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

[knocker]

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

 

Not at all. Just produce reasoned scientific argument rather than hot air.

[keithlucky]

Not at all. Just produce reasoned scientific argument rather than hot air.

Proves the point .

[Crepuscular Ray]

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

No, we don't have to toe anyone else's line at any point. That's why both sides of the divide have been given their own threads so they don't have to.

 

I do, however, despair at people who rely on belief (not religious, just conviction) rather than science (which, to be blunt, appears to be an accurate view of those on the extreme scale of "deniers"). Yes, the science is in its infancy - and all science is only valid until the next reliable result turns up to mean that it needs modifying - but I'm sure that the inhabitants of the Maldives are despairing at those who continue to think that rising ocean levels are a scientific nonsense.

 

The ones who really get my goat are those with vested interests in the fossil fuel industries who fund research that supports their stance.

 

It was suggested to me some time ago that it might be an idea to do an FOI request to see how many patents on green technology were being sat upon by the likes of Shell/Exxon, etc. until they can make more money out of them when the fossil fuels start to run out. Can UK citizens do FOI requests for the US?

Edited July 14, 2013 by Crepuscular Ray

[UV-RAY]

Not at all. Just produce reasoned scientific argument rather than hot air.

Like I've produced and still await a reasonable scientific answer too, rather than more nonsense like this. So I'll ask you a question then, can you explain why global temps have stalled for nearly seventeen years and remember this is over half of the period needed for forming a consensus for climatic data. Also please explain how you can be certain that CO2 was responsible for past warmings, because if you can find a factual link that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt then may I suggest you put you name forward for a Nobel prize. Until then I'll take the sceptic viewpoint that all options are still available,

[Crepuscular Ray]

Like I've produced and still await a reasonable scientific answer too, rather than more nonsense like this. So I'll ask you a question then, can you explain why global temps have stalled for nearly seventeen years and remember this is over half of the period needed for forming a consensus for climatic data. 

Have they stalled over that period? Please provide a reputable link.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Crepuscular Ray

[loafer]

Presumably referring to this;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

[knocker]

Also please explain how you can be certain that CO2 was responsible for past warmings, because if you can find a factual link that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt then may I suggest you put you name forward for a Nobel prize. Until then I'll take the sceptic viewpoint that all options are still available,

 

If you can quote when I said that CO² was entirely responsible for past warmings I will be amazed. Or even that I've I'm saying that about the current situation. In fact I even posted recently that when considering past high altitude climate change other mechanisms have to be considered.

 

Such as changes in orbital eccentricity, obliquity, precession of the equinoxes and orbital inclination. You obviously chose to ignore that.

 

Regarding your other point perhaps this may give you a clearer picture.

 

http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~obolmd/PDF/Otto_et_al_NatureGeoscience_2013.pdf

 

C. S. Lewis was right. . The denialists are masters of what he termed 'bulverism', a method of argument that avoids the need to prove that someone is wrong by first assuming their ciaim is wrong and then explaining why the person could hold such a fallacious view. You fit the bill.

 

In fact 'bulverism' is to blame for much of the divide..

Edited July 14, 2013 by knocker

[Crepuscular Ray]

Presumably referring to this;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

A known anti-AGW site, isn't it? So how do you know it's any less inclined to cherry-pick in its choice of stats than the warmie ones are supposed to be? Thus, how am I supposed to take it as a reliable source?

[jethro]

It strikes me that if those who are ardently in favour of AGW would give a cursory nod of acceptance in the direction of the sceptics, and the sceptics would return the mutual favour, they'd be no need for those separate threads. At the end of the day, I can't think of a single sceptic who disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, capable of warming the atmosphere. And I can't think of a single pro AGW person who disputes that natural climate drivers exist. 

 

All the argy bargy is over which is the most dominant force, which factor has caused the warming in recent decades. So much squabbling over half a degree centigrade, made even dafter when there isn't a person alive who can provide the answer being so bickered about.

 

It's a funny old world.

[knocker]

. At the end of the day, I can't think of a single sceptic who disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, capable of warming the atmosphere.

 

 

 

Monckton? Then he's in a funny old world.

Edited July 14, 2013 by knocker

[jethro]

Monckton? Then he's in a funny old world.

 

Can't say that I've ever seen him post on here.

[knocker]

Can't say that I've ever seen him post on here.

 

I think he was banned.

[jethro]

I think he was banned.

 

Nah, You don't get banned just for being bonkers.

[knocker]

Nah, You don't get banned just for being bonkers.

 

Just as well or the threads would be, shall we say, a bit threadbare,

[UV-RAY]

If you can quote when I said that CO² was entirely responsible for past warmings I will be amazed. Or even that I've I'm saying that about the current situation. In fact I even posted recently that when considering past high altitude climate change other mechanisms have to be considered.

 

Such as changes in orbital eccentricity, obliquity, precession of the equinoxes and orbital inclination. You obviously chose to ignore that.

 

Regarding your other point perhaps this may give you a clearer picture.

 

http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~obolmd/PDF/Otto_et_al_NatureGeoscience_2013.pdf

 

C. S. Lewis was right. . The denialists are masters of what he termed 'bulverism', a method of argument that avoids the need to prove that someone is wrong by first assuming their ciaim is wrong and then explaining why the person could hold such a fallacious view. You fit the bill.

 

In fact 'bulverism' is to blame for much of the divide..

Your not a politician by any chance are you as you have a knack of answering a question with a question. So again why have temp stalled over the last seventeen years and if this continues for another thirteen years we will have a new starting point for climatic data.

It strikes me that if those who are ardently in favour of AGW would give a cursory nod of acceptance in the direction of the sceptics, and the sceptics would return the mutual favour, they'd be no need for those separate threads. At the end of the day, I can't think of a single sceptic who disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, capable of warming the atmosphere. And I can't think of a single pro AGW person who disputes that natural climate drivers exist. 

 

All the argy bargy is over which is the most dominant force, which factor has caused the warming in recent decades. So much squabbling over half a degree centigrade, made even dafter when there isn't a person alive who can provide the answer being so bickered about.

 

It's a funny old world.

Lol, post of the thread and sums up nicely exactly were we are.

[knocker]

Your not a politician by any chance are you as you have a knack of answering a question with a question. So again why have temp stalled over the last seventeen years and if this continues for another thirteen years we will have a new starting point for climatic data.

 

 

A few observations from a real scientist.

 

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/twitter-drive-by-shooting-whew-just-blanks-as-always/

[jethro]

Why have temps stalled, or at least the rate of warming slowed down? It's either because a natural driver has over-ridden the warming, or the climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as was thought.

[jethro]

[Gray-Wolf]

So , to once more return to the topic of the thread it would appear that it is not the science that is the divide at all? Certain groups do not wish to abide by the way we science is currently practiced and do not like it when 'Science minded' folk question their stance seeking information?

 

They appear so afraid of science that they even attack the validity of the subject???

 

Why do the true denialist avoide the AGW threads proper? Well they have no way to deny without instantly being asked to explain their reasoning. Folk who 'do' the science have no such fears of asking questions over on the Sceptics threads but the lacklustre defense from the threads authors leads to resentment again.

 

It appears, to me, that the Great Divide has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Science' and more about personality types ( as has been noted before) with the malcontents, well suited ti injured critques of everything, gravitating toward blind denialism ( if it's mainstream then it is wrong!!!, type attitudes).

 

If I am incorrect in my observations then natural scientific discovery will settle the rift and all will be rosy, if I'm closer to paydirt then the rift will never  heal as we will always have malcontents amongst us?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

Why have temps stalled, or at least the rate of warming slowed down? It's either because a natural driver has over-ridden the warming, or the climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as was thought.

Which are perfectly valid sceptical questions...IMO, there's more than likely a bit of both going on...

[jethro]

So , to once more return to the topic of the thread it would appear that it is not the science that is the divide at all? Certain groups do not wish to abide by the way we science is currently practiced and do not like it when 'Science minded' folk question their stance seeking information?

 

They appear so afraid of science that they even attack the validity of the subject???

 

Why do the true denialist avoide the AGW threads proper? Well they have no way to deny without instantly being asked to explain their reasoning. Folk who 'do' the science have no such fears of asking questions over on the Sceptics threads but the lacklustre defense from the threads authors leads to resentment again.

 

It appears, to me, that the Great Divide has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Science' and more about personality types ( as has been noted before) with the malcontents, well suited ti injured critques of everything, gravitating toward blind denialism ( if it's mainstream then it is wrong!!!, type attitudes).

 

If I am incorrect in my observations then natural scientific discovery will settle the rift and all will be rosy, if I'm closer to paydirt then the rift will never  heal as we will always have malcontents amongst us?

 

You're right, it is about personality types. But the problem with the bickering doesn't stem from those who 'do' the science as opposed to those who don't. The problem is that folk won't accept that everyone is entitled to 'do' this subject in whatever way they see fit, and therefore seek to accuse, judge and ridicule.

 

Clearly, this problem is alive and well. As you've been one of the most ardent and vocal in criticising the separate threads, as it's been explained time and again why they exist, common sense should dictate that if you really want unity restored in this section of the forum, you'd be more conciliatory in your approach. 

[jethro]

Which are perfectly valid sceptical questions...IMO, there's more than likely a bit of both going on...

 

But I'm talking heresy according to some quarters. They should both be open to logical discussion, but both usually attract responses which are tailored towards defending the theory of AGW from a supposed attack. The subtlety of honing the science doesn't attract much interest on here, which is a shame really as the truth probably lays somewhere near the middle of the ardent pro versus sceptic argument. 

[Methuselah]

But I'm talking heresy according to some quarters. They should both be open to logical discussion, but both usually attract responses which are tailored towards defending the theory of AGW from a supposed attack. The subtlety of honing the science doesn't attract much interest on here, which is a shame really as the truth probably lays somewhere near the middle of the ardent pro versus sceptic argument. 

True. But it also attracts 'sceptical' posts that include charts that, in no way at all, support the posters' opinions...And I really can't see the point of that.

[knocker]

But I'm talking heresy according to some quarters. They should both be open to logical discussion, but both usually attract responses which are tailored towards defending the theory of AGW from a supposed attack. The subtlety of honing the science doesn't attract much interest on here, which is a shame really as the truth probably lays somewhere near the middle of the ardent pro versus sceptic argument. 

 

I'm not sure that's true J. As far as I'm aware nobody has stated CO²  is the only cause of GW. I certainly haven't but if you look at Scott Mandia's post and also the fact it has become apparent that ice sheets are losing substantial amounts of ice – about 300 billion tonnes each year – and that the rate at which these losses occurs is increasing, then if you leave CO² out of the equation what other drivers are causing this mayhem? My position is quite simply that CO² is a major player, along with other factors as yet poorly understood, in the current situation. The problem I have on here is not that some disagree, but they just come up with some tame rebuttal with no attempt to give a coherent alternative.

Edited July 15, 2013 by knocker

[jethro]

True. But it also attracts 'sceptical' posts that include charts that, in no way at all, support the posters' opinions...And I really can't see the point of that.

 

I personally don't see either side as being right or wrong. It's the bonkers divide which stops sensible discussion.