Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

The 'Great Divide' Thoughts on why simple science and data can become so divisive?


Gray-Wolf

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

Buty this is a separate topic of 'moderation' Paul?  What has been removed from the sceptic thread over the past few days have been 'factual corrections' and not snides, pokes or other?

 

I have always believed that the threads 'serve' the lurker ( the 'views tend to support this understanding?) and so they deserve the best possible service. You have tried to bring this about by attempting to limit bickering but removal of facts , merely because they 'correct' the previous assertion ( for the sake of clarity lest the 'lurkers' be mislead and that 'confusion' leads to further unecessary debate), smacks of tossing the baby with the bathwater?

 

It's a pretty simple concept really Ian, in the same way as most things in life - there are rules and places you can and can't do things. You can't for instance drive your car on the pavement, even if you're not doing any harm or running anyone over, you can't just walk into someones house and use their loo, even if you'd not be hurting anything, and back to the online/forum world - when a thread is made for a specific reason, even though you're maybe desperate to foist your views upon it, if your views don't match the topic, then you can't.

 

The good news though, is that we made three threads to cover all viewpoints, so at least one of them should be relevant, and therefore no facts are being removed, they're simply being filed in the relevant place - providing those posting take the effort to make sure they're in the right spot to start with...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Trying stay with the topic, as I understand it, there clearly is a mismatch between what the scientists are actually saying and what many folks imagine them to be saying...And, for that I blame neither the scientists nor the public in general; I blame the media, politicians and various vested interests...

 

And the only solution I can think of would be for all school leavers to be savvy in the ways of science. But, unfortunately, I can't imagine the powers that be would ever allow that to happen - none of them likes their respective lies to be universally transparent, to anyone with a sceptical mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL

While I would appreciate someone standing up and saying this honestly, getting that point of view across in the media is more difficult. You can just see the press conference.

 

Scientist:  we are 95% confident that global warming is occuring and there is a strong possibility it will be catastrophic

Journalist: So you are not 100% sure this is occuring

Scientist : We are 95% confident  that it is occuring, we can't be 100% sure science is always subject to revision as new data comes along"

 

Headline:  Climate Scientist not 100% sure about global warming: Says it may be "subject to revision".  

 

So  while I can hold a nuanced opinion, knowing my comments won't be mis reported this is more difficult for a public figure to do so. Just look at the way the comments on expecting te next ten year or so to have more chance of having wetter than average summers. Reported as "10 years of washout summers" in the press, then at a BBQ on the weekend basking in the hot sun  your neighbour says "two weeks ago they said it was going to rain all summer for the next ten years and now look at it".  

 

Sorry.  Did you quote the wrong post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dulwich Hill, Sydney, Australia
  • Weather Preferences: Hot and dry or cold and snowy, but please not mild and rainy!
  • Location: Dulwich Hill, Sydney, Australia

Sorry.  Did you quote the wrong post?

Yes! oops or rather should be just part of your comment I was responding to.

Edited by SomeLikeItHot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: inter drumlin South Tyrone Blackwater river valley surrounded by the last last ice age...
  • Weather Preferences: jack frost
  • Location: inter drumlin South Tyrone Blackwater river valley surrounded by the last last ice age...

What if the moderators took a break .. come back to the Climate area in a few weeks and see what happens in their absence ..  and take a wee rest from 'herding cats'

Edited by be cause
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne
Does the phenomenon of global climate change have characteristics that, for most people, would make it appear to pose a substantial threat? In some ways, yes, in other ways, no. Climate change may lead to substantial suffering to a large number of peoplearound the world (from drought, flooding, storms, disease, etc.). Its negative effects are likely to be long-lasting and difficult, if not impossible, toreverse. To some people,permitting environmental changes that damage society and the natural world is a moral as well as a practical evil.
 
On the other hand, climate change is a somewhat abstract phenomenon that is notdirectly observed; leads to few dramatic or memorable experiences (direct or vicarious) that are clearly tied to climate change; involves losses that may be fairly distant in timeand/or may not be personally relevant; and may bring some benefits (e.g., a longer growing season in cold climates) as well as losses.
 
Even when people recognize that environmental changes may have serious risks,the potential losses may be considerably delayed in time while the harmful individualbehaviors that contribute to these threats are likely to bring immediate benefits (personalor social). Thus, it often is easy for people to ignore or “discount†these future consequences.

