Confirmation bias is the dastardly human thought tendency that makes objectivity virtually impossible, and fair analysis nearly so. It is the human instinct to view external facts and events in such a way that they confirm preexisting beliefs, or, if they challenge these beliefs, to find reasons to distrust the facts or explain them away.
A line in a Washington Post book review caused me to realize that nothing exemplifies confirmation bias at work better than the global warming controversy. It was a review by Post business editor Alan Sipress of “Spillover,” a new book about how pandemics spread. He wrote:
“This year, a mild winter and an unusually hot summer — which look suspiciously like results of man-made climate change — yielded a bumper crop of virus-carrying mosquitoes. The result is an unprecedented outbreak that has sickened people in almost every state.”
Wait a minute: why does the past year’s mild winter and unusually hot summer “look suspiciously like results of man-made climate change”? Were there never mild winters with scorching summers before scientists developed climate change models? And why do those two factors, when paired, “look suspiciously” like man-made climate change? What about the winter and summer of 2012 screamed “man-made”?
The answer to these questions are “They don’t” and “Nothing.” Sipress already believes that we are in the midst of global warming, and thus he interprets the unremarkable variations of a single year as significant in light of his pre-existing bias, even though he knows that no single year’s variations prove anything or justify suspicion of anything. Global warming skeptics, in the same way, point to the light hurricane crop of the past three years as conditions that “”look suspiciously” like proof that the global warming models are junk, since they predicted more extreme weather, including more violent hurricanes.
And if you’re Pat Robertson, and believe that God is really, really ticked of at the U.S. for not sending gays to re-education camps, when a violent hurricane does strike, it looks suspiciously like we better start working on the Ark II.
Sipress, however, isn’t a wacko TV evangelical huckster, but a business editor of a major daily, a learned man and an author. Such a ridiculous and unjustified statement of cause and effect has no business in a review of a book about scientific topics, and it was irresponsible of him to put it there. All it really accomplishes is to alert us to the fact that Sipress is biased and doesn’t know it, which implicates his judgment and trust. His editor, meanwhile, allowed the sentence to remain, despite the fact that to an objective reader, it made Sipress look either dumb or like he was trying to mislead his readers. That editor, however, being at the Post, almost certainly shares Sipress’s acceptance of global warming, and thus this blatant example of confirmation bias doesn’t register as what it is. He probably thinks that the past year’s mild winter and unusually hot summer “look suspiciously like results of man-made climate change” too, because that’s what he already believes, and wants to keep believing.
The result? Sipress looks stupid. The editor looks stupid. Sipress’s readers, some of them, will adopt Sipress’s non sequitur and similarly argue that a single set of seasons confirms suspicions that global warming is man-made, a leap that makes no sense at all with the data at hand. And unless they carry that message only to those who are also biased, they will sound stupid for repeating it.
Yes, confirmation bias makes everyone stupid. The best we can do is to try to recognize it, and work hard to overcome it. I think it’s too late for the two sides of the climate change debate, but at least that debacle can stand as a warning that once confirmation bias reigns over an issue, the chances of finding the truth are negligible.
Footnote: I recognize that focusing on the climate change debate as the epitome of confirmation bias at work is perversely times, since we are all in the midst of the other great example of confirmation bias run amuck: Presidential debate analysis. Charles Krauthammer and Laura Ingraham think that it is obvious that Mitt Romney won the last debate; Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan think the President cleaned Mitt’s clock.
“And so it goes.”
____________________________
Source: Washington Post
Graphic: Wall Street Journal
Ethics Alarms 
Did malaria exist in Europe during the little Ice Age?
@Michael Ejerito;
Didn’t Dr. Michael Mann airbrush that inconvenient truth out of his laughably discredited “Hockey Stick Theory?”
They did so with the MWP.
The accurately configured temperature record Hockey Stick now resembles a paddle.
Good thing; Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Briffa, Schmidt, et al might be interested as they now find themselves up a creek without one…
We need to educate people to do more with less, pay more attention to our environment and develop alternative energy sources;
But
Anyone that scratches the surface of the *CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING that’s here and worse than the models predicted* will find plenty of confusion between correlation and causation.
Dr. James Hansen, the shrillest of the shrill, recently publically claimed what lies between the asterisks above. One BIG problem; it’s not! Circa 1988 he laid out three rising temperature scenarios, the most optimisitic of which (Scenario C) assumed no increase in atmospheric CO2 levels after 2000.
