tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post8708262432055705419..comments2024-03-29T09:21:04.576+00:00Comments on Variable Variability: Scott Adams: The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change ScienceVictor Venemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-56173186905930629612016-12-11T09:31:15.332+00:002016-12-11T09:31:15.332+00:00Adams is suffering from massive cognitive dissonan...Adams is suffering from massive cognitive dissonance: <a href="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154289405111/the-time-that-reality-forked-right-in-front-of-you" rel="nofollow">"The Time That Reality Forked Right in Front of You."</a>Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-88268247298072870682016-12-11T01:53:05.369+00:002016-12-11T01:53:05.369+00:00I don't know if Art Kilner is still reading th...I don't know if Art Kilner is still reading these comments, and if he is I'm pretty sure he'll dismiss mine the way he has all the others. I actually think he's got some valid points, as long as he is talking about public perception of climate science. However, he exposes his rhetorical weakness when he claims to understand the science itself: <br /><br />"<i>Got to understand, the point here isn't about science, because we're talking about people who don't understand science well enough to judge. (I.e. not me.)</i>"<br />...<br />"<i>I had thought that, because I understand science, including the science involved in AGW, that I might be able to get through. Now I'm doubtful. While I'm speaking scientifically here (or trying to), what I'm talking about is the language of Scott Adams and those he represents and is speaking to."</i><br /><br />While I agree with some of what he says about Scott Adams's blog post, I've seen no evidence that AK's scientific judgment is any better than Donald Trump's. So far, his understanding of the scientific case for AGW seems to come solely from AGW-denier blogs. He clearly over-estimates his scientific meta-literacy, displaying an inability to distinguish genuine from fake expertise. <br /><br />Aside from his truculent insistence that he's smarter than everyone else and anyone who thinks he's mistaken is fooling themselves, what come through in his comments is a deep hostility toward climate scientists, and an unshakable conviction that the consensus they've reached for AGW can't be a result of looking at the evidence and coming to a common conclusion: <br /><br />"<i>Regular people can understand, and be suspicious of motivations. They/we can also see through the arm-waving by the "consensus" crowd.</i>"<br />...<br />"<i> The "consensus" is a result of <b>interpretations</b> of the evidence. Interpretations that take place within an environment of massive social pressure and bullying. Everybody can see it. And see through your arm-waving efforts to deny it.</i>."<br />...<br />"<i>The point is that there are real scientists who question the whole "global warming" trope. A lot more than the 2-3% implied by the <b>fake science</b> around the "consensus". (And yes, I've studied those papers when they came out.)</i>"<br /><br />...and so forth. He repeatedly accuses other commenters of "cognitive dissonance", but reveals his underlying cognitive bias unmistakably:<br /><br />"<i>[Trump]'s not going to let you impose a socialist bureaucratic world government on the US in the name of "climate".</i><br /><br />Ah, so that's it. The 40-year upward trend in GMST has nothing to do with the 3-5 petatonnes of fossil carbon humans have removed from geologic sequestion and returned to the atmosphere since 1698. The lopsided consensus of working climate scientists for AGW can only be a hoax, with the goal of imposing a socialist bureaucratic world government. The plot was hatched at least two centuries ago, enlisting Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and thousands of other scientists illustrious and obscure from around the world, and has remained covert through today. It's not about science at all, it's about culture war.<br /><br />Phhtt! AK is just a poor guy with a crowd of librul monsters under his bed.Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-52272089077706109242016-12-10T18:44:40.441+00:002016-12-10T18:44:40.441+00:00This blog posting about Scott Adams is well writte...This blog posting about Scott Adams is well written and answers the salient points. However, it is not efficient. Actually, the point of Scott Adams is: The default should be to trust the majority of scientists. In case of climate change it is approximately a 97%-majority, that is as good as it can be.<br />The next point of Scott Adams is, when, for whatever reason, you don't like, what the scientists say, find some assertions, which help you to discard inconvenient expert opinion. But this can't ever work: If even the experts are wrong, then we are all in trouble, because there is no way to be more clever than the majority of scientists. There is no way for a non-expert to tell, if the majority of scientists is right or wrong, thus you have to stick to the expert opinion anyway. It could be wrong sometimes. But it is extremely more likely that the non-experts opinion is wrong.J. Zimmermannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16880423024219145955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-70718282999295201952016-12-10T01:48:04.356+00:002016-12-10T01:48:04.356+00:00I might also add that he likes to accuse people of...I might also add that he likes to accuse people of being a "Social Justice Warrior".... kind of like that Alt-right. Although I'm sure that's just a coincidence. (wink, wink).Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-43783261822115501782016-12-10T01:42:58.317+00:002016-12-10T01:42:58.317+00:00For those who haven't seen AK's comments o...For those who haven't seen AK's comments over at Climate Etc., you should know that he has posted many comments there to explain how he knows more about espionage in the US than the US intelligence agencies (e.g., that the intelligence agencies are lying or just wrong in their assertions about Russia's involvement in the leaks prior to the election), about how he knows the motivations of Comey (he's in the tank, doncha know), about his insight into the corruption and bias of all sorts of institutions of government (all of which explain why anything he doesn't agree with is a product of others' bias and corruption), etc. <br /><br />You might consider all of that as you evaluate the pearls of wisdom he's tried to gift to you in his comments here. <br /><br />Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-8924604436100472932016-12-09T23:42:07.455+00:002016-12-09T23:42:07.455+00:00Will we now see a game of 'shoot the messenger...<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/09/us/politics/document-Trump-Transition-Questionnaire-Energy-Dept.html?ref=oembed&_r=1" rel="nofollow">Will we now see a game of 'shoot the messenger'?</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-28183733063855526552016-12-09T23:03:16.206+00:002016-12-09T23:03:16.206+00:00Agree, but maybe two links for the innocent reader...Agree, but maybe two links for the innocent readers.<br /><br />Wikipedia: <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting" rel="nofollow">Gaslighting or gas-lighting</a> is a form of psychological abuse in which a victim is manipulated into doubting their own memory, perception, and sanity.[1][2] Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.</i><br /><br />New York Review of Book: <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/" rel="nofollow">Autocracy: Rules for Survival</a>Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-49718380210543392302016-12-09T22:34:15.457+00:002016-12-09T22:34:15.457+00:00I'm done AK. You've more than amply demons...I'm done AK. You've more than amply demonstrated all of my points.<br /><br />Thank you.RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-45542928908112022412016-12-09T21:45:16.291+00:002016-12-09T21:45:16.291+00:00@RobH...
"This whole conversation is incredi...@RobH...<br /><br />"<i>This whole conversation is incredibly disturbing.</i>"<br /><br />Good.<br /><br />"<i>This has essentially been a defense of persuasion over reality.</i>"<br /><br />Not exactly. The point I've been trying to make is that perceptions are reality. Very important reality. Whatever the person perceives as true may or not be true, but the perception itself, the <b>fact</b> that the person has this perception, is true.<br /><br />"<i>It's exactly this sort of construct that allows people to commit heinous acts against others. It's what makes people come to believe that people of other races or religions are less than ourselves.</i>"<br /><br />There was a time when the "consensus" science of the day not only recognized different races, but routinely considered the "white" race superior. That "science" led to such horrors as the "eugenics" movements. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">Even in the US.</a> (Will we now see a game of "shoot the messenger"?)<br /><br />"<i>This is exactly my fear for my nation today, that we have put into the White House a man that cannot distinguish what is morally right from his desire to rule.</i>"<br /><br />Well, perhaps if you were a little more skeptical towards the nonsense the mainstream media pumps out?<br /><br />"<i>I'd like to remind AK that, in spite of his "powers of persuasion" Donald Trump lost the popular vote by 2.7 million votes.