Lies and misinformation of the deniers

Sorry but since when was being well read, erudite and intelligent a crime



Oh! That is right! Since the republicans decided dumb was best and elected GW to prove it

 

Al Gore? Politician and showman, yes. Intellectual, not so much.

 

I think Bower was refering to "AGW Propagandists" as ptif calls them rather than Gore in particular ... the only people who ever talk about Gore seem to be the denialists these days.

 

It never was a crime, Bowerbird. And, President Bush was intelligent, erudite, well-read and a stark contrast to Al Gore and Barack Obama. In all fairness, I think Al Gore is mentally ill and not responsible. President Obama is certainly responsible. Stupid, but responsible.

 

Gore is a whacko that lies and deceives as we know his movie did.

He now wants to stop a pipeline. He needs to stop speaking and count his millions he made from his lies

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busine...+stop+TransCanada+pipeline/5340030/story.html

 

Wrong he puts himself in the news

 

in what context?

for example, on this issue Bush was quite clearly either ignorant or allowing the fossil fuel industry to determine what his policy would be. Although, interestingly he personally chose "green" options for his own home.

 

do you have some links?

I have not seen Gore mentioned in the major British, European or Australian news services in years - except in passing.

 

I did give a link

 

ok - missed that one, but the calgary herald does not have a very wide reach.

I would be thinking that you saying he is "always putting himself in the news" would mean that he was making global headlines.

 

I think the global news has caught on that AlGore isn't enough of a head line any more.

Have you seen his talk on ted.com.

 

I have never been interested in Algore. my daughter saw his movie and pointed out seven items that she considered to be inaccurate, and therefore my conclusion was that the film would invite criticism. Despite the fanfare and hoo ha ... I thought it would just feed the politicising of the issue.

But none of that changes the fact that AGW is real, and is happening, and we should be looking at how we can chnage our behaviours to minimise the impact it will have on future generations - and life on this planet.

we know that even if people in the US don't think its happening, animals (who don't read newspapers and didn't see his movie) are behaving as if the earth is warming.

that should tell us it is not political.

 

I was certainly referring to the "AGW propagandists" most of whom are intelligent, erudite and well read

As opposed to denialists who seem to rarely have even a basic tertiary education, which in itself is NOT a crime, but also, and more (*)(*)(*)(*)ingly do not seem to know how to discriminate between fact and fiction

 

many people I come across in the real world do not have a tertiary education, but are smart enough to recognise that scientists are a better source of information on scientific issues than spin doctors are.

I think not just a lack of tertiary education, but a certain type world view which comprises a deeply suspicious nature, combined with a fearful disposition and slavish worship of those who have money, is required for most AGW deniers.

those who do have a "tertiary education" are usually concentrated in engineering, statistics and commerce - but are relatively rare

 

Many MMGW propagandist would rather jump out of the plane without a parachute (cancel all CO2 generation with no cost effective replacement) that stay in a plane that may run out of fuel in 10 hours. And, they insist everyone else in the plane must join them, otherwise they are a "denier".

Some of the deniers may not fully understand how the details of fuel consumption associated with altitude, tail winds, and air fuel ratio. But the understand what jumping out of a plane without a parachute means (they remember the summer of $5 gasoline, and that it's impact extended beyond gasoline to the price of food and other commodities).

Some of us do understand the "science", and realize if climate models were as good as they say they were, casinos would be losing money hand over fist by models for roulette and craps.

To quote a section from the Tao:

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"​

The propagandist are feared and despised. They would rather run around screaming the sky is falling, blaming every weather event on CO2. Their only solution is pricing energy so high, the result is poverty.

Join those that are working on invisible solutions, cost effective, that use the same infrastructure (methane ice, biofuel from algae, home based co-generation, etc.) and people will embrace the solution with joy, not out of guilt.

More importantly, China and India will adopt those solutions, and the third world will have abundant energy, and can join the first (the difference between the 3rd and 1st world isn't intelligence, it is productivity, there is a limit to human powered productivity, almost no limit to energy powered productivity)

Your choice, I have made mine.

 

Natural climate change is real

 

You are talking about extremes. I've never met anybody who believed in AGW and also thought we should 'cancel all CO2 generation with no cost effective replacement'. That is an extremist view. Like anything, AGW should be tackled sensibly and rationally.

 

this is pure spin, and does not at all reflect the arguments presented.

IN using this argument, you reveal yourself as a "soft" denialist.

 

and????

what has that got to do with what we are talking about?

 

The inability to "discriminate between fact and fiction" or to distinguish valid scientific sources from "spin doctor" BS on blogs is a big part of the denier cult mentality. I found this material to be very valuable in understanding this behavior.

Dunning–Kruger effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"


It is well worth reading this whole article, if only to get the concept of 'Fremdschämen', a word describing an emotion that I often feel when debating denier cultist on the issue of global warming/climate change, but here are a few short excerpts that seem very pertinent to the debate on this forum.

When Ignorance Begets Confidence: The Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect
by Daniel R. Hawes
Psychology Today
(excerpts)

The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias in which people perform poorly on a task, but lack the meta-cognitive capacity to properly evaluate their performance. As a result, such people remain unaware of their incompetence and accordingly fail to take any self-improvement measures that might rid them of their incompetence.

"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."

Not surprisingly, an easy way of providing top students in the Dunning Kruger study a perspective on the true exceptionality of their performance was to simply show them some samples of other people's answers. Given these students general ability to discern a good from a poor performance, such comparison opportunities were sufficient for high performing students to revise their self-assessments and rate temselves more accurately.

Quite notably, providing poor students with sample answers of their better performing peers did nothing to improve their relative self-assessment. In line with Dunning and Kruger's hypothesis, poor performing students seemed to lack the ability to identify other student's answers as superior to their own, and therefore were unable to use this information as a benchmark for re-evaluating their own relative performance.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

We have natural climate change that has been happening as far back as anyone can go.

If we could take out all man made CO2 would warming stop? Would earth cool?

Show proof

 

and ????

what has this got to do with what we are talking about?

WRT whether the current warming trend would stop, no - not in the short term. there is a lag time of about fifty years.

It is possible that we would be experiencing a warming trend currently in any case, however what scientists know is that the current trend is more rapid than a naturally occuring cycle.

would the earth cool?

most likely in a few thousand years it will anyway - and the current warming may bring that cooling forward - but most likely not for a long time - so you won't need to worry about it.

proof?

I'd like to see proof that you are familiar with the arguments both for and against AGW.

 

Remove all the man made CO2, not stop making CO2, stop and remove what man added, and the earth still warm. Leave any CO2 in, and it warms faster.

Sounds like jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and filling balloons with CO2 as you fall.

If not, show me "the plan":

Costs for CO2 neutral power to replace fossil fuels. Is the cost low enough to be readily adopted by China and India, by 3rd world countries. Is there a path to global "1st world"?
Costs to sequester CO2
Timelines for both
Temperature increase slopes
Peak temperatures
Temperature fall off slopes
Does it get warm enough to release methane trapped in permafrost? If so, the effect
Does the ocean warm enough to start melting methane hydrates? If so, the effect.​

Or, is the only solution to "save the planet", for the planet to be perpetually trapped in pre-industrial surfdom, with environmentalist the new clergy elite?

 

why do you assume that the solution is "pre industrial serfdom?" (or did you really mean surfdom and have this vision of th eendless summer, with nobody doing anything but wax their boards all day?)

 

This effect is hugely exacerbated when as much competition as possible is eliminated from an education.

Stupidity works really well for rule by the elite.

If you look at the employment rate by education level, stupidity doesn't work at all in free market capitalism. Especially, when you are competing on a global level for unskilled labor positions.

As far as applying the Dunning-Kruger effect to this debate. There is also the another obscure bias called "the grass is greener". The past was better, the future will be better, today sucks and it is the other guys fault (that would be the Dunning-Kruger effect).

There is also a beneficial aspect to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Look at how many entrepreneurs have Harvard MBA's, and how many didn't complete college. A lot gets done by those too stupid to know it can't be done.

Read up on the Wright Brothers. They gave up on powered flight until they went to a conference of flight attended by many scientist. They were energized by finding out how much more they knew. They also created the first wind tunnel, and modified it to compare lift to drag directly. They built a light weight engine (power to weight gain of over 50 from "state of the art". The conventional wisdom was a propeller needed to be like a boat prop. They used their wind tunnel to design a 85% efficient prop, today, we get 92%.

Back to your point. Now you have "Dunning-Kruger effect" to add to "denier". Makes for nice talking points, but not much else.