Globally averaged surface temperatures are currently below Scenario C.
He issued a ‘ten-year tipping point’ in 1988. The UNIPCC issued the same in 1989. These people are experts in a field other than simple mathmatics, not unike the doomsday preachers who continually issue dire predictions that never come to fruition; lucky us.
Al Gore refuses to debate or allow taping of his events, strange for someone so passionate of his beliefs. Other Climate Scientists have regularly refused to have independent scrutiny applied to their methodology, data sets, and results. This embarrassingly violates the most basic precepts of scientific inquiry.
The U.S. taxpayer ponies up north of $6 Billion (with a B!) each year to ‘study’ a ‘science’ we’ve been repeatedly told is ‘settled.’ We’ve allotted over $70 billion since 2008 alone. We spend less on the NIH and cancer research.
The amount of proven and alleged scientific fraud is absolutely staggering.
The UNIPCC is an organization that, if pressed, will grudgingly admit it does no scientific inquiry of its own. Its Assessment Reports (AR-1, 2, 3, 4) have allowed blatantly false conclusions to remain and be printed despite strong and vocal evidence to the contrary.
My admittedly biased opinion is their solutions come under one general heading; transfer of wealth. Taking money from poor people in rich countries and transferring it to rich people in poor countries.
I could go on and on (even more so) but my fingers would get tired. Maybe someone might be able to set this skeptic straight…um…without forced therapy, psychotropic drugs or incarceration, etc.
All of which have been recommended by the Global Warming Industry.
Pingback: The Global Warming Debate Is The World Series of Confirmation … | Definition Of Global Warming
The result is an unprecedented outbreak…
Unprecedented? Really?
See also http://www.mosquito.org/history
A one city epidemic of yellow fever back in 1978 does not negate the argument that recent mosquito outbreaks were unprecedented. To have massive increases in mosquito populations in 49 states IS unprecedented in its breadth where as the 1978 epidemic was unprecedented in it’s intensity.
When you’re comparing apples and oranges you can have multiple, “unprecedented” events.
Maybe banning DDT had something to do with it? Malaria had come close to elimination before that happened. Now it’s back in America. It’s not global warming to blame. It’s just that we surrendered on the virge of victory.
Because this past year was part of a pattern of recent, exceptionally hot global average temperatures.
And that proved that the change was “man-made” how, Barry?
You might as well ask why I believe in evolution rather than the alternatives. I believe in evolution because that theory fits the evidence, and no other theory offered fits the evidence. I believe that human activities are causing recent global warming because that theory fits the evidence, and alternative theories do not.
That’s fine, but unrelated to the post. There is nothing whatsoever about a mild winter and a hot summer that hints in the slightest of a human cause. Zip. Nada.
(But since the current theories don’t explain the Dark Ages spike when there were fewer people and negligible fossil fuel consumption, it is clear that the theory doesn’t fit all the evidence. Leading to a reasonable presumption that other factors either are at play or may be at play. Concluding otherwise is likely the result of confirmation bias.
When that mild winter and hot summer is part of a worldwide, ongoing pattern that is explained by human-caused global warming, then yes, it does indeed “hint” at a human cause. It’s one more piece on an ever-mounting pile of evidence.
It is clear that you don’t understand what the theory is.
From this passage, it seems that you believe that scientists are saying “the only possible cause of any large increase in global temperatures anytime in history is human activities, specifically fossil fuel consumption.” That theory would indeed be falsified by the evidence you describe.
However, no one in the world – or at least, no scientist – holds that theory. It’s a total strawman.
The actual theory is more like (in my very amateur summing up) “the climate system is sensitive to a number of inputs, which can and have caused measurable changes at multiple times in history. The current global warming trend appears to be caused by human activities. No other known climate inputs account for the current global warming trend.”
* * *
P.S. What happened to the nice background image?
That’s my Halloween theme. Just for a week. The philosophers come back then.
The first sentence just doesn’t make sense. The only reason one set of seasons confirms suspicions is because there are pre-existing assumptions–biases. Any one variation can be random. Since it can be random, one can’t rule out the likelihood that it IS random. Hence it can’t “hint”—except through confirmation bias.
If the same kind of temperature increases occurred without man made influence in the Dark Ages, and the science can’t figure out what caused it, then there is a hole in the hypothesis that man-made influences are the only possible explanation this time.
Confirmation Bias is something we all need to be aware. However, one person’s confirmation bias does not negate the facts though I will admit it distracts from the message.
