- Apologies this is a big long, but I am beginning to tie a number of recent things mentioned here together : Irrational feelings of certainty, The Mad Mann at TAM, Warmists SHOUTERS of "Denier & "Anti- Science"
- This feeling of Certainty that warmists SHOUTERS have
- 1. My own feeling is that you never trust anyone who is black and white certain about complex issues
- Robert Burtons book : on-being-certain Even if you are wrong When You're Not - shows the same thing that rather than be rational, this feeling of certainty come from an optical illusion like effect on the brain, and might be just a direct link to a fear emotion (that that sound could be a tiger so you'd better believe it.)
- This name calling and anger comes from (a). they haven't processed any logic so they have no immediate logical comeback (b) They seem to consistantly just subconciously PROJECT their own faults back onto other. In this particular instance they are denying so many things, like that isn't CAGW is proven etc.
- This feeds into the human habit of post justifying something rather that admit they haven't done a full analysis they appeal to authority
- This ties into the convenient misbelief that "published in a peer reviewed paper"= PROVED when we know peer review is just the first stage of the process and for various reasons science today is riddled with systematic biases * (although we love science) so most published science doesn't stand the test of time.
- which ties into Shouters saying "ANTI-SCIENCE" again another form of projection (when they themselves say things like "I know this works, I just NEED to get a grant to PROVE it")
- this ties into Mann's Hockey stick graph which breaks 2 logic rules (a) It breaks the too good to be true rule" (b) it is far too smooth to look like real data
- Then this links into Michael Mann creator of the first big FIRST DENIAL that provoked the birth of so many skeptics : The Mann denial that the Medieval warm period didn't exist. That meant Mann created deniers, cos once he smoothed out the Medieval Warm Period everyone who conformed to the established view that even exist in IPCC reports (1991-2001) could be labelled a denier.
- This then feeds back into Mann shouting "denier" & "Anti-science" this again is projection cos you don't get much more anti-science than Mann's skullduggery
- This ties into another common fallacy : that of "the false dichotomy" : dividing complex full colour arguments into simple black and whites sides : and then "since my side is right" so Mann can label anyone who won't conform to his ideas a DENIER and claim a win : So I can be labelled a denier , what about Judith Curry ? James Lovelock ? The Telegraph ? Easy to Mann it's simple anyone doesn't confirm and conform is a denier.
- This strange dichotomy idea ties into being PARTISAN : when anyone talks down an IPCC predictions they shout denier, but when people deny IPCC predictions by HYPING more extremes they are never called deniers. Shouters either add to the hype by publishing and retweeting or at the very least do nothing.
- This ties in with CENSORSHIP : the tradition of warmists saying :"We never debate a denier", "and deniers should be kept off the public TV etc."
- Oh another tie in : The huge finance and paid professional PR staffed machine of the multinational-eco charitities, where Projection raises it head again with the shout of "Big Oil
- Then this ties into Mann being invited to TAM (the home of U.S. Skeptics who are not skeptical, cos they also jumped to certainty with full analysis as if they had become members of the
the Cult OF Gore )
- This ties into to Dowsing : Mann's models are the equivalent of Dowsing, failing to predict the climate better than chance... and there is a million dollar prize available fom TAM organiser JREF to anyone who can prove their pseudioscience works.
("It works, it works !" shout the Eco-dowsers .."pay for the war on CO2 now !"
See how it's like dowsing :
They have a theory
They have years of correlation 1977-1998
is correlation proof of causation ?
They DENY that their run from 1977-98 might have been a lucky streak
- but since 1998 have the IPCC predictions of climate for the last 15 years any better than chance ?
- If not should we buy it any more than we should buy any other form of dowsing or clairvoyance ?
- Then this ties back into the principle of REAL SKEPTICS that things are only proved when prediction models have PROPERLY been repeatedly tested in the real world , so until then it certainly OK to say "I don't know, it's so freakin complex", and avoid jumping to unjustified certainty
- Which ties into me saying I cannot tell who is right, but I can tell who is PROBABLY wrong
The warmists shouters on forums don't have a good argument technique : they get angry resort to derogatory name calling, when you make 20 good points they only try to scratch a refute on one of them preferring to namecall and pick up spurious issues which divert the discussion as 4 warmist people make 40 derailing posts as the try to to skittle the debate.
- This ties into warminst shouting "trolling" which is another form of projection.
- If the shouters were right they wouldn't be shouting and namecalling, there would be the slow, polite thorough point by point rebuttall you get on skeptical blogs ..LIKE At Bishop Hill