Is AGW another example of groupthink

[Twiler]

For the moment, I think they are self evident.
I would appreciate your input if you care to contribute

I'm confused. How can evidence be self evident?

And how can we have a discussion if you won't elaborate upon your position?

 

[Eyeron]

The exact same conditions you made can be applied to global warming deniers as well. That is the flaw. So I suspect it is projection.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

In reading and contributing in other posts, a thought came to me.

Finally.

:runs:

 

[Megalodon]

Finally.

Don't celebrate... it was a dud.

 

[brantc]

So, why not AGW?

Any further thoughts, rebuttals, agreement etc?

I have numbered the symptoms and welcome any specific or general examples of each.

I will be extremely interested in any overall examples or comparisons anyone would like to contribute.


AAA

Isnt "science" by consensus groupthink??

 

[brantc]

Interesting little factoid. Now doesnt this mean it was hotter 2500 to 7000 years ago? How come CRU doesnt include this on their web page? This would be an example of groupthink were they omit data that doesnt fit with their story.

"We found that the more glacier there is in the watershed, the more carbon is bioavailable. And the higher the percentage of glacier coverage, the older the organic material is - up to 4,000 years old," said Scott.

Hood and Scott hypothesize that forests that lived along the Gulf of Alaska between 2,500 to 7,000 years ago were covered by glaciers, and this organic matter is now coming out. "The organic matter in heavily glaciated watersheds is labile, like sugar. Microorganisms appear to be metabolizing ancient carbon and as the microorganisms die and decompose, biodegradable dissolved organic carbon is being flushed out with the glacier melt," said Scott.
http://www.physorg.com/news180786023.html

 

[Megalodon]

If the hypothesis is right, it would mean that it was warmer in that part of the coast of Alaska on that period. It would say little about the global temperature, unless the same phenomenon was found in other glaciers around the world.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

There is an active and vigorous debate among climate scientists, with a level of animosity between some. But they don't tolerate non-science.

Zorita is a colleague of Storch. Storch was one of the scientists who quit the board of Climate Research after it published Baliyunas and Soon's paper.

That's a good start on one point. Have you any more?

Oh and I am delighted that you acknowledge there is debate too. I hope others might begin to see there is.

There is an active and vigorous debate among climate scientists, with a level of animosity between some. But they don't tolerate non-science.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/zorita_goes_for_the_jugular.php

Zorita is a colleague of Storch. Storch was one of the scientists who quit the board of Climate Research after it published Baliyunas and Soon's paper.

Sorry, no; that's the same one.

And Mr Connolley is a discredited low level scientist, activist and ex administrator of Wiki. He rates less than say Monckton or Gore.

That said, he is a terrific, fantastic (add more superlatives) example of #6.
My sincere thanks.p

The OP doesn't address what you think AGW is. "A scientific hypothesis based on data" is the obvious answer, but you seem to contradict that when you said:

It's as if you are trying to redefine AGW into a political or social movement and not a science.

So, no. The OP isn't nearly clear enough.

OK, one time only for the slightly dim - others seem to get it:

AGW is the science
Groupthink is a possible human/group reaction that follows the science.

I am interested in exploring the possibility of the latter as outlined by - wow - a scientist.

Yep, its a VAST Left-Wing Conspiracy. (VLWC for short.)

Thanks Ben. See symptom #4.

The VLWC was started in Kindergarten when we read children "The Giving Tree" and "The Lorax" and the brainwashing continued through High School and College by teaching them Biology and Physics and *gasp* Evolution. By the time they graduate they will pick up on tiny "Manchurian Candidate" cues in pop songs and the cover art on Playboy to begin whatever "groupthink" project the VLWC has in store today.
Of course VLWC is a fully-owned subsidy of the NWO, and is presided over by a certain cat who we will not name for security reasons.
Now that you know, of course, we will have to "deal" with you.

Sarcasm aside, possibly #3, #4, #5 and #8.

It's hardly like a religion or ideological movement.

Please define the two, come back and we'll discuss them. While your at it - look up cult too just for comparison.

And the other side seems to be at least as likely to be groupthink. They get together and have their conferences too.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/index.html

Entirely possible.
I am thankful and heartened that you can see there is another side.

Wowzer, thats a belter!!

Thank you for your considered input and deconstruction of the statement.
Have you anything of value to contribute?

I'm confused. How can evidence be self evident?

And how can we have a discussion if you won't elaborate upon your position?

My position is more than adequately stated even to the simplest of minds.
Please reread the OP and my response to Upchurch above.

The exact same conditions you made can be applied to global warming deniers as well. That is the flaw. So I suspect it is projection.

That is entirely possible. If you imagine that much of the deniers, how is it you can't imagine it from the warmers?
See also #2 and #4 as possibilities for your response.

Isnt "science" by consensus groupthink??

No, but not exploring the possibility that the science is flawed might be.

If the hypothesis is right, it would mean that it was warmer in that part of the coast of Alaska on that period. It would say little about the global temperature, unless the same phenomenon was found in other glaciers around the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are talking about evidence that the earth has warmed and that of those effects. No?
That being the case, it isn't proof of AGW anyway, it is evidence of GW.
And as such, it isn't really about AGW at all, and it has even less to do with the OP.

 

[Twiler]

I understand your position, you think that AGW is an example of groupthink, and that the evidence is self-evident. You don't seem to have explained how evidence can be self-evident. If you ignore straightforward questions, how can the discussion progress?

 

[tyr_13]

I understand your position, you think that AGW is an example of groupthink, and that the evidence is self-evident. You don't seem to have explained how evidence can be self-evident. If you ignore straightforward questions, how can the discussion progress?

The problem here is with your assumption. You've assumed he wants the discussion to progress.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I understand your position, you think that AGW is an example of groupthink, and that the evidence is self-evident. You don't seem to have explained how evidence can be self-evident. If you ignore straightforward questions, how can the discussion progress?

The problem here is with your assumption. You've assumed he wants the discussion to progress.

To repeat from the OP.

As I say, all the traits seem to be there.

History is littered with examples big and small.
I have seen them in workteams, sports teams, corporate executive, middle management, politics, nations, ideologies and religion.
I have seen some lucky outcomes and many appalling failures.
I have been a player caught up in them and I have been on the outside of them; I have observed them from a place of knowledge and from ignorance, I have been both a leader and a follower.

Have you seen or experienced this?

So, why not AGW?

Any further thoughts, rebuttals, agreement etc?

My bold

I want to know whether you (anyone) thinks there is a possibility that this may be the case.
I am "wondering" if perhaps the AGW 'following' is another example of groupthink?
It certainly seems possible to me.

Your lack of comprehension with regard the OP is no longer my problem ok? Others have had no problem in understanding the connection. So, just to help you understand, I will explain some as I would to say a six year old....

Now..... go to the bolded words..... that's right, those ones just up there.

Can you understand them? Good.

Now, do you want to comment, make an observation, rebut?

If so, great. If not, even better.

 

[BenBurch]

The problem here is with your assumption. You've assumed he wants the discussion to progress.

Of course what he wants is to just have us concede his point and bow and scrape before His Brilliance.

He has never, ever wanted to discuss anything here.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Of course what he wants is to just have us concede his point and bow and scrape before His Brilliance.

He has never, ever wanted to discuss anything here.

How about throwing something up to discuss?
Hmmm?

 

[tyr_13]

Of course there are example of groupthink involving AGW. That doesn't make AGW itself or the basic science supporting it groupthink.

 

[elbe]

Of course there are example of groupthink involving AGW. That doesn't make AGW itself or the basic science supporting it groupthink.

I should think there would be examples of groupthink in any group of people - so, really, it makes the entire argument futile.

 

[a_unique_person]

How about throwing something up to discuss?
Hmmm?

Sure the science.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are well on the way to doubling it's concentration in the atmosphere.

 

[a_unique_person]

That's a good start on one point. Have you any more?

Oh and I am delighted that you acknowledge there is debate too. I hope others might begin to see there is.

You can keep your delight. There has always been a debate, it's been going on for over a hundred years. What you are talking about is not a debate, but a campaign for misinformation and ignorance, very much like the creationists use.

Read this and learn something.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

 

[a_unique_person]

It's as if you are trying to redefine AGW into a political or social movement and not a science.


?

He refuses to even discuss the science. Something about it that must scare him.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Of course there are example of groupthink involving AGW. That doesn't make AGW itself or the basic science supporting it groupthink.

Excellent!
I agree there has to be examples of group think within the AGW community. It stands to reason.
I also agree that it does not alter the underlying science. What is does do is stifle dissent and debate (see symptoms again for further clarification)

Therefore, assuming the phenomenon of groupthink is in the mix. To what extent does it muddy the waters through the proven lack of critical thinking that Janis shows?
These scientists are, after all just as human as the rest of us, no? They are not immune to the psychological shortcomings we all have.
Of equal (if not more) interest to me however is how it cascades down through much of the rest of the scientific community and beyond. It is there that much of the uglier traits of the symptoms become apparent.

I should think there would be examples of groupthink in any group of people - so, really, it makes the entire argument futile.

How so?
It would seem to make it even more relevant to ensure that the groupthink is addressed. What I mean, is that if we are aware that groupthink is a common occurance ("in any group of people" as you say) - we would be fools not to acknowledge it and ensure that its manifestations are minimised or negated. No?

btw
There are 'cures' and remedies for groupthink if people/teams (whatever) are aware of and care to implement them.

Sure the science.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are well on the way to doubling it's concentration in the atmosphere.

There is science in Janis, let's discuss that - you will find it peer reviewed too if you care to look. Anyway, it is that science which is the basis of the OP and the topic at hand.
If you want to discuss the science of AGW, there are plenty of threads for that which I can recommend to you.

He refuses to even discuss the science. Something about it that must scare him.

I believe you are off topic. Please address the OP.

 

[Twiler]

Ah, I see how this works.

The OP is set up to receive evidence towards a conclusion that it states as fact. Any demands for evidence towards this conclusion will be treated as off-topic.

I presume the refusal to discuss the science is an employment of a 'Play the man, not the ball' method, attacking the scientists rather than the facts.

Why should I believe that groupthink is occurring at all? That's my thought on the subject.