Speaking to Paul’s comments. Science is messy. Scientists sometimes make mistakes. Scientists sometimes fake data for their own purposes (look up the history of post-Plutonium elements on the periodic table) Furthermore, science is noisy and prone to random and systematic errors. Get over it. You sound like some of my students, “you told me the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 but when I did the experiment in lab I found several values ranging from 8.8 to 9.6 m/s^2. Physicists don’t know what their talking about”, or “How can we solve any problems when the acceleration due to gravity keeps fluctuating randomly.” Sheesh.
I’ll give you another clue. People will find ways to exploit the latest scientific trends for their own personal interest. Again, it doesn’t negate the science. We spend $6 Billion in scientific research in all areas of climate change because it is happening and we are trying to get a handle on the models, trying to fine-tune our predictions, trying to understand what effect global climate change will have on our country.
Finally, on the “transfer of wealth” …. Excuse my hyperbole but that phrase is the most idiotic in the history of man kind. Nearly every political decision results in a transfer of wealth in some way. I just love how increasing taxes for upper-income people or businesses is a “transfer of wealth” but a tax cut to the same is “good business”, or “free” sewer connection and access roads to a business is in the community’s best interest so the tax-base gets to pick up the tab. I get that everyone would like to pay less in taxes and still get more stuff and I’m not saying that every decision on taxing or spending is a good idea but throwing out the “transfer of wealth” argument all the time is like passing out one pound Hershey’s bars at a diabetic convention. It just makes you look dumb.
I’ll close with this. Over the past 400 years (as the best current models show) the temperature and more importantly RATE OF CHANGE OF TEMPERATURE is unprecedented. If the rate continues at it’s current rate we will see a 2°C+ increase in average temperature. This is a catastrophic change that will effect everyone across the globe. The only controversy I’ve found in the scientific community is 1) what % of the change is natural and what % is due to human influence and 2) what is the best way to deal with it. You can believe what you want but if I were in charge of the NYSE I’d make long term plans to move to Chicago or get some SCUBA gear.
The post does not take sides in the global warming argument, and I was hoping, but not hopeful, that readers would resist the temptation to use the opportunity to get on the climate change bandwagon.
Just to cite your own post as an example: 1) saying what is unprecedented regarding global warming for 400 years requires confirmation bias on its own. Since we are talking small increments of change, and since nobody was measuring global temperatures until relatively recently, and since the methodology used over time has changed and improved, and since the climate changes over that period still must be guessed at to some extent, it is hardly a convincing statistic to anyone who is not already convinced. 2) The 400 was chosen conveniently, since a period of similar global warming that took place during Medieval times without widespread use of fossil fuels continues to confound the models. If you’re a skeptic, that’s a smoking gun. If not, it’s just an inconvenience to be explained away. 3) “If the rate continues at it’s current rate we will see a 2°C+ increase in average temperature” is, of course, Malthusian, Then again, it may not. The whole deceit in the climate change debate is that it is predictive, based on models, in a chaotic system. Anyone who believes that such models should be assumed to be correct when they have failed in specifics and continue to fail WANTS to believe them.
Jack, the existence of some uncertainty in measurements doesn’t mean that it requires confirmation bias to believe what the science says.
For example, we are not certain about the exact height of Everest and K2 – there is always some variability depending on how the measurement is taken. Plus, the exact shape of a mountaintop varies a little over time. But that uncertainty doesn’t mean that it takes “confirmation bias” to be certain that Everest and K2 are much taller than Mount Hood. Measurements don’t have to be exact to be able to compare Mount Hood to Mount Everest.
Similarly, although the proxy temperature measurements we have for the past 400 years aren’t exact, they are more than good enough to say that the warming we’re now experiencing is unprecedented.
The medieval warming period was not “a period of similar global warming,” because it wasn’t “global,” it was confined to some regions. Scientists believe that it was caused by a combination of changing currents, high solar activity, and low volcanic activity. These factors do not, however, explain the current global warming.
* * *
Your post is a “both sides do it” argument, and in this case you’ve misapplied it. It does take confirmation bias to believe that current global warming is a hoax, or that it hasn’t been shown to be due to human activities. It does not, however, require confirmation bias to agree with overwhelming scientific consensus.
Very well said.
“The recent rate of temperature change is what is unprecedented, given the limitations of temperature modeling prior to 1900 and the wide range of uncertainty of those models.” Is what I should have said. What you call confirmation bias in my statement was an imprecise statement caused by not framing my assumptions completely in my statement.
My statement regarding temperature increase was not Malthusian as you claim but a reasonable, scientific extrapolation of the data at hand. We have seen a 1.0+ °C increase in average global temperature over the last 100 years. More recently that rate of increase has been itself increasing. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate this rate continuing over another 100 years assuming there is no geophysical event that reverses the global warming trend (like a super volcano eruption.)
Imprecision with specifics in a discussion can lead to miscommunication as I’ve admitted above. People, regardless of their position can take an idea and extrapolate it and contort it beyond any reasonable limits. Both of these should be avoided.
Finally I’ll say this. We many not know precisely what caused previous warmups. Any reasonable scientists can’t say for certain that the current climate change is caused by man-made conditions. However we can say with 100% certainty that the temperature has increased over the past 100 years and shows no sign of reversing course (outside of random error of course).
Dismissing global climate change because parts are model based or because of the chaotic nature of trying to model a system as complex as the Earth is the equivalent of dismissing Newton’s Laws because the fail to work at the quantum level were things get random, chaotic and probabilistic. The overwhelming majority of the scientific evidence on the subject of global climate change indicates it is happening, human influence is not negligible and steps should be taken to reduce human influence. None of these facts are negated by noise in the data.
Malthus’s calculations were reasonable—his mistake was that he assumed a current trend would continue indefinitely. The global warming trend is predictable, until it isn’t, and stops (when will it resume?) or reverses, as it has done before. Some of the climate change scientists have predicted effects that should have occurred already and have not–their models were flawed, or they made a mistake, or oops! Something changed.
I have said nothing about “dismissing” the data, to the extent it is data. “The overwhelming majority of the scientific evidence on the subject of global climate change indicates it is happening, human influence is not negligible and steps should be taken to reduce human influence. None of these facts…” None of these are properly called “facts.” The first is a majority opinion by a certain science community..one, I suspect, that you are not really qualified to assess (neither am I.) The next is pretty equivocal—human influence is “not negligible”? The question is, is it decisive. And the third—“steps should be taken”—is an opinion. Even if all the rest is true, that’s no “fact.”
I will say that the faith in its certainty that you exhibit is absolutely unwarranted, and a great many of the honest, non-politicking climate science experts have said exactly the same thing. James Lovelock, for example.
Any scientist will tell you you cannot extrapolate out to infinity (unless you have a perfectly linear, exponential relationship). So no, Malthus’s calculations were not scientifically reasonable.
What you fail to understand is that there is a difference between SCIENCE and the SCIENTIST. Hypotheses from individual scientists or groups of scientists can be wrong. We can go down false trails. It’s how science works. SCIENCE as a human endeavor does not guarantee the right answer all the time, but science will always eventually get it right. SCIENCE has internal checks and balances that forces flawed ideas out, uncovers charlatans… it can take time but SCIENCE always wins out.
Your quote, “The whole deceit in the climate change debate is that it is predictive, based on models, in a chaotic system.” is what I was referring to when I stated you were dismissing global climate change. To infer scientists in the global climate change discussion were being deceitful because they were trying to model a chaotic system is to be dismissive of all science. As long as you stand by by the above comment I stand by mine.
Furthermore, chaotic systems CAN be modeled. We make significant decisions based on models of chaotic systems. To make the simplest analogy, life is a chaotic system and I don’t know if I’m going to die in a car crash tomorrow or live to 96. it’s chaotic and could, prove my expected extrapolation out to 80 years wrong… but you know what, I’m still planning for retirement.
You fail to understand that my loyalty lies only with science, not with any individual or faction within the scientific community. Lovelock has credibility in the scientific community because of many years of dedicated work in science… but that doesn’t make him right in this case. Regardless of whether he’s right or wrong he needs to step up to the podium every other scientist and present his hypothesis to scrutiny of the scientific community. “But what if science has it wrong?”, you ask. They might, but scientists will continue to ask questions and as they participate in this human endeavor we call SCIENCE and SCIENCE will eventually get it right.
@Eric R;
“…he needs to step to the podium every other scientist and present his hypothesis to scrutiny of the scientific community.”
That is scientific inquiry 101; as would be the burden of proof being placed on the proposer and not on the skeptic/challenger.
Do you believe that the rock stars of Climate Science (Mann, Trenberth, Schmidt, Jones, Briffa, etc.) have embraced your recommendation?
