Regarding climate, I have little doubt that both natural and anthropogenic factors influence climate. The reason why temperature trends seem to be weaker than what was projected in IPCC models is that most of these models were based on constant solar activity. What has been happening in reality could be compared to a game of tug-of-war between carbon dioxide and the Sun.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ss...
THe graph for temperature shows peaks and valleys which track the Sun, and yet, the overall trend for temperature tracks carbon dioxide. Don't take my word for it and don't blame me either. Look at the lnk. Someone with cagnative disonance will look at a graph and see just what is happening during part of the graph, the part that tells them what they want to see, and not at the big picture.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics...
Nevertheless, I fully acknowledge that there is a lot of uncertainty in climate. But it seems to me that the course of action that requires a high degree of certainty. I actually see three possible futures.
1. In 100 years, everything could run on zero emission energy. We may or may not know whether we would have averted catastrophe, but who would care?
2. We run out of oil and Earth is no warmer. If we are supposed to be afraid of freezing, as some advocate, scenario 1 would be preferable, except to a "skeptic" who is more interested in winning the arguement, than in human lives.
3. Rising sea levels and mass starvation.
And what is your source for that claim. It seems to me that a heat sink as important as the oceans would have been included in the models. But if models aren't perfect, so what? Global warming could bemore dangerous than suggested by models.
Check my questions about computer models.
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
Discover now the best sport betting system: http://sport-betting-tips.checkhere.info
Too many people think of sports betting as just something they do in their past time. However, many people can see the potential that exists if you manage to have the right sports betting strategy and correct approach to betting in general. Are you sick of losing? Interested in finding out how to turn your luck around? Do you want to know which sports betting strategies stand to help you make the most from your betting?
Any good strategy should allow you to place bets based on a systematic method. Of course there is always a random element or so called luck involved, but betting is all about stacking the odds in your favor. There should be no guess work involved or bets placed based on gut feelings. Betting is a business and it should be treated like one. Any money you use for betting needs to be separate from money you use for your daily life or anything else. How can you possibly expect to follow a strategy with money that was originally set aside to pay next week's rent with? You can't. This will help you to focus on the task of betting and remove any emotional strings attached to the money.
So what makes a good strategy or what should you look for in a strategy before you decide to implement it? Any good strategy needs to have a positive expectancy. This means that in the long run you will win. The hit rate of the strategy needs to be above 50% for you to be able to profit in the long run. An ideal win rate should be between 60 to 70%, because you will need to cover the fees and other expensive associated with betting. Is it feasible to expect you'll be able to find a system that has a 100% win rate? No, it isn't. The best you can do is find a system that has a positive expectancy and stick with it. In the long run you will make more money than you can possibly lose.
Keep whatever information and news you have about the teams as up to date as possible. Any changes in the teams makeup or factors that affect how the players play will great affect the potential outcome of a match. Make sure that you are constantly up to date on every aspect that affects the potential outcome of a match. Information is the key to winning at sports betting.
I looked up precautionary principle (Wikipedia) as I was not sure what that is. It is defined, roughly, as follows: if an actor wants to do something potentially harmful then the burden of proof is on the actor to prove it is Not Harmful rather than on the resistors to prove it is Harmful. In skimming the article I did not see anything about magnitude of possible harm. I have elsewhere heard this described in terms of atheists praying in the foxhole: If God is real, then praying might work and if God is not real then praying won't hurt.
As to cognitive dissonance - It would be easier to look up my own nose without a mirror than to recognize cognitive dissonance in myself, that is what compartmentalization is all about.