</i>"<br /><br />I doubt our host wants a prolonged discussion of electoral politics, strategies, and tactics. But I must mention that the ability to make a statement like that seriously demonstrates a distinct lack of critical thinking.AKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10905636789614137068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-82358290989954805052016-12-09T20:53:01.066+00:002016-12-09T20:53:01.066+00:00This whole conversation is incredibly disturbing. ...This whole conversation is incredibly disturbing. This has essentially been a defense of persuasion over reality. It's exactly this sort of construct that allows people to commit heinous acts against others. It's what makes people come to believe that people of other races or religions are less than ourselves. <br /><br />This is exactly my fear for my nation today, that we have put into the White House a man that cannot distinguish what is morally right from his desire to rule. That's the definition of tyranny: "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control." <br /><br />I'd like to remind AK that, in spite of his "powers of persuasion" Donald Trump lost the popular vote by 2.7 million votes. That's a number larger than any previous president has won an election by.RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-34265944846093321182016-12-09T19:09:56.162+00:002016-12-09T19:09:56.162+00:00Maybe it is about time to agree to disagree if we ...Maybe it is about time to agree to disagree if we start with one-world government conspiracy theories. This is a science blog. "People in high positions" have admitted that if you dumb your trash in your neighbours garden you have an obligation to clean it up. I am not in denial that 10% of the population are social Darwinists who think that dumping your trash in your neighbours garden is fine as demonstration that you are more powerful than your neighbour. <br /><br />It is not really consistent to reject talking about science and then claim that many scientists agree with you. But then in a world where persuasion is valued above being consistent, you can argue that when someone was stupid enough to be persuaded it was thus a fine argument. <br /><br />Theoretically the nice thing about science is that people from different persuasions can use it to agree on the nature of reality. It is sad that a group of people who will be in power in the USA do not believe in this. The age of enlightenment is historically young, before that persuasion was done with the sword. Those times can naturally return (regionally). It would be a pity for civilization (in those regions).Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-44275143005327807882016-12-09T18:55:03.883+00:002016-12-09T18:55:03.883+00:00@RobH...
"Here's how I read AK last post...@RobH...<br /><br />"<i>Here's how I read AK last post.</i>"<br /><br />Well, you've done a good job of distorting it to avoid seeing what I was actually trying to say. Hardly a surprise.<br /><br />"<i>He wants us to ignore scientific reality.</i>"<br /><br />Not really. By now, anybody with an open mind can see which of us is in denial. So I don't really "want" you (your "<i>us</i>") to do anything.<br /><br />If you have any interest in fixing your cognitive dissonance problem, I'd guess starting by putting aside your "<i>scientific reality</i>" might help. Then trying to take the perspective of somebody like Scott Adams, who doesn't know enough to judge between you and your opponents.<br /><br />"<i>Instead he wants us to craft a persuasive metaphor that is an acceptable lie that the voting public will accept.</i>"<br /><br />"<i>In other words, find a clever way to lie to get what you want. No scientific facts are needed. Just make up your own reality. What validates it is people's willingness to accept the fiction.<br /></i>"<br /><br />That's what many people think you and people like you have already done. Screaming "IT'S THE TRUTH" probably won't help make your case.<br /><br />"<i>It becomes painfully apparent where all this comes from when AK repeats the whole "one-world government" lie.</i>"<br /><br />Many people think that the real lie is when you deny that "<i> socialist bureaucratic world government</i>" is the ultimate object. People in high positions have as much as admitted that it <b>is</b> the object. That's a <b>fact.</b><br /><br />Denying this <b>fact</b> is simply cognitive dissonance. Whether the people who think that are correct, that's what they think.AKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10905636789614137068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-51412182527863769762016-12-09T17:51:05.317+00:002016-12-09T17:51:05.317+00:00AK: "Nor is Trump a serial liar. He simply co...AK: "Nor is Trump a serial liar. He simply communicates with different metaphors than you're used to."<br /><br />Here are some more 'metaphors' for AK: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.<br />Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-78878577701490944412016-12-09T17:47:30.678+00:002016-12-09T17:47:30.678+00:00@RobH...
RobH: "It's hard to tell but it...@RobH...<br /><br />RobH: "<i>It's hard to tell but it seems to me that Adams values "persuasion" over truth.</i>"<br /><br />DING! DING! DING! Right!<br /><br />Did you happen to notice who just got elected President?<br /><br />RobH: "<i>In that seems to be the connection to Trump.</i>"<br /><br />Scott Adams considers Mr. Trump a "master persuader", primarily because of similarities he sees between them.<br /><br />He publicly predicted Trump actions based on how he would have handled things. Those predictions, generally, were accurate. Not in some specifics necessarily, but after the fact most readers saw a valid prediction.<br /><br />RobH: "<i>Powers of persuasion are incredibly important and valuable, but they can also be dangerous and destructive when based in lies.</i>"<br /><br />Yes. But what if they're not lies? What if you just <b>think</b> they're lies?<br /><br />RobH: "<i>He's clearly uninformed about the science but can't process that would be possible. His ego won't allow him to accept his ignorance and thus he steamrolls it with his powers of persuasion.</i>"<br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />You're hallucinating. Something Adams himself actually predicts in serious cases of cognitive dissonance.<br /><br />He fully recognizes his "ignorance", but he also recognizes that there's nobody <b>credible</b> to help him with it. What you refuse to see is that you, and people like you, <b>aren't credible to him</b><br /><br />RobH: "<i>He and AK are blissfully unaware of how they've succumbed to the cognitive dissonance they accuse others of.</i>"<br /><br />This is what I meant by a waste of time. You blind yourself to your own cognitive dissonance by accusing anybody who tells you about it of the same problem.<br /><br />RobH: "<i>I'll ask you direct here: Through this whole conversation, have you bothered to look up any reliable information on the scientific topics that Adams touched on and Victor responded to?</i>"<br />Why should I do that? If I need something I don't already know, then I'll look it up. But AFAIK there were no "<i>scientific topics</i>" involved. Just the perceptions of people who don't know enough about the science to judge.<br /><br />The point is that there are real scientists who question the whole "global warming" trope. A lot more than the 2-3% implied by the <b>fake science</b> around the "consensus". (And yes, I've studied those papers when they came out.)<br /><br />The fact that the majority buys into (or pretends to) the "consensus" position doesn't make it right. The history of science has a long string of such cases: phlogiston, wave/particle, Newtonian physics, plate tectonics (or what it replaced), and so on.<br /><br />There are plenty of scientists who have questioned the current paradigm. People like Scott Adams can't judge between the contrarians and the consensus. So they look at the social issues.<br /><br />And what anybody sees when they do that is that the behavior of the "consensus", both (some) scientists and the fringe of science fans around them, is one more suited to defending an obsolete paradigm.<br /><br />Or perhaps a paradigm that was manufactured through social pressure rather than science in the first place. (There are real, highly qualified scientists who have made this claim.)AKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10905636789614137068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-39432019119288606972016-12-09T16:48:34.241+00:002016-12-09T16:48:34.241+00:00Here's how I read AK last post.
He wants us t...Here's how I read AK last post.<br /><br />He wants us to ignore scientific reality. <br />Instead he wants us to craft a persuasive metaphor that is an acceptable lie that the voting public will accept.<br /><br />In other words, find a clever way to lie to get what you want. No scientific facts are needed. Just make up your own reality. What validates it is people's willingness to accept the fiction.<br /><br />Do you not see the insanity of that?<br /><br />It becomes painfully apparent where all this comes from when AK repeats the whole "one-world government" lie. Will AK bother to actually read the terms of the Paris Agreement that shows nothing of the sort. I don't think so. Information is reality. AK is looking for language framed outside of reality. Reading and comprehending information is hard. Listening to a persuasive person with a palatable lie is much easier. RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-19571986534222360232016-12-09T16:36:04.839+00:002016-12-09T16:36:04.839+00:00AK said... "Nor is Trump a serial liar. He si...AK said... "Nor is Trump a serial liar. He simply communicates with different metaphors than you're used to."<br /><br />I'm sorry, AK. But this is absolute crap. You're speaking as if you can talk your way into alternate realities. The real world doesn't work like that. Fact <i>are</i> facts. Reality is reality. Metaphors <i>describe</i> reality and fact, they don't change them.<br /><br />I'll ask you direct here: Through this whole conversation, have you bothered to look up any reliable information on the scientific topics that Adams touched on and Victor responded to? <br /><br />Yes or no?RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-61833956099318490182016-12-09T15:59:06.920+00:002016-12-09T15:59:06.920+00:00It's hard to tell but it seems to me that Adam...It's hard to tell but it seems to me that Adams values "persuasion" over truth. In that seems to be the connection to Trump. Powers of persuasion are incredibly important and valuable, but they can also be dangerous and destructive when based in lies. And I think that's what we see with Trump. And, interestingly enough, I think that's exactly what Adams was doing with his climate related piece. He's clearly uninformed about the science but can't process that would be possible. His ego won't allow him to accept his ignorance and thus he steamrolls it with his powers of persuasion. <br /><br />He and AK are blissfully unaware of how they've succumbed to the cognitive dissonance they accuse others of.<br /><br />In all of this, do you think either one of them has taken the time to look up and read even one research paper or even one good science news article on any of these topics. I highly doubt it because that would involve facing the dissonance.<br /><br />It's both fascinating and horrifying to watch this taking place in so many. When climate change becomes more obvious it's going to be a very very rude awakening for a lot of people.RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-21983347979839120062016-12-09T15:50:14.563+00:002016-12-09T15:50:14.563+00:00@citizenschallenge
citizenschallenge: "Blogg...@citizenschallenge<br /><br />citizenschallenge: "<i>Blogger AK said... IMO he isn't. He's taking things said in one language, framing them into another language, then addressing the nonsense that results. That's tantamount to a straw man.*</i>"<br /><br />citizenschallenge: "<i>You are quite the hoot AK, plus you repeat yourself, although that wasn't really that cute or original a line.</i>"<br /><br />That "<i>quite the hoot</i>" is a clear tell for cognitive dissonance. People laughed at Trump. https://youtu.be/grD_IINiH9c?t=11 Are you still laughing?<br /><br />If you can't overcome your cognitive dissonance, you're hosed. I'm not the master persuader Scott Adams is, I doubt I have the skill to help you.<br /><br />citizenschallenge: "<i>Don't tell me you advocate fairytale fringe of people who believe any lie they are handed?</i>"<br /><br />They vote.<br /><br />Almost 50% of the US populations still believes in Biblical Creation. Calling them idiots isn't going to change them.<br /><br />citizenschallenge: "<i>After all your man Trump has shown us that a serial liar can be accepted by the masses. I'd suggest that tell us more about human failings, [...]</i>"<br /><br />You see, you're imposing your own preconceptions on it. As Scott says, in evolutionary terms they aren't failings. Nor is Trump a serial liar. He simply communicates with different metaphors than you're used to.<br /><br />Trump and the <b>voters</b> who listen to him aren't speaking the same language you are. That's a <b>fact.</b> Refusing to accept that <b>fact</b> is cognitive dissonance. <i>I.e.</i> denial.<br /><br />citizenschallenge: "<i>A good deal of your own verbiage tend towards slanderous accusations about scientists, be it character intent. You bring no evidence, simply self-certain insinuations.</i>"<br /><br />No, I was trying to frame it from "<i>Scott's point of view (POV) here, not my own.</i>" As I <a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2016/12/scott-adams-non-expert-problem-climate-change.html?showComment=1481209173855#c2445057423787256849" rel="nofollow">said above.</a><br /><br />citizenschallenge: "<i>Back to your point about Dilbert, excuse me Adams, you AK are correct, it was not about the science. It was about how to craftily miscommunicate [...]. It Trump come to prime time.</i>"<br /><br />Yes, and it's <b>ALL YOUR FAULT!</b> You and everybody else who simply assumed that because you thought you understood the science, you could ignore the great mass of voters who didn't. And don't. Most of them don't even understand the language.<br /><br />But you need to check your conspiracy theories at the door. This wasn't about "<i>craftily miscommunicate</i>[d]" science. It was about the perceptions of the <b>voters</b> who have been miscommunicated to. And much of it was earnestly sincere, even if wrong.<br /><br />citizenschallenge: "<i>It's astounding and horrifying.</i>"<br /><br />Yup. To you.<br /><br />But having gotten over my gloating (mostly) I'm trying to show you that it isn't really nearly as horrifying as you seem to think. If you take what he said and shoehorn it into your "scientific" language, it's horrifying.<br /><br />If you choose (if possible) to give up your denial over different languages, and learn the frames he's using, IMO you'll discover it's not that bad.<br /><br />He's not going to let you impose a socialist bureaucratic world government on the US in the name of "climate". But IMO the problem with fossil CO2 (not climate) is much closer to solution than you think, and can be approached in ways that both Mr. Trump and the <b>voters</b> who chose him will be down with.AKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10905636789614137068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-69060832745254742432016-12-09T15:37:37.267+00:002016-12-09T15:37:37.267+00:00My first thought was that this is a total waste of...My first thought was that this is a total waste of time. But perhaps not. I doubt I'll be able to get through to anyone here, but the experience may be useful in the future.<br /><br />I'm going to address a few arguments from @RobH in this comment, then another for @citizenschallenge. These were originally all in one, as both commenters have the same wrong idea(s)... (but Blogger wouldn't let me.)<br /><br />RobH: "<i>AK... I would suggest that's a nonsensical response. We're all speaking English here.</i>"<br /><br />This is your first error. Whether using Latin, English, or Chinese words (or any other language) scientists are <b>not</b> speaking the vernacular (usually). They are speaking science. Where words have a specific meaning (or several where it's clear from context which meaning is used). And when strung together, the strings also have precise meanings.<br /><br />Most people don't use words/language that way. Some can "switch frames" when they know they're hearing science, others, like you, don't understand the difference.<br /><br />I had thought that, because I understand science, including the science involved in AGW, that I might be able to get through. Now I'm doubtful. While I'm speaking scientifically here (or trying to), what I'm talking <b>about</b> is the language of Scott Adams and those he represents and is speaking to.<br /><br />RobH: "<i>There are not two languages here, lest Adams is framing in indecipherable metaphors.</i>"<br /><br />All language is metaphor. Adams is using <b>different metaphors</b> than the language of science that you're trying to speak here.<br /><br />RobH: "<i>The scientific facts are facts. If you and Adams don't grasp these fundamental physical realities, that's not the fault of scientists.</i>"<br /><br />A clear tell for cognitive dissonance (IMO): you're trying to make this about me rather than you. Scott wasn't talking about facts. He was talking about credibility.<br /><br />You respond to his clear refusal to grant your arguments credibility by making more of them. This is pointless. You need to back up and look at it from his POV: your arguments are no more credible than those of your opponents.AKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10905636789614137068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-30517433944684788422016-12-09T07:48:15.620+00:002016-12-09T07:48:15.620+00:00@RobH..."Victor is clearly and directly addre...<br />@RobH..."Victor is clearly and directly addressing the issues at hand, both here and in his blog post above."<br /><br />Blogger AK said... IMO he isn't. He's taking things said in one language, framing them into another language, then addressing the nonsense that results. That's tantamount to a straw man.*<br />____________________________<br /><br />You are quite the hoot AK, plus you repeat yourself, although that wasn't really that cute or original a line. Besides, reviewing your first comment - all but your first item, most certainly do depend on a sober understanding, or at least appreciation of the scientific process. <br /><br />Don't tell me you advocate fairytale fringe of people who believe any lie they are handed?<br />After all your man Trump has shown us that a serial liar can be accepted by the masses. I'd suggest that tell us more about human failings, than it can about understanding what we are doing to our one and only planet.<br /><br />A good deal of your own verbiage tend towards slanderous accusations about scientists, be it character intent. You bring no evidence, simply self-certain insinuations.<br /><br />Back to your point about Dilbert, excuse me Adams, you AK are correct, it was not about the science. It was about how to craftily miscommunicate science and with vague insinuations dismiss the validity of a huge global community of experts. It was all about how to toss up a smoke screen to obscure serious constructive learning and understanding. It Trump come to prime time.<br /><br /> It's astounding and horrifying.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-73159057261476097402016-12-09T07:12:55.161+00:002016-12-09T07:12:55.161+00:00Jeff said: The response however, is basic human n...Jeff said: <i>The response however, is basic human nature. If the world is really on the verge of catastrophic and irreparable destruction,...<br /><br />Additionally, we've been bombarded with preposterous headlines and dire warnings for my entire adult life, none of which seem to have come to fruition (they may yet, obviously)"</i><br />_____________<br />I wonder Jeff, when's the last time you got up to date on what's happening to our oceans and glaciers and polar regions. (check out "UCTV Perspectives on Ocean Science" - a fantastic lecture series from the Birch Aquarium) Are you at all familiar with the havoc being caused by sea level rise and permafrost melting. Biodiversity, habitat loss, fertilizer driven ocean anoxic zones, and on and on.<br /><br />I'm 61, been attentively watching our world over my years, the loss and destruction is unfathomable, if you have the fortitude to look at it. If you ignore, sure, easy enough not to see, if you are lucky enough to be among the lucky ones, so far insulated from the creeping cancer out there.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-14940544546532343312016-12-09T06:54:00.747+00:002016-12-09T06:54:00.747+00:00To objection one - it's an example of science ...To objection one - it's an example of science by rhetoric, rather than focusing on the facts.<br />Distraction and slight of phrasing to draw the discussion away from where it needs to go.<br /><br /><b>As for this claim based on GW v CC - why can't that be short-circuited by the observation that Human produced Greenhouse Gases increases Earth's insulation - increased insulation causes global warming - global warming drives climate change." Simple, direct and absolutely accurate.</b><br /> Perhaps even has the making of a catchy chant, add a melody, who knows.<br /><br />It's about the Atmospheric insulation and all that.<br /><br />As for the claim - “It doesn't warm everywhere equally.” <br />What a cynical and completely childish dodge.<br /><br />Why would any sensible person consider our planet and expect or imagine this spinning complex of water, land, ice, atmosphere constantly churning and interacting with each other would warm uniformly? <br />It makes no sense. Why create such contrived fictions? Unless it’s a preconceived malicious plan with intent on misleading?<br /><br />The problem is that most people have absolutely no connection with our physical Earth anymore. Even less have any sort of deeper understanding and appreciation of the fantastic process of evolution unfolding one day at a time for the past four and half billion years, here on Earth.<br /><br />All this stuff equals our Environment - the thing Republicans have been allowed to turn into a curse word. Yet, and yet, it's our "environments that supply our life support systems and all we hold near and dear. Why is all that treated so shabbily by faith-based profits-driven Republicans leaders and rank'n file. <br /><br />http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/p/understanding-earth.htmlcitizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-70295154113925845932016-12-09T02:21:24.790+00:002016-12-09T02:21:24.790+00:00AK... I would suggest that's a nonsensical res...AK... I would suggest that's a nonsensical response. We're all speaking English here. There are not two languages here, lest Adams is framing in indecipherable metaphors.<br /><br />The scientific facts are facts. If you and Adams don't grasp these fundamental physical realities, that's not the fault of scientists. That's not scientists setting up straw men or engaging in cognitive dissonance. It's scientists presenting facts that are challenging for certain segments of society to process. What I see going on is a clear avoidance of the physical realities we face with climate change. And rather than attempt to even try to understand the science, you guys are wrapping yourself in a cocoon of rhetoric to avoid these facts. That is exactly what cognitive dissonance is.RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-36162890246113274942016-12-09T00:49:29.052+00:002016-12-09T00:49:29.052+00:00@RobH...
"Victor is clearly and directly add...@RobH...<br /><br />"<i>Victor is clearly and directly addressing the issues at hand, both here and in his blog post above.</i>"<br /><br />IMO he isn't. He's taking things said in one language, framing them into another language, then addressing the nonsense that results. That's tantamount to a straw man.*<br /><br />I've been asked to avoid the sort of clear language I usually use in discussing such behavior, and I'll do my best to be tactful. But the consistent refusal to even consider the fact that he's using such a straw man approach seems to me to justify Scott Adam's reference to cognitive dissonance. (Of course, AFAIK Scott didn't actually enter this blog for the discussion. Perhaps because he knew better than I did what a waste of time it would be.)<br /><br />I've made the point repeatedly, and it's been ignored repeatedly.<br /><br />Denial: it ain't just a river in Egypt.<br /><br /><b>*</b>I remember a (fictional) description of the behavior of Spanish clerics towards the literature of the New World civilizations:<br /><br />"<i>Which symbol is "A"? Which symbol is "B"?</i>" Then they put it all to the torch.AKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10905636789614137068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-51015917285435355042016-12-08T23:48:01.505+00:002016-12-08T23:48:01.505+00:00That's a bit of a copout, AK.
Victor is clea...That's a bit of a copout, AK. <br /><br />Victor is clearly and directly addressing the issues at hand, both here and in his blog post above. What always surprises me is the incapacity for people to adjust their position when presented with sufficient argument and evidence. <br /><br />Over the course of being actively involved in the climate change issue, over the past decade, I've frequently had to recheck myself and adjust my position to reflect the scientific evidence put before me. I've watched active scientists doing exactly the same. And in both directions; more warming/less warming. What I continually find is an inability to do the same coming from those who are predisposed to reject the science in the first place, such as you're doing here.<br /><br />I'm hard pressed for a good explanation as to why this is the case.RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.com