@ Paul, regarding the rock stars of Climate Science, I would hope they have embraced my recommendations and they understand what science is all about but I don’t know.
Regarding scientific inquiry you’re right but at this point in time Global Climate Change (GCC) is the prevailing theory. Nearly every major science organization agrees with the current understanding of GCC and those that don’t appear to take the Lovelock view that there is too much noise/variability to know. With this majority it’s responsibility of those who disagree with the current GCC theory to present their own hypothesis to replace GCC.
This is not to say GCC is correct. It may not be, but that is immaterial. It’s the current scientific explanation and will stand until it’s replaced by something better or it’s proven wrong to the satisfaction of the scientific community.
I meant to comment on this several days ago, but it slipped my mind. James Lovelock is not a “climate science expert” in any way whatsoever. He doesn’t have a degree in climate science; he doesn’t do original research on climate science; he doesn’t publish anything in peer-reviewed scientific journals regarding climate science.
Your definition of “honest expert” seems to be “anyone with a science background who says stuff that fits in with Jack’s political bias.”
James Lovelock is a brilliant chemist and a medical doctor, neither of which makes him a climate science expert. He hasn’t been an active scientist in a long time (he’s in his 90s), and he has a habit of publishing contrary opinions about popular science subjects. Describing him as a climate science expert – and using his opinion as an excuse to pretend the consensus of actual climate science experts is in doubt – is not reasonable.
That’s a pretty jaundiced view of Lovelock. The point was and is that he is a respected scientist and doesn’t have a dog in the hunt, and his rational statements regarding the reliability of modeling and predictions in climate science are worthy of respect. Also, as the originator of the Gaia theory, he is certainly an environmentalist, so your characterization of him as just a chemist and a medical doctor is even more misleading than my description of him as a “climate science expert” was sloppy. Al Gore, in the language of journalists, is a “climate science expert”—Lovelock certainly qualifies if Gore does, and far more. I have read Lovelock for years on may topic, and he is more qualified to ferret out the bias, politics, spin and misstatements than I am. On the other side, we have Michael Mann, falsely claiming a Nobel Prize that he never won. He’s a bona fide climate scientist, and I wouldn’t trust him to hold my watch.
The other point is that when the likes of Thomas Freidman and Chris Matthews pronounce those who question the reliability of scientific studies they couldn’t understand with a translator as fools and flat-earthers, they are calling James Lovelock the same, for he has doubts as well, and he understands the nature of scientific research. Who is the fool?
Jack, when Lovelock was making over the top predictions that Global Warming was going to destroy all mankind within a couple of generations except for a few survivors living in horrible poverty near the North Pole, were you saying we should listen to him? i severely doubt it, although if you can link to that, I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Regardless, responsible climate scientists were saying the same thing about Lovelock back then that they are now – he’s not a climate expert and his views aren’t an accurate representation of what is shown by the evidence. There is no reasonable doubt at all that global warming is occurring, and is caused by human activity. Lovelock’s deserves respect for all he has accomplished in his life (and you’re right, I should have mentioned his importance as an environmentalist – but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s not a climate science expert), but his opinions on global warming aren’t supported by evidence and are contrary to what nearly all genuine experts believe.
Gore isn’t a climate science expert; he’s an activist. His opinions on the science are only worthwhile insofar as he successfully sums up what the actual experts are saying.
Actually, on the other side we have literally hundreds and hundreds of climate scientists. On the other side, in fact, we have pretty much a consensus among every scientist who has had work on the question published in a legitimate scientific journal.
That you think an ad hom attack on one particular researcher is relevant shows how illogical you are on this subject.
Your argument implies that we should ask whom do we trust, Lovelock or Mann. But that’s not the question. The real question is this: Whom do you trust, Lovelock, or virtually all the actual experts on climate science in the world?
And how much are you willing to risk based on the belief that you are right and virtually all the scientific experts on climate are wrong?
I am not citing Lovelock as an authority on the matter of climate science, but on scientific research generally. And I am not citing the difference between Mann and Lovelock as climate change vs climate change skeptic, but rather politicized, biased scientist who has become and advocate rather than an objective researcher vs. an objective observer with established credentials as a scientist. Nor is the issue as Lovelock discusses it and as it concerns me whether climate change has occurred and whether man is a major factor in it. I have never argued against that, and you should know that from the many, many pieces I have written. Lovelock questions whether the certainty your vast majority of scientists pretend to KNOW the duration, schedule, effects and nature of global warming years and decades down the line is being overstated for political purposes, and whether anyone knows with sufficient certainty what measures will address the problem. That’s the issue. Denying that there has been global warming is idiotic; denying that human activity is a major factor is silly.
