• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GLOBAL WARMING - A Case Study in Groupthink - Christopher Booker

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
2,007
Reaction score
1,428
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's the link

GLOBAL WARMING
A case study in groupthink
How science can shed new light on the most important ‘non-debate’ of our time
Christopher Booker

A very long read over 100 pages all text - one sided to be sure,
but besides being a discussion of "GroupThink" it's a very good
history of Global Warming/Climate Change and the major players
involved in how it all came about over the last several decades.
 
Just swap in the so-called skeptics, there's your groupthink perfected.
 
Christopher Booker is a political polemicist with no scientific education whatsoever. Given that he has no real comprehension of the topic (I've read some of the utter rubbish that he has written for the Daily Telegraph), how can he possibly be any any position to distinguish between "groupthink" and actual scientific consensus? Answer: he can't. Since he has no understanding of the actual issues, he is simply resorting to name-calling. It's pathetic.
 
Just swap in the so-called skeptics, there's your groupthink perfected.

Given that us Skeptics have our own little hobby horses and own perspectives about almost everything you are obviously quite worng.

What is crippling about the Skeptic side of the political debate is that all of us contrainians are by nature just that, contrary. We are the worst mob ever, couldn't linch a cat. Just a load of very separate individuals who will never be social enough to collect together into any sort of organised party.

Unlike the Green Movement which suffers from the opposite of being hyper social where they constantly splinter into new sub groups of cliques. Still a group of 100 is much more able to move things than a thousand unco-ordinated individuals even though they are wrong.
 
Christopher Booker is a political polemicist with no scientific education whatsoever. Given that he has no real comprehension of the topic (I've read some of the utter rubbish that he has written for the Daily Telegraph), how can he possibly be any any position to distinguish between "groupthink" and actual scientific consensus? Answer: he can't. Since he has no understanding of the actual issues, he is simply resorting to name-calling. It's pathetic.

Given that you are the only person here on the Konsensus side who has any scientific understanding of anything it's a little rich to take that position.
 
Christopher Booker is a political polemicist with no scientific education whatsoever. Given that he has no real comprehension of the topic (I've read some of the utter rubbish that he has written for the Daily Telegraph), how can he possibly be any any position to distinguish between "groupthink" and actual scientific consensus? Answer: he can't. Since he has no understanding of the actual issues, he is simply resorting to name-calling. It's pathetic.

Only an outsider can have the perspective to describe and assess the phenomenon. On the other hand, in-group defensiveness toward such an outsider is a marker for groupthink. Congratulations! You're included!
 
Given that us Skeptics have our own little hobby horses and own perspectives about almost everything you are obviously quite worng.

What is crippling about the Skeptic side of the political debate is that all of us contrainians are by nature just that, contrary. We are the worst mob ever, couldn't linch a cat. Just a load of very separate individuals who will never be social enough to collect together into any sort of organised party.

Unlike the Green Movement which suffers from the opposite of being hyper social where they constantly splinter into new sub groups of cliques. Still a group of 100 is much more able to move things than a thousand unco-ordinated individuals even though they are wrong.

In other words:

You’re all wrong, but in your own special ways.
 
Only an outsider can have the perspective to describe and assess the phenomenon. On the other hand, in-group defensiveness toward such an outsider is a marker for groupthink. Congratulations! You're included!

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Only somebody who actually understands a topic can determine whether it is real or "groupthink".

Which other areas of consensus would you consider to be groupthink rather than science? Special relativity? Atomic theory? Evolution? The existence of black holes? Why? What is your criterion for determining what is groupthink, other than personal disagreement?
 
So far not a single counter has actually been posted by critics of the book here in the thread.

Just the usual personal attack on the author is all you can dream up.

:3oops:
 
So far not a single counter has actually been posted by critics of the book here in the thread.

Just the usual personal attack on the author is all you can dream up.

:3oops:

I've already read too much of Booker's nonsense in the Daily Telegraph to be able to stomach reading a whole book of his idiocy. Perhaps you could cite one of his more convincing arguments for us to critique?
 
So far not a single counter has actually been posted by critics of the book here in the thread.

Just the usual personal attack on the author is all you can dream up.

:3oops:

Just substitute ‘evolution’ for ‘global warming’, and you can see the counter argument quite clearly.

You could also substitute things like ‘ozone hole and CFCs’, or ‘allopathic medicine’ or ‘The single shooter theory and JFK’.
 
I've already read too much of Booker's nonsense in the Daily Telegraph to be able to stomach reading a whole book of his idiocy. Perhaps you could cite one of his more convincing arguments for us to critique?

Translation: I prefer making personal attacks over making a counterpoint to his article.
 
Just substitute ‘evolution’ for ‘global warming’, and you can see the counter argument quite clearly.

You could also substitute things like ‘ozone hole and CFCs’, or ‘allopathic medicine’ or ‘The single shooter theory and JFK’.

Translation: I am too busy making excuses for why I can't make a SPECIFIC counterpoint to his article.
 
If you think that then you don't understand global warming "skeptics."

Sorry, but skeptics are skeptical for varied reasons. Orthodox AGW believers are, by definition, a group.

[h=1]“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”[/h]― Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

 
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Only somebody who actually understands a topic can determine whether it is real or "groupthink".

Which other areas of consensus would you consider to be groupthink rather than science? Special relativity? Atomic theory? Evolution? The existence of black holes? Why? What is your criterion for determining what is groupthink, other than personal disagreement?

Special relativity, atomic theory, evolution and the existence of black holes have not been the subjects of political and propaganda advocacy campaigns. In those cases the science has evolved on its own and the prevailing consensus is an outcome, not a policy goal.

AGW orthodoxy trumpets and enforces a pseudo-consensus that goes beyond the science and is maintained by social, financial and political groupthink. Consensus is a policy goal for AGW advocates.
 
Special relativity, atomic theory, evolution and the existence of black holes have not been the subjects of political and propaganda advocacy campaigns. In those cases the science has evolved on its own and the prevailing consensus is an outcome, not a policy goal.

AGW orthodoxy trumpets and enforces a pseudo-consensus that goes beyond the science and is maintained by social, financial and political groupthink. Consensus is a policy goal for AGW advocates.

A circular argument, then. AGW is groupthink because it is groupthink. Very convincing.
 
A circular argument, then. AGW is groupthink because it is groupthink. Very convincing.

I explained the difference clearly. Your response is mere denial. I'll rephrase to eliminate any confusion.

AGW orthodoxy trumpets and enforces a pseudo-consensus that goes beyond the science and is maintained by social, financial and political disciplinary measures, whether conscious or unconscious.
 
So you haven't read it either, then?

Now you employ the classic deflection away from your inability to provide a rebuttal to something you didn't read.

:lol:

I have not read it, just think it looks better for YOU to explain why you think it is bad, personal attacks on the author doesn't work for me.

Feel better now?
 
A little background on the 80 year old journalist Mr Booker.

"...Does Christopher Booker exist? Or is he simply a device invented to waste as much of other people's time as possible? Might he in fact be a computer programme randomly generating nonsense in order to keep scientists, environmentalists and public health campaigners so busy refuting it that they can't get on with what they ought to be doing? I ask because it seems almost impossible that one man could make so many superhuman ****-ups ..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/oct/13/christopher-booker
 
Back
Top Bottom