Environmental issues overblown?: Some of the predictions of more extreme weather as overall worldwide temperature rises are already being born out. Katrina was an example of an extreme hurricane, Cat 5, that combined with badly maintained local infrastructure to add up to a disaster. Super Storm Sandy did not even have any infrastructure in place to mitigate the damages because it was so unusual, thus far. The various blizzards the northeastern US has been suffering through for the last few years are also extreme weather predicted by the models (note: I first say more and more extreme blizzards due to Global Warming predicted in 1986)
For a simple example of a warming trend causing extreme cold events, look into the Little Ice Age, around 800 - 1000 AD in Britain, IIRC, caused by a warming trend in part of the Atlantic Ocean. I mention this because some people think that GW causing cold weather extremes is a form of cognitive dissonance, but I believe the evidence shows it is not.
The answer is almost certainly: Yes.
It is one of the many problems of being human. That is partially why I post in places like this. Such problems tend to be noticed and pointed out at some length!
I try to minimise any such problems by not expressing an opinion unless I can back it up. Sometimes I take a (calculated) flier, but not often. Also, I have no strong ideological beliefs to cause conflicts. I like to work with logic and understanding. The knowledge is supplied by others, I just try to fit it together.
I think I see things which are based on some sort of cognitive dissonance - not necessarily her it should be noted. (I go to the UK Guardian's "Komment Macht Frei" pages when I want some relaxation.) For instance, some people will rubbish an argument based on the fact that some one is not a "Climate Scientist" and will offer a view from, say James Hansen who is an astrophysicist.. Yet, if you offer them a view from Richard Lindzen that does not count.
Or commenters who rubbish people with religious beliefs, Roy Spencer, for instance, but will then quote Newton's laws at you.
Or the ones who say anyone who disagrees with them must be funded by Big Oil who go on to quote Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science and The Guardian (who works for a company whose customers are Big Oil) or Al Gore whose family fortune was made from oil and tobacco.
Or the ones who claim that sceptics have all the funding because you know they have not researched the foundations of Bill Hewlett, Dave Packard, Tides and of course Enron, Goldmann Sachs, World Bank, George Soros, not to mention the governments of the western world etc.
I am not sure how much of that is pure cognitive dissonance and how much is just ignoring any alternative view.
@Chem: The Precautionary Principle. "... incur a small cost in advance ..." Do you know just how big an assumption you have just made? I don't know how much your home costs but let's assume it is less that $10 million. I could offer to insure it for $10 M for you. If you so much as scratch the paintwork I will pay out the full amount each time (with no more than 1 claim in any three month period). Sound like a good deal? How could you refuse? By the way, the premiums will be $10 M per month payable in advance.
So insurance may be good but before accepting you need to know the cost. Don't just rely on the fact that insurance is usually cheaper than what you insure. That is not guaranteed.
Yes, I certainly do. I like the warmer weather we're getting in my northern state but I don't like the more extreme weather events that appear to be accompanying it. I believe that mankind is influencing climate, but I want to believe that it is a natural process that will be less abrupt than predicted, even though I won't be around if things get nasty-and I think it will be at least a couple hundred years down the road. On the other hand, I think we will adapt in any number of ways regardless of the cause, although it is going to be slower than the warmists want it to be. Yet I am impatient to move forward with practical alternative energy sources. I want a Tesla that I can charge at night in my garage using a solar panel. But I don't want to give up my V8s.
Point is, I'm a glass half full kind of guy...a natural optimist. When it comes to climate change, that's pretty dissonant in and of itself. You can see where that could lead a person when there is a conflict between believing that things will turn out OK when Climate Science tells us they will not if we don't do things differently. It makes it hard to accept change...or even envision it. I'm surprised I'm not in...oh geez...denial.
I'm like a train wreck...you want to look away but you can't. Isn't THAT cognitive dissonance?
Wow. I read the first book on climate change in 1969. It stated that the glaciers would be descending and the new ice age was at hand. In the 80's starvation would raise it's ugly head. None of that happened so they did an about face in the other direction. I am now given to understand that I never read such a book and I had a drug induced hallucination. Well I never did drugs and I know I read the book. This is inconvenient to those wishing to deny this book ever existed. I know the truth, the climate is what it is and that is all there is too it. Some places cold, some hot. Millions of years ago the planet was hot. Millions of years before it was frozen solid. Those who have great guilt of being human go on about how we caused all this even when we didn't exist. I don't understand their mental illness and I really don't care. The Earth is going to do what it does and it has no interest in politics. Now if you think that being buried by a mile high glacier is God's will than so be it. I would rather sip Mai Tai's under palm trees in New England.
Yes. I think most people do not realize that efficient long term solutions will necessitate so much more than a simple carbon tax. Or *drum roll* cap and trade; which seems like the most ridiculous scheme that only redistributes economies without reducing the net sum of emissions, unless there would be a limit on the cap, which would hurt the economy. People do not realize how much viable solutions will affect our standards of living.
Real solutions are oblivious to utopians or beautifully naive thinkers who think "we can have this marvellous new high tech society where everyone has a big piece of happiness (with artificial frosting), in nice super condensed cities with all practicalities like extreme proximity to work, (top floor, under the solar panels) where ladies drop their genetically engineered children at the Teletubies daycare, except they dont have the rabbit (halfway up) and pick up dinner at the vertical garden fruit store (thirdway down) on the way back. They only need to take elevators, or stairs, really. On weekends families can gather at the park, located in the tiny backyard or their appartment building, on ground level!!! For a small fee,they can sit under the artificial super carbon sucking trees, all on the white grass in rows of high tech bliss (signing Kumbaya, like a picture perfect familypicknick) under the pleasant music of "Liberal bird chopping windmills".
So, when you look at it from a utilitarian perspective, the solutions that are viable are not as simple as we like to think. Even if it was not for AGW, overpopulation is really hindering the long term solutions for the 'sustainable' future of humanity. It kind of reminds of that scene from Dr Zhivago at the ice palace, it is night time, they lay in bed. The wind blows really hard while the wolves are howling outside, Lara is petrified, Yuri tries to comfort her and she says: "Yuri, this is not a good time to be alive"
1)There is dissonance between capitalism and democracy to begin with. For any state of government, in order to be considered Democratic, the people must decide. In capitalism, all things are translated into money values and decisions are taken by capital holders. I'll give you an example just to become understood. 0.1% of the people own 81% of the world wealth. 99.9% of the people own the rest 19% of the wealth much in the same stratified manner. 0.1% of the people loan the rest with 3% interest which increases their wealth without having to create or produce anything whatsoever.They own pretty much everything and make all the important decisions. Do you think this is consistent with Democracy?
2)Capitalism theory considers resources infinite, and seeks unending expansion. We know that Earth resources are finite.
3)Capitalism does not take into account environment, as long as it doesn't translate into profit or financial damage for capital owners. It does not take into account humanity or the future. I.e the Amsterdam dam was built with the following methodology (i.e):
a)What does a full flood cost? that many people drowned x 150000$ a pop = that much money
+ that many properties destroyed x 100000$ a pop = that much money
----------------------------
equals x$
b)What can we build with up to x$? According to our hydrologic data we can build a dam that protects from 90% of the floods that may occur in the next 50 years.
c)Form a simple cost-effectiveness algorithm. Results as follows: We build a dam that costs 0.6*x$ with a 20% chance of a flood in the next 50 years. It is the most cost effective.
I bet the guys that took these decisions didn't rush to buy properties in the Dutch lowlands for themselves. These guys detest physical labour, mopping included. And this is the way nuclear plants are built, and so on and so forth. There's a 1/6 chance per year that a significant nuclear accident will happen, but capitalism doesn't care about the fact that Uranium has a 4.5 billion year half life span and plutonium around 25000 years, meaning that for plutonium polluted environment to be inhabitable it will taken longer than men have walked the Earth, and for Uranium longer than what it will take for the sun to become a red dwarf, at which point life on Earth will be irrelevant. (Even if you account for a ridiculously low sum of money i.e a 100 square mile area around Chernobyl producing 1$ of wealth per year you end up with trillions lost in time, not to mention what those irradiated people's healthcare around the world costs. But you can't say, look, this person half the way around the world from Fukushima wouldn't suffer from cancer if he had received a μCi less of radiation. All you can see is the percentages of people suffering pollution related diseases rising all the time) Capitalism does not account for such things, not beyond the living area and time frame of the capital holders, nor does it care for what the public thinks, that's why it is not only irrelevant but in fact incompatible to Democracy and environmental issues among a lot of other important things.
So, to answer your question directly if you think that capitalism is compatible with with these things you have an altered sense of what they truly represent and therefore passively suffer from "cognitive dissonance". That is why reality doesn't concur with your expectations. And no fancy term can change that, no matter how you put it.
Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth ...
I have yet to see debates, discussions, or arguments on the physics board discussing whether or not the physicists at CERN are correct about their theories regarding the Higgs boson. I haven't seen one person questioning the validity of their conclusions, questioning the experimental methodology they employ, the analysis they perform, their competence, training, impartiality, funding, or political ideology. I haven't seen attempts to pick their data apart and haven't heard of anyone hacking their emails and publishing those online.
Why? Well, there are two reasons. Firstly the work at CERN is far removed from our every day lives. Secondly, most people would happily acknowledge that, no matter how much they read, how much they search the web, how 'informed' they believe they are, they are in no way qualified to be able to offer anything remotely resembling a critique. And if they did, we'd rightly laugh at them. I'd laugh at the person, barely able to recall having learnt the chain rule in calculus class, disagreeing with the 50 year old experimental physicist overseeing the design of the ATLAS detector (for example).
And yet, because the 'climate' is something we are familiar with and not quite so esoteric as particles within the Standard Model, all of our usual humility seems to go out the window. I absolutely refuse to accept the opinions of people who are not climatologists on scientific matters concerning the planet's climate. This is not an appeal to absent authority. It is simple recognition that the days of 'gentleman scientists' died about 200 years ago. I refuse to listen to arguments from people about the effect of CO2, for example, when those very same people have absolutely no idea how one might calculate the dipole moment of the molecule in question.
The science, for me, is what scientists should debate and not the public. What we, as the public, can do is decide how to respond to what they say. Whether you agree with certain policies or not ... that's your right. I will disagree or agree, depending, which is mine.
So cognitive dissonance isn't the aspect. It's basic arrogance and the belief of some people that they can offer an opinion on the science without having earned the right to have that opinion taken seriously.
This forum on Y/A is, to me, sort of like the old guy in the local pub ... you know the one I mean. He's the one who likes to talk, big himself up, and thinks he knows what he's talking about. But, after you've done listening to him, you walk away thinking 'wow ... talk about an ego and an inflated sense of his own knowledge'.
Do you have insurance on your possessions? Do you look both ways before crossing the street, even on a little neighborhood street where there's not a lot of traffic? Then you believe in the precautionary principle about some things. You believe that it makes sense to incur a small cost in advance, to avoid the possibility of a large negative result. What's so different between that and, say, investing in solar power in case AGW will cause serious problems if we don't take action?
And, you said yourself that you have a bias against environmentalism. So, even when the consensus of scientists is saying "this is a major environmental problem", the fact that it's an *environmental* problem is making part of you reflexively say "Nah, it couldn't be that big a deal, it's only the environment." So you're more likely to reject scientific conclusions that are saying AGW is a problem, and more likely to accept ones saying that it is not, even if the sources of the former are objectively more credible than the sources of the latter.
I think an objective observer would have views pretty close to the scientific consensus. Which is, as far as I understand it, something above 95% confidence that AGW is happening, is likely to raise temperatures significantly if we don't take action, and is likely to cause at least some serious problems. But, also, that there is little or no risk of humanity being wiped out or the like because of it.
edit:
And, though I realize everybody probably thinks this, I think I'm relatively free of bias on the subject. I may be slightly more inclined than most to believe, respect, and/or accept environmental claims, but I try not to accept *any* claim blindly, and my default assumption is that any claim might or might not be true, so the best course of action is the one that causes the least harm either way. Of course, the more likely a particular claim is, the more I'm willing to bias action in favor of that claim. And, at this point, problematic (though not necessarily catastrophic) AGW is looking... pretty likely.
son of edit:
Perhaps I don't understand the Precautionary Principle, or at least what you mean by the term.
