Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Arianna Huffington has an essay looking at how Sarah Palin uses Jungian archetypes routinely and how effective this is on a certain segment of the population (at the same time that it is appalling to pretty much everyone else). She quotes from that now-infamous internet commercial about mama grizzlies:
"It seems like it's kind of a mom awakening... women are rising up.""I always think of the mama grizzly bears that rise up on their hind legs when somebody is coming to attack their cubs."
"You thought pit bulls were tough? Well, you don't wanna mess with the mama grizzlies!"
And points out:
It's classic Palin. And, as often is the case with Palin, the video doesn't feature a single word about policy -- as many of her critics have pointed out. But they are completely missing the point. Indeed, this video and the response to it are a perfect illustration of why we need to widen the scope of our political analysis.We are awash in crises right now -- crises that require smart and creative policy fixes. So why is somebody who so rarely deals in policy fixes so popular? It's because Palin's message operates on a level deeper than policy statements about the economy or financial reform or health care or the war in Afghanistan.
To really understand her appeal, we need less policy analysis and more psychology. Specifically, we need to hear from that under-appreciated political pundit Carl Jung.
It's not Palin's positions people respond to -- it's her use of symbols. Mama grizzlies rearing up to protect their young? That's straight out of Jung's "collective unconscious" -- the term Jung used to describe the part of the unconscious mind that, unlike the personal unconscious, is shared by all human beings, made up of archetypes, or, in Jung's words, "universal images that have existed since the remotest times." Unlike personal experiences, these archetypes are inherited, not acquired. They are "inborn forms... of perception and apprehension," the "deposits of the constantly repeated experiences of humanity."
This is the realm Palin is working in -- I'm sure unintentionally -- and it's why she has connected so deeply with a large segment of the public.
None of this is intentional by Palin, of course. It's just the kind of thing that appeals to her and she uses it to appeal to people just like her. Coincidentally, it masks her total obliviousness when it comes to actual policy. But it also fits in perfectly with conservative political rhetoric, which is all about being tough, decisive and ever vigilant -- but virtually never about being thoughtful or intelligent.
Politics
Comments
Pot, meet kettle.
Talk about pseudo-intellectual drivel. While above the turnip level IQ of Palin, Huffington is equally guilty of validating ideas based on their correspondence to her emotions.
The "HuffPo" is just as adept at presenting "symbols" that emotionally resonate to people on the left. It promotes anti-vax nonsense and is awash in Depak Chopra-esque new age religious lunacy.
When emotional symbols click with your values you tend to believe they are intellectually valid.
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 9:22 AM
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that she isn't doing it on purpose. While I sincerely doubt that she is thinking about it in Jungian terms, I expect that she was told long ago, early in her political career that using imagery like that would likely gain her supporters.
I would also just like to note that Jung's assertions about universal imagery having existed since remote time, is just as much bullshit as the notion of an actual collective unconscious. It bugs the shit out of me because it supports the idiotic notion that across cultures, all archetypes are the same and all manifestations of psychopathology are the same.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 9:26 AM
Palin's appeal is far from intellectual, that is certain. My expertise doesn't extend to Jung so I can't really comment on that but she and the rest of the GnoP better come up with some policies soon. It isn't really about who wins elections at this point. It is about the good of the country.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 12, 2010 9:26 AM
Nothing Ms. Palin does is particularly novel within her faith community, in fact her approach is definitive for that group. What's novel is the stage it's being played-out on and that it resonates with her constituents even in the context of it revolving around national politics.
I grew up and continue to be surrounded by people exactly like Ms. Palin; what is new is that her sort never used to have power even within their own faith community (my mere observation only). At best maybe they'd become a Sunday School teacher for kids but they didn't manage businesses, get elected, or even run an adult Sunday School class or organize a trivial project. To some extent they were merely tolerated. Now they become governors and have Republican Congress-people changing legislation based on their dishonest idiotic screeds.
I think it's important to note that while people like Ms. Palin are a part of the evangelical community, even they didn't promote that type en masse until recently. I despise James Dobson and Tony Perkins, but they are least intelligent and capable. It's like the rise of a subset of our schoolroom classes seizing power in spite of every average to superior student in that room along with the teacher recognizing how ridiculous these people are on risable matters. She really is the mean ambitious ditzy cheerleader, but now one with an army of delusional sycophantic idiots at her disposal.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 12, 2010 9:27 AM
Re MikeMa
Rethuglican nutcases like Ms. Palin couldn't care less about the good of the country. They have only one interest, namely winning elections. Winning elections isn't everything, it's the only thing (with apologies to Vince Lombardi).
Posted by: SLC | August 12, 2010 9:30 AM
Sorry, Lance, your bogus "equivalency" argument fails, just like all the other defensive flailings of the far right. For starters, HuffPo actually deals with real things, not just meaningless abstractions; and they're right more often than Bible Spice and her infantile followers.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 12, 2010 9:41 AM
I'm pretty sure that Palin doesn't care about winning elections, or she wouldn't have quit. All she cares about is being popular and famous.
Posted by: Penn | August 12, 2010 9:44 AM
I love it when the supporters of Mr. Hope and Change say Sarah Palin isn't policy-driven.
Posted by: Uffda | August 12, 2010 9:50 AM
Agreeing with Arianna Huffington about anything makes me all hurty in my head.
Posted by: Chuck C | August 12, 2010 9:52 AM
"...and it's why she has connected so deeply with a large segment of the public."
Large? I doubt it. I would guess it's mainly the tea party, Bachmann and Glenn Beck crowd, who's noise affects Obama's policies (and makes him look ineffectual, therefore not a leader. What a disappointment!)
That Palin has risen validates what TV shows indicate, that people in this country crave heroes and action figures. By invoking mama grizzlies (and before them, pit bulls) Sarah Palin gives herself the allusion of an action figure.
But I don't think she is smart enough to do this on her own. No way, no how.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | August 12, 2010 9:53 AM
Well HuffPo does carry real news, but you seriously don't ever ask yourself why one of the more well known *liberal* news sites devotes so much space to celebrity gossip and other random stuff like anti-vaccine writers etc.
Posted by: Ben P | August 12, 2010 9:56 AM
Democrat Hack -
For starters, HuffPo actually deals with real things, not just meaningless abstractions;
Yes, they spew all sorts of anti-vax nonsense, altmed nonsense and new age creationist fucking bullshit. They are, as much as anything else, a platform for anti-science, populist stupidity.
...and they're right more often than Bible Spice and her infantile followers.
As loathe as I am to defend Lance, who tends towards too much conspiracy nonsense for my taste, he said exactly that. The problem is that isn't a very high bar. But I suppose partisan hacks can't see that shit, for the glory and greatness of their party.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 9:56 AM
"For starters, HuffPo actually deals with real things, not just meaningless abstractions;"
Except of course when they don't. Like any time they feature anything having to with science and medicine. And whether or not the idea of Jungian archetypes is a meaningless abstraction is arguable.
In any case, I would have to agree that the essay is twaddle. Or at least WAY overreaching. Not every use of symbolism or analogy is a representation of an archetype. It's a real stretch to claim that Palin's commercials have some sort Jungian resonance.
Posted by: Moopheus | August 12, 2010 9:56 AM
Re Lance @ #1
One has to get a laugh out of Mr. Lance criticizing Ms. Huffington for promoting unscientific woo, considering that his denial of AGW is just as whacky as anything on her blog.
Posted by: SLC | August 12, 2010 9:59 AM
I don't mind if scientists have political views, but could we please keep them out of the science blogs? Do liberal activists have to pollute every page on the Internet with their oh-so-wise, condescending drivel? What, there isn't room on HuffPo or Kos for a liberal to spout his opinions? People actually go there to read pieces such as this. The denizens of Kos would greatly enjoy another slam on Sarah Palin. But instead this one gets dressed up as 'science' by invoking the name of Carl Jung, and then placed right where it will anger and offend half of the people who come here to read, well, science blogs. Please: all political activists of whatever stripe... take it somewhere else.
Posted by: Bob Hahn | August 12, 2010 10:01 AM
Lance is absolutely correct to criticize HuffPo for promoting woo. He's wrong that that fact somehow undermines the interesting point made about Palin.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 12, 2010 10:01 AM
DuWayne I agree with your point about Jung overreaching with his assertions. It annoys the Hell out of me that it passes for science. But at the same time I must admit his archetype theory is a useful analytical tool, particularly for gleaning insights into groups. Like Feud’s steam-engine model (or Pi=3.14), it’s not entirely true, yet good enough to produce usable results a lot of the time.
Lance, I’m with you in distain for Huffington and for similar reasons. It’s just not relevant to whether or not this particular article is accurate. Or put another way, who but a pot knows better what black looks like? Palin’s appeal does appear to be a triumph of style over substance. Understanding how and why is a worthwhile endeavor. If you’d like to do a similar analysis of Huffington’s appeal I’d gladly consider it too.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 12, 2010 10:03 AM
HA! Jung's idea of "collective unconscious" is something Robert E. Howard (pulp author, creator of Conan) called "racial memory" ("race" in the "human race" sense of the word). I haven't read ANY Jung, but I've read a helluva lot of Robert E. Howard and whodathunk that I'd get my fancy book-learnin' from that ol' Texas hayseed?
Posted by: Slojo Coma | August 12, 2010 10:08 AM
I don't mind if scientists have political views, but could we please keep them out of the science blogs?
Not when the science is needed to inform policy decisions.
Do liberal activists have to pollute every page on the Internet with their oh-so-wise, condescending drivel?
Do you have to go out of your way to whine about it? And what, exactly, is "condescending drivel" in your oh-so-put-upon opinion?
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 12, 2010 10:12 AM
Moopheus -
While there is no question in my mind that Jung's ideas about archetypes wandered well into the territory of completely nutty, culturally common archetypes are most certainly not meaningless abstraction. They are, depending on the context, useful for describing specific sets of cultural characteristics, or useful for describing imagery that will resonate with a significant majority of a given population.
In this case, I would argue that yes, there is a reasoned use of specific archetypal imagery being used - that of the paternalistic, strong mother figure. Meanwhile, her entire persona is that of the patriarchal mother who cares for her family and who is just like every other "good, Christian woman."
Do I think she is clever enough to have come up with this herself? Absolutely not. That doesn't mean it isn't deliberate. Most anyone with even just a bachelors in communication should be able to work out the sorts of metaphors to use to capture a desired demographic - especially a demographic as simple as the one Palin has captured.
And in all honesty, she does a shitty job, even with all that.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 10:13 AM
Those wacky Wall Streeters have been 'Jungian' for ever.
Bull and Bear markets. I rest my case. :) - Dingo
----
Ever seen the damage a good goring can do? Run mommy bear, run.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 12, 2010 10:20 AM
I don't mind if scientists have political views, but could we please keep them out of the science blogs? Do liberal activists have to pollute every page on the Internet with their oh-so-wise, condescending drivel?
Hi, Bob. Welcome to Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Your host, Ed Brayton, is a journalist, a thoughtful libertarian who understands that government can and should serve a purpose, and an outspoken critic of any number of things Obama has done.
He has also been writing this column since 2003, as you'll notice if you take a look at the archives.
Also, he's not holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read it. Just in case you were wondering. So, please, feel free to STFU. Or, if you'd rather stay, try to actually engage the thoughts and avoid just spouting off random nonsense about how people shouldn't dare talk about anything other than science on this website that I'm almost entirely certain you are browsing for free and not paying to host.
Posted by: Geds | August 12, 2010 10:21 AM
Or maybe she just enjoys mauling young boys (2 Kings 2:23-25). It is the godly way for a mama bears to behave after all.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 12, 2010 10:23 AM
I haven't the intestinal fortitude to go plow through Arianna H's pearls of prose this morning: does she note just where in ideological space the proclivities of "that under-appreciated political pundit Carl Jung" led him, or apply that result to analysis of the Palinista movement?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 12, 2010 10:23 AM
Abby -
See, now this is why I wish you would get a blog. (I even know where you could get one really easy-peasy)
Don't get me wrong, I think the archetypal paradigm is exceedingly useful and use it rather a lot. I just get annoyed when Jungian collective unconscious is invoked. Unfortunately, Jungian bullshit is still being used today. A recent study on using MDMA to treat PTSD utilized talk therapy that was based on Grof's LSD therapy protocols, which in turn are thoroughly grounded in Jung's collective unconscious and Freud's psychodynamics. So they basically piled pseudoscience onto pseudoscience - which really sucks, because MDMA actually looks promising as a therapy for PTSD.
Hopefully the results of that study, which were very positive, will be enough to push a study using conjunctive evidence based talk therapy.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 10:28 AM
Whether Jungian archetypes are true or not doesn't matter. What matters is that they make for great fiction, and that exactly what comes out of Palin's mouth when she opens it.
Posted by: Dennis N | August 12, 2010 10:40 AM
I just wanted to point out this sentence here from Huffington's analysis:
You might read that and think "oh, she's just using figurative language". Nope. She really does mean (and really does believe) that Jungian archetypes are literally inherited, on the same level that hair color and skin tone are. A child born to, say, Kenyan parents but who grew up in the United States would have Kenyan Jungian archetypes, not American ones.
And then this part:
Again, you might imagine "oh she just means culturally shared, since we all pick up on the same imagery as children". Nope. She means that there exists a collective unconsciousness that is literally shared among all human beings. That's how premonitions and telepathy and stuff work, don'cha know.
