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

[UV-RAY]

Didn't you know that scientists use proxies? How else do we know that the MWP was warmer than the present day?

Yes but proxies need a very careful selection process and certainly need more than one pine cone. Not one person can attribute any warming of the last thousand years on rising CO2 levels, anyone saying otherwise is only using a guessometer like the rest of us. This is why I find those saying the science is settled a little odd because if it was as settled as they say it is then why has there been no further warming for nearly seventeen years.

[Buzzit]

The wild extrapolations politicians used, in order to encourage the building of wind-farms, on their rich chums' land, certainly have not been vindicated...the fact that Mann's work only involved a small number of trees, is acknowledged in his original paper...

Well use more trees then and then I am sure everyone will feel more thoroughly vindicated.

[Devonian]

Lol, so your denying how certain proxies were used without telling the public just how one tree can be used to hold up part of a theory. Take a look at all those scientist who've spoke out only to find they've been frozen out. Off course if you think that climate scientist are whiter than white then that's your opinion and your entitled to that. Me I view science and scientist as constantly challenging viewpoints when new data comes to light, not shutting up shop if such a viewpoint challenges an almost religious like consensus.Cleared by his own little group of yes men doesn't make him any less guilty.

Surely it's the sceptics who are the little group that never disagree? For instance do they have a single good word to say about DrMann? Do the sceptics evey say 'Humm, yes maybe it might warm as per the IPCC conclusions'? Wouldn't a sceptic who said that not be 'frozen out'? Edited July 11, 2013 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Well use more trees then and then I am sure everyone will feel more thoroughly vindicated.

A piece of research, any piece of research, is perfectly valid, within the parameters stated, so long as it's carried out according tp protocol...what hacks, politicians and vested interests spin it as, however, is not...Which is why we have this divide...

 

As Jesus said (I'm not religious, I don't know a better quote) 'beware of false prophets' - or should I have said 'profits'?

[jethro]

I know this topic is quite a broad one, but Hopi's? Seriously? 

 

Please try and keep it bit more topical.

[Buzzit]

A piece of research, any piece of research, is perfectly valid, within the parameters stated, so long as it's carried out according tp protocol...what hacks, politicians and vested interests spin it as, however, is not...Which is why we have this divide...

 

As Jesus said (I'm not religious, I don't know a better quote) 'beware of false prophets' - or should I have said 'profits'?

Not sure why you keep bringing money into the discussion I have little time for phrases such as "thoroughly vindicated" and I have little time for Corporate fat-cats, Career Politicians, and Monopolistic Corporations in general. What i would like to see is a move away from arguing about what the temperature / how much sea ice and what the quality of it was xxxx years ago vs today. And more of an effort made to encourage the government to spend money on science & technology to help us get through the situation we find ourselves in (both climatical and as a society) with more than 1M people left at the end of it.

 

No posts appear to swing anyone to either side which is why I think we have three threads so people can live in their niche

[Buzzit]

I know this topic is quite a broad one, but Hopi's? Seriously? 

 

Please try and keep it bit more topical.

I was interested - I know a lot about the Hopi and Native American perspectives on climate change - will pm instead - sorry

[be cause]

I was interested - I know a lot about the Hopi and Native American perspectives on climate change - will pm instead - sorry

this thread is surely the place to share .. created as it was to overcome great divides (and censorship) .. share the native wisdom !

Edited July 11, 2013 by be cause

[Buzzit]

this thread is surely the place to share .. created as it was to overcome great divides (and censorship) .. share the native wisdom !

Well Mods say no so that seems to be the end of that - You will just have to google it or start a thread (but don't believe every thing you read of course)

Edited July 11, 2013 by Buzzit

[be cause]

Well Mods say no so that seems to be the end of that - You will just have to google it or start a thread (but don't believe every thing you read of course)

Oh! La La!

[jethro]

this thread is surely the place to share .. created as it was to overcome great divides (and censorship) .. share the native wisdom !

 

Censorship?

 

There's absolutely nothing stopping you opening a thread to discuss other topics, we just try to keep threads on topic, so it doesn't turn into a rambling mess.

[Methuselah]

Not sure why you keep bringing money into the discussion I have little time for phrases such as "thoroughly vindicated" and I have little time for Corporate fat-cats, Career Politicians, and Monopolistic Corporations in general. What i would like to see is a move away from arguing about what the temperature / how much sea ice and what the quality of it was xxxx years ago vs today. And more of an effort made to encourage the government to spend money on science & technology to help us get through the situation we find ourselves in (both climatical and as a society) with more than 1M people left at the end of it.

 

No posts appear to swing anyone to either side which is why I think we have three threads so people can live in their niche

Why do I mention money? Because far too many people (including some scientists) do nothing more than further the wishes of their paymasters...And that, IMO, leads to conflations of fact with fiction...

[VillagePlank]

Surely it's the sceptics who are the little group that never disagree? For instance do they have a single good word to say about DrMann? Do the sceptics evey say 'Humm, yes maybe it might warm as per the IPCC conclusions'? Wouldn't a sceptic who said that not be 'frozen out'?

 

I don't think I have, but I could be wrong ...

[Methuselah]

Surely it's the sceptics who are the little group that never disagree? For instance do they have a single good word to say about DrMann? Do the sceptics evey say 'Humm, yes maybe it might warm as per the IPCC conclusions'? Wouldn't a sceptic who said that not be 'frozen out'?

