AGW Deniers: Grand conspiracy or everyone wrong

So which is it. Every science agency on the planet that takes a position on AGW says it is real. So did they all just get it wrong or is it a massive worldwide conspiracy enveloping every country on the planet?

 

Political statements are not science.

 

Ok we have one for massive worldwide conspiracy involving thousands of scientists in every country on the planet. Got it.

 

LOL, if that is what you want to call skepticism, which is the life and blood of science, then have at it. You can stick our head in the 'science is settled' sand. I am sure you will still rely on logical fallacies as your argument.

 

Science should always have skepticism but not be paralyzed by it. I will keep a running tally

Conspiracy= 1
Everyone wrong = 0

 

You mean the agenda should not be paralyzed by it. The science already is paralyzed by the politics.

Answer this question:

Why, just two years ago, did every surface temperature dataset agree with the satellites that there had been no global warming so far in this century? And why was every surface dataset altered in the two years preceding the Paris climate conference – in a manner calculated to show significant warming – even though the satellite records continue to show little or no warming?

 

You actually have not answered my question directly. What camp are you in and why? By the way can every science agency read this data as well as you? LOL

 

You did not answer my question.

Here is another:

Where is the tropical upper-air hot-spot?

You should be able to answer these and know why they are important if you think you know something about this. Otherwise you are just a true believer with no curiosity of which I have no time.

 

Then get ready to run son. You seem to think that you PERSONALLY are smarter than everyone at NASA, NOAA and every other science agency on the planet. It really is hilarious. I will just put you down for massive worldwide conspiracy. Next!

 

Even if that's true, it's only impressive to the gullible.

You'd do better to ask why people who have no demonstrated predictive skill are any more credible than a meteorologist's forecast for two weeks down the road.

 

Uh....science agencies make credible predictions all the time

 

Most of the denier cultists are sadly afflicted by bizarre and extreme forms of the Dunning-Kruger Effect....which has a lot to do with why they not only imagine that they are smarter than all of the world's scientists but also that they know more about science in general and climate science in particular than all those "eggheads" who only went and got PhD's at a University and then worked and studied and published papers in those fields of science all their lives. LOL. Meanwhile the rightwingnut denier cultists just have to listen to Rush and Glenn explain it all a few times and they're sure that they understand it much better than those durn smarty-pants scientists. LOL.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect - named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a slightly more specific case of the bias known as illusory superiority, where people tend to overestimate their good points in comparison to others around them, while concurrently underestimating their negative points. The effect has been shown by experiment in several ways, but in this case Dunning and Kruger tested students on a series of criteria such as humour, grammar, and logic and compared the actual test results with each student's own estimation of their performance.

Those who scored well on these tests were shown, consistently, to underestimate their performance. This is not terribly surprising and can be explained as a form of psychological projection: those who found the tasks easy (and thus scored highly) mistakenly thought that they would also be easy for others. This is similar to the aforementioned "impostor syndrome" — found notably in graduate students and high-achieving women — whereby high achievers fail to recognise their talents as they think that others must be equally good.

More interestingly, and the subject of what became known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who scored lowest on the test were found to have "grossly overestimated" their scores. And what about the underachievers who overestimated their performance? In the words of Dunning and Kruger:
"This overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

The original study was focused specifically on competence, as opposed to intelligence - Dunning and Kruger were more concerned with the empirical, measurable factors of how well a person could perform a task (even "simple" or "stupid" tasks) and that person's perception of how they performed that task, rather than the more nebulous concept of comparative "intelligence" or "education." The classic "believes-themselves-better-than-they-actually-are" effect is very often tied to a lack of education or other intelligence deficit. However, the inspiration for the entire study was a desperately under-educated Pittsburgher who possessed badly flawed reasoning skills (see below). The term is still properly meant to describe a disconnect between perceived and empirical competence, rather than IQ or intelligence.

The effect can also be summarised by the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." A small amount of knowledge can mislead a person into thinking that they're an expert because this small amount of knowledge isn't a well known fact.

For a potent example, consider former children's TV presenter and "science advocate" Johnny Ball, who in 2009 stunned audiences by denying the existence of climate change. His reasoning was based on the fact that water vapour as a greenhouse gas is much more prevalent, potent, and thus much more powerful than carbon dioxide — and because combustion reactions also produce water, it should be water vapour we're worried about, not carbon dioxide.[3] Sound reasoning to an amateur, but anyone minimally qualified in atmospheric chemistry would tell you that the water isn't a problem because the atmosphere has a way of getting rid of excess water — it's called rain. Thus its concentration (for given temperatures and pressures) remains more or less constant globally.

