Originally Posted by Weave

Yeah read it. It shows that temps were warmer 2000 years ago than today

Wrong.

without "AGW".

Meaningless.

Also confirms the Medieval Warm period,

Meaningless.

an era denied by many climate scientists.

Wrong.

It also show other many decade long warm periods.

Meaningless.

Which brings us back to the the important argument...what caused the planet to heat and cool...is it natural or man made....

Both, at different times. Which really ought to be obvious.

I dont claim the study is conclusive but does bolster the idea that warming and cooling has natural causes

Dude, the idea that climate change has (or at least can have) natural causes is not controversial. It's obvious, it's well-established, it's part of climate science and always has been, and with respect to AGW it means nothing. This is what you don't seem to understand. The earth was a lot warmer during (for example) the pliocene era than it is today, and that was long before the first human beings evolved.

You cannot refute AGW by pointing out, or providing evidence for, the fact that climate can change without human activity. Everyone knows that already. It has never been part of the argument for AGW that ONLY human activity can cause climate change. Never, ever, not once, from the beginning. You are refuting a straw man.

You would know this if you had ever really studied the subject.

THOMAS KARL, director, National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Thank you, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let's start with the news. Temperatures, the first half of 2012 this year were the hottest on record. What's known about why that's happening?

THOMAS KARL: That is true.

The temperatures the first six months of this year in the U.S. are the warmest on record. And, in fact, the last 12 months of the period May through June have been the warmest on record. Why? We believe there is an important human component explaining these record-breaking temperatures, and that's the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, how does that compare with what has happened historically? Can you put it in the some context for us?

THOMAS KARL: Well, to give you an example, we have had warm conditions in the past.

1930s, many people are familiar with the Dust Bowl and the heat associated with the 1930s. What we're seeing today is equivalent or even greater than the temperature records that fell in the 1930s. And what we're seeing more frequently is record-breaking high temperatures.

Again, the more recent record even exceeds the heat that we saw in the 1930s. That is the warmth of the last year, the warmth of the past spring, last winter, last fall and, if you remember, the record heat last summer, particularly in the Southern part of the U.S., where Texas and Oklahoma had such severe heat and drought.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, you also released a study today looking at what last year's conditions were like and the relationship between greenhouse gases and human activity. What did you find?

THOMAS KARL: Well, in that report, there was a series of scientific teams across the world that contributed to trying to look at a number of selected extreme weather and climate events, and to do an analysis to see if they could understand whether these events would have occurred all by themselves, without human contribution, or whether or not we could say humans clearly made the events stronger than what they might otherwise have been.

And, in most cases, we can actually say with some confidence that these events wouldn't have been as strong or intense if it were not for the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, as I understand it, there was some disparity. In the Texas heat wave, you found more of a connection, but with flooding in Thailand, it was less clear.

THOMAS KARL: Yes. And it's clear every extreme weather and climate event cannot be attributed to human activity or greenhouse gases.

But there's an increasing number of these where they can. And one specific example was the heat wave and drought in Texas and Oklahoma last year. The analysis that just completed suggested that that event would have occurred normally with the kind of La Nina conditions that occurred last year, but the severity of it made it much more likely.

In fact, the statistics suggest it was 20 times more likely to occur because of the current conditions we have with the increasing temperatures related to increasing greenhouse gases.

JUDY WOODRUFF: La Nina, referring to ocean currents.

But help us understand for the layperson watching the connection between human activity, climate and severe weather.

THOMAS KARL: Well, the best way we can describe it, it's sort of like a baseball player on steroids.

Now, if you're going to break records, home run records, you're likely going to have to be a home run hitter to break home run records. With someone on steroids, the likelihood of hitting a ball over the fence and hitting a home run increases. And that is what we're seeing. The increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to warmer global temperatures.

Those then break global temperature records. They also have other impacts, like increases in precipitation intensity, more intense droughts. These are the kinds of things we're seeing, more records with greater severity and intensity than they would -- might have otherwise been.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what do you say to those climate skeptics who say that some of these changes are simply part of natural cycles that have been around all the time?

THOMAS KARL: Well, I would say part of that answer is correct.

Some of the events are part of natural variability. In fact, natural variability has always been around with it. What we mean by natural variability is, you're going to have a drought, you're going to have a heat wave even if you didn't have humans adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

But the scientific evidence, the analysis done, the look at climate models, the look at the observation of data leads one to believe that humans in fact are making these events more intense and stronger than they would otherwise have been.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Thomas Karl of NOAA, thank you for joining us.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weath...her_07-10.html

Originally Posted by Weave

Yeah read it. It shows that temps were warmer 2000 years ago than today, without "AGW". Also confirms the Medieval Warm period, an era denied by many climate scientists. It also show other many decade long warm periods. Which brings us back to the the important argument...what caused the planet to heat and cool...is it natural or man made....I don't claim the study is conclusive but does bolster the idea that warming and cooling has natural causes and the AGW theory is bunk....or at best deserves much, much more debate...the science is FAR from settled.

"Many climate scientists" question whether the Medieval Warm Period was a unified global phenomena. There were indeed warm periods in the rough time frame, but depending on which temperature record one looks at, from which part of the world, the time frame is different. It is too simplistic to say there was a global effect that started at time X and ended at time Y. If one looks at the climate history with a tightly held assumption that there was a single global MWP, one will be in error.

This more nuanced recent view of the MWP is not as simple as denying that it exists. It's a reflection of the greater amount of study one ought to make before pretending one understands what the MWP was.

It might be good for people interested in the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to review the Causes section of the Little Ice Age Wiki page. There are several plausible theories. I would be inclined to believe that several of them contributed. It seems likely that no one cause was uniquely in play, and that the effects of one cause could trigger some of the others. Serious work by serious investigators is required.

