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

[Jim Birch]

Jim Birch
e: planetjim at gmail.com
m: 04 1243 1243


On 27 June 2012 15:30, TKoltai wrote:

Thank-you Jim, that explains a lot on both sides of the "right at all
> costs"
>

Biology drives us all in ways that we don't recognise.  Our mental
facilities were created by biology, if that makes sense.


> 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.)
>

You have missed my point.  People are programmed to be interested in sex as
a means of producing offspring.  If we had to feel like offspring to to
have sex we'd be extinct.  Similarly, we are functionally kitted out for
sexual competition and do it all the time, generally calling it by other
names.  The brain wiring for sexual competition doesn't disappear when we
are not actively competing just like your legs don't disappear when you
aren't running - they are structural components of your system.

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've got degrees in meteorology and oceanography and I've worked in
glaciology and coastal oceanography/geomorphology.  These days I work in
ICT and my knowledge is out of date.  I know enough about climate science
to know what some of the questions are and to understand the complexity of
the problems but I'm not dumb enough to presume I know the answers.  I know
a lot more than most people about biology and neurology but when my kids
need brain surgery I'll ask the experts; ditto for climate science.

>
> 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%.)
>

I'm not not qualified to answer and would need to do a lot of research to
reach the required competency.  The idea that such a question could or
should be resolved on the Link mailing list seems kind crazy.  Read the
science.


> 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.
>

Maybe.  I have somewhat different views on the subjective quality of
originality that incorporate biology, cognitive psychology, and
evolutionary theory etc that didn't exist in Machiavelli's time.  I find
the Dunning Kruger Effect more relevant.  In most disputes, about 100% of
people "feel" they are right and can produce elaborate narratives to that
"prove" it.  Statistically at least 50% must be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect


> I see no evidence that would suggest that the CO2 tax is being
> implemented for the betterment of the 99%.


If AGW is a falsehood produced by a conspiracy of 10,000 or 87 unethical
and/or incompetent climate scientists then of course that would follow.   I
find that premise completely untenable, and really, pretty weird.  It is
actually the denialists who, as a group, have repeated demonstrated
themselves to be scientifically and statistically incompetent, and often
unethical.  This is pretty easy to research if you are so inclined.

= - = - =

If you want to argue climate science seriously you should go find a climate
science forum with climate science experts.  Or write a paper and see if it
it lauded or gets torn to shreds.  It's hubris to imagine we are having a
genuine climate science dialogue here; we just chat about such matters.

Jim