Is AGW another example of groupthink

[novaphile]

I'm reminded of a basic piece of logic...

If one person believes proposition X to be true, and proposition X is false, then proposition X is false.

If 10 people believe prop X to be true, and prop X is false, then prop X is false.
If 100 people believe prop X to be true, and prop X is false, then prop X is false.
If 1000 people believe prop X to be true, and prop X is false, then prop X is false.
If 10 billion people believe prop X to be true, and prop X is false, then prop X is false.

If something is not true, it is not true, it doesn't matter how many people believe that it's true.

I'm always amazed how many people believe that increasing the number of believers can change the inherent state of the world.

In the AGW case we have 100 years of science backed up by evidence vs. a growing groundswell of people who don't want the science to be true.

Tough.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I'll put you down as a "no" then shall I?

You too provide nothing more than your opinion/understanding on AGW.

This is not about the AGW science - as I said earlier - AGW may in fact be true. But that does not mean that groupthink cannot infiltrate the psychology, drowning out any discussion that might challenge the "accepted science" and the symptoms manifesting themselves in the various forms as outlined by Janis.

 

[elbe]

See symptom #4.

You know, that "symptom #4" is your OP, right? Stereotype everyone who doesn't automatically agree with you as "groupthink". But you want a reason why it's not what you think it is? We aren't applying the "symptoms" to everyone opposed to AGW, just people who intentionally remain ignorant yet still make claims without any evidence, or even logic - like your whole shtick.

Trying to provide evidence to you is a futile gesture, you have repeatedly ignored facts that you don't agree with and continued to make baseless accusations and assumptions. I'd say the only condition most of us may be facing is a Sisyphus complex, just keep trying to bush that boulder up the hill.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You know, that "symptom #4" is your OP, right? Stereotype everyone who doesn't automatically agree with you as "groupthink". But you want a reason why it's not what you think it is? We aren't applying the "symptoms" to everyone opposed to AGW, just people who intentionally remain ignorant yet still make claims without any evidence, or even logic - like your whole shtick.

So you cant produce the few examples I have repeatedly asked of you? You would rather attack me than the OP, and with nothing but, er.. well nothing.

Trying to provide evidence to you is a futile gesture, you have repeatedly ignored facts that you don't agree with and continued to make baseless accusations and assumptions. I'd say the only condition most of us may be facing is a Sisyphus complex, just keep trying to bush that boulder up the hill.

The clearly we are at an impasse. You say you are producing evidence or wont try - which is it?. All I see are opinions and personal attacks.

I have asked for some evidence - you refuse to provide it.
You attack me throwing your arms around saying "why bother, you wont listen".
You guys must really be struggling if this continued attack on me (rather than the OP) is the best you have.

It seems to me that the longer this takes, the more legs my theory seems to have.

 

[a_unique_person]

It seems to me that the longer this takes, the more legs my theory seems to have.

lol

 

[Hallo Alfie]

lol

This is (most of) post 95.
I am waiting on your response.

(snip).. although it seems to me that true professional scientists (read grownups) would be gracious about it.

I should also point out that it is not just the scientists who should be gracious, but the non scientists too (such as the rest of you on the forum)

Back to the point at hand,
Some of you are claiming that groupthink can't possibly be true.
I am saying that not only is it possible, it actually seems to be.

Now to help disporove it:
"could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned etc etc."

I'd have thought that someone who has dedicated himself diligently to the science (presumably the good, bad and the dissenting) for so many years would be able to come up with just a few examples.
Or is t that you have simply embraced the teachings of the priests and accepted their lessons blindly?

Come on AUP, show me how well you have delved into AGW; show me some examples as I've asked for.

 

[a_unique_person]

One example of a denialist 'paper' that was ridiculed and scorned. To put it mildly.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

Group think at it's finest.

 

[Dancing David]

...In my opinion the symptoms as described by Janis are evident in much of the actions and attitudes the are seen in the AGW debate.

Except you haven't shown that, you have made a very weak case at best.

Remember that you need to show that it is at least a common attitude (say 30%) or something like that.

You haven't shown that at all.

I am saying the evidence that you have presented is weak.

Unless I'm missing something, that was in quantum mechanics right? Is that AGW? It kind of proves my point in part doesn't it? that they can do that in one field but not another.

But you missed the point again.

You have not presented evidence to the contrary of what happens in science.

You are just presenting weak evidence and then trying to show groupthink.

You haven't demonstrated either.

I honestly fail to see how my point has not been made. I am suggesting that there are elements of groupthink, rife within the circles of AGW adherents.

But you haven't shown that it is rife at all, where is this amazing data set?

I see it in the many points I have made in this and other threads. I see it in the symptoms and the reactions of posters here.
I could cite specific examples but it seems to me that in isolation they mean little, but as a whole. That said, see further.