But if there is insufficient recorded data from instruments to currently peg which causes were in play then, there is no lack of instrumentation now. During the recent warming trend, there has been no increase in solar heat output, there has been no sudden lack of volcanic activity, there has been no change in ocean heat circulation, there has been no sudden shift in solar orbits. While all of these things can effect the climate, and we do not yet fully understand which of these things caused which of the surges and fades in the historical records, they can be eliminated as causes of the current warming trend.

There has been, however, a good deal of CO2 released. A good deal of the carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere during the very warm times of the dinosaurs is being returned to where it came from.

US Drought Disaster Worst In Over 50 Years
Forecast: More Heat, More Drought

CBS Newsreports:For the first time, government scientists are saying recent extreme weather events are likely connected to man-made climate change. It’s the conclusion of a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The report says last year’s record drought in Texas was made “roughly 20 times more likely” because of man made climate change, specifically meaning warming that comes from greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide. The study, requested by NOAA, looked at 50 years of weather data in Texas and concluded that man-made warming had to be a factor in the drought.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/07/16-3

Originally Posted by Deb C

US Drought Disaster Worst In Over 50 Years
Forecast: More Heat, More Drought



http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/07/16-3

I'll just throw this out here again because it seems to be quite rampant (especially in this thread). If you want to debate scientific studies, papers or concepts then at least go out and locate (and read) the actual studies and/or papers instead of trying to pass off links to various media stories as science. I am reasonably certain that the editors at a web site named "Common Dreams" don't know shit about meteorology or climate science. When you cite political organizations and media as your source for scientific information you are not displaying a great deal of intellectual rigour. You are simply giving away free publicity and aiding someone else's political agenda. Such behavior is insulting to you and to everyone else.

The actual drought report from NOAA can be located here (that is the in-depth report with sources, citations and actual information instead of a brief, slanted editorial, thoroughly vetted for appropriate content and message).

More drought monitoring info can be found here.

Oh and it appears that the trends are beginning to tilt more toward El Nino now.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I'll just throw this out here again because it seems to be quite rampant (especially in this thread). If you want to debate scientific studies, papers or concepts then at least go out and locate (and read) the actual studies and/or papers instead of trying to pass off links to various media stories as science....

I sympathize. I would like to see this discussion better informed.

Still, a couple of the links above trace back to Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. During the Bush 43 administration, scientifically trained federal employees were often gagged, prevented from presenting information in their field if it did not meet the White House's agenda. It is worthy to note that at minimum the agenda has changed. To some degree NOAA's opinions are being pushed to the public. You encourage going direct to NOAA's more technical pages, which is fine. I'm not sure their overviews to the public should be totally disregarded.

I've been keeping up with RealClimate, a web organization of mostly professional climatoligists who are concerned about getting the message to the public. Generally, when a skeptic pushes a piece of media propaganda here, one can bounce to RealClimate to get a more professional evaluation of the issue. If I can generally rebut the latest bit of propaganda hitting this forum from the media, it's because RealClimate is aware of what is being pushed and makes a habit of keeping their readers informed.

The skeptics and denialists might want to visit RealClimate first before posting here. It might save some embarrassment.

Good drought links. www.drought.gov might be another option providing additional links.

(A little background for this joke -- I am in Michigan).

As an officer of the local Democratic Party in my county I walked into the local Republican headquarters and congratulated people there on the certainty of winning 'this state'. I heard loud cheering.

I then responded, "In view of the global warming and severe drought I thought I was in OKLAHOMA!"

Originally Posted by B Butler

I sympathize. I would like to see this discussion better informed.

Still, a couple of the links above trace back to Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. During the Bush 43 administration, scientifically trained federal employees were often gagged, prevented from presenting information in their field if it did not meet the White House's agenda. It is worthy to note that at minimum the agenda has changed. To some degree NOAA's opinions are being pushed to the public. You encourage going direct to NOAA's more technical pages, which is fine. I'm not sure their overviews to the public should be totally disregarded.

I've been keeping up with RealClimate, a web organization of mostly professional climatoligists who are concerned about getting the message to the public. Generally, when a skeptic pushes a piece of media propaganda here, one can bounce to RealClimate to get a more professional evaluation of the issue. If I can generally rebut the latest bit of propaganda hitting this forum from the media, it's because RealClimate is aware of what is being pushed and makes a habit of keeping their readers informed.

The skeptics and denialists might want to visit RealClimate first before posting here. It might save some embarrassment.

Good drought links. www.drought.gov might be another option providing additional links.

Well, my skepticism on the whole global warming end of the world thing is pretty well documented here. That said the article in question referred to the NOAA study, thus it should be the proper citation. People are welcome to read it and subject it to review. Unfortunately the general public is rather ill-equipped to understand these sorts of studies, however running them through the filter of political agenda first just encourages continued ignorance.

Now if people wish to begin to question what "the worst drought in 50 years" actually means, that is even better. Basically it means exactly this. Not nearly as impressive as "ZOMG EARTH GONNA BAKE, VOTE FER ME" is it?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Now if people wish to begin to question what "the worst drought in 50 years" actually means, that is even better. Basically it means exactly this. Not nearly as impressive as "ZOMG EARTH GONNA BAKE, VOTE FER ME" is it?

Well, the scale of your 'exactly this' image is kind of funky. What Thomas Karl is talking about is very short term in the time scale of the image, showing up only as the one pixel line furthest to the right. This is a very extreme short term drought, but the data is noisy. It makes me itch to have the raw data so I could do some rolling averages, cut the signal to noise ratio.

