Denying Problems When We Don't Like The Solutions

[Muhammed]

The Earth has been cooling for billions of years. There is no global warming problem.

 

[Verax]

It's about assuming that aversion and assuming cognitive bias. It's an attempt at making it sound like people who disagree with AGW are biased against it because they don't like the idea of seeing 100's of billions trying to fix something that isn't problem are just doing it out of greed. It's nothing more than one more attempt to demonize those who stop and think for themselves and are willing to look at fundamentals and question why "accepted science" doesn't line up with those fundamentals. Some of us stop and question things, instead of just blindly accepting them. But articles like these are designed to make it sound those of us who are smart enough to ask questions that demand answers sound like we're messed up. It's pathetic, insulting and begs the question of why the rest of you are so blind and lazy that you won't take the time to actually do a little research and question authority.

I'm curious, are you a climate scientist? If not then I'd question whether you actually know what you're talking about. Perhaps you think you know enough to "correct" climate scientists because you think you can "think for yourself". However I'd say its far more likely you don't actually know enough to be telling anyone what is what. I'm smart enough to know that I don't know enough about climate science to think I can figure it all out at my leisure and can decide whether or not "they" are right. That's a pretty arrogant position to hold and probably a manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you know the "right" climate science and have them all proven wrong, you should be writing papers and making millions disproving some of the most important science of the 21st century.

Prove it. Show me the percentage of the total greenhouse effect caused by burning fossil fuels (and don't leave out the impact of water vapor). Then show me the annual variation in the greenhouse effect and compare the percentage of that variation to the percentage of the greenhouse effect caused by fossil fuels. This is the most basic piece of information that AGW reserch should be looking at and as such should be highly available to you.

Where is H2O in that graph?? Where is the comparison to a baseline?? Those little details that real research would show...

No, I'm done playing debate the science in this forum. We can drub through this all from start to finish and tomorrow somebody will ask the same thing ignoring all that was discovered and the whole thing will start over again.

 

[Verax]

From a book that had the father of AGW alarmism, Al Gore himself as a contributor :

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." Club of rome

This reflects the mentality behind the heads of the green movement. (Which, go deeper into their writings and they argue that the earth could sustain 20 billion if the vast majority existed as serfs, or with a population of 1-2 billion there would be the resources for everyone to live as a king.

Conspiracy crap, only nuts believe blanket groups of people are evil anti-humanists out to get you.

 

[Verax]

When the author of the article is incapable of framing things correctly, what merit does it have?

It isn't about denial of climate change. Just how stupid was the author? It's about the cause of climate change that is disagreed upon. It'
s about if there really is a problem. It's about of we can actually mitigate any possible problem.

Does the author expect to be taken serious whit such stupid rhetoric? Is he padding his resume to be a politician?

Duke university... I think I stumbled upon a probable truth. Future politician.

Again, nobody but you looks at the meanings of words and draws these wild scenarios that they mean something that they don't and that it is some sneaky slight of language designed to fool people. When somebody says climate change, agw, global warming, they're all referring to the same thing even though technically they don't quite mean the same thing.

 

[Verax]

What do you see as the principal problems or threats from a slightly warmer climate?

I don't think you have ever actually answered that question.

I've linked to the projections of the consequences of agw dozens of times.

 

[Verax]

Interesting how this thread turned out, not a single peep about the actual topic or point of the article itself. It all came back to people fighting about the science of agw. I guess some people can't even consider any other possibility than agw must be wrong because they don't like the consequences.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Conspiracy crap, only nuts believe blanket groups of people are evil anti-humanists out to get you.

1- club of rome is a real think tank, the type of think tank hired by the UN and other governments.

2- they really do write books which are publicly available, but not highly publicized.

3- they are not "anti-human" per se... they are however malthusians that believe that they have found the "carrying capacity" of the planet and discuss the ways to handle that "problem" (even though malthus has over 150 years of population growth that debunks his ideas)

the book I quoted contains the overall argument being made, to repeat, that the earth could hold 20 billion serfs, or 1-2 billion kings or something in between, and also the methods they would use to have The people accept the determination of how to move forward... and that method was to use environmental issues.

 

[ocean515]

Interesting how this thread turned out, not a single peep about the actual topic or point of the article itself. It all came back to people fighting about the science of agw. I guess some people can't even consider any other possibility than agw must be wrong because they don't like the consequences.

