Wall Street Journal: Cooling Down Fears of Climate Change

[Muhammed]

If people would set aside their confirmation bias, and take an honest look, they could see the truth.

"Mike's Nature trick" is an example of confirmation bias. The trick was to simply eliminate tree ring data that didn't go along with the hockey schtick storyline and heavily weight the data that did go along with the storyline.

When Michael Mann told another guy to get rid of the MWP in one of the climategate e-mails, that's an example confimation bias via intimidation.

When the IPCC draws conclusions first in it's summary for policymakers, then actively solicits research that supports their conclusions no matter how shoddy and uncertain that research is, that's an example of confirmation bias.

Seems to me that all the confirmation bias is coming from the global warming alarmists.

 

[Deuce]

"Mike's Nature trick" is an example of confirmation bias. The trick was to simply eliminate tree ring data that didn't go along with the hockey schtick storyline and heavily weight the data that did go along with the storyline.

When Michael Mann told another guy to get rid of the MWP in one of the climategate e-mails, that's an example confimation bias via intimidation.

When the IPCC draws conclusions first in it's summary for policymakers, then actively solicits research that supports their conclusions no matter how shoddy and uncertain that research is, that's an example of confirmation bias.

Seems to me that all the confirmation bias is coming from the global warming alarmists.

Well, I'll start off by pointing out that you have a gross misunderstanding of what "confirmation bias is."

Next, Mike's "Nature trick" wasn't eliminating tree ring data because he didn't like the results. It was eliminating the tree ring data that was known to be inaccurate. It's a widely discussed issue in the scientific publications, known as the "divergence problem." After 1960 or so, tree ring proxies stop tracking with the instrumental temperatures and show an apparent decline in temperatures that we know didn't happen. We know it didn't happen because the instrumental record tells us so.

Next, the MWP isn't gone. It's still there. The reason it semi-vanished is because this graph:

http://www.science-skeptical.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/lambh23.jpg

Is not a global temperature record. Hell, it's not even really a chart, there's no freaking scale on the Y-axis! This schematic came from tree-ring data, the very data skeptics claim is bad because of the previously-mentioned divergence problem. Except this chart comes almost entirely from one location in England, and is entirely in Northern Europe. When you expand the methodology to the entire northern hemisphere, you get the infamous hockey stick. (Now a hockey team, as multiple independent proxies have been measured and show a similar temperature trend) And it's not immediately obvious looking at this schematic, but that data actually ends in 1950. It doesn't include the most recent warming.

You've no evidence that the summary for policymakers is written first and then work is solicited.

 

[longview]

Next, Mike's "Nature trick" wasn't eliminating tree ring data because he didn't like the results. It was eliminating the tree ring data that was known to be inaccurate. It's a widely discussed issue in the scientific publications, known as the "divergence problem." After 1960 or so, tree ring proxies stop tracking with the instrumental temperatures and show an apparent decline in temperatures that we know didn't happen. We know it didn't happen because the instrumental record tells us so.

If the recent tree ring data was "known to be inaccurate" in reference to the instrument data,
ether something is wrong with the old tree ring data, or our instrument data.
Did tree rings suddenly change their behavior?

 

[LowDown]

Here's the problem, a non-scientist writing an op-ed about science.

A warming of 1.6 Degrees?

Well, to effect a change of just one degree takes about 100 Hiroshima size bombs.

With the recent swaying of public opinion in the wake of Sandy, more Americans now accept climate science, I bet we'll see a lot of these type of op-eds written by paid shills for the energy cos. They're very good at getting on TV and sounding all scientific when they mock legitimate science.

The one thing these shills are not good at. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals.

Well, of course you're going to insist on peer review. The alarmists control all the journal boards. It's like saying that a conservative's opinion isn't valid because The Nation magazine won't publish it.

 

[LowDown]

That is how science works. People publish their work and other scientists do a hatchet job on the poorly supported work.

Yeah, they invited 4 greenies to take shots at Lomborg and refused to let him respond. It suggests they didn't have confidence in their own arguments. Not very fair or collegial for a bunch who fancy themselves to be scientists.

