- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
*sigh
The unbelievable irony of climate change denialists talking about confirmation bias is nothing short of astounding.
Perhaps you would like to discuss the science then.
A tough thing to do with the scientifically challenged.
FYI, the article is fake. There is no Dr Azuela, no Positano Behavioral and Cognitive Research Unit, no Journal of Environmental and Economic Studies.
The author himself says so in the comments:
It was not my intention to embarrass anyone into accidentally revealing that they were fooled by this article. So, to help prevent a recurrence, may I make it clear that this article is a spoof. I wrote it so that readers may personally experience confirmation bias before being pointed in the direction of a scientific study on that subject (reference 2).
The Azuela paper (reference 1) does not exist. However, in the interests of authenticity, I strove to ensure that the neurological references were sound. For example, curiosity does indeed modulate the activation of memory-related brain centres, as listed. Furthermore, psychopathy is indeed characterised by aberrant activity within the centres listed. The rest was just my wicked deceit.
(Emphasis added)
A tough thing to do with the scientifically challenged.
Tho I imagine there is something to all this, isn’t an easier explanation of skeptics views that they lean right politically and as such don’t like government regulation of business that human caused climate change might require? Of course scientists will disagree honestly on facts and analysis, but the public debate is pretty openly political. Examining the neurobiology of conservatives/liberals
might be more useful.
FYI, the article is fake. There is no Dr Azuela, no Positano Behavioral and Cognitive Research Unit, no Journal of Environmental and Economic Studies.
The author himself says so in the comments:
It was not my intention to embarrass anyone into accidentally revealing that they were fooled by this article. So, to help prevent a recurrence, may I make it clear that this article is a spoof. I wrote it so that readers may personally experience confirmation bias before being pointed in the direction of a scientific study on that subject (reference 2).
The Azuela paper (reference 1) does not exist. However, in the interests of authenticity, I strove to ensure that the neurological references were sound. For example, curiosity does indeed modulate the activation of memory-related brain centres, as listed. Furthermore, psychopathy is indeed characterised by aberrant activity within the centres listed. The rest was just my wicked deceit.
(Emphasis added)
Tho I imagine there is something to all this, isn’t an easier explanation of skeptics views that they lean right politically and as such don’t like government regulation of business that human caused climate change might require? Of course scientists will disagree honestly on facts and analysis, but the public debate is pretty openly political. Examining the neurobiology of conservatives/liberals
might be more useful.
Tho I imagine there is something to all this, isn’t an easier explanation of skeptics views that they lean right politically and as such don’t like government regulation of business that human caused climate change might require? Of course scientists will disagree honestly on facts and analysis, but the public debate is pretty openly political. Examining the neurobiology of conservatives/liberals
might be more useful.
*sigh
The unbelievable irony of climate change denialists talking about confirmation bias is nothing short of astounding.
LOL...
the responses of the warmers were that of confirmation bias...
Most hilarious response was #6. Missed the point entirely.
I am a liberal/social democrat.
And a Skeptic.
The joke seems to have backfired somewhat, given that the only people who appear to have been fooled by the spoof article are a few fellow climate deniers whose outraged comments appear below it! :lamo
It's almost as funny as the time you cited an article by the wrong Svensmark (thus confirming your complete ignorance of the science), but nowhere near as funny as the time when Tim confused the rainfall figures for Greenland, Michigan with those for Greenland, the continent :lol:
The two most important skeptics, IMHO, are both Euro-style Social Democrats.
Nir Shaviv (Israel)
Henrik Svensmark (Denmark)
I am an Independent, how did that help you?
:2wave:
This is a foolish post. #6 is the laughable work of an AGW true believer.
I cited the Svensmark I wanted to cite. Your failure to understand the point only exposed your own shallowness.
And now we have a wonderful parody. Enjoy.
Great... But generally they have a reflexively sympathetic audience among conservatives for the reasons I mentioned.
#6 was simply pointing out that the spoof is, indeed, a spoof. How is that funny?
What is actually funny is the bleating of climate change deniers who thought it was a real article!
As the saying goes, "no generalization is worth a damn, even this one." You're not a unicorn, but my generalization is generally true, to judge by conservatives in Congress, conservative talk shows, et al.
I am an Independent, how did that help you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?