Aside from the woo, though, I think her analysis is spot on. Further, I have a hard time believing that Palin started doing it on purpose; I think she's learned to talk and give speeches like this based on a form of operant conditioning. Basically, if she uses meaningless symbol-laden speech in front of a crowd, she gets a gigantic positive reaction; if she tries to talk about actual reality, she doesn't. This continual cycle of positive reinforcement leads to the Palinisms we see today.
Of course now her speechwriters have probably picked up on the fact that this is the mode in which she works best and tell her to just go with it, further reinforcing her trained proclivities.
Posted by: Tacroy | August 12, 2010 10:44 AM
I think a better interpretation is to consider Palin's remarks as communication where phatic content outweighs semantic content; see passing mention here and here at Coturnix's old blog.
Posted by: abb3w | August 12, 2010 11:01 AM
So would a Freudian say Palin is a monster from the wingnut Id?
Posted by: Nibi | August 12, 2010 11:02 AM
I think she's more David Brent than Carl Jung.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | August 12, 2010 11:07 AM
Now, now, Geds, poor Bob is obviously "angered and offended" at the temerity of a blogger actually, you know, blogging. Why, he clutched his pearls so tightly that he almost broke them, and they were handed down from his great grandmother and......oh, my!.... Get the smelling salts. He's been overcome by the vapors and has fainted dead away. Dearie me.
Posted by: Budbear | August 12, 2010 11:09 AM
Yeah, I gotta say... Huffington waxing philosophical about Jungian archetypes? Please. This is nigh-Palin-caliber vacuity, dressed up with fancy words that don't actually mean anything.
She's right that Palin employs easily grasped emotion-laden symbols rather than policy arguments, but since when is that insightful? And since when does it have to do with this pseudo-mystical Jungian collective unconscious?
Posted by: James Sweet | August 12, 2010 11:12 AM
Funny, but bears don't rear up to fight. They rear up to get a better look at whatever they just saw moving at the edge of the clearing, but will drop back to all fours if they decide to charge.
Maybe Palin saw this John West commercial once, and remembers it as a nature documentary.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | August 12, 2010 11:16 AM
On the contrary -- it is about winning elections. Period, full stop.
First of all, that's the way our system measures "good of the country:" by what people vote for. Don't like it? Live somewhere that doesn't decide public policy by elections.
Secondly, anyone who doesn't get elected isn't going to have much influence over policy (Newt to the contrary.) Putting "the good of the country" ahead of getting elected is just a way of ceding the power to pursue "the good of the country" to someone who doesn't agree with you on policy.
It's a fine example of a Darwinian system, and the selection process produces strains which are fit for the system -- which means getting elected and re-elected.
Again, if you don't like it then either change the system (which might mean prostituting yourself to get elected) or find somewhere that operates differently.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 12, 2010 12:04 PM
Sarah Palin's schtick (truly comic to any sane person) is simply that of a high school cheerleader for the nutcase right. Her act is instinctive and emotional (I'm almost positive that she doesn't have any knowledge of Jungian psychology). If she ever gets the repug's nomination for the presidency, (or, Zeus forbid, attains the office), it will be because of her handling of her pom-poms, not her intelligence.
Posted by: PGB | August 12, 2010 12:06 PM
Since she uses one of the classic Great Mother symbols. Sure, this isn’t some great or novel insight. It’s more like intellectual popcorn. But I happen to like popcorn.
The Great Mother is characterized as having an infinite capacity for helping and protecting. Her Dark Side is characterized as tyrannically ruling by instilling a feeling of helplessness. In light of this we can start to see why certain messages resonate with certain groups. For those that see her as an ally she’s a protector, someone who will save them and nurture them. To her opponents she encourages ignorance and abuses her authority.
Looking at Palin through this lens did help me to understand one thing about her that had always puzzled me, why stepping down as Governor didn’t have a greater impact on her popularity. To those who oppose her, like me, it would be seen as abandonment, which, in a narrative sense, is one of the worst things mothers can do. So I would have expected a huge backlash. But to her supports it could read more like she was breaking free of societal expectations, achieving greater independence, and expanding her sphere of protection. In that light the move fits right in with the modern mother’s heroic journey.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 12, 2010 12:13 PM
Sorry, screwed up my HTML. The first sentence of my post @36 is quoting James Sweet @32.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 12, 2010 12:15 PM
Ed,
I don't disagree that Palin deals in simplistic iconography rather that meaningful policy insights. She really isn't equipped to do anything but make folksy sound bites while wearing waders held up by star spangled suspenders.
But, as others have pointed out, Arianna Huffington is over-reaching with this fanciful excursion into Jungian pseudo-science.
While certainly more intelligent than Caribou Barbi (who isn't) Ms. Huffington plays the same emotional cards as Palin. She just deals them from a deck with bigger words.
I think your deep seated, and admitted, hatred of all things Palin has caused you to be overly impressed with Ms. Huffington's dime store psychology.
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 12:15 PM
@DC,
When I said:
I was referring to the GOP's lack of will or ability to compromise on anything Obama posits. The 'if the evil Kenyan wants it, it must be bad' argument. In addition, policy is being made (or blocked) more and more by un-elected officials like Paloon and, as you point out, Newty. I realize we have evolved our election process away from intelligent discourse and reasoned debate and toward emotional 30 second sound bytes but that seems like a bad thing just now. I'm still hopeful but this evolutionary track seems headed toward survival of the loudest and most ignorant.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 12, 2010 12:18 PM
Lance, your opinions of Ms. Huffington are irrelevant to the truth of what she's saying. I don't particularly care for the Huffington Post, either (it's way too tabloid-esque and not intellectual enough for my tastes), but this article is spot-on. Palin is not bright enough or self-aware enough to realize that she's playing exclusively with emotionally-charged symbols, but unconsciously that is clearly what she's doing. Never a word about substance issues forth from her.
And I say all this as someone who's more of an Erickson (the psychologist, not the right-wing blogger, mind you) protege than a Jungian.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 12, 2010 12:21 PM
Every time I hear about "mama grizzlies protecting their cubs", the very first thing I think of is the story about a group of teens including Willow Palin breaking into and trashing a house in Wasilla, and Sarah pulling strings to ensure that her daughter wasn't charged.
Surely I'm not the only one?
Posted by: AWJ | August 12, 2010 12:26 PM
Scott Hanley @ 33:
That commercial was key to my realizing the power and potential of the Internet. Thanks for retrieving one of funniest clips ever on the 'net.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 12, 2010 12:32 PM
There's a TV Trope for Palin's communication style: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MeaninglessMeaningfulWords
I am also reminded of the tendency of college students (especially in Philosophy courses) to fill their papers with buzzwords in hopes of covering up the fact that they didn't study.
Posted by: Emily | August 12, 2010 1:14 PM
Re Lance @ #38
Hey, don't knock Caribou Barbi. She doesn't believe in AGW either.
Posted by: SLC | August 12, 2010 1:15 PM
I'm not remotely an expert on Jung, but I do think there are commonplace misunderstandings of Jung. Basic archetypes, as I understand them, are contentless, universally compelling, underlying mental structures or forms. The compelling nature of a raging defensive fight to the death might be a selected and universal underlying feature of human mental life, but the specific form the fight takes in consciousness is culturally and experientially-based.
Jung's "shadow" is a basic archetype. Essentially, the shadow construct is contentless until it takes the specific forms of those things that we deny because they don't comport well with our self-concept. Most of us around here implicitly acknowledge the shadow self when we discuss the psychology of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is unconscious and it is contentless until it expresses itself in the form determined by our contact with the real world. We don’t directly experience stand alone cognitive dissonance, but we infer the existence of the phenomenon through observation of patterns in human behavior.
What makes archetypes unconscious is that, like cognitive dissonance, we don't experience them in direct, unadulterated form. They are inferred from the observation of compelling narrative patterns.
I wouldn't take my interpretation of archetypes to the bank. Part of my problem is I have hard time getting a handle on a lot Jung's ideas, despite being well-versed in psychoanalytic theory from its inception to contemporary forms which are far different from Freudian theory.
But I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that there are basic, shared, compelling, selected patterns of mental structuralization that would be akin to implicit, universal aspects of language that linguists have attempted to identify. We don't experience those linguistic universals directly or consciously, but many would argue that they are implicit in all languages, regardless of how different these languages seem on the surface.
Like any ideas in depth psychology, you've got to really dig into them and work with them for a long time before they come to life. It's like learning to hear in a way you’ve never heard before. Reading a chapter in an undergraduate textbook won't remotely connect you with the compelling aspects of depth psychology theories or the evidence for these theories. Think of a musician hearing distinctions in a musical composition while non-musicians only experience the Gestalt. A non-musician could read an introductory chapter on music theory that lays out some musical concepts very logically, but the non-musician won't be able to distinguish many of these dimensions of music even after a reading a chapter on music theory. You've got to study and listen to a lot of music, and probably need to listen to a lot musicians discussing music, before you can really hear music in the way musician would hear it. That doesn’t make music theory woo and it doesn’t mean that music isn’t a reality.
Posted by: Dr X | August 12, 2010 1:17 PM
James Sweet @32 -
There is no question that she is employing a very common Western (especially U.S. American) archetype in her rhetoric. While Jung through a bunch of mystical bullshit into his archetype paradigm, when you throw that out it becomes an exceedingly useful paradigm.
I would also argue again, that this is probably very intentional. While Palin is far too vacuous to work this out, it is relatively elementary communications. I am sure that someone has coached her on how to influence people, taking into account what a disaster it is when she tries to talk any substance.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 1:31 PM
Sadie Morrison,
The topic was Palin's alleged use of Jungian "Archetypes". That Huffington treats these constructs like they were as scientifically documented as muons is evidence of her own "dingyness".
It is further evidence of the tendency of The HuffPo, and Huffington, to embrace pseudo-science so long as it supports their political and emotional preferences.
If you think Jungian Archetypes are anything but pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo you haven't spent much effort objectively researching the subject.
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 1:38 PM
Re Lance @ #47
It is further evidence of the tendency of The HuffPo, and Huffington, to embrace pseudo-science so long as it supports their political and emotional preferences.
Of course, Mr. Lance hasn't allowed his libertarian preferences to influence his attitude about AGW. Perish the thought. Not a bit of it.
Posted by: SLC | August 12, 2010 1:45 PM
SLC,
Let it go.
I know you're incensed by the fact that I don't share your views on climate change but do you think it has anything to do with what the adults here are discussing?
If you want to meet for a factual "showdown" on the topic of anthropogenic climate change name the website and time and I'll be glad to face off.
Until then....
Shut the fuck up!
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 1:53 PM
Dr X -
I have actually read quit a bit of Jung and would tend to stand by my assertions. He was talking about more than basic, universal cognitive patterns. He believed there is a shared, collective unconscious that feeds these archetypes. Where Jung really fucked up was not as much in his assumptions, though those were clearly flawed, as in his attributions. While those universal patterns might exist, their existence can be explained by biological, linguistic and environmental patterns.
They most certainly don't require mystical explanations.
Don't get me wrong, I would be shocked if there aren't certain vague, universal patterns (that is likely to be an important factor in my research). I have a strong appreciation for the archetype paradigm, because it is exceedingly useful. I am also happy to credit Jung for developing that paradigm. He synthesized a very useful tool for social psychology out of Freud's psychoanalytic approach.
That doesn't mean he wasn't a quack in regards to the conclusions he drew from that synthesis.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 1:58 PM
My my, isn't Lance getting defensive today. Guess someone here is hitting too close to home, eh?
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 12, 2010 1:58 PM
If you want to meet for a factual "showdown" on the topic of anthropogenic climate change name the website and time and I'll be glad to face off.
That's already been done, Lance, many times on many forums, and your side lost (in stunning displays of ignorance and dishonesty) every time. You sound like a creationist challenging scientists to debate evolution. You're not fooling anyone, so drop the fake macho posturing and go back, to bed.
Posted by: Raging bee | August 12, 2010 2:02 PM
If you think Jungian Archetypes are anything but pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo you haven't spent much effort objectively researching the subject.
And how much research have you done, Lance? None of your posts sound as well researched as Dr. X's -- and you're not even responding to him either.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 12, 2010 2:05 PM
Lance -
If you think Jungian Archetypes are anything but pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo you haven't spent much effort objectively researching the subject.
And if you can so casually dismiss the paradigm, because the person who developed it, applied a bunch of magical bullshit to it, then you haven't spent much effort objectively researching the subject. Freud was mostly wrong, yet his assumptions evolved into part of a few different effective, evidence based therapies. Likewise, Jung's archetype paradigm is extremely useful when the magical bullshit is stripped away.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 2:06 PM
I'll say it again Lance:
Whether Jungian archetypes are true or not doesn't matter. What matters is that they make for great fiction, and that exactly what comes out of Palin's mouth when she opens it.
Posted by: Dennis N | August 12, 2010 2:10 PM
Dennis N,
"What matters is that they make for great fiction, and that exactly what comes out of Palin's mouth when she opens it."
I think we're all agreed on that point.
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 2:26 PM
RagingBee,
SLC shrieks "AGW DENIALIST!" after nearly every one of my posts and has for years.
I have been patient up to this point.
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 2:31 PM
Dr X,
I have long been impressed with your well reasoned and thoughtful posts. That is why I am especially disappointed in your defense of Jungian Archetypes. Once separated from the mystical constructs that Jung attributed to them, including the farcical "collective unconscious", little is left but a few obviously shared human psychological touchstones, such as mothers and fear of death.
Perhaps you are just extending a bit of professional courtesy to your Jungian compatriots.
Do you suppose that Jung was correct in his assertion that life is about reconciling your conscious mind with a set of subconscious "archetypes" that float about in a collective ether we share with others?
I fail to see anything scientifically valid in this psychobabble. But hey I'm just trained in physics and mathematics so maybe I'm unqualified to dissect the "gestalt" of the "collective unconscious".
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 2:45 PM
Lance, I have studied human psychology extensively (and yes, that obviously includes Jung). Frankly, I'm going to trust what I've learned, as well as experts such as Dr. X, over someone like you, who appears to be threatened by the concept.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 12, 2010 2:46 PM
Once separated from the mystical constructs that Jung attributed to them, including the farcical "collective unconscious", little is left but a few obviously shared human psychological touchstones, such as mothers and fear of death.
And you wonder, Lance, why people fail to take you very seriously? You haven't the foggiest fucking clue what you are talking about.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 2:49 PM
Sadie,
"...I'm going to trust what I've learned, as well as experts such as Dr. X, over someone like you who appears to be threatened by the concept."
That's cool. I never claimed to be an expert in Jungian or any other branch of psychology. I just have yet to see anything approaching verifiable empirical evidence to back up the, on its face loony, idea of Jungian Archetypes or the "collective unconscious".
Also I'm no more "threatened" by the idea of Jungian Archetypes than I am of phrenology. I just think they are both unverifiable pseudo-science.
I would like to hear Dr X give more than his "music" analogy defense of Jungian concepts. As I said, in the past I have been impressed with the good doctor's posts.
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 2:57 PM
Leadership requires a lot of different skills. The Democrats have got the technical, logical, logistical - wonky management skills - down pretty well. But we couldn't inspire a man covered in gasoline out of a burning building.
We get all tied in knots explaining vaporization temperatures and flash-points and rates of oxidation of exothermic reactions. The conclusion that he might want to run is never explicitly made. As if driving the point home might be rude or insulting. We are too polite to go so far as to tell him what to do. There is no passion.
Palin, for those who are on her wavelength and not put off by her lack of substance and management skills, understands at some level that you have to use language that grabs their nuts. You don't talk technospeak to a guy in a burning building. You shout; RUN! Run fool. Run if you love life. Run!
The right has an implicit understanding of motivational language and viscerally gripping imagery. But they lack management skills. They are so concerned with ideological dogma and consistency that they lack logical consistency and functionality.
The right has passion and the ability to motivate but it has no management skills. Fact being that reference to practical concerns just dulls their rhetoric. The left has skills but no passion. Left alone we tend to temporize, and compromise, and rethink ourselves into lukewarm uselessness.
Posted by: Art | August 12, 2010 2:58 PM
Whatever, Lance. Your mind is clearly made up. I second DuWayne's comment at #60.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 12, 2010 3:07 PM
Yikes Art, how do you get out of bed in the morning?
Posted by: MikeMa | August 12, 2010 3:09 PM
DuWayne,
Then educate me brother. Point to the evidence for the "collective unconscious" or anything valid that can be identified as a Jungian Archetype.
Here is what wikipedia, that font of truth, has to say on the subject.
Here is what Jung himself though of these phantoms,(also from wikipedia)
Sounds like unverifiable hooey to me, but as I said I'm just a humble math teacher and physics guy.
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 3:13 PM
Dr X -
Something just occurred to me that might help.
Part of my problem is I have hard time getting a handle on a lot Jung's ideas...
Acid, lots and lots of acid. Trust me, it all makes a hell of a lot more sense after you've taken a lot of acid. It makes the narratives really come alive.
Seriously though, I do think that hallucinogens and especially shared/ritual use of hallucinogens actually make Jung's theories make a lot more sense. Even if the hallucinogen is simply ritual fervor. The problem with Jung is that he developed his theory of collective unconscious, using the cultural anthropological method of participant observation and went too far into the participant role. It is easy to see how someone who believes in mystical nonsense and who engages in a profound shared hallucinogenic experience, could come to the conclusions he did.
I didn't buy into it, in spite of my own shared hallucinogenic experiences, because I had a different narrative assumption to work with. While I was into mystical nonsense, my assumption was that what I was experiencing was a spiritual plain of existence. A completely different frame of reference, rather than a collective unconscious. The major difference, I think, is that I was coming from theistic assumptions.
But this is ultimately a problem of sharing in a collective extraphysical experience and assuming that it was a reality, because it was shared. Having experienced this a great many times, it actually makes a lot of sense to me. Just as this all being fucking nonsense makes sense to me, given my expanded understanding of the power of suggestion.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 3:18 PM
DuWayne,
If there's much actual scientific evidence that Jungian theory is true---or even that Jungian therapy is particularly effective whether the underlying theory is true or not---my psych professors in grad school missed the memo.
That was a while back now, though.
I was taught (rightly or wrongly) that there is very little real scientific evidence of anything much like seriously Jungian archetypes.
There are schemas, and basic schema theory is pretty well accepted, but the specific catalog of Jungian archetypes has never been validated---or so I was taught---and there is good reason to think that most of the the specific archetypes are not innate. To the extent that similar schemas exist at all, cross-culturally, that's likely due to cross-cultural task demands (environmental similarities) combined with a few more basic innate schemas to produce similar learned refinements in various cultures.
Take the Magus, for example. There's reason to suspect innate tendencies to categorize people in terms of status, and/or defer to authority figures such as parents, and to be able to value wisdom, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we innately respect wise men generally, or that we have the specific constellation of features that Jung attributes to the Magus archetype. Likely we learn the schemas that resemble the Magus archetype, because pretty much every culture has to evolve to value wisdom and to have some kind of more or less hierarchical status system.
My impression is that Jungianism, like Freudianism, is basically a cult of personality, with its own journals and such, which most scientific psychologists outside the cult don't take terribly seriously anymore, because it has failed to demonstrate much of anything scientifically.
As to efficacy, there have been a lot of studies of various therapies, and the depressing results have shown that long-term psychodynamic therapy isn't particulary effective, and that which theoretical model you use (e.g., Freudian, Jungian, or any of several others) doesn't matter nearly so much as individual variation between therapists.
Unfortunately, there's a huge bias in subjective reports of effectiveness of therapies, across pretty much all therapies. Many people go to therapy at a very low point in their lives, and then get better, and most of them attribute that to the therapy they got. Statistically, most of the people who get better would get better anyway, and most who attribute their getting better to the particular kind of therapy they got are typically wrong.
(That's the same phenomenon that makes various kinds of alt med seem effective to many people---they went to the herbalist, and they got better, and they don't really know why, and incorrectly assume that their choice to go, and who to go to, was a good one. If you have a cold or fever or a backache or bellyache, and take pretty much any "medicine", you'll probably feel better pretty soon, and you probably won't notice that you probably would have felt better anyhow---maybe even sooner.)
Last I kept up with such things, various meta-analyses of comparison studies of common psychotherapies didn't show much difference in effectiveness between most of them, but CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) had a bit of an edge, long-term "depth" therapies were generally no better than short-term therapies, and no psychotherapy by itself was much better than drug therapy alone, but a combination of drugs and psychotherapy was a bit better.
This is the kind of thing there's been a fair bit of research about, because there's so much money on the line.
(Recently there's been some discouraging results showing that antidepressants are less effective on average than previously thought, largely due to small sample sizes in studies, and failure to publish the studies that showed no statistically significant effect. I haven't really followed that closely.)
If there was really convincing evidence that Jungian therapy was particularly effective, I suspect that would be known, and there'd be preferential funding for Jungian treatments. So far as I know, there's not.
Likewise, if Jungian theory was well-evidenced, scientifically, that would be very interesting to cognitive psychologists, who would be trying to integrate cognitive schema theory and Jungian theory. So far as I know, that's not true either, or at least it wasn't when I read up on such things over a decade ago.
In my humble opinion, specifically Jungian theory is largely pseudoscience, and is popular largely because of its connection to quasi-supernatural woo, and it is embarrassing that the HuffPo acts as though it's well-established science in criticizing Sarah Palin.
That doesn't mean that there isn't something right about it, sorta, but I'd be more comfortable with people talking about common schemas rather than referring specifically to Jungian archetypes as though they were scientifically well-established, and as though Jung was a good authority to cite.
Posted by: Paul W. | August 12, 2010 3:22 PM
...little is left but a few obviously shared human psychological touchstones, such as mothers and fear of death.
Yeah, that's at least a large part of what "archetypes" are. And you've just admitted they exist and have meaning. Argument over.
Do you suppose that Jung was correct in his assertion that life is about reconciling your conscious mind with a set of subconscious "archetypes" that float about in a collective ether we share with others?
No, dumbass, there's no "collective ether." That's just a cool-sounding sci-fi interpretation of the phrase "collective unconscious," and it has NOTHING to do with what Jung actually postulated.
I'm thirding DuWayne's comment (you have no clue what you're talking about); and I'm seconding Sadie's comment (your flailing incoherent attacks imply you do indeed feel threatened by the idea).
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 12, 2010 3:26 PM
Lance, an analogy to physics might be in the varying ways it describes light. At times it is treated as a wave because it shows characteristics that fit well with that model. At other times it's described as a particle because that is a better fit. Neither model fits perfectly. Neither one really describes the truth of what light is. But that is fine because they're good enough approximations to provide us useful analytical and predictive tools. Likewise, while Jungian archetypes do not describe a truth about what the mind is, it can be good enough to give us usable information.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 12, 2010 3:28 PM
Lance -
As I have mentioned repeatedly through this thread, when you strip away the mystical bullshit, you are left with an exceedingly useful tool for studying, explaining and understanding social psychology. While the collective unconscious is useless fucking nonsense, the archetype paradigm itself is very useful.
There are many specific and definable intracultural archetypes. Understanding them and their impact on a given culture can help us better understand culture and culture change. Discovering universal archetypes is even more exciting and interesting, because it helps us understand the evolution of human cognition - and there are a lot more extracultural archetypes than you might think. Identifying and understanding those universal narratives and linguistic universals, will hopefully lead to better understanding of the brain.
In spite of the mystical nonsense that accompanied Jung's theories, they have become a very useful tool for studying the human mind. Aside from that, Jung contributed quite a bit to our understanding of the "subconscious" mind.
You are making the rather silly assumption that you know the extent of what Jung had to say. You have latched onto a single idea and decided that is the whole of his contribution to the field of psychology. That would be a lot like saying Skinner was great, because of his contributions to our understanding of shaping. By singling in on that, you would ignore a vast body of work. Jung also had a great deal more to contribute, in spite of the mystical bullshit.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 3:38 PM
Lance,
I want to reiterate that I would not consider myself anywhere near learned when it comes to Jung nor have worked much with his constructs. That said, my notion of being learned on any subject means spending years studying.
I've read some Jung and some work by Jungians. I took one dream class with a Jungian analyst and I've more casually discussed applications of Jung with colleagues. It isn't the way work.
I have nothing approaching confidence discussing archetypes, but I do have reasons I wouldn't simply dismiss the construct as hooey.
I'm writing during breaks in my schedule, so check back later. I'll try to explain my thoughts a little more.
Posted by: Dr X | August 12, 2010 4:01 PM
MikeMa @64 I thought I was being optimistic and rewrote a couple of the paragraphs because the original version were a bit gloomy.
I figured it was optimistic because whereas the right can't change, being an effective managers requires compromise and highlights that government has a role. Both points would contradict their ideology. Whereas the left might be able to stuff a stick of ginger in the backside of its representatives. Policy and management skills are harder to develop than passion and persuasive packaging.
The progress of this thread is a perfect example of the problems on the left. Instead of figuring out what is persuasive about Palin's rhetoric, the passion and simple gripping metaphor, the thread has become a pissing match over Jungian symbolic consciousness. Instead of simply using Jungian archetypes as a suggestion of a potential tool to build power for political ends it gets bogged down in esoteric debates over what archetypes are.
The difference is in contemplating symbols as an abstraction, versus using symbols tools to manipulate reality.
If that isn't depressing nothing is.
Posted by: Art | August 12, 2010 4:01 PM
DuWayne,
It sounds like you're just using the words “Jungian Archetype” and “collective unconscious” to mean cultural and cross cultural commonalities.
I don't see how diluting the original mystical pseudoscience down into painfully obvious and non-profound common knowledge gives the terms any utility.
If all Huffington meant was that Palin was adept at presenting sound bites that appeal to a mass audience I don't see how dragging Carl Jung into the equation illuminates the subject.
In fact Huffington explicitly embraces the more mystic aspects when she says, “ That's straight out of Jung's ‘collective unconscious’ -- the term Jung used to describe the part of the unconscious mind that, unlike the personal unconscious, is shared by all human beings, made up of archetypes, or, in Jung's words, ‘universal images that have existed since the remotest times.’ Unlike personal experiences, these archetypes are inherited, not acquired. They are ‘inborn forms... of perception and apprehension, ’the’ deposits of the constantly repeated experiences of humanity.’ ”
The hyperlink in the quote leads to a web page with a bunch more of the, shall we say “more controversial”, aspects of Jung’s theory.
So where is the clinical evidence that we all have inherited these “archetypes”?
My original point was that Huffington is just as quick to turn to emotional arguments, just that she is better at making them look well thought out and reasonable, even when they are just dressed up woo.
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 4:19 PM
Paul W. -
If there's much actual scientific evidence that Jungian theory is true---or even that Jungian therapy is particularly effective whether the underlying theory is true or not---my psych professors in grad school missed the memo.
Re-read my comments. I am not suggesting anything of the sort. Archetypes are basically generalizable, specific sets of schemas. The archetype paradigm is, as far as I know, only useful in the context of social psychology*, anthropology and of course, the study of mythology. Archetypes are generally assumed to be social/cultural constructs that are often mistakenly assumed to have a biological or spiritual basis.
Gender constructs, for example, are often referred to as archetypal constructs. Rather generalized personality types are also referred to as archetypes. In the case of the discussion at hand, Palin essentially is referring to herself in the terms and with the imagery attributed to a specific Western archetype. When you strip the mystical bullshit away from it, those character attributes still exist and can be described as an archetype.
This is not the least bit useful in therapeutic terms.
* Unless of course you actually believe in mystical fucking bullshit. Then you might consider giving your client some acid, take some yourself** and see what sort of connection you might make.
** This is slightly unfair, as it is not actually the prescribed protocol for hallucinogen based therapy - but it is fucking close enough and has actually been done.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 4:23 PM
Lance -
You are arguing with the DuWayne in your head, not me. I don't know how many different ways I can say "stripping away the mystical bullshit" including this whole fucking notion of collective unconscious, before you finally fucking get it.
All that I am saying is that the archetype paradigm is a useful tool - when, pay attention now, when the mystical fucking bullshit is stripped away from it.
And I am not and have not defended fucking Huffpo's use of the word. I was clear in my first comment just how much respect I have for huffpo. All I have done has been to defend the archetype paradigm as a useful tool for social psychology and anthropology.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 4:31 PM
I should amend my last comment, as I have also argued that Jung's work helped lay the foundation for our understanding of the "subconscious." Which he did, much in the way that Freud laid the foundation for modern, evidence based conceptions of psychodynamics - mainly by being almost entirely, but not quite completely wrong. As major personalities in psychology's cult of personalities, something we are slowly getting over, their theories were rather intensively studied and a lot of very useful knowledge was gained. More knowledge than just the knowledge they were both almost, but not completely wrong.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 5:45 PM
DuWayne,
Sounds to me like you are arguing with the DuWayne in your head, and there maybe more than one of them in there.
You have yet to give a clear definition for Jungian archetype that has meaning when it is stripped of the "mystical bullshit".
Oh and cursing at me while posting isn't helping to make your muddled point any clearer.
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 5:59 PM
Miller explains the cosmic unconsciousness
Posted by: ildi | August 12, 2010 6:12 PM
Speaking of mama bears, Bernd Heinrich said this in his book _Winter World_:
"...Other than biologists, few humans have entered bears' dens to find out how cozy they might be. But in one case I am intimately acquainted with, a rabbit-hunting beagle wandered under a brush pile in the Maine woods, which happened to be the den of a black bear with her two cubs. The beagle attempted to retreat, but every time the dog tried to crawl out, the bear dragged it back inside. The sow acted as though the beagle was one of her cubs. The owner finally retrieved his dog unharmed, but only after the bear was tranquilized with a dart gun and the dog had then been denned for two days longer than it intended..." *
Imagine how much a mama-bear-style policy platform would *welcome* children of immigrants instead of wanting to kick them out of public school for being carried across the border, wanting to revoke their citizenship for being born here after their parents crossed the border, etc. ;)
* Heinrich also says
"...In January, [bear] sows give birth to two to three naked cubs, which don't hibernate. They snuggle up to their mother and suckle for the three twice as much body weight as males..."
No wonder a mama bear might not recognize exactly which cute fuzzy things in the den are genetically hers (since she doesn't wake up from hibernation until a while afterwards) and might not have inherited the instinct to be so picky about that either (since "nurture all the cute fuzzy things in the den" was close enough for her ancestors to survive and raise their cubs).
Posted by: June | August 12, 2010 6:13 PM
Lance -
You haven't actually read my comments if you didn't see the definition. Of course if you think I am cursing you, you have the reading comprehension of a five year old, so that may be the problem. Either way, I have wasted more than enough time on fucking morons today.*
* See, now that would qualify as cursing you.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 12, 2010 6:15 PM
Yeah, it's way too late for this comment, but I can't resist.
She really is the mean ambitious ditzy cheerleader, but now one with an army of delusional sycophantic idiots at her disposal.
Wait...Harmony has minions?
Posted by: BobApril | August 12, 2010 6:40 PM
Re Lance @ #57
I intend to bring up the subject of Mr. Lances' AGW denialism every time he shows his fucking face around here or any where else for that matter. Don't like it, tough bananas.
Posted by: SLC | August 12, 2010 7:27 PM
SLC,
So you won't object if people bring up your "any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic" line every time you show your "fucking face" around here?
Come on, let's take people issue by issue. If they prove themselves to be a douche on every issue (e.g., mroberts) they address, then we can legitimately always criticize them. But if there's basically one particular issue on which you disagree with another person, it's juvenile to bring it up when they talk about other issues, on which you may or may not agree with them.
You don't make Lance look bad--you just make yourself look bad.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 12, 2010 7:33 PM
Re James Hanley @ #83
So you won't object if people bring up your "any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic" line every time you show your "fucking face" around here?
The answer to that is very simple. I would not have the slightest objection. In fact, I am probably one of the Governments of Israels' most vociferous critics.
Posted by: SLC | August 12, 2010 8:31 PM
Project much, whining bee?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | August 12, 2010 10:04 PM
SUC's definition of "denialism":
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | August 12, 2010 10:08 PM
SLC:
I support your decision to rub Lance's face in his indefensible position wrt AGW. However:
This is obviously untrue. Now ask them the $64 question: "What gives you the fucking right to invade and occupy someone else's country as reparations for an injury done to you by a third party on another continent, instead of being compensated at that third party's expense instead?" When you do, I will withdraw my skepticism as to you being their "most vociferous critic".
GWIAS:
Go back on your meds.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | August 12, 2010 10:56 PM
Paul W.
Nicely done and you managed not to piss everyone off, something I was unable to accomplish when stating my nearly identical, but far less eloquently expressed, opinion.
Had Huffington said "common schemas" and left Jung out of it I don't think I would have felt the need to opine.
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 10:59 PM
Any of you outraged climate douches are welcome to set a time and place for a discussion of anthropogenic climate change.
However, attempting to pin a big red "D" (for denialist) on my chest every time I comment on any topic under the sun just highlights you inability to engage in reasonable discourse and exposes you as intellectual cowards and bullies.
Then again real world bullies don't hide behind pseudonyms when they threaten people.
Posted by: Lance | August 12, 2010 11:08 PM
Lance @ 89:
I've never met such a creature, perhaps because I focus my time following the community of climate scientists. Projection perhaps? I think so.
Clearly you are still a denialist ignorant of both the physics of climate change and the findings of climate scientists; otherwise you'd be respectful of the fact that your denialism continues to fly in the face of what is peer-accepted amongst practicing climate scientists. In fact two significant articles have been been published since the one I presented to you in the below link from Jan-09 regarding the measure of peer-acceptance, both independently validated the statistically significant peer-accepted consensus reported in my cite though using even stronger language, one by the National Academies of Sciences.
You also demonstrate your denialism has multiple facets given you ignore the fact your prior attempts were consistently falsified with peer-accepted empirical evidence validated by several different perspectives and/or scientific disciplines while you simultaneously flailed to discredit any of the current core tenants of the observable fact of AGW and the theory's predictions continually being validated. In fact all you revealed was an astonishing certainty in spite of demonstrating an ignorance of even the most elementary aspects of understanding the components of climate change - that's a distinguishing reason you are a denialist rather than earning the title of skeptic, which requires you first comprehend the science you oppose with such certainty.
For example you asserted temp rise as you trend it out, repeatedly avoiding a change in the rate of the trend the past three decades coupled to your absurdly and falsely asserting your trend is, "the only relevant observed fact" (see link below), ignoring all the other observed and relevant facts such as the storage of increased energy in carbon sinks like the ocean, rising ocean levels, dramatic loss of ice in the Arctic, and ocean acidification, and affects of climate change on extinction rates in the paleo record where those changes were far slower and extinctions from contemporaneous climate change have already been observed).
The fact is Lance that the debate you claim to seek has already occurred ad nauseum where the record is well-established and easily revealed to anyone interested, here's merely one example . I am not interested in beating a dead horse just like I rarely engage at length with YECs. I am also extremely comfortable with my position as it was expressed in this thread with you, where I merely attempted to refer to the peer-accepted science while I continue to spend my time better educating myself rather than engaging with people incapable or unwilling to first bone-up on physics of climate and what climate scientists observe and assert.
If you have a passion to continue to argue against the science, I suggest starting a blog of your own. I certainly am nowhere near arrogant enough to claim I know better than what 97%+ of climate scientists assert given I'm not one of them nor do I even remotely possess the knowledge required to challenge them. I can however discern a denialist when I see one given my prior years debating creationists where I must say; most of them knew far more about evolution than you do about climate change in spite of your being a physics teacher.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 12, 2010 11:57 PM
Lance, the discussion is already going on, and as I said before, your side is losing, and its tactics are getting even more predictable than they were five years ago. We don't need to pencil you in, and you don't need to pretend you have anything new or substantive to contribute. Buh-bye.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 12, 2010 11:58 PM
"Then again real world bullies don't hide behind pseudonyms when they threaten people."
Should I attribute that to Mr Lance, or are you like Madonna?
[Leaps back to hide behind...] - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | August 13, 2010 12:07 AM
SLC,
Wow. My irony meter is shattered. Fortunately Wal Mart's open all night, and I think they sell them.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 13, 2010 12:10 AM
Dingo,
My real name is Lance. It is a very simple matter to find my actual full name. It takes about ten seconds of "Googling".
Dingo Jack is of course on your birth certificate, right?
Micheal Heath,
Your self-congratulatory ruminations are rather sad. In our brief but heated exchange on climate change you oscillated between spluttering outrage and voluminous off topic avalanches of irrelevant obfuscation.
I have no interest in discussing AGW on this blog. In case you hadn't noticed I only mentioned the topic after numerous taunts and insults from SLC and Raging Bee. You on the other hand weave the topic into threads that have almost no connection to the subject.
Posted by: Lance | August 13, 2010 12:37 AM
Ah, but was I the one complaining about anonymity? - Dingo
----
Let's see:
Lance Armstrong
Lance Dixon Prestige
Lance Franklin
Lance C. Wilson, Outback Author
Charlie Lance ...
Posted by: DingoJack | August 13, 2010 12:53 AM
SLC does criticize Israel. However, these criticisms are usually predicated on the idea that they don't pwn enough Arabs. On the other hand, most criticism of Israel is predicated on the idea that they pwn too many Arabs. This may be the source of disconnect.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 13, 2010 1:56 AM
As to my own position, I'll meet you all halfway and state that Israel currently pwns a satisfactory number of Arabs.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 13, 2010 1:59 AM
Re Lancelot
Since Mr. Lancelot likes to pontificate on the subject of AGW, I would like to pose the following question to him. How many papers on the subject has he published in the peer reviewed literature? The fact that Mr. Lancelot teaches physics in no way, shape, form, or regard qualifies him to comment as an expert on AGW, anymore then my PhD in elementary particle physics qualifies me to comment on that subject as an expert. Like Mr. Michael Heath, I defer to the experts in the field who have a track record of such peer reviewed publications. I believe that the position of Mr. Michael Heath and myself is well stated by Prof. Bob Park of the Un. of Maryland Physics Department which I produce below and link to.
1. CLIMATE CHANGE: WHICH SIDE IS BOB ON IN THE CLIMATE WAR?
I'm getting a lot of mail asking where I stand on climate change. You're entitled to know. But first, I've gotta own up: I'm not a climate scientist. I rely on information gathered and interpreted by other scientists, everybody does. My source on climate is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established by the United Nations in 1988, soon after I began writing WN. Along with most scientists, I concluded that anthropogenic warming is real and dangerous; 20 years later I still do. If warming is caused by human activity, and we have taken no steps to modify our behavior, the result will be catastrophic. A long-term solution calls for two changes throughout society: higher efficiency and lower fertility. If warming turns out not to be caused by humans, we will still have left our progeny with a better world.
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN09/wn120409.html
Note the following sentence in Prof. Parks' post: "I rely on information gathered and interpreted by other scientists, everybody does."
Posted by: SLC | August 13, 2010 8:14 AM
SLC - ah, now I see, I should have googled 'Super Chimp'. :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | August 13, 2010 8:26 AM
SLC,
I generally agree with Dr. Parks statement with one exception:
To the uninformed this might suggest we haven't empirically established what forcings are causing warming when in fact we have sufficient enough to know its anothropogenic and what those forcings are (though the ranking of some anthropogenic forcings may see subsequent modifications, e.g., black soot relative to others forcings).
In addition the IPCC's 4th synthesis report published in 2007 is showing its age. So while its general conclusions and central premises continue to be empirically validated, there are peer-accepted understandings that are different. E.g., lower-bound and expected predictions for this century on sea-level rise and temps were purposefully underestimated and have been adjusted upwards accordingly in subsequent synthesis reports, black soot has a greater impact on warming, especially in the Arctic, than previously understood (latter finding is new and therefore may not be peer-accepted).
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 13, 2010 8:43 AM
Dingo Jack,
I believe you are referring to Lancelot Link Secret Chimp.
It wan't much fun going to Eisenhower Junior High School the Monday after the show debuted.
Posted by: Lance | August 13, 2010 1:29 PM
Michael Heath,
"If you have a passion to continue to argue against the science, I suggest starting a blog of your own."
Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
Also you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific inquiry. Science advances only when established explanations are challenged.
You seem to be confusing science with religious dogma.This would explain your, and SLC's, outrage that anyone dare challenge the AGW "consensus".
At any rate, as I said earlier, this thread is not the time nor place for a discussion of climate change.
Posted by: Lance | August 13, 2010 1:40 PM
So it appears that googling Lance + Physics, returns 11 distinct physicists out of the first twenty hits. Googling Lance + moron returns a DJ who does a show called "morons in the morning." Maybe I should have searched for Lance + Physics + moron.
I also suspect that people would be less inclined to pin the scarlet D to your chest, as it were, if you weren't so very keen denying science you find rather inconvenient, when you haven't the foggiest fucking clue what you are talking about. Though it is distinctly possible that you truly do have the reading comprehension of the average five year old. That would explain a great deal.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 13, 2010 1:54 PM
Lance @ 102 to me:
Nice fail. Currently held theories are challenged via the scientific method which uses the peer-review, peer-publication process. Theories are discarded when independently validated empirical evidence falsifies previous findings or present a superior explanatory model to explain the relevant facts. Making perfectly uninformed challenges like you did which do not rely on evidence but instead are totally predicated on your uninformed perspective does not meet the standards of legitimate scientific inquiry, it's merely denial.
If you don't believe the consensus I recommend finding the evidence which has been both peer-reviewed in a relevant publication which falsifies, discredits, or at least challenges it. Such evidence currently does not exist while the evidence we do have is confidently held with relatively narrow margins of error which is why there is little controversy regarding the core premises and predictions of the AGW theory within the climate science community or even the National Academy of Sciences. Your arguments based on your own ignorance is in no way authentic scientific inquiry.
Lance @ 102 to me:
Nice projection of your own failings while grossly misrepresenting my own demonstrated behavior and position. I don't get outraged if a legitimate finding overturns a previous consensus, in fact my last post on this thread refers to a finding that does overturn a previous understanding (the effect of black soot forcings relative to other forcings).
What I will call out is attempts to discredit a scientific theory which in no way meets the standards of scientific methodology - that would be your methods Lance - like your arguments from ignorance and incredulity ("temps haven't gone up much as far as I'm concerned and that's all that matters" - paraphrased, link in last post will provide exact quote). You appear to hold your denialism in the very same regard that a fundy holds to creationism - particularly your fierce willful ignorance of the physics, findings, and strength of the explanatory model and yet high certainty the theory should be ignored when dealing with public policy.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 13, 2010 3:08 PM
Re Dingojack @ #96
Although Mr. Dingojack is probably not too familiar with American football, let's not forget those stickout wide receivers Lance Alworth and Lance Rentzel.
Posted by: SLC | August 13, 2010 3:11 PM
Re Lancelot
At comment @98, I suggested that Mr. Lancelot provide some bonafides which would document his qualifications to pontificate on the issue of climate change, specifically to cite publications in the peer reviewed literature authored by himself. He has conspicuously failed to do so in comments he has posted after #98, from which I infer that such publications don't exist.
Posted by: SLC | August 13, 2010 3:23 PM
Lance -
Also you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific inquiry. Science advances only when established explanations are challenged.
Umm, no, that would be you who seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific inquiry. Science isn't about claiming most scientists in a given field are wrong, because they challenge your ideological preferences. Science is about challenging established explanations with more fucking science - not a lot of whining about how they just have to be wrong.
Your take on this seems to be exactly the same as that of creationists. A whole lot of talk about how those stoopid scientists are totes wrong, without evidence to indicate they are.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 13, 2010 4:50 PM
While it is true that HuffPo has some political articles by reasonable people, the anti-vaccine, pro-woo-woo slant of their "health" and "science" articles spoils the whole place for me, so I go elsewhere for my liberal news and never look at HuffPo.
Posted by: cdrealist | August 13, 2010 6:51 PM
DuWayne, SLC, Michael Heath,
Look I LOVE mixing it up with moralizing anthropogenic climate change proponents like you guys, but it definitely would be way off topic on this thread so I'm trying to ignore you err... gentlemen. (Note my restraint)
This is getting harder to do the more obnoxiously insulting and numerous your taunts become.
I don't think Ed would appreciate a climate change brouhaha in the middle of his thread on Palin's use of Jungian Archetypes (a theory perhaps even more ludicrous than catastrophic climate change).
If you really want to "take this outside" meet me at midnight(E.D.T.) at www.climate-skeptic.com.
Of course you should know that it is a website that is populated by slightly more skeptics of anthropogenic than proponents so you want have the safety of numbers you enjoy here.
So what's it gonna be? Are you up to the challenge or are you a bunch of anonymous cowards throwing stones from the safety of a crowd?
I'll be there at midnight.
Posted by: Lance | August 13, 2010 7:42 PM
Dingo Jack,
You aren't very skilled in the art of "Google-Foo". If you combine "Lance" and "climate change" it really isn't very hard to figure out my exact name and where I teach.
Posted by: Lance | August 13, 2010 7:48 PM
Lance -
Note my restraint
No need for restraint. I value honesty over feigned politeness.
Sorry, but I honestly have no interest in debating with you. I was simply pointing out why you get pegged with the scarlet D, as it were. Besides, midnight is rather late for me these days - I will likely be sound asleep by then.
If you combine "Lance" and "climate change" it really isn't very hard to figure out my exact name and where I teach.
Unless you're a professor who died last year, the first seventy hits are all on the other side of the argument from you. But that's ok, we really don't mind "anonymous cowards" around here. And if you didn't fit that category, I am pretty sure you wouldn't be pushing people to google you in vain, to figure it out.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 13, 2010 9:26 PM
Re Lancelot @ #109
I hate to break it to Mr. Lancelot but scientific issues are not decided by debates over the internet. They are decided by publications in the peer reviewed literature. Once again, Mr. Lancelot declines to cite any publications of his in such literature on the subject of climate change. Debates with folks like Mr. Lancelot are about as productive as debates with Duane Gish on the subject of evolution and would only result in Mr. Lancelots' application of the Gish gallop. So Mr. Lancelot, I decline to engage in such time wasters. If Mr. Lancelot has something to say on the matter, submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal where it can be assessed by the experts in the field. If Mr. Lancelot is unable to do that, then nobody has the slightest interest in anything he has to say.
Posted by: SLC | August 13, 2010 10:56 PM
No takers huh?
Why am I not surprised.
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 12:15 AM
12:17
Still waiting.
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 12:17 AM
Poor ol' Lancelot Link, maybe in 5 million years or so your brain will have evolved enough to allow you to comprehend written English.
Clearly you're are having difficulty with posts 98, 103, 104, 107 and 112. Perhaps you could get a friend* to help you with that. - Dingo
----
* "If you have any." :)
Posted by: DingoJack | August 14, 2010 12:39 AM
Dingo,
More cowardly taunting huh?
Apparently you don't have the stones, or perhaps the intellect, to back up the childish insults in an actual one on one discussion of the issue on neutral turf.
Looks like you're not alone. Still no takers.
Tick Tick Tick
12:54
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 12:56 AM
Couldn't you find a friend to help you? Awww, never mind. :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | August 14, 2010 1:03 AM
Lance @ 109:
I was not moralizing. I was conveying the difference between the methodology practicing scientists use to overturn prior explanatory models and your denialism. So while you might think you're restraining yourself, I find continued attempts by you to misrepresent my position to be that of a mere ideologue with little to no regard for objective truth or class for that matter given your continual misrepresentations of others.
I've also already had such a debate with you in this forum where I believe the results were conclusive. Therefore I'm perfectly satisified with my position and results of that debate. I don't consider that a "win" for me since a "win" for me would be that you responded by subsequently:
a) deciding to start using scientific methodology to base your position - you show here you continue to reject such processes and are in fact comfortable practicing a text-book example of denialism while rejecting the label,
b) become informed on the science - I have no idea whether you are better informed or not. However it's been my observation that people who continue to avoid basing their position on the science as you do in this thread and instead seek sub-standard approaches to promote their position oppose the science, normally through willful ignorance. Your comments here coupled to your ignorance or conscious rejection of scientific methodology corroborate you most likely continue to hold an uninformed position.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2010 7:55 AM
Lance - I would be interested in understanding your summary position. What aspects of the theory of AGW do you reject? Are these positions held by personal rumination or do you have peer-reviewed citations which climate scientists have not rejected as flawed that impel your position?
Last I remembered you conceded rising temps, but thought all the observations on energy now stored that were not reflected in temp. readings were irrelevant (or perhaps not actually there) and the energy reflected in rising temps were trivial relative to climate sensitivity (where you failed to note what that sensitivity should instead be). Of course this is incoherent on its own in a multitude of ways, but please, articulate exactly what your objections are to theory of AGW.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2010 9:03 AM
Lance -
The thought that you might actually teach science*, is sad and a little frightening, given your belief that debate = science. It is also sad, because you seem to firmly believe that the source of an idea is a superior criteria for judging an idea, than actually judging the idea itself on it's merits. Finally, it is sad because you are all too willing to dismiss out of hand, ideas that you are almost entirely ignorant of.
These are not what scientists are supposed to do, they are not how science works. Science is not about debate, it is about evidence and what the best evidence currently available to us implies. Whining about implied biases is not a scientific challenge to established explanations - more science would be a scientific challenge.
Science is also not about dismissing everything that an individual had to contribute to a field, because they were mostly wrong. Often the value of what pioneers in a given field had to contribute, is based more on what they got wrong than what they got right. The process of what they got wrong, is what drives us to the correct answer - or at least a more correct answer. And often times what little they got right turns out to be critically important.
Science is also about avoiding making factual claims about topics one knows almost nothing about, especially when those claims are an outright dismissal. If you actually are a physical scientist, you should understand that there are a lot of ideas that simply cannot be adequately expressed in a short blog comment. The use of the archetype paradigm in social science and anthropology is relatively complicated. Adequately defining and explaining it's use would take several pages.
A scientist would either choose to take the time to actually learn about a given idea and decide whether it should be dismissed, or they would choose to remain skeptical, but not dismiss it out of hand.
And lest you take Paul W.'s position as gold, he wasn't arguing with anything that I said. I was very clear from the beginning that most of what Jung had to say about archetypes was mystical nonsense. What he contributed to the archetype paradigm that is actually useful, is minimal but important nonetheless. What Paul had to say about schemas indicates that he probably was studying clinical psychology and what he said is correct. Schemas are discreet sets of characteristics, differentiated from archetypes which are more generalizable. That does not mean that archetypes are not just as clearly definable than schemas - it simply means they have a broader focus.
Yet simply by virtue of this paradigm coming from someone who then threw a bunch of mystical nonsense in with it, in complete and absolute ignorance you dismiss it out of hand. That is not what actual scientists do.
I did not mention your climate science denialism because I have any desire to debate you about it. I mentioned it because it is indicative of your general science denialism, something that is entirely relevant to this thread.
* A claim that has yet to be verified by a coward who apparently is afraid to admit to who he is, but who blusters that all you have to do is google to find out - when in fact even his own suggested search string doesn't identify him within the first seventy hits.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 14, 2010 9:38 AM
DuWayne - His super-alter ego is Lance Armstrong (or perhaps the outback writer Lance C. Wilson). You Betcha! - :) Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | August 14, 2010 9:45 AM
Shorter Lance: I can lick anybody in the bar.
Posted by: SLC | August 14, 2010 11:17 AM
More cowardly pock shots I see.
Michael Heath,
You seem quite happy building straw men based on your loose paraphrasing of comments you think I made.
If you wish to actually discuss the issue, rather than posting little character assassinating speeches to your buddies here, you know where to find me.
I'd be glad to have an open and honest discussion of the science and policy issues surrounding climate change. If you think that is what you are doing perhaps you should read your above post again.
DuWayne,
You just seem to be venting. Something you do quite frequently.
You have yet to identify anything scientifically useful that can be called a "Jungian Archetype". Pretending that you have and I'm just not smart enough to find it in your posts isn't changing that fact.
I asked (nicely) for you to educate me. You wrote a few sentences about "stripping away the Bull Shit" but never did.
Paul W. never claimed that there was anything under the Bull Shit. He just said that "maybe" there was something useful that could be identified with the terms but said he didn't know what it might be.
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 2:47 PM
Apparently I botched the hyperlink to www.climate-skeptic.com in the above post.
Michael Heath,
People can disagree on an issue with out trying to destroy each other. Pretending that you're just "stating facts" when spewing insults is a poor substitute for rational discourse.
My invitation is genuine. I don't fear being shown that things I believe are incorrect or inaccurate. Quite the contrary, I love to find out that I had something wrong. That opens up new possibilities to better understand the universe.
That is why I became interested in science in the first place. My first college physics course showed me that my perceptions of the world around me were flawed and that Newtonian mechanics was a better approximation of what was really going on.
This of course was modified when I studied Relativity and then again when I studied Quantum Mechanics.
If you really think you can show me verifiable evidence that we face catastrophic warming from anthropogenic CO2 emissions I'd be more than happy to hear you out.
But be prepared to hear counter evidence and don't expect me to accept an argument from authority.
I really hope you will accept the invitation in the spirit in which it was offered.
P.S. I also spent a great amount of time arguing with creationists on the web, at Talk Origins and it's creationist counterpart Answers In Genesis.
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 3:09 PM
Dingo Jack,
My full name is Lance Harting and I teach at Indiana University, Purdue University at Indianapolis. Currently I only teach for the Math department.
I have said my full name, on this and other blogs, many times.
Now are you happy?
So my little Antipodean feral cur, do you have the courage to state your real identity?
