|
|
Location: Dartmoor, Devon | andre - 22/9/2007 19:36 Some nice analyzing, David I'd really encourage strongly to read about Groupthink, I linked to that in the openings post but nobody seemed to notice: ..... It begins simply enough. Part of our human nature is to want to be part of a group and to be well-liked, accepted and respected by others. Few of us want to be in a group that’s in constant conflict, and no one wants to embarrass themselves in front of other people or make people angry with them. So the group comes to get everyone in agreement and, in turn, each member works hard to fit in with the group’s norms. The result is groupthink. To remain accepted in the group we want to be part of means we naturally feel compelled to conform and go along with what we think everyone else in the group thinks or wants to do. Group loyalty is rewarded. No one wants to step out of line or stand out, so we begin to censor ourselves, ignore issues we may not be in agreement with, suppress any private doubts, and to not speak out or question facts, in order to go along with the group. The silence of other members, we believe, means they agree with the group’s consensus, too, building an illusion of unanimity. Steadily, the group’s consensus assumes increasing weight in our minds as being right. We stop thinking as individuals or thinking critically, even going so far as to not see contrary facts. The group consensus assumes priority. And we didn't even realize it was happening.... Unity among the group creates a sense of pride, according to Irving Janis, a social psychologist and early researcher into group dynamics and author of Victims of Groupthink: A Psychology Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. It’s this unity which gives a group the illusion that it’s powerful and invincible, he found. This feeling of invincibility and that any actions they do are protected by the group, is the first classic symptom of groupthink that he identified. As a result, the group’s actions become steadily more brazen. People adopt a collective sentiment that what the group believes and does is always right and this morality makes the group more likely to do things that are dangerous or even illegal, and the members less likely to question them or themselves... To the outside observers it's all to obvious to tick off each and every symptom of groupthink. I never could have dreamed that psychology was so extreme exact and accurate. So the question indeed is how to expose groupthink to the victims. See also: http://earth.myfastforum.org/Junkfood_science_way_to_go_Sandy__about107.html You should try posting with my views on places like CA if you want to see what group think is like, Andre...
|
|
| |
|
Moderator
Location: Graham, North Carolina | Hey Andre;
However, none of us are immune. I just did what I suggested Peter to attempt and I may have misrepresented things a little myself, based on the image I was able to clip.
The direct measure I got for the 250ppm above the null line was 23/32nds of an inch, for the 380ppm I got a measure of 38/32nds of an inch and for the 500ppm value I got 56/32nds of an inch. I then related these measures to the indicated scaled values and the relationship between 250ppm and 500 ppm, the 500 ppm should of been plotted so that it was about 46/32nds in height or 20% lower, and the 380ppm should have been 31/32nds in height or 18% lower.
When I looked at the image on the projection screen during class, the distance between 0 and 500ppm appeared nearly 3.5 times of the distance between 0 and 250ppm. Apparently it is clear that bias is in the eye of the beholder; however, directly measurable data can cure many ills. And in relation to the subject of Climate Change that is the main problem we have. We do not have directly measured data, of a broad enough resolution, that we can use to make the comparisons, much of the supporting the data is based on models and biased measurement tools, such as our minds and perceptions. (Hence, this is the one of the reasons I hate pictures and prefer numbers.)
