Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Defending rational thought

chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

It seems there is a vast number of people who are deluded to the point that they believe they have revealed some secret knowledge that the professionals have missed. I find that a suitable analogy would be me believing I have a chance at beating Usain Bolt in a race because I once did some running and was quite good.

I wondered what might have caused this. Is it just that the intranet allows expression for this deluded behavior or is there something new driving it? More importantly how do we defend rational thought particularly when it comes to government.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:04:55 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM, chui wrote:
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

It seems there is a vast number of people who are deluded to the point that they believe they have revealed some secret knowledge that the professionals have missed. I find that a suitable analogy would be me believing I have a chance at beating Usain Bolt in a race because I once did some running and was quite good.

I wondered what might have caused this. Is it just that the intranet allows expression for this deluded behavior or is there something new driving it? More importantly how do we defend rational thought particularly when it comes to government.

Well, with an inundation of immediate information, thanks to the internet, humans have sacrificed assessing a source's credibility or validity of argument to save enough time to be able to check all of the other information coming in.

We always are trying to keep up with current info, so if we cut a few corners to get there, we don't mind making the truth sacrifice as much.

The shorthand of accessing all of this information quickly results in a more porous filter of falsehoods, to save time.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:54:14 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
I don't think it has much to do with a decline in rational thought. What has happened is that the individual has become too much of an individual now. Rather than technology and progress turning us into a global village it has turned us into 7 billion loners. We feel insignificant against the vast scale of the world - government, big businessess, the internet, everything seems to just steam-roller over us as if we - as individuals - don't matter anymore.

Call up a goverment department or a company todat and you odn't interact with a person but wuth an automated call system. If you want to buy something you don't say 'I'd like a red one, please' to a shop assistant, you click the 'red' checkbox on a web form. We don't feel ourselves as de-humanised, but we feel the world is de-humanised and we are all alone in it.

Of course that is a slight exaggeration, but it it the trend. When someone disbelieves in global warming or that the world is round they are not being irrational for the sake of it. They are rebelling against conformity, trying to cling on to a sense of personal signficance in a world where we have less and less personal signficance. We are not people any more, we are revenue streams and demographics.

How could it be otherwise? There are 7 billion people on the planet. If you drop off, there are 6.99999999 billion people to take your place. The world didn't stop turning when Steve Jobs died, so what do you or I matter?

One strategy is to not think about it. To think about other things, such as your job, or your family or posting on DDO and raise those to signficance in your own mind. But someone else can do your job, your family would move on if you died and nobody except us pays any attention to DDO.

Thank god for irrationality - without it we'd just end it all now.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 1:48:43 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM, chui wrote:
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

If we are now in the post-truth era, when was the truth era?
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 9:02:53 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 1:48:43 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM, chui wrote:
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

If we are now in the post-truth era, when was the truth era?

Is it worth replying to you? Can you actually follow an argument? In recent years too much crazy rubbish has been spread around by right wing evangelical groups that have near destroyed the thought processes of many millions particularly in America.

On the assumption you are cognizant:

Like most labels it is understood by rational people to be sure to think about the limitations of categorizing events and use context. No one claims that rational, evidence based reasoning has revealed absolute truths. You must know this. What is claimed is that we have made huge progress in our knowledge and understanding since we dispensed with superstition thinking. The baffling power of the computer in front of you is evidence of this.

So, what is meant by post-truth is a return to superstition, ie making claims that cannot be supported by evidence such as denying that there is a rapid, unprecedented change to the climate.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 9:06:23 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:04:55 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM, chui wrote:
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

It seems there is a vast number of people who are deluded to the point that they believe they have revealed some secret knowledge that the professionals have missed. I find that a suitable analogy would be me believing I have a chance at beating Usain Bolt in a race because I once did some running and was quite good.

I wondered what might have caused this. Is it just that the intranet allows expression for this deluded behavior or is there something new driving it? More importantly how do we defend rational thought particularly when it comes to government.

Well, with an inundation of immediate information, thanks to the internet, humans have sacrificed assessing a source's credibility or validity of argument to save enough time to be able to check all of the other information coming in.

We always are trying to keep up with current info, so if we cut a few corners to get there, we don't mind making the truth sacrifice as much.

The shorthand of accessing all of this information quickly results in a more porous filter of falsehoods, to save time.

Is the answer then to teach people to check their facts properly? Maybe this needs to be added to the school curriculum?
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 9:16:46 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:54:14 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I don't think it has much to do with a decline in rational thought. What has happened is that the individual has become too much of an individual now. Rather than technology and progress turning us into a global village it has turned us into 7 billion loners. We feel insignificant against the vast scale of the world - government, big businessess, the internet, everything seems to just steam-roller over us as if we - as individuals - don't matter anymore.

Call up a goverment department or a company todat and you odn't interact with a person but wuth an automated call system. If you want to buy something you don't say 'I'd like a red one, please' to a shop assistant, you click the 'red' checkbox on a web form. We don't feel ourselves as de-humanised, but we feel the world is de-humanised and we are all alone in it.

Of course that is a slight exaggeration, but it it the trend. When someone disbelieves in global warming or that the world is round they are not being irrational for the sake of it. They are rebelling against conformity, trying to cling on to a sense of personal signficance in a world where we have less and less personal signficance. We are not people any more, we are revenue streams and demographics.

How could it be otherwise? There are 7 billion people on the planet. If you drop off, there are 6.99999999 billion people to take your place. The world didn't stop turning when Steve Jobs died, so what do you or I matter?

One strategy is to not think about it. To think about other things, such as your job, or your family or posting on DDO and raise those to signficance in your own mind. But someone else can do your job, your family would move on if you died and nobody except us pays any attention to DDO.

Thank god for irrationality - without it we'd just end it all now.

When I wish to be irrational I dress up as a Saxon Warlord and run round a field hitting people with a foam sword. Fortunately the field is full of others doing the same thing. If I want to distract myself I can argue with the loons on here or dive into a MMO game. I don't see why the 'futility' of life is an excuse to endanger civilisation by damaging the reputation of science. The achievements of humankind are something we can all gain pride from and see as something worthwhile and to be emulated not disparaged. We don't forget Steve Jobs just because he is dead and start to ridicule his achievements, we remain thankful that he lived and inspired others.
thorpowers
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 11:46:51 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM, chui wrote:
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

It seems there is a vast number of people who are deluded to the point that they believe they have revealed some secret knowledge that the professionals have missed. I find that a suitable analogy would be me believing I have a chance at beating Usain Bolt in a race because I once did some running and was quite good.