 

 

http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/assets/pdfs/Patchen%20OP0601.pdf

Edited by knocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the person who deleted your post, but if you were to read the title of the thread, the description of it, and the various reminders about posts within the thread, then you'd know why the post wasn't kept on there

I have done so, indeed I did before posting, and I'm none the wiser. I was not arguing with anyone - I wasn't expressing any opinion one way or another as to whether AGW exists or not, and whether it's man-made or not. What I did was point out that one of the data sources referred to didn't show what was being claimed. I've done the same in various Arctic ice threads whenever pro-AGW people make mistakes or misunderstand their sources. Will I end up banned from both threads if I correct people on both sides? I understand the need to keep opinions separate, but this was not a matter of opinion. Indeed, if the same post had been made by someone else like Jethro, doubtless it would have stayed.What happens when a new person joins these boards? Do the mods have to watch them for a while and then (secretly) decide which posts they're allowed to contribute to? Where is the list of who's a sceptic and who's a warmist? A half-assed measure like this is ridiculous. If the intent really is that people can only post in one thread or the other, no matter what, then they should be implemented as members-only forums. As it stands you're just making more trouble for yourselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

You're over-complicating things, coming up with issues which simply don't exist and jumping to conclusions.

 

Except for the three threads which are clearly marked up and explained, the other threads are open. You may feel you weren't creating any problems with your reply which simply 'corrected' a mistake, but you maybe didn't see the reply to your post which started to take the thread off on a tangent again, which is why they were both removed. 

 

Posting into the one of these threads isn't about what view you hold, it's about what view you're posting (so as such anyone can use whichever thread they wish, so long as their post is on-topic). As much as it's not ideal as some mistakes may well go unchecked or wild opinions unchallenged (directly at least, there's nothing to stop anyone responding within another thread), it's something we're trying as a method of breaking the cycle of bickering and point scoring which has been occurring in many of the more open ended discussions within this part of the forum for some time. As it stands it's 3 threads out of dozens, so the great thing is that for those who hate the idea and don't want to use them, they don't have to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

As was noted, data is an inert lifeless thing; devoid of any ability to engender any opinion.

 

Interpretation of any data is difficult. It is hard to do, and it is even harder to do well; it is virtually impossible to do correctly. It's quite interesting to see why this is the case.

 

If we consider what goes on in internet fora, particularly with reference to the climate debate, every actor is required to act out two roles (at different times): the first is that of the affirmer, who is setting out a particular position, and the second is that of the rebutter who is trying to argue against that given position. If you are the affirmer then your goal is to persuade the rebutter that your position is sound, and, perhaps, unassailable. Your goal isn't to assess a mass of impartial data properly considered, it is to convice the rebutter: it is therefore in your interest to select evidence and ideas that support your position.

 

As a rebutter you have two primary choices: the first is to simply accept anything anyone ever tells you. This is plainly ridiculous because the weight of differing opinions would ensure that you never came to a view and you would not ever be able to hold a belief system. About anything. The alternative is to reject everything anyone ever tells you that contradicts your position. This is much more fruitful thing to do because you will have more stable beliefs. The optimal stategy, of course, is to revert to an initial position of rejection, but be prepared to be persuaded by argument.

 

This makes evolutionary sense if you combine both strategies and accept the position that arguably one of the most successful traits of human beings is the ability to collaborate. Consider, for instance, if the affirmer decides to approach the argument in a completely rational manner by assessing all of the data and eventually coming to the most logical argument. Also, in this scenario consider if the rebutter does exactly the same; there would, clearly, be no need for the debate - since there can only be one true conclusion from any given set of data.

 

However, this is not possible and it is not possible because of the existence of reason rather than in spite of it. It is entirely feasible that we evolved reason because we collaborate, rather than evolving collaboration because we reason - after all why do we need to colloberate if we know everything, or least we know we can know everything through reason. An extension of this is that we collaborate by debate ie deciding which lion to kill, rather than rationally assess the recent statistics of the hunting team, and lion population. It makes no sense whatsoever for each person in the hunting team to target a different animal and get no dinner, rather than collaborate and kill just the one so that everyone gets dinner.

 

Not forgetting, of course, that debate is framed by the affirer and the rebutter. One must win, eventually, otherwise we'll all go hungry. We can go further, of course, and suggest that reason exists, or at least it evolved, only because of the confrontational nature of debate as an ideal mechanism for resolving irreconciliable opinions.

