (uses thermal expansion and melting glaciers, mainly, for now. do not and cannot ursurpt proper selection of premises, gathering of data, and careful consideration before reaching conclusions.

Thus that "this article seems to completely overlook the fact that the main cause of decadal variability " is wrong. The author shows that climate alarmism is not based on facts.

He made two other notable findings, 1) the rate of sea level rise was, on average, greater in the first half of his record than the second, and 2) that there is a large degree of decadal variability in the rate of sea level rise.

The review article in WorldClimateReport further notes:

The veracity of this satellite/tide-gauge comparison, or rather lack thereof, has not been lost on everybody. The IPCC (AR4, p. 5) cautioned:

The global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961-2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear.

The authors show how more recent science shows sea level increases way lower than the IPCC statements, which were used to support alarmism.

And with your logic, contrary facts don't matter.

[AndyD]

I haven't read every word of the thread - or followed the history of those in it - but as an interested bystander who hopes "the right side" wins the AGW "debate", it looks to me like AAA is saying that if I get on a plane without understanding the science behind aerodynamics then I am employing groupthink if I expect that plane to fly.

The OP reads like a call for accommodationism (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-accommodationism.html) in AGW science. "Be nice and soft and understanding and agreeable and they will agree with you". It does sound like a great idea but I suspect it is built on a naive assumption that the only reason anyone would oppose an AGW hypothesis is that the supporters of AGW are too strident in their arguments.

If we apply this thinking to the 1 + 1 = 2 argument then, theoretically, there should be a large group of people opposed to fundamental arithmetic because few people would go soft on anyone "wondering out loud" if the equation just might be wrong and still insisting it "might be wrong" even after being shown it was right - just because they don't understand the explanation.

There was one argument, put forward by AGW-opponent Ian Plimer (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2009/07/stateline-more-co2-means-more-food.html), that really helped sway my view on the "debate". He suggested that if we have more CO2 then we have more food because plants need CO2. To me this would mean that we should also flood the entire globe because plants need water so more water means more food too. This can only be a good thing can't it?

[mhaze]

....
There was one argument, put forward by AGW-opponent Ian Plimer (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2009/07/stateline-more-co2-means-more-food.html), that really helped sway my view on the "debate". He suggested that if we have more CO2 then we have more food because plants need CO2. To me this would mean that we should also flood the entire globe because plants need water so more water means more food too. This can only be a good thing can't it?First of all, your link clearly states that the writer was "paraphrasing from memory" the comments of Ian Pimer. Second, you take the comment of the blogger - that we should flood the entire globe - and present it as your opinion. It's not, it's a comment from the blogger.

If you had provided proper attribution, the logical fallacy of the assertion would not be to .... you.....:)

Ian Plimer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s52wgMs9Sfw)

[cornsail]

You have looked at a single aspect of the symptoms here and decided that one - leadership, in which arguably you are incorrect - negates the whole theory.
Nice try but you have a whole list of them there to extinguish.

It's not a symptom, it's an antecedent. According to Janis, the antecedents are necessary, but not sufficient conditions to groupthink.

Nonsense.
I think you are misinterpretting, not me.

How so?

I hate to derail, it's just annoying seeing you posting "GROUPTHINK!" over and over again, despite misapplying the theory.

[A.A. Alfie]

Hmmm...

http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm

Eight Main Symptoms of Group Think

1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.

2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

4. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.

5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.

6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.

7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.

8. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

Thanks.
I am quite familiar with them.

I haven't read every word of the thread - or followed the history of those in it - but as an interested bystander who hopes "the right side" wins the AGW "debate", it looks to me like AAA is saying that if I get on a plane without understanding the science behind aerodynamics then I am employing groupthink if I expect that plane to fly.


No offence, but not even close to what I'm saying.

It's not a symptom, it's an antecedent. According to Janis, the antecedents are necessary, but not sufficient conditions to groupthink.

I hate to derail, it's just annoying seeing you posting "GROUPTHINK!" over and over again, despite misapplying the theory.

Like I say, we could argue ad nauseum about the "leadership" issue, but just as some food for thought, the leadership is not exclusively one person, leadership could be a "leadership group".
You are also suggesting that there can be no minor variation to the antecendents - I am not saying they aren't required btw - just that there can be variations within the parameters.

Please explain to me how #4 does not apply when we are talking about post #4 here?