What is also true is well discussed in the following opinion piece from The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32462/title/Opinion--Bias-Is-Unavoidable/

It is part of the human condition to have implicit biases—and remain blissfully ignorant of them. Academic researchers, scientists, and clinicians are no exception; they are as marvelously flawed as everyone else. But it is not the cognitive bias that’s the problem. Rather, the denial that there is a problem is where the issues arise. Indeed, our capacity for self-deception was beautifully captured in the title of a recent book addressing researchers’ self-justificatory strategies, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me).

Decades of research have demonstrated that cognitive biases are commonplace and very difficult to eradicate, and more recent studies suggest that disclosure of financial conflicts of interest may actually worsen bias.

 

[Verax]

1- club of rome is a real think tank, the type of think tank hired by the UN and other governments.

2- they really do write books which are publicly available, but not highly publicized.

3- they are not "anti-human" per se... they are however malthusians that believe that they have found the "carrying capacity" of the planet and discuss the ways to handle that "problem" (even though malthus has over 150 years of population growth that debunks his ideas)

the book I quoted contains the overall argument being made, to repeat, that the earth could hold 20 billion serfs, or 1-2 billion kings or something in between, and also the methods they would use to have The people accept the determination of how to move forward... and that method was to use environmental issues.

What is this? I don't even...

 

[Verax]

What is also true is well discussed in the following opinion piece from The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32462/title/Opinion--Bias-Is-Unavoidable/

It is part of the human condition to have implicit biases—and remain blissfully ignorant of them. Academic researchers, scientists, and clinicians are no exception; they are as marvelously flawed as everyone else. But it is not the cognitive bias that’s the problem. Rather, the denial that there is a problem is where the issues arise. Indeed, our capacity for self-deception was beautifully captured in the title of a recent book addressing researchers’ self-justificatory strategies, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me).

Decades of research have demonstrated that cognitive biases are commonplace and very difficult to eradicate, and more recent studies suggest that disclosure of financial conflicts of interest may actually worsen bias.

Yeah, its really difficult to overcome bias. I've taken courses in critical thinking and read books, I've done exercises where I explore my own biases pretty extensively. It is very hard to recognize your own worldview may be flawed or based on faulty information. Your most deeply held beliefs and ideas, things you are 100% sure of, may in fact be wrong and to even think differently is very difficult to conceive.

One of the things I've gotten better with is Anchoring.

Anchoring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anchoring or focalism is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the "anchor") when making decisions. During decision making, anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgments. Once an anchor is set, other judgments are made by adjusting away from that anchor, and there is a bias toward interpreting other information around the anchor. For example, the initial price offered for a used car sets the standard for the rest of the negotiations, so that prices lower than the initial price seem more reasonable even if they are still higher than what the car is really worth.

One of the things I was doing all the time is when I researched a topic, the first good credible looking information I found, I placed as being right and compared all other subsequent information compared to that as the gold standard which trumped them. I wasn't just doing this with research, but also with buying options. I'd find something I like on Amazon, like a dryer, and decide the first good one with high ratings and favorable reviews that I like was the best and that no other could compare! Haha.

Its really hard to catch yourself thinking wrongly and dissect it, correct it, be a little more accurate in your thought processes.

 

[ocean515]

Yeah, its really difficult to overcome bias. I've taken courses in critical thinking and read books, I've done exercises where I explore my own biases pretty extensively. It is very hard to recognize your own worldview may be flawed or based on faulty information. Your most deeply held beliefs and ideas, things you are 100% sure of, may in fact be wrong and to even think differently is very difficult to conceive.

One of the things I've gotten better with is Anchoring.

Anchoring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



One of the things I was doing all the time is when I researched a topic, the first good credible looking information I found, I placed as being right and compared all other subsequent information compared to that as the gold standard which trumped them. I wasn't just doing this with research, but also with buying options. I'd find something I like on Amazon, like a dryer, and decide the first good one with high ratings and favorable reviews that I like was the best and that no other could compare! Haha.

Its really hard to catch yourself thinking wrongly and dissect it, correct it, be a little more accurate in your thought processes.

As scientists are showing with corrections in observations, changes in predictions, and as evidenced by results that are not proving replicable, bias in it's many forms is certainly a growing concern especially in areas of science where so much pressure to confirm is in place.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

What do you see as the principal problems or threats from a slightly warmer climate?

