I have one "challenge" on other threads which relates to the continued accusations that myself and others are all "deniers" of global warming. The fact is that no one can name even three members of the JREF forum that 'deny' global warming at all. We are simply that we are sceptical of the 'A' in AGW yet the name-calling continues - see symptom #4.
My "challenge" here (as you put it) is in response to claims by others that 'groupthink' is not evident in the AGW community. There are a number of symptoms that have been outlined and I personally see one or all of them in evidence in almost every discussion that occurs surrounding this subject.
yeah, sure, your own personal bias and lack of knowledge lead you to conclusions you can't demonstrate.
So show that 10% of AGW scientists engage in groupthink.
You can't show your own premise, too bad,
The burden of proof is on you!
My understanding of the scientific process is limited, and I have always acknowledged as much. It seems to me that any contrary example is ridiculed.
Point to it directly them, what post ? Hmmm, and who ridiculed it?
Are they an AGW scientist?
I have asked you (or anyone) to show me that is not the case - that is the 'challenge' that is being refused.
Groupthink is difficult to 'prove' and I also acknowledge that, it is however easy to find examples of it, and many have been pointed out in this thread alone.
It was weak and involved a very small minority, the data you pointed to did not demonstrate the criteria you set for groupthink.
very lame, you don't have the data do you AA Alfie ? And that is the real issue, you can't demonstrate your own premise to be true, I can prove group think amongst right wing Xian fundamentalists. And I can provide examples of it that are ironclad.
Why can't you?
HHHHMMMMMM
?
Conversely, it should be easy too to provide examples where groupthink is not in evidence.
Nope. it has been shown in this thread that it is the data people say is faulty. They looked at the data and pointed out the flaws, that is not groupthink.
Discussing teh falws of conclusions regarding interpretation of data is not groupthink.
You are too lazy to support your own premise? Seriously, if you want to get ridiculed at the JREF, that is the way to do it.
Why don't you show that 10% of the scientists who promote AGW engage in groupthink.
Or are you just to lazy to prove your point?
My suspicion is that groupthink is alive and well in the AGW community. I see no openmindedness, I see constant ridicule, I see morality, I see alarmism, I see self censorship, etc. In short, I see all the symptoms outlined - as a reminder, here they are again.
Where is this 'community', show me your sample?
What sample and how large is it?
Where is it?
[/quote]
Do I really need to provide (more) examples of each of these? Seriously?
[/quote]
Better get used to it, if you can't provide your evidence then you should not play at the JREF. We ALL challenge EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME! Better get used to it or stay on the porch.
Yes, you showed something that did not meet your own criteria, and you in no way showed that it dominates even 10% of the thinking of AGW supporters.
Epic fail.
Or do I need to provide parameters for discussion? Seriously?
Or do I have to outline the OP all over again?
Why don't you simply show me some examples of why you think groupthink is not in evidence?
It seems to me this should be really quite easy.
Okay I copied your list and I think you are full of hot air, you haven't demonstrated that they are ture, but then I begin to wonder if you are just pretending.
This is the JREF AA Alfie, you are here to learn to discuss things critically with a bunch of scepticts, we ALL DOUBT EACH OTHER AND ASK FOR EVIDENCE ALL THE TIME, there are threads in all the forums where this is evident. If you think that some theory is going to be just allowed to walk out without being dismembered , then you have come to the wrong forum.
1/. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
*******
AGW is open to debate, the science and data is discussed all the time, it in not invulnerabe.
Please show where this is a commonly held belief of scientists who study AGW.
2/. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
****And what data should make them reconsider their assumptions, what data are you talking about, the reasons for rejection were presented here.
Please show your data that opposing views are not listened to?
3/. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
**** And where did you demnstrate that? Hmmmmm.
How does it apply to the AGW science? The goal here is to demonstrate what, that some people are jerk, where is the data that most AGW scientists do this?
4/. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
****
Where is this is the AGW science?
Tell you what AA Alfie, i will beleive you if you show where these first four points happen, but do not just use the lame
"I already posted it."
If you are here to be more that just a wannabe it is time for you to support your conclusions.
Demonstrate that this is the behavior of even 10% of the scientists engaged in AGW.
Otherwise I shall label you a poseur and just not participate in the thread any further.
I like you AA Alfie, I really do but you will either learn to defend yourself and express your ideas or you won't.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.