[BenBurch]

...
There was one argument, put forward by AGW-opponent Ian Plimer (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2009/07/stateline-more-co2-means-more-food.html), that really helped sway my view on the "debate". He suggested that if we have more CO2 then we have more food because plants need CO2. To me this would mean that we should also flood the entire globe because plants need water so more water means more food too. This can only be a good thing can't it?

Problem is that it isn't true.

Increased CO2 does not increase food production without limit or in a linear fashion.

If you TRIPLE the CO2 for Winter Wheat, you get only an 11% increase in yield; http://crop.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/6/1163

Some plants do not respond to an increase in CO2 at all.

A few respond negatively.

And if, as seems inevitable, AGW results in more than 11% less net productive wheat area (both less area and less productive locales) then we lose. At a time when the "Population Bomb" is detonating.

Because we will not have mandatory birth limits, we are going to have famine anyway; AGW makes it worse and sooner.

[a_unique_person]

That's nice.
But I'm not arguing the science here - for all I know it is 100% correct, so why do you think I am?
I am talking about the human beings beyond the science - like you. The warmers, gullibles and true believers who see this as "the greatest moral challenge of our time".

McArthyism keeps springing to my mind.

GROUPTHINK!

If, for all you know the science is 100% correct, then all the claims for AGW are true and we are facing "the greatest moral challenge of our time". The human failings of the participants are completely irrelevent.

[DogB]

If, for all you know the science is 100% correct, then all the claims for AGW are true and we are facing "the greatest moral challenge of our time". The human failings of the participants are completely irrelevent.

That's not true at all if the 'human failings of the participants' dilutes the message to the point where it is no longer taken seriously.

[a_unique_person]

That's not true at all if the 'human failings of the participants' dilutes the message to the point where it is no longer taken seriously.

So are you concerned that because everyone agrees that 1+1=2, there must be some spooky conspiracy going on to hid the real truth?

[DogB]

So are you concerned that because everyone agrees that 1+1=2, there must be some spooky conspiracy going on to hid the real truth?

If the argument in question was that easy to understand then there wouldn't be a problem. Clearly it isn't and clearly the behaviour of those who would advocate for a certain course of action is important.

[cornsail]

Like I say, we could argue ad nauseum about the "leadership" issue, but just as some food for thought, the leadership is not exclusively one person, leadership could be a "leadership group".
You are also suggesting that there can be no minor variation to the antecendents - I am not saying they aren't required btw - just that there can be variations within the parameters.

If you'll accept wiki:

Janis: "Although Janis sees group cohesion as the most important antecedent to groupthink, he states that it will not invariably lead to groupthink: 'It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition' (Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972)."

(doesn't apply here)

McCauley: "Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

* Directive leadership.
* Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
* Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis."

(none apply here)

'Symptoms' are not necessarily definitional.

[cornsail]

Janis (your own source on "groupthink") doesn't claim that all stereotyping is groupthink [...]
Sure he does

Just noticed this. Source??

[cornsail]

...

Groupthink!

[cornsail]

Alfie's able to type it in caps, but I'm not? Auto-edit hates me. :(

ETA:

GROUPTHINK!

[Carefulplease]

The authors show how more recent science shows sea level increases way lower than the IPCC statements, which were used to support alarmism.

And with your logic, contrary facts don't matter.

They don't show that at all. They notice that according to recent satellite altimetry data the short-term trend is back down to 3mm/year and they seem to think this is reassuring. Did the IPCC ever project higher trends than this for the current decade?

Regarding sea level rise acceleration (correcting for isostatic reaction of continental plates) during the 20th century, have a look at:

http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf

See also: http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-broader-view-of-sea-level-rise.html

You haven't addressed my point regarding distinct sets of causes of periodic rather than cumulative sea level changes. What do you think caused sea levels to rise 180mm since 1900 anyway? The fish peed more?

[A.A. Alfie]

Just noticed this. Source??

You're right:.A slip of the tongue so to speak. Actually, with the cutting and pasting I think I lost track a bit. My bad, no deception intended. :o

Not all stereotyping is groupthink but I reckon that if it occurs regularly enough, against the "innocent", without investigation AND when it occurs in conjunction with other symptoms that it probably definitely applies.

As such, I maintain that it does here.

[Spindrift]

If the argument in question was that easy to understand then there wouldn't be a problem. Clearly it isn't and clearly the behaviour of those who would advocate for a certain course of action is important.
So because the argument in question is difficult to understand then the proper reaction for someone who can't understand it is to dismiss it? Shouldn't they reserve judgement until they can understand it?

