Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#cite_note-1 - - [Note 1] ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#cite_note-plous233-2 - - [1]} People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias - - attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation -

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking - - overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making -

Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 12:20pm

There was a program on a couple of months back, conspiracy road trip I think, on about the 7/7 London bombings.

One guy on there simply could not believe that the London bus could have been blown apart the way it was by anything other that military explosives.

An explosives expert (seen him on many things, bit of an ecentric genius) put together a 'replica' of the bomb thought to have been used, made with commonly availble ingredients and packaged in a small box easily transportable in a rucksack.

They placed it in the seat the bomber was supposedly seated in, put the bus in a evacuated quary and watched from a safe distance as it was detonated.

The look on the conspiracy 'expert's face was classic. The bus was blown apart, eerily replicating the pictures of the actual London bus from 7/7 in its devastation.

"So, do you believe that it must have been military explosives now"...

"....ummm, no"

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 2:39pm

I missed that one, sounds interesting.

It's surprising to some how explosives work.

Hitler's bunker for example. The bunker he was supposed to be in had no windows. The explosion would have killed everyone in the room. Fortuitously for Hitler, the meeting was rescheduled and took place in a bunker with windows. The resulting explosion blew out the windows, and the pressure from the explosion was reduced markedly, thus, Hitler survived.

Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 6:22pm

OK, you want to debate the man...

If you wish to visit websites set up by discredited organisations, and run by TV weather men, and believe what you read, go ahead.

You mean like the IPCC with its UNVERIFIED reports from biased organizations like the WWF? So much for peer review! Mann with his discredited "hockey stick", the UEA with its tampered data, Met Office data that is backed by data and techniques no-one understands, the major loss of original source data by Met Office, UEA, NOAA, etc. etc. etc..

Your comments are ironic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

PUBLISHED: 22:42, 13 October 2012 | UPDATED: 14:59, 16 October 2012

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Who is right? The guy who was found to be tampering with data and thinks computer models are infallible, or the woman who is "anti MMGW" who clearly (and correctly) states that computer models are flawed?

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

Despite this, you seem to think he is "credible"!!!!!!!!

As Prof. Jones proves, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nail. Because he doesn't understand (BY HIS OWN ADMISSION) about the effect of the Sun and the oceans on climate, THEN HIS ONLY CONCLUSION CAN BE MANS ACTIVITIES, BECAUSE IT IS ALL HE CAN USE. He therefore has INCOMPLETE models, and is drawing wholly incorrect conclusions as a direct consequence.

It is 4th Grade science that with incomplete data, you get an incomplete picture, and any attempt to draw conclusions in the face of KNOWING you lack additional information is outright FRAUDULENT given the burden levied upon any conclusions derived from it.

In short - NO-ONE HAS A FREAKING CLUE! Looking at the basic standards they hold in their scientific research (data manipulation without recording how, loss of source data, etc..) they likely only studied climate science because it was all they were good for. Playing with computer models all day long and not actually ever doing any serious scientific research because their basic standards are TOO LOW.

If these people were doctors, they'd have been struck off/imprisoned for GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Posted By: hifly
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 6:32pm

From snow to Hitler in a blizzard of rhetoric.

It has been said that the Allies didn't want Hitler dead as he countermanding his Generals advice and making military blunders that benefited the Allies.

Discuss...

-------------
Must Fly!

Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 6:32pm

The fact you keep derailing the thread demonstrates you can't begin to argue the points. If you could, I'm sure you would.

Vulcan.

Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 6:48pm

The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.

Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.

CO2/climate change is only dangerous to the extent they want you to pay more in taxes, but it seems even they are not stupid enough to let their "facts" get in the way of keeping the country running.

The power stations of which they speak are GAS FIRED, not nuclear.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20608948 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20608948

Chancellor George Osborne has approved the building of over 30 new gas-fired power stations to replace the UK's ageing coal, nuclear and gas stations.

The new capacity could produce up to 26 gigawatts (GW) of electricity by 2030, a net increase of 5GW.

The plans will dismay environmentalists who want more emphasis placed on lower-carbon, renewable energy sources.

The best part? They will run on SHALE GAS, apparently the most CO2-creating fuel during production.

"Do as I say, not as I do". aka HYPOCRISY. If they are prepared to risk Armageddon (

) for the sake of energy production, then it suggests they might just be lying about the future impacts.

Again, we can't escape the fact we run out of oil soon, and need alternatives if we are not to return the 1850s in a few decades.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 7:18pm

Oh my, Vulcan's at it again. revisiting all we have argued about before.