 

[Deuce]

If the recent tree ring data was "known to be inaccurate" in reference to the instrument data,
ether something is wrong with the old tree ring data, or our instrument data.
Did tree rings suddenly change their behavior?

Keep in mind that trees don't measure temperature. Rather, we derive temperature from the thickness of tree rings. If something else changes that affects tree growth, it can throw off those measurements. It doesn't mean the older tree ring data is necessarily bad. It's a well-known, widely discussed issue in the field of paleoclimatology. The discussion is all over published research but somehow the bloggers are trying to convince you that this is some terrifying secret the scientists are trying to hide from you.

Publication, I'm sure you'll agree, is a terrible way to hide something.

Quite frankly, they don't really know why it happened, exactly. Theories exist, but nothing conclusive can be shown as a cause. Some think that beyond a certain threshold, trees suffer additional stress if moisture content hasn't increased to match, so growth can be stunted. (and evidence of stress on old forests does exist)

Hence the other proxies.

 

[Letusreason]

Well, of course you're going to insist on peer review. The alarmists control all the journal boards. It's like saying that a conservative's opinion isn't valid because The Nation magazine won't publish it.

Science is about observable data, not opinion. See the difference?

 

[Letusreason]

"Mike's Nature trick" is an example of confirmation bias. The trick was to simply eliminate tree ring data that didn't go along with the hockey schtick storyline and heavily weight the data that did go along with the storyline.

When Michael Mann told another guy to get rid of the MWP in one of the climategate e-mails, that's an example confimation bias via intimidation.

When the IPCC draws conclusions first in it's summary for policymakers, then actively solicits research that supports their conclusions no matter how shoddy and uncertain that research is, that's an example of confirmation bias.

Seems to me that all the confirmation bias is coming from the global warming alarmists.

A better example would be how you swallowed that line without making any effort to get the whole story.

 

[johnny_rebson]

I'll start believing in climate change when islands actually start going under water.

 

[Letusreason]

Yeah, they invited 4 greenies to take shots at Lomborg and refused to let him respond. It suggests they didn't have confidence in their own arguments. Not very fair or collegial for a bunch who fancy themselves to be scientists.

. There is a point where enough nonsense, is enough.

 

[Deuce]

I'll start believing in climate change when islands actually start going under water.

So you don't believe in ice ages either? Interesting. Haven't heard that one before.

 

[LowDown]

. There is a point where enough nonsense, is enough.

That's hardly a fair or scientific attitude. A true scientist takes all of the evidence into account. He does not shut his eyes to it just because he has a strong emotional reaction to it, which is exactly what the editors of the Scientific American did. Shame on them.

Regardless, their efforts to stifle Lomborg failed. He is now one of the most influential environmentalists in the world, especially when it comes to formulating government policies. Government leaders find his ideas to be far more practical and do-able that his those of his opponents, and his solutions are centered on improving the lot of his fellow human beings, unlike many other environmentalists. While many environmentalists are demanding impossible things like reducing carbon emissions by 80% world wide, Lomborg calls for things that can actually be done and are affordable.

 

[Letusreason]

That's hardly a fair or scientific attitude. A true scientist takes all of the evidence into account. He does not shut his eyes to it just because he has a strong emotional reaction to it, which is exactly what the editors of the Scientific American did. Shame on them.

Regardless, their efforts to stifle Lomborg failed. He is now one of the most influential environmentalists in the world, especially when it comes to formulating government policies. Government leaders find his ideas to be far more practical and do-able that his those of his opponents, and his solutions are centered on improving the lot of his fellow human beings, unlike many other environmentalists. While many environmentalists are demanding impossible things like reducing carbon emissions by 80% world wide, Lomborg calls for things that can actually be done and are affordable.

Yes, I'm sure he has influence. People love to be told what they want to hear.

 

[flogger]

Yes, I'm sure he has influence. People love to be told what they want to hear.

Yeah its a bit like the greenwash that says we must unburden the wealthy of thier ill gotten gains because they are killing the planet. There are plenty here only want to hear that :roll: