Means you ignore the finding of the vast majority of scientists who all agree with each other on the basic point that human produced CO2 is a significant factor in current climactic changes.
Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Your position is not neutral.
Your position is based on your personal views of my opinion, it appears from this post, not from the science or the evidence.
The closest you get to discussing the science are this claim:
Again showing more scientific illiteracy, where you appear to think that climatologists only study the period that includes recorded data.
This statement shows that you do not accept the science.
That's not neutral.
You are really struggling with the concept of scientific consensus vs scientific method
That is a consensus !!!
And that is not proving or disproving a hypothesis based upon the experimental results
At one point the scientific consensus was that the world was flat and that aliments can be cured by bleeding the patient
Thankfully someone challenged these consensus and proved them incorrect
Will that happen with Climate change? Time will tell. However there are issues with the current theory and some scientist do not support the consensus
Any scientist worth his salt will tell you consensus has no place in scientific methodology
Do not tell me what my position is you arrogant / ignorant ass
Again you tell me what my position is and now you are telling what it is based upon??
Tell us Kresgin, what did I just mutter to myself about your mother?
You do this all the time and you get it wrong all the time, SO STOP IT
Expanding the data beyond recorded data requires extrapolation and estimation.
Extrapolating a couple of hundred years of data across billions of years ?
The goal is to isolate mans impact, starting with data only available during mans stay on the planet with additional complications from knowing the planet & climate have been changing throughout its history ?
And then extrapolation expected changes into the future?
Did they get that right? Maybe, Maybe not?
lots of room for skepticism there
Yet you say the conclusion is absolute?
I do not think so.
No stupid, it shows I do not accept your conclusion as absolute and that there is room for skepticism.
Now I am going t type real slowly so you can follow along
If I say my position is neutral, then my position is neutral
One of us a POS lair who has been caught making false, exaggerated, and misleading statements and has misrepresented himself and that POS liar is not me
If you had the first clue about science you would know a true scientist is focused on the results, and does not care too much about what others think.
But then you are not a scientist, but rather a propaganda spewing bullshit artist who would be a danger to others in a laboratory.
How is that gasoline calculation coming along?
That is high school level stuff, so anyone who has such a strong opinion about science as you do should have no problem showing their work
You also have yet to quantify and clarify exactly what "shoddy work" is.
Despicable POS
Your position is not neutral and is based on a total misunderstanding of the science.
Climate change records are based on numerous methods, from carbon dating, to polar ice cores, to tree rings and geology.
Your lack of understanding of those basics is shown in your own words.
I'm not surprised you don't understand the basics, the question is whether this is willful ignorance based on your confirmation bias or whether or not you are smart enough to learn those basics.
All of which require extrapolation & estimation if you are attempting to tie climate change to mans activities
Extrapolation & estimation are sources of error, making your absolute position not so absolute.
They point out how your position is not absolute and that i am quite justified being skeptical & neutral
says the moron who can not calculate a weighted average?
You dare to talk to anyone about willful ignorance?
The consensus of opinion on this board is that you a liar and purposly make misleading statements
No need for scientific method to be pretty confident about that
And according to your logic you would need to agree with that consensus & according to you refuting that you are a lair is just unacceptable, as is saying nothing (neutral) as both those option go against the consensus
confirmation bias ?
there is not a post you make without bias in it and you have the nerve to accuse me of that?
I am not the one with an undefendable absolute condition attached to my position. Nor am I one who refuses to accept others have a right to their opinion. I am neutral on this issue.
You are accusing me of confirmation bias on a neutral or undecided position?
No. I do not think so
That would be funny if it were not so sad
How is that gasoline calculation coming along?
I say you are incapable of understanding that high school level science
Lets have it & show your work
You are really struggling with everything except word games. How about something simple for you. Why don't you tell me which specific scientific papers you support that argue human produced CO2 isn't playing a significant role in current climactic changes and why they should be listened to over the thousands of other papers that have contrary conclusions?
I would love to engage in a discussion of the science behind those conclusions rather than listening to you blow hot air. There is no neutral in science other than pleading ignorance. Either you accept the conclusions of the great many scientific papers or you don't. And there is nothing wrong with admitting you are ignorant of the specifics of climactic sciences.
Are you saying that those thousands of papers weren't doing exactly that? The 'consensus' is simply because repeated experiments have lead to similar conclusions. If 95% of scientists predict the next couple months are going to be warmer than the past are you going to ignore them too?
The Danish climatologist Bo Christiansen examined nine Mann “hockey sticks” and says it is “almost impossible to conclude” from any of them that “the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period”. Professor David Legates writes that “one can have no confidence in the claim that the 1990s are the warmest decade of the last two millennia” (by then Mann had extended his flexi-shaft back another millennium.) Almost every other serious reconstruction shows much greater natural climate variability, and the 1990s within the bounds of that. And, as Professors McShane and Wyner point out, most of these reconstructions look nothing like hockey sticks. Indeed, it remains an open question whether what his oeuvre purports to divine a “global temperature” is in a scientific sense “supportable”. In the absence of reliable tropical data, says Dr David Rind, “we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got”. So unsupported claims: yes.
2) Hidden biases , Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever reminds us that “in pseudoscience you begin with a hypothesis which is very appealing to you, and then you only look for things which confirm the hypothesis”. Mann began with a hypothesis that the global temperature record had been pretty stable for 900 years and then in the 20th century it soared up and out the roof. And so he looked for “things which confirm the hypothesis”: As Mann put it, “one set of tree-ring records” was “of critical importance” in conjuring his stick .So his hypothesis that it looks like a hockey stick is confirmed only because a tree ring that produces a hockey-stick shape is given 390 times the weight of a tree ring that does not. That tells you nothing about what the temperature was in the 15th century, but a lot about Mann’s biases. He chose a statistical method that, as the US National Research Council noted rather primly, “tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions”. Furthermore, the scientists who actually collected the tree-ring data that Mann cannibalized insist they’re primarily an indicator of CO 2 fertilization, not temperature. At the IPCC level, he maintained his bias against anything that contradicted his hypothesis.
As Professor John Christy testified to Congress, Mann “misrepresented the temperature record of the past thousand years by
(a) promoting his own result as the best estimate,
(b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and
(c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data”. Hidden biases: yes.
3) Lack of reproducibility Is Mann’s work “reproducible”? They gave it a go in Berlin. “She came to the conclusion that she cannot reproduce his diagram,” says Professor Ulrich Cubasch. “The real problem in this case, in my view, is that Michael Mann does not disclose his data.” Except for a small trusted coterie, Mann declined for years to release the elements needed to reproduce his stick. In evidence before the House of Commons in London, Professor Darrel Ince noted Mann’s refusal to cough up his computer code, and said that he would “regard any papers based on the software as null and void”. His stick could be neither proved nor disproved and, as Professor Vincent Courtillot reminded European climatologists, if “it’s not falsifiable, it’s not science."
Lack of reproducibility: yup. So three strikes, he’s out. No, wait, that’s another sport entirely. For hockey, you need four.
4) Inadequate peer review “The hockey stick is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence,” wrote Oxford physicist Jonathan Jones. Nature never asked for any and, when it fell to others to demonstrate the flaws of the stick, the journal declined to share their findings with its readers. Mann and a few close allies controlled the fora that mattered, and banished any dissidents. “It’s a completely rigged peer-review system,” concluded CalTech’s Dr David Rutledge. Fourth strike. The unsupported claims, hidden biases, lack of reproducibility and inadequate peer review of Mann have surely harmed “public trust in science”. What follows is one scientist and his science, by those who know both the work and the man.
I know you just cut and paste but besides criticizing another person's work, what in there proves the hypothesis that human CO2 is not playing a significant role in current climactic change?
Hundreds and hundreds of papers by hundreds and hundreds of scientists have been published concluding that AGW as a real thing. Why should we ignore them just because one scientist isn't happy with Mann's analysis?
DR ROY SPENCER, PHD Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and US Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Recipient (with John Christy) of the Exceptional Scientific Achievement Award from NASA and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his work in satellite-based temperature monitoring. Formerly Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. So, if “we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got”, how did the IPCC know it’s hotter than it’s been for a thousand years?
On January 27th 2005 Dr Spencer wrote 126 : As you might imagine, it’s a little difficult to construct a temperature history for a period of record that, for the most part, had no reliable thermometer measurements. Since good thermometer measurements extend back to only around the mid-1800s, “proxy” measurements, primarily tree ring data, have been used to extend the temperature record back additional centuries… The claim of unprecedented warmth and the hockey stick shape appear to hinge on the treatment of one species of tree, the bristlecone pine, from North America in the 1400s. Further statistical tests showed that this critical signal in the early 15th century lacked statistical significance. This suggests that the results of Mann et al were simply which greatly exaggerated a characteristic of the bristlecone pines, which may or may not be related to global temperatures.