But I do not see any deep and inherent difference between "I don't know that my house won't catch on fire, so I shall buy insurance so that I will not be too bad off if it does" or "I don't know if there's going to be a car coming by, so I will look both ways before crossing the street" and "We don't know whether or to what extent our CO2 emissions will cause us harm, so we should look for ways to reduce our CO2 emissions where practical". In all cases, we are taking a relatively small action to avoid a very great potential harm.
yet another edit:
Graphic: why do you think I included the "where practical"? That, to me at least, implies "while keeping in mind the costs involved"
apes are our descendents?
I am sure you meant ancestors. Well I probably made the same mistake and since we are actually a type of ape, you aren't wrong anyway.
The Precautionary Principle is a bit of a joke. You can spin it however you want. They say we should be cautious since we don't know how much our CO2 will effect the climate (well they think they know) and I say we should also be cautious about implementing their "solutions".
I work in the environmental field. It benefits me personally when environmentalists succeed in getting money into the system. My job is directly benefiting groundwater so there is a practical need for it also. That said, I vote for conservatives but it is a voice in the wilderness here in California. My wife teaches many illegal immigrant Mexican kids. Some of the parents have become very sophisticated in gaming the system, getting all sorts of benefits, and they are encouraged by the powers that be here. Personally I would make it easy to migrate here legally but I really don't like laws being ignored. Suffice it to say, my financial benefits for voting Democrat far outweigh my benefits for being conservative except for the fact that I believe conservatism and following the rule of law would have much greater long term benefits but we are stuck in a hole and rabidly digging ourselves deeper here in So Cal.
Yesterday I asked about examples of cognitive dissonance in this very divisive issue. And I got the usual chunks of poop flung back at me which I expected since it was a fairly abrasive question. So in fairness, I'd like to look at myself and see what I can glean about my own thought processes.
I'll start with Evolution. This is what I would consider the best example of observing cognitive dissonance. Those who are very religious have a very obvious internal conflict of belief when they are told that man evolved as opposed to a higher being just plunking two of down here. For me, I am not religious and while I do hold that there could be a higher being, I believe science has shown quite well that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, life evolved slowly from single cells to complex life, dinosaurs existed 65M years ago, apes are our descendents, etc.
So I don't have any internal conflict about Evolution. In fact, I don't really think about it. It's just part of science and our understanding of nature. However, I'm having trouble accepting certain parts of climate science and the explanation of the Earth's natural systems. If I'm having cognitive dissonance, then perhaps I have some values or beliefs which are conflicted.
I certainly believe in capitalism and democracy, and while neither is close to perfect, they are a lot better than the alternatives. And frankly, I'm not sure how the proposed policies for AGW conflict with either of those. I guess some think this is an attack on capitalism (and some on democracy). I'm not sure that's true although it does seem like some policies could impede progress (whatever you may define that as). I have no financial ties either way and my employment does not depend on anything to do with climate science or climate policies. The only dog I have in this fight is as a concerned citizen.
The only think I can think of is that I do have is a bit of a gripe with environmentalists and environmentalism in general. I think the Precautionary Principle is intolerant and unnecessarily restrictive. And I think environmentalist issues have been overblown and exaggerated to make their point. This could be backfiring for them now (e.g. my own case). It all makes we me wonder where a fully unbiased and unmotivated observer would lie in the spectrum from complete denier to complete catastrophist.
Here is your chance to be honest. I know that some here are going to just focus on what I have said about myself (and fling more poo) but even if you do that, try a true self-assessment as well.
No.
The apparrent lack of warming, which I assume you have in mind as the source of our supposed cognitive dissonance, can be explained by other variability in the system; the change to the negative phase of the PDO being the main factor in my opinion.
