Is AGW another example of groupthink

[Hallo Alfie]

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.

Not at all. AUP was endeavouring to derail the topic via the science of AGW. The science supporting AGW is not being questioned here. What is, is what ensues from the science through the people, organisations and beyond.

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.

There is only "refusal to discuss the science" here because it is not relevant to the OP and is off topic - I understand there are rules against that sort of thing. There are many many threads for the science of AGW, I can even recommend some if you wish.

What we are exploring here is a set of psychological principles that have been tried and tested, improved upon, retested etc that go to the core of any group of people, organisation etc. These principles have had a life of nearly 30 years and are remain widely used in business administration, training etc at every level.

It has been observed that the symptoms described by its author are evident in some adherents of the AGW theory; it is that which we are endeavouring to explore here.

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

Fine. Thanks for your enquiry.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not at all. AUP was endeavouring to derail the topic via the science of AGW. The science supporting AGW is not being questioned here. What is, is what ensues from the science through the people, organisations and beyond.



There is only "refusal to discuss the science" here because it is not relevant to the OP and is off topic - I understand there are rules against that sort of thing. There are many many threads for the science of AGW, I can even recommend some if you wish.

What we are exploring here is a set of psychological principles that have been tried and tested, improved upon, retested etc that go to the core of any group of people, organisation etc. These principles have had a life of nearly 30 years and are remain widely used in business administration, training etc at every level.

It has been observed that the symptoms described by its author are evident in some adherents of the AGW theory; it is that which we are endeavouring to explore here.



Fine. Thanks for your enquiry.

You are confusing the cultures of science and business. Business goes through fashions faster than the lengths of skirts rise and fall. There is no science of business. Often a successful business rests on the abilities of one person.

Science hands out textbooks, and expects students to be able to memorise vast arrays of facts and methods. Usually, there is only one answer, depending on the field. As it gets more advanced, and you hit the bleeding edge of research, things get a lot more uncertain, but the basis for the research is usually well understood, with a long history of verification. You could call the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas groupthink, but you could also consider that how a greenhouse gas works and why the earth is warming than it would be without greenhouse gases is in fact rock solid and beyond dispute.

 

[varwoche]

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

Exactly.

Because group-think is so nebulous, it provides fertile ground for idle speculation, facts be damned. It's a perfect sandbox for the denial crowd.

 

[Megalodon]

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.

Yes, as usual you are wrong. I could try to educate you, but you are impermeable to reality. Also your reading comprehension skills are deplorable.

You should learn to read your own language, mate.

 

[BenBurch]

The assumption made by some AGW Truthers that GW does not imply AGW is not only false, but stupid.

We can really accurately quantify the natural inputs and forcings, and can tell you with pretty good accuracy that the planet would be stable or slightly cooling now with only those inputs.

That we have Warming at all means you have to look beyond natural inputs and forcings.

And we see that there are other forcings! Wow! Surprise.

We have Man-made burning of fossil carbon. We have Man-made soil destruction. We have Man-made cracking of carbonate rocks. We have black soot. We have jet contrails. We have millions and millions of square miles of black roofs and black asphalt.

And when you add those factors in, you get a warming trend that matches what we see now.

SO, not only do these people deny the validity of scientific epistemology, they need to deny reality itself.

And in my opinion they do so dishonestly; They really do know that AGW is happening, but they need to create a popular lie that it isn't to use in their morbidly sick political power games.

 

[Meed]

I remember reading some of Janis some years ago and wondered whether the currect AGW phenomenon is another large example of the groupthink phenomenon.

Greenhouse gasses got together one day and decided to trap heat. Group think at it's finest.

 

[BenBurch]

Greenhouse gasses got together one day and decided to trap heat. Group think at it's finest.

"Reality has a well known liberal bias."

 

[Slimething]

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.

Those two posts exactly state my viewpoint. The AGW hypothesis is based on empirical fact. What's being done with it, in some circles, can be viewed as groupthink.

OP, could you please specify exactly what aspects of AGW you believe are groupthink and which are not?

 

[elbe]

OP, could you please specify exactly what aspects of AGW you believe are groupthink and which are not?

Probably that we are aren't all admitting that Alfie is completely right and AGW is a false.

 

[Eyeron]

What is, is what ensues from the science through the people, organisations and beyond.

So science says that the boiling point of Iron is 2800 degrees Fahrenheit and the scientific community agrees because this is tested and shown to be true. The entire community agrees and that is group think? And because group think is wrong then that means that somehow there is.. what? No such thing as Iron melting at 2800 degrees Fahrenheit?

According to the Wiki:

Group think is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.

So exactly how does this apply to AGW when the science is, according to you, sound? If the science is sound then that means that the science behind AGW has been tested and proven. And that means there is no group think unless you're trying to get a semantic debate over what group think is and how it specifically applies to AGW.

 

[novaphile]

Have you seen or experienced this?
So, why not AGW?
Any further thoughts, rebuttals, agreement etc?
AAA

I've seen group think in action.

The symptoms look exactly like what I'm seeing in the anti AGW campaigners.

For example:

very aggressive brow-beating chest thumping argument style;
refusal to consider evidence that doesn't support the group think position; and
vigorous attempts to ostracise opponents.

I'm particularly interested in the AAGW attempts to disrupt the science by picking on trivial mistakes made by the media or anyone who attempts to explain the science.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You are confusing the cultures of science and business. Business goes through fashions faster than the lengths of skirts rise and fall. There is no science of business. Often a successful business rests on the abilities of one person.

Not true at all , I am not confusing cultures of science and business at all (I agree that business models change etc). I think you are confusing business with psychology.

You are applying the rationale to a business culture, that is perfectly ok by the way. The actual discipline behind groupthink is psychology, not business.

Science hands out textbooks, and expects students to be able to memorise vast arrays of facts and methods. Usually, there is only one answer, depending on the field. As it gets more advanced, and you hit the bleeding edge of research, things get a lot more uncertain, but the basis for the research is usually well understood, with a long history of verification. You could call the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas groupthink, but you could also consider that how a greenhouse gas works and why the earth is warming than it would be without greenhouse gases is in fact rock solid and beyond dispute.

You seem confused, Greenhouse gas doesn't have groupthink, (hehe) people do, silly.

Now "the science is beyond dispute"!? You are flip flopping at every turn.
See symptom #6 re "beyond dispute"

Yes, as usual you are wrong. I could try to educate you, but you are impermeable to reality. Also your reading comprehension skills are deplorable.

You should learn to read your own language, mate.

No, I am impermeable to ridicule and abuse - not reality.
I asked for correction, so conceded I may be wrong. See symptom #4
Try explaining it to me, you might be surprised.

The assumption made by some AGW Truthers that GW does not imply AGW is not only false, but stupid.

We can really accurately quantify the natural inputs and forcings, and can tell you with pretty good accuracy that the planet would be stable or slightly cooling now with only those inputs.

SO, not only do these people deny the validity of scientific epistemology, they need to deny reality itself.

And in my opinion they do so dishonestly; They really do know that AGW is happening, but they need to create a popular lie that it isn't to use in their morbidly sick political power games.

How does that relates here avoids me. Are you suggesting I (and other JREF skeptics) deny Climate change?
That said, none of this relates to the OP - we are discussing psychology here, not AGW science.
See symptoms #3, #4, and #6.

That we have Warming at all means you have to look beyond natural inputs and forcings.

Hmmm. Why I am reminded of St. Anselm’s dictum “credo ut intellegam”: “I believe, in order that I may understand.”

Greenhouse gasses got together one day and decided to trap heat. Group think at it's finest.

No that would be gasthink. I am not sure that's possible.

"Reality has a well known liberal bias."

No, I think gullibility does.

Those two posts exactly state my viewpoint. The AGW hypothesis is based on empirical fact. What's being done with it, in some circles, can be viewed as groupthink.

OP, could you please specify exactly what aspects of AGW you believe are groupthink and which are not?

AGW is not groupthink.
The symptoms expressed by Janis have been outlined quite clearly. Perhaps you could show me where and how each of them (plus or minus subtle variations) are not applicable to scientists, politics and beyond and I will be happy to discuss your specifics.

By the way, I have already given numerous examples of the groupthink in response to other posters - just as a suggestion, you might like to start there.

So science says that the boiling point of Iron is 2800 degrees Fahrenheit and the scientific community agrees because this is tested and shown to be true. The entire community agrees and that is group think? And because group think is wrong then that means that somehow there is.. what? No such thing as Iron melting at 2800 degrees Fahrenheit?

According to the Wiki:

So exactly how does this apply to AGW when the science is, according to you, sound? If the science is sound then that means that the science behind AGW has been tested and proven. And that means there is no group think unless you're trying to get a semantic debate over what group think is and how it specifically applies to AGW.

We are not discussing the science of AGW, we are discussing the psychology following the science that are evident via the symptoms.
Please see the above comment to Slimething.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I've seen group think in action.

The symptoms look exactly like what I'm seeing in the anti AGW campaigners.

For example:

very aggressive brow-beating chest thumping argument style;
refusal to consider evidence that doesn't support the group think position; and
vigorous attempts to ostracise opponents.

I'm particularly interested in the AAGW attempts to disrupt the science by picking on trivial mistakes made by the media or anyone who attempts to explain the science.

Thats good!

So you acknowledge that Groupthink is possible on one side.
Can you apply the same logic to the warmers side?
I would love your answer on this if you wouldn't mind.

I have no doubt there are elements on the "anti AGW campaigners side". But what I am particularly interested in is the opposite side as (to my minds eye anyway) far more prevalent and radical.

Your comments on "disrupting the science" seem to be related to symptoms #2, #3, #6, #7 and #8 from the warmers side, by the way.

 

[Eyeron]

I suspect you really don't believe in AGW and are just trying to do what you can to discredit it by playing semantic games in labeling the people who support it.

 

[novaphile]

Sorry, I don't have access to the right people to comment.

Thats good!

So you acknowledge that Groupthink is possible on one side.
Can you apply the same logic to the warmers side?
I would love your answer on this if you wouldn't mind.

Sorry AA, I don't work in a science-related area so I don't have any access to any of the people involved.

The stuff I've commented on seemed to be quite manifest in these forums, and at other sites like realclimate.org.

I've noticed quite a lot of reference to the term "scientific consensus" which appears to mean a lot of science from a lot of different disciplines supporting the same theory.

Commentators on the AAGW side seem to be trying to claim that this consensus (of measurements, tests etc.) is a bunch of people who share the same opinion.

The scientists who post to the blogs and forums etc. come across as being a pretty reasonable bunch, with patience that far exceeds my own.

I can see why the scale of the problem can be difficult to understand though. I occasionally socialise with a professor of physics. I love hearing about his work (trapping and manipulating single photons) but cannot understand much of what he patiently tries to explain.

 

[laursaurus]

Wikipedia rejects

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.



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

This morning it occurred to me that the only other widely reported party who was officially barred from Wikipedia is the Church of Scientology.

The Swift blog about AGW from Randi demonstrated many of the characteristics you listed...harshly censoring perceived dissent.

Could we compare the manner dissenters are identified as "deniers", similar to the "suppressive person" tactic.

The IPCC is under tremendous pressure to drive policies correctly and the leaked emails reveal justifying unethical actions for the ultimate greater good.
They replaced the tree-ring data with station temperature data in order to ignore evidence that was contrary to the groups ideals. Phil Jones says he'd be happy to see GW catastrophes occur to ultimately prove they were right. Doesn't sound like something a crusador for the greater good would think, much less say in writing.
New to the forum, so I haven't earned the privilege of posting links yet.You are definitely on to something, AAA.
Maybe groupthink is discouraging people from replying.

There is nothing worse than groupthink........and all of my friends agree with me!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I suspect you really don't believe in AGW and are just trying to do what you can to discredit it by playing semantic games in labeling the people who support it.

You may suspect what you like.
I am trying to have an honest discussion about human psychology.
Others find the thoughts a little confronting, and I understand that. If they wish not to progress the discussion, I am happy to direct them elsewhere.

Would you care to contribute some thoughts on the OP?
Have you seen Groupthink at work? I have - dozens.

A short example without the specifics, which would just bore you (and me tbo): There was a place I was contracting at some years ago. The MD was something of a control freak, but he was very smart in general terms and pretty well thought of by his staff on the whole. He had built a sucessful business unit through hard work and good fortune. But he had taken it as far as his expertise could, and I suspect he knew it.

What he said was "law" within the business and I was amazed at the lack of critical thought, brainstorming, opposition etc at board and management meetings.
I suspect his staff (and I am talking senior management here too) had some self esteem and/or fear based issues: fear of security, being wrong, being different etc.

Anyway, I ended up being dismissed because I saw many of his business tactics as fundamentally flawed or out of date or misapplied and said so - repeatedly. I pointed out where the models made no sense, provided alternatives, constructive criticisms and cited evidence or examples wherever possible.
A couple of the exec even took me out to lunch one day and asked me to "tone it down" for everyone's sake, and asked why was I "challenging the accepted consensus of the status quo" etc?

The business went 'bust' shortly after I left (within six months it began to be dismantled and within 18 months it was kaput).
I'm not saying that I would have saved the business either btw - my ego is healthy but not that big.

Simply put: The 'groupthink' I saw in this instance contributed heavily to its ultimate demise.

It's these sorts of examples that would be appreciated. Good and bad.

I will give some more as we move along

Cheers

 

[Hallo Alfie]

This morning it occurred to me that the only other widely reported party who was officially barred from Wikipedia is the Church of Scientology.

That's interesting.
Not quote the same, as AGW theory hasn't and shouldn't be barred - it is a developing field. What should in my opinion is total supression of dissenting opinions and data.
There is another thread on this topic too which I recommend you take these thoughts to.

The Swift blog about AGW from Randi demonstrated many of the characteristics you listed...harshly censoring perceived dissent.

Bingo!

Could we compare the manner dissenters are identified as "deniers", similar to the "suppressive person" tactic.

I think so, absolutely.

The IPCC is under tremendous pressure to drive policies correctly and the leaked emails reveal justifying unethical actions for the ultimate greater good.
They replaced the tree-ring data with station temperature data in order to ignore evidence that was contrary to the groups ideals. Phil Jones says he'd be happy to see GW catastrophes occur to ultimately prove they were right. Doesn't sound like something a crusador for the greater good would think, much less say in writing.

I agree for the most part and have bolded a number of words that are consistent with Janis' thoughts.

There is nothing worse than groupthink........and all of my friends agree with me!

Hehe. Your friends are all individual, intelligent lateral thinkers. DeBono is in trouble.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Off to Chrissy lunch now.
I might check in before the dinner - then again I might have a snooze.

Have a great day everyone.

AAA.

 

[BenBurch]

The more I read, the more I am certain that deniers are not authentic. They know they are trying to deny a reality, but have no other means of attaining their immediate political goals.