Dave
Edited by ldavidcooke 22/9/2007 14:21
|
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Machynlleth, Mid Wales | Yes, of course we know that "groupthink" can develop in social groupings. It is absurd to suggest that most of us don't know about it! I don't suppose it develops much among climate scientists anymore than in other branches of science. It's more likely to be found in the politico-environmental movement. By and large, in fact, scientists tend to be a rather conservative lot. That's why radical theories like Plate Tectonics took so long to become established. That's not groupthink by the way, it's the instinctive cautiousness of the scientifically-trained individual. Quite different. Because it develops amongst politico-environmentalists, equals & opposites being what they are, one might expect to find it in the sceptic community too - as indeed one does. Not in all sceptics - or in all politico-environmentalists - but in quite a lot (not counting you at all Peter!). It's the great divide of our times: the climate scientists on the inside and the polarised groups that look in from the outside. Cheers - John |
|
| |
|
Location: Dartmoor, Devon | John Mason - 22/9/2007 20:18 Yes, of course we know that "groupthink" can develop in social groupings. It is absurd to suggest that most of us don't know about it! I don't suppose it develops much among climate scientists anymore than in other branches of science. It's more likely to be found in the politico-environmental movement. By and large, in fact, scientists tend to be a rather conservative lot. That's why radical theories like Plate Tectonics took so long to become established. That's not groupthink by the way, it's the instinctive cautiousness of the scientifically-trained individual. Quite different. Because it develops amongst politico-environmentalists, equals & opposites being what they are, one might expect to find it in the sceptic community too - as indeed one does. Not in all sceptics - or in all politico-environmentalists - but in quite a lot (not counting you at all Peter!). It's the great divide of our times: the climate scientists on the inside and the polarised groups that look in from the outside. Cheers - John I think it's taken a lot to convince climatologists just like it did with plate tectonics. As to environmentalists I actually think they get a rough time. I've been a member of several organisations for some time (I wont say which out of consideration for the blood pressure of certain members...) and I have to say what they send me is normally scientifically accurate. Now, they might think the future may be different to some scientists, but I'm pretty sure they are very well aware what the penalty for exaggeration is. These people care, and they're not generally into misleading - they know that would be counter productive. One only has to think of the damage Brent Spar did to realise just how vital to such organisations not being caught exaggerating/misleading/wrong is. |
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Machynlleth, Mid Wales | Peter H - 22/9/2007 19:30 John Mason - 22/9/2007 20:18 Yes, of course we know that "groupthink" can develop in social groupings. It is absurd to suggest that most of us don't know about it! I don't suppose it develops much among climate scientists anymore than in other branches of science. It's more likely to be found in the politico-environmental movement. By and large, in fact, scientists tend to be a rather conservative lot. That's why radical theories like Plate Tectonics took so long to become established. That's not groupthink by the way, it's the instinctive cautiousness of the scientifically-trained individual. Quite different. Because it develops amongst politico-environmentalists, equals & opposites being what they are, one might expect to find it in the sceptic community too - as indeed one does. Not in all sceptics - or in all politico-environmentalists - but in quite a lot (not counting you at all Peter!). It's the great divide of our times: the climate scientists on the inside and the polarised groups that look in from the outside. Cheers - John I think it's taken a lot to convince climatologists just like it did with plate tectonics. As to environmentalists I actually think they get a rough time. I've been a member of several organisations for some time (I wont say which out of consideration for the blood pressure of certain members...) and I have to say what they send me is normally scientifically accurate. Now, they might think the future may be different to some scientists, but I'm pretty sure they are very well aware what the penalty for exaggeration is. These people care, and they're not generally into misleading - they know that would be counter productive. One only has to think of the damage Brent Spar did to realise just how vital to such organisations not being caught exaggerating/misleading/wrong is. Agreed. Likewise with regard to peer-reviewed science. As I mentioned the other day with my post about the once-celebrated mineralogist AWG Kingsbury, the fall into disgrace is probably steeper in science than it is in any other sector of humanity. Geologists have a saying: "A good reputation is a bit like virginity - once it's lost it is exceptionally difficult to get it back"! Cheers - John |
|
| |
|
Moderator
Location: Graham, North Carolina | Hey Peter;
And here is where we are in agreement. The problem is you cannot define what people say and when they come out in support of a belief of a way of perceiving things and use exaggerated representations of data they do a disfavor to the rest of us.
We each should be striving to be as accurate as we can. As I said, my earlier perceptions were colored a bit; however, there is little question that the graphic values are not proportional to the scale of the graph.