A search would provide all the counter arguments necessary, but when I'm on my PC, rather than an iPad, I will go to all the trouble again.

PS, please stop claiming Phil Jones was discredited, we all know he wasn't, in fact SEVERAL investigations, in several countries all exonerated him of any wrongdoing.

And please cease with the data tampering garbage. You have been told countless times how tree ring data is inaccurate in regard to high latitudes, and how this MUST be corrected for.

And oh yes, the Daily Fail, what can I say. 15 year or so pauses in warming are expected. Have we forgotten what climate is again? Confusing it with weather again? Have we forgotten what "long term" means again.

I'll be back...

Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 7:22pm

Here is a scientific run-through of some of the trash the IPCC talk.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/07/15/why-hasnt-the-earth-warmed-in-nearly-15-years/ - http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/07/15/why-hasnt-the-earth-warmed-in-nearly-15-years/

Before you write this guy off, he's qualifications include:

I have a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Even in your book that makes him qualified to speak.

The opposite is occurring. Why this test was not performed eludes me. Perhaps that is because it provides yet another piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that we have simply overstated the sensitivity of surface temperature to changes in carbon dioxide.

No doubt you'll still try and suggest I only read biased, unqualified individuals.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 7:35pm

Why I waste my time with this is beyond me but anyway...

Read these two articles:

http://profeng.com/climate-and-energy/no-evidence-of-global-warming - http://profeng.com/climate-and-energy/no-evidence-of-global-warming

http://profeng.com/climate-and-energy/climate-change-is-happening - http://profeng.com/climate-and-energy/climate-change-is-happening

The most striking difference is in the tone.

The "anti-MMGW" is in fact quite calm and questioning, and open to possibility.

The "pro-MMGW" article is positively alarmist, and certain in its ideas.

The "pro-MMGW" regurgitates the same crap about how we must stop MAN MADE emissions of CO2 or face certain death, when in fact historical records fly in the face of such claims (in the past it has been both warmer and had much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, yet look at the state of things today). Best of all man was not anywhere in sight in the past, either.

Just something for you to think about when you sit there saying how "climate deniers" are non-thinking baboons.

Only one thing is certain in science: NOTHING IS CERTAIN. We can only make best-guesses.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Posted By: MarkH
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 8:15pm

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 8:36pm

Nice one Mark

Tell you what, im going to have real fun tomorrow I can see some of the most stupid things Vulcan has ever said there

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 8:55pm

Here we go, in regard to Vulcan's Daily Fail article took me a few seconds, typical Daily Fail...

The Daily Mail piece seems to have "cherry picked" a high point of warming in 1997, and a relative low point in 2012 to get a "level" temperature trend.

Here's is the Daily Mail "proof" graph below. As an example of cherry picking, the black lines are my additions selecting other data points along the graph that can be chosen had somebody wanted to misleadingly suggest the strong warming between 2000 and 2012 is the best trend, or the relative cooling between 1997 and 2007.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/assets_c/2012/10/130%20DM%20trends2.shtml">
Source: Daily Mail (My lines in black)

Both of my starting and ending points (black lines) would be misleading and draw inaccurate conclusions for the reader about global temperature trends in the next few years.

It's very dangerous, misleading, and scientifically dishonest to pick any one 16 year period and make inferences about where long term climate trends are headed.

3) The Daily Mail piece misses the point and the effects of current climate.

Even if you accept the (scientifically rejected) notion that a leveling of global temperature in the past 16 years will continue for the next several decades, the fact that we've observed the hottest 10 years in the global temperature record is troubling.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/assets_c/2012/10/126%2010%20hottest%20years.shtml">
Source: NOAA via John Abraham - University of St. Thomas

To suggest that a leveling of temperatures at current levels somehow diminishes threats posed by a warmer climate that holds more water vapor is absurd, incomplete, and journalistically irresponsible.

The last month globally cooler than the 20th century average was February 1985! Ask yourself this question: In a climate system where you would expect a roughly equal number of warmer and cooler than average months, how can the system be considered "normal" when we haven't recorded even one month cooler than average in 27 years?

It's sad and even dangerous that we live in an era where you have to vet news outlets and determine if they report science from a predisposed political bias. The Daily Mail piece is not peer reviewed science. It's one guy trying to create smoke where there's no fire.

When 97% of all accredited climate scientists agree on the basic facts of climate change and the human component, keep one eye open when journalists that work for tabloid newspapers do stories that claim to make "scientific" conclusions.