I'm not 100% certain, there is some uncertainty in climate science and my understanding of some aspects, is incomplete, but no; I have no cognitive dissonance.
@pegminer
<... can use appeal to authority and red herring arguments in his attempt to dismiss AGW because of logical fallacies in the arguments...>
Nice ad hominem tu quoque; a perfectly typical way to sidestep the issue at hand. You ignore the fact that the referenced arguments were indeed fallacious. This is why you (in contrast to your claimed credentials) are not a scientist. It appears you are emotionally unsuited to the rigors of critical thinking, which is a necessary component of the scientific method. Perhaps that is why you experience no cognitive dissonance when there is so much contradictory data available.
Petito principii, ad hominem, appeal to assertion, and an appeal to emotion, all in one short sentence. You have mastered circular reasoning.
Try art. No scientific method required, and thus no risk of cognitive dissonance.
@chem
Mike is right. You have no idea what the precautionary principle means; a choice to carry insurance is not an example of it. also, a "scientific consensus", in this context, is an oxymoron. And...no bias? You are not the least objective alarmist on YA, but you are close. If you had no bias, you would not be using a petito principii argument in virtually every post, and you would not be using any form of the word 'denial' to characterize those who do not agree with you.
I believe that your next to last paragraph shows us what cards you holding in your hand, Mike.
Since you have made this about you, and any cognitive dissonance that you may have, let us explore from there.
Ask yourself a few simple questions.
1. Is there anything within The Laws of Physics that would allow us to continuously add more CO2 into the atmosphere and for this anthropogenic releases of CO2 not become a greenhouse gas in atmosphere?
2. Is there anything within The Laws of Chemistry that would allow us to continuously add more CO2 into the atmosphere and for this anthropogenic releases of CO2 not become a greenhouse gas in atmosphere?
3. Is there anything within The Laws of Thermodynamics that would allow us to continuously add more CO2 into the atmosphere and for this anthropogenic releases of CO2 not become a greenhouse gas in atmosphere?
4. Is there anything within the Laws that will keep greenhouse gases from warming our climate when all of the natural variations within our climate remain the same?
5. Are you allowing your personal beliefs deflect from what you know of the science behind the AGWT?
Your questions and responses to questions here show us that you resist anything that could prove to show promise towards mitigating the amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in our atmosphere or to at least slow the continuous rise of these gases in our atmosphere. The operative word here is "anthropogenic", Mike and I am not speaking of the natural releases of these gases. Does this conflict with your scientific knowledge of the subject?
In addition:
Mike, Yahoo limits our space to respond to questions. I will fit in what I can here.
I understand the AGWT. I know that the AGWT does not violate The Laws of Physics, Chemistry or Thermodynamics. No competing theories better explain the observations being made than does the AGWT. No other theories can even come close to doing so. I do not act any differently than what the science shows me. I work within what I know and I adjust my behavior accordingly.
The first 4 questions I asked you are completely relevant. Since you would answer "No" to these questions then I know what your understanding of the science is. Your Engineering degrees should also give you more knowledge concerning this since you simply cannot engineer outside of the The Laws of Physics, Chemistry or Thermodynamics. Any attempts to do so would lead to a failed engineering project. Therefore, it is completely illogical for you to use your engineering degrees as a basis for your "skepticism" of the AGWT. You would be, in fact, in disagreement with your knowledge and how you behave based on what you know. ... Show us any evidence that tells you that 2C will be the upper limit of any CO2 induced warming. Also, show us your evidence that 2C would not be enough warming to initiate feedback mechanisms that would drive the warming further without any additional CO2 being introduced.
Edit - Part2
That is correct. Neither of us have the definitive answers as to how much warming will occur from anthropogenic CO2 levels or where the tipping points are that more CO2 is no longer needed to continue the warming. The difference is that I am not willing to put our future generations at risk based on my "gut instincts" or because I do not know all of the answers now. I am willing to act based on the knowledge we do have now and I am not holding out for some miraculous alteration to the physics that will save us at the last moment.
The warmer oceans were expected. The oceans are, by far, the largest heat sinks on this planet. To say they did not know where the "missing heat" was is illogical and dishonest! Watts was the biggest crier of "where's the extra heat?!" and he was answered. Observations proved what was already suspected! You are not ignorant so you must be taking your positions based upon your mentioned ideologies and not on the science! The exact same mistake that Judith Curry makes.
So if the model fails to make accurate predictions and people notice that you consider that cognitive dissonance. Sounds like a splendid example right there.
In answer to your question, no, I don't have any cognitive dissonance going on. As I explained in another answer, I believe you expect cognitive dissonance because of what's going on in your own head, and you project that onto us.
I thought you were going to look at yourself in this question? I don't see much self-examination going on your details. You didn't even bring up your recent question about "radiative forcing," where you were asking whether the term was invented by James Hansen--presumably for rhetorical purposes. The term has been in use for decades in climate science--before the IPCC even existed--and yet the implication of your question is clear: the term was chosen for propaganda purposes. I'm not sure what psychological classification that would fall into (I would guess some minor form of paranoia), but it's certainly not rational. Then your "Additional details" of that question might have given you a chance to retreat from this position, but you re-emphasize the irrationality with statements like
"Why did CO2 need to be distinguished from water vapor? " (you're seriously asking that?)
and
"Atmospheric science is based on fundamental physics and thermodynamics, so one has to wonder why a new term was needed at all."
[Before anyone objects to these being taken out of context, here is the link to the original question http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... ]
Now in the global warming category you're asking multiple questions about cognitive dissonance--I'm pretty sure you've even asked about it before! Why not use your dime-store psychology on yourself, or on other deniers? Ask about how Maxx can quote an astrophysicist to support his arguments against AGW, when he only believes the Earth is 6500 years old! There's got be some real cognitive dissonance going on there. Or ask about how Caliservative can use appeal to authority and red herring arguments in his attempt to dismiss AGW because of logical fallacies in the arguments. How can Pat believe that heat from plate tectonics can drive AGW when he is shown the heat flow from the Earth and the value is vastly smaller than the Earth radiation budget terms? How can Sagebrush argue that he is a "true scientist" and AGW believers are not, when he thinks the reason that winters are cold is because the Earth is farther from the sun then? Why does Kano spend time and effort reading crackpot blogs that deny the greenhouse effect, when he could just as well take a look at an atmospheric physics books and see the greenhouse effect demonstrated--without any more complicated math than what are in the crackpot blogs?
And don't talk about others flinging poop when every question you ask is meant to insult or impugn.
EDIT: Good one Mike. Interacting with deniers does make me feel superior, I will admit that.
EDIT for Caliservative: There you go with one more red herring argument. This question is about cognitive dissonance, but you have completely ignored that (just like you always ignore science) in favor of prattling on about irrelevant epistemological terms. My point of using you as an example was that while you are wont to point out the "fallacious" arguments of others, you fail to recognize them in your own writing. I would suggest that you should spend more time trying to make sense of the science (of which you have neither demonstrated nor claimed any knowledge), and less trying to brand each argument with your sociological mumbo-jumbo.
Your final attack on my retort to Mike's insult was to spout off a bunch more terms which are AGAIN completely irrelevant to the discussion. Frankly, you can't even distinguish between rhetoric and statement of facts. Thanks for the suggestion of switching to art, but frankly I'll stick with a career in science.
You so remember science, don't you? It was that general ed class that you struggled with.
Kind of, but all Alarmist disassociate. I feel I'm in a better position to weigh the facts. There's nothing worse for mankind then the Alarmist mentality.
Sanity Rules.
I don't think you have cognitive dissonance. I think you are intellectually dishonest, which makes you willing to believe a lie that makes you feel good rather than face an ugly truth.
