A big (goose) step backwards

Mosher:

“…we can illustrate this by turning it around
Scientists have done a reasonable job of explaining how c02 warms the planet.”

Isn’t that the problem, Steve? Scientists just haven’t done a good job. If they had there would be fewer sceptics – perhaps.

Steven Mosher:
i am surprised that no sceptic caught the problem at the very start of Ball’s piece.
“Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the iPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent”
we can illustrate this by turning it around
“Scientists have done a reasonable job of explaining how c02 warms the planet. Now, as more people understand what the scientists are saying, the question that most scientists have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind disbelieving science to such an extent”

you make some good points Steven – too bad so many replies to you focused on the one controversial fact – that of Alarmist settled science – they missed your point on form – cuz that’s where a problem exists
first of all – your “turned around version” actually makes sense if we are just discussing form – and that proves the sense of Ball’s statement – in fact – both your statements recap the history of the AGW debate – with your statement being Phase 1 – answering that question by WUWT and others constitutes Phase 2 – which then leads naturally to Ball’s Phase 3 – which is a inquiry in the whys and wherefores of the perpetrators
i’ll ignore the fast one you pulled – using “scientists” in your statement instead of “alarmists” as i would have – it’s not important to my dissection – altho it is a generalization that shoves Skeptics outside the scientific domain – and yet generalization seemed to be one of your pet peeves with Ball et al
i too noticed a problem with Ball’s opening statement – but i was only mildly put off by it – after all – he was only writing an introduction – i recognized that he found a poor way of leading to the article’s topic – we really don’t need an milestone before examining motives – evidently that flourish was all he could manage to come up with
if we treated his statement like a logical argument as you did – Ball’s statement would be considered a non sequitur – using your formulation “Given that we know X, how can we explain people who don’t believe X” – there is no logical connection between the first part of that formula and the second part – consider it backwards – does “divining motives” really depend on a “settled science” – does any part B depend on part A
and while Ball assumes his side was victorious – those who think otherwise can read it as a “what if” – if they can stomach the thought – and maybe find the accusations he makes can often be “turned around” and used on him and his supporters
you treat Ball’s over-confidence in his assumption of victory as a sin – or a fallacy – it’s a sin in some ethical systems – but never a fallacy – the problem with confidence is that it will very likely cause bias – blinders – and might lead to only viewing opponents as satan’s spawn – that’s a bad thing – but doesn’t make over-confidence a fallacy
logicians recognize that – and don’t categorize it as a fallacy – have you noticed that science history has many stories of scientists who over-confidently stood by their theories despite the shrill voices spouting the evidence against it – some observers would call those shrill people over-confident too
isn’t it possible that some confident people won’t make fallacious arguments – a category i assume you place yourself since you are obviously confident enuf to lecture us
strangely enuf – confidence and over-confidence can be considered a motive – and “devining motives” was supposed to be a no-no for Ball – but not you?

On the other hand when skeptics believe they have demolished the science and people keep believing, then they too turn to the three tactics. The scientists are stupid. And here people ‘explain’ what the real scientific method is. Or they are as Ball does, that they are evil or use the methods of Evil people. And lastly you might attack their mental health. The are fear based “the sky is falling” type of people

later you will speak of generalizing by Skeptics – yet the paragraph above accuses Skeptics – not a subset of them – of using the feeble analyses you talk about – you then further generalize by accusing Skeptics of only employing those 3 tactics – since you ignore the sensible analyses that have been used – and yet again – you use the generalization “scientists” instead of “alarmists” or “warmists” or whatever – do you really think there aren’t any scientists who are Skeptics
you know – when exposing generalizations – it most effective to avoid them while making your argument

there is a very common version of this fallacy ” have you stopped beating your wife”

that request is a “loaded” statement cuz it assumes wife beating – but it is not always fallacious – your study of logic should have explained the distinction – but more relevant – it’s not parallel to Ball’s article
yes – Ball is implying that the science is settled – even tho he did not explicitly state that in the opening statement you analyzed – still he writes with that notion blazing across the page – but unlike wife beating – the falsity of the unspoken assumption does not render his “devining” invalid – as i said earlier – that assumption isn’t needed – destroy his premise of “settled science” – and his analysis/devining can probably still be used

Ball asks the question “why” and on the other side folks ask the question “why”
The problem is that this why question assumes several things. it assumes that people have to have motives for what they do.

huh?! – try a book on psychology – or try this exercise – think of a moment when you didn’t have a motive for what you did
i want to give you the benefit of the doubt – so i presume you actually meant to say something along the lines of – “Some Alarmists/Warmists don’t have any other ‘motive’ than scientific curiosity – and a conviction in the dire results they find – and nothing faintly political”
based on your statements – i know that you agree that Other Alarmists might have less “pure” motives – or at least tactics – very fair-minded concession – and one i want to make regarding the Skeptics side

it assumes that we have the ability to divine these motives and to test our knowledge of these motives.

psychologists do this all the time – as do evolutionary biologists – and social or political commentators – detectives looking for means motive and opportunity – etc

And it assumes that all people in a group have the same motives.

generalization is an easy trap for lotsa people – huh Stephen

None is these is justified without some evidence or argumentation.

that’s what Ball’s article is – evidence or argumentation for unscrupulous motives – and its publication now makes it open to falsifiability – like a good libertarian and Skeptic – i defend his right to publish his analysis – regardless of the quality – just as i defend your right to falsify it – even as i dissect your falsification

And in reality the conclusions about motive are some of the shakiest conclusions one could ever draw.

“shakiest” huh – i assume you make that claim cuz we can’t yet see the inner workings of the mind – yet motivation remains the subject of psychological investigation
in a sense – motiviation is one of the easiest things to research – it starts at home – understand your own motives – and you will better understand others’ – plus – outside ourselves – we are living in a lab – where we can observe others – and try to connect their statements and actions
however – trying to apply what we know about motivations is the tricky part – eg – is the Alarmist True Believer a leftwinger – perhaps susceptible to peer pressure – hmmm

No real skeptic ever runs to divine the motives of people much less groups of people or institutions.

is this principle original with you – in my reading – i’ve found divining motives a very common practice – i certainly wouldn’t want to abide by your principle – and handicap my own analytical side
—
i will end by supporting your criticism of Ball’s Nazi parallels – but to a limited extent – i wouldn’t have attempted to render the knockout punch to the use of Nazi associations by – in turn – associating it with religious practices – i am an atheist – yet i seriously doubt that the roots of propaganda is found in religion – that claim just shows that you are as willing resort to propaganda as anyone else
i was discouraged and quit reading Ball’s article when i encountered the tired association with Nazis – i know their propaganda machinery is famous – but the emotions aroused by the use of their imagery seems a propaganda tactic in itself – i think a rational analyst would avoid confusing the issue by avoiding them – leave that technique to the Alarmists – if you can’t find a less emotive parallel – your resources are too meager – and makes me inclined to distrust you – and ignore the rest of your article & canon
having said that – i have to acknowledge that writing his kind of article is inevitable – i’ve been in countless debates – i know that eventually – despite the effort of one or both sides to rein in emotions – they eventually rise to the surface as the debate lengthens – and Level Vitriol is reached
after scanning Ball’s article – i noted that it has some good points – lost in the vitriol – a publisher would recognize that it has a limited audience – the True Believers of AGW Skepticism