New UN Climate Report = we've hit 'tipping-points'

[freebeard]

Done and dusted?

His whole schtick is persuasion trumps all. He was talking about the glorification of the clown Zelensky making him nauseous, because persuasion woks even when you know how it works.

His stance on science is when you say 'science' your really talking about [frail, human] scientists not the unfettered pursuit of Knowledge.

Your cite lacks linkage. hwww.jstor.org/stable/23484653?addFooter=false

Though ideology and personal worldviews can be major obstacles for debiasing, there nonetheless are a number of effective techniques for reducing the impact of misinformation, and we pay special attention to these factors that aid in debiasing. We conclude by providing specific recommendations for the debunking of misinformation. These recommendations pertain to the ways in which corrections should be designed, structured, and applied in order to maximize their impact.

Sounds like it might be interesting.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) His very question belies the obvious fact that he isn't acquainted with the climate science in the least.
2) His credibility is dismissed right then and there. Bingo!
3) There's no reason to waste any more time on him.

Scott would agree with #1 wholeheartedly.

He and others would say that #2 does not follow from #1

Some would say #3 is always true for everything at all times.

The future is unpredictable, which is his point. His other point being that "models" are rarely useful because of his first point that the future is unpredictable.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Done and dusted?

His whole schtick is persuasion trumps all. He was talking about the glorification of the clown Zelensky making him nauseous, because persuasion woks even when you know how it works.

His stance on science is when you say 'science' your really talking about [frail, human] scientists not the unfettered pursuit of Knowledge.

Your cite lacks linkage. hwww.jstor.org/stable/23484653?addFooter=false

Sounds like it might be interesting.

I think it came from the January, 2013, Scientific American, in an article by Michael Shermer.
I make notes, never thinking I'll be sharing them, so all I know is that I transcribed some source material.
Shermer cites:
Neuroscience Institute, Georgia State University
New Scientist
Florida State University Philosophy and Psychology
New York University Psychology
Columbia University Psychology
Emory University Psychology
Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri
Georgia State University neuroscience Institute
Annual Review of Psychology
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA
Cognition
Functional MRI
Libet experiment
Haynes study

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Scott would agree with #1 wholeheartedly.

He and others would say that #2 does not follow from #1

Some would say #3 is always true for everything at all times.

The future is unpredictable, which is his point. His other point being that "models" are rarely useful because of his first point that the future is unpredictable.

2) He's inefficient, redundant, asking questions asked hundreds of time before by others. A waste of time for anyone familiar with the topic.
This format loses the info I need for #3, I'll have to leave an come back ( more wasted time!)
3) explained in #2 within the context of the initiated.

[freebeard]

link
[list of things with no links]

I think that word does not mean what you think it does.

My observation is that S. Adams is one to two days behind the times. One example was the Covington Kid. Today he is admitting the possibility of the bio-weapon labs he scoffed at yesterday.

But he has his own 48-hour rule. Definitely not Dogbert-matic.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I think that word does not mean what you think it does.

My observation is that S. Adams is one to two days behind the times. One example was the Covington Kid. Today he is admitting the possibility of the bio-weapon labs he scoffed at yesterday.

But he has his own 48-hour rule. Definitely not Dogbert-matic.

I still don't know what your asking about.
I gave something on debiasing.
You made a comment about debiasing.
I gave you what I had about that.
Obviously I haven't satisfied your request.
Adams has an odor about him. I was addressing my experience.

[freebeard]

You give and give, I comment and request?

Were I less kind, I might quote Bob Dylan "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

You give and give, I comment and request?

Were I less kind, I might quote Bob Dylan "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

I don't understand your request.
I can't 'link' to something that was never on the internet.
When I provide the periodical citation it's a fail.
Very confusing.

[freebeard]

Permalink #30

'Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing,' Psychological Science in the Public Interest, University of Western Australia, psychologist Stephen Lewandowsy et al., 2012.

Permalink #31
www.jstor.org/stable/23484653?addFooter=false

Though ideology and personal worldviews can be major obstacles for debiasing, there nonetheless are a number of effective techniques for reducing the impact of misinformation, and we pay special attention to these factors that aid in debiasing. We conclude by providing specific recommendations for the debunking of misinformation. These recommendations pertain to the ways in which corrections should be designed, structured, and applied in order to maximize their impact.

I think we're reaching the limit of my ability to help.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) My experience has been that you've never produced any 'scientific' evidence of failure on the part of the scientific community to 'prove' global climate change.
2) You have shared 'pseudo-scientific propaganda' which is aligned with climate denial.
3) I've read every citation you've shared and none of S-O's reporting has stood up to the rigor of the counterfactual scientific reporting.
4) By default, you've unwittingly, or wittingly shared bogus information.
5) Therefore, I can't give S-O a pass. Kinda why it's completely dismissed by the scientific community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) I've begun a list of scientific 'tools' NASA and their collaborators use to observe, measure, analyze, and reach conclusions from, with regard to 'any' topic they report on.
7) Anyone introduced to the 'scientific method' would 'KNOW' that S-O simply does not have the education, budget, resources, data-reduction capability, nor knowledge of the extreme statistical tools required to make heads or tails of the raw data collected by scientists.
8) An entire life-savings from Ben wouldn't pay for the cost of a single computational iteration of any of the extant global circulation models used by climate, or any other kinds of scientists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I've seen enough people killed by bad 'intelligence'. I've no appetite for more.
If you're at ease sending innocents to a certain death by default, presently, you're permitted to do so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My 'religion' doesn't allow it. Expect push-back.

More gaslighting