Irrational Thinking: A Winner!

[a_unique_person]

5) Consider alternate hypotheses: What if the world is warming and man is causing it, but it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide? This could certainly also be a possibility. But, we're so focused on one variable that we are almost blind to other possibilities. Researchers and the public need to be open to the possibility that other factors might be at play, and that carbon dioxide may be a minimal, if at all, causative agent. Or, it might be the sole causative agent. If so, let's set-up ways to definitively and prospectively prove this.

Do you have any evidence they haven't?

 

[a_unique_person]

4) Table the politics: For now, we have to tone-down the tenor of this debate and take it out of the public policy milieu. This has done nothing but caused a lot of resentment among individuals and served to polarize the issue. This could simply be accomplished by saying something to this effect: "We have observed what we perceive to be statistically and scientifically significant climate change over the past 2 decades. Based on this, we are now going to make [these predictions] about what will happen over the next twenty years. These will be 'set in stone' so-to-speak, and we will re-visit these predictions then and determine if we were right. If they prove to be true, then we will agree to make difficult changes at that time to the way we live our lives in order to remedy what will then have proven to be our clear, irrefutable impact on the climate. It will not be 'too late' to do anything at that point, and we still until that point arrives continue to discuss remedies and plans for change. We will, however, not attempt to mandate them at the international level until we are proven correct." This would allow ample time to prospectively prove the point. And, at the end of that timeframe, you'd have a lot less ability by the so-called naysayers to disagree. What you need is buy-in now, and most of us who question the current "state of science" are actually quite reasonable people, provided that "fair play" (as described above) is in place.

Hansen made very public predictions in his presentations to Congress. The obsessive response from McIntyre has been to get the boot in for every nuance or smudge on the graph made in those presentations. The projections made bake then on much more primitive computers and software have been substantially correct, which I find amazing. There is no need to project 20 years from now, that has already been done.

 

[SezMe]

From the OP:

Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) closest ancestor is the political correctness movement that swept academia in the 1980s and ‘90s, and that continues today to put a chill on all academic research and reporting, but most especially in the liberal arts. This movement, designed by forces on the political left as a means of coercively driving thinking in a certain direction, has been very effective.

My emphasis. A movement which "designs" to "coercively drive thinking" in a certain direction can, IMO, reasonably be described as a conspiracy.

So varwoche made a reasonable post...

I invite you to support this conspiracy theory in an apropos thread:

CTs Concerning Global Warming Science

...which he should not have be so willing to retract.

I agree by and large (in retrospect). Pardon my overboard characterization TC.

 

[SezMe]

Tokenconservative did not allege a conspiracy. A conspiracy would require overt planning and organized efforts by the journal editors towards a common goal. The presumption of conspiracy is yours, and the annexation of "theory" to it was meant to dismiss his comment by ridicule rather than with substance.

See my quote from the OP above. Tokie explicitly noted overt planning and organized efforts.

 

[jsfisher]

See my quote from the OP above. Tokie explicitly noted overt planning and organized efforts.

My comment related to a narrower quotation cited by varwoche. However, if varwoche had in mind the broader context you provided and interpreted it as you did, I will retract my comment.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nothing better than putting a conspiracy theory thread in the conspiracy theory forum.

Some people prefer to argue conspiracy in the Science Forum, and science in the Conspiracy Forum. Which is understandable.

For a proper AGW conspiracy discussion, anyone can contribute to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3400159#post3400159

 

[CapelDodger]

My comment related to a narrower quotation cited by varwoche.

That quotation being :

"... many scientific publications have for some time now refused to accept any related research that fails to recognize that “warming” is occurring and worse, any such research that fails to attribute this to human activity."

How exactly is that narrow enough not to imply conspiracy? Look at it. Many scientific publications, and "worse" the attribution. What's this meant to be, coincidence?

However, if varwoche had in mind the broader context you provided and interpreted it as you did, I will retract my comment.

varwoche quoted what he quoted, and what other interpretation is reasonable? Sophistry aside, obviously.

SezMe filled it out with some other stuff from TC, but it was hardly necessary. TC said it all in what varwoche quoted in his post - to which you responded

Tokenconservative did not allege a conspiracy.

.

He wasn't alleging a coincidence, was he? So what else do you think he was saying? He must have had a reason for taking the trouble of saying it.

