Green alarmism - what drives it and how should democratic electorates respond

[Tombo]

Yes - they came up with the name licencing effect. Wilde had a similar theory in "risk homeostasis"



there are lots of other interesting social psycology experiemnts such as those by Milgram.

they are all interesting and worthy of development but for you to make the assumption that those people that purchase polluting products or those that exploit child labour etc are somehow exempt from telling lies is a bit weak even by your standards.

there are so many layers of complexity in consumption and ethical consumption this is only scratching the surface.

Nice irrelevant little interlude there.

Back to exhibited behaviour in the area of honesty. Greens expound their moral superiority and use this as a basis for demanding policies, invariably inflicting costs on others.

But as a group they tend to lie cheat and steal more. I understand your unwillingness to confront such apparent data, but to persist in your baseless defence so publically is dishonest.

Oh, wait...

[PAD1OH]

Nice irrelevant little interlude there.

Back to exhibited behaviour in the area of honesty. Greens expound their moral superiority and use this as a basis for demanding policies, invariably inflicting costs on others.

But as a group they tend to lie cheat and steal more. I understand your unwillingness to confront such apparent data, but to persist in your baseless defence so publically is dishonest.

Oh, wait...

ok so. the sample included a set of approx 100 students from the University of Toronto.

Are you comfortable/happy to conflate this analysis to the wider population and policy, scientific and legal systems?

[PAD1OH]

As you are unwilling to look at the broader context of the study, a simple YES or NO answer will do.

[Tombo]

What sort of trip are you on?

[Tombo]

Let's flesh this out a little with some open admission of the very characteristic that is (supposed) to be the topic of discussion.

The views of an extremely well known academic and alarmist lobbiest:

Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford University (said) ”we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Hyped to hysteria | Herald Sun

Oh dear. Is that a hint of self-justfiied disohonesty I see before me?

Well at least we can have faith in the "scientists of tomrrow":

It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/ma...TERS.html?_r=2

Oh dear x 2. The well is poisoned.

[PAD1OH]

"Nice irrelevant little interlude there."

i take it you're not going to answer the question that directly relates to your OP and the research posted?

[sharper]

Let's flesh this out a little with some open admission of the very characteristic that is (supposed) to be the topic of discussion.

The views of an extremely well known academic and alarmist lobbiest:

Another in the long line of Tombo quote mines

Full quote with Tombo's excerpt bolded:

The Schneider Quote ClimateSight

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

He's commenting on the types of comments which get media coverage versus the way scientists present issues but of course you're only too happy to snip out one part of a larger statement and completely misrepresent him as usual.

Anticipated Tombo response: "I know what he really meant and that's all the matters".

[Tombo]

"Nice irrelevant little interlude there."

As I point out, dead on topic.

Committed greens are comfortable with behaving more dishonestly and more dishonestly than they would tolerate of other.

[Tombo]

Another in the long line of Tombo quote mines

Full quote with Tombo's excerpt bolded:

The Schneider Quote ClimateSight


He's commenting on the types of comments which get media coverage versus the way scientists present issues but of course you're only too happy to snip out one part of a larger statement and completely misrepresent him as usual.

Anticipated Tombo response: "I know what he really meant and that's all the matters".

He is saying that scientists have to:

"offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have"

Who is offering up the exaggeration?
Who is withholding important disclaimers and details about uncertainty?

Besides, Saying that it is the green media what done it does nothing to negate the point. People comfortable with behaving dishonestly.

[Tombo]

Anticipated Tombo response: "I know what he really meant and that's all the matters".

Putting words in others' mouths again?

Actual tombo response: read the plain english.