log man said..
so you're all hung up about the 99 percent thing. why hang your hat on that. It seems incredibly strange to say. "yes i agree that human induced climate change is real and happening and we need to do something about it ........but im outraged about whether 97 percent of a poll of scientists is accurate".........It's like saying You agree with the IPCC report but you're totally appalled by the font they used in the report.

I thought I made this simple enough to avoid misunderstandings.

The only belief of mine that is relevant here is "the left only cares about the science when it supports their narrative".

Perhaps you're unrepresentative of "the left", which I doubt, but *you* certainly are more interested in what people believe and how to influence them (controlling the narrative) than you are in the actual facts and science under discussion.

So much for "the left" being all about the science.

It's still not about AGW or climate change. Or even what I think about that.

And yes, you can still agree with the IPCC or the UN or NASA or whatever you like ... and STILL insist that folks like Cook need to do the ****ing science properly.

Otherwise ... it's just dogma.

log man said..
Endangered species, the reef, water use, recycling, energy policy.........actually ANY environmental subject you can think of and the Left are interested and doing something and the Right are nowhere. Do you think the Left are only interest because of some agenda.......some narrative???

That's bollocks

Y'know what, I'll let you have all the environmental subjects "the left" has been all over and "the right" has done nothing for, if you and "the left" own all the failures and short-sighted policies that have actually screwed up the environment more*.

So in spite of the science, generating those great attention-grabbing headlines make for powerful voter-draw. So yeah, it's a narrative.

What you're trying to unsuccessfully do is claim "the nutters" represent the entirety of opinions who prefer facts over feels and question what "the left" wants to blindly rush into because "it's a good cause".

PS. Richard Nixon initiated the EPA, the Clean Water Act, NOAA and the Legacy of Parks ... and he was Republican. What were you saying about conservatives and "the right"?

* wait for it ...

evlPanda said..

Kamikuza said..
And yes, you can still agree with the IPCC or the UN or NASA or whatever you like ... and STILL insist that folks like Cook need to do the ****ing science properly.

Cook published. Peers reviewed and criticised it.

The data, how he used it, and the resulting graphs are in question. There is much debate about it.

That's proper science.

"The lefties" pointing out that there are many, many, many other studies and papers out there, and the vast majority of them, be it 90, 95, or 97 percent, still point to man-made global warming is a very fair argument. The data "overwhelmingly" points to man made causes. No, it's not 100%, but that doesn't disprove it. Far from. We don't see "overwhelming" data saying it is not man made.

What I fear, actually, is that Global Warming, as important an issue as it is, is forcing other just as important environmental issues to take a bit of a back seat, while people argue about petty things, like egos.

For instance the very real possibility of ecological collapse, as we wipe out species after species (no food). Or, the vast deforestation that still continues unabated. Or, the other types of pollution. Or, that we're starting to run out of water (no water).

Is man ****ing the environment up? Yes. D'uh.

Thanks.

It's specifically the 97% that's tied directly to the Cook paper, and the errors and criticism it drew, that I've used as an example of my original point. A very narrowly defined point, to avoid digressions.......

I agree. I mean seriously, the data itself is profound, we don't need this consensus waffle. Especially if you're just going to fudge it in an attempt to make it more impressive...!

Kamikuza said..

"The left", and it seems especially you, are not interested in science (or even discussion of the science!) unless it reinforces your narrative.


You're so engaged in the ideology you simply can't allow any challenge to the dogma. Nothing new there, "the left" has had this problem forever.

Where's your proof that "the left" has had such a problem, or that any such problem is mainly on the left? What studies have you done to prove this claim of yours? It seems to be errant nonsense. There are many scientists I know who are from "the left" and who are passionate about science, getting the methodology right, and exposing bad science.

Kamikuza said..

Chris 249 said..
Where's your proof that "the left" has had such a problem, or that any such problem is mainly on the left? What studies have you done to prove this claim of yours? It seems to be errant nonsense. There are many scientists I know who are from "the left" and who are passionate about science, getting the methodology right, and exposing bad science.

"Mainly on the left"? Not my words.

