BTW, the Naomi Oreskes presentation shows how even Republican Presidents ignored the right wing “think” tanks and supported efforts that did reduce acid rain and CFC’s.
Unfortunately, after Bush (the father) Conservative leaders also fell for the unscientific research.
Except his works. Yours doesn’t. See, he can conclude that they’ve been wrong every time. You can’t even bring yourself to write those words, let alone defend them if you had.
I find no psychologic difference in the pro-AGW bias and the anti-vax bias, and it will take many more Phil Jones/Andrw Wakefields to shake either crowd from a position so close to their hearts.
If you ignore for a moment that the vast majority of True Believers for any given paradigm have no actual personal mechanism for getting inside the research itself or (in the case of AGW models) even beginning to understand the hundreds of thousands of lines of code (along with their parametrization assumptions) in the models which produce the frightening predictions, you begin to understand that we form deep attachments to our beliefs which are relatively independent of facts.
These deep attachments cause us to behave irrationally. We scurry to proseltyze the persuadable and defend against attackers, because our Great Cause becomes part of our significance. An attack on central icons–the Pope for some; the President for another; a key researcher for a third…–becomes a personal attack on all that we hold dear. We cannot be dissuaded from what we see in our immediate field of view, be it a polar bear swimming in open water, an autistic nephew or a brother miraculously healed of cancer. What we see with our own eyes confirms our biases and nourishes our souls, and we are willing to provide very logical explanations for all that opposes what we have accepted with our souls.
So, in other words, you don’t care if the solution of the problem works? It’s irrelevant to you that the problem has a solution that will work. It’s only relevant to you if the solution involves government action, and if it does, you’re against it?
No, you have it backwards. YOUR SIDE only get behind a problem if there’s a solution that involves an expansion of the government.
I’m currently agnostic on AGW. I’m not saying that global warming (oh, pardon me, “climate change”) is not happening or is not caused by humans or cannot be solved by humans if the answers to both previous quesitons is yes, I’m just saying that it appears that (i) all the evidence is not in yet and (ii) the same people that always advocate more government are, once again, advocating more government. As I said in another thread recently, it doesn’t take too many answers of “increase the size of government” to realize that the goal is to increase the size of government (not to solve the actual problem at hand).
Whatever you might mean by “no psychologic difference,” there is a vast difference in the fact that one of those position actively rejects the weight of the scientific literature, while the other embraces and relies upon it.
If one is empirically minded, one should rely heavily on the scientific literature. To do otherwise would reflect some other psychologic bias.
Huh? He’s saying you aren’t getting at the facts. You are looking at third or fourth level facts, interpretations of interpretations of facts. How you analyse all that is based on your prejudices.
Have you read the thread? The main items of the OP are replied with factual cites and even the persons involved are replying to the critics. As for the Chief, he said that pro-AGW people are like anti vaxers. And that is why agreeing with him was so silly.
And why do you tink I give a shit what “Bush father” says about anything?
You still don’t get it. Your “factual cites” are web sites that quote someone else who talked to someone who ran a model predicting something about global warming based on inputs derived from a study performed by someone else. Your facts are fucked.
The same people who are advocating “more government” re environmental factors for the last 40 years have been shown to be correct all along. The “more government” solution has solved the problems.
Did you actually read my post, or did you just go blurp?
There is, however, a significant difference in the scientific basis for the AGW hypothesis versus the vaccines-cause-autism hypothesis.
The important difference between pro-AGW and anti-vax is that the former has a lot of research evidence in its favor, while the latter has none at all.
So what? Most popular opinion on any scientific matter, up to and including the heliocentric model of the solar system, falls more into the “True Believer” category than into the category of genuinely informed scientific understanding.
To take another example, many climate change deniers themselves are True Believers in the “skepticism” hypothesis. They like feeling superior and patronizing toward people who take AGW seriously (and in some cases, they also don’t want to confront the possibility of climate problems necessitating serious change in their lifestyles or those of their descendants). So they stroke their egos and reassure themselves by indulging in sententious pontificating against “credulous sheeple” on the other side of the issue.
But none of this True-Believer stuff, on either side, is relevant to the issue of what physical phenomena are actually occurring in the global climate.
In the long run, amateur philosophizing about the psychological mechanisms of belief and ignorance doesn’t determine the fate of a scientific theory. The fact that climate-change deniers are working so hard to keep the discussion focused on these pop-psychology issues, instead of producing credible alternative hypotheses that would better explain the observed data, is an indication of the weakness of their position when it comes to the actual science.
Well, you said that you had heard just liberals “during your lifetime” approving of solutions that expanded government. so I guess you were wrong.
Sorry, but just saying so does not mean that you are correct, if the facts are fucked outfits like the Petroleum Institute would had say so already and to the four winds.
The sources saying that the facts are fucked are indeed ignorant.
Aside from my personal bemusement in the behaviour patterns of pro and anti AGW crowds, and a general interest in human behaviour at a large scale, there are two “facts” around AGW which I personally remain skeptical.
The first is the Globally Averaged Temperature Anomaly. And the criticism of Phil Jones is that he has been careless with his handling of that key dataset. Careless? Gee, that seems like a pretty serious concern.
The second is the modeling itself; hundreds of thousands of lines of code with best-guesstimates for key parameters and open admission that neither CO2 forcing sensitivity nor feedback loops nor any of a multitude of potential unknowns are accounted for accurately. In general the best that can be said is that all current models trend up if CO2 trends up, but the end-values are remarkably diverse.
I don’t need a rebuttal, although I suspect you’ll be compelled to post one. I’m content to wait about ten years and see where the brouhaha goes.