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

[Polar Maritime]

Surely it's wrong to post charts and data that have been manipulated to suit there line of thought ? Even if they are aware of it or not.. these should be pointed out as false information. I agree jethro no side is right or wrong "if" the information is legit. Some posters still use the same information time and time again to argue there point which has already been proven as false.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Polar Maritime

[jethro]

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.

 

But the trouble stems from someone suggesting something else, of natural origin, may be at play. No pro AGW'er will say 'it's all CO2' they'll all say 'natural drivers are important' but then react in a way which suppresses discussion of natural drivers, in a way that reads as though they're protecting the theory from attack. Then you get exactly the same response from the other side too. It's a combative atmosphere which leads to ever decreasing circles.

 

As for coherent alternatives....how can there be one when natural drivers and CO2 have an impact? None of this is an either/or situation. And if it was as simple as being able to say 'CO2 contributes X amount, natural drivers contribute X amount, then there would be no discussion. Fact is, no one knows that answer so it's a bit daft expecting either side to be able to say. 

[jethro]

Surely it's wrong to post charts and data that have been manipulated to suit there line of thought ? Even if there are aware of it or not.. these should be pointed out as false information.

 

Often it's not what people say, it's how they say it. 

[Polar Maritime]

Often it's not what people say, it's how they say it. 

 

Or if they just say what the false information says... And nothing more.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Polar Maritime

[knocker]

I've never tried to suppress discussion on natural drivers but I dislike deliberate manipulation of data to support an ideology. That applies to both sides of the debate but in my experience far more so from the sceptic's angle as they have far fewer scientific papers to support their position.

[Methuselah]

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

But if someone posts 'information' that is entirely incorrect (mathematically and/or scientifically) it would be remiss of those who know better to sit back and do nothing? Wouldn't that make the entire education-system redundant?

[Methuselah]

But the trouble stems from someone suggesting something else, of natural origin, may be at play. No pro AGW'er will say 'it's all CO2' they'll all say 'natural drivers are important' but then react in a way which suppresses discussion of natural drivers, in a way that reads as though they're protecting the theory from attack. Then you get exactly the same response from the other side too. It's a combative atmosphere which leads to ever decreasing circles.

 

As for coherent alternatives....how can there be one when natural drivers and CO2 have an impact? None of this is an either/or situation. And if it was as simple as being able to say 'CO2 contributes X amount, natural drivers contribute X amount, then there would be no discussion. Fact is, no one knows that answer so it's a bit daft expecting either side to be able to say. 

That's not true at all, J...Most of us are more than prepared to discuss natural drivers...Isn't that precisely what the Leaky Integrator was all about? And, who has ever disputed that El Nino contributed to the anomalous warmth of 1998?

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd agree P.M.! This is the area that everyone should feel free to 'correct'? I know some folk do not take criticism well but maybe it would entice that 'type' to check their data against a 'neutral' source?

 

For the longest of time here , in the early days, i posted the news/science as it arrived and was soundly rounded upon for my 'stance'??? I had no stance but the news/science was always pointing in one direction.

 

Then we started to see certain siters actively manipulate 'news/science' to bring forward alternative conclusions but this was just 'manipulated data' ( about the same time that they were calling most lead scientists for 'manipulating data???) and I realised that this was how things were now going to be.

 

I've always wondered at the folk who appear to 'want' to believe such tosh? What does it profit them? Surely it has to be an 'itch you can't scratch' type trait to appear to invite ridicule?

 

We now seem to have actively empowered such folk? what is that about? In every other walk of life we would be desperate to help them 'understand' where as here we leave them to it and call it 'Good'???

 

EDIT; I've been pretty big on natural drivers myself? The changes across the Arctic may have been instigated by man made forcings but it's all 'Natural' now!!!

 

EDIT:EDIT: Correct Pete!!! We have plenty of posters , past and present, who have helped me better understand things via their corrections of posts i've made that have been 'lacking'?

 

******vvvvvvvvvvvv********

  vvvvvvvvv

vvvv

vv

Edited July 15, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

Not only 'to correct', Ian. We should also expect ourselves to be corrected...

[UV-RAY]

But the trouble stems from someone suggesting something else, of natural origin, may be at play. No pro AGW'er will say 'it's all CO2' they'll all say 'natural drivers are important' but then react in a way which suppresses discussion of natural drivers, in a way that reads as though they're protecting the theory from attack. Then you get exactly the same response from the other side too. It's a combative atmosphere which leads to ever decreasing circles. As for coherent alternatives....how can there be one when natural drivers and CO2 have an impact? None of this is an either/or situation. And if it was as simple as being able to say 'CO2 contributes X amount, natural drivers contribute X amount, then there would be no discussion. Fact is, no one knows that answer so it's a bit daft expecting either side to be able to say.

That's exactly my viewpoint also Jethro, no one can say with any confidence what has caused the warming or stalling and it's this arrogance amongst some proponents of AGW which causes some of the conflict.

[Methuselah]

That's exactly my viewpoint also Jethro, no one can say with any confidence what has caused the warming or stalling and it's this arrogance amongst some proponents of AGW which causes some of the conflict.

Not to mention down-right deniers who prefer to call themselves 'sceptics'...when 'sceptics' is what they are not? Anyone who insists that there can be no, for example, solar forcing taking place, is a denier...

[Gray-Wolf]

So it is 'arrogant' to hold an opinion? Hmmmm, maybe that would understand why some sections of the debate are 'unreachable'........LOL

 

We've had this debate many times before and it still appears that 'confidence' in a thing can vary greatly whilst we accept it as 'true' apart from climate where some folk demand 100% certainty before conceding their point???

 

i honestly thought that the 90% surety the IPCC brought us would be enough to convince most folk but , and I believe I am correct, J' disabused me of this notion in the first reply!

 

Confidence in man's role in climate shift has grown since then yet the 'divide' remains? It would appear that the sceptics do believe in small numbers though? Even if only 1% of science disagrees with AGW this is way enough for them to 'believe in' (and dismiss the 99%)!!!

 

This is where I cannot stomach such complaints from them about 'certainty' and have them try and have folk believe they are being reasonable when their own beliefs are such a minority view with little or no evidence to support their notions? How can they parade such and not notice this???

Edited July 15, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

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. 

 

 

Not quite J. Several "sceptic" members, including contributors in this thread, have repeatedly claimed that CO2 cannot cause warming because it's just a trace gas.

[UV-RAY]

So it is 'arrogant' to hold an opinion? Hmmmm, maybe that would understand why some sections of the debate are 'unreachable'........LOL We've had this debate many times before and it still appears that 'confidence' in a thing can vary greatly whilst we accept it as 'true' apart from climate where some folk demand 100% certainty before conceding their point??? i honestly thought that the 90% surety the IPCC brought us would be enough to convince most folk but , and I believe I am correct, J' disabused me of this notion in the first reply! Confidence in man's role in climate shift has grown since then yet the 'divide' remains? It would appear that the sceptics do believe in small numbers though? Even if only 1% of science disagrees with AGW this is way enough for them to 'believe in' (and dismiss the 99%)!!! This is where I cannot stomach such complaints from them about 'certainty' and have them try and have folk believe they are being reasonable when their own beliefs are such a minority view with little or no evidence to support their notions? How can they parade such and not notice this???

No it's arrogance in dismissing others opinions. You only have to look through all the threads in the climate section to find dismissive posts on sceptics postings, regardless if such post presents either peer reviewed literature or from a top scientist who just happens to disagree on the magnitude of warming associated with CO2. As for Pete's dismissive post on sceptics which obviously was directed at myself, please provide evidence and not wild accusations of slander,

[Polar Maritime]

No it's arrogance in dismissing others opinions. You only have to look through all the threads in the climate section to find dismissive posts on sceptics postings, regardless if such post presents either peer reviewed literature or from a top scientist who just happens to disagree on the magnitude of warming associated with CO2. As for Pete's dismissive post on sceptics which obviously was directed at myself, please provide evidence and not wild accusations of slander,

 

But that's the problem S.I, I always have an open mind, But when Scientific evidence over-rules the opinion in question, where does that leave us....? We then end up going over the same subject, back and forth as to whether the information has some kind of global  hidden agenda. 

Edited July 15, 2013 by Polar Maritime

[UV-RAY]

But that's the problem S.I, I always have an open mind, But when Scientific evidence over-rules the opinion in question, where does that leave us....?

But that's the problem PM the scientific evidence is based on certain assumptions, hence why constant adjustments are needed to the temperature data sets. Edited July 15, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Methuselah]

No it's arrogance in dismissing others opinions. You only have to look through all the threads in the climate section to find dismissive posts on sceptics postings, regardless if such post presents either peer reviewed literature or from a top scientist who just happens to disagree on the magnitude of warming associated with CO2. As for Pete's dismissive post on sceptics which obviously was directed at myself, please provide evidence and not wild accusations of slander,

If you ever did deny the reality of solar forcing, I've never seen it...

[Polar Maritime]

But that's the problem PM the scientific evidence is based on certain assumptions, hence why constant adjustments are needed to the temperature data sets.

 

It's based on scientific evidence S.I, and until that changes, the assumption's will always be assumptions. But I understand science has to start somewhere. and even assumption can be discussed up to a certain point.

[Paul]

I'm going to lock this now before it spirals ever further toward the usual name calling, accusations and childishness which blights so many of the threads started in part of this forum. 

 

The separate threads are here to stay for now, those who don't like them don't have to use them. And as shown by this thread, from what I can see the 'great divide' more often than not is unrelated to science, it's made by chips on shoulders, attitude problems and people who are too in awe of their own opinion to open their mind up to the possibility that there's always more to learn. Shame really..