But "ZOMG EARTH GONNA BAKE, VOTE FER ME" is a misquote. That is your personal values, world view and prejudices speaking, not Thomas Karl. That is emotive propaganda not scientific analysis. That is a far more biased piece of distorted sound bite propaganda than what the media did with the Thomas Karl data release. I'm with you that we should push a scientific debate rather than the propaganda and name calling thing, but this ought to apply to you as well. If you want rational fact based discussion, let's have some rational fact based discussion.

But, yes, when I heard "the worst drought in 50 years," the quote that popped to mind notes that figures don't lie, but liars sure figure. Did Karl invent a new way to measure drought just to get a headline, or is he using the standard tool to measure drought the government always uses. You have any idea which?

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, the scale of your 'exactly this' image is kind of funky. What Thomas Karl is talking about is very short term in the time scale of the image, showing up only as the one pixel line furthest to the right. This is a very extreme short term drought, but the data is noisy. It makes me itch to have the raw data so I could do some rolling averages, cut the signal to noise ratio.

But "ZOMG EARTH GONNA BAKE, VOTE FER ME" is a misquote. That is your personal values, world view and prejudices speaking, not Thomas Karl. That is emotive propaganda not scientific analysis. That is a far more biased piece of distorted sound bite propaganda than what the media did with the Thomas Karl data release. I'm with you that we should push a scientific debate rather than the propaganda and name calling thing, but this ought to apply to you as well. If you want rational fact based discussion, let's have some rational fact based discussion.

But, yes, when I heard "the worst drought in 50 years," the quote that popped to mind notes that figures don't lie, but liars sure figure. Did Karl invent a new way to measure drought just to get a headline, or is he using the standard tool to measure drought the government always uses. You have any idea which?

The comment wasn't aimed at Mr. Karl at all and at no specific person(s) in particular. Mr. Karl has made the unenviable transition from scientist to bureaucrat. His only real concern these days is getting his department budget increased every year. The comment was simply a joke made to mock what happens once little tidbits of science are run through the filters of the political/media machinery. Only after the science has been sprayed, disinfected and properly vetted for any information that could be considered "off-message" is it considered safe for consumers to read. Both sides do this as can be seen in countless posts above this. One needs only to visit the previous page of this thread to see Weave posting an article about the tree ring study that had been run through the political filtration system. On the same page one can also witness Deb's ominous looking picture implying death by wildfire for all humanity (the horror!). A few pages back we can read Eric's rather non-scientific assertion that a 350 PPM CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was the dreaded point of no return for the earth (pack your shit folks). It's silly. While I really, honestly do appreciate the general public being genuinely interested in things scientific, I just feel they should, you know, try to understand the science part of science. If people continue to feel the need to fill some void with political identity then that is their business but I will take slight offense when they try to publically misrepresent the work of scientists (whatever the field) and try to cram the results into the narrow, rigid, cold, dried up husks that make up their political belief systems. I know how hard scientists work. They deserve a lot more respect than being used as fodder for the constant election campaign.

Note that this behavior is not relegated only to climate science. The Materialism thread is a decent case-study in how some borrow scientific work to twist the results to reflect and advance their own personal beliefs.

Now as far as the specifics of "The Worst Drought in 50 Years" I found the chart to be perfectly acceptable to illustrate my point but technically we don't even need the chart. The statement says it all. 50 years ago there was a drought of similar intensity. In this case slightly more intense and for a longer period of time. 25 years before that there was a drought that was way, way, way worse. The chart also suggests that droughts are a pretty common occurrence because, well, they are. Droughts aren't new things that have suddenly sprung up catching us off guard. They are as old as agriculture and were undoubtedly a pain in the ass for hunter/gatherers as well. There are countless factors that contribute to the Earth's wet/dry cycles and mankind's impact on the climate is only one of them.

I don't question there is a drought going on. I don't doubt that it is widespread. Is it being oversold? Probably, and for good reason too. When the local governments declare a state of emergency they get money from the fed. With a sweet deal like that, who wouldn't want a drought to come rolling through?

Of real interest though will be seeing the fourth turning response to the drought in question. In the last "worst drought" we were smack dab in the middle of the high. Nobody panics. Now we are in a crisis period and we can already start to see the jitters after 2 dry months. Should be fun to watch.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

The comment wasn't aimed at Mr. Karl at all and at no specific person(s) in particular. Mr. Karl has made the unenviable transition from scientist to bureaucrat. His only real concern these days is getting his department budget increased every year.

I don't question there is a drought going on. I don't doubt that it is widespread. Is it being oversold? Probably, and for good reason too. When the local governments declare a state of emergency they get money from the fed. With a sweet deal like that, who wouldn't want a drought to come rolling through?

A bunch of years back there were still papers coming out at semi-regular intervals that challenged the main line climate science. A typical response was to follow the money trail. All too often one discovered funding from a major oil corporation. The knee jerk response among those here with blue tinted values was to disparage the science as biased to bogus.

You seem to be pushing the flip side. If a professional scientist working for the government says something that opposes your world view, you assume impure motive and impugn his work without actually contradicting the science. What I'm seeing from you is spin, propaganda and character assassination.

Which would be par for the course on this thread. We've got far more propaganda, spin and indignant posturing posts here than science. It's just that if you call for more science you ought to follow up with science for a week or two. Otherwise, you get called for hypocrisy.

And, yes, the Materialism thread is another fine example of an attempt to communicate over values lock. It's another fine example of world view and values effecting how one perceives Truth. Over there, it is primarily Eric who will disregard main line science when it is inconvenient to his way of viewing the world, resulting in indignant and futile sputtering when he twists proper math and physics principles into various pretzel like shapes.

Here...