Ball's premise is also used by some critics against the hydrogen economy: because hydrogen vehicles emit water vapour from their exhaust, they are seen to be more damaging to the environment than petrol driven vehicles. An ill-informed and unsound argument — hydrogen fuel cell vehicles emit approximately the same amount of water per mile as vehicles using gasoline-powered internal combustion engines.[4] The difference is that while water vapour remains in the atmosphere only a few days or weeks, and hydrogen gas about two years, carbon dioxide lingers for more than a century.[5]

Dunning and Kruger properly proved this Effect's existence in their seminal, 2000 Nobel Prize winning paper "Unskilled and Unaware of It,"[8] doubtless at great risk to personal sanity.

They were famously inspired by McArthur Wheeler, a Pittsburgh man who attempted to rob a bank while his face was covered in lemon juice. Wheeler had learned that lemon juice could be used as "invisible ink" (that is, the old childhood experiment of making the juice appear when heated); he therefore got the idea that unheated lemon juice would render his facial features unrecognizable or "invisible."

After he was effortlessly caught (as he made no other attempts to conceal himself during the robberies), he was presented with video surveillance footage of him robbing the banks in question, fully recognizable. At this, he expressed apparently sincere surprise and lack of understanding as to why his plan did not work - he was not competent enough to see the logical gaps in his thinking and plan.[9]

The idea that people who don't know don't know that they don't know ("Dunning-Kruger effect" is so much less confusing than any "know-know" phrase) isn't particularly new. The Bertrand Russell quote is from the mid 1930s, and even earlier, Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man in 1871, stated "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." Even back in ancient Greece, Plato's Apology attributed to Socrates the quote at the top, which today is often summed up as, roughly, "the wisest people know that they know nothing."

In his 1996 book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, Al Franken described the phenomenon of "pseudo-certainty" which was rampantly being displayed by pundits and politicians such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, who would use "common sense" as the basis for their confidently-made assertions, but without actually backing them up with time-consuming research or pesky facts. Franken prefers the term "being a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing moron."

 

Look up the terms "False dichotomy" and "logical fallacy".

You might get a clue.

 

Figured you had no clue.

- - - Updated - - -

"pseudo-certainty" definitely defines the true believers in doom and gloom.

 

are you desperate? are there now so many who question the consensus that you feel it necessary to start a thread on a message board? hahahahahahahahaha....desperation in its finest form.

BTW, and they still haven't convinced the masses, 91% of americans don't have GW as a fundamental issue. I'd say that that should give you your answer.

 

Why would I need to be desperate if I have EVERY reputable science agency on the planet on my side? A recent poll found that a large percentage of Americans believe that Judge Judy is on the supreme court. Polls are pointless.

 

so why isn't it being a talking point in the primaries?

Desperate says what?

 

It absolutely IS a talking point in the primaries.....the democratic primaries. The GOP could care less. By the way they are the ONLY political party on the planet that denies AGW.

 

what's their plan other than to mention that the GOP isn't discussing it. That's all i've heard from your primaries. LOL

BTW, that isn't talking about. That's a courtesy mention and nothing more. to make a statement like you made. LOL

 

The two Democratic candidates sanely accept the scientifically confirmed reality of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes and disruptions, and propose specific policy measures and other actions to try to deal with this crisis. The six remaining Republican candidates all oppose doing anything to deal with the climate change crisis the world is facing, and half of them are idiotically in delusional denial that anything is even happening that needs to be dealt with.

Where Presidential Candidates Stand On Climate Change
NPR
August 11, 2015
Last week, President Obama released a plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants. Climate change has also been cropping up on the presidential campaign trail — both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have released their own proposals.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans now favor government action on climate change, but the candidates — and big donors who support them — still range widely in opinion. Some call it a hoax and oppose government action, while others have called for sweeping change.

Sanders recently spoke at the Friends of the Earth Action press conference in New Hampshire, where he proposed taxes on carbon emissions and eliminating tax breaks for fossil fuel companies. Clinton set a goal to produce one-third of U.S. electricity using renewable sources by 2027.

Among those who praised Clinton for her proposals was billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer. Steyer, who spent $74 million in the 2014 elections to support Democratic candidates who made climate change a critical issue in their campaign, is reportedly preparing to spend another large amount this year.

Donors on the left are not the only ones pushing for candidates to act against climate change. Republican businessman Jay Faison will put $175 million behind the campaign of a conservative who embraces the need to combat climate change, according to Politico.

In early 2014, 71 percent of Americans said the government should do whatever it takes to protect the environment, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Though that number is higher among Democrats — 88 percent — 50 percent of Republicans also said the country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment.

Those numbers have held fairly steady since the mid-1990s.

"It's actually quite remarkable how stable opinions have been," said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford professor who has surveyed Americans about global warming for the past two decades. "The vast majority of Americans have said they think the planet's been warming over the past 100 years and attribute that, at least partly, to human activity as the cause."