[DogB]

So because the argument in question is difficult to understand then the proper reaction for someone who can't understand it is to dismiss it? Shouldn't they reserve judgement until they can understand it?

No argument but AUP's first statement seemed to suggest that a level of surety means that the behaviour of those who advocate the position is irrelevant. While I inherently accept the proposition, I just wanted to make the point that in a complex argument the behaviour and civility of the arguer can and does influence the audience.

Seems to me an uncivil and unpleasant advocate is more likely to cause an ill educated listener to dismiss the proposal.

[A.A. Alfie]

So because the argument in question is difficult to understand then the proper reaction for someone who can't understand it is to dismiss it? Shouldn't they reserve judgement until they can understand it?

That would cut both ways. The 'warmers' should also reserve judgement - they don't; they are absolutely certain. The fact is that most skeptics here are just that, skeptical due to the uncertainty; they don't dismiss it.

That said, this is aside the actual point being made which is about the behaviour of the players and followers, not the validity (or not) of the science underpinning it.

[a_unique_person]

If the argument in question was that easy to understand then there wouldn't be a problem. Clearly it isn't and clearly the behaviour of those who would advocate for a certain course of action is important.

Alfie says that even if AGW is 100% correct, he is more concerned about groupthink, for some strange reason.

[cornsail]

You're right:.A slip of the tongue so to speak. Actually, with the cutting and pasting I think I lost track a bit. My bad, no deception intended. :o

No worries.

Not all stereotyping is groupthink but I reckon that if it occurs regularly enough, against the "innocent", without investigation AND when it occurs in conjunction with other symptoms that it probably definitely applies.

As such, I maintain that it does here.

Okay. The psychology/sociology journals are waiting for you.

GROUPTHINK!

[A.A. Alfie]

Alfie says that even if AGW is 100% correct, he is more concerned about groupthink, for some strange reason.

Yep, that's exactly what O'm saying..... What?:rolleyes:

[A.A. Alfie]

No worries.

Okay. The psychology/sociology journals are waiting for you.


:D


Now, can someone tell me why it's OK to stereotype and abuse the newby as in post #4?

[a_unique_person]

Yep, that's exactly what O'm saying..... What?:rolleyes:


That's nice.
But I'm not arguing the science here - for all I know it is 100% correct, so why do you think I am?
I am talking about the human beings beyond the science - like you. The warmers, gullibles and true believers who see this as "the greatest moral challenge of our time".

McArthyism keeps springing to my mind.

GROUPTHINK!


:whistling

[A.A. Alfie]

:whistling

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=329&pictureid=1976

Even for you, that is quite a reach. :D

[DogB]

Alfie says that even if AGW is 100% correct, he is more concerned about groupthink, for some strange reason.

Yeah, well, I'm not getting involved in that argument. ;)

[A.A. Alfie]

And in the meantime, bo-one wants to address and/or explain post #4. Which, after all is kinda central to the OP.

C'mon AUP, let's hear it. :)

[a_unique_person]

Yeah, well, I'm not getting involved in that argument. ;)

A wise choice. ;)

[A.A. Alfie]

A wise choice. ;)

Agreed, AUP is way off in fairy land and still wont address post #4. :D

[bokonon]

For those who are actually interested in bridge building rather than putting the silly in supercilious by peppering their empty insults with a collection of childish cartoons, I might recommend "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" by Mike Hulme. In his introduction, he states:

I believe that the risks posed to people and places by the physical attributes of climate are tangible, are serious, and require constantly improving forms of human intervention and management. I believe that the physical functions of global climate and, consequently, the parameters of local weather are changing (largely) under the influence of the changing composition of the atmosphere caused by an array of human activities. And I believe that changes in climatic risks induced by such global climate change are also important and serious. We do well to minimise these risks by reducing the vulnerability of those exposed to them and by minimising further changes to the composition of the world's atmosphere.

Yet I do not believe that the way we have framed these goals -- most significantly through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol -- is the only way of doing so. Nor do I believe it is necessarily the most appropriate way. I feel uncomfortable that climate change is widely reported through the language of catastrophe and imminent peril, as 'the greatest problem facing humanity', which seeks to trump all others. I believe that such reporting both detracts from what science is good at revealing to us and diminishes the many other ways of thinking, feeling, and knowing about climate which are also essential elements in personal and collective decision making.

