The important points re the Pew Research poll http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ are: The gap between scientists “belief” in manmade causes involvement in global warming (87%) and general public “belief” in manmade causes (50%) i.e., a 37% gap. Of course this is the wrong question. Of course science is not determined by polling of hands but by validation of falsifiable hypotheses/verifiable facts. Of course the poll is about beliefs and not science. Of course the qualifications and identities of the “scientists” are not revealed. Of course the issue is attribution and not belief. This is about opinion leading policy and not about science. And how about that continuing hiatus thing. I think we can be assured that AAAS / publisher of Science Magazine will now even expand / increase its politicized approach to climate change and science in general with the naming of Rush Holt to replace Alan Leisher as head of AAAS http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2013/jul/28/rush-holt/rush-holt-warns-millions-will-die-climate-change-g/ Holt ex. Democratic congressman is he uber climate warmer meister … knows climate speak … say good bye to Science, now I have canceled my subscription) >>> “goodbye Science.”
Comment on Week in review by Danley Wolfe
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Jonathan Abbott
Mosher,
You’re an intelligent man, so why are you asking such a stupid question?
‘Prove you understand X.’
I’m not new to the internet. I’ve played this game before, and it never works. Especially when, as in this case, the problem is unbounded. It is meaningless, no two people will ever agree on what it really means, or what a satisfactory answer could look like. You’re usually smarter than this.
In deference to the gallery, I will explain a bit more on where I am coming from. In the 90’s and into the 00’s, there was a steady stream of articles in The Times, New Scientist, National Geographic etc. all explaining global warming – the greenhouse effect (the real one, not the blanket analogy), the effect of aerosols and volcanoes, the anthropogenic C02 fingerprint, the unprecedented warming since c1975, the computer models, etc etc.
Was I reading peer reviewed papers? No.
Was I reading explanations of the consensus science? Yes
Was I understanding them? Yes
Then when I got suspicious I started reading criticisms of the consensus science.
Did I understand the criticisms? Yes
Did I read defences of the consensus science? Yes
Did I go and read some of the peer review papers? Yes
In the end, which made better scientific sense? In the main (but by no means always), the criticisms.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Tuppence
We all know why – they aren’t funded to, and need to make their living elsewhere. Unfunded spare time can’t compete with funded full time.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Diag
meta comment — I like to see where I’m going before I click on a link; I really dislike link-shortener links. What is the point? To save a few bytes?
Are these shortcuts truly permanent or will future readers not have a clue about where they went?
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
William M Briggs says:
“This makes Laden’s insinuation a lie. No fossil fuel industry funding was recieved. And even if it was …”
Greg Laden doesn’t seem to say where he got this notion? Was it from the petition (I didn’t look)? Why did Briggs say, “And even if it was”?
It would be interesting to see Laden and Briggs come on here and explain all this. Willie Soon sure is a hot button. His solar views seem to have scorched Laden. Idiots?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan
On the biofuels article, essays Wishful Thinking, Bugs, Roots, and Biofuels, and Salvation by Swamp lay out a bigger picture background reaching the same general conclusions.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by kim
Allkenones, Ho!
========
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Jim D
The data is there. You don’t have to be rich to examine it and come up with ideas to explain it. If CO2 didn’t cause most of the warming in the last century simply explain (1) why the AGW idea is wrong, and (2) where the warming came from instead.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Climatologyologist
To shake off the reputation for politically motivated bias, what climate science funding managers should start doing is diverting some funding away from the main area of reinforcing the consensus, towards some non-believers and anyone really interested in getting to the truth, whatever it is, politically convenient or not.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Jonathan Abbott
“…I would be very disappointed in the quality of Skeptical Science…”
Whoops, Jim D!
That just slipped out did it?
:)
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mark Silbert
He probably gets it from Obummer’s Science Guy………..John Holdren.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Joseph, it isn’t so much scientists trying to fool the public as scientists fooling themselves. When a scientist researches using peer reviewed references they expect the same quality they would like to produce. They don’t search blogs to get information on issues that papers may have,
Once you get the group think ball rolling with over sold PR and glossy “high impact” journal front pages, it can take a while to get back to the real science of verification. Corrections just don’t get as much press as initial releases.
There are activists that will use what they can for whatever reason, but the run of the mill scientist just does science expecting what is published to be quality science not crapola.
There is a contradiction there. Which is quality and which is crapola?
There is a contradiction there. Does CO2 drive climate or does climate drive CO2?
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
It would be nice if they could calm down and have a sccientific discussion. It would be rewarding for all.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by steven
Ruth, if you wanted to question something like the GRACE measurements it would be very expensive to replicate the effort by putting up your own satellites. On the other hand if you research the topic you may be able to find that someone else already had that thought, the skills needed, and access to the data.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04508.x/abstract
There are plenty of reasons in the literature to question what is put out there as though it were fact if you look for the reasons.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Tuppence
You continue to ignore the difference between unfunded part-timers, and funded full-timers.
And also what skepticism is. You may show the failures with theiry X, but still not have a better one (especially if you are an unfunded part-timer).
The essence of CAGW skepticism is that noone knows if/how true it is, that the professed certainty is just political spin. It may well turn out to be true, but the official pretending really isn’t helping.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Joseph
politically motivated bias, what climate science funding managers should start doing is diverting some funding away from the main area of reinforcing the consensus
Scientologist, skeptics have published a lot of papers. I don’t know of any that have made an impact, though. But, anyway, what is your evidence that skeptics are being denied funding?
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by andywest2012
Steven Mosher | January 31, 2015 at 11:38 am
Though the blindly convinced apply their own logic and intelligence, ultimately they’re working from a clumsy orthodox canon, which makes them vulnerable to being tripped up in this manner. But I find your news rather depressing. If there is no means by which Kahan and his ilk can be liberated from their blindfolds in order to see climate culture, we will be in a very unhealthy place for a long time. Whether the climate warms or cools, swiftly or slowly, cultural narratives could dominate science for another generation, or possibly even many generations. Ironically, this also means that some incorrect minority counter-narratives will also get more inertia than they otherwise would.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Jim D
It is not poorness in funding. It is poorness in ideas where the skeptics suffer. Who are their bright sparks that have ideas? I don’t mean just playing around with data in innovative ways, but innovative explanations of the data. Thinking is free.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Tuppence
Yes, fooling and conspiracy are not needed to explain the bias in government climate science (these are just popular strawmen employed by alarmist spin doctors).
Any organisation is naturally biased towards advancing its own interests, and funds people and projects it hopes will further them. Government is no different; and of course much much bigger and powerful than everyone else put together. And so, since government happens to have a horse in this particular race – alarmism, which promises more taxes and powers – it preferentially funds people and projects that promise to boost alarmism.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Tuppence
You doggedly persists with expecting people with other jobs to compete in the spare time with those paid to do it full time. How many spare time brain surgeons do you know? Or even spare time authors of books or critiques of consensus brain surgery?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
