 |
Earth Sciences Forum
This site is dedicated to the Earth Sciences. We are here for you to discuss issues regarding any aspect of the Earth sciences, at all levels of knowledge. Questions are welcomed, as are open scientific debates. Enjoy!!!
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Andre
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 298
Location: Germany - The Nederlands
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: BBC - What's new? |
 |
|
If you have something novel to say on climate change, please let us know - we will be publishing a selection of your comments on Friday
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm
here is my intended contribution. However the page seems not to accept it.
| Quote: | The new dark ages
The major problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is the mutilation of the scientific method. According to Richard Feynman, science isn't about knowing everything, but by making a clear distinction between what we know and what we don't know. And progressing in knowledge is not about accepting what you like to be true. On the contrary, you should do everything which is in your own possibility to try to prove yourself wrong. If you can’t, then chances increase that you may be a bit right.
None of this is custom in the global warming industry. On the contrary, we seem to know all, the debate is over etc. the scientific method has been discarded and evidence is being replaced by model predictions. I stress again, the core business of science, attempting falsification attempts, is considered a hostile act now and the perpetrators await tar and feathers. Analysing the social elements of global warming, it is astoundingly, blatantly, in conformity with all the symptoms of groupthink, formulated by Irvin Janis. And any major historic groupthink hype has almost invariably led to catastrophe.
But then again, the evidence for global warming, as it seemed so abundant in 1988 when the IPCC came into being, is disappearing slowly. The spikes in the ice cores are no longer caused by greenhouse gasses. The hockeystick is exposed as noble cause corruption. The actual temperatures refuse to go up with increasing stubbornness. Moreover, there are some serious doubts about the so called positive feedback elements so essential or tipping points and runaway climate. See: http://earth.myfastforum.org/about134.html Y
Yet, the confidence in the human cause is ever growing, 90% according to the last –non peer reviewed- summary for policy makers. If the confidence is inversely proportional to the evidence then one can be sure to see groupthink.
But if you want to change society you can’t afford to lose global warming as driving mechanism to control the energy balance, so it must be true at all cost. Continuing this hype may however achieve the opposite of the intention of an happy Earth. The scarifying of the rain forests, for instance, to produce biofuels. It’s the hype that threatens the extinction of numerous species, not the minor climate alleviation itself, if it persists in the first place. The sooner mankind goes cold turkey on the hype the better. It’s more than time to address the real problems. |
_________________
Moderator of http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia."
Charley Brown
Last edited by Andre on Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:49 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scpg02
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 221
Location: Sacramento
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | However the page seems not to accept it. |
Might be the web link. Try taking that out.
_________________
 Corner Cafe
for relaxing adult conversation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Latecommer
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 45
Location: Central California
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well put Andre,
I hope it gets through. I believe I saw it posted in another forum (CS perhaps)
I would add to what you said about the real problems we are NOT preparing for, for instance the close similarity to solar sun spot cycles to others groupings that produced minimal conditions on Earth. It is well known that cold weather kills many times more people than warm, (what is that death count from AGW anyway) and we are not preparing to warm mid latitude housing, prepareing for sever crop shortages, consentration of populations, and countless other adjustments the world would have to do to endure a Dalton like minimum.
Doug
_________________
If you don't know where you are going, any road will lead you there |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andre
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 298
Location: Germany - The Nederlands
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it's indeed also posted in CS and some other fora. The easoest way to reach a few people without the mindguards blocking it.
Anyway, today I posted:
| Quote: | see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081882.stm "
I have submitted a comment as follows:
"Yet we have another discussion about the motives of not believing in anthropogenic global warming. Be it from the crowd in general or the climate skeptics who appear to have an agenda again, no doubt based on fictional conspiracy theories of bribery by the oil companies. How about a counter analysis? One may wonder why the analyst, Kari Marie Norgaard, doesn’t seem to realize that “stereotyping the opposition” is a symptom by itself, symptom #5 of groupthink as formulated by Irvin Janis, after analyzing other political debacles.
One may also wonder if there are more of those eight groupthink symptoms applicable to the climate-alarmists. For instance, could “illusion of invulnerability”(#1), related to group coherence and support, have contributed to the construction of the specious hockeystick? Why? Because the constructors and the alarmist group in general have an “unquestioned belief in the inherent morality”(#6). Would Al Gore’s stance of if-you-are-not- with-us-you’ re-against- us be directly translatable as “direct pressure on disagreeing individuals”(#2). Remember Stephen Schneider’s appeal to the scientists to tell scary stories while not mentioning any doubts. Could this be explained as combining symptom #2 and #6 with “self sensorship” (#3)?
Furthermore, if no doubts are mentioned, isn’t “illusion of unanimity” (#4) or the mentioning of consensus omnipresent as one of the major arguments for global warming? How about “self appointed mind guards” (#7)? Isn’t the aim of the group of the realclimate blog to unexplain any opposing scientific evidence, “rationalizating all warnings” (# eight) exactly that? Isn’t the label “mind guards” also applicable for news agencies suppressing any reporting of facts that oppose the human role in climate?
Amazing that one can already trace down all eight symptoms of groupthink in the global warming community within only a few observations. Groupthink severely biases the sense for reality, which reinforces the need for some skepticism to anthropogenic global warming. Therefore, one should read the completely suppressed Independent Summary for Policy Makers to ascertain why a good deal of first class scientists have not jumped on the bandwagon, because a wrong perception of reality inevitably leads to wrong decisions. That’s why one cannot hide behind the well-known precautionary principle. Only honesty about the truth pays off in the end.
References:
Irving Janis, Groupthink, 2d ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1982.
Irving Janis, Victims of Groupthink, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1972.
McKittrick (editor) et al 2007, Independent Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Working Group I) 2007, The Fraser Institute. Text revised March 2, 2007." |
I realize it's not entirely reacting to her frustration that people don't seem to care but as soon as somebody mentions that sceptics have agenda's they better be prepared for this kind of reply.
_________________
Moderator of http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia."
Charley Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John L
Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andre, just where did you post that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sunsettommy
Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Andre can I post your commentary at my forum?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
