Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Understanding "Warmists" strange ways on forums

Continued from the Unthreaded thread
As we try to understand Climate Alarmist "strange thinking and manners on forums", ideas arose
: Tmheir brains often insert : "Phantom information " so, that they hear things that have not actually been said so 2+2 equals 5 (ie they get certainty way beyond the evidence)

: Is this green/left thinking ? no it's just a bad thinking characteristic that is also common in kneejerk racists

Apr 11, 2015 at 7:31 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen then people started to talk about how the left think

@Courtney "The Miners strike, for instance, unified many branches of the Left."
@Radical Rodent said "The only reason was the “Left” were unified by the miners’ strike was that a common enemy was presented."

I think the interesting things about having an ENEMY is that
1. It unites a side
2. It avoids the need for Introspection
hence Greens can avoid thinking about cutting their own CO2 cos they are busy fighting a BIGGER foe

Apr 11, 2015 at 7:31 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

That is an interesting point. Global Warming is the biggest foe there is. Anything goes (even hypocrisy) in the fight to save the planet.

I would add though that AGW is not the biggest threat to the planet in the eco-eye, as of yet.
If it were then war with China would have been demanded (at least online, in comment sections) to stop their development.

But Nuclear Armageddon still trumps methane.

Apr 13, 2015 at 11:13 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

As a human do you prefer order to disorder ?
Possibly you seek to impose order on Natural Disorder ?
Parallels between language pedants & warmist true believers :
Unable to deal with the uncertainty in English language, that it is 60% rules and 40% customary use
language pedants form a world-view it's 95%, 5%.
And then they make up rules (which don't actually exist) to make their world-view correct.
Asserting "You can't say 'alright' the rule is it's 'all right' " etc.
- As BBC Word of Mouth prog about 'The Pedant' explained this I could see that is exactly what warmists are doing.
This '2+2=5 thinking' comes from seeking to impose order on Natural Disorder.
- Thankfully it included "reformed pedants'.

Apr 16, 2015 at 3:14 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Growing up in the US so-called "bible belt", I find committed climate observed people not really very different from any other fundamentalist extremist. Most strong believers do not have any academic background in the focus of their belief. They are unable to deal with open ended unbounded questions. They tend to believe in huge conspiracies and a looming apocalypse that will cleanse the world of wickedness and usher in an age ruled by the elect.Not much different than a typical ATTP or Joe Romm thread, actually.

Apr 16, 2015 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

If you want a creepy example of how the most extreme cliamte obsessed approach things, read the link in the "seen elsewhere" section: on so-called "public intellectuals". A lack of self-awareness, a lack of critical thinking, an inability to differentiate dogma from reality, all seem to support the warmist way...

Apr 17, 2015 at 8:22 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

@JackHughes highlighted an excellent Spectator article on fallacy of 'virtue signalling'
explains strange behaviour
shouting HATE against the unrightuous is an easy way of getting LOVE for YOURSELF
(Saying the right things violently on Twitter is much easier than real kindness)

that action easily gets brownie points for you
whereas actually doing something positive for the DOWNTRODDEN is difficult and a lower priority

It seems to me quite a good explanation of why the simple dogmatists from left/right shout hate for sexism/racism/DailyMail/UKIP/ Katie_Hopkins etc.

Apr 23, 2015 at 9:56 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

1. It's not the same the other way
although skeptics callout the Greenpeace/Guardian/BBC-Eco-depts etc. and certainly hold them in disdain, we gain no instant brownie points cos we feel pity rather than hate

2. Dogmatists ..will say "no, we are just calling out genuine racism/sexism etc."
no it is an emotional knee-jerk smear response cos most of the time they are unable to explain the details to substantiate the smear

Apr 23, 2015 at 12:23 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

The other day a new thought occurred to me as I thought about the "horse that can do maths"
: These Clever Green/Lefties and Clever Hans the maths horse both have the same logic process.
- In the this case all our "trainer" has to do is indicate which 'side' a view is ....and then Clever Green/Lefties can give the "correct" answer to it.
"our side"= alarmist = OK talk it up
or "denier"= "It's evil/ugly nasty" ..condemn and shout it down

(of course this based on having a simplistic black and white view of the issues which allows the thinking to incorporate a false dichotomy view ..instead of the full color complexity of reality.)