I wondered what might have caused this. Is it just that the intranet allows expression for this deluded behavior or is there something new driving it? More importantly how do we defend rational thought particularly when it comes to government.

What you are describing is a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. You are implying that because someone is a scientist, expert, or professional in a field of study then it is unreasonable or irrational to even question their theories. This is not a valid argument. It is entirely possible that a person, majority, or institution of authority is wrong, as has been prevalent throughout history. Therfore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

Let's take the big bang theory for example, this theory is not testable or observable using the scientific method. The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation. Anybody who has actually studied the big bang theory would know the many, many problems associated with it, and so a reasonable man should be skeptical.

How this helps you understand your illogical thinking patterns.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 12:07:22 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 11:46:51 AM, thorpowers wrote:
At 11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM, chui wrote:
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

It seems there is a vast number of people who are deluded to the point that they believe they have revealed some secret knowledge that the professionals have missed. I find that a suitable analogy would be me believing I have a chance at beating Usain Bolt in a race because I once did some running and was quite good.

I wondered what might have caused this. Is it just that the intranet allows expression for this deluded behavior or is there something new driving it? More importantly how do we defend rational thought particularly when it comes to government.

What you are describing is a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. You are implying that because someone is a scientist, expert, or professional in a field of study then it is unreasonable or irrational to even question their theories. This is not a valid argument. It is entirely possible that a person, majority, or institution of authority is wrong, as has been prevalent throughout history. Therfore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

Let's take the big bang theory for example, this theory is not testable or observable using the scientific method. The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation. Anybody who has actually studied the big bang theory would know the many, many problems associated with it, and so a reasonable man should be skeptical.

Please present the "many problems associated" with the BB theory, if in fact, you actually have studied it?

How this helps you understand your illogical thinking patterns.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 12:27:40 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
The shorthand of accessing all of this information quickly results in a more porous filter of falsehoods, to save time.

Is the answer then to teach people to check their facts properly? Maybe this needs to be added to the school curriculum?

Needs to be, and as far as I can tell, has.
I'm a public high school teacher in Maryland, and this is certainly part of the curriculum now, but it is most certainly not an instinct of any of the students.

Yes, checking credibility and facts should be at the center of anyone's attempt at using the internet for information...critical thinking really.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 12:32:14 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 11:46:51 AM, thorpowers wrote:

Let's take the big bang theory for example, this theory is not testable or observable using the scientific method.

Explain to me how Cosmic Microwave Background radiation isn't observable or testable.
Do you know of the CMB or not?

The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment.

Right, like the observations of the expanding universe and the remnant CMB radiation?

Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.

Have you been to NASA online?

Anybody who has actually studied the big bang theory would know the many, many problems associated with it, and so a reasonable man should be skeptical.

I've been studying it for years, and I'm not sure to what you are referring.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 1:16:23 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
We've discussed the BB umpteen times. I think chui's point about 'post-truth' culture is far more interesting!

I'd take issue that evidence-based reasning is losing ground. Climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists also reason from evidence, albeit they reach odd conclusions. What we see is distrust of evidence, a sense that the evidence is false or is being misrepresented. People feel they are being routinely lied to and being manipulated. Conspiracy theorists do not downplay the value of evidence or reason - quite the opposite. They recognise the power evidence and reason have, and that control of information is the key to the power that the government/big business/shadowy cabals of billionaires have.

Anyone who remembers the debacle over Saddams's weapons of mass destruction know that was an delberate attempt by governments to construct a lie. Was that an aberation or one time when they got found out?

I come back to my point about modern society. One aspect of modern society is that the way we interact is very different from how it would have been. Orifinally we would have interacted within small groups with plenty of opportunity to establish trust relationships based on mutiple interactions. These days we interact much more anonymously, in one-off ways with strangers.

The incentive to cheat on someone you will never meet again is far greater than if you will meet them time after time into the future. In this technological age, it is possible to cheat strangers without even meeting them. We recognise that and become defensive and untrusting. We assume that we are being lied to and so rely on our own resources and judgement. For example, it isn't easy for an individual to perceive the effects of global warming for themselves, so people tend to believe it isn't happening and its all a big con.

Of course many people (my self included) doesn't think global warming is a con. We're far too clever to be taken in by a con. But I've never measured a CO2 level in my life. I put my faith in the fact that goverments etc. just aren't that clever. They tried to be clever over Saddams's WMD and just ended up looking stupid. But I think that's a judgement call, isn't it?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 2:55:44 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM, chui wrote:
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

It seems there is a vast number of people who are deluded to the point that they believe they have revealed some secret knowledge that the professionals have missed. I find that a suitable analogy would be me believing I have a chance at beating Usain Bolt in a race because I once did some running and was quite good.

I wondered what might have caused this. Is it just that the intranet allows expression for this deluded behavior or is there something new driving it? More importantly how do we defend rational thought particularly when it comes to government.

The internet has not changed human nature.

Every new technological improvement is seen as causing a change in human nature.

There was a time when men went to barber shops, and women went to beauticians, to find out who in the community had a new conspiracy theory, and what fool things someone read or heard about.
Today they use the internet.

There was a time when your daily news never went beyond the county line.
Even with television, and 30 minutes of local news, 30 minutes of national, that is really what you got. Then, about 30 or 40 years ago things started to change.
Today, we have national news on the local news, and local news on the national news.
This is done in the name of "human interest".
A story about a house burning down in Denver, should be a local story for Denver, but the local news in every single state will carry it if there is a human interest angle, like a heroic rescue, or 3 toddlers dying. You see the same type of thing on the network national news, local stories only a few hundred people might have heard about, now told to millions.
It distorts our view of reality. We think it s happening to us, because it is on our local news. We think it is a national concern, because it is on national news.

Technology does not change human nature, we are just exposed to more of it, so we think there is more of it.