Exactly



I hear you, but I don't agree - I feel I have provided some examples.

I am afraid your understanding of the JREF is lacking,
to establish your premise you must first define your terms.
Groupthink as used in the original context requires a pervasive attitude of excluding evidence.
Then you demonstrate that is what is happening.
So what is the prevalence of rejecting evidence.
What is the evidence that was rejected.
Why was it rejected.

In one case in another thread you were told the scientific basis for rejecting one data sample interpretation. That is not groupthink.

You are not showing at all that there is a pervasive attitude of groupthink amongst the scientists. You have made a weak assertion based upon limited data.

So show us more.

That is part of the JREF, you need to support your assertions.

Sure I have an agenda. The same one that most here have which is to exercise their minds, ask questions, pass on information etc etc.
My motives are no different to anyone elses I would have thought.

Now, with regard to AGW my agenda is simple. To show what Joe Sixpack thinks, sees and feels around this.
To show that there are more considerations involved than what might be evident. etc.
And to show that there is a groundswell of skepticism that wont be shouted down.

That is politics that is you saying "But I don't understand the science", there is a difference.

There is currently a groundswell of belief in god and angels in the US, science is not based upon populism.

You show me the evidence that defies AGW, then show where that evidence is being reject a priori by the majority of the climate science community. Show that they are rejecting it based upon personal preference for the theory, rather than the nature of the data and the rationale of its use.

Frankly, the lack of opposing data or examples as to why I am wrong presented in this thread, leads me further to think the groupthink theory has legs.

Nope the burden is on you, you haven't met it yet.

then you resort to a semantic appeal to emotion as a rhetorical device.

You have not shown that data and evidence are rejected by the community of scientists. Start there before you start you political spinning.

All we have is lots of shallow irrelevant argument, personal opinions, ad homs and criticism of my argument's construction. How about people giving up some facts as tro why it is not possible?

HOW ABOUT YOU DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE IS A PERVASIVE PATTERN OF REJECTING EVIDENCE?

Excuse me, but you are reversing the process here. try presenting your evidence.

You have to establish
1. What evidence.
2. The strength of the evidence.
3. That it is being rejected because of groupthink, rather than scientific rationale.

First off I believe I have answered this, but again, without wishing to get into too many specifics (which will just bog the conversation down further with low level scemantics and one upmanship),

Nope, that is the whole basis of the case, now isn't it.

You show that there is a pervasive pattern of rejection of data sets and evidence that is based upon something other than the process of science.

Now I will give you a freebie, if you can show that even 10% of the rejection is based upon something other than scientific rationale then I will agree that is groupthink. Although that is a very very very low bar.

So where is this evidence and where can you show that it was rejected out of hand, rather than dismissed as part of the scientific process.

there are indicators everywhere. Personal and professional ridicule of anyone dissenting, character assassination, ad homs, anger and abuse, climategate, wikipedia, failure at Copenahagen, hockey sticks, realclimate, scientific bias, and the list of allegations and/or evidence goes on.

Nice word salad of assertion, I note that the specific data to support your theory is lacking.

that is a problem.

I am not in a court of law here either I have asked a question that outlines that groupthink is a human phenomenon, smarter people than us here have fallen victim to it.

So, why not with the AGW followers?

Sorry this is the JREF, your premise, it is not up to us to show the negative.

You show your positive evidence of YOUR theory and then we critique it.

Otherwise I have to believe in angels because the burden would be on me to disprove them.

Rather the burden is on those who say angels exist.

That is the burden of proof.

 

[Dancing David]

I'll put you down as a "no" then shall I?

You too provide nothing more than your opinion/understanding on AGW.

This is not about the AGW science - as I said earlier - AGW may in fact be true. But that does not mean that groupthink cannot infiltrate the psychology, drowning out any discussion that might challenge the "accepted science" and the symptoms manifesting themselves in the various forms as outlined by Janis.

But it IS about the science, to demonstrate groupthink, you must demonstrate that the science is being rejected for reasons other than scientific critique.

 

[Dancing David]

This is (most of) post 95.
I am waiting on your response.



I'd have thought that someone who has dedicated himself diligently to the science (presumably the good, bad and the dissenting) for so many years would be able to come up with just a few examples.
Or is t that you have simply embraced the teachings of the priests and accepted their lessons blindly?

Come on AUP, show me how well you have delved into AGW; show me some examples as I've asked for.

Nope that si why I have said you need to do your homework.

Your premise is that scientific data is being rejected for reasons other than science.

You support your premise and then we critique it.

Don't ask others to do yor work for you.

 

[tyr_13]

Did you seriously not even read the e-mails that were stolen that 'proved' scientists were making it up? A lot of those included criticism of other work that got twisted into a 'cover up'. Scientists criticize each other's work all the time. It's called 'peer review'.