Apr 27, 2015 at 8:53 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

I hope I have explained why dogmatic debaters are so over certain and wrong in their views, but there is also the issue of why they get so angry and often use lies.
- There seems to be an obvious explanation for that ...They know they are wrong,
cos if they were right they'd just calmly state their case.

- If I was the one with the 'proven climate model', that's what I would do.
However I am not that clairvoyant, so I just point out the flaws with their arguments

Apr 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

oh I forgot the links Clever Hans on Wikipedia
- a video of a horse doing maths ..imagine a trained dogmatic activist doing climate logic in the same way.

Apr 27, 2015 at 9:26 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

I think anyone visiting an opposition site can be perceived as odd and I think it comes in several parts.

Firstly, you naturally have a different opinion but because you are polarised on the overall issue, the subtleties of what you think can be buried in generalised argument. The other side assumes you are in the wrong on everything and often argue at cross purposes. As you know from experience, it’s very hard to step into the lion’s den and engage. One to one is fine but en masse, the prejudices of the crowd always win.

Secondly, there will be view points that the other side just can’t understand. Some concepts we try to convey to warmists have no meaning to them. It’s like explaining music to a deaf person. And visa versa. So sceptics who think that AGW is all a con, ignore that most of those involved believe what they say and warmists who think sceptics must be bought, are assuming we can’t think the way we do when we look at the same evidence. The most logical approach is to assume the other side really does think the way they do and work from there. Eg I don’t understand why some left leaning members of society don’t understand that to give out benefits, the money first has to be created and hat beyond a certain point of taxation the total taken starts to fall not rise. I don’t understand it but I’d be wasting my time pretending that that’s not how they think.

Dogmatism is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. It’s not a bad thing to be dogmatic in the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun for instance. However with something as fluid and as new as climate science, dogmatism is inappropriate on both sides. We’re all guilty of it from time to time. For persuading others, dogmatism isn’t helpful and warmists are very much self defeating. They think they can bully people into accepting their flawed science and they fail miserably. It is possible for a minority to dominate a majority but it requires the majority to be relatively weak in comparison. People who are weak financially, physically or even politically are open for ‘persuasion’ but none of these words describe the sceptic majority. They can only negotiate with us.

The key part of their failure is a refusal to believe that we do have issues with the AGW edifice at all levels and they need to start asking ‘what’s wrong?’ before anything will move on.

Apr 27, 2015 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2: you are right, there (though it is actually “vice versa”, of Latin origins).

At the start of my forays into this matter, I wasn’t too bothered about either side, but was puzzled about how such an inconsequential gas could have such an effect. I raised this point as a question on a few “warmist” sites; the results were not pleasant, as the general responses were extremely antagonistic, to the point of advising suicide. I now know why, as I had pricked the bubble of their belief, and that is the response of “true” believers, especially when the belief is in something with absolutely nothing to back it up.

I asked the same question on sceptical sites, to receive a less contrarian response, with most admitting that they had no idea but helping me along with my quest for information. Despite TheBigYinJames’s valiant efforts on this discussion site, I am still not fully convinced that CO2 has anything to do with any of the aspects of global warming/climate change.

I do like to think that I have an open mind on the subject, and am not too dogmatic in my views, so will not reject data which supports the claims given to CO2; but, as yet, none has been forthcoming, so I doubt any ever will.

Apr 27, 2015 at 12:12 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

"I am still not fully convinced that CO2 has anything to do with any of the aspects of global warming/climate change." RR.

And I don't think it matters at this point because the AGW bandwagon is so twisted that nothing substantial can be done anyway. Believers are treating this as an idealogical problem, not a practical one. They are less interested on achieving a goal than that we sign up to the same doctrine. Things like the disinvestment campaign are all about persuading others to act and not about considering what the believer should personally do. They truly don't think that they should or could take a lead on CO2 reduction. They feel that they've done their part by alerting us to the issue. I call those sort of people 'the bigger picture type'. Every organisation has them. Useless gits.

As for the spelling - 95% of the time my fingers do the spelling because they're far better than my brain. However if they get things wrong the brain scans it, shrugs and thinks 'looks ok to me'.