By the same token sometimes the data set changes; however, if the raw data is accurate and you do your calculations on a global data base of raw data at least everyone is starting from the same point. If you are measuring to a standard then it may be appropriate for the instrument data set to be adjusted to the standard and that this be the data set in the global database.
Then if one wishes to take a random sampling of stations that exist within a region or hemisphere the data used is an accurate representation of what was the perceived temperature at the point of measure. The question of siting and other issues becomes one of does the point of measure represent the region it is being reported for. If not then the data set should be considered invalid as we do not how to adjust the data to be representative. This would then restrict the influence of calculated or airbrushed corrections from misrepresenting actual values. It also places the onus on the data station's manager/owner to insure that the data is representative.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Location: The Netherlands, -2,3 m msl | John Mason - 22/9/2007 20:18 By and large, in fact, scientists tend to be a rather conservative lot. That's why radical theories like Plate Tectonics took so long to become established. or was it because the group consensus about uniformitism needed to be defended at all costs. But why took it only 3 milli-centuries for the impending ice ages to disappear in favor for catastrophic global warming? A certain strong sign of climatologic groupthink is the absolute reluctance to accept any evidence against AGW (about a million threads of me here to prove that) and to see evidence in everything for AGW even if it is completely unrelated (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm). Another extreme strong clue for groupthink is the fierceness of the defence of the fraudulent hockeystick (not my words- Hans von Storch). Another extreme strong hint for groupthink is the high intolorance for sceptics and the ad hominem character murders. Another most extreme sign of groupthink is the primary role of consensus. Another element is the shielding of the group for any news not consistent with groupthink and people who have dedicated themselfs to unexplain such disasterous news, just go and see realclimate. it's all there, including the censoring, amazingly accurate analyzed and predicted in 1972. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rochester, New York USA | Gore’s movie could only be propaganda, since its creators assume that the science is settled.
Above, much of what’s wrong with it is already discussed. I didn’t read it all, but didn’t notice mention of the suggestions about sudden collapse of Greenland ice, alternate theories about Kilimanjaro and problems with the malaria presentation.
It’s been some time since I’ve seen Gore’s film and Swindle, so my recollection may be a bit hazy.
“Swindle” was largely a reaction to the many problems of Gore’s film, where it went wrong was in its treatment of cosmic rays, but this is parallel to the Greenland ice business of Gore’s film because they are both examples of speculative science.
The only sense in which Gore’s film could be better than “Swindle” is that it could be closer to the truth about AGW being catastrophic. I can’t believe anyone seriously thinks that as a whole the logic of Gore’s film exceeds that of “Swindle”.
Once again my recollections are a bit hazy.
I do recall that the proportions on Gore’s graph were distorted by cutting off the bottom, and that he ridiculed people who were not impressed with his graph.
The failure of scientists to distance themselves from Gore’s film will be remembered for a long time to come.
|
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: Evesham, Worcs | Uniformitarianism is the bane of modern geology ..... so many people misunderstand it. It means that processes that occur today, or can be imagined as happening today according to geological principles, probably produced similar features in the past. It does not mean that local (or even global) catastrophic events don't occur. The scablands produced by the Missoula floods are a good example of uniformitarianism ....
As for predictions of an imminent ice age .... technically they are still correct. Although new data since the 1970s suggests it may not be quite so soon as originally thought. But geologically it's due tomorrow. |
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Machynlleth, Mid Wales | andre - 22/9/2007 20:32 Another extreme strong clue for groupthink is the fierceness of the defence of the fraudulent hockeystick (not my words- Hans von Storch). Precisely, my dear chap! You prove my point far more neatly than I could ever have expressed it! I'm going for some groupthink over the pub to talk rugby & fishing. That's where it's OK ;) See you all tomorrow - John |
|
| |
|
Moderator
Location: Graham, North Carolina | Hey Peter;
Sorry, I missed your post regarding the measures. BTW, I was not attempting to be patronizing. I was trying to simplify and reduce the source of the confusion you seemed to be having. As to conspiracy, Peter, you know me better then that, I was clearly demonstrating that the presentation was demonstrating bias; but, did not accuse anyone of purposefully misrepresenting the data, just that the image appears false in relation to the talking points. (As to the remaining 9 points I can't wait until we can begin to discuss them as well.)
