Greta backs off

[smash]

1 hour ago, Arpeggio said:

Same question for both of you.

and you.

Sorry upside down man what point are you making here? Mine was about our capacity to assert human volition, individualism.

[Arpeggio]

1 hour ago, Si1 said:

More than you.

Perhaps you can help then.

I'm on Chapter 3 > Methods, which refers to computer modelling used. The 2014 reference to the Climate Variability Diagnostic Package contains 3 dead links of importance. e.g. full set of CMIP5 models over the historical period 1900 – 2005 (dead ink) and CVDP applied to various multimodel archives, data openly available, stored in a community‐accessible online CVDP Data Repository (dead link).

https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/projects/cvdp was easy enough to find. It was funded enough by the NOAA to make that worth mentioning. Ignoring that the NOAA is corrupt, of the 7 inputs CVDP mentions, does it offset for the 11 year solar cycle and grand cycles over longer term?

For this paper: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/climate-change-2013-the-physical-science-basis/detection-and-attribution-of-climate-change-from-global-to-regional/65DC74F6CC010046013F64B586740470

Apart from the 3% of the 0.04% of CO2 produced by human activity, as far as I am aware there is still no further research on the production of NOx by lightning (one bolt produces the same amount as driving a car across the US East West 50 times) and that lightning in the tropics has not been accounted for, and neither has lighting that does not contact the ground (which also produces it).

You have to account for everything otherwise you are looking at a concept within a larger space made up of assumption. Even if not critical, you can't just sit with the original link, you need to look into the methodology and data input.

 

1 hour ago, Si1 said:

It's of a scope and breadth that is impossible to deal with. The summary for policy makers is probably the most accessible but. If you wanted to test its validity then I'd try to look up any serious criticisms of the IPCC or its peer reviewed reports. I'm not aware of any but I may be wrong.

This mentions the IPPC and NOAA

https://financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-finally-its-safe-for-the-whistleblowers-of-corrupted-climate-science-to-speak-out

 

3 hours ago, nightowl said:

99%+.  So when when consensus inflation kick in? Last I heard it was 97%. 😏

From above: "Likewise, a much heralded claim that 97 per cent of scientists believed the planet was overheating came from a 2008 master’s thesis by a student at the University of Illinois who obtained her results by conducting a survey of 10,257 earth scientists, then discarding the views of all but 77 of them. Of those 77 scientists, 75 thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produced the 97-per-cent figure that global warming activists then touted."

Aside from that, at the moment it seems their pièce de résistance is computer modelling.

12 minutes ago, smash said:

Sorry upside down man what point are you making here? Mine was about our capacity to assert human volition, individualism.

You are cute, I like you.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Arpeggio

[Smith]

Writing long-winded, pompous descriptions of science that are intended to make you sound cleverer than everyone else (but actually reveal the opposite) is what conspiracy theorists do. Most people who do this sincerely believe they're free thinkers doing their own research, but the reality is they're gullible idiots being drawn in to a world of b^^^sh^t. In the final analysis, my earlier point stands: if you believe there's no consensus within the scientific community about climate change then you're mistaken.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Smith

[nightowl]

3 hours ago, Smith said:

Writing long-winded, pompous descriptions of science that are intended to make you sound cleverer than everyone else (but actually reveal the opposite) is what conspiracy theorists do. Most people who do this sincerely believe they're free thinkers doing their own research, but the reality is they're gullible idiots being drawn in to a world of b^^^sh^t. In the final analysis, my earlier point stands: if you believe there's no consensus within the scientific community about climate change then you're mistaken.

So something as complex and a relative new science of long term climate has a whopping 97/99% consensus*....sounds fishy as you would expect more controversial opinions.

*Allowing for the 97% wasn't 97% anyway.

[Smith]

1 minute ago, nightowl said:

So something as complex and a relative new science of long term climate has a whopping 97/99% consensus*....sounds fishy as you would expect more controversial opinions.

*Allowing for the 97% wasn't 97% anyway.

You've given away how little you understand about science by using the word "opinion" here. Science is about data, not opinion. And if something is supported by the data then it has scientific consensus.

[nightowl]

5 minutes ago, Smith said:

You've given away how little you understand about science by using the word "opinion" here. Science is about data, not opinion. And if something is supported by the data then it has scientific consensus.

Your forgetting the most important data maybe the data you don't have.

In any case the interpretation of the data you have vs the data you don't is an opinion in the end.

Edited May 22, 2023 by nightowl

[Smith]

4 minutes ago, nightowl said:

Your forgetting the most important data maybe the data you don't have.

In any case the interpretation of the data you have vs the data you don't is an opinion in the end.

