The IPCC and the herd mentality

Climate etc has a nice piece on the 97% mentality and the AGW hysteria. As usual Dr Curry makes a lot of sense. It is a very worthwhile read and completley applicable to the current shoddy "science" promoted by the IPCC and the AGW herd

http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/25/groups-and-herds-implications-for-the-ipcc/

She starts with some quotes fro a Harvard Business review piece. Here is an excerpt

https://hbr.org/2014/11/making-dumb-groups-smarter

As a result of informational signals and reputational pressures, groups run into four separate though interrelated problems. When they make poor or self-destructive decisions, one or more of these problems are usually to blame:

Groups do not merely fail to correct the errors of their members; they amplify them.
They fall victim to cascade effects, as group members follow the statements and actions of those who spoke or acted first.
They become polarized, taking up positions more extreme than those they held before deliberations.
They focus on what everybody knows already—and thus don’t take into account critical information that only one or a few people have.

If most members of a group tend to make certain errors, then most people will see others making the same errors. What they see serves as “proof” of erroneous beliefs. Reputational pressures play a complementary role: If most members of the group make errors, others may make them simply to avoid seeming disagreeable or foolish.

this reminded me of an old saying about committees "the effectiveness of a meeting is inversely proportional to the number of people composing the committee" Most great discoveries have always been made by skeptics acting alone or in small numbers and shunned by the herd. Galileo would be a prime example. This just reenforces the old saying consensus is not science and science is not consensus

 

Sorry about our avatars matching Jack, consider imitation the sincerest form of flattery, I really liked yours so I began using it in a few places and hadn't bumped into you until now.

Not the language among the herdthinkers when things don't work out as they intended. The faux surprise that the world doesn't match their models is classic.

Oh my yes..how puzzling...I so poorly understand climate that when I find things telling me I know even less than I imagine, told my grant funders or present to the public, it becomes quite the puzzle. Well..if you aren't actually a scientist always testing, refining and matching your hypothesis to actual results anyway, the ones actually doing SCIENCE and who understand the process don't tend to get their weenie caught in their zipper.


"Antarctica's ice paradox has yet another puzzling layer. Not only is the amount of sea ice increasing each year, but an underwater robot now shows the ice is also much thicker than was previously thought, a new study reports."

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...ling-find-antarctic-sea-ice-thickness-n255211

 

I am just a armchair scientist myself but I find the world a fascinating place and try and learn something new everyday. If what I know was compared to what I do not know it would not amount to a grain of sand in the Sahara. But I do know that the first clue that AGW is a scam is when they say "the science is settled" the second is when they try and pass off consensus as science

 

Much as the climate deniers would like it to be different, consensus in science increases because the data converges, not because of peer pressure like in a fraternity or religious cult. I am continually fascinated at how certain groups of people continually try to project every sort of insecurity shortcoming and dishonesty on the people supporting things they oppose instead of actually addressing the issue at hand.

Someone must have spent numerous minutes perusing a freshman psychology text to come up with this one.

 

What evidence do you have that the data has converged? The IPCC climate sensitivity hasn't changed.

 

Actually, it has. It has decreased from previous IPCC reports, mainly because the data (observational science and computer modeling) is not converging.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I am sure you are much smarter than scientists in the field.

 

The excerpt I quoted was from Making Dumb Groups Smarter the authors were were Cass Sunstein an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.[2] For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School.[3] Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor[4] and Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

and Reid Hastie - He has taught at Harvard University, Northwestern University, and the University of Colorado where he was director of the Center for Research and Judgment Policy.

Hastie has served on review panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Research Council, and on 18 professional journal editorial boards. His research was funded continuously by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health from 1975 to 2005. He has published more than 100 articles in scientific journals, including Psychological Review, Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Science, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Developmental Psychology, and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Hastie earned a bachelor's degree in Psychology from Stanford University in 1968, a master's degree in Psychology from the University of California at San Diego in 1970, and a PhD in Psychology from Yale University in 1973. He joined the Chicago Booth faculty in 2001.