Your complaints in this thread were overwhelmingly about "the left" and their attitude to science. Your compliments went overwhelmingly to "the right". If you did not feel that the problem was mainly with the left, which did you, for example, state ""The left"......are not interested in science (or even discussion of the science!) unless it reinforces your narrative"?

Your complaints were surely wrong, because there are people on "the left" who are passionate about good science, and making such a blanket and stereotypical statement about the millions who constitute "the left" is ridiculous. If you are in such passionate favour of good science, please provide citations that prove your claim.

To look at just one example, Brian Schmidt has issued prominent warnings about AGW and is pretty left leaning. He has also defended the right of "sceptical" or "denialist" scientists to speak as professionals; discussing Ivar Giaever he noted that "He's allowed to speak. And I don't believe he should be censored. Quite the opposite. I think he should be able to go out and tell people that he disagrees with the rest of us. That is of fundamental importance. .....as a scientist we have to respect people who disagree with us, though I'm happy to pick holes in his argument."According to you, Schmidt must not exist. Nor must people like James Heathers, co-author of the GRIMM test and a passionate believer in exposing bad science, and a member of "the left". Those are just two people who, according to you, must never have existed.

I never said or implied that "the right" were free of confirmation bias, and the only reason I can think why you thought I did is because of your own bias. You did compliment "the right" by noting the work done by Roosevelt and Nixon.

Chris 249 said..
[1] Your complaints were surely wrong, because there are people on "the left" who are passionate about good science, and making such a blanket and stereotypical statement about the millions who constitute "the left" is ridiculous. If you are in such passionate favour of good science, please provide citations that prove your claim.

[2] To look at just one example, Brian Schmidt has issued prominent warnings about AGW and is pretty left leaning. He has also defended the right of "sceptical" or "denialist" scientists to speak as professionals; discussing Ivar Giaever he noted that "He's allowed to speak. And I don't believe he should be censored. Quite the opposite. I think he should be able to go out and tell people that he disagrees with the rest of us. That is of fundamental importance. .....as a scientist we have to respect people who disagree with us, though I'm happy to pick holes in his argument." [4] According to you, Schmidt must not exist. Nor must people like James Heathers, co-author of the GRIMM test and a passionate believer in exposing bad science, and a member of "the left". Those are just two people who, according to you, must never have existed.

[5] I never said or implied that "the right" were free of confirmation bias, and the only reason I can think why you thought I did is because of your own bias. [6] You did compliment "the right" by noting the work done by Roosevelt and Nixon.

[1] My "complaints" were about a very specific piece of poorly done science and how it was presented, and as such are 100% correct.

My observation about "the left" was in response to log jam's comments about "the right".

Citations LOL On what? That I am in favor of good science over bad? Honestly.

[2] Now, you're simply going down the same path as log jam did -- you're attempting to put words in my mouth by reframing and broadening my very specific point to be something it isn't. The axe you want to grind -- it ain't mine.

It's confirmation bias all the way down: Aggressive promotion of the science that supports the narrative, combined with the refusal to acknowledge any discrepancies and persecution of anyone who points them out.

That's literally the point I was making-- for log jam and "the left", anyone a half-step to the right -- which is anyone who doesn't swallow the narrative hook line and sinker, who points out the issues, exceptions and nuances -- is an anti-science climate denier ... all blanket and stereotypical statemented into the same pool on "the right".

You've done it repeatedly here -- you've just assigned me to "the right" because I've not swallowed and regurgitated the party line. And you have no idea of my actual politics.

[4] "According to [me]" nothing LOL That's not reasoning, that's more strawmanning.

[5] see 4.

[6] That's not a compliment, that was pointing out to log jam that "the right" has, contrary to his expressed opinion, actually been interested in these issues that "the left" has claimed as their sole purview. Because of how much they love science, you know

Tamble said..
OK, this a is a dangerous area to comment on and I generally don't.
But in a world where simply suggesting that the climate change models might be over-skinning the cat will get you sacked from your university and the hope of getting funding for a contrarian paper let alone published in a peer reviewed journal when all the reviewers are relying on grants that make it necessary to come up with headline worthy disaster outcomes is zilch, maybe a review of published papers isn't the way to find out what most scientists actually think.

