http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter%27s_bias
People think scientists are immune to bias, they aren't they're entirely affected by it, all humans are. The only real way to eliminate it is a double blind study where the people who design the study are not the people who do the measurements are not the people who do the analysis and no one knows who is funding it.
Climate scientists have jobs because of a belief that man is causing global warming and man can do something to stop it. To produce a report refuting that undermines their livelihood, so they have an inherent bias, no one should be surprised by this.
I pride myself in being a man of science, I'm a big science nerd, and I'm certainly not convinced on this topic, and in fact, as time goes on, more and more scientists are feeling safe enough to publish results that undermine global warming dogma, and I grow even less convinced on the topic. I also reject any claims as to my own ethics in holding this position, because skepticism is the prime mover of scientific progress.
I know that Mars is warming, without SUVs, I know that the earth has been warming longer than we've had SUVs. I know that it is a geological fact you can find in museums and textbooks that we're exiting a mini ice age after the medieval warm period, which makes me think getting warmer is normal. I know that recent published results indicate solar flares and other solar activity may have a stronger affect on global temperatures than previously though. I know NASA did a complex ARGO experiment to study ocean temperatures and they didn't find any warming. I know north pole ice is decreasing, and I know south pole ice is increasing. I know that the only constant in our climate in our history has been it has always been changing. I know that largely the green movement has been co-opted by the red movement. I know this because many common sense solutions that would actually work to reduce carbon emissions are rejected by these people because, while they would reduce carbon emissions, they wouldn't hurt the economy enough to bring about the political change that they're really after. I know that we're right now in a warming pause unexplained by any of the global warming proponents prized computer models. I know that global warming proponents undermine their own science with nonsense like blaming Katrina, a middling hurricane, on global warming because New Orleans was a soft target with poor infrastructure. Like blaming California droughts on global warming when the midwest is flooded. Like blaming a particularly warm summer day, or a tornado, or any other normal weather happening on global warming. It makes them look like idiots and exposes "global climate change" as the political tool they think it is. I would love to talk about it with an actual unbiased geologist, but I don't know any that aren't driven by their own brand of politics and if I ever try to bring it up I'm labeled as sucking on a Koch teat or something, because I dare to be a skeptic when I see science turn into dogma?
Fuck it.
Originally Posted by crb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Reply With Quote