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/directory/h/reid-hastie

man that was easy

 

That is a better "scientific" attitude than some I have worked with professionally. You would be kicked out of climate science, should you dare and try and enter with such an attitude.

Those are pretty strong clues, aren't they? I never thought about it all that hard until I began asking serious questions about scientists altering historical data to "create" warning in the US. Then I went through the paper that did it, and was absolutely floored that such a thing could happen without the same kind of quality control I have been subjected to over the years. Exactly to PREVENT the "corrections" themselves becoming the entire conclusion, which is what happened in the case of Hansen there in the late 90's. It was just amazing, that the correction itself manufactured a warming profile, and without a single by your leave at any professional statistical review. Such a review would have done the same thing to them that has been done to me, that is, they would have examined and required the proper quantification of the uncertainty in the aggregations, correlations and assumptions to determine if the correction itself was even valid, let alone significant.

I was just floored when it became apparent that all of that was just sidestepped, the correction created the trend, and this appeared to accelerate straight to "truth" without so much as a by your leave from the appropriate experts. Since then, suspicions abound!

 

For reasons of ? the debate over the effect of increasing Carbon levels in our home planet atmosphere has changed to global warming and now climate change.

None have yet mentioned planet Earth sits in space and can be best seen by the experiment of starting a culture in a test tube, where it will thrive even when corked so long as the recycling is held good it will live, however when that fails all dies. That is the situation we are in now on this our planet Earth!

 

What..exactly...do you mean? CO2 levels in our planet's atmosphere have varied widely over the 4 billion years or so that the planet has been in existence, and have normally been quite a bit higher over the past...say...600 million years. Currently they are historically low levels.



All along the way, climate has been changing. Just as it did going into the MWP, or going into the LIA, or coming out of the LIA.

The end of your life is certain. The timing of that end, is not. The earth is no different. It requires humans to get all worried and their panties in a twist when something changes on some small sample size or small time scale, and worse yet, pretending that everything in the world revolves around THEM. It doesn't. The planet was busy warming and cooling before humans ever came along, was doing it before we invented the steam engine or coal fired powerplants, and will be continuing to warm and cool long after you, I, everyone we know, our descendants, and their descendants, are dead and gone.

Relax. Accept your insignificance in the universe. You'll be a happier person for coming to that realization.

 

Simply put warmmongers like all catastrophis can't stand the idea that they are going to die and life will go on.

It's actually comforting for them to believe that when they die it will be the end of everything.

 

[video=youtube;bU1QPtOZQZU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU1QPtOZQZU[/video]

 

Sure, the Earth has had far higher levels of CO2 and far higher temperatures in the past but not when humans were around. It also had far lower temperatures and far higher oxygen levels. In fact almost all of the Earths past climates would have been completely fatal to humans.

The cognitive dissonance necessary to think that just because the Earth went thought these climatic changes in its far past, puny humans could not possibly do anything to change the climate over a century seems logical but is quite convoluted when science comes into it. Many of the previous climatic changes on Earth have been scientifically determined to be caused by specific natural influences, none of which have occurred over the past century or so to explain the current rapid change in climate trends.

Now for the joke.
Past climate conditions, the very ones that climate change deniers present as evidence that the current climate science is wrong, are a result of the very same scientific consensus that they deny when it is about current climate trends.

Personally, I could care less because I will be dead. I am however concerned about the future of the human race because the data continues to indicate a slow but inevitable catastrophe for humanity since the 1970s when the first long term predictions of what would happen to the climate if we continued on the path we were on were made public. Every one of the predictions I read about over 40 years ago has come true which makes me glad that I will not be around for a future that is nothing but a slowly building worldwide catastrophe that can be ignored for now but, as time goes on will become ever more apparent and ever more catastrophic until it is far to late to fix.

Argue and fight against climate change all you want because you are all about freedom and liberty and anyone who talks about you making any sort of sacrifice now, like paying more taxes or being forced to buy a more fuel efficient car to save the planet from climate change is just trying to pick your pocket or forcing you to choose against your will. You do not know the masters you serve and if you think for even a minute that their interests are aligned with yours you are the fool, especially if you expect your family line to continue for more than a few generations.