The original Mann et al article has had huge repercussions. The hockey stick, along with the “warmest in 1,000 years” argument, has become a central theme of debates over the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, in governments around the world. The question begging to be answered is: Why did the IPCC so quickly and uncritically accept the Mann et al hockey stick analysis when it first appeared? I cannot help but conclude that it’s because they wanted to believe it.
Dr Spencer pointed out what should have been obvious that the hockey stick had never been subjected to one of the most basic tests of science: Unusual claims in science should be met with unusual skepticism, and this did not happen with the Mann et al study.
An increasing number of researchers have anecdotal evidence that the science tabloids, Nature and Science , select reviewers of some manuscripts based upon whether they want those papers to be accepted or rejected. In other words, it seems like the conclusions of a paper are sometimes more important that the scientific basis for those conclusions. Since those periodicals have profit and popularity motives that normal scientific journals do not, maybe the time has come to downgrade the scientific weight of publications in those journals, at least for some purposes… It will be interesting to see if the IPCC, and its member countries, continue to rally around the hockey stick, or discard it.
So nothing then. Just another cut and paste which has a couple random quotes that do nothing to support a conclusion denying human CO2 as a significant factor.
You really don't understand the science, do you?
I suggest you read this chapter from the IPCC.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
This will clear up your misconceptions about 'extrapolation'.
You do not get it
As someone with a neutral position, I am not compelled to support one side or the other
Hot air?
Do you mean like insisting scientific consensus is the same as scientific method?
I believe the Spanish inquisition used the consensus of a tribunal to determine heresy , I also believe the result was absolute
Witch Dunking : Ordeal by water was associated with the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries. the consensus view was an accused who sank was considered innocent, while floating indicated witchcraft.
Really ????
Wave–particle duality
consensus opinion was that all things in the universe, including light, are composed of indivisible sub-components (light being some form of solar atom)
Then the theory was proposed that light is actually a particle, the consensus opinion for several hundred years was this theory was believed to true and absolute
Then someone proposed light behaved like a wave , rather than a particle. Many learned scientist including Newton continued to support particle theory.
A neutral position might be one which believes both the particle and wave theory without rejecting either.
As Albert Einstein wrote:[1]
Sounds like Albert found middle , neutral ground.
I believe the current consensus is generally supportive of Einsteins position,
however what is important is the understanding that you can not treat consensus as absolute, which you are attempting to do
Consensus’ is neither part of the scientific method nor a goal in science. It is a tool used by non-scientists searching for trends in the thinking among scientists. When used as a tool for understanding, it can be harmless. But when it's used to manufacture a false climate of authority, it can be very harmful indeed.
There is a whole lot wrong with you insisting that others opinions absolutely must be in agreement with you & your position is the only acceptable position
Again there are only three options and you are absolutely refusing to accept two of the options as they do not align with the consensus.
Even the witch had better odds if she could hold her breath long enough
No I understand science much better than you do
Your article is no doubt supportive of your argument
there are extrapolations and estimates in those findings and it is not absolute
You still have yet to address this
The consensus of opinion on this board is that you a liar and purposely make misleading statements
No need for scientific method to be pretty confident about that
And according to your logic you would need to agree with that consensus & according to you refuting that you are a lair is just unacceptable, as is saying nothing (neutral) as both those option go against the consensus
How is that gasoline calculation coming along?
I say you are incapable of understanding that high school level science
Lets have it & show your work
Who said I am ignoring anyone ?
Ignoring a position is quite different than not taking the same position
I do not ignore the scientists who propose conclusions which differ from the consensus
and what I certainly do not attempt is discredit scientists or attempt to create a false authority by claiming everyone must accept or everyone must reject the consensus.
Have you dunked any witches lately?
Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study
Abstract
We conducted a one-year longitudinal study in which 600 American adults regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures. Using latent class analyses, we uncovered three clusters of Americans with distinct climate belief trajectories: (1) the “Skeptical,” who believed least in climate change; (2) the “Cautiously Worried,” who had moderate beliefs in climate change; and (3) the “Highly Concerned,” who had the strongest beliefs and concern about climate change. Cluster membership predicted different outcomes: the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488
https://psmag.com/environment/mission-compostable
Do our behaviors really reflect our beliefs? New research suggests that, when it comes to climate change, the answer is no. And that goes for both skeptics and believers.
