Hello All,
I have taken a step back from this debate for a week or so because I have become interested in the direction it has been taking. The fact that AGW alarmists have resorted to concentrating on marginal issues simply indicates their reluctance to even acknowledge, let alone face, some fairly basic facts.
Global temperatures (gt) have risen overall since c1850. They rose reasonably sharply between 1960 and 2000 and have generally decreased since then. This means that the total warming has been around 0.7 deg C since c1850, or appx 0.45 deg/century (HadCRUT3). On this evidence, the fact that the entire AGW hype is predicated on the theory that increased CO2 equals increased gt leads to only a couple of possible conclusions: either the theory is wrong or there are other factors involved which are powerful enough to deflect the theory in practice. Certain posters here like to deride sceptical views that ‘Global Warming never existed but now they’ve change their minds’ but I don’t know of any sceptics on this forum who deny the warming in the late 20th C. I do, however, know a few people who deny the recent ‘non-warming’. As far as I can judge, most sceptics simply doubt that the reason for the warming is predominantly anthropogenic. Whether you want to call the recent gt data ‘cooling’ or not is irrelevant. The temperature has stopped rising whilst the CO2 has continued to rise. I apologise if this has been repeated but it is undeniable. To claim that the warming ‘is in the post’ is a prevarication.
What the AGW alarmists fail to do is to ask themselves questions about other possibilities before they deride an alternative theory. The fact that they are trying to steer this discussion away from basics and towards fringe issues is indicative of their anxiety about the veracity of the original theory. The Hockey stick graph, the method by which the AGW hype was sold to a gullible world by a cynical media and some frankly pusillanimous scientists, implied the temperature would increase at an accelerating rate (something which Bored Wombat has re-iterated several times). The media-driven world (with the exception of a few) expected the temperature to just keep on going. I wonder what would happen to the media coverage if the graph line were now to be extrapolated using the last ten years of data?
When faced with some disappointing facts re global temperature recently, the AGW alarmists glibly blame ‘natural variability’ and forces of nature such as the El Nino/Nina phenomenon – even 10 years after the event. This implies an acceptance that natural forces have greater impact than anthropogenic factors. The logical conclusion of this implication is that the warming of the late-20th C may have been mainly due to natural factors, with anthropogenic factors merely contributing. Unfortunately, this conclusion doesn’t sell newspapers or TV pseudo-scientific documentaries (5% science and 95% pictures with dramatic music). Sadly, it appears that the scientific elite has not seen fit to calm the media hype. This is indeed – in my humble opinion - a disappointing time for the integrity of Science.
Going back to the point of this debate’s direction lately, it seems to me that a ‘groupthink’ mentality has become manifest in the AGW camp.
Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimise conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking.
Groupthink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:
‘A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.’
Symptoms of groupthink include: (see if you can spot some similarities here…)
1. ‘Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.’
2. ‘Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.’ (This one is definitely for Robert Northup – to quote his post of 25 Sep 08 at 0616 am: “They often have a chip on their shoulder, and feel resentment toward intellectuals, in the false belief that those intellectuals feel superiority and contempt toward them. They are virtually always males, nearly always without sexual partners, and they are typically college dropouts.”)
3. ‘Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.’
Measures taken in order to prevent groupthink include:
1. ‘All effective alternatives should be examined.’
2. ‘The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.’
It occurs to me that the peer-review process - so often quoted by AGW alarmists on this forum - would benefit from adopting the latter measure!
But, maybe I can’t be right because I haven’t been peer-reviewed…
Linear Mode