You say "It seems there is a vast number of people who are deluded to the point that they believe they have revealed some secret knowledge that the professionals have missed."
I say there are no more of these type of people than there was 50 or 100 years ago.
You are just exposed to more of them.
In some cases they are getting their 15 minutes of fame, as predicted by Andy Warhol.
Social media plays a big part in our mistaken perceptions.

In short, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
thorpowers
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 3:35:41 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Please present the "many problems associated" with the BB theory, if in fact, you actually have studied it?

Baryon asymmetry, dark energy problem, dark matter problem, horizon problem, flatness problem, magnetic monopoles....ect

I will not go into these in detail as I assume anyone commenting should already be familiar with these issues.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 4:00:57 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 9:02:53 AM, chui wrote:
At 11/25/2016 1:48:43 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM, chui wrote:
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

If we are now in the post-truth era, when was the truth era?

Is it worth replying to you? Can you actually follow an argument? In recent years too much crazy rubbish has been spread around by right wing evangelical groups that have near destroyed the thought processes of many millions particularly in America.

On the assumption you are cognizant:

Like most labels it is understood by rational people to be sure to think about the limitations of categorizing events and use context. No one claims that rational, evidence based reasoning has revealed absolute truths. You must know this. What is claimed is that we have made huge progress in our knowledge and understanding since we dispensed with superstition thinking. The baffling power of the computer in front of you is evidence of this.

So, what is meant by post-truth is a return to superstition, ie making claims that cannot be supported by evidence such as denying that there is a rapid, unprecedented change to the climate.

It is not just in recent years people have been have been skeptical of these "scientific facts" you mentioned. People have been skeptical of climate change ever since it was first proposed. People believed in intelligent design since forever. People questioned the moon landing ever since is supposedly happened. People were skeptical of the safety of vaccines ever since the hepatitis B vaccine in the 70's. People rejected the big bang ever since it was first proposed. People rejected relativity ever since it was first proposed.

So when you say "In recent years too much crazy rubbish has been spread...", this "crazy rubbish" you refer to has always been existed, it has not just started to occur recently. That is why I asked when was the truth era, because you were implying that these beliefs are only recent, so I asked when this mythical truth era was where these these beliefs didn't exist, like you implied it did.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 4:26:25 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 11:46:51 AM, thorpowers wrote:
At 11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM, chui wrote:
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

It seems there is a vast number of people who are deluded to the point that they believe they have revealed some secret knowledge that the professionals have missed. I find that a suitable analogy would be me believing I have a chance at beating Usain Bolt in a race because I once did some running and was quite good.

I wondered what might have caused this. Is it just that the intranet allows expression for this deluded behavior or is there something new driving it? More importantly how do we defend rational thought particularly when it comes to government.

What you are describing is a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

No I am not. Scientific knowledge is not the result of an individual in the way that philosophical theories are the work of an individual. Check the definition of authority fallacy.


Let's take the big bang theory for example, this theory is not testable or observable using the scientific method.

Hubble's law. Cosmic microwave background. This is evidence that has been observed.


How this helps you understand your illogical thinking patterns.

Dunning Kruger effect. This is the name of the syndrome you suffer from. You are so ill educated you believe you have a contribution to this debate.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 6:04:17 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 4:26:25 PM, chui wrote:
At 11/25/2016 11:46:51 AM, thorpowers wrote:
At 11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM, chui wrote:
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

It seems there is a vast number of people who are deluded to the point that they believe they have revealed some secret knowledge that the professionals have missed. I find that a suitable analogy would be me believing I have a chance at beating Usain Bolt in a race because I once did some running and was quite good.

I wondered what might have caused this. Is it just that the intranet allows expression for this deluded behavior or is there something new driving it? More importantly how do we defend rational thought particularly when it comes to government.

What you are describing is a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

No I am not. Scientific knowledge is not the result of an individual in the way that philosophical theories are the work of an individual. Check the definition of authority fallacy.

That is a good principle.
In principle, I agree.
If you want to know if a call in soccer is correct, consult the rulebook.

The problem is that for the subjects mentioned, there is a consensus of opinion in the scientific community, but not unanimous agreement.
According to the SM, a theory should be demonstrated to be correct, and is accepted until shown otherwise. Some scientists have shown otherwise.
So, either the SM is not being carried out as intended, or certain theories have failed the test.
For things like global warming, "experimentation" is done by computer modeling.
One group of scientists puts data in that they consider reliable, another group arrives at different data, they believe to be more valid, and enter that. The results are not equal.
So, among scientists there is disagreement.
In such cases, what might be a "scientific theory", is not.
It is a "scientific hypothesis". That is to say, both sides are scientific hypothesis'.
We might say one side is more likely, based on an appeal to numbers, a fallacy.

As a red herring one might say, well, there will never be 100% agreement about nearly anything.
In the case of global warming, as an example, there are not a few lone voices in the wilderness. There are many scientists who are capable of looking at the data, looking at the results, and making an informed opinion, and say the global warming scare is not valid. They do not have to be climatologists to read and interpret data.
Some might even say they have a more objective viewpoint, then the ones who may have their own agenda.

I am not denying any particular viewpoint on global warming (and other issues).
I am saying they are all questionable, not valid "scientific theories", as defined by the SM.


Let's take the big bang theory for example, this theory is not testable or observable using the scientific method.

Hubble's law. Cosmic microwave background. This is evidence that has been observed.


How this helps you understand your illogical thinking patterns.

Dunning Kruger effect. This is the name of the syndrome you suffer from. You are so ill educated you believe you have a contribution to this debate.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2016 1:06:28 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
At 11/25/2016 6:04:17 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Having considered your answer here for a while I would say that you are clearly an example of a anti-rational thinker:

You over estimate your competence to critically evaluate issues
You are ignorant of large amounts of scientific knowledge that is the essential background to the issues
You use scientific language to appear knowledgeable when you are not
You portray the scientific method in a very simple fashion
You significantly underestimate the professionalism and competence of scientists and the scientific community
You cherry pick evidence and/or fail to research from appropriate sources
You distort the situation and do not portray issues accurately
You have your own agenda


The problem is that for the subjects mentioned, there is a consensus of opinion in the scientific community, but not unanimous agreement.

You are trying to imply that a significant number of scientists totally disagree with climate change. This is not the case. Disagreements are over fine detail in the main.

According to the SM, a theory should be demonstrated to be correct, and is accepted until shown otherwise. Some scientists have shown otherwise.

Huge oversimplification. Climate change is not a single theory on its own. It uses many highly established theories and has a huge amount of data supporting it, gathered by institutes all over the world.

So, either the SM is not being carried out as intended, or certain theories have failed the test.

Again you try to give a distorted portrayal that there are scientists who have performed tests that disprove climate change. This is just false.

For things like global warming, "experimentation" is done by computer modeling.
One group of scientists puts data in that they consider reliable, another group arrives at different data, they believe to be more valid, and enter that. The results are not equal.

Massive ignorance displayed here. Computer modelling is a well established technique in many fields of knowledge. It is carried out by highly competent teams who know how to test models and know the weaknesses of computer modelling as well as the strengths. Global warming has direct temperature measurements to prove it is real, you totally ignore this. The computer models are to try to predict the effect on the climate in future. We have a lot of knowledge of the atmosphere and historic records of climate change that are used to make these models. The predictions of the models will be matched to changes observed in the climate to improve the models.

So, among scientists there is disagreement.

There is always disagreement, but it is predominantly over fine detail. You are trying to imply that many argue against climate change, which is just a false picture.

In such cases, what might be a "scientific theory", is not.

No, again a false picture. This implies that the theories involved are being developed not trashed.

It is a "scientific hypothesis". That is to say, both sides are scientific hypothesis'.

The temperature records, increases in flooding, changes to the gulf stream, changes to weather patterns, increases in hurricanes all point to very real and very dangerous climate change. This is real data that you totally fail to mention to construct a false picture that climate change is a feeble theory.

We might say one side is more likely, based on an appeal to numbers, a fallacy.

No not a fallacy, when the majority are looking at large amounts of data and using knowledge gained painstakingly over centuries by the scientific community. Scientists are highly competent individuals who have trained all their professional lives to evaluate, analyse and criticise data. The fact that all these individuals reach the same conclusion independently makes the conclusion stronger. They are not forced or coerced into agreeing, they have the ability to think for themselves.


As a red herring one might say, well, there will never be 100% agreement about nearly anything.
In the case of global warming, as an example, there are not a few lone voices in the wilderness. There are many scientists who are capable of looking at the data, looking at the results, and making an informed opinion, and say the global warming scare is not valid. They do not have to be climatologists to read and interpret data.

'global warming scare' ? This phrase suggest you have an agenda. Can you name any scientists who claim that the climate is not changing rapidly at the moment? Can you name any that do not think people are in danger from these changes? The arguments are over the precise mechanism driving climate change and the extent to which it is avoidable.

Some might even say they have a more objective viewpoint, then the ones who may have their own agenda.

You appear to have swallowed the false idea that climatologists invented climate change to get money. Again this shows how much you underestimate the professionalism of scientists. There is plenty of work to be done in science without inventing false theories.


I am not denying any particular viewpoint on global warming (and other issues).

When you use terms like 'scare' and 'agenda' it is obvious what your position is.

I am saying they are all questionable, not valid "scientific theories", as defined by the SM.

You have managed to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion purely because your thinking is so distorted. Primarily you have ignored vast amounts of evidence that support the theories I mentioned and portray science, scientists and the scientific community as if it is incompetent and unaware of how to criticise theories.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2016 4:03:55 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
At 12/9/2016 1:06:28 PM, chui wrote:
At 11/25/2016 6:04:17 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Having considered your answer here for a while I would say that you are clearly an example of a anti-rational thinker:

You over estimate your competence to critically evaluate issues
You are ignorant of large amounts of scientific knowledge that is the essential background to the issues
You use scientific language to appear knowledgeable when you are not
You portray the scientific method in a very simple fashion
You significantly underestimate the professionalism and competence of scientists and the scientific community
You cherry pick evidence and/or fail to research from appropriate sources
You distort the situation and do not portray issues accurately
You have your own agenda



The problem is that for the subjects mentioned, there is a consensus of opinion in the scientific community, but not unanimous agreement.

You are trying to imply that a significant number of scientists totally disagree with climate change. This is not the case. Disagreements are over fine detail in the main.


Let us be clear about how Scientific Theories work.
They stand until shown incorrect. Then, they are questionable at best, and get downgraded to a hypothesis, or, discarded at worst.

According to the SM, a theory should be demonstrated to be correct, and is accepted until shown otherwise. Some scientists have shown otherwise.

Huge oversimplification. Climate change is not a single theory on its own. It uses many highly established theories and has a huge amount of data supporting it, gathered by institutes all over the world.


Let me tell you what I am referring to, and you can disagree.
"Global warming is occurring, and a major influence is humanity, and if their damaging actions are not curtailed the planet will be damaged, in the near future, to such an extent life as we know it will not be possible."
If you are willing to say there is no truth to this position, that those who are fighting to "stop global warming", do not present this as their belief, then maybe we have no disagreement.

So, either the SM is not being carried out as intended, or certain theories have failed the test.

Again you try to give a distorted portrayal that there are scientists who have performed tests that disprove climate change. This is just false.


See below, additional posts.

For things like global warming, "experimentation" is done by computer modeling.
One group of scientists puts data in that they consider reliable, another group arrives at different data, they believe to be more valid, and enter that. The results are not equal.

Massive ignorance displayed here. Computer modelling is a well established technique in many fields of knowledge. It is carried out by highly competent teams who know how to test models and know the weaknesses of computer modelling as well as the strengths.


First, computer models were done exactly as you described and the results were conclusive. Rogue waves could not occur more often than once in 10,000 years, so reports of such events at intervals of about once a decade are just not scientifically possible. However, they do, as established by scientific verification, and 100 years of denial.
Second, equally qualified scientists use other data they believe is just as reliable, and get different results. In some cases, they use the same raw data, apply different logarithms, and get conflicting results.

Global warming has direct temperature measurements to prove it is real, you totally ignore this.:

No one in the world denies global warming occurs. I never suggested otherwise. You are a fool to say I would, or you take me take me be a fool.
This is well documented over the millenniums. At issue is how much is natural, and how much is manmade.

