[mturmon]

"It's now a Green Glob, a big industry, all based on US Federal money from scaring the taxpayers."

You're willing to credulously state this kind of wild conspiracy theory -- as if a "Green Glob" of deceptive scientists is a simple explanation for everything we observe -- CO2, glaciers, temperatures, ocean changes -- but also willing to ignore the very solid science in, for example, the IPCC AR5 report? And to spend many paragraphs denouncing an NYT story for being the kind of fluffy stuff ("polar bears") that you can't be bothered to take seriously?

The serious stuff is out there if you cared to look.

[okreallywtf]

Its funny, several years ago when climate deniers were generally still in the full denial stage - ie saying the earth wasn't warming - I remember thinking how the evidence was going to become undeniable at some point even by first hand observation (I understand that that is actually not possible, but that it can drive perception and openness to the idea that the earth is warming) and how deniers would have to retreat ever further to state that humans are not the cause, I never thought that would happen so fast.

Is there a word for this, when a point of view is continually challenged and disproved but rather than accepting another point of view, the holders of this position just adapt their reasoning and continue on as if they always held their current position? It reminds me of so many types of arguments but I feel the need to have a specific term to describe it. It reminds me of contrived inductive arguments attempting to hold doggedly onto the geocentric model of the solar system[1].

I think you could sum it up as this situation: When you have to evolve your position over and over in the light of overwhelming evidence that makes you no longer able to persuade any others to your way of thinking, but with each new iteration of your position you hold it with absolute confidence despite having been proven wrong again and again.

This is distinct from a rational view where you allow evidence and reasoning to inform your decision because people who do this don't change their actual position, they just cherry-pick their rational, and it has nothing to do with being disproved but instead the perception of others and your ability to persuade them. If they could continue to make the argument that the world is not warming they would never bother to change it. They only evolve as a means of the survival of their position.

It reminds me of how the catholic church "evolves", subsequent generations of clergy might hold some truths to be unquestionable while choosing to disregard the truths of their predecessors as the perceptions of their followers change as a means of survival. Demonizing homosexuals is just not sustainable and the church will evolve so as to not alienate their customers, but then still demand to be taken seriously on any number of other topics with seemingly no awareness of the contradiction.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

[martinpw]

Not quite what you are asking, but related, is the idea of evaporative cooling of beliefs, a selection effect where over time the more objective and rational holders of a belief are persuaded by the evidence that their belief is incorrect, and those who continue to cling to the belief become a progressively smaller group who are increasingly uninterested in rational argument or scientific evidence. This results in the group arguments becoming progressively more shrill and incoherent.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli...

[okreallywtf]

Interesting, maybe not the same effect but maybe one that works in concert.