I don't know what defines a "warmanista", which might be why I'm only guessing that MMCC stands for "man-made climate change". However, I'm perfectly happy to admit to confirmation bias, on account of I'm human too. I'm even willing to bet that all the people who've ever thought about the climate, right back to Adam, thought with confirmation biases.I'm going to do something you'll never see a warmanista admit to, and that is admit to confirmation, and a number of other biases.
I realise that as a human, that I'm subject to these. What really concerns me is that warmanistas refuse to acknowledge their own biases and the distortions in their thinking it causes. They believe themselves to be somewhat popelike in their infallibility. Not good.
My actual bias is to refuse to accept that MMCC is occuring. By accepting that I am biased, I have forced myself to consider valid refutations of that.
This is the challenge I have with warmanistas, the absolute refusal to admit bias and accept valid refutations of their own junk (The extreme on the other side is also guilty of this).
I still think you are holding up expectations from this article you would never expect from articles that fit your own cognitive biases.
There are a number of reasons why that wouldn't work as it is no longerr possible to separate physical climate from politics.I don't know what defines a "warmanista", which might be why I'm only guessing that MMCC stands for "man-made climate change". However, I'm perfectly happy to admit to confirmation bias, on account of I'm human too. I'm even willing to bet that all the people who've ever thought about the climate, right back to Adam, thought with confirmation biases.
Catch is, the climate doesn't think.
I suggest an experiment from the mediator's toolkit: I will research and argue your position and you will research mine, and we'll see what that does to our respective biases. Christmas is going to interrupt the process, and I have to state immediately that I no longer have unlimited fast broadband so my research is slower than it used to be.
Proposed ground rules:
1. No need to limit the discussion to two participants (no chance either). Anyone can join in as long as we're all playing by the same rules.
2. Each participant states up front the position they hold before entering the debate.
3. Each participant picks one position that they recognise is against their cognitive biases and that they will attempt to fully and fairly argue for.
4. The subject matter is the physical climate. It is NOT politics. The political motivations of those who hold different positions in the debate are explicitly ruled out of the discussion.
Probably more, but what do you think so far? Worth trying??
Ghoti
Paul Vaughan responded as follows:
Actually not so hard.
Personal anecdote:
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:
Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.
Follow the money ”” perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.
Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.
One important point that keep sliding past people I debate with - I think humans have some influence in changing climate and have stated this numerous times. I differ on how, when, where, and on what scale that influence is, and how we should be addressing it.
Step 1 for me is to hope for the defeat of the co2 religion and and hope that people finally realize what we should actually be doing.
But as usual, once bureaucrats become involved, everything gets totally ####ed up.
[size=+3]Deadly snow storm blasts US[/size]
A DEADLY storm described as one of the worst in a decade blanketed much of the eastern United States overnight, grounding flights and bringing traffic to a standstill on the last weekend of the holiday shopping season
Here's some more of today's hysterical news...
Rapid global warming eh?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...ton-snowed-under/story-e6frf7lx-1225812126316
On a good note I'm with Tim Flannery take on the conferance.
"[But] if I was to sum it up in a single phrase I'd say this has been a good, successful meeting."
I don't know what defines a "warmanista", which might be why I'm only guessing that MMCC stands for "man-made climate change". However, I'm perfectly happy to admit to confirmation bias, on account of I'm human too. I'm even willing to bet that all the people who've ever thought about the climate, right back to Adam, thought with confirmation biases.
Catch is, the climate doesn't think.
I suggest an experiment from the mediator's toolkit: I will research and argue your position and you will research mine, and we'll see what that does to our respective biases. Christmas is going to interrupt the process, and I have to state immediately that I no longer have unlimited fast broadband so my research is slower than it used to be.
Proposed ground rules:
1. No need to limit the discussion to two participants (no chance either ). Anyone can join in as long as we're all playing by the same rules.
2. Each participant states up front the position they hold before entering the debate.
3. Each participant picks one position that they recognise is against their cognitive biases and that they will attempt to fully and fairly argue for.
4. The subject matter is the physical climate. It is NOT politics. The political motivations of those who hold different positions in the debate are explicitly ruled out of the discussion.
Probably more, but what do you think so far? Worth trying??
Ghoti
Very creative and constructive idea Ghoti. I'm not sure if I would hold my breath waiting for a positive response.....
From even the most generous objective point of view the weight of research and evidence that support's anthropogenic climate change is so much larger and more comprehensive than the opposing views it would be very, very challenging to to look at it rationally and honestly - and then totally disbelieve it. But that is what you are asking Wayne and others to do. Big call.
Even tougher is the fact that a realistic risk management approach would not even demand a complete proof before taking necessary action. If one found even a relatively small risk (say 10-20%) that a course of man made action was going to devastate the conditions under which we live then the only sensible approach would be to take the actions that would remove that risk. Other examples that we could recognise would be
1) Not overloading a ship recognizing that any storm would cause it to sink
2) Ensuring that there were sufficient welds on an plane/boat/bridge to hold it together under foreseeable operating conditions
3) Making sure you had enough petrol in the car before you went on desert drive...
This is the disaster insurance approach. You don't necessarily accept it is going to happen but paying a small premium now is the acceptable price for being able to recover later on.
But as I watch the discussions on this forum and others I see no evidence that even this quite pragmatic approach to a world changing event is accepted by those who reject IPPC global warming position.
Mind you I have been assured by those in the know that the arguments on this forum are conducted with more civility, intelligence and rationality than on other boards... which is still a worry. Perhaps another approach might be to ask why do so many seemingly rational intelligent people resolutely refuse to accept the possibility that MMCC might be happening. (There is some interesting research in that field)
Good luck !
