climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[Matteo V]

Oh please, I'm not going to play whack-a-mole on an endlessly repeating list of climate science denier myths. They are all easily refutable and debunked here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Since you've obviously got some time on your hands, I would encourage you to start reading the peer-reviewed scientific literature rather than hang out in the wackier parts of the internet.
The IPCC documentation is a good place to start, which exists primarily as a summary of the research for policy-makers. https://www.ipcc.ch/

Yes. The new bible. Dont question it, or you will be burned at the stake.

It is a good read, and it is nice to have something new to read since the last book came out 1300 years ago.

Oh please, I'm not going to play whack-a-mole.....

If you ever find yourself playing this game, you may want to re-evaluate your position.

[palmbeacher]

Oh please, I'm not going to play whack-a-mole on an endlessly repeating list of climate science denier myths. They are all easily refutable and debunked here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Since you've obviously got some time on your hands, I would encourage you to start reading the peer-reviewed scientific literature rather than hang out in the wackier parts of the internet.
The IPCC documentation is a good place to start, which exists primarily as a summary of the research for policy-makers. https://www.ipcc.ch/

Yes. The new bible. Dont question it, or you will be burned at the stake.

It is a good read, and it is nice to have something new to read since the last book came out 1300 years ago.

Oh please, I'm not going to play whack-a-mole.....

If you ever find yourself playing this game, you may want to re-evaluate your position.

Matteo V lives in a fact and science free world. There is no sense in discussing with nutters. Trump provided them a stage, hopefully soon this madness will end.

[SimonP]

It takes extreme hubris to believe that the acknowledged experts in the field are all wrong. This thread is a textbook example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

[tegirinenashi]

Would you consider Svante Arrhenius as an acknowledged expert? Oh, that was 100 years ago, so he didn't actually know what he was writing... But then, why are you so sure "the scientific consensus" today is any better at predicting the future centuries from now? (Every now and then new arrogant young generation comes in, and is convinced that the world is simple and they already know all the answers).

[SimonP]

A paradigm shift requires a competing alternative theory that explains observation better than the current one, championed by a group of young scientists. Unfortunately, there is none.
Time to close down this thread and go kiting.

[Matteo V]

A paradigm shift requires a competing alternative theory that explains observation better than the current one, championed by a group of young scientists. Unfortunately, there is none.
Time to close down this thread and go kiting.

In discussions with extremists, there is often a "Eureka" moment that sheds light on a logical inconsistency held by those extremists. And this is it!

What SimonP seems to state above, is that reality is what it is understood to be at the current time. There is no questioning the current understanding, and past inaccuracies were accurate until a new understanding was agreed upon by authorities.

But logic and reason dictate that the highest level of current understanding, should still acknowledge it's possible, and probable, shortcomings. This is where extremists on both the left and right fail. And this is also why this dialog/discussion is so useful for those of us wishing to understand the psychology behind the extremism.


SimonP also seems to hint at a complete denial of the effect of suppressing competing theories by those in power. There are competing theories which go against what the Church of AGW teaches. But just as Church of AGW's narrative is based on very much incomplete knowledge, so are the competing narratives based on that same incomplete knowledge. So in a way, SimonP is somewhat correct that a paradigm shift must occur. Unfortunately, you could have flipped a coin on which theory you accepted in the first place anyway.

It takes extreme hubris to believe that the acknowledged experts in the field are all wrong. This thread is a textbook example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

The above statement is a demonstration of the complete hubris by which one swallows and defends a particular narrative which has obvious faults. This has been a problem in science since it was first established by human beings. Beliefs tend to outweigh the observable reality. Beliefs are also used to fill in blanks in the science, when the mentality of the observer is incapable of acknowledging and leaving those blanks. Good science is capable of combating the above, but only with scientist who acknowledge the above and operate with a certain amount of skepticism in their work. In fact, the entire scientific principle is based upon the attempt to disprove one's own theories. Science ceases to be science, when one uses it to prove what one feels is correct.

[B-Roc]

I think I’ve learned more about global warming, what I believe and what others believe, by reading the views of those expressed so articulately here. Thank you major contributors for sharing your opinions/facts. I’m working on a presentation regarding difficult conversations / conflict management and came across this article / quote and thought it appropriate to share. I’m not requesting anyone stop debating. I’m simply sharing why this debate can go on forever without reaching any kind of agreement.

Navigating Difficult Conversations With Customers: 3 Tactics for Salespeople By Maura Schreier-Fleming

“2) Set realistic expectations for the conversation:
It’s unrealistic to expect that you can change someone’s mind about an issue with facts, data, and information. Confirmation bias is a psychological phenomenon which says that when we see information that supports our point of view, it strengthens what we believe in; when we see information that refutes our point of view, we tend to ignore it.

Confirmation bias was observed in book purchasing patterns on Amazon during the 2008 U.S. presidential election. A researcher found that people who already supported Barack Obama were the same people buying books which described him in a positive light; people who already disliked Obama were the ones buying books describing him in a negative light. What this demonstrates is people aren’t looking for information—they’re looking for confirmation of their existing beliefs.
Again, don’t think you will change your customer’s mind with facts. Citing fact after fact after fact will fall on deaf ears.”

Carry on.

[Pemba]

I think part of the problem is also that in today's world it is difficult to admit to being "wrong" or to apologize. Few people are able to do it. Politicians are a good example, it seems acceptable for them to lie but not to admit that they were wrong and change their minds about something unless forced to. Surely opinions evolve or develop unless a person stops questioning or even thinking.. I think "Havre" pointed out somewhere how many people vote for the same political party their whole lives, while surely you'd expect their interests or points of view to change between 18 and 70. Strange, at least in a society with many different political parties. Society rewards those that are sure of themselves even while they are obviously talking nonsense or lying.

[Matteo V]

I think part of the problem is also that in today's world it is difficult to admit to being "wrong" or to apologize. Few people are able to do it. Politicians are a good example, it seems acceptable for them to lie but not to admit that they were wrong and change their minds about something unless forced to....

You hit the nail on the head, but it needs to be taken a step further.

Politicians pander to the part of every person that is at least a little bit "extremist". Admission of being wrong doesnt just make them look weak. It is much worse than that, as it makes them look like a moderate. As John Cleese so aptly lays out in his skit on extremism, moderates are hated by both sides of the spectrum.

At the risk of over simplifying the numbers in the equation, if 1/3 of the constituents align left, 1/3 align right, and 1/3 can go either way, being a moderate is the best way to lose an election. There is just no passionate support for centrists. While a multi-party system (more than 3) can seem like centrism has a better chance, over time wild swings to "almost" far right and far left are still relatively the norm.

So who is to blame? The politicians who work the game according to its rules? Or the people whose aggregate mentality establishes those rules?

I think "Havre" pointed out somewhere how many people vote for the same political party their whole lives, while surely you'd expect their interests or points of view to change between 18 and 70. Strange, at least in a society with many different political parties.

I think the evidence shows that a (+18 yearold) person votes based on their mentality, not based on an unbiased, rational, and logical, assessment of the situation. That is why political ads play to emotions, not rationality.

On the climate change issue, this manifests itself as the far left's hunger for ever increasingly "doomsdayish" narratives, and the far rights ever increasing denialism of any effect at all. Both sides are driven by pure emotion. And the most money flows toward the side best positioned to profit from policy change, while some money is allocated to fight policy change.

[slide]

hopefully we will have a massive change in the way america works soon -reinstate funding to WHO , and the us will rejoin the paris agreement , and throw the rubbish in the bin on the way out, joe