So I don’t know what bias you think you’re referring to on my part. My bias is against politically driven embrace of a complex and still inadequately researched scientific issue to force an environmentalist agenda.
“And how much are you willing to risk based on the belief that you are right and virtually all the scientific experts on climate are wrong?” Wrong in their over-confident predictions and models? They are almost certainly wrong to a greater or lesser degree, honest scientists admit it, logic dictates it (since their current models are still wrong repeatedly) and the risking of billions and the welfare of the economy on the gamble that the most apocalyptic predictions are correct isn’t just risky, it’s insane and hysterical.
I wonder what you mean by “politicized.” Both Lovelock and Mann speak out publicly and are explicit about their hope of having a policy effect, so by that definition (the usual definition) both of them are politicized. You can’t say that Mann’s climate research is politicized and Lovelock’s isn’t, because Lovelock doesn’t do climate research, so that’s apples and oranges.
It’s hard to say exactly what Lovelock’s new views are, frankly, until his new book comes out next year. What’s he’s being saying so far boils down to an admission that Lovelock’s previous views – only a few humans left at the arctic circle, Democracy is dooooomed, etc — were extreme and not supported by the evidence. I think he’s right about that, but nothing about that view sets him apart from the standard view of climate scientists.
First of all, pretty much the single most prominent purveyor of “apocalyptic predictions” was Lovelock himself until recently. His views weren’t and have never been representative of what people who take climate science seriously believe.
It’s true that models are certainly “wrong to a greater or lesser degree,” but that doesn’t tell us anything about risk assessment. If a model predicts average global temperatures rising 1.5 degrees if nothing is done, and we do nothing, it probably won’t rise exactly 1.5 degrees; it might rise 1.3 degrees, or 1.7 degrees, for instance.
However, on the basic question of “will average global temperatures continue rising,” the models so far have been correct, and I assume you know that. Nor is there a scientifically viable explanation for how temperatures could stop rising, even in theory, if current rates of putting carbon into the atmosphere continue.
On the question of if rising average temperatures are associated with an increased likelihood of weather events that are damaging to human interests – such as storms and droughts — once again, the predictions have so far been borne out, unfortunately.
(Can you explain how, even in theory, it could be otherwise? For instance, we know that warmer seas and higher sea levels will make a storm like Sandy larger than it would otherwise be expected to be. Is there a credible scientific theory for how we could have rising average temperatures and not have harsher weather as a result?)
Conservatives – you included – have fixated on the fact that we can’t point to any one storm, or any one hot year, and say for certain that it wouldn’t have occurred without global warming.
But that’s a nonsensical way of looking at probability. If I weigh a die so that it’s more likely to roll a 6, you won’t be able to point to any individual roll of 6 and say “that six definitely would not have happened if the die wasn’t weighed.” But it would be nonsense to claim that therefore we can’t know for sure that the weighing of the dice is having an effect. And if someone said, regarding the eighth out of ten rolls that comes up a six, “that looks suspiciously like the result of die weighing,” they’d be substantively correct.
So the climate models that virtually every expert believes are reliable on the broad questions are too dubious to be accepted by anyone who isn’t a hysteric; but the hysterical cries of economic doom from conservatives opposed to climate legislation are objective and should be taken seriously? That’s ridiculous, Jack.
Furthermore, it’s not as if the policy conservatives favor – which is to say, doing nothing – carries no economic risk. If climate scientists are right to think that global warming will continue- and there’s every reason to think they are, and no reason to suppose that global warming is about to suddenly stop — then a policy of doing nothing to mitigate climate change is going to cost the economy much more than climate legislation will. So why is that an acceptable risk to take?
I don’t know of any credible economic model which says that the entire “welfare of the economy” is at risk if we fund a better energy infrastructure and pass a strong carbon cap and trade bill. Saying that it is, is a good example of the sort of irresponsible, hysterical doomcrying that you claim to oppose.
@Ambersand;
If your burden of proof and enviably lofty standards for credibility require discrediting and disparaging octo & nonagenarians, don’t leave out Dr. Freeman Dyson and Dr. Ivar Giaever.
Is there such a thing is confirmation bias of bias? Because if there is, it would help explain why so many statements by journalists, scientists and others are seen as biased. 😉
Also, “suspiciously like” is a statement that evokes suspicion, not certainty. It leaves the door wide open for further investigation before a final decision is made.
Except that a single’s year’s weather can’t reasonably raise suspicion of anything.
As for bias regarding media bias, sure. I’d say that’s what Candy Crowley is going through regarding her infamous “life-line” to Obama. The candidates were bickering over what words the President used, and she had the transcript, which allowed her to clear it up. As it happened, yes, it helped the President’s deceit on the issue (which is what it was, you know, but Crowley still did the right thing, and it wasn’t necessarily a biased act at all. BUT because she violated the rules in doing it, because she was helping the Democrat/Progressive and she is assumed to be a liberal and thus biased, her act was taken as proof of bias on her part.
I don’t think it was.
Interesting. How many years of weather must be observed before we can become suspicious?
“How many years of weather must be observed before we can become suspicious?”
Good question. Despite not having observed weather as much as having simply experienced it, I first became suspicious over 30 years ago, when I first became aware of measurements that fairly unambiguously indicated increasing levels of carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere over a long time – the most recent centuries.
Over those centuries, increasing human population that also verifiably increased burning of carbon dioxide-producing materials (like coal) has seemed to parallel the increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Experiments can model an atmosphere mainly of nitrogen and oxygen like earth’s, and have been conducted with variable levels of carbon dioxide. Experiment results have supported the idea that, with other influencing parameters taken into account and held constant, increasing carbon dioxide leads to increased atmospheric temperatures.
So I am suspicious already, that global warming is humanity-caused. But moreover, I am even more suspicious of the human tendency to use knowledge unethically. (Paul, in this thread, addresses points that correspond to that suspicion.) I don’t have an ant farm or nest of rodents or cockroaches handy, to do experiments about self-interested populations harming and even dooming themselves with ostensibly good intentions. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that my suspicions are validated by a sample size of one, namely, the federal budget of the United States.
It shouldn’t be long until employers will ask their employees to add Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Catastrophe, Climate Crisis, Atmospheric Change (or the term-du-jour) to religion & politics as radioactive topics.
Eric R. hit it on the head referring to the hijacking of the science. Without getting into any further, it’s a Statist’s wet dream. Climate *Justice*, Climate *Reparations*, etc. The shakedown possibilities are limitless.
It was a big disappointment when the CCX shut down (research the players in that scam!) A lot of Gucci-slippered Carbon Traders have suffered irreparable harm and loss of income. Where’s the outrage for the real victims, here?
Most may recall the P.M. of the Maldives recent ‘press conference’ held underwater to draw attention to the archipelago’s seemingly dire plight. Well; they’ve fallen into at least $500,000,000 from wherever. What have they chosen to do with it? Build a floating golf course which will be sited within 5 minutes of the airport. Why so close? to attract “fly-in’ golfers!
http://www.news.com.au/travel/world/maldives-scores-five-hundred-million-dollar-floating-golf-course/story-e6frfqai-1226046884558
Those familiar with the Maldives may be aware that it is just a tad off the beaten path. Just how exactly do these rapidly (according to them) submerging Islanders expect these fly-in golfers actually fly in; glider, windsled, dirigible, hot air balloon? My sense is that any other mode of transport would contribute to the *cause* that is assuredly (again, according to them, et al) deep-sixing them. Seems counter-productive and self-defeating, but what do I know.
The Climate Conferences attended by well-heeled “Climate Ambassadors” are held in rather posh exotic locales. A number of years back one of their conferences was held in Bali. That island couldn’t hold all the private jets(?!) so they had to be flown to another island to await the conferees departure, when they were flown back to collect their charges to whisk them back home.
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-green-is-their-hypocrisy.html
“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” U/AZ Professor and IPCC lead author Jonathan Overpeck (in an uncharacteristicallly blunt email to a colleague he assumed was one of the anointed)
Personally I believe the MWP and the RWP (thought to have been warmer than it is these days) was caused by the unregulated smelting of chain mail armor and the WMD’s of the day; swords & shields.
The Nobel Prize shared by Al Gore, UNIPCC Chair Ragendra Pachuari (railroad engineer by trade), and the IPCC. It was spurned by a former IPCC operative Jonathan Christy who possesses a part of the anatomy not shared by the others; a backbone.
Pachuari is a real piece of..work. Do a little research on his background with the TATA Group and their fine efforts with a certain British Steel firm.
