Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28561 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #540 on: May 19, 2019, 12:02:23 pm »
In an environment where the "consensus" is valued above all else anyone who disagrees is a called a "crank" so that epithet is not helpful. What is needed are more people who can distinguish between reasonable contrarian arguments that may be wrong from unscientific nonsense. We don't have that today.

no - legitimate skeptics are valued and recognized as an avenue to confirm and/or extend upon and/or change prevailing science. Cranks are your preferred fake-skeptics and deniers who offer nothing to confirm/advance prevailing science.
Like Like x 1 Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #541 on: May 19, 2019, 12:10:21 pm »
Ok - I don't remember the details.  Did he find egregious issues ?  Nit picks ?  Did he publish his findings.

I wonder why TimG didn't answer your question concerning his mentor/hero McIntyre publishing?  ;D Why would he need to publish and go outside the protected confines of his blog? Ah, just when I think I'm out... they pull me right back in again... I thought my days of remembering/thinking about that cesspool of "blog scientists" was passed!

you mention Lindzen - a most accredited "skeptic"... yes, the guy did publish - and given his standing/credentials was met with necessary challenge; again, another "skeptic" whose papers/positions couldn't stand the test of peer-response.
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #542 on: May 19, 2019, 02:46:08 pm »
I wonder why TimG didn't answer your question concerning his mentor/hero McIntyre publishing?  ;D Why would he need to publish and go outside the protected confines of his blog? Ah, just when I think I'm out... they pull me right back in again... I thought my days of remembering/thinking about that cesspool of "blog scientists" was passed!

you mention Lindzen - a most accredited "skeptic"... yes, the guy did publish - and given his standing/credentials was met with necessary challenge; again, another "skeptic" whose papers/positions couldn't stand the test of peer-response.

I think the most valid conclusion to draw from TimG's posts is that if it's a skeptic-denier paper on his preferred list, it's most likely funded by the fossil fuel industry. = /ignore.
:D

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #543 on: May 19, 2019, 06:18:39 pm »
1) You are basically admitting that the consensus is artificial and that the scientific process has been turned into a political tool. This is why many believe the process cannot be trusted anymore.

No, I'm not saying that.  It's real but you can't create an objective process on this - you have to trust humans.

Quote
2) Climate scientists have no expertise in economics or energy production. They may think it is prudent to act but others have to determine if we should act.

So let's see Mann's paper on economics or his energy production patents ?  Right, there are none.

When they speak about politics and economics, it's a different landscape and we aren't talking about that here.

Quote
The problem in front of our face is that well meaning but misguided people thought they could corrupt the scientific process by introducing political requirements. This inevitably turned climate scientists into partisans and destroyed any credibility they might have had as neutral arbiters of facts.

Hyperbole.  Again, you agree with the conclusion so you are trying to convince me that you yourself were fooled.

Quote
Skeptics are not going away. Australia just elected a conservative government that will be rolling back climate policies. The question for you is why you think introducing political requirements into the scientific process was such a great idea?


The politics is separate, the humanity isn't.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #544 on: May 19, 2019, 06:20:01 pm »
well done MH! You're just so malleable  ;D I'm shocked denier TimG managed to, once again, trot out his tried & true "McIntyre/Mann" - shocked, I tells ya! And again, you dredge up your past so-called behemoth effort to show there was, "no there there"... as you, once again, played right into the TimG fake/false narrative. Did you get the same result as last time?

"played right into his narrative" again means I agreed with some stated facts that are foundational to his argument.  I don't argue to win, I argue to learn and to teach so I reject your lawyerly approach to discussion.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #545 on: May 19, 2019, 06:35:18 pm »
I wonder why TimG didn't answer your question concerning his mentor/hero McIntyre publishing?  ;D Why would he need to publish and go outside the protected confines of his blog? Ah, just when I think I'm out... they pull me right back in again... I thought my days of remembering/thinking about that cesspool of "blog scientists" was passed!

TimG now is convinced of the science... but wants marginal contributors to be given more attention ... than the excessive attention they have already received.

Quote
you mention Lindzen - a most accredited "skeptic"... yes, the guy did publish - and given his standing/credentials was met with necessary challenge; again, another "skeptic" whose papers/positions couldn't stand the test of peer-response.

I thought he eventually gave up his theory. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #546 on: May 19, 2019, 06:47:33 pm »
TimG now is convinced of the science... but wants marginal contributors to be given more attention ... than the excessive attention they have already received.
My opinion on the science has not changed in 10 years. The only thing that changed is you tried listening to what I say instead of making assumptions because I don't blindly trust people who have demonstrated that they are not worthy of trust.

You have completely missed my entire argument about the need to protect against group think by encouraging contrarians. Perhaps this wiki article on group think will help you understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

The symptoms describe climate scientists almost exactly:

Quote
To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink.

Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness

Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

That said, I am not optimistic that you will be able to acknowledge the clear evidence of a problem.

If is much easier for you to "[stereotype] those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid."
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #547 on: May 19, 2019, 07:15:25 pm »
I think the opposition is mostly 'incorrect' and the system as it was bent over backwards to give too much attention to weak theories because people were sensitive to accusations of bias.  And I believe that just as you believe the opposite and there's no way to prove it.
 

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #548 on: May 19, 2019, 07:41:01 pm »
TimG now is convinced of the science...

no - he most certainly does not! Why do you keep saying so? Member TimG does not accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to climate change/global warming. The related CO2 science can't be refuted... so TimG begrudgingly accepts the warming aspect by giving a token acknowledgement to, "it being a contributor to warming". This is dance he keeps suckering you into. As you recently mention Lindzen, that was his same underlying theme, to the point of even qualifying his denial to state that anthropogenic sourced CO2 impact on warming was a nominal ~1% factor; claiming instead that natural variability is the cause of global warming. At least here TimG goes mute when challenged to state his understood/interpreted alternate principal causal tie.
Dislike Dislike x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #549 on: May 19, 2019, 07:42:12 pm »
My opinion on the science has not changed in 10 years. The only thing that changed is you tried listening to what I say instead of making assumptions because I don't blindly trust people who have demonstrated that they are not worthy of trust.

You have completely missed my entire argument about the need to protect against group think by encouraging contrarians. Perhaps this wiki article on group think will help you understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

The symptoms describe climate scientists almost exactly:

That said, I am not optimistic that you will be able to acknowledge the clear evidence of a problem.

If is much easier for you to "[stereotype] those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid."

So you are still somehow convinced that over 97% of environmental scientists with peer reviewed studies that concur on climate change are simply victims of this "groupthink" thingy? I suggest looking in the mirror.


The evidence is overwhelming. Record-breaking temperatures, humidity, and sea level rise, along with many other indicators, show that the Earth is warming fast, and that all the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate.

The time to act is now. But, many powerful industry interests have hindered action and have, largely through surrogates, spread dangerous myths about climate change.

One of the preferred tactics these groups use to sow confusion is to promote studies that either ignore or misrepresent the evidence of thousands of articles published in well-established and well-respected scientific journals, which show that global warming is happening and that it is caused by humans.

No matter how much contrarians try to cloak reality, the evidence is not going away. 

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #550 on: May 19, 2019, 07:55:46 pm »
no - he most certainly does not! Why do you keep saying so?....
An waldo drops by to fill the role of "Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.".

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #551 on: May 19, 2019, 07:58:05 pm »
So you are still somehow convinced that over 97% of environmental scientists with peer reviewed studies that concur on climate change are simply victims of this "groupthink" thingy? I suggest looking in the mirror.
And omni drops by to remind us about one of the more obvious symptoms of group think:

Quote
Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #552 on: May 19, 2019, 08:05:11 pm »
And omni drops by to remind us about one of the more obvious symptoms of group think:

I had no need to remind "us", you have already displayed many obvious symptoms. Would you suggest perhaps that the majority of scientists who have concluded that the world is not flat may also possibly be affected by "groupthink"?

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #553 on: May 19, 2019, 08:19:16 pm »
An waldo drops by to fill the role of "Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.".

yet another of your standard weasel plays. I'm not preventing you from showcasing your denial. In the post you're quoting from, what did I state that wasn't accurate/true?

you do not accept the prevailing science - you deny it. Again, please provide your understood/interpreted alternate principal cause of the relative recent climate change & global warming... your alternate to anthropogenic sourced CO2. Just do it!  ;D

Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #554 on: May 20, 2019, 03:29:30 pm »
And I believe that just as you believe the opposite and there's no way to prove it.
And ultimately this is the problem with climate science. There are few objective facts or hypotheses that can be proven or replicated with experiments. The majority of claims are subjective opinions dressed up with academic language. Different knowledgeable people can read the same paper can come to different conclusions on its worth because each person brings their own biases and preconceptions to the table that they cannot escape. In your case, your biases mean you want to believe that scientists can be objective even though you can't prove this belief. This blind faith in the process biases your view as much as my view is biased by the belief that climate scientists are not objective and have no desire to be objective. The bigger question is whether people who agree to disagree on many aspects of the science can then work to develop policies to deal with the plausible but largely unknown harms caused by future warming.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2019, 03:35:50 pm by TimG »