Apr 27, 2015 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Despite TheBigYinJames’s valiant efforts on this discussion site, I am still not fully convinced that CO2 has anything to do with any of the aspects of global warming/climate change.

Well, to be fair to those discussions, I only ever claimed that CO2 contributes to a greenhouse effect, not that the greenhouse effect is the major driver of atmospheric temperatures. There is a lot of confusion and conflation of the two ideas amongst the lay sceptic community who believe that they are the same thing. This is the driver of a lot of the 'we must disprove the greenhouse effect' papers that go around.

There can be a greenhouse effect and CO2 can be a major contributor to it AND it still makes no measurable difference to global temperatures, because there is no simple time-dependent linkage between them. Trying to disprove a very basic physical phenomenon in order to make the more relevant point makes us look a bit daft - an analogy I've used in the past is that if the government wanted to ban sky-diving on the grounds that too many people die, then we wouldn't try to fight the ban by trying to prove gravity doesn't exist. That's the sort of level the anti-greenhousers are aiming at, it's only going to be 1. very difficult if not impossible 2. make us look very stupid 3. ignores where the real debate is.

On the point of how both sides of the debate behave, what you have to remember is that people take sides in order to feel the comfort of likeminded people. Most people do not stray out of the echo-chambers, they are there to block out all the people who disagree with them. So when it comes to blogs, the only two types of people you will see on a polarised blogs are 1. people who are not dogmatic and can live with difference of opinion and 2. people out to troll or disrupt the 'enemy' side.

Since people in the 1. category don't cause trouble, you don't generally see them. I expect there are many people here who are from the warmist side who are just here to read what's going on. Perhaps they want to know what the latest trends are in the sceptical side (so they can find out or work out the 'proper' responses for later debates) or they just find it amusing to see all the daftness which you get in a varied counter-community. Some may just be curious, there is a human trait which wants to look under the rock.

Apr 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

In defence of trolls, I don’t think it starts out as an intention to disrupt. It comes from a hope they can trigger the turning point where we say ‘Oh! Now I understand, you were right all along’. When it doesn’t work it dissolves into abuse, sometimes in a give as good as you get situation. Eventually the true troll emerges because they’ve become emotionally involved with the site but see everyone as an enemy worth abusing. Once turned into a troll, they see all opposing blogs as the same.

Warmists are particularly prone to this because they think our stand point is artificial and deep down we think they're right but chose the other path for capricious reasons.

Apr 27, 2015 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

I agree with your hero-hypothesis.

They come with the idea that they're not only going to help us poor fools out of our delusions, they are also going to solve the difficult problem of fixing the climate debate. Their disappointment when they find out that not only are we not delusional, but they have had zero impact on our attitudes is too much for the poor things to bear. Over the course of weeks they become flippant and finally angry, and start ignoring the 97% of reasonable stuff here in favour of raging at the 3% of lunacy an open site attracts. Finally getting angry with the host for not protecting them.

Apr 27, 2015 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

TinyCO2: a good defence of your spelling! I dip my bonnet in your general direction (and nick your response, too).

TBYJ: I was trying to keep it simple; I suspect I do a bit too much waffling on here, so trimmed it down a lot.

As for trolling, whenever I have met unpleasant responses, I have tried to maintain polite replies, and try to stick to the subject core, without resorting to petulance or diatribe. Perhaps I have my own bias, but I do feel that the sceptical sites tend to be more pleasant, even with those intent on trolling, than many of the alarmist sites when dealing with someone who is not fully taken in by AGW.

Apr 27, 2015 at 11:11 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

.. An argument stands on it's own merit irrespective of the T-shirt the speaker is wearing. We all know that at BH..and I usually only engage on websites that understand that premise general skeptic science websites. So I am not talking about extremely partisan websites where sure no other view will be tolerated. I am talking about finding 2+2=5 thinking on general skeptic science websites.
- Also in video Pat Condell sums up strange dogmatic thinking (which he labels Modern Leftist)
: 1 Free speech on campus

: 2 A word to left-wing students

"... where straight teeth in your mouth are more important than the words that come out of it." youtube : Television, The Drug Of The Nation

Apr 28, 2015 at 10:16 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen