[LINK] In Retirement on this thread - Was - The meaning of climate change denial

[TKoltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Jim Birch
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 June 2012 1:58 PM
> Cc: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] The meaning of climate change denial
> 
> 
> The human brain was developed by the process of evolution to 
> solve a variety of practical problems but understanding 
> climate change was not one of them. If you were trying to 
> stay alive in the Pleistocene, tackling complex multivariate 
> problems that required huge inputs of time, energy and 
> resources would be ample grounds for rapid induction to the 
> Darwin Award alumni.
> 
> Like any biological adaptation, the capacity for gathering 
> knowledge has an cost benefit trade-off.  (The brain consumes 
> around a quarter of the energy resources of a human but more 
> like 10% or less for other successful
> predators.)  The effort put into developing a particular 
> knowledge or skill set needs to be repaid quickly in improved 
> returns.  This can be seen in our built in preference for 
> low-cost knowledge.  We are constantly looking for short cuts 
> rather than doing the hard work.  We want the key fact or 
> figure, we avoid trawling through piles of evidence, we seek 
> out expertise, etc.  This is also why science - the long, 
> thorough, meticulous way of knowledge - only got going 
> recently as a serious proportion of human activity.  It's not 
> that people were stupid 20,000 years ago, they just didn't 
> have the surplus produced by farming and mechanisation to 
> support this kind of activity.
> 
> The biology of knowledge is further complicated by it's role 
> in sexual selection.  Demonstration of superior mental skills 
> indicates a good brain and a healthy body which indicates 
> good breeding material.  Thus, we don't just collect 
> knowledge, we flaunt it.  Knowledge is sexy and we are all 
> programmed to appear as sexy as we can manage, even when we 
> aren't specifically thinking about sex.  I can't go past this 
> beautiful quote from the evolutionary biologist Geoffery Miller:
> 
> "I think the interesting thing about human intelligence and 
> capacities for abstract reasoning, and metaphor and analogy, 
> is how very poor most people are at being evidenced based and 
> sceptical. What we love to do is pick up little factoids and 
> half-understood theories and repeat them to others to be 
> interesting. Particularly on first dates. So we try to be 
> interesting, we don't really much care about the truth of 
> what we're saying, and scientists have to be extremely self 
> conscious about this: not just to be interesting but to be 
> right. Most humans most of the time though adopt ideologies 
> and beliefs that are there principally to make their minds 
> attractive to others, not because those beliefs actually 
> correspond to the world."
> 
> This to me is is the key to the maverickism that Tom and 
> others display; it seems to be a plague everywhere in our 
> relentlessly sexualised culture.
> (Confession: Me too, though it's something that I have become 
> less prone to since I discovered that the urge to be both 
> right and contrary is a kind of biological acting out. I 
> can't take myself so seriously.)  It's clearly crazy to 
> believe that you can beat a large global community of trained 
> climate scientists who have been working on a complex problem 
> for decades with a few hours of googling but in terms of 
> biological programming it's a matter of life and death: Admit 
> that the experts are right, and - somewhere down at the base 
> of the brain - you become a genetic dead end.  To me, this 
> makes the denialist methodology of cherry-picked factoids, 
> Galileo complexes, and conspiracy theories at least 
> intelligible where before it was just plain batdung crazy.  
> Of course, it is still a very serious problem for a species 
> that is hitting the holding capacity of it's planet. It also 
> shows why rational discussion with these people feels like 
> banging your head against a wall, which is in a way a kind of relief.
> 
> Jim


Thank-you Jim, that explains a lot on both sides of the "right at all
costs" DMZ that is the current zone between Universities funded to the
tune of 29 billion $$$ on pro (AGW) climate change matters and the other
"professional" climate change scientists funded by fossil burning
corporations (who apparently are people too.)

My question to you the other day was about neither of those two sides...
Nor about the unfunded young bucks that still have a Testosterozone need
to prove their manhood... To willing members of the opposite sex. (I
think I can safely claim to be past that driver.)

My question to you was based on what I thought your speciality was;
i.e.: oceanography and not psychology, but I would pleased to be
corrected if I misunderstood your profession.

I originally asked for your opinion on Gastbeitrag von Prof. Jan-Erik
Solheim's theory that the 1988 dire predictions of Hansen J. were
overstated (with or without "smoothing" by about 2.7%.) Which although
the subject matter was attempted to be answered by Richard, I believe,
did not quite manage to satisfy my definition of reasonable based on my
interest in probability curve statistically meaningful outcomes.

I would be grateful if you could attempt an alternate answer that might
be more successful in convincing me of the errors of my statistical
analysis. 

If however you wish to dodge that question and continue to siggie me, by
all means please continue... Although whilst it might engender a BOF
amongst linkers of similar ilk, I fail to see how it would add to the
topic under discussion...

Anticipating a continuing failure on your part in answering my initial
query, (but understanding that University Tenure (and of course
advancement) is very much tied to Vice Chancellor policy statements
related mainly to funding issues...) let me close this thread on my part
with the following:

According to Machiavelli:
There are three types of thinkers:  one is capable of thinking for
itself; another is able to understand the thinking of others; and a
third can neither think for itself nor understand the thinking of
others. The first is of the highest excellence, the second is excellent,
and the third is worthless.

I would add one more...

There is a fourth type of thinker, one unrestrained by financially
forced censoring allegiances to either Crown, Church, School or
employer. One that thinks purely for the betterment of his fellow man
and understands the benefits and costs of all the options to all the
players.

I see no evidence that would suggest that the CO2 tax is being
implemented for the betterment of the 99%. Although I do in these
difficult days understand the attraction of a purse containing 30 pieces
of Silver. 

TomK