Scientists are free to gather data about anything they choose, which means most aspects of the problem will have been studied. These studies are then compiled into literature reviews which summarise our best understanding of a particular issue at a particular point in time. And at the moment, the data points overwhelmingly to climate change happening and being caused by human activities. Wishy washy statements about other data that might not have been collected don't change that.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

On 20/05/2023 at 11:47, Si1 said:

Fair enough

I knew we'd agree in the end Si1 😎

[Arpeggio]

10 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

does it offset for the 11 year solar cycle and grand cycles over longer term?

10 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

This mentions the IPPC and NOAA

https://financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-finally-its-safe-for-the-whistleblowers-of-corrupted-climate-science-to-speak-out

Quote: "starting with the very mandate of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which astonishingly ruled out factors like the sun as being worthy of investigation."

Maybe not then.

6 hours ago, Smith said:

Writing long-winded, pompous descriptions of science that are intended to make you sound cleverer than everyone else (but actually reveal the opposite) is what conspiracy theorists do.

Most of what you are calling long winded pompous descriptions were from the IPCC link.

6 hours ago, Smith said:

Most people who do this sincerely believe they're free thinkers doing their own research, but the reality is they're gullible idiots being drawn in to a world of b^^^sh^t. In the final analysis, my earlier point stands: if you believe there's no consensus within the scientific community about climate change then you're mistaken.

Someone who by the looks of it doesn't do any research, saying what constitutes free thinkers doing their own research.

[Smith]

1 hour ago, Arpeggio said:

Someone who by the looks of it doesn't do any research, saying what constitutes free thinkers doing their own research.

You're mistaken again. Actually, someone who does research in this area for a living.

[Smith]

This is why I piped up on this thread.

[Bob8]

30 minutes ago, Smith said:

This is why I piped up on this thread.

He is a loony. 

He has argued with people on this forum who have worked with viruses than viruses do not erally exist. He has implied thatICU nurses and doctors are all involved in a global conspiracy. 

Mad as a bag of frogs.

[Smith]

19 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

He is a loony. 

He has argued with people on this forum who have worked with viruses than viruses do not erally exist. He has implied thatICU nurses and doctors are all involved in a global conspiracy. 

Mad as a bag of frogs.

Unfortunately there's a lot of people getting drawn into these crazy ideas, and they mostly believe they're the clever ones and everyone else is ignorant. Oh, the irony!

[Arpeggio]

1 hour ago, Smith said:

You're mistaken again. Actually, someone who does research in this area for a living.

This is why I piped up on this thread.

It was already obvious you work in the field by how you called people cranks, repeat the same characterizations over and over again, then when asked how much of the IPCC report you had actually read and understood, your reply was just:

"You're the guy from the vaccine thread, yes? 'Nuff said."

Followed by interpreting IPCC as "writing long-winded, pompous descriptions of science" (because someone else used them?), with......more name calling.

Now on top of you changing the subject to vaccines, for which you get half a days teaching at medical school if you're lucky, we have.....

32 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

He is a loony. 

He has argued with people on this forum who have worked with viruses than viruses do not erally exist. He has implied thatICU nurses and doctors are all involved in a global conspiracy. 

Mad as a bag of frogs.

.....more name calling and further change of subject from someone who also "works in the industry", learnt how to spell "nucleic" at some point after Jan 2022, thinks plaque formation with no controls is evidence of a virus for which there is no purified sample anywhere in the world despite over 200 FOI requests.

and now seems to want to pick up the ball from page 144

or perhaps just.....

11 minutes ago, Smith said:

Unfortunately there's a lot of people getting drawn into these crazy ideas, and they mostly believe they're the clever ones and everyone else is ignorant. Oh, the irony!

.....more of the same.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Arpeggio

[Smith]

Just wanted to present the facts about there being a clear scientific consensus on climate change, in case anyone reading this thread believed differently, as it seems some did. Given that we now know, to the best of our knowledge, that climate change is real and man-made, we need to do something about it. And that can only happen when most people are on-board.

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, Smith said:

Just wanted to present the facts about there being a clear scientific consensus on climate change, in case anyone reading this thread believed differently, as it seems some did. Given that we now know, to the best of our knowledge, that climate change is real and man-made, we need to do something about it. And that can only happen when most people are on-board.

Ah, mate!

There was quite a list of people on the Covid thread who worked directly as medics, research scientists, vaccine development etc. The people were convinced there were all idiots who were also evil geniuses in a global conspiracy.

[nightowl]

3 hours ago, Smith said:

 to the best of our knowledge, that climate change is real and man-made, we need to do something about it.

Clearly your very passionate about your research, but is it people in your field's decision what should be done about it though? 

Do you ever step back to think that same drive and passion means it's harder to tell the wood from the trees?

[Smith]

30 minutes ago, nightowl said:

Clearly your very passionate about your research, but is it people in your field's decision what should be done about it though? 

Do you ever step back to think that same drive and passion means it's harder to tell the wood from the trees?

I very much enjoy what I do, but I'm not an environmentalist, my specialism is self deception and susceptibility to conspiracy theories. Vaccine hesitancy and climate change denial just happen to be the most obvious examples of this at the moment. It's a fascinating area and we certainly contribute to tackling misinformation, if not climate change itself. Biggest thing at the moment is teaching people how to deal with a family member or friend who's been lost to conspiracy theories.

[Bob8]

49 minutes ago, Smith said:

I very much enjoy what I do, but I'm not an environmentalist, my specialism is self deception and susceptibility to conspiracy theories. Vaccine hesitancy and climate change denial just happen to be the most obvious examples of this at the moment. It's a fascinating area and we certainly contribute to tackling misinformation, if not climate change itself. Biggest thing at the moment is teaching people how to deal with a family member or friend who's been lost to conspiracy theories.

This might be a well worn thing, I have been on here years and I think I see a few trends with them

1. Gullible people who think they are far savvier than average (I think that is well known?)
2. Do not get greyness. So the experts either know everything or are fully sorrupt and or stupid. The idea that the experts in the field are doing their best, better than the rest of us, but dealing with circumstances makes no sense. Like a child's view of grown ups.

3: Still do not get greyness. So, if they know about something, they know all of it. Rather than having a flawed  mental model, like we all have, they believe you know or do not know and they know.

4. Tend to be right wing Left wing politics builds in cultural influences, societal pressures etc. To a certain extent, this means there is inbuilt conspiracy in society. For right wing indivdualists, this is not there, so they cannot say "we live in a patriarcal capitalist system that values imposes structures", they have to believe in a conspiracy or it being perfectly natural (again, no grey).

5. If they do not understand a problem, it cannot exist.

6. Numbers 2, 5 and 6 mean they like strongman populist leaders (MAGA) as what is to be done is clearly simple and obvious.

Is there much in that?

 

[Bob8]

Just now, Bob8 said:

This might be a well worn thing, I have been on here years and I think I see a few trends with them

1. Gullible people who think they are far savvier than average (I think that is well known?)
2. Do not get greyness. So the experts either know everything or are fully sorrupt and or stupid. The idea that the experts in the field are doing their best, better than the rest of us, but dealing with circumstances makes no sense. Like a child's view of grown ups.

3: Still do not get greyness. So, if they know about something, they know all of it. Rather than having a flawed  mental model, like we all have, they believe you know or do not know and they know.

4. Tend to be right wing Left wing politics builds in cultural influences, societal pressures etc. To a certain extent, this means there is inbuilt conspiracy in society. For right wing indivdualists, this is not there, so they cannot say "we live in a patriarcal capitalist system that values imposes structures", they have to believe in a conspiracy or it being perfectly natural (again, no grey).

5. If they do not understand a problem, it cannot exist.

6. Numbers 2, 5 and 6 mean they like strongman populist leaders (MAGA) as what is to be done is clearly simple and obvious.

Is there much in that?

 

Ah! And

7. ego mania. When something affects them (Covid) it must be a conspiracy. The diseases that did not affect them are not a conspiracy. It must be about them, their lives cannot be overturned like extras or NPCs in someone else's story.w

[Smith]

25 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

This might be a well worn thing, I have been on here years and I think I see a few trends with them

1. Gullible people who think they are far savvier than average (I think that is well known?)
2. Do not get greyness. So the experts either know everything or are fully sorrupt and or stupid. The idea that the experts in the field are doing their best, better than the rest of us, but dealing with circumstances makes no sense. Like a child's view of grown ups.

3: Still do not get greyness. So, if they know about something, they know all of it. Rather than having a flawed  mental model, like we all have, they believe you know or do not know and they know.

4. Tend to be right wing Left wing politics builds in cultural influences, societal pressures etc. To a certain extent, this means there is inbuilt conspiracy in society. For right wing indivdualists, this is not there, so they cannot say "we live in a patriarcal capitalist system that values imposes structures", they have to believe in a conspiracy or it being perfectly natural (again, no grey).

5. If they do not understand a problem, it cannot exist.

6. Numbers 2, 5 and 6 mean they like strongman populist leaders (MAGA) as what is to be done is clearly simple and obvious.

Is there much in that?

 

Yes, your observations are very much along the lines of our research. There's an inverse correlation between conspiracy thinking and cognitive ability, as you'd expect. And also a high correlation with the need to be unique, such that once conspiracy theories become too popular, the most conspiracy minded will often take it a step further, to become unique again. This might explain why QAnon has become so outlandish. There's also a big social aspect to membership of a particular conspiracy, and often posting or sharing conspiracy related content on social media is more about wanting to come across as a certain sort of person, rather than anything to do with believing it.

