Jimd
But you had a much greater warming in the 40 year period from 1700 than the 60 year period from 1950 . Perhaps suggesting that natural variability is a major driver as jones seems to be suggesting.?
We are only slightly warmer than the 1730’s and possibly marginally cooler than the 1530’s as we continue our roller coaster climatic ride. The post 1950 period needs to be put in its historic context.
Why do we have this pre co2 effect roller coaster ride?
Tonyb
> citing anecdotes IS presenting evidence…its called “anecdotal evidence”.
Citing anecdotal evidence underplays its main rhetorical point: storytelling. Anecdotal evidence is judiciary evidence, not scientific evidence. This explains why TonyB’s deliverables have little scientific validity, and why TonyB handwave toward authority figures without being very explicit in their endorsements.
:
Not only that, but consider the very large computer resources used to run the climate models that are used in, and motivated, but the IPCC. And then there are the government research budgets, funding proposals that are motivated by the IPCC.
The main trigger was an individual ‘impersonating’ other commenters. Secondary issues are off topic bickering among commenters, and some individuals relentless promoting their own (off topic) hobby horses.
the echo chamber effect is real but not particularly explanatory. once the polarized instinct exists it doesn’t really matter whether new information comes from within or from outsidethe echo chamber. If you get information from outside the echo chamber you will just interpret that information in such a way as to confirm biases.the cultural cognition project provides plenty of supporting evidence of this. People will look at information from “experts” and assess the veracity of that information based on how they orient that “expert” based on pre-existing ideological taxonomies. people are certain because whatever information they receive only confirms there biases no matter what the information says
in other words the echo chamber effect is more a byproduct of the mechanism rather than an explanation of the mechanism itself
Naomi Oreskes ‘Objectivity or Heoism’
“Feminist scholars in particular have focused attention on the ideal of objectivity, and some have argued that scientific objectivity, with its emphasis on the detachment of the observer from the natural world, is a gender-linked ideal, reified by the image of the male scientist scrutinizing and even oppressing female nature”
why am i not surprised that it didn’t take much digging at all to get to this kind of drivel from this proponent of the grand ‘jury of PhD’s’ theory of science?
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/301928?sid=21105664498151&uid=2&uid=3739256&uid=4
There never will be any such evidence. That libertarian think tanks require such certainty only reveals that there can’t be any scientific position whatsoever.
You are characterizing them as requiring a degree of certainty demanded in no other area. Do you believe that they know very well that an unreasonable danger exists but that they consciously choose to ignore this in the service of their short term monetary gain? Do you think that the more drastic and expensive the proposed action, the greater certainty is appropriate?
> You are characterizing them as requiring a degree of certainty demanded in no other area.
Not at all. Think tanks do it for all kinds of stuff:
When a scientist offers data that bears on some question of public policy – the health hazard of toxic wastes, for example, or pinpointing a cause for acid rain – how reliable should the data be? Should such data and their interpretation be called upon when they achieve the level demanded within science itself? Or are lower levels of certainty significant when the issue is one of protecting public health?
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=vbl05b00
Was Grobstein just asking quesrions just like Swood does yet again?
“The feminist critique of objectivity rests heavily on the psychoanalytical perspective of Nancy Chodorow, who has argued that female and male children articulate their adolescent identity through fundamentally divergent responses to the maternal bond:To forge their identity as men, male children must detach themselves from their primary love-object, whereas female children forge their identitites as women in continuing identification with the mothers…….
To the degree that primary gender identification resonates throughout other aspects of cognitive and emotional life, men may be more likely to view the world from the perspective of detachment….
…then the articulation of nature through the lens of a fully detached observer is a gender-laden condept, at odds with the understanding of the world that females develop through their primary affective experience.”
Thanks Naomi. Good on ye for perpetuating gender stereotypes and attempting to dismantle centuries of scientific discovery through claims of sexism!!!
That is really classic. Men are objective therefore being objective is sexist. Why not just say “men present logical arguments therefore feminists are dumb”.
(However just to be clear in case my wife might read this I’m in no way suggesting that all women are illogical, stupid or that they can’t present an argument.)
Is consensus in free fall?
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/global-warming-views-steady-despite-warm-winter.aspx
(Hamilton 2015 is even clearer on this.)
The bottom line is that consensus perception is not consensus, that neither are in free fall, and that Morano’s prediction has yet to obtain.
I’m certainly not meaning to be sexist either. Its just to get to know some people you really have to dig down. There are some really strong forces at work in this society attempting to redefine almost every aspect of our western culture, science and objectivity apparently being one of these….
People will look at information from “experts” and assess the veracity of that information based on how they orient that “expert” based on pre-existing ideological taxonomies. people are certain because whatever information they receive only confirms there biases no matter what the information says
But what makes people doubt the bona fides of the expert? In the case of Darwinism people did not doubt that the scientific facts pointed to evolution but they thought that this was inconsistent with the truth that they got from their religion. In the case of climate change, people are doubting that the alarmist position is supported by the science, and tending to believe that the experts are exaggerating the risk. And they are not without reason to think so, beginning with the hiatus and the machinations disclosed in the climategate emails.
But people don’t even pay attention to most areas of science and most don’t have the same policy ramifications. That’s the difference.
Is it true that the earth’s temperature, for billions of years, has been in the 70s (F) with no ice coverage? Only in ice ages does it reduce to near our current temperature? If yes, then we must be in a temperature minimum, which means it can only go up.
==> ” But what makes people doubt the bona fides of the expert?”
I’m not sure why you asked the question. I already explain the theory. People trust or don’t trust experts on the basis of how they align those experts into a pre existing ideological taxonomy. this happens when issues are polarized. It doesn’t happen with scientific issues that are in polarized. The interesting question is why are some scientific issues polarized while others aren’t. With issues that are not polarized, people in general trust expert opinion -such as with GMOs and vaccines.
==> “In the case of Darwinism people did not doubt that the scientific facts pointed to evolution ”
to start with I don’t know why you say that. there are plenty of people who doubt the scientific evidence on evolution. they think that carbon dating is not reliable. they think there’s no evidence to support evolution across species. They think the science does not point to evolution. This is not everyone of course. So my point is that your characterization is too broad to be useful.
==> “In the case of climate change, people are doubting that the alarmist position is supported by the science, ”
your terminology is too broad in many levels. first what do you mean by people? Second what do you mean by alarmism? Do you mean the science that says within certain range is a probability climate change is a potential problem? Is that your alarm is in that you speak of?
=>> “. And they are not without reason to think so, beginning with the hiatus and the machinations disclosed in the climategate emails.”
you are arguing a tautology. . And they are not without reason to think so, beginning with the hiatus and the machinations disclosed in the climategate emails.
certainty amongst “skeptics” must valid because uncertainty exists.
David you have to price the donated hours of all the scientists.
as an organization the IPCC is mousenuts.
Or are lower levels of certainty significant when the issue is one of protecting public health?
Lower levels of certainty are appropriate, but there has to be a weighing of the likelihood of harm, the magnitude of the harm, and the cost proposed in order to avoid the harm. Some people see alarmist theory as a kind of Rube Goldberg Machine, that, no matter how carefully thought out, is just too weak at too many points to rely on.
test