I don't think you have ever actually answered that question.

I've linked to the projections of the consequences of agw dozens of times.

Which is exactly what my point is. I want to know what it is you think is the big threat. When you answer I will of course then ask why you think that this is likely to happen. In this way your view can be examined. Maybe I will be convinced that your reasoning is valid and I will change my mind. But until that happens each time you avoid answering this very basic question I will confirm my thinking that you are following a cause rather than thinking rationally.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Interesting how this thread turned out, not a single peep about the actual topic or point of the article itself. It all came back to people fighting about the science of agw. I guess some people can't even consider any other possibility than agw must be wrong because they don't like the consequences.

Problem;- Your AGW religion is drivel.

Result;- You avoid answering basic questions about it.

Right on topic.

 

[Verax]

As scientists are showing with corrections in observations, changes in predictions, and as evidenced by results that are not proving replicable, bias in it's many forms is certainly a growing concern especially in areas of science where so much pressure to confirm is in place.

"being pressured to confirm" is not good science of course. The scientific method and the discipline of science itself works very hard at pushing out bias and trying to correct these flaws. This is nothing new and has been a problem since the dawn of time. Everyone knows you don't run experiments with the results or expectations leading it by its nose.

Suggesting climate scientists are doing bad science because its possible they are doing bad science isn't really a good argument. You have to have evidence they are doing bad science or show their science is flawed with your own good science.

 

[Verax]

Which is exactly what my point is. I want to know what it is you think is the big threat. When you answer I will of course then ask why you think that this is likely to happen. In this way your view can be examined. Maybe I will be convinced that your reasoning is valid and I will change my mind. But until that happens each time you avoid answering this very basic question I will confirm my thinking that you are following a cause rather than thinking rationally.

Problem;- Your AGW religion is drivel.

Result;- You avoid answering basic questions about it.

Right on topic.

You're a very strange person.

Read the IPCC's ar5 and you will have what I think the big threat is. My view is what the scientific community says it is. I am not a climate scientist myself, I trust their work is high quality and the best information we have available.

I'm not following a cause other than they say agw needs to be mitigated or else it will cause large problems. So I think we should do what they say.

 

[ocean515]

"being pressured to confirm" is not good science of course. The scientific method and the discipline of science itself works very hard at pushing out bias and trying to correct these flaws. This is nothing new and has been a problem since the dawn of time. Everyone knows you don't run experiments with the results or expectations leading it by its nose.

Suggesting climate scientists are doing bad science because its possible they are doing bad science isn't really a good argument. You have to have evidence they are doing bad science or show their science is flawed with your own good science.

When careers are threatened when attempts are made to show the science may be flawed, how is that accounted for?

Political leaders are insulting anyone who questions the effort, major news sources have decided they will no longer allow anyone questioning the science a voice, and derogatory names have become the norm applied to those attempting to question the agenda.

How does the science protect against bias under such conditions?

 

[Tim the plumber]

You're a very strange person.

Read the IPCC's ar5 and you will have what I think the big threat is. My view is what the scientific community says it is. I am not a climate scientist myself, I trust their work is high quality and the best information we have available.

I'm not following a cause other than they say agw needs to be mitigated or else it will cause large problems. So I think we should do what they say.

I have read the IPCC's report. Have you?

I ask again what do you think is worrying about it?

Given your reluctance to actually answer I am of the strong opinion that you don't have a clue what it is all about.

 

[Verax]

When careers are threatened when attempts are made to show the science may be flawed, how is that accounted for?

Political leaders are insulting anyone who questions the effort, major news sources have decided they will no longer allow anyone questioning the science a voice, and derogatory names have become the norm applied to those attempting to question the agenda.

How does the science protect against bias under such conditions?

Again, the possibility of bad science taking place is not proof that it is taking place. There are billions of dollars at stake and if the science was wrong the fossil fuel industry could prove it with their own scientists. They could publish the results and if it were true it would cause a massive rift in the community as those that care about the truth would support it and those that are corrupt and covering it up would eventually come to light and it would be a big cluster f**k. That hasn't happened so until it does this argument doesn't mean anything. If you think the entire scientific community is corrupted that is your choice of belief.

