Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[Phronesis]

Do you want some "feedback" on a few other papers as well ?

 

[BCO]

Sure

 

[Phronesis]

Here

 

[BCO]

I’ve spent some time pondering why so many people seem unable or unwilling to understand the seriousness of climate change. Only half of all Americans understand that warming is happening because of our use of fossil fuels. And clearly many people still believe the science is equivocal. Having spent many hours arguing with denialists, I’ve come to the conclusion that they don’t approach climate change in a scientific way (even those who are trained as scientists), even though they often appear to engage in scientific discourse. Rather than assessing all the evidence and trying to understand the big picture, climate denialists start from their preferred conclusion and work backwards, selecting only the evidence that supports the conclusion.

But why? Why do so many people approach global warming in this manner? Previously I speculated that the Dunning-Kruger effect might explain some of this. This effect occurs when people at the lower end of the ability scale vastly overestimate their own competence. Combine this with the observation that few people really understand the basic system dynamics, for example that concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to rise even if emissions are reduced, as long as the level of emissions (burning fossil fuels) exceeds the removal processes (e.g. sequestration by the oceans). The Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that people whose reasoning is based on faulty mental models are unlikely to realise it.

While incorrect mental models and overconfidence might explain some of the problem that people have in accepting the scale and urgency of the problem, it doesn’t really explain the argumentation style of climate denialists, particularly the way in which they latch onto anything that appears to be a weakness or an error in the science, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence in the published literature.

Continued here.

 

[Phronesis]

Wow, climate denialists, climate alarmists... all these ad hominems are really not helping to create an environment for civil conversation...

 

[BCO]

Wow, climate denialists, climate alarmists... all these ad hominems are really not helping to create an environment for civil conversation...

How bout reading TFA?

 

[Phronesis]

Really sad state of affairs when skeptics over the magnitude of AGW are labeled as denialists...

Read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect:
Wiki (unforunately):

The Dunning–Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which "...people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it".[1] They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average. This leads to a perverse result where people with less competence will rate their ability more highly than people with relatively more competence. It also explains why competence may weaken the projection of confidence because competent individuals falsely assume others are of equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]

And in other news:
Evidence that Global Temperature Trends Have Been Overstated

 

[BCO]

Really sad state of affairs when skeptics over the magnitude of AGW are labeled as denialists...

Read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect:
Wiki (unforunately):


And in other news:
Evidence that Global Temperature Trends Have Been Overstated

K, I'm going to repeat a little snippet again in the light of your post above:

While incorrect mental models and overconfidence might explain some of the problem that people have in accepting the scale and urgency of the problem, it doesn’t really explain the argumentation style of climate denialists, particularly the way in which they latch onto anything that appears to be a weakness or an error in the science, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence in the published literature.

You just did it again.

 

[Phronesis]

Oh dear, you seem to be the victim of your own "I am right and others are denialists" goggles you seem to be wearing.

Try reading the link wontcha...
Evidence that Global Temperature Trends Have Been Overstated

Again, this does not mean that increasing carbon dioxide is not a problem, nor does it mean that efforts to decarbonize the economy do not make sense. Our paper has not led me to alter the climate mitigation and adaptation policies that I advocate one bit. It does mean that there remains plenty of questions to ask and answers to find – some perhaps surprising – about the relationship of human activities and the global earth system.

 

[rwenzori]

This leads to a perverse result where people with less competence will rate their ability more highly than people with relatively more competence.

That why you think you are so clever, Phroners?

 

[Phronesis]

You would be lying (yet again) if you think I think I am more clever than others. Mind you, aren't you the guy (among others) who constantly tell people they don't understand concepts without ever showing that you actually do?

Read it again....

This leads to a perverse result where people with less competence will rate their ability more highly than people with relatively more competence.

 

[rwenzori]

Mind you, aren't you the guy (among others) who constantly tell people they don't understand concepts without ever showing that you actually do?

Nope. But then again you yourself have the habit of posting multiple incorrect conflicting definitions of your terms, and move amongst said definitions to try to bolster up your latest twaddle. Silly boy!

 

[BCO]

Oh dear, you seem to be the victim of your own "I am right and others are denialists" goggles you seem to be wearing.

Try reading the link wontcha...

Again, this does not mean that increasing carbon dioxide is not a problem, nor does it mean that efforts to decarbonize the economy do not make sense. Our paper has not led me to alter the climate mitigation and adaptation policies that I advocate one bit. It does mean that there remains plenty of questions to ask and answers to find – some perhaps surprising – about the relationship of human activities and the global earth system.

Well Pielke's statement here differs very much from your own standpoint on AGW:

And you might as well include the following:
The earth has been warming since 1900.
CO2 doubling may result in 1 - 1.5 degree celsius increase in global temperatures.
Other factors also play a role....like the sun, which have been more active than usual in the past century. Natural variability DOES play role and we can not accurately model it.
Is CO2 a very serious problem? I don't think so and definately not tax worthy.

There's a certain schizophrenic quality to your posting sometimes, Phrony.

 

[Phronesis]

Nope. But then again you yourself have the habit of posting multiple incorrect conflicting definitions of your terms, and move amongst said definitions to try to bolster up your latest twaddle. Silly boy!

Aaah, a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Thanks old chop, maybe the Dunning-Kruger effect is byproduct of your daddy-issues as well ...

 

[Phronesis]

Well Pielke's statement here differs very much from your own standpoint on AGW:



There's a certain schizophrenic quality to your posting sometimes, Phrony.

Wow... post stuff that only supports one point of view and you become a denialist or an alarmist.
Post something that tries to highlight issues on both sides and it suddenly has a schizophrenic quality.

Keep it coming, you are making sooo much sense...

 

[BCO]

Wow... post stuff that only supports one point of view and you become a denialist.
Post something that tries to highlight issues on both sides and it suddenly has a schizophrenic quality.

Keep it coming, you are making sooo much sense...

?

The article I posted was talking about climate deniers (people like yourself). You then reply with a post about someone who advocates efforts to decarbonize the economy.

How does the article you linked "refute" my post on denial? Further, how does the article you link substantiate your claim that CO2 is not a serious, tax worthy problem?

Your posts are schizophrenic because your perceived standpoint swings quite wildly from one to another. You asked me to explain your standpoint to BM a while back. Just when I thought I understood where you were coming from, you then go and post something else that's completely different.

 

[Phronesis]

?

The article I posted was talking about climate deniers (people like yourself).

Lol, now I am a climate denier, whatever that means in your world... If it makes you happy, fine.

 

[BCO]

Lol, now I am a climate denier, whatever that means in your world... If it makes you happy, fine.

You *are* a climate denier if you deny that CO2 is a serious problem. Very simple definition really.

 

[Phronesis]

Yes, label people as climate deniers for thinking CO2 is not such a serious problem. Whatever makes you happy .

PS, I was under the impression that climate deniers were those who deny the importance of natural cycles and their effect on climate.

 

[BCO]

Yes, label people as climate deniers for thinking CO2 is not such a serious problem. Whatever makes you happy .

PS, I was under the impression that climate deniers were those who deny the importance of natural cycles and their effect on climate.

Let's go back to the article on denialism I linked. A denier is someone who denies the accepted science. That was the whole point of the article - it was looking at the cognitive processes that cause people to willfully ignore or overlook the facts.

The natural cycle theory is NOT the accepted science. So someone who denies a refuted scientific claim is NOT a denier.

It's really quite simple.

You're slipperier than a bucket full of eels, you know that?