When a consensus of actual climate scientists say that global climate has stopped warming, I'll be the first to publish it in this space.

There you go.

Here's a http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html -

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 9:17pm

VulcanB2 wrote:

Here is a scientific run-through of some of the trash the IPCC talk.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/07/15/why-hasnt-the-earth-warmed-in-nearly-15-years/ - http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/07/15/why-hasnt-the-earth-warmed-in-nearly-15-years/

Before you write this guy off, he's qualifications include:

I have a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Even in your book that makes him qualified to speak.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Ha ha, you played right into my hands there.

A bit about Patrick Michaels. He's one of the most famous of all climate change deniers. It's not as if he believed and then suddenly changed his mind, he's always denied climate change.

He's done Knaff all in terms of climate change research for years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Science_and_Technology_Policy - - John Holdren ,^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels#cite_note-10 - - [10]} told the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate - He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels#cite_note-11 -}

Michaels' statements on the subject of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model - are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation … Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels#cite_note-14 - - [14]}

And once again of course, another example of confirmation bias, you gravitate once again toward a known climate change denier.

One of the most famous this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 4:49am

Ha ha, you played right into my hands there.

I don't care. Given that he is indeed one of the most famous deniers, it didn't cross your mind I might have chosen him on purpose? See... yet another example of you failing to think about what I actually write, instead taking it at face-value and completely missing the point. Maybe I'm being too subtle?

What I do care about however is that you still have not read the paper that analyzed the temperature records used by the IPCC (that would be REAL science, BTW. You know, research, analysis, questioning investigations, asking "is this wrong", etc.. - something the pro camp never do).

We can dance all day - but the point is you are avoiding the topic.

The one in denial here is you. You took the MMGW scam hook line and sinker, and can't accept that you've been conned (as has most of the world). OIL is what it is about, and getting beyond 2050 without a visit back to the dark ages when we no longer have electricity.

The Government bought their own trash to the point they are closing perfectly serviceable coal fired power stations. Thanks to Fukushima the nuclear industry was rocked and nearly led to the collapse of the next gen of nuclear power (unfortunately not quite, though Germany banned it at least).

China expands so much that one years expansion exceeds the entire annual CO2 output of the UK, so the maths of CO2 targets is a joke to start with! Somehow though you seem to think the numbers stack up (which they don't).

You read journals that are biased towards the pro-MMGW, then accuse me of being biased. The sad thing is you can't see it.

Your mind is so closed, you won't even read articles that question the current state of things that are counter to your position. I don't need to research the pro side that much as it is shoved in my face daily through the press. The other side of the argument however is not, not least, because it does not tow the party line.

I don't think I need to remind you that it was only the late 70s they were fearing an ice-age. It's all very well to say "they got it wrong", "they know better now", but in 20 years we will say the same of this, too.

Just remember how they sacked Professor David Nutt because he said drugs were less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. It didn't fit with the party line, so they got rid of him, yet his science and research were solid, and empirical evidence supports his argument. The exact same thing is happening with MMGW. It's "not cool" to question the MMGW Gods.

Galileo said the Earth was not the center of the Universe, so they threw him in jail as a heretic.

Right now they say man's emissions of CO2 are wholly to blame for any warming, and future disaster, which is absurd, but anyone who says "prove it", or dares to question it, is simply laughed at.

Well.... the joke is on you.

Vulcan.

Posted By: MarkH
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 6:48am

Well, well. Vulcan finally falls back to type. I wrote this back in April but this seems more apt than ever now, especially the last bit.

You seem to ignore logic and scientific methodology in specific fields of research because it fails to support your own beliefs. You work backwards. You have a personal belief on a given topic, and then, if the evidence fails to support your point of view, you collect together little facts, usually taken out of context, to reinforce any picture you wish to build. Rather than digging deeply and putting each fact into it's proper perspective in order for a more consistent and reliable picture to emerge. Any evidence that disagrees with you is ignored, even going as far as falling back to the last bastion of the denialist, "It's all a conspiracy!"

Sorry, just an observation.

Now if I read this right, you say the powers that be are blaming global warming on human CO2 emissions so we use less oil, but they forgot it was a lie and are now going to accidentally shut down coal fired power stations by mistake. You used poor examples in this 'debate' on purpose to wake us all up to the fact that we are being brainwashed by a media that is working to a secret agenda put in place by the 'MMGW Gods', and you don't research their lies too much as a way to shield yourself from their misinformation techniques. Then you compare your trail blazing comprehension to that of Galileo?