Originally Posted by B Butler

And, yes, the Materialism thread is another fine example of an attempt to communicate over values lock. It's another fine example of world view and values effecting how one perceives Truth. Over there, it is primarily Eric who will disregard main line science when it is inconvenient to his way of viewing the world, resulting in indignant and futile sputtering when he twists proper math and physics principles into various pretzel like shapes.

But just look at those models of what string theory looks like with all those added dimensions! Looks like your description of what I'm doing; a dead ringer in fact!

Let's see if I can post it here:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/files/...205_string.jpg
from article:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1...ensions?page=1

Continuing Drought, Heat Bring Fear of Global Food Crisis

The continuing drought and record heat leaving parched crops in their wake have pushed corn and soy prices to historic highs as farmers and analysts suggest the consequences could be widespread and include spikes in global food prices.

Areas of Illinois and Iowa, the nation's top corn and soy producers, continue to sizzle with some areas in the 100s with little hope for much-needed rain. Jason Nicholls, meteorologist for AccuWeather, said the areas might see "Only isolated rains, no drought buster."

"It will be cooler on Friday but the heat will be back for the weekend into early next week. The 11- to 15-day forecast shows the ridge moving west over the Rockies so that may help cut back on the heat, but there is still no significant rain in sight," Nicholls said.

Originally Posted by B Butler

A bunch of years back there were still papers coming out at semi-regular intervals that challenged the main line climate science. A typical response was to follow the money trail. All too often one discovered funding from a major oil corporation. The knee jerk response among those here with blue tinted values was to disparage the science as biased to bogus.

You seem to be pushing the flip side. If a professional scientist working for the government says something that opposes your world view, you assume impure motive and impugn his work without actually contradicting the science. What I'm seeing from you is spin, propaganda and character assassination.

Which would be par for the course on this thread. We've got far more propaganda, spin and indignant posturing posts here than science. It's just that if you call for more science you ought to follow up with science for a week or two. Otherwise, you get called for hypocrisy.

And, yes, the Materialism thread is another fine example of an attempt to communicate over values lock. It's another fine example of world view and values effecting how one perceives Truth. Over there, it is primarily Eric who will disregard main line science when it is inconvenient to his way of viewing the world, resulting in indignant and futile sputtering when he twists proper math and physics principles into various pretzel like shapes.

Here...

Really?

Actually I'm suggesting the science be viewed on its merit, scientifically (as opposed to its merit politically). The government has some fine scientists working for them as do corporations. Having fine scientists does not preclude one from questioning experimental outcomes, researching inconsistencies and locating studies that disagree with various findings. These are the things that should be happening and in scientific circles, generally are.

A 5 minute story on CNN, an article linked on Drudge, or an opinion piece on your favorite political site should not be considered science. That the public largely does is when the distortions begin to creep in.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Really?

Actually I'm suggesting the science be viewed on its merit, scientifically (as opposed to its merit politically). The government has some fine scientists working for them as do corporations. Having fine scientists does not preclude one from questioning experimental outcomes, researching inconsistencies and locating studies that disagree with various findings. These are the things that should be happening and in scientific circles, generally are.

A 5 minute story on CNN, an article linked on Drudge, or an opinion piece on your favorite political site should not be considered science. That the public largely does is when the distortions begin to creep in.

Agreed. I generally prefer to reference RealClimate. They're scientists writing for scientists, and tend to include references (often links) to the original papers. They tend to put up articles commenting on the mainstream media climate related propaganda bit of the day. I've thus been trying to push conversations in the direction you're suggesting.

But it's hard to do when values locked people like you can't see that they are doing what they are suggesting other people shouldn't do. Since you wrote your call to post more science, have you posted anything at all that might count as science? I've seen dictates on what other people ought to be writing, efforts to malign motives, and assorted spin and propaganda. Where's the beef?

In a values lock case, one might be so sure one's position is correct, it might seem obvious and clear that all one has to do to reveal the Truth is repeat one's opinion over and over. You see that on the Materialism thread, here, all over these forums, and out in the real world. You seem to be in that place, repeating an unsupported opinion without seeing the need to back it up with anything. I agree that I'd like to see more science on this thread. I don't know that agreeing with you yet again will do any good, where good might be defined as getting you to present some science.

Originally Posted by B Butler

But it's hard to do when values locked people like you can't see that they are doing what they are suggesting other people shouldn't do. Since you wrote your call to post more science, have you posted anything at all that might count as science? I've seen dictates on what other people ought to be writing, efforts to malign motives, and assorted spin and propaganda. Where's the beef?

..........

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Sadly neither Weave nor Brian attempted to find and read the actual study, instead choosing to squabble over the usual political divides.

The paper (published on Nature's climate change web site) can be found here, or if you happen to be a .pdf-hater the web copy can be found here.

But seriously guys, this study wasn't that hard to find. Now that we have that out of the way, we can get back on schedule.

Bob uses the term* 'values lock' to indicate that he is uninterested in examining a line of reasoning that appears to diverge from his own while making the blame for this appear to rest on the shoulders of the other party. It's a Prophet thing, though he's really among the most polite about it when he goes there.

----
*this should not be taken as disparaging a very useful concept or the term that describes it.

At this point, the arguments against AGW all amount to one fallacy or another, to wit:

1) Faulty generalization (an occurrence of cold winter used as a disproof). (Note: I acknowledge that Deb used the same fallacy above in support.)

2) Straw man (Copperfield's "end of the world" stuff above). AGW does not, of course, mean "the end of the world."

3) Confusing the propositions. (Noting disagreement about specific predictions of ultimate degree of warming and details of the consequences and presenting these as if they represented disagreement about AGW itself. Also, presenting evidence of naturally-caused climate change as if that disproved AGW, which it would if AGW were an assertion that climate could never change absent human causation, but it isn't.)