Participants in a year-long study who doubted the scientific consensus on the issue "opposed policy solutions," but at the same time, they "were most likely to report engaging in individual-level, pro-environmental behaviors," writes a research team led by University of Michigan psychologist Michael Hall.
Conversely, those who expressed the greatest belief in, and concern about, the warming environment "were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions."
Sorry, I didn't have time to recycle—I was busy watching a documentary about the crumbling Antarctic ice shelf.
The study, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, followed more than 400 Americans for a full year. On seven occasions—roughly once every eight weeks—participants revealed their climate change beliefs, and their level of support for policies such as gasoline taxes and fuel economy standards.
They also noted how frequently they engaged in four environmentally friendly behaviors: recycling, using public transportation, buying "green" products, and using reusable shopping bags.
The researchers found participants broke down into three groups, which they labeled "skeptical," "cautiously worried," and "highly concerned." While policy preferences of group members tracked with their beliefs, their behaviors largely did not: Skeptics reported using public transportation, buying eco-friendly products, and using reusable bags more often than those in the other two categories.
This pattern was found consistently through the year, leading the researchers to conclude that "belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior."
Hall and his colleagues can only speculate about the reasons for their results. But regarding the concerned but inactive, the psychological phenomenon known as moral licensing is a likely culprit.
Previous research has found doing something altruistic—even buying organic foods—gives us license to engage in selfish activity. We've "earned" points in our own mind. So if you've pledged some money to Greenpeace, you feel entitled to enjoying the convenience of a plastic bag.
Regarding climate change skeptics, remember that conservatism prizes individual action over collective efforts. So while they may assert disbelief in order to stave off coercive (in their view) actions by the government, many could take pride in doing what they can do on a personal basis.
The results suggest that "changing skeptical Americans' minds need not be a top priority for climate policymakers," at least if their goal is inspiring individual action. Perhaps the more urgent task is to focus on people who already grasp the problem, and get them to align their actions with their concern.
Abstract
We conducted a one-year longitudinal study in which 600 American adults regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures. Using latent class analyses, we uncovered three clusters of Americans with distinct climate belief trajectories: (1) the “Skeptical,” who believed least in climate change; (2) the “Cautiously Worried,” who had moderate beliefs in climate change; and (3) the “Highly Concerned,” who had the strongest beliefs and concern about climate change. Cluster membership predicted different outcomes: the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488
https://psmag.com/environment/mission-compostable
Do our behaviors really reflect our beliefs? New research suggests that, when it comes to climate change, the answer is no. And that goes for both skeptics and believers.
Participants in a year-long study who doubted the scientific consensus on the issue "opposed policy solutions," but at the same time, they "were most likely to report engaging in individual-level, pro-environmental behaviors," writes a research team led by University of Michigan psychologist Michael Hall.
Conversely, those who expressed the greatest belief in, and concern about, the warming environment "were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions."
Sorry, I didn't have time to recycle—I was busy watching a documentary about the crumbling Antarctic ice shelf.
The study, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, followed more than 400 Americans for a full year. On seven occasions—roughly once every eight weeks—participants revealed their climate change beliefs, and their level of support for policies such as gasoline taxes and fuel economy standards.
They also noted how frequently they engaged in four environmentally friendly behaviors: recycling, using public transportation, buying "green" products, and using reusable shopping bags.
The researchers found participants broke down into three groups, which they labeled "skeptical," "cautiously worried," and "highly concerned." While policy preferences of group members tracked with their beliefs, their behaviors largely did not: Skeptics reported using public transportation, buying eco-friendly products, and using reusable bags more often than those in the other two categories.
This pattern was found consistently through the year, leading the researchers to conclude that "belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior."
Hall and his colleagues can only speculate about the reasons for their results. But regarding the concerned but inactive, the psychological phenomenon known as moral licensing is a likely culprit.
Previous research has found doing something altruistic—even buying organic foods—gives us license to engage in selfish activity. We've "earned" points in our own mind. So if you've pledged some money to Greenpeace, you feel entitled to enjoying the convenience of a plastic bag.
Regarding climate change skeptics, remember that conservatism prizes individual action over collective efforts. So while they may assert disbelief in order to stave off coercive (in their view) actions by the government, many could take pride in doing what they can do on a personal basis.
The results suggest that "changing skeptical Americans' minds need not be a top priority for climate policymakers," at least if their goal is inspiring individual action. Perhaps the more urgent task is to focus on people who already grasp the problem, and get them to align their actions with their concern.