Even tougher is the fact that a realistic risk management approach would not even demand a complete proof before taking necessary action. If one found even a relatively small risk (say 10-20%) that a course of man made action was going to devastate the conditions under which we live then the only sensible approach would be to take the actions that would remove that risk.
WHY WE STILL DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE
george-marshall-012At a recent dinner at Oxford University a senior researcher in atmospheric physics was telling me about his coming holiday in Thailand. I asked him whether he was concerned that this would make a contribution to climate change (we had, after all, just sat through a two hour presentation on the topic). “Of course,” he said blithely, “and I’m sure the government will make long haul flights illegal at some point”.
To be honest the conversation had not just idly strayed into the topic of holidays: I had deliberately steered it in this direction as part of an informal research project- one you are welcome to join. Previous experimental subjects include a senior adviser to Nicholas Stern who flies regularly to South Africa (“my offsets help set a price in the carbon market”), a member of the British Antarctic Survey who takes several long haul skiing trips a year (“my job is stressful”), a national media environment correspondent who took his family to Sri Lanka (“I can’t see much hope”) and a Greenpeace climate campaigner back from scuba diving in the Pacific (“it was a GREAT trip!”).
Intriguing as their dissonance may be, what is especially revealing is that every one of these people has a career that is predicated on the assumption that information is sufficient to generate change- an assumption that a moment’s introspection would show them was deeply flawed.
About Skeptical Science
The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.
About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. There seems to be increasing interest in my own qualifications to discuss climate science. I studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, I majored in solar physics in my post-grad honours year. I am not a climate scientist. Despite my scientific background, my interest in global warming comes from a layman's perspective. Consequently, the science presented on this website is not my own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to focus on the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).
I receive no funding to maintain this website - it's run at personal expense. I have no affiliations with any organisations or political groups (holding no particular ideology, I would characterise myself as a swing voter). Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love - maintained in my spare time and the main thing I get from it is sleep deprivation. The design was created by my talented web designer wife.
A very rough calculation is that powering traffic lights that way would incease the fossil fuel consumption to do so by around 200%. That's assuming the speed bumps are designed such that cars don't brake (at all) before going over them.Also, there are a lot of clueless greens. There was a dodgy scientist getting plaudits for developing a speed hump to provide power for traffic lights. To me, with my engineering backgound, the use of kinetic energy to feed a battery is inefficient as there is a lot of machinery to convert it into electricity, not green as it uses batteries and not free as the kinetic energy comes from cars which will use more petrol to go over the speed humps.
Yet the fools were almost worshipping the con artist! There a a lot of dumb greens as there are a lot of dumb skeptics. Sometimes I wonder how mankind keeps succeeding.
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. There seems to be increasing interest in my own qualifications to discuss climate science. I studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, I majored in solar physics in my post-grad honours year.[/url]
To accept this is to accept that scientists opposing the popular view do actually have the same access to publication that the "mainstream" do.From even the most generous objective point of view the weight of research and evidence that support's anthropogenic climate change is so much larger and more comprehensive than the opposing views
Equally, you are unprepared to even remotely consider that your beliefs may be, if not wrong, not completely correct.it would be very, very challenging to to look at it rationally and honestly - and then totally disbelieve it. But that is what you are asking Wayne and others to do. Big call.
That seems a reasonable view. However, I think you are possibly under estimating the damage to the economies of individual countries and the combined global economy. You seem to completely disregard this, and I'd suggest it's this lack of objectivity that so frustrates many of us who are simply unsure about where the truth lies.Even tougher is the fact that a realistic risk management approach would not even demand a complete proof before taking necessary action. If one found even a relatively small risk (say 10-20%) that a course of man made action was going to devastate the conditions under which we live then the only sensible approach would be to take the actions that would remove that risk
I think there is equal frustration on 'the other side'.But as I watch the discussions on this forum and others I see no evidence that even this quite pragmatic approach to a world changing event is accepted by those who reject IPPC global warming position.
Again, it would be equally possible to address this concern to those of you who are so absolutely unprepared to consider that there could be flaws in the science to which you are so devoted.Perhaps another approach might be to ask why do so many seemingly rational intelligent people resolutely refuse to accept the possibility that MMCC might be happening. (There is some interesting research in that field)
I don't believe that's true. People of all political persuasions lack confidence in the current direction. And I doubt that it's reasonable for you to suggest that your level of intellect is hugely superior to all Republicans.Now it is only the intellectualy bereft Republicans and their tame media organisations in the US pushing that line.
Again, the derogatory personal remark. Why is this necessary, Knobby?From what I have seen, most of the climate hysteria has on this thread has been on the "denier" side. Aussiejeff, Calliope etc.
From what I have seen, most of the climate hysteria has on this thread has been on the "denier" side. Aussiejeff, Calliope etc.
Here's some more of today's hysterical news...
Deadly snow storm blasts US
A DEADLY storm described as one of the worst in a decade blanketed much of the eastern United States overnight, grounding flights and bringing traffic to a standstill on the last weekend of the holiday shopping season
Rapid global warming eh?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...ton-snowed-under/story-e6frf7lx-1225812126316
I doubt that too, but most of the argument here is not really about resolving matters of science because very few of the posters here are practising scientists and I can't think of anyone who's said that they're a scientist presently working on climate-related problems....Also doubt whether a conflict resolution technique is applicable to matters of science.
Well calling it the CO2 religion probably isn't the best way to convince people that your position is based on science. Why not quantify the relative influences? Specify how they work? Propose specific actions to address negative human influence on global climate?One important point that keep sliding past people I debate with - I think humans have some influence in changing climate and have stated this numerous times. I differ on how, when, where, and on what scale that influence is, and how we should be addressing it.
Step 1 for me is to hope for the defeat of the co2 religion and and hope that people finally realize what we should actually be doing.
But as usual, once bureaucrats become involved, everything gets totally ####ed up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?