You could just ask them (probably preferably anomalously; but I don't know).
The guy who did ( A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members) came up with 52%
journals.ametsoc.org/action/cookieAbsent

1- If you're talking about Peter Ridd, there's probably not much doubt that JCU was wrong to sack him. He seems to have been an early promoter of the "replicability crisis", which is to his credit. Universities are often crap at handling internal investigations and disciplinary processes. But the fact that one person was sacked because of his criticisms by one uni does not say everything about the entire field. In fact, what Ridd said was much less controversial than what other academics have said on other subjects, yet they have not been sacked. One case does not illustrate an entire trend.

While grants are an issue, the same sorts of issues arise with " the other side". There is plenty of money to be made by working for the interests of the trillion-dollar fossil fuel industry.

Secondly, the judge himself wrote "Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views. .....this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement." So the sites that are claiming that Ridd's win was a victory against silencing an outspoken academic are wrong, from the horse' mouth.

2- When you do ask them, it seems that most of the scientists tell you that mankind IS causing global warming. That paper you linked to does NOT say that 52% think that global warming is happening - it said that 52% think that it's happening and that mankind (alone) is causing it. A further 10% say it's happening and is partly man-made and partly natural. Five percent say it's happening and it's mainly natural; 21% say warming is happening and they don't know why. (See Table 1). So almost 90% of them say that the earth is warming, and only 5% say it's doing it for natural reasons.

The main point is that only 11% of them think that the globe is not warming. So if you ask them, most of them will say there is a problem and that we are at least part of the cause. The paper you cite also says that even more meteorologists believe that recent warming has been caused by mankind and that other studies have shown the same thing - the majority of meteorologists reckon that global warming is happening and that mankind is the cause or at least part of the cause.

3) The paper you cited shows that the more you know about the subject, the more you believe that mankind is causing global warming; "knowledge acquired via graduate-level training and publishing in climate science does appear to increase the likelihood of viewing global warming as real, human caused, and harmful, if other factors are held constant. ...... higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful".

4) Yep, scientists are human and therefore they are heavily affected by politics and consensus. The odd thing is that "sceptics", like "believers", seem to believe that the people on THEIR side are objective and the people on the OTHER side are playing politics.

Kamikuza said..

Chris 249 said..
We may actually have more common ground than appears. We are both against stereotyping. Maybe you and Log Man have had this argument before; all the evidence I had before me is that the first stereotyping based on left versus right was your post on page 1.

1) My issue was not your comments about the Mann paper, but about the stereotyping of "the left", and actually of "the right" as well. The "citation" reference was merely a tongue in cheek way of saying that you have no factual evidence for your generalisations about what "the left" think.

2) My comments were not strawman arguments. The fact is that you DID make a very broad comment when you stereotyped vast numbers of people, based on nothing more than their political leanings. Comments like ""The left", and it seems especially you, are not interested in science (or even discussion of the science!) unless it reinforces your narrative."......."the left" has had this problem forever" and "the left" are not interested in the science unless or reinforces their narrative" are pretty broad and not related just to one paper.

4) Nope, it's not strawmanning. Those I mentioned are left-wing scientists who passionately believe in doing good science; as noted, Schmidt has said the "sceptics" must be allowed to speak, while Heathers is passionate about exposing bad science. The fact that such people exist is clear proof that your claims such as "The left", and it seems especially you, are not interested in science (or even discussion of the science!) unless it reinforces your narrative" are wrong.

Essentially, you said "all members of population X have characteristic Y". It is not straw-manning to show that some examples from that population do not have characteristic Y and therefore your claim is incorrect.

5) I never claimed to know what your politics are. However, when you spend far more time criticising "the left" than criticising "the right" and when your only reference to a current left-wing pollie is lumping them with Mao and Stalin, a reasonable observer could surmise that you may possibly be giving a hint about where they may lie.

6) I understood why you mentioned Nixon and Roosevelt, but what you wrote did seem like compliments. I have no issue at all with you directing compliments to the right on those issues.