[AndyD]

AAA wrote:

First of all, your link clearly states that the writer was "paraphrasing from memory" the comments of Ian Pimer. Second, you take the comment of the blogger - that we should flood the entire globe - and present it as your opinion. It's not, it's a comment from the blogger.

If you had provided proper attribution, the logical fallacy of the assertion would not be to .... you.....




Err, I am that blogger. The blog is linked in my sig if it really matters. I was presenting my opinion here for those who didn't bother to follow the link. Those who did got to read more.



BenBurch wrote:
Originally Posted by AndyD View Post
...
There was one argument, put forward by AGW-opponent Ian Plimer, that really helped sway my view on the "debate". He suggested that if we have more CO2 then we have more food because plants need CO2. To me this would mean that we should also flood the entire globe because plants need water so more water means more food too. This can only be a good thing can't it?



Problem is that it isn't true.


Increased CO2 does not increase food production without limit or in a linear fashion.


Sorry Ben, my sarcasm was apparently not apparent. I think Plimer's argument makes as much sense as saying we should flood the world.

[mhaze]

Err, I am that blogger. The blog is linked in my sig if it really matters. I was presenting my opinion here.....I think Plimer's argument makes as much sense as saying we should flood the world.

Then, as I've noted, and as you more or less admitted, you don't exactly have Plimer's thoughts right.

So I provided a link. If you like, go and actually get Plimer's words and refute them.

Instead of seeming (if not literally) making things up.

Cheers!

[A.A. Alfie]

For those who are actually interested in bridge building rather than putting the silly in supercilious by peppering their empty insults with a collection of childish cartoons, I might recommend "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" by Mike Hulme. In his introduction, he states:

Why do you want to ruin my fun? :mad:
:)


AAA wrote:

First of all, your link clearly states that the writer was "paraphrasing from memory" the comments of Ian Pimer. Second, you take the comment of the blogger - that we should flood the entire globe - and present it as your opinion. It's not, it's a comment from the blogger.

If you had provided proper attribution, the logical fallacy of the assertion would not be to .... you.....

Err, I am that blogger. The blog is linked in my sig if it really matters. I was presenting my opinion here for those who didn't bother to follow the link. Those who did got to read more.


Umm.. I don't think I wrote that at all.

[cornsail]

Now, can someone tell me why it's OK to stereotype and abuse the newby as in post #4?

Maybe consult your own posts for an answer?

Your arm waving and whining over "name calling" seems to be an effort to ignore or dodge the point being made.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5503857&postcount=38

GROUPTHINK!

[A.A. Alfie]

Maybe consult your own posts for an answer?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5503857&postcount=38


It seems you agree that the arm waving, whining and name calling are an effort to dodge the points being made.
And again, correct: It is a form of groupthink.

Thanks Cornsail:)

[cornsail]

I think you read your own post wrong. :)

[A.A. Alfie]

I think you read your own post wrong. :)

Umm, don't think so.
You have succinctly supported and highlighted one possible (probable?) reason not to address a question, when I said:

"Your arm waving and whining over "name calling" seems to be an effort to ignore or dodge the point being made".

Thanks again.

Another reason may be steeped in groupthink. :D

[mhaze]

Another reason may be steeped in groupthink. :DBut if it's a Group that Thinks, don't we get Bigger Thoughts?

We certainly need some Big Thinking!;)

[cornsail]

Umm, don't think so.

arm waving, whining and name calling

arm waving and whining over "name calling"

Pretty big difference? :confused:

You have succinctly supported and highlighted one possible (probable?) reason not to address a question, when I said:

Thanks again.

Another reason may be steeped in groupthink.

I'm glad you agree. Does this mean you will stop whining about name calling and address the substantive points?

GROUPTHINK!

[mhaze]

arm waving, whining and name calling

arm waving and whining over "name calling"

Pretty big difference? :confused:



I'm glad you agree. Does this mean you will stop whining about name calling and address the substantive points?

GROUPTHINK!It's groupthink that we have a consensus that leads to a consensus of groupthink.

[A.A. Alfie]

arm waving, whining and name calling

arm waving and whining over "name calling"

Pretty big difference? :confused:

I'm glad you agree. Does this mean you will stop whining about name calling and address the substantive points?

GROUPTHINK!

Only when the warmers do. :)

I have been pointing out (correctly mind you) that it is you and yours who bitch about the name calling etc. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy.
Case in point..

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=167990

[a_unique_person]

Only when the warmers do. :)

I have been pointing out (correctly mind you) that it is you and yours who bitch about the name calling etc. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy.
Case in point..