 

[rockoon]

So they ended up in another industry after trying to publish and/or do research. Does this stop them from emailing Black?

I could think of many reasons that they didnt email Black, such as they didnt know they could or should. This leads right into your last paragraph:

He, very publicly, asked for any evidence to confirm that suppression etc had taken place.

I asked you what steps he had taken.

"Very publicly" is both very vague and includes a value judgement.

I suppose now I have to ask you a more pointed question.

What did he do, specifically, in order to ensure that his investigation was unbiased and would lead to the facts on the issue? What individuals did he contact? What organizations did he contact? What leads did he follow?

If you do not know the answer to those questions, then you do not know the value of his reporting. I certainly do not know the answer to that and am asking you, who very publicly suggests that his reporting did have value, for the answer.


From what I have seen of this mans work, it does not appear that he even attempts to perform investigative reporting. It appears to me that he instead attempts to generate news, such as when he mailed the signers of that Canadian letter which called for their government to investigate the utility of its climate change program.

The article was not "reporting" on the utility of government programs meant to address the issue, yet the people he contacted were all from a list specifically concerned about it. His "investigation" drew from this list for what would be hoped to simply be arbitrary reasons, rather than the more logical reason that he knew the replies would be all over the place given how out of context it was. Thats not investigative reporting. Thats news manufacturing.

Asking for evidence to support claims is a normal situation, just see my next post.

I did see your next several posts, but still don't see how "asking" is defined.
Who did he ask? How did he ask? Did he give assurances of anonymity? What legwork did he do?

 

[Acleron]

I asked you what steps he had taken.

"Very publicly" is both very vague and includes a value judgement.

I suppose now I have to ask you a more pointed question.

What did he do, specifically, in order to ensure that his investigation was unbiased and would lead to the facts on the issue? What individuals did he contact? What organizations did he contact? What leads did he follow?

If you do not know the answer to those questions, then you do not know the value of his reporting. I certainly do not know the answer to that and am asking you, who very publicly suggests that his reporting did have value, for the answer.

There is an accusation, bandied about in newspapers, television and on the Internet, to the effect that scientists have been suppressed from publishing results and conclusions because they show implausibility to the current hypotheses of AGW. Where are these researchers? Black made a simple attempt to find them. It is indeed possible that some, even many, didn't see the request. But all bar one undocumented case?

You argue that he should have performed a full survey of all organisations that could do climate research, interview everybody present and all who have left. This is not only unreasonable from the point of view of the work involved but it is the responsibility of those making the claim to provide such evidence. If you are so sure his methods were inadequate, do you know of anybody who can provide the evidence in the form of names and documentation?

 

[Pixel42]

Checking the moderated blogs of the BBC relating to global warming, I find many documented examples of their not printing submissions by people skeptical of their particular view of climate science, eg, AGW.

There is a link to it to the right of Black's article to the Have Your Say blog provided by the BBC for responses to this and the other articles published during 'Sceptic's Week'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7095420.stm

After stating "we received so many that those below are just a selection", this is from the first response they chose to include:

Why is it anathema to the BBC to offer balanced argument rather than putting up a list of "Sceptical" points and then refuting them? [...] Also, the distinction is not made between Global Warming which has a great deal of evidence for its existence and MAN MADE global warming which has far less

This is from the second response:

All this insulting amateur psychoanalysis of the supposedly ignorant masses is irrelevant, when there is a much simpler explanation for our skepticism, namely the lack of evidence

Later we have:

As a computer scientist and software engineer who has been following climate change for a long time, what frightens me is the failure of the IPCC reports to highlight the fallibility of computer models. No-one disputes that there are observable ongoing climate changes happening - that is not the argument against the rapid descent into 'headless chicken land'. The problem is the wholesale reliance on computer models to predict what will happen when no-one - absolutely no-one - knows with a any degree of certainty what is causing this change.

This is the final response included:

The idea of human-induced climate change is entirely political in origin, and entirely sustained by politics. It is the new Lysenkoism, and may its demise be as rapid as the old one.

You were saying?

 

[Dr. Imago]

Do you have any evidence they haven't?

It's quite clear to everyone who's paying attention that they've hung their hat on carbon dioxide. What is not clear - or proven - is that this is the correct place to do so. But, everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

-Dr. Imago

 

[rockoon]

He, very publicly, asked for any evidence to confirm that suppression etc had taken place.

.
.

Black made a simple attempt to find them.

I asked twice, the second time simply and directly, and your responses are "very publicly" and "simple attempt."

You seem to agree that there are both documented cases and undocumented cases.

You also seem to agree that Black didnt put much effort into finding any and have excused his lack of putting much effort into it because its not his job to provide evidence for the claims of others.

Can we sum up his reporting with the short phrase "I dont have any evidence either way because nobody handed it to me"?

You argue that he should have performed a full survey of all organisations that could do climate research, interview everybody present and all who have left.

That is not what I argue. I do not argue that he should have done anything at all. I argue that I do not know about the value of his reporting until I have at least a basic idea of what went into it. I know in one specific circumstance that he put very little effort into his "reporting."

If you are so sure his methods were inadequate, do you know of anybody who can provide the evidence in the form of names and documentation?

There is a difference between sloppy methodology, and being wrong.

You assign value to his conclusions without knowing the methodology involved and I think that this is a clear sign of failed critical thinking. You already believed the conclusion and have allowed what could very well be very sloppy methodology to reinforce that belief.

There is no value at all in his reporting if he doesnt put a serious effort into finding out the facts. You assign value to his reporting, so I again ask, what effort did he put in?

 

[varwoche]

But, everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities.

So claims an anonymous character on the internet who is not an expert.

I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

Indeed, your claims are so vacuous that they don't merit discussion.

 

[Dr. Imago]

So claims an anonymous character on the internet who is not an expert.

Hey, it's out there. It's obvious that this is the cornerstone of the argument. This shouldn't come as a shock to you.

Indeed, your claims are so vacuous that they don't merit discussion.

As is this retort, yet we still find each other responding, don't we? I've stated my case (on other threads) why CO2 is not proven - and I've reiterated the principles behind that on this very thread. If you don't/can't discuss, then no need to vacuously assert they are vacuous. Pot meet kettle.

-Dr. Imago

 

[a_unique_person]

It's quite clear to everyone who's paying attention that they've hung their hat on carbon dioxide. What is not clear - or proven - is that this is the correct place to do so. But, everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

-Dr. Imago

I went to the doctor today, about a medical matter, and I am full of respect for these guys. Their breadth of knowledge, and the range of diseases they treat is amazing.

I also have a friend who is a climate research scientist, and he's very smart too. They have not 'hung their hat' on anything. Of course they have thought to investigate other factors. It's CO2 that comes up trumps. There is a graph I have posted here many times, of model's of existing climate. The good thing you can do with a model is pull bit's out of it. When they pull Co2 out, the record doesn't track well at all. When they add it back in, it tracks. The CO2 influence is based on well understood physics.

 

[Acleron]

There is a difference between sloppy methodology, and being wrong.

You assign value to his conclusions without knowing the methodology involved and I think that this is a clear sign of failed critical thinking. You already believed the conclusion and have allowed what could very well be very sloppy methodology to reinforce that belief.

There is no value at all in his reporting if he doesnt put a serious effort into finding out the facts. You assign value to his reporting, so I again ask, what effort did he put in?

His method was so simple it should have been implicitly understood in the above discussion. But for you here it is.
It is a request for evidence made in a reasonably well known media outlet. The BBC is certainly known to those who oppose the AGW thesis, just look at their blogs. Hence also my use of the word 'publicly'. It's noticeable that the question he asked hasn't been answered with evidence by anyone here either.

BTW what I believe is irrelevant. I leave belief to those who cannot handle facts. But I am more convinced by evidence and conclusions than by slur tactics. The accusation that the scientists involved in climate change are biased is a serious one. It should be backed up by facts. Black made an attempt to do so. The response he gained is only a small datum but happens to have iindicated that perhaps there isn't a legion of disgruntled scientists whose voice hasn't been heard. Your concerns over his method can be debated but don't you really feel he would have had more replies than he did?

 

[mhaze]

Black made an attempt to do so. The response he gained is only a small datum but happens to have iindicated that perhaps there isn't a legion of disgruntled scientists whose voice hasn't been heard. Your concerns over his method can be debated but don't you really feel he would have had more replies than he did?

Well how about this take on it? Black's response indicates of one the following -

• how many people read or care a whit about Black
• how many people read or care a whit about "The Green Room" column of the BBC
• or just how many people read or care about the BBC

As I mentioned earlier, Black is not qualified to do survey research. If you like, we can go into the reasons why, but I think that many of them are obvious.

Just consider this. Suppose a scientist sent a letter into Black detailing how and why he had a problem in publishing a skeptically oriented paper.

Why, now Black has "a story". Oh, he has a "responsibility to the public" to go dig into it, right? Now the scientist (and his bosses, and the periodical in question) is possibly paraded all over the newspaper. Who would want that? Wouldn't that create serious, long term resentments? And the obvious rebuttal by the journal which refused to publish the paper in question could be -

"we didn't publish it because it did not meet our standards of quality, not because it was anti-AGW".

Which might, in some cases, have been true. Think it over a bit. It does not surprise me at all that no one wished to respond to Black.

 

[Acleron]

Well how about this take on it? Black's response indicates of one the following -

• how many people read or care a whit about Black
• how many people read or care a whit about "The Green Room" column of the BBC
• or just how many people read or care about the BBC

As I mentioned earlier, Black is not qualified to do survey research. If you like, we can go into the reasons why, but I think that many of them are obvious.

Enough to respond to the editors blogs with anti-AGW statements.

Just consider this. Suppose a scientist sent a letter into Black detailing how and why he had a problem in publishing a skeptically oriented paper.

Why, now Black has "a story". Oh, he has a "responsibility to the public" to go dig into it, right? Now the scientist (and his bosses, and the periodical in question) is possibly paraded all over the newspaper. Who would want that? Wouldn't that create serious, long term resentments? And the obvious rebuttal by the journal which refused to publish the paper in question could be -

"we didn't publish it because it did not meet our standards of quality, not because it was anti-AGW".

Which might, in some cases, have been true. Think it over a bit. It does not surprise me at all that no one wished to respond to Black.

The other reason may just be that there aren't any.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Well how about this take on it? Black's response indicates of one the following -

• how many people read or care a whit about Black
• how many people read or care a whit about "The Green Room" column of the BBC
• or just how many people read or care about the BBC

As I mentioned earlier, Black is not qualified to do survey research. If you like, we can go into the reasons why, but I think that many of them are obvious.
​

Enough to respond to the editors blogs with anti-AGW statements.

Okay, fine. But what does that have to do with BBC bias, Black's implicit bias, and the merits or lack of of his "study"?

Originally Posted by mhaze
Just consider this. Suppose a scientist sent a letter into Black detailing how and why he had a problem in publishing a skeptically oriented paper.

Why, now Black has "a story". Oh, he has a "responsibility to the public" to go dig into it, right? Now the scientist (and his bosses, and the periodical in question) is possibly paraded all over the newspaper. Who would want that? Wouldn't that create serious, long term resentments? And the obvious rebuttal by the journal which refused to publish the paper in question could be -

"we didn't publish it because it did not meet our standards of quality, not because it was anti-AGW".

Which might, in some cases, have been true. Think it over a bit. It does not surprise me at all that no one wished to respond to Black.
​

The other reason may just be that there aren't any.

Sure, that is another possible reason. But the purpose of studying a problem or doing a survey should be to discriminate scientifically between the various possibilities conclusively or at least tentatively.

I've tried to illustrate why after Black's "survey", you or the public actually know no more about the subject than prior to Black's "survey". But the public has been led by way of Black's "discussion about his survey" to believe they know something, namely, that Black's survey showed there were few if any skeptical scientists who were denied access to publishing in peer reviewed journals.

This is called dis information or mis information, or as Rockoon said, "making news instead of reporting news". Gather together a large group of such things coming from a single media outlet, and it can be proper to call them "propaganda". Alternately, we could backtrack a bit and say that that media's output is slanted toward "political correctness".

 

[varwoche]

Hey, it's out there. It's obvious that this is the cornerstone of the argument. This shouldn't come as a shock to you.

Which has little to do with the bit I remarked on.

As is this retort, yet we still find each other responding, don't we?

You're making assertions that challenge an entire field of science. Whereas I'm not. The onus is on you to support your assertions.

I've stated my case (on other threads) why CO2 is not proven

Lots of things that all (most?) of us accept as fact aren't proven, i.e. evolution.

I've reiterated the principles behind that on this very thread.

Which I find unconvincing.

If you don't/can't discuss, then no need to vacuously assert they are vacuous. Pot meet kettle.

You're making assertions that challenge an entire field of science. Whereas I'm not. The onus is on you to support your assertions.