First, I showed you the scale so that you would see that the range was between 0 and 400. I also used the scale so that you would see that the last "normal" measure had a peak of 280ppm and was settling down to 250ppm before it took the dramatic rise.
This viewing angle, in essence reduces the parallax as you now have a scale reference directly within less then 2 degrees of the camera angle. This then removes the camera angle from possibly distorting the observation. So looking at the screen that ex-VP Gore is point to we have a vertical viewing angle slightly elevated in relation to the mid-point of the vertical distribution of the last 50 years of measure.
Just using the red lines you have edited into the region of the talking points notice that the distance between the top and middle line is about 1/2 of the distance between the bottom and the middle. So just with your edits it would appear that the distance from the middle to the top has to be approximately 190ppm higher or gives us a total of a minimum of 570ppm. As the bottom red line is lower then the null and the middle red line in higher then the 380ppm you are in essence demonstrating a scale range of the bottom section to have a value closer to 400ppm, suggesting that the upper line must be near the 600ppm range.
I just measured a 3.1cm distance from the bottom to middle line and 1.8cm from the middle to the top red line. Even if you were to move the bottom red line to above the null point by the same deviation as the other 2 lines you are now talking about the bottom to middle line having a range of about 2.7cm and with the middle to top still being approximately 1.8cm, suggesting that the value of 380 ppm is equal to 2.7 cm and the value of 380 to 500 ppm is equal to 1.8cm. Based on the scale of 2.7cm over 380ppm would be an amount of @ 140ppm per cm. Applying this same relationship to the total height would then suggest that the top red line would represent @ 630ppm.
I don't know that this is precise;however, the distance from the middle red line to the top red line is approximately 67ppm/cm in scale if the representation is accurate as you claim. To me a difference of 140ppm/cm for the bottom section and a 67ppm/cm for the top section appears deliberate to me.
The graph representation for Gore's talking points actually are @ a 20% distortion of the scale representation of the data based on direct and best of projected 50 year values of 500ppm in his presentation.
So now are we willing to move on to any of the next 9 items I have concerns over?
Dave
Edited by ldavidcooke 22/9/2007 19:21
|
|
| |
|
| ldavidcooke - 22/9/2007 18:31 Hey Peter; I will make this easy on you, see the image above which is titled the Non-Proportional image. Note the graph just before the rise has a slight peak. That "hook" occurs at about 250ppm. Now take the scale of you choice and hold that up to your computer screen measure the distance between that peak and the yellow dot. That yellow dot was supposed to be the 380ppm level. Now measure the distance with your scale to the absolute peak of the graphic trend line. If the level at the absolute peak is supposed to be 500ppm. Then the distance from zero to 250 should be equal to the distance between the the "hook" and the absolute peak. Instead that distance is 1.5 times or over 625ppm and if you look closely at the entire range in relation to the scale it is actually closer to 800ppm. This is no trick of a point of view as the image is nearly in direct line taken from the approximate center of the scale. This is a deliberate attempt to represent the projected value as being much greater as a means to provide dramatic "proof" of the pending disaster. Whether you believe the data before your eyes or not does not matter to me, the term denialist can be applied to both camps. And that is what worries me. It is like everyone has become Hari-Krishna or some type of cult member because this subject has taken on a cult like character. Though I am a long time environmental proponent, the current approach being employed by current environmentalists, I find to be abhorrent. Falsely presenting evidence or misrepresenting evidence and trying the case in the court of public opinion is clearly cult like in many regimes. You would think we would have learned our lessons a mere 69 years ago.... Dave Hey Dave I make it even easier on you. There is no 0ppm on the graph and I have no idea why it should be. The temperature axis is also not on 0K. |
|
| |
|
Location: Padova, 10m - Veneto - Italia | Frankly, I find no way to defend Al Gore sciencefiction (even 5 on 10 is a too high mark in my opinion), it is full of errors and exaggerations.