As you say Vulcan, I certainly do believe the 'jokes on us'.

Regards,
Mark.

Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 12:37pm

VulcanB2 wrote:

Maybe I'm being too subtle?

, subliminally so...

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 2:09pm

Well said Mark.

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 2:22pm

My daughter has just made me a rather nice hot chocolate. When I read that above I splattered it all over my keyboard. You must be kidding!!! Chosen him on purpose indeed, no one on the forum is dumb enough to believe that. You got it wrong... again!

You read journals that are biased towards the pro-MMGW, then accuse me of being biased. The sad thing is you can't see it.

Your mind is so closed, you won't even read articles that question the current state of things that are counter to your position. I don't need to research the pro side that much as it is shoved in my face daily through the press. The other side of the argument however is not, not least, because it does not tow the party line.

Utterly wrong, as usual. I have been reading what both the denialists and the experts have been saying regarding this, since way back before this became your new conspiracy theory. Since you were a little nipper. I listen to both sides and reject the opinion that doesn't make any sense, the opinion that lacks logic.

Notice the bit in your quote I highlighted in red? There you go, that says it all. You have admitted that you don't listen to the pro side, that your knowledge of the pro side [the scientific argument] is based primarily on "what the press say". No wonder you get it so wrong, if you only study what journalists say, and don't bother to study the science.

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 2:46pm

Galileo said the Earth was not the centre of the Universe, so they threw him in jail as a heretic.

Oh... My... God!

I don't believe you have latched on to that old cliché

1. Galileo was "primarily" up against the church, religious dogma. The church put him under house arrest, not what could be described as the scientific community of the day.

2. That was 400 years ago, science has moved on. The scientific method is more advanced. It would be ridiculous to assume otherwise.

Don't forget, Galileo played a major role in the "scientific revolution" It was the turning point, the dawn of the scientific method in terms of astronomical observation, that we take for granted today. Quite understandable that the other philosophers and scientists of the time were likely to "get it wrong".

They didn't call Galileo "the father of modern astronomical observation" for nothing.

3. Yes, it is possible for one man to be right and a huge consensus to be wrong, especially in Galileo's day, but today such an occurence is very rare. Especially, in regard to climate change, where there is such a big consensus...

13,950 pier reviewed papers. 24 disagree with MMGW.

Right now they say man's emissions of CO2 are wholly to blame for any warming,and future disaster, which is absurd, but anyone who says "prove it", or dares to question it, is simply laughed at.

No, people like you are laughed at because you ignore the responses of others and don't offer a counter argument. You then keep returning and trolling the forum with the same bogus claims. It's like a ground hog day for a troll.

What we do know, is that our emissions are in step with temperature rise since the industrial revolution. And don't you dare say the hockey stick graph is discredited, it isn't. It was criticised by sceptics yes, but not discredited. In fact, as you have been told countless times, there is now an entire hockey team of graphs, based on different temperature data. But they all suggest the same warming. In short, the hockey stick graph has been repeated, and replicated by many other studies.

But, as usual you will ignore this and come back in a couple of months and regurgitate.

Now, unless you are prepared to debate properly, and offer proper counter arguments to our responses, please go and do something that would be more productive.

Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2013 at 7:11pm

What we do know, is that our emissions are in step with temperature rise since the industrial revolution.

"Correlation does not indicate causation". A common mistake. It does not explain the lack of warming the last 16 years, and to say the last 16 years is "too short" makes a mockery of the temperature records that only go back 100 years or so (16 years of 100 represents 16% of the data set - no mere rounding error).

Do you remember I created a graph of the temperature records available from the Met Office? I plotted the data sets and various running averages. It was clear there was a slowdown in the warming trend towards the end of the 90s, then my decadal running average actually went negative in the 2000's up to 2007 IIRC. It was plotted against CO2 records. The second order CO2 rise was increasing (meaning the rate of change was increasing) at the same time as the running average temperature started to plateau then decrease slightly.

How do you explain that? I seem to recall you wrote it off as "too short" or "weather".

Well here we are some 3 or 4 years later, and the picture hasn't changed yet - still on a slight down slope. Explain please. I'm waiting.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Posted By: MarkH
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2013 at 7:49pm

NO NEED.

'It does not explain the lack of warming the last 16 years.'

Your argument is now hinging on conspiracy theories and tabloid science.

Do you actually read anything anyone writes in response to your drivel?