As I said, we may have more in common in this area than appears. I'm also very concerned that both sides of politics and the climate debate are being driven to stereotyping and insults, instead of trying to look at the data while being aware of their own confirmation bias and other issues.

Yes, it's possible this is kind of a cross-pollinated thread...

1) But I do and I did. Log jam provides most of them, and I got specific with the Cook study.

2) "the left" is not the left, which is why I've gone to annoying pains to put them in quotes.

"That's literally the point I was making-- for log jam and "the left", anyone a half-step to the right -- which is anyone who doesn't swallow the narrative hook line and sinker, who points out the issues, exceptions and nuances -- is an anti-science climate denier ... all blanket and stereotypical statemented into the same pool on "the right"."

See?

4) Yeah it is. You're turning my argument into a blanket statements in order to make it easier to burn down. Strawman.

Also, I'm assuming you're adding the quotes to "skeptics" and "deniers" for the same reason I did -- science is not scientists and "skeptics" as I'm sure you're aware...

5) Because criticizing "the left" is exactly what I was doing.

A reasonable observer would read it as it was written -- I don't care the politics of the person who does the science, I'm not interested in attacking them BECAUSE of their politics or using it to discredit them. -- if you're doing science, do it right ... that's it.

Compare that with when the politics or social faux pas of the individual frames what they're saying or doing, and is promoted or discredited because of it....

6) Right.

Any debate.

plenty of words, but I just hear an old conservative trying to climb down from his previous position without losing face.

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
plenty of words, but I just hear an old conservative trying to climb down from his previous position without losing face.

Every time I think it's impossible for a human being to be so completely and utterly incorrect that they're not even wrong ... you post again.

yeah sure, Every climate "believer/ leftist/ cultist/ bully i've ever known always nit picks about whether 97 percent is correct or not.

Systematic burning of the Amazon is not climate change ! Peat bog burning of Greenland is not ! Nor is co2 accumulation! Ffs its the Big Man upstairs that needs your bucks to help his agenda of milking your hard earned cash ! We r being taken for a sucker ??

Climate alarmists stuck in ice trying to prove there's no ice... evacuated by global warming helicopter.
www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/09/climate-warriors-filming-documentary-stuck-in-arctic-ice-all-16-climate-activists-evacuated-from-ship-by-helicopter/

A previous alarmist attempt to prove melting ice had to turn back in JULY bcos: 'We had expected more melting': Thick Arctic ice forces Norwegian climate research icebreaker to turn back.

log man said..
And you see this as confirming your theory that GW isn't real.

This is the level we're at people!!!!!!!!!!!!

Society moves at the speed of its slowest.......We've hit rock bottom.

Progressives are lemmings -- gotta be seen to be rushing forwards, even if it's right over the cliff. Lead the way, log jam!

The problem for alarmists is that the 2 previous warm periods (The Roman, and the Medieval) were times of great PROSPERITY!!!!!
A time of more food, exploration, cathedral building, invention. WHY should this slight warming be ANY different? Plants growing 50% faster than in 1950 because of more CO2 and higher temperatures.. Using less water, too.............
NOAA's temps nearly 40% "estimated". 89% of USA weather stations incorrectly sited under heat vents, on blacktop etc. GIGO.
Further, when comparing 19th century temp records, British warships just 3 miles apart recording 2+C different!
And for 3 years, ONE, bloody ONE recording station for the WHOLE Southern Hemisphere! Maybe at the S.Pole; maybe in Alice Springs; maybe up somebody's bottom, eh?
AND the Greenhouse effect is LOGARITHMIC, so even doubling CO2 would increase it by LESS than 0.3%. So, NO emergency; NO crisis.
Its all balls! BS. Time to deal with REAL problems and stop wasting money on windmills............Get this! Would have to cover HALF Britain with windmills to replace present power. Lovely, and most never producing enough power to remake themselves.

Kamikuza said..

Chris 249 said..
We may actually have more common ground than appears. We are both against stereotyping. Maybe you and Log Man have had this argument before; all the evidence I had before me is that the first stereotyping based on left versus right was your post on page 1.

1) My issue was not your comments about the Mann paper, but about the stereotyping of "the left", and actually of "the right" as well. The "citation" reference was merely a tongue in cheek way of saying that you have no factual evidence for your generalisations about what "the left" think.