The real problem is that you want examples of non-scientists criticizing the overall AGW theory that scientists accept. This would only happen if there was a valid scientific criticism of the overall AGW theory. There isn't. Rather, there isn't one that hasn't already been through and through dis-proven long ago.

So your basic problem is that this is reality. If you find reality too biased, that's too bad.

Maybe tomorrow someone will come out with some great proof that the warming is really caused by something else. It hasn't happened. All the current criticisms are bunk, have been shown to be bunk, and are therefor, not very well received. You're going to have to dig back a decade to find that type of criticism.

 

[varwoche]

could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned

One problem is, this challenge you keep waving is completely inane.

Offhand I can't provide you with even one specific example of contsructive crticism that was graciously (or ungraciously) received in any branch of science. (It seems that not a lot of scientists make videos of their meetings and post them to youtube.)

Can you point to several instances of constructive criticism that was graciously received -- in any branch of science? If no, this would go a long way towards confirming that your challenge is a crock of BS.

As for reviewing data and tuning hypotheses, this happens all the time or else science wouldn't advance. Get real.

 

[BenBurch]

Wow, there was nothing right in any of that.

The more I see of Alfie's post's the more I'm inclined to agree with Piggy, what once seemed to be CTer ignorance looks more and more like a troll.

No, I don't think the majority of these people are actually trolling, per se, I think it is a pose designed to achieve a cynical political end. They absolutely know that what they are trying to foist upon the public is a lie, but they need to create the perception that AGW isn't real to achieve their goals. It will become real for them the moment they can make some no-bid money from it being so.

 

[BenBurch]

The "gracious" stuff is bullpuckey. I mean just mealy-mouthed red herring material.

Because it doesn't matter if it is genteel or a fist-fight, if you make your case that your interpretation of facts is better than the current one, and you are verifiably correct, your interpretation will become the new consensus.

And sometimes it nearly is a fist-fight, and I can show you several examples of such things, especially in paleontology and the details of evolutionary theory. This does not invalidate the process, in fact I think it ANIMATES it.

 

[Thunder]

we have been hearing the enourmous evidence in support of AGW for more than a decade now. its not like this issue just began 3 years ago.

i so no reason to think this is an issue of "groupthink", for groupthink suggests evidence has not been read and analyzed.

 

[elbe]

No, I don't think the majority of these people are actually trolling, per se, I think it is a pose designed to achieve a cynical political end. They absolutely know that what they are trying to foist upon the public is a lie, but they need to create the perception that AGW isn't real to achieve their goals. It will become real for them the moment they can make some no-bid money from it being so.

Oh, I don't mean the AGW denial crowd as a whole, I just meant Alfie - I don't like to generalize a whole group on the actions of an individual. There's just too much willful ignorance on his part, more interested in riling up the opposition than discussing anything. But that is just my opinion, and I don't hold it firm enough to report him as such.

 

[elbe]

So you cant produce the few examples I have repeatedly asked of you? You would rather attack me than the OP, and with nothing but, er.. well nothing.

You have been provided examples, you are always provided examples, but, expectedly, you ignored them. You are intellectually dishonest, so what it the point in even trying to reason with you?

 

[varwoche]

Can you point to several instances of constructive criticism that was graciously received -- in any branch of science?

AAA, allow me to be more specific. How about you...?

• Provide two or more examples of constructive criticism graciously received in any one field of science
• Provide two or more examples of constructive criticism ungraciously received in any one field
• Define the parameters for who is allowed in these samplings, i.e. can the criticizer be any random bozo?

The "gracious" stuff is bullpuckey. I mean just mealy-mouthed red herring material.

Obviously. Still, what with hope springing eternal, I give AAA the benefit of the doubt that he's sincere, in which case he should define the parameters of the game so that I and others might play along.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Unsubscribed.

After his last reply to me... I'll go the same route. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

The more I see of Alfie's post's the more I'm inclined to agree with Piggy, what once seemed to be CTer ignorance looks more and more like a troll.

It's a pity... from what I gather he used to be a serious poster.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

One problem is, this challenge you keep waving is completely inane.

Offhand I can't provide you with even one specific example of contsructive crticism that was graciously (or ungraciously) received in any branch of science. (It seems that not a lot of scientists make videos of their meetings and post them to youtube.)

Black Holes & Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy, by Kip Thorne, tells the history of relativity and its controversies, with many examples of constructive criticism whose receptions range from gracious to ungracious.

Scientists accept constructive criticism through the peer review process all the time. Once again, that acceptance ranges from gracious to ungracious, but peer review is usually confidential so the public doesn't see this.

As for reviewing data and tuning hypotheses, this happens all the time or else science wouldn't advance. Get real.

Yep. AAA has been ignoring that interpretation of the evidence, apparently because his axe needs grinding.

Will