I particularly like your emphasis on not being able to deal with greys. As you say, there's a childlike quality to the simplicity of believing in everything having some special meaning and being part of some grand plan. It's almost reassuring, like religion. Much harder to accept that things can just happen randomly, and that the choices we make with things like vaccines are always a compromise.

For what it's worth, my experience of dealing with scientists is they mostly have a strong social conscience and are doing their best to contribute to our understanding of the world and do the right thing. This notion of the evil scientist working for some corporation or government conspiracy seems very far from the reality.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Smith

[Bob8]

1 minute ago, Smith said:

Yes, your observations are very much along the lines of our research. There's an inverse correlation between conspiracy thinking and cognitive ability, as you'd expect. And also a high correlation with the need to be unique, such that once conspiracy theories become too popular, the most conspiracy minded will often take it a step further, to become unique again. This might explain why QAnon has become so outlandish. There's also a big social aspect to membership of a particular conspiracy, and often posting or sharing conspiracy related content on social media is more about wanting to come across as a certain sort of person, rather than anything to do with believing it.

I particularly like your emphasis on not being able to deal with greys. As you say, there's a childlike quality to the simplicity of believing in everything having some special meaning and being part of some grand plan. It's almost reassuring, like religion. Much harder to accept that things can just happen randomly, and that the choices we make with things like vaccines are always a compromise.

For what it's worth, my experience of dealing with scientists is they mostly have a string social conscience and are doing their best to contribute to our understanding of the world and do the right thing. This notion of the evil scientist working for some corporation or government conspiracy seems very far from the reality.

I had not assumed a link between conspiracy theories and lack of cognative ability. I had thought of them like libertarians (who do seem to be lisghtly smarter than average), not being as clever as they think they are because no-one is that clever.

I will pick slightly on your reference to religion. Most religions are able to deal in grey, that you fate is not really in your hands and random stuff happens. Any good Jesuit or Buddhist will tell you to accept that and rejoice.

---------------------

Regarding science, I realised I would not be a top rank scientist, as I did not care that much about science compared to many of my peers. I went home and read literature, they read more science. I had a good scientific brain, but used it when paid to. The ones that last tend to have a passion for the subject. They can be spectacularly wrong headed and even go bonkers on drugs, but there is a genuine passion for truth. Bitterness is the only enemy.

Thomas Sowell and Candance Owens make a fortune reassuring racist white people they are not racist and are right to be racist. There are many scientists who could make a fortune in creation science. That none do is impressive!

[Bob8]

Also, back to the cognative ability thing.

I have met bright conspiracy theorists. They were not as smart as they thought, and had also hit the bitter stage in life of having to explain why they were not as successful as they thought.

Is being thick a direct contributor to being a conspiracy theorist, or does it lead to being less successful in life. Being less sucessful than you feel entitled to be can be athe real cause.

Me working this out...

[Smith]

8 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Also, back to the cognative ability thing.

I have met bright conspiracy theorists. They were not as smart as they thought, and had also hit the bitter stage in life of having to explain why they were not as successful as they thought.

Is being thick a direct contributor to being a conspiracy theorist, or does it lead to being less successful in life. Being less sucessful than you feel entitled to be can be athe real cause.

Me working this out...

Funnily enough, I was talking to a researcher the other day who's working on a theory that people who are slightly more intelligent than their peers (e.g., someone working in a manual job who's seen as the clever one) are prone to conspiracy thinking because it maintains their sense of identity as the clever one in that group.

You have to bear in mind that the inverse correlation with cognitive ability will have been found in a study conducted with the sort of people who put themselves forward to take part in scientific studies. That's not likely to include those of very low cognitive ability, so that lines up with the above.

[captainb]

21 minutes ago, Smith said:

Funnily enough, I was talking to a researcher the other day who's working on a theory that people who are slightly more intelligent than their peers (e.g., someone working in a manual job who's seen as the clever one) are prone to conspiracy thinking because it maintains their sense of identity as the clever one in that group.

You have to bear in mind that the inverse correlation with cognitive ability will have been found in a study conducted with the sort of people who put themselves forward to take part in scientific studies. That's not likely to include those of very low cognitive ability, so that lines up with the above.

Surely there's a narsasistic syndrome in there somewhere as well. The thought that only "I or me" can see through and desire for associated attention.

 

It's the lack of look back that gets me. The whole trump won't leave quickly followed by the vaccines will kill (nearly) everyone; as time passes and neither occur there isn't any feedback loop that maybe just maybe I was wrong.