4) Argumentum ad hominem (the entire "Climategate" bullshit).

AGW is a fairly broad and simple idea, although under its umbrella one may find more specific and difficult ideas that aren't so simple. But here's the simple and broad idea:

a) The Earth's climate is warmer than it otherwise would be due to the greenhouse effect, caused by certain gases in the atmosphere which trap solar energy.

b) Increasing the partial pressure of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere results in a higher temperature than would otherwise occur.

These two assertions arise from basic physics.

c) Human activity has greatly increased the partial pressure of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past 100 years and is expected to go on doing so to the extent we continue burning fossil fuels.

This assertion is a matter of history.

d) According to b) above, c) above should result in raising overall temperatures above what they would be otherwise.

This assertion rests on basic physics like the first two.

e) The overall global temperature has, in fact, risen.

This rests on measurement and observation.

f) This is not a good thing, and action should be taken to reduce/eliminate fossil fuel use so as to contain and perhaps reverse the effect.

Non-fallacious arguments against AGW are those that demonstrate any of the following:

A) The laws of physics that cause the greenhouse effect are in error.

B) We have not, in fact, increased the partial pressure of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

C) There is a perfect or nearly-perfect negative feedback loop that prevents global temperatures from rising significantly in response to the increase in greenhouse gases.

Or:

D) Rising global temperatures are not a bad thing.

As the first two propositions are absurd, really it comes down to the second two. Any arguments or evidence purporting to show one or the other should be considered. All other arguments may be dismissed.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Continuing Drought, Heat Bring Fear of Global Food Crisis

In the United States this is apt to mean high food prices. In other parts of the world, when the US isn't exporting as much, the result can be famine and political unrest.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Bob uses the term* 'values lock' to indicate that he is uninterested in examining a line of reasoning that appears to diverge from his own while making the blame for this appear to rest on the shoulders of the other party. It's a Prophet thing, though he's really among the most polite about it when he goes there.

----
*this should not be taken as disparaging a very useful concept or the term that describes it.

I actually see values lock as an important part of turning theory and how crises work. For most to all humans, youth is a time to build a mental model of how the world works and what is important, world views and values. Once these ideas take shape, it is very very difficult for most people to see outside a given perspective or change their opinions of what is important. World view and values systems include defense mechanisms. Most humans are quite familiar with how others view their perspectives as badly flawed, and will have well ensconced ways of deflecting both criticism and attempts at enlightenment. Either criticism or improving other people's world views or values might be considered essentially futile. If it is proverbial that one should not talk about religion and politics as the result is more heat than light, the reason is values lock. The T4T forums repeatedly illustrate the sort of refusal to understand and refusal to budge typical of values lock.

I can acknowledge that JPT is very intelligent, very well read, has spent a lot of time studying the Bible, has an entirely consistent and highly defendable interpretation of the Bible, has integrated his reading of the Bible to the world, and perceives himself as having found Truth. The result of this is a very firm highly defendable perspective on the world from which he will not budge and is not likely to be budged. Yet, any conversation with him that questions his world view or suggests his interpretation and values do not represent The One True Path is apt to result in a sane rational well though out desire to wrap one's hands around his neck, squeeze and shake.

On the Materialism thread, we have Eric's equally intelligent, well researched, sincere, defendable views on spiritualism, views that rub the materialists the wrong way. Again, attempts at communication are more apt to result in frustration and a desire to squeeze necks than enlightenment and understanding. Whether one is a materialist or spiritualist, there are firmly held core beliefs that are not allowed to be called into question. When one's values are challenged, one is apt to see the equivalent of holding one's hands over one's ears while yelling loudly enough to not hear. On other threads one might find similar red / blue or denialist / alarmist 'discussions' going nowhere loudly.

How does this relate to turning theory? In Jefferson's time there were those that thought taxation without representation was the natural way of the world. The king's way was how things were done and should always be done. In Lincoln's times there were those who thought slavery was the foundation of all advanced civilization, and should always be so. In FDR's time there were those who thought that hundred hour work weeks, child labor, deadly working conditions and the superiority of the Aryan master race reflected the true nature of the world. In our time these world views and values might seem to be as irrational, insupportable and just plain wrong as...

As a lot of opinions one reads today on these forums from fellow modern Americans.

People will not rethink or withdraw from their world views and values without a blatant and emotional failure of the world views and values. How large a failure? I would look at pictures of Richmond in 1865 or Berlin in 1945 as illustrations of the magnitude of failure required to make humans consider changing their minds.

There are problems which are going to have to be solved in the current crisis period. There are people whose comfort and ease are threatened by the idea of changing the culture to address said problems. Said people will deny with intelligence, forethought, education, intensity and perverse irrationality that these problems exist.

People will close their eyes and hold their breath until turning blue in order to maintain well thought out rational seeming insanity. Rather than opening their eyes and seeing things as they are, they will let the world fall into an abyss.

Which is the nature of crisis. People will not act to solve problems until the problems are large and obvious enough that even the values blind cannot fail to see them. This means the problems must be really really really obvious. Until the horns blow and the walls come tumbling down, denialists will deny.

It is not that I am "uninterested in examining a line of reasoning that appears to diverge" from my own. It's that the degree and kind of divergence is meaningful in and of itself. Understanding how cultures change, how large populations of people address major problems, how they let go of past patterns that have worked well for a long time, is (expletive deleted) important.

And hopefully some might come to look in a mirror and question their own anchors and cores.