I agree the Swindle too is not properly a scienctifical documentary, but I found less errors.
So, why discussing Gore instead of IPCC papers? Just a suggestions, but the second was really made by scientists.
That's all by me, I do not want to come in a discussion on a film I do not like at all (if you want a good sciencefiction film on catastrophical AGW, see "Soilent Green", 1973, with Charlton Heston).
Edited by Filippo83 23/9/2007 05:02
|
|
| |
|
Moderator
Location: Graham, North Carolina | Hey Dr. Hoffman;
My most gracious thanks, you have pointed out my error of perception.
The point is that the variation between the peak and the min. prior to 1950 would be @180-280ppm and the scale baseline is not indicated driving the assumption that it represented 0ppm. The distance from the null to 250ppm range on the scale appears to be equivalent to about 0.75 inches
A return to the data in relation to the scale suggest that the CO2 levels up till recent times varied between @ 180ppm and 280ppm with a measured value of approximately 0.33 inches.
Given this, you are correct the distance from the apparent null line and the 250ppm point would not be representative of 250ppm, and my visual and measured estimate was patently wrong.
Now by again examining the various values on my screen using a scale I measure the distance from the baseline to the approximate 180ppm point as 0.4 inches and the distance between the 180 and 250 point of measure as 0.33 inches.
The next point of measure would be the distance from 250ppm to the indicated 380ppm which appears to be approximately 0.5 inches. And finally we have the distance between the 380ppm position and the 500ppm position of approximately 0.7 inches.
This then suggests that the representative scale between the 180 and 250ppm points should be 212ppm/inch.
The next representative measure of between 250 and 380ppm points should be 260ppm/inch
With the final representation of 380 to 500ppm being approxiamtely 171ppm/inch
(If this projected value was double 280ppm then the approximate relationship would be 257ppm/inch.)
Yet, when I measure the image of the scale I get .15 inches/50ppm, this would suggest that the baseline should be approximately 243 ppm lower then the 250ppm mark. If I go back to my original estimate of the difference between known values of 250ppm and 380ppm we get 260ppm/inch.
Proper representation of proportional data would then suggest that below the 250ppm range that the scale is approximately 260ppm/inch suggesting a base line of approximately 7ppm. So if we then suggest that the null line is actually 7ppm and the current level of 380ppm is separated by 1.23inches then the scale value below the 380ppm data point would have to be 303ppm/inch and using this scale the projected peak value must be approximately 212ppm higher or a total approximately 584ppm.
Again my thanks, this eliminates one example of my bias bleeding through my interpretation of the data. I had not realized how far I had drifted from center. I guess if I had the actual data table that the graph was generated by and could then plot it for myself I would be able to achieve less error.
Dave Cooke |
|
| |
|
Moderator
Location: Graham, North Carolina | Hey All;
My apologies for reposting this reply; however, I missed the edit time limit due to my bride calling me away for breakfast. So to improve the quality of my desired message I have posted the desired version below:
Thanks
Dave Cooke
"Hey Dr. Hoffman;
My most gracious thanks, you have pointed out my error of perception.
The point is that the variation between the peak and the min. prior to 1950 would be @180-280ppm and the scale baseline is not indicated driving the assumption that it represented 0ppm. The distance from the null to 250ppm range on the scale appears to be equivalent to about 0.73 inches. A return to the data in relation to the scale suggest that the CO2 levels up till recent times varied between @ 180ppm and 280ppm with a measured value of approximately 0.33 inches. Given this, you are correct the distance from the apparent null line and the 250ppm point would not be representative of 250ppm, and my visual and measured estimate was patently wrong.