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=167990

Point of order, how can a hypocrite point out hypocrisy?

[A.A. Alfie]

Point of order, how can a hypocrite point out hypocrisy?

Easy, I respond only in kind. Do you still stupidly think I am one to turn the other cheek?
Good grief!
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=401&pictureid=2463

The hypocrisy is kinda the point of this thread too and the other link I gave you above.

See post #4 and when you have an answer to my question on it, get back to me, Ok?

[cornsail]

Only when the warmers do. :)

So you will both criticize others for "whining about name calling" and then "whine about name calling" yourself?

I have been pointing out (correctly mind you) that it is you and yours who bitch about the name calling etc.

And you apparently.

I don't understand what you are calling out me, specifically, about.. You think I "bitch" about the name calling?

I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy.

It seems more like you enjoy engaging in the hypocrisy.

Case in point..

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=167990

Ah I see. I am a hypocrite, because macdoc was a little rude to someone and then BenBurch posted a thread about scientists getting harassed. All "warmers" are obviously the same person. Genius!

[A.A. Alfie]

So you will both criticize others for "whining about name calling" and then "whine about name calling" yourself?

And you apparently.

I don't understand what you are calling out me, specifically, about.. You think I "bitch" about the name calling?

It seems more like you enjoy engaging in the hypocrisy.

Ah I see. I am a hypocrite, because macdoc was a little rude to someone and then BenBurch posted a thread about scientists getting harassed. All "warmers" are obviously the same person. Genius!


Yep.
No twisting of facts and statements there is there?:rolleyes:

Now, about post #4.
Care to explain why groupthink doesn't apply, or will you keep dodging, weaving and arm waving?

[cornsail]

Point of order, how can a hypocrite point out hypocrisy?

By living up to the definition of hypocrite.

[A.A. Alfie]

And the most delicious irony is you still engage in yours whilst pointing out my (supposed) hypocrisy.
Just on that btw, I am saying the tone is set by the warmers, I (and others) simply follow suit. Again, I am no cheek turner.

So...
Post #4?
Groupthink?
A comment anytime soon?

[cornsail]

Yep.
No twisting of facts and statements there is there?:rolleyes:

Not that I can see, no.

Perhaps you didn't intend to include me in the hypocrisy bit.

Now, about post #4.
Care to explain why groupthink doesn't apply

I've (tried to) explained it to you a few times already. According to "group think" theory the antecedents are a necessary condition for group think. The antecedents do not apply in this situation...

[A.A. Alfie]

I've (tried to) explained it to you a few times already. According to "group think" theory the antecedents are a necessary condition for group think. The antecedents do not apply in this situation...

And as I have tried to explain it to you, that is debatable. You say "No", I say "Yes".

But in the meantime we have a continuing poor behaviour (more often than not) initiated by the 'warmers'. Can you explain that to me? Why does it occur here (remember post #4, which started this deniers particular discussion on this?), why in the media (see the post above with the other thread link as a case in point), politics (is bandied about by our politicians with an agenda) and even those virgin white wearing scientists (check some emails)?
Why?
Why if not groupthink?
Or are they all just badly raised?

[cornsail]

And as I have tried to explain it to you, that is debatable. You say "No", I say "Yes".

You haven't made a case for how they apply. There is no high group cohesion, directive leadership or homogeneity of members' social background and ideology. (?) I consider this pretty self evident, am I supposed to prove it wrong?

But in the meantime we have a continuing poor behaviour (more often than not) initiated by the 'warmers'. Can you explain that to me?

I don't agree (that it is more often than not the warmers).

Why if not groupthink?

Because the exact same thing happens with every politically charged topic.

Why if not space gnomes?

[a_unique_person]

And as I have tried to explain it to you, that is debatable. You say "No", I say "Yes".

But in the meantime we have a continuing poor behaviour (more often than not) initiated by the 'warmers'. Can you explain that to me? Why does it occur here (remember post #4, which started this deniers particular discussion on this?), why in the media (see the post above with the other thread link as a case in point), politics (is bandied about by our politicians with an agenda) and even those virgin white wearing scientists (check some emails)?
Why?
Why if not groupthink?
Or are they all just badly raised?

It's up to you to prove your contention. I have already pointed out, why is 1+1=2 not an example of groupthink.

[A.A. Alfie]

You haven't made a case for how they apply. There is no high group cohesion, directive leadership or homogeneity of members' social background and ideology. (?) I consider this pretty self evident, am I supposed to prove it wrong?

