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.</blockquote>
Capt, we have already been through this before, OK. Saying it is groupthink is also saying that you can psychoanalyze a whole group, which is impossible. Because groups are composed of individual members and you can't say what say any individual believes or is thinking without asking them. Alright?
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Joseph
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Tuppence
And persist too in refusing to see that skepticism of an idea doesn’t require a better one.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by DocMartyn
Joshua, have you wondered why Dan does not ask questions that are both unambiguous as questions and that will yield unambiguous answers?
Do you, joshua, think it because he cannot or will not?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Vaughan Pratt
<i>Of course science is not determined by polling of hands but by validation of falsifiable hypotheses/verifiable facts. </i>
Let P be a falsifiable hypothesis that 87% of scientists believe to be false. Let S be a scientist who has validated P. Is P now true?
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Joseph, “Because groups are composed of individual members and you can’t say what say any individual believes or is thinking without asking them. Alright?”
You can infer a lot from what people say and who they quote. From that you can “generalize”, but not analyse each an every member. You can have a lot of fun with it :)
I am sure not everyone polled made the cut for the video. Some had to have had enough sense to ask what is “DiHydrogen Monoxide”. Those wouldn’t be fun though would they?
I am sure you would have asked and I am sure you would have your doubts about the quality of Mann’s reconstruction. Or would you? How much of the consensus science do you question?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by popesclimatetheory
Al Gore won, hands down, he told a bigger lie than Gina McCarthy
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by andywest2012
Jim D | January 31, 2015 at 11:30 am |
"captd, that resistance to saying the majority of the reason for the warming is CO2 is purely political."
Look at the 2D cultural graph halfway down the head post. The bottom of the left hand 'CAGW Allegiance' zone may be well over 80% on the evidence of some surveys. The biggest block of <em>support</em> for the majority of warming being due to man (via CO2) is political. When the majority of </em>Dem / Libs</em> are not called upon to defend their identity or support their party, they don't believe this narrative about dangerous man-made warming either. They are <em>in alliance</em> with climate culture as a political expediency.
There is too much focus on left / right in the US, and not enough on the </em>independent</em> culture of climate (which is more obvious in countries where the mainstream political system is not so split). In turn this has led to a focus on cultural resistance from the Rep / Cons, but NOT on major cultural <em>alliance</em> from the Dem / Libs, and the fact that it is the Dem / Libs who change their position <em>much more</em> depending upon whether their identity is challenged or not. The Rep / Con position is much more constant whether or not their identity is challenged in a similar manner.
↧
Comment on Week in review by popesclimatetheory
again and again and again they say that recent years have all been hotter than the average they compare with.
Of course they have!
These years have been the hottest years because we are in the same part of a warming cycle as was this same part of the Roman and Medieval warm periods. Climate is following the same pattern as past cycles and is well inside the same bounds.
With or without man-made CO2, Temperature is right where it should be, following the path of the historic cycles.
Speak up if you can’t see this. NOAA and NASA have the actual data, you can look at the data. They don’t understand what it means, but they do have the data.
↧
Comment on Week in review by aaron
+
But I think theyrethey’re used for twitter and just copied from there.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Joshua
Doc –
==> “Joshua, have you wondered why Dan does not ask questions that are both unambiguous as questions and that will yield unambiguous answers?”
Some of the questions are ambiguous. Some of his questions result with ambiguous answers..
(1) I don’t know that he “unambiguous as questions and that will yield unambiguous answers?” I haven’t gone through all of his polling data to make such a determination – maybe you have, since you make such a statement, but I’m not inclined to just take your work for it and I’m guessing that you’re being a bit hyperbolic there. Anyway, if we try hard enough, I’m pretty sure we could find ambiguity in virtually and question and the resulting answer. Why look at the poll that Andy use to draw conclusions from in his analysis (in the appendix). The ambiguities in that poll should have jumped out an bit him in the a$$ – but for some reason seem not to have. And I’ve seen that poll used by “skeptics” many times to justify their conclusions despite huge-a$$ed ambiguities. At least, in my experience, Dan generally tries to address the ambiguities in his polling. Not that it would justify Dan’s work if he didn’t, but I think it’s hilarious that “skeptics” keep going back to that Rasmussen poll even as they try to discount polling data by pointing to ambiguities.
(2) At some level, the potential ambiguity of the questions/answers doesn’t matter – because the ambiguities are for everyone. The existence of ambiguities doesn’t change the fact that pattern exist in the answers, patterns that are associated with ideology.
Anyway, I found Andy’s criticisms (to the extent I could follow them, which wasn’t very far) along those lines to be vague and not very compelling.
Maybe you could elaborate. How do you think that the ambiguities in Dan’s questions/resulting answers support conclusions that are in contrast to his – not w/r/t individual “skeptics” or even outlier groups, but with the mechanisms in play w/r/t public opinion more generally?
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Joshua
Sorry –
That should be “I don’t know that he always relies on ambiguous questions or questions that yield ambiguous answers across the board as you (perhaps?) suggest – or even predominantly.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Nick Stokes
It’s pretty mechanical. Things happen, stations change. People wanting a climate index do some adjusting. Some go up, some down. Every year or so (starting probably with Darwin, 2009) someone trawls through and finds one or a few that went up. Shock horror. And yes, the usual folks demagogue it.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Heh, Cap’n, he can krig to find the endangered bears.
============
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by GaryM
“Anthony interepreted this by assuming that the author meant that volcanoes would get worse in other places
WRONG. thats not what he meant
He meant and EXPLAINED that the icelandic volcanoes would cause issues in other parts of the world.”
No, he didn’t. The Time article says nothing about the impact of Icelandic eruptions on other parts of the globe. A charitable interpretation would be that the Icelandic research would apply to other volcanoes under glaciers. But the author makes no explanation for his broad based statement, which is why it is so easy to make fun of.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Dig deep, that lipstick’s gotta be in there. I see you found the mirror.
========
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan
Incorrect assertion, Nick, and you probably know that. The paper presented at Europe AGU showed systemic bias. You can read it at http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1212.
And the bias has been increasing over time, demonstrated in several ways in essay When Data Isn’t. You cannot erase the indelible evidence.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
I don’t think Nick sees the cultural muck he gallops(slogs) through, his eyes are only for the finish line.
=================
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
Gary, I know the headline is sensationalized, but if you actually read the article you will <b>know</b> what is meant. The media has <b>always</b> used sensationalized headlines to entice people to read their articles. Even Fox News does it.. Come on,Gary..
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
oops Gary my response is below
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Note the ‘cultural’ use of ‘climate change’. When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?
================
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