 

And then, of course, we must reference the climate debate. I think, because of the above, that no matter what controls those who are in authority are in a position to implement actually do, at some point or another the debate must fall into the eon-old affirmer and rebutter; it, simply, is how we are built to behave. There is widespread recognition of this: psychologists have known for decades about the existence of the affirmers confirmation bias, and we know all to well about the dogmatic position of rebutters. It is the reason, even before the conditions had names, for the existence of the scientific method - which is just as fallible, but in different ways.

 

I am sure that not one of us would picture ourselves in either role - for sure, I wouldn't! Alas, the belief that it couldn't possible be indicative of *my* style of debating is a perfect example of rebuttal dogmatism; conversely, we might attribute our fellow Netweatherers to either role from time to time, and that is classic affirmation; especially the thow away lines indicative of pedantry that confirms the picture we hold about each other.

 

We are human.

Edited by Sparkicle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

I understand your point perfectly Paul. None of this would have arisen if the original post had been in the Arctic thread where it surely belonged and then further discussion would not have been a problem. I can think of a couple of reasons why that thread was chosen but that would be speculation so will desist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ribble Valley
  • Location: Ribble Valley

The way I see it is having separate  threads for topical discussion is the way forward, how many times have we've seen threads derailed by one viewpoint or another. IMO it's perfectly simple you post the appropriate topic in the appropriate thread, if you have issue with such topic reply in the opposing thread with reasons why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens if someone posts in one of the special three threads, saying "The Arctic ice is disappearing because little green men are eating it to sharpen their teeth" ? I hope we can all agree this is inaccurate!

a) Nobody is allowed to contradict them.

Posted Image Only the mods are allowed to correct/remove the post.

c) Sceptics are allowed to contradict them in the sceptic thread, AGW-ists in the AGW thread, but not vice versa.

d) Anybody is allowed to contradict them.

 

If (a), I tremble for humanity.  

If (Posted Image you've made an awful lot of work for yourselves, and the discussions will depend on which mod is on duty, their beliefs, and how much they know.

If ©, where is the list of who's in which category?  

If (d), then how do the mods decide which posts are inaccurate enough to allow members to contradict them?

Edited by songster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Savoy Circus W10 / W3
  • Location: Savoy Circus W10 / W3

I am always reminded of how as you go through schooling - scientific ideas are presented to you as facts - the same facts which you later find out were either only a very small part of a much larger process, or simplified so much as to be almost redundant - I always think of photosynthesis as a good example. This experience for me has always shaped my thinking on science, that we only ever know what we think we know, but we will probably never know what it is that we truly need to know.

 

The media also has a lot to answer for on many topics of public interest (not just scientific) the move from the late 90s to tabloid journalism and little critical thinking or 'investigative' journalism in almost all mainstream media productions has led to a complete lack of reliability / trust being able to be placed on the news media, while they continue to allow almost anyone to say whatever they want and they never question them on the accuracy of their statements.

 

At some point in the future I am going to hear a politician say "Let's be clear" just one too many times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

What happens if someone posts in one of the special three threads, saying "The Arctic ice is disappearing because little green men are eating it to sharpen their teeth" ? I hope we can all agree this is inaccurate!

a) Nobody is allowed to contradict them.

Posted Image Only the mods are allowed to correct/remove the post.

c) Sceptics are allowed to contradict them in the sceptic thread, AGW-ists in the AGW thread, but not vice versa.

d) Anybody is allowed to contradict them.

 

If (a), I tremble for humanity.  

If (Posted Image you've made an awful lot of work for yourselves, and the discussions will depend on which mod is on duty, their beliefs, and how much they know.

If ©, where is the list of who's in which category?  

If (d), then how do the mods decide which posts are inaccurate enough to allow members to contradict them?

 

As a Mod, I can say it makes no difference what my personal views are - if it's off topic or breaches the forum code, I'll edit it to make it conform to the code (if possible) or move it to a more appropriate thread if it's prompted further discussion, or delete it if it's off topic and creating problems with other posters or hasn't generated lots of replies.