 

I wonder how the herd will change since Hansen will be retiring?

 

And that is important to the planet, going about its business, how? You see, by only examining the climate from the human perspective, you take the planet doing what the planet does...personally. When it is just business as usual to the planet. You aren't SPECIAL...your species isn't SPECIAL. We aren't even the first species that can be claimed to doing things to change the global climate...once upon a time there was a fern..and it was the most fearsome planet changing biologic the planet has ever seen. Us humans? So far..utterly insignificant. Look up Azolla Event and get back with us.

I said nothing of the sort. I only provided obvious evidence that doesn't tend to line up with preconceived AGW dogma. Just because I don't agree with what some consider the conclusions of "climate science" doesn't mean I am either a denier, or buy into some strawman you wish to assemble and then assign to me.

Please. People have been claiming far more than just warming over the years.

Hat tip to jackdog for providing this one. Try and understand the history of how long this has been going on, before pretending that only the fear meme since the 70's matters.

http://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/

Then your reading was extremely selective. I recommend more reading. Start here for example, and let us know how many of these earth day predictions came true in the 40 years since you've been watching.

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/13-worst-predictions-made-earth-day-1970

 

Not at all Schmidt took over and he is more of a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) than Hansen.

 

That's right. This is old news, isn't it.

Isn't Schmidt the creator of RealClimate?

Why do they let activists run the asylum?

 

No Dr. Mann is the creator of realclimate. Schmidt is just the most active blogger.

Over the years it has seemed that Dr. Schmidt is payed by the taxpayer to blog.

When questions about the time stamps of dr. Schmidt ' posts were raised with concerns that all most post seem to be when he should be working for the taxpayers action was quick and decisive. Realclimate removed all time stamps from all posts.

 

When God buried the Carbon man evolved, now we dig it up and release it again, however vested interests lay claim God got it wrong by burying the Carbon, he did not need too for human life to evolve, oh silly God for not listening to them!

 

Real Climate is owned by Environmental Media Services

http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org

If you’ve ever been advised to steer clear of a food, beverage, or other consumer product based on the claims of a nonprofit organization, you’ve likely been “spun” by Fenton’s multi-million-dollar message machine — and Environmental Media Services (EMS) has probably been the messenger.

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994.

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/110-environmental-media-services/

follow the money boys and girls, that is what it is all about. Do some looking into Fenton, half the journalists in the world are in their pockets and they make millions each year on alarmist press releases with little regard to facts

 

Not a bit.

What's interesting is how your cult mentality made you think it would matter. Since you and your cult fixate on specific people instead of the science, you assume everyone else has to think just like yourself. We talk about the data; you rave about Hansen and Schimdt and Mann and Gore, the people that your cult has defined as demon-figures.

I'm also enjoying the irony of watching the deniers all bleating in unison about how the other side has a herd mentality.

 

Having been there when scientists retire, and seeing the sea change in thinking that then followed when a single, strong personality with closely held beliefs walks away, it isn't just plausible, but I have personally seen it happen twice.

Hansen literally CREATED U.S. warming profiles by making darn sure to "correct" data. If a scientist in the organization even dares to test the statistical aggregations Hansen made to manufacture this result, I can promise that most certainly, the perspective of a, or ANY honest organization will change.

52 excuses for why temperature models have been wrong is NOT following the data, let alone REALITY, it is trying to rationalize failed models. Focusing on the HISTORY of why scientists, particular scientists, began to focus on models that they most likely knew were wrong is a perfectly valid question when examining the history of why they politicized science and turned it into something other than a search for the truth.

 

The sheep always follow the goat!

 

Really so it was a skeptic who came up with the phrase 'science advances one funeral at a time'.

 

That would work if it not that 187 countries and a vast majority of scientists across an enormously diverse field of science were in agreement

The very vocal few not in agreement cannot seem to agree on WHAT they are not in agreement about