2) My comments were not strawman arguments. The fact is that you DID make a very broad comment when you stereotyped vast numbers of people, based on nothing more than their political leanings. Comments like ""The left", and it seems especially you, are not interested in science (or even discussion of the science!) unless it reinforces your narrative."......."the left" has had this problem forever" and "the left" are not interested in the science unless or reinforces their narrative" are pretty broad and not related just to one paper.

4) Nope, it's not strawmanning. Those I mentioned are left-wing scientists who passionately believe in doing good science; as noted, Schmidt has said the "sceptics" must be allowed to speak, while Heathers is passionate about exposing bad science. The fact that such people exist is clear proof that your claims such as "The left", and it seems especially you, are not interested in science (or even discussion of the science!) unless it reinforces your narrative" are wrong.

Essentially, you said "all members of population X have characteristic Y". It is not straw-manning to show that some examples from that population do not have characteristic Y and therefore your claim is incorrect.

5) I never claimed to know what your politics are. However, when you spend far more time criticising "the left" than criticising "the right" and when your only reference to a current left-wing pollie is lumping them with Mao and Stalin, a reasonable observer could surmise that you may possibly be giving a hint about where they may lie.

6) I understood why you mentioned Nixon and Roosevelt, but what you wrote did seem like compliments. I have no issue at all with you directing compliments to the right on those issues.

As I said, we may have more in common in this area than appears. I'm also very concerned that both sides of politics and the climate debate are being driven to stereotyping and insults, instead of trying to look at the data while being aware of their own confirmation bias and other issues.

Yes, it's possible this is kind of a cross-pollinated thread...

1) But I do and I did. Log jam provides most of them, and I got specific with the Cook study.

One person making what you believe to be


2) "the left" is not the left, which is why I've gone to annoying pains to put them in quotes.

"That's literally the point I was making-- for log jam and "the left", anyone a half-step to the right -- which is anyone who doesn't swallow the narrative hook line and sinker, who points out the issues, exceptions and nuances -- is an anti-science climate denier ... all blanket and stereotypical statemented into the same pool on "the right"."

See?


4) Yeah it is. You're turning my argument into a blanket statements in order to make it easier to burn down. Strawman.

Also, I'm assuming you're adding the quotes to "skeptics" and "deniers" for the same reason I did -- science is not scientists and "skeptics" as I'm sure you're aware...

5) Because criticizing "the left" is exactly what I was doing.

A reasonable observer would read it as it was written -- I don't care the politics of the person who does the science, I'm not interested in attacking them BECAUSE of their politics or using it to discredit them. -- if you're doing science, do it right ... that's it.

Compare that with when the politics or social faux pas of the individual frames what they're saying or doing, and is promoted or discredited because of it....

6) Right.

Any debate.

1- No, you have not provided any "factual evidence for your generalisations". Any claim that the views of a single poster on a single site is "factual evidence" of the beliefs held by millions of other people is illogical and unscientific; unless of course you've just decided to define "the left" in your own terms and in a way that suits your argument.

The left" is generally used as a broad label. If you are going to define "the left" separately and not tell anyone what the group is defined as, then it's all pretty nonsensical. "Sceptics" and "denialists" are much narrower terms in a discussion about AGW.

2- Impossible to comment since you have provided no definition of "the left" and who you know exactly what every single member of that group thinks.

4- "People who publicly write about politics as Schmidt and Heathers do would be called "the left" by many, probably most, people.
They are evidence that there ARE people who are quite strongly members of the political left who clearly DO place a very high value on good science. At least one of them has said that "deniers" SHOULD be listened to as that is part of science. You appear to simply be defining "the left" as it suits you in to slide away from the truth, which is that left-leaning scientists do NOT all try to stifle debate as you claim "the left" does.

5- A reasonable observer can see easily that you praise pollies from the right, and lump a modern polly from the left with murderous dictators and suspect that you are from the right or a rather militant version of the centre. Your later blanket abuse of "progressives" seems to make it pretty obvious that you are actually biased, but sometimes try to hide it - perhaps even from yourself.