Question for outsider : Surely the coverage by the Royal Geographical Society on it's websites is biased beyond belief ?
| |
All these recent things like BBC, RGS censoring, Singh's and trolls mindsets led me into trying to disect the warmist psychology, cos they clearly weren't using reasoning. In debates they cvouldn't answer straight questions, and their own argunents quickly fell apart.
I drew parallels with the pyramid scam True Believers
| Psychology of Climate belief/dis-belief."
|
As I try to help people stay out of Telexfree pyramid scheme I see some strange psychological effects. They maybe well known to psychologists, but I don't know what they call them. Rather than use pure reason people are skewed by thinking biases. 1. Programmed to believe over disbelieve - People seem naturally biased in favour of believing rather than not believing. They want to believe the magic money business is real, over me saying it's a scam.
- So I see parallels between the pyramid believers and warmists.
a) The warmists want to believe CAGW is highly probable, over me saying it's not that clear.
b) They want to believe wind/solar are magic power sources way better than fossil fuels, over me saying the maths does not stack up. *
- At first I thought humans are biased in favour of positive beliefs, but then I come against that they are willing to accept a negative "catastrophe is coming" over the uncertainty of the skeptics.# AND also accept "skeptics are funded by big oi" meme, but not accept skeptics vos they are seen as cynical nitpickers even though ultimately with a positive message saying "OK we don't need to panic right now"
* /2. NB $$ Dynamic favours acceptance
a) Getting people into a scam earns you money whereas helping them stay out does not.
b) Selling green crap earns money, whereas helping people keep their money in their pocket does not.)
| I
| |
My theories
3. Certainty beats uncertainty
4. Bias in favour of a story/narrative against pure reason. It seems to me that people want to believe in the pyramid scheme cos it has a strong story, and the same for CAGW. They are less inclined to believe skeptics cos the nitpicking is the main thing, they are not really pushing a story.
(It seems to me that people want to believe in the pyramid scheme cos it has a strong story. whereas opposing it seems like being negative and cynical.
- 4a. I wonder if this is a bias for simplicity over having things complex)
- I was going to call this story/narrative bias, but then I see there is already a thing called Narrative Bias saying you look for factors confirming your pre-existing bias thus lefties will say "man, it's those big corps polluting the air", while they puff on a cigarette. I guess that Narrative bias is just a form of confirmation bias. And I have long said CAGW certainty seems a form of confirmation bias as hot days are mentioned, but cold days not.
.. True skeptics also exhibit confirmation bias, as they pick up on the contraries.
Definition : Narrative Bias This occurs when the inherent "story" is well known, as in baseball batting practices, political hearings and the like. One then filters out out any information that does not fit the already known storyline.
Evidence : When Nature Geoscience had an online conference ..their Facebook readers didn't seem interested it got 3 likes, but on older and nee posts with scare story topics they get 11, 20 likes.
| How brain Self Deception Works
|
Robert Burton psychologist & author of The Certainty Fallacy who I know is a climate skeptic was on 'Science for The People' podcast ..at one point he mentioned climate in an example about how you can only hold 4 thoughts in your working memory at one time, and in conjunction with the brains built in self deception * so we think sometimes we have made a rational call, when in fact we are relying on prejudices.
* (..i.e the way we know how playing sport your brain moves your arm and them makes up a false backstory saying it was following info from the eyes.)
| |
|
questions for warmists
This question will test if they hsve any logic or just dogmatism.
Question for alarmists : When did climate change begin to fall outside of natural variation ?
1. Over time has your certainty of CAGW issues changed ?
2. Can you explain how IPCC certainty increased from 90% to 95%
3. Do you think their is anything wrong with shouting 97% of climate scientists believe.
4. Do you think there is anything wrong with using the "denier" word on TV ?
My answers, 1. Yes I used to be a True Believer (way before there was SkS) but when I got new info, my opinion changed. I have few firm opinions except that the warmists case is well fishy. My doubts do change , yes I doubted the quoted CO2 due to Mona Loa, but do now accept it gives a reasonable representation. However I don't rush from accepting points 1 and 2 to accepting 3,4, 5 & 6. So, yes although the greenhouse effect maybe demonstrated in a laboratory, that doesn't mean there is a validated relationship between CO2 & temperature in the real world. (if there was models predictions would work, and they currentky don't)
2. There is no scientific/mathematical basis for this, and the fact that warmists keep their mouths shut is one of the 100 factors that shows me that they are pushing a narrative rather that behaving with reason.
3. No, same reasons as above.
4. No, same reasons as above.
You can't reason with people who don't use reasoning.
You can't reason with people who are not reasonable.
| Poor warmist living in sanitised universe of SkepticalScience/Guardian
Yes point about True Believers coming overfrom SkepticalScience/Guardian is very relevant .
They are accustomed to a SANITISED discussion
They would not realise that since over at SkS/Guardian debate is routinely censored (consensus-ored) and the atmosphere kept toxic to skeptical viewpoints, that they are living in a fantasy universe. So it would be quite a shock for them when they come over here to BH ..and they comeup against informed challenging they've never seen before.
That is why I am worried about them feeling bullied by my trying to hold them to account by getting them to answer simple questions. But when your friend says someting not true I think the best thing is to say so rather than patronise them by saying "whatever"
- Now as ever things come full circle again and back to BBC censorship. Cos if challenging is banned on the BBC on the spurious grounds that ONLY professors of trouser technology can tell you your flies undone ..then the viewers/listeners of BBC will get the same SANITISED atmosphere that SkS forumers get.
|
general skeptics forums ? also brain washed
... as all the ones I know have either closed or dropped in standard that they have the same level of debate of the warmists that come here, with all based on the authority argument and that sneering, shouting and name-calling
| Alarmists positive language vs Skeptics negatives.
# A commenter did point out that Alarmist rhetoric is all positive language ie 'will' instead of 'will not', where as Skeptics is characterised by negatives 'will not'. I did write a list of positive skeptic phrases.
see page 108
| | | | |
|