He replaced the highly respected Dr. Robert Watson ~2000 at the behest of EXXON-MOBIL and the Bush Administration. Why? they thought he would be more ‘receptive’ to business interests. Now, why would the IPCC want as their chair someone who is close with evil BIG OIL? A real headscratcher!
http://ens-newswire.com/2010/01/12/bush-administration-seeks-to-oust-climate-expert/
An unholy alliance just below the surface that just can’t make the news, at least as defined by the MSM.
Gee, that does sound really damning. But just to be sure, I’d like to read the quote in context. Could you please link to the entire text of Overpeck’s email?
@Ampersand;
I patiently await his response to my FOIA request. But keep in mind the lengthy and expensive efforts UVA took to protect Dr. Michael Mann’s emails from the evil Christopher Horner (the Global Warming Industry’s Anti-Christ)
Perhaps I’ll get lucky like Greenpeace. When they made a request for the emails of a different employee, Dr. Patrick Michaels, the UVA Administration couldn’t release them soon enough. Matter of fact, they went over and above request requirements and released his funding sources to boot. Care to venture a guess as to why?
My point is don’t hold your breath; though that would reduce atmospheric CO2.
“A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.” A. Eban
I don’t understand. You quoted from the email word for word, yet you now say you don’t have a copy of the email. If you’ve never seen the email, how can you know he actually ever said that?
@Barry Deutsch;
I don’t chase a foul balls and humbly recommend you don’t try to take a base with one. Do let me know if this will suffice.
You mean the video of someone repeating that quote, not even saying who said it, and not giving any context for it? No, that doesn’t suffice, and you should know better than to think it does.
God, do you think my time has no value? Either produce real evidence – which means the email itself, directly quoted, and attributed — or admit that you’re unable to back up your claim.
*Mr. Marshall; I sincerely apologize for this getting so off topic.
@Ampersand/Barry Deutsch;
“Either produce real evidence…or admit that you’re unable to back up your claim.”
This is a quote that has been reprinted in articles far too numerous to mention, a quote Overpeck has not made neither one move to renounce nor has he asked for its retraction, and that a simple Google search will confirm. Is your time so valuable as you want me to research it for you?
Produce *real* evidence; really?! Your burden of proof appears lofty and unassailable.
That being the case, then:
*explain why the poor Polar Bear is currently suffering a devastating 500 % population increase.
*prove why the Greenland Ice Sheet hasn’t slid into the drink
*prove why we haven’t had the promised 7 metre rise in sea levels
*explain why NASA/GISS has been caught jiggling figures (all in the same direction) how many times?
*explain why Dr. James Hansen has been caught unilaterally altered past temperature records all in the same direction
*explain why record Antarctic Ice extent is *proof* of Global Warming
*explain why globally averaged temperatures cooler than Hansen’s wildly optimisitic ‘Scenario C’
*explain why 2006 (the year after Katrina and much ballyhooed and terrifying prediction of the YEAR OF THE SUPER HURRICANES) saw not one make landfall in the U.S.
*explain why so many *tipping points* have ALL come and gone with nary a whimper as to why
*explain why the laughably discredited “Hockey Stick” theory put forth by Mann/Briffa based their sham on the data FROM ONE TREE!
The absolute tsunami of fraud, misrepresentation, and scientific malfeasance; all to *sell* the us the benighted that without enacting Alarmists’ *solutions* immediately and without question, we’ll all be ‘warmed’ to death.
I’m not pressing you on any of that, or Heaven knows how much else.
Perhaps I should? I’ve little doubt someone as thorough as you purport yourself to be would never want to be accused of being at best inconsistent, and at worst hypocritical…right?
But I didn’t make those claims, so the parallel – between you not being able to back up a smear that you chose to make, and me not caring to back up a random list of claims that I haven’t made — is hardly a fair one.
The level of evidence I asked for is trivially easy to meet, for people who are telling the truth. Don’t attack me just because you’ve repeated hearsay as if it were the truth.
Sounds like Global Warming is caused by too many humans. I guess we can’t all have the right to live on the planet because the planet will die and no one will be able to live on the planet. Better implement some population control measures and if we can’t reduce the population by having fewer births, then we’ll have to do some extermination. #darksarcasm
I’d appreciate the dark sarcasm here more if there weren’t people actually espousing these views, and more whose actions would seem to be, if not in agreement with them, at least moving parallel to them.
Pingback: The greatest barrier to scientific thinking: | My notes... Quality, Data Science, Strategy & Lean.