- #71
Jimmy Snyder
- 1,127
- 21
If the science is against you, form a circle?einstein said:
If the science is against you, form a circle?einstein said:Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!
jimmysnyder said:If the science is against you, form a circle?
Sorry! said:Lol Andre, that list of 141 scientists related to climate research... great post!
I went through picking names at random, here is what I get:
Lee C. Gerhard
(look back to poll results I've posted)
Zbigniew Jaworowski
('nuff said?)
Björn Malmgren- Nothing really on this guy, he's a Marine geologist and a retired prof. I added him to facebook, let's see what he says!
Brian Pratt
I have a feeling I can continue to go through the names posted here but out of 4 only 1 has actually experience in recent climate science, Zbigniew Jaworowski, and he's certified in crackpottery...
If you can go through your list and show to me persons who signed this actually doing research to do with the climate over time or that they have taken an interest in modern climate research however do not agree with it for whichever reasons I'll be interested. So far all I see in this list however is no better than doing a poll on the public... sure these people are experts in their fields, highly educated, but what do they have to do with climate research... even as a hobby or interest?
4. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.
jimmysnyder said:If the science is against you, form a circle?
Andre said:Thanks for the most excellent demonstration of http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm
How much have temperatures risen since 1800? Science without real-world data is not science.Sorry! said:Point being, the science is against the skeptics, not the climate researchers.
jimmysnyder said:How much have temperatures risen since 1800? Science without real-world data is not science.
Sorry! said:Bahah, likewise Andre. You keep applying the term group think to anything in support of AGW. Must be that YOU'RE groupthinking too!
jimmysnyder said:How much have temperatures risen since 1800? Science without real-world data is not science.
How much?xxChrisxx said:We have instrumental data from about 1850 or so. The data clearly shows warming.
jimmysnyder said:how much?
Sorry! said:Bahah, likewise Andre. You keep applying the term group think to anything in support of AGW. Must be that YOU'RE groupthinking too!
Andre said:Please state your case. It feel pretty lonely though, having to see all the look-how-superior-I-am-to-you,-you-miserable-denier posts.
jimmysnyder said:What percentage human activity?
jimmysnyder said:What percentage human activity?
It's not just me. Instead of surveys to turn the public's head, how about legwork.xxChrisxx said:I'm refusing to do any legwork for you as it's easy to find papers on this.
jimmysnyder said:It's not just me. Instead of surveys to turn the public's head, how about legwork.
What bash. I have been asking the same question over and over again. I thought that the reason I got no answer is that no one knew. How do you expect me to bash climate science when no one was willing to impart the least bit of it to me so I could bash it?Sorry! said:This is where the most disagreements come from but again, if you want to discuss science instead of just attempting to bash climate science in any thread... then head over to the Earth Sciences forum.
jimmysnyder said:What bash. I have been asking the same question over and over again. I thought that the reason I got no answer is that no one knew. How do you expect me to bash climate science when no one was willing to impart the least bit of it to me so I could bash it?
You will not turn the publics head with articles. You need to tell them "Temperatures have risen x degrees since YYYY a.d., z% of it is due to human activity". If you can't say it, you may as well air-condition your doghouse.xxChrisxx said:Jimmy if you are aksing questions this basic (this isn't meant in an insulting way I promise), you are best looking at a scientific magazine. Nature, or New Scientist and such like. From there they will have links to proper scientific papers. Full papers don't usually concern themselves with something this basic.
I'll find a couple of starter threads for you, and link them when I get the chance.
jimmysnyder said:You will not turn the publics head with articles. You need to tell them "Temperatures have risen x degrees since YYYY a.d., z% of it is due to human activity". If you can't say it, you may as well air-condition your doghouse.
Andre said:Please state your case. It feel pretty lonely though, having to see all the look-how-superior-I-am-to-you,-you-miserable-denier posts.
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.
In response to the OP here discussing how science will receive 'backlash' if AGW is without merit. I think this shows that you are trying to morally justify your position.some folk, currently labelled as "flat-earthers" or "denialists" (and as crackpots here), agree about the possible mistake.
Personally I agree about science, it's way too late to build in safeties to recover from the shock.
Another post by you showing the 'morality' of the issue.Problem is not who does it, Astronuc, problem is that it is happening allegdly fighting off global warming. Without it, it would be much tougher to give it a legitimation.
the insistence on consensus is a typical central factor of groupthink.