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 3:19 PM
Re Lancelot
Since, apparently, this thread is still alive, here's a link to a post by astrophysicist Rob Knop on the subject of the argument from authority as applied to climate change. Of course, Mr. Lancelot will bad mouth Prof. Knop but I think that most of the posters here will agree that he makes a cogent argument that we have no choice but to accept the opinion of experts who have demonstrated through publication in peer reviewed journals that they know more about the subject then we do, something that Mr. Lancelot refuses to do.
http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2010/08/11/argument-from-authority-vs-trusting-experts/#comments
Posted by: SLC | August 14, 2010 3:31 PM
SLC,
Amusingly after making an argument from authority to dismiss my opinions on climate change you link to an article by an astrophysicist.
Did you ask him how many peer reviewed articles he has published on climate before endorsing his opinion or is it OK because he agrees with you?
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 3:44 PM
So now Lance is trying to channel Salvador "Wormtongue" Cordova, with extra synthetic testosterone? Sorry, Lance, but you don't have either the subtlety or the social skills to pull it off. And we know how that act ends too: the fake-macho "challenger" inevitably has to run away to a safe blog (like UD) where inconvenient truths are routinely censored.
Is Lance really dumb enough to think his "I don't have to prove myself"/"You wanna take this outside?" routine even sounds plausible here?
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 14, 2010 4:05 PM
Re Lancelot @ #127
Up to now, I have actually given Mr. Lancelot the benefit of the doubt, thinking that he is probably a pretty smart guy who just has a bug up his ass on the subject of AGW. However, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion which others on this blog have already reached that he is a schmuck. He obviously didn't bother to read Prof. Knops' post. Prof. Knop freely admits, as do I, that he is not an expert on climate change. He merely makes an argument that he accepts the conclusions of experts in the field who have overwhelming reached the position that AGW is a real phenomena and that citing their position in no way constitutes a case of argument by authority, any more then did Prof. Park who I cited earlier on.
Unlike Mr. Lancelot, Profs. Park and Knop are not passing themselves off as experts on AGW. Since Mr. Lancelot is, it is incumbent on him to provide us with his bonafides relative to articles in the peer reviewed literature. Since he has failed to do so, nothing he has to say is of any moment. Copy and pasting arguments from AGW denialist sites won't cut it Mr. Lancelot.
Posted by: SLC | August 14, 2010 4:22 PM
Sorry Lance, but you apparently are that stupid. I explained it in basic terms, I don't have the time or energy to write a detailed explanation of the use of the paradigm. That you keep saying Jungian archetype, indicates that you are either too stupid to understand what I am actually saying, or you just haven't read what I have said.
The basic framework that Jung developed (not his specific list of archetypes), but totally fucked up, is useful because it can be used to generalize sets of characteristics that apply to larger segments of given populations for the purposes comparisons. It is a tool for making particular comparisons, both within a given culture and/or across cultures. If you would like more detail, take an intro to social psych course. Or happily remain skeptical.
You keep assuming that I am arguing something I am not, that I am somehow defending a much larger portion of Jung's archetype theory than I actually am.
Paul W. never claimed that there was anything under the Bull Shit. He just said that "maybe" there was something useful that could be identified with the terms but said he didn't know what it might be.
I didn't say that he said anything else. In the context he was discussing, clinical psych, archetypes are completely fucking useless. They are not, however, useless in the contexts of social psychology and cultural anthropology.
But that is all entirely irrelevant to the issue of you choosing to dismiss something out of hand, simply because of it's source. That is not how science is done and it is not being particularly skeptical. That you are willing to dismiss ideas that you obviously know nothing about, merely because they came from someone who was mistaken about a great many things, indicates a lack of skeptical and scientific thinking.
And for the record, I am not venting anything. You're an irritating little git, but that is how I feel about anyone who engages in science denialism the way you do. It irritates me more, because you claim to be a scientist. But I am trying to clarify for someone who apparently doesn't even have the reading comprehension abilities of your average five year old, not venting.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 14, 2010 4:26 PM
Lance stated:
Lance - you claim you want a good faith debate and claim you'd love to find that you had something wrong. However my last debate with you had you continually ignoring all the peer-accepted, overwhelming evidence falisfying your position that was presented to you, such as the fact that temp. trends from 1880 to now is not "the only relevant fact" when it comes to AGW. In spite of the fact I provided peer-accepted evidence that has been repeatedly validated by a large number of perspectives and disciplines and where the observations fit the predictive models. And that was just one of many times you were proven wrong and failed to counter with evidence supporting you had a leg to stand on yet avoided conceding. So I in no way trust you've changed on that character quality, especially since your comments here continue to show you reject scientific methodology for mere uninformed debate.
Lastly you are not going to learn about AGW from me, I'm not qualified. I instead suggested and continue to suggest you read up on the physics and what actual climate scientists report. That was my first advice to you with a list of reading materials and it remains including books right through to getting an RSS feed from ScienceDaily.com so you could read all the abstracts on global warming as they are published.
There is no "Michael Heath" position on AGW, I instead accept what is peer-accepted. That doesn't mean I didn't bone-up on the topic, I've been studying this subject since 1986 where I do claim to be well-versed enough on the scientific method to gauge whether the findings as they are understood on AGW used proper methodology and whether competing arguments have had their chance - which they clearly have if you are at all informed on both the research and challenges to the research, e.g., accuracy of global temp. anomalies reported, the degree of climate sensitivity based on the paleoclimate record and direct observations, sources of current temp. anamolies, results of increased energy in the climate.
Lastly Lance, you are not going to learn anything about science hanging out at the site you recommend. I briefly reviewed the joint a bit (blog posts only, not comments) and that is clearly an anti-science joint wholly unconcerned with objective truth but instead firmly rooted in a position. The host is not a scientist, he's not a climate scientist, and he clearly believes you can hold positions contra to peer-reviewed findings without actually doing the peer-reviewed work and having that work independently validated to falsify that which he rejects. That's not science, that's exercises in rhetoric to promote a position.
When I read about climate science on a blog post, I read explanations that are consistent with the peer-reviewed articles that are referenced. When I read blog posts which falsifies peer-reviewed work, I do so by reading how other peer-reviewed articles have falsified or discredited that work and how the climate community has accepted one article over another. I could care less what some engineer-blogger's opinion is of a peer-reviewed work unless they either qualified to comment on it (another climate scientist) or are capable of using the highest journalistic standards to accurately report what the climate science community's position is. Your guy is neither and not even close, in fact he does the opposite of what good scientists do, which is to get an education on what we understand, do the research, get it validated by qualified scientists, publish, and defend it or see it laid waste by other better framed research with contra findings. The site you recommended was more Lord Monckton and Anythony Watts rather than RealClimate.com, neither of whom are scientists plus they repeatedly are found misrepresenting the science while RealClimate reveals and explains the science, with plenty of challenges in the comment sections if they get it wrong - where I might add those challenges are other climate scientists.
Lance - you really need to reread Duwayne's comment posts on scientific methodology. He nails the basics where you are way off the reservation in the same type of camp as creationists who also fail to first understand biology and then adhere to the evidence and basic laws as they are revealed using the scientific method. I have no desire to play in that forum, it's futile and unproductive.
If you don't like what we now claim to understand, then I suggest either doing the work yourself or find the peer-reviewed evidence which goes ignored. But I refuse to enable your denialism by thinking mere debate can determine the veracity of AGW, especially with a guy (you) whose repeatedly demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to concede when presented with peer-accepted evidence that falsifies his position and fails to find other evidence that compellingly challenges the peer-accepted position.
That doesn't make me a chicken as you inferred last night (comment posts I never read until this morning), it instead might argue I'm at least smart enough to know it'd be waste of my time, especially given your demonstrated record.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2010 5:28 PM
Let's review:
I told Dingo Jack and DuWayne my real name and where I teach.
I made a good faith appeal to Michael Heath and invited him to an open discussion where I said I would be glad to find out If I was wrong.
You gentlemen responded with insults and derision.
Sad.
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 6:56 PM
Lance, an objective reading of Michael Heath's last post reveals no insults or derision. If you can't answer his claims, say so; a false persecution complex is unbecoming.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 14, 2010 7:11 PM
Lance - I in no way agree with your representation of our collective arguments at your last post. In fact I even asked you @ 119 to present your issues with AGW where mine are already and clearly known - they're consistent with the latest synthesis reports unless I'm privy to more recent findings (which don't discredit the primary premises of those reports, they merely make minor modifications). I also see you fail to acknowledge your past demonstrated behavior which I linked to @ 90 (August 12, 2010 11:57 PM) as my primary reason for not debating you on a subject where you demonstrate you are not informed and seek to debate it on terms known to be dishonest and well below the level good methodology requires.
I think your posts do reveal how you could oppose AGW in spite of previously showing you are uninformed on the topic and showing here you reject or at least ignore scientific methodolgy - you certainly give it zero respect while advocating instead for denialist tactics. Your posts reveal a propensity to depend on personal mental gymnastics that do not reconcile to reality (e.g., your claim you are willing to change your mind with overwhelming evidence - yet don't, your thinking I "chickened-out" last evening when in fact I hadn't even read those posts during the period of your "challenge".)
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2010 7:18 PM
Lance -
Yay you, for exposing yourself - I missed that before.
You haven't made any sort of good faith appeal and no one is interested in arguing with you about science versus what you wish were true. You have repeatedly indicated outright disdain for science, or at least science you don't like. You have also repeatedly indicated that you don't understand the process of science, or just don't care for it all that much. You spout off about shit you know nothing about and then whine when someone doesn't take the time to teach you about a topic they are in the process of spending a lot of their time learning about.
You get insults and derision, because you have earned nothing but insults and derision. You disgust me Lance. Why would I offer you sunshine and fucking roses? You have the arrogance to assume that scientific conclusions that you don't like must be wrong. You have the arrogance to assume that because you read a little something in a text book, or article about someone, that you can judge everything they might have said as garbage. You have the arrogance to dismiss ideas out of hand and pretend the person expressing those ideas is saying something they are not, when you haven't the foggiest fucking clue what you're talking about.
And you whine about how polite you're being, when you're just using polite language to be a fucking asshole. You are pathetic.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 14, 2010 7:22 PM
Sadie Morrison,
Really?
"...you are way off the reservation in the same type of camp as creationists..."
Also he continues to misrepresent our previous discussion. I responded to his arguments with peer reviewed studies and valid scientific facts.
Here's a question Sadie, do you think writing multiple posts with hundreds of words on why he wont discuss something, by basically claiming that I am not worthy of his time, is valid when he spend so much time "spinning" his reasons for not discussing the issue with me?
Wouldn't it be easier to just show me where I'm wrong if it is so obvious?
Also Mr. Heath spends a great deal of time lambasting the site where I asked him to meet me. Do you suppose the nature of the site is relevant to our discussion in anyway?
I chose it simply because it is a site dedicated to discussions of climate change, and it has very little traffic.
It is obvious to me, if not you, that Mr. Heath is more interested in posturing on the topic than in engaging in any real discourse.
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 7:44 PM
Michael Heath,
"...your thinking I "chickened-out" last evening when in fact I hadn't even read those posts during the period of your 'challenge'.)
Fair enough, what time is better for you?
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 7:46 PM
Du Wayne,
I think Jungian Archetypes are hooey.
This apparently "disgusts" you.
I asked you to tell me in what way they are scientifically valid. Now you back peddle by saying,
"You spout off about shit you know nothing about and then whine when someone doesn't take the time to teach you about a topic they are in the process of spending a lot of their time learning about."
I assume the "someone" is you? So explain why, up to this point in your "spending a lot of time", you feel they are a valid scientific concept. Why this question would cause the kind of outrage you are expressing doesn't seem rational to me. Isn't the point of these threads to maked points and defend them when people question them?
You seem to have leapt on SLC's irrelevant "climate change denialist alert" to rescue you from your inability to defend Jungian Archetypes. How is my alleged status as an evil climate change denier germain to the topic of this thread?
I expect more expletive filled irrational bile, but I'd be pleasantly surprise if instead you presented a rational argument.
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 8:03 PM
I am not back peddling at all, you dense fucking moron. I have explained the use of the archetype paradigm that Jung was responsible for. Not Jungian archetypes, something you are apparently too fucking dense to grasp, but the paradigm in which he came up with them. You seem to think that I am defending something that I am not and continue to refuse to address the explanation that I have offered. If you want to understand more, then either take a social psych class or at least ask a specific question.
But it is apparent that you are either too fucking stupid to read, or you aren't reading what I am writing. Yet again you refer to Jungian archetypes, as though I am defending them. Again and in clear English - I most certainly am not. I am only defending the use of the paradigm that he used to develop them. A distinction that you are apparently incapable of grasping.
I am not jumping on anyone's climate change denialist alert either. It is germain, because like the out of hand dismissal of an idea you know nothing about, your denial of climate change science is another example of your complete and utter disdain for science. I don't have any desire to debate your denialism, any more than I have any desire to debate creationists and other denialists.
You are disgusting not because you think Jungian archetypes are hooey, I think they are too. You are disgusting, because you both claim to be a scientist and show absolute contempt for science. You might not be treated with contempt, if you were to make a rational argument. All you have done so far, has been to argue against something I agree with you on and said quite clearly in my very first comment on this thread that I agree with you on.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 14, 2010 8:29 PM
If I may return to briefly to Sarah Palin and the subject of archetypes, as I began to work on a promised follow up comment, I chucked the idea of going into this more deeply for a couple of reasons. First, I don't feel I have enough of a solid grip on Jung to argue a position with respect to the worthwhile and worthless dimensions of his views. Second, I think this is the kind of thing that's better discussed in a conversation. Depth theories are most valuable because of the ways they promote deeper more subtle thinking about mental life. A good discussion that doesn’t take the form of staked-out debate positions is most often, in my opinion, the most useful to penetrate the ideas of any depth psychology and, particularly, the usefulness of ideas found in various depth psychologies. I’d like to talk to someone who really knows Jung’s work and ask, “what would Jung might say about x?”
Having spent literally hundreds of hours in small groups listening to session narrative and brainstorming informed by ideas from depth theories, the value I've found is in my own growing ability to hear things that were right in front of me, but somehow not heard before because I didn't have organizing constructs or the attunement to certain patterns and themes implicit in the narrative. If there is something of value to be found in the notion of archetypes, this is where I believe it might be found. It might be found in developing another way to recognize ideas and theme patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed.
I used the musician and music theory analogy earlier in the thread. This is also kind of like people who study literature recognizing things that other readers don't recognize. Their ability to penetrate literature doesn't arise simply from adhering to (or believing in) a particular theoretical approach. Their enhanced ability arises from repeated exposure to and work with a multiplicity of approaches to literature.
One of my favorite exercises during my training involved taking a case vignette, presentation or verbatim session material and analyzing the material several times, each time doing so using a different set of theoretical assumptions. The goal was not to decide that one model was superior to another, or to find the model that had the right analysis, but to understand and consciously move from one framework to another--to learn to listen in a multiplicity of ways, while recognizing assumptions, uncertainties and the need to think in terms of hypotheses rather than engaging in wild, unchecked analysis.
I've written more about this approach to narrative study here.
That said, I've been thinking a little more about the mama bear narrative. The most interesting thought I had was that this mama bear rearing up to defend her cubs is consistent with a theme that Sarah Palin has been hammering in one way or another all along.
This narrative is primitive, meaning that it refers to basic instinctually-driven action lacking in any conscious, cognitive mediation. The mama bear doesn't really know or care to understand the threat-trigger. The mama bear just reacts instinctually. She attacks and kills without reference to the reality of the threat.
The lack of conscious, cognitive mediation is a major Sarah Palin theme. In fact, she has a disdain for cognitive analysis and mediation (e.g., law professors lecturing at a podium). I discussed Palin in terms of the histrionic cognitive style in another thread a while back. The histrionic person doesn't engage in deliberate, focused analysis of situations or his/her reactions to situations. The histrionic person reacts immediately, impressionistically and without regard for evidence or rational processing. When they experience a sense of external threat, they may react like a mama bear or perhaps like a dear in the headlights. In response to threat, fight or flight activation is typical. Of course, these reactions are psychologically and neurologically more primitive than conscious cognitive mediation.
Histrionic persons are also bored, impatient with and even hostile toward dispassionate, conscious cognitive processing. In politics, the histrionic approach is populist-oriented. The histrionic politician tells people that they don't need education, they don't need skepticism, they don't need evidence, they don’t need rigor and they have no need for any uncertainty. Mindless bromides and clichés are all they need if called upon to explain themselves. “Blinking” is bad if blinking means that a momentary thought that one might be wrong causes a moment of hesitation. All you need is your immediate, unprocessed emotional reaction to move forward.
Both the populist appeal and the danger in this mentality are obvious to anyone who has had the experience of conscious, cognitive mediation preventing them from saying or doing something really stupid and destructive.
This isn’t this only way to analyze the mama bear narrative, but, imo, it’s one reasonably robust way to think about what the narrative says about Palin and about those who respond positively this narrative.
Posted by: Dr X | August 14, 2010 9:14 PM
Lance - Let me make really simple for you.
Nobody wants to argue with you because your postings are dishonest, hypocritical and not based on known facts.
Of course you don't believe me, why would you?
Let's look at this little gem (TL;DR alert):
Is that what happened Lance?
Well, no, it wasn't.
Firstly:
To which I jokingly replied:
Then you came back (in part) with
So I followed your instructions and googled 'Lance' and what did I find?
I wasn't the only one. Duwayne wasn't getting any better results either
So you helpfully added:
Now Lance I don't really care if you hide behind a pseudonym or not, you were the one complaining about this. All I did was point out the irony of this position, whilst being pseudonymous. I'm really not interested in you in the least, except for my own amusement (kids AND 'adults' can be cruel).
Then finally (after some pointlessly cruel taunting, I'm ashamed to admit):
Really? That's not my experience, but I'm a newbie so what do I know?
Does this match the post first quoted? Nope, not really.
And why do you think people don't want to debate with you? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | August 14, 2010 9:20 PM
Dr. X,
Thanks for the explanation.
Posted by: Lance | August 14, 2010 10:38 PM
Lance stated @ 136:
Perhaps the biggest lie you've ever told Lance, further validating my previous decision to no longer engage with you.
Here's the relevant link of that debate and the most sensicial starting comment post of that debate though you started in on climate change prior to this comment post. In this linked post you made the assertion:
Zero peer-reviewed articles or scientific facts were presented by you supporting this incredibly uninformed assertion, "Here is the only relevant observed fact, which totally ignores the marginal increase in energy stored which does not show up in the temp. record along with many more relevant "facts", e.g., ocean acidification, sea level rise, recent decades realizing increasing temp. increases, Arctic sea ice degradation, observations of climate migrating poleward at rates quicker than flora and fauna, a paleoclimate record with massive affects on sea levels and extinction rates where temp. increase trends were far more modest than now, etc.
Lance you provided only one peer-reviewed study (perhaps two, one was broken see below). That was @ April 2, 2010 1:00 AM (of the previous link above) which you didn't even link to which in no way challenged the prevailing theory of AGW and was in fact a study of one mere fish species with a bold pronouncement in general, which I quote a part of the abstract from your comment post:
Another link you provided @ March 29, 2010 4:01 PM of the same above linked thread was broken and therefore irretrievable which claims a mistake in sea ice extent in the IPCC report. As was explained to you, sea ice extent is largely based on seasonal weather where climate scientists instead rely on attempts to track ice volume and ice age to determine the health of the Arctic ice cap. You were provided citations by a leading scientific research center on Arctic ice, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which report dangerously trending Arctic ice degradation, i.e., volume, age, and extent, where their findings have accelerated since our debate. You also linked to a non-scientific site of non-climate scientists (Accuweather) @ March 30, 2010 2:44 AM which defectively conflated Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent, something climate scientists do not do for very specific reasons and more evidence of how uninformed you are on the basic physics of climate change.
@ March 30, 2010 4:35 AM you cite a non-peer-reviewed article that supposedly falsifies the bark beetle infestation. In fact it did no such thing and the actual peer-reviewed articles linked in your own citation falsified your representation of that report. See here for details. In fact not only are there scientists observing bark beetle infestations and its effects, but there are also synthesis reports which also conclude this infestation is partly caused by global warming.
So no Lance, you lie when you claim you defended your position with peer-reviewed studies and facts. You didn't even remotely meet that standard and instead failed spectacularly, which would be obvious to not just those well-versed on climate change, but also possess elementary critical thinking skills and an elementary understanding of scientific methodology.
Lastly, the door remains open, third request in this thread, that you present your summary position relative to the core observations and predictions made by the climate science community. You want to start a debate where you've never expressed your position (unless it's entirely encapsulated in my first blockquote above). Are your positions held by personal rumination as you promote in my above blockquote or do you have peer-reviewed citations which climate scientists have not rejected as flawed that support your position?
You failed miserably at this standard last time as validated here, you lied in your previous comment post @ 136 to Sadie that you stood on science - so here's a chance to redeem yourself. I don't think you are remotely able to put forth a position that isn't laughable given my conclusion you've failed to educate yourself on even the elementary basics of climate science including the underlying physics nor do you seem capable of understanding the scientific method and how it differs from your dependence on rhetorical and logical fallacies - but please, prove me wrong.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 15, 2010 8:13 AM
Dr X "This isn’t this only way to analyze the mama bear narrative, but, imo, it’s one reasonably robust way to think about what the narrative says about Palin and about those who respond positively this narrative."
Now, I'm no psychologer, but I call the mindset "limbic"*1. Basal emotions, instinctive and reactionary; trapped (basking, even) in "fight-or-flight" mode*2. The rhetoric and politics of the lizard mind.
Who'd have thought that an anti-intellectual movement would take the term so literally?*3
*1. ...which isn't technically accurate. If my hazy memory of school is any indicator, "hypothalmic" is probably closer. Or not. One of those.
*2. From personal experience, only some of the lessons of Boot Camp come close. "Double tap, dash, down, crawl, observe, sights, fire" (which sometimes still runs through my head as a sequence of actions rather than words, after hearing a loud bang) and "Gas gas gas!" (I start to pull off my glasses and reach to my hip, where the gasmask pouch would be, when I smell anything that smells even vaguely like CS gas...including wasabi) are two things that, once learned, re-enforced through repetition (and pushups) are remarkably hard to de-automate. And that was after just a summer of exposure! I can't imagine how hard it would be to not automatically get outraged after years of "Muslim Muslim Muslim!"
*3. Me.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 15, 2010 9:11 AM
Michael Heath,
So you think that linking, out of context, into the middle of an old discussion on bark beetles somehow justifies your cowardly avoidance of a direct invitation to an open discussion on climate change at a site dedicated to such discussions?
Also my next post in that thread eviscerates your false claims that I am not using peer reviewed science.
I offered to meet you for an honest and open discussion and you respond with selectively distorting our one past discussion.
You are a coward and a liar.
Posted by: Lance | August 15, 2010 10:50 AM
Interesting Lance. You have indicated that you actually are dishonest, in this very thread. You have also indicated, on multiple occasions that you have contempt for science.
And you actually have the temerity to call someone who has actually earned the respect of this community a liar. The depths of disgust you are willing to plunge into are truly mind boggling. Such a pathetic little man.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 15, 2010 6:25 PM
You guys are talking at cross-purposes in trying to deal with denialist arguments—AGW denialists, creationists, geocentrists, flat-earthers...whatever.
They have seized upon the names (not the meanings) of two fallacies, and they will pull one or the other of them out, no matter what you say. They have been told that an argument from authority is illegitimate. Every time you pull out a peer-reviewed study, that (in their minds) constitutes an argument from authority. You can pile up scientific results, in peer-reviewed journals, all day. You can pile them up by the hundred—but the more of them there are, and the more eminent their authors, the more it becomes an "argument from authority" and the more illegitimate it becomes.
When they pull out some completely unsupported argument from some denialist site, put forth by some completely unqualified ignoramus, it's not an argument from authority because this gomer doesn't have any. That makes it extra truthy! If you say, that argument is no good, because the guy doesn't know what he's talking about, they say: "Is that all you've got? Insults and ad hominems?"
See, they've seen the phrase ad hominem fallacy, and they think the insult is the fallacy. "Your argument is wrong, because of A, B, C...plus, you're an asshole." The argument is a fallacy only if you say "You're an asshole, therefore your argument is wrong." The denialist, however, cannot understand this.
So if you bring in scientific arguments from the peer-reviewed literature, that's an argument from authority. If you say their argument they pulled out of their ass is wrong, that's an ad hominem. You can't win for losing, and I refuse to even try any more. It's 94 today, and I'm about to die of heatstroke, but obviously, since it snowed in Boston last winter, global warming is a lie.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | August 15, 2010 10:52 PM
Show me where I lied DuWayne.
And you might want to slurp down a Thorazine Big Gulp just to take the edge off.
Posted by: Lance | August 16, 2010 1:58 PM
Lance, darling, you seem to be mistaking my general cheery fucking demeanor as something else entirely. Though I do wonder about your suggestions to the contrary. I suspect this might be a bit of projection on your part. Just ask Ed, I am who I am online, offline as well - excepting more professional settings.
As for where you lied, I think DJ provides a decent summary at 141. Though of course that came before your claims that Michael Heath is a coward and a liar, at 145. These of course, were also lies. Michael Heath is occasionally wrong, once in a while very wrong. He has repeatedly demonstrated, however, that he is neither a coward or a liar.
You on the other hand, have demonstrated that you are at the very least a liar and that you have a rather pathetic contempt for science. I suspect that you are just a little too foolhardy to be a coward.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 16, 2010 5:40 PM
DuWayne,
So expecting Dingo Jerk to be able to find me on Google is being a liar? I said it would take all of ten minutes. Christ had he clicked the link that Heath provided my name and where I work is in the next fricking post!
When he failed, repeatedly, I gave him my full name and place of employment.
Yeah, that proves I'm a liar.
Michael Heath claimed he hadn't seen my challenge and that midnight was too late. I asked him to name the time and I'd be there. The sound of crickets followed. (Coward)
He misrepresented a past post of mine that referenced a literature review, by four leading scientists in the field, of over 100 peer reviewed articles on the subject of bark beetles. (Liar)
"I suspect that you are just a little too foolhardy to be a coward."
This from a guy that leads with his chin and then tries to cover the blood trail with expletive, filled Pee Wee Herman-esque, cries of "I meant to do that!".
Posted by: Lance | August 17, 2010 1:50 AM
Lance - See mine at #141. Is that a fair summary of the conversation? If not, why not?
Telling someone something after the fact then pretending you told them up front, is, at the very least, deceptive, if not outright lying. You are aware that posts don't disappear into the ether once posted aren't you?
Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | August 17, 2010 4:08 AM
You aren't getting upset now are you Lance? Does it hurt to have someone who isn't very nice call you out on your bullshit and contempt for science? I don't need to defend against anything here. Everything you are claiming, there at 150 is demonstrably bullshit, with one possible and one absolute exception.
Yup, you surely did post your name to that thread Michael linked to. How this has any bearing on this thread and your claims that all we need to do is google you, is a mystery though.
