• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let’s think about cognitive bias

It links to this:

How scientists fool themselves and how they can stop

Reproducibility_graphic2.jpeg
 
Lord-if y0ou ever meet a warmist that will even admit to the POSSIBILTY of cognitive bias, let me know.

AGW is all dispassionate observers of the facts. Not a one of them has an Obama/Biden bumper sticker.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It links to this:

How scientists fool themselves and how they can stop

Reproducibility_graphic2.jpeg
Click to expand...

This has been suggested forever. It was the central theme of Michael Crichton's critique of climate science in his 2005 lecture "Aliens cause Global Warming" (pdf).

The counter argument that Crichton wasn't a climate scientist so he doesn't know what he is talking about should tell you all you need to know of the warmist movement. They seem to think that the basic rules of scientific discovery don't apply to them.
 
jmotivator said:
This has been suggested forever. It was the central theme of Michael Crichton's critique of climate science in his 2005 lecture "Aliens cause Global Warming" (pdf).

The counter argument that Crichton wasn't a climate scientist so he doesn't know what he is talking about should tell you all you need to know of the warmist movement. They seem to think that the basic rules of scientific discovery don't apply to them.
Click to expand...

That's why this applies:

 
KLATTU said:
Lord-if y0ou ever meet a warmist that will even admit to the POSSIBILTY of cognitive bias, let me know.

AGW is all dispassionate observers of the facts. Not a one of them has an Obama/Biden bumper sticker.
Click to expand...

Cognitive Bias is absolutely a possibility. But, with that said, cognitive bias is one of several criticisms lodged against (and by) climatologists. The overwhelming majority of them stand by their support for the theory after these criticisms have been made and analyzed independently.

As such, I still support the theory.
 
MrT said:
Cognitive Bias is absolutely a possibility. But, with that said, cognitive bias is one of several criticisms lodged against (and by) climatologists. The overwhelming majority of them stand by their support for the theory after these criticisms have been made and analyzed independently.

As such, I still support the theory.
Click to expand...
The danger is calling the concept known as AGW a theory, it that it lacks
the key requirement of a scientific theory, falsifiability.
https://explorable.com/falsifiability
Falsifiability - RationalWiki
The vast range of the prediction, 1.5 to 4.5 C, for a doubling of CO2,
is so large as to be inclusive of practically any outcome except actual cooling.
The range may look small, but consider it is an amplification of the warming from doubling the CO2
level.
The direct response warming from doubling the CO2 level is placed by the IPCC at 1.2 C,
So to hit the limits of the range would require a gain factor of between .25 X, to 2.75 X.
(1.2 *.25=.3, 1.2+.3=1.5), (1.2 *2.75=3.3, 1.2+3.3=4.5).
That is a factor of 11 times, between the minimum and maximum levels.
So it is quite easy for anyone with any science background at all to agree with
say Nasa's comment on consensus.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.
Click to expand...
Which could include anything from, "Yep, CO2 is a greenhouse gas" to "OMG we are all going to die!"
 
MrT said:
Cognitive Bias is absolutely a possibility. But, with that said, cognitive bias is one of several criticisms lodged against (and by) climatologists. The overwhelming majority of them stand by their support for the theory after these criticisms have been made and analyzed independently.

As such, I still support the theory.
Click to expand...

Of course you do.
 

[h=1]Scientific Urban Legends[/h] Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach. I have a category that I call “scientific urban legends”. These include things like the idea that rising seas will drown atolls, when Darwin showed 150 years ago that rising seas create atolls. Another scientific urban legend is the claim that we’re in the middle of the “Sixth Wave of…
 
KLATTU said:
Lord-if y0ou ever meet a warmist that will even admit to the POSSIBILTY of cognitive bias, let me know.

AGW is all dispassionate observers of the facts. Not a one of them has an Obama/Biden bumper sticker.
Click to expand...
That's what always made me leery of AGW advocacy, the language use. This is independent of the science which, despite claims, is always more nuanced for complex chaotic systems than bumper stickers convey. Opponents of AGW are labeled "deniers". This smacks of middle age church dogma enforcement and while no one is being water-boarded until they convert, the verbal analogue of ostricization and dismissal is often employed.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
That's what always made me leery of AGW advocacy, the language use. This is independent of the science which, despite claims, is always more nuanced for complex chaotic systems than bumper stickers convey. Opponents of AGW are labeled "deniers". This smacks of middle age church dogma enforcement and while no one is being water-boarded until they convert, the verbal analogue of ostricization and dismissal is often employed.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that if you believe the language used by AGW advocacy is too dogmatic, then you are either selectively remembering or being very selective about your sources. The strongest proponents of AGW are the climatologists and other relevant experts in the fields and they are also the ones who are most hesitant to, for example, make hard predictions or to make statements of causal link between specific extreme weather events and global warming. Dogmatic statements do not usually play well in the scientific community.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
That's what always made me leery of AGW advocacy, the language use. This is independent of the science which, despite claims, is always more nuanced for complex chaotic systems than bumper stickers convey. Opponents of AGW are labeled "deniers". This smacks of middle age church dogma enforcement and while no one is being water-boarded until they convert, the verbal analogue of ostricization and dismissal is often employed.
Click to expand...

Yep.

they are the used car salesmen of science.
 
MrT said:
I would suggest that if you believe the language used by AGW advocacy is too dogmatic, then you are either selectively remembering or being very selective about your sources. The strongest proponents of AGW are the climatologists and other relevant experts in the fields and they are also the ones who are most hesitant to, for example, make hard predictions or to make statements of causal link between specific extreme weather events and global warming. Dogmatic statements do not usually play well in the scientific community.
Click to expand...
It's the weasel words they use to portray a scary idea that has no solid basis in science.
 
MrT said:
I would suggest that if you believe the language used by AGW advocacy is too dogmatic, then you are either selectively remembering or being very selective about your sources. The strongest proponents of AGW are the climatologists and other relevant experts in the fields and they are also the ones who are most hesitant to, for example, make hard predictions or to make statements of causal link between specific extreme weather events and global warming. Dogmatic statements do not usually play well in the scientific community.
Click to expand...
But we're talking the political realm, where laws and policies are determined. The term "denier" is most certainly used there, whether with the blessing of climatologists or not.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
But we're talking the political realm, where laws and policies are determined. The term "denier" is most certainly used there, whether with the blessing of climatologists or not.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are limiting yourself to the political realm, then you are already proving my point about selective sources. I would just note that the term "denier" is used with the same frequency as "alarmist" in the political realm. And thus, why one should focus on the nuanced and well-reasoned language offered by the relevant experts in the field before listening to the political realm with a grain of salt.
 
MrT said:
Well, if you are limiting yourself to the political realm, then you are already proving my point about selective sources. I would just note that the term "denier" is used with the same frequency as "alarmist" in the political realm. And thus, why one should focus on the nuanced and well-reasoned language offered by the relevant experts in the field before listening to the political realm with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
Because we're on a site named "Debate Politics", not "Debate Science". After all, no matter the state of the science, it's how it's presented that will affect laws and policy. In other words, the attempt to frame the debate.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
Because we're on a site named "Debate Politics", not "Debate Science". After all, no matter the state of the science, it's how it's presented that will affect laws and policy. In other words, the attempt to frame the debate.
Click to expand...
Does that mean you agree this is political science, rather than science?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom