"Some time back, a reader drew my attention to the book in which, 40
years ago, a Yale professor of psychology, Irving Janis, analysed what,
with a conscious nod to George Orwell, he called “groupthink”. It is a
term we all casually use (which even he derived from another writer),
but he identified eight symptoms of groupthink. One is the urge of its
victims to insist that their view is held as a “consensus” by all
morally right-thinking people. Another is their ruthless desire to
suppress any evidence that might lead someone to question it. A third is
their urge to stereotype and denigrate anyone who dares hold a
dissenting view. Their intolerance of “independent critical thinking”,
as Janis put it, leads them to “irrational and dehumanised actions
directed against outgroups”.

[...]

"But another characteristic of groupthink that Janis doesn’t fully
explore in his book is that those caught up in these mindsets have never
actually worked out their thinking on the subject for themselves. They
have taken on their belief-system, and the reasons for supporting it,
ready-made and wholesale from others. That is why it is impossible to
have any intelligent dialogue with, say, zealots for man-made climate
change or the European Union, because they have not really examined the
evidence for themselves but have come to a set of opinions that are
skin-deep and second-hand. They can only parrot the mantras they have
picked up from others. "

[...]

"That is why, as we see illustrated on every side (not least in much of
the output of the BBC, or, for that matter, the online comments below
this column), they cannot tolerate or offer rational arguments, or
explore the three-dimensional truth of a subject. They quickly resort
just to dismissing anyone who disagrees with their beliefs as an
“idiot”, “hopelessly ignorant”, “wildly inaccurate” or “anti-science”.
Or they appeal to what Gustave Le Bon called “prestige”, citing
supposedly respected authorities, such as the reports of the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which are only voicing the
“consensus” views of other adherents of the same groupthink. "

http://tinyurl.com/n8s66cf

Do these ideas ring a bell when applied to some members of this group?

Do not all political parties represent examples of group think tanks?

Joe Egginton wrote:
"Some time back, a reader drew my attention to the book in which, 40
years ago, a Yale professor of psychology, Irving Janis, analysed what,
with a conscious nod to George Orwell, he called “groupthink”. It is a
term we all casually use (which even he derived from another writer),
but he identified eight symptoms of groupthink. One is the urge of its
victims to insist that their view is held as a “consensus” by all
morally right-thinking people. Another is their ruthless desire to
suppress any evidence that might lead someone to question it. A third is
their urge to stereotype and denigrate anyone who dares hold a
dissenting view. Their intolerance of “independent critical thinking”,
as Janis put it, leads them to “irrational and dehumanised actions
directed against outgroups”.

[...]

"But another characteristic of groupthink that Janis doesn’t fully
explore in his book is that those caught up in these mindsets have never
actually worked out their thinking on the subject for themselves. They
have taken on their belief-system, and the reasons for supporting it,
ready-made and wholesale from others. That is why it is impossible to
have any intelligent dialogue with, say, zealots for man-made climate
change or the European Union, because they have not really examined the
evidence for themselves but have come to a set of opinions that are
skin-deep and second-hand. They can only parrot the mantras they have
picked up from others. "

[...]

"That is why, as we see illustrated on every side (not least in much of
the output of the BBC, or, for that matter, the online comments below
this column), they cannot tolerate or offer rational arguments, or
explore the three-dimensional truth of a subject. They quickly resort
just to dismissing anyone who disagrees with their beliefs as an
“idiot”, “hopelessly ignorant”, “wildly inaccurate” or “anti-science”.
Or they appeal to what Gustave Le Bon called “prestige”, citing
supposedly respected authorities, such as the reports of the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which are only voicing the
“consensus” views of other adherents of the same groupthink. "

http://tinyurl.com/n8s66cf

Do these ideas ring a bell when applied to some members of this group?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certainly do. Sounds just like climate change deniers like yourself to me!

Summed up very well, Dave.

On Sunday, 25 May 2014 11:21:50 UTC+1, Joe Egginton wrote:
"Some time back, a reader drew my attention to the book in which, 40

years ago, a Yale professor of psychology, Irving Janis, analysed what,

with a conscious nod to George Orwell, he called �groupthink�. It is a

term we all casually use (which even he derived from another writer),

but he identified eight symptoms of groupthink. One is the urge of its

victims to insist that their view is held as a �consensus� by all

morally right-thinking people. Another is their ruthless desire to

suppress any evidence that might lead someone to question it. A third is

their urge to stereotype and denigrate anyone who dares hold a

dissenting view. Their intolerance of �independent critical thinking�,

as Janis put it, leads them to �irrational and dehumanised actions

directed against outgroups�.



[...]