And I will admit that I spent relatively minimal time looking for how exactly, Michael misrepresented your post. I looked, didn't see it and moved on. Given your complete lack of credibility and the great deal of credibility that Michael actually has, I am inclined not to believe you. You seem rather keen on making vague references to evidence and where evidence might be found - including your little name game. I would just note, this proclivity isn't helping your credibility.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 17, 2010 9:09 AM
Lance:
Three times in this thread I've asked you to present your position on climate change. I've presented my position, it's what is peer-accepted as published in synthesis reports by the climate science community with the few exceptions, those being findings published after these synthesis reports. Here's one of my repeated requests @ 119:
and again @ 143 where I stated:
You also create a juvenile logical fallacy, a false restriction of alternatives, by claiming I either debate you at your preferred anti-science site and therefore insinuate I'm supposedly not a coward or refuse to debate you there where if I don't you explicitly note I'm a coward. I am not surprised you'd make such an error since to date your entire argument attempting to rebut AGW has been entirely premised on juvenile logical fallacies with few exceptions, mere nitpicking the margins and in no way even challenging the key observations, physics, or theory - including its predictive power.
Another alternative which your framing assumes is not existent though it does is for me to currently rest with our prior debate where I'm entirely comfortable with my position (first link below). For me to even consider moving forward I'd need to see a more expanded position, which you've never presented beyond the ludicrous statement which started our last debate which is linked to @ 143:
So Lance, I'm not going to throw out the coward card at you. I do wonder why you keep railing for a debate while continuing to avoid the request to present your position.
If your position is every bit as uninformed, misinformed, and lacking in validated empirical evidence like we see in the above blockquote and the linked debate than followed (see first link below); then no, I will not debate you further. That was the framing of the last debate where I'm entirely comfortable with my position. I'd be a moron to re-engage with someone arguing a subject for which they know almost nothing and was unable to present arguments consistent with scientific methodology.
Lance:
Yes the literature certainly led to peer-reviewed work and synthesis reports which I revealed; your posts reveal you were oblivious to the fact these articles falsified your own argument and validated mine. In fact your cite validated my initial position which you attempted but failed to rebut and in fact shot yourself in the foot. I agree lying was going on and am perfectly comfortable knowing who was lying is easily demonstrated by following this thread which started the general debate and this comment post which links to the citations noted specific to the bark beetle infestation. Let's be clear, I noted massive risk for conifers in certain areas of the Rocky Mountains due to bark beetle infestations given your skepticism ecological harm had already started due to AGW. This my response showing an actual observation. You claimed my example was not true and linked to a cite which you claimed falsified my position. I used your own citation's links to validate my claim with synthesis reports which also validated my original citation's findings and falsify your rebuttal. In fact you even misrepresented your own citation initially by claiming it falsified my claim when it didn't and now misrepresent your position here from two different aspects - 1) that you were on the side of these leading scientist when in fact you were arguing the opposite where they validated the finding I cited (in fact my article was written by one the synthesis report authors), and 2) that your position was that of these leading scientists when in fact you falsely claimed your article falsified my position rather than it actually linking to peer-reviewed cites that validated it.
Lance - until you present a holistic position on climate change relative to the consensus view as published in the relevant synthesis reports, which I've asked for repeatedly, I'm not going to engage further. You have my position, we've never had your's except for the comments I post above; at least that's my sense of your summary position where perhaps you have expressed it prior, that's partly why I'm requesting it now - to understand your position since I don't know except for the statements I quote here which reveal an absurdly uninformed position.
But your total lack of dishonesty as revealed again here makes me wonder why I'd ever engage with you again, which is where we ended up the last time. Lance - to date you earn your denialist spurs like no other denialist I've met. I continue to suggest you actually bone up on what scientific methodology is, learn the physics of climate, and study what the actual climate science community understands and argues prior to debating anyone. I do wonder what your motivation is to debate an issue where you demonstrate a total unpreparedness to argue.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 17, 2010 10:01 AM
Michael Heath,
I was goaded into this off topic discussion by SLC, you and others. SLC's stated purpose was to discredit me, at every opportunity, with irrelevant claims of being a "denialist fuck face".
I ignored these taunts and requested that the thread be returned to its intended topic.
After more obnoxious taunting I finally said that I would be happy to discuss my views on climate change on another blog where such discussions would be appropriate and not be "hijacking" this thread.
Climate-Skeptic.com is an unmoderated, lightly trafficked blog. It frequently has as many proponents of AGW as skeptics. It seemed like an ideal venue for such a discussion.
I am eager to answer your request to synthesize my position, but I don't think this blog thread is the proper place.
Also please stop misrepresenting our past discussion.
Here is the summary of the literature review, done by the four leading scientists in the field, that I presented.
These are not my words. They are the words of the scientists. Also you pick one paper out of the more than 100 they reviewed and claimed it proved I was a "liar" because it didn't come to the same conclusion as the synthesis report. This was either purposely deceitful on your part or shows a basic misunderstanding of what is meant by a synthesis report.
The synthesis report obviously isn't going to agree with the conclusions of all the reviewed papers. In fact the papers, written by many different scientists, are not going to come to exactly the same conclusions. The synthesis report weighed all of the information of the individual papers and came to an overall conclusion.
Claiming that because the summary doesn't agree with one of those papers somehow makes me a "liar" is disingenuous in the extreme.
Now if you wish to have an open and honest discussion, and not just posture for the likes of Raging Bee and SLC I'd be glad to accommodate you.
Perhaps you can name a venue that would be appropriate for such a discussion.
Posted by: Lance | August 17, 2010 12:35 PM
I was goaded into this off topic discussion by SLC, you and others.
...because you ALLOWED yourself to be goaded.
SLC's stated purpose was to discredit me, at every opportunity, with irrelevant claims of being a "denialist fuck face".
And you responded by acting like a denialist fuck-face, with transparently idiotic chest-pounding macho bluster and challenges to "take this outside." The taunts may have been irrelevant, but your response -- and the insecurity it revealed -- both made them relevant and proved them correct.
I ignored these taunts and requested that the thread be returned to its intended topic.
No, you didn't ignore them -- you started flailing about and challenging people to a debate at a denialist forum of your choosing*; then resorting to grade-school taunts when we didn't jump through your hoops; then blatantly lying about what others had said in response to you, and pretending that multi-paragraph substantive responses were without substance, which anyone who actually read them can see is not the case.
If you HAD ignored the OT taunts, then the thread would have stayed on-topic, and you would not have had to "request" a return to topic.
___________________________
* A standard Sal Cordova tactic whenever he finds himself losing a debate.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 17, 2010 12:54 PM
Dingo Jack,
I Googled Lance and Climate change. My name was not in the first 100 hits.
My apologies for being wrong about that. You do understand the difference between being wrong and being a "liar" right?
It really wasn't that hard to find my name using Google. Just add scienceblogs and it appears fairly quickly. Had you persisted at the search it shouldn't have been a very difficult task.
Also, as I said, it appears in my first response to the post in Michael Heath's link. I supply it upon request. It's just easier to use my first name as Lance is a fairly uncommon name.
At any rate I gave you my freaking full name and where I teach after a few more childish taunts, so what's your beef exactly?
Still waiting for your real name.
Posted by: Lance | August 17, 2010 1:01 PM
Lance,
This thread is nearly a week old and has been dominated by you and your opponents for most of the time it's been here. Your argument against simply debating here because of the concern regarding threadjacking is rather hollow. Frankly the thread has been jacked, has landed, hostages have been ransomed, freedom loving compatriots have been released, special forces units have moved in, and the hostage takers are already dead. The threadjacking "ship" has sailed. You might as well go ahead present your evidence and make your arguments, I doubt many, if any would really object.
Posted by: dogmeat | August 17, 2010 1:14 PM
dogmeat,
Yours is my favorite post in the thread so far.
I would just make my argument but this thread is fading into the sunset and I would prefer to find a place where it might actually be seen by more than the two or three of us that are involved at the moment.
Posted by: Lance | August 17, 2010 2:05 PM
I was goaded into this off topic discussion by SLC, you and others. SLC's stated purpose was to discredit me, at every opportunity, with irrelevant claims of being a "denialist fuck face".
Lance, baby, your complete and utter contempt for science is extremely relevant to this thread.
After more obnoxious taunting I finally said that I would be happy to discuss my views on climate change on another blog where such discussions would be appropriate and not be "hijacking" this thread.
Your dishonesty and contempt for science had already hijacked this thread. Why stop there?
Climate-Skeptic.com is an unmoderated, lightly trafficked blog. It frequently has as many proponents of AGW as skeptics. It seemed like an ideal venue for such a discussion.
And we are here now. Have been for a while.
Claiming that because the summary doesn't agree with one of those papers somehow makes me a "liar" is disingenuous in the extreme.
That is not what Michael is claiming. It is hard to say whether it is your proclivity for dishonesty, or an inherent inability to actually read what has been written would lead you to suggest he is.
Now if you wish to have an open and honest discussion, and not just posture for the likes of Raging Bee and SLC I'd be glad to accommodate you.
It really isn't worth trying it have an open and honest discussion about science, with a dishonest little prig who has repeatedly shown absolute contempt for science.
My apologies for being wrong about that. You do understand the difference between being wrong and being a "liar" right?
Lance darling, if you actually think that is the entirety of the claim that you are lying, you are either lying still or are just incapable of understanding English.
I would just make my argument but this thread is fading into the sunset and I would prefer to find a place where it might actually be seen by more than the two or three of us that are involved at the moment.
Given some familiarity with threads like this one and how many people continue to pay attention, even this far out - there are still plenty of lurkers you could possibly convince. Except that Michael has already made it clear that he is done with you and rightfully so. Arguing any longer with a
creationistclimate science denier such as yourself is fucking pointless. All you will do is continue to play silly littlecreationistAGW denialist games, so what is the point exactly?You have been clearly exposed as either being a liar, or possibly just a fucking moron - I suspect both. Your contempt for science has been clearly exposed. Your tendency to be just as insulting and acerbic as anyone else, while pretending you aren't has been quite clear. And your absolute lack of credibility has been clearly exposed.
Honestly, I am only still here because I think your attitude about science, coupled with your claims of being a scientist is disgusting. I also got rather irritated with your repeated misrepresentations of what I actually had to say, even when I repeatedly and clearly explained they were. So I am rather enjoying watching you grow increasingly unhinged, even as you accuse me and others of just that. Your discomfort is rather amusing to me.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 17, 2010 2:53 PM
Now if you wish to have an open and honest discussion, and not just posture for the likes of Raging Bee and SLC I'd be glad to accommodate you.
Right...because all of Heath's long and laborious comments here are made entirely for me and SLC. Without both of us he's nothing. Why is it no one ever tells me how important I am until it's too late?
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 17, 2010 3:14 PM
Yes, we lurkers are still here.
Posted by: balurker | August 17, 2010 8:26 PM
DuWayne,
Ho hum.
Posted by: Lance | August 17, 2010 11:13 PM
I'm on vacation now through the rest of the week. I'll have limited access to the Internet. Given that Lance refuses to even publish his position on AGW and climate change while I've repeatedly noted mine, I'm not sure what the point of continuing is.
I'll give Lance the benefit of the doubt that both his representation of what his non-peer-reviewed articles concluded and his representation of them in the last debate and here was not represented accurately by me here (along with any peer-reviewed if he did in fact cite such). Therefore I do need to review the bark beetle infestation controversy more carefully to see if I misrepresented Lance's claims in this thread. I don't have the time to do that now.
I do know the synthesis reports out of this area of study support the peer-reviewed article I published tying this bark beetle infestation at least partly to global warming, mainly caused by an enormously higher survival rate of bark beetles during the winter and I believe if IIRC stress on the conifers from drought and heat. I know two of Lance's articles including the one which has was his original rebuttal to my peer-reviewed cite were not peer-reviewed and I might not have not represented them carefully given I tend to give such papers short shrift by instead relying on only peer-reviewed work. In fact the second cite didn't even publish an author(s) of the article.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 18, 2010 7:54 AM
I haven't been following this discussion for several days now as IMHO, debating with Mr. Lancelot is like debating with Duane Gish, a total waste of time and effort. However, I do salute Mr. Michael Heath for his willingness to engage Mr. Lancelot, even though I think that attending to his development business would be a more constructive use of his time.
However, since Mr. Lancelot likes to cite the Climate Audit site of climate change denialist Steve McIntyre, a mining engineer by training who has no demonstrated expertise in climate science, I would like to point out that Mr. McIntyre, like denialists who have no scientific argument, engages in the time tested fraud of quote mining. He was recently caught doing this by Tim Lambert who is a Scienceblogs blogger at the Deltoid blog. Link is below.
Now, just to preempt Mr. Lancelot who will, upon reading this comment immediately point out that Mr. Lambert is also not a climate scientist, this is a red herring. The post to which I link points out the quote mining exercise engaged in by Mr. McIntyre which requires no expertise in climate science.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/steve_mcintyre_quote_mining_ex.php
Posted by: SLC | August 18, 2010 10:21 AM
Michael Heath,
Hey, you just scored some points for honesty, even if you had to wedge in a bunch of disclaimers (You are a lawyer after all).
Enjoy your vacation and when you get back I'd be more than happy to fully state my position on AGW and engage in an open discussion at a mutually agreed upon location and time.
Posted by: Lance | August 18, 2010 2:41 PM
Where and when has McIntyre ever argued that climate is constant?
There, fixed that for ya, SUC. Don't mention it.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | August 19, 2010 7:26 PM
Leaving the Jungian theory aside as im not too familiar with it,Id just like to say that its necessary to understand Palin as the individual she is.With her different politial views she is sure to attract some controversies which puts her in a tight spot publicly...
Posted by: devyani | January 19, 2011 1:48 AM