|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 28, 2009 11:38:57 GMT
Btw, here's the APA press release with links to the full report (pdf). I suggest reading it and drawing your own conclusions. I have my own views on this, but don't want to prejudice anyone. www.apa.org/releases/climate-change.html . Note the contact in case you care to reply to them. I felt I had to send a brief reply: "I found the brief summary of your task force report interesting more for what it left out than for what it discussed. There have been several ‘panics’ in my lifetime, starting with the ‘Nuclear Clock’ then the impending ice age and Paul Ehrlich’s ‘Population Bomb’ then the ‘Millennium Bug’ panics. These all have one thing in common a group of well meaning concerned scientists trying to get the rest of the world to listen to what they feel is a real disaster in the making. They also have in common that the events that were being raised did not come to pass which means that each successive attempt to gain public acceptance has a steeper hill to climb.
It would be interesting for your task force to carry out the same psychological investigations on the scientists who forecast these catastrophic events. They all exhibit levels of frustration that they cannot get the ‘general public’ to understand and react to their concern. This leads to them lowering their opinion of those who can’t see the problem or seem to mistrust them or be in denial or worse don’t consider the forthcoming disaster in the same apocalyptic terms that the scientists are now using to try to get them to listen. This seems to lead the scientists out of their normal scientific modes of thought into a more apostate mode where their normal scientific skepticism is abandoned and their belief in what they see is strengthened by the disbelief of others. This would be a really interesting psychological research area
I am certain that if you go back you will find that everything being said now was presaged by what was said on these previous occasions. It would be useful as a control for your current hypothesis and also show that you were considering _both sides_ of these debates from a psychological perspective. "
I'd be interested in their reply, if they send you one, but I suspect they will not bother. Even a quick read of the report reveals their own prejudices in the matter; ie, that climate change is primarily due to human population growth and consumption (quality of life ), and therefore any "solution" must necessarily involve the reduction of both of those factors to some unspecified level that meets with their approval. Not surprising actually. If the only tool at one's disposal is a hammer, all problems look like nails. PS: Their policy recommendations are also telling: www.apa.org/science/climate-change/policy-recommendations.pdf . The last recommendation is: " · Lobby government and other funding agencies to support psychological research on global climate change."
|
|
|
Post by kerwin on Aug 28, 2009 20:19:45 GMT
I found this article about weather pattern oscillations being related to the solar cycle and thought all might find it interesting. Apparently some climate scientist are starting to admit the sun does have a direct impact on climate and that the variation in solar irradiance while small is responsible for greater variabitlity in weather/climate. Its about time. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 28, 2009 21:22:34 GMT
I'd be interested in their reply, if they send you one, but I suspect they will not bother. Even a quick read of the report reveals their own prejudices in the matter; ie, that climate change is primarily due to human population growth and consumption (quality of life ), and therefore any "solution" must necessarily involve the reduction of both of those factors to some unspecified level that meets with their approval. Not surprising actually. If the only tool at one's disposal is a hammer, all problems look like nails. PS: Their policy recommendations are also telling: www.apa.org/science/climate-change/policy-recommendations.pdf . The last recommendation is: " · Lobby government and other funding agencies to support psychological research on global climate change." There should be a website that collates some of these less likely research requests where it is obvious that the researchers in a totally unrelated field are struggling to find a way to get their snouts into the AGW R&D trough. Perhaps "Using Acupuncture to ease denialism" or "Basket Weaving in a Warmer World" or "The Wattle and Daub Proxy Disproof of the Medieval Warm Period" ;D
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 28, 2009 23:40:51 GMT
I'd be interested in their reply, if they send you one, but I suspect they will not bother. Even a quick read of the report reveals their own prejudices in the matter; ie, that climate change is primarily due to human population growth and consumption (quality of life ), and therefore any "solution" must necessarily involve the reduction of both of those factors to some unspecified level that meets with their approval. Not surprising actually. If the only tool at one's disposal is a hammer, all problems look like nails. PS: Their policy recommendations are also telling: www.apa.org/science/climate-change/policy-recommendations.pdf . The last recommendation is: " · Lobby government and other funding agencies to support psychological research on global climate change." There should be a website that collates some of these less likely research requests where it is obvious that the researchers in a totally unrelated field are struggling to find a way to get their snouts into the AGW R&D trough. Perhaps "Using Acupuncture to ease denialism" or "Basket Weaving in a Warmer World" or "The Wattle and Daub Proxy Disproof of the Medieval Warm Period" ;D Indeed. It must have felt like an extended XMAS to the shrinks when the IPCC, et al did their thing. I mean, when else has over half the population been formally accused of being in dire need of a friendly couch in order to save the planet. Talk about job security! No matter what, they will have a never ending supply of patients. I wonder if they have a "Contingency Paper" in case the opposition turns out to be the ones in need of their services. I certainly would. Gotta cover those bases, boys and girls.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 23, 2009 10:18:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 26, 2009 2:53:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 26, 2009 7:20:09 GMT
Its a problem when your efforts turn to persecuting deniers. Jim Hansen et al running strings of ad hominems along with their addictions to artificial reconstructions to shore up sagging popularity of their pet theory seem to be well on the road to an imitation of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and the Roman Inquisition. Can't stay ahead of science with an agenda like that.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 26, 2009 15:32:51 GMT
Btw, here's the APA press release with links to the full report (pdf). I suggest reading it and drawing your own conclusions. I have my own views on this, but don't want to prejudice anyone. www.apa.org/releases/climate-change.html . Note the contact in case you care to reply to them. I felt I had to send a brief reply: "I found the brief summary of your task force report interesting more for what it left out than for what it discussed. There have been several ‘panics’ in my lifetime, starting with the ‘Nuclear Clock’ then the impending ice age and Paul Ehrlich’s ‘Population Bomb’ then the ‘Millennium Bug’ panics. These all have one thing in common a group of well meaning concerned scientists trying to get the rest of the world to listen to what they feel is a real disaster in the making. They also have in common that the events that were being raised did not come to pass which means that each successive attempt to gain public acceptance has a steeper hill to climb.
It would be interesting for your task force to carry out the same psychological investigations on the scientists who forecast these catastrophic events. They all exhibit levels of frustration that they cannot get the ‘general public’ to understand and react to their concern. This leads to them lowering their opinion of those who can’t see the problem or seem to mistrust them or be in denial or worse don’t consider the forthcoming disaster in the same apocalyptic terms that the scientists are now using to try to get them to listen. This seems to lead the scientists out of their normal scientific modes of thought into a more apostate mode where their normal scientific skepticism is abandoned and their belief in what they see is strengthened by the disbelief of others. This would be a really interesting psychological research area
I am certain that if you go back you will find that everything being said now was presaged by what was said on these previous occasions. It would be useful as a control for your current hypothesis and also show that you were considering _both sides_ of these debates from a psychological perspective. "
Never ask a psychologist a complex question. They'll only use it to analyse you What about all the disasters that have happened not in your lifetime. I think there have also been a few disasters that *have* happened in your lifetime, but perhaps you haven't noticed. Obviously, it is difficult to prove that a disaster has been prevented, but I guess it happens when an earthquake hits and no buildings fall down, or when a plane crash-lands and noone dies, or when the US and UN march in and genocide stops happening. And why blame scientists for everything. I bet scientist written code would have accounted for the millennium bug, leap seconds, the fact that there was no 0 between 1BC and 1AD and the slow-down of the earth over geological time (though I admit that maybe they would have mucked up on the Microsoft clock running out of bits and going back to 1971).
|
|
|
Post by toughluck on Oct 26, 2009 16:08:22 GMT
I came across this study by a canadian professor looking into fish populations, and he found measurable cycles of population growth (by fish scales in sediments and diatoms) in core samples. These corresponded to the solar 22 year cycles and the Glissberg? cycle ~90 years. He had trouble accepting it since the solar irradiance varied only 0.1%, so assumed there must be amplification or positive feedback mechanisms augmenting the solar effect (for now he is accepting the solar magnetims->cosmic ray->cloud formation theory). I saw saw his presentation in youtube. Tim Patterson, Carleton univ. Ottawa. Cant post the link from here. Sorry. But I have one for some old publications: http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/publications/2002_04.htmlWhat impresed me is that if the solar effect is so low as some AWG proponents claim, how can it affect and cause the crash and boom of fish and lower organism populations? Clearly the effect is amplified by some process.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 26, 2009 20:46:18 GMT
I felt I had to send a brief reply: "I found the brief summary of your task force report interesting more for what it left out than for what it discussed. There have been several ‘panics’ in my lifetime, starting with the ‘Nuclear Clock’ then the impending ice age and Paul Ehrlich’s ‘Population Bomb’ then the ‘Millennium Bug’ panics. These all have one thing in common a group of well meaning concerned scientists trying to get the rest of the world to listen to what they feel is a real disaster in the making. They also have in common that the events that were being raised did not come to pass which means that each successive attempt to gain public acceptance has a steeper hill to climb.
It would be interesting for your task force to carry out the same psychological investigations on the scientists who forecast these catastrophic events. They all exhibit levels of frustration that they cannot get the ‘general public’ to understand and react to their concern. This leads to them lowering their opinion of those who can’t see the problem or seem to mistrust them or be in denial or worse don’t consider the forthcoming disaster in the same apocalyptic terms that the scientists are now using to try to get them to listen. This seems to lead the scientists out of their normal scientific modes of thought into a more apostate mode where their normal scientific skepticism is abandoned and their belief in what they see is strengthened by the disbelief of others. This would be a really interesting psychological research area
I am certain that if you go back you will find that everything being said now was presaged by what was said on these previous occasions. It would be useful as a control for your current hypothesis and also show that you were considering _both sides_ of these debates from a psychological perspective. "
Never ask a psychologist a complex question. They'll only use it to analyse you What about all the disasters that have happened not in your lifetime. I think there have also been a few disasters that *have* happened in your lifetime, but perhaps you haven't noticed. Obviously, it is difficult to prove that a disaster has been prevented, but I guess it happens when an earthquake hits and no buildings fall down, or when a plane crash-lands and noone dies, or when the US and UN march in and genocide stops happening. Its just my opinion maybe. . . .but scientists by virtue of their life experiences tend to not be good at foreseeing the future. A lack of street smarts if you will. . . .ivory towerism. . . .too deep in the trees to see the forest. . . .to dependent on the tools they spend their lives with (same problem as with the trees and forest). Scientists should stick to their knitting. I think its fine for a scientist to have a political viewpoint, but the line is crossed when one begins to attach his credentials to that viewpoint. Many scientists do honor that line but the fact is too many don't. Its akin to if public accountants could give their opinions without any recourse against their credentials. . . .many accountants would abuse that as well. So we are looking mostly at a systemic failure to not recognize the growing and inappropriate role scientists are beginning to play in our political systems. Its almost a full circle problem from the days of tribal witchdoctors.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 27, 2009 9:43:40 GMT
Icefisher,
Another point I was going to make was that nautonnier was transferring the responsibility for all the alleged predictions of non-disaster onto scientists, but scientists weren't responsible for them all. This attack on scientist's role that you are continuing is not about scientists as witch doctors, it is about whether politicians base their decisions on the facts, or whether they can get away with using superstition/advice from the richest lobbyist/what they read in the Daily Mail that morning, to make a decision.
If I include in that list astrologists (eg. Ronald Reagan) I'm almost back on topic.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 27, 2009 16:17:52 GMT
Icefisher, Another point I was going to make was that nautonnier was transferring the responsibility for all the alleged predictions of non-disaster onto scientists, but scientists weren't responsible for them all. This attack on scientist's role that you are continuing is not about scientists as witch doctors, it is about whether politicians base their decisions on the facts, or whether they can get away with using superstition/advice from the richest lobbyist/what they read in the Daily Mail that morning, to make a decision. If I include in that list astrologists (eg. Ronald Reagan) I'm almost back on topic. Well RR was not an astrologist (that was Nancy). A real world distinction not missed by the common practical man. Scientists and nuts have a lot in common. Take global warming for example. We have a lot of theories advanced by scientists for its cause, most are likely wrong or insignificant. That is typical for issues of the arcane and unknown. Only nuts and scientists take an interest in them and only nuts and scientists really regularly (the majority of the time in fact) heavily invest in wrong theories. The common practical man though does not waste his time on such nonsense, he simply looks outside and determines if there is a problem or not. The later is the practical choice. The debates about science should be kept between scientists until a proof is arrived at, otherwise it opens the door to the nuts. . . .like the IPCC.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 27, 2009 17:21:36 GMT
Anti-intellectual nonsense that would have kept us in the trees and allowed the cats to take over the world.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 27, 2009 18:48:47 GMT
icefisher wrote:
"The later is the practical choice. The debates about science should be kept between scientists until a proof is arrived at, otherwise it opens the door to the nuts. . . .like the IPCC."
Geez, you expect real science to hold court on a question of science? Next, you'll want people to maintain the right to dissent against the "consensus" and make sure that there is no fraud, no mistakes or no incorrect application involved in the conclusions! You don't ask for much, do you? sarcasm/
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 28, 2009 9:55:39 GMT
...After all, real science holds court on questions of science, where scientists freely discuss positions that either deviate from or refine the current "consensus" position. Incidents of fraud or incompetence or down-right stubbornness are tracked down, and those involved appropriately humiliated (cold fusion, dog cloning, homeopathy, autism/MMR link, satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures) or sidelined (steady-state theory, cosmic ray/climate links) when the results don't go their way.
|
|