And, yes, I try to tell myself that it is better to declare values lock than to call the other guy an (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted). It's not that I haven't been tempted. I can quite understand other folk taking a more directly hostile approach. It might be that a certain degree and style of ad-hominem attack might be considered a symptom of values lock.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I actually see values lock as an important part of turning theory and how crises work. For most to all humans, youth is a time to build a mental model of how the world works and what is important, world views and values. Once these ideas take shape, it is very very difficult for most people to see outside a given perspective or change their opinions of what is important. World view and values systems include defense mechanisms. Most humans are quite familiar with how others view their perspectives as badly flawed, and will have well ensconced ways of deflecting both criticism and attempts at enlightenment. Either criticism or improving other people's world views or values might be considered essentially futile. If it is proverbial that one should not talk about religion and politics as the result is more heat than light, the reason is values lock. The T4T forums repeatedly illustrate the sort of refusal to understand and refusal to budge typical of values lock.

I can acknowledge that JPT is very intelligent, very well read, has spent a lot of time studying the Bible, has an entirely consistent and highly defendable interpretation of the Bible, has integrated his reading of the Bible to the world, and perceives himself as having found Truth. The result of this is a very firm highly defendable perspective on the world from which he will not budge and is not likely to be budged. Yet, any conversation with him that questions his world view or suggests his interpretation and values do not represent The One True Path is apt to result in a sane rational well though out desire to wrap one's hands around his neck, squeeze and shake.

On the Materialism thread, we have Eric's equally intelligent, well researched, sincere, defendable views on spiritualism, views that rub the materialists the wrong way. Again, attempts at communication are more apt to result in frustration and a desire to squeeze necks than enlightenment and understanding. Whether one is a materialist or spiritualist, there are firmly held core beliefs that are not allowed to be called into question. When one's values are challenged, one is apt to see the equivalent of holding one's hands over one's ears while yelling loudly enough to not hear. On other threads one might find similar red / blue or denialist / alarmist 'discussions' going nowhere loudly.

How does this relate to turning theory? In Jefferson's time there were those that thought taxation without representation was the natural way of the world. The king's way was how things were done and should always be done. In Lincoln's times there were those who thought slavery was the foundation of all advanced civilization, and should always be so. In FDR's time there were those who thought that hundred hour work weeks, child labor, deadly working conditions and the superiority of the Aryan master race reflected the true nature of the world. In our time these world views and values might seem to be as irrational, insupportable and just plain wrong as...

As a lot of opinions one reads today on these forums from fellow modern Americans.

People will not rethink or withdraw from their world views and values without a blatant and emotional failure of the world views and values. How large a failure? I would look at pictures of Richmond in 1865 or Berlin in 1945 as illustrations of the magnitude of failure required to make humans consider changing their minds.

There are problems which are going to have to be solved in the current crisis period. There are people whose comfort and ease are threatened by the idea of changing the culture to address said problems. Said people will deny with intelligence, forethought, education, intensity and perverse irrationality that these problems exist.

People will close their eyes and hold their breath until turning blue in order to maintain well thought out rational seeming insanity. Rather than opening their eyes and seeing things as they are, they will let the world fall into an abyss.

Which is the nature of crisis. People will not act to solve problems until the problems are large and obvious enough that even the values blind cannot fail to see them. This means the problems must be really really really obvious. Until the horns blow and the walls come tumbling down, denialists will deny.

It is not that I am "uninterested in examining a line of reasoning that appears to diverge" in my own. It's that the degree and kind of divergence is meaningful in and of itself. Understanding of how cultures change, how they address major problems, how they let go of past patterns that have worked well for a long time, is (expletive deleted) important.

And hopefully some might come to look in a mirror and question their own anchors and cores.

And, yes, I try to tell myself that it is better to declare values lock than to call the other guy an (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted). It's not that I haven't been tempted. I can quite understand other folk taking a more directly hostile approach. It might be that a certain degree and style of ad-hominem attack might be considered a symptom of values lock.

You raise some excellent points. I grew up in the south of a very conservative state. Back in the day, everything was segragated, even the local swimming pool. Tuesdays were the only days that black people were allowed to swim. I thought it was normal. So yes, our environment shapes our thinking.

This is where the importance of questioning comes in. If we do not question, we are destined to not grow/evolve in the moral stages of development. Maybe I questioned too much. But that inqusitive nature came from what seemed to be an in born desire to see what made things tick. Also, coming from a dysfunctional family system, I desperately wanted to know how to be healthy and raise well adjusted children who would question. I wanted a better world, not only for my children, but for everyone.

I wonder if we keep repeating turnings because, as a society, for the most part, we are not developing on a grand scale of moral development? Or at least not enough to stop the pendulum from swinging from one extreme to the other. While admittedly, we have had small paradigm shifts, we seem to stay in the rut of just merely group think.

I think Kohlberg and Piaget (who I studied) had some valuable insight into the stages of moral development. Without evolving to another stage we stay stuck in that *values lock* that you write about.

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived of by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began work on this topic while a psychology postgraduate student at the University of Chicago^[1] in 1958, and expanded and developed this theory throughout his life.
The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.^[2] Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages studied earlier by Piaget,^[3] who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages.^[2] Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice, and that it continued throughout the individual's lifetime,^[4] a notion that spawned dialogue on the philosophical implications of such research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlber...al_development

Bob, just a clarification about my post above.

Kohlberg expanded considerably on this groundwork, determining that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice and that its development continued throughout the lifespan, even spawning dialog of philosophical implications of his research.

Kohlberg used stories about moral dilemmas in his studies, and was interested in how people would act if they were put in a similar moral crux.

A moral dilemma for me was the issue of abortion. I was locked into the idea that abortion was *never* acceptable. That so called *value* was etched in stone for me for many years. It wasn't until I started questioning and listening to others on the other side did I expand that value to be inclusive. Therefore, I expanded that idea of an absolute to a pro-choice value.