The computer models are to try to predict the effect on the climate in future. We have a lot of knowledge of the atmosphere and historic records of climate change that are used to make these models. The predictions of the models will be matched to changes observed in the climate to improve the models.

Yes, and some of those models contradict others.
You ignore this.

So, among scientists there is disagreement.

There is always disagreement, but it is predominantly over fine detail. You are trying to imply that many argue against climate change, which is just a false picture.


Not just the fine detail. The really big detail. The natural versus manmade causes are not unanimous.

In such cases, what might be a "scientific theory", is not.

No, again a false picture. This implies that the theories involved are being developed not trashed.


If one occurrence shows the theory is not valid, it is not on solid ground. When you replace hands on experiments with computer models, there will often be models that contradict.

It is a "scientific hypothesis". That is to say, both sides are scientific hypothesis'.

The temperature records, increases in flooding, changes to the gulf stream, changes to weather patterns, increases in hurricanes all point to very real and very dangerous climate change. This is real data that you totally fail to mention to construct a false picture that climate change is a feeble theory.


Changes occur. Everyone agrees.
Are these changes natural, within the normal ebb and flow of weather, or drastically skewed by manmade actions?
Not everyone agrees. You ignore this.

We might say one side is more likely, based on an appeal to numbers, a fallacy.

No not a fallacy, when the majority are looking at large amounts of data and using knowledge gained painstakingly over centuries by the scientific community. Scientists are highly competent individuals who have trained all their professional lives to evaluate, analyse and criticise data. The fact that all these individuals reach the same conclusion independently makes the conclusion stronger. They are not forced or coerced into agreeing, they have the ability to think for themselves.


Do you even understand what the fallacy of appeal to numbers means?
You cannot say the minority is wrong just because they are a minority, with any credibility.
You have to provide real scientific evidence. Computer modeling is an extension of thought experiments. Two groups think different things, and their differences will not be resolved.
There are two legitimate sides to this issue, and want to present it as though there is only one credible side. Pure hogwash.


As a red herring one might say, well, there will never be 100% agreement about nearly anything.
In the case of global warming, as an example, there are not a few lone voices in the wilderness. There are many scientists who are capable of looking at the data, looking at the results, and making an informed opinion, and say the global warming scare is not valid. They do not have to be climatologists to read and interpret data.

'global warming scare' ? This phrase suggest you have an agenda. Can you name any scientists who claim that the climate is not changing rapidly at the moment? Can you name any that do not think people are in danger from these changes? The arguments are over the precise mechanism driving climate change and the extent to which it is avoidable.

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2016 4:04:36 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
Some might even say they have a more objective viewpoint, then the ones who may have their own agenda.

You appear to have swallowed the false idea that climatologists invented climate change to get money. Again this shows how much you underestimate the professionalism of scientists. There is plenty of work to be done in science without inventing false theories.

You appear to have swallowed the idea that all scientists are the moral superior of all other human beings.
You want to make the argument that no scientist has ever taken a position just for the money.
No scientist has ever said cigarettes are not bad for you, just because the tobacco industry paid them?
No scientist has ever said fracking is not harmful just because their employer paid them.
No scientist said sugar is not the culprit, it is fat causing all the health problems, just because the sugar people paid them.
It is difficult to tell if you are na"ve, dishonest, or just stupid.

I am not denying any particular viewpoint on global warming (and other issues).

When you use terms like 'scare' and 'agenda' it is obvious what your position is.

I am saying they are all questionable, not valid "scientific theories", as defined by the SM.

You have managed to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion purely because your thinking is so distorted. Primarily you have ignored vast amounts of evidence that support the theories I mentioned and portray science, scientists and the scientific community as if it is incompetent and unaware of how to criticise theories.
You have deluded yourself into thinking that the PHDs who disagree with the causes of global warming are just plain stupid. After all, they couldn"t possibly be doing it for financial benefit. Scientists do not do that.
Oh, wait, that"s right. Such people do not exist.
Every single scientist agrees that because of manmade global warming "people are in danger", and this is avoidable.
There is only disagreement about the fine details.

See my posts below.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2016 4:08:08 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
Dr. Roy Spencer climatologist, former NASA scientist
Generally speaking, it"s not the warming that is in dispute"it"s the cause of the warming.
Are Global Temperatures Rising Now? There is no way to know, because natural year-to-year variability in global temperature is so large, with warming and cooling occurring all the time.
Is Increasing CO2 Even Capable of Causing Warming? Adding more "should" cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But I"m still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before.

Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed "proof" of humans being the source of increasing CO2 " a change in the atmospheric concentration of the carbon isotope C13 " would also be consistent with a natural, biological source.

Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming? While this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused.

Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming? Because (as they have told me) they can"t think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, it"s not that there is evidence nature can"t be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC.

Why Would Bias in Climate Research be Important? I thought Scientists Just Follow the Data Where It Leads Them When researchers approach a problem, their pre-conceived notions often guide them. It"s not that the IPCC"s claim that humans cause global warming is somehow untenable or impossible, it"s that political and financial pressures have resulted in the IPCC almost totally ignoring alternative explanations for that warming.

How Important Is "Scientific Consensus" in Climate Research? In the case of global warming, it is nearly worthless. The climate system is so complex that the vast majority of climate scientists " usually experts in variety of specialized fields " assume there are more knowledgeable scientists, and they are just supporting the opinions of their colleagues. And among that small group of most knowledgeable experts, there is a considerable element of groupthink, herd mentality, peer pressure, political pressure, support of certain energy policies, and desire to Save the Earth " whether it needs to be saved or not.

How Important are Computerized Climate Models? I consider climate models as being our best way of exploring cause and effect in the climate system. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and unless you can demonstrate causation with numbers in equations, you are stuck with scientists trying to persuade one another by waving their hands. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that climate models will ever produce a useful prediction of the future. Nevertheless, we must use them, and we learn a lot from them. My biggest concern is that models have been used almost exclusively for supporting the claim that humans cause global warming, rather than for exploring alternative hypotheses " e.g. natural climate variations " as possible causes of that warming.

Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on average"but the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.
http://www.drroyspencer.com...
~ ~ ~ ~
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2016 4:11:29 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
Polar Ice
In the last days of the Northern hemisphere"s summer, the sea ice that covers part of the Arctic Ocean reaches its minimum extent.
The annual change, recorded by satellites, has come to be seen as evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and a warning of what is to come.
It features in the global news every Summer. One journalist has called it the planet"s "white flag of surrender", others the "Arctic Death Spiral".