 

When it comes to those three threads, they're not about Mods deciding who needs contradicting, they're about providing a space where like minded people can discuss topics without the distraction and irritation of counter-arguments. They're places to discuss ideas which may be a bit off the wall, or counter to the consensus science, a place to knock around ideas without pressure - a chance to take a break from the competitive nature of these discussions. As Paul said, there are dozens of other threads to contradict one another in, there's even the option to take info posted in those threads and discuss it elsewhere.

 

At the end of the day, why would it matter if an individual thinks little green men are eating the Arctic? If someone wants to believe that, they're free to do so. No one here is in a position of power to be able to do anything about climate change, no person in that position is going to read a post here (or on any other internet forum) and think 'By jingo! I've got it, I'll solve the world's woes'. IMO that's a fundamental part of the problem which this thread is discussing - letting people think and believe what they want, allowing them to make their own mind up, and giving up on the desire to convince them to think like you, believe what you believe (and I don't mean you personally) would remove an enormous amount of the hassle which seems to go hand in hand with these discussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Paris suburbs
  • Location: Paris suburbs

It's not the science which is divisive, it's the way it is used which causes conflict. In this particular branch of science, where there are no black or white answers, the tendency is for people to decide for themselves what the most important facts are, which in turn must translate into belief, due to the lack of absolutes in the science. As with anything which becomes more belief based, rather than fact based, it becomes a personal crusade. Throw into that mix the human traits of pride and ego and you end up with a riddle without end, which frustrates anyone and everyone. Those wishing for just facts, struggle to decipher them from the jumble of personal interpretation. Those who are convinced they're right, struggle with the lack of acceptance from others who disagree with them. Those with just a curiosity about the topic, struggle with the insane level of hubris which flows in the debates. And when you get complete strangers, psycho analysing others over an internet connection, reaching the conclusion that people who don't agree with them must be going through the phases of bereavement, well, that's bound to lead to conflict. That kind of conversation, or accusation, or even if it's passed off as an assumption, is so dripping in arrogance and ego that it's absolutely bound to annoy people. If I may say Ian, that is a prize demonstration of why these debates are so divisive. And it's not the science which is at fault.

This first assertion is almost completely untrue from my point of view, and I think part of the 'Great Divide' lies in the different stances that each 'camp' has on that claim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

This first assertion is almost completely untrue from my point of view, and I think part of the 'Great Divide' lies in the different stances that each 'camp' has on that claim.

 

I don't know about that. I think when it comes to black and white answers, both sides of the divide agree that it's been warming and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the Arctic is melting. Other than that, I can't think of any definitive answers in any of this, but absolutely agree that claims are made from both directions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

CO2 is one strange animal: on the one hand, being a 'trace gas'' renders it incapable of influencing climate; on the other it is a megapoptastic universal plant food and potential panacea for world famine. Methinks it's politicians, vested interests and media hacks that encourage such contradictions - science has shown us (beyond any reasonable doubt) that CO2 is both a plant food and greenhouse gas...Neither fact negates the other; to suggest it does is futile.

 

But try telling that to the Media?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about that. I think when it comes to black and white answers, both sides of the divide agree that it's been warming and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the Arctic is melting.

Well that's kind of my point. Someone posted a graph showing (modelled) temperatures which were below normal but above zero and claimed that the graph proved the Arctic was not melting. It doesn't. Above zero is above zero! Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own melting point of water.It looks to me as though the mods have set up a situation where no mistake can ever be set straight within the threads in question. I'm all for discussing ideas which may be a bit off the wall - but creating an environment where the only allowed response is "Yes, I agree totally" is not a discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Well that's kind of my point. Someone posted a graph showing (modelled) temperatures which were below normal but above zero and claimed that the graph proved the Arctic was not melting. It doesn't. Above zero is above zero! Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own melting point of water.It looks to me as though the mods have set up a situation where no mistake can ever be set straight within the threads in question. I'm all for discussing ideas which may be a bit off the wall - but creating an environment where the only allowed response is "Yes, I agree totally" is not a discussion.

 

Then discuss it in another thread then. It's only those three where we're trying to take the disagreement out of the equation. Although for the life of me, I can't see why it's so important to correct everyone, for everything. Surely the important thing to you should be what you think, what you know, why does it matter so much what anyone else thinks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ribble Valley
  • Location: Ribble Valley

Then discuss it in another thread then. It's only those three where we're trying to take the disagreement out of the equation. Although for the life of me, I can't see why it's so important to correct everyone, for everything. Surely the important thing to you should be what you think, what you know, why does it matter so much what anyone else thinks?