Would this example somehow describe getting out of the values lock?

Thanks in advance to your response.

Originally Posted by Deb C

A moral dilemma for me was the issue of abortion. I was locked into the idea that abortion was *never* acceptable. That so called *value* was etched in stone for me for many years. It wasn't until I started questioning and listening to others on the other side did I expand that value to be inclusive. Therefore, I expanded that idea of an absolute to a pro-choice value.

Would this example somehow describe getting out of the values lock?

Abortion is certainly an issue that is apt to result in a deeply held inability to come to agreement. Yes, I would expect values lock to be common in such a discussion.

As illustration, if one's primary values were religious, one might hold that a 'soul' becomes attached to an embryo at some specific point of development. Some go as far as suggesting that a male's seed should not be cast upon infertile ground, and thus forms of birth control which prevent conception would be sinful. The deliberate destruction of a soul, or preventing a soul from coming into being, might be a severe sin of the sort that should be prevented.

Someone with a scientific world view might say that ending a sentient life is not moral, but would not see a fetus in its early stages of development as any way approaching sentience. Ending a pregnancy early would not be a moral problem.

Someone with a primarily political and legal world view might note that citizenship belongs to those born in the United States, and thus those who have not yet been born are not citizen. Arguably the government has no power to act on behalf of the unborn while the mother who is a citizen has distinct rights that the government cannot infringe.

Now, these are just samples of religious, scientific and legal value systems. I won't claim that I have given the best of all possible samples. Certainly other and perhaps better examples might be given.

The point is the difference between having a soul, being sentient, and having legal rights. For different people, one of the three might be all important while the other two mean nothing. From the religious perspective one might read enlightened texts, the works of the Saints, Papal Bulls, pray for enlightenment, and end up with a different opinion from the next guy who read different holy books, listened to different rabbis and prayed to a different god. From a scientific perspective, one might say that a recently joined sperm-egg pair is certainly not sentient, but sentience is an ambiguous property that is not cleanly defined or scientifically measurable. From a legal perspective, one might find a fetus that died in a car crash in a conservative community, charge the at fault driver with killing the fetus, and thus set a precedent of state involvement in the life of fetuses that one might put at odds with the Constitutional amendment that defines citizenship.

It isn't just that one is looking at the problem from religious, scientific or legal perspectives. There is disagreement even within each type of world view. Each world view is asking different unanswerable questions, each trying to answer these questions by utterly different means. After long thought and deep soul searching some might come to alter their views, justifying the change through learned and well developed study, meditation and logic. Still, there are ever so many ways of looking at the problem. A deeply religious person, a scientist and a champion of human rights might never agree on an answer, nor even agree on what is the important question, or how that question might be answered.

Me, I rank my values precedence as scientific first, political second, and religious third. I try to deeply respect individual moral decisions on this very difficult subject. If a woman after much soul searching reaches a decision, it is not my place to re-open wounds or use force of law to impose my moral standards on her. I will stand firmly on separation of church and state that the doctrines of no particular church should be enforced by the government. I will be pleased that few if any want to kill possibly sentient beings save perhaps to save the mother.

And, no, I'm not confident in my ability to change the mind of somebody who reaches a different position based on different ways of perceiving the issue. If someone devoted to the Bible firmly takes the no seed on infertile ground position, I would not expect any degree of legal or scientific posturing to move him in the least.

It's not that there are two positions on a difficult issue, but there are countless numbers of positions, many of which are taken by sincere, intelligent and learned people. Put these sincere, intelligent and learned in a room together to resolve the question, I wouldn't expect a resolution. They are addressing different aspects of the problem using different tools, while often not respecting or considering the other's tools or perspectives as relevant or important.

Does this help? Clear as mud? That would be values lock.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Abortion is certainly an issue that is apt to result in a deeply held inability to come to agreement. Yes, I would expect values lock to be common in such a discussion.

As illustration, if one's primary values were religious, one might hold that a 'soul' becomes attached to an embryo at some specific point of development. Some go as far as suggesting that a male's seed should not be cast upon infertile ground, and thus forms of birth control which prevent conception would be sinful. The deliberate destruction of a soul, or preventing a soul from coming into being, might be a severe sin of the sort that should be prevented.

Someone with a scientific world view might say that ending a sentient life is not moral, but would not see a fetus in its early stages of development as any way approaching sentience. Ending a pregnancy early would not be a moral problem.

Someone with a primarily political and legal world view might note that citizenship belongs to those born in the United States, and thus those who have not yet been born are not citizens, and arguably the government has no power to act on behalf of the unborn while the mother who is a citizen has distinct rights that the government cannot infringe.

Now, these are just samples of religious, scientific and legal value systems. I won't claim that I have given the best of all possible samples. Certainly other and perhaps better examples might be given.

The point is the difference between having a soul, being sentient, and having legal rights. For different people, one of the three might be all important while the other two mean nothing. From the religious perspective one might read enlightened texts, the works of the Saints, Papal Bulls, pray for enlightenment, and end up with a different opinion from the next guy who read different holy books, listened to different rabbis and prayed to a different god. From a scientific perspective, one might say that a recently joined sperm-egg pair is certainly not sentient, but sentience is an ambiguous property that is not cleanly defined or scientifically measurable. For the third, one might find a fetus that died in a car crash in a conservative community, charge the at fault driver with killing the fetus, and thus set a precedent of state involvement in the life of fetuses that one might put at odds with the Constitutional amendment that defines citizenship.