I don't agree (that it is more often than not the warmers).

Because the exact same thing happens with every politically charged topic.

Why if not space gnomes?

It's up to you to prove your contention. I have already pointed out, why is 1+1=2 not an example of groupthink.

OK
Let's say I agree that it's not groupthink for the minute.

What is it and why is it OK?

[cornsail]

I don't remember calling anything "OK".

[A.A. Alfie]

Fair enough, but it is this point (by extension) that we have been discussing. i.e. Why is it ok? Is it groupthink? If not what is it? Why do warmers condone this (either through silence or hollow justification?) and attack deniers for the same thing? Or, attack 'deniers' for simply responding in kind?


eta
Close to three pages on this without one trace of honest response to the question.

It really shows why the hopes of the OP are useless.

[cornsail]

Fair enough, but it is this point (by extension) that we have been discussing. i.e. Why is it ok?

I haven't been discussing this.. I said you were misapplying the term group think and that's what we talked about.

Why do warmers condone this (either through silence or hollow justification?) and attack deniers for the same thing? Or, attack 'deniers' for simply responding in kind?

Human nature I suppose. You will find the same pattern on both sides of virtually any politically charged issue.

Why do you condone this (either through silence or telling people to stop "whining about name calling") when it's directed the other way?

Close to three pages on this without one trace of honest response to the question.

:confused:

This is the first time you've asked the question ("why is it ok?") AFAIK. Your other posts were all about group think and I answered them.

[A.A. Alfie]

I haven't been discussing this.. I said you were misapplying the term group think and that's what we talked about.

Fair enough - we have been at cross purposes a little then. We might also have to agree to disagree on the 'mis' application of the groupthink term.

Human nature I suppose. You will find the same pattern on both sides of virtually any politically charged issue.

Why do you condone this (either through silence or telling people to stop "whining about name calling") when it's directed the other way?

I don't. In fact I have said time and again I have little use for they that do.


This is the first time you've asked the question ("why is it ok?") AFAIK. Your other posts were all about group think and I answered them.

Not true, Whilst the term groupthink was used in some of the posts there are at least half a dozen that ask this question either directly or in a round about way.

eta. No one wishes to respond so I will retire from this discussion for the time being.

[cornsail]

Fair enough - we have been at cross purposes a little then. We might also have to agree to disagree on the 'mis' application of the groupthink term.

Okay.

I don't. In fact I have said time and again I have little use for they that do.

You seemed to be saying that silence is the same as condoning? Do you call "deniers" out for rude behavior?

Not true, Whilst the term groupthink was used in some of the posts there are at least half a dozen that ask this question either directly or in a round about way.

Okay, I just found it in post 82. I think you're misremembering, though, group think was in almost all of your posts. You should have picked one or the other to talk about, imo.

eta. No one wishes to respond so I will retire from this discussion for the time being.
Maybe no one finds the question interesting. They are certainly not obligated to answer it.

I don't find it particularly interesting myself. I'm responsible for my own posts, not macdoc's. I would consider myself one of the more respectful "warmers" here, but I'm not interested in mothering people's posts for politeness unless things get really out of hand. FYI I also fit the "debunker" label regarding 9/11 CTs and "truther" bashing gets way more out of hand. I do wind up defending truthers and laying into fellow debunkers quite a bit there, just because it's a lot more extreme.

[a_unique_person]

Fair enough, but it is this point (by extension) that we have been discussing. i.e. Why is it ok? Is it groupthink? If not what is it? Why do warmers condone this (either through silence or hollow justification?) and attack deniers for the same thing? Or, attack 'deniers' for simply responding in kind?


eta
Close to three pages on this without one trace of honest response to the question.

It really shows why the hopes of the OP are useless.

The hopes are pointless. It's like asking why can't there be a compromise that 1+1=2.5 and not 3.

[varwoche]

But in the meantime we have a continuing poor behaviour (more often than not) initiated by the 'warmers'. Can you explain that to me? First off, my impression is different. But to the point, the way that members behave is irrelevant, discussing it would only lead to non-informative bickering, and it would probably be against forum rules.

So why do you relentlessly flog this topic? To divert attention from the fact-free content of your posts, I assume.

[mhaze]

first off, my impression is different. But to the point, the way that members behave is irrelevant, discussing it would only lead to non-informative bickering, and it would probably be against forum rules.

So why do you relentlessly flog this topic? To divert attention from the fact-free content of your posts, i assume.

groupthink!