The distance of 0.33 inches between the 250ppm scale mark and the estimated 180ppm of the low point of the CO2 value and then a 0.4 inch measure between the estimated 180 ppm point and the baseline would suggest that the baseline must be approximately 0.73 inches with a value of 212ppm/inch which suggests that the baseline must be approximately 95ppm. However, we need to establish a standard based on known values for establishing the scale ppm/unit of measure. In this case the peak value would appear to be (1.93 inches * 212ppm )+ 95ppm = 504ppm as a rough estimate.
Now by re-examining the various values on my screen using a scale I measure the distance from the baseline to the approximate 180ppm point as 0.4 inches and the distance between the 180 and 250 point of measure as 0.33 inches.
The next point of measure would be the distance from 250ppm to the indicated 380ppm which appears to be approximately 0.5 inches. And finally we have the distance between the 380ppm position and the 500ppm position of approximately 0.7 inches.
So for measure to value standard we get the following:
The representative measure of between 250 and 380ppm points should be 0.5 inches or 260ppm/inch
With the final representation of 380 to 500ppm being 0.7 inches or approximately 171ppm/inch
(If this projected value was double 280ppm rather then 250ppm then the approximate relationship would be 257ppm/inch.)
Yet, when I measure the image of the scale of between 200-250-300 ppm, I get .15 inches/50ppm or 333ppm/inch, this would suggest that the baseline should be approximately 243 ppm lower then the 250ppm mark. Representation of my estimated proportional data would suggest that below the 250ppm range that the scale is approximately 260ppm/inch suggesting a base line of approximately 60ppm.
So if we have two choices the measured and the estimated. With the measured the baseline appears to be approximately 7ppm. On the other hand we have my estimated baseline of 60ppm. Given the 1.23inches between the baseline and the 380ppm mark would suggest that the measured value between the base line and 380ppm would be approximately 407ppm plus the value of the baseline we get about 417ppm. If we use my estimated value we get 320ppm and plus the base line we get about 380ppm.
Now let us address the peak value. If again we use the measured scale value we get a value of 643ppm plus the 7ppm we get a value of about 650ppm for the peak value. If we use my estimated value of 260ppm*1.93 inches we get about 501ppm plus the 60ppm for the baseline offset brings the value up to 561ppm. In this case if I make a concession that I may introduce bias unintentionally the average of the two should be about 602ppm or near my original estimate.
Again my thanks, this eliminates one example of my bias bleeding through my interpretation of the data. I had not realized how far I had drifted from center. I guess if I had the actual data table that the graph was generated by and could then plot it for myself I would be able to achieve less error.
Dave Cooke"
Edited by ldavidcooke 23/9/2007 12:08
|
|
| |
|
Moderator
Location: Graham, North Carolina | Hey All;
My apologies to all, I think that this image finally has resolved the parallax and measurement errors. As best I can tell the scale is in proportion with the data and the peak value of the data is apparently just below 550ppm. Thanks for the input and the patience.
Dave
 (MyErrorResolved.gif)
Attachments
----------------
 MyErrorResolved.gif (21KB - 96 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| This goes on...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7015723.stm
|
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Machynlleth, Mid Wales | The film, if shown, should be presented as one person's take on the situation, and debate of its points could well create interesting course-material for our young, who need to understand the nature of the debate. The politics alone is a fascinating subject, on that we must all agree! You only have to spend a day on here to realise there is enough material for a whole conference, let alone a couple of PhD's! Cheers - John |
|
| |
|
| The problem here is that it is not shown or taken as one mans take on ACC.
It is shown to students as a factual public information film. This is not right and parents should have the right to stop their children being shown this governmental propaganda...
They should be able to opt out...
|
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: Evesham, Worcs | I agree Martin  |
|
| |
Lorry driver in challenge to Gore school film
Speciality Forums and Forecasts -> Climatic Discussion & Analysis