True enough, Dev...But it ain't just the 'sceptics' - it's anyone who refuses, point blank, to concede that the 'other side' may sometimes have a point.

[knocker]

Censorship?

 

There's absolutely nothing stopping you opening a thread to discuss other topics, we just try to keep threads on topic, so it doesn't turn into a rambling mess.

 

Well I'm not allowed to open new threads in the serious discussion area Dawn and I've no idea why.

[jethro]

Well I'm not allowed to open new threads in the serious discussion area Dawn and I've no idea why.

 

Whoever imposed that limit will have PM'd you, if they didn't then PM me and I'll have a look.

[Gray-Wolf]

So , to recap?

 

Folk will always 'differ' in opinions due to the way folks brains are put together?

 

There appear to be two main sources for information to support each side of the debates views, one mainly from current directed science and one from paid 'dissruptors' pawing at the current science or hauling up 'past' science?

 

One side 'trusts' the work of science and scientists the other side distrusts science and it's motives?

 

One side admits that humanity needs to massively invest in the future to save civilisation as we see it today, the other side believes that any investment in climate will destroy the civilisation we see today.

 

Am I close to seeing the picture or this too generalised?

[pottyprof]

So , to recap?

 

Folk will always 'differ' in opinions due to the way folks brains are put together?

 

There appear to be two main sources for information to support each side of the debates views, one mainly from current directed science and one from paid 'dissruptors' pawing at the current science or hauling up 'past' science?

 

One side 'trusts' the work of science and scientists the other side distrusts science and it's motives?

 

One side admits that humanity needs to massively invest in the future to save civilisation as we see it today, the other side believes that any investment in climate will destroy the civilisation we see today.

 

Am I close to seeing the picture or this too generalised?

 

Too generalised.  I trust the work of science and scientists.  I distrust those scientists that involve themselves with politicians and global corporate companies.  I also agree that we need to clean up our mess and provide assistance to those who are/will be affected by climate change.  Climate change may or may not be wholly/partially man made but climate change is real.  Where do I fit into that picture?  There are many people that have a similar view that are getting really pished off with being categorised.  While this continues then the subject will continue to be poisoned by a minority on either side of the debate, who use the internet to preach that they are correct no-matter what.

 

We see this taking place on this forum and every other climate forum/blog/site.  Is it really a good way of explaining what is happening to our planet?

 

I also dislike being categorised. 

[BornFromTheVoid]

As has already been stated, science doesn't cause the divide. Climate science and the scientists are in as much agreement on the influence of CO2 and the dangers of our continued emissions, as biologists are on the existence of evolution.

With a few exceptions, it's the pre-conceived ideas that have come before, and those who wish to retain the status quo through large scale disinformation campaigns that cause the divisiveness.

 

Only within climate change can completely clear falsehoods, baseless attacks on scientists, pro-CO2 propaganda, oil funded blogs, etc, be given the same respect as climate science within a science forum.

 

Can you imagine if people in the model output discussion kept arguing that all the models were flawed because they're based on the false theory of the Earth being spherical, and that all the meteorological organisations researching the models were part of a grand global corrupt conspiracy?

[Gray-Wolf]

This is the side of the so called 'Debate' that the Team seem moot on? It has seen fit to equip us all with a set of rules but then when obvious vacuous baiting appears it is defended as representing 'Free Speech'?and we risk punishment should we challenge it?

 

It appears as if a 'new tactic' has arisen from the nastier side of the Denialists crew where they complain at most ant post they see fit too and demand actions against certain posters ( the ones bringing the science and comentary ). This is the worst kind of censureship and feel sure that 'The Team' would not be swayed by such bully boy tactics....unless, of course, they agreed with them?

[Methuselah]

This is the side of the so called 'Debate' that the Team seem moot on? It has seen fit to equip us all with a set of rules but then when obvious vacuous baiting appears it is defended as representing 'Free Speech'?and we risk punishment should we challenge it?

 

It appears as if a 'new tactic' has arisen from the nastier side of the Denialists crew where they complain at most ant post they see fit too and demand actions against certain posters ( the ones bringing the science and comentary ). This is the worst kind of censureship and feel sure that 'The Team' would not be swayed by such bully boy tactics....unless, of course, they agreed with them?

Not at all, Ian. If you want to discuss something vacuous, that's been posted in the sceptics' zone, all you need do is copy the link into the Manmade Climate Change thread...the exclusion rules are mutual. 

[loafer]

It seems to me that, by separating the opposing parties like at an Australian disco, the mods are ensuring both sides get to put their point of view without being shouted down.

Far from being censorship, I think this promotes free speech on both sides, even if the conversation can be a little fractured across threads.

[UV-RAY]

It seems to me that, by separating the opposing parties like at an Australian disco, the mods are ensuring both sides get to put their point of view without being shouted down.Far from being censorship, I think this promotes free speech on both sides, even if the conversation can be a little fractured across threads.

Indeed loafer and like Pete states if somethings posted you disagree with you just reply in the appropriate thread.

[keithlucky]

Indeed loafer and like Pete states if somethings posted you disagree with you just reply in the appropriate thread.

Funny how sceptics stay off GWarmist threads GWarmist cannot stay off sceptics thread.so having separate threads is a good idea.

[UV-RAY]

Funny how sceptics stay off GWarmist threads GWarmist cannot stay off sceptics thread.so having separate threads is a good idea.

Yes it appears some cannot abide others posting against the so called consensus. Remember we all have to tow the party line of AGW.