Martin explained this earlier, but as you have admitted already, you don't read any of it so their is probably no point in posting these links -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk - Last 16 years video A nice little video to cut through some lies.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/ - Last '16 years' story shown to have used cherry picked data Here you go Vulcan, the explanation you where asking for, not that you will read/believe it.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/3088.aspx - Rose debunked David Rose, the author of the 'article' is shown up for what he really is. He told 'porky pies' SHOCK.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/15/fox-falls-for-tabloid-science/190630 - Fox News slammed for regurgitating the Daily Mail article Says it all really. "Never let facts get in the way of a good story".

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html - Phil Plait's response Well worth a read.

"The difficulties in debunking blatant antireality are legion. You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds, but it takes much longer to show why it’s wrong and how things really are. This is coupled with how sticky bunk can be. Once uttered, it’s out there, bootstrapping its own reality, getting repeated by the usual suspects."

"So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored c***. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in science journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science." Phil Plait Ph D. Astronomer and ex NASA. Nice one Phil

Regards,
Mark.

Posted By: patrico
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2013 at 9:04pm

while some people like the snow, spare a thought for me in a wheelchair I need snow chains. Last week and every year it snows, I am trapped indoors until the snow melts off my ramp (3-5 days)

-------------
Many Thanks

Patrick

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2013 at 10:28am

mark.hudson6 wrote:

NO NEED.

'It does not explain the lack of warming the last 16 years.'

Your argument is now hinging on conspiracy theories and tabloid science.

Do you actually read anything anyone writes in response to your drivel?

Regards,
Mark.

Mark, what can I say. Superb response, eloquent and succinct.

Why is it that you and I can debunk this ridiculous 16 year warming claim, definitively, in a few minutes... but Vulcan can't.

Stand by for Vulcan to ignore this as well. He probably won't even watch the videos.

Once again, there will be no counter argument from Vulcan. He will simply ignore it, pretend it hasn't happened.

The second sentence of my first post is becoming very apt, don't you think?

It's a pain to keep repeating this stuff, but what we have done is perhaps prevent those who are undecided on the issue, from being influenced by Vulcan's propaganda. It makes me smile that he's obsessed with conspiracy, but simultaneously falls for the corporate sponsored, politically motivated, denialist garbage.

Vulcan has fallen for it hook line and sinker.

Worth posting this again...

There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored c***.

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2013 at 10:35am

patrico wrote:

while some people like the snow, spare a thought for me in a wheelchair I need snow chains. Last week and every year it snows, I am trapped indoors until the snow melts off my ramp (3-5 days)

Must be really difficult Paddy. It's bad enough for me with my back injury. Worries me that I may fall and aggravate my back.

Good news is that the snow is now gone in the midlands, reasonably warm and sunny too.

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2013 at 11:18am

I just had to post this...

Vulcan wrote:

Who is right? The guy who was found to be tampering with data and thinks computer models are infallible, or the woman who is "anti MMGW" who clearly (and correctly) states that computer models are flawed?

Scientist Quoted In Daily Mail Article Said Article Misrepresented Her Views. Judith Curry, a climate scientist who frequently criticizes the IPCC, was quoted by the Daily Mail as saying that models used to predict future climate change are "deeply flawed." She responded on her website that she did not tell the Daily Mail reporter Rose that the new data showed the models are "deeply flawed" and that she "agree[s] that 16 years is too short" a period to measure whether climate change is occurring:

But of course, Vulcan rarely reads what the scientists say, he prefers the Daily Fail.

Posted By: hifly
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2013 at 3:30pm

The bottom line to all of the above is the question of the motivation for supporters of each side of the broader climate change argument.

The scientists who have brought climate change to our attention will get kudos, funding (perhaps) and the satisfaction that they could be saving the planet.

The deniers, whoever they are, what is their motivation? Could it be that the producers of fossil fuels are behind this with banks and goverments quietly backing them up?

Now call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but with melting ice caps and glaciers I know which side of the fence I'm on.

The irony is, if we drive our cars and heat our homes using fossil fuels then we are all complicit.

-------------
Must Fly!

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 28 Jan 2013 at 10:05am

hifly wrote:

Could it be that the producers of fossil fuels are behind this with banks and governments quietly backing them up?

You bet, check out the infamous Heartland Institute, or the role Exon Mobil has played in regard to promoting the anti scientific deniers. And Koch industries. Aptly named.

And not forgetting the right wing organisations, the politicians in the US for example, with big bucks to protect.