It isn't just that one is looking at the problem from religious, scientific or legal perspectives, no one is in agreement even within each type of world view. It's that each world view is asking different unanswerable questions, and trying to answer these questions by utterly different means. After long thought and deep soul searching some might come to alter their views, justifying the change through learned and well developed study, meditation and logic. Still, there are ever so many ways of looking at the problem. A deeply religious person, a scientist and a champion of human rights might never agree on an answer, nor even agree on what is the important question, or how that question might be answered.

Me, rank my values precedence as scientific first, political second, and religious third. I try to deeply respect individual moral decisions on this very difficult subject. I will stand firmly on separation of church and state that the doctrines of no particular church should be enforced by the government. I will be pleased that few if any want to kill possibly sentient beings save perhaps to save the mother.

And, no, I'm not confident in my ability to change the mind of somebody who reaches a different position based on different ways of perceiving the issue. If someone devoted to the Bible firmly takes the no seed on infertile ground position, I would not expect any degree of legal or scientific posturing to move him in the least.

It's not that there are two positions on a difficult issue, but there are countless numbers of position, many of which are taken by sincere, intelligent and learned people. Put these sincere, intelligent and learned in a room together to resolve the question, I wouldn't expect a resolution. They are addressing different aspects of the problem using different tools, and not respecting or considering the other's tools or perspectives as relevant or important.

Does this help? Clear as mud? That would be values lock.

Thanks, Bob. It's a bit more clear through the complex composition of water plus dirt. Seriously, it did help reading your explanation.

I'm wondering, since there are many views of the same issues, could possibly experience, plus questioning, unlock our absolutes about an issue.

I totally agree that trying to convince someone of an opposing view/value, is pretty much a futile endeavor. In fact, it most likely digs our heels in deeper to our positions. (learning the hard way about this) However, it appears that experience opens us to question our worldview. I recall when I was in grade school, many moons ago, that we were told not to associate with protestants. Well, my best friend was a protestant. I was forced to ask myself why I wasn't supposed to hang out with this awesome friend. It was that questioning that started the ball of wax that eventually led me, many years later, to question the church authority and eventually leave the religion of my childhood.

It's hard to let go of our worldviews, isn't it? It feels so much more secure to think in absolutes, than risking another way of seeing and thinking. One of my favorite authors, Margaret Wheatley, taught me how to at least make attempts at unlocking some of my worldview.

From Margaret Wheatley:

We often have trouble letting go of this comfortable and safe life for something new. The Elders of the Hopi Nation beautifully articulate this in a Prophecy (taken from Margaret Wheatley’s, Perseverance):

Here is a river flowing now very fast.
It is so great and swift that there are those
who will be afraid, who will try
to hold on to the shore.
They are being torn apart and
will suffer greatly.
Know that the river has its destination.
The elders say we must let go of the shore.
Push off into the middle of the river,
and keep our heads above water.
And I say, see who is there with you
and celebrate.
At this time in history,
we are to take nothing personally,
least of all ourselves,
for the moment we do,
our spiritual growth and journey come to a halt.
The time of the lone wolf is over.
Gather yourselves.
Banish the word struggle from your attitude
and vocabulary.
All that we do now must be done
in a sacred manner and in celebration.
For we are the ones we have been waiting for.

I like the prophecy.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Thanks, Bob. It's a bit more clear through the complex composition of water plus dirt. Seriously, it did help reading your explanation.

You're welcome!

Originally Posted by Deb C

I'm wondering, since there are many views of the same issues, could possibly experience, plus questioning, unlock our absolutes about an issue.I totally agree that trying to convince someone of an opposing view/value, is pretty much a futile endeavor. In fact, it most likely digs our heels in deeper to our positions. (learning the hard way about this) However, it appears that experience opens us to question our worldview. I recall when I was in grade school, many moons ago, that we were told not to associate with protestants. Well, my best friend was a protestant. I was forced to ask myself why I wasn't supposed to hang out with this awesome friend. It was that questioning that started the ball of wax that eventually led me, many years later, to question the church authority and eventually leave the religion of my childhood.

It's hard to let go of our worldviews, isn't it? It feels so much more secure to think in absolutes, than risking another way of seeing and thinking.

In my own youth, I had many questions. The nuns had force fed a religious perspective that I couldn't entirely buy into, and I had trouble reconciling the religious and scientific 'Truths' I had been taught. I pursued several quite distinct religious angles while continuing professional pursuits as an engineer. This period in my life might be reminiscent of your questions about your friend. I suspect this sort of questioning in one's youth is fairly common, but in time the unsettled questions get answered. Once the 'This can't be right' issues are settled in one's mind, it becomes harder to break out of the resultant patterns.

It's currently fashionable in many circles to disparage 'relative values.' Progressives might be more ready to acknowledge that different people shaped by different environments see things differently. Conservatives might be more attracted to absolute value systems, where the same standards of right and wrong, of Good and Evil, apply to every man in every culture in every time. There is something to be said for either approach. One has to be ready to walk a mile in the other guy's shoes if one is going to try to understand. On the other hand, being able to understand should not necessarily imply that there are no standards that can or ought to be maintained. Understanding that people have different deeply held understandings of morality, sin or law does not imply that one should give up on the concepts of morality, sin and law.

The point I'd want to push is that one's world view should include and accept the notion that other individuals have valid, well thought out yet conflicting world views. Too many individuals hold their own world views and values to be uniquely and absolutely valid. Anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid, immoral, evil, criminal or some mix of these or other similar properties. People are apt to go into a discussion under the assumption that they are right, that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, and that this is clearly obvious to any reasonable person of any intelligence willing to listen. This being the case, there is obviously no reason to listen to the other guy.

It isn't that relative values should be said to trump absolute values. It is possible to understand the other guy without agreeing with him. It's more that those with absolute values can not, will not, and often are not interested in stepping out of their own perspective. Said tendency is not unique to conservatives with absolute values.