I absolutely agree that it's paramount to do anything possible to promote a better sustainment of the world but it MUST be based on accurate science, not on runaway scaremongering and groupthink
Thanks for the most excellent demonstration of #4 symptom of groupthink
I can continue but I think the points been made. As well this isn't the only stereotype you have applied to proponents of AGW.With all respect, Turbo, maybe you should take note of the phenomenon group think
I am not in the least interested in researching. And the general public isn't either. They know that you can tell them the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth. And they know that Johnny Carson can tell them how hot it is. So they wonder why you can't tell them how many degrees hotter is now than it was before. It's a number, it kills debate.xxChrisxx said:I thought you were interested in researching this topic further, to answer your questions?
jimmysnyder said:What bash. I have been asking the same question over and over again. I thought that the reason I got no answer is that no one knew. How do you expect me to bash climate science when no one was willing to impart the least bit of it to me so I could bash it?
jimmysnyder said:It's a number, it kills debate.
Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C).
jimmysnyder said:I am not in the least interested in researching. And the general public isn't either. They know that you can tell them the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth. And they know that Johnny Carson can tell them how hot it is. So they wonder why you can't tell them how many degrees hotter is now than it was before. It's a number, it kills debate.
xxChrisxx said:The Earth has warmed about 0.8c from 1800 to now.
It's warmed approx 0.5c from 1950.
There is no debate over this, the sharper rise correlates with larger human output of CO2. So it's a pretty good indicator that we are having an effect.
Man is doing something, but there simply isn't enough data to tell how bad out contibution is. This is why people will not say a number.
Ther IS debate in the scientific community about how much we are affecting the global temperature. There is also debate over how much of an effect this will have.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/02/realclimate-gavin-schmidit-what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-human-causes-vs-natural-causes/Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling, and so the warming there has been … is caused by a combination of human drivers and some degree of internal variability. I would judge the maximum amplitude of the internal variability to be roughly 0.1 deg C over that time period, and so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I’d say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming. Slightly larger range if you want a large range for the internal stuff.
Sorry! said:Somewhat true, the reason the debate over how much humans have effected it has to do mostly with what data we decide to include... I have seen some reports saying as low as 0.28% and others say 5%(from skeptics)... Here is a good article on what's occurring and it's broken down so it's quite easy to understand, even if you don't like the numbers:
But can this "anyone" read and understand the chemistry, physics, statistics, and so on that back up the study? I doubt this very much, even if limited to college graduates.xxChrisxx said:Of course not. Anyone can read and understand something.
That's true in general, but it doesn't take an expert in climatology to tell when an expert is using questionable or invalid methodologies. Climate science is such a broad field that even the experts can't be counted on. For example, the statistical methodology behind Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph of 1998 (an adaptation of work done by Lonnie Thompson) was so flawed that it has been completely discredited in most quarters. McIntyre and McKitrick andxxChrisxx said:But when you want an informed opinion on something, you go to an expert.
So should we just take a vote? That's not the way science works. If an "expert" publishes a paper and a non-expert raises a genuine concern about the validity of the result, the concern should be addressed at face value. If the criticism is valid, it should be immaterial that the critic has or doesn't have a degree in that field, or recent papers, or gets grants from a government or private enterprise, or whatever.xxChrisxx said:Basically the less you kow about the subject you are more likely to be wrong.
That 'petition' was just of general people with a degree and should not be held as evidence that there is no generally accepted view amogst climate scientists beucase of it. I'm sure you can find just as many people with a general degree that are proponents of AGW.
A possible reason is that a large share of those folks are getting grants from government entities that are anxious to show results consistent with AGW to continue getting grants...xxChrisxx said:However! That 'petition' had less than 12% of people who's degrees are in a relevant subject and are therefore likely to be in active research of the climate (incidentally only 0.01% of the people on the list are climatologists). Other links and polls have show far more climate scientists who are proponents of global warming.
Many of the links shouw that 97% of people actively engaged in climate change research are proponents of AGW.
Coldcall said:Leaving aside the actual specifics of the argument pro and anti agw, i was wondering how face will be saved (by politcians and scientists) in the event that agw is falsified or shown to have been highly exagerrated?
IF agw is shown to be wrong then there are going to be a lot of "told you so" and serious recriminations are going to take place across the political and scientific specturm.
I wonder if the more vehement agw community has thought through the implications and possible consequences of labelleing all sceptics (including many scientific colleagues) as "flat-earthers" or "denialists".
But i think the worst consequences if agw is proved without merit will be a huge luddite backlash against science in general. That would be a tragedy.