ExxonMobil has also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming. During the Bush Administration, they recommended the appointment of key personnel and also funded climate change deniers in Congress.

http://www.examiner.com/article/exxonmobil-climate-change-deniers-and-global-warming-follow-the-money - http://www.examiner.com/article/exxonmobil-climate-change-deniers-and-global-warming-follow-the-money

ExxonMobil spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to 43 advocacy groups that confuse the public on global warming science. They gave the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute - - Koch Foundation , a charity of the Koch Industries, an oil and gas conglomerate.

ExxonMobil also funds the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Sherwood B. Idso, the organization’s president, has co-authored 67 papers, and Patrick Michaels has co-authored 28 papers denying the data on climate change.

In 2008 ExxonMobil pledged to quit funding climate change deniers, however they are still influential in climate change denial through their funding of several organizations. They also pay for opinion advertorials on the New York Times opinion pages.

Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 5:13pm

There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored c***.

You've gone and missed what I wrote on page 1 of this thread. I'll quote it YET AGAIN.

Let me re-state for the millionth time.

I do *NOT* dispute WARMING is occurring. WE ARE STILL LEAVING THE LAST ICE AGE.

That is not in dispute.

What I dispute is this:

THE CAUSE!

i.e. everything MMGW/Climate Change says that CO2 is the CAUSE, and worse, all warming since the 40s is due to man!

The scientists from the British Antarctic Survey doing the ground work say CO2 rise LAGS temperature. Ice cores show the same thing. Long-term historic analysis shows the same thing.

Why do they keep perpetuating lies?

Did you read that?

Yes, I read your links, too. If you average the 16 years data, why is it slightly negative if it is supposed to be warming on average?

I hope the question is simple enough for you to:

a) answer

b) realize I'm not trying to avoid the point.

There is no cherry picking of data. I see that no-one is arguing the basic data, but merely the representation of it. The data is in front of you, so answer the question please and stop side-tracking with false arguments about how I don't read replies.

I'll put the question in large print, as you obviously have bad eye-sight:

If you average the 16 years data, why is it slightly negative if it is supposed to be warming on average?

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 5:40pm

Tell you what I'll be back in 4 years (if this forum still exists then). Let's see what happens...

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Posted By: MarkH
Date Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 6:08pm

Erm... Vulcan, let me try and sum up your question and get this straight.

"Let me re-state for the millionth time. I do *NOT* dispute WARMING is occurring."

And yet in the same post -

"If you average the 16 years data, why is it slightly negative"

So you are asking why global warming and global cooling is occurring at the same time?

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

"Yes, I read your links"

I would suggest you started reading your own.

I can no longer refer to you as Vulcan, their is no logic in your responses. I can only conclude that you have recently mind-melded with a gerbil.

Regards,
Mark.

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2013 at 9:59am

Vulcan has put his foot in it again.

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2013 at 10:04am

There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored c***.

You've gone and missed what I wrote on page 1 of this thread. I'll quote it YET AGAIN.

Vulcan... there is no controversy, and not just in terms of "the planet is warming", but no controversy in terms of "we are the cause of a significant percentage of the warming".

So no need for you to post your response.

WE ARE STILL LEAVING THE LAST ICE AGE.

I've responded to that claim a thousand times on the forum. Is your selective memory a conspiracy theorists favourite tool?

The oposite, entering a new ice age, right now:

Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. But the warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors.

http://iceagenow.info/2012/11/%E2%80%9Cwe-entering-ice-age-now%E2%80%9D-swedish-professor/ - http://iceagenow.info/2012/11/%E2%80%9Cwe-entering-ice-age-now%E2%80%9D-swedish-professor/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm - http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

Conversely, if we are still warming:

Strictly speaking we are still in an ice age, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. But any warming that may or may not be taking place would be imperceptibly small, it would be on a geological time scale. Nothing like the rapid rise in temperature we have seen since the industrial revolution, that's in step with OUR EMISSIONS.

And don't you dare criticise the hockey stick.

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2013 at 10:10am

The scientists from the British Antarctic Survey doing the ground work say CO2 rise LAGS temperature. Ice cores show the same thing. Long-term historic analysis shows the same thing.

Why do they keep perpetuating lies?

No lies, just you not bothering to ask those that know, the scientists. Instead you refer to climate change denier web sites, and as you admit, rarely read what the scientists say, because you get all you need from the telly.

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html -

The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic.

This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans.

This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.

The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm - http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2013 at 10:47am

VulcanB2 wrote:

Tell you what I'll be back in 4 years (if this forum still exists then). Let's see what happens...

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Nothing, it's too short term for MMGW to be significantly worse.

Good grief. We really do waste our time.

Print Page | Close Window