Indeed, it appears some think others can't think for themselves so have to argue every minute detail. I applaud the separate threads, one only has to look at other climate forums and the previous incarnations of this one too see why separate threads are necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

What a strange thread this is. Nobody's interested in the topic whatsoever...Posted Image 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

What a strange thread this is. Nobody's interested in the topic whatsoever...Posted Image 

 

I am, I find it quite fascinating actually.

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/77224-the-great-divide-thoughts-on-why-simple-science-and-data-can-become-so-divisive/?p=2733302

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Me too Sparks ( which is why I thought it best to air it?) Again , notwithstanding what has been said about 'forum guidelines' and 'Selective threads' Truth is 'Truth' and if folk , either through wish or ignorance, wish to post inaccuracies then surely they should be picked up at the point of generation than be dealt with in some unrelated, nay opposite 'flavour' , thread?

 

Am I the only person that values the rights of the 'Lurker' here? Surely we all , in law, owe a 'Duty of Care' to our fellow Wo/Man?

 

It appears that one way of dis-information is to repeat an untruth to the point that folk , with no massive interest, become confused as to what is 'real' and what is 'lie'?

 

Folk need not enter into conversation ( and maybe another of the plethora of 'rules and guidelines' should include the 'right' to correct erroneous data? ) but surely we want a forum full of 'Fact' and not a mish mash of babble ,lies and dis-information? How can we be expected to come into meaningful conversation if we are allowed to grow up on 'Wrong' science? How can we even talk if someone comes to the table , fully believing they are right 'cause they saw it here on NetW' only to be made feel foolish when introduced to the facts?

 

The issues about the 'Pole' highlight this quite well but it is not just 'at the Pole' that we find this occur and folk have found their rights to post curtailed because they saw fit to challenge, and correct mis-information.

 

This move things on further to how the 'debate' is managed. It would appear that some folk generate more 'Work' for the Mod team than others. This is not necessarily due to the nasty posting style but due to the constant complaints , from a small number of posters, that ' The Team' receive, and are duty bound to deal with.

 

When we hear of 'Team Workload' is it due to individuals posting or attempts, by others, to cause 'a stink' time and time again about a certain poster ( we none of us are immune to the 'Shiite Sticks' syndrome no matter how immune we feel we are?) to the point that it is 'easier' for the team to 'ban' the poster and limit their own workload?

 

Other 'Political parties', of past ages , of small number but great intentions, have used this ploy to silence opposition and gain 'Power' beyond their popular remit? We should not allow our site to have this happen here merely to 'ease the logistics of running said site' .

 

If nonsense is posted it should be corrected and we should have some way of this appearing on the thread where the 'nonsense' is posted? I ,for one , have no issue with this being facilitated by mebers of 'the Team' but do feel it important that such errors are corrected so that , when we do meet, we are all singing from the same hymesheet?

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

Am I the only person that values the rights of the 'Lurker' here? Surely we all , in law, owe a 'Duty of Care' to our fellow Wo/Man?

 

It appears that one way of dis-information is to repeat an untruth to the point that folk , with no massive interest, become confused as to what is 'real' and what is 'lie'?

 

Folk need not enter into conversation ( and maybe another of the plethora of 'rules and guidelines' should include the 'right' to correct erroneous data? ) but surely we want a forum full of 'Fact' and not a mish mash of babble ,lies and dis-information? How can we be expected to come into meaningful conversation if we are allowed to grow up on 'Wrong' science? How can we even talk if someone comes to the table , fully believing they are right 'cause they saw it here on NetW' only to be made feel foolish when introduced to the facts?

 

 

Those who solely present their own views as the only fact and wish to ram those views down others throats are generally not the ones people listen to in my experience. 

 

If someone wants to form an opinion based on a single thread among 100's on here, then it's up to them, but I think the vast majority are a little more worldly than that and are more than capable of reading at least a few threads on here, and use the power of google to find lots of stuff out beyond this forum too. 

 

People are often turned off by being preached to, being told their opinion is based on make believe and being told that if they don't agree with a certain person then they must be 'stupid/mad/ignorant' (or similar), so for those who like to take that line (and there are many) perhaps they may like to step back a touch and credit people with enough intelligence to find things out for themselves. There's a world of difference between talking and discussing things with people, and talking at them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...