The lowest sea ice extent ever recorded was in 2012, and previous to that in 2007.
In the 2000s, a new trend of decreasing sea ice minimums seemed to be emerging. Whereas computer models had predicted that Arctic summer sea ice wouldn"t disappear until the middle of the century, the rate of decline seemed to be much faster.
The story of rapid, unnatural change and the plight of the polar bear became powerful symbols of climate change happening in real time. Campaigners launched high profile, swimming, kayaking and evidence-gathering missions to the North Pole to draw the media"s attention to the issue.
In 2007, media stories featured the claims of Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski, who claimed that the ice would be gone by 2013.
The following year, Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) predicted that 2008 could be "become ice free at the North Pole this year."
And in 2009, Al Gore announced "there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years."
But the missions to the Arctic were hampered by bad weather, not open sea. And the dates by which climate scientists and politicians said the ice would disappear have come and gone, while the ice has remained.

Undaunted, fresh predictions have been made in every subsequent year.
2016 was no exception. In June, one scientist claimed that his prediction of an ice-free Arctic ocean might finally come true. The story made headlines throughout the world. But rather than disappearing, the joint-second lowest sea ice extent since 1978 was recorded.
This has caused controversy within climate science. A decade of failed predictions has signalled that science does not yet understand what drives variation in the Arctic. Some scientists have urged more caution. But the story of the Arctic"s "death spiral" featured in news reports, in spite of these warnings.
And the story has a very long history.
In the 1950s, newspapers report the findings of an international panel of scientists. They predicted that the Arctic could be ice-free by the end of the 1970s.
Even as far back as the early 1920s, newspapers carried stories of a "great thaw". One journalist wrote that "the giant ice cap has retreated as though in a flash", adding that "the man of science breathes in our ear that outside of what has been described in Genesis there has been nothing like it in all history".
By the 1970s concerns returned to the possibility of a new ice age, that would see the Arctic sea ice grow, making the Northern hemisphere inhospitable to agriculture.
One problem that persists is that there is still only a relatively short series of direct measurements on which to base our understanding of the Arctic.
Satellite monitoring of the Arctic only began in 1978, giving us less than forty years of reliable data. This may not be enough to establish what is normal " or abnormal " for the region.
The beginning of the satellite data starts at the end of a 40-year cooling phase, which may mean that our record of Arctic sea ice begins from an unusually high point.
Recent analysis of sea ice area shows that, although the last decade may have seen the most dramatic minimum extents, the decade that shows the greatest rate of decline occurred between 1998 and 2008 and that data since then shows significantly less decline.
And other explanations may better account for these observed changes than global warming.
One explanation for the more stable sea ice conditions seen since 2007 might be the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, or AMO " a natural cycle of warming and cooling. AMO peaked in 2008, and has recently entered a negative phase. The decline of summer sea ice may at least in part be a response to this and other natural cycles.
Rather than being based on an understanding of the Arctic"s climate, estimates of rapid sea ice decline have been made by simply drawing a straight line through the data. This may not be a safe way of making predictions, or of attributing sea ice decline to anthropogenic global warming.
As soon as the 2016 Arctic sea ice minimum was reached, it began its recovery, as it does every year. Even if we were to see an ice free summer Arctic, the significance of this event might be only symbolic.
Until the noise of a century of media hype and unscientific speculation about the Arctic has been removed from the public debate, science will be unable to explain what, if anything, the signal from the Arctic is telling us.

http://www.thegwpf.org...
~ ~ ~

A new paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds the Vatican is being led astray by its advisors by statements on climate change that are scientifically lacking and ethically dubious.

The report, written by Dr Indur Goklany, examines just some of the scientific statements made by the Pontifical Academies ahead of the Pope"s recent encyclical on the environment and finds that these fly in the face of the empirical facts.
As Dr Goklany explains:
"The academies say that sustainability and resilience are being destroyed by over-consumption and that fossil fuels are to blame, yet almost every indicator of human well-being from life-expectancy to health to standard of living has improved beyond measure largely because of our use of fossil fuels".

And according to Dr Goklany"s analysis, the beneficial impact of fossil fuels has not only been on human well-being but also on nature, because fossil fuel use has allowed more intensive use of land, thus reducing the amount of wilderness that has to be diverted to agricultural use. This means that the Vatican"s backing of reductions in fossil fuel use would actually reduce human well-being and increase the human impact on the planet.
Dr Goklany said:
"Climate change is a moral and ethical issue, but it is a strange ethical calculus that would justify wiping out the gains we have made in human well-being over the last few centuries at the same time devastating the natural world. The Vatican"s advisors appear to have lost their way".

About the author
Dr Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the US delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a US delegate to the IPCC, and an IPCC reviewer. He is a member of the GWPF"s Academic Advisory Council.
http://www.thegwpf.org...
~ ~ ~
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2016 4:12:44 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
~ ~ ~
GWPF Press Release: A new paper published in the prestigious journal Climate Dynamics finds that the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures is likely to be even smaller than previously thought.
Earlier this year, in a widely discussed report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, climate researcher Nic Lewis and science writer Marcel Crok put forward a new estimate of the Earth"s climate sensitivity based on observational data, finding that it was much less alarming than suggested by computer simulations of the Earth"s climate.

Now, Lewis and well known American climate science professor Judith Curry have updated the Lewis and Crok report estimates using the latest empirical data, a more sophisticated methodology and an approach to accounting for uncertainties that has been described by one independent reviewer as "state of the art". Their findings fully support the modest estimates of climate sensitivity and future warming given in the Lewis and Crok report, and compared with that report make it look even less likely that the substantially higher estimates based on computer simulations are correct.
"Our results, which use data from this year"s IPCC fifth assessment report, are in line with those of several recent studies based on observed centennial warming and strongly suggest complex global climate models used for warming projections are oversensitive to carbon dioxide concentrations," Nic Lewis said.

http://www.thegwpf.org...
~ ~ ~
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2016 4:15:15 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
Earlier this week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suffered another self-inflicted wound.
An Argentina-based activist group called the Universal Ecological Fund released a report predicting improbably rapid climate change. The media, taking the accompanying press release at face value, told us the report had the blessing of "Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist Osvaldo Canziani."

An Argentinian meteorologist, Canziani was one of two co-chairs for the Working Group 2 section of the 2007 IPCC report. When the IPCC was awarded the 2007Peace Prize (along with Al Gore) for helping raise awareness about global warming Canziani was one of the many scientists who shared in the Nobel glory.

Even though the Peace Prize is not a science award, there"s nothing stopping an activist group from employing a little sleight-of-hand, from implying that anyone connected to the IPCC is ipso facto a "Nobel laureate." In this case, the gullible media fell for it.

Since everyone involved with the IPCC (except the expert reviewers) is now technically a "Nobel laureate" " and may well get described as such by journalists " just how awkward could this matter become? Actually, rather awkward indeed.
Last year, when a committee of the InterAcademy Council investigated the IPCC,232 people filled out a questionnaire. Their remarks were later anonymized and released in a massive 678-page PDF. The quotes below are drawn only from the IPCC insiders who answered the questionnaire. (At the beginning of the questionnaire people indicate what positions they"ve held with the IPPC; bolding has been added by me.)
IPCC works hard for geographic diversity. This is one valuable criterion, but it is not sufficient to choose a lead author. The result is that some of the lead authors (generally although not always from developing countries) are clearly not qualified to be lead authors and are unable to contribute in a meaningful way to the writing of the chapter. (page 16)

"two [lead authors] on our chapter (one from a developing country and one European) never wrote a word or contributed much to discussions" nevertheless they remained credited. I felt this was unfair on those that actually wrote the text. (p. 35)
"it is clearly noticeable that the [author nomination] process occasionally brings authors with poor knowledge or poor motivation into [lead author] positions. p. 46)
The need for geographic and gender balance in selecting the bureau and [working group] Chairs is a problem. The [working group] Chairs from developing nations do not carry half the load " most are incapable of doing so. (p. 50)

The problems caused by requiring geographic and gender balance are equally important at the lead author level. The developing nation participants on my Chapter team had limited understanding of developments outside their region and limited resources to obtain better understanding. (p. 50)
The calibre of the participants has been declining. For the Second Assessment Report, the WG III policy chapter had a Nobel Laureate in economics (Kenneth Arrow) and a future Laureate (Joseph Stiglitz). For the Third Assessment Report, the WG III policy chapter had full professors of environmental economics and law from three prestigious universities " Peter Bohm, Stockholm; Thomas Heller, Stanford and Robert Stavins, Harvard. For the Fourth Assessment Report this had fallen to one full professor of environmental economics " Charles Kolstad, UC Santa Barbara. (p. 71)
Since I have been selected for several IPCC reports, I have no personal prejudice (or grouse) on the process. However, regarding the selection of Lead Authors, I am more worried since the distortions, opaqueness and arbitrariness that is lately creeping into the process seems alarming. It seems that knowledge and scientific contributions are increasingly at discount in selection of authors compared to the personal connections, affiliations and political accommodations. (p. 78)
In the present process, there are four meetings where the IPCC Authors primarily meet. Many authors are absent and also some hardly contribute. The report therefore is finally prepared by a few" (p. 79)

In WGI AR4, my judgment is that about 20% of the authors did very little, but the 80% who actually wrote the report were excellent. The 20% included some lazy people who just wanted the honor of being [a lead author] without the chore of actually doing the work. (p. 83)
The selection of lead authors is based on a mix of competence and politics. The result unfortunately is usually a chapter team that has 3-5 people who do most of the work" (p. 117)

There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter in AR4 we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent. (p. 138)
The predominant concern appears to be geographic, gender"balancerather than making sure that the best [lead authors] are chosen" (p. 160, first ellipsis in the original)
I have made a suggestion above to"improve the process of selecting co-chairs and authors more based on merit and less on politics. (p. 162)
The need to have a geographical balance enforces to select some authors, mostly from developing countries, which do not have the necessary expertise"Some authors do not deliver any work at all, or their work is untimely and/or of poor quality. (p. 233)
Sometimes, [lead authors] recommended from developing countries arebureaucrats with little scientific background"I recommend strongly to emphasize more academic background of [lead authors] in selecting them" (pp. 261-2, first ellipsis in the original)
"lead authors, especially from developing countries, are approached to participate (or be nominated) and often have their "arms twisted" to participate. They then battle to meet the work load"Their names are included in the list of authors and hence add to the credibility of the output " but the input has been limited. Secondly I have experienced the addition of lead authors or [contributing] authors during the process who often seem to come with a political mandate " generally from developed countries and as such they can be very disruptive " let alone the dubious nature of the science they contribute! (p. 277)
The role of gender and geographic factors in selecting authors/lead authors/review editors should be suppressed. Scientific quality and background should be the main criterion"(p. 288)
"the necessity of a political spread of the working group chairs, makes that not always the most competent people are there. (p. 295)
"half of the authors are there for simply representing different parts of the world. This makes author groups very large, and often not effective where two or three authors per chapter still do all the work. Also countries nominate, and sometimes nominate not pure scientists, but people also involved in [Conference of the Parties] negotiations. (p. 296)
The team members from the developing countries (including myself) were made to feel welcome and accepted as part of the team. In reality we were out of our intellectual depth as meaningful contributors to the process.) (p. 330)
The repetitive process of an entire review at five year intervals has become burdensome to the key scientists, many of whom would prefer to remain doing science rather than sitting in committees. One result is that eventually the B-team or C-team are nominated to serve, while the A-team stays at home to do the work. (p. 332)
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2016 4:15:53 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
There are basically two groups of climate researchers and they have come to very different conclusions, even as they study the same data. Both groups acknowledge that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have the potential to warm the earth"s average temperature. Both groups acknowledge that there is an increase in the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are going into the atmosphere.
However, one group staunchly believes that as a result of an increase in greenhouse gases, the temperature of thee earth will continue to warm, the polar ice caps will begin to melt, sea levels will rise, coastal cities will flood, and eventually the world"s health and economic structures will be significantly disrupted. This group even found a way to blame the colder than normal temperatures of December and January on disruptions caused by warming temperatures.
The other group finds the threat of global warming to be greatly exaggerated. They have concluded that the slight increase in average global temperatures will be absorbed by the earth"s natural systems with minimal and non-catastrophic effects on the earth. They consider that earthquakes, volcanoes, and other natural events play a role in climate changes.
http://www.undergroundparadigm.com...
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2016 4:28:40 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
At 12/9/2016 4:15:53 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