Despite the fact that the majority of Americans believe in climate change, only around 4 out of 10 Americans said Obama and Congress should view global warming as a top priority in 2015, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Most Americans thought the economy and fighting terrorism were top priorities.

Krosnick said that, according to his research, candidates actually stand to gain by taking an environmentally friendly stance.

"We're talking about a relatively small proportion of the population who will be influenced on this issue, but then again, as you know, elections are won by small margins," Krosnick said.

But there is big money on both sides of the climate change debate, and perhaps even larger financial incentives for candidates to take an opposing view on climate change.

Conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch, much of whose wealth comes from fossil fuel-related industries, unveiled their plan earlier this year to spend $889 million in the 2016 elections through their group Americans for Prosperity. This amount would dwarf what either of the presidential candidates raised in the 2012 general election, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Koch brothers, each worth more than $40 billion, have been public in their opposition to government intervention to combat climate change. The brothers successfully persuaded many elected officials — including presidential hopefuls Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul — to sign a pledge that would "oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue."

Climate change policy could negatively affect Koch Industries' earnings — the University of Massachusetts Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute foundthat Koch Industries ranked among the top 30companies for CO2 emissions in the United States in 2011. Last year, Koch Industries was the top spender for oil and gas lobbying, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics: It spent $13.7 million.

So, many candidates, finding themselves pulled in both directions, have opted to stay mum on the issue. But even those who have attempted to dodge addressing climate change have frequently been forced to take a stance when faced with a vote, signing a pledge or responding to a pointed question.

Here is where each declared presidential candidate stands on climate change, according to our analysis of his or her most recent statements or actions.

Where The Candidates Stand On Climate Issues
(Chart of all candidates positions is on website....won't load on this forum for some reason, so summary follows)

Climate Issues in this Election Campaign

CANDIDATE....
1.) ...HAS SAID CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
2.) ...HAS SAID CLIMATE CHANGE IS MAN-MADE
3.) ...HAS CALLED FOR SOME DEGREE OF ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
4.) ...HAS EXPLICITLY SAID HE/SHE WILL COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE IF ELECTED
5.) ...HAS MADE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS
6.) ...OPPOSES KEYSTONE XL

Of all of the current candidates, only Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have a 'YES' position on all six climate issues. Of the current Republican candidates, none support any actions to reduce carbon emissions (and their campaign donors profits) and most are in moronic denial of reality. Carson, Cruz and T'Rump are in total anti-science reality denial with six 'NO' positions on those issues; Rubio seems to acknowledge that climate change is real but mostly because he is too stupid to comprehend the question and imagines that it refers to natural climate change when people are really talking about the anthropogenic kind, otherwise total denial of reality and five 'NO' positions: Bush, Gilmore and Kasich kind of agree that climate change is real, and at least partially caused by mankind, and we should probably do something about it....but they don't really want to ACTUALLY do anything, nor are they willing to propose any specifics or discuss the possible solutions, probably for fear of offending their campaign donors, like the Koch brothers.

Jeb Bush (R)........Yes...Yes...Yes...No...No...No
Ben Carson (R).....No....No....No....No...No...No
Ted Cruz (R)..........No....No....No....No...No...No
Jim Gilmore (R)....Yes...Yes...Yes...No...No...No
John Kasich (R)....Yes...Yes...Yes...No...No...No
Marco Rubio (R)....Yes...No.....No...No...No...No
Donald Trump (R)...No...No.....No...No...No...No

 

Sure they do, about things other than global climate.

 

And global climate too. They predicted it would get hotter and is has consistently

 

Here's the thing...There is no such thing as a global average temperature...80% of the temperature stations are in the USA, Europe and North Africa...Antartica only has 8 sensors...Has anyone ever lived near mountains, the temperature changes dramatically with elevation. It is hotter near the equator than in the North...Yet southeast Alaska is on average 20 degrees warmer than 100 miles east in Canada due to the warm pacific currents that flow through the islands. The only way you could get a global average temperature is to have ten times the number of temperature sensors around the globe.

The easiest way to think about this is to have 2 rooms, both rooms 10' X 10', with a connecting door...one room has a heater, the other an air conditioner. The room with the heater is set at 90 degrees, the air conditioned room set at 60 degrees...Open the door and leave it open for am eight hour period...if you set 20 sensors in each room, the temperatures near the door would read roughly 75 degrees, Those temperature sensors closer to the heater would read higher, those closer to the AC would read lower. You could skew those numbers by having more sensors slightly closer to the heater or closer to the AC.

There is not a global average temperature.

 

Here is the thing. Every science agency on the planet disagrees with you. LOL

 

Not at all.

No it hasn't. That's why we have these nitwits trying to figure out where all the heat that "should" be in the atmosphere is hiding in the oceans.