Slashdot Mirror

In fact, the evidence points to the opposite.

No, it doesn't. The mainstream predictions are actually doing ok. The simple fact is that you do not understand climate science and thus you assume the experts know nothing about it either.

I'm sorry, you're full of shit and don't have a clue what you're talking about. When you disagree with NASA and CERN and the fossil record you better be able to also drop an SUV on mars from a rocket powered skycrane and hold all the worlds antimatter.

The IPCC has not been right about anything, ever, and if you don't think 75% error is meaningful then 2+2=7 is for you.

You wouldn't happen to be the recipient of a climate grant would you?

"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
"'I made a mistake'

As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."

Oh fuck. The F word. F-f-f-f-f-uding.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

"Warming" -> http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mu...
http://opinion.financialpost.c...
http://www.populartechnology.n...
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/...
http://www.climatechangedispat...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...

If you have some other explanations of all these or proof of a warming world this might be a good time to drag it out.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/...

In spite of the grumblings of many, Karjaluoto doesn't recall many such changes that we didn't later look upon as the right choice.

Or rather, the famous reality distortion field later convinced Apple customer's that Apple must have been right all along. Because otherwise they'd have to admit that they'd been had, and no one wants to do that.

People who have paid a high price to enter a group tend to value that group, and people who are part of a group tend to conform to that group's judgments. It's terrible tech and terrible design, but it's great marketing.

This study is really a revelation for me, the findings are highly non-obvious. I had thought that people would wait indefinitely for the video to appear, based on the "sunken costs" theory, i.e. I've already invested mm minutes and ss seconds waiting for this to appear and it might appear at any moment.

This actually captures well why people should hesitate before deriding studies which have seemingly obvious outcomes. This study may be on the margins of that - although it is the quantification that is actually interesting about it - but sometimes studies find counterintuitive results. Even better, if a study produces a what may be a counterintuitive result then hindsight bias means people will tend to revise memories so they believe that was the expected outcome all along.

"At some point in recent American history, we started assuming that if people are rich enough, they must be experts in all things. That's why we trust Mark Zuckerberg to save Newark schools and Bill Gates to rid the world of malaria. Expertise is so 20th century". link

'Bill Gates has certainly proven that he can make a pile of money, but does founding Microsoft make him an expert or even an authority on education?', bowl_haircut
--

The Halo Effect

A more systematic approach to the same problem: http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/09/do-you-challenge-queue-jumpers-and-line.php

But where are the studies that show that "reliving the trauma" is better in general?

There's so far evidence that the popular method of "reliving or talking about it" isn't such a good idea:

http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/06/venting-emotions-after-trauma-predicts.php

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1296912

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/11/mentalhealth.healthandwellbeing

I'm inclined that like most memory stuff, repeating something over and over again just makes it easier for you to remember it.

For some people the "reliving" session may itself be yet another traumatic event to add to their "wonderful life" so far. Imagine if you're a rape victim, getting raped in virtual reality over and over again.

Of course the trouble is it's often hard to conduct experiments in the field of psychology to prove efficacy. You can't go around giving 1000 people PTSD and do a "double blind" on the treatments. I suppose you could try it on rats first, but how well is that going to translate?

IMO I believe if people don't feel a strong _urge_[1] to talk about it tell them to think about something else and get busy with other more enjoyable things.

Same goes for the conventional wisdom on "bottling up anger". You let people bash stuff up because they feel angry, all it does is makes it become a trained/learned response. Fine if you want to learn to bash stuff up whenever you get angry, but not fine if you are trying to learn something else.

[1] Not because they _feel_ it's the right thing to do - based on "conventional" stupidity aka wisdom. If they do feel a strong urge, then yes let them do it.

How can voters be informed when the media aren't? It seem that whenever I see anything whatever about science on the TV news, they get something wrong, usually badly wrong and backwards.

It's more than the media... Some people refuse to believe legitimate science. Half the students in that study answered a question incorrectly even after being explicitly told the scientifically correct answer.

The average American (at least the ones I talk to) don't think that scientific consensis is that the globe is heatihng and we are responsible.

And irony or ironies, now you're telling us you're a member of the Cult of Climate Change. Don't you think if it were true, you'd have scientific proof instead of a scientific consensus. It's right there in your own words. You're presenting your opinion, not scientific fact.

Here's how real science works. You publish something and other scientists review it. Your peers try their best to tear it down. If it stands up to the harshest scrutiny, it's considered pretty solid scientific research.

Here's how the "science" of climate change works. One paper is published.... The One True Paper... and everyone is expected to fall in line. Peer review of The One True Paper is not allowed. If you attempt to review The One True Paper you are shouted down as a non-believer. Questioning The One True Paper diverts your efforts and money away from the Cult of Climate Change and puts us all in Grave Danger! There isn't time to question The One True Paper. We must "come together" now! We must convert all non-believers immediately or else we are all in Grave Danger! As a member of the Cult of Climate Change, it is your moral duty to save these non-believers from themselves before the damage is irreparable!!! It is the only way to escape the Grave Danger! that we all face. We know this because The One True Paper tells us so.

But I'm wasting my breath. You're clearly a believer. I could present you with a mountain of scientific evidence and it wouldn't make a dent. Your brain shuts down and your religion kicks in the second you realize I'm disagreeing with your religious beliefs. There are a lot of CCC members reading here too, so I'm sure I'll be modded into the ground. That will certainly reaffirm your beliefs. But just in case... keep chanting it to yourself with cult-like repetition, "There is no dispute. There is a consensus. I believe!!!"

Perhaps the article might hold some clue? If you missed the link in the summary here it is again.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/02/personality-secre ts-in-your-mp3-player.php

If anything, then, terrorists are notable for their normality, for their ability to blend into the background and remain unnoticed. Those recruited tend to be of average appearance, normal in behaviour in the situation they are in, fairly young - between 20 and 25 - and reasonably well educated, often to university level.

They could have quickly called Daniel Tammet http://www.spring.org.uk/2005/05/daniel-tammet-boy -with-incredible.htm
Daniel Tammet is an autistic savant. He can perform mind-boggling mathematical calculations at breakneck speeds.
He can figure out cube roots quicker than a calculator and recall pi to 22,514 decimal places.
:-)