However, one group staunchly believes that as a result of an increase in greenhouse gases, the temperature of thee earth will continue to warm, the polar ice caps will begin to melt, sea levels will rise, coastal cities will flood, and eventually the world"s health and economic structures will be significantly disrupted. This group even found a way to blame the colder than normal temperatures of December and January on disruptions caused by warming temperatures.
The other group finds the threat of global warming to be greatly exaggerated. They have concluded that the slight increase in average global temperatures will be absorbed by the earth"s natural systems with minimal and non-catastrophic effects on the earth. They consider that earthquakes, volcanoes, and other natural events play a role in climate changes.
http://www.undergroundparadigm.com...

Even if there is a only a 50% chance of the second group being right, wie should not let things develop that far, because if by chance the first group turns out to be right, it will be too late to react.
Therefore nations should act on the hunch tat group one is correct. Instead most people just prefer to sit on their hands and do nothing. Instead they moanabout science and how mean scientists are who uphold evolution.

Such activity is generally termed procrastination.

So... let's stop trying to second guess nature and get on with the job of keeing CO2 levels under control.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2016 4:43:46 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
At 12/9/2016 4:28:40 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 12/9/2016 4:15:53 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

However, one group staunchly believes that as a result of an increase in greenhouse gases, the temperature of thee earth will continue to warm, the polar ice caps will begin to melt, sea levels will rise, coastal cities will flood, and eventually the world"s health and economic structures will be significantly disrupted. This group even found a way to blame the colder than normal temperatures of December and January on disruptions caused by warming temperatures.
The other group finds the threat of global warming to be greatly exaggerated. They have concluded that the slight increase in average global temperatures will be absorbed by the earth"s natural systems with minimal and non-catastrophic effects on the earth. They consider that earthquakes, volcanoes, and other natural events play a role in climate changes.
http://www.undergroundparadigm.com...

Even if there is a only a 50% chance of the second group being right, wie should not let things develop that far, because if by chance the first group turns out to be right, it will be too late to react.
Therefore nations should act on the hunch tat group one is correct. Instead most people just prefer to sit on their hands and do nothing. Instead they moanabout science and how mean scientists are who uphold evolution.

Such activity is generally termed procrastination.

So... let's stop trying to second guess nature and get on with the job of keeing CO2 levels under control.

Well, you certainly know how to avoid the issue.
How much harm is done if all of the alarmists have their way?
Considerable.
There are those who believe they have a moral right to prevent me from riding my motorcycle, based on environmental issues.
From my cold dead hands........

Just putting that ethanol laced gasoline in my lawn mower cost me $105 in repairs.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2016 4:57:15 AM
Posted: 1 day ago
At 11/24/2016 4:37:52 PM, chui wrote:
Currently rational thought and evidence based reasoning is under attack. Some have dubbed this the 'Post -truth' era. Climate change denial, intelligent design'theories', conspiracy theories about everything from moon landings, alien visits to vaccination, Big bang denial, flat earthers, anti-relativists.... The list grows daily.

I think you might just be exploring the internet for the first time. I've denied climate change countless times. I use an instrument called the thermostat. The moon landing is obviously fake because it is. Alien visits, honestly how could you disprove them?

In all seriousness, I'm not sure why so many people believe the big bang when they've literally done nothing to study the universe and most haven't even read the theory. Most of what is known to the public is faith based regurgitation in my experience. People try to look smart, you ask them to prove it, and well....


It seems there is a vast number of people who are deluded to the point that they believe they have revealed some secret knowledge that the professionals have missed. I find that a suitable analogy would be me believing I have a chance at beating Usain Bolt in a race because I once did some running and was quite good.

Well Usain has times you could measure yourself by. If they conducted experimentation...they probably know more then most of us on the topic.

I wondered what might have caused this. Is it just that the intranet allows expression for this deluded behavior or is there something new driving it? More importantly how do we defend rational thought particularly when it comes to government.

Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2016 4:59:12 AM
Posted: 1 day ago
At 12/9/2016 4:43:46 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 12/9/2016 4:28:40 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 12/9/2016 4:15:53 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

However, one group staunchly believes that as a result of an increase in greenhouse gases, the temperature of thee earth will continue to warm, the polar ice caps will begin to melt, sea levels will rise, coastal cities will flood, and eventually the world"s health and economic structures will be significantly disrupted. This group even found a way to blame the colder than normal temperatures of December and January on disruptions caused by warming temperatures.
The other group finds the threat of global warming to be greatly exaggerated. They have concluded that the slight increase in average global temperatures will be absorbed by the earth"s natural systems with minimal and non-catastrophic effects on the earth. They consider that earthquakes, volcanoes, and other natural events play a role in climate changes.
http://www.undergroundparadigm.com...

Even if there is a only a 50% chance of the second group being right, wie should not let things develop that far, because if by chance the first group turns out to be right, it will be too late to react.
Therefore nations should act on the hunch tat group one is correct. Instead most people just prefer to sit on their hands and do nothing. Instead they moanabout science and how mean scientists are who uphold evolution.

Such activity is generally termed procrastination.

So... let's stop trying to second guess nature and get on with the job of keeing CO2 levels under control.

Well, you certainly know how to avoid the issue.
How much harm is done if all of the alarmists have their way?
Considerable.
There are those who believe they have a moral right to prevent me from riding my motorcycle, based on environmental issues.
From my cold dead hands........

Just putting that ethanol laced gasoline in my lawn mower cost me $105 in repairs.

Did they win in your area? The good stuff is getting harder to come by these days.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2016 6:12:55 AM
Posted: 1 day ago
At 12/9/2016 4:43:46 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Just putting that ethanol laced gasoline in my lawn mower cost me $105 in repairs.

So on one hand we have catastrophic crop failures, famines, floods, mass migrations, resource wars, etc and on the other hand we have a few broken lawn mowers. You choose the future you want.