"But another characteristic of groupthink that Janis doesn�t fully

explore in his book is that those caught up in these mindsets have never

actually worked out their thinking on the subject for themselves. They

have taken on their belief-system, and the reasons for supporting it,

ready-made and wholesale from others. That is why it is impossible to

have any intelligent dialogue with, say, zealots for man-made climate

change or the European Union, because they have not really examined the

evidence for themselves but have come to a set of opinions that are

skin-deep and second-hand. They can only parrot the mantras they have

picked up from others. "



[...]



"That is why, as we see illustrated on every side (not least in much of

the output of the BBC, or, for that matter, the online comments below

this column), they cannot tolerate or offer rational arguments, or

explore the three-dimensional truth of a subject. They quickly resort

just to dismissing anyone who disagrees with their beliefs as an

�idiot�, �hopelessly ignorant�, �wildly inaccurate� or �anti-science�.

Or they appeal to what Gustave Le Bon called �prestige�, citing

supposedly respected authorities, such as the reports of the UN�s

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which are only voicing the

�consensus� views of other adherents of the same groupthink. "



http://tinyurl.com/n8s66cf



Do these ideas ring a bell when applied to some members of this group?



Do not all political parties represent examples of group think tanks?



I think Dave and Dullish have eloquently immediately proved your link and Christopher Bookers points.

"Certainly do. Sounds just like climate change deniers like yourself to me!"

On Sunday, 25 May 2014 12:09:21 UTC+1, Dave Cornwell wrote:


Certainly do. Sounds just like climate change deniers like yourself to me!

Sounds more like copy and paste to me
Or is that mindthink I'm thinking of?

On Sunday, 25 May 2014 04:09:21 UTC-7, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Certainly do. Sounds just like climate change deniers like yourself to me!

SO you actually think doubling CO2 from preindustrial levels will warm the planet by 3 to 4C, causing droughts, floods, pestilence, war, refugees, species extinction and starvation do you?

Tell me, we gave already added 50% more CO2 from preindustrial levels and what have we seen?

I don't expect you to answer, when presented with the facts alarmists like you always run away, trying to label sceptics as 'deniers' in order to bolster your feeble argument.

On Sunday, 25 May 2014 04:13:08 UTC-7, Dawlish wrote:
Summed up very well, Dave.

How is 'no change' group think Garvey? Surely NOT changing is, I would assume, a LACK of thought?

On Monday, 26 May 2014 01:17:41 UTC+1, matt_sykes wrote:


Tell me, we gave already added 50% more CO2 from preindustrial levels and what have we seen?

A warmer planet. Next question?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 00:53:48 UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Monday, 26 May 2014 01:17:41 UTC+1, matt_sykes wrote:

Tell me, we have already added 50% more CO2 from pre-industrial levels and what have we seen?

How did you work that out?

Pre-industrial levels was presumably a time when most of Europe had well managed forests. What it didn't have was well managed weather data. We can only go by crop records -which were immediately consumed locally according to local need, not stored and conveyed to other regions.

So what was grown (and how) was regional and impossible to make direct comparisons with agricultural practice these days.

What we have now is insolation at ground level that would be dealt with at tree top height in most countries; which difference, coupled with the two major arboreal effects of trees, navigating to deeper water reserves in dry weather and replenishing moisture in wet and foggy weather (not counting their aerofoil effect on winds and the shelter and subsequent non drying of surface water pools.)

A warmer planet. Next question?

That was the OP question and you have not answered it. Doubling the fertiliser content of the atmosphere wouldn't do that and to say that it does is merely juggling data that deserves to be looked at properly for a change.

Don't dawlish a post just to be clever.
Leave clever to me; you don't do it well enough.

If you want to be clever explain why a warmer planet would store heat energy as heat. And why an atmosphere charged with heat retaining gas would not deliver it above cloud height and dispose of it in the regular way.

And if you want to impress me, tell us why heat isn't directly converted to kinetic energy and disposed of just as quickly.

Or go for the dawlish prize and tell us how it manages to get into 300 feet of water. (And for the gold medal: why it doesn't take the carbon dioxide with it.)

Carbon dioxide is a mantra for idiots. Mere hand waving ploys to get past logic and reason. Fairy tales have there place as dreams do theirs. The trick to watching fairy tales is not to concentrate on the fairy need to wear undergarments over the outer ones and to accept without question what they accomplish waving their wands.

The trick with dreams is to forget them as soon as you wake up.

WAKE UP!

On Monday, 26 May 2014 16:53:48 UTC-7, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Monday, 26 May 2014 01:17:41 UTC+1, matt_sykes wrote:





Tell me, we gave already added 50% more CO2 from preindustrial levels and what have we seen?



A warmer planet. Next question?



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

You think evading the question is clever do you?

Typical. Now, try answering it properly.