Yes, the science is characterized as very strong and it suggests we really, really, need to do something about it so we have this problem of not enough being done about it. So when people suggest there is nothing wrong and that we should do nothing it causes a really big problem. If agw is true and we really need to stop emitting so much CO2, but we aren't, what is going to happen? Should we not be fighting fiercely to get this done? Should we embrace people who suggest the science is wrong and do nothing?

Surely you can see the other side of the coin here, right?

 

[Verax]

I have read the IPCC's report. Have you?

I ask again what do you think is worrying about it?

Given your reluctance to actually answer I am of the strong opinion that you don't have a clue what it is all about.

You've made it obvious you are not here for discussion but rather to try and screw with me, waste my time, etc. I'm not going to respond to you anymore as I do with others that do the same thing.

I've given you my answer and you chose to ignore it and continue on demanding we talk about what I think. I don't have the time or the impetus to do such a thing.

Being that you've read the reports you know the projections about agriculture, changing weather patterns, the overall damage to ecosystems, you know, stuff that screws up the environment and makes it a less hospitable place for our children to grow up. That's what I care about, now go away.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You've made it obvious you are not here for discussion but rather to try and screw with me, waste my time, etc. I'm not going to respond to you anymore as I do with others that do the same thing.

I've given you my answer and you chose to ignore it and continue on demanding we talk about what I think. I don't have the time or the impetus to do such a thing.

Being that you've read the reports you know the projections about agriculture, changing weather patterns, the overall damage to ecosystems, you know, stuff that screws up the environment and makes it a less hospitable place for our children to grow up. That's what I care about, now go away.

I will not be going away.

I will continue to ask what degree of damage you think is likely. Do you consider the climate of about 200 miles south of you worse than you have?

That's what is projected as the most extreme case by the IPCC. So would that be bad?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Again, the possibility of bad science taking place is not proof that it is taking place. There are billions of dollars at stake and if the science was wrong the fossil fuel industry could prove it with their own scientists. They could publish the results and if it were true it would cause a massive rift in the community as those that care about the truth would support it and those that are corrupt and covering it up would eventually come to light and it would be a big cluster f**k. That hasn't happened so until it does this argument doesn't mean anything. If you think the entire scientific community is corrupted that is your choice of belief.

So you would believe it if the coal/oil lobby produced it but not when respected scientists do so.

Yes, the science is characterized as very strong and it suggests we really, really, need to do something about it so we have this problem of not enough being done about it. So when people suggest there is nothing wrong and that we should do nothing it causes a really big problem. If agw is true and we really need to stop emitting so much CO2, but we aren't, what is going to happen? Should we not be fighting fiercely to get this done? Should we embrace people who suggest the science is wrong and do nothing?

That would depend if the science said what you think it does and to what degree it would be a problem. You avoid thinking about this very strongly.

Surely you can see the other side of the coin here, right?

I can, can you?

 

[BmanMcfly]

What is this? I don't even...

That was you being corrected....

 

[Verax]

That was you being corrected....

:lamo Because I don't subscribe to your conspiracy crap?

When you describe a group of people in hyperbolic terms as being these villainous, ideological psychopaths, I just have to change the channel. These stories belong in the movies, not in real life. Sure there are some people here and there with strange ideas and beliefs, but overall the green movement is not some kind of evil control mechanism to enslave the people... really this is just... so stupid. You really think everyone can be subverted into these wild scenarios? With the way information is exchanged these days...?

The only one being tricked is you, by these story peddlers.

 

[Manc Skipper]

An awful lot of the objections fit the OP. The political agenda overrides and belittles the science, and the negatives of any response are accentuated, while the problem is either minimised, left unaddressed, or simply denied.

 

[Tim the plumber]

:lamo Because I don't subscribe to your conspiracy crap?

When you describe a group of people in hyperbolic terms as being these villainous, ideological psychopaths, I just have to change the channel. These stories belong in the movies, not in real life. Sure there are some people here and there with strange ideas and beliefs, but overall the green movement is not some kind of evil control mechanism to enslave the people... really this is just... so stupid. You really think everyone can be subverted into these wild scenarios? With the way information is exchanged these days...?

The only one being tricked is you, by these story peddlers.

It is your side and you in particular which seeks to suppress the expression of ideas contrary to your agenda.

You also seem very unwilling to actually debate the actual science or the repercussions of the